Short Lessons From Church History

Church is the word provided in English for the Greek ekklesia. Eklessia derives from ek, meaning out of, and klesis, meaning a calling. The word was used by the Greeks to describe a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of State — “But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly” (Acts 19:39). In the Septuagint it is used to describe the gathering of Israel, or of a gathering regarded as representative of the whole nation.1 While this gives us a clue to its meaning in Scripture, we must turn to the Word of God to determine its full meaning and application.

The only reference to ekklesia found in the gospels is in Matthew — a remarkable thing in light of that book’s Jewish character.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19).

Upon This Rock I Will Build My Church

What is that Rock? In the Gospel of John we read concerning Peter: “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone” (John 1:42). Cephas is Aramaic for ‘stone’; and the last word used in this verse — “stone” — is petros, the Greek word from which we get the name Peter.

So what is it that the Lord says to Peter in Matthew 18:16? “Thou art a Stone, and upon this Rock I will build My church.” In the verses immediately prior to this, Peter confesses:

“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It is upon This Rock that the church is built — Peter was but a stone.

Christ said He would build the Church Himself on the foundation of His own Person, acknowledged by faith to be “the Son of the living God.”2

Two other important points are to be made: it is “I will build,” and it is “My church.”

Christ is the Builder, and the building is His.

The gates of hell will not prevail against it. It is perfect! Also we note that when the Lord made this statement, the Church was not yet — “I will build” — it was a future thing.

There is another interesting phrase in the verse just considered: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” What is the Kingdom of Heaven? Again we must turn to the Scriptures to understand what our Lord means by this phrase.

In chapter 13 of Matthew we find seven parables. Upon presenting the first, the parable of The Sower, the Lord explains to His disciples why He spoke in parables — “it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given” (Matthew 13:11).

The Kingdom of Heaven is a mystery. The Jews looked for an earthly kingdom, but it was the Kingdom of Heaven that was at hand (see Matthew 3:2).

The remaining six parables are introduced with: The Kingdom of Heaven is likened unto:

Wheat and tares (13:24)
A grain of mustard seed (13:31)
Leaven hid in three measures of meal (13:33)
Treasure hid in a field (13:44)
A pearl of great price (13:45)
A net cast into the sea (13:47)

Israel had rejected their King; the Lord was no longer seeking fruit in Israel. He is now seen as a sower — a new work had commenced. In the parable of the wheat and tares we find that evil men are brought into the kingdom. The enemy that sowed them is the devil (Matthew 13:39). Like a grain of mustard seed, the kingdom grows to become a great power in the world in which the birds of the air lodge. Satan’s servants take shelter in the kingdom (see also Matthew 13:4). Like leaven in a loaf, the whole lump is leavened, till every part of the kingdom is brought under the influence of the evil.

In the last three parables we see the kingdom from a different perspective: a treasure hid in a field, a pearl of great price, and a net full of fishes of every kind. “At the end of the age, the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just” (Matthew 13:49).

So what is the kingdom? The Church is a perfect structure; in contrast, within the Kingdom of Heaven evil dwells. The wheat and tares grow up together. The leaven leavens the whole lump. The guilty are not put out of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 13:28-29). The Kingdom of Heaven is the sphere of Christ’s rule, and takes in the entire sphere of Christian profession. It is by water baptism that we enter that sphere.

Where the seed of the gospel has been sown and men have professed Christianity, there we have the Kingdom of Heaven.

It is called the Kingdom of Heaven because Christ is not openly reigning. The Apostle John describes himself thus: “a brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:9).

Returning back to our verse in Matthew 16:19, what then are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven given unto Peter? We do not have to search far to find Peter using these keys. We see him opening the Kingdom of Heaven to both the Jew (Acts 2) and the Gentile (Acts 10) through the preaching of the Gospel.

From what we have learned, the following most important point must be noted:

The Kingdom of Heaven is not the church.

Not only did Peter receive the keys, the means whereby he might open up the doors of this new dispensation, but he is also instructed: “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). We find this repeated again in Matthew chapter 18: “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

Peter, and then the Apostles, received this commission. What does it mean? Clearly they received authority and power to administer that which is connected with the kingdom, to bind and to loose, but limited in result to this earth.

The binding and loosing is on earth. Nothing is said about man deciding anything as to heaven. This is not a question of eternal forgiveness or eternal judgment.

Though we are getting a little ahead of ourselves, it is natural enough to ask, was this authority limited to the Apostles? The verses following Matthew 18:18 indicate otherwise: “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:19-20). Indeed, as we explore the subject further we find that the assembly has a responsibility to act: “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

The assembly has a responsibility to act in matters of discipline. The assembly acts because Christ is “Son over His own house, whose house are we” (Hebrews 3:6). It is His authority in the assembly (1 Corinthians 5:4).

When the church acts according to the commission of Christ, it has the promise of ratification in heaven.

We do not find ekklesia (church) used again in Matthew, and not at all in the other three Gospels. The next occurrence of the word occurs in Acts 2: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). It is in Acts that we find, on the day of Pentecost, that the Church begins. On that day, when the disciples were together in one place, “suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:2-4).

In the Gospel of John, the Lord promised His disciples: “The Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). And again: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you” (John 16:7). And just before the Lord’s ascension: “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:5).

The beginning of the Church happened at the coming of the Holy Ghost, and was dependent upon the ascension of Christ. Not only did the Holy Spirit dwell within the Church — “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting” (Acts 2:2) — but He also dwells within each believer: “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:4).

“By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

“The church, which is His body” (Ephesians 1:22-23).

The Day of Pentecost

It was no coincidence that the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost. Four of the Seven Feasts of Jehovah (Leviticus 23) occupy a peculiar place together: The Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of First Fruits, and the Feast of Weeks. It is the last of these, the Feast of Weeks, that is called the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1) — deriving from the Greek word for fifty. In the New Testament we find the meaning and fulfillment of these feasts:

The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12, Leviticus 23:4-8) — “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

The Feast of First Fruits (Leviticus 23:10-14) — “But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20).

Christ was crucified on the Passover, and rose again as the firstfruits. On the Feast of Firstfruits, the children of Israel brought a sheaf of the firstfruits of their harvest to the priest: “And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it” (Leviticus 23:10-11). The sheaf of the firstfruits was brought on the Lord’s day — the resurrection day, the day after the Sabbath.

Numbering seven Sabbaths from the Feast of First Fruits, on the day after the seventh Sabbath — that is, on the Lord’s Day — was the Feast of Weeks: “Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 23:16). This is the day of Pentecost.

The Feast of Weeks was unique in that it required two loaves of fine flour, baken with leaven (see Leviticus 23:17). These picture the church. The fine flour speaks of Christ, while the leaven speaks of our nature — corrupt and corrupting. Two loaves would suggest that we are not talking about an individual — two is always considered a competent witness. It reminds us of: “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them,” (Matthew 18:20). We must not forget that a kid and two lambs were offered in connection with these loaves: “Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 23:19). These speak of the work of Christ for the believer, and the response of the believer’s heart.

How Do We Become a Member of the Church?

It is not our doing; it is a work of the Spirit. “For also in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13 JND). Again, the body spoken of — the body of Christ — is the Church: “The church, which is his body” (Ephesians 1:22-23). The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred once at Pentecost; it was then that the body of Christ was formed, and no one can be a member of the body of Christ until he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

“In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).

What is it that we believe? What is the Gospel (the Good News) of salvation?

“The gospel of God, (which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,) concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:1-4).

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17).

In the book of Acts we see the work of the Holy Spirit adding to the Church, first with the Jews, then with the Samaritans, and after that among the Gentiles.

The Jews

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:36-38).

The Samaritans

“Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did” (Acts 8:5-6).

“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:14-17).

The Gentiles

“There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian [band, a] devout [man], and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway” (Acts 10:1-2).

“To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word” (Acts 10:43-44).

With the Jew, repentance and baptism (identification with a crucified and risen Christ) needed to precede the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans were not only baptized (Acts 8:12), but had the apostles’ hands laid on them with prayer, before they received the Holy Spirit. But at Caesarea, without baptism, without the laying on of hands, without request to God, the richest Christian blessing was given to the Gentiles. For the Jews, repentance was necessary, a complete turn towards Christ — disassociation from the guilty nation. For the Samaritans, hated of and hating the Jew, identification with those in Jerusalem was a must. For the Gentile, mighty in his own estimation, nothing but the free gift of God will do.

As soon as we have a people redeemed in the Old Testament, we have the thought of God dwelling in the midst of His people. In Exodus chapter 15 we have the Song of Redemption. The children of Israel are on the other side of the Red Sea and Pharaoh and his chariots are in the midst of it. God could not dwell with them in Egypt, a land of idolatry; He must separate them from such a scene for Himself. Pharaoh on the other hand, sought to persuade Moses not to be too separate: “And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness; only ye shall not go very far away: intreat for me” (Exodus 8:28).

“The Lord [is] my strength and song, and He is become my salvation: He [is] my God, and I will prepare Him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt Him” (Exodus 15:2).

“Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people [which] Thou hast redeemed: Thou hast guided [them] in Thy strength unto Thy holy habitation” (Exodus 15:13).

We have a fulfillment in the tabernacle: “And let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). But such a building must be built according to God’s specification: “And look that thou make [them] after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount” (Exodus 25:40).

Again we see it with the temple: “And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy [place], that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:10-11).

When Israel joined herself unto the idolatry of the nations, the glory of the Lord departed from the temple. We read of this reluctant departure in Ezekiel:

“And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house” (Ezekiel 9:3). “Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, [and stood] over the threshold of the house” (Ezekiel 10:4). “Then the glory of the Lord departed from off the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubims” (Ezekiel 10:18). “And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went out, the wheels also [were] beside them, and [every one] stood at the door of the east gate of the Lord’s house; and the glory of the God of Israel [was] over them above” (Ezekiel 10:19). “Then did the cherubims lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel [was] over them above. And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which [is] on the east side of the city” (Ezekiel 11:22-23).

We next see God among men in the Person of the Lord Jesus, though His glory was hid.

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

“How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him” (Acts 10:38).

By this time the temple, now Herod’s temple, had become a house of merchandise: “And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not My Father’s house an house of merchandise” (John 2:16).

God still dwells on earth today, only now it is not Jesus that is upon earth, but His people collectively, who by the Spirit are His temple.

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16).

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:20-22).

It is also said of the individual: “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). But this is not the same as that referred to above. All believers on earth are united in one spiritual building as the temple of God that man does not see. “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

In Ephesians, God is the builder; it is a building fitly framed together. The apostles and prophets are the foundations, Jesus Christ the chief corner stone. Scripture, however, gives us another view of the church, this time with respect to man’s responsibility.

“According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:10-11).

Paul was the wise master builder; he laid the foundation upon which others have built (1 Corinthians 3:10). Every man’s work will be made manifest. It is possible for a man’s work to be burned, even though he is saved. It is also possible for a man, even one claiming to be a teacher or minister, to be lost and his work also. The church has not remained true to her foundation. The church has utterly failed in her responsibility. Most solemnly, where there is responsibility there must also be judgment.

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:12-17).

“For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).

There is a behavior suited to the house of God.

“These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14-15).

The assembly is the pillar, a support, for the truth. She does not do this through teaching, for teaching is the domain of the servant of God. The church is to be a testimony to the truth. She maintains the truth on earth. When the church is removed, apostate Christendom will believe a lie: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).

In Second Timothy Christendom is likened to a great house: “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour” (2 Timothy 2:20). How is one to behave in such a house?

“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Timothy 2:19).

“Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Timothy 2:22).

The Church as the body of Christ was formed on the day of Pentecost. On that day, a saved remnant from among the Jews was baptized by one Spirit into one body. To that body, by the Holy Spirit, the Samaritans and Gentiles were also added.

“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:12-13).

Christ, Head to the Church

Every body has a head, and the Head of the church is Christ. The Holy Spirit unites the church, here on earth, to its Head in heaven.

“Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set [Him] at His own right hand in the heavenly [places], far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all [things] under His feet, and gave Him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all” (Ephesians 1:20-23).

Naturally a body cannot operate if it does not follow its head. In Colosse there was a problem. The Colossian believers were not holding the Head. They were looking for Christianity outside of Christ in the philosophies of men (Colossians 2:8). All must flow from the head. “And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Colossians 2:19). The head is preeminent.

“And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence” (Colossians 1:18).

One Body

There is only one Head and there is only one body. Though the early Church was made up of Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, we find only one Church. The Spirit is careful to bring the Samaritans in through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, while Cornelius receives the Spirit through the preaching of the apostle to the circumcision, Peter (see Acts 10; Galatians 2:7).

“[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (Ephesians 4:4).

“How that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery ... which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:3-6).

The body is not Judaism. It was not known in other ages; it was a mystery. The Gentiles were not added to Judaism. The Church stands completely separate from Judaism. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free” (1 Corinthians 12:13). The Church is a separate entity, as we clearly see by the way the word is used in the following verse: “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Corinthians 10:32).

Composed of Many Members

Every body is composed of many members. God has chosen to set the members in the body as it has pleased Him (see 1 Corinthians 12:18). The eye needs the hand and the head needs the foot. Those members that may seem feeble are necessary. Those members who appear less honorable should receive more abundant honor. There should be no division in the body; the members should have the same care one for another (see 1 Corinthians 12:14-26).

“For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Romans 12:4-5).

The Assembly As the Body of Christ

When the Church of God is spoken of in any locality — an assembly, we would say — it is viewed as being an expression of Christ’s body and has a responsibility to walk as such. To the Corinthians the Apostle Paul could write: “Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular” (1 Corinthians 12:27 JND). And again, in his salutation to that church: “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2). The latter part of that verse is also of particular interest to us, because it tells us that the Epistle to the Corinthians was meant for us as well as for them.

This principle — that the assembly should be the local expression of the Body of Christ — is very important. It determines completely the basis for Christians meeting together. No membership is required; the only membership we have as believers is in the body of Christ through the Holy Spirit. We see this brought out again in connection with the Lord’s table. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). The very bread that we break “communicates” to us the body of Christ. There it sits, unbroken, speaking to us of the oneness of the Church. To require membership in some other “body” aside from the body of Christ, and yet to remember the Lord in the breaking of the one loaf would be a contradiction.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that because the loaf speaks to us of the body of Christ, all the members of the body should be admitted to the Lord’s table. Indeed there are very clear instances in scripture where individuals are to be denied a place by the assembly.

“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat” (1 Corinthians 5:11).

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10).

“So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate” (Revelation 2:15).

When an assembly knowingly admits evil, then the assembly is defiled. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9).

The body is one; nothing we do will alter that. Certainly we are not to act contrary to that by creating divisions; however, it is not our responsibility to maintain its outward unity. To do so, would mean that we would have to receive everyone regardless of their condition, association, or doctrine. However, we are instructed to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit.

“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:3-6).

When the man was put away at Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:13), he was put out of the church on earth. To suppose that each assembly was required to make a separate judgment on the matter would have been to deny the unity of the Spirit. If each assembly were to pass their own judgment, then they would become independent bodies. The individual would have only been put out of the assembly in Corinth, which would have meant there were now many bodies. This contradicts scripture. It is helpful to see that the body of Christ is composed of individual believers and that it is not a coalition of independent assemblies.

“And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James” (Acts 1:13). Matthias was elected to fill the place of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:26).

An apostle was a messenger, a sent one, and so we read in Luke 9: “Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And He sent (apostello) them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick” (Luke 9:1-2). The Lord only applies the term apostles to the twelve: “And when it was day, He called [unto Him] His disciples: and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles” (Luke 6:13). An apostle was one that had seen the Lord, especially in resurrection. We see this in particular in the choosing of Matthias. “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). We also read it of the apostle Paul: “Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1).

With their apostleship restated in the first chapter of Acts, the only apostles mentioned again are Peter, James, John, James the son of Alphaeus,3 and Judas the brother of James. And of James the brother of John, the only detail we have concerns his death: “And he [Herod] killed James the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12:2). This is not to say that the apostles did not continue on the ministry, but rather, they did it quietly and for their Lord. Secular history has various accounts of each apostle, with all but the apostle John suffering a martyr’s death. The apostles laid the foundation. Once the work of the apostles was complete, they passed from the scene. There are no apostles today.

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner [stone]” (Ephesians 2:20).

The Apostle Paul

There is one other apostle aside from the twelve, the apostle Paul. Paul’s apostleship was unique. Like the twelve, he had seen the Lord, but his view was of a heavenly Christ: “And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). His apostleship was not connected with Jerusalem or with the twelve, as he emphasizes in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 1-2). “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ” (Ephesians 3:8). Called to be an apostle by the Lord from heaven (see Acts 9), he is charged with the gospel of the glory. It not only brings salvation, great as that is, but it separates the believer from earth, and conforms him to Christ as He is in glory.4 An outline of the apostle’s life from Miller’s Church History is presented below:

AD 36 Conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9).

36-39 At Damascus — preaches in the synagogue, goes into Arabia, returns to Damascus, flight from Damascus. His First Visit to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion. Thence to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-26; Gal 1:18).

39-40 The Jewish churches have rest. (Acts 9:31).

40-43 Paul preaches the gospel in Syria and Cilicia (Galatians 1:21), a period of uncertain length. During this time he probably undergoes the chief part of the perils and sufferings, which he recounts to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:24-28). He is brought from Tarsus to Antioch by Barnabas; and stays there a year before the famine (Acts 11:26).

44 Paul’s Second Visit to Jerusalem, with the collection (Acts 11:30).

45 Paul returns to Antioch (Acts 12:25).

“As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2).

46-49 Paul’s First Missionary Journey with Barnabas — goes to Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and back through the same places to Antioch. Dissension and disputation about circumcision (Acts 13-15:2).

50 Paul’s Third Visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas, fourteen years after his conversion (Galatians 2:1). They attend the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, with Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32-35).

“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well” (Acts 15:29).

51 Paul’s Second Missionary Journey with Silas and Timothy. He goes from Antioch to Syria, Cilicia, Derbe, Lystra, Phrygia, Galatia, and Troas. Luke joins the apostolic band (Acts 16:10).

52 Entrance of the gospel into Europe (Acts 16:11-13). Paul visits Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth (Acts 18:11). First Epistle to the Thessalonians written.

53 Second Epistle to the Thessalonians written. Paul leaves Corinth and sails to Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19).

54 Paul’s Fourth Visit to Jerusalem at the feast. Returns to Antioch.

54-56 Paul’s Third Missionary Journey. He departs from Antioch — visits Galatia and Phrygia, and reaches Ephesus, where he stays two years and three months. Here Paul separates the disciples from the Jewish synagogue. Epistle to the Galatians written.

“When divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he [Paul] departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus” (Acts 19:8-9).

57 (Spring) First Epistle to the Corinthians written. The tumult at Ephesus — Paul leaves for Macedonia (Acts 19:23; 20:1).
(Autumn) Second Epistle to the Corinthians written (2 Corinthians 1:8; 2:13-14; 7:5; 8:1; 9:1). Paul visits Illyricum — goes to Corinth — winters there (Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 16:6).

59 (Spring) The Epistle to the Romans written (Romans 15:25-28; 16:21-23; Acts 20:4). Paul leaves Corinth — passes through Macedonia — sails from Philippi — preaches at Troas — addresses the elders at Miletus — visits Tyre and Caesarea (Acts 20; 21:1-14).

58-60 Paul’s Fifth Visit to Jerusalem before Pentecost. He is arrested in the Temple, brought before Ananias and the Sanhedrim, sent by Lysias to Caesarea, where he is kept in bonds two years (Acts 22-24).

60 Paul heard by Felix and Festus. He appeals unto Caesar — preaches before Agrippa, Bernice, and the men of Caesarea (Acts 25-26).
(Autumn) Paul sails for Italy. (Winter) Shipwrecked at Malta
(Acts 27).

61 (Spring) Arrives at Rome — dwells two years in his own hired house.

62 (Spring) Epistles to Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians written. (Autumn) Epistle to the Philippians written.

63 (Spring) Paul acquitted and released. Epistle to the Hebrews written. Paul takes another journey, intending to visit Asia Minor and Greece (Philemon 22; Philippians 2:24).

64 Visits Crete and leaves Titus there — exhorts Timothy to abide at Ephesus. First Epistle to Timothy written. Epistle to Titus written.

64-67 Intends to winter at Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). Visits Troas, Corinth, Miletum (2 Timothy 4:13-20). Paul arrested and sent to Rome. Deserted and solitary — having only Luke, of his old associates, with him. Second Epistle to Timothy written, probably not long before his death. These journeys and events are generally supposed to cover a period of about three years.

67 Paul’s martyrdom.

To Paul it was given to complete the Word of God (see Colossians 1:24-25 JND). Only in Paul’s writings do we find the doctrine concerning the Church of God. Four distinct revelations, received by the apostle Paul, describe the Church, its character, its occupation, and its hope.

The Church: Composed of Jew and Gentile and United to a Glorified Christ in Heaven

“How that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery ... which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:3-6).

The Remembrance of Our Lord

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also [He took] the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25).

The Dead in Christ Shall Rise First

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-16).

The Blessed Hope

“Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

These truths were quickly given up by professing Christendom. The true character of the Church (the truth contained in the book of Ephesians), the true nature of the remembrance of our Lord, the resurrection from among the dead, and our blessed hope of soon being caught up — these were all quickly lost.

Paul’s Epistles

Romans

Written from Corinth to the assembly in Rome.

“The gospel of God” (Romans 1:1). The gospel is neither a philosophy nor a creed; rather the gospel concerns a divine and glorious Person, Jesus Christ our Lord (see Romans 1:3).

1 Corinthians

Written from Ephesus in AD 60 to the assembly in Corinth.

The internal ordering of the assembly. “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:9).

2 Corinthians

Written from Macedonia AD 60 to the assembly in Corinth.

Consoled by the news from Titus that the first letter had had its effect in producing repentance, he now comforts them with the consolation he had received from God. “Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus; and not by his coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more” (2 Corinthians 7:6-7).

Galatians

Written to the assemblies of Galatia.

The corruption of the Gospel of the grace of God. Some mingled Judaism with Christianity. Judaism is earthly in character, adapted to man in the flesh. Christianity is heavenly in character and totally sets aside man in the flesh. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3)

Ephesians

Written to the assembly at Ephesus from prison in Rome around AD 62.

The Apostle unfolds the counsels of God concerning Christ and the church, His body — counsels that had their origin before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3). “And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all” (Ephesians 1:22-23). “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6).

Philippians

Written to the assembly at Philippi from prison in Rome around AD 62.

The normal Christian experience. We are seen journeying through the wilderness, through a world unchanged; but we are changed. We have no home here, for we are pressing toward the mark, “for the prize of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14 JND).

Colossians

Written to the assembly in Colosse around AD 62.

The saints at Colosse were being enticed by the allure of philosophy and ritualism. In returning to the elements of the world, they were, in fact, turning away from Christ; they were not holding the headship of Christ in all its fullness. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:8-10).

1 Thessalonians

Written to the assembly in Thessalonica from Corinth in AD 52.

The Lord’s coming for the blessing of His saints — both for those who have died and those who are alive. “I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. ... For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:13, 16-17).

2 Thessalonians

Written to the assembly in Thessalonica from Corinth in AD 53.

The hope of the Thessalonian saints had been shaken, thinking that the day of the Lord was already come. Paul shows that certain events must first precede that day. “We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).

1 Timothy

Written to Timothy at Ephesus from Macedonia around AD 64.

Divine guidance for right conduct in the assembly, viewed here as the house of God with things seen as in order. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:15).

2 Timothy

Written from Rome to Timothy at Ephesus while imprisoned a second time around AD 67.

Instruction for the godly in a day of ruin. Christendom had become a great house; things were in disorder. “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” (2 Timothy 2:20-21).

Titus

Written to Titus on the Isle of Crete around AD 65.

Our conduct as seen by the world. Whereas the epistles to Timothy are concerned with the internal condition of the assembly, the Epistle to Titus is concerned with that which is outward. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee ... One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” (Titus 1:5, 12).

Philemon

Written to Philemon (perhaps at Laodicea) from prison in Rome around AD 62.

A letter commending Onesimus, a runaway slave and now a brother in Christ, to Philemon, his master, and to the assembly in his house. “I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels” (Philemon 10-12).

Hebrews

The author is deliberately unnamed; the Lord Himself is peculiarly the Author of this epistle (Hebrews 1:1; 3:1). From an early date many have assumed Paul to be its writer, as Peter would also seem to confirm (2 Peter 3:15), though this cannot be proved.

For the Jew who had received Jesus as Messiah, His crucifixion and resurrection was perplexing. However, for all that the Jew valued, better things are to be found in Christ. This epistle lifts their eyes heavenward. “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Hebrews 1:9).

In the first chapter of Revelation, Christ is seen as the Son of Man, not in the character with which the Apostle John was familiar, but clothed for judgment (Revelation 1:13-16). John sees Him in the midst of seven candlesticks, which are the seven assemblies that are addressed. The assemblies are seen here in responsibility as light bearers — testimonies in the world (Revelation 1:20).

Chapters 2 and 3 address these seven assemblies — a complete testimony. Various expressions such as “till I come” in Revelation 2:25 and “hereafter” in Revelation 4:1 help us to understand that this is a historical outline of the Christian profession, not simply seven letters to first century churches.

The first three assemblies describe successive periods. Ephesus, the church of the first century, is characterized as having left her first love (Revelation 2:4). Smyrna is the persecuted church of the second and third centuries, which Satan as a roaring lion sought to devour. In Pergamos we see the activity of the deceiving serpent. Under the Roman Emperor Constantine, Christendom united with the pagan political world.

At Thyatira — that system over which Rome holds sway — there is a change. We now have the exhortation to “hold fast till I come” (Revelation 2:25), and “he that hath an ear” is no longer addressed to the church as a whole (Revelation 2:26, 29) but to the listening faithful remnant. The final four churches (beginning with Thyatira) represent successive overlapping states that continue until the Lord’s coming. Thyatira is followed by Protestant Sardis. Philadelphia is a moral state; they have kept His Word and have not denied His name (Revelation 3:8). The hope of the rapture has been restored, for they are kept “out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world” (Revelation 3:10 JND). Laodicea describes the moral state of Christendom today; claiming to be rich and in need of nothing, its wretched condition is exposed. The Lord is seen as outside the assembly knocking (Revelation 3:20). Apostate Christendom will ultimately be spued out of His mouth.

Ephesus

There are at least four recorded communications that address the saints at Ephesus. The first is recorded in Acts chapter 20. There Paul addresses himself to the elders (Acts 20:17). He tells them to: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Of particular note is the solemn warning:

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:28-29).

There was no question as to whether grievous wolves would come in. Paul was departing and there was no successor. But the word of His grace is “able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

The second communication is the Epistle to the Ephesians. Here the Apostle brings out the whole truth of the mystery of Christ and the Church.

The third communication is indirect. In the first Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle writes to Timothy — having besought him to abide still at Ephesus while he continued on to Macedonia — “that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). Already the wolves had entered in seeking to draw away men. In the second epistle to Timothy, the apostle could say: “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1:15) — which must include Ephesus. Indeed Paul’s concern at that time was such that he sent Tychicus to Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:12).

Final Message to Ephesus

The final recorded communication to the church at Ephesus is in the book of Revelation.

“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (Revelation 2:1-7).

Here the aging Apostle John is guided by the Spirit to write to seven churches in Asia, of which Ephesus is the first. Here the church is viewed as a candlestick — that which bears a light — though not the light itself. The candlestick speaks of our responsibility — what use is a lamp without oil, or a candlestick without a candle?

“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love” (Revelation 2:4).

While they are commended for rejecting evil and for their labors, they had left their first love — Christ. They had not lost it, but they had left it. Their works were commendable, but He would rather that they do the first works — works that flowed from that first love. How easy it is to let something fall into a repetitious routine. The candlestick would be removed if they did not repent.

The End of the Apostolic Period

Even before we reach the end of the Holy Scriptures, we see the giving up of these precious truths.

“For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s” (Philippians 2:21).

Disconcerted by the Apostle’s chains, his companions quickly deserted him: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes” (2 Timothy 1:15). The problems described in the first two chapters of this book (Paul’s second letter to Timothy) transpired in the Apostle’s lifetime. In the third chapter of that same epistle, Paul writes: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come” (2 Timothy 3:1). Here he foresees what was about to be — the last days would begin when apostolic gift was removed from the church. The description parallels that of the heathen found in the first chapter of Romans, but with this awful difference: professing Christendom would have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof (2 Timothy 3:5). “As Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Timothy 3:8) — a mere imitation of the truth.

“Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia” (2 Timothy 4:10). How encouraging to see that there is one, Onesiphorus, who had not forsaken the imprisoned apostle: “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me]” (2 Timothy 1:16-17).

Peter, too, in his Epistles warns them of like precious faith: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (2 Peter 2:1-2). Neither in Paul’s final letter (2 Timothy) nor in Peter’s (2 Peter) do we find any suggestion that there would be apostles to follow. In Jude we have the exhortation:

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:3-4).

John also warns: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 John 2:18-19).

In the midst of such a scene Timothy was not to give up nor to withdraw himself — though he is exhorted to walk in a path of separation — but rather he is instructed: “watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Timothy 4:5).

“Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:14-17).

The period AD 100-313 falls during the time of the Roman Empire — the fourth empire of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2). The Babylonian empire (gold) had been conquered by the Medes and Persians (silver), the Greeks (bronze) under Alexander the Great had conquered Persia, and now the Roman Empire ruled supreme. As strong as iron, but with feet of iron and clay, the Empire stretched from Britain to Mesopotamia. No empire ever displaced the Roman Empire.

“And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all [things]: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise” (Daniel 2:40).

During this time the church passed through ten systematic persecutions. Though Christians have suffered persecution at all times, there were ten periods when Christians were singled out for persecution because of their faith. The Roman emperor and the approximate duration of each persecution is given below:

Nero AD 64-68

Domitian AD 81-96

Trajan AD 98-117

Marcus Aurelius AD 167-180

Severus AD 202-210

Maximin AD 235-238

Decius AD 249-251

Valerian AD 253-260

Aurelian AD 270-275

Diocletian AD 303-309

Causes of Persecution

The Emperors justified their persecution of the Christians with a variety of explanations. But though reasons were ostensibly given, the real cause was the enmity of man’s heart towards God and his Christ. The Christians lived lives that manifested the darkness and evil about them.

Christianity was evangelical. The command was: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). The minister of Christ warred a spiritual warfare: “(For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). This stirs up the hatred of mankind who only wishes to do that which is right in his eyes.

The pagan religion of the day was an integral part of the state. To undermine the religion was to undermine the state.

The Christians separated themselves from the pagans because Christians walk the path of strangers and pilgrims (1 Peter 2:11). When a person separates from us, our self-righteous nature is aroused, leading to denouncement and hatred.

The Christians were called “atheists” because they rejected polytheism (the worship of many gods). Simplicity and humility characterized the Christians’ worship. There were no robes and ceremonies, and initially at least there were no fine churches.

Just as we find at Ephesus, the rapid growth in Christianity touched the livelihoods of those connected with the old pagan worship. “Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth” (Acts 19:26-27).

In the early part of the period that we are considering, the Christians often met in secret. While they did this for their own protection, it helped arouse the suspicious nature of the pagans. By the time of Diocletian, the opposite was true. There were fine churches and an outward display of riches. Christianity also attracted those in all ranks of society, including the upper classes. Furthermore, the now-established clergy had gained in power and authority. This incited jealousy and a new persecution, firstly against the clergy, then against the laity.

Suffering in Scripture

Peter’s first Epistle speaks much of suffering; it should be the normal Christian experience.

“The God of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you” (1 Peter 5:10).

“All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12).

If we walk as Christ walked, we will suffer in the flesh. We can suffer as an evildoer, but that is not the portion of a believer: “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters” (1 Peter 4:15).

As Christians we suffer for righteousness’ sake and for His name. We suffer for righteousness’ sake when our walk arouses the animosity of man. Many Christians during this period suffered for righteousness’ sake and no doubt recalled the words of the Apostle Peter:

“If ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:14-15).

The Romans would ask an individual if he or she were a Christian, if they steadfastly affirmed that they were and refused to offer sacrifices to the gods, they were executed. No question of morality or wrongdoing was ever raised; they were simply condemned for their faith.

Declaring Christ’s name often brings suffering. With the rapid spread of Christianity, there must have been many willing to confess the name of Christ and to declare His gospel. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy [are ye]; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is glorified” (1 Peter 4:14). “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy” (1 Peter 4:13). The apostles rejoiced that they could suffer even as their Lord and Saviour suffered. “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name” (Acts 5:41).

Though we have seen that suffering should be a part of the normal Christian experience, many have wondered why God should allow it. Surely it is to bring us closer to Himself. The Apostle Paul could write to the Philippians from his imprisonment in Rome:

“That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death” (Philippians 3:10).

Message to Smyrna

The church at Ephesus had been reproved because they had left their first love. The next church — Smyrna — is a picture of this period of persecution. God allowed persecution in the early days of the church to bring it into conformity with himself.

“And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death” (Revelation 2:8-11).

The word clergy comes from the Greek word kleros, meaning an allotment — what has been assigned to you, your portion, and hence, an inheritance or heritage. We find it in the verses:

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being Lords over [God’s] heritage (kleros), but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-3).

This verse, however, contradicts the very thought of a clergyman — a man in charge of an assembly, a pastor over his flock. We see clearly at the beginning of verse two that it is the flock of God. It was God’s flock which they, the elders, might be given to oversee — Christ’s sheep, which they might be entrusted with a portion of, an allotment (kleros) to feed and guide.5

There are two other words used in this portion that are of particular interest. Elders is the translation of the Greek (presbuteros) from which we get the word Presbyterian. A word used to describe that form of church government created by man where a body of elected elders — or the presbytery — governs the church. The second word is oversight (episkopeo). From this we get Episcopalian — that other great system of church government that man has devised — a hierarchy of bishops that exercise authority over the church. Neither system is according to the Word of God. Before we can understand what thought these words were intended to convey, we need to consider the difference between office and gift.

Office and Gift

There are two services, sometimes called offices, mentioned in scripture: “This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1). “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless” (1 Timothy 3:10). These portions are better rendered: “The word [is] faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1 JND). “And let these be first proved, then let them minister, being without charge [against them]” (1 Timothy 3:10 JND). The word translated “bishop” derives from episkopos and simply means overseer (note its relation to “oversight” above). Deacon is essentially an untranslated word; the Greek (diakonos) simply means “servant.” Though in these verses we do not have the actual word “office,” we do find it in Romans 12:4, “for as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office” — in other places where this last word is used, it means a deed or doing.

Office is not to be confused with gift. Gifts are given by Christ for the good of the whole body; He distributes gifts as He sees fit.

“He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.) And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:10-12).

In contrast to gift, a person was chosen for an office, and further, the work of an office was purely local. An overseer or servant acted within their own assembly. By confusing gift and office, the Church has seen fit to ordain teachers and pastors — these are gifts given by Christ alone.

The Bishop

An elder and bishop (overseer) are one and the same. Paul called for the Ephesian elders — “and from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17) — and said: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). And again in Titus we see: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: ... For a bishop [overseer] must be blameless” (Titus 1:5, 7).

An elder is what his name says (an older one, though the age referred to may be spiritual), while his work is the spiritual oversight of the assembly. At Crete, where there were many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, the overseer was to refute them (Titus 1:9-10). An overseer may also have a gift, although not necessarily so, and hence we read: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17).

During the apostolic period, persons were chosen for the office of an overseer by an apostle, or a delegate of an apostle. “And when they [Paul and Barnabas] had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed” (Acts 14:23).

There was more than one bishop in an assembly. The Epistle to the Philippians is addressed: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Philippians 1:1) — or we could say: “to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with [the] overseers and ministers” (Philippians 1:1 JND). Also, as we have seen in Acts 20: “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” In both assemblies the word (bishops, deacons, elders) is in the plural form.

The Deacon

When it came to deacons, then the assembly might choose: “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business” (Acts 6:3). However, they were confirmed by the laying on of the apostles’ hands: “Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them” (Acts 6:6).

The word ‘deacon’ stands in place of the Greek word — diakonos. Except for the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and one reference in Philippians (1:1), the word is typically translated ‘minister’ or ‘serve’ (for example 1 Corinthians 16:15), which is all that it means. A deacon ministered to the temporal needs of the assembly. The deacon must be blameless, and because his wife helped him, she must be grave — honorable.

Bishops and Deacons After the Apostolic Period

Scripture never intimates that the assembly has the authority to appoint elders. We see only apostles and those directed by the apostles (Timothy and Titus) appointing elders. The apostles laid the foundation (Eph 2:20). They had specific authority from Christ as ‘sent ones’ in their actions. We find no suggestion that the elders had any authority to appoint elders either. The same can be said concerning the official appointment of deacons. Though the assembly chose seven deacons in Acts chapter six, they were set before the apostles, who identified themselves with them in the laying on of hands. However, in an assembly going on according to scriptural principles, where the Holy Spirit is permitted to lead, there will no doubt be men raised up to do the work of an elder or a deacon. As we read in Acts 20, it was ultimately the Holy Spirit that made the elders overseers (Acts 20:28).

The Early Church

It was not long after the departure of the apostles that we find the establishment of leaders in the assembly. It is probable that the early fathers moved in this direction to maintain (or rather to enforce) unity in the Church. Though man may adopt various devices to make unity, the Holy Spirit is that which forms the unity, and He leads in the assembly. We endeavour “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). We keep that which is; we do not make it. Despite this attempt on man’s part, divisions ultimately came in.

Ignatius, an early martyr and one of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, a disciple and friend of the Apostle John, wrote several letters to assemblies of his day. In his epistle to the church at Ephesus he says (and wrongly so): “Let us take heed, brethren, that we set not ourselves against the bishop, that we may be subject to God. ... It is therefore evident that we ought to look upon the bishop even as we do upon the Lord Himself.” Ignatius uses a number of like expressions elevating the position of a bishop. If the letters are authentic, it shows how quickly the early fathers departed from the pure and simple teaching of the apostles; if not, then it shows the necessity felt by man to add that which was so clearly absent from the Scripture — the notion of a clergy and a laity — to justify their actions. Laos (laity) means “people” and originally referred to those outside of the Christian circle; it has come to mean those that aren’t in that special class known as the clergy.

It wasn’t long before the leaders took the lead in ministry, quenching the operation of the Holy Spirit. Bishops and deacons became elevated offices. A priestly order, Jewish in character, came into being — the clergy. This was in direct contradiction to the priesthood of all believers: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

As an assembly in a district grew, additional assemblies sprang up nearby. These came under the control of the bishop of the first assembly. An hierarchical order of bishops was established, and dioceses were formed — all without the authority of Scripture.

After the death of Diocletian, there were six pretenders to the sovereignty of the Roman empire: Galerius, Licinius, Maximian, Maxentius, Maximin and Constantine. Constantine, in the year 312, while traveling from France to Italy against Maxentius, claimed to see the appearance of a glittering cross in the heavens and above it the inscription, “By This Conquer.” Confirmed again in a dream, he prepared a new standard to be borne at the head of his army, and having called Christian teachers, he declared himself a convert to Christianity. Constantine went on to defeat Maxentius, though his troops numbered less than a fourth of his foe. For a time the rule of the empire was divided between Constantine and Licinius, and they issued a joint edict in AD 313 at Milan in favour of Christians. Full and unlimited toleration was granted to them, and their churches and property were restored. In AD 314 war broke out between the two emperors. Licinius attached the pagan priesthood to his cause and resumed the persecution of Christians. However, in 325 Licinius was defeated and Constantine ruled the entire Empire, both east and west. Thus we have during Constantine’s rule the uniting of the church and State, and therewith the beginning of the Pergamos period.

Message to Pergamos

“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith He which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even] where Satan’s seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied My faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] My faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it]” (Revelation 2:12-17).

Constantine

There are many questions surrounding the conversion of Constantine. His early years as a so-called Christian, appear to be guided by superstition as much as by any real belief. Though he increasingly took upon himself the role of the head of the church, he retained the title and robe of the high priest of the ancient religion — Pontifex Maximus. (Gratian was the first emperor to refuse that title.) Constantine’s reign was stained in blood, including that of his own son Crispus (by Minervina) and of his second wife Fausta. Constantine delayed his baptism until the end of his life. It was not until AD 337 that he was baptized and received the Lord’s supper. He died shortly thereafter.

Constantine’s standard — the Labarum — was a long pole, intersected by a beam, from which hung a silken veil. The top of the pole supported a gold crown on which was inscribed Constantine’s adopted monogram, the overlaid Greek letters Chi (Χ) and Ro (Ρ) — the first two letters of “Christ” in Greek. The Labarum was an object of veneration and an item to be protected in battle. Fifty guards protected it, and the superstition arose that those guards, while engaged in the execution of their office, where protected from their enemies. And so Constantine, who is called the first great Christian Emperor, publicly united Christianity to idolatry.

The Nicene Creed

During the reign of Constantine we find the first great schisms that divided the church. In these controversies we find Constantine playing the part of the head of the church: calling for councils, presiding over them, and even giving sentence. On the other hand, we see the church appealing to their ruler and protector as judge.

In AD 325, at Nice in Bithynia, the first general council of the church assembled to consider the controversy known as Arianism. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present, besides priests and deacons, while the Emperor himself moderated. The Arian controversy called into question the nature of the Trinity and in particular the position of Christ in the Godhead. That such a thing should be a matter of public debate and speculation is distressing in itself. The resulting confession of faith, usually called The Nicene Creed, rejected the Arian opinions, while the doctrine of the holy Trinity, the true Godhead of Christ, and Christ’s oneness with the Father were all affirmed. Those who bowed to the Nicene Creed were called catholic Christians and formed the so-called Catholic Church.

The Emperors of the Early Pergamos Period

Constantine AD 313-337

Constantine II (Gaul, Spain and Britain) 337-340

Constantius(Asiatic provinces) 337-361

Constans (Italy and Africa) 337-340

Julian (the Apostate) 361-363

Jovian 363-364

Valentinian (West) 364-375

Valens (East) 364-378

Gratian (West) 375-383

Valentinian II (West) 375-392

Theodosius (East only until 392, then both) 379-395

Arcadius (East) 395-408

Honorius (West) 395-423

The Remainder of the Period

Constantine was succeeded by his three sons. Constantine II and Constans were partial to the Catholic Church, while Constantius was inclined towards Arianism. Jealousies between the brothers led to civil war and in the end Constantius was Emperor alone. Julian, known as the Apostate, succeeded Constantius. Heathenism was revived during his brief reign and persecutions began again. Jovian, the successor to Julian, professed Christianity. The brothers Valentinian and Valens professed Christianity; Valentinian embraced the Catholic Church, while Valens was won over by Arianism. Gratian gave evidence of being a true believer, being the first emperor to refuse the title of Pontifex Maximus (head of the heathen pontiffs). Theodosius was the last Emperor to rule both the East and the West. Baptized at the beginning of his reign — and supposedly the first emperor to be baptized in the full name of the holy Trinity — he was a strong supporter of Christianity, subduing the Arian heresy and abolishing the worship of idols in the Roman world.

Friendship With the World

What Satan could not accomplish as the roaring lion — “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8) — he now brought about as the subtle serpent — “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field” (Genesis 3:1). “That old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9).

When Balak’s injunction to Balaam to curse Israel was thwarted by God, Balaam taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel. What he could not destroy outwardly, he could corrupt inwardly. He taught the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication with the daughters of Moab: “And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab” (Numbers 25:1). This was exactly the condition of things at Pergamos:

“But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication” (Revelation 2:14).

In Acts we find that the early church was to abstain from meats offered to idols (Acts 15:29). And in the Epistle to the Corinthians we find the principle:

“Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (1 Corinthians 10:18)

What many were martyred for — refusing to offer sacrifices to idols — the church had now allowed itself to be willingly associated with. “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

Increasingly, Christians are becoming involved in politics. In the USA, evangelical Christians form a significant voting block. They have seen the political power that they can wield. Let us examine Christian political involvement in the light of Scripture.

One may ask, “Didn’t Israel have kings? And yet we read that David was a man after God’s own heart?” We need to rightly divide the word of truth; God did not intend for Israel to have a king apart from Himself. Israel rejected God’s reign and so He gave them kings (1 Samuel 8:7-9). From David onwards, all the rightful kings came from his line; they were not elected, and the choice remained God’s. The people made Jehoahaz king (2 Kings 23:30), but his name is not found in the genealogy of the Lord (Matthew 1). The king was to do what was right in the sight of Jehovah; he was not called upon to be a political figure. When Josiah became involved in the politics of the world, the results were disastrous. “After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not. ... And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died” (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).

What of Daniel? It is clear in the story of Daniel that he was an extraordinary public servant, but to suggest that he in any way pursued a political career would be a gross misrepresentation of scripture. Daniel’s service was of such a circumspect nature that Belshazzar did not appear to be acquainted with him (Daniel 5:11). Furthermore, when Belshazzar offered him the position of “third ruler in the kingdom” he declined (Daniel 5:16-17). Daniel knew from the writing on the wall that the days of Belshazzar’s kingdom were numbered and that it would be divided amongst the Medes and the Persians.

The World

As Christians, we have been delivered from this present evil world. Any teaching that would bring us back into union with this world is a corruption of the Gospel. Paul states this at the very beginning of his epistle to the Galatians:

“Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father” (Galatians 1:3-4).

The principle of deliverance from the world is broader than just coming out from under the bondage of the law and circumcision. In chapter 17 of John, when the Lord communed with the Father, He made it clear that though we are in the world, we are not of the world.

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world ... I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:11, 14).

Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4) and the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). “World” in the Greek is kosmos and means an order or arrangement. It is often used in scripture to mean the present condition of human affairs, in alienation from and in opposition to God. It is a system rooted in man’s disobedience. We talk of men “rising in the world” and “getting along in the world,” both of which refer to the system, not the planet. There is no improving this world: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). Like Daniel, we can read the writing on the wall.

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:15-16).

If we are going to have a place in politics, we must necessarily be caught up in that system and be yoked together with unbelievers. Politicians, whether admitting it or not, will attempt to keep their political seat at nearly any cost — after all, if they lose their position of power, what help can they be to their constituency? Consequently, a politician must balance conscience against the desires of the people, a position that always ends in a compromise of principles.

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14).

The world is not a clock, wound up by God, running its course. The authorities are ordained of God; He gives power into the hand of those He chooses and at times He may choose the lowest of men.

“To the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men” (Daniel 4:17).

To resist the authority that God has established means resisting God. Though some of the principles laid down by the founding fathers of the United States of America may be commendable, the U.S.A. is nevertheless founded upon revolution. Revolutions resist and overthrow an authority established by God.

“Let every soul be subject to the authorities that are above [him]. For there is no authority except from God; and those that exist are set up by God. So that he that sets himself in opposition to the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they who [thus] resist shall bring sentence of guilt on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2 JND).

This is a time for the Gospel to be preached, not for man to take up the sword: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

Ambassadors for Christ

So then, what place does a Christian have in this world (though not a part of it)? We are to be ambassadors for Christ. An ambassador promotes the agenda of the leader and country to which he belongs. Though he may seek to influence the policies of the country in which he is stationed, he cannot directly intervene. An ambassador cannot vote; his citizenship is of another country.

“God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning to them their offences; and putting in us the word of that reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as [it were] beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:19-20 JND).

In 2 Corinthians 5, the Apostle describes his work as an ambassador: God pleaded through them. They entreated for Christ, seeking that man might be reconciled to God through the work of the cross. We can also follow the pattern of the ambassador in winning souls for Christ. As to influencing those in authority, we have specific instruction to pray for them. Paul lived during Nero’s rule, yet not once do we read a statement concerning the politics of the day.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

We have a Saviour God — He has not saved us from wrath to come merely to abandon us now, but rather He will continue to save until we receive our glorified bodies in heaven where we hold our citizenship even now:

“For our conversation [citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself” (Philippians 3:20-21).

Many Christians are sincerely attempting to change the system, but from within the system. From such a position their testimony must be weakened. The unclean (the world) defiles the holy (the Christian), not the other way around:

“If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No” (Haggai 2:12).

The Spirit never leads us contrary to Scripture. While some may genuinely feel that God wishes to use them as his instrument for political change, it is well to keep in mind that God never acts contrary to His own word. We are a heavenly people. A permanent resident of the United States who is not a U.S. citizen cannot vote or hold elected office; his ballot would be rejected and he would be breaking the law if he tried to do so.

The fourth century began with Christianity triumphing over paganism. With persecution giving way to civil protection, one might have expected the church to flourish. Instead we see heresy and division and an inclination towards superstition. Many of the errors that formed during this period grew to dominate the doctrines of the church later.

The Position of the Clergy

With civil protection extended to the clergy, we find that they were exempted from public duties and that state monies were provided for distribution to certain individuals. Unlike the common people, bishops enjoyed the advantage of being tried by their peers in matters of civil law. With social advantage, many were attracted to the ranks of the clergy — attracted by the advantages of power and wealth and not by the service they were entering. It is true that the assembly has authority to act in matters of discipline, whether against emperor or plebeian, but when men vest men with power and authority in the church, it is a corruption of the Word of God, and ultimately leads to the corruption of the individual. Much error arose out of the false notion of apostolic succession — that there has been a succession of Apostles since the days of Scripture. Certainly not all of the church hierarchy were haughty and hypocritical. Some exercised judgment as they felt solemnly bound. Athanasius, who had distinguished himself at the council of Nice and later as Bishop of Alexandria, was such a man. Bishop Ambrose of Milan likewise was a man of true faith, and it was through his intervention that the Emperor Theodosius was brought to a public penance for his involvement in the massacre of Thessalonica. Despite the establishment of a strong clerical hierarchy, there were still numerous bishops during this period — 1800 by one historian’s account — and none had superior authority over another. Toward the end of the Pergamos period, as we move towards Thyatira, we find a distinct change in this arrangement.

Persecution of Heretics

It was during the reign of Theodosius that the office of Inquisitors of the Faith was first instituted. While excommunication under Theodosius also resulted in the loss of civil privileges, it was not until later emperors that the blood of Christians was freely shed on account of their religious convictions.

Baptism

As we have seen, the early Christian emperors typically delayed their baptism till late in life. Theodosius was the first Emperor to be baptized at the beginning of his reign, and that largely because his life was threatened by a serious illness. This and other abuses of baptism arose through the misunderstanding of its significance. The misunderstanding seems to have arisen from a misapplication of John 3:5: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Though this verse does not refer to baptism, its misapplication resulted in the general view that baptism was necessary to salvation and all the blessings of grace. What then, is the water in John 3:5? We believe it is the Word of God, as the following scriptures demonstrate. “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:22-23). “Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures” (James 1:18). “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3).

Baptism is burial. It is “unto Christ” — not Christ as Messiah, but rather, it is unto His death (Romans 6:3). Baptism is always “to” something (Acts 19:3).

John’s baptism was not Christian baptism (Acts 19:5). The former was a baptism of repentance in anticipation of the coming Messiah. Those that accepted God’s counsel against the nation of Israel submitted to it, thereby disassociating themselves from the unrepentant people (Luke 7:29-30).

Through burial and identification with Christ in His death, we disassociate ourselves from a world that united to crucify the Saviour.

“As many as have been baptised unto Christ Jesus, have been baptised unto His death? We have been buried therefore with Him by baptism unto death” (Romans 6:3-4 JND).

Burial of the first man declares that he is neither fit for God’s sight nor capable of being improved. We are placed on new ground and in a new position — a position of responsibility. The giving of life is in no way the sense of baptism — burial does not confer life. Those “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:2) found themselves in a new place (across the Red Sea) and under Moses’ authority. Likewise, by Christian baptism we enter the Kingdom of Heaven, that sphere where the Lordship of Christ is owned. Fruits prove one’s reality. Simon Magus was baptized but his fruits betrayed him (Acts 8:13, 20-22).

There are several verses that mention baptism, but space does not permit each to be considered. The following verse in Peter’s first epistle is enlightening as to the scope and significance of baptism. “When once the longsuffering of God waited in [the] days of Noah while the ark was preparing, into which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which figure also now saves you, [even] baptism, not a putting away of [the] filth of flesh, but [the] demand as before God of a good conscience, by [the] resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21 JND). Peter’s first epistle especially brings before us the government of God towards the righteous. In chapter 3, we have suffering for righteousness’ sake (1 Peter 3:14). The Jewish believers, to whom Peter was writing, had been baptized and were now suffering. They were perplexed and their good conscience demanded, “Why is this?” Peter brings Noah before them. God’s government fell upon all in the flood, but while the people died in the waters of judgment, Noah was not only carried to safety, he was also delivered from that wicked scene; the disassociation was complete. Baptism likewise saves us — not in the putting away of the filth of the flesh — but it places us on a ground where the answer to every demand of conscience is to be found, not in baptism, but in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These suffering Jews had the assurance in and by the resurrection of Christ, of complete deliverance in the trial through which they were passing.

Monasticism

Antony of Egypt is regarded as the father of monasticism. Born in AD 251 he lived to the age of 105. Though a defender of the true orthodox faith, he was sadly deluded as to the nature and object of Christianity. Pachomius, born in AD 292, also of Egypt, appears to be the first to have founded a society of ascetics. Before his death there were about 3000 monks living in eight monasteries. Holiness in the flesh was the monk’s one grand object, even though we read: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not” (Romans 7:18). Afflicting the body will not accomplish the exhortation to the Colossians — “Put to death therefore your members which [are] upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, vile passions, evil lust, and unbridled desire, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5 JND) — but will rather incite the very passions we desire to subdue. We are to set our “affection on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2).

Rites and Ceremonies

Even in the days of the apostles, false teachers infected Christianity with rites and ceremonies: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]” (Colossians 2:16). With increasing riches, the clergy became attired in richer dresses, the music became more elaborate, and many new ceremonies were introduced. The Empress Helena, Constantine’s mother, claimed to have obtained the wood of the “true cross.” Human nature was easily incited to venerate such astonishing relics, but the sad result was nothing less than idolatry. While the Pergamos period began with the light of Christianity overcoming paganism, we see it ending with Christianity sinking into the darkness of paganism.

Salvation by Works

At the beginning of the fifth century we find the introduction of a new heresy — Pelagianism. Pelagius, probably a monk from Wales (Great Britain), maintained that man possessed an inherent power for doing the will of God. In his view, man was capable of reaching the highest degree of holiness. Probably inspired by the monastic way of life, he no doubt desired to prompt men to live holier lives. Ultimately his error led him to teach that the sin of Adam injured no one but himself, that man had the will to choose evil or good. But what says the scripture?

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19).

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6). We had no strength. We were “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). No, the heart is deceitful above all things; man would even be deceived as to his true state.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

“And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire, and His feet [are] like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.

“Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

“But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have [already] hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth My works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Revelation 2:18-29).

Jezebel

Whereas Balaam placed a stumbling block before the children of Israel (Revelation 2:14), Jezebel established herself among them as queen, seducing them and bearing children — the princes of the people. Balaam was a seducer, Jezebel a seductress. Balaam led the church into an unholy union with the world; Jezebel the prophetess, established herself within the professing church, pretending to have absolute authority there (1 Kings 19:2, 21:7).

“And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him” (1 Kings 16:31).

Many of her accomplishments were achieved indirectly, through the crafty manipulation of others. Jezebel hated and persecuted the true prophets of God (1 Kings 18:4). While the rest of Israel suffered during the terrible drought, the prophets of Baal no doubt fared sumptuously at her own table. Thus she secured their allegiance.

“Now therefore send, [and] gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel’s table” (1 Kings 18:19).

When Ahab coveted the vineyard of Naboth, Jezebel by false accusation obtained for him that which was not rightfully his.

“And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? Arise, [and] eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite” (1 Kings 21:7). “And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, [even] against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died” (1 Kings 21:13).

Throughout the history of the Church of Rome we plainly see the working of a Jezebel. As Rome strove for power, both ecclesiastical and temporal, she used every means at her disposal to put down any that would dispute her authority. But, even as there were 7000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18), there were those among that great Papal system that did not hold her doctrine, nor did they know the depths of Satan. Unfortunately, these true saints of God often met with death at the hand of that murderess, Jezebel. It has been suggested, and it may well be the case, that more blood has been shed by professing Christians in the name of Christianity than was ever shed by the pagan rulers during the great persecutions of the first four centuries.

The Chair of Saint Peter

Upon the defeat of Licinius (AD 324), the Emperor Constantine transferred the seat of his empire to Byzantium, and there built Constantinople. According to the plan of the Emperor there were now four patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch (Syria), and Alexandria (Egypt). At the first General Council, held at Nice in AD 325, the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were declared to have, according to custom, the same authority over the churches subordinate to them that the Bishops of Rome had over those that lay about that city. But with the seat of civil authority moved to Constantinople, the Roman pontiff was left to pursue a path of relative independence. Rome, already a great city in the west, gained further recognition when she strongly supported the Nicene Creed.

The Roman bishops further strengthened their position by insisting that their bishopric descended from that of Peter, whom they considered the first among the Apostles. Leo I, bishop of Rome from AD 440-461, stated: “The apostle was called Petra, the rock, by which denomination he is constituted the foundation ... In his chair dwelleth the ever living, the superabounding, authority. Let the brethren therefore acknowledge that he is the primate of all bishops, and that Christ, who denieth His gifts to none, yet giveth unto none except through him.”6 Thus Leo the First, surnamed the Great, laid the foundation for the great spiritual monarchy of Rome.

Gregory I—AD 590

It is generally considered that Thyatira begins with the pontificate of Gregory the First, surnamed the Great, in AD 590. Gregory was well known for his almsgiving, and evidently the pastoral care of the church was the main object and delight of his heart. At that time the Lombard invaders where the terror of the Italians. Since the emperor offered no protection, the people turned to Gregory, the Bishop of Rome. Thus the Pope became for the population in Italy the protector against the Lombards.

Gregory was most zealous in bringing the gospel to the barbarous nations, winning them over to the Catholic faith. No people interested him more than the Anglo-Saxons of Britain. In AD 596, he sent 40 monks under the direction of Augustine on a mission for Britain. There Augustine obtained favour from Ethelbert, the king of Kent (south eastern England) and the missionaries were allowed to proceed to Canterbury, the king’s residence. It is said that by the end of the year 597, no fewer than 10,000 had been added to the Catholic Church by baptism. With Ethelbert’s baptism, Christianity in the Romish form became the established religion of his kingdom. Christianity was not new to the British Isles — there were famous monasteries in Ireland, Wales and Scotland — but there were several differences in the practice of the ancient Christianity of the island and what was brought by Augustine. When the British bishops refused to bow to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, bloodshed resulted (though not till after the death of Augustine, which occurred in AD 605), and Britain was brought under the domination of Rome for the next 1000 years.

The Romish system did not develop overnight; rather it was a slow and steady process of ever expanding power and influence. At the time of Gregory the First, the title “Pope” (from the Greek papa, signifying father) was not exclusively the title of the Roman Bishop. Indeed, Gregory argued against the notion of a Universal Priest — a Pope with exclusive authority — when John, the bishop of Constantinople, sought such a position. Gregory wrote to the Emperor Mauricius Augustus: “Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.” We do not find this appellation applied to the Bishop of Rome until Gregory VII in 1049. Though Gregory was rather pious in his denouncement of John, the motivation may well have been, as others have suggested, the preservation of his own power.

Gregory’s faith was mingled with superstition. He believed in the working of miracles by relics, and has the reputation for being the “discoverer” of the fires of purgatory. Of the later he distinctly says, “We must believe that for some slight transgressions there is a purgatorial fire before the day of judgment.” Scripture is plain:

“The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Under the patronage of Gregory, monasticism was greatly revived and widely extended. The worship of images, the idolatry of saints and martyrs, the merit of pilgrimages, were either taught or sanctioned by Gregory.

After the death of Theodosius in AD 395, the Roman Empire was partitioned permanently into the West and the East. The West survived until Romulus Augustulus was deposed by the barbarian Odoacer in AD 476. The Eastern Empire continued on until Constantinople, the capital of the East, was captured by Mahomet II in 1453. Though the empire in the west ceased to exist, the power of the Popes of Rome grew, holding sway over the barbarian kings. Though the barbarians were tainted with Arianism, the Franks, with the conversion of Clovis in AD 496, became the upholders of Orthodoxy.

The Conversion of the Franks—Clovis AD 481-511

The Franks were a people of Germany dwelling in the north of France. Clovis their king was a pagan, but his wife Clotilda embraced the Catholic faith. Not unlike Constantine, Clovis, finding himself in danger while in battle, called upon Clotilda’s God. After a decisive victory he submitted to baptism with three thousand of his warriors. Though Christianity seemed to have little practical influence, Clovis found that it furthered his political objectives. He went on to be the founder of the great French monarchy, and from his adherence to the Catholic faith and his alliance with the Roman pontiff, he was acknowledged as the only orthodox sovereign in the West. The other monarchs of the time were Arian.

The Establishment of Image-Worship

Leo III, emperor of the east, ascended the throne in the year 717. In about the year 726 he issued an edict against the superstitious use of images, though not demanding their destruction. It is generally felt that his motives were selfish. The first edict aroused the people, but the resulting insurrection was put down. A more stringent decree resulted, and the destruction of the images was ordered. When the orders arrived to enforce the decrees within the Italian dependencies of the empire, the people took up arms, rallying around pope Gregory II. Leo was portrayed as a fallen apostate. In a letter, the Pope states: “How deplorable is the change! How tremendous the scandal! You now accuse the Catholics of impiety and ignorance. To this ignorance we are compelled to adapt the grossness of our style and arguments: the first elements of holy letters are sufficient for your confusion; and, were you to enter a grammar school, and avow yourself the enemy of our worship, the simple and pious children would cast their tablets at your head.” In a condescending tone, and with lies and false arguments, he defended the position of the church and image worship.

Gregory II did not long survive. He was succeeded by a pope of the same mind, Gregory III. At a vast assembly, in the presence of the sacred relics of the Apostle Peter, a decree was framed and unanimously adopted and signed by all present, to the effect that “If any person should hereafter, in contempt of the ancient and faithful customs of all Christians, and of the apostolic church in particular, stand forth as a destroyer, defamer, or blasphemer of the sacred images of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, and of His mother, the immaculate ever-Virgin Mary, of the blessed apostles, and all other saints, he be excluded from the body and blood of the Lord, and from the communion of the universal church.” Both pope Gregory III and the emperor Leo III died in 741. The former was succeeded by pope Zachary, the latter by his son Constantine V.

Constantine V was unrelenting in his persecution of image worshippers. He is blamed for great cruelty towards the monks. He was succeeded in 775 by Leo IV, a man of feeble constitution, both of mind and body. On the death of the feeble Leo in 780, Irene his wife seized the government in the name of her son, Constantine VI, ruling as co-regent. Irene, by the opportunities of death or removal, judiciously filled the episcopal seats with men of her own choosing. In 787, decrees were issued for a council to be held at Nice, a city distinguished by the first council held there. In just 18 days, the decision was made. A canon was issued in favour of image worship, while the iconoclasts — those against image worship — were counted as heretics. The images were to be treated as “holy memorials, worshipped, kissed, only without that peculiar adoration which is reserved for the Invisible, Incomprehensible, God.” The destroyers of images were to be excommunicated.

In 797, the ambitious Irene commanded that her son be rendered incapable of governing, and so according to her command, Constantine VI was stabbed in the eyes. Blinded, Constantine lived the remainder of his long life in obscurity. Irene reigned on until 802.

Pepin, the son of Charles Martel — the hero of the Franks for his victory over the Saracens (Muslim invaders) — was born in 714. Pepin and his older brother Carloman were taught by the monks of St. Denis. When their father died in 741, the two brothers began to reign jointly in the capacity of Mayor of the Palace of the whole Frankish kingdom. Through the efforts of Carloman and St. Boniface — the tireless English monk and vassal of Rome — the Frankish church was brought under the power of Rome. When Carloman joined a monastery in 747, the way was left open for Pepin to seize power from the weak King Childeric, a descendent from Clovis and the last of the Merovingian kings. First dispatching Boniface to Rome, Pepin then sent a letter to Pope Zachary asking whether “the divine law did not permit a valiant and warlike people to dethrone an imbecile and indolent monarch” in favour of one that already rendered the most important service of the state. The pope, already privy to the details of the case, answered favorably, “He who lawfully possesses the royal power may also lawfully assume the royal title.” In this manner the champion of Rome became king, and the popes usurped the authority to dismiss and appoint rulers. From this time forth, Rome insisted that the French kings held their crown only by the authority of the pope.

It wasn’t long till the popes had a use for Pepin. In 754, Pope Stephen II, threatened by the king of the Lombards, called upon Pepin to come to his aid. The response was quick and led by Pepin himself. Victory was achieved, and Pepin transferred the sovereignty over the provinces in question to the bishop of Rome.

When the Lombards again encompassed Rome, Pope Stephen again appealed to Pepin. In his first letter he reminded King Pepin that he hazarded eternal condemnation if he did not complete the donation which he had vowed to St. Peter. A second letter followed. But the Franks still did not come to the rescue. Finally, the Pope addressed a letter to Pepin, as if from St. Peter himself! “I, Peter the apostle, protest, admonish, and conjure you, the most Christian kings, Pepin, Charles and Carloman, with all the hierarchy, bishops, abbots, priests and all monks; all judges, dukes, counts, and the whole people of the Franks. The mother of God likewise adjures you, and admonishes and commands you, she as well as the thrones and dominions and all the host of heaven, to save the beloved city of Rome from the detested Lombards. If ye hearken, I, Peter the apostle, promise you my protection in this life and in the next, will prepare for you the most glorious mansions in heaven, and will bestow on you the everlasting joys of paradise. Make common cause with my people of Rome, and I will grant whatever ye may pray for. I conjure you not to yield up this city to be lacerated and tormented by the Lombards, lest your own souls be lacerated and tormented in hell with the devil and his pestilential angels. Of all nations under heaven the Franks are highest in the esteem of St. Peter; to me you owe all your victories. Obey, and obey speedily; and, by my suffrage, our Lord Jesus Christ will give you in this life length of days, security, victory; in the life to come, will multiply His blessings upon you, among His saints and angels.” Eternal life was said to be dependent on obedience to the pope.

It was after the Nicene synod, and under the reign of Irene, that the popes consummated the separation of Rome and Italy from the Byzantine empire by transferring the western empire to Pepin’s son, Charlemagne. The battles of the Iconoclasts had generated various grievances between the west and east. By choosing Charlemagne over the Eastern Emperor, the Roman church would acquire a zealous advocate, the church would be united under a supreme head, and the conquerors of the West would receive their crown from the successors of St. Peter.

Pope Adrian soon had need for Charlemagne. Under his command in 775 the kingdom of the Lombards finally fell, and Charlemagne presented to the successors of St. Peter, by an absolute and perpetual grant, the kingdom of Lombardy. Though Charlemagne held the royal title, the popes were now sovereign pontiffs and the Lords of the city and territories of Rome. Not satisfied with the estates and tithes, Rome aspired for more. It falsely claimed that the emperor Constantine I had given the church of Rome supreme power over all the region of the West, and that it was Charlemagne’s duty to restore those lands which had been robbed from the church. By this forgery, the church also supported for her claim that the eastern emperors had usurped their authority over the west.

On Christmas day in 800, pope Leo III blessed Charlemagne, and proclaiming him emperor and Augustus. Through numerous campaigns (more than 50), Charlemagne’s kingdom was considerably enlarged — ostensibly in the name of Christianity. Indeed it was either death or baptism. Charlemagne’s conquest completely changed the face of Europe. Throughout the conquered land, the palaces of the bishops and abbots arose, and a feudal hierarchy was established. Charlemagne laid the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire, which was ultimately established in 962 with the coronation of the German King Otto I by pope John XII (though that term was not used till after Otto).

“I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil” (Romans 16:19). The dark systems of men would be of little interest to us if it were not for that which followed, the glorious light of the reformation.

Gregory VII

Gregory I had declared some five centuries earliers, “Whosoever calls himself ... universal priest ... proudly puts himself above all others.” When Gregory VII became pope in 1074, he proudly took that position when he dictated: “It is laid down that the Roman pontiff is universal bishop, that his name is the only one of the kind in the world. To him alone it belongs to depose or to reconcile without the concurrence of a Synod. He alone is entitled to frame new laws for the church—to divide, unite, or translate bishoprics. He alone may use the ensigns of empire; all princes are bound to kiss his feet; he has the right to depose emperors, and to absolve subjects from their allegiance. He holds in his hands the supreme mediation in questions of war and peace, and he only may adjudge contested successions to kingdoms—that all kingdoms were held as fiefs under St. Peter. With his leave inferiors may accuse their superiors. No council may be styled general without his command. The Roman church has never erred, and, as scripture testifies, never will err. The pope is above all judgment, and by the merits of St. Peter is undoubtedly rendered holy. The church was not to be the handmaid of princes but their mistress; if she had received from God power to bind and to loose in heaven, much more must she have a like power over earthly things.” 7

Universal Church

The Church, the body of Christ, is composed of all true believers. Although the word “catholic” means universal, the Church of Rome has never been universal, neither during the Middle Ages nor at any time since. Rome makes much of the unity of the Church. Though there may be little in the way of outward unity in Christendom as a whole (and surely that should be a cause of great sorrow to us and an acknowledging of our complete failure), yet we are not told to keep the unity of the body. The body is one, it is His body, and outward unity cannot be kept by edict and sword. Christ is the true vine; there are no true branches outside of Him, and no false branches with Him: “I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:5-6). Christ alone is the Head of the church and the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls (1 Peter 2:25). There is no other, in all things He must have the preeminence.

“And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence” (Colossians 1:18).

Infallibility

Gregory I and Gregory VII plainly contradicted each other, demonstrating that the popes are not infallible, contrary to the false claim of Gregory VII. Though there is authority in the assembly, it is not infallible. Authority and infallibility are never to be confused. The church does not have power to bind in heaven. The binding by the assembly is on this earth only: “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). By claiming infallibility and the authority to frame laws, the church supplants the Word of God and takes the place of guide. Scripture does indeed say: “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). But the church is not the truth. The assembly is to uphold the truth, to be the candlestick; but it is not the truth.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

“Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68).

The Scriptures (in contrast to the church) contain all things necessary to salvation.

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

The Scriptures are not open to private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) — but it is the Holy Spirit that is to guide us and not the church: “Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, [that] shall He speak: and He will show you things to come” (John 16:13).

Mass

The Mass is far removed from the simple remembrance that the Lord requests, “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24). Instead, the remembrance of our Lord has been made a propitiatory sacrifice. It is held that the bread and wine, by the words of consecration uttered by the priest, become the actual body and blood of Christ — that His whole body is contained in the sacrament. Was not Christ’s one sacrifice sufficient and complete to address once and for all the question of sin?

“But this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12).

“For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:14,18).

Nothing could be plainer; nothing could be simpler. There can be no more offering for sin.

John 6:53, which is offered in support of this doctrine of transubstantiation, does not describe the remembrance: “Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye have no life in yourselves.” Instead, this verse speaks of appropriating for ourselves the death of Christ.

The wafer that is now considered the body of Christ is thus worshipped and adored. Great confusion is caused if it is lost after consecration. The wine is withheld from the people, and is only drunk by the priest. It is to be noted that this doctrine of transubstantiation was not an official part of the church dogma until 1215.

Purgatory

Purgatory is, to the Roman Catholic, a place were souls are cleansed by a temporary punishment. If a man dies, then he must suffer for those transgressions for which he has not paid sufficient penance. This is plainly contrary to Scripture. Saying that we must undergo suffering to atone for sin does not acknowledge the efficacy of the work of the cross.

“The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Further, Roman Catholics believe that the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the mass (for which money must be paid), will reduce the time of those in purgatory. Though men may offer arguments, offering various scriptures in support of their imaginations, such a doctrine that touches on the work of our Saviour must be utterly false. Under these false doctrines man is never free from sin; he is either brought under bondage, or else he feels free to do as he pleases.

“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. ... [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 7:24-25, 8:1).

Confession

Probably no doctrine brings the individual under the power of the priest more than auricular confession. No act or wicked thought is to be kept from the priest. The priest has power to absolve a person of sin and to assign penance, or he may choose to withhold absolution if he so desires. Such is the power that the priest has over the individual — from the weakest to the mightiest. The scriptures appealed to are: “Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16). “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). The first verse refers to the mutual confession of faults on the part of Christians; the second to assembly discipline. Neither verse speaks of confessing sin to an intermediary between man and God. The Roman church did not always recognize confession to a priest; some of the so-called church fathers wrote against it. The Bible teaches us to whom we should confess our sins:

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8-9).

Dealing with such matters is very defiling. When the assembly must act in cases of discipline (for example 1 Corinthians 5), the matter must be dealt with carefully and with the exercise of due discretion (Galatians 4:1).

Mary, Saints and Mediators

The worship of Mary springs from the same false reasoning as confession. Mary, as the mother of Jesus, is supposed to have a peculiar influence over her son, and as such, we should approach Mary, rather than her austere Son, as an intercessor. The desire of the enemy is that we might believe that God is against us, that he withholds His love from us. This has been the lie of Satan from the beginning: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5). What a contrast to scripture:

“The Son of God, who has loved me and given Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

As for a mediator, the Word of God is clear:

“For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

If we sin, our advocate with the Father is Jesus Christ the righteous, not Mary and not a saint.

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).

Extreme Unction

The extreme unction is one of the so-called sacraments (of which the Roman Church counts seven — baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, ordination, and matrimony). It is administered when there is little expectation of recovery to health; the word ‘extreme’ is attached because it is the last sacrament to be administered before death. The individual is anointed with sacred oil, prayers are recited, and the subject is pronounced to be in a fit state to pass with safety into eternal happiness. While this appears to circumvent the necessity for purgatory, it doesn’t appear to cause any contradiction in the minds of the Roman Catholic theologian. The Mass is a sacrifice, but apparently not sufficient; the extreme unction is claimed to wipe away the remains of sin, but is in fact deficient as the soul must still pass through purgatory. The following scripture is appealed to, among others, in support of the extreme unction:

“And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed [them]” (Mark 6:13).

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5:15).

Clearly, these verses speak of one being raised up, not that he might die! If we own our faults and pray for one another, God’s government is avoided and we are healed.

Indulgences

It was the general practice of the Church of Rome to impose penance on offenders. When these were carried out they were call satisfactions. When the penance was shortened or remitted entirely because of good works, perhaps a donation of money, this was called an indulgence. An indulgence was like a fine, something that doesn’t seem, at least humanly speaking, so unreasonable — though entirely without place in scripture. An indulgence was not restitution; it was something paid either literally or in deed to the church. Indulgences were often granted to one that responded to a call to battle (for example, the Crusades). Who would not come, thinking that their sins would be remitted and that they would be guaranteed a place in heaven? Ultimately the notion that indulgences could be bought and sold came about. The merits of the saints that had gone before represented a treasury of merit to which the pope possessed the keys. Those merits could be purchased by the sale of indulgences. That anyone could purchase eternal forgiveness is plainly unscriptural. Many were deceived thereby, and to this day, both in and out of that vast system, men view alms giving as a means of obtaining favor with God. When Leo X needed money to complete St. Peter’s Basilica, it was through the sales of indulgences that he planned to raise it. As we shall see, it was this preaching that prompted Luther to make his grand appeal to common sense and the conscience of the German people when he nailed his theses to the church door at Wittenberg.

The history of the Waldenses (Vaudois in French — men of the valleys) and the Albigenses is a most interesting one. They were peoples of the Languedoc and Piedmont regions of southeastern France and northwestern Italy. Protected by the valleys of the Alps, they remained true to the Christianity first preached in those regions. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a clear picture of them. On the one hand their enemies vilified them as heretics, while on the other, they are claimed as the predecessors of those seeking to establish themselves as the pure branch of Christianity. It has been suggested that Peter Waldo, the reformer of Lyons, was the founder of the Waldenses, but those that have considered the matter have refuted this. The primitive exercise of Christianity by the Waldenses predated Peter Waldo. Others have associated these peoples with the eastern Paulicians, a sect charged with Manicheism (a doctrine derived from that of the Gnostics of Apostolic days). Since they rejected transubstantiation, it was no doubt convenient to also accuse them of rejecting the reality of Christ’s bodily sufferings. While these charges were useful to their enemies, it is inconsistent with their manner of life and their testimony. They did reject the system of traditions maintained by the church of Rome. They also held to only two sacraments — baptism and the Lord’s supper. They appealed to scripture and scripture alone in matters of faith and worship. For this they were condemned as heretics.

In 1160, Peter Waldo left his usual trade and devoted his service to the Lord. Employing two ecclesiastics, he had the Gospels and some other books of scripture, along with various passages from the church fathers, translated into his native tongue. The scriptures at that time, as they had been for centuries, were kept from the laity. Further, even if they were available, the use of Latin prevented them from being understood. Following the example found in the Gospels, he sent out disciples two by two into the villages to preach. By 1172 this had incurred the wrath of the church hierarchy, and he received his first condemnation. The year of his death is estimated to be 1179. By 1200 the opinions of the Waldenses were widely spread. It is said that in the southeast of France they had more schools than the Catholics. Further, they enjoyed the protection of various wealthy cities of Languedoc. Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, though a Roman Catholic, favored those of the Waldensian creed as his best subjects.

In 1207, Pope Innocent II demanded that Raymond should exterminate his heretical subjects with fire and sword. Twice he refused, and twice he was excommunicated and his dominions placed under a solemn interdict. Ultimately Raymond agreed and a treaty was signed. However, Raymond was slow to carry out his obligations. He is said to have remarked that he would make Castelnau, the apostolic legate of the Pope, answer with his life. This was sufficient pretext for the Pope to offer the fiefs of Toulouse to any who would take them. In response to his call in the year 1209, some three hundred thousand soldiers gathered around the provinces, all wearing the symbol of the cross, the mark of the crusade. Unprepared for such an assault, Raymond submitted to the demands of the pope. He was granted absolution under certain conditions. 1. He must clear himself of the murder of Castelnau. 2. As a proof of his sincerity he must surrender seven of his best castles. 3. He should do public penance for his past offences. 4. He should in his own person become a crusader against his own subjects. Receiving absolution, he was publicly scourged and then had to accompany the crusaders against his own people.

The nephew of Raymond, Raymond-Roger, a young man of 24, resolved to defend his people against the crusaders. Beziers fell first, where both Catholic and heretic were slain together — the abbot declared “the Lord knoweth them that are His.” Some 20,000, perhaps many more, were slain. Carcassonne, under the direct command of Roger, held out for forty days. A great mass of the troops returned home after serving their 40 days, all that was required to gain the privilege of a crusader; and were it not for the treachery of the abbot, the city might have survived. Instead, about 400 citizens were hanged and burned for heresy. In 1210, with a renewed call for soldiers, the war recommenced with fresh fury. Though Raymond had been absolved, the See of Rome wanted the well-favored lands of southern France. The whole land was ravaged, and villages massacred. At Lavaur 400 were burned in one great pile. Even with the death of Pope Innocent and Simon de Montfort (chief amongst those vying for the fiefs of Raymond), the crusades continued. It was not until the treaty of Paris in 1229 that the war was terminated for a time. Under the terms of the treaty, Raymond VII abdicated all his feudal sovereignty to the king of France, and submitted to the penance of the church. And for what did so many die? “They denied the utility of infant baptism; that the bread and wine became the body and blood of the Lord by the consecration of a priest; that unfaithful ministers had any right to the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or to tithes or firstfruits; that auricular confession was necessary. All these things the wretched men asserted that they learned from the Gospels and Epistles, and that they would receive nothing, except what they found expressly contained therein; thus rejecting the interpretation of the doctors, they themselves were perfectly illiterate.”8

The Inquisition

Beginning with Constantine, heretics that presumed to dispute his opinions or oppose his commands were accused of being guilty of criminal obstinacy. An application of moderate punishment might save those unhappy men from the danger of an everlasting condemnation. Theodosius is generally considered to be the first of the Roman Emperors to pronounce heresy a capital crime, and it was he that established the Office of the Inquisitor.

In 1210, during the crusades against the Albigenses, a tribunal was first opened in a castle near Narbonne to denounce heretics so as to ensure their apprehension. In 1229, at a council held in Toulouse, a permanent Inquisition was established. Since a heretic could only be judged by a bishop or an ecclesiastic, and with the large number of apprehensions, the work was committed into the hands of the Dominicans, and the Inquisition became a distinct institution. The inquisition found its way into much of western Europe, but it gained the greatest footing in Spain. The Inquisition was not dissolved in Spain until 1808. As late as 1820, when the Inquisition was decreed abolished, prisoners were still being confined by it.

Suspected heretics were spied upon by Familiars of the Inquisition. With the smallest excuse for apprehending the individual, they were turned over to the tribunal of the Holy Office. The individual may be a Jew or Islamic, or he might be a Catholic. It has been said that nine out of ten were Catholics. Any thing spoken or written against the creed or traditions of the Catholic Church was heresy. Any one speaking against the inquisition was also brought into severe punishment. One of the canons issued by the council of Toulouse concerned the Bible, apparently considered to be the principle source of the opinions of the so-called heretics. “We prohibit the books of the Old and New Testament to the laity; unless, perhaps, they may desire to have the Psalter, or Breviary, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary; but we expressly forbid their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue.”

The tribunal was conducted in complete secrecy, with no advocate for the individual, and no witnesses appearing publicly. Food and sleep deprivation and other forms of punishment were inflicted on the individual, with the goal of producing a confession. The accused could spend months in confinement, never knowing the accusation against him. Ultimately torture was used, a tool sanctioned by the Catholic Church. When the accused was convicted, either by witnesses or his own forced confession, he was sentenced, either to perpetual imprisonment, other punishments, or death. Those sentenced to death by fire were accumulated to make the effect more pronounced. The final sentence was carried out as a religious ceremony. This service, titled the Auto de Fe, or “Act of Faith,” was held on the Lord’s Day. In great solemnity the victims were led forth in procession to the place of execution. A mass was held and the victims’ sentences pronounced. Those wishing to die a Catholic were strangled, the others were burned alive. In Spain for some 400 years it was a national holiday.

“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration” (Revelation 17:6).

The Inquisition is defended by the Roman Church as being consistent with the modes and means of punishment of that day. While this excuse continues to be employed to justify all types of behaviors, the church clearly was not to call fire down on the heads of those that rejected her (Luke 9:54-56). Also, the church insists that she did not burn heretics, but rather that the civil law of the day demanded such treatment for heretics. The notion that heretics were criminals was something that did not begin with Catholics, nor did it end immediately with the coming of the Reformation. Nevertheless, we see clearly the spirit of Jezebel in the dealings of the Church of Rome.

“And she [Jezebel] wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people: ... They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, [even] against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died” (1 Kings 21:9, 12-13).

The original language of the Old Testament is Hebrew, whereas the New Testament was written in Greek. Early translations of the scriptures from the Greek into other languages are called Versions. Portions in Syriac have survived from the second century until this day. In AD 384 Jerome revised the Latin New Testament. From 387-405 he translated the Old Testament into Latin. The resulting translation of both the Old and New Testaments form The Latin Vulgate (vulgate meaning “the common tongue”). While Latin may have been the common tongue in Jerome’s day, it certainly was not 1000 years later.

By the Middle Ages, the scriptures were kept from the laity. When Constantine Copronymus, a reformer of the sect known as the Paulicians, received a copy of the New Testament around AD 850, it was received as a gift of inestimable value.

John Wycliffe

Portions of the scriptures were translated into the so-called vulgar tongues, as early as the seventh century. King Alfred had the four Gospels translated in the latter part of the ninth century. Peter Waldo had the Gospels translated along with some other books of the Bible around 1160. However, it was not until John Wycliffe in 1382, that an entire translation was completed from the Latin Vulgate, and that, into English. Wycliffe apparently undertook the New Testament, while his friend Nicholas Hereford translated the Old. His faithful curate, John Purvey, revised the whole four years after Wycliffe’s death.

For the first time the scriptures were accessible to the laity in their own tongue, though in a limited way. The results were remarkable. In the words of Dr. Lingard, the Roman Catholic historian: “He made a new translation, multiplied copies with the aid of transcribers, and by his poor priests recommended it to the perusal of his hearers. In their hands it became an engine of wonderful power. Men were flattered with the appeal to their private judgment; the new doctrines insensibly acquired partizans and protectors in the higher classes, who alone were acquainted with the use of letters; a spirit of inquiry was generated; and the seeds were sown of that religious revolution, which, in little more than a century, astonished and convulsed the nations of Europe.”

Wycliffe organized no sect, but the power of his teaching is seen in the labours of his disciples. Called Lollards, they were to be found everywhere. Denying the authority of Rome, and maintaining the supremacy of the Word of God, the so-called poor preachers maintained a simple and spiritual life, taking the gospel to the people in the streets.

“In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).

“For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

The Burning of Heretics in England

Up until the beginning of the fifteenth century there had been no statute law in England that permitted burning of heretics. This ended with the ascension of the first of the Lancastrians to the throne, Henry IV. Bowing to the will of Archbishop Arundel, Henry issued a royal edict ordering that: “On a high place in public, before the face of the people, the incorrigible heretic is to be burnt alive.” Alarmed by the supposed revolutionary aims of the Lollards, Parliament sanctioned the King’s decree. In the year 1400, the burning of heretics became a statute law in England. In 1408 a council in Oxford forbade English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of such translations had to be approved by diocesan authorities.

The Effects in Bohemia

The union of Anne of Bohemia and Richard II of England in 1382 brought the two countries into close connection. Students from Prague studied at Oxford, a haven for the teachings of Wycliffe, and students from Oxford studied in Prague. As a result, the writings of Wycliffe spread to Europe, and in particular to Bohemia. At the council of Constance in 1416, 32 years after the death of Wycliffe, the Bishop of Lodi declared that the heresies of Wycliffe and Huss were spread over England, France, Italy, Hungary, Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, and through all Bohemia. At that same council, Wycliffe’s bones were ordered disinterred. This did not occur until 1420, at which time his bones were dug up, burnt, and the ashes thrown into the river Swift.

John Huss

John Huss was a scholar of the university of Prague, greatly distinguished by his attainments. Huss was a true Christian and a zealous preacher, holding the truth of salvation by grace without works of law. However, as was common amongst the reformers, the abuses of the church were often the subject of his teaching, and this brought him into notice with the church authorities.

With a safe passage assured by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, Huss made his way to Constance to appear before the council. Despite the promise of a safe passage, he was condemned for heresy and thrown into prison with the decree passed that no faith ought to be kept with a heretic. On the morning of July 6th, 1415, Huss was condemned and sentence was passed: “That for several years John Huss has seduced and scandalized the people by the dissemination of many doctrines manifestly heretical, and condemned by the church, especially those of John Wycliffe.” John Huss was, with great ceremony, cut off from the ecclesiastical body, and then turned over to the civil authorities to be burnt at the stake. On the 30th of May, 1416, Huss’ friend and fellow laborer, Jerome of Prague, was delivered to the civil authorities for a like condemnation. It is recorded that Jerome went joyfully to the stake, singing and praying until his last breath.

The Printing Press

John Gutenberg, substituting movable metal type for wooden letters, discovered the art of printing in the year 1436. The first complete book to be printed was a Latin Vulgate Bible of 641 leaves. It appears that the printers were motivated by money, and the first edition was sold for the high price demanded for manuscripts. It was not until the second printing in 1462, that the deceit was discovered and the process was revealed. Latin Bibles were the favorite book of the printer. Translations rapidly appeared thereafter: an Italian version in 1474, Bohemian in 1475, Dutch in 1477, French in 1477, and Spanish in 1478.

What the Early Reformers Held

The reformers, Wycliffe and Huss, along with others of the period, were harbingers of the reformation. The movement resulting from Wycliffe’s work was largely driven underground after his death. However, his teaching affected many — Huss in particular, and through Huss, Luther. Wycliffe preached against the papal system, “The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only source of true religion. The pope is Antichrist, the proud worldly priest of Rome, and the most cursed of clippers and purse-carvers.” In 1381 Wycliffe published 12 statements on the Lord’s supper. In these he denied the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation as unscriptural. Huss denounced the doctrine of salvation by works, and he spoke out against the false ecclesiastical system of popery. Meanwhile, the Church of Rome made every effort to keep the scriptures from the people. They decreed that the clergy must interpret the Bible, “it is a book full of brambles, with vipers in them.” Printers who were convicted of having printed Bibles were burnt. In the year 1534 about twenty men and one woman were burnt alive in Paris. However, other brave printers kept God’s Word available.

On November 10th, 1483, a baby boy was born to a poor but hard working couple of Eisleben, Saxony (in Germany). On the day following, being St. Martin’s eve, he received the name Martin. Martin Luther’s early life was hard, though he received a sound religious education, albeit reinforced by countless floggings. At the age of fourteen he attended the Franciscan school at Magdeburg. Due to the difficulty of finding food, he left Magdeburg and went on to Eisenach. Things were not much better at Eisenach. Forced to go from door to door, singing in an effort to gain a little food, he attracted the attention of one Ursula Cotta, the wife of Conrad Cotta. There, in happier environs, Luther excelled in his schooling. In the year 1501, Luther entered the University of Erfurt. At the age of 22 he became an Augustinian monk, and at 24 a priest of the church. It was not until Martin was at the University of Erfurt, the most distinguished in Germany at that time, that he, for the first time in his life, beheld a copy of the Holy Bible — a copy in the library! Though raised in a “Christian” home, and receiving a religious education, he had never seen a copy of the Holy Bible! What a treasure we hold in our hands!

Justification by Faith

Fearing the consequences of dying in his sins, Luther entered the Augustinian Convent at Erfurt. He explained later that he was never in heart a monk, nor did he enter the convent to mortify the lust of the flesh, but because of his horror and fear of death. There was in the monastery a Bible, chained to a spot, to which Martin often resorted. And there too, in the seclusion of his cell, with the help of one John Lange, Luther undertook the study of Greek and Hebrew. However, Luther’s studies only served to torment him further. At that time, John Staupitz was the vicar-general of the Augustines for all Germany, and he came to Erfurt to inspect the monastery; there he noticed Luther and his dejection. Remarkably, that great churchman pointed Luther in the right direction. He explained it was not possible for man to stand before God on the ground of his works or his vows. He could only be saved by the mercy of God and that mercy must flow to him through faith in the blood of Christ. With the exhortation, “Let your principal occupation be the study of the scriptures,” he presented Luther with a copy of the Bible. But it was not till he was near death with a sickness brought on by his exertions that Luther finally received deliverance through the words of an old monk, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins.” It is a remarkable fact that the German Reformation hinged entirely on this question, “How can a man be just in the sight of God?” (Job 9:2). Can man be saved by works?

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

“But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4-7).

Luther’s Theses Nailed to the Church Door at Wittenberg

We must skip much of Luther’s early life and move on to John Tetzel, the pope’s agent for the sale of indulgences. In need of money, Pope Leo X had issued indulgences to be sold throughout Germany. John Tetzel, a Dominican monk and the pope’s agent, went about preaching and selling these worthless documents. “Indulgences are the most precious and the most noble of God’s gifts. Come, and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins that you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven, for I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his sermons. There is no sin so great than an indulgence cannot remit.” Calling them fraud, Luther as a priest refused to accept the indulgences. He went a step further, appealing to the common sense and the conscience of the German people on October 31st, 1517, he nailed his theses to the church door at Wittenberg — ninety five propositions challenging the whole Catholic church to defend Tetzel and the sale of indulgences. God alone could remit sins, Luther declared.

Luther Excommunicated

In August of 1518, Luther was ordered to appear in Rome. Fearing that his end would be the same as that of Huss, Elector Frederick of Saxony demanded that the trial should be held within his own territory. This was only the beginning of the battle. On June 15th, 1520, Pope Leo issued a “bull,” denouncing Luther’s teaching and again ordering him to appear in Rome. Undeterred, Luther burnt the Pope’s bull before a large crowd of spectators. The Pope responded with excommunication.

Luther at Worms

On January 6th, 1521, Charles V, Emperor of Germany, assembled his first Imperial Diet — a convention of the Germanic states — at Worms. One of the principle questions concerned ecclesiastical reform. Again the good Elector Frederick of Saxony came to the defense of his friend and demanded that Luther should not be condemned without a hearing. On April 16th, much against the advice of well-meaning friends, Luther appeared in Worms in answer to the summons. During the final leg of his journey, a great crowd of supporters accompanied him. On the afternoon of the 17th he appeared before the Imperial Diet, where two questions were put before him: “Martin Luther, you are called upon by his imperial Majesty to answer two questions: first, Do you admit that these books, were written by you? Secondly, Are you prepared to retract these books, and their contents, or do you persist in the opinions you have advanced there?” To the first he acknowledged in the affirmative. To the second he asked for a space that he might answer so as to neither offend the Word of God nor endanger his own soul. A day was granted to him, a day in which he spent in prayer. On the next day, appearing again before the Emperor, he began first with an explanation but was cut short and a clear answer was demanded of him. He replied thus: “Since your most serene Majesty and the princes require from me a clear, simple, and precise answer, I will give it thus: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is as clear as day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I take my stand; I cannot do otherwise: may God be my help! Amen.” After consideration, the council decided to dismiss Luther, forbidding him to cause the least disorder, and that he and his heretical followers were to be excommunicated. Such a decision fell far short of the desires of the papal party and an assassination attempt was planned. However, friends of Luther abducted him, spiriting him away to the Castle of Wartburg, where he was kept out of harms way. Though chafed by the confinement, Luther completed a translation of the New Testament into German, and improved his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew with the goal of producing an entire translation of the scriptures into German. After revision by Luther’s friend and scholar, Philip Melancthon, the New Testament was published in 1522, and the Old Testament in 1530.

The First Diet of Spires

In June of 1526 a diet was convened at Spires. The emperor demanded that all contentions respecting religious subjects should cease; that the church customs should be maintained entire; that the edict of Worms should be speedily executed, and that the Lutherans should be forcibly destroyed. At this juncture, we find the Reformation in Germany taken up by the German princes, a move, that while initially pure, ultimately lead to the politicizing of the reformation. The evangelical princes resisted the edict of the Emperor, astonishing the papists. When word came of the advance of the Turks towards Vienna, the diet speedily terminated with the edict that a free council should be called without delay; and that in the meantime every one should be at liberty to manage the religious concerns of his own territory, in the manner he saw fit, yet under a due sense of his accountability to God and to the Emperor.

The Protest

A second diet was held in 1529, at which the Emperor took a strong stand, negating the edict of 1526. This proved offensive to the princes, striking as it did at the very root of their privileges and independence. After long and furious discussions, the Emperor demanded the unconditional submission, to which the evangelical princes protested — this was on the 19th of April, 1529. On the next day, a written protest was presented. On that account they received the name of Protestants. The evangelical princes, along with the deputies of fourteen imperial cities, signed the written declaration. All signers were civil authorities; not one ecclesiastic signed the document.

It is a remarkable fact that the reformation in Germany hinged more or less entirely upon the single question: “How can a man be just in the sight of God?” Justification by faith alone without the deeds of the law became the watchword of the reformers.

Job

In the eighth chapter of Job, Bildad the Shuhite presents his arguments to Job. If Job were pure and upright, surely God would make his habitation prosperous (Job 8:6). “Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man, neither will He help the evil doers” (Job 8:20). Bildad’s message is not very comforting. Man receives strictly what he deserves. Job ponders this. If it were so, what hope is there for man, for how can a man be just with God? (Job 9:2).

Can we persuade God with words? (Job 9:3). God is mighty; He moves mountains, He commands the sun, He does great things past finding out, and wonders without number (Job 9:10).

“How much less shall I answer Him, and choose out my words to reason with Him? If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse” (Job 9:14, 20).

“This is one thing, therefore I said it, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked” (Job 9:22). If the upright and the openly wicked suffer under the righteous government of God, then why did Job labor in vain? (Job 9:29). Job knows of the government of God. He says of Bildad’s argument, “I know it is so of a truth” (Job 9:2), yet Job also knows better things of God. Bildad never contemplated the grace of God. If God removed the rod, Job would not fear to talk with Him (or so he thought), but he was in the midst of great trial. He did not know why and he did not know what to do. Job wished for a daysman, an umpire, between himself and God (Job 9:33). Job could wash himself with snow water and make his hands clean (Job 9:30), “yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me” (Job 9:31). He knew that men went to great lengths to make their hands clean only to have their clothes condemn them. Job had a fear of God and he sought to walk uprightly, yet he did not have an assurance of righteousness. Job was going to great lengths to establish it, to prove it to himself and before men — Job’s integrity was apparent to all (ch. 29). Although Job knew that he wasn’t perfect (Job 7:20), he didn’t know his true nature, and, not knowing anything better, he was going about establishing his own righteousness hoping that God would accept it — “I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment [was] as a robe and a diadem” (Job 29:14). However, this provided little comfort in his trial. Ultimately Job justified himself at the expense of God, but God had a purpose in it all; God is not capricious.

Propitiation

God called to Adam in the Garden and said, Where art thou? (Genesis 3:9). We must each understand where we are before God. Note, it was God that called, not Adam. We are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), “having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12).

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

A man may dress himself up, but it does not change the man. He is still dead. A dead man cannot help himself by doing!

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6).

In answer to Job’s question, “it is God that justifieth” (Romans 8:33). Job asks: “And why dost Thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity?” (Job 7:21), yet God cannot simply pass over man’s sin; He would not be righteous in so doing. So how is God righteous in justifying the ungodly?

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Romans 3:24-26).

God in forbearance could pass over the sins of past believers (of sins that are past) because of the future shed blood of Christ, through which He is now also the Justifier of all that believe in Jesus. He is righteous in so doing, not because of any thing in us, but because of the blood of Christ Jesus. The blood sprinkled on the mercy seat in the tabernacle is a picture to us of propitiation (Leviticus 16:15). That blood permitted God (who saw in it the blood of Christ) to look down in favor upon Israel. The shed blood of Christ now permits God to extend mercy to man; it is unto all.

Since our righteousness is wholly of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, we have nothing to boast in. Justification cannot be on the principle of works; it is on the principle of faith — resting on the work that has been done for us. If one seeks to be justified by first being ‘godly,’ there will be great disappointment and much discouragement. Martin Luther sought in vain for God’s acceptance. It was not until he accepted the old monk’s statement, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins,” that he found peace. It is only through the shed blood of Christ that God can forgive sins. We come as we are, for it is:

“To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for [as] righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Substitution

We come now to a second aspect of that work on Calvary. The blood sprinkled on the mercy seat was from the goat of the sin offering, but there was a second goat (Leviticus 16:20-22). Upon that goat, by the laying on of both of Aaron’s hands, the sins of Israel were to be confessed; it was then sent away by a fit man into an uninhabited land, bearing their iniquities. This is a picture to us of Christ as our substitute. The laying on of the hands is a picture of personal identification with the work of Christ.

“But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed [reckoned], if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:24-25).

Deliverance

The only thing that cleanses us from an evil nature is death. We can do nothing to improve the old nature. No amount of self-mortification will ever obtain for us that which has been accomplished through the work of the cross.

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20)

Deliverance from sin is not achieved through rituals, cleansing, or any effort on our part, but through death. Baptism does not cleanse us, nor does it save us, but it does set us in a new place, disassociating us from a guilty and condemned world. Baptism is burial; nothing more completely separates man from this scene than burial!

“Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Romans 6:4, 6).

And what of righteousness before men? Job had much to say as to his righteousness before men and much that he could glory in. Abraham likewise had much whereof to glory; “but not before God” (Romans 4:2).

Faith Works

On the other hand, men cannot see faith except by works: “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18). Notice, it is “I will show thee my faith” by my works. Works must of a necessity be a product of faith, and works acceptable to God cannot issue from any other source.

“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Galatians 5:22-24). The law of liberty (James 1:25) now applies — against which there is no law. The old nature cannot yield fruits for God, but rather, it is condemned by a law that says “thou shalt not.” Contrariwise, the new nature cannot be restrained in bearing fruits. “Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God” (Philippians 1:11).

While Luther was laboring in Germany, there was also a work going on in other parts of Europe, in particular Switzerland. Principal among the reformers in Switzerland was Ulric Zwingle. Zwingle was born of a well-established family in little town of Wildhaus on the lake of Zurich. Being a gifted student, he studied at Basle, Berne, Vienna, and then again at Basle. While at Berne he was taken in by the Dominicans but was quickly commanded to leave by his father and was sent on to Vienna. At Basle he studied under Thomas Wittenbach, from whom he appears to have learned the great truth of justification by faith. In 1506, having completed his course in theology and having obtained a Master of Arts, he became the pastor of Glaris. There he remained for 10 years. During this time of service he continued his studies, in particular of the Greek scriptures and the early church fathers. Zwingle did not fail to expose the corruptions of the Church of Rome from the pulpit, while maintaining the absolute authority of the Word of God. In 1516, Zwingle became the pastor and preacher in the church of “Our Lady of the Hermitage” at Einsiedeln — home to a Benedictine monastery of great renown and superstition. Zwingle continued his ministry, being stirred even further by the sight of thousands of pilgrims coming to Einsiedeln seeking the salvation of their souls. There he taught the doctrine of reconciliation through faith in the precious sacrifice of Christ once offered on Calvary.

“If, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much rather, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in the power of his life. And not only that, but we are making our boast in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we have received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:10-11 JND).

On January 1st, 1519, on his 35th birthday, Zwingle moved to Zurich to take up the position of pastor and preacher of the cathedral church of Zurich. As a result of Zwingle’s preaching from the Word of God, many of the ceremonies of the Roman church were disregarded and fell into disuse. This naturally attracted the attention of the authorities, which in turn only served to arouse Zwingle’s zeal. With pamphlets broadcasted throughout the land in defense of those that preached the principles of the Reformation, the doctrines increased throughout the whole Swiss confederacy.

Zwingle was not alone in his efforts. There were also others of great ability engaged in the work of the reformation, among whom we find: John Oecolampadius, Leo Juda, Conrad Pellican, Wolfgang Capito, Caspar Hedio, Berthold Haller, Oswald Myconius, Joachim Vadian, and Thomas and Andrew Blaurer.

The Sacramentarian Controversy (1529 Ad)

While Luther was inclined to retain all that was not directly or expressly contrary to the scriptures, Zwingle regarded the Holy Scriptures as his supreme authority. In all public disputations, his Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament were always before him. While Luther spent some time within the monastic system, Zwingle was spared that life by his father. As a result, Zwingle oversaw the removal of the images from the churches (not in a violent manner, but in a way wholly consistent with a Christian spirit), while Luther in contrast directly opposed the removal of images from the churches of Wittenberg.

On April 11th, 1525, Zwingle and his fellow laborers requested that the mass be abolished. As a result, the altars were replaced by communion tables in the churches. Unfortunately, this subject deeply divided the German reformers as led by Luther from the Swiss reformers. On this subject Luther was intransigent.

Luther did not believe that the Lord’s supper was a sacrifice, nor did he believe that the elements should be worshipped, but he never could free himself completely from the notion of transubstantiation. Rejecting that the bread and wine actually became the real body and blood of Jesus, he nevertheless held that it became the material body and blood of Christ. Though the emblems remained bread and wine, he claimed that the Lord’s body and blood were also present. This he referred to as consubstantiation. Zwingle, on the other hand, maintained that the words “This is My body” and “This is My blood” were figurative, just as the Lord had also said, “I am the door” (John 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (John 15:1), and that the institution was commemorative of His death for us.

“The Lord Jesus the [same] night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also [He took] the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:22-28).

In October 1529 a conference was held at Marburg to re-establish unity between the Swiss and German reformers. In attendance were Luther, Melancthon, Oecolampadius and Zwingle. Though Oecolampadius and Zwingle pleaded with the Germans, Luther refused to budge from his position. The position of the German party remained: “We hold the belief of Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist to be essential to salvation, and we cannot in conscience regard you as in the communion of the church.” Despite the tears of Zwingle, a tenderhearted man, the German party would not acknowledge the Swiss as brothers and members of Christ’s church.

The Augsburg Confession

In January 1530, the Emperor called a diet of the empire to be held at Augsburg in the following April, with the professed object being religious harmony between the reformers and the Church of Rome. In preparation, the reformers drew up a document now known as the Confession of Augsburg. While this document was to present the truth believed by all Protestants, it was written in such a manner as to cause the least possible offence. It was much against the plans of the papist that the confession should be read in public, and it was only after the firm persistence of the Protestant princes that the Emperor permitted the confession to be read, not in the town hall, but in the much smaller chapel of the Palatine Palace. On the 25th of June 1530, the confession was read in German, slowly, clearly, and distinctly. It took two hours to read the document, during which time profound attention was offered by those present. Those who had been influenced by the propaganda of the papists were surprised to hear how moderate the doctrines of the reformers were, while the more extreme called for the execution of the edict of Worms against the Lutherans by force of arms.

The Confession is broken up into of 28 articles. The first 21 present the Articles of Faith; the remaining seven address the abuses of the Church of Rome.

The Articles of Faith

1) The Trinity, 2) Original sin, 3) The Person and work of Christ, 4) Justification, 5) The Holy Spirit and the Word of God, 6) Works, their necessity and acceptance, 7) The church, 8) Unworthy members, 9) Baptism, 10) The Lord’s supper, 11) Confession, 12) Repentance, 13) Sacraments, 14) Ministering in the church, 15) Ceremonies, 16) Civil institutions, 17) Judgment and the future state, 18) Free will, 19) The causes of sin, 20) Faith and good works, and 21) Prayer and the invocation of saints.

Regarding sin (Article II) they condemned the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

Of justification (Article IV) they taught that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. (See Romans 3 and 4.)

They admonished (Article XV) also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the gospel.

The articles are not clear on all points. Luther’s position regarding the Lord’s supper stood, and Article X states: the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. (Zwingle offered an alternative to the confession, but it was not permitted to be read.) That which we know as the rapture of the saints was not recognized (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Instead, a general judgment at the consummation of the world is suggested: (Article XVII) at the Consummation of the World, Christ will appear for judgment and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.

The Abuses

The seven articles concerned with the abuses of the church were: 1) The Mass, 2) The communion in both kinds, 3) Auricular confession, 4) The distinction of meats and traditions, 5) The marriage of priests, 6) Monastic vows, 7) The Ecclesiastical power.

“And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Revelation 3:1-6).

In the first chapter of Revelation we find the meaning of the seven stars: “The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in My right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches” (Revelation 1:20). A star lights up the night during the absence of the sun. In scripture, a star is representative of authority (for example, Daniel 8:10). Our English word for angel is from the Greek angellos, an angel or messenger. The Hebrew word can also mean a messenger or ambassador (2 Chronicles 35:21). In the letters to the seven churches, the stars are types (symbols) of the representative authority of the assembly. Where does the church gain its authority? At Ephesus the seven stars are held in Christ’s right hand; church government was directed according to His hand. During the long reign of Jezebel (Thyatira) the Church governed the world. At Sardis, we find Christ still has the authority but the stars are no longer held in his right hand. Christ is no longer the sole resource for church government; in fact, the world very much governs the church. Civil leaders become involved and even take up arms to defend the church. We do not see the free exercise of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12-14) under the Lordship of Christ (Ephesians 4). Rather, we see men come between Christ and his church, quenching the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Battle of Cappel

By 1527, the Reformation was firmly established in the Swiss cantons of Zurich, Berne and Basle. Seeing that the reformation would ultimately divide the Federation, Zwingle proposed a confederation of reformed cantons. Not understanding the difference between Israel and the Church, he believed that the military could defend the gospel. As a result of this confederation, the five forest cantons (Lucern, Zug, Schwietz, Uri, and Unterwalden), all strong supporters of the Holy See, entered into a alliance with their former enemy Austria.

By 1531, war was inevitable. The Catholic cantons, taking up arms to defend the Holy See and what they saw as the desecration of the churches, declared war against Zurich, the home of Zwingle. On the evening of October 9th, the council of Zurich was called, but the members were undecided. It was not until noon of the next day that seven hundred men marched from Zurich to Cappel, Zwingle among them. Outnumbered eight to one, the men of Zurich were overpowered, and there, on the battle field of Cappel, Ulric Zwingle died.

The League of Smalcald

Luther was opposed to the policy of carnal resistance: he felt Christians ought not to resist the Emperor, and if he required them to die they were to yield up their lives. Nevertheless, with the final decree of the diet of Augsburg against the reformers, the Protestant leaders on the 22 of December 1530 met at Smalcald in Upper Saxony and laid the groundwork for a league — Luther having been won over by legal arguments. On the 29th of March, 1531, a second assembly was held at Smalcald, and the league was extended to include the kings of France, England and Denmark. In December 1545, after many years of indecision, the Pope’s long-promised council assembled at Trent. The concealed purpose of the council was, however, to return Germany back to the Roman church.

In the early hours of February 18th, 1546, Luther died in peace at Eisleben, his birthplace. With Luther in the grave and events turning against the Reformation, the league of Smalcald prepared for war. Protestantism had taken on a thoroughly political character. However, by 1547 the league had dissolved and Charles was the triumphant Emperor. Again, we see the mingling of politics with Christianity, weakening, not strengthening, the hand of the Reformation. When Luther stood alone, the mighty Holy Roman Empire was unable to touch him. When the princes formed a political union and took up the sword they became divided, indecisive, and were ultimately conquered.

Taking up Arms Against the World

Politics became the stumbling block of the Reformation. Instead of converting the world, the Reformation was transformed by the politics of the world. The Christian is saved by grace, he stands by grace, and he ought to be the witness of grace, and that, under all circumstances.

“All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

The church does not take the place of Israel as a nation. Israel was to drive out the heathen nations before them. Israel received temporal blessings in an earthly country. The Church has received “spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3). The Church is the bride of Christ. The Bridegroom has been rejected by this world. He will not be united to His bride in this world, but in heaven (Revelation 19:10). All the hopes of the church are heavenly.

Our citizenship (politeuma) is in heaven. As a Christian we enjoy life with all the benefits thereof, as citizens of heaven! We could also say that our commonwealth has its existence in the heavens. We don’t need an earthly federation.

“For our conversation [citizenship, commonwealth] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20).

We do not seek to establish a Christian nation to gain strength or protection. The Lord is our strength.

“For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” (2 Corinthians 10:4).

The Lord will establish His kingdom when He comes in judgment; but even then, the Church will come as His heavenly bride, not to rule on the earth, but over the earth.

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).

As ambassadors for Christ, and good soldiers of His regiment, we do not entangle ourselves with the affairs of this life.

“No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please Him who hath chosen him to be a soldier” (2 Timothy 2:4).

Scripture never sanctions rebellion against authority. If we are directed to do something directly contrary to the Word of God, then we ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). But even in that, we do not take up arms, but rather, we are instructed to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

The reformation was not the work of man; it was clearly of God. The gospel burst forth like a fresh spring breeze throughout Europe. When Luther nailed his thesis to the door of the cathedral at Wittenberg in October 1517, Zwingle was already preaching the gospel in Switzerland.

While the work of the Spirit resulted in a striking unity in the gospel, the national differences resulted in independent churches everywhere. The mind of Christ as to the character and constitution of His church appears to have been entirely overlooked by the reformers. Worse still, the reformers looked to the civil authorities, as we have seen, to govern the church. Again, whereas Rome ruled the world, the world now ruled the church.

As Luther and Melancthon were to the reformation in Germany, so William Farel and John Calvin were to the reformation in France. Even before Farel and Calvin, the work of the reformation had begun in France. Around 1512, James Lefevre, a doctor at the university of Paris, preached that “true religion had but one foundation, one object, one head — Jesus Christ.” Lefevre was the first to translate the entire Bible into French.

William Farel

William Farel was born in Dauphiny in the year 1489. As a student at the University of Paris, he heard the teaching of James Lefevre. With his heart stirred by the gospel, he searched the scriptures, and the light of the glorious gospel shone into his life: “The apostles shed a strong light upon my soul. A voice, till now unknown, the voice of Jesus, my Shepherd, my Master, my Teacher, speaks to me with power.”

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

William Farel was an energetic man. Wherever he went, he boldly proclaimed the gospel, also speaking out against popery. Naturally, such a man stirred up many who would silence him. Seeing his way cut off, in 1524 Farel moved from France to Basle in Switzerland. Continuing his work in Switzerland, he worked his way towards Geneva, reaching that city in the autumn of 1532. The effect of his preaching was such that he had to leave that city for a time, but he returned again in December, 1533. Eventually, not only Geneva, but also Lausanne and its territories were converted to the reformed faith. At this time, Switzerland became a refuge for those fleeing persecution in other lands. Among those that arrived in Geneva was one, John Calvin, a feeble and sickly man but of tremendous ability.

John Calvin

John Calvin was born on July 10th, 1509, at Noyon in France. Having received a good education, he went on to study in Paris. Calvin was a rigid Romanist, and resisted the teaching of the reformers. For three years, from 1523 to 1527, Calvin struggled with the truth until, in his own words: “When I was the obstinate slave of the superstitions of popery, and it seemed impossible to drag me out of the deep mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued me, and made my heart more obedient to His word.” Giving up the altar of Rome, he turned to the study of Civil Law, but theology was his interest, and he returned to the study of the scriptures. Like Farel before him, he was compelled to flee France for Switzerland.

In 1535, while at Basle, he published the Institutes of the Christian Religion, a work that he continued to expand and amend over the years. In 1536, at the age of 27, while passing through Geneva, he came to the attention of William Farel. Though young, he was well known as the author of The Institutes. Farel, in his energetic style, compelled Calvin to remain in Geneva. Calvin found his new posts in that city no easy tasks. He treated the state as a theocracy and under the threatened judgments of the Old Testament, sought to compel the citizens to conform to the law of God. As a result, both Farel and Calvin were banished by the citizens of the city in 1538. However, two years later, the council was urging Master Jean Calvinus to return, “to be minister in this city.”

Calvin was a most prodigious writer; besides books he was also the author of innumerable letters. Calvin treated subjects intellectually with a certain coldness and hardness. He pursued subjects to the point of falling into positive error, particularly regarding the sufferings of Christ. He took predestination too far — the 21st chapter of The Institutes addresses predestination, “of some to salvation and others to destruction.” The latter thought is positively in error; no man has been predestinated to destruction.

Predestination

To predestinate means to mark out beforehand, to predetermine. And what was predetermined? That we should be conformed to the image of His Son. It is not merely that God saw beforehand what some would be, and do, or believe. His foreknowledge was of persons: “whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate.”

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [His] purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified” (Romans 8:28-30).

To suggest that God saw in time past something in us, by which we gained by merit the distinction of being predestinated for blessing, is completely contrary to our understanding of salvation. We do not merit salvation. There is nothing we can do to earn salvation. It is only through His sovereign grace that we are saved: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).

Predestination goes deeper yet. We were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

“According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Ephesians 1:4-5).

If we feel uncomfortable with this, is it perhaps because our minds spring to the opposite — therefore God created some men for destruction? God did not predestinate any to destruction. He would have all men to be saved. The work of Calvary goes out to all — “Who gave Himself a ransom for all”9 — the provision has been made. We do not feel that the man of Luke 14:16-24 was unfair to the men that refused the invitation to the great supper, when he compelled those in the highways and hedges to come in — “that my house may be filled.” Nevertheless, those in the highways and hedges would not have come of their own accord either. Predestination does not absolve man of responsibility. We see God’s grace and man’s responsibility throughout scripture. All men will be held accountable for accepting or rejecting the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:4-6).

Presbyterianism

Calvin distinguished between charges and gifts; consequently he saw the difference between the bishop (a charge or office) and pastor (a gift, Ephesians 4:11). He admitted that gifts were needed for ministry. Calvin founded the system of church government called Presbyterianism, where the elders, or presbyters, are equal.

While Calvin made progress on many things, he was not entirely freed from the thoughts of the day. In the words of another: I may see a clearness and recognition of the authority of scripture in Calvin, which delivered him and those he taught (yet more than Luther) from the corruptions and superstitions which had overwhelmed Christendom, and through it the minds of most saints. Calvin admitted the things that he found in the Word, then added traditions and customs. He created a system which the light that then existed bore with.10

Beginning with Clovis (AD 481-511), the French Kings held the title of “Eldest Son of the Church.” France found it very difficult to accept the religious reforms of the Reformation, and the king defended his title with a vehemence. Because of the persecutions, there were no public congregations among the French Protestants, though people met in secret.

The Huguenots

Calvin was the acknowledged leader of the French Protestants — known as the Huguenots. He recommended that they not observe the Lord’s supper until they had duly recognized ministers. On this point the Augsburg Confession is similar: “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no-one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called” — though we find no such teaching in Scripture. There are no gifts pertaining to worship — gifts are for the edification of the church (Ephesians 4:7-12). Neither is there any mention of the administration of the Lord’s supper in connection with the office of the deacon or bishop. That the Lord’s supper is a public act of worship was entirely missed by the reformers. In regard to Baptism and the Lord’s supper they stumbled greatly. Although man is saved by grace alone, they considered baptism necessary for salvation.

The Lord ’s supper is eaten as a memorial or remembrance of Christ, to show — announce publicly — His death till He come (1 Corinthians 11:26). Every aspect of the Lord’s supper should fill our hearts with worship.

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:26).

It was not until 1555 that the first French church, established on reformed principles and organized according to Calvin’s model, was established in Paris. In about five years, there were over a thousand Calvinistic congregations in France.

In 1559, Francis II ascended the throne of France. He was a weak and sickly boy of 16. His wife was Mary Stuart of Scotland — also known as Mary, Queen of Scots. His mother was Catherine de Medici, an adherent to the Church of Rome (her uncle was Pope Clement VII). During the reign of Francis, Catherine de Medici retained the power of the crown over the nobility by balancing the Catholics against the Protestants — the Catholic house of Guise (connected to Mary through her mother), against the Protestant Bourbons. As a result (as we have seen elsewhere in Germany and Switzerland), the unfortunate result was the formation of a great Protestant political party. In 1560, they plotted to seize the Guises and bring them to trial for high treason — the so-called Conspiracy of Amboise. The plot failed.

Francis died in 1560, and Charles IX, a boy of ten years, succeeded his brother. Catherine de Medici assumed the guardianship of the king, and in effect the regency of the kingdom.

In 1562, the Duke of Guise with his attendants slaughtered some 60 Protestants whom he found singing hymns in a barn. The net result was civil war. For some thirty-one years the Wars of Religion saw thousands die in the name of Christianity. In actuality, the conflict continued on for hundreds of years.

The Massacre of St. Bartholomew

In August, 1572, the important figures of the Protestant party were enticed to Paris through the arranged marriage of Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot, and Margaret de Valois, the king’s sister. The masterminds behind the scheme were none other than Catherine de Medici, the Pope, and Phillip II of Spain, though all was done with the king’s consent. The marriage occurred on the 18th of August, 1572, with both Catholics and Protestants enjoying the celebrations. However, behind the scenes the plans for the destruction of the Huguenots were taking place.

On the 22nd the Huguenot Admiral Coligny was wounded by an assassin. The king and his mother visited the wounded man and with duplicity expressed their horror and regrets. On the night of the 23rd, while it was yet the early hours of the 24th, the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew began. The murderers wore a scarf on their arm and a white cross on their hats. By morning the dead were piled in the doorways and their blood flowed in the streets. The massacre extended throughout Paris and into the provinces. About 70,000 died in the three days of slaughter. The bodies were thrown into the river Seine until it was choked.

It is said that the king, Charles IX, was forever haunted by the scenes of that night, and that he died a miserable death at the age of 25. In Rome, the Pope held a mass in thanksgiving, and struck a medal in honor of the event. In England, Germany and Switzerland, the news of the event was received with mourning. Queen Elizabeth ordered her royal court to put on the apparel of mourning.

“They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes” (Revelation 7:16-17).

The Wars of Religion, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the continuing conflicts did not rid France of Protestants. In general it strengthened their resolve. However, with the large numbers killed or driven into exile, whole villages were depopulated; and the impact on the economy of that country was great.

In 1997 Pope John Paul II offered an “apology” for the St. Bartholomew massacre, which he referred to as an “obscure event.” Rome agrees that the attempted assassination of Coligny was premeditated — to stop the religious conflict and to prevent further bloodshed. However, they say that the massacre was a hasty reaction, largely of Catherine de Medici, to the reality that Coligny was not actually killed and therefore the Huguenots remained powerful. Despite the attempts to obscure the details, the truth remains that the Pope celebrated the event. One of the medals he struck can be found in the British Museum with his image and the words, “The slaughter of the Huguenots 1572.”

The Reformation in Scotland

The reformation in Scotland began with the printing of the Bible. Wycliffe’s Lollards sought refuge in that northern land, and to its ports the translation of Tyndale and the writings of the reformers found their way. The Bible was the people’s teacher. However, the progress of the gospel was not without opposition.

Patrick Hamilton was a young man of royal blood. Receiving his education in Scotland, he studied for his Master of Arts at the University of Paris. Returning again to Scotland he pursued his studies until he was forced to leave because of his open criticism of the church. From Scotland he travelled to Wittenberg where he became acquainted with Luther and Melancthon. Returning in 1527, he was bold to preach the gospel wherever he went. Patrick was renowned for his graciousness and good manners. Denounced to the archbishop Beaton of St. Andrew’s, he was condemned as a heretic to die the martyr’s death.

On the 28th of February 1528, Patrick calmly went to the stake. First bowing his head in prayer, he gave his copy of the gospels to a friend and then his cap and coat to his servant. Because of the ineptness of the executioners it was six hours before his body was reduced to ashes. The fire was started three times. At one point gunpowder was used, which resulted in a severe wound to his face. At this, he asked the question, “Have you no dry wood?” He was observed to be calm throughout the whole ordeal, never once seeking vengeance on his persecutors.

“Precious in the sight of the Lord [is] the death of His saints” (Psalms 116:15).

The burning of Patrick Hamilton sent a shudder throughout the land, turning the country decisively in the direction of the Reformation.

John Knox

John Knox is a most distinguished figure in the Scottish Reformation. Born in 1505, he grew up to receive a good education and was ultimately admitted to the priesthood. In 1546 we find him present at the burning of George Wishart, and from that time he joined the reformers. Knox was a bold and fiery preacher of the Word. Captured by the French, he was released at the time of the marriage of Mary, Queen of Scots and the French Dauphin, Francis II. During the reign of Mary I, Queen of England, he returned again to the continent where he sought refuge among the reformers in Geneva; there he formed a close friendship with Calvin. Knox returned to Scotland in 1555 but had to depart again. In 1559 he was entreated to return, and on May 2nd, 1559, he arrived at Leith. In 1560 the Scottish Parliament voted to suppress the Roman hierarchy and to establish the Protestant faith. This laid open the way for the formation of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In Knox’s system there are four permanent office bearers—the minister to preach, the doctor to teach, the elder to rule, and the deacon to manage financial affairs. There are four courts: the Kirk-session, the Presbytery, the Provincial Synod, and the General Assembly. Again we see the failure of man to recognize Christ’s place as Head over His church and the unity of His body, the church, through the Holy Spirit.

The reformation in England took on a different character than that of Germany, Switzerland, or even France. There were no Luthers, Zwingles, or Calvins. From the time of Wycliffe (1324-1384) England had the Bible in English, although in limited quantities. However, it was against the law to own a copy. In 1400, the burning of heretics became a statute law in England, and in 1408 a council in Oxford forbade the translation of the Bible into English and threatened persons who read it with excommunication.

William Tyndale

After Wycliffe, we find that the next distinguished individual of the reformation in England was another translator, William Tyndale. It appears that Tyndale was born in the County of Gloucester in the West of England. He studied at Oxford and then Cambridge, where he may have been in contact with other reformers of the period. In 1520 he accepted the post of chaplain at the house of Sir John Walsh. Just prior to this, Erasmus’ Greek and Latin New Testament had been published. It appears that the study of the Greek New Testament lead to Tyndale’s conversion. About this time a priest told Tyndale, “People were better without God’s laws than the Pope’s,” and he responded with the oft-repeated statement, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than thou doest.” Tyndale began the work of translating the Scriptures in England, but soon had to flee, never to return. In 1525 William Tyndale completed a translation of the New Testament from the Greek. He issued a revised edition in 1535; but was soon arrested, and after spending over a year in jail, he was strangled and burned at the stake near Brussels on October 6th, 1536. Miles Coverdale, an assistant to Tyndale, completed his work and published his first English Bible in 1535. In 1543, the English parliament passed a law forbidding the use of any English translation. It was a crime for any unlicensed person to read or explain the Scriptures in public.

Henry VIII

It is necessary in considering the reformation in England to dwell a little on King Henry VIII. It was Henry VIII that broke the Pope’s power over the church in England, but his motivation for doing so was purely selfish. Henry was not a Protestant. In fact, it was because of an article that he supposedly authored, written against Luther, that he had received from the Pope the title Defender of the Faith. During his reign the Bible was no more welcome in the realm than at any time previous. In fact, Henry, in taking for himself the power once held by the Pope, forged a deal of the worst kind with the clergy. Henry gave the clergy the authority to imprison and burn heretics. In 1540, with the passing of the Six Articles, the clergy found plenty of reason to use their new power. These articles condemned to death all those who opposed the doctrine of transubstantiation, auricular confession, vows of chastity, private masses, marriage of the clergy, and the giving of the cup to the laity — that is to say, any reformer. Henry became the Supreme Head of the Church of England, a church that lacked any real confession of faith, though retaining pretty much the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Under Henry VIII, Protestants were burnt at the stake under the Six Articles, while Catholics were burnt for refusing to accept Henry as the Supreme Head of the Church of England.

Edward VI

Henry VIII was succeeded by his son Edward, a sickly lad not yet 10, but a true Christian. Upon his coronation those imprisoned for their beliefs were released and the Six Articles were abolished. During his short reign, eleven editions of the Bible and six of the New Testament were published. In 1549, an English Prayer Book was issued, a result largely of the work of Thomas Cranmer. The work was revised and re-revised and was duly ratified by the king and Parliament in 1552. The images were removed from the churches. Prayers were no longer offered for the dead. Transubstantiation was declared to be unscriptural, and the Lord’s supper was considered commemorative. Likewise, auricular confession was abolished, and the clergy was permitted to marry. Unfortunately, Edward only lived until the age of 16. The year before his death, changes to the succession of the kingdom had been made and the throne was to pass to Lady Jane Grey, a defender of the Reformation and by all accounts a true believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Though Lady Jane Grey was declared queen, the country accepted Mary instead, allowing succession to take its historic course. Lady Jane Grey and her husband were both executed; she was only 17 years old.

Latimer

Latimer is an example of the power of God working in grace. Latimer was the son of a farmer, though his father had no lands of his own. He received a good education and went on to study at Cambridge where he received a Bachelor of Divinity. He was a “bigoted Papist.” The sermon he preached to obtain his degree was against Philip Melancthon, Luther’s associate. Was it possible Luther had met his match in Latimer? However, a certain Dr. Bliney, by a clever means, managed to reach Latimer — through the confessional! Through listening to Dr. Bliney’s ‘confessions,’ Latimer was converted, and just as he had been a zealous papist, he now became a bold and zealous Protestant. With the passing of the Six Articles, Latimer was imprisoned and remained there until the death of Henry VIII.

Cranmer

We do not find that Thomas Cranmer had the same strength of character as that with Latimer, though Cranmer exceeded him in learning. In 1523 Cranmer received his Doctor of Divinity at Cambridge, though, it is not until 1529 that Cranmer came to the public notice. In that year, he advised King Henry VIII to seek the opinion of the universities of Europe regarding The Great Matter, the possibility of divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, of whom he had grown tired. It was Cranmer that ultimately pronounced the opinion of the court in favor of the divorce. Cranmer’s favor with the king was such that he was appointed to the See of Canterbury. Though Cranmer risked much in speaking out against the Six Articles, he put away his own wife and did not suffer the same fate as Latimer. In his favor, he did what he could to protect Latimer and the reformers. On the death of Henry and again at the Coronation of Edward, we finally see something of Cranmer’s true faith. In his sermon he spoke of the king as “a new Josiah who was to reform the worship of God, destroy idolatry, banish the Bishop of Rome and remove images from the land.” During the short reign of Edward we find Cranmer busy with the work of preparing a new liturgy for the Church of England. In 1550, the “altars” were abolished from the churches.

Mary I

In July 1553, Princess Mary, Henry VIII’s daughter by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, ascended the throne. Mary, like her Spanish mother, was a confirmed Catholic. Her marriage to Philip I of Spain, another Catholic, delighted Mary but alarmed many Englishman. The marriage brought no children for Mary, and her husband Philip, to his displeasure, was never crowned “King of England” — Parliament refused to do so. Mary, childless and deserted by her husband, attributed her ill fortunes to the sins of the country, and in February 1555 the burnings of heretics began again.

The Martyrdom of Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer

Mary had not reigned long before we find Latimer, Cranmer (the Archbishop of Canterbury), Ridley (the Bishop of London), and, as Latimer calls him, holy Mr. Bradford, imprisoned in the tower of London for heresy. In October 1555, the order finally came for the execution of Ridley and Latimer. Latimer was by now an old man of 84 years. The flames were set to Ridley first, at which time Latimer addressed to him the well-documented words: “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”

Cranmer, in his old age and under pressure from the Catholic party, recanted and signed a declaration renouncing his former teachings. Though promised liberty, preparations were made for his execution. On the 21st of March, 1556, he was brought to Oxford to be burnt at the stake. Before his execution he was given the liberty to make a public confession to free himself of all suspicion, and that he did ... but much to the astonishment of his persecutors, he denounced the Doctrines of Rome and stated his firm belief in the principles of the Protestant faith. Declaring, “as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall therefore first be punished; for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned,” he was promptly dragged to the stake. And there with noble resolve, he held his right hand in the flame, allowing it to be burnt first as he had just stated. Cranmer’s firm stand at the end differed markedly from the middle of the road walk he had pursued most of his life.

Elizabeth I

Between 1555 and 1558, 284 martyrs perished by fire. On the 17th of November 1558, Mary died, and with her the gloom of that miserable period. The ascension of Elizabeth to the throne was greeted with great joy. The laws to restore popery were repealed and the English service was again introduced. Elizabeth was very much the people’s queen, but alas, she could be everything to everybody. Under her rule, Protestantism was established in the land, but only because she permitted it. Elizabeth rather enjoyed the finery of the Roman Catholic ceremonies and required exact uniformity to be maintained in all external rites and ceremonies. Elizabeth’s policies lead to divisions among the English Protestants, and in particular, resulted in the separation of the Puritans, or Nonconformists, from the Church of England.

It is sad to see that the end of the Reformation was deadness. “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God” (Revelation 3:1-2). Once Protestantism was established in a land and the persecutions ceased, people sank again into a state of spiritual poverty. Such was the condition of England at the beginning of the 18th century when John and Charles Wesley were born. Distressed as to their own salvation and disturbed as to the state of the nation, they, along with George Whitefield, began to preach the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. However, such simple teaching from the scriptures did not please their peers and they were soon shut out from the pulpits of the Church of England and forced to preach in the open air of the village greens. Though the revivals of the 18th century had a profound effect, the teaching never rose beyond the truth recovered during the Reformation. It is interesting to note though, that it was during this period of revival that a large number of our hymns were written.

Near the beginning of this period we find Isaac Watts (1674-1748). Isaac Watts was the son of a persecuted Dissenter. He was a very small man and there was nothing attractive about his appearance. A young lady to whom he proposed remarked that, “while she loved the jewel she could not admire the casket that contained it.” The following verse from a well-known hymn is just one example of the many that he wrote:

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Lord of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Charles Wesley (1708-1788) was a less vigorous man than his brother John, but his disposition was fitted for the hymn writer that he was. Charles was an ordained minister before he was saved! But, through God’s grace, the day came when he was born again. During his life he published nearly 4000 hymns, and at his death 2000 more remained unpublished.

John Newton’s (1725-1807) story is a remarkable one. The inscription on his tombstone says it in a nutshell: “JOHN NEWTON, Clerk, once an Infidel and Libertine, a Servant of Slaves in Africa, was, by the Rich Mercy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, preserved, pardoned, and appointed to preach the Faith he had long labored to destroy.” Though well known as the author of “Amazing Grace,” he wrote many other hymns including:

How sweet the name of Jesus sounds
In a believer’s ear!
It soothes his sorrows, heals his wounds,
And drives away his fear.

Newton’s name is ever linked with William Cowper (1731-1800) as the authors of the Olney Hymns — Olney being the town in which they met and lived for a period. Cowper was of a sensitive and timid nature, further compounded by the early loss of his mother. At the age of 33, after much suffering in the mind, the light of the gospel come to him through the verse: “Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:24-25). We sing of that wonderful gift in the lines of his hymn:

Of all the gifts Thy love bestows,
Thou Giver of all good!
Not heaven itself a richer knows
Than the Redeemer’s blood.

A number of other hymn writers could be mentioned, and perhaps should be, but we finish with Augustus Montague Toplady (1740-1789). Toplady was saved though the preaching of an illiterate man named James Morris, who spoke on the verse: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:13). Walking one day through Burrington Combe in the Mendip Hills, Toplady took refuge from a sudden storm in the cleft of a rock, and there, while sheltering from that storm, he composed:

Rock of Ages! cleft for sin,
Grace hath hid us safe within!
Where the water and the blood,
From Thy riven side which flowed,
Are of sin the double cure;
Cleansing from its guilt and power.

Though the Reformation taught the truth of justification through the death and resurrection of Christ, the character of the Church was never understood. The emphasis of the Reformation was upon the individual, and the collective nature of the Church was not recognized. Churches sprang up in the various countries, often along national lines. Church governments were organized according to the patterns of men without the support of Scripture. That Christ was the glorified Head of the Church and that all Christians are united together through the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ were truths that, if not entirely overlooked, were never acted upon.

Between the laity and Christ, a clergy existed, either in a mediatory office, or if not that, at the very least as leaders in ministry and worship. Concerning the latter, it seems that true worship was almost entirely forsaken, and the teaching concerning the Lord’s supper was directed towards the individual.

In the early part of the 1800’s the truth concerning the true character of the Church was brought out. Though the outward testimony of the church is truly in ruins, is there not a path for the believer? Is there not a way for believers to meet together in accordance with scriptural principles, to partake of the Lord’s supper, to “shew the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:26)?

In answering these questions, we do not seek the formation of a new “church” — for that would gain nothing but further confusion, and furthermore, it would only be the work of men. Rather, we see a simple acting on the principles contained in scripture: “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:3-6). This brings us to Philadelphia.

Message to Philadelphia

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God: and [I will write upon him] My new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Revelation 3:7-13).

The Lord is presented to each of the seven churches in a way that is peculiarly suited to that church. To Smyrna, where the saints were persecuted, He is “the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive” (Revelation 2:8); to Thyatira, He is “the Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire and His feet are like fine brass” (Revelation 3:18); and to Philadelphia it is “He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth” (Revelation 3:7-8). Christ is the Holy One, and the True. The key of David is a reference to Isaiah 22:22. In both places it is a sign of authority, authority in this instance to open or close a door of service and testimony — “I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.” We read of this door in a number of places in scripture: “For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and [there are] many adversaries” (1 Corinthians 16:9), also Acts 14:27 and 2 Corinthians 2:12.

Though weak, there was one positive action which Philadelphia was commended for doing — they have kept His Word — and one negative action they avoided — they have not denied His name. Whose word, and whose name? The Holy and the True. Keeping His Word is complete submission to the Word of God.

Notice the use of the personal pronouns “My” and “I” throughout this address to Philadelphia. In the rewards to Philadelphia, Christ delights to connect Himself with His faithful remnant: “I will write upon Him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God” (Revelation 3:12).

A Summary of Philadelphia

As we have seen, the Seven Churches present to us an outline of the moral history of Christendom — how she has conducted herself during this period of the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. Ephesus, Smyrna and Pergamos present successive stages, during which the professing church was essentially one. However, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea, though successive, all continue on until the Lord comes for His own. To Thyatira, we find the exhortation: “But that which ye have already hold fast till I come” (Rev 2:24) — clearly indicating its existence at the time of the Lord’s coming. In this present day we have four key divisions in the public testimony of the Church: Thyatira (the church of Rome), Sardis (the reformed churches), Philadelphia, and finally Laodicea. Philadelphia and Laodicea represent a moral state, though the former is a state vastly removed from the latter. The following is a summary of Philadelphia:

Christ presents himself as “the Holy, the True.” These are His divine titles — Christ is the Holy One and the True. Pilate could ask, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). Truth stood before Him in all its perfection.

God does not separate Holiness and Truth. It does not do to know the truth and not walk in it. “But as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation” (1 Peter 1:15).

He has the key of David. Man neither opens nor shuts this door. In John 10, Jesus presents Himself as the door of the sheep. It is a door through which we have come into His presence, and through which we go out in service for Him. An open door had been set before Philadelphia which no man can shut.

Philadelphia’s works are acknowledged but not enumerated. Though they may be feeble, perhaps completely unnoticed by the world, the Lord takes note.

Philadelphia has kept His word. To keep somebody’s word implies unqualified obedience and submission to it.

She has not denied His Name. Elijah was a positive witness for Jehovah, boldly proclaiming His name (1 Kings 18), but there were also 7000 hidden ones that had simply refused to bow the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18). God numbered those souls so precious to Him, though unknown to even Elijah. They had not denied His name.

“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard [it], and a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16).

Satan will have his counterfeit church, and it is forming even now — the Synagogue of Satan. When the Lord takes His church — the body composed of all true believers — to glory, an apostate church will continue on in the absence of the true. No doubt there will be much unity and human love initially. Nowadays those that profess to be Christians may mock, but one day they will have to own that Philadelphia was loved.

Philadelphia has kept the Word of His patience. Christ has sat down on the right hand of God waiting till His enemies are made His footstool (Hebrews 10:12). Philadelphia patiently waits also, knowing by His word that the day is coming when He will reign.

John was a companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ (Revelation 1:9). There is tribulation associated with waiting, but Philadelphia is to be kept from the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try the earth dwellers. Where is our dwelling? He is preparing an abode for us that is not earthly (John 14). In Ephesians, we find that even now we are viewed as seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6).

The overcomer becomes a pillar in the temple of My God. The pillars are the strength of a building, holding it up. The church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Though in weakness here, Philadelphia has kept His word; she will be a pillar in glory.

They did not deny His name during the time of His patience. They will bear His name in Glory.

The Heavenly Character of the Church

During the early part of the nineteenth century, there were a handful of individuals, exercised by the Spirit of God, who came to see that the Head of the Church was a glorified Christ in Heaven and that His body, the Church, should be a spiritual body in which this headship should be expressed. As a result of their exercises, they left the systems of men, which practically denied these truths, and met together to partake of the Lord’s supper according to the principles found in scripture. They recognized that true unity was the unity of the Spirit. They did not seek to reform that which was in itself a denial of that truth. Neither did they begin anything new. True unity is the unity of the Spirit, and it must be wrought be the operation of the Spirit.11 They recognized the very real presence of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, and liberty was given for His leading in worship and ministry.

Worship in Spirit and in Truth

As believers we are united together into one body by one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4), and that body is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). At this we should lose all thought of self and independence. The Head must have its due place.

“And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence” (Colossians 1:18).

We are saved for His glory: “To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Ephesians 1:6). It should only be natural that we be found together giving Him the honor and adoration which He is due. However, we are not left without guidance as to the nature and form of that worship.

In worship we speak to God. In ministry, God through His servants speaks to us. A sermon, though it may produce worship, is not in itself worship. Whereas the servant of the Lord ministers according to the gift or gifts he has received — “having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us” (Romans 12:6) — worship is something that each child of God has the privilege of doing.

The Lord told the woman at the well:

“The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him” (John 4:23).

And to Mary in the garden He said: “Go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and [to] My God, and your God” (John 20:17). We have been brought into a new relationship with God as Father.

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15).

The Christian worships the Father in spirit and in truth. The Samaritans had no true revelation of God, no relationship with Him, and could neither worship in spirit nor in truth. The Jew, the Lord said, worshipped in truth, but not in spirit. The Jewish form of worship was characterized by ceremonies; it was not worship in spirit. We read of Israel’s form of worship in the Pentateuch and see an expression of it in the Psalms. They address the creator God, and Jehovah, the One who redeemed them out of Egypt and who gave them the law (Psalms 95, 98 and others). It was a worship according to the truth that they had received. But now the Father has been revealed through the Son. “All things are delivered to Me of My Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and [he] to whom the Son will reveal [him]” (Luke 10:22).

The Apostle John could write — at a time when we find the spirit of antichrist already in the world (1 John 4:3) — “that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Surely, in such a time as the present, the exhortation remains the same to us:

“I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him [that is] from the beginning” (1 John 2:14).

There is a unity in the church that goes beyond a mere commonality of faith. The Church of Rome makes much of its unity, but historically, at least, it has relied on the fear of excommunication and even death to maintain the appearance of unity. With an absolute and supposedly infallible ruler we are not surprised at the unity of that system. Contrariwise, within Protestantism we see very little unity. That which does exist within each sect, is accomplished through the institutions of men — councils, constitutions, and the like. All the attempts of men to achieve unity have failed. It is only in Christ that we will find unity. If He draws us, we will be found in unity with Him.

It is not through His life on earth that the Lord Jesus gathers men unto Himself. Men will happily consider the gospels to be the profound teachings of a man, just as they do the teachings of other men, but when it comes to acknowledging the Lord Jesus as God manifest in the flesh, His death for them, and the resurrection, man will not have it. Yet it is through His death that He gathers together in one.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto Me” (John 12:32).

“And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, ... being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:49-52).

The outward memorial of the Lord’s death is the Lord’s supper: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). It is the blood of Christ alone that makes us fit to partake of that feast, but is unto a risen glorified Christ that we are gathered. It should not be surprising to us that the loaf is a picture of the one body — of every blood-bought saint of God. It is inconceivable that it should picture anything less. If we see it as something less, or act as if it means something less, are we not limiting the work of the cross? Should not the full truth of what it represents be reflected in our conduct at the Lord’s table?

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

While there are, perhaps, a considerable number of Christians that do recognize the one body, there is much confusion as to how the assembly today should act on this principle. The Word of God, however, gives us ample direction.

The Lord’s Table

Most houses have a table around which the family enjoys meals. We have often heard the call, “Time to come to the table.” Those outside of the family do not respond to the call, and, of those that are of the family, not one is expected to absent themselves. The Lord’s table brings before us the thought of separation from all that He died to and the unity into which we have been brought. The table is His and there we own His authority, His claims upon us, and His love towards us.

In partaking of the Lord’s supper at the Lord’s table we identify ourselves with it and all that is connected with it: “Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (1 Corinthians 10:18). The word translated “partaker” means to “have in common” and is the same word translated “communion” in verses 16 and 17 (see above). The word is used again in verse 20: “But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils” (1 Corinthians 10:20). A weaker word, a word that means to share in, is used in verses 17 — for we are all partakers of that one bread — and 21 — “ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” Physically we share in the bread; one might claim that we are doing nothing more. But contrary to our thoughts, Scripture makes it plain; we place ourselves in communion with the table (or altar as the case may be) and all that it stands for. The spiritual table around which we meet on the Lord’s day — what is it connected with? How did it come about? On what ground was it spread? Was it established on sectarian ground or in independence? Is it the Lord’s table or our table? Saying that all will be received does not remove division; it does not create unity. Overlooking the divisions of Christendom doesn’t change a thing.

There is another side to this as well. We need to be careful about those things that we partake of during the week — the associations we bring to the Lord’s table.

The Lord’s Supper or Our Supper?

When the Corinthian saints came together there were divisions — schisma, schisms — among them, for there were sects  — hairesis, heresies, the schools or parties found in the first chapter of Corinthians (verses 11:18-19). This was manifested in their coming together. Their own supper took precedence over the Lord’s supper, and they did not even bother to share it; some went hungry. There was also insobriety.

“When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken” (1 Corinthians 11:20-21).

Nowadays we would not consider what we call a fellowship dinner to be the Lord’s Supper; but we still need to ask ourselves, “Is the remembrance feast the Lord’s supper or is it our supper?” There are three things in the New Testament referred to as the “Lord’s”: the Lord’s table (1 Corinthians 10:21), the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:20), and the Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10). Each is used only once and each marks in a peculiar way something that is His. The reality of the Lord’s table and the Lord’s supper, presented in contrast to error, only emphasizes the truth that these belong to the Lord. Do we handle that table and that supper as His or ours?

The Lord’s Supper

The details concerning the character of the Lord’s supper were revealed to the Apostle Paul. This is a very important point. We cannot simply take what we find in the gospels in connection with the Lord’s supper and implement it as we choose. The exercise of our wills cannot have any place when we are talking about the Lord’s Supper.

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which He was betrayed took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also [He took] the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

In these verses we have the Lord’s supper as we carry it out. It is a feast of thanksgiving, thanksgiving for grace already received. In carrying out this memorial feast we announce the Lord’s death. It is not a private act. We do it collectively unto His remembrance, not to remember as if we had forgotten Him. It is not in memory of, but an affectionate re-calling of the Lord Himself to mind. Throughout its history, the Church has sought to its great loss to add to the simplicity of the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper is to be “till He come;” of that we are sure. As to how frequently it is to be carried out, we are not left in doubt as to that, either.

“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42).

“And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7).

Let a Man Examine Himself

It is not a light thing to be found at the Lord’s table; there is a responsibility on the part of the individual and also on the part of the assembly. “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:15). “Do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12).

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup” (1 Corinthians 11:27-28).

It is not a question of our being “unworthy” (we are made forever worthy by virtue of His blood), but of partaking in an unworthy manner. We are to examine our actions and attitudes so that we might partake, not for the purpose of absenting ourselves. It would be unusual to come to the family dinner table all dirty from work or play and just sit there and not eat. It would be more respectful to the host and everyone present to take the extra time to wash before coming to the table and partaking.

A raptor is a bird that swoops down and gathers up its prey in its talons. The word derives from the Latin rapere which means, to snatch, to grab, to carry off. This is the very meaning of “caught up” in the verse: “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Indeed, the translation of the Bible known as the Latin Vulgate uses this same verb in this verse (in the form rapiemur), and it is from this that we get our English word “rapture”.

The disciples were given to expect the Lord’s return on His departure from this world. “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). However, the expectation was in connection with an earthly kingdom as we see Peter preaching: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:19-21). We know that Israel failed to repent, and furthermore, they rejected the testimony of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, see v. 51). As a consequence, it was not possible for those times of refreshing to come. The Lord, however, is not slack concerning His promises and in a coming day He will again stand upon the Mount of Olives as we read in Zechariah (Zechariah 14:4). It is interesting to note that the reformers never moved beyond this hope and expectation—Christ’s return to this earth to establish His kingdom.

Though the Lord had told His disciples, “and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3), it remained for the Apostle Paul to give us the details of the Rapture. His only glimpse of the Lord was a heavenly one, Christ in Glory (Acts 9:1-6; 1 Corinthians 15:8). Consequently, Paul’s gospel—my gospel (Romans 2:16; 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8)—was the gospel of the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4 JND). It not only brings salvation, but it separates the believer from earth and conforms him to Christ as He is in glory. It should come as no surprise to us, therefore, that the particulars of the Rapture were revealed to the Apostle Paul.

The persecution of Christians began early, and in Acts we read not only of Stephen’s martyrdom, but also that of James (Acts 7; 12:1-2). That some would die before the Lord’s return, whether by martyrdom or natural causes, clearly disturbed the new believers at Thessalonica. Paul writes to encourage them; those that were asleep through Jesus would in fact rise first, and then we which remain would be ‘raptured’ up together to meet the Lord in the air.

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18).

Paul’s second letter to Thessalonica touches on a related subject. The Thessalonians were now worried that the Day of the Lord—a day of judgment—had already come (2 Thessalonians 1:2). The fact that we are not yet gathered to the Lord is one of the proofs that the Day of the Lord has not come! “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2). In both the Old and New Testaments we read of a day of terrible tribulation “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:21; see also Jeremiah 30:7). This day has not yet come; there is no day like it, either before or after, and it culminates in the Son of Man returning to the earth (Matthew 24:30). Is this the blessed hope of the Christian (Titus 2:13)? No! To the saints in Philadelphia was given the promise: “I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Revelation 3:10). The very next chapter begins: “After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither” (Revelation 4:1). After chapter three, we do not read of the church again until chapter 19 (the intervening chapters give us details of that terrible time of affliction): “for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready” (Revelation 19:7; see also Ephesians 5:25-32). What a day that will be! Are we listening for that call, “Come up hither!” This should be the blessed hope of every believer.

Early on when we considered the church as the body of Christ, we noted that every body has a head, and that Christ is head to the church. It may seem rather obvious that every body has a head, and furthermore, only one head; but as members of the body of Christ, what authority do we give our head, not just individually, but also collectively?

“And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence” (Colossians 1:18).

We also saw that there is only one body (Ephesians 4:4) and that the assembly at a location — for example Corinth — is seen as the local expression of Christ’s body:

“Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular” (1 Corinthians 12:27 JND).

Though we find assemblies in different towns and cities — Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamos, for example — each is representative of the body of Christ in that city, and their head is Christ. Assemblies cannot be representative of different bodies while claiming to own the same head; neither can they claim to be the same body while acknowledging different heads.

The world understands these principles. Men have created numerous “orders” and “societies,” and in each city we find “chapters” of those organizations. A member from one city is accepted at another. If a person violates the tenets of the organization, other chapters recognize the action taken for or against that person.

What about us? As believers, we have not just accepted a creed. Do we not have a new nature, a nature that delights to please God (2 Corinthians 5:17)? Do we not have the Spirit of truth within us: “He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, [that] shall He speak: and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show [it] unto you” (John 16:13-14)? What then are we doing? Are we endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit?

“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (Ephesians 4:3-4).

We do not keep the unity of the body, it is one — there is one body. The Holy Spirit has united us together into one body, and, if the Spirit leads us, there is also a practical unity in our walk. The Holy Spirit gathers us around our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church’s Head. This is what we are gathered to, but there is also something that the Holy Spirit gathers us out of.

A Great House

What does it mean to say that the outward testimony of the church is in ruin? We would without hesitation use the word “ruin” to describes the state of the temple and Jerusalem after that city was sacked by the Chaldeans (II Kings 25:8-30). When Zerubbabel returned with a remnant of Israel to Jerusalem, the temple was nothing but ruins, but there, in the midst of those ruins, they set up the altar and offered again the daily burnt offerings in obedience to the Word of God (Ezra 3:1-6). The activity in the midst of the ruins would have only served to accentuate the state of that city and temple to any one observing the scene.

So it is today in Christianity. We can clearly see that there is no outward unity in Christendom today. The one body and the authority of its head is no longer a visible thing. Indeed, it was very early in the Church’s history that she ceased to be an outward collective testimony to these truths, so much so, that by the time Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy we find the assembly in disorder and he refers to it as a great house.

“But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour” (2 Timothy 2:20).

What then is the individual to do in the midst of such ruin? A “great house” is characterized as having vessels, some to honor, and some to dishonor. The Holy Spirit never places us in union with evil, and so, in the midst of such a great house, we are to depart from iniquity — or unrighteousness — and to follow righteousness, faith, charity, and peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

“Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, [and] prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Timothy 2:19-22).

A path of separation is not a popular one, nor is it necessarily a very visible one. Seven thousand had not bowed the knee to Baal, though not even the prophet Elijah knew them (1 Kings 19:18). This is not a question of withdrawing from the world, nor are we to leave the house of profession (1 Corinthians 5:10); but in the Lord’s things there cannot be a mingling in our associations or our conduct: “thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee” (Leviticus 19:19). Yet in Christendom we see the wheat and tares growing up together. We are not called upon to root up the tares; God will execute judgment on the tares in a day to come.

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:17-18).

Gathered to His Name

What became of those that returned with Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah? In the gospels, some four hundred years latter, we see the state of things in Judea. There were the liberal Sadducees and the pious Pharisees — whose name perhaps derives from the Hebrew word ‘to separate’. The Sadducees neither knew the scriptures nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29). The Pharisees were condemned for their wickedness and hypocrisy: “Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:28). The flesh will tend towards liberality where there is no knowledge of the truth and towards legality when it takes up and attempts to act on knowledge. We live in a day when separation from evil is considered narrowminded. However, there is a day coming when: “the vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said [to be] bountiful” (Isaiah 32:5).

Amid the sad state of things in Judea, we find Simeon and Anna and those that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

“And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser ... which departed not from the temple, but served [God] with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:36-38).

This is that little remnant spoken of in Malachi; they feared the Lord and spoke often one to another. They were His precious jewels.

“For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20 JND).

“Behold, I will make them ... to know that I have loved thee” (Revelation 3:9).

Even in this day of ruin there is a path for the faithful. It is clearly a pathway of simple submission to His word and letting the Holy Spirit do His work. As with Ezra and Nehemiah, the ruin will only be accentuated. This is the character of Philadelphia. It is not an outward display of power — the synagogue of Satan would be that — but a simple faithfulness in walking with God in the midst of evil.

“But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another” (1 John 1:7).

There is a real danger of losing sight of the ruin and of setting ourselves up to be something, this is when we become pharisaic. There can be no place for us in our thoughts, when Christ is our object.

Doubtless we live in the days of Laodicea. We have seen the outward history of the church presented in the seven churches. Failure began with Ephesus, she had left her first love, and things will progress until the professing church, a false and unfaithful witness, will be spewed out of His mouth. Note that this is the professing church that we are talking of, those that profess to be of the church of God and take that position.

Message to Laodicea

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Revelation 3:14-22).

The Mystery of Iniquity

The Lord is not yet ready to spew professing Christendom, which is to become so nauseous to Him, out of His mouth. That time is not yet fully come, but the mystery of iniquity is already working. The Holy Spirit is a present hindrance and obstructs its full-blown manifestation. When the Lord’s own are taken, that is to say when the bride is called away, then the lawless one, the antichrist, will be revealed.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth [will let], until He be taken out of the way” (2 Thessalonians 2:7).

This is not the world that we are speaking of; sadly we are talking here of the state of Christendom. The warning began with Ephesus: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). Now we see it fully accomplished.

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4).

These are men that have crept in unawares. They were spots in their feasts of charity (Jude 12). They were right there in the church, “feeding themselves without fear” (Jude 12). Like Balaam of old, they are governed by greed. “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Peter 2:3). “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage” (2 Peter 2:19). They have cast this stumbling block, “to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication” (Revelation 2:14). This is the state of Christendom in the day in which we are living.

Indifference to Christ

However, even in such a day, there is One in whom are confirmed all the promises of God — “For all the promises of God in Him [are] yea, and in Him Amen” (2 Corinthians 1:20). The Lord Jesus Christ is the faithful and true witness. He is the true foundation, the beginning of the creation of God. It is in this character that Christ is presented to the Laodiceans.

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Revelation 3:14).

Christ is presented in this way because the church has turned away from Him. In her own estimation she is rich and in need of nothing. It is not now the ignorance of the Dark Ages; she is totally and utterly indifferent to Christ — neither hot nor cold, she is lukewarm. Wise in her own conceits, she no longer rests on that which “is able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15) — the Holy Scriptures. Rich in herself, she is no longer a witness to Christ, nor has any apparent need for Him. Christ is viewed as being outside of Laodicea.

“I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see” (Revelation 3:18).

Gold speaks to us of divine righteousness. The white raiment is the righteousness of the saints (Revelation 19:8), not human righteousness, but the practical righteousness that results from a heart set at liberty by divine righteousness. There were no works that the Lord could speak of, rather they should buy of Him white raiment, “that thou mayest be clothed.” These are not works for salvation but the works that result from salvation. The one can never be seen as righteous, whereas the other must of necessity, be righteous.

They were blind, having no spiritual discernment. In their blind condition there was no hope that they should ever recognize their true state. Worse still, they did not even have any intelligence as to their condition; rather they felt themselves to be rich. A lost blind man who wrongly thinks that he is going the right way is in a hopeless situation unless someone outside of himself can awaken him to his dangerous course.

Behold I Stand at the Door and Knock

The Lord stands outside the assembly at Laodicea, and seeks admittance. However, we note that the call is to any man; it is to the individual.

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20).

The overcomer is promised a place in glory — “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne” (Revelation 3:21). We do not see the special relationship that we saw with Philadelphia — “and [I will write upon him] My new name” (Revelation 3:12).

We live in the days of Laodicea, and there is the very real danger that the spirit of the age will affect our thinking. How important that we keep our eyes on the One who is holy and true. It will not be a source of pride and it will not result in a pharisaic attitude. The faces of Moses and Stephen reflected the One with whom they companied, though it was quite unknown to themselves. “Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him” (Exodus 34:29).

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

The Church What Is It? By W. T. P. Wolston

There is much confusion over the various Jameses. It is probable that James the Son of Alphaeus was also James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the James of Acts 15. Some have suggested that he was also James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19), with “brother” being a more general term in this case, but this is doubtful.

The New & Concise Bible Dictionary (see Paul).

The Notion of a Clergyman: Dispensationally the Sin Against the Holy Ghost. JND.

Miller’s Church History, from Greenwood’s Cathedra Petri.

Miller’s Church History, from Robertson, vol. 2.

Baronius (Miller’s Church History).

In Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, the verse reads “to give His life a ransom for many”, but the words differ in the original tongue from 1 Timothy 2:6, there the ransom is on behalf of all; in Matthew and Mark it is a ransom instead of ­— a substitute for — the many.

Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Doctrinal No. 1.

The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ (J. N. Darby).