Monday 5/16

The Traditions of Our Faith

The Apostles’ Creed

Lesson Three

 

Tonight, we will focus on what are called the “problematic statements in the Creed”.  But first, we will look at the phrase that anchors the life of Jesus dramatically in a specific age of history.  Is this why the only human name mentioned in the Creed is the Roman governor who was guilty of presiding over the horrible punishment and crime against Jesus?  We know, through secular history, that Pontius Pilate was the Roman representative in Galilee, just under Herod.  He served starting in 26 AD to 36 AD, well within the parameters of the ministry of Jesus in Galilee.  Pilate, history has judged, did the wrong things because he was afraid to do the right things.

 

Tell me what you know about Pilate.

 

John tells us that Pilate tried to avoid putting Jesus to death, seeking at one time to release him, at another time pushing him up the administrative ladder to Herod (who refused to have anything to do with the problem) and still at another time, reminding the crowd that he could releases one prisoner to them at this holy time (a tradition, apparently) and suggesting that he release Jesus.  They chose instead an insurrectionist who was accused also of murder, a man named Barabbus.  Pilate then had Jesus beaten (which often was fatal), washed his hands of the situation, and then sent him to the soldiers for crucifixion.  But, you knew all of this, didn’t you?  Ah, but did you know that Pilate is a saint in the Abyssinian and the Coptic Churches?   His saint day is June 25^th.  And here’s the story.

 

                        Tiberius was Caesar on the day Jesus was crucified,

                        and when darkness fell over the earth at mid-day, he

                        suffered a severe case of the frights.  He accused Pilate

                        of failing to recognize that Jesus was the Son of God as

                        his followers had proclaimed. “You should have sent

                        him to me!  It was plain that he was the King of the

                        Jews!”  When those very words were spoken by his mouth, it

                        is said that all the images of Roman gods fell to the

                        ground and turned to dust.  Pilate and his wife were

                        ordered beheaded. On his way to the execution, Pilate

                        was said to have  offered a prayer to God that he not

                        be numbered among the wicked Jews, and he asked

                        that God pardon his evil and prayed for his wife, as well.

                        And a voice in heaven assured  him that it would

                        be done as he had asked!

 

                        Another story says that Tiberius fell ill and blames Pilate

                        for the death of the one who might have healed him, and

                        for failure to bring to him a legitimate relic.  It seems that

                        Tiberius has heard that a woman named Veronica saw the

                        Distress of Jesus while he was on his way to the cross and

                        offered him her veil with which to wipe his fevered brow.

                        he does and when he returns the veil, the imprint of his

                        countenance is upon it.  That causes Pilate to endure the

                        unique punishment of having a millstone tied around his

                        neck before he is thrown into deep turbulent waters.

 

Those stories gave way, over the generations, to the tradition that Pilate committed suicide in distress over his failed Roman administrative career.

 

“Was crucified, dead and buried. 

 

The Gospel writers spend very little time discussing the actual event of the crucifixion:  they spend much more in the issues leading up to the crucifixion.  They did not need to spell out the gory details of the punishment.  The people to whom they were writing were well aware of them:  they had only to look to the hill outside Jerusalem most any day, or they could tap their memories and find the indelible event.  Crucifixion was all too common in the ancient world, a chosen form of punishment all over the Roman world, and also in Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Greece and even India!  And it had been the favored form of punishment for many years.  During the Jewish civil war, eight hundred men were crucified.  Caesar Augustus once ordered seven hundred men crucified at one time;  Titus, in a campaign by which the Jews lost their freedom forever, crucified so many warriors that Josephus wrote, “there was no space left for the cross, nor crosses left for the bodies.” [1]   It was not a Jewish punishment, however.  By law, Jews could execute only by stoning, burning, or chocking to death the criminal.  It was a punishment that could not be inflicted upon a Roman citizen; only slaves or non-citizens in the Empire.

 

It is somewhat remarkable that the method of punishment for Jesus would be mentioned in the Creed, for it was an embarrassment to many who would have become converts.  It was, of course, the punishment reserved for the worst of the worst criminal – for treason, or murder or blasphemy against God.  For many people in the ancient world, it would have been a “stumbling block” to their conversion.  When Constantine became both the Caesar and a Christian, 9in 312 AD, he outlawed crucifixion as a punishment in the Roman Empire.

 

Beyond the crucifixion, it was necessary to include in the Creed that Jesus was dead and buried, because one of the first widespread heresies to threaten the Church was the Gnostic[2] claim that Jesus was not truly human, but a ghost like figure who felt no pain, nor could he suffer death.  Hence, they said, the story of the tomb ( not necessary if there was no death) is a hoax.  The Gnostics said that the power of God came upon Jesus at his baptism, and left just prior to his crucifixion:  no suffering, no punishment for our sins.  Of course, this is a denial of the Incarnation.

 

 

“He descended into hell”

 

This is a controversial statement to many people.  Look at the Creed as it is printed on page 12 of The Hymnbook (the red hymnal that we have used for half a century) and you will find an asterisk beside the phrase, with a note at the bottom of the page saying “Some Churches omit this”.  In our Presbyterian Hymnal, the blue book that we also use, the phrase stands without suggested modification.  So, what does all this mean?

 

First, we have to understand that this is the last change added to the Creed, having been added in the year 570 AD.  Obviously, it would not have been added unless it was at least a matter of conversation of some import. As a matter of fact, three of the Church Fathers – Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Turtullian are said to have known about the discussion but none thought it worthy of inclusion in the Creed.  It is not in the Nicene Creed or any other official creed of the Church. The Apostle Paul did not think it was necessary to be included in a statement of his theology. In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, he had a perfect opportunity to include it, but did not:

 

                        Now I would remind you brethren in what terms I preacher

                        to you the gospel, which you received, I which you stand, in

                        which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed

                        in vain.  For I delivered unto you as of first importance what

                        I also received, that Christ died for your sins in accordance

                        with Scriptures, that he was buried and was raised on the

                        third day in accordance with the Scriptures.[3]

 

No mention of the descent into hell: a good chance missed or refused.

 

 However, it was added by decree of a church council – for this was the only way such a change could be made. 

 

Next, let us understand that the phrase is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word Sheol which ought to be translated as Hades, not hell.  Sheol is simply the “land of the dead”.  It does not mean hell!  To the Jew, if there was an afterlife[4], it was to be spent in Sheol, which was a land under the earth where men moved like ghosts, where there was no light, color, or joy and in which all manner of men were separated away by both God and their fellowman. It did not include a sense of punishment or torture.  It is also translated “pit” or “the grave”.  In the Greek mythology, Hades was a person as well as a place, and the word Hades sometimes meant “the house of Hades”.

 

Now, we know that when the Early Church Fathers made a pronouncement, they always coupled it with scriptural references (called “proof texts”), preferably a passage of one of the Prophets.  When they wrote of this phrase – “He descended into hell” – the scholars of the age, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, both used the same proof text eight times in their writings, quoting the prophet Jeremiah:

                        “The Lord God remembered the his dead people of Israel,

                        who lay in their graves, and he descended to preach to

                        them his own salvation.”

 

The odd thing is that this passage can be found nowhere in any existing manuscript of the Old Testament. However, there is scripture upon which this statement in the Creed is based.  It comes via I Peter 3:18-20

 

                        “Christ also died for our sins, once and for all, the righteous

                        for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being

                        put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which

                        he went to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey,

                        when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the

                        building of the ark.”

 

It is upon this passage that the Creed has based its statement, but it poses as many questions as it does answers to the questions that linger in our minds.

 

What does all this mean;  what is the Creed trying to say?  Essentially and in its most simple form, the Creed is just saying that Jesus was dead, truly dead!  He went to the place where dead men go – to Sheol.  The obvious intent of the Creed was not the punishment of people but on the preaching of Jesus and the means of salvation.  However, it might have been included simply to answer some questions that mortal man might have, such as;

 

            What happened to the heroes of the faith who tread this earth in the

            years before the saving ministry of Jesus Christ?  What about the

            souls of Abraham, Moses, Elijah. King David, etc.  Are they not

            saved?  Did Jesus go to the land of the dead and rescue them?

 

            Where was Jesus during the three days between crucifixion and

            resurrection?   Is this a time period when he went to bring out

            the heroes of the  Old Testament?

 

Although it seems silly or – at the very least – presumptuous to even feel we have to have such answers, it is human nature to tie up loose ends.  So, in the Middle Ages, there arose the ultimate answer to it all – The Harrowing of Hell.  There was a growing belief, fed by the artistic community, especially Italian artists, as well as the Church, that Jesus did not so much descend to the depths of “the place of the dead”, but that he invaded hell, broke down the gates of Satan, and freed the prisoners therein.  And, like John Wayne in a traditional Western, he took the evil sheriff, bound him in his own handcuffs, and threw him in the very prison in which his prisoners formerly resided. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of artistic representations of such a scene hanging in galleries throughout the world.

 

Concluding this statement, there is more enthusiasm than scriptural references for it.

“On the third day, He rose again out of death”

 

We move now to perhaps the most crucial statement even made in the context of our Christian theology;  the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth out of the dead!  William Barclay wrote,

 

                        “It is either the greatest single fact in history, or,  if

  it is not true, it is the greatest deception in history.”

 

There is no way such a statement can be proven without doubt to the satisfaction of the non-believer;  however, the faithful must come face to face with sundry pro and con arguments.  We have to believe, as Paul reminded us,

 

                        “Now if Christ has not been raised out of the dead, then our

                        preaching is in vain and your faith is futile and we are of all

                        men most to be pitied.”[5]

 

“In the resurrection of Jesus Christ we therefore have to do with the sustaining foundation of the Christian faith.  If this collapses, so does everything else the Christian faith acknowledges.”[6]  It is not that the resurrection, as an isolated event, would have this fundamental significance:  it means that the resurrection gives meaning to what has gone before in the life of Jesus, and points us toward what happens afterward.  It gives authority to his preaching and to his wonder working.  It makes all that he did unique!

 

There are all kinds of pitfalls in our consideration of the resurrection.  Sometimes, for instance,  we place too much emphasis on the cross, “…but the cross is an appropriate symbol only if it is an empty cross.  The center of the Christian faith is not death, but life;  not a tragedy but a victory beyond tragedy;  not a gloomy, world denying fascination with a dead sacrifice, but a triumphant world challenging faith in a living Lord;  not a passive breast beating moaning about how sinful the world is, but an active joyful moving out of sinfulness to an obedient fellowship with him.”[7]

 

Look at the stories of the Resurrection in the five different accounts:  Matthew 28:1-20, Mark 16:1-19, Luke 24:1-51, John 20:1-21:25 and I Corinthians 15:3-8.  Notice there are differences (even discrepancies) between them all.  There are certain things that we would have to notice.

 

1.  Although many witnessed the crucifixion, nobody witnessed the resurrection,

     and no attempt is made to describe it.  Resurrection stories are not about the

     resurrection itself, but about the appearance of the Risen Lord.  This ought to

     warn us about speculating about what happened in the tomb, or about how a

     man came to life again.  Christian faith is not about a tomb, but about the

     Risen Christ.

2.  There is no proof that Jesus rose beyond the dead!  The empty tomb proves

     nothing;  the body could have been stolen, Jesus could have awakened

     in a deep coma and pushed his way out.  And there are differences in

     account by the Gospels.  In answer to the criticism, we have to remind

     ourselves that the disciples based their faith not on the tomb but on their

     experience with the Risen Christ.

 

3.  Finally, only believers saw the Risen Christ.  Although Paul was impressed

     with the many witnesses , could not the disciples have fallen prey to a mass

     hallucination?  To answer this, go back to the Gospel accounts to discover

     that all agree the disciples were not expecting to find Jesus alive nor were

     they quick to believe that he had risen.  Instead, they were worried, skeptical,

     and afraid.

 

There is no proof.  Doubts and questions about the whole story are inevitable.  Jesus’ own disciples had trouble believing it.  But faith does not come when there is proof beyond doubt;  it comes in the midst of doubt and questioning.  Still, we listen, for it is in the listening that we come to know him, and in the knowing, that we come to believe.

 

So, let’s look at some of the questions that have arisen over the ages and find the answers, for these questions and answers are contemporary as well as historical.

 

The New Testament offers its “proof” by reference to prophecies of the Old Testament and determining how these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus.  Psalm 2 introduces a concept of the Messiah, identifying him by God saying “my Son” and then saying that he will suffer the animosity of the authorities.  Both Peter (Acts 2:24-31) and Paul (Acts 13:33-37) refer back to his Psalm in their preaching about the Risen Lord.  And, of course, we are all familiar with the passages of the Prophet Isaiah in chapters 40, 42, 45 that we hear at Christmastime.  The New Testament authors were convinced that Jesus fulfilled the “suffering servant” image of Isaiah’s prophecies.

 

There is another argument that ancient scholars felt quite potent but is seldom used today.  It is called the argument of typology which means that one event prefigures another.  For instance, scholars read the story of the Tower of Babel and they place it against the story of Pentecost.  At the Tower, all languages were confused in punishment to the men who were trying to climb into heaven and be like God;  at Pentecost, the confused languages of many nations were understood by all men who were humbling themselves before God.

 

            Using the argument of typology, how would you interpret the Genesis

stories of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt, Joseph and his escape of the dungeon  (Genesis 39,40,and 41), and Abraham’s near sacrifice of his

son Isaac (Genesis 22)?  Scholars use these events in their arguments of

typology.

 

Answer:  Joseph “went down into Egypt” to save his brothers, even though

they would have taken his life when casting him into a pit.  Jesus

“went down into Egypt” (as a baby) to “come out of Egypt”, and

was ordained to save those who would have killed him (Matt 2:15).

Jesus came forth out of the tomb to fulfill what was said of him, as

Joseph was brought up out of the dungeon to save Pharaoh and

thereby save those who were to become God’s people.

 

An aside:  The story of Moses is quite like the story of Noah, and the later is said to prefigure the former:  Noah’s “ark” is the same word that is used for Moses “basket”.  Even Moses name means “to be drawn forth (out of the water)”

 

As I said, this form of scholarship was potent in the ancient days, but would not do much in convincing a modern skeptic in a contemporary debate.

 

As mentioned before, the Apostle Paul was impressed at the number of witnesses who beheld the Risen Christ, even if they were people who already believed.  Listen as Paul pens the earliest of all accounts[8].

 

            “For I delivered unto you as of first importance what I also received,

            that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he

            was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the

            scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the  Twelve…”

     

Apparently this is what Paul thought to be most important, that Jesus appeared to witnesses.  The word Paul uses here “appeared” is a word that speaks of divine revelation that is quite different than mere human experience.  It does not limit the appearances in bodily form;  Jesus appeared to Mary in the garden in one form, to the disciples on the beach in quite another, and to Paul on the road to Damascus in quite another form.  The concept of witnesses is very important because at that time many stories portrayed their heroes as dead and resurrected, although most of these stories of fiction let the story play out that the resurrection was a hoax, a ploy by the author for some reason or another.

 

For the Christian, however, the greatest proof of the resurrection is that Jesus often foretold it, according to the Gospels.  (Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34), Matthew 16;21, 17:23, 20:19 and Luke 9:22)    Read these and discover just how pointed were these references.  Yet, the disciples appear to be totally surprised and unprepared not only for his death but for his resurrection (of which they were completely astonished).  Either the disciples were totally dense (and this is not without possibility) or the words did not have meaning for them until after his death (more probable).

 

How did the authorities account for the events following the crucifixion?

 

It must have been embarrassing to say the least, as well as frustrating and confusing, for the authorities to have presented the ultimate solution to their problem to the Roman governor and then having seen it reversed, so to speak.  How did they publicly explain it?

First, they explained that Jesus had only swooned and appeared dead and that the coolness of the tomb revived him.  Then, he left the tomb and ran away.  Problem:  even in their haste at preparing the body for burial, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would have sensed life in the body.  And, in addition, how could the heavy stone have been moved out of the tomb?  And who would have thought to fabricate stories of eye  witnesses to the Risen Christ? 

 

Second, they circulated the story that the body had been stolen out of the tomb.  They first said “by the disciples” who stole it, disposed of it, and then told about the resurrection.  Not likely!  The disciples, over a period of forty years, gave their lives as martyrs, still telling this story of the Risen Christ.  Do people die for a lie?  Or, perhaps it was the Jews who stole the body to keep the tomb out of becoming a shrine to a martyr. Not likely!  Every sermon that was thereafter preached, spoke of the resurrected Jesus. The sermons were aimed to the Jewish community for the purpose of conversion.  All the Jews would have had to do was produce the body to disprove all that the preachers were saying.  And, there was another reason this would not be true:  in the Jewish tradition, to touch a dead body was an anathema (to be cursed or loathed).!

 

You and I understand that we do not operate in the realm of empirical truth when we discuss the resurrection: w e are in the realm of faith.  The quotation of Hebrews is an appropriate statement on our behalf:

 

            “…faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things

            not seen.”  (Hebrews 11)

 

There is one more convincing factor:  the Christian Church has existed for almost two thousand years and the concept of a Risen Christ is still basic in every Sabbath service even today.  It is what defines us as Christian!

 

“The Quick and the Dead”

 

 The words are simple:  to be “quick” is to be alive and nimble and moving.  The phrase means, “the alive and the dead”.  But the inclusion in the Creed is pointed toward the concept of judgment.  In the OT, it was thought that life one earth brought its own rewards or punishments, for there was no after life.  Judaism was a religion of merit.  The rabbis had a parable about life a shop, open twenty four hours a day.  We buy and the shopkeeper puts it on our tab.  The angels come around periodically and collect what is due.  We may never know it until the due is collected in the form of some personal tragedy.  But, if we have built up credit, the angel might bestow upon us a goodly reward, and this is how life is played out.  The need for judgment was unspoken but real.

 

Although we are judged, we have no fear of judgment  for in the Christian faith, the judgment is tempered by the mercy of God through Jesus Christ.  The price has been paid, as Paul says.  Jesus said the same at the Last Supper.  As in Hebrews, we learn that we have an “advocate” who stands to present our defense at the bar of judgment.

 

“The holy catholic Church”

 

Back in the very beginning, the Church wore two faces:  what it should be and what it was.  First, listen to how the saint described it: the author of the Book of Hebrews said it was “…the church of the first born (the names of which) are inscribed in heaven.”  Paul said that it was “the body of Christ.”  But, in reality, we find a different picture, The people in Corinth, for example, were routinely dragging each other into secular court, were drinking too much at the family night suppers and were constantly trying to undermine the ministry of the Apostle.[9]  In the Thessalonian congregation, there were gossips and busybodies who did not a lick of work, and James reminds us that the church was too much like the rest of society, paying far too much attention to the wealthy and humiliating the poor.  So, what does the Creed mean when it refers to these scoundrels as “the holy catholic church”?  

 

First, what does the word “holy” mean?  The word, in the Greek language, is “hagios”, and it means “separate or different”.  The Sabbath is holy because it is not the same as the other six days (or, according to the Commandment, is supposed to be). The Communion Table is holy because it is set aside to be used in a different manner than other tables, and the Bible is holy because of the story that it tells.  The church is holy because of the agenda it puts forth and because it has been set side for a different task than the world.  and this is what the word holy means – to be set aside for a different task.

 

What about the word “catholic” – and it should be written with a small “c”. Simply, it means “universal” or “general”.  Why didn’t the Creed use the word “universal” in the first place?  The word did not exist at the time the Creed was written!  There was no other word with that exact meaning.  Then why use a modifier at all?  Well, the Greeks had a multitude of gods but only the Greeks were called upon to worship them.  The Romans had a multitude of gods, but only the Romans were called upon to worship them, and only Romans were even allowed into the worship centers!  Religion was nationalistic just as the Hebrew faith had once been.  This is what Paul was so adamant about when he wrote “There is no Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male or female;  for we are all one in Jesus Christ.”[10] Because the church was open to anyone, it was referred to as universal, catholic.  After all, the Scripture does say that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.

 

Why is the group called a church?   When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the Third Century BC, whenever the word “assembly” was encountered, they used the word “ekklesia”.  This is the word used, for instance, when Moses descends the mountaintop after his visit with God to speak God’s word to the assembled people.  Whenever the Christian people assembled, they thought themselves to be the “ekklesia”, but they translated the word as “church”.   What was the origin of this word?

 

In Greek society, the city state was run essentially as a democracy.  The governing body was made up of all the citizens of the community who were in good standing and who exercised their right to vote.  Not everybody did, of course.  About ten times a year, a town crier would go throughout the community to announce a gathering of the citizens.  He went town square to town square, blew his trumpet and made the announcement that the community would gather to make governing decisions.  Everybody who responded to the call – that is, gathered for the meeting – formed a group that was then called “the ekklesia”.  When the church took over the word to describe its holy gathering, and called itself the church, it meant “those who have heeded the call and accepted the invitation of the Lord to come unto him.”  They took the meaning of an existing word and gave it a new title – church. In Scripture it is seldom used to denote a building – always a body of people.

 

“the communion of the saints”

 

Peter hung this title on us, a derivation of the word “holy”.  The phrase was not immediately accepted – it came to the Creed around the Fifth Century – because people had a hard time understanding it to mean “a gathering of Christians for the purpose of fellowship with God”.  The Greek word here is “koinonia”  (coin-o-knee-ah).  It was a word commonly used to denote a partnership or close bonding friendship.  Plato used it to describe the world in which men and women would share equally in the advantages and responsibilities of government.  To him, it was a political word;  for the Christian, it meant a personal relationship with God.  once again, the word “saints” in this case refers to those who have been set aside by a common purpose to a holy purpose and have been faithful in their relationship to God.

 

“the forgiveness of sins”

 

To us, this is equivalent to a slam dunk in basketball:  of course there is forgiveness of sins.  But, the early church did not immediately place emphasis upon forgiveness, the church was thought to have been a place for the elite of God’s people. Baptism carried with it the sense of forgiveness, and you were expected to be righteously good once you stepped out of the water.  When sin became obvious, it was immediately punished.  Look at the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.  Living in a communal state – the church was thought to be this in the beginning – they sold property, and rather than share the proceeds thereof, they gave a portion, claiming it to be the total. And what happened?  They were struck dead.  No trial, no forgiveness.  Penalty!  We are left with the assumption that this was the routine punishment for sin.  This posed a problem in the church.  Because people could not remain sinless, the doctrine of salvation by works arose – work it off!  The tension between Paul and James is obvious in their writing during this period of the church’s beginning.

 

And here’s how it was reconciled.  The image of the church was shape to reflect it as The Ark of Salvation, a boat in which repentant sinner could ride out the storms of life.  It was in 217 AD  that the Bishop of Rome proclaimed that the church could forgive all sins except apostasy (the abandonment of the faith) and murder.  It was not universally accepted because many people still wanted to think of the church as a gathering of  the saints.  It has remained a tension between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, for the Protestants believe that sins are forgiven in the mercy of Jesus Christ.  Nevertheless, the Creed had to include a statement about forgiveness.

 

“the resurrection of the body”

 

 

Originally, the phrase read “resurrection of the flesh” and it was not changed until 1543 AD when the Creed was edited. The word was changed because the word “flesh” had sexually negative connotations to it!

 

In the Jewish world between the times of OT times and into the 1^st century AD  not all Jews rejected a belief in the after world.  This is reflected in various books written in that three hundred year period – like the books of Enoch.  They are not in our canon, in our Bible, but have survived and are available in printed form.  They reflect that some believed that there had to be some sort of reward for living the good life.  How was this expressed?  When a person died, the Rabbi prescribed the clothing that the person would wear into the afterlife so that person would not appear before God in shabby attire.  Is this why we always dress the deceased in good clothes?

 

This is not the reason, however, for the inclusion of this phrase in the Creed.  Like several other phrases, this one was added to combat a heresy in the Church.  The ancient Greeks, some three hundred years before Christ, formulated a thought that God could be known only through the mind, and that death brought freedom of the body that the mind might grow.  When the Church was getting off the ground, the Gnostic group took up the cry, further declaring that the body was a prison in which the mind was held and was therefore evil, as all matter was evil. Obviously, it could not be allowed to survive and was destroyed at death.  They said that only the mind was resurrected.

 

But there was still another heresy abounding in the church by those who espoused also Gnosticism.  These people said that resurrection had already taken place – at baptism!  it further stated that a person baptized in the name of Menander (one of the Gnostic leaders) was now immortal and could do anything he pleased because his mind had already to be found in God’s presence.  This kind of shot holes in Christian morality.  What was the problem?

 

The Christian knew of the bodily resurrection of Christ and felt that it was imperative because Jesus had taken onto himself the sins of the world.  He told his disciples at the Last Supper, “This is my body broken for you” and it was the body that was offered as the sacrifice.  But, the Christian also felt that the creation of man’s soul was by a spark by God that animated the dust of the ground – and there was man!  In the mind of the early Church, this spark was like a seed that was planted in the body, and when the body was committed again to dust, the seed survived.  Paul uses this analogy.[11] 

 

                        The early church was not immune to absurd argument.

                        They argued about what happened when a man who was

                        deformed or disfigured entered the presence of God.

                        Would his body become sightly again.  In the furthest

                        extension of this argument, Augustine answers what

                        would happen to the Christian who died at the hands

                        of a cannibal[12] He says the body returns to the original

                        owner, and not to the one who “borrowed it”.

 

In summary, the Creed means that our essential essence, the thing that makes me me and you you, is what returns to God.  The Greeks not the Jews had a word for personality, but if they did, it might have been used at this point.

 

“and the life everlasting”

 

As Job asked, “If a  man die, shall he live again?”  Although this is a hint of a belief, generally the OT reflects no belief in an afterlife in Jewish theology.  In New Testament times, the Greeks believed that man descended into a afterworld, and placed coins in his mouth that he might have the price of being ferried across the River Styx.  The Phaisee believed in Sheol, that place of shadowy existence, and the Sadducees believed in no form of an afterlife.  The basic assumption of New Testament theology, however,  is in a “life to come”.  As the New Testament theologian might write,  “Enter Jesus, who turns up the light, lets the music swell, and invites all who would come to a great celestial gala at the home of his father.”

 

Conclusion

 

Maybe it would have been better if the Apostle Paul had amplified his statement to the Christians at Corinth[13] and given us a complete Creed.  Then there would have been no “if’s, ands, or buts” about it.  But, he didn’t, and there have been many corrections through out the centuries to the tradition of our faith.  On the other hand, maybe its best that we have had to struggle with some of the thoughts,  in order to make them ours.  You see, faith does not stand still.  Our minds should always be questioning and growing, so that any basic Creed becomes the springboard of which our mind leaps to consider anew the “tradition of our faith”.