The Early Church's Doctrine of Inspiration

1. The ancient Church, with one unanimous voice, teaches that all the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments ARE GIVEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT of God; and it is on this sole foundation (and independently of the fragmentary information that human imperfection may acquire from them) that the Church founded her faith on the perfection of the Scriptures.
2. The ancient Church, following out this first principle, no less firmly maintains the INFALLIBILITY of the Scriptures as their sufficiency and their plenitude. She attributes to their sacred authors not only axiopistia, to wit, a fully deserved credibility, but also autopistia, to wit, a right to be believed, independently of their circumstances or of their personal qualities, and on account of the infallible and celestial authority which caused them to speak.
3. The ancient Church, viewing the whole Scripture as an utterance, on the part of God, addressed to man, and dictated by the Holy Ghost, has ever maintained that there is NOTHING ERRONEOUS, nothing useless, no thing superfluous there; and that in this divine work, as in that of creation, one may always recognise, amid the richest plenty, the greatest and the wisest economy. Every word there will be found to have its object, its point of view, its sphere of efficacy. It is in vigorously establishing and defending both these characters of the Scriptures, that the ancient Church has shown the elevated and profound idea she entertained of their divine inspiration.
4. The ancient Church has always maintained that the doctrine of holy Scripture is the SAME THROUGHOUT, and that the Spirit of the Lord gives utterance in every part of it to one and the same testimony. She vigorously opposed that science, falsely so called (1 Tim. vi. 20), which even in the first ages of her history, had taken a regular shape in the doctrines of the Gnostics, and which, daring to impute imperfection to the Old Testament, made it appear that there were contradictions between one apostle and another apostle, where there were really none.
5. The ancient Church thought that inspiration ought chiefly to be viewed, it is true, as a passive state, but as a state in which the human faculties, FAR FROM BEING EXTINGUISHED or set aside by the action of the Holy Ghost, were exalted by his virtue, and filled with his light. She has often compared the soul of the prophets and of the apostles to 'a stringed instrument, which the Holy Ghost put in motion, in order to draw out of it the divine harmonies of life.' -—(Athenagoras) 'What they had to do, was simply to submit themselves to the powerful action of the Holy Ghost, so that, touched by his celestial influence, the harp, though human, might reveal to us the knowledge of the mysteries of heaven.'— (Justin Martyr) But, in their view, this harp, entirely passive as it was as respects the action of God, was the heart of a man, the soul of a man, the under standing of a man, renewed by the Holy Ghost, and filled with divine life.
6. The ancient Church, while it maintained that there was this continued action on the part of the Holy Ghost in the composition of the Scriptures, strenuously repelled the false notions which certain doctors, particularly among the Montanists, sought to propagate respecting the activity of the Spirit of God, and the passiveness of the spirit of man in divine inspiration; as if the prophet, ceasing to have the mastery of his senses, had been in the state which the pagans attributed to their sibyls. While the Cataphrygians held that an inspired man, under the powerful influence of the divine virtue, loses his senses, the ancient Church maintained, on the contrary, that the prophet DOES NOT SPEAK IN A STATE OF ECSTASY and that one may distinguish by this trait false prophets from the true. This was the doctrine held by Origen against Celsus (lib. vii. c. 4); as also of Miltiades, of Tertullian, of Epiphanius, of Chrysostom, of Basil, and of Jerome, against the Montanists.
7. The ancient Church in her endeavours, by means of OTHER DEFINITIONS, which we shall not indicate here, to give greater clearness to the idea of divine inspiration, and to disentangle it from the difficulties with which it was sometimes obscured, still further showed how much she cherished this doctrine.
8. The ancient Church thought that if the name of action on the part of God is to be applied to inspiration, it must be understood to extend to WORDS as well as to things.
9. The ancient Church. by her constant MODE on QUOTING the Scriptures, in order to the establishment and defence of her doctrines; by her manner, too, of EXPOUNDING and COMMENTING on them; and, in fine, by the use which she recommends all Christians, with out exception, to make of them as a privilege and a duty; the ancient Church, by these three habitual practices, shows, still more strongly, if it be possible, than she could have done by direct declarations, how profoundly attached she was to the doctrine of a verbal inspiration.

And it is not only by her exposition of the Word that the ancient Church shows us to what point she held the entire inspiration of the Scriptures, as an in controvertible axiom; she will show you this still more strongly, if you will follow her while she is engaged IN RECONCILING THE apparent CONTRADICTIONS sometimes presented by the Gospel narratives. After having made an essay of some explanation, she does not insist upon it; but hastens to conclude, that whatever be its validity, there necessarily exists some method of reconciling those passages, and that the difficulty is only apparent, because the cause of that difficulty lies in our ignorance, and not in Scripture. “Whether it be so, or otherwise (she says with Julius Africanus), it matters not, the Gospel remains entirely true! This is her invariable conclusion as to the perfect solubility of all the difficulties that one can present to her in the Word of God.

10. The ancient Church was so strongly attached to the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit, and of his sovereign action in the composition of the whole Scriptures, that she made no difficulty in admitting at one and the same time the greatest VARIETY and the GREATEST LIBERTY in the phenomena, in the occasions, in the persons, in the characters, and in all the external circumstances, under the concurrence of which that work of God was accomplished. At the same time that she owned with St Paul, that in all the operations of this Spirit, it is one and the self-same Spirit that divideth to every man severally as he will (1 Cor. xii. 11), she equally admitted that in the work of divine inspiration, the divine causation was exercised amid a large amount of liberty, as respects human manifestations. And be it carefully remarked, that you will nowhere find, in the ancient Church, a certain class of doctors adopting one of these points of view (that of the divine causation and sovereignty), and another class of doctors attaching themselves exclusively to an other (that of human personality, and of the diversity of the writer's occasions, afl'ections, intelligence, style. and other circumstances). “If this were so," says Rudelbach, “one might justly accuse us of having ourselves forced the solution of the problem, instead of faithfully exhibiting the views of the ancient Church." But no; on the contrary, you will often see one and the same author exhibit, at once and without scruple, both of these points of view: the action of God and the personality of man. This is what we see, for example, abundantly in Jerome, who, even when speaking of the specialties of the sacred writers, never abandons the idea of a word introduced by God into their minds. This we farther remark in Irenæus, who, while he insists more than any one else on the action of God in the inspiration of the Scriptures, is the first of the fathers of the Church that relates in detail the personal circumstances of the Evangelists. This is what you will find again in St Augustine; this is what you will see even in the father of Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea, who gives so many details on the four authors of the Gospels, and who, nevertheless, professes the most rigorous principles on the plenary inspiration of the Canonical Scriptures.
11. The ancient Church shows us more completely still, by two other traits, the idea she had formed of divine inspiration, by the care she took, on the one hand, TO FIX THE RELATIONS which the doctrine of divine inspiration bore to the doctrine of the gifts of grace; and, on the other, To EXHIBIT THE PROOFS of inspiration.

In fine, although the ancient Church presents this spontaneous and universal agreement in the doctrine of inspiration, we must not imagine that this great phenomenon is attached, as some have been fain to say, to some particular system of theology, or may he explained by that system. No more must we regard this wonderful agreement as the germ of a theory that was to establish it, at a later period in the Church. No. The very assertions of an opposite opinion which, from time to time, made themselves heard on the part of the heretics of the first centuries, and the NATURE OF THE REPLIES that were put forth by the ancient Church, clearly demonstrate, on the contrary, that this doctrine was deeply rooted in the Church’s conscience. Every time that the fathers, in defending any truth by passages from Scripture, succeeded so far as to drive their adversaries into the impossibility of defending themselves, otherwise than by denying the full inspiration of the divine testimonies, the Church thought the question was decided. The adversary was tried; he had no more to say for himself; he denied the Scripture to be the Word of God! What more remained to be done, but to compel him to look his own ill-favoured argument in the face, and to say to him, See what you have come to ! as one would bid a man who has disfigured himself, look at himself in a glass? And this the fathers did.

Such are facts of the case; such is the voice of the Church.

Louis Gaussen, Theopneustia, Chapter 3

John Chrysostom (349-407) on Justification

 

“The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, 'Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.'” 1


“For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that 'it was excluded,' he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? 'By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.' See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “'aw of faith?' It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” 2


“For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.” 3


“And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows.” 4


“For they said that the one who does not keep the law is cursed, while he shows that the one who strives to keep it is cursed and the one who does not strive to keep it is blessed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed.” 5


“God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.” 6



(1) Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.

(2) NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27.

(3) NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8

(4) NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, 3:8.

(5) Homily on Galatians 3:9-10, Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 40. 3:8.

(6) Homily on Epesians 4:2, Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.

Gregory I on the Antichrist

I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow-bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title.  As to this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offence ought not to be engendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name.  But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful.  Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious?  If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster.  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.  Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.  But, since the Truth says, “Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled,” (Luke 14:11; 18:14), I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated.  Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offence by the appellation of a frivolous name.  For I, a sinner, who by the help of God retain humility, need not to be admonished to humility.  Now may Almighty God long guard the life of our most serene Lord for the peace of holy Church and the advantage of the Roman republic. For we are sure, that if you live who fear the Lord of heaven, you will allow no proud doings to prevail against the truth.

Gregory I, Epistle XXXIII. To Mauricius Augustus.

Can be found here

Don't Lump Christianity in When You Blame Religion For the World's Trouble

It has long been a tactic of the enemies of Christ's Church to lump Christianity in with the rest of the world's religions when they claim that religion has caused nothing but trouble for the world. 

When I say that this has long been a tactic, I mean it. Arnobius of Sicca, a Christian apologist who died in 330 AD, responded to this very accusation when it was raised in his day. He writes:

"There have actually been fewer calamities since Christians appeared.

"Actually, regarding the wars which you say were begun on account of hatred for our religion, it would not be difficult to prove that after Christ was heard on earth, not only did they not increase but in great measure were reduced as a result of the repression of fierce passions.

"For when we, so large a number as we are, have learned from His teachings and His laws that evil should not be repaid with evil; that it is better to suffer wrong than be its cause, to pour forth one's own blood rather than to stain our hands and conscience with the blood of another: the world, ungrateful as it is, has long had this benefit from Christ by whom the rage of madness has been softened and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of fellow beings.

"And if all without exception who understand that are men, not through the form of their bodies but through the power of reason, would for a little while be willing to lend an ear to His wholesome and peaceful commandments, and would believe not in their own arrogance and swollen conceit but rather in His admonitions, the whole world, long since having diverted the use of iron to more gentle pursuits, would be passing its days in the most placid tranquility and would come together in wholesome harmony, having kept the terms of treaties unbroken."

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case Against the Pagans, Book I, Chapter 6

Source: Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 7, The Newman Press 1949

The Church's Favorite Flower - my book.

What did the Church Fathers (the leaders of the Church during the first several centuries of Church history) say regarding the doctrine commonly known as the "Five Points" of Calvinism (also known as TULIP)? 

This is an important question. One need only peruse the writings of the Reformers, i.e., Luther, Calvin, etc., to see the importance of the writings of the Church Fathers. The Reformers affirmed over and over again that they were standing in the stream of historic Christian doctrine. 

This book, The Church's Favorite Flower, which is loosely based on my Master of Divinity thesis, answers that question. I examine the five points: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints, first defining these doctrines from Scripture, then demonstrate by a multitude of Patristic citations, that the Reformers were not innovators. The doctrines of the Reformers were the doctrines of the early Church's primary theologians.

I have a Facebook page for the book: https://www.facebook.com/tulipinthefathers, which is intended for discussion about the book and any updates. I will occasionally post excerpts and will be happy to answer any questions about the book, at the Facebook page.

The book is available in Kindle format, which can be downloaded to a Kindle device, to a PC or smartphone using the free Kindle app. It is reasonably priced and will provide the reader with a wealth of quotes from the Church Fathers.

The Church's Favorite Flower (Kindle format)

A Brief Survey of James, Part 2

A Brief Survey of James, Part 2

Theological Issues:

The primary, if not only, theological issue raised by the Epistle is James’ contention for “justification by works.”  All Christians, even Arminians, realize the need to harmonize, or synthesize, James’ statements with the apparently contradictory teaching of St. Paul.  Taking for granted the fundamental unity of God’s written word, we must assume different usage of the words “justification” and “faith” by the two authors.

Luther’s objection ("an Epistle of straw, and destitute of an evangelic character") was due to his mistaken idea that it[1] opposes the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works, taught by Paul.  The two apostles perfectly harmonize because they are looking at justification from distinct standpoints.  Paul considers faith in the justification of the sinner before God, whereas James views it in the justification of the believer manifestly before men.  James confronts the Jewish error that the possession and knowledge of the Law would justify them even though they disobeyed.[2]  James 1:3; 4:1, 14 seem to allude to Romans 5:3; 6:13; 7:23; 14:4.  Plus the tenor of James 2:14-26 on justification seems to allude to Paul’s teaching – correcting false Jewish notions different from those Paul combated.  These errors, however, were not completely unnoticed by Paul.[3]  And, strangely enough, Luther clearly understood James’ point about the nature of faith.  In the preface to his commentary on Romans he asserts that it is “impossible to separate works from faith – yea, just as impossible as to separate burning and shining from fire.”[4]  This was the understanding of faith accepted by all the Reformers.  The seventeenth century Puritan writer Walter Marshall wrote: “Holiness… [as love of God and humankind] is considered, not as a means, but as a part, a distinguished part; or rather as the very central point in which all the means of grace, and all the ordinances of religion, terminate.”[5]

In illustration of James’ meaning concerning faith and works, we might consider the case of Noah.  He built the ark, we are told in Hebrews 11, by faith.  Had Noah’s faith been a purely notional assent to doctrinal propositions, he would have perished with the rest of the antediluvians.  There would exist no evidence of his “faith.”  While God may have seen such a faith, it would have remained unseen by men.  James calls such faith “dead.”  He does not say that the faith is unreal.  There is a world of difference between an imaginary friend and a corpse for a friend.  One does not exist; the other is only a shell of the real thing.  Paul calls such faith, “a form of godliness, denying the power thereof.”[6]

Two textual issues are of particular interest to this writer.  The first is Erasmus’ emendation of 4:2.  In the 1500’s, Erasmus edited the best Greek manuscripts of his day to retranslate the New Testament because of the terrible state of the extant copies of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.  So bad were the copies, Erasmus claims they gave birth to several doctrinal errors.  When he reached verse 2, he conjectured φθεiτε instead of φονεύετε.[7]  This changes the rendering from, “you kill and covet,” to, “you envy and covet.”  Erasmus may be correct.  Secondly, in 5:12, many old manuscripts have ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸκρίσιν instead of ὑπὸ
κρίσιν.[8]  The former reads, “So that you do not fall into hypocrisy.”  This would appear to be the correct rendering, considering the rest of the verse: multiplying our words beyond a simple, “Yes,” or, “No,” leads to hypocrisy.

Prophecy:

The destruction of Jerusalem seems to be foretold in James 5:1ff.  This was the way the passage was understood by the ante-Nicene Church.  The prophesied destruction ensued shortly after James’ martyrdom.  Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius relates that he was set on a pinnacle of the temple by the scribes and Pharisees, who begged him to restrain the people who were in large numbers embracing Christianity.  "Tell us," they said in the presence of the people gathered at the feast, "which is the door of Jesus?" James replied with a loud voice, "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man?  He sitteth at the right hand of power, and will come again on the clouds of heaven."  Many thereupon cried, Hosanna to the Son of David.  But James was cast down headlong by the Pharisees; and praying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."[9]  He was stoned and beaten to death with a fuller's club.  The Jews, as we know from Acts, were incensed at Paul's rescue from their hands, and therefore determined to wreak their vengeance on James.  The publication of his Epistle to the dispersed Israelites made him loathsome to them, especially to the higher classes, because it foretold the woes soon to fall on them and their country.  Their taunting question, "Which is the door of Jesus?" (i.e., by what door will He come when He returns?), alludes to his prophecy, "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. . . behold the Judge standeth before the door"[10]   Hebrews 13:7 is probably an allusion to the martyrdom of James, who had been so long bishop over the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith."

Style:

The style of the Epistle is compact and terse.  The Epistle is pervaded by a Hebraic character, appearing in the occasional poetic parallelism.[11]  The images are analogical arguments, combining logic and poetry at the same time.  The Epistle is eloquent, yet persuasive at the same time.  It is similar in some respects to Matthew, the most Hebrew of the Gospels.  This is what we might expect from the bishop of Jerusalem writing to Israelites.  The doctrines of grace, the distinguishing features of Paul's teaching to the Hellenists and Gentiles, are less prominent as being already taught by that apostle. James complements Paul's teaching, and shows to the Jewish Christians who still kept the legal ordinances down to the fall of Jerusalem, the spiritual principle of the law, namely, love manifested in obedience.  The higher spirit of Christianity is seen putting the Jewish law in its proper place.  The Law is enforced in its everlasting spirit, not in the letter for which the Jews were so zealous.

---

[1] James 2:14-26

[2] Compare 1:22 with Rom 2:17-25).

[3] Rom 2:17ff.

[4] Luther, Martin – Commentary on Romans, Preface

[5] Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, 1692

[6] 2Tim. 3:5

[7] James Moffatt’s New Testament

[8] Ibidem

[9] Ecclesiastical History, 2.23

[10] James 5:8, 9

[11] James 3:1-12

A Brief Survey of James, Part 1

A Brief Survey of James, Part 1

Author:

In the Greek, his name is Ἰάκωβος, Jacob, rather than James.  The name change occurred as the New Testament underwent translations from Greek to Latin and Latin to English.  In fact, all individuals in the New Testament named James are actually Ἰάκωβος in Greek.

The author of this Epistle was without doubt James, the brother of our Lord.  There are three distinguished persons in the New Testament who bear the name James: James, the son of Zebedee, John’s brother – one of the Twelve; James the son of Alphaeus, also of the Twelve, called James the Less[i]; and James, called by Paul in Galatians "the brother of our Lord,”[ii] the man who appears in Acts 15 as wielding a paramount influence in the church at Jerusalem. The epistle could not have been written by James, the brother of John, for he was martyred by Herod[iii] before its date. Therefore the authorship must be ascribed either to James, the son of Alphaeus, or to James, "the Lord's brother."

From the earliest days of the Church the latter has been agreed upon as the author.  All known facts about him point to this conclusion as well.  He was a permanent resident of Jerusalem and preeminent in the church.  He was the chief figure in the Jerusalem Council: it was his judgment that once for all settled the circumcision debate.  St. Paul calls him one of the, “pillars of the church.”[iv]  It is for these reasons that he could authoritatively address the entire community of Jewish Christians scattered around the Roman world.

Some commentators have assumed the author to be James, the son of Alphaeus, a cousin of the Lord, instead of a brother.  This theory usually hinges upon the supposed “perpetual virginity” of Mary.  If she had no other children than Christ, his “brothers” could not be literal siblings.  There are four facts that militate against this theory:

• It is highly unlikely Clopas’ wife was Mary’s sister – this would entail two sisters with the same name.  John names two pairs: Mary and her sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas.  The sister, no doubt, was Salome, John’s mother.  Hence, John was Mary’s nephew.  Since at the times of the Crucifixion none of Christ’s brothers were believers, it is in this connection that Jesus assigns the care of his mother to John instead of his own brothers.
• We are explicitly told that Jesus’ brothers were not believers.  Consequently none of them could have been of the number of the apostles.
• They are never called cousins of Jesus nor is there any proof that the Greek word which designates them as "brethren" is ever used in the sense of cousins in the New Testament.
• After the Resurrection, when these brothers had become believers, they are distinguished from the Twelve[v].  This fact cannot be explained if at least two out of four of them were of the Twelve.  It is true that in Galatians 1:19 James is spoken of as an apostle, yet neither he nor Paul – the greatest apostle, was of the Twelve.

These facts seem to me to clearly indicate that James, Christ’s brother, the author of the Epistle, was not one of the Twelve and was a brother to our Lord in the sense that he was a child of Mary.

James’ prominence in the early church can be seen in the following references: Acts 12:7; 15:19; 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9; 2:12.  The New Testament is silent concerning his later history but Josephus, the Jewish historian says “[Ananias] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[vi]

Date:

The date of the Epistle is difficult to ascertain.  Based on internal evidence most commentators place it in the period between Paul’s two imprisonments in Rome – i.e., about A.D. 62.  Since James resided in Jerusalem, this would be the place of writing.  Nevertheless, there are a few commentators who place the Epistle as early as 39 A.D.  The main internal support for this view comes from the fact that James calls the saints’ assembly a sunagwgh instead of an ekklhsia.  The reasoning employed is that the saints had not yet been completely expelled from the synagogues yet and forced thereby to form their own congregations henceforth called churches.

Canonicity:

In the early Patristic age there was some questions as to its canonicity, but these passed away rather soon.  Clement of Rome quotes it.[vii]  Hermas quotes 4:7.[viii]  Irenaeus is thought to refer to 2:23.[ix]  According to Cassiodorus, Clement of Alexandria commented on it.[x]  Ephraim the Syrian quotes 5:1.[xi]  A strong proof of its authenticity is that it formed part of the old Syriac version, which contains no other of the disputed books, except Hebrews.[xii]

James’ inspiration as an apostle is expressly referred to in Acts 15:19, 28: "My sentence is…It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us."  His ecclesiastical authority is implied by the deference paid to him by Peter and Paul.[xiii]  The Lord had appeared specially to him after the resurrection.[xiv]  Peter in his First Epistle (universally from the first received as canonical) implicitly confirms the inspiration of James's Epistle by incorporating with his own inspired writings no less than ten passages from James.  The "apostle of the circumcision," Peter, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have much in common.[xv]  The fact that it was written in the purest Greek would seem to show that it was intended not only for the Jews at Jerusalem, but also for the Hellenistic Jews.

Audience:

The recipients of this letter were the Jewish Christians who were part of the Diaspora, i.e., the Dispersion of the Jews throughout the world.  This would seem to explain why, when in Chapter 2, in his discourse against favoritism, he calls their assembly a συναγωγὴ - a synagogue, instead of ἐκκλησία.

Object:

James’ object was to enforce the practical duties of the Christian life.  This largely accounts for the Epistle’s conspicuous lack of doctrinal statements.  The Epistles of Paul are usually an even balance: one half theology, one half application.  For instance, the first three chapters of Ephesians are purely theological pronouncements.  Chapters 4-6 however are the application of the foregoing doctrines.  Galatians is divided the same way as well.  This letter however contains 100% application, insinuating that the theology James is applying was familiar enough to his audience that he could forego repeating it.  He warns against several Jewish vices:

·         Formalism, which made the service of God consist in washings and outward ceremonies.  He therefore reminds them (1:27) that it consists rather in active love and purity.

·         Fanaticism, which, under the cloak of religious zeal, was tearing Jerusalem in pieces (1:20).

·         Fatalism, which threw its sins on God (1:13).

·         Callousness, which crouched before the rich (2:2).

·         Falsehood, which had made words and oaths play-things (3:2-12);

·         Partisanship (3:14);

·         Evil speaking (4:11);

·         Boasting (4:16);

·         Oppression (5:4).

The grand lesson he teaches them as Christians is patience:

• patience in trial (1:2),
• patience in good works (1:22-25),
• patience under provocation (3:17),
• patience under oppression (5:7),
• patience under persecution (5:10);
• the ground of their patience is that the coming of the Lord draws near, which will right all wrong (5:8).

---

[i] Mark 15:40

[ii] Galatians 1:19

[iii] Acts 12:2

[iv] Galatians 2:9

[v] Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5

[vi] Antiquities 20.9.1

[vii] Clement of Rome, 1 Corinth XI

[viii] Hermas, The Shepherd

[ix] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.16.2

[x] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary: Introduction to James

[xi] Ephraim the Syrian, Against the Greeks

[xii] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary: Introduction to James

[xiii] Acts 12:17; 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9

[xiv] 1Cor. 15:7

[xv] Compare James 1:1 with 1 Peter 1:1; James 1:2 with 1 Peter 1:6; 4:12, 13; James 1:11 with 1 Peter 1:24; James 1:18 with 1 Peter 1:3; James 2:7 with 1 Peter 4:14; James 3:13 with 1 Peter 2:12; James 4:1 with 1 Peter 2:11; James 4:6 with 1 Peter 5:5, 6; James 4:7 with 1 Peter 5:6, 9; James 4:10 with 1 Peter 5:6; James 5:20 with 1 Peter 4:6

A Brief Survey of 1 Peter, Part 1

 A Short Survey of 1 Peter, Part 1

Author:

The author is the Apostle Peter.  There has never been any controversy or doubt concerning the Petrine authorship of this Epistle.  The Epistle of Clement of Rome (fl. 95 AD) contains six allusions and quotations.  Polycarp, a contemporary and associate of John, gives ten allusions or citations.  The letters of Ignatius of Antioch contain five.  And Irenaeus’ (120 – 202) works contain fifteen citations.[i]  If any controversy has been broached, it is concerning Peter’s second Epistle, which some questioned in the Ante-Nicene era.  The diction of this Epistle and of his speeches in Acts is very similar: an unplanned coincidence, and so a mark of authenticity[ii]

Date:

This letter was composed circa 63 A.D.  It was probably written towards the end of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome.  There are reasons for thinking that Peter had seen Paul’s Ephesian letter, hence this letter was written as late as 63.  “Mark is mentioned as with Peter in Babylon.  This must have been after Col 4:10 (A.D. 61-63), when Mark was with Paul at Rome, but intending to go to Asia Minor.”[iii]

Place of Writing:

It seems most likely that the place of writing was Babylon on the Euphrates.[iv]  Commentators have frequently take Babylon as a symbolic reference to Rome.  But it is unlikely that in the middle of writing a very plain and matter-of-fact letter, he would inexplicably change milieus to a mystical prophetic style.  Josephus states that there was a great multitude of Jews in Chaldean Babylon.[v]  It was probable, at least that the apostle of the circumcision[vi] would visit them. 

Canonicity:

Since no doubt exists concerning the authorship, there is no reason either to question the book’s canonicity.

Audience:

The letter is addressed to Diaspora.  They were Jewish believers, over whom Peter had a special charge.[vii]  Peter labels these people Elect.

Outline:

      1:1 - 2             Introduction

      1:3 - 12           A Reminder of God’s Salvation

      1:13 – 2:10    Exhortations to Holy Living

      2:11 – 4:19    The Christian’s Responsibility in Suffering

      5:1 – 11          Christian Humility and Service

---

[i] Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1

[ii] Compare 1Pe 2:7 with Ac 4:11; 1Pe 1:12 with Ac 5:32; 1Pe 2:24 with Ac 5:30; 10:39; 1Pe 5:1 with Ac 2:32; 3:15; 1Pe 1:10 with Ac 3:18; 10:43; 1Pe 1:21 with Ac 3:15; 10:40; 1Pe 4:5 with Ac 10:42; 1Pe 2:24 with Ac 3:19, 26.

[iii] B.W. Johnson, The People’s New Testament (Introduction to 1 Peter)

[iv] 1 Peter 5:13

[v] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 15.2.2; 3.1

[vi] Galatians 2:7, 8

[vii] Galatians 2:8

If TBN Had Existed in the Time of Irenaeus

1. But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist. For, joining the buffooneries of Anaxilaus to the craftiness of the magi, as they are called, he is regarded by his senseless and cracked-brain followers as working miracles by these means.

2. Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, and pouring from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: “May that Charis who is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil.” Repeating certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away after him.

3. It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy. He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these: “I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Charis, since the Father of all doth continually behold thy angel before His face. Now the place of thy angel is among us: it behoves us to become one. Receive first from me and by me [the gift of] Charis. Adorn thyself as a bride who is expecting her bridegroom, that thou mayest be what I am, and I what thou art. Establish the germ of light in thy nuptial chamber. Receive from me a spouse, and become receptive of him, while thou art received by him. Behold Charis has descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy.” On the woman replying, “I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy;” then engaging, for the second time, in certain invocations, so as to astound his deluded victim, he says to her, “Open thy mouth, speak whatsoever occurs to thee, and thou shalt prophesy.” She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently [from emotion], reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit. (Referring to this, one superior to me has observed, that the soul is both audacious and impudent when heated with empty air.) Henceforth she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own Charis. She then makes the effort to reward him, not only by the gift of her possessions (in which way he has collected a very large fortune), but also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.

4. But already some of the most faithful women, possessed of the fear of God, and not being deceived (whom, nevertheless, he did his best to seduce like the rest by bidding them prophesy), abhorring and execrating him, have withdrawn from such a vile company of revellers. This they have done, as being well aware that the gift of prophecy is not conferred on men by Marcus, the magician, but that only those to whom God sends His grace from above possess the divinely-bestowed power of prophesying; and then they speak where and when God pleases, and not when Marcus orders them to do so. For that which commands is greater and of higher authority than that which is commanded, inasmuch as the former rules, while the latter is in a state of subjection. If, then, Marcus, or anyone else, does command,— as these are accustomed continually at their feasts to play at drawing lots, and [in accordance with the lot] to command one another to prophesy, giving forth as oracles what is in harmony with their own desires,—it will follow that he who commands is greater and of higher authority than the prophetic spirit, though he is but a man, which is impossible. But such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well-compacted faith which they received at first through the Church.

5. Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God— a thing which frequently occurs—have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.

6. Some of his disciples, too, addicting themselves to the same practices, have deceived many silly women, and defiled them. They proclaim themselves as being “perfect,” so that no one can be compared to them with respect to the immensity of their knowledge, nor even were you to mention Paul or Peter, or any other of the apostles. They assert that they themselves know more than all others, and that they alone have imbibed the greatness of the knowledge of that power which is unspeakable. They also maintain that they have attained to a height above all power, and that therefore they are free in every respect to act as they please, having no one to fear in anything. For they affirm, that because of the “Redemption” it has come to pass that they can neither be apprehended, nor even seen by the judge. But even if he should happen to lay hold upon them, then they might simply repeat these words, while standing in his presence along with the “Redemption:” “O thou, who sittest beside God, and the mystical, eternal Sige, thou through whom the angels (mightiness), who continually behold the face of the Father, having thee as their guide and introducer, do derive their forms from above, which she in the greatness of her daring inspiring with mind on account of the goodness of the Propator, produced us as their images, having her mind then intent upon the things above, as in a dream,— behold, the judge is at hand, and the crier orders me to make my defence. But do thou, as being acquainted with the affairs of both, present the cause of both of us to the judge, inasmuch as it is in reality but one cause.” Now, as soon as the Mother hears these words, she puts the Homeric helmet of Pluto upon them, so that they may invisibly escape the judge. And then she immediately catches them up, conducts them into the bridal chamber, and hands them over to their consorts.

7. Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, “neither without nor within;” possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge. 

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 13