Who: Third century bishop of Carthage (in modern Tunisia), and martyr from Africa
What: A letter to encourage the unity of the church against schisms and heresy during massive Roman persecution
Why: A disturbance had happened in the church because of a priest called Novatian — a schismatic of the third century, and founder of the sect of the Novatians. Cyprian wrote to counter this and argues that there can only be one united Church, and the Novatian breakaway was a false church and that Novatian was an antipope.
When: Around 249 AD
You can find today’s reading on page 92 here: lentfatherscomplete.pdf
Bishop Cyprian of Carthage is another one I'm only familiar with by name, but this treatise of his we're beginning to read today is apparently one of his greatest works. Written during a time when the new Roman emperor wanted to restore Rome to its former glory, he decreed that all Christian bishops be killed and any laity to be forced to recant in the face of death.
Many Christians at this time were martyred but there were many who also abandoned their faith and sacrificed to the gods in exchange for their lives, or bought a certificate to say they had when they hadn't. This was all considered sin and blasphemy by the Church, though many felt regret and wanted to be forgiven and restored.
“But how can a man say that he believes in Christ, who does not do what Christ commanded him to do?” Cyprian argues, since the faith of many had become weak.
It is not “persecution alone that is to be feared”, Cyprian writes, since “caution is more easy where danger is manifest” but to be all the more vigilant in times of peace because the enemy “creeps on us secretly” in sneaky ways, which is why he has earned the name “Serpent”.
Novatian rose up as an “antipope” (someone who rejected the people's choice of pope) and caused a schism saying he wanted to restore the “true Church” and drew some people away. Cyprian is arguing for unity and that there is only one true Church and that is those who are all in unity with one another in the local congregation, and also with their Bishops, who by extension should be united in doctrine across all the churches, thus creating the unified Body of Christ. So with that in mind, much of what he writes here is speaking about how the true followers of Christ should act and what they should be doing if they are working out their salvation.
Avoid slipping back into the ways of the “old man” (our pre-conversion mindset and lifestyle), and instead stand strong “in the footsteps of a conquering Christ” so we can avoid the nets of death and instead “possess the immortality that we have received” – which we do by keeping the commandments of Jesus, “whereby death is driven out and overcome” (Matthew 19:17), and go from slaves to sin to friends of God (John 15:14).
What could me more “crafty”, he goes on to say, than someone, inspired by the enemy, who invents “heresies and schisms” under the very name of “Christian” to deceive those who are weak in their faith. This is why the Church needs to be aware of the enemy and to really persevere in their faith and in keeping the commandments of Christ lest “he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity” and snatch “men from the Church itself”!
These people whom the enemy deceives, “do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ, they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light”. Cyprian has strong words and feelings about this matter, lives are at stake, and this schism is potentially leading many astray.
...while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle's word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness, who maintain night instead of day, death for salvation, despair under the offer of hope, perfidy under the pretext of faith, antichrist under the name of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Deception can easily creep in “so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master”.
“Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith?” Cyprian asks, really hammering home the point of keeping unity within the Church and the faith; as Christ endowed the Twelve with power, but commissioned Peter to feed the sheep, in doing so Jesus arranged the “origin of that unity” for which the partnership of the Apostles began the Church. To strengthen his argument for unity within One Church, he quotes Paul in Ephesians 4:4-6, calling it the “sacrament of unity” by which we know the true Church.
In speaking of the Bishops, or the “episcopate”, Cyprian says they above all need to uphold this unity of faith, because they are “held by each one for the whole” so that they are undivided as the Church is undivided and one.
I like the analogy Cyprian uses to describe the unity and “oneness” of the Church, in comparing it to things in nature:
As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.
Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated.
To further show the Church should be in perfect unity, Cyprian quotes Jesus saying “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30), and also makes what is a potentially early witness to the disputed Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), when he writes, “again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’”.
Using these verses, he argues that if this unity is “divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments” can the Church then be separated by opposition? “He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.”
Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it--the garment of the Lord-- the Church of Christ?
This argument about the garment comes from the robe which Jesus wore at his crucifixion which the soldiers cast lots for since they didn’t want to rip it. The robe was made of a seamless thread from top to bottom, just as Christ is the head of the Church woven down from heaven to the Body, it too cannot be broken by those who possess it, as it shows the “coherent concord of our people who put on Christ” (cf. Jn 19:24; Rom 13:14; Gal 3:27).
To close this section, the argument for unity rests in those words of Jesus previously quoted and also in what Paul wrote when he urged the Corinthians to keep in unity and avoid schisms:
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.
As the “Holy Spirit came as a dove, a simple and joyous creature … This is the simplicity that ought to be known in the Church”. Cyprian ends this chapter with this thought, and that is really something that the Church today should do well to remember and hold to so that there may be unity across the world in true brotherly love, as Jesus said in Jn 13:34-35.
Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!
Order my new book today from Amazon or lukejwilson.com/amazon
Luke J. Wilson | 23rd December 2023 | Early Church
A common modern perception of the inspiration of Scripture often portrays it as a rigid, divine dictation of words from God to be written down verbatim. This perspective leads to concerns among some religious communities, such as Muslims, who view any alteration or addition to the text as a potential threat to the entire faith. The Islamic understanding of inspiration emphasises direct and unalterable divine dictation, contributing to their scepticism of multiple Bible translations, which they falsely label as “corruption”. In contrast, the Biblical inspiration of the Scriptures has never been viewed as a literal divine dictation, as if the apostles were under a holy spell ensuring word-for-word accuracy. Dr Michael Heiser emphasises that the writers were influenced by God through the circumstances of providence, with God guiding them to write what was deemed necessary for posterity. This perspective shifts the focus of inspiration from the writers to the ultimate, providential guidance of God. The canonisation of the New Testament was not a straightforward process. The authority of the authors played a crucial role, and texts were included based on their ability to teach the fullness of salvation and faith. Noteworthy texts, like the Didache, were highly regarded, read, and taught to new converts but did not meet the specific criteria for canonisation. The canon was a dynamic concept, and some New Testament books faced scepticism before gaining widespread acceptance. These texts were known as “antilegomena” (from Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα) literally meaning “spoken against”. In the Early Church, the antilegomena enjoyed widespread readership, encompassing works such as the Epistle of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. Within the Early Church, there existed differing opinions on whether these particular texts merited canonical status, though. Eusebius, who wrote Church History (~325), used the Greek term “antilegomena” to refer to the group of disputed writings. He uses this word in two places when speaking about these texts: It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed [αντιλέγεσθαι] by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. (3.3.5) Among the disputed writings [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων]. (3.25.3–5) Delving into specific biblical references, such as 1 Corinthians 5:9 and Colossians 4:16, these verses shed light on the existence of letters by apostles that did not make it into the New Testament. Paul’s mention of an earlier letter in 1 Corinthians and the reference to a letter from Laodicea in Colossians raise questions about missing apostolic letters. However, these omissions should not be a cause for concern. Bart Ehrman, a notable agnostic New Testament scholar and textual critic, says in his book Misquot...
Luke J. Wilson | 01st December 2023 | Christmas
It’s that time of year when Christmas lights and decorations go up, things start to look a little more sparkly, and kids are getting ready to open their Advent Calendars. But what exactly is “Advent”? You may be from a Church tradition which recognises this each year so are more familiar, but if not, you may be curious to know more about this ancient Christian tradition. Advent, derived from the Latin “adventus,” signifying “coming” or “arrival,” stands as a sacred season deeply entrenched in the hearts of many Christians globally. This period of expectant waiting and preparation marks the initiation of the liturgical year in Western Christianity, embodying a profound anticipation of both the Nativity of Christ at Christmas and the eagerly awaited Second Coming. Historical Origins The origins of Advent, though veiled in the mists of time, can be traced back to around 480, with the Council of Tours in 567 introducing a distinctive element to this season. Monks were instructed to observe a fast every day in December until Christmas, adding an element of penitence and preparation to the weeks leading up to the joyous celebration. The roots of Advent delve deep into the historical fabric of Christian tradition, and as J. Neil Alexander, a bishop in the Episcopal church notes, providing a definitive explanation of its origin remains a challenging endeavour. “[it is] impossible to claim with confidence a credible explanation of the origin of Advent” Associated with Advent’s penitential aspect was a period of fasting known as St Martin’s Lent or the Nativity Fast. This fast, initiated by Bishop Perpetuus in the fifth century, required believers to abstain from certain indulgences three times a week from St. Martin’s Day on 11 November until Christmas. This practice initially found traction in the diocese of Tours, France, gradually extending its influence over the sixth century. The essence of Advent extends beyond mere historical observance; it encompasses a multifaceted anticipation of the “coming of Christ” in three distinct ways: from the physical nativity in Bethlehem to the reception of Christ in the believer’s heart, and to the eschatological hope of the Second Coming. Advent encapsulates the diverse aspects of Christian hope. The Liturgical Calendar The liturgical calendar, particularly in the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Moravian, Presbyterian, and Methodist traditions, designates Advent as commencing on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, concluding on Christmas Eve. This period of roughly four weeks becomes a sacred journey marked by readings and teachings that emphasise not only the anticipation of Christ’s first coming but also the profound reflection on the Second Coming and the Last Judgement. Advent is recognised as a late inclusion in the liturgical calendar during the late fourth and early fifth centuries. The Council of Saragossa in 380 AD, particularly in its fourth canon, laid the foundation for the observance of Advent, emphasising the importance of daily attendance in church during the twenty-one days leading up to December 17th. Traditional Advent Wreath The symbolism of Advent is poignantly captured in the Advent wreath, a practice dating back to 16th-century German Lutherans but taking its modern form in the 19th century. Johann Hinrich Wichern, a Protestant pastor, conceived the idea of a wreath adorned with candles representing the Sundays of Advent. The lighting of these candles, especially the pink one on Gaudete Sunday, adds a visual dimension to the spiritual journey of waiting and rejoicing (Gaudete means rejoice in Latin). Focused on Christ The theological roots of Advent find expression in the Latin term “adventus”, embodying both the Incarnation and the glorious Parousia of the Son of God. The tension between these two meanings was resolved as Advent came to signify a moment of preparation for the coming of Chri...
Luke J. Wilson | 23rd November 2023 | General Interest
The Bible can be a complex thing, with many interwoven connections not always immediately apparent, linking topics and themes together across the ages. One such intriguing relationship lies between Exodus 30:14 and Matthew 17:24–27, offering valuable perspectives on the age dynamics among Jesus’ disciples with a hidden clue in the brief encounter about paying temple tax. Exodus 30:14 — The Age of Accountability Exodus 30:14 establishes a significant criterion for temple tax payment: “Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the offering to the Lord.” This biblical guideline sets what might be considered a standard for adulthood in ancient Israel, signifying the age of accountability and responsibility within the community. Matthew 17:24–27 — A Taxing Encounter Turning to the Gospel of Matthew, a peculiar incident involving Jesus and the temple tax unfolds. Verse 24 introduces the narrative with the phrase “When they came to Capernaum.” The subsequent context implies the presence of Jesus and his disciples, yet attention narrows to Jesus and Peter when the temple tax collectors inquire about payment and question Peter about whether Jesus pays the tax. This seemingly ordinary event takes an intriguing turn. Jesus, perceiving the situation, engages Peter in a dialogue. “What do you think, Simon?” he asks, underscoring the financial responsibilities tied to temple worship. Jesus then asks where do kings take their tolls, from their own children or from others? Peter answers the obvious question, “from others”. Jesus responds with, “Then the children are free”, which has implications for his own Sonship which is something that passed me by when reading this story in past times. God is the King, the temple is his, and therefore the tax is being imposed by God on the people (via his Law). But Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore should be free from paying the temple tax, since “the children are free” from this obligation. But to not cause an offence and as a way to prove himself Lord of all creation, Jesus instructs Peter to go to the sea, cast a hook, and retrieve the first fish caught. In its mouth, Peter discovers a coin that covers the temple tax for himself and Jesus only. Unravelling the Connections The discerning reader may now understand the link between Exodus 30:14 and Matthew 17:24–27. If the temple tax applied to those “twenty years old and over,” the specific focus on Jesus and Peter being singled out suggests a thought-provoking possibility — the age of the disciples. The use of the phrase “when they came” in Matthew 17:24 implies the collective presence of Jesus and his disciples. However, the subsequent emphasis on Jesus and Peter for tax payment hints at a more intriguing narrative. Could it be that, among the disciples, only Peter had crossed the threshold of twenty years? The rest could be anywhere between 13–19! Another clue is that it appears only Peter was married, since his mother-in-law is mentioned in Luke 4:38–39, implying that he was possibly older than the others too. Peter, and others, are often depicted as quite old.Saint Peter, by Peter Paul Rubens, 1610 Implications for Discipleship This age dynamic may offer insights into the behavioural nuances observed among the disciples throughout the Gospels. Instances of immaturity, such as the disciples’ arguments about greatness (Mark 9:32–34), the way John and Peter race each other to the tomb (John 20:3–10), and Peter’s impulsiveness (John 18:10–11), could find resonance in their potential youthfulness. The designation of Peter as a leader, entrusted with the care of Jesus’ sheep (John 21:15–17), takes on added significance in this context. If Peter, by virtue of age and experience, stood out among the disciples, it provides a rationale for his prominent role in the early Christian community. Understanding the age dynamics among the di...
Luke J. Wilson | 21st November 2023 | Christmas
It’s nearly Christmas time again, and like clockwork, the internet memes come out all over social media about Saint Nicholas giving the heretic Arius a slap across the face at the Council of Nicaea! As it’s almost the end of November and coming up soon is the feast day of St. Nicholas on December 6th, the original inspiration behind Santa Claus, I thought I’d address this long-standing myth about Nicholas of Myra (present-day Demre, Turkey), the fourth century bishop. St. Nicholas is often humorously portrayed in social media memes which playfully recount the infamous incident during the Council of Nicaea when the good bishop, provoked by Arius’s blasphemies, supposedly delivered him a slap across the face! Memes abound about St Nicholas and Arius While some of these memes offer undeniable amusement, they starkly contrast with the conventional image of Santa Claus — known for his jovial and indulgent nature — as well as the expected decorum of a bishop and leader in the Church. Moreover, the sentiment challenges the teachings of Jesus on how to deal with our enemies. Jesus advocated for practices such as loving and praying for your enemies, turning the other cheek (Mt 5:38–45), overcoming evil with good (Rom 12:21), being gentle and not violent (1 Tim 3:3), avoiding quick-temperedness (Titus 1:7), and recognising that a soft answer turns away wrath (Prov 15:1). In this time marked by safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microaggressions, the straightforward honesty and tough demeanour attributed to St. Nicholas in these memes may resonate with those who appreciate a departure from the perceived niceties of modern discourse. The image of St. Nicholas allegedly striking Arius can be seen as a politically incorrect rebuke to what some Christians might see as the Church or society being too “soft” nowadays. Historical Basis However, historical inaccuracies abound in this narrative. The story lacks credibility, as historical records of the bishops present at the Council of Nicaea do not include St. Nicholas. Hagiographical works written centuries after his death connect him to the Council, with the account of the violent incident appearing over a millennium later, in a 14th-century work by an anonymous writer. Moreover, medieval versions of the story describe Nicholas slapping, not punching, an Arian heretic (not specifically Arius). This action is portrayed as a medicinal slap or rebuke, aimed at bringing the individual back to his senses rather than expressing contempt or a desire to harm. In Greek iconography, this moment is celebrated. Icon of St. Nicholas and Arius In the original tale, however, Nicholas’s actions were not lauded at the Council; instead, he faced consequences. Reportedly, he was deprived of his mitre and pallium for striking the Arian heretic. A later version of the story, which identifies the heretic as Arius, amplifies Nicholas’s punishment by having him thrown into jail. In this narrative, Nicholas is vindicated by a divine intervention involving Jesus and Mary, who appear to him in prison and release him, and giving him back his bishop vestments. WWJD? It is crucial to approach this anecdote with caution, recognising that celebrating St. Nicholas’s supposed act of aggression may inadvertently justify short-tempered tendencies. Similar to those who fixate on Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple as “permission” to act brutishly towards those they disagree with, to the exclusion of Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness. WWJD? Reflecting on the Arius memes, it’s essential to strike a balance. While humour has its place, some jokes may lead those weaker in the faith, and unbelieving onlookers, to assume that some acts of violence are OK and ‘approved’ by Jesus and the Church, and understanding the legendary aspect to this particular story about Saint Nick and Arius could help to alleviate that. Further Reading Who was the real Santa C...
My new book is out now: Available on Amazon in paperback, hardcover or Kindle!
“I cannot imagine there is a better way to get familiar with 350 of the most important years of church history in seven hours spread over 40 days.” — Paul Pavao, author of Decoding Nicea