Brian Alan Stewart on the Lack of the Eucharistic Sacrifice being tied into the Bishop's Role in Didascalia Apostolorum (first half of the 2nd century)

The following is taken from:

 

Brian Alan Stewart, "'Priests of My People': Levitical Paradigms for Christian Ministers in the Third and Fourth Century Church" (PhD Dissertation; University of Virginia, May 2006), 109-12

 

Eucharistic Sacrifice?

 

As I have explored in earlier chapters, a common explanation given for the rise of priestly designations has to do with the bishop’s connection with offering the Eucharistic sacrifice. Does the DA support this idea? At first glance, there are a few texts that seem to suggest a connection Chapter 9 begins with a comparison between the old people of God and the Christian Church, quickly moving to a comparison regarding sacrifice. The author instructs, “The sacrifices which existed formerly are now prayers and petitions and acts of thanksgiving; formerly there were first-fruits and tithes and portions and gifts, but now there are offerings between the bishop-priest idea and the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice. which are made to God for the remission of sins through the bishop. For they are your high priests.” [263] Here it appears that part of the responsibility of the bishop, qua high-priest, is to make the offerings of the Church. Certainly, as president of worship, this is one of the bishop’s primary tasks. Yet, nothing in this passage explicitly speaks of the Eucharistic offering. Instead, the Christian sacrifices are specifically named “prayers and petitions and acts of thanksgiving.” [264] Though the Eucharist certainly would have been seen as sacrificial in nature (a virtually unanimous Christian perspective) [265] it does not seem to be the foremost “sacrifice” in connection with the bishop’s designation as “high priest.” Another passage in the same chapter also speaks of the bishop as priest in the context of sacrifice by making the comparison between liturgical ministry in Israel and in the Church: “Therefore just as it was not lawful for him who was not a Levite to offer anything or to approach the altar (altarem/thusistērion) without a priest, so also you should not desire to do anything without the bishop.” [266] Again, the priestly metaphor seems to work along the lines of sacrificial, liturgical duties of Levites and Christian bishops. Yet, while the Eucharistic service may be in the purview of the author, it is clearly not the foundational idea. The immediately preceding context helps us see what the “altar” is: as the bishop stands in the place of God and the deacons in the place of Christ, “the widows and orphans should be understood by you as the type of the altar (in typum altaris/tupon tou thusiastēriou).” [267] A few lines later, the author commands, “Therefore, make your offerings (prosforas/tas thusias) to your bishop, either you yourselves or through the deacons; and when he receives from each, he will divide to each as he should. For the bishop knows well those who are distressed and gives to each according to his stewardship…” [268] The “altar” in this context, though related to the offerings provided in worship, refers metaphorically not to the Eucharistic altar, but to the poor and distressed within the community. They constitute the “altar.” The “sacrifices” brought to the bishop-priest are those goods and gifts which in turn are taken to the widows and orphans, “those who are distressed.”

 

The priestly function of the bishop, then, does relate to his task as one who receives and distributes the “offerings” of the people. The Eucharistic sacrifice, however, does not play a large role, if any, in the conception of the bishop as priest. In fact, the one chapter where Christian worship is addressed explicitly (chapter 12), the Eucharistic rite receives almost no attention. [269] As Collin Bulley notes, “Although there is no doubt, then, that the author of the Didascalia viewed the bishop as the one who normally presided at the Eucharist . . . he nowhere relates the bishop’s priesthood specifically to this function.” [270] Schöllgen also recognizes this absence of a Eucharist-priesthood connection and observes that “the liturgical service of the clergy in the Didascalia strongly recedes altogether.” [271] Although the ministration of the Eucharistic service may be one of the functions of the Didascalia’s bishop, it by no means holds a primacy of place or lies as the basis for understanding the bishop as a priest. Rather the bishop’s more general role as one who presides over all of worship (including but not limited to the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving) seems to be the connecting point for the priesthood motif.

 

Notes for the Above:

 

263 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXV, in Tidner, 41; and Apostolic Constitutions 2.26, in Metzger1:236, though in a slightly different form.

 

264 The Apostolic Constitutions, in comparison with the Latin, omits the word “acts” (actiones) and speaks only of “thanksgivings” (eucharistiai). This may be taken to refer to the Eucharist; however, it is debatable whether this was the original wording of the Didascalia. Van Unnick also sees this passage as speaking of prayers rather than the Eucharist (“Moses' Law,” 22).

 

265 For an overview of the early church’s view of the Eucharist as sacrifice, see Robert Daly, Christian Sacrifice: the Judeo-Christian background before Origen (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. Press, 1978) 311-372, 498-508; Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. (Westminster [London]: Dacre Press, 1949) 110-118; G.W.H. Lampe, “The Eucharist in the Thought of the Early Church” in Eucharistic Theology Then and Now. ed. R.E. Clemens. (London: SPCK, 1968), 38-46; Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, ed. Robert Daly, (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 8-23. The pertinent church fathers on the Eucharist in connection with either sacrifice or altar include Didache 14; Ignatius of Antioch, Philadelphians 4; Ephesians 5.2; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 41.1-3, 117.1-3; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV 17.5, 18.1-6; Tertullian, Exhortation on Chastity 10.5; 11; Apostolic Tradition 4.11-12; and Cyprian, Epistle 63.

 

266 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXVI, in Tidner, 42; and Apostolic Constitutions 2.27, in Metzger 1:240

 

267 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXV-XXVI, in Tidner, 42; and Apostolic Constitutions 2.26, in Metzger 1:240.

 

268 Didascalia, chapter 9; Latin: Didascaliae Apostolorum XXVI, in Tidner, 42; see also Apostolic Constitutions 2.27, in Metzger 1:242, for a slightly revised version.

 

269 It is for this reason that Schöllgen does not want to place the Didascalia in the same category (Kirchenordnung) as the Didache and the Apostolic Tradition.

 

270 Bulley, 130.

 

271 “Der liturgischen Dienst des Klerus in der Didaskalie ingesamt stark zurücktritt.” Schöllgen, Die Anfänge, 91. Oddly, later in this same work, Schöllgen seems to suggest conflicting conclusions. One the one hand, he argues that the priestly understanding of the bishop is best explained because of the “understanding of the Eucharist as sacrifice” and “the liturgy of the Eucharistic celebration” (105). On the same page, however, he argues that the bishop is spoken of as a priest in connection with the Eucharist in only a few places (105).

 

“Beaver Baptist Association (Pennsylvania) against the Campbellism” (1829)

  

In August 1829, Beaver Association, a small Baptist fraternity in Pennsylvania, met at Providence meeting house, near Pittsburg, and, after discussing the subject of Mr. Campbell’s teaching, resoled to withdraw fellowship from Mahoning Association on account of its maintaining, or countenancing, the following statement, or creed:

 

1.     They maintain that there is no promise of salvation without baptism.

2.     That baptism should be administered to all who say that Jesus Christ is the son of God, without examination on any other point.

3.     That there is no direct operation of the Holy Spirit, on the mind, prior to baptism.

4.     That baptism produces the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

5.     That the Scriptures are the only evidence of interest in Christ.

6.     That obedience places it in God’s power to elect to salvation.

7.     That no creed is necessary for the church but the Scriptures as they stand

8.     That all baptized persons have a right to administer the ordinance of baptism.

 

This is believed to have been the first official declaration of nonfellowship for Mr. Campbell and his followers. The other association corresponding with Mahoning withdrew fellowship from it, during the same, and the following month. The Appomattox Association in Virginia, at its meeting, in May, 1830, recorded the following item:

 

“Whereas, there is satisfactory evidence, that the writings of Alexander Campbell have exerted what we consider a mischievous influence upon numbers of churches, fomenting envy, strife and divisions among those who had before lived in fellowship and peace. Therefore, Resolved, That this association most cordially approves the course pursued by the Beaver and her sister associations in withdrawing from Mahoning.”319 (“Beaver Baptist Association (Pennsylvania) against the Campbellism,” 1829, in H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1990], 243, emphasis in bold added)

 

The material in bold stood out, as John Thomas, who broke off from the Campbellite movement in the 1840s, would hammer out those beliefs to the point where the spirit is not active anymore since the apostolic era (not merely the spiritual gifts) and, as a result of that, for many Christadelphians, God communicates through reading the Bible only.

New from the B. H. Roberts Foundation: Latter-day Saints and Polygamy

 

Latter-day Saints and Polygamy QNA

Latter-day Saints and Polygamy Primary Sources

Irish Lives Matter

Not a lengthy post; just a reminder that Irish lives matter.

Dan Vogel's Letter to Wesley Walters on Brigham Young and Adam-God (August 23, 1979)

As some know, I have been collecting material relating to Adam-God and related topics (e.g., ancient traditions about the Ancient of Days; the Aramaic of Dan 7, and other issues). I recently came across a letter Dan Vogel wrote to Wesley P. Walters where Vogel actually defended Brigham Young against the arguments of Walters as well as Chris Vlachos:

 

What I object mostly is to the dilemma which you create by citing Brigham Young's words in the Deseret News. Your claim is that Brigham Young received his information by "revelation from God," or at least he claimed he did. This I believe cannot be supported by the reference you have given. Let me demonstrate.

By adding a few more words to your brief quote for context, your reference now read:

How much belief exists in the mind of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed unto them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our Father and God . . . I could not find any man on earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.

Notice how the context reveals Brigham Young's unique use of the term "revelation"; he is here definitely equating revelation with what Joseph Smith had told him. And in another place he is reported as saying: "What I have received from the Lord, I have received by Joseph Smith . . ." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 279). This is what I mean when I say that you must be careful of semantics when dealing with Mormon literature. Thus, in a special sense, there were two sources of "revelation" for Brigham Young--the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Lord (This idea was brought out in Turner's thesis, see p. 48.) Concerning this dual concept of revelation, Brigham Young explained:

From the first time I saw the Prophet Joseph I never lost a word that came from hm . . . I did hearken to the words of Joseph, and treasured them up in my heart, laid them away, . . . and this is the key that I hold to-day. I was anxious to learn from Joseph and the spirit of God. (Deseret News, June 6, 1877, p. 274; as quoted in Turner, p. 48)

And in another sermon, Brigham Young explained his unique way of using the term "revelation" to the saints, saying:

. . . If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by the principle of revelation. who reveals? Every body around us; we learn of each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not; I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other . . . (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 209)

Brigham Young's statement that "I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me," helps us to make sence of the remark in our initial reference: " . . . one particular doctrine which I revealed unto them, and which God revealed to me . . ."

We must thus be very careful not to put our own definition to the words of other men, especially those who lived in a time very different than our own. Grant you, all men do not define all their words, but most will define the unusual terms and those which they use outside the ordinary usage. However, it may be, we are fortunate that in this case Brigham Young did define his terms.

 

. . .

 

No matter how many references Mr. Vlacho makes to "other gods" from the Old Testament, it will not apply to Brigham Young. Yehezkel Kaufmann, speaking of Biblical idolatry, says:

 

. . . 'mythology' and idolatry are two separate spheres in the Bible . . . Even the heathen is not depicted as believing in personalized deities. In the Biblical view he considers the idol itself as god . . . A heathen belief in other living gods is beyond the scope of the Bible narrators . . .

 

The Biblical polemic against idolatry stands on the single contention that idolatry is foolishness in that it apotheosizes material objects. There is no argument against plurality of gods; against faith in beings who are born and die; who are male and female; we have animal desires, etc. Nowhere is there an explicit statement to the effect that the gods in whom the gentiles believe are non-existent. Nowhere is any heathen myth confuted, nor is the depravity which is often imputed to the gods exploited. The entire Biblical philosophy of heathenism is summed up in the charge of fetishism . . . ("The Bible and Mythological Polytheism," The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 70, pp. 179-97, 1951)

 

Do not take this as a defence for Brigham Young's Adam-God, my object is only to show that Vlacho's approach is nothing but polemics and do not apply to Brigham Young. (Dan Vogel, letter to Wesley P. Walters, August 23, 1979, 2-3, 5, Dan Vogel papers, 1700s-2002, Special Collections, University of Utah)

 

I rarely say this, as I often say the only good thing Vogel does is collect documents (cf. his 5-volume Early Mormon Documents) and is a lousy exegete and poor at theology, but I have to give him credit for being much more nuanced about Brigham Young's understanding of Adam-God and it being based on "revelation" than most other critics.

John Weldon: It would not matter even if the Book of Mormon were to be Proven to be An Ancient History

In his joke of a book against Mormon apologetics, John Weldon wrote the following:

 

Everything we know tells us the Book of Mormon is a myth and that Mormonism is a false religion. (But even if Book of Mormon civilizations (or what could claim to be them) were eventually discovered it still wouldn't prove Mormon theology and Scripture true, because these are antithetical to biblical revelation and false by definition.) (John Weldon, Mormon Apologetics: A Losing Battle [Chattanooga, Tenn.: ATRI Publishing, 2012 Logos ed.])

 

In other words, even if Joseph told the truth and the Book of Mormon were to be verified, he would continue to stick his head in the sand no matter what because “MuH pRoTeStAnTiSm!!!!”

 

For a devasting review of Everything You Wanted to Know About Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, see Daniel C. Peterson’s review here.

Donald W. Parry on Presentism and Interpreting Isaiah

  

Question. Why is Isaiah so difficult to understand?

 

Answer. There are three chief reasons for this: (1) Isaiah wrote in an ancient form of poetry, called poetic parallelisms (there are about 1,100 parallelisms in Isaiah); (2) he used hundreds of symbols, which are scattered throughout his writings; and (3) Isaiah’s book contains many different “speakers,” or individuals who express words. These speakers include the Lord, Isaiah, God’s covenant people, King Hezekiah, the wicked, and many others. Some of the speakers are non-human objects, such as clay, trees, and cities. (Donald W. Parry, Search Diligently The Words of Isaiah [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023], 197)

 

Question. What is presentism and why does it hinder us from understanding Isaiah?

 

Answer. Presentism is “the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts” (Apple Dictionary Version 2.2.1 [143.1]). Our culture is remarkably different from Isaiah’s. Many of the components that make up our culture—fashion, dress, social habits, music, arts, languages, dialects, mass media, cuisine, sports, commercialism, governments, politics, literature, architecture, and technology—can easily misdirect us or even disconnect us from comprehending Isaiah’s writings and the words of other Old Testament prophets.

 

Question. Based on the concept of presentism, what are some biblical examples of difficult-to-comprehend passages in Isaiah?

 

Answer. One example is located in Isaiah 20: “At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, GO and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot” (v. 2). Because of presentism, this passage may seem very strange to us. But other Old Testament prophets also performed actions that may seem to be peculiar. For example, Jeremiah made a yoke and placed it around his neck (see Jeremiah 27:2; 28:10); Ezekiel shaved the hair of his head and his beard, divided it into three parts, and then struck one-third, burned one-third, and scattered one-third (see Ezekiel 5); and the prophet Ahijah ripped a new outer garment into twelve pieces and gave ten pieces to Jeroboam (see 1 Kings 11:29-31). If we depart from presentism and carefully study each of these passages in terms of their historical and symbolic context, we can find greater meaning and understanding within them. (Ibid., 197-98)

 

Donald Parry on the Relationship between KJV Isaiah and Book of Mormon Isaiah

Question. It seems like Joseph Smith and his scribes simply copied the Isaiah quotations from the KJV of the Bible. Is that correct?

 

Answer. Our knowledge about this matter is incomplete. Perhaps over the coming decades, we will learn more about this subject; for now, however, there exist several fascinating and complex pieces of information indicating that Joseph Smith and his scribes did not simply copy the Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon from the King James Version. Consider the following complexities:

 

1.     The base text of the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon seems to be the King James Version, but there are also several textual variants in the Isaiah quotations. Where did those come from if Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery simply copied from the King James Version?

In fact, there exist several textual variants in the Isaiah texts in the Book of Mormon. Sperry explains, “The text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is not word for word the same as that of the King James version. Of 433 verses of Isaiah in the Nephite record, Joseph Smith modified about 233. Some of the changes made were slight, others were radical.” (Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions, 92) Some of these variants agree with ancient witnesses. Skousen and Carmack write, “Are there any significant differences in the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon? Yes, and some are not only quite surprising but are also supported by other ancient textual sources.” (Skousen, “Text of the Book of Mormon”) If Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had simply copied the text from the Bible, such textual variants would not exist.

2.     Some writers have claimed, without solid evidence, that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery must have used a copy of the King James Version when they came to the Isaiah sections of the Book of Mormon. Contrary to these writers’ claims, eyewitnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon have attested that neither Joseph nor his scribes employed any book or manuscript during the translation process, let alone a copy of the Bible. In connection with this, Skousen and Carmack write: “Did Joseph Smith hand over a marked-up Bible to Oliver Cowdery when he came to the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon? Oliver Cowdery’s misspellings tell us that the answer is no. Joseph Smith dictated the biblical quotations, just like all the rest of [the] Book of Mormon.” (Skousen, “Text of the Book of Mormon.”)

3.     Oliver Cowdery’s spellings in the Isaiah portions (in the original manuscript for the Book of Mormon) were often different from the King James Version. If he simply copied from a Bible, why would there be so many spelling differences?

4.     Similarly, sometimes Oliver Cowdery wrote down the wrong word as Joseph Smith dictated the passages from Isaiah. Again, if Oliver was simply copying from a Bible, such errors would have been less likely to occur.

5.     Some of Oliver Cowdery’s errors are phonological errors (errors of hearing), which indicates that he was listening to Joseph Smith and copying Joseph’s words as he heard them, rather than simply copying from a copy of the Bible.

6.     The original Book of Mormon paragraphing system for the Isaiah quotations is different from the chapter and versification system of Isaiah in the King James Bible. It is unlikely that this system would be different if Oliver Cowdery was copying from the Bible. (Donald W. Parry, Search Diligently The Words of Isaiah [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023], 208-9)

 

 

Useful Table on the Definitions of Poetic Parallelisms

 Definitions of Poetic Parallelisms

 

Synonymous parallelism	The two lines feature synonyms—words that mean the same or nearly the same thing, such as people and persons, shut and close, house and home.
Antithetical parallelism	The two lines feature opposites—words that feature opposites or contrasts, such as man and woman, day and night, good and bad.
Emblematic parallelism	One or both lines feature emblematic (symbolic) words or themes, including similes, metaphors, personifications, and so forth.
Chiasmus	A mirrored parallelism, or a presentation of a series of words or thoughts followed by a second presentation of similar words or thoughts but in reverse order, such as “woman, man, man, woman”; or “tree, river, river, tree.”

 

Table taken from:

 

Donald W. Parry, Search Diligently The Words of Isaiah (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023), 51

Keys to Understanding Isaiah

Nephi’s Six keys to understanding Isaiah:

 

Key No. 1: Be “filled with the spirit of prophecy”

Key No. 2: Learn “manner of prophesying among the Jews”

Key No. 3: Know concerning the “Judgments of God”

Key No. 4: Live in the last days

Key No. 5: Be familiar with the “regions round about” Jerusalem

Key No. 6: Search diligently

Donald Parry on no. 2: 

Key N^o 2: Learn the “Manner of Prophesying among the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:1)

 

Nephi held Key #2 to be of sufficient import that he referred to it several times in the first six verses of 2 Nephi 25: “the manner of the Jews” (v. 2); “the things of the prophets” (v. 5); “the things which were spoken unto the Jews” (v. 5); “the manner of the things of the Jews” (v. 5); and “the manner of the Jews” (v. 6). In my view, this “manner of prophesying” pertains to Isaiah’s use of poetic parallelisms, symbols, prophetic speech forms, and much more. Symbols and parallelisms are two barriers that we must overcome to understand Isaiah . . . . (Donald W. Parry, Search Diligently The Words of Isaiah [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2023], 43)

 

Brian Alan Stewart on 1 Corinthians 9:13-14

  

Paul begins this chapter with a defense of his rights as an apostle, particularly his right to “material benefits” from his congregations. Even though Paul forgoes his right to such benefits, he reasserts the principle, asking, “Do you not know that those who work with the holy things (ta hiera) eat the things from the temple, and those who serve at the altar (thusistēriō) share in the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel” (1 Cor 9:13-14). (The “command of the Lord” may refer to Matt 10:10 and Lk 10:7-8. See Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1967), 187; William Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians (Anchor Bible Series 32) (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 239) Here, Paul draws directly upon the analogy between Christian preachers and cultic priests, those who “work with holy things” and “serve at the altar.” Paul suggests that just as a priest receives his livelihood from his priestly work, so also the Christian minister ought to be supported by his gospel work. The analogy only works if there is some assumed continuity between the work of one and the work of the other.

 

On the surface, it is not clear whether Paul refers to Israelite priests or pagan priests, and as it stands, either reference could be taken legitimately. However, I suggest that while Paul leaves open the possibility of a pagan priestly analogy, he is most likely thinking of biblical priests. Just a few verses prior, Paul cites Deut 25:4 (“You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain”) and concludes: “Does God care about oxen or does he speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake” (1 Cor 9:9-10). He is drawing upon Old Testament models to make his case.

 

Then in chapter 10, he continues his appropriation of Old Testament events for Christian interpretation, stating:

 

I want you to know, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. . . Nevertheless God was not pleased with most of them. . . Now these things happened as types (tupoi) for us (1 Cor 10:1-6).

 

In other words, Paul sees the events of the Old Testament as working “types” and models upon which the Christian draws in order to gain a fuller realization of their own situation. The Old Testament law about oxen becomes a model for the rights of the Christian preacher. The Old Testament exodus event and wilderness wandering become “types” (tupoi) of the Christian life. Between these two bookend examples, Paul inserts the analogy between priestly service and Christian preaching, between priestly rights and apostolic rights. The surrounding context from 9:9-10:6 thus suggests that Paul is working primarily from Old Testament, biblical models, rather than pagan ones. (Of course, they need not be mutually exclusive for Paul’s argument to work, and many in his congregation may have thought of pagan priests first. C.K. Barrett, for example, takes this reference to be primarily pagan priesthood, although even he admits “it does apply to the Jewish also” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968], 207). Harry Nasuti makes the same point that “whether the temple referred to here is the Jewish Temple or the pagan temples (or both), the point [of Paul’s argument] is the same” (in “The woes of the prophets and the rights of the apostle : the internal dynamics of 1 Corinthians 9” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 [1988]: 246-264, at 251). The larger context of Paul’s argument, however, suggests he was thinking in biblical terms) Paul, therefore, likely derives his reference to the entitlements of priests for their work in the temple from Numbers 18:8-24 which speaks explicitly of the priests share of the “holy things”. As such, the work of the Christian leader “is analogous to that of the Levitical temple servants so far as support is concerned.” (Orr and Walther, 242)

 

Again we see that while Paul does not designate himself a hiereus in explicit terminology, he freely draws upon biblical priestly service as an analogy for Christian leadership. Among his many arsenal of models and paradigms to explain the work of Christian ministry, the priestly image is one which Paul demonstrates no hesitation in using. Thus Paul provides a set of vocabulary and interpretive method which will continue to shape the thought and practice of the later church. Paul’s suggestion of a correspondence between Christian leadership and Old Testament priesthood is then picked up and developed by subsequent Christian thinkers. As we have seen in previous chapters, later writers turn to these same ideas in 1 Cor 9 for their understanding of the bishop as a priest. (See for example Didascalia, chapter 8; Apostolic Constitutions 2.25, in Metzger 1:228-230; and Origen, Hom. Numb. 11.2.2, SC, vol. 2, 22-24.) (Brian Alan Stewart, "'Priests of My People': Levitical Paradigms for Christian Ministers in the Third and Fourth Century Church" [PhD Dissertation; University of Virginia, May 2006], 238-40)

 

J. R. Graves of the Landmark Baptist Movement vs. Non-Baptistic Protestant Faiths

  

AXIOMS

 

“1. That unummersed bodies of Christians are not churches, nor are any privileged companies of them the church, hence all Pedo-Baptists denominations are only religious societies.

 

“2. That Baptism and an official relation to a church are prerequisites to a regular gospel minister—hence all ordinances administered by an unbaptized and unordained although immersed minister, are null and void.” (J. R. Graves, “A Statement of Landmark Principles,” 1857, in H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1990], 319)

 

Some Excerpts from Patrick Craig Truglia, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy (2023)

  

Consensus-based ecclesiology and epistemology were necessarily intertwined. This is why Saint Augustine on the same question argues that the canonicity of the Wisdom of Solomon (which was questioned due to it not being written by Solomon) was established:

 

since for so long a course of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority. (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, Book 1, Chapter 27)

 

Augustine did not solely point to bishops (or councils like the one held in Carthage in recent years). The universality of Wisdom’s acceptance (“heard by all Christians”) from both clergy and laity beforehand, consensus was seen to derive from the Holy Spirit—it made apparent the origin of a given mindset behind both ecclesiastical and doctrinal questions. (Patrick Craig Truglia, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy [Uncut Mountain Press, 2023], 17-18)

 

The Donatists understood the process of appeals in the church. They evidently did not ascribe final authority to the Pope of Rome. However, one may rightly point out that being schismatics, their ecclesiastical presumptions would be highly suspect. Nevertheless, the Catholic party likewise did not view the Pope of Rome as above dispute. This is evidenced by Augustine’s reflection on these course of events:

 

They [the Donatists] chose, therefore, as it is reported, to bring their dispute with Caecilianus [of Carthage] before the foreign churches [in Rome] . . . the common outcry of all worthless litigants, though they have been defeated by the clearest light of truth—as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: “Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” Whether they have done this or not, let them prove: for we easily prove that it was not done, by the fact that the whole world does not communicate with them; or if it was done, they were defeated there [Arles] also, of which their state of separation from the Church is a proof. (Augustine, Letter 43, Par 19)

 

Augustine matter-of-factly observes that the Church of Rome’s decisions can be appealed to a “plenary council of the universal Church.” What he means specifically is an Ecumenical Council. (Ibid, 116)

 

 

. . . perhaps the most important statement for the student of the pre-Great Schism Papacy is found in the minutes of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II. The council, in Session 6, explicitly defines what an Ecumenical Council is by contrasting itself with a pseudo-Ecumenical Council that of Hiera:

 

It [the Council of Hiera] did not enjoy the cooperation [lit. συνεργεια] of the then Pope of Rome or his priests, neither by means of his representatives or an encyclical letter, as is the rule for councils; nor did it win the assent [lit. συμφρονουντας] of the [P]atriarchs of the [E]ast of Alexandria, Antioch, and the holy city, or of their priests and bishops. . . . Nor did ‘their voice’, like that of the apostles, ‘go out into the whole earth and their words to the end of the world’, as did those of the six holy [E]cumenical [C]ouncils. (Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2020, 442)

 

As one can see, an Ecumenical Council is not an exercise of the Pope of Rome decreeing one to be so. Rather, the Pope of Rome cooperates with his synod while the Patriarchs of the East “assent” (the Greek implies conviction and activity), as well as the rest of the Church worldwide. In short, consensus decided the ultimate authority of a council. After all, the consensus was always understood as the evidence of God’s cooperation with the Church’s work. (Patrick Craig Truglia, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy [Uncut Mountain Press, 2023], 20-21)

 

 

“Canon 138” of the council [of Carthage], actually written by a follow-up council in 424 to Pope Saint Celestine, is even more harshly worded. The case surrounding Apiarius was re-opened and Celestine personally entered into communion with him. Unlike Zosimus, who had referred the matter back to a Carthaginian council, Celestine acted unilaterally. This sent the African bishops into a frenzy:

 

we earnestly conjure you [Pope Celestine], that for the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us . . . whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his [p]rovince, or even to a General Council unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual [i.e. the Pope] with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops (sacerdotum) assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send there the necessary witnesses . . . ? (Canon 138 ascribed to the Council of Carthage [419])

 

This stern rebuke contains several interesting points. First, the use of the term “readily” implies that Rome ought not to take appeals from African clerics, but they can. At this point, the Africans have acknowledged the evidence that the canons earlier disputed were not Nicene. Either due to acknowledging they were canons from somewhere (such as Sardica) or simply traditional precedent, appeals to Rome were interestingly dissuaded yet allowed. Second, the synod rebukes the Pope of Rome, here Celestine, for acting unilaterally. They asserted that a council should have decided the matter. The epistemic presumption behind the critique is that God’s Spirit inspires only a consensus of bishops—not individuals acting in a solitary manner. With no comprehension of future doctrines such as Papal Infallibility (or direct jurisdiction for that matter), the council simply presumed that the Pope of Rome lacked the capacity to act because the binding and loosing of the Church is through the act of the Spirit. He is only evident in the work of a whole assembly of bishops where consensus is reached. Third, the Africans make a practical critique, disqualifying Celestine’s judgment. They reasoned in Rome (or vice versa) so that a consensus (and thereby binding) judgment can be made. (Patrick Craig Truglia, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy [Uncut Mountain Press, 2023], 149-50)

 

 

Ignatius makes several comments which illustrate the lofty position of the Roman Church. He writes that Rome has “never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].” (Ignatius, Romans, Chap 3) Perhaps with the letters of Peter, Paul, and 1 and 2 Clem in mind, Ignatius extols Rome for the fact that they have sent teachings to the whole Church. This appears entirely consistent with Christ’s admonishment to Peter to feed the sheep.

 

Yet, the motivation for this ascription appears to be tastefully self-serving; Ignatius takes it upon himself to teach Rome! “I write to the Churches, and impress on them all,” Ignatius says in reference to his letters. (Ibid., Chap 4) Ignatius certainly issues ecclesiastical commands and dogmatic teachings in these other letters. They were arguably sent to jurisdictions (in Asia Minor) where Antioch was not de jure the “senior” episcopate. After all, what of Ephesus (where Saint John may have been still residing) or Rome itself (which had Peter’s relics)?

 

Ignatius respectfully obscures this “conflict of interests” by immediately citing that he was writing these letters to “that I shall willingly die for God, unless you hinder me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were [A]postles.” (Ibid.) Ignatius reveals that Rome in effect can prevent his martyrdom and, allegedly, he would never take it upon himself to command Rome (who has the authority of the chief Apostles) not to put a stay on his execution (via bribes political favors, or some other means). Yet Ignatius then goes ahead and does the exact opposite, pleading with Rome to let him die, and reminding them that “[t]he prince of this world” can corrupt his “deposition towards God” perchance Rome “help him” (the Devil!) by preventing his martyrdom. (Ibid., Chap 7) Such a passing reference seems to lack even an inkling of the later doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In any event, Ignatius’ words do not prove that the honorificis granted to Rome y himself were without any ecclesiastical import, but it does show that the occasion for invoking them had a specific purpose in mind.

 

Ignatius later makes an extremely important request to Rome: “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love.” (Ibid., Chap 9) The Greek breaks down to: ‘Ιησους Χριστος [Jesus Christ] επισκοπησει [Oversee/”Bishop” as a verb] και [and] η [the] ημων [your] αγαπη [“agape,” Love Feast]. In other words, in his absence, Jesus Christ and the Roman Church stands in as Antioch’s bishop. “Love feast” in the Greek is not genitive and lacks a definitive article, which implies the reference to “agapes” in Chap 1 is to a body of churches, while “agape” here is the local Church of Rome.

 

This interpretation is buttressed by a greeting he wrote to “Polycarp, bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ignatius, Polycarp, Chap 1) As one can see, the local bishop is in fact God, but the vicar of the man. In Smyrna, the vicar is Saint Polycarp. In Antioch, in his own absence, it is the Roman Synod (or the Pope, who is unnamed). (This does not necessarily indicate that either Rome had no bishop due to the persecution or that he was unaware of who its bishop was. Perhaps, to prevent the persecution of the Pope, he did not name him. More likely, bishops were named in letters where internal schisms were an issue. There were perhaps no local schisms in Rome and so an emphasis on the Roman Pope’s name may have not been as important compared to the other letters) It is certainly justified to infer a Patriarchal hierarchy, with Rome placed above Antioch. One may also infer the superiority of Antioch over Smyrna, as Ignatius appears to dictate to Polycarp acting as the “senior” bishop. (Ibid., Chap 2-4)

 

Thus, second century evidence of the canonical order of the local churches found in the Council of Sardica, Constantinople I, Chalcedon, and especially the one held in Trullo exists. (107) yet, Rome was not the only one to have a “say” in Ignatius’ absence, Polycarp was instructed to send an assistant (locum tenens?) to Antioch: “O Polycarp, most blessed in God . . . assemble a very solemn council, and . . . elect one whom you greatly love . . . bestow on him this honour that he may go into Syria.” (Ignatius, Polycarp, Chap 7) (Patrick Craig Truglia, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy [Uncut Mountain Press, 2023], 54-56)