THEO3 Second Quarter Lessons

THEOLOGY III [ECCLESIOLOGY AND CHURCH HISTORY]
INTRODUCTION
Christianity is unique in the history of world religions in many ways. One would be that its
ancestry derives from almost two millennia of Judaism, whose prophets for centuries had foretold the
coming of a great religious leader who would establish a new spiritual kingdom on earth. Another is that
its origins are rooted in extensive historical facts, from the birth of Christ to His crucifixion and
resurrection from the dead. Its message centers around a core of doctrines which Christ revealed to His
followers neither as a philosophy of speculation nor even primarily as an ethic for self-conquest, but as
mysteries whose inner essence lies beyond human reason, yet on whose acceptance would depend
human salvation. And its character from the beginning was social in the most comprehensive sense of
that term, with a communal structure, a body of truths, rites and obligations that had for their purpose
not merely the personal sanctification of those who believed, but their corporate unification and
internal consolidation by the invisible Spirit of God.
Christianity is based on the life of a historical person, Jesus, of Nazareth. The history of the
Church records how Christians have lived out the Gospel message over the centuries and how they
shaped the Church and the world in which we live today. Knowledge of Church history helps us know
Jesus through his people and gives us a better sense of our Christian identity.
The history of the Church is the story of the relationship of Jesus and the believers who have
followed him for 2,000 years. Some parts of this history are disturbing; most are inspiring. As Catholics
we believe that God’s Spirit has always been with the Church, guiding it through the difficult periods as
well as the glorious eras.
As we study the Church’s history, two things are clear: it is filled with God’s presence, and each
era expressed the Christian message in its own language, culture and traditions.
And today, as in the past, God will lead us to discover ways to express the Christian message in
situations that surprisingly mirror many situations faced by those who went before us…and we must do
so without disturbing the deposit of faith, which can never change.
San Beda University Page 1

CHAPTER 1: THE BIRTH OF JESUS
I. GENERAL SITUATION
The birth of Christ saw the lands which surrounded the Mediterranean in the possession of Rome.
To a degree never before equaled, and unapproached in modern times, these vast territories, which
embraced all that common men knew of civilized life, were under the sway of a single type of culture.
The civilizations of India or of China did not come within the vision of the ordinary inhabitant of the
Roman Empire. Outside its borders he knew only savage or semi-civilized tribes. The Roman Empire and
the world of civilized men were coextensive. All was held together by allegiance to a single Emperor, and
by a common military system subject to him. The Roman army, small in comparison with that of a
modern military state, was adequate to preserve the Roman peace. Under that peace commerce
flourished, communication was made easy by excellent roads and by sea, and among educated men, at
least in the larger towns, a common language that of Greece facilitated the interchange of thought. It
was an empire that, in spite of many evil rulers and corrupt lower officials, secured a rough justice such
as the world had never before seen; and its citizens were proud of it and of its achievements.
Yet with all its unity of imperial authority and military control, Rome was far from crushing local
institutions. In domestic matters the inhabitants of the provinces were largely self-governing. Their local
religious observances were generally respected. Among the masses the ancient languages and customs
persisted. Even native rulers were allowed a limited sway in portions of the empire, as native states still
persist under British rule in India. Such a land was Palestine at the time of Christ’s birth. Not a little of
the success of Rome as mistress of its diverse subject population was due to this considerate treatment
of local rights and prejudices. The diversity in the empire was scarcely less remarkable than its unity.
This variety was nowhere more apparent than in the realm of religious thought.
Christianity entered no empty world. Its advent found men’s minds filled with conceptions of the
universe, of religion, of sin, and of rewards and punishments, with which it had to reckon and to which it
had to adjust itself. Christianity could not build on virgin soil. The conceptions which it found already
existing formed much of the material with which it must erect its structure. Many of these ideas are no
longer those of the modern world. The fact of this inevitable intermixture compels the student to
distinguish the permanent from the transitory in Christian thought, though the process is one of
exceeding difficulty, and the solutions given by various scholars are diverse.
Certain factors in the world of thought into which Christianity came belong to universal ancient
religion and are of great antiquity. All men, except a few representatives of philosophical sophistication,
believed in the existence of a power, or of powers, invisible, superhuman, and eternal, controlling
human destiny, and to be worshipped or placated by prayer, ritual, or sacrifice. The earth was viewed as
the center of the universe. Around it the sun, planets, and stars ran their courses. Above it was the
heaven; below the abode of departed spirits or of the wicked. No conception of science or the laws of
nature had penetrated the popular mind. All the ongoings of nature were the work of invisible powers
of good and evil, who ruled arbitrarily. Miracles were, therefore, to be regarded not merely as possible;
they were to be expected whenever the higher forces would impress men with the important or the

unusual. The world was the abode of innumerable spirits, righteous or malevolent, who touched human
life in all its phases, and who even entered into such possession of men as to control their actions for
good or ill. A profound sense of unworthiness, of ill desert, and of dissatisfaction with the existing
conditions of life characterized the mass of mankind. The varied forms of religious manifestation were
evidences of the universal need of better relations with the spiritual and unseen, and of men’s longing
for help greater than any they could give one another.
Greek Philosophy
Besides these general conceptions common to popular re ligion, the world into which
Christianity came owed much to the specific influence of Greek thought. Hellenistic ideas dominated
the intelligence of the Roman Empire, but their sway was extensive only among the more cultivated
portion of the population. Greek philosophic speculation at first concerned itself with the
explanation of the physical universe. Yet with Heraclitus of Ephesus (about B. C. 490), though all was
viewed as in a sense physical, the universe, which is in constant flow, is regarded as fashioned by a
fiery element, the all-penetrating reason, of which men’s souls are a part. Here was probably the
germ of the Logos conception which was to play such a role in later Greek speculation and Christian
theology. As yet this shaping element was undistinguished from material warmth or fire. Anaxagoras
of Athens (about B. C. 500-428) taught that a shaping mind (voûs) acted in the ordering of matter
and is independent of it. The Pythagoreans, of southern Italy, held that spirit is immaterial, and that
souls are fallen spirits imprisoned in material bodies. To this belief in immaterial existence they
seem to have been led by a consideration of the properties of numbers— permanent truths beyond
the realm of matter and not materially discerned.
Socrates and Plato
To Socrates (B. C. 470?-399) the explanation of man himself, not of the universe, was the
prime object of thought. Man’s conduct, that is morals, was the most important theme of
investigation. Right action is based on knowledge, and will result in the four virtues—
prudence, courage, self-control, and justice— which, as the “natural virtues,” were to have
their eminent place in mediaeval Christian theology. This identification of virtue with
knowledge, the doctrine that to know will involve doing, was indeed a disastrous legacy to
all Greek thinking, and influential in much Christian speculation, notably in the Gnosticism of
the second century.
In Socrates’s disciple, Plato (B. C. 427-347), the early Greek mind reached its highest spiritual
attainment. He is properly describable as a man of mystical piety, as well as of the
profoundest spiritual insight. To Plato the passing forms of this visible world give no real
knowledge. That knowledge of the truly permanent and real comes from our acquaintance
with the “ideas,” those changeless archetypal, universal patterns which exist in the invisible
spiritual world—the “intelligible” world, since known by reason rather than by the senses—
and give whatever of reality is shared by the passing phenomena present to our senses. The
soul knew these “ideas” in previous existence. The phenomena of the visible world call to

remembrance these once known “ideas.” The soul, existing before the body, must be
independent of it, and not affected by its decay. This conception of immortality as an
attribute of the soul, not shared by the body, was always influential in Greek thought and
stood in sharp contrast to the Hebrew doctrine of resurrection. All “ideas” are not of equal
worth. The highest are those of the true, the beautiful, and especially of the good. A clear
perception of a personal God, as embodied in the “idea” of the good, was perhaps not
attained by Plato; but he certainly approached closely to it. The good rules the world, not
chance. It is the source of all lesser goods, and desires to be imitated in the actions of men.
The realm of “ideas” is the true home of the soul, which finds its highest satisfaction in
communion with them. Salvation is the recovery of the vision of the eternal goodness and
beauty.
Aristotle
Aristotle (B. C. 384-322) was of a far less mystical spirit than Plato. To him the visible world
was an unquestioned reality. He discarded Plato’s sharp discrimination between “ideas” and
phenomena. Neither exist without the other. Each existence is a substance, the result, save
in the case of God, who is purely immaterial, of the impress of “ idea,” as the formative
force, on matter which is the content. Matter in itself is only potential substance. It has
always existed, yet never without form. Hence the world is eternal, for a realm of “ideas”
antecedent to their manifestation in phenomena does not exist. The world is the prime
object of knowledge, and Aristotle is therefore in a true sense a scientist. Its changes
demand the initiation of a “prime mover,” who is Himself unmoved. Hence Aristotle
presents this celebrated argument for the existence of God. But the “prime mover” works
with intelligent purpose, and God is, therefore, not only the beginning but the end of the
process of the world’s development. Man belongs to the world of substances, but in him
there is not merely the body and sensitive “soul” of the animal; there is also a divine spark, a
Logos which he shares with God, and which is eternal, though, unlike Plato’s conception of
spirit, essentially impersonal. In morals Aristotle held that happiness, or well-being, is the
aim, and is attained by a careful maintenance of the golden mean.
Greek philosophy did not advance much scientifically beyond Plato and Aristotle, but they
had little direct influence at the time of Christ. Two centuries and a half after His birth, a
modified Platonism, Neo-Platonism, was to arise, of great importance, which profoundly
affected Christian theology, notably that of Augustine. Aristotle was powerfully to influence
the scholastic theology of the later Middle Ages. Those older Greek philosophers had viewed
man chiefly in the light of his value to the state. The conquests of Alexander, who died B. C.
323, wrought a great change in men’s outlook. Hellenic culture was planted widely over the
Eastern world, but the small Greek states collapsed as independent political entities. It was
difficult longer to feel that devotion to the new and vast political units that a little,
independent Athens had, for instance, won from its citizens. The individual as an
independent entity was emphasized. Philosophy had to be interpreted in terms of individual
life. How could the individual make the most of himself? Two great answers were given, one

of which was wholly foreign to the genius of Christianity, and could not be used by it; the
other only partially foreign, and therefore destined profoundly to influence Christian
theology. These were Epicureanism and Stoicism.
Epicurianism
Epicurus (B. C. 342-270), most of whose life was spent in Athens, taught that mental bliss is
the highest aim of man. This state is most perfect when passive. It is the absence of all that
disturbs and annoys. Hence Epicurus himself does not deserve the reproaches often cast
upon his system. Indeed, in his own life, he was an ascetic. The worst foes of mental
happiness he taught are groundless fears. Of these the chief are dread of the anger of the
gods and of death. Both are baseless. The gods exist, but they did not create nor do they
govern the world, which Epicurus holds, with Democritus (B. C. 470?-380?), was formed by
the chance and ever-changing combinations of eternally existing atoms. All is material, even
the soul of man and the gods themselves. Death ends all, but is no evil, since in it there is no
consciousness remaining. Hence, as far as it was a religion, Epicureanism was one of
indifference. The school spread widely. The Roman poet Lucretius (B. C. 98?-55), in his
brilliant De Rerum Natura, gave expression to the worthier side of Epicureanism; but the
influence of the system as a whole was destructive and toward a sensual view of happiness.
Contemporarily with Epicurus, Euhemerus (about B. C. 300) taught that the gods of the old
religions were simply deified men, about whom myths and tradition had cast a halo of
divinity. He found a translator and advocate in the Roman poet Ennius (B.C. 239?-170?).
Parallel with Epicureanism, in the teaching of Pyrrho of Elis (B.C. 360?-270?), and his
followers, a wholly sceptical point of view was presented. Not merely can the real nature of
things never be understood, but the best course of action is equally dubious. In practice
Pyrrho found, like Epicurus, the ideal of life one of withdrawal from all that annoys or
disturbs. With all these theories Christianity could have nothing in common, and they in turn
did not affect it.
Stoicism
The other great answer was that of Stoicism, the noblest type of ancient pagan ethical
thought, the nearest in some respects to Christianity, and in others remote from it. Its
leaders were Zeno (B. C.?-264?), Cleanthes (B. C. 301?-232?), and Chrysippus (B. C. 280?-
207?). Though developed in Athens, it flourished best outside of Greece, and notably in
Rome, where Seneca (B. C. 3?-A. D. 65), Epictetus (A. D. 60?-?), and the Emperor, Marcus
Aurelius (A. D. 121-180), had great influence. It was powerfully represented in Tarsus during
the early life of the Apostle Paul. Stoicism was primarily a great ethical system, yet not
without claims to be considered a religion. Its thought of the universe was curiously
materialistic. All that is real is physical. Yet there is great difference in the fineness of bodies,
and the coarser are penetrated by the finer. Hence fine and coarse correspond roughly to
the common distinctions between spirit and matter. Stoicism approximated, though it much

modified, the view of Heraclitus. The source of all, and the shaping, harmonizing influence in
the universe is the vital warmth, from which all has developed by differing degrees of
tension, which interpenetrates all things, and to which all will return. Far more than
Heraclitus’s fire, which it resembles, it is the intelligent, self-conscious world-soul, an all
indwelling reason, Logos of which our reason is a part. It is God, the life and wisdom of all. It
is truly within us. We can “follow the God within”; and by reason of it one can say, as
Cleanthes did of Zeus; “We too are thy offspring.” The popular gods are simply names for
the forces that stream out from God.
Since one wisdom exists in the entire world, there is one natural law, one rule of conduct for
all men. All are morally free. ‘Since all are from God, all men are brothers. Differences in
station in life are accidental. To follow reason in the place in which one finds oneself is the
highest duty, and is equally praiseworthy whether a man is an Emperor or a slave. So to
obey reason, the Logos, is the sole object of pursuit. Happiness is no just aim, though duty
done brings certain happiness purely as a by-product. The chief enemies of a perfect
obedience are passions and lusts, which pervert the judgment. These must resolutely be put
aside. God inspires all good acts, though the notion of God is essentially pantheistic.
The strenuous ascetic attitude of Stoicism, its doctrine of the all-pervading and all-ruling
divine wisdom, Logos its insistence that all who do well are equally deserving, whatever
their station, and its assertion of the essential brotherhood of all men, were profoundly to
affect Christian theology. In its highest representatives the creed and its results were noble.
It was, however, too often hard, narrow, and unsympathetic. It was for the few. It
recognized that the many could never reach its standards. Its spirit was too often one of
pride. That of Christianity is one of humility. Still it produced remarkable effects. Stoicism
gave Rome excellent Emperors and many lesser officials. Though it never became a really
popular creed, it was followed by many of high influence and position in the Roman world,
and modified Roman law for the better. It introduced into jurisprudence the conception of a
law of nature, expressed in reason, and above all arbitrary human statutes. By its doctrine
that all men are by nature equal, the worst features of slavery were gradually ameliorated,
and Roman citizenship widely extended.
Popular Religion
One may say that the best educated thought in Rome and the provinces, by the time of
Christ, in spite of wide-spread Epicureanism and Scepticism, inclined to pantheistic
Monotheism, to the conception of God as good, in contrast to the non-moral character of
the old Greek and Roman deities, to belief in a ruling divine providence, to the thought that
true religion is not ceremonies but an imitation of the moral qualities of God, and toward a
humaner attitude to men. The two elements lacking in this educated philosophy were those
of certainty such as could only be given by belief in a divine revelation, and of that loyalty to
a person which Christianity was to emphasize.

The common people, however, shared in few of these benefits. They lay in gross
superstition. If the grip of the old religions of Greece and Rome had largely relaxed, they
nevertheless believed in gods many and lords many. Every town had its patron god or
goddess, every trade, the farm, the spring, the household, the chief events of life, marriage,
childbirth. These views, too, were ultimately to appear in Christian history transmuted into
saint-worship. Soothsayers and magicians drove a thriving trade among the ignorant, and
none were more patronized than those of Jewish race. Above all, the common people were
convinced that the maintenance of the historic religious cult of the ancient gods was
necessary for the safety and perpetuity of the state. If not observed, the gods wreaked
vengeance in calamities—an opinion that was the source of much later persecution of
Christianity. These popular ideas were not vigorously opposed by the learned, which largely
held that the old religions had a police value. They regarded the state ceremonies as a
necessity for the common man. Seneca put the philosophical opinion bluntly when he
declared that “the wise man will observe all religious usages as commanded by the law, not
as pleasing to the gods.” The lowest point in popular religious feeling in the Roman Empire
corresponds roughly to the time of the birth of Christ.
Worship of the State
The abler Emperors strove to strengthen and modify the ancient popular worships, for
patriotic reasons, into worship of the state and of its head. This patriotic deification of the
Roman state began, indeed, in the days of the republic. The worship of the “Dea Roma” may
be found in Smyrna as early as B. C. 195. This reverence was strengthened by the popularity
of the empire in the provinces as securing them better government than that of the
republic. As early as B. C. 29, Pergamum had a temple to Rome and Augustus. This worship,
directed to the ruler as the embodiment of the state, or rather to his “genius” or indwelling
spirit, spread rapidly. It soon had an elaborate priesthood under state patronage, divided
and organized by provinces, and celebrating not only worship but annual games on a large
scale. It was probably the most highly developed organization of a professedly religious
character under the early empire, and the degree to which it ultimately affected Christian
institutions awaits further investigation. From a modern point of view there was much more
of patriotism than of religion in this system. Christian missionaries in Japan have solved a
similar, though probably less difficult, situation by holding reverence to the Emperor to be
purely patriotic. But early Christian feeling regarded this worship of the Emperor as utterly
irreconcilable with allegiance to Christ. The feeling is shown in the description of Pergamum
in Revelation 2:13. Christian refusal to render the worship seemed treasonable, and was the
great occasion of the martyrdoms.
Men need a religion deeper than philosophy or ceremonies. Philosophy satisfies only the
exceptional man. Ceremonies avail far more, but not those whose thoughts are active, or
whose sense of personal unworthiness is keen. Some attempt was made to revive the dying
older popular paganism. The earlier Emperors were, many of them, extensive builders and
patrons of temples. The most notable effort to effect a revival and purification of popular

religion was that of Plutarch (A. D. 46?-120?), of Chseronea in Greece, which may serve as
typical of others. He criticized the traditional mythology. All that implied cruel or morally
unworthy actions on the part of the gods he rejected. There is one God. All the popular gods
are His attributes personified, or subordinate spirits. Plutarch had faith in oracles, special
providences, and future retribution. He taught a strenuous morality. His attempt to wake up
what was best in the dying older paganism was a hopeless task and won few followers.
Mystery Religions
The great majority of those who felt religious longings simply adopted Oriental religions,
especially those of a redemptive nature in which ‘mysticism or sacramentalism were
prominent features. Ease of communication, and especially the great influx of Oriental
slaves into the western portion of the Roman world during the later republic facilitated this
process. The spread of these faiths independent of, and to a certain extent as rivals of,
Christianity during the first three centuries of our era made that epoch one of deepening
religious feeling throughout the empire, and, in that sense, undoubtedly facilitated the
ultimate triumph of Christianity.
One such Oriental religion, of considerably extended appeal, though with little of the
element of mystery, was Judaism, which because of its universally-acknowledged antiquity
would be largely exempted from participation in the state and Imperial cults. The popular
mind turned more largely to other Oriental cults, of greater mystery, or rather of larger
redemptive sacramental significance. Their meaning for the religious development of the
Roman world has been only recently appreciated at anything like its true value. The most
popular of these Oriental religions were those of the Great Mother (Cybele) and Attis,
originating in Asia Minor; of Isis and Serapis from Egypt; and of Mithras from Persia. At the
same time there was much syncretistic mixture of these religions, one with another, and
with the older religions of the lands to which they came. That of the Great Mother, which
was essentially a primitive nature worship, accompanied by violent rites [the priests are said
to have flagellated and castrated themselves during festal processions], reached Rome in B.
C. 204, and was the first to gain extensive foothold in the West. That of Isis and Serapis, with
its emphasis on regeneration and a future life, was well established in Rome by B. C. 80, but
had long to endure governmental opposition. That of Mithras, the most widespread of all,
though having an extended history in the East, did not become conspicuous at Rome till
toward the year A. D. 100, and its great spread was in the latter part of the second and
during the third centuries. It was especially beloved of soldiers. In the later years, at least of
its progress in the Roman Empire, Mithras was identified with the sun—the Sol Invictus of
the Emperors just before Constantine. Like other religions of Persian origin, its view of the
universe was dualistic.
All these religions taught a redeemer-god. All held that the initiate shared in symbolic
(sacramental) fashion the experiences of the god, died with him, rose with him, became
partakers of the divine nature, usually through a meal shared symbolically with him, and

participated in his immortality. All had secret rites for the initiated. All offered mystical
(sacramental) cleansing from sin. In the religion of Isis and Serapis that cleansing was by
bathing in sacred water; in those of the Great Mother and of Mithras by the blood of a bull,
the taurobolium, by which, as recorded in inscriptions, the initiate was “reborn forever.” All
promised a happy future life for the faithful. All were more or less ascetic in their attitude
toward the world. Some, like Mithraism, taught the brotherhood and 11 essential equality
of all disciples. There can be no doubt that the development of the early Christian doctrine
of the sacraments was affected, if not directly by these religions, at least by the religious
atmosphere which they helped to create and to which they were congenial.
The Situation in the Pagan World
In summing up the situation in the pagan world at the coming of Christ, one must say that,
amid great confusion, and in a multitude of forms of expression, some of them very unworthy,
certain religious demands are evident. A religion that should meet the requirements of the age
must teach one righteous God, yet find place for numerous spirits, good and bad. It must
possess a definite revelation of the will of God, as in Judaism, that is an authoritative scripture. It
must inculcate a world-denying virtue, based on moral actions agreeable to the will and
character of God. It must hold forth a future life with rewards and punishments. It must have a
symbolic initiation and promise a real forgiveness of sins. It must possess a redeemer-god into
union with whom men could come by certain sacramental acts. It must teach the brotherhood
of all men, at least of all adherents of the religion. However simple the beginnings of Christianity
may have been, Christianity must possess, or take on, all these traits if it was to conquer the
Roman Empire or to become a world religion. It came “in the fulness of time” in a much larger
sense than was formerly thought; and no one who believes in an overruling providence of God
will deny the fundamental importance of this mighty preparation, even if some of the features
of Christianity’s early development bear the stamp and limitations of the time and have to be
separated from the eternal.
II. JEWISH BACKGROUND
The external course of events had largely determined the development of Judaism in the six
centuries preceding the birth of Christ. Judaea had been under foreign political control since the
conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar, B. C. 586. It had shared the fortunes of the old Assyrian
Empire and of its successors, the Persian and that of Alexander. After the break-up of the latter it came
under the control of the Ptolemies of Egypt and then of the Seleucid dynasty of Antioch. While thus
politically dependent, its religious institutions were practically undisturbed after their restoration
consequent upon the Persian conquest of Babylonia; and the hereditary priestly families were the real
native aristocracy of the land. In their higher ranks they came to be marked by political interest and
religious indifference. The high priesthood in particular became a coveted office by reason of its
pecuniary and political influence. With it was associated, certainly from the Greek period, a body of

advisers and legal interpreters, the Sanhedrim, ultimately seventy-one in number. Thus administered,
the temple and its priesthood came to represent the more formal aspect of the religious life of the
Hebrews. On the other hand, the feeling that they were a holy people living under Yahweh’s holy law,
their sense of religious separatism, and the comparative cessation of prophecy, turned the nation to the
study of the law, which was interpreted by an ever increasing mass of tradition. As in Muslim lands to-
day, the Jewish law was at once religious precept and civil statute. Its interpreters, the scribes, became
more and more the real religious leaders of the people. Judaism grew to be, in ever-increasing measure,
the religion of a sacred scripture and its mass of interpretative precedent. For a fuller understanding and
administration of the law, and for prayer and worship, the synagogue developed wherever Judaism was
represented. Its origin is uncertain, going back probably to the Exile. In its typical form it was a local
congregation including all Jews of the district presided over by a group of “elders,” having often a “ruler”
at its head. These were empowered to excommunicate and punish offenders. The services were very
simple and could be led by any Hebrew, though usually under “a ruler of the synagogue.” They included
prayer, the reading of the law and the prophets, their translation and exposition (sermon), and the
benediction. Because of the unrepresentative character of the priesthood, and the growing importance
of the synagogues, the temple, though highly regarded, became less and less vital for the religious life of
the people as the time of Christ is approached, and could be totally destroyed in A. D. 70, without any
overthrow of the essential elements in Judaism.
Under the Seleucid Kings Hellenizing influences came strongly into Judæa, and divided the claimants
for the high-priestly office. The forcible support of Hellenism by Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (B. C. 175- 164),
and its accompanying repression of Jewish worship and customs, led, in B. C. 167, to the great rebellion
headed by the Maccabees, and ultimately to a period of Judæan independence which lasted till the
conquest by the Romans in B. C. 63. This Hellenizing episode brought about a profound cleft in Jewish
life. The Maccabean rulers secured for themselves the high-priestly office; but though the family had
risen to leadership by opposition to Hellenism and by religious zeal, it gradually drifted toward Hellenism
and purely political ambition. Under John Hyrcanus, the Maccabean ruler from B. C. 135 to 105, the
distinction between the religious parties of later Judaism became marked. The aristocratic political
party, with which Hyrcanus and the leading priestly families allied themselves, came to be known as
Sadducees—a title the meaning and antiquity of which is uncertain. It was essentially a worldly party
without strong religious conviction. Many of the views that the Sadducees entertained were
conservatively representative of the older Judaism. Thus, they held to the law without its traditional
interpretation, and denied a resurrection or a personal immortality. On the other hand, they rejected
the ancient notion of spirits, good or bad. Though politically influential, they were unpopular with the
mass of the people, who opposed all foreign influences and stood firmly for the law as interpreted by
the traditions. The most thoroughgoing representatives of this democratic-legalistic attitude were the
Pharisees, a name which signifies the Separated, presenting what was undoubtedly a long previously
existing attitude, though the designation appears shortly before the time of John Hyrcanus. With his
reign the historic struggle of Pharisees and Sadducees begins. As a whole, in spite of the fact that the
Zealots, or men of action, sprang from them, the Pharisees were not a political party. Though they held
the admiration of a majority of the people, they were never very numerous. The ordinary working Jew
lacked the education in the minutiae of the law or the leisure to become a Pharisee. Their attitude

toward the mass of Judaism was contemptuous. (John 7:49) They represented, however, views which
were widely entertained and were in many respects normal results of Jewish religious development
since the Exile. Their prime emphasis was on the exact keeping of the law as interpreted by the
traditions. They held strongly to the existence of spirits, good and bad—a doctrine of angels and of
Satan that had apparently received a powerful impulse from Persian ideas. They represented that
growth of a belief in the resurrection of the body, and in future rewards and punishments which had
seen a remarkable development during the two centuries preceding Christ’s birth. They held, like the
people generally, to the Messianic hope. The Pharisees, from many points of view, were deserving of no
little respect. From the circle infused with these ideas Christ’s disciples were largely to come. The most
learned of the Apostles had been himself a Pharisee, and called himself such years after having become
a Christian. (Acts 23:6) Their earnestness was praiseworthy. The great failure of Pharisaism was twofold.
It looked upon religion as the keeping of an external law, by which a reward was earned. Such keeping
involved of necessity neither a real inward righteousness of spirit, nor a warm personal relation to God.
It also shut out from the divine promises those whose failures, sins, and imperfect keeping of the law
made the attainment of the Pharisaic standard impossible. It disinherited the “lost sheep “ of the house
of Israel. As such it received the well-merited condemnation of Christ.
The Messianic Hope
The Messianic hope, shared by the Pharisees and common people alike, was the outgrowth of
strong national consciousness and faith in God. It was most vigorous in times of national oppression.
Under the earlier Maccabees, when a God-fearing line had given independence to the people, it was
little felt. The later Maccabees, however, deserted their family tradition. The Romans conquered the
land in B. C. 63. Nor was the situation really improved from a strict Jewish standpoint, when a half-
Jewish adventurer, Herod, the son of the Idumean Antipater, held a vassal kingship under Roman
overlordship from B. C. 37 to B. C. 4. In spite of his undoubted services to the material prosperity of
the land, and his magnificent rebuilding of the temple, he was looked upon as a tool of the Romans
and a Hellenizer at heart. The Herodians were disliked by Sadducees and Pharisees alike. On Herod’s
death his kingdom was divided between three of his sons, Archelaus becoming “ethnarch” of
Judaea, Samaria, and Idumea (B. C. 4-A. D. 6); Herod Antipas “tetrarch” of Galilee and Peraea (B. C.
4-A. D. 39); and Philip “tetrarch” of the prevailingly pagan region east and northeast of the Sea of
Galilee. Archelaus aroused bitter enmity, was deposed by the Emperor Augustus, and was
succeeded by a Roman procurator—the occupant of this post from A. D. 26 to 36 being Pontius
Pilate. With such hopelessly adverse political conditions, it seemed as if the Messianic hope could be
realizable only by divine aid. By the time of Christ that hope involved the destruction of Roman
authority by supernatural divine intervention through a Messiah; and the establishment of a
kingdom of God in which a freed and all-powerful Judaism should nourish under a righteous
Messianic King of Davidic descent, into which the Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire
should be gathered, and by which a golden age would be begun. To the average Jew it probably
meant little more than that, by divine intervention, the Romans would be driven out and the
kingdom restored to Israel. A wide-spread belief, based on Malachi 31, held that the coming of the
Messiah would be heralded by a forerunner.

Other Forces in Judaism
These hopes were nourished by a body of apocalyptic literature, pessimistic as to the present,
but painting in brilliant color the age to come. The writings were often ascribed to ancient worthies.
Such in the Old Testament canon is the prophecy of Daniel, such without are the Book of Enoch, the
Assumption of Moses, and a number of others. A specimen of this class of literature from a Christian
point of view, but with much use of Jewish conceptions, is Revelation in the New Testament. These
nourished a forward-looking, hopeful religious attitude that must have served in a measure to offset
the strict legalism of the Pharisaic interpretation of the law.
Other currents of religious life were moving also in Palestine, the extent of which it is impossible
to estimate, but the reality of which is evident. In the country districts especially, away from the
centers of official Judaism, there was a real mystical piety. It was that of the later Psalms and of the
“poor in spirit” of the New Testament, and the “Magnificat” and “Benedictus” (Luke 1:46-55; 68-79)
may well be expressions of it. To this mystic type belong also the recently discovered so-called Odes
of Solomon. From this simpler piety, in a larger and less mystical sense, came prophetic appeals for
repentance, of which those of John the Baptist are best known. It was not Pharisaic, but far more
vital.
One further conception of later Judaism is of importance by reason of its influence on the
development of Christian theology. It is that of “wisdom,” which is practically personified as existing
side by side with God, one with Him, His “possession” before the foundation of the world, His agent
in its creation. (Prov. 3:19; 8; Psalms 33:6) It is possible that the influence of the Stoic thought of the
all- pervading divine Logos is here to be seen; but a more ethical note sounds than in the
corresponding Greek teaching. Yet the two views were easy of assimilation.
Judaism Outside Palestine
Palestine is naturally first in thought in a consideration of Judaism. It was its home, and the
scene of the beginnings of Christianity. Nevertheless the importance of the dispersion of the Jews
outside of Palestine, both for the religious life of the Roman Empire as a whole, and for the reflex
effect upon Judaism itself of the consequent contact with Hellenic thought, was great. This
dispersion had begun with the conquests of the Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs, and had been
furthered by many rulers, notably by the Ptolemies of Egypt, and the great Romans of the closing
days of the republic and the dawning empire. Estimates are at best conjectural, but it is not
improbable that, at the birth of Christ there were five or six times as many Jews outside of Palestine
as within its borders. They were a notable part of the population of Alexandria. They were strongly
rooted in Syria and Asia Minor. They were to be found, if in relatively small numbers, in Rome. Few
cities of the empire were without their presence. Clannish and viewed with little favor by the pagan
population, they prospered in trade, were valued for their good qualities by the rulers, their
religious scruples were generally respected, and, in turn, they displayed a missionary spirit which
made their religious impress felt. As this Judaism of the dispersion presented itself to the
surrounding pagan, it was a far simpler creed than Palestinian Pharisaism. It taught one God, who

had revealed His will in sacred Scriptures, a strenuous morality, a future life with rewards and
punishments, and a few relatively simple commands relating to the Sabbath, circumcision, and the
use of meats. It carried with it everywhere the synagogue, with its unelaborate and non-ritualistic
worship. It appealed powerfully to many pagan s; and, besides full proselytes, the synagogues had
about them a much larger penumbra of partially Judaized converts, the “devout men,” who were to
serve as a recruiting ground for much of the early Christian missionary propaganda.
In its turn, the Judaism of the dispersion was much influenced by Hellenism, especially by Greek
philosophy, and nowhere more deeply than in Egypt. There, in Alexandria, the Old Testament was
given to the reading world in Greek translation, the so-called Septuagint, as early as the reign of
Ptolemy Philadelphus (B. C. 285-246). This made the Jewish Scriptures, heretofore locked up in an
obscure tongue, widely accessible. In Alexandria, also, Old Testament religious ideas were combined
with Greek philosophical conceptions, notably Platonic and Stoic, in a remarkable syncretism. The
most influential of these Alexandrian interpreters was Philo (B. C. 20-A. D. 42). To Philo, the Old
Testament is the wisest of books, a real divine revelation, and Moses the greatest of teachers; but
by allegorical interpretation Philo finds the Old Testament in harmony with the best in Platonism
and Stoicism. The belief that the Old Testament and Greek philosophy were in essential agreement
was one of far-reaching significance for the development of Christian theology. This allegorical
method of Biblical explanation was greatly to influence later Christian study of the Scriptures. To
Philo, the one God made the world as an expression of His goodness to His creation; but between
God and the world the uniting links are a group of divine powers, viewed partly as attributes of God
and partly as personal existences. Of these the highest is the Logos which flows out of the being of
God Himself, and is the agent not merely through whom God created the world, but from whom all
other powers, flow. Through the Logos God created the ideal man, of whom actual man is a poor
copy, the work of lower spiritual powers as well as of the Logos. Even from his fallen state man may
rise to connection with God through the Logos, the agent of divine revelation. Yet Philo’s conception
of the Logos is far more philosophical than that of “wisdom” in Proverbs, of which mention has been
made; and the source of the New Testament Logos doctrine is to be found in the Hebrew
conception of “wisdom” rather than in the thought of Philo. He was, however, a great illustration of
the manner in which Hellenic and Hebrew ideas might be united, and were actually to be united, in
the development of later Christian theology. In no other portion of the Roman world was the
process which Philo represented so fully developed as in Alexandria.
III. JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES
The way was prepared for Jesus by John the Baptist, in the thought of the early Christians the
“forerunner” of the Messiah. Ascetic in life, he preached in the region of the Jordan that the Day of
Judgment upon Israel was at hand, that the Messiah was about to come; and despising all formalism in
religion, and all dependence on Abrahamic descent, he proclaimed in the spirit of the ancient prophets
their message: “repent, do justice.” His directions to the various classes of his hearers were simple and
utterly non-legalistic. (Luke 3:2-14; Matt. 3:1-12) He baptized his disciples in token of the washing away

of their sins; he taught them a special prayer. Jesus classed him as the last and among the greatest of
the prophets. Though many of his followers became those of Jesus, some persisted independently and
were to be found as late as Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (Acts, 191-4).
While the materials are lacking for any full biography of Jesus such as would be available in the case
of one living in modern times, they are entirely adequate to determine His manner of life, His character,
and His teaching, even if many points on which greater light could be desired are left in obscurity. He
stands forth clearly in all His essential qualities. He was brought up in Nazareth of Galilee, in the simple
surroundings of a carpenter’s home. The land, though despised by the more purely Jewish inhabitants of
Judaea on account of a considerable admixture of races, was loyal to the Hebrew religion and traditions,
the home of a hardy, self-respecting population, and particularly pervaded by the Messianic hope. Here
Jesus grew to manhood through years of unrecorded experience, which, from His later ministry, must
have been also of profound spiritual insight and “favor with God and man.”
From this quiet life He was drawn by the preaching of John the Baptist. To him He went, and by him
was baptized in the Jordan. In connection with this baptism there came to Him the conviction that He
was the Messiah of Jewish hope, the chosen of God, the appointed founder of the divine kingdom. A
struggle with temptations to interpret this Messiahship in terms of ordinary Jewish expectation, resulted
in His rejection of all political or self-seeking methods of its realization as unworthy, and the unshakable
conviction that His Messianic leadership was purely spiritual, and the kingdom solely a kingdom of God,
He began at once to preach the kingdom and to heal the afflicted in Galilee, and soon had great popular
following. He gathered about Him a company of intimate associates—the Apostles—and a larger group
of less closely attached disciples. How long His ministry continued is uncertain, from one to three years
will cover its possible duration. Opposition was aroused as the spiritual nature of His message became
evident and His hostility to the current Pharisaism was recognized. Many of His first followers fell away.
He journeyed to the northward toward Tyre and Sidon, and then to the region of Caesarea Philippi,
where He drew forth a recognition of His Messianic mission from His disciples. He felt, however, that at
whatever peril He must bear witness in Jerusalem, and thither He went with heroic courage, in the face
of growing hostility, there to be seized and crucified, certainly under Pontius Pilate (A. D. 26-36) and
probably in the year 30. His disciples were scattered, but speedily gathered once more, with renewed
courage, in the glad conviction that He still lived, having risen from the dead. Such, in barest outline, is
the story of the most influential life ever lived. The tremendous impress of His personality was
everywhere apparent.
In treating, however briefly, of the teaching and work of Jesus, it must be recognized, as Harnack has
pointed out, that we have from the first a twofold Gospel—a Gospel of Jesus— His teachings; and a
Gospel about Jesus—the impression that He made upon His disciples as to what He was. He began with
what were the best possessions of contemporary Judaism, the kingdom of God and the Messianic hope.
These had been the center of John’s message. The mysterious thing in Jesus’ experience is that He felt
Himself to be the Messiah, and, as far as can be judged, this conviction was no matter of deduction. It
was a clear consciousness. He knew Himself to be the Messianic founder of the kingdom of God. Yet that
kingdom was not earthly, Maccabean. It was always spiritual. But His conception of it enlarged. At first
He seems to have regarded it as for Jews only. (Mark 7:27; Matt. 10:5-7, 15:24) As He went on, His

conception of its inclusiveness grew, and He taught not merely that many “shall come from the east and
west and from the north and south,” (Luke 13:29) but that the kingdom itself will be taken from the
unbelieving Jews. (Mark 12:1-12) Jesus held Himself in a peculiar degree the friend of the sons and
daughters of the kingdom whom Pharisaism had disinherited, the outcasts, publicans, harlots, and the
poor. Their repentance was of value in the sight of God.
The kingdom of God, in Jesus’ teaching, involves the recognition of God’s sovereignty and
fatherhood. We are His children. Hence we should love Him and our neighbors. (Mark 12:28-34) All
whom we can help are our neighbors. (Luke 10:25-37) We do not so love Hence we need to repent with
sorrow for sin, and turn to God; and this attitude of sorrow and trust (repentance and faith) is followed
by the divine forgiveness. (Luke 15:11-32) The ethical standard of the kingdom is the highest
conceivable. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48.) It
involves the utmost strenuousness toward self, (Mark 9:43-50) and unlimited forgiveness toward others.
(Matt. 18:21. 22.) Forgiveness of others is a necessary condition of God’s forgiving us. (Mark 11:25, 26)
There are two ways in life: one broad and easy, the other narrow and hard. A blessed future or
destruction are the ends. (Matt. 7:13, 14) Jesus was, like His age, strongly eschatological in His outlook.
Though He felt that the kingdom is begun now, (Mark 4:1-32; Luke 17:21) it is to be much more
powerfully manifested in the near future. The end of the present age seemed not far off. (Matt. 10:22,
19:26, 24:34; Mark 13:30)
Most of these views and sayings can doubtless be paralleled in the religious thought of the age; but
the total effect was revolutionary. “He taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.”
(Mark 1:22) He could say that the least of His disciples is greater than John the Baptist; (Matt. 11:11) and
that heaven and earth should pass away before His words. (Mark 13:31) He called the heavy-laden to
Him and offered them rest. (Matt. 11:26.) He promised to those who confessed Him before men that He
would confess them before His Father. (Matt. 10:32.) He declared that none knew the Father but a Son,
and he to whom the Son should reveal the Father. (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22) He proclaimed Himself lord
of the Sabbath, (Mark 2:23-28) than which, in popular estimate, there was no more sacred part of the
God-given Jewish law. He affirmed that He had power to pronounce forgiveness of sins. (Mark 2:1-11)
On the other hand, He felt His own humanity and its limitations no less clearly. He prayed, and taught
His disciples to pray. He declared that He did not know the day or the hour of ending of the present
world-age; that was known to the Father alone. (Mark 13:32) It was not His to determine who should sit
on His right hand and His left in His exaltation. (Mark 10:40) He prayed that the Father’s will, not His
own, be done. (Mark 14:36) He cried in the agony of the cross: “My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”
(Mark 15:34) The mystery of His person is in these utterances. Its divinity is no less evident than its
humanity. The how is beyond our experience, and therefore beyond our powers of comprehension; but
the church has always busied itself with the problem, and has too often practically emphasized one side
to the exclusion of the other.
Jesus substituted for the external, work righteous, ceremonial religion of contemporary Judaism, the
thought of piety as consisting in love to God and to one’s neighbor—to a God who is a Father and a
neighbor who is a brother—manifested primarily in an attitude of the heart and inward life, the fruit of

which is external acts. The motive power of that life is personal allegiance to Himself as the revelation of
the Father, the type of redeemed humanity, the Elder Brother, and the King of the kingdom of God.
What Jesus taught and was gained immense significance from the conviction of His disciples that His
death was not the end—from the resurrection faith. The how of this conviction is one of the most
puzzling of historical problems. The fact of this conviction is unquestionable. It seems to have come first
to Peter, (1Cor. 15:5) who was in that sense at least the “rock” Apostle on whom the church was
founded. All the early disciples shared it. It was the turning-point in the conversion of Paul. It gave
courage to the scattered disciples, brought them together again, and made them witnesses. Henceforth
they had a risen Lord, in the exaltation of glory, yet ever interested in them. The Messiah of Jewish
hope, in a profounder spiritual reality than Judaism had ever imagined Him, had really lived, died, and
risen again for their salvation.
These convictions were deepened by the experiences of the day of Pentecost. The exact nature of
the Holy Spirit’s manifestation is, perhaps, impossible to recover. Certainly the conception of a
proclamation of the Gospel in many foreign languages is inconsistent with what we know of speaking
with tongues elsewhere (See 1 Cor. 14:2-19) and with the criticism reported by the author of Acts that
they were “ full of new wine,” (Acts 2:13) which Peter deemed worthy of a reply. But the point of
significance is that these spiritual manifestations appeared the visible and audible evidence of the gift
and power of Christ. (Acts 2:33) To these first Christians it was the triumphant inauguration of a relation
to the living Lord, confidence in which controlled much of the thinking of the Apostolic Church. If the
disciple visibly acknowledged his allegiance by faith, repentance, and baptism, the exalted Christ, it was
believed, in turn no less evidently acknowledged the disciple by His gift of the Spirit. Pentecost was
indeed a day of the Lord; and though hardly to be called the birthday of the church, for that had its
beginnings in Jesus’ association with the disciples, it marked an epoch in the proclamation of the Gospel,
in the disciples’ conviction of Christ’s presence, and in the increase of adherents to the new faith.
IV. THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS CHRIST
1. Pagan Testimonies
a. Tacitus (55-117), the dean of Roman historians, linked the name and origin of Christians with
"Christus," who in the reign of Tiberius "suffered death by the sentence of Pontius Pilate."
(Tacitus, Annals 15.44) The Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the
"pinnacle of Roman historical writing". Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts
about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the
time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at
the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.
Tacitus made his comment about Christ in the context of discussing Nero’s blaming the
Christians for the fire of Rome in AD 64, which Nero was rumored to have started himself:

“Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished

with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom
the crowd styled Christians [Chrestianos]. Christus, the founder of the name [auctor
nominis], had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the
procurator [procuratorem] Pontius Pilatus, and a pernicious superstition [exitiabilis
superstitio] was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in
Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or
shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.”
b. Pliny, who was the Roman Administrator of Bithynia and Pontus in Asia Minor, wrote to
Emperor Trajan about 112 for advice as to how he should deal with the Christians. His epistle
gives valuable extra-biblical information about Christ. Pliny paid high tribute to the moral
integrity of the Christians by writing of their unwillingness to commit theft or adultery, to falsify
their word, or to repudiate a trust given to them. (Pliny, Epistles)
“They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had
been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing
responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some
crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to
return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to
depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even
this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with
your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the
more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were
called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.”
c. Suetonius in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars: Vita Claudius, mentioned that the Jews were
expelled from Rome because of disturbances over  (Christ).
“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus

[impulsore Chresto], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”
d. Lucian wrote a satire on Christians and their faith about 170 describing Christ as "the one who
was crucified in Palestine" because he began "this new cult.” He ridiculed Christians for
"worshipping this crucified sophist." (The Passing of Peregrinus)
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,–the distinguished

personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…and
then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from
the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the
crucified sage, and live after his laws.” (The Passing of Peregrinus 11-13)

2. Jewish Testimony
a. Josephus Flavius wrote of James, the "brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ.” Josephus was
not a friend of Christians, so his mention has significant historical value.
In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the
period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate,
Josephus included the following account:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was
one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth
gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon
the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who
had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to
life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.
And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” (Jewish
Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63)
3. Christian Testimony apart from the Scriptures
- There are many apocryphal and gnostic gospels, acts, letters and apocalypses that are
predicated on the historicity of Christ.
- In scriptures and pictures of the dove, the fish, the anchor and other Christian symbols in the
Catacombs give witness to belief in a historic Christ.
- The existence of the Christian Calendar.

CHAPTER 2: PENTECOST AND THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
The First Century of the history of the Church can be summarized in looking at seven historical
points which defined the Judeo-Christian Era
 Pentecost
 Pauline Mission
 Council of Jerusalem
 Break with Judaism
 Diaspora
 Evangelization
 Persecution
I. Pentecost - The Birth of the Church
“…they were all together in one place. And suddenly, a sound came from heaven like the rush of a
mighty wind… And there appeared to them tongues of fire… resting on each one of them. And they were
filled with the Holy Spirit…” – Acts 2: 1 – 8
Our history begins on the Jewish feast of Pentecost. While the Blessed Virgin and the disciples were
in the upper room praying, the promised Advocate, the Holy Spirit, descended upon them. At that
moment, the Catholic Church was born. From that glorious day in the upper room the disciples of Jesus
formed a community.
Etymologically speaking, the “Pentecost” came from the Greek language which means “Fifty”. In its
original sense, Pentecost refers to the Jewish Feast of “Shavuoth” (Hebrew word for week) celebrated
seven weeks after the Passover. This feast commemorates the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai.
For Christians today however, Pentecost already refers to the “Descent of the Holy Spirit” on the
50th day after the Resurrection of Jesus, precisely because this happened on the day when the Jews
were celebrating the said feast.
The Holy Spirit was manifested in different forms on Pentecost:
 Strong wind, signifying the heralding of a new action of God in Salvation History
 Tongues of fire, signifying the transforming and strengthening effect of the Holy Spirit in order
to prepare the Apostles for their mission.
 Speaking in different tongues (languages), signifying the world wide mission of the Church and
the universality of the Gospel message.

Peter’s Proclamation: The Kerygma
“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by
God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you
yourselves know—this man, handed over to you… you crucified and killed by the hands of those
outside the law. But God raised him up...” - Acts 2:22-24
Right after the death of Jesus, the disciples were scattered, hiding themselves for fear of being
executed too. Despite of the Resurrection, they still tremble in fear, making them gather
secretly to pray and worship God in the “upper room” in their private houses – not anymore in
the synagogue which was the public place of worship for the Jews.
However, during the Feast of the Pentecost, Peter stood up in the midst of the crowd and
proclaimed Jesus as King, Lord and Messiah. He proclaimed that Jesus’ Resurrection is the
ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to David to “raise up” one of his descendants.
In the ancient times, once a person is proclaimed as King, Lord and messiah, that person is to be
highly respected, given high honor and authority. Therefore, that person of Jesus must be
obeyed who (as Messiah) is the one who has received the royal anointing to rule the world.
Peter’s audience in turn, were “cut to the heart” when they heard him speak. They asked,
“Brothers, what should we do?” Peter tells them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ. Peter’s hearers “welcomed his message and were baptized, and that day about 3,000
persons were added to the Christian community.
Effects of the Growth of the Christian Community
Christianity became contagious with even members of the Levitical Priesthood joining (Acts 6:7).
The rapid growth was met with much opposition from the Jews who did not convert and were
losing their power. For about the first 14 years of the Church Age, persecution was from the
religious crowd. It then began to come from the political crowd when Herod had James killed.
Stephen was the first martyr of the faith.
The Church in Palestine was eventually established. In Acts 8-12, we see the gospel carried to
Judea and Samaria. Philip visited Samaria and there "won" an Ethiopian to the faith. (Acts 8:5-
25) Peter likewise can be noted when he went to Cornelius, a Roman centurion. From here we
can imply that True Christianity has always been mission oriented.
Later on, the Greek-speaking Jewish followers of Jesus went out of Jerusalem. As Greek-
speaking Jews, these followers of Jesus gravitated to the Hellenized Jewish communities
scattered throughout the East. They fled to Antioch in Syria, which served as a base for the
missionary movement, where the first Christian community was founded and the followers were
called “Christians”. From there, a large Gentile church sprang up at Antioch (Acts 11:19f). This
church became the main center of Christianity from 44 to 68 AD. It became so large that it sent
relief to the Jewish churches that faced the famine.

Eventually, other communities were quickly founded at Cyprus, Athens, and Corinth. Because of
the spread of Christianity to Greek speaking territories, the message was no longer taught in
Aramaic (Eastern). Now it would be taught in the culture of Greek and Latin.
As the Christian community grew all the more, a sense of organization and structure appeared
to govern the Church. There were two classes of officials:
 Charismatic officials, meaning those who were given special spiritual gifts. (Eph 4:11-12; I
Cor 12-14.) involved the apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastors and/or teachers.
 Administrative officials which includes: Deacons who were elected by the church to carry
out important service functions. (Acts 6); Elders (presbyteros) who actually had a higher
position than the deacons; Bishops who came to be viewed as having a higher position than
elders, but who were actually the same position. (Acts 20:17,28; Phil 1:1; Tt 1:5,7)
Early Life of the Church
As regards worship, in the first century, the Breaking of Bread was continued as mandated by
Jesus during the last supper and two services were held on Sunday to celebrate Christ's
resurrection. The morning service included the reading of scripture, exhortation by an elder,
prayers and singing. (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19) The "love-feast" (1 Cor 11:20-22) preceded the
communion during the evening service. By the end of the first century, the "love-feast" was
generally dropped.
The Palestinian Communities
The Christian community in Jerusalem seems to have grown rapidly. It speedily included Jews
who had lived in the dispersion as well as natives of Galilee and Judæa, and even some of the
Hebrew priests. By the Christian body the name “church” was very early adopted. The
designation comes from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, where it had been
employed to indicate the whole people of Israel as a divinely called congregation. As such it was
a fitting title for the true Israel, the real people of God, and such the early Christians felt
themselves to be. The early Jerusalem company were faithful in attendance at the temple, and
in obedience to the Jewish law, but, in addition, they had their own special services among
themselves, with prayer, mutual exhortation, and “breaking of bread” daily in private houses.(1
Acts 2:46) This “breaking of bread” served a twofold purpose. It was a bond of fellowship and a
means of support for the needy. The expectation of the speedy coming of the Lord made the
company at Jerusalem a waiting congregation, in which the support of the less well-to-do was
provided by the gifts of the better able, so that they “had all things common.”(1 Acts 2:44) The
act was much more than that, however. It was a continuation and a reminder of the Lord’s Last
Supper with His disciples before His crucifixion. It had, therefore, from the first, a sacramental
significance.
Organization was very simple. The leadership of the Jerusalem congregation was at first that of
Peter, and in a lesser degree of John. With them the whole apostolic company was associated in
prominence, though whether they constituted so fully a governing board as tradition affirmed
by the time that Acts was written may be doubted. Questions arising from the distribution of aid

to the needy resulted in the appointment of a committee of seven, (Acts 6:1-6) but whether this
action was the origin of the diaconate or a temporary device to meet a particular situation is
uncertain. The utmost that can be said is that the duties thus entrusted resembled those later
discharged by deacons in the Gentile churches. At an early though somewhat later period
“elders” are mentioned, (4 Acts 11:30) though whether these were simply the older members of
the church, (As Acts 15:23 might imply.) or were officers (Acts 14:23.) not improbably patterned
after those of the Jewish synagogue, is impossible to determine.
The Congregation in Jerusalem
The Jerusalem congregation was filled with the Messianic hope, it would seem at first in a
cruder and less spiritual form than Jesus had taught. (See Acts 1:6) It was devoted in its loyalty
to the Christ, who would soon return, but “whom the heaven must receive until the times of
restoration of all things.” (Acts 3:21.) Salvation it viewed as to be obtained by repentance, which
included sorrow for the national sin of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah as well as for personal sins.
This repentance and acknowledgment of loyalty was followed by baptism in the name of Christ,
as a sign of cleansing and token of new relationship, and was sealed with the divine approval by
the bestowment of spiritual gifts.(Acts 2:37, 38) This preaching of Jesus as the true Messiah, and
fear of a consequent disregard of the historic ritual, led to an attack by Pharisaic Hellenist Jews,
which resulted in the death of the first Christian martyr, Stephen, by stoning at the hands of a
mob. The immediate consequence was a partial scattering of the Jerusalem congregation, so
that the seeds of Christianity were sown throughout Judaea, in Samaria, and even in as remote
regions as Caesarea, Damascus, Antioch, and the island of Cyprus. Of the original Apostles the
only one who is certainly known to have exercised a considerable missionary activity was Peter,
though tradition ascribes such labors to them all. John may have engaged, also, in such
endeavor, though the later history of this Apostle is much in dispute.
The comparative peace which followed the martyrdom of Stephen was broken for the Jerusalem
church by a much more severe persecution about A. D. 44, instigated by Herod Agrippa I, who
from 41 to his death in 44, was vassal-king over the former territories of Herod the Great. Peter
was imprisoned, but escaped death, and the Apostle James was beheaded. In connection with
the scattering consequent upon this persecution is probably to be found whatever truth
underlies the tradition that the Apostles left Jerusalem twelve years after the crucifixion. At all
events, Peter seems to have been only occasionally there henceforth; and the leadership of the
Jerusalem church fell to James, “the Lord’s brother,” who even earlier had become prominent in
its affairs. (Gal. 1:19, 2:9; Acts 21:18.) This position, which he held till his martyr’s death about
63, has often been called a “bishopric,” and undoubtedly it corresponded in many ways to the
monarchical bishopric in the Gentile churches. There is no evidence, however, of the application
to James of the term “bishop” in his lifetime. When the successions of religious leadership
among Semitic peoples are remembered, especially the importance attached to relationship to
the founder, it seems much more likely that there was here a rudimentary caliphate. This
interpretation is rendered the more probable because James’s successor in the leadership of the
Jerusalem church, though not chosen till after the conquest of the city by Titus in 70, was
Simeon, esteemed Jesus’ kinsman.
Under the leadership of James the church in Jerusalem embraced two parties, both in
agreement that the ancient law of Israel was binding on Christians of Jewish race, but differing
as to whether it was similarly regulative for Christian converts from paganism. One wing held it

to be binding on all; the other, of which James was a representative, was willing to allow
freedom from the law to Gentile Christians, though it viewed with disfavor such a mingling of
Jews and Gentiles at a common table as Peter was disposed, for a time at least, to welcome.
(Gal. 2:12-16) The catastrophe which ended the Jewish rebellion in the year 70 was fateful,
however, to all the Christian communities in Palestine, even though that of Jerusalem escaped
the perils of the siege by flight. The yet greater overthrow of Jewish hopes under Hadrian, in the
war of 132 to 135, left Palestinian Christianity a feeble remnant. Even before the first capture of
the city, more influential foci of Christian influence were to be found in other portions of the
empire. The Jerusalem church and its associated Palestinian’ communities were important as
the fountain from which Christianity first flowed forth, and as securing the preservation of many
memorials of Jesus’ life and words that would otherwise have been lost, rather than as
influencing, by direct and permanent leadership, the development of Christianity as a whole.
II. Pauline Mission
As has already been mentioned, the persecution which brought about Stephen’s martyrdom
resulted in the planting of Christianity beyond the borders of Palestine. Missionaries, whose names have
perished, preached Christ to fellow Jews. In Antioch a further extension of this propaganda took place.
Antioch, the capital of Syria, was a city of the first rank, a remarkably cosmopolitan meeting-place of
Greeks, Syrians, and Jews. There the new faith was preached to Greeks. The effect of this preaching was
the spread of the Gospel among those of Gentile antecedents. By the populace they were nicknamed
“Christians”—a title little used by the followers of Jesus themselves till well into the second century,
though earlier prevalent among the pagan. Nor was Antioch the farthest goal of Christian effort. By 51
or 52, under Claudius, tumults among the Jews consequent upon Christian preaching by unknown
missionaries attracted governmental attention in Rome itself. At this early period, however, Antioch was
the center of development. The effect of this conversion of those whose antecedents had been pagan
was inevitably to raise the question of the relation of these disciples to the Jewish law. Should that rule
be imposed upon Gentiles, Christianity would be but a Jewish sect; should Gentiles be free from it
Christianity could become a universal religion, but at the cost of much Jewish sympathy. That this
inevitable conflict was decided in favor of the larger doctrine was primarily the work of the Apostle Paul.
Paul, whose Hebrew name, Saul, was reminiscent of the hero of the tribe of Benjamin, of which he
was a member, was born in the Cilician city of Tarsus, of Pharisaic parentage, but of a father possessed
of Roman citizenship. Tarsus was eminent in the educational world, and at the time of Paul’s birth was a
seat of Stoic teaching. Brought up in a strict Jewish home, there is no reason to believe that Paul ever
received a formal Hellenic education. He was never a Hellenizer in the sense of Philo of Alexandria. A
wide-awake youth in such a city could not fail, however, to receive many Hellenic ideas, and to become
familiar, in a measure at least, with the political and religious atmosphere of the larger world outside his
orthodox Jewish home. Still, it was in the rabbinical tradition that he grew up, and it was as a future
scribe that he went, at an age now unknown, to study under the famous Gamaliel the elder, in
Jerusalem. How much, if anything, he knew of the ministry of Jesus other than by common report, it is
impossible to determine. His devotion to the Pharisaic conception of a nation made holy by careful
observance of the Jewish law was extreme, and his own conduct, as tried by that standard, was
“blameless.” Always a man of the keenest spiritual insight, however, he came, even while a Pharisee, to
feel deep inward dissatisfaction with his own attainments in character. The law did not give a real
inward righteousness. Such was his state of mind when brought into contact with Christianity. If Jesus
was no true Messiah, He had justly suffered, and His disciples were justly objects of persecution. Could

he be convinced that Jesus was the chosen of God, then He must be to him the first object of allegiance,
and the law for opposition to the Pharisaic interpretation of which He died—and Paul recognized no
other interpretation—must itself be abrogated by divine intervention.
Though the dates of Paul’s history are conjectural, it may have been about the year 35 that the great
change came— journeying to Damascus on an errand of persecution he beheld in vision the exalted
Jesus, who called him to personal service. What may have been the nature of that experience can at
best be merely conjectured; but of its reality to Paul and of its transforming power there can be no
question. Henceforth he was convinced not only that Jesus was all that Christianity claimed Him to be,
but he felt a personal devotion to his Master that involved nothing less than union of spirit. He could
say: “I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me.” (Gal. 2:20) The old legalism dropped away, and
with it the value of the law. To Paul henceforth the new life was one of a new friendship. Christ had
become his closest friend. He now viewed man, God, sin, and the world as through his friend’s eyes. To
do his friend’s will was his highest desire. All that his friend had won was his. “If any man is in Christ, he
is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold they are become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17) With an
ardent nature such as Paul’s this transformation manifested itself at once in action. Of the story of the
next few years little is known. He went at first into Arabia—a region in the designation of that age not
necessarily far south of Damascus. He preached in that city. Three years after his conversion he made a
flying visit to Jerusalem, where he sojourned with Peter and met James, “the Lord’s brother.” He worked
in Syria and Cilicia for years, in danger, suffering, and bodily weakness. (e.g. 2 Cor. 11 and 12) Of the
circumstances of this ministry little is known. He can hardly have failed to preach to Gentiles; and, with
the rise to importance of a mixed congregation at Antioch, he was naturally sought by Barnabas as one
of judgment in the questions involved. Barnabas, who had been sent from Jerusalem, now brought Paul
from Tarsus to Antioch, probably in the year 46 or 47. Antioch had become a great focal point of
Christian activity; and from it in obedience, as the Antiochian congregation believed, to divine guidance,
Paul Barnabas set forth for a missionary journey that took them to Cyprus and thence to Perga, Antioch
Bisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe—the so-called first missionary journey described in Acts 13 and 14.
Apparently the most fruitful evangelistic endeavor thus far in the history of the church, it resulted in the
establishment of a group of congeegations in southern Asia Minor, which Paul afterward addressed as
those of Galatia, though many scholars would find the Galatian churches in more northern and central
regions of Asia Minor, to which no visit of Paul is recorded.
The growth of the church in Antioch and the planting of mixed churches in Cyprus and Galatia now
raised the question of Gentile relation to the law on a great scale. The congregation in Antioch was
agitated by visitors from Jerusalem who asserted: “Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses
ye cannot be saved.”(Acts 15:1) Paul determined to make a test case. Taking with him Titus, an
uncircumcised Gentile convert, as a concrete example of non-legalistic Christianity, he went with
Barnabas to Jerusalem and met the leaders there privately. The result reached with James, Peter, and
John was a cordial recognition of the genuineness of Paul’s work among the Gentiles, and an agreement
that the field should be divided, the Jerusalem leaders to continue the mission to Jews, of course with
maintenance of the law, while Paul and Barnabas should go with their free message to the Gentiles.(Gal.
2:1-10) It was a decision honorable to both sides; but it was impossible of full execution. What were to
be the relations in a mixed church? Could law-keeping Jews and law-free Gentiles eat together? That
further question was soon raised in connection with a visit of Peter to Antioch.(Gal. 2:11-6) It led to a
public discussion in the Jerusalem congregation, probably in the year 49—the so-called Council of
Jerusalem—and the formulation of certain rules governing mixed eating.(Acts 15:6-29) To Paul, anything
but the freest equality of Jew and Gentile seemed impossible. To Peter and Barnabas the question of

terms of common eating seemed of prime importance. Paul withstood them both. He must fight the
battle largely alone, for Antioch seems to have held with Jerusalem in this matter of intercourse at table.
Then followed the brief years of Paul’s greatest missionary activity, and the period to which we owe
all his epistles. Taking with him a Jerusalem Christian, of Roman citizenship, Silas by name, he separated
from Barnabas by reason of disagreement regarding eating, and also by dissension regarding the
conduct of Barnabas’s cousin, Mark.(Acts 15:36-40) A journey through the region of Galatia brought him
Timothy as an assistant. Unable to labor in western Asia Minor, Puul and his companions now entered
Macedonia, founding churches in Philippi and Thessalonica, being coldly received in Athens, and
spending eighteen months in successful work in Corinth (probably 51-53). Meanwhile the Judaizers had
been undermining his apostolic authority in Galatia, and from Corinth he wrote to these churches his
great epistle vindicating not merely his own ministry, but the freedom of Christianity from all obligation
to the Jewish law. It was the charter of a universal Christianity. To the Thessalonians he also wrote,
meeting their peculiar difficulties regarding persecution and the expected coming of Christ.
Taking Aquila and Priscilla, who had become his fellow laborers in Corinth, with him to Ephesus, Paul
left them there and made a hurried visit to Jerusalem and Antioch. On his return to Ephesus, where
Christianity had already been planted, he began a ministry there in 53?-56y). Largely successful, it was
also full of opposition ami of such peril that Paul “despaired even of life” (2 Cor. 1:3) and ultimately had
to flee. The Apostles’ burdens were but increased during this stay at Ephesus by moral delinquencies,
party strife, and consequent rejection of his authority in Corinth. These led not merely to his significant
letters to the Corinthians, but on departure from Ephesus, to a stay of three months in Corinth itself. His
authority was restored. In this Corinthian sojourn he wrote the greatest of his epistles, that to the
Romans.
Meanwhile Paul had never ceased to hope that the breach between him and his Gentile Christians
and the rank and file of the Jerusalem church could be healed. As a thank-offering for what the Gentiles
owed to the parent community, he had been collecting a contribution from his Gentile converts. This, in
spite of obvious peril, he determined to take to Jerusalem. Of the reception of this gift and of the course
of Paul’s negotiations nothing is known; but the Apostle himself was speedily arrested in Jerusalem and
sent a prisoner of the Roman Government to Caesarea, doubtless as an inciter of rioting. Two years’
imprisonment (57-59) led to no decisive result, since Paul exercised his right of appeal to the imperial
tribunal at Rome, and were followed by his adventurous journey to the capital as a prisoner. At Rome he
lived in custody, part of the time at least in his own hired lodging, for two years (60-62). Here he wrote
to his beloved churches our Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and briefer letters to Philemon and to
Timothy (the second epistle). Whether he was released from imprisonment and made further journeys
is a problem which still divides the opinion of scholars, but the weight of such slight evidence as there is
appears to be against it. There is no reason to doubt the tradition that he was beheaded on the Ostian
way outside of Rome; but the year is uncertain. Tradition places his martyrdom in connection with the
great Neronian persecution of 64. It was not conjoined in place with that savage attack, and may well
have occurred a little earlier without being dissociated in later view from that event.
Paul’s heroic battle for a universal, non-legalistic Christianity has been sufficiently indicated. He
would himself earnestly have repudiated these imputations. Yet an interpretation by a trained mind was
sure to present the simple faith of primitive Christianity in somewhat altered form. Though Paul
wrought into Christian theology much that came from his own rabbinic learning and Hellenic experience,
his profound Christian feeling led him into a deeper insight into the mind of Christ than was possessed

by any other of the early disciples. Paul the theologian is often at variance with the picture of Christ
presented by the Gospels. Paul the Christian is profoundly at one.
Paul’s conception of freedom from the Jewish law was as far as possible from any antinomian
undervaluation of morality. If the old law had passed away, the Christian is under “the law of the Spirit
of life.” He who has the Spirit dwelling in him, will mind “the things of the Spirit,” and will “mortify the
deeds of the body.” (Rom. 8:2, 5, 13) Paul evidently devoted much of his training of converts to moral
instruction. He has a distinct theory of the process of salvation. By nature men are children of the first
Adam, and share his inheritance of sin; (Rom. 5:12-19) by adoption (a Roman idea) we are children of
God and partakers of the blessings of the second Adam, Christ. (Rom. 8:15-17; 1 Cor. 15:45) These
blessings have special connection with Christ’s death and resurrection. To Paul, these two events stand
forth as transactions of transcendent significance. His attitude is well expressed in Gal. 6:14: “Far be it
from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”; and the reason for this glorying is twofold,
that sin is thereby forgiven and redemption wrought, (Rom. 3:24-26) and that it is the source and motive
of the new life of faith and love. (Gal. 2:20) This degree of emphasis on Christ’s death was certainly new.
To Paul the resurrection was no less important. It was the evidence that Jesus is the Son of God, (Rom.
1:4) the promise of our own resurrection, (1Cor. 15:12-19) and the guarantee of men’s renewed spiritual
life. (Rom. 6:4-11) Hence Paul preached “Jesus Christ and Him crucified,” (1Cor. 2:2) or “Jesus and the
resurrection.” (Acts 17:18)
The power by which men become children of the second Adam is a free gift of God through Christ. It
is wholly undeserved grace. (Rom. 3:24) This God sends to whom He will, and withholds from whom He
will. (Rom. 9:10-24) The condition of the reception of grace on man’s part is faith. (Rom. 3:25-28) “If you
confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, you
shall be saved.” (Rom. 10:9) This doctrine is of great importance, for it makes the essence of the
Christian life not any mere belief about Christ, nor any purely forensic justification, as Protestants have
often interpreted Paul, but a vital, personal relationship. The designation of Jesus as “Lord” was one, as
Bousset has pointed out, (Kyrios Christos, Göttingen, 1913) which had its rise in the Gentile churches of
Syria, not impossibly in Antioch, and was the natural expression of those who had long been
accustomed to employ it regarding their highest objects of veneration for their devotion to their new
“Master”. To Paul, it is an epitome of his faith. Christ is the “Lord,” himself the “slave.” Nor is confidence
in the resurrection less necessary, as the crowning proof of Christ’s divine Sonship. (Rom. 1:4)
The Christian life is one filled with the Spirit. All graces are from Him, all gifts and guidance. Man
having the Spirit is a new creature. Living the life of the Spirit, he no longer lives that of the “flesh.” But
that all-transforming and indwelling Spirit is Christ Himself. “The Lord is the Spirit.” (2Cor. 3:17) If Christ
thus stands in such relation to the individual disciple that union with Him is necessary for all true
Christian life, He is in no less vital association with the whole body of believers—the church. Paul uses
the word church in two senses, as designating the local congregation, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, “the
church that is in their house,” and as indicating the whole body of believers, the true Israel. In the latter
sense it is the body of Christ, of which each local congregation is a party. (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18) From
Christ come all officers and helpers, all spiritual gifts. (Eph. 40:11 Cor. 12:4-11) He is the source of the
life of the church, and these gifts are evidence of His glorified lordship. (Eph. 4:7-10) Like the early
disciples generally, Paul thought the coming of Christ and the end of the existing world order near;
though his views underwent some modification. In his earlier epistles he evidently believed it would
happen in his lifetime. (1Thess. 4:13-18) As he came toward the close of his work he felt it likely that he
would die before the Lord’s coming. (Phil. 1:23,24; 2Tim. 4:6-8) Regarding the resurrection, Paul had the
greatest confidence. Here, however, Hebrew and Greek ideas were at variance. The Hebrew conception

was a living again of the flesh while in the Greek, the immortality of the soul. Paul does not always make
his position clear. Romans 8:11 looks like the Hebrew thought; but the great passage in 1 Cor. 15:35-54
points to the Greek. A judgment is for all, (2Cor. 5:10.) and even among the saved there will be great
differences. (1Cor. 3:10-15) The end of all things is the subjection of all, even Christ, to God the Father.
(1Cor. 15:20-28)
To sum up, Paul (Saul) is a citizen of Tarsus, the leading city of Cilicia(Acts 21:39). He is a freeborn
Roman citizen (Acts 22:28). He got his education from Gamaliel. He worked under the reigns of: Caligula
(37-41) who was insane during part of his reign. Next was Claudius (41-54) who had stability to his
leadership, during which time Paul made most of his journeys. And lastly, Nero (54-68) under whom
Paul and others were martyred.
Archaeology helps us to determine some key dates in Paul's life. Paul had been in Corinth 18 months
when Gallio became Proconsul (Acts 18:12-13). Another is that there exist an inscription on stone
discovered at Delphi that mentions Gallio began his duties in Achaia in the 26th year of Claudius which
was A.D. 51-52. Thus Paul's visit would have begun in A.D. 50.
Paul faced rival systems of religion: Emperor Worship which claimed the allegiance of all people in
the empire except the Jews who were exempt by law. Many followed the mystery religions of Mithra,
Cybele, and Isis.
Paul also faced philosophical systems that suggested philosophical contemplation as the way to
salvation. Stoicism, with its pantheistic view of God, its conception of natural ethical laws to be
discovered by reason, and its doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, seemed
to provide a philosophical foundation for the Roman Empire. There were other systems such as
Epicureanism and Neo-Pythagoreanism.
Paul is a Polemicist in a way that he fought for purity of doctrine. (Acts 15) He also battled the
Circumcision Party and the Gnostics. Paul stood unequivocally for the all-sufficiency of Christ as Creator
and Redeemer as well as the full manifestation of God and in no way not God. (Col 1:13-20; 2:9) God
uses Paul's intellect and zeal to interpret the Lord Jesus Christ to the Gentile world.
The Principles of Paul's teachings would present the idea that all were based on the teachings of the
Lord Himself (1 Tim 6:3) in a way that, since Christ left no well-defined body of dogma, written down
and left for posterity and instead under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, certain men were chosen to
write about Christ and about theology, they focused on Faith, Hope and Love. (1 Thes 1:3-4) They did
not grow out of the laws of legalism or the rationalism of Stoicism and that purity comes about out of a
love for God and one another.
III. Council of Jerusalem
As the Christian message spread, many gentiles (non-Jews) began to accept the Gospel and Christ.
This led the early Church to call its first council, the Council of Jerusalem, in 49 AD on the issue of
circumcision whereas Gentile converts must follow the Mosaic Law; "Unless you are circumcised
according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1)

The two main speakers at the Council were St. Peter, who was chosen by Jesus to be head of the
twelve and the first Pope, and St. James, the brother of the Lord.1 Both convinced the assembly that God
desired gentiles to be part of the community and that all people were "…saved through the grace of Our
Lord Jesus."(Acts 15:11) thus they were led to the decision and understanding and decreed that "It is the
decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities." (Acts
15:28)
IV. Break with Judaism
Three decades of sometimes severe persecutions by Jewish authorities, in Jerusalem and elsewhere
in the Empire, tested the Jewish-Christian relationship. In 62 AD, the separation became pronounced
when James the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem was arrested by the Jewish High priest for
blasphemy and was beheaded.
V. Jewish Diaspora
In the year 70 the Roman Army, commanded by Titus, son of the Emperor Vespasian, surrounded
Jerusalem, the Holy City of the Old Law. After a siege the city was completely destroyed, the Temple was
ruthlessly plundered by Roman soldiers and set afire. Many inhabitants of Jerusalem died of disease and
famine during the siege. The survivors were either put to death or taken into slavery. The remnant were
scattered, and the Jews became a people without a home.
Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled to the letter when He told His disciples: “You see all these things, do
you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be
thrown down. (Mt 24:2)
Jerusalem was now destroyed, to be replaced by the universal Church, which would welcome all the
nations of the earth.
VI. Age of Evangelization
The Apostles and disciples wasted no time in taking the message of the Gospel to numerous regions
throughout the Mediterranean. As Christianity spread, the Roman authorities became increasingly
suspicious of the Church. When they finally looked more closely at the Church, they were shocked to
discover that Christians were 1) Monotheistic – they believed in only one God, not many gods as they
did. 2) Moral – they had a strange moral code that included, fidelity in marriage and the rejection of
infanticide. 3) They were perceived as Cannibals – they claimed to eat the flesh of a man named Jesus of
Nazareth.
1
The attendees where the "Apostles and presbyters" Acts 15:6, and the following notables: Paul and Barnabas,
Peter, James (Acts 15:6-22).

VII. Persecution
In the struggle of the Church for survival in 1st C.-313 A.D., the Greek word θιλιπσις (thilipsis) is a
very important word in the Christian vocabulary, for it speaks of tribulation. Christ has forewarned His
disciples that they shall know something about suffering for righteousness by saying, “If they have
persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). During the first three hundred years of its
existence, sometimes called “The Heroic Age of the Church,” the people of God knew persecution.
THE AGE OF PERSECUTIONS
 POLITICAL
Christianity has always faced both internal and external problems during its history. Up until
250, persecution was mostly localized and was the result of mob action. After 250, it became
the result of definite civil policy by the Roman government. 4. As long as Christianity was viewed
as a religio licita or legal sect or Judaism, there was little persecution. After it became viewed as
a different sect, it became illegal and was viewed as a threat to Rome. 6. Christians had to
choose between who was their highest authority, Christ or Caesar? In Rome, if one would
sacrifice on their altars of incense and the like first, they were then free to practice their own
religion.
 RELIGIOUS
The Roman religion was mechanical and external-filled with idols. Christians had none to add to
their pantheon. Christian worship was more spiritual and internal in that there was not an
object that they prayed to. There was also the misunderstandings of Christ's words concerning
"the flesh" and "the blood" that led to rumors that Christians sacrificed their children and ate
them.
 SOCIAL
The Christian's welcome to the lower classes and slaves led the higher classes to despise them.
They looked upon Christians with contempt, but were fearful of their influence on the lower
classes. Christians upheld the equality of all (Col 3:11), while paganism insisted on an aristocratic
structure. Christians refused to participate in their pagan gatherings at temples and theaters,
thus becoming social outcasts.
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH IS PERSECUTED
Peter was put in prison for preaching the Gospel (Acts 12:5). Stephen and James died violently
as faithful witnesses to Christ (Acts 7:59-60; 12:1-2). While in Corinth, Paul was taken by force
into the court of the Roman governor Gallio (Acts 18:12).
At first the sufferings of the Church came primarily from the Jewish community. With the
passing of time, the attitude of the Roman government toward the Christian community
changed as specific charges were made. Christians were accused of atheism, cannibalism,
immorality, and antisocial behavior.

The more the Roman government learned about Christians and Christianity the more hostile it
became toward this new religion. This hostility eventually led to the beginning of the
persecutions that would occur intermittently over the next three centuries. The first
persecution was ordered by Emperor Nero in 64 AD. The second persecution occurred under
Domitian in 95 AD who chose to reinstate the same anti-Christian laws that Nero had used.
 Simon Peter, the first notable leader of the Church (Acts 1-15; Gal. 2:9) was
executed at Rome. It is said that he was crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18-
19) during the reign of Nero. Tacitus recorded the rumor that Nero had ordered
the fire that destroyed part of the city of Rome. The people accepted the rumor
and were so upset that Nero had to find a scapegoat. He chose the Christians.
Peter and Paul died in this period.
 The Jews were the persecutors of the infant church (Acts 2-8). James, the son of
Zebedee, preached in Judea. He was beheaded by Herod Antipas about A.D. 44
(Acts 12:1-2).
 Andrew, once a disciple of John the Baptist, preached in Scythia, Greece, and
Asia Minor. He died by crucifixion.
 Philip preached in Phrygia. He was a missionary in Asia Minor and died a

martyr's death at Hierapolis by crucifixion.
 Bartholomew became a missionary in Armenia. He was flayed to death.
 Thomas labored in Parthia, Persia, and India. He suffered martyrdom near

Madras by being stabbed with a spear
 Matthew ministered in Ethiopia and was martyred, where he was supposedly

stabbed in the back by a swordsman sent by King Hertacus, after he criticized
the king’s morals.
 The Apostle James the Less was martyred in Jerusalem, about the time of the
Passover, in the spring of Nero's 10th year as emperor. the Jewish religious
leaders threw James down from the Temple wall. Yet he did not die from the
fall, so they began to stone him. Still he did not die from the stoning, so a man
took a fuller club (used to beat out clothing) and clubbed him to death. In this
way died James the Less, one of the Twelve Apostles and the leader of the
Church at Jerusalem for 30 years.
 Jude preached in Assyria and Persia, where he was martyred. According to

several stories, he was crucified at Edessa (the name of cities in both Turkey and
Greece) in 72 AD. In other tradition, he died by being clubbed to death and his
head being shattered with an ax.
 Simon the Zealot preached in Egypt and Mesopotamia. He was martyred by

being beaten and sawed in two

 It is generally believed that Matthias, who replaced Judas, ministered in Judaea

and then carried out missions to foreign places. Greek tradition states that he
Christianized Cappadocia, a mountainous district now in central Turkey, later
journeying to the region about the Caspian Sea, where he was martyred by
crucifixion and, according to other legends, stoned and chopped apart. His
symbol, related to his alleged martyrdom, is either a cross or a halberd.
 John, the son of Zebedee, labored in Jerusalem, and then from Ephesus among
the Churches of Asia Minor. He was banished to the isle of Patmos, liberated
and died a natural death at Ephesus (cf. John 21:20-23).
THE APOSTOLIC AGE ENDS
The time of the Pentecost until the death of the last apostle (St. John the Evangelist) is known to
be as the Apostolic Age. The Apostles’ mission of spreading the teachings of Christ which
brought about the expansion of the Church was continued by their disciples known as the
Apostolic Fathers, such as Clement of Rome, Hermas of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp
of Smyrna. Bu as the Apostolic Age ended, persecution continued.
THE PERSECUTION CONTINUED
The first organized persecution which brought Christians into the courts as defendants took
place in Bithynia during the governorship of Pliny the Younger about 112. Pliny wrote a letter to
Trajan and said that "the contagion of this superstition (Christianity) had spread in the villages
and rural areas as well as in the larger cities to such an extent that the temple had been almost
deserted and the sellers of sacrificial animals impoverished.
Pliny brought Christians before his tribunal and asked the person 3 times if they were Christians.
If the Christians confessed 3 times, he was put to death.
The persecutions that started in the first century continued in the second. The Emperors Trajan
(98-117), Hadrian (117-138) and Marcus Aurelius (168-180) picked up where Nero and Domitian
left off, persecuting Christians as far south as Vienne and as far east as Lyons, France.
Whenever some sort of disaster, such as the plague, fell upon a city, the citizens of that city
blamed the Christians, claiming that they were being punished because Christians refused to pay
the gods homage.
2ND -3RD CENTURY PERSECUTION
With the death of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 180), a general period of peace came to the Church
which lasted about seventy years. There was one exception to this peace as persecution broke
out during the reign of Septimius Severus (A.D. 200-211). Great violence broke out against
Christians in Egypt. Along with many others who were put to death for the faith was Origen (c.
A.D. 185-254), the most famous of the Alexandrian writers.

RENEWED EFFORTS OF DESTRUCTION
In A.D. 249 another general persecution of the Church broke out under the emperor Decius. In
the providence of the Lord, his reign only lasted two years (A.D. 249-251). Then came Valerian
(A.D. 253-260) and the Church suffered again. There was hardly any reprieve. Hostility was
endured through the reigns of Gallienus (A.D. 260-268), Aurelian (A.D. 270-275) and on into the
reign of the emperor Diocletian (A.D. 284-305).
Perhaps the most severe of all the persecutions came under Diocletian. Beginning in February
303, three edicts of persecution were issued in quick succession. The Churches were to be
burned, all sacred books were to be confiscated, and the religious leaders were to be
imprisoned or compelled to offer a sacrifice. Many lives were lost. Mental cruelty was added to
physical hardships, as Satan's servants assaulted the Church in order to destroy it completely.
During these dark days many Christians in the city of Rome found a small place of security.
Under the city in the soft stone were the catacombs. These underground passageways wound
and crisscrossed in every direction, making up over 500 miles of subterranean passages, thirty or
more feet below the surface. In the sides of the galleries or passages, excavations had been
made in rows upon rows so that the dead could be buried. Here among the burial chambers, the
living found a hiding place.
UNIVERSAL PERSECUTION AFTER 250 A.D.
Emporer Decius issued an edict in 250 that demanded an annual offering of sacrifice at the
Roman altars to the gods and the genius of the emperor. Those who made the sacrifices were
given a certificate called a libellus. Some Christians denied their faith to get the certificates.
Decius died the next year after the decree. After Decius, there was no major persecution for
about 40 years until Diocletian (245-313).
He found Rome in chaos, and removed the authority from the Roman Senate in 285, which they
had had since Caesar Augustus in 27 B.C. In March 303, he order the cessation of meetings of
Christians, the destruction of the churches, the deposition of officers in the church, the
imprisonment of those who persisted in their testimony to Christ, and the destruction of the
Scriptures by fire.
The last order was to give the church trouble later on when the Donatist controversy broke out
in North Africa on how the Traditores, those who had given up their copies of scripture, were to
be treated when they asked for readmission into the church.
Another edict ordered Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods or die. Eusebius said that the
prisons became so crowded with Christians, there was no room for criminals. Christians lost
their property, were exiled, were imprisoned, or executed by the sword or wild beasts. Some
were sent to a labor camp and died in the mines. The persecution slackened when Diocletian
retired in 305.
Galerius issued an edict from his deathbed in 311 that gave toleration to Christianity, provided
that the Christians did not violate the peace. Persecution did not cease until Licinius and
Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 which brought freedom of worship to all religions.

RESULTS OF PERSECUTION
o The blood of the martyrs became the "seed of the church."

o By the year 200, Christians could be found in all parts of the Empire.
o Alexandria became headquarters in Egypt.
o Carthage became headquarters in North Africa.
o By 300, various estimates place the size of the church at between 5 and 15 percent of
the Roman Empire. The population of the Empire was estimated at 50-75 million, so
Christians would be between 2.5-11.25 million.
o Serious controversies broke out in North Africa and Rome concerning those who had
offered sacrifices and those who had given up the Scriptures. The issue was one of how
to treat those who had done so.
 1. Some wanted them excluded from the assembly forever.
 2. Some wanted a period of probation before they could rejoin the fellowship.
o The Diocletian persecution forced upon the church the problem of the Canon.
 1. No one wanted to die for non-canonical books.
 2. Thus final decisions were made.

CHAPTER III: DOGMATIC CONTROVERSIES IN THE EARLY CHURCH
While fighting to survive the attacks from the political powers, the Church also had to fight heresies
within.
The Church had Jewish converts who held to salvation by works. They also had Gentile converts who
came from the intellectual environment of Greek philosophy.
Many tried to carry their old ideas into Christianity. cf Matt 9:17 & Mark 2:22 & Luke 5:37-39 "And
no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be
spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. "And no one,
after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'”
One would have thought that the decision of the Jerusalem Council would have done away with
legalisms. Yet, converts from Judaism continued to try and bring in their Jewish heritage.
I. LEGALISTIC HERESIES
 The Ebionites
This group ceased around the time of the Simon Bar Kockba rebellion in 132-135, in which Jews
rebelled against Rome and Hadrian finally destroyed Jerusalem in 132. They emphasized the
unity of God and His creatorship of the universe. They believed that the Jewish Law was the
highest expression of His will and that it was still binding on man. They insisted that Gentile as
well as Jewish Christians were still bound by the Law of Moses and that there was no salvation
apart from circumcision and the Law. They believed that Jesus was Joseph's son who attained a
measure of divinity when the Spirit came upon Him at baptism.
They hated Paul. This group may be linked to the Essene community.
II. PHILOSOPHICAL HERESIES
 Gnosticism
This philosophy reached its peak of power around 150. Christian tradition relates the origin of
this view to Simon Magus, whom Peter rebuked. (Acts 8:9-24) Gnosticism sprang from the
natural human desire to create a theodicy, an explanation of the origin of evil.
The Gnostics associated matter with evil and thus sought a way to create a philosophical system
in which God as spirit could be freed from association with evil and in which man could be
related on the spiritual side of his nature to Deity. It was also a logical or rational system that
illustrated the human tendency to seek answers to the great questions of the origin of man.
Its approach was to synthesize Christianity and Hellenistic Greek philosophy. They sought by
human wisdom to understand the ways of God with man and to avoid what seemed to them to

be the stigma of the cross. (cf 1 Cor 1-2) The discovery at the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt in
1946 gave us about 1000 pages of documents concerning Syrian and Egyptian Gnosticism.
One of their main tenets was Dualism, a clear separation between the material and spiritual,
thus God could not have created this material world. The gap between God and the world was
bridged by the idea of a "demiurge" who was one of a series of emanations from the high god of
Gnosticism. To them, Yahweh was a demiurge and was heartily disliked.
 Docetism
They taught that Jesus could not have a real human body as matter was evil. So they said that
Christ was a "phantom with the seeming appearance of a material body." Some said that Christ
came upon the body of Jesus only for a short time, between His baptism and the beginning of
the cross, then abandoned Jesus.
They say it was the task of Christ to teach a special gnosis that would help man save himself by
an intellectual process.
o Salvation which was only for the soul or spiritual part of man, might begin with faith, but
the special gnosis, which Christ imparted to the elite, would be far more beneficial in the
process of saving his soul.
o Since the body was to be cast off, there were the extremes of asceticism and license.
 Marcionism
Started by Marcion and became influential in the Roman church about 140. They scrapped
Judaism, its scriptures and Yahweh. Marcion set up his own canon that included a shortened
version of Luke and ten letters of Paul.
Although his wealth helped the church, they had the courage to expel him. He then founded his
own. Marcion held to an evil god of the Old Testament and a good one for the New.
o There were numerous sects of Gnostics who held to slight differences in doctrine.
o Saturninus headed a school of Gnosticism in Syria.
o Basilides in Egypt had another school.
o This attack forced the church to consider canonicity and develop a short creed to test
orthodoxy. It enhanced the prestige of the Bishop as becoming the center of unity for
the faithful against heresy.
o Gnosticism would clearly reappear in the 7th century "Paulicians," the 11-12th century
"Bogomils," and later in the "Albigenses" of southern France.

 Manicheanism
This was similar to Gnosticism. It was founded by a man named Mani or Manichaeus (216-276)
of Mesopotamia. He worked Christianity, Zoroastrianism and other oriental philosophies
together into a dualistic system.
Mani believed in two opposing and eternal principles:
a. Primitive man came into being by emanation from a being who in turn was a higher
emanation from the ruler of the kingdom of light.
b. Opposed to the king of light was the king of darkness, who managed to trick primitive man
so that man became a mingled being.
Mani said that man's soul linked him with the kingdom of light, but his body brought him into
bondage to the kingdom of darkness. Salvation was thus a matter of liberating the light in his
soul. This liberation could be accomplished by exposure to the Light, Christ.
The elite or perfect ones became the priestly caste. They lived ascetic lives and performed rites
essential to the release of light.
The auditors or hearers shared in the holiness of this elect group by supplying their physical
needs. In this way, the hearers might share in salvation.
Manicheanism also viewed the sex instinct as evil.
 Neo-Platonism
Neoplatonism originated in Alexandria as the brainchild of Ammonius Saccas' (174-242), who

was born of Christian parents. Origen, the Christian church father, and a man named Plotinus
(205-270) studied under this man.
Plotinus became the real leader and taught this in a school in Rome from about 250-275. A man
named Porphyry (232-305) produced the literary statement from the writing of Plotinus. It is
known as the "Enneads."
Neo-Platonists thought of Absolute Being as the transcendent source of all that is and from
which all was created by a process of overflow. This overflow or emanation finally resulted in
the creation of man as a reasoning soul and body. The goal of the universe was reabsorption
into the divine essence.
Philosophy was said to contribute most to this process as one engages in rational contemplation
and by mystical intuition seeks to know God and to be absorbed into the One from whence all
has come.
Ecstasy was the highest state one could enjoy in this life. These ideas influenced Augustine.
Emperor Julian (aka "The Apostate") embraced this rival of Christianity and during his short reign
(361-363) tried to make it the religion of the Empire. This movement died out early in the 6th
century.

III. THEOLOGICAL ERRORS
 Montanism
Montanism Emerged in Phrygia around 155 as an attempt to meet the problems of formalism
and dependence on human leadership instead of the Holy Spirit. Montanus was opposed to the
prominence of the Bishop in the church. As is often the case, when one perceives a problem,
one can easily go to extremes.
Montanus contended that inspiration was immediate and continuous and that he was the
paraclete or advocate through whom the Holy Spirit spoke to the church, just as the Holy Spirit
had spoken through Paul and the other apostles.
He also believed that the heavenly kingdom of Christ would soon be set up at Pepuza in Phrygia
and that he would have a prominent place in the kingdom.
They thus observed a strict asceticism, permitting one marriage but not two for any reason,
many fasts and only certain foods. Montanism represented the perennial protest that occurs in
the church when there is too much "machinery" and a lack of dependence on the Holy Spirit.
 Monarchianism
Their problem was their excessive zeal in emphasizing the unity of God and rejecting God as
three separate personalities. They were concerned with an assertion of monotheism, but ended
up with an ancient form of Unitarianism. They actually denied the deity of Christ.
During the 3rd century a man named Paul of Samosata was the Bishop at Antioch. He held an
important political post in the government of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. He often played the
demagogue in Antioch by preaching to the gallery with violent bodily gestures and asking for
applause and the waving of handkerchiefs. On some occasions he had a female choir sings
hymns of praise to him. He taught that Christ was not divine but merely a good man who, by
righteousness and penetration of his being by the divine Logos at baptism, achieved divinity and
saviorhood. This doctrine became known as Dynamic or Adoptionist Monarchianism.
Sabellius was a proponent of Modal Monarchianism. Seeking to avoid any danger of tritheism,
he formulated a teaching that goes by his name. He taught a trinity of manifestation of forms
rather than of essence. God was manifested as Father in OT times. As Son to redeem man. As
the Holy Spirit after the Resurrection. Thus he said there were not three persons but three
manifestations. This has been revived in the New Issue or Jesus Only form of Pentecostalism.
IV. ECCLESIASTICAL SCHISMS
 Easter Controversy (Quartodecimans)
This arose in the mid-second century over the question of the proper date of Easter. The Eastern
church held to the 14th of Nisan, no matter what day of the week it fell on. Polycarp was
opposed in this view in 162 by Anicetus, the Roman bishop who believed that it should be
celebrated on the Sunday following the 14th of Nisan. In 190, Victor, bishop of Rome,

excommunicated the churches of Asia as he opposed Polycrates of the church at Ephesus.

Irenaeus rebuked him for his pretensions to power. No agreement was reached until the Council
of Nicaea in 325, when the viewpoint of the western church was adopted.
 Donatism
This controversy developed after 300 as a result of the persecution of the church by Diocletian.
A churchman named Donatus wanted to exclude Caecilian from his office as bishop of Carthage
because Caecilian had been consecrated by Felix, who was accused of being a "Traditor" during
the Diocletian persecution. Donatus believed this to be an "unpardonable sin" and thus said
Felix was disqualified to ordain. Donatus and his group elected Marjorinus was bishop and after
the death of Marjorinus in 313, Donatus became bishop.
When Constantine gave money for the African church, the Donatists complained because they
received none. A synod held at Rome decided that the validity of a sacrament does not depend
on the character of the one administering the sacrament. Hence, the Donatists had no right to
any aid.
Another council of western bishops, held in Arles in 314, again decided against the Donatist
position. This controversy prompted much of Augustine's writings on the authority of the
church.
CONCLUSIONS
The controversies, errors and heresies were not always destructive as they forced the church to
decide issues such as the canon of Scripture, creeds, and essential teachings. Also, the rise of false
theologies gave rise to the identification of Christian theology. The position of the Bishop was
strengthened during this time frame and became the rallying point to combat error and heresy.
Ambitious men arose seeking their own authority and developing their own systems. However, still in
the end, the church weathered the storm.

CHAPTER IV: CHRISTIANITY IN THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA
I. The Reign of Constantine the Great
Constantine the Great (c. 285-337) is known as the first “Christian emperor” of the Roman Empire.
He ruled from A.D. 306 to 337. Constantine's parents were Constantius Chlorus, the western co-emperor
of the Roman empire, and Helena, a concubine. When his father died in 306, the Roman army in Britain
proclaimed Constantine emperor. This meant that he ruled over Britain, Gaul [France], and Spain.
Maxentius ruled over Italy and North Africa. A military conflict for power was inevitable.
In a surprise move made in order to get the military advantage, Constantine marched into Italy
leading an army of forty thousand men. At Saxa Rubra, ten miles from Rome and a little to the north of
it, the two great armies of Maxentius and Constantine met. The date was October 27, 312. On the
morning of October 28, the battle would begin. During the night, the only thing separating the army of
Constantine from the army of Rome was the Tiber River, and the Milvian Bridge which crossed the river.
Constantine had reason to be concerned as his soldiers made their final preparations for battle. He was
outnumbered three to one and the army of Maxentius contained the Praetorian Guard, the elite of all
the Roman armies. As the twilight faded away, the outcome of the engagement on the next day was in
grave doubt. Constantine felt he needed spiritual help.
Like his father, Constantine's heart was drawn toward the worship of Mithra, the Persian sun god,
who was believed to be a great warrior and the champion of truth and justice. Mithra was a soldier's
god. Perhaps Constantine was thinking of Mithra when he fell into a fitful sleep that night and dreamed
an unusual dream. According to one account, Constantine dreamed of a monogram composed of the
first two Greek letters of the name of Christ. The next day he had his soldiers inscribe the monogram on
their shields.
According to another version, on the evening before the battle, as he watched the setting sun,
Constantine suddenly saw a cross above the sun. In letters of light the cross bore the words: Hoc Signo
Vinces, “In this sign, conquer.” On October 28, Constantine and his soldiers won the victory. The army of
Maxentius was completely defeated. Although the Praetorian Guard fought like lions, they were cut
down where they stood.
The Edict of Milan
Constantine believed he had won the battle because he had received help from the God of the
Christians. He too would become a Christian and worship the true Light of the world. Whether or
not Constantine was indeed converted has been a subject of great debate. Certainly he was very
tolerant toward Christians. During the winter of A.D. 312 - 313, he instructed an officer in North
Africa to provide money to the bishop of Carthage so that the ministers could be paid. At Milan in
313 he issued an edict granting all persons the freedom to worship as they wished. Persecution of
Christians stopped. They were placed upon a level of equality, before the law, with the other
religions of the Empire. New laws allowed bishops to decide civil lawsuits. The branding of the face
was banned because it marred the image of God. Law courts and workshops were closed on
Sundays, and the gladiatorial games were stopped.

II. THE EARLY COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH
1. Council of Nicaea
It was at Nicaea that a great question was fully discussed, which had occupied the mind of the
Church for over three hundred years, as it debated whether Jesus Christ, the Son, was truly and
fully God, the same as the Father. This Arian Controversy, as it came to be known, raged for a
long time--resulting in deep division in the Church. Finally, Constantine (c. 285-337) called the
first general council to settle the dispute. More than 300 bishops made their way to Nicaea,
located on the shores of the Bosporus Sea, forty-five miles from Constantinople.
A general or ecumenical council was one in which all churches of all countries present were
represented. In a small town in Asia Minor called Nicaea in 325, the first general or ecumenical
council was held.
The men met in a magnificent hall in the palace of the emperor. Most were from the Greek-
speaking East, although some were from the West. Some of the bishops in the council bore in
their bodies the marks of the sufferings they had endured for the Savior. The atmosphere was
euphoric as the ministers of God began to discuss many legislative matters. They approved a
standard procedure for bringing back into the Church those who had not been faithful in the
days of persecution. They also established the procedure for the election and ordination of
presbyters and bishops. But the most difficult issue that the Council faced was the Arian
controversy.
The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops
were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor
Constantine was also present. To this council we owe the Nicene Creed, defining against Arius
the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter
(against the Quartodecimans).
The Arian Controversy
Arius (d. 336), a presbyter in the Church in Alexandria, Egypt, taught that Jesus the Son of God,
was not truly deity as was God the Father. Athanasius (born c. 295) was another presbyter in the
same Church; he taught that Jesus was fully God. The question was important to settle, because
the value of the saving work of Christ depends upon what kind of Person He is. If Christ is not
God, He cannot be the Saviour of man, for only God can save man from the desperate state of
sin into which he has fallen. Athanasius understood the importance of the controversy and said,
“Jesus, whom I know as my Redeemer, cannot be less than God.”
Arius truly thought that to believe that the Son is God as well as the Father is God, would mean
to believe that there are two Gods. If this were true, then the Church was in danger of falling
back into heathenism and polytheism, which is the belief in many gods. To stop this from
happening, Arius thought that Jesus, although He is somewhat like God, is not after all fully God,
with all of His attributes and virtues. According to Arius, Jesus Christ is the first and highest of all
created beings and is worthy of honor and veneration. But Jesus does not exist from eternity
past, and is not of the same substance or essence as the Father.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria
Athanasius became the chief exponent of what became the orthodox view. His wealthy parents
had provided for his theological education at the school of Alexandria. He had written De
Incarnatione which presented the idea of the incarnation of Christ. At the age of thirty, he
presented to the council that:
1) Christ had existed from all eternity.

2) He was of the same essence as the Father.
3) Yet, He had a distinct personality.
He argued that if Christ were anything less than He had stated Himself to be, He could not be
the savior of the world. Man's eternal salvation was linked to this. For his views that Christ was
coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, he suffered exile five times.
The debate grew fierce between the young Athanasius and the more mature Arius, a man of
integrity and a capable orator. Still, the young “David” was ready to challenge his “Goliath”, who
was popular with a large number of people.
The Council of Nicaea and St. Athanasius against the Arian Controversy
The debate grew fierce between the young Athanasius and the more mature Arius, a man of
integrity and a capable orator. Still, the young “David” was ready to challenge his “Goliath”, who
was popular with a large number of people.
Athanasius argued that if Jesus were not God, then He would be a great blasphemer--for He
certainly claimed to be God (John 8:28,58). Furthermore, if Jesus is not God then millions upon
millions of people have been foolishly misled into idolatry, for Christ has been worshipped. Only
God is worthy of worship. Athanasius defended the worshipping of Christ in a famous book
entitled On The Incarnation Of The Word Of God. The debate concerning the deity of Christ was
monumental in importance. Man's salvation was at stake, for Christ's Person and work are
inseparably united.
At this historic Council of Nicaea in the year A.D. 325, and after much debate, the views of Arius
were condemned as heresy. A statement of the true doctrine of the Person and work of Christ
was finally adopted and articulated in the Nicene Creed. This creed is accepted by both the
Western churches and those of the East, including the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox
churches.
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is, from the substance of
the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one
substance [Greek: homoousios] with the Father, through whom all things were made, both in
heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation descended and became
incarnate, becoming human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say that

“there was when He was not”, and that before being begotten He was not, or that He came from
that which is not, or that the Son of God is of a different substance [hypostasis] or essence
[ousia], or that He is created, or mutable, these the universal Church anathematizes.
The final version included an expansion of the third paragraph, and in Christian charity omitted
the judgments of the last paragraph, so that it ended in this way:
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from [Latin: filioque,
“from” and not “through”] the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And we believe in one catholic [universal]
and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and we look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Doctrine of the Deity of Christ

1. The Gospel of John declares that Jesus is the eternal divine Word (Logos), and the source of
life and light (John 1:1, cp. 1:14; 1:1-5,9).
2. Through becoming flesh, the Word was revealed as the Son of God and the source of “grace
and truth,” as “the only begotten of the Father” (1:14,18).
3. The Lord used the divine name (cp. Ex. 3:14) for Himself seven times. The claims to deity are
explicit:
- The bread of life John 6:35, 48, 51
- The light of the world John 8:12; 9:5
- The door for the sheep John 10:7,9
- The good shepherd John 10:11,14
- The resurrection and the life John 11:25
- The Way, Truth, and Life John 14:6
- The true vine John 15:1,5
4. Thomas worshipped Jesus declaring Him to be, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). The
Lord pronounced a blessing on all who share the faith of Thomas (John 20:29-31).
5. Paul declares that in Christ “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9; cf. 1:19).
6. Jesus is the Father's image and His agent in creating and upholding all things (Col. 1:15-17).
7. All who would be saved must call upon Christ for salvation, just as one calls upon Yahweh
(Joel 2:32; Rom. 10:9-13).
8. Jesus is “God over all” (Rom. 9:5), our “God and Saviour” (Titus 2:13), and the source of
divine grace (2 Cor. 12:8,9; cp. 2 Cor. 13:14).
9. In Hebrews, the perfection of Christ's high priesthood is presented, declaring Him to have
full deity and unique dignity as the eternal Son of God (Heb. 1:3,6,8-12).
10. There are many other passages which teach the deity of Christ.
- In the Old Testament, study: Psa. 2:6-12; cp. Heb. 1:5; Psa. 45:6-7; cp. Heb. 1:8-9; Psa.
110:1; cp. Heb. 1:13; Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:6; Dan. 7:13; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 13:7; Mal. 3:1.
- In the New Testament, study: John 1:1-3,14,18; 2:24-25; 3:16-18, 35,36; 4:4,15; 5:18,20-
22,25-27; 11:41-44; 20:28; John 1:3; 2:23; 4:14-15; 5:5,10-13,20; Rom. 1:7; 9:5; 1 Cor.
1:1-3; 2:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 2:20, 4:4; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; 1Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1-3,5,8; 4:14;
5:8.

2. The Council of Constantinople
Unfortunately, the Nicene Council did not put an end to the Arian controversy.
Falsehood does not die easily. There were still many in the Church who agreed with Arius. Until
the day of his death, Athanasius had to contend for the doctrine of the deity of Christ as
expressed in the Nicene Creed. Following the death of Athanasius (c. 373), other champions of
orthodoxy (historic Christian truth) emerged. Three men from the province of Cappadocia in
Asia Minor were among the most capable. They were Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus,
and Gregory of Nyssa.
The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius
I, was attended by 150 bishops in 381 AD. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius,
who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added
the clauses referring to the Holy Spirit (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Again the true faith was maintained against the Arians. Answer was also given against the
Apollinarian and Macedonian heresies. In answering the latter which denied the Godhead of the
Holy Spirit, the dogma of the Church was again stated and the words inserted into the Nicene
Creed declaring the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son.
When the Council Of Constantinople was called in 381 to reaffirm the Nicene Creed and to
articulate the beliefs of the Church in the deity of the Holy Spirit, the influence of these three
great Cappadocians was felt. Because of their strong defense of the teachings of Scripture,
Arianism was completely and finally rejected by the Church.
Macedonianism
Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople between 341 and 360, most likely taught that the Holy
Spirit was "a minister and servant" on a level with the angels, and that the Holy Spirit was a
creature subordinate to the Father and Son. This was a denial of the deity of the Holy Spirit.
Through St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Damasus, and Rufinus, the name Macedonians became
the customary designation in the West. No writings of Macedonius are extant, but
Pneumatomachian writings are mentioned by Didymus the Blind, who wrote an excellent
treatise on the Holy Spirit in thirty-six chapters and who refers in his later work (379) on the
Trinity (II, 7, 8, 10) to some "Brief Expositions" of Macedonian doctrines which he possessed.
Apollinarianism
Belief: Christ was God who took on a human body without a human mind. The divine mind
took the place of what would have been the human mind. The Word became flesh only in the
sense that God took on a human body. As some have termed it, Christ was “God in a body.”
Proponent: Apollinarius of Laodicea (ca.310-390), friend of Athanasius and teacher of

Jerome.
Condemned: Council of Constantinople 381 and Chalcedon 451.

Apollinarius, a converted teacher of rhetoric and the bishop of Laodicea, developed a peculiar
doctrine when he was about 60 that cost him his friendship with Athanasius. According to him,
Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine
Logos taking the place of this last.
Apollinarius was pro-Nicene and desired to continue Athanasius’ orthodox position on the deity
of Christ. He adopted a psychological trichotomy (body, soul, spirit), and attributed to Christ a
human body, and a real human soul, but not a human spirit or reason. He thought that the
divine Logos took the place of Christ’s human spirit: “The word was made flesh” not spirit (cf.
John 1:14). Orthodox teachers replied that “flesh” or sarx is synecdochal for Christ’s whole
human nature. In Apollinarius’ theology, Jesus Christ became a tertium quid (third thing), or a
middle being between God and man, in whom, one part divine and two parts human were fused
in the unity of a new nature. Apollinarius taught the deity of Christ, but failed to understand the
biblical teaching of the completeness of his human nature.
Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379)
He came from a very famous Church family, and studied at Athens. In 356 he started a monastic
community in Pontus. In 370 Basil became Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which put him in
the middle of the Trinitarian controversy. He was influential in the eventual triumph of
orthodoxy, and worked to heal the schism at Antioch.
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-389)
He was a friend of Basil of Caesarea. He was a notable Eastern theologian and leader in the
monastic movement. In 379 Gregory was called to become the orthodox bishop in
Constantinople. He faithfully preached the doctrines of grace, and presided at the start of the
Council of Constantinople in 381. After being persecuted for his faith, Gregory resigned as
bishop in 381 and devoted the rest of his life to study and meditation.
“He assumes that man who came down from above is without a mind, not that the
Godhead of the Only-begotten fulfills the function of mind, and is the third part of his human
composite, inasmuch as soul and body are in it on its human side, but not mind, the place of
which is taken by God the Word.” –Gregory of Nazianzus to Apollinarius
What needs to be stressed here is that Christ had to assume every aspect of humanity
so that he might redeem the entire man. If Christ is simply because of the outer flesh of man
without assuming a human spirit/soul/mind, then man’s spirit/soul/mind is not redeemed.
“What God has not assumed is not saved.”
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-395)
He was the younger brother of Basil of Caesarea. He was a champion of orthodox doctrine
during the years of the Trinitarian controversy. He was a great preacher and a faithful
theologian. Of the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus usually appears as “the
Dreamer,” Basil as “the Doer,” and Gregory of Nyssa as “the Thinker” (the Theologian). He was,
by most reckoning, the greatest speculative and speculative theologian of the three

St. Augustine of Hippo
Pelagius vs. Augustine
“There is an opinion that calls for sharp and vehement resistance – I mean the belief
that the power of the human will can of itself, without the help of God, either achieve
perfect righteousness or advance steadily towards it.”
Pelagius was a British monk who made his way to Rome in the time of St. Augustine. He
was so shocked by the moral depravity of the people that he began to preach and teach
a very strict, rigid moralism, emphasizing the natural, innate human ability and
autonomy to attain salvation. His anthropology, although he never developed a system,
was based upon the principle "anything you can do, you must do."
Pelagianism radically corrupted the Church’s teachings on grace, sin, and the Fall. Its
namesake, the British monk Pelagius (who was startled by some of the words of St.
Augustine in his Confessions), taught that the sin of Adam had no bearing on
subsequent generations; essentially, man was inherently good and unaffected by the
Fall. In practice, this meant that a man could come to God by his own free will, no grace
needed. Many saints fought against this doctrine – St. David of Wales stands out among
them especially – but it was St. Augustine of Hippo, arguably the greatest of the Latin
Doctors and “the Church’s mightiest champion against heresy”, who rose to fight
against this inherently venomous strand of thought.
Against Pelagius, St. Augustine upheld the truth that God’s grace is entirely necessary
for any movement of ours towards God to occur at all. As he himself puts it, “We for
our part assert that the human will is so divinely aided towards the doing of
righteousness that, besides being created with the free choice of his will, and besides
the teaching which instructs him how he ought to live, he receives also the Holy Spirit,
through which there arises in his heart a delight in and love of that supreme and
unchangeable Good which is God; and this arises even now, while he still walks by faith
and not by sight.”
St. Augustine vs. Manicheanism
While Augustine remained a Manichee for nine years, ultimately his keen analytical
mind began to question the coherence of Manichaeism’s dualism. He questioned
whether his chosen religious system could provide the adequate explanation of ultimate
truth and reality he sought.
Manichaeism’s hold on Augustine finally broke when he met with the highly regarded
Manichee bishop, Faustus. Though charming and articulate, Faustus could not answer
Augustine’s metaphysical and epistemological objections to Manichaeism. Augustine
came to view this religious system as having deep philosophical flaws and, therefore,
unworthy of his deepest commitment.

St. Augustine vs. Donatism
St. Augustine campaigned against this unorthodox belief throughout his tenure as
Bishop of Hippo, and through his efforts the orthodox position gained the upper hand.
According to Augustine's view, held also by the majority within the Church, the validity
of the celebration of sacraments was assigned by the office of the priest and not by the
personal character of the incumbent.
3. The Council of Ephesus
The third General Council of the Church defined the Catholic dogma that the Blessed Virgin is
the Mother of God and presented the teaching of the truth of one divine person in Christ. The
Council was convened against the heresy of Nestorius.
The Council of Ephesus (431), of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria
representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother
of God “Θεοτοκος” (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the
condemnation of Pelagius.
Nestorianism
Belief: Christ was fully man and fully God, and these two natures were united in purpose, not
person. They had difficulty understanding how someone with two natures could be a single
individual.
Proponent: Nestorius (d. ca. 451), the great preacher and disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia, is said
to be the main proponent of this teaching, although most would see his condemnation as
inaccurate.
Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, was one of those who saw the two natures of Christ in a
loose mechanical co-existence, so that neither nature partook in the properties of the other.
According to Nestorius, the divine did not have a part in the sufferings of the human nature of
Christ. This teaching needed to be contested, for if Nestorius was right, a sinner would be redeemed
by the suffering sacrifices of a mere man. But a mere man could accomplish no eternal redemption.
He also repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of
Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the
issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and
human.
Nestorius, being from the Antiochene school, which sought to preserve Christ’s humanity,
taught that Mary was improperly titled theotokos (“God bearer”). He stated that she should be
more properly called anthropotokos (“man bearer”) or christotokos (“Christ bearer”) since she did
not bear God, but Christ. He feared that the humanity of Christ was being dangerously neglected, if
not denied, when Mary was named theotokos. As well, he felt like the title “God bearer” implied
that God the Son was generated by Mary. How could God be created? This, to Nestorius, was

essentially an Arian Christology. He also saw in this title as an undo elevation of Mary to the status
of a goddess (Harold Brown, Heresies [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998] 173).
Because of these issues Nestorianism sometimes seemed to teach that in Christ there were two
natures and two persons. The unity that the two persons of Christ had was in agreement of will, not
in personhood. Because of Nestorius’ insistence on the title anthropotokos he was labeled an
adoptionist who believed that the human Jesus was born to Mary and the somehow became
Christ/God.
Most scholars agree that Nestorius himself was not Nestorian but orthodox in his Christology.
He was unfortunately condemned because of some poorly chosen words and political rivalry.
Eutychianism
Following the Council of Ephesus there was a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of many.
Eutyches, abbot of a monastery near Constantinople, in an effort to demonstrate the unity of the
person of Christ, began to teach that after the incarnation of Christ the two natures fused into one
so that the one nature partook of the properties of the other. Distinctions between the two natures
were obliterated. This teaching only served to heighten the controversy considerably.
Belief: Christ’s human nature was integrated with his divine nature forming a new nature. Christ
was from two natures before the union, but only one after the union.
Alternant name: Eutychianism

Proponent: Eutyches (ca.378-454), great preacher and disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Condemned: Council of Chalcedon 451.
Eutychianism denies the distinction of the human and divine nature of Christ. It was introduced
by the Alexandrian school in response to the earlier teaching of the Antiochians who erred to divide
Christ into two separate beings or persons (→ Nestorianism). In the opposite direction Eutychianism
“urged the personal unity of Christ at the expense of the distinction of natures.” (Monophysitism)
Monophysitism
Monophysitism constitutes the denial of the two-nature Christology as defined in the Creed of
Chalcedon in 451 A.D. In its premature state the heresy can already be found in elements of →
Apollinarianism. When Cyril of Alexandria responded to Nestorius’ juxtaposing of the two natures of
Christ (→ Nestorianism), Nestorius accused him as an Apollinarian. Cyril’s one-nature statement was
again debated when misused by → Eutychianism. Though Eutyches and his followers were
condemned at Chalcedon, their ideas continued to challenge the creeds of the church.
The Problem with Monophysitism
The problem here is the same as it was with Apollinarianism, but to a greater degree:
a. If Christ is not fully human, but a hybrid of human and divine, he cannot represent humanity in
salvation.
b. If Christ is not fully God either, he does not have the power to save man nor be our
representative.

4. Council of Chalcedon
The council, composed of 520 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian, in
451 AD defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was
excommunicated.
This was held twenty years after the third General Council as an answer to the Eutychian or
Monophysite heresy (Monophysitism) and to affirm the doctrine of two natures in Christ. This
followed as a result of the growing controversy among the early theologians who were being led
into error by a confused idea of the one divine person being both God and man or that there are
two natures, human and divine, in the one person of the Word.
The Chalcedonian Definition of Faith
The Definition affirmed that Christ is “truly God,” “perfect in Godhead,” the Son of God who was
“begotten of the Father before the ages.” Yet he is also “truly man,” “perfect in manhood” and was
born of the Virgin Mary. The deity and humanity are “not parted or divided into two persons,” but
Christ is “one person and one being.” Nor are his deity and humanity to be blurred together. “The
difference of the [divine and human] natures is in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but
rather the properties of each are preserved.” Thus Christ is “made known in two natures [which
exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation…”
“…the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the
characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and
subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him,
and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”
The Chalcedonian Definition has been subjected to considerable criticism in the last two
hundred years. The way in which it expresses itself is certainly not perfect. But its condemnation of
the four basic heresies is an abiding and valuable contribution.
The Council’s statement remains of considerable relevance since Nestorius’s approach is very
much alive in modern liberal Christologies that speak of Jesus as a man with a special relationship to
God rather than as himself being God incarnate. On the other hand, many who pride themselves on
holding a conservative view think of Christ as having a single nature that is either divine (the error of
Apollinarius) or a blend of the human and the divine (the error of Eutyches).
Orthodox Definition of the Hypostatic Union
“Christ is one person who exists forevermore in two complete natures: God and Man.”

III. The Fall of the Roman Empire
EIGHT REASONS THAT LED TO THE FALL OF ROME
1. Invasions by Barbarian Tribes
The most straightforward theory for Western Rome’s collapse pins the fall on a string of military
losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for centuries, but by the
300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the Empire’s borders. The Romans
weathered a Germanic uprising in the late fourth century, but in 410 the Visigoth King Alaric successfully
sacked the city of Rome. The Empire spent the next several decades under constant threat before “the
Eternal City” was raided again in 455, this time by the Vandals. Finally, in 476, the Germanic leader
Odoacer staged a revolt and deposed the Emperor Romulus Augustulus. From then on, no Roman
emperor would ever again rule from a post in Italy, leading many to cite 476 as the year the Western
Empire suffered its deathblow.
2. Economic Troubles and Overreliance on Slave labor
Even as Rome was under attack from outside forces, it was also crumbling from within thanks to a
severe financial crisis. Constant wars and overspending had significantly lightened imperial coffers, and
oppressive taxation and inflation had widened the gap between rich and poor. In the hope of avoiding
the taxman, many members of the wealthy classes had even fled to the countryside and set up
independent fiefdoms. At the same time, the empire was rocked by a labor deficit. Rome’s economy
depended on slaves to till its fields and work as craftsmen, and its military might had traditionally
provided a fresh influx of conquered peoples to put to work. But when expansion ground to a halt in the
second century, Rome’s supply of slaves and other war treasures began to dry up. A further blow came
in the fifth century, when the Vandals claimed North Africa and began disrupting the empire’s trade by
prowling the Mediterranean as pirates. With its economy faltering and its commercial and agricultural
production in decline, the Empire began to lose its grip on Europe.
3. The Rise of the Eastern Empire
The fate of Western Rome was partially sealed in the late third century, when the Emperor
Diocletian divided the Empire into two halves—the Western Empire seated in the city of Milan, and the
Eastern Empire in Byzantium, later known as Constantinople. The division made the empire more easily
governable in the short term, but over time the two halves drifted apart. East and West failed to
adequately work together to combat outside threats, and the two often squabbled over resources and
military aid. As the gulf widened, the largely Greek-speaking Eastern Empire grew in wealth while the
Latin-speaking West descended into economic crisis. Most importantly, the strength of the Eastern
Empire served to divert Barbarian invasions to the West. Emperors like Constantine ensured that the
city of Constantinople was fortified and well guarded, but Italy and the city of Rome—which only had
symbolic value for many in the East—were left vulnerable. The Western political structure would finally
disintegrate in the fifth century, but the Eastern Empire endured in some form for another thousand
years before being overwhelmed by the Ottoman Empire in the 1400s.

4. Overexpansion and Military Overspending
At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Euphrates
River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall. With such a vast territory to
govern, the empire faced an administrative and logistical nightmare. Even with their excellent road
systems, the Romans were unable to communicate quickly or effectively enough to manage their
holdings. Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local
rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his
famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay. As more and more funds were funneled into the
military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell
into disrepair.
5. Government and Political Instability
If Rome’s sheer size made it difficult to govern, ineffective and inconsistent leadership only served
to magnify the problem. Being the Roman emperor had always been a particularly dangerous job, but
during the tumultuous second and third centuries it nearly became a death sentence. Civil war thrust
the empire into chaos, and more than 20 men took the throne in the span of only 75 years, usually after
the murder of their predecessor. The Praetorian Guard—the emperor’s personal bodyguards—
assassinated and installed new sovereigns at will, and once even auctioned the spot off to the highest
bidder. The political rot also extended to the Roman Senate, which failed to temper the excesses of the
emperors due to its own widespread corruption and incompetence. As the situation worsened, civic
pride waned and many Roman citizens lost trust in their leadership.
6. The Arrival of the Huns and the Migration of the Barbarian Tribes
The Barbarian attacks on Rome partially stemmed from a mass migration caused by the Huns’
invasion of Europe in the late fourth century. When these Eurasian warriors rampaged through northern
Europe, they drove many Germanic tribes to the borders of the Roman Empire. The Romans grudgingly
allowed members of the Visigoth tribe to cross south of the Danube and into the safety of Roman
territory, but they treated them with extreme cruelty. According to the historian Ammianus Marcellinus,
Roman officials even forced the starving Goths to trade their children into slavery in exchange for dog
meat.
In brutalizing the Goths, the Romans created a dangerous enemy within their own borders. When
the oppression became too much to bear, the Goths rose up in revolt and eventually routed a Roman
army and killed the Eastern Emperor Valens during the Battle of Adrianople in A.D. 378. The shocked
Romans negotiated a flimsy peace with the barbarians, but the truce unraveled in 410, when the Goth
King Alaric moved west and sacked Rome. With the Western Empire weakened, Germanic tribes like the
Vandals and the Saxons were able to surge across its borders and occupy Britain, Spain and North Africa.
7. Christianity and the Loss of Traditional Values
The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity, and some have argued that the rise
of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and
it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended centuries of persecution, but they may
have also eroded the traditional Roman values system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman
religion, which viewed the emperor as having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory

of the state and onto a sole deity. Meanwhile, popes and other church leaders took an increased role in
political affairs, further complicating governance. The 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon was the
most famous proponent of this theory, but his take has since been widely criticized. While the spread of
Christianity may have played a small role in curbing Roman civic virtue, most scholars now argue that its
influence paled in comparison to military, economic and administrative factors.
8. The Weakening of the Roman Legions
For most of its history, Rome’s military was the envy of the ancient world. But during the decline,
the makeup of the once mighty legions began to change. Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the
Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up
their armies. The ranks of the legions eventually swelled with Germanic Goths and other barbarians, so
much so that Romans began using the Latin word “barbarus” in place of “soldier.” While these Germanic
soldiers of fortune proved to be fierce warriors, they also had little or no loyalty to the empire, and their
power-hungry officers often turned against their Roman employers. In fact, many of the barbarians who
sacked the city of Rome and brought down the Western Empire had earned their military stripes while
serving in the Roman legions.
IV. THE RISE OF THE MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY
With the demise of Rome, many of the barbaric tribal kings carved out a portion of the old empire
for themselves. One of these barbarians would conquer Gaul and establish a family dynasty that would
last for over two centuries. His name was Chlodovech - known to history as Clovis I.
Clovis I
He was the king of the Franks and ruler of much of Gaul from 481 to 511, a key period during
the transformation of the Roman Empire into Europe. His dynasty, the Merovingians, survived more
than 200 years, until the rise of the Carolingians in the 8th century. While he was not the first
Frankish king, he was the kingdom’s political and religious founder.
When Clovis finally converted, he becomes for Gregory a “new Constantine,” the emperor who
Christianized the Roman Empire in the early 4th century. In both cases, an unexpected victory in
battle led a king to trust the power of the Christian God and to submit to baptism. Gregory places
Clovis’ baptism in 496 and characterizes his subsequent battles as Christian victories, particularly the
engagement with the Visigoths in 507.
Upon his death, his empire was, according to tradition, divided among his four sons; the “Do-
Nothing Kings” who would do little, if anything, to expand their holdings or improve the lives of the
people. Clovis’s name would live on through his dynasty, the Merovingians, and he is considered the
founder of the modern nation of France. History would ultimately Latinize his name to Louis; a name
that would live on in French royalty for centuries through 18 kings and remains popular in French
culture to the present day.

Charles Martel (c. 688 – 741)
Charles Martel was mayor of the palace of Austrasia (the eastern part of the Frankish kingdom)
from 715 to 741. He reunited and ruled the entire Frankish realm and stemmed the Muslim invasion
at Poitiers in 732. His byname, Martel, means “the Hammer.”
Peppin the Short (Pippin)
Pepin the Short or Pippin (714 – 768), often known as Pepin the Younger or Pepin III, was mayor
of the palace of Austrasia and the King of the Franks, from 751 to 768, and is best known for being
the father of Charlemagne, or "Charles the Great." His rule, while not as great as either his father's
or son's, was historically important and of great benefit to the Franks as a people. It can certainly be
argued that Pepin's assumption of the crown, and the title of Patrician of Rome , were harbingers of
his son's imperial coronation, which is usually seen as the founding of the Holy Roman Empire.
V. THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt to revive the Western Roman Empire, whose legal and
political structure deteriorated during the 5th and 6th centuries, to be replaced by independent
kingdoms ruled by Germanic nobles. The Roman imperial office was vacant after the deposition of
Romulus Augustulus in 476.
During the turbulent early Middle Ages the traditional concept of a temporal realm coextensive with
the spiritual realm of the church had been kept alive by the popes in Rome. The Byzantine Empire, which
controlled the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire from its capital, Constantinople (now Istanbul,
Turkey), retained nominal sovereignty over the territories formerly controlled by the Western Empire,
and many of the Germanic tribes that had seized these territories formally recognized the Byzantine
emperor as overlord. Partly because of this and also for other reasons, including dependence on
Byzantine protection against the Lombards, the popes also recognized the sovereignty of the Eastern
Empire for an extended period after the enforced abdication of Romulus Augustulus.
Pope Leo III laid the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire in A.D. 800 when he crowned
Charlemagne as emperor. This act set a precedent for the next 700 years, as the Popes claimed the right
to select and install the most powerful rulers on the Continent. The Holy Roman Empire officially began
in 962 when Pope John XII crowned King Otto I of Germany and gave him the title of “emperor.” In the
Holy Roman Empire, civil authority and church authority clashed at times, but the church usually won.
This was the time when the Catholic Popes wielded the most influence, and the papacy’s power reached
its zenith.
With the coalescence of the Germanic tribes into independent Christian kingdoms during the 6th
and 7th centuries, the political authority of the Byzantine emperors became practically nonexistent in
the West. The spiritual influence of the western division of the church expanded simultaneously, in
particular during the pontificate (590-604) of Gregory I. As the political prestige of the Byzantine Empire
declined, the papacy grew increasingly resentful of interference by secular and ecclesiastical authorities
at Constantinople in the affairs and practices of the Western church. The consequent feud between the
two divisions of the church attained critical proportions during the reign (717-41) of the Byzantine
emperor Leo III, who sought to abolish the use of images in Christian ceremonies. Papal resistance to
Leo's decrees culminated (730-32) in a rupture with Constantinople. After severance of its ties with the

Byzantine Empire, the papacy nourished dreams of a revivified Western Empire. Some of the popes
weighed the possibility of launching such an enterprise and assuming the leadership of the projected
state. Lacking any military force or practical administration, and in great danger from hostile Lombards
in Italy, the church hierarchy, abandoning the idea of a joint spiritual and temporal realm, seemed to
have decided to confer imperial status on the then dominant western European power, the kingdom of
the Franks. Several of the Frankish rulers had already demonstrated their fidelity to the church, and
Charlemagne, who ascended the Frankish throne in 768, had displayed ample qualifications for the
exalted office, notably by the conquest of Lombardy in 773 and by the expansion of his dominions to
imperial proportions.
VI. The Split of the East and the West
The Byzantine split with Roman Catholicism came about when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne,
King of the Franks, as Holy Roman Emperor in 800. From the Byzantine viewpoint, this was a slap to the
Eastern Emperor and the Byzantine Empire itself — an empire that had withstood barbarian invasions
and upheld the faith for centuries. After Rome fell in 476, Byzantium was the only vestige of the Holy
Roman Empire.
Charlemagne’s crowning2 made the Byzantine Emperor redundant, and relations between the East
and the West deteriorated until a formal split occurred in 1054. The Eastern Church became the Greek
Orthodox Church by severing all ties with Rome and the Roman Catholic Church — from the pope to the
Holy Roman Emperor on down.
Reasons why the Eastern Church and Western Church became more distant and isolated from each
other
 Geography: The West encompassed Western Europe and the northern and western areas of the
Mediterranean and the East took up Asia Minor, the Middle East, and Northern Africa.
 Ignorance: The Byzantine Church knew less and less Latin and even less Latin tradition, and vice
versa. So most patriarchs in Constantinople couldn’t read any Latin, and most popes in Rome
couldn’t read any Greek. Byzantines in the East used leavened bread in their Divine Liturgy to
symbolize the Risen Christ, and Latins in the West used unleavened bread as was used by Jesus
at the Last Supper.
 Different theologies: Both were valid, but each had its own perspective. The West (Latin) was
more practical and, although fully believing in the divinity of Christ, put emphasis on his
humanity when depicting Jesus in art — especially by making realistic crucifixes. The East
(Byzantine) was more theoretical and, although fully believing in the humanity of Christ, focused
on his divinity, which was much more mysterious.
 Personalities and politics: Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope St. Leo IX
weren’t friends, and each one mistrusted the other. Cerularius crossed the line when he wrote
in a letter that the Latin use of unleavened bread was Jewish but not Christian. He was denying
2
“Caesaropapism" is the principle that Church leaders are subject to the emperor. IN A SENSE, the reign of
Charlemagne was "The Revolt of the West."

the validity of the Holy Eucharist in the Western Church. Leo countered by saying that the
patriarchs had always been puppets of the Byzantine emperors.
In the end, Pope Leo and Patriarch Michael excommunicated each other and their respective
churches. But more than 900 years later, in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of
Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.
 Emperors and Popes: 962 – 1250
The coronation of Otto I by Pope John XII in 962 marks a revival of the concept of a Christian
emperor in the west. It is also the beginning of an unbroken line of Holy Roman emperors lasting
for more than eight centuries. Otto I do not call himself Roman emperor, but his son Otto II uses
the title - as a clear statement of western and papal independence from the other Christian
emperor in Constantinople.
Otto and his son and grandson (Otto II and Otto III) regard the imperial crown as a mandate to
control the papacy. They dismiss popes at their will and install replacements more to their liking
(sometimes even changing their mind and repeating the process). This power, together with
territories covering much of central Europe, gives the German empire and the imperial title
great prestige in the late 10th century.

CHAPTER V: AFTER CHALCEDON UNTIL VATICAN 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Emperor Justinian was a vigorous ruler. Unfortunately, he thought the only way his empire could
enjoy unity was to compel religious uniformity. Consequently, he closed heathen schools and baptized
pagans by force. He all but wiped out the Montanists in fierce persecution. Justinian also built church
sanctuaries, including the breathtaking Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom).
Empress Theodora favored the monophysite views taught by Eutyches the Archmandrite (an
archmandrite was the head of a monastery or several monasteries). Monophysites deny that Christ had
both a divine nature and human nature. Eutyches' form of monophysitism held that Christ's two
natures, the Divine and the human, united so completely that they became physically one, with the
Divine absorbing the human. Its theological rival was Nestorianism, which was said to overemphasize
the distinctions between Christ's two natures. Under Theodora's influence, Justinian called the council
to condemn writings that supported Nestorianism--the Three Chapters.
I. The Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)
The Council was composed of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I.
The council further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon
whose authority was contested by some heretics.
II. The Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680)
This Council gave the definition of two wills in Christ as the true teaching against the
Monothelite heresy which claimed only one will.
The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor
Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch,
174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ,
the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius,
Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.
Iconoclasm
Leo III started the whole iconoclastic persecution with his Initial Iconoclastic decree in 730
because he believed it contradicted the Bible, and by replacing the Iconodule Patriarch of
Constantinople, St. Germanus with the iconoclast Patriarch Anastasius.
The Problem
If Jesus is divine then it is absolutely forbidden to depict him in concrete human form in the
icon. Moreover, the depiction of the holy angels, the Theotokos, and the saints since they are
creatures also fall under the ban of the 2nd commandment (Exo. 20:4). What is permitted is
simply the symbols of the savior –the cross, the lamb, the fish, the bread and wine, the olive, the
phoenix, and all symbols used by the early church.

The Implications of Iconoclasm
A. Christological
If the Word of God cannot be portrayed in the icons in human form then the Word was
not made flesh and dwelt among us and everything said about him in Scriptures an the
testimony of the Apostles were but appearances (Docetism)
If the Word of God was not incarnated then it is blasphemous to call Mary the
Theotokos for the virgin birth is but an illusion
If however the Word of God was indeed incarnated but cannot be portrayed in the icons
in human form because we cannot portray Christ who is divine, then his humanity was
indeed absorbed in his divinity (Monophysitism)
B. Soteriological
If the Word of God cannot be depicted in icons in human form because he was not truly
incarnate then we have not been saved at all, and everything he did as accounted for in
Scripture has no salvific value for us
If the Word of God cannot be depicted in icons in human form because he is truly divine
and his humanity has been absorbed in his divinity then we have not been truly saved
since our human nature was dissolved in Christ.
If matter could not be sanctified then man cannot be sanctified nor become “Christ like”
for human nature is embedded in matter.
If the Word of God could not be portrayed in human form in the icons, then we were
never really made in the image of the “icon” of God and that we could never be
configured to Christ because we were never created in his image from the beginning.
Hence the divinization (theosis, deification) of man and the material cosmos is not
possible.
If the Word of God although truly incarnate could not be portrayed in human form in
icons because there is no matter other than that of his sacred humanity that could
“contain” him, then the sacraments themselves could not convey nor contain grace
since they are made of matter. Nor can anything material be therefore sanctified.
C. Ecclesiological
If Christ could not be portrayed in human form in the icons, then the Church herself
could never be the icon of Christ on earth
Nor can the Church be configured to reflect the communion of love that exists in the
Most Holy Trinity because the union of the Church with Christ is not everlasting

Nor can the sacred priesthood reflect the priesthood of Christ because the humanity of
Christ is different from ours and that the matter in which His humanity was made is
different from the matter of the earth.
Nor can monastic/consecrated life be meaningful nor salvific because man cannot
imitate Christ who was obedient to the Father until death.
The Counter-Argument
The counter-argument of the Church was initiated by St. John Damascene (b. 690 AD, d.
750 AD). He was the last of the Eastern Fathers and was the author of the Catholic-Orthodox
position on the theology of the holy icons
THE APOLOGIA: ADVERSUS ICONOCLASTAS
"Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however,
when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I
see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and
deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from
honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could
God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature
of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and
reasoning soul.” (St. John of Damascus)
III. The Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787)
The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother
Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it
regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.
The Theology of Icons
 To forbid the depiction of the Savior in an icon in human form is to deny the truth of the
Incarnation where we believe that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
 The prohibition in Exodus is bowing before false gods. But we do not bow before a false god, we
bow before the true and only God.
 The icon represents for us the mystery that is at once sublime, the transcendent God and yet
immanent as Immanuel –God with us.
IV. The Fourth Council of Constantinople (A.D. 869)
The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil
numbering 102 bishops, 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts
of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius against Pope Nicholas
and Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had

unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the
Greek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.
THE TENTH CENTURY
Because of weak and immoral Popes, abuses had plagued the Church during the tenth century.
Three of these are: Simony - the buying and selling of religious offices; Nepotism - when a king or lord
gave a vacant religious office to one of their relatives; and Lay Investiture - when a king or lord would
make someone Bishop without the approval of Rome. These three abuses occurred intermittently
throughout the Middle Ages.
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY
When Jerusalem fell to the Turks in 1071, the Eastern Emperor, out of fear, called upon the Pope for
help. Pope Urban II (1088-1099) responded by calling the "knights of Christendom" to help defend the
East against Muslim aggression. Many knights responded to the Pope's call. In 1095 the Christian knights
defeated the Muslim army at Jerusalem and recaptured the city. These will later on be known in Church
History as the “Crusades”.
V. The First Council of the Lateran (A.D. 1123)
The First Lateran Council, the first held at Rome, met under Pope Callistus II. About 900
bishops and abbots assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay princes, of investiture with
ring and crosier to ecclesiastical benefices. The council also dealt with church discipline and
the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.
VI. The Second Council of the Lateran (A.D. 1139)
The Second Lateran Council was held at Rome under Pope Innocent II, with an
attendance of about 1000 prelates and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to
the errors of Arnold of Brescia.
This Council took disciplinary action and excommunicated Roger of Sicily who
championed the anti-pope. The council imposed silence on Arnold of Brescia.
Canons against simony, incontinence, breaking the "Truce of God,”3 dueling or group
feuding were advanced, and regulations concerning clerical dress were given.
3
The Truce of God is a temporary suspension of hostilities, as distinct from the Peace of God which is perpetual.
The jurisdiction of the Peace of God is narrower than that of the Truce. Under the Peace of God are included only:
consecrated persons (clerics, monks, virgins, and cloistered widows); consecrated places (churches, monasteries,
and cemeteries, with their dependencies); consecrated times (Sundays, and ferial days, all under the special
protection of the Church, which punishes transgressors with excommunication). At an early date the councils
extended the Peace of God to the Church's protégés, the poor, pilgrims, crusaders, and even merchants on a
journey. The peace of the sanctuary gave rise to the right of asylum. Finally it was the sanctification of Sunday
which gave rise to the Truce of God, for it had always been agreed not to do battle on that day and to suspend
disputes in the law-courts. The Truce of God dates only from the eleventh century. It arose amid the anarchy of

VII. The Third Council of the Lateran (A.D. 1179)
The Third Lateran Council took place under Pope Alexander III, Frederick I being
emperor. There were 302 bishops present. It condemned the Albigenses and Waldenses and
issued numerous decrees for the reformation of morals.
Early Roman Catholic and Waldensian sources are few and unreliable, and little is known
with certainty about the reputed founder, Valdes (also called Peter Waldo, or Valdo). As a
layman, Valdes preached in Lyon (1170–76), but ecclesiastical authorities were disturbed by
his lack of theological training and by his use of a non-Latin version of the Bible. Valdes
attended the third Lateran Council (1179) in Rome and was confirmed in his vow of poverty
by Pope Alexander III. Probably during this council Valdes made his Profession of Faith
(which still survives); it is a statement of orthodox beliefs such as accused heretics were
required to sign. Valdes, however, did not receive the ecclesiastical recognition that he
sought. Undeterred, he and his followers (Pauperes: “Poor”) continued to preach; the
archbishop of Lyon condemned him, and Pope Lucius III placed the Waldenses under ban
with his bull Ad Abolendam (1184), issued during the Synod of Verona.
THE TWELFTH – THIRTEENTH CENTURY
The Mendicant Orders
The latter part of the 12th century and the early part of the 13th century witnessed to the rise of
the mendicant orders. The Mendicants were religious who renounced both possessions and
property. Their vow of poverty and desire to take the Gospel into the heart of society was
revolutionary. Through their missionary zeal they ignited the flames of evangelization within the
Church and contributed to the renewal of society. Two saints were principally responsible for the
growth of the mendicant orders: Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) who founded the Order of Friar
Minors (Franciscans) and Dominic Guzman (1170-1221) who founded the Order of Preachers
(Dominicans).
Pope Innocent III
In 1198, Innocent III (1198-1216) was elected Pope. His pontificate focused on reforming the
clergy, curia, re-shaping the administrative structures of the Church and evangelization. In 1215,
Innocent opened the 4th Lateran Council. He brought together over 1,000 bishops and abbots to
discuss matters pertaining to the faith. Some of the major canons produced by the Council dealt
with the Eucharist, the Inquisition, the faithful and the education of priests.
feudalism as a remedy for the powerlessness of lay authorities to enforce respect for the public peace. There was
then an epidemic of private wars, which made Europe a battlefield bristling with fortified castles and overrun by
armed bands who respected nothing, not even sanctuaries, clergy, or consecrated days.

The University
As more and more people were seeking an education, small schools within the same locale
would merge into one large school. This gave birth to the university. The three most prominent
universities during this century were Bologna, Oxford and Paris. These universities offered four
major areas of study: medicine, law, theology and the liberal arts.
The Albigensians
The Albigensians were a heretical group that resided in southern France. They believed in two
gods and viewed the "flesh" as evil and the "spirit" as good. What made this sect so dangerous was
that it blended Christian beliefs and practices with pagan beliefs and practices. To combat this
heresy God called upon St. Dominic and his followers. The Dominicans, through their preaching and
life of poverty, led many Albigensians out of heresy and into the fullness of truth.
VIII. The Forth Council of the Lateran (A.D. 1215)
The Fourth Lateran Council was held under Innocent III. There were present the
Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 archbishops, 412 bishops, and 800 abbots
the Primate of the Maronites, and St. Dominic. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against
the Albigenses (Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarian errors of Abbot Joachim, and
published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of the
Middle Ages, and it marks the culminating point of ecclesiastical life and papal power.
IX. The First Council of Lyons (A.D. 1245)
The First General Council of Lyons was presided over by Innocent IV; the Patriarchs of
Constantinople, Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice), 140 bishops, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East,
and St. Louis, King of France, assisted. It excommunicated and deposed Emperor Frederick II
and directed a new crusade, under the command of St. Louis, against the Saracens and
Mongols.
X. The Second Council of Lyons (A.D. 1274)
The Second General Council of Lyons was held by Pope Gregory X, the Patriarchs of
Antioch and Constantinople, 15 cardinals, 500 bishops, and more than 1000 other
dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome. The word
filioque was added to the symbol of the West and means were sought for recovering
Palestine from the Turks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
The Renaissance
As the papacy was settling in Avignon a cultural movement called the "Renaissance" was
beginning to take shape in Italy. This movement recaptured the artistic style of the ancient Romans
and Greeks. The literature, sculptures and paintings of the day bore witness to this. Out of the

Renaissance came famous artists such as Michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. Both of them as well
as many others helped the Renaissance flourish.
The Papacy Moves to France
The on-going fighting and violence between rival Italian families kept the papacy in a state of
turmoil. In 1309 Pope Clement V left Rome for Avignon, France. The Popes remained in France until
1376 where they continued to guide and govern the Church. The papacy's residency in Avignon is
also known as the "Babylonian Captivity".
XI. The Council of Vienne (A.D. 1311 and 1312)
The Council of Vienne was held in that town in France by order of Clement V, the first of
the Avignon popes. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300 bishops (114 according to
some authorities), and 3 kings -- Philip IV of France, Edward II of England, and James II of
Aragon -- were present. The synod dealt with the crimes and errors imputed to the Knights
Templars, the Fraticelli, the Beghards, and the Beguines, with projects of a new crusade, the
reformation of the clergy, and the teaching of Oriental languages in the universities.
The Plague
As the Renaissance was sweeping through Europe so was the plague otherwise known as the
"Black Death". In (1348) the Black Death swept through Europe causing a massive epidemic. The
plague was so devastating and widespread, that one third of Europe's population died. Many saw
the plague as God's justice upon a sinful world.
The Avignon Papacy (1305-1378)
The Church in Avignon was seen as a French puppet, was driven into corruption by its need for
money, diminished social services, did not condemn the excesses of the 100 Years' War, and failed
to meet its responsibility of providing sacraments to all the dead and dying during the Black Death.
Later, It was attacked by various groups.
1. Some demanded that the Church give up its wealth and property because Jesus and the
Apostles were without property.
2. Others claimed that the state should police the Church.
3. Or that an organized Church was unnecessary because God dwells in each person.
4. Or that sacraments were unnecessary because they were not supernatural and the individual
could reach God through meditation.
5. Or that the Church consists of the members and not the head.
The papacy responded by a stubborn defense of its righteousness and an energetic attack upon
its critics. It relied upon its monopoly of the sacramental system, used the Inquisition to silence its
critics, and accused many of its detractors of heresy. Generally speaking, the Church lost much
moral authority during the period.

St. Catherine of Sienna

St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) was one of the most influential personages in the fourteenth
century. In 1365, Catherine became a third order Dominican. She performed heroic acts of charity,
caring for the sick and unfortunate.
Her prayers brought about many miracles. One of her greatest accomplishments was to help
Pope Gregory IX bring the papacy back to Rome.
THE FOURTEENTH - FIFTEENTH CENTURY
The Western Schism
Pope Gregory IX who brought the papacy back to Rome died in 1378. Following his death the
Archbishop of Bari was elected Pope and took the name Urban VI (1378-1389). The French Cardinals
who attended the election questioned its "legality" and upon returning to France elected their own
Pope, Clement VII (1378-1394) who took up his residency in Avignon. This began the great Western
Schism (1378-1414). With two popes claiming to be the rightful successor of St. Peter loyalties
within the Church and outside it were split.
In 1409 the Council of Pisa attempted to end the Schism that occurred in the latter part of the
14th century. The two popes - Benedict XIII and Gregory XII - were asked to attend the Council but
both refused. Therefore, the Council elected another pope, Alexander V. Christendom now had
three popes. The Schism finally came to an end at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). The Council
requested the resignation of all three popes, and elected Pope Martin V (1417-1431) to be the
rightful successor of St. Peter.
XII. The Council of Constance (A.D. 1414 - 1418)
The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object
of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had
formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to the
schism by the election of Pope Martin V, which the Council of Pisa (1403) had failed to
accomplish on account of its illegality.
The rightful pope confirmed the former decrees of the synod against Wyclif and Hus.
This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (42-45 inclusive) and with respect to
the decrees of earlier sessions approved by Martin V.
XIII. The Council of Basle/ Ferrara-Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1439)
The Council of Basle met first in that town, Eugene IV being pope, and Sigismund
Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification of Bohemia.
Quarrels with the pope having arisen, the council was transferred first to Ferrara (1438),
then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with the Greek Church was effected, the
Greeks accepting the council's definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only
ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decrees Eugene IV approved

only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform
of the Church, and which at the same time did not derogate from the rights of the Holy See.
XIV. The Fifth Council of the Lateran (A.D. 1512 - 1517)
The Fifth Lateran Council sat from 1512 to 1517 under Popes Julius II and Leo X, the
emperor being Maximilian I. Fifteen cardinals and about eighty archbishops and bishops
took part in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A new crusade against the Turks was also
planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval in Germany caused by Luther.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
Martin Luther
In 1507 a young man named Martin Luther (1483-1546) was ordained an Augustinian priest.
Sometime after his ordination, Luther began to experience severe doubts and inner turmoil over his
salvation. These doubts and turmoil led him to develop two doctrines that were directly opposed to
the teachings of the Catholic Church. The first doctrine claimed that Scripture "alone" was the sole
rule of faith while the second insisted that people were saved by "faith alone". On November 1st
1517, Luther made public his "famous" ninety-five thesis that questioned and challenged numerous
teachings of the Catholic Church. What followed was the Revolt. It divided Christianity into two main
religious bodies - Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. In 1521 Pope Leo X excommunicated
Martin Luther.
XV. The Council of Trent (opened under Pope Paul III in 1545, continued under Pope Julius III,
and concluded under Pope Pius IV (A.D. 1563)
The Council of Trent lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under five popes: Paul III, Julius
III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pius IV, and under the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. There
were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7
abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to
examine and condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to
reform the discipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest
number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.
The doctrine of original sin was defined; the decree on Justification was declared against
the Lutheran errors that faith alone justifies and that the merits of Christ; the doctrine of the
sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction was defined; decrees relating to the
censorship of books were adopted; the doctrine of Christian marriage was defined and
decrees on Purgatory and indulgences adopted. Besides many refutations against the so
called reformers were given and measures of true reform advanced.
The Church of England
King Henry VIII of England in 1534, through the "Act of Supremacy", made himself the head of
the Church of England. What drove Henry to sever all ties with Rome was Pope Clement VII's refusal
to grant him a divorce from his wife Catherine of Aragon. Since the Pope had already given Henry a

dispensation to marry Catherine he refused to give him another one. Even though the Pope said
"no" to Henry's request, Henry went ahead and married Anne Boleyn in 1533. Following his
marriage to Anne Boleyn, Clement VII excommunicated Henry. Henry in turn responded by taking
over the Catholic Church in England and becoming its head.
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Pius IX, Vatican I and Leo XIII
During the reign of Pius IX (1846-1878) the Italian government along with anti-religious forces
stripped the Pope and the Church of its property in an attempt to unify Italy. The papal states were
reduced to what is known today as Vatican City. This prompted the Pope to declare himself the
"prisoner of the Vatican". Pope Pius IX is known for calling the first Vatican Council into session,
defining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and attacking liberalism with the document
"The Syllabus of Errors".
XVI. The First Vatican Council (opened under Pope Pius IX in 1869 and adjourned on October
20, 1870)
The Vatican Council was summoned by Pius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till
18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6
archbishop-princes, 49 cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29
generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the
constitution of the Church, the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex
cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine
concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
With over 700 bishops in attendance, Vatican Council I (1869-1870) ended abruptly
when war broke out between Prussia and France. The Council was never re-convened. One
of the few documents that came out of the Council dealt with "papal infallibility". This
document explained that in matters of faith and morals the Pope could not teach error due
to a special grace given to him by the Holy Spirit.
Pius IX's successor was Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903). Pope Leo helped move the Church
into the mainstream of modern society. His landmark encyclical "Rerum Novarum",
published in 1891, was written as a response to the industrial revolution. The encyclical led
the Church into the sphere of contemporary social action and helped further the Church's
social teachingsa.
THE TWENTIENTH CENTURY
Pope Pius X (1903 to 1914)
Pope Pius X guided the Church into the 20th century. In 1906, he released a decree promoting
and encouraging all Catholics to receive Holy Communion daily. Following the decree, he was given
the title the "Eucharistic Pope."

During his pontificate, Pius fought against two forces, modernism and the French Government,
who were bent on trying to weaken the Church. Modernism attempted to alter certain doctrines of
the Church in order to bring them into line with "contemporary men and women." The French
Government, on the other hand, passed certain laws that cut off revenue to the Catholic Church and
made it difficult for priests to minister to the faithful.
Pius XII (1939 to 1958)
Prior to the outbreak of World War II, the Cardinals of the Church elected Cardinal Eugenio
Pacelli to the chair of St. Peter. Cardinal Pacelli took the name, Pope Pius XII. Pius used his
diplomatic skills and position as Pope to guide the Church through World War II. He hid people and
assisted those most in need, including Jews, from Nazi aggression. During the War, he released two
encyclicals. In 1950 he declared the "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary" to be a doctrine of the
faith.
Vatican II
In 1962, under the pontificate of John XXIII, the Church opened its twenty-first Ecumenical
Council - Vatican II. For the next three years, Cardinals, Bishops and theologians from all over the
globe met to discuss the Church's role in the modern world. The Council produced sixteen
documents to guide, unite, renew and modernize the Bride of Christ.
XVII. The Second Vatican Council (opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962, it continued under
Pope Paul XI until the end in 1965)
Several important constitutions and decrees were promulgated, the most far reaching being the
Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. Shortly after the Council ended with Paul VI as the new pope, the
Church went through a period of uncertainty and turmoil. There were many defections from the
priesthood and religious life as well as faulty interpretations of the Council documents. All of this
cast a shadow of confusion over the laity. But with the determination of Paul VI, he eagerly worked
for the realizations of Vatican II's promulgations.
John Paul II (1978 to 2005)
In 1978, the College of Cardinals broke with tradition and elected the first non-Italian Pope in
456 years. Cardinal Karol Wojtyla from Cracow, Poland was elected Pope and took the name Pope
John Paul II.
John Paul II was a philosopher and theologian. He participated in Vatican II, contributing
especially to the documents: The Declaration on Religious Freedom and The Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World.
The pontificate of John Paul II was one of service and evangelization. He not only called the
Church to a new evangelization, but also encouraged the laity to live holy lives. His witness and
teachings helped many Catholics come out of the confusion that occurred after Vatican II.
Ut in omnibus, glorificaetur Deus!

THEO3 Second Quarter Lessons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

THEO3 Second Quarter Lessons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THEOLOGY III [ECCLESIOLOGY AND CHURCH HISTORY]

San Beda University Page 1

CHAPTER 1: THE BIRTH OF JESUS

San Beda University Page 2

Socrates and Plato

San Beda University Page 3

San Beda University Page 4

San Beda University Page 5

San Beda University Page 6

Worship of the State

San Beda University Page 7

San Beda University Page 8

The Situation in the Pagan World

II. JEWISH BACKGROUND

San Beda University Page 9

San Beda University Page 10

The Messianic Hope

San Beda University Page 11

Other Forces in Judaism

Judaism Outside Palestine

San Beda University Page 12

III. JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES

San Beda University Page 13

San Beda University Page 14

San Beda University Page 15

IV. THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS CHRIST

San Beda University Page 16

“Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished

“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,–the distinguished

San Beda University Page 17

3. Christian Testimony apart from the Scriptures

- The existence of the Christian Calendar.

San Beda University Page 18

CHAPTER 2: PENTECOST AND THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH

I. Pentecost - The Birth of the Church

The Holy Spirit was manifested in different forms on Pentecost:

San Beda University Page 19

Peter’s Proclamation: The Kerygma

Effects of the Growth of the Christian Community

San Beda University Page 20

Early Life of the Church

The Palestinian Communities

San Beda University Page 21

The Congregation in Jerusalem

San Beda University Page 22

II. Pauline Mission

San Beda University Page 23

San Beda University Page 24

San Beda University Page 25

San Beda University Page 26

III. Council of Jerusalem

San Beda University Page 27

IV. Break with Judaism

VI. Age of Evangelization

San Beda University Page 28

THE AGE OF PERSECUTIONS

THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH IS PERSECUTED

San Beda University Page 29

 Philip preached in Phrygia. He was a missionary in Asia Minor and died a

 Bartholomew became a missionary in Armenia. He was flayed to death.

 Thomas labored in Parthia, Persia, and India. He suffered martyrdom near

 Matthew ministered in Ethiopia and was martyred, where he was supposedly