The Crisis of Change
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 17] |
Slavery is that which cramps powers. The worst slavery is that which cramps the noblest powers. Worse, therefore, than he who manacles the hands and feet is he who puts fetters on the mind, and pretends to demand that men shall think, and believe, and feel thus and thus, because others so believed, and thought, and felt before. (Sermons by Frederick W. Robertson, page 213).
The Good News which Jesus authorized to all the world consisted of seven facts. These related to his life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification. The first five were attested by the personal experience of the apostles who were required to company with him during his entire public ministry from his baptism until he was taken up from them. The last two were certified by a manifestation both visible and audible of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
These seven facts were first presented only to Jews and proselytes, and when they embraced them by faith, and were immersed by the authority of Jesus, they constituted the first community of the saved ones by the blood of atonement. Their recognition of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of the prophets did not convert them from their exclusive "Jewishness" and they had no thought of forming any association outside of the pale of Judaism.
Having grown up in an atmosphere of tolerance for sundry viewpoints which enabled Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and others to gather at the same temple and participate together in the same liturgy, they expected to compose a Messianic sect in which the circumcised ones who regarded Jesus as the Messiah could share in a communal relationship while remaining within the framework of the law.
There was no intention of forming a "Christian church" and many saints suffered persecution and death without knowing they were expected to be "Christians." Certainly the term would have been meaningless to Stephen who died for the faith. The first disciples continued to share in the temple worship at the hours of prayer, to circumcise their children and observe the law. The apostles, who were orthodox in practice, kept the dietary laws meticulously, and Peter assured God that he was kosher, long after Pentecost.
There was no discord among them as to their relationship to Judaism and "they continued daily with one accord in the temple." In their homes they ate together in small groups, maintaining that hospitality which Jerusalem Jews had always shown to their foreign brethren, and at the principal meal each day they partook of the bread and fruit of the vine, in memory of Jesus who had enjoined them to do this until he returned.
They created no special days or hours
[Page 18] |
When a persecutor, breathing out threats of death against the Messianists, wanted to arrest them in the capital city of Syria, he requested letters from the high priest addressed to the rulers of the synagogues, demanding that any believers in Jesus among their number be delivered up to be bound and transferred to Jerusalem for trial. There was no separate or segregated group in Damascus.
These primitive saints observed the customs and traditions, and kept the law, being zealous for it. They celebrated the passover and other days of national significance. In their new relationship created in the belief that they had found the Prince of life, and had recognized the Holy One and the Just, they experienced a sense of closeness which enabled them to exhibit joy, so that in praising God they found favor with all the populace, and daily their number was augmented by those who were being made whole through trust in the Messiah.
They were Jews and their natural inclinations and prejudices remained deeply ingrained in them. This was especially true of those members of the sect of the Pharisees who became believers, for these were the uncompromising proponents of the law. Too, the human failing of cupidity raised its ugly head above the serene and placid surface and the first two of their number who died, perished by divinely administered retribution for greed, conspiracy and falsehood.
At the original proclamation there were Jews present from every nation then in existence and those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah were drawn from both the Hebrews, or Palestinian Jews, and the Hellenists, or Greek-speaking Jews. The latter often tended to be more liberal in association with non-Jews than the former and were sometimes suspect because of this. The first discontent in the new community arose between these two groups.
It was traditional with every synagogue that it was responsible for the sustenance of the widows who found a haven within it. Deacons, or almoners, regularly made collections which were employed to purchase the necessities of life for the poor. The new synagogue of Messianists followed this procedure of caring for dependents. However, the Greek-speaking Jews alleged that favoritism was being shown and their widows were being neglected.
The apostles, who had been receiving funds, and distributing food each day, asked to be relieved of the time-consuming task and requested the company to choose from their number seven honest men of reputation whom they could appoint over the business of supplying needs. All were highly pleased with the suggestion and averted future criticism by selecting only Hellenists, including a proselyte of Antioch with the others.
This speech with its implications of God's universal concern so inflamed the hearers that they stopped their ears and ran to assault Stephen, while gritting their teeth in uncontrollable rage. They hustled him out of the city which they regarded as holy, and murdered him by beating his body into a pulp with rocks.
The action of the court, in open defiance of the Roman law, kindled the fire of persecution in the heart of a young rabbinical student from Tarsus, who was in the city as a student of the Hillel
[Page 19] |
Those who were forced to flee went everywhere telling the Good News that the Messiah had come. One of the seven went to Samaria and found a ready reception for the Message. When the apostles heard that the Samaritans had received the word of God they sent Peter and John to investigate, because the Jews had in the past had no dealings with the Samaritans, although the latter were circumcised. When they ascertained the correctness of the report they prayed that the Holy Spirit might be received by those who had been immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Meanwhile, the chief persecutor had undergone a shaking experience while en route to a foreign capital to arrest believers. He encountered the Messiah just outside the city walls, and was blinded by the heavenly vision. When he was led by the hand into the city and taken to the house of Judas on Straight Street, he was so stricken that he could not eat or drink for three days. At the end of this period one of the very persons whom he had come to arrest visited him with the result that his sight was restored and he was baptized.
Immediately he entered into the very synagogues to which the high priest had given him letters of authority and introduction, and proclaimed that the Messiah was God's Son. All of the Jews were astonished at this turn of events, but when they attempted to contradict the former rabbinical student, he refuted their arguments with ease, and proved that the Nazarene was unquestionably the Messiah.
Unable to meet him on the forensic level, the Jews conspired to murder him from ambush, and placed a guard at the city gates on an around-the-clock basis. However, their quarry escaped over the wall and returned to Jerusalem, where the Messianists were afraid of him and refused to believe that he had changed. A Cypriot Jew vouched for his story, and when he was accepted, he inaugurated a discussion with the very Hellenists whose act of murder had started his own career of pillage and slaughter.
When they plotted to do away with him the brethren learned about it and spirited him away to Caesarea from which he returned to his boyhood home of Tarsus. The historian records, "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, were multiplied." The community of believers was still safely Jewish. Not an uncircumcised person had found his way into it. Perhaps none would ever find acceptance with many of the original Jerusalem company.
About this time an angel appeared to a Roman military captain stationed at Caesarea, while he was praying about three o'clock in the afternoon. The angel informed him that his prayers had been heard and instructed him to send to Joppa and call for Peter to come and tell him what to do. He immediately dispatched two slaves and a soldier who was his personal bodyguard, on the mission.
The next day as the envoys were nearing the city about noon. Peter became very hungry, but because of the delay in luncheon preparations went to the house-top to pray. He fell into a trance in which he envisioned a great vessel descending from heaven and containing all
[Page 20] |
Peter was in a quandary as to the significance of the vision but even while he was revolving it in his mind the emissaries from Caesarea were approaching the house. Peter was informed by the Holy Spirit that he should accompany the men, and the next day, accompanied by six Jewish disciples he went with them. When he arrived at the home of the military captain, Peter at once informed him that his presence should not be considered as endorsement, and it was not lawful for him as a Jew to associate with, or even enter the house of a non-Jew. He made it clear that, except for the vision, he would not have come at all.
Although Peter was a herald of the Good News about Jesus and had learned three days previously that an angel had instructed the army captain to send for him to hear words from him, his reluctance to share the message with the uncircumcised household was evidenced in his opening question, "Let me ask what you had in mind in sending for me."
When Peter became convinced that God really wanted the Gentile gathering to hear about Jesus, he recounted what had transpired, but pointed out that the word was sent unto the children of Israel and the witnesses were commanded to preach to the people (Jews). While he was saying that "whosoever believes in him shall receive forgiveness of sin," the Holy Spirit descended on the whole Gentile company. The six Jews who had come with Peter were astounded at this phenomenon, and could hardly believe that the Gentiles were given such a token of God's grace. While they questioned what had happened Peter demanded if any one of them would dare deny the right of these Gentiles to be immersed.
However, when Peter arrived in Jerusalem, the circumcision party in the congregation attacked him for associating and eating with Gentiles who were uncircumcised. Peter rehearsed all that had transpired and summoned the six Jews as witnesses. He made it clear that he would not have gone except for the vision and that he would not have encouraged the Gentile household if it had not been for the Spirit. "Who was I to oppose God in this situation?"
Although this silenced the immediate opposition, it soon became obvious that many of the Palestinian Jewish disciples had no intention of opening the door to the uncircumcised on a wholesale basis. It seems evident that they regarded the incident at Caesarea as unique and only in case of a direct demonstration by the Spirit would they reluctantly immerse Gentiles in the Name.
It was different with some of the Hellenists who had been driven out of Jerusalem at the time of Stephen's murder. At first those who fled to Cyprus, Syria and Phoenicia limited their proclamation only to Jews. Then, some of the more daring and liberal ones, who came to Antioch, the cultural capital, proclaimed Jesus as Lord to the Greeks. A great number believed and turned from their idols.
When word of this seeped back to Jerusalem, they sent Barnabas to investigate what was happening. The choice of a delegate was fortunate. A Cypriot, Barnabas was a good man who was full of faith and the Spirit. He rejoiced upon beholding the manifestation of God's grace, and encouraged the new converts
[Page 21] |
Paul took Titus, a young Greek, as a test case. If Titus was forced to be circumcised in Jerusalem the case for freedom would be lost; if he returned uncircumcised the attempt to make the called out ones a mere Messianic sect would be thwarted. The community of the saints never faced a more crucial test. Only the Holy Spirit could keep it from fragmenting into a splintered movement, with one headquarters at Jerusalem and another at Antioch.
Paul and Barnabas received a cordial welcome from the apostles and elders, as well as from the Jerusalem community. They reported on their achievements in the pagan environment and the basis upon which they had received believers from the Gentile world. It was at this juncture the circumcision party threatened to disrupt the proceedings.
Members of the Pharisaical sect who had become Messianists demanded that all Gentiles be circumcised as essential to being in the fellowship. The battle centered around Titus. Men who pretended to be brethren, but were not a part of the community, were secretly brought in and put forward to contend against Paul and upset the meeting. But Paul was adamant. He refused to allow them to touch Titus or to bring him into bondage to their legalism. The issue was clearly drawn. Will men be saved by works of the flesh, or by grace through faith?
In a public meeting, after lengthy and stormy debate. Peter arose and took his stand. "We believe that it is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, and so are they." This marked a decisive turn in the proceedings. Paul and Barnabas recited the list of miracles by which God had attested and confirmed their labors among the Gentiles. But the one man whose decision would most count was James. Already he was venerated as the most respected leader in the Jewish community. His orthodoxy was unquestioned.
Hegesipus relates how James went daily to the temple to pray for the forgiveness of the people, and how through long periods of kneeling, his knees became hard and worn like those of a camel. His integrity and equitable dealing earned for him the name of "The Just," or "the Oblias," which means "the bulwark of the people." Just as every synagogue had three "pillars" or supports, so the Messianic community looked to Peter, James and John. Clement of Alexandria says that James served in the same capacity as the ruler of a synagogue, that is, the first among equals.
The judgment of James was that no irksome restrictions should be imposed upon the Gentiles turning to God, but that they should simply be instructed to keep the four Noachan precepts. The Jews believed that when Noah, as the father of all mankind, came forth from the ark, that God lifted the ban on the eating of animal flesh which had existed to make ante-diluvian man a vegetarian. It was also a matter of tradition that in conjunction with the permission to eat flesh, God demanded of Noah and his descendants that they abstain from things polluted by contamination with idols, from fornication, from that which had
[Page 22] |
Since these principles were given long before the law of Moses, and were universal in application, the whole community saw the wisdom of not binding anything which was distinctly Jewish upon the Gentiles. They decided to write a letter incorporating the suggestion of James. The conference ended in a compromise. Peter, James and John would go to the Jews and would continue to tell them to circumcise their children; Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles and instruct them that it was not necessary for them to be circumcised. The terms of the compromise were clearly stated by James himself a long time afterward (Acts 21:21,25).
This meant that the community of believers on earth would find their unity in Jesus and not in uniformity of thought or practice. Jew and Gentile would hear the same good news and in accepting it would acknowledge the same Lord, so there would be but one body in Him, but cultural and environmental differences would regulate their approach to Him. There would continue to be differences between attitudes in Jerusalem and Antioch, but they would not affect the fellowship in Christ.
It is always easier to agree to a thing theoretically than to apply it practically. Although the Jerusalem community amicably agreed not to bind circumcision on the Gentiles they continued as a segregated congregation, refusing to eat with the uncircumcised. The community at Antioch was the first integrated congregation. This created a problem for Peter who was one of the chief spokesmen in the Jerusalem fellowship forum, and who helped draft the letter to the Gentile communities.
When Peter paid a visit to Antioch he entered into the spirit of the community and indulged in the love feasts at the communal table with all of the brethren. But when he learned that certain brethren had come from James, and that the report would be conveyed to Jerusalem that he was eating with the uncircumcised, he quickly divided the brethren and refused to be seen eating with those not of the circumcision. The factional spirit was kindled until even Barnabas and other Jewish brethren joined in the exclusivistic attitude.
Paul wrote thus about the occasion, "Later, however, when Cephas came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, for he was then plainly in the wrong. It happened like this. Until the arrival of some of James' companions, he, Peter, was in the habit of eating his meals with the gentiles. After they came, however, he withdrew and ate separately from the gentiles--out of sheer fear of what the Jews might think. The other Jewish Christians carried out a similar piece of deception and the force of their bad example was so great that even Barnabas was affected by it."
It is evident from this that those in the Jerusalem community did not eat with the Gentiles, and while they were willing to accept their admission at distant points they did not receive them at home. Paul called Peter's hand for trying to bind this discriminatory attitude on a community where both races were integrated as equals.
History confirms the fact that the idea of making the community of believers another Jewish sect died hard and slowly. Even after the apostles were long since departed there remained many who were zealous of the law. Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" writes, "As for the Jews who, professing to believe in Christ, would yet compel the converts from paganism to adhere to the whole law of Moses, under pain of perdition, I cannot recognize them as belonging to the church."
It was not easy for men to forget their early teaching and background. Thus there were Jews in the community who thought that every person must be circumcised after the manner of Moses in order to be saved. There were Gentiles who believed there might be something to idols. "For some, who until now have been used to idols, eat the meat as meat really sacrificed to a god, and their deli-
[Page 23] |
One thing is apparent. The primitive saints were not conformists. One congregation differed from another. Jerusalem and Antioch were not alike. There were grave cultural differences which were bridged only by mutual love for the Lord Jesus. He who makes it appear that the lifetime of the apostles was a period when all was rosy and pleasant does not recognize the facts. Their very letters were written because of turmoil and friction. The many exhortations to mend their ways and to live in peace are indicative of the problems which arose.
Men have sought for the recovery of forms and rituals and "acts of worship," and in their feverish search for that which may never have existed in fact, have fragmented into hostile splinter movements. The unfortunate state which we have allowed to happen is the very thing the apostles and elders at Jerusalem sought to prevent. They were successful because of a firm resolution not to bind upon the brethren anything which was not essential to a personal relationship with God. It is a pertinent question whether we have any right to bind upon immersed believers anything beyond the four things which were bound upon gentile converts. What else would the apostles bind if they were living today?
It is absurd and asinine to divide the saints of God over such questions as the millennium, for example. By no stretch of the imagination can this issue be made as important as was circumcision. The same attitude which prevailed at Jerusalem would have prevented our shameful and disgraceful schism over such matters. Why did the brethren not give each other the right hand of fellowship to go to their respective areas without seeking to bind their dogmatic decrees upon one another and frustrate the grace of God?
It is useless for men to plead that they are "patterning after the early church," so long as they allow such matters to divide them. Their action is as contrary to the attitude of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem as anything can be. Only the densest ignorance can equate our position with the spirit of the primitive saints. The scholarly world will see through the hypocrisy which pays lip-service to restoration while denying the very essence of that original spirit.
It seems almost incredible that men with doctoral degrees in such liberal arts colleges as Abilene Christian College or George Pepperdine College could be so provincial and naive as to condone and even try to defend the factional barriers created over matters such as a view of the millennium. Surely our brethren are sadly lacking in their theology. Surely they have a warped view of the ancient order of things.
This becomes even more apparent if you substitute one of our "issues" for the word "circumcision" and if you insert the name of one of our chief centers for Jerusalem or Antioch in the apostolic writings. "But some men came down from Nashville and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you espouse the millennium according to the custom of the Gospel Advocate you cannot be saved.'" Or again, "But some believers who belonged to the amillennial party rose up, and said. It is necessary for them to embrace the amillennial position and observe the creed of the loyal church.'"
Why can we not realize that in Christ Jesus neither premillennialism or amillennialism is of any avail, but faith working through love?
More than anything else in our day we need to restore to the saints that spirit
[Page 24] |
The apostle Paul, more than many others of his day, caught the vision that the herald of Christ did not force others to adapt to himself in order to hear the message. Instead the proclaimer subjected himself as a slave to others that the influence of a slave might capture them for Christ. "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more." A slave does not assert himself, he does not debate or argue with one whose slave he is.
Paul became as a Jew, as one under the law, as one outside the law, as one who was weak. He said, "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." There were things which Paul regarded as important to himself and his faith personally which he was willing to forego for the sake of others; there were things important to others that he was willing to adopt while among them. He did not ask anyone to adapt to him but he adapted himself to everyone. "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
All things, all men, all means--what a terrific approach to the saving of men! What maturity, what stature, what freedom! "I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." Paul was clear as to the content of the gospel. He did not confuse it with anything else, not even with the apostolic doctrine. The gospel was superior to all else. It was the message about a person. There is a difference between that which produces life and that which sustains it.
This concept is vital to our need of today. If we elevate every trivial discussion to the realm of gospel, we can make no overtures, for to do so would compromise the gospel, in our warped view. But if we restore the gospel to proper perspective and realize that our controversial issues are no part of the kergyma, the proclamation, we can make adjustments without forsaking the gospel. We must restore the vocabulary of the Holy Spirit or wallow in a welter of semantic involvements, while men go to hell and the world burns down around our persons.
The tragedy of our day is that men confuse the very spirit of tolerance and longsuffering enjoined upon us by Christ Jesus with unworthy softness and spiritual effeminacy. They regard as deadly poisonous plants the very flowers which God has planted to beautify and grace his heritage. They put light for darkness and darkness for light even as they profess to be guides for the blind. They seek to extinguish the one spark which alone can make our lives wholesome and enlightening.
It is absurd to assume that the way of love which makes allowances for one another is the easy way. It is the most difficult of all ways. It is only when one grows into such maturity that he realizes the bigness of the universe that he does not try to circumscribe it with his own narrow and feeble thought-processes. To love and revere those who differ because they are the offspring of a common Father, and to view the relationship thus established as more vital than the peculiarities of those within it is no task for little souls. The cult of conformity is the habitat of the contracted heart!
Satan never enforced a more subtle or damnable strategy than when he seduced the children of God into thinking that the way to prove their loyalty to the Father was by separating from His children over matters of opinion and intellectual perception. And hell rejoices and the demons clap hands in glad abandon because the heirs of heaven have been brainwashed into thinking that love unlimited is dangerous. The wicked one can take a holiday as long as he can employ us in throwing his fiery darts at one another. Love that will not function in spite of differences is not brotherly love at all!
[Page 25] |
Are our factional emphases as important to God as they are to us? Does the Father think so little of his children that he would rather have the fabric of the family torn to shreds than to have them study the Bible in classes, or use individual cups to distribute the fruit of the vine?
Have our fathers in a previous age of debate and controversy projected their views and interpretations as the will of God, and saddled us with a system which makes our plea for unity the butt of ridicule among thinking and perceptive people? Are we committed to the perpetuation of strife and division out of a false sense of loyalty to the framers of our partisan tests and creeds. Shall we continue to lay upon the shoulders of our children a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?
We revere those who broke with the false systems of the past to bring us thus far on the path to a brighter day. But if our ancestors are to be honored because they sought to undo the mistakes of their fathers, can we honor their memory by breathing life into the body of their own errors? Can we be worthy sons of our sires if we plod blindly along in their footprints without the courage to launch out upon our own and blaze a new trail of compassion and understanding through the jungle of sectarian complexity into which our factional attitudes have lured us?
If the restoration plea was valid when applied to the sects of the first half of the nineteenth century why will it not be equally valid to apply to our own parties in the last half of the twentieth century? Is the schism which we damn in others to be applauded in us? If we can plead with others to go back beyond their divisions to the apostolic proclamation as the hope of unity why can we not go back beyond ours to the same great rallying point, the cross of Jesus?
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I shall seek to return to the abiding values of the apostolic era. I shall seek to revive in my heart and life the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and to recapture the generosity and tenderhearted concern for all of my brethren which will make it possible to be forgiving as God in Christ forgave me. I want to be made new in mind and spirit, to put on the new nature of God's creating which shows itself in the just and devout life called for by the truth. I want to let love for the brotherhood breed warmth of genuine affection.
Without these things whatever is restored will be an empty shell, a vacant hull, a decaying corpse. Of what value is it to clean the outside of the cup or dish while the inside is greasy with self-indulgence? To what avail shall we meticulously pay tithes of our modern mint, dill and cummin, while we overlook the weightier demands of justice, mercy and faith? I am wearied with the spirit of Pharisaism which contrives new modes of travel over land and sea to win one convert, only to make him twice as factional and partisan as those who boast of his accession.
Let us restore the ideal of God, not by first recapturing every jot and tittle, but by recovery of the lost nail from which everything in the law and prophets were meant to be suspended. What good will be done by codes of conduct, rules of ritual and precepts of priesthood, if we have nothing upon which to hang them? "And indeed this command comes to us from Christ himself: that he who loves God must also love his brother" (1 John 4:21).