What about the Apostles' Creed?
Posted: Sunday, December 21, 2008
by Tex Norman
Most mainline denominations give their nod of support to the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Roman and Anglican Churches also offer some support to the Athanasian Creed. Let us begin our examination of the creeds by looking at the oldest of the generally accepted creeds, the Apostles' Creed.
INTERROGATORY CREED OF HIPPOLYTUS
Do you believe in God the Father All Governing
Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, Who was begotten by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary,
Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
and died (and was buried) and rose the third day living from the dead,
and ascended into the heavens,
and sat down on the right hand of the Father,
and will come to judge the living and the dead?
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, and in the resurrection of the body?
( The Creeds of the Churches, p.23)
We can generally place a creed into one of two categories. There are the declamatory creeds and the interrogatory creeds. A believer was asked to declare, (or proclaim) a declamatory creed, usually in a liturgical setting. Obviously, if we were going to proclaim a creed orally, in unison, and in a worship setting, then we would want creed to flow eloquently off the tongue. The early Church wrote interrogatory creeds to fit a question and answer format. Obviously, the interrogatory creeds were used to question (or interrogate) individuals seeking to be baptized.
In the earliest days of the Church saw baptism as the link to salvation and so the practice was to baptize a believer as soon as possible. By the second century, the practice of the Church had changed. Apparently the Church of the second century felt that baptism was such an important, such a serious step that rather than immediately baptize interested persons, the Church would, instead, make those seeking the salvation of Jesus Christ catechumens (or baptismal candidates). The catechumens would then enter into a period of intense instruction sometimes lasting as long as three years. The Church interrogated, or questioned catechumens prior to their baptisms to ensure that these candidates understood the faith and responsibilities of becoming a baptized disciple of Jesus Christ. The Apostolic Traditions of Hippolytus is an example of such an interrogation. Rufinus of Aquileia [401-404 A.D.] wrote a commentary on the Apostles' Creed that claims that shortly after establishment of the Church on the Day of Pentecost, and before the Apostles set out on individual missionary journeys, that the Apostles gathered together in order to come to consensus about exactly what they would be teaching and preaching. According to this legend each Apostle contributed one phrase that they considered fitting. The claim is as follows:
1. Peter
I believe in God the Father Almighty;
2. John
Maker of heaven and earth;
3. James
And in Jesus Christ his only Son, or Lord;
4. Andrew
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary;
5. Philip
Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried;
6. Thomas
He descended into hell, the third day he rose again from the dead;
7. Bartholomew
He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
8. Matthew
From thence, he shall come to judge the quick and the dead;
9. James, son of Alpheus
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church;
10. Simon the Zealot
The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins;
11. Jude brother of James
The resurrection of the body;
12. Mathias
Life everlasting. Amen.
This story is almost certainly fiction. No matter how neat and romantic the story is, it just does not stand up under scrutiny. Such a story is intriguing, but we must guard against believing something just because it would be incredibly neat. I suggest that if the Apostles met together and drafted a creedal statement that someone like Saint Luke would have recorded that meeting. After all, Luke does provide us with one of the earliest Church Councils on record in Acts 15:6-20. In this account, the topic of concern was whether it was necessary to circumcise Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians wanted to retain the practice of circumcision because it was an outward sign; a marking of the flesh that designated God's chosen people. The linkage between circumcision and being God's chosen people has so permeated their customs and thoughts that it just didn't occur to them that such an important practice wouldn't continue to be an important act that designated God's people. Luke goes into considerable detail regarding that council meeting. Now the fact that this meeting is so carefully detailed tells me a lot about the Apostles' Creed. If we get this good a coverage for circumcision, would you not expect even more space to be given to a meeting where the Apostles drafted the very first creed? Luke never mentioned a meeting to draft a creed. It just stands to reason that if Luke would take such careful care to record a council meeting to decide the very narrow issue of circumcision that Luke would have made a council meeting to draft a creed the centerpiece of the book of Acts.
However, if the Apostles did not write it, then why do we refer to it as the Apostles' Creed? There are three reasons for the title:
1. For a long time the Church accepted the legend as truth.
2. It was common in the first and second century to attach the name of an important person to a document in order to impress upon future readers the importance of the work. In fact, attaching a famous name to a work that the person did not write was not even considered dishonest. It was an accepted way to say, this work is important.
3. The Apostles did not write the phrases of the Apostles' Creed, but the phrases are certainly rooted in the teachings of the Apostles. At least for some, the title fits because it is consistent with the teachings of the Apostles.
THE APOSTLES' CREED WAS A REACTION TO GNOSTICISM
The Gnosticism refers to an early heresy in the Church. The name Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means knowledge, or to know. Note then that our word Agnostic comes from Greek words, which means without knowledge, or not to know. The Gnostics believed that they possessed a special mystical knowledge, reserved for those with true understanding. True understanding was revealed only to a special group and that true knowledge was the secret key to salvation.
The problem I have in explaining the Gnosticism stems from the fact that the Gnostics did not have one set of beliefs. Gnosticism was a mode of thought that taught a variety of odd concepts. One fundamental of Gnosticism is that all matter is evil, or at best unreal. The body is a sort of prison of the spirit. The body misguides our spirits. Therefore, escape from the body, is the ultimate goal of the Gnostic.
This disdain for human flesh did not stop with us. The Gnostics also brought the discussion in to their view of Jesus. Their contempt for the physical forced them to rationalize away the physical attributes of Jesus. Some claimed that Jesus could not have been an actual physical human being. They said that Jesus stood in the sun and cast no shadow. That Jesus walked on the sand, but left no footprints.
Some Gnostics distinguished between Jesus and Christ. Some suggested that the man Jesus was at most an instrument through whom the spirit body of Christ spoke. Gnostics held that the man Jesus did not become the bearer or instrument of the Christ until the Spirit descended upon him at his baptism, and that the Spirit left him before the crucifixion. In many translations of the New Testament, there is a footnote to the scene where the dove descended at the baptism of Jesus. That footnote suggests that the passage could be translated, You are my beloved Son this day I have begotten you. The alternate translation gets its support from manuscripts that are not among the oldest or best preserved. Most scholars believe Gnostic influence crept into these less reliable manuscripts.
Other Gnostic thinkers claimed that Jesus never existed at all. Their aversion to matter was so great that they could not accept that God would ever have anything to do with disgusting physical stuff. So some Gnostics agreed that there was an entity that appeared to be a man called Jesus, but he could not actually have been real because God could never (would never) be located within the physical. Against these teachings, the orthodox Christians affirmed that Jesus was conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the orthodox Christians rejected the Gnostic position that the Spirit had nothing to do with Jesus until his Baptism. Likewise, orthodoxy rejected the teaching that Jesus was born (which meant that he had a real physical body, and not just an appearance) of a virgin. A virgin birth implies that Jesus was special from the first moment of his life, and not just from the baptism on.
When you consider the phrases of the Apostles' Creed in light of Gnostic thought it becomes clear that one of the primary purposes of the creed was to refute Gnostic teachings.
Consider the first two lines:
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and Earth,
The Gnostics held that the physical universe is evil and that God did not make it. God is all-good and pure goodness can have nothing to do with the physical, which, by its very nature, is evil.
Next, we come to the creeds assertions about Jesus:
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
The Gnostics would have squirmed over hearing words like conceived and born connected with Jesus.
The creed next refers to the Passion of Jesus:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
he descended into Hades.
Here the creed is confronting the Gnostic belief that Jesus was all Spirit. The creed shouts that Jesus really did die. He had a body that could be nailed to a cross. His corpse was placed in a tomb. Jesus was not merely unconscious, nor did he just appearing to be dead. The Apostles' Creed is clearly saying that Jesus died and his spirit left his body and while His physical body was in the tomb, His spirit entered into the realm of the dead. The reference to the descent into Hades (or Hell, or Sheol) is present in the creed to make it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swooning. Jesus was not in a coma. The language of the creed is calculated to make it clear that the Church believes that Jesus was truly death in every sense of the word.
What comes next, in the creed, are statements dealing with the resurrection and the work of Jesus:
The third day he rose from the dead,
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of
God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come
to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic church,
The Gnostics taught that the more important Christian doctrines were created and reserved for an elite few. This was not the understanding of the orthodox Church. The majority of the Church's leadership believed that Christians were commanded to preach the Gospel to the entire human race. The creed-maker's use of the term "catholic," or "universal," was originally intended to distinguish them from the Gnostics.
Next, the creed comments upon the work of the Church:
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
Here the creed attempts to refute the Gnostics teaching that men had no need of forgiveness. According to the Gnostics, our only need is enlightenment. Of course, the enlightenment was their enlightenment. To the Gnostics, the real problem for humankind was sin, not ignorance. Some Gnostics believed the body was nothing but a snare and delusion that stands in the way of true spiritual enlightenment and ultimate reality. Because of this denigrating attitude toward the body, many Gnostics led lives of great asceticism.
Other Gnostics taught that the body was so different and so separate from the soul that it really did not matter what a person did with his body. The body could be given over completely to a hedonistic life-style and it would have no negative effects on your soul. For this sub-group of Gnostics, their lives were not ascetic at all. Free love and nickel beer was par for the course for the party Gnostics.
What the two Gnostic groups had in common was that both groups taught that forgiveness unnecessary and alien to them. Now we come to an interesting phrase:
the resurrection of the body,
This phrase in the Apostles' Creed clearly takes a stand against the Gnostic heresy. The primary goal of all Gnostics was to be forever free from physical matter. The Gnostics sought to break the shackles of the physical body in order to return to the heavenly realm as Pure Spirit. A bodily resurrection was totally rejected by the Gnostics.
Today, when I explain that the early Church believed that resurrection day that the physical body will be raised up I am often greeted with shock. It seems that many believers today assume that the resurrection is a spiritual resurrection. That is not what the early Church taught. A bodily resurrection is what the earliest disciples taught. The aversion some Christians have to cremation, organ donations, and even autopsies can be traced to this belief that when Jesus comes again there will be a bodily resurrection of all. I am not sure how much energy I would want to put into acceptance or denial of a bodily resurrection, but I would say this: If God can speak the universe into existence, and then a resurrection of the body would be no problem. An all-powerful Creator could physically raise even scattered ashes, or dissolved bodies.
Finally, we come to the final phrase of the creed:
and the life everlasting. AMEN
It is highly probable that Gnosticism was not just some distortions of Christianity. There are those who suggest that Gnosticism was merely the result of the Hellenization of Christianity. The term Hellenization refers to Grecian influences. Those who hold such a position point to similarities between Gnostic teachings and certain teachings of Plato. Others have suggested that Gnosticism was actually some form of Zoroastrianism, or other Persian influences. This would imply that the fundamentals of Gnosticism may actually pre-date Christianity. It is a fact that there were both Christian Gnostics and non-Christian Gnostics. It is probably that the Gospel according to Saint John was written, in part, to address certain objectionable teachings of Gnosticism.
Regardless of its origins, Gnosticism was a serious threat to Christianity during the lives of the Apostles and it was more that just a Christian heresy. I must say that the Gnostic threat to Christianity was never fully stamped out. Most of the major heresies that followed had much in common with Gnostic thought.
The Apostles' Creed served a dual purpose for the early Church: it was an early baptismal creed, and it refuted the Gnostic heresy. This is not the same thing as a statement written and recited as brief summery of the basics of Christian beliefs.
CREED SEED
While documentation and logic force us to accept that the Apostles' Creed could not have existed much before that later second century there were early creed-like statements (a sort of creed seed) that did exist much earlier. Our earliest creedal statements are found in New Testament scripture. The scriptures serve as a sort of creed seed, for most of their creedal content grows out of scripture. The Apostles' Creed differs from these earlier creed-like scriptures because the function was vastly different. Creeds were written in response to heretical teaching. These scriptural creed-like statements were written for the purpose of worship, not instruction. In fact, these earliest creedal-like passages were probably written originally as songs of worship.
Some have suggested that Philippians 2:5-11 is probably the lyrics to an early Christian hymn.
Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death--
even death on a cross.
Therefore, God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
This passage in Philippians is usually type set into verse form. By writing the words in verse, the author exposes us to the song-like quality of the passage. If this is an example of an early Christian hymn, it is not hard to see how the passage could easily function as a creedal statement of faith.
While the Apostles may not have written a creedal statement, the earliest creedal statements were phrases lifted from the writings of the New Testament. Consider the following:
"Jesus is Lord" Romans 10:9
"You are the Christ" Matthew 16:16
It is obvious that very early in the life of the Church the use of a baptismal confession was widely accepted.
.
.
This Article has been viewed 462 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.