If you follow certain Christian blogs, or have Christian friends on Social Media, then you may have seen a short video clip being shared which has been taken from a recent sermon by popular Evangelical pastor/speaker and author, Francis Chan of Crazy Loveministries.
Depending on who shared the clip will depend on which reaction you have seen; some are praising his words, others fearing for his future calling it a “red flag”.
And all of this over a short statement he made about communion!
I recommend you watch this 3 minute clip below before continuing, if you haven’t seen it already. I would also recommend watching the whole 47 minute sermon for some better context, where he talks about his struggles and journey to this point in his faith around the topic of communion — something he was wrestling with even back in his BASIC series teaching on Communion from around 2012, views which have clearly moved on since then towards a more historical view.
Chan says he isn’t making any sort of “grand statement” here, and goes on to give a brief, if little distorted, overview of church history:
“I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years of church history, everyone saw it as the literal body and blood of Christ … And it wasn’t until 500 years ago that someone popularised the thought that it’s just a symbol and nothing more. I didn’t know that. I thought, ‘Wow, that’s something to consider.’”
This part isn’t too far from reality, really, though a little over-simplified. But I understand his zeal and excitement about this discovery of his, as I went through the exact same mind-blowing realisation around five or so years ago when I first delved into the writings of the Early Church Fathers and was forced to come to the same conclusion that there was something there to seriously consider. If the Church had always understood Jesus’ words and the interpretation of Scripture in a fairly singular and unified way for nearly two millennia, then who was I to come along and say my understanding exceeds the wisdom of everyone before me?
It was actually one of the earliest texts, from a second century bishop called Ignatius, that really tipped me over the edge from a “memorialist” view (that the bread and wine are purely symbolic, nothing more), to a sacramental view (that the bread and wine are a means of grace that God uses). Ignatius was writing against a heretical group who were teaching a false doctrine about Jesus not really coming in the flesh, and uses communion as an example to prove the opposite, which also gives us an interesting and early view on the sacraments:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” — Ignatius Of Antioch: Letter To The Smyrnaeans (c.108 AD)
At first reading I was stuck by the literal nature in which Ignatius spoke of the Eucharist (communion), and as I read more of the Early Church Fathers, that same, common thread kept appearing: they all held to a view of Communion which was definitely more than simply a symbol or memorial (you can read some more quotes on the topic here).
Chan later talks about unity in the early church and how he longs to see that type of unity again in the Church globally, explaining that making communion more central to worship would help with that. Chan then laments about the apparent disunity within Protestantism, citing the dramatic statistics of there being “30,000 denominations” in the Protestant world.
It’s a common claim, often from Roman Catholic apologists, but it’s not exactly accurate; there’s really only about six general umbrellas if you boil it all down: Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal/Charismatic. Most “non-denominational” churches are still largely Baptist in their theology, despite avoiding any overarching labels. You could also possibly argue for maybe 20-ish denominational groups, if you accept some of the sub-sects of the six listed above as different enough to warrant being counted separately. But I digress.
Chan then continues his sermon, making some more generalised historical claims:
“…for 1500 years it was never one guy and his pulpit being the centre of the church, it was the body and blood of Christ…”
Another area he touches on is the centrality of the Eucharist to the ancient church compared to many modern, Evangelical church services today, where it’s the speaker or sermon which is the focus and communion sometimes gets sidelined. The effect of the Reformation in the 16th century on theology as a whole was when the position of the pulpit really started to shift its focus from off-center to the central positioning common today.
I agree with him here, and that point is definitely part of my own journey in why I’ve recently joined the Anglican church, as I enjoy the fact that the whole of the liturgy leads up to the celebration of Christ’s presence with us as the high point of the service. This isn’t to say or diminish the importance of preaching, but that it too should be a stepping stone into the presence of God; and if you believe in the Real Presencein communion, then that is where we meet with Christ in a very real way as the crescendo of the whole service.
Despite what some bloggers and YouTubers are claiming, I don’t think we can say from this video and short clip alone that Francis Chan is “swimming the Tiber” and becoming a Roman Catholic. His statements are too broad and vague to say he is specifically talking about transubstantiation, and he could just as easily be expressing the Anglican or Lutheran view of Communion, which would make him just as much, if not more, Protestant than he already is.
But overall, I think he’s just experienced that first time realisation that the early church wasn’t what he thought/was taught and it’s blown his mind, and until he refines his views and reads more of the Early Church Fathers, his statements are just a bit over-simplified and fuelled by an excitable zeal. I had the exact same reaction a number of years ago when I first discovered these early writings weren’t what I was taught, and said what I didn’t expect (and I even took a Church History class at Bible College)!
We would all be wise to reserve judgement on the matter until Chan comes out and gives a proper statement about his new views and says one way or the other if he’s going towards Rome fully, or towards one of the other more historically rooted Protestant denominations, if anything actually comes from this.
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!
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...
I am excited to announce that the brand "That Ancient Faith" will be changing its name to The Sacred Faith.
As the readership of That Ancient Faith has grown, there has been a risk of confusion with the well-known Orthodox Christian publisher and broadcaster “Ancient Faith”. To develop a distinctive look and to avoid any potential confusion, I have decided to rebrand the website as The Sacred Faith.
The Sacred Faith will continue to offer the same great content that readers have come to expect from That Ancient Faith. The website and social media channels will remain the same, with only the name and branding changing.
I'm excited about this new chapter for the brand and am looking forward to the continued growth of The Sacred Faith. This rebranding is a step forward in making the publishing and content I produce stand out in the online world, and in providing readers with even more unique content.
The change of the brand name will take effect in the following days to be fully switched over within a month. The website URL will change from thatancientfaith.uk to thesacredfaith.co.uk (it will automatically redirect for a while). I encourage all subscribers and followers to update their bookmarks and follow the brand's new social media handles (I'll send another update later once I've updated all my pages to let you know what the new URLs are).
For further information on the rebranding, please contact me here.
Thank you for your continued support and readership.
Sincerely,
Luke Wilson...
I recently saw a video on TikTok from a guy who makes videos about physics and the universe in all its complex wonder, and the video that popped up was one about a supernova that happened 1000 years ago.
These things interest me in general, but this one in particular caught my eye for other reasons: it’s a pretty unique event and is known as “the supernova of 1054”.
Now for some of you reading this, that year may sound very familiar if you know your church history. This is the year of The Great Schism (also known as the East-West Schism)!
Why is this relevant, you might be asking yourself… Well, let me tell you what my thoughts are.
My thinking went immediately to the verses throughout the Bible which talk of God making the stars as signs in the heavens for important events. There’s plenty that speak about the stars in various ways and for different reasons signifying things God was doing, or events on the earth. The first main reference happens during the creation narrative:
Genesis 1:14And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years
Then also there’s the important one signifying the birth of Christ, which the magi saw and recognised as important:
Matthew 2:1–2In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.”
See also various other references to the stars as signs here: Revelation 6:12–17, Matthew 24:29–30, Isaiah 13:13, Jeremiah 10:2, Joel 2:31, Haggai 2:6, Luke 21:25–26, Ezekiel 32:7–8, Job 38:31–33, Amos 5:8, Psalm 19:1.
But what makes this supernova of 1054 even more interesting isn’t just that it happens in the same year, but the same month! The Great Schism is generally dated to 16th July 1054 as the clinching moment of the Eastern and Western church parting ways (with the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius), and this supernova was visible in the northern sky during the day from around the 4th July for over 20 days, which would lead right up to (and slightly beyond) the 16th of July! Crazy, right?
You might call all this coincidental or circumstantial, but I just thought it was an interesting link. Maybe the events of the Church broke the universe!
What this could mean, if anything, is up for debate of course; and whether the sign in the sky was pointing to the Schism being a good or bad thing is an issue for another day. But it’s an interesting connection, nonetheless.
Let me know what you think in the comments below!
Sources/references:
Great Schism | National Geographic Society
The Crab Nebula | NASA
SN 1054 — Wikipedia
Supernova of 1054 and its Remnant, the Crab Nebula — NASA/ADS (harvard.edu)
If only they knew what they were looking at! 💫💥 #astronomy #astronomytok #physicstok #spacetok (tiktok.com)
...
EXCITING UPDATES!
Just a quick update for you about a couple of new and exciting things I am offering now! Firstly, I have now launched a new range of faith-inspired clothing, which you can see some examples of in the image banner above. If you want to proclaim Christ and your faith via what you wear (especially in these dark times where churches are closed), head on over to: https://thatancientfaith.teemill.com
The second thing to mention, as you may gather from the logo above, is that I now have a YouTube channel! I have begun it by doing a read through of my book, 40 Days with the Fathers, through Lent, so you can listen to the whole book for free. I also plan to create videos discussing the topics I write about where I can go into things in more detail or explain some of the thinking behind the various topics which I can't always fit into the blogs.
So if you enjoy watching things on YouTube, come on over and subscribe to my channel.
That's right: I have a new book in the works! It draws on some of the series and articles I've written on this site to do with Old Testament prophecy and its links into the New Testament, the Incarnation (briefly) and the Second Coming and what we have to look forward to (or worry about). Stay tuned for updates, I'll post some more information soon when there's something more solid to show.
If you want to get some insider previews or maybe some advanced reading or snippets etc. then come on over to my Patreon and sign up. Members will get advanced access to any news and updates before anyone else, plus other bonuses!
That's all for now, leave a comment if you have any queries or thoughts! ...
There’s a new Netflix documentary out at the moment which has hit the news recently about the infamous serial killer Jeffery Dahmer.
I haven’t watched it, but I knew of him as a serial killer though I didn’t realise just how horrific his crimes were until I read the Wikipedia article about him! Not for the faint of heart, that’s for sure.
But this post isn’t really about Dahmer, not entirely, but rather the reactions to some recent social media posts about him and the (often vitriol) responses they’ve got. Here’s one example:
Dahmer is probably in heaven and experiencing eternal joy. If this bothers you, you don’t know the depths of your own depravity or the price paid for his forgiveness.
— Eriq Jäger (@MilkToastOnRye) September 27, 2022
Now, a little context in case you are unaware: Dahmer professed faith in Jesus, repented and was baptised while in prison. The minister who baptised him, Roy Ratcliff, also met with him weekly for one-hour Bible studies and pastoral care. He even wrote a book about the experience and was convinced his conversion was genuine.
I’m going to state something off the back of this which will no doubt offend some, but it is for this reason that Paul says the truth of the Gospel is offensive:
If you can’t accept that Jeffrey Dahmer could be welcomed into the Kingdom of God, then you don’t understand the Gospel.
Does the idea that a homosexual, cannibalistic, murdering rapist could be forgiven by God cause you some discomfort? I’ll be honest, when I first considered something like this many years ago, it did cause me to have a knee-jerk reaction against it. I understand the apprehension. We want people like him to burn in hell for all eternity. But let me say it like this: if Dahmer can’t be saved, then neither can you (or me). Or do you think you are “better” or “good enough” for salvation and Dahmer isn’t? If you do think this, then, again, you don’t understand the Gospel or God’s grace.
Many Christians are aware of Paul’s words in Romans 3:23: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. I often see this quoted online as inspirational images and posters, or as a way to explain human failings, since no one can live up to what God requires of us through our own efforts. But when you apply this to a repentant murderer, suddenly it’s no longer valid? That’s not how grace works. Look at the surrounding context; Paul makes it abundantly clear that there are no exceptions — for falling short or being saved by grace:
…the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus… (Rom 3:22–24, emphasis mine)
There is no distinction: we have all sinned and we can all be justified by grace. All we need to do is place our faith in Jesus and his finished work on the cross.
The Apostle Paul knew the depth of this grace well for he was also “breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord” (Acts 9:1) when hunting down Christians and approving of Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 8:1).
Paul acknowledges his sin but recognises that God saved him as a testimony to the abundant goodness and mercy of God, so that if even Paul can be saved, then so can anyone.
1 Timothy 1:16But I received mercy for this reason, so that in me, the worst of them, Christ Jesus might demonstrate His extraordinary patience as an example to those who would believe in Him for eternal life.
Jeffrey Dahmer was definitely “the worst of them”, yet not beyond the reach of our ever-loving saviour, Christ Jesus.
I understand the human desire to want to see the vilest of people punished or condemned to hellfire, and even the Apostles and other believers were wary of Paul’s conversion and claim to have faith, understandably so. “...
It’s no secret that the majority of Christians are against abortion, no matter where you look in the world. But nowhere has the issue come to more of a head than in the US recently with the overturning of Roe v Wade, which had made abortion legal across the country. Now abortion is no longer a federal constitutional right, but individual states now have the authority to determine the legality and rulings around abortion.
Christian opposition to abortion in America has always been a heated topic, especially in recent decades, but this isn’t a novelty within the Church in America, or globally, and has been a position of the faithful for about 2000 years. Even before Christianity, Judaism was opposed to abortion and infanticide, until about the 18th century when modernism greatly influenced religious thinking, and abortion became more acceptable in their view.
I’ve had people say to me “why can’t Christians be as progressive as the Jews?” in regards to views on abortion. Being “progressive” is all well and good, but it assumes we’re all intrinsically progressing towards something good or right. I don’t think that disregarding the value of life, and especially that of unborn children is necessarily progressing in the right direction. It baffles me that people think we are taking a step backwards by desiring to preserve the sanctity of life by viewing abortion as a moral issue, not a religious one.
Humans as icons of God
First and foremost, Christians have always held high respect for life and creation, a worldview inherited from Judaism. This is rooted in creation in Genesis where God has made humans in his image, and how we are called to be image-bearers of God; representatives of Him on Earth. But this “imaging” comes with the responsibility of preserving life as something precious, hence why unlawful killing was taken so seriously. We get a glimpse at how seriously God takes this very early on in Genesis 9:5–6,
For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed, for in his own image God made humans.
You might be familiar with the concept of “icons”; sacred and religious artwork that acts as a representative of the person or object depicted. In the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX), the creation account of man as an image of God uses the Greek work εἰκόνα where we get our English word “icon” from. This same word and concept is also seen in the New Testament, though often translated as “image”.
Paul makes it clear that while we are icons of Adam now in our fallen state, in and through Christ we shall also be icons of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:49) being renewed back to that original image we were created to be (Col. 3:10) as imagers of God because Jesus is also the icon of God — his exact character and image (Heb. 1:3).
Colossians 1:15He is the image [εἰκών] of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Hopefully, this explains a little more about why life is seen as precious and something to be protected.
Christian views on abortion, love and charity
Abortion is nothing new though, but the worldview that all life is precious was quite revolutionary in the ancient world. Christianity took this idea and really ran with it more than any other social or religious group of its time. Romans, and others, were often happy to look after their own… and by “their own”, I mean those in the same upper-class social groups who could repay the favour, as “charity” was to increase your own reputation and make people beholden to you. The poor and lower classes were seen as basically worthless and expendable since they could never repay any acts of charity.
This led to the common practice of the time known as “exposing children” —...
On Thursday at ancient Shiloh, Dr. Scott Stripling, director of excavations for the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR), presented new findings which may well be one of the most significant discoveries in biblical archaeology in recent times!
More than thirty years ago, Prof. Adam Zertal discovered a small lead amulet, only two centimetres square, from wet-sifting material taken from an excavation on Mount Ebal. This came from a square altar dated from the 13th century BC, which had been built on top of an older and circular altar. Prof. Zertal believed this was the same altar Joshua built when he entered the land of Israel:
Josh. 8:30Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel
Dr. Stripling’s team rediscovered this in 2020, yet the metal amulet still remained a mystery.
New technology enabled archeologists to read the ancient amulet
The amulet was folded in half and had letters inscribed into the foil — but they were indecipherable and the metal was now too brittle to unfold without destroying the whole thing. Reaching out to a team of researchers in Prague, the ABR team had them use tomographic scans similar to medical CT scans to reveal the long hidden text.
The scans revealed something very unexpected: an ancient proto-alphabetic Hebrew inscription composed of 40 letters! These are centuries older than any other known Hebrew inscription from ancient Israel and now challenge everything archaeologists and Biblical scholars thought they knew.
Specialists in deciphering ancient texts, known as Epigraphers, Pieter Gert van der Veen of Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz and Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa, determined that the lead amulet was what is known as a defixio: a curse tablet.
On the amulet, the word “cursed” appears 10 times, along with the tetragrammaton — the four letter name of God, YHWH in English. Below is the text of the amulet:
Cursed, cursed, cursed — cursed by the God YHWH.You will die cursed.Cursed you will surely die.Cursed by YHWH — cursed, cursed, cursed.
But the text of the amulet wasn’t the only revelation given.
The excavated pottery which was with the amulet dated to the Iron Age I and Late Bronze Age, meaning that logically the tablet derived from one of these earlier periods.
Dr. Stripling told The Jerusalem Post;
I believe the amulet dates to the Late Bronze II age, or as early as 1400 BC. This is older than any Hebrew script that has ever been published by at least 200 years. This is earlier than many sceptics believe the Bible existed, making this the earliest appearance of the word YHWH in Israel and it was found at a covenant site. The implications are enormous and will reverberate for many years to come.
Mount Ebal, where the amulet was found, was the mountain from which the curses were called out when the children of Israel made a covenant with God before entering the land of Israel, as seen in Deuteronomy 11:29:
When the Lord your God has brought you into the land that you are entering to occupy, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal.
Pieter Gert van der Veen and Dr. Stripling both agree that this fits chronologically with the covenant renewal ceremony seen in the pages of the Bible.
Gershon Galil said, “The amulet was intentionally left near this cultic site. My conclusion is that the biblical story of Joshua’s altar is a historical fact.”
Scholars are at a near consensus that the Exodus and Israelites’ settlement in Canaan happened during the 13th century BC. But Dr. Stripling pointed out another implication brought on by this discovery, “This changes our timeline for the Exodus from Egypt and subsequent entry into Israel. The conquest would have had to take place at an earlier date”.
Along with the amulet, they also discovered flat stones covered in plaster at the site of the altar. This is another confirmation for the Deuteronomy account:
Deute...
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...
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...
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...
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...
40 Days with the Fathers: A Journey Through Church History
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