Christians, Atheism, Incest, and Cannibalism

For the first three centuries Christians had to endure many flare ups of severe persecution. Among other things, Christians were crucified, fed to lions, dragged behind mad bulls, burned at the stake in Nero’s garden to light his parties, sews inside animal carcasses and then torn apart by the dogs, and subjected to the iron chair—a metal chair was heated until it was red hot and then a naked Christian was brought out and forced to sit in it.

Christians were not persecuted by Rome simply because they worshipped Jesus. The Romans had many gods and they really didn’t care if Jesus got added to the mix. It was other things that drew the ire of the crowds and the crown. In his excellent book Church History in Plain Language, Bruce Shelly lists three main reasons why Christians were persecuted. These included (1) life-style, (2) slander, and (3) Caesar worship.

1. Life-style

The Christians sought after holiness and lived lives that were very different from the pagans around them. They didn’t worship the pagan gods. They didn’t frequent the temples and offer sacrifices. They didn’t approve of the violence of the gladiatorial games. They didn’t practice infanticide (but instead rescued abandoned infants). And they had a sexual ethic vastly different from the promiscuous world around them. Christians were therefore scorned because they refused to go along with the normal practices of society. Shelly writes,

Thus, simply by living according to the teachings of Jesus, the Christian was a constant unspoken condemnation of the pagan way of life.  It was not that the Christian went about criticizing and condemning and disapproving, nor was he consciously self-righteous and superior. It was simply that the Christian ethic itself was a criticism of pagan life.

2. Slander

It may sound strange, but early Christians were accused of (a) atheism, (b) incest, and (c) cannibalism. They were accused of atheism because they denied the existence of the pagan gods. They were accused of incest and sexual immorality because Christians met together for “love feasts.” Love feasts were simply the early version of the Lord’s Supper, but the hyper-sexualized non-Christians around them assumed that anything with the name “love feast” must be something erotic. Also, since the Christians referred to each other as “brother” and “sister” the rumor was that Christians met for incestuous orgies at their secret meetings. Finally, Christians were also accused of cannibalism because at these meetings Christians would, of course, eat and drink the body and blood of their founder.

3. Caesar Worship

Finally, Christians were persecuted because they did not participate in the state-mandated worship of Ceasar. By the time of Decius’ reign (249-251) emperor worship was universal and compulsory. Again, it wasn’t as if Rome was telling the Christians that they needed to stop worshipping Jesus. All they needed to do was to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar and say with their lips, “Caesar is Lord.” But Christians were unwilling to do that.

By way of application, there is a lot that we can learn from each of these.

(1) When we live according to God’s plan, people of the world will resent us because of our different lifestyle. No matter how loving and kind we are, this will happen—even if we never open our mouths to “judge” anyone else. Sin loves company, not a contrast.

(2) Christians in the early church were slandered unfairly with wild accusations. We shouldn’t be surprised when the same thing happens to us today. Followers of Jesus today are unfairly accused of being narrow-minded fools, hateful bigots, anti-scientific cavemen, judgmental tyrants, hypocrites, and more. If you expected to be treated fairly by the world, I’m sorry you had that illusion.

(3) Pluralism is the order of the day. Most people won’t care if you worship Jesus—as long as you don’t think that He is the only way. That type of exclusiveness is something that our tolerant society simply cannot tolerate. Also, we may not be asked to burn incense to Caesar, but don’t be surprised when you run into other ways that you will expected to compromise your integrity in order to be considered a good citizen.

Persecution comes in many forms. Will you acquiesce or will you declare that Jesus is Lord?

If Dead Theologians Were on Money

I don't know what is wrong with me, but I spent my drive home last night thinking about who would be on which bills if we had dead theologians on currency rather than presidents. The really sad part is that I had it all figured out by the time I got home—with justifications.

The rule is that they have to be dead for at least 100 years and they have to have lived after the completion of the New Testament. Here it is:

The One Dollar Bill: Augustine
Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430) was the most important theologian in Church history. To honor his foundational  role, Augustine gets the $1.

The Five Dollar Bill: Calvin
John Calvin (1509-1564) gets the 5. This should be obvious.

The Ten Dollar Bill: Luther
Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) deserves an important bill. He gets the 10 in homage to his love/hate relationship with the Law. He would probably find that paradoxical and so he would be okay with it.

The Twenty Dollar Bill: Edwards
The twenty is one of the most commonly used bills, so it needed to be someone sweet. Therefore we have to go with Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). Plus, as a matter of historical fact, Jonathan Edwards' grandson Aaron Burr Jr. shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, so it would be tacky to put Edwards on the $10. Too soon.

The Fifty Dollar Bill: Wesley
I was going to put Charles Hodge (1797-1878) on the $50 to honor the fact that Hodge was the first American theologian to serve as a professor of theology for fifty years. However, I realized that I should throw a bone to the Arminians. Therefore, John Wesley (1703-1791) gets to be on the $50. This is also fitting since Arminians think that salvation is a 50/50 deal. (Boom!)

The One Hundred Dollar Bill: Lewis
We are breaking the rule for C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) because, hey, everyone loves C.S. Lewis. He gets to be on the $100. This way we can call it a C-note. Lewis technically wasn't a theologian, but neither was Benjamin Franklin a president.

The Five Hundred Dollar Bill: Aquinas
The preeminent and rotund scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) gets to be on the $500. I had him on the $100 but he got bumped so I could make that C-note joke.

The One Thousand Dollar Bill: Anselm
Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury (1033-1109) is responsible for the phrase Credo, ut intelligam which will appear on all theological currency. It is fitting that Anselm gets to be on the $1,000 because he was born around the year 1,000. Also, since the $1,000 is the largest bill that will be produced, it is "that than which no greater can be conceived." (You have to be familiar with the Proslogion to realize that is funny.)

Coins are yet to be decided, but we're going to go all patristic for these. They will all be Church Fathers, prior to Augustine. As a sneak peak, I can tell you that Athanasius will be on the Quarter. He is that important, and it is a nice homage to the Council of Nicea, convened in 325.

I thought about putting Benny Hinn on the penny since his theology isn't worth 2 cents.

Sadly, there are many other great theologians who will be left out:: Ulrich Zwingli, John Owen, Francis Turretin, Charles Spurgeon, and many others. Fortunately, we still have the possibility of issuing a two dollar bill, so keep your hopes up. There will also be a commemorative Zero Dollar Bill with the portrait of Francis of Assisi.

There you have it. And of course, these bills give new meaning to the term "religious denominations."

Sharing is Caring!

Did Jesus Go to Hell?

Did Jesus burn in hell between the cross and the resurrection? That is what some Christians think when they read the line in the Apostles' Creed that states, "He descended to hell." The is the most controversial and difficult line in the Creed. Some churches use an alternate translation, "He descended to the dead" while other churches remove the line completely. So, what does this phrase mean and how should we deal with it?

The first thing we need to remember is that the Apostles’ Creed is not a passage from the Bible. Also, it was not actually written by the Apostles, at least not in its current form. This is important to keep in mind since the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, but all other writings are man-made creations that are only as good as far as they match the Scriptures. We deeply respect many of the historical creeds and confessions, but we do not put them on the same level as inspired Scripture.

Second, the phrase “He descended to hell” is not found in any of the earliest versions of the Creed such as the “Old Roman” version. It actually does not appear until the mid-seventh century, at least not with the understanding of "hell" rather than the grave. We do have a version from the end of the 4th century by Rufinus that includes "descended into hell" but the writer specifically notes that he understands the term to simply mean that Christ was buried. The Greek term is hades, which can simply mean “grave” rather than hell. After Rufinus, we don't see the entire phrase again until the mid-seventh century.[1]  The Old Roman Creed, from the second half of the second century, simply says that Jesus was crucified, buried, and then rose from the dead.[2]

Third, and most importantly, the Bible does not teach that Jesus burned in hell to pay for our sins. Remember what Jesus said to the repentant thief on the cross next to Him. Jesus told him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). This thief, and Jesus, would be in Paradise that day, not hell. Luke 23:46 records Jesus saying, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” before He died. John 19:30 records Jesus saying, “It is finished,” as He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. When Jesus died on the cross, He had finished the word of atonement. He did not then spend three days burning in hell to pay for our sins. That work was finished on the cross. When Scripture discusses how Jesus paid for our sins, it consistently points to the cross (1 Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 6:14; Eph. 2:16; Phil. 2:8; Col. 1:20; 2:14; Heb. 12:2) not to any suffering in hell.

Finally, the phrase “He descended into hell” is confusing. Many people at my church have told me that they always assumed "descended into hell" meant that Jesus burned in hell between His death and resurrection. Even the great theologians of church history have disagreed on what this phrase meant. John Calvin understood it to mean that Jesus basically experienced hell on the cross. There is a lot of truth to that interpretation. On the cross Jesus took the curse on our behalf (Gal. 3:13) and propitiated God's wrath (Rm. 3:25) for those who have their trust in Him.  However, this is not what most Christians thought "descended to hell" meant prior to Calvin. It is also not what most people would assume today unless they are taught otherwise. Also, it is not likely that Calvin's interpretation is what the phrase originally meant when it was added to the Creed. It is more likely that this phrase, in its original language, simply meant that Jesus really died and went to the “afterlife.”  Thus "descended to the grave" or “descended to the dead” probably communicate the meaning of the original terms better than "descended to hell."

If Jesus went to the underworld, it was a brief trip to liberate the Old Testament saints--leading them from Abraham's Side (Luke 16:22; Eph. 4:8-10) to heaven now that salvation had been accomplished--and possibly to proclaim His victory (1 Pt. 3:19). This view, "the harrowing of hell," was probably the most common view for most of church history. I think this possibly happened, but is this really what the phrase "descended to hell" originally meant? That seems unlikely since all the other statements in the Creed are clear, key, non-negotiable elements of the Christian faith. The harrowing of hell is obscure by comparison. On the other hand, Christ descending to the grave, or the afterlife, is a key, non-negotiable article of our faith. If this is the case, the phrase may have originally been intended to emphasize that Jesus really did die.

Some churches use a version of the Creed in which the whole line is removed. That might be the best option. But if we're going to keep the line, then in my opinion "descended to the dead" has less problems. It helps us to have one less thing to un-teach people. It also has the advantage of being the interpretation of the person who recorded the earliest known version of the Creed including that phrase. The third option would be to retain the original phrase, but explain it well and often. No matter what, we need churches that make it clear, week in and week out, that when Jesus died on the cross He fully accomplished everything required to get believers to God. Jesus took hell on the cross so we wouldn't have to take it in eternity.

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, “He Did Not Descent Into Hell: A Plea for Following Scripture Instead of the Apostles’ Creed,” JETS, 34/1 (March 1991): 103-6.

[2] O.G. Oliver, Jr., “Apostles’ Creed,” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 72. 

Martin Luther and Anfechtungen

For all you who love both the Reformation and techno-industrial music, here is something I put together that I think all five of you will enjoy.

Happy Reformation Day!