from the heart of the church - howard payne university · fro h ear h hurc ol 3 2016 5 a note about...

From the Heart of the ChurchVolume 3 • 2016

School of Christian Studies

Howard Payne University

Brownwood, Texas

From the Heart of the Church Vol. 3 (2016)

3

From the Heart of the Church

Howard Payne University

School of Christian Studies

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Thomas Kyle ASSISTANT EDITOR Elizabeth Allen

EDITORIAL STAFF Joseph Flanigan

Bobby Martinez

Ivy Nichols

FACULTY ADVISORS Dr. Donnie Auvenshine

Dr. Derek Hatch

From the Heart of the Church is published annually by the School of Christian Studies of Howard Payne University (Brownwood, Texas). The views expressed in its pages do not necessarily reflect those of the University, the School, or the Journal’s Editorial Staff. All contents of this Journal are fully protected under copyright laws. Permission is granted to reproduce articles for church or classroom use, provided both that clear attribution is given to the author and From the Heart of the Church and that the reproductions are not sold for commercial purposes. For other uses, please contact the Faculty Advisors of the Journal.

© 2016 From the Heart of the ChurchAll rights reserved.http://www.hputx.edu/FHC-journal


4

From the Heart of the ChurchVolume 3• 2016Table of Contents

A Note about this Journal 5

Exegesis of Ezekiel 2:1–10 6 Jessi Jordan

Evidence for the Writing of Philippians from Ephesus 22 Thomas Kyle

He Descended into Hell 28 Samuel Marich

The Communion of Saints 38 Bobby Martinez


5

A Note About This Journal Why a student journal? The answer to this question is two-fold. First, as any student can attest, writing makes up a great deal of their time. Indeed, it is a crucial competency for cultivating critical thinking. Many courses ask students to carefully consider a specific topic, to consult the relevant sources on the subject, and to present a cogent written argument about the matter. Professors ask students to practice these tasks and to hone these crafts, not only so they can become better writers, but also better thinkers. This journal aims to embrace the importance of this practice. Second, what has become clear in learning about the life of the church is that word care is a significant part of Christian ministry. In other words, good pastoral care and good Christian ministry partly involve naming things rightly and speaking carefully and in a nuanced manner (whether how to read a passage of scripture or how to understand a pressing ethical challenge). This publication takes seriously that, as we aim to follow the one known as “The Word,” the words we read, speak, and write are immensely important. This journal, From the Heart of the Church, is directed by Howard Payne University students in the School of Christian Studies. They have written the essays printed in its pages in a wide variety of courses in the areas of Bible, Biblical Languages, Christian Education, Cross-Cultural Studies, Practical Theology, and Youth Ministry. HPU students constitute the editorial board that selects the printed essays through a blind review process, and they have labored to present the essays in their current form. Additionally, not only is there a wide range of fields displayed in these essays, but their authors embody a similarly wide range of vocations (which will be indicated by the biographical information at the end of each essay). As the title states, this journal proceeds from the heart of the church, with its concern to utilize a distinctly biblical and theological lens to understand people, the contemporary world we inhabit, and the shape of Christian witness. Likewise, these essays are also practical in that they return to the church to inspire readers in further thinking about scripture, theology, and ministry in light of Christ’s love for the world.


6

Exegesis of Ezekiel 2:1–10Jessi Jordan

INTRODUCTION

Many scholars have debated the meaning behind the text of Ezekiel and the many

visions described throughout the book. One particular passage that faces much dispute is

Ezekiel 2:1–10. This chapter is often described as Ezekiel’s call to prophesy. The text includes

God commanding Ezekiel to prophesy against the Jews before dispelling Ezekiel’s fears and

concludes with Ezekiel being commanded to eat the scroll handed to him by God. The New

Revised Standard Version translates the passage as follows:

He said to me: O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you. And when he

spoke to me, a spirit entered into me and set me on my feet; and I heard him speaking to

me. He said to me, Mortal, I am sending you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels

who have rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have transgressed against me to

this very day. The descendants are impudent and stubborn. I am sending you to them,

and you shall say to them, “Thus says the Lord God.” Whether they hear or refuse to hear

(for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that there has been a prophet among

them. And you, O mortal, do not be afraid of them, and do not be afraid of their words,

though briars and thorns surround you and you live among scorpions; do not be afraid

of their words, and do not be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house.

You shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear; for they are a

rebellious house. But you, mortal, hear what I say to you; do not be rebellious like that

rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you. I looked, and a hand was

stretched out to me, and a written scroll was in it. He spread it before me; it had writing

on the front and on the back, and written on it were words of lamentation and mourning

and woe (Ezekiel 2:1–10).

The background of the book, the context of the chapter, and the language used in this chapter

influence the interpretation one assumes concerning the chapter. Each of these aspects should

be examined before forming conclusions as to the meaning of the chapter. The first aspect of


7

Ezekiel 2:1–10 that one should consider is the authorship, followed by the situation, purpose,

and context.

AUTHORSHIP

The authorship of the book of Ezekiel was not disputed until 1924.1 Before this time

the widely accepted opinion was that the prophet Ezekiel wrote the entire book. However,

since that time many scholars have debated the Ezekielian authorship, or at least the extent

of Ezekielian authorship in the current form. Gustav Hölscher believed that “Ezekiel himself

only delivered the poetic messages of doom, sixteen in all. . . , covering only 170 verses.”2

Other scholars, such as C. C. Torrey, argued that the book is a pseudepigraph and is fictitious.3

J. M. Powis Smith wrote that Ezekiel was written by Jewish leaders to teach the Jews after

the exile and was written over a period of five centuries after the Babylonian exile.4 He

emphasizes, “The Book of Ezekiel is not the father, but the child, of Judaism.”5 However, the

unity of the book causes many scholars to disagree with Hölscher, Torrey, and Smith. The

book is written completely in first person, includes many repeated words, and follows a strict

chronological timeline. Because of these reasons, scholars such as Paul P. Enns reject the theory

of pseudepigraphical authorship.6 In recent years many biblical scholars have come to believe

Ezekiel was written with a similar method to that of Isaiah, having two authors, one being

Ezekiel and another following Ezekiel’s methods and continuing the story.7 While this is the

popular belief now, in the future more information may be discovered to shift this view yet

again.

If one accepts Ezekiel as the author of the book, there is much to be said about his

person. Ezekiel in Hebrew means “God Strengthens.” He was trained in the priestly order,

following the steps of his father. Popular belief says Ezekiel had been well trained in his priestly

1 Nancy R. Bowen, “Ezekiel,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, Michael D. Coogan, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 283. 2 Lamar Eugene Cooper, Ezekiel, New American Commentary 17 (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 32. 3 Ibid., 32–33. 4 J. M. Powis Smith, The Prophets and Their Times (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), 215. 5 Ibid., 216. 6 Paul P. Enns, Ezekiel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986), 9–10. 7 Bowen, “Ezekiel,” 283–284.


8

duties and would have quickly assumed the role as a priest had he not been deported to

Babylon. Many psychologists have attempted to analyze Ezekiel based on his book, diagnosing

him with extreme paranoia, schizophrenia, narcissism, and masochism. However, attributing

such characteristics to him implies that his visions and actions were based on his own attitude

and not the dictation of God. According to Daniel Block, such diagnoses are invalid because

God was the one telling Ezekiel to act in this manner, not Ezekiel acting out of his own desires.8

Beyond speculation about his personality and mental disorders, Ezekiel was known to be

married, based on the story about the death of his wife in Ezekiel 24. Beyond being taken

captive from Judah to Babylon in 597 BCE at the same time as King Jehoiachin and settling at Tel

Abib, not much is known about the prophet.9

SITZ IM LEBEN

The Book of Ezekiel can be pinpointed to a very specific time in Jewish history. The

setting is the Babylonian exile during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians.

Ezekiel, King Jehoiachin, and many other Jews were taken into exile around 597 BCE, an event

Ezekiel mentions at the beginning of his book. For eight years prior to this exile, Judah had been

under the supervision of Babylon. Jehoiachin’s father, Jehoiakim, had ruled during these years,

plotting to overthrow the Babylonian power. However, Nebuchadnezzar learned of this plan,

deposed Jehoiakim, and placed Jehoiachin on the throne instead. After reigning for only three

months, Jehoiachin was deported to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then appointed Zedekiah as king

over Judah and in 587 BCE destroyed the city of Jerusalem.10

The Book of Ezekiel covers a period from 594 BCE to 574 BCE. Ezekiel was a

contemporary of Jeremiah and Daniel, which is evidenced by the similarities in some of their

prophecies. Ezekiel’s specific prophecies are believed to have been delivered at Tel Abib, an

unknown location in Babylon that was home to many exiles.11 Ezekiel’s call in Ezekiel 2 is dated

8 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 9–11.

9 Ralph W. Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 5–6.

10 Cooper, Ezekiel, 21–22. 11 Klein, Ezekiel, 5.


9

at the beginning of his ministry around 592 BCE.12 This is after the exile of many Jews from

Jerusalem but before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Because his call came before the

destruction of Jerusalem, Ezekiel was able to prophesy to the people concerning the coming

doom of Jerusalem and the implications it had for the Jewish community. He also prophesied

during the time of the destruction and its aftermath, allowing him to see his proclamations

reach fulfillment.

AUDIENCE

In Ezekiel 2:3 God specifically tells Ezekiel that he is being sent to prophesy to the

Israelites. Thus it becomes apparent from the text that Ezekiel’s immediate audience was that

of the people of Israel. Ralph Klein notes that this idea of “Israel” does not simply mean the

Israelites in captivity around him. Rather, “Israel” refers to all of the Israelites, even those who

remained behind in Jerusalem.13 While the Israelites in captivity may have been the immediate

audience, scholars such as Stephen Cook believe that the book was written after Ezekiel

proclaimed the message to the people in order to provide instruction for future audiences who

may also need such reminders as those found in Ezekiel’s message.14 Whether or not those who

transcribed the book had a future audience in mind, Ezekiel’s original message was intended for

those Jews experiencing Babylonian rule and the destruction of Jerusalem.

GENRE

Ezekiel falls under the genre of prophetic writings, similar to such books as Jeremiah,

Amos, Micah, and many more. A common theme throughout the prophetic books of the Bible

is coming destruction followed by restoration. In Ezekiel the fall of Jerusalem is prophesied,

but such stories as the valley of dry bones display hope for the future of Israel. One major

characteristic in the prophetic writings is poetic form. However, unlike most prophetic books,

Ezekiel only has a small amount of poetry in the book. Another characteristic common in

prophetic books is the random order of the oracles. In this way, Ezekiel is again different from

12 John T. Bunn, “Ezekiel,” in Jeremiah – Daniel, Clifton J. Allen, ed., Broadman Bible Commentary 6 (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1971), 228. 13 Klein, Ezekiel, 16.

14 Stephen L. Cook, “Introduction to Ezekiel,” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Michael D. Coogan, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1181 HB.


10

most prophetic books because the prophecies are arranged chronologically, starting around

594/593 BCE and ending around 574 BCE. Despite its differences from other prophetic books,

Ezekiel clearly remains under the prophetic genre because of the prophecies told concerning

Jerusalem and the manner in which Ezekiel delivers his message to the people.15

Ezekiel 2 specifically can be classified under prophetic literature as both a prophetic

vision report and a prophetic narrative. In this chapter God speaks to Ezekiel in a vision, telling

him of the task God had set before him. This closely resembles a prophetic vision report.

However, more than a prophetic vision report, Ezekiel 2 is a prophetic narrative. A vocation

report narrative is a type of prophetic narrative in which the prophet is commissioned to

proclaim a message that God wishes to convey to the people.16 William Klein lists vocation

report narratives as commonly sharing “a confrontation with God, a commissioning, an

objection by the prophet, God’s reassurance, and a sign.”17 In Ezekiel 1:28, Ezekiel sees the

glory of God, and God begins to speak to Ezekiel in Ezekiel 2:1. These two verses display his

confrontation with God. In verse 3 Ezekiel is told to go to the nation of Israel, or, in other words,

is commissioned to proclaim God’s message to the people of Israel. While there is no exact point

at which Ezekiel objects, God does tell him not to rebel like Israel has done, possibly pointing to

a little hesitation on Ezekiel’s part. God then reassures Ezekiel by repeatedly telling him not to

fear. The sign at the end of the chapter is recognizable as the scroll that Ezekiel is commanded

to eat in verse 8. Thus, Ezekiel 2 portrays a clear example of a vocation report narrative.

Many scholars have questioned Ezekiel’s place as apocalyptic literature. The connections

that can be made between visions in Ezekiel and some found in other books has caused great

distress in deciding if Ezekiel is in fact apocalyptic. Most of the apocalyptic aspects of Ezekiel

are found at the end of the book. However, his eating of the scroll in Ezekiel 2:8—3:3 is often

compared to the scroll found in Revelation 10:9–11.18 Some scholars, such as Brian Peterson,

believe Ezekiel is important in the apocalyptic genre, not because it is necessarily an apocalyptic

book in itself, but rather because it was a transition from the previous prophetic books to the

15 John B. Gabel, et al., The Bible as Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 121–33.16 William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville,

Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 369–370. 17 Ibid., 370.

18 Ibid,, 446.


11

prophetic books that are apocalyptic such as Daniel and Zechariah.19 The debate regarding the

apocalyptic nature of Ezekiel has yet to be settled.

IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

Immediately surrounding Ezekiel 2 is the rest of the story of Ezekiel’s call. Chapter

1 focuses on his vision of four creatures and four wheels covered in eyes. The beginning of

chapter 3 completes his call and describes his experience of eating the scroll. The first step

in studying the context of the passage is to look at the theme.20 Ezekiel 1:1—3:27 contains

a theme of calling and God’s glory when speaking to Ezekiel. The glory of God is specifically

seen in Ezekiel 1:28 when Ezekiel falls before God after having seen God seated on a throne

in the heavens. Ezekiel 3:12 contains an exclamation of God’s glory, and 3:15 describes how

overwhelmed Ezekiel was by both his call and from seeing such a display of God’s power. While

the concept of God’s glory is seen throughout this passage, it is not displayed for Ezekiel to see

the glory of God with no other intended purpose. God’s glory is shown to Ezekiel so that Ezekiel

would understand the seriousness of the call that was occurring at the same time throughout

this section of the book.

After discovering the theme of a passage, one should examine the structure of the section

for contextual clues about the passage.21 Ezekiel 1:1—3:27 is structured in a chronological

manner. One indication of this ordering is the continual use of the word “then.” This word

signals the progression of time in his encounter with God. The section begins with Ezekiel

seeing the vision of the four creatures and wheels followed by seeing God seated in glory. God

then proceeds to speak to Ezekiel of his calling and comfort him concerning the hardness of the

people. After this, Ezekiel speaks of eating the scroll, being spoken to by God again, recovering

from the vision, and being declared a watchman for God. Each of these events happens in a

specific chronological order so that one can see the process Ezekiel went through when he was

called as a prophet.

19 Brian Neil Peterson, Ezekiel in Context (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2012), 341–55.20 Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 220.

21 Ibid., 220.


12

CONTEXT IN EZEKIEL

Once the context of the passage is settled in regard to the surrounding text, it is

important to study the context of the section (in this case Ezekiel 1:1—3:27) in relation to

the entire book (Ezekiel). There are three aspects to examine when studying the context of a

passage in a book. William Klein outlines these as: “1) The book’s purpose(s) or controlling

theme(s), 2) The basic outline of the book, 3) Parallel passages within the book that deal with

the same subject.”22 One can argue that the purpose of Ezekiel is the idea that God is always with

us no matter where we are, whether this is good because of our obedience or bad because of

our disobedience.23 The people were struggling with God “abandoning” them during the exile

in Babylon at the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry. In the middle of his prophetic activity, the

Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, causing more distress to the people since the House of God

had been demolished. However, Ezekiel assures the people that God is still there. The call of

Ezekiel is important in understanding the surrounding text (and vice versa) because it shows

the validity of Ezekiel’s message in addition to the reason Ezekiel began to prophesy. Without

understanding that God commissioned Ezekiel to speak to the people of Israel, the validity of his

prophecies could be questioned because the source of such proclamations would be unknown.

Examining the rest of the book allows one to understand why God commissioned Ezekiel as a

prophet because one can see the messages he spoke to the people.

The next aspect to examine in relation to context is the outline of the book. Lamar

Cooper provides a brief outline of Ezekiel, including four broad categories: Ezekiel’s call

(1:1—3:27), prophecies against Judah and Jerusalem (4:1—24:27), prophecies against other

surrounding nations (25:1—32:32), and prophecies about the restoration of the Jews (33:1—

48:35).24 The call of Ezekiel is placed at the beginning of the book for two reasons. First, the

book is arranged chronologically. Ezekiel consistently provides dates for his prophecies, so it

becomes obvious that Ezekiel’s call came before any of the following messages in the book. The

second important reason that Ezekiel’s call is placed at the beginning of the book has already

been mentioned when discussing the purpose of the book. Ezekiel’s call provides validity to

his prophecies, so it is only logical to establish this validity before beginning to delve into the

22 Ibid., 223. 23 Steven Tuell, Ezekiel, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson., 2009), 6.

24 Cooper, Ezekiel, 53.


13

prophecies. Otherwise, the prophecies would be subject to discussion as to their genuineness.

After discovering the message of the book and the outline of the book, one should observe

parallel passages within the book. However, in the instance of Ezekiel’s call, the passage is

rather unique in the book because this is the only place God calls Ezekiel to be a prophet to the

nation of Israel. After this initial call, all other instances of God dictating what Ezekiel should tell

the people is done with the understanding that Ezekiel is a firmly established prophet of God.

CONTEXT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

While the next step in understanding context is often examining books by the same

author, the book of Ezekiel is the only book with Ezekielian authorship in the Bible. Therefore, it

is necessary to proceed by examining the context of the book of Ezekiel in relation to the entire

Old Testament. Several aspects of Ezekiel can be observed in placing it in the context of the

Old Testament. First, one can observe the message of Ezekiel in relation to that of other books

written during the same period. Ezekiel’s contemporaries include Jeremiah, the writer(s) of

Isaiah 40–66, and possibly Daniel. In observing the times of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, one discovers

that the end of Jeremiah’s ministry coincides with the ministry of Ezekiel. While the message

of Ezekiel was to all the house of Israel, both the Northern and Southern kingdoms, Jeremiah’s

message was solely intended for Judah. Both prophets discuss the destruction of Jerusalem as

well as coming restoration. The events in Daniel also occurred around this time, whether or

not it was actually written during this period. The reader of the Old Testament discovers he is

another captive taken to Babylon, just like Ezekiel.

In addition to observing the time at which certain books were written in relation to

understanding the context of Ezekiel, it is also beneficial to notice specific passages throughout

the Old Testament similar to Ezekiel 2. The call of Jeremiah is found in Jeremiah 1:1–19, also

coming at the beginning of the book just as Ezekiel’s call did. Both of these calls indicate an

exact date at which the call came. Both include a direct call from God and a clear message

to proclaim. However, there are many differences between the two calls. Ezekiel has a very

moving experience, seeing a vision of the heavens and beholding God’s glory. Jeremiah, on the

other hand, has a very personal and subdued conversation with the Almighty. There are no

extraordinary visions accompanying his call. Also, Jeremiah’s response is to question God’s


14

intention for his life as a prophet. In contrast Ezekiel sits for seven days, overwhelmed by

the vision he had seen. He does not appear to respond to God’s call in any manner other than

stunned silence.25

CONTEXT IN RELATION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Some parallels can also be drawn between Ezekiel and the New Testament. One

connection often made is between God’s continuous use of “son of man” as a title for Ezekiel

and Jesus’ use of the same title for himself. Andrew Blackwood, Jr. wrote an entire book drawing

upon the parallels between the book of Ezekiel and the life and message of Jesus. He argued

that when Jesus used the title “Son of Man,” he was referring to its usage in Ezekiel. Blackwood

believed that since the Jews would have been familiar with the text of Ezekiel since it was part

of the Jewish Scriptures, Ezekiel would have come to mind when the Jews of Jesus’ day heard

such a title. He goes so far to comment, “Jesus looked to Ezekiel as the architect who rebuilt

a nation in ruins, and the Carpenter, with Ezekiel’s guidance, set out to rebuild a shattered

world.”26 In his opinion, Ezekiel was the son of man of the Old Testament, and Jesus mirrored

this image in his own life upon earth.27 However, many scholars still believe Jesus’ title is

derived from the mention of a “son of man” in Daniel 7:13.

Many other examples of Ezekielian connections in the New Testament can be found

when examining the Bible. One example mentioned previously is that of the scroll God

commands Ezekiel to eat. Revelation 10:9–11 includes a story of John being told to eat a scroll

that tasted sweet as honey. After eating the scroll, he is told to prophesy. Ezekiel 2:8—3:4

contains a similar story. It begins with God commanding Ezekiel to eat a scroll which is

described as also being sweet as honey. Ezekiel 3:4 displays that God immediately told Ezekiel

to prophesy to the people after he had eaten the scroll. Many other visions of Ezekiel are

often seen as precursors for the book of Revelation and symbols of apocalyptic literature, but

intentional correlation between the two books is questionable.

25 Kathleen Rochester, Prophetic Ministry in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 62–68.26 Andrew W. Blackwood, Jr., The Other Son of Man: Ezekiel/Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1966), 25.

27 Ibid., 11–25.


15

PURPOSE OF EZEKIEL 2

Ezekiel 2 serves many purposes within the framework around it, several of which

were discussed previously. A major function of Ezekiel 2 is to validate Ezekiel’s prophecies.

Without a call from God Ezekiel would be acting for himself, proclaiming what he believed to

be true rather than what God commanded. It is possible that the book would still be regarded

as legitimate without a written account of Ezekiel’s call, especially considering many Old

Testament prophets do not have an account of their call in their writings. Although some

general questions such as authorship, place of writing, or other similar concepts may influence

one’s belief in Ezekiel as an accurate historical writing, the record of his calling does assist in

settling the role of God in Ezekiel’s message.

The passage also completes the story of Ezekiel’s call. Without Ezekiel 2 the story would

not possess satisfying details of God’s appearance to Ezekiel. The passage provides a specific

audience, the rebellious house of Israel, and establishes some of the difficulties that brought

about the need for a prophet. It displays the extent of Israel’s disobedience, repeatedly calling

the Israelites rebellious, obstinate, and stubborn. The stage is set for the eating of the scroll as

well, providing a background as to what the scroll was. The power of the Spirit is also displayed

in this section as it is the Spirit moving Ezekiel and directing him. This provides a brief preview

into the role of the Spirit throughout the rest of the book.

KEY WORDS

When reading an English translation of Ezekiel 2, several phrases stand out because

of repetition or simply for their descriptive nature. For example, four times in this chapter

God calls Ezekiel “son of man” (or “mortal”). Seven times a form of the word “rebel” is used,

always referring to Israel. In verse 6 God tells Ezekiel “do not be afraid” three times. Each of

these words is repeated many times for emphasis. “Son of man” shows the mortality of Ezekiel;

he is simply a man commissioned by God to speak to Israel.28 The word “rebel” is always

used in connection with Israel in this passage, showing the great disobedience they have had

toward God. The three times “do not be afraid” is used in verse 6 displays God’s comfort that

28 Bunn, “Ezekiel,” 241.


16

he is providing for Ezekiel after calling him to go to the disobedient house of Israel. Some of

the words that are not repeated but still stand out when reading the text are “obstinate” (or

“impudent”) and “stubborn.” These are descriptive words used in connection with Israel. Not

only is Israel considered rebellious, but the people are also simply refusing to listen to God and

obey his commands. Verse 6 has an odd text as it speaks of “briars,” “thorns,” and “scorpions.”

These terms are also used in reference to the house of Israel, displaying how callous their hearts

had become.

HEBREW TEXT

The first word to consider when examining the Hebrew text is mārad. This word can be

used to indicate rebellion against a human king or against God. In this passage mārad refers

to rebellion against God.29 The root of the word is mrd, and the noun form differs only from

its verbal counterpart by the vowel pointings (mered). Mārad was originally a political term,

indicating the breaking of a treaty by one party, or in other words a rebellion against the treaty,

and the establishment of complete independence. It indicates incomplete, or failed, rebellion.30

This holds importance when examining Ezekiel 2 because the concept of an incomplete

rebellion displays the Israelites’ failure to separate themselves from God. In addition to mārad

this passage uses pešaʿ once. Often pešaʿ carries a sense of rebellion or transgression against

God. Pešaʿ deals with the rejection of God’s authority over one’s life, obvious in the story of

Ezekiel.31

M ͤrî (rebellion) is used several times in this passage. M ͤrî carries the idea of obstinacy

and stubbornness. It is used often in this passage in the phrase “house of rebellion/

stubbornness.” R. Knierim comments in relation to m ͤrî: “For Ezekiel obstinacy regarding the

prophetic word became the stigma of God’s people as expressed in the stereotypical declaratory

formula ‘house of stubbornness.’”32 Together these words (m ͤrî, mārad, and pešaʿ) paint a

29 F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2012), 597. 30 R. Knierim, “Mrd,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 684–686.

31 G. Herbert Livingston, “Pešaʿ,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:1846–1847. 32 Knierim, “Mrh,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 688.


17

picture of Israel’s rebellious nature toward God and their stubbornness regarding his word that

is not fully depicted in the English language.

SEPTUAGINT

After observing the Hebrew words for “rebel” and “rebellion,” it is worth noting the

words chosen to use in place of the Hebrew in the Septuagint. The chosen Greek word to replace

mārad, pešaʿ, and m ͤrî comes from parapikraino. When used with a noun in the accusative,

this verb often takes the idea of “embitter” or “provoke,” usually referring to God. However, in

Ezekiel 2 it is not used with an accusative. Instead, it possesses the concept of being disobedient

or rebellious, again in reference to God. The noun form (parapikrasmos) carries the idea of

rebellion against God.33 Often in this passage the verbal form is used as a participle, or a verbal

adjective. This means the phrase in Ezekiel 2:8 (rebellious house) literally is “the house which is

rebellious.”

PERSONAL INTERPRETATION

Understanding the historical background, context, and key words of the passage allows

one to achieve a firmer grasp upon the intended meaning of Ezekiel 2. There are several

truths that the Israelites of the exile should have grasped from Ezekiel’s call in relation to their

circumstances and the rest of Ezekiel’s message. By looking at the key words one observes the

phrase “son of man” as having importance to the message. By continuously calling Ezekiel by

this title, God is emphasizing the humanness of Ezekiel. This prophet was not divine, not perfect

or holy. He was simply a follower of God elected to carry God’s message to the Israelites. It was

only through God’s power that Ezekiel was able to prophesy to the Israelites. The message was

not his own; the proclamations about the destruction and restoration of Jerusalem were not of

him but of God. “Son of man” emphasizes this reality and brings one back to Ezekiel’s name. His

name means “God strengthens,” and only through the strength of God was he able to proclaim

all that God had commanded. As a son of man he was nothing, a weakling, but as a follower of

God he had strength to speak to an entire nation of rebels. His power came solely from God and

33 William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 626.


18

not his own will, for by his will he could not have acted as he did in many of his prophecies. God

alone controlled his actions and was able to give him the strength needed not to mourn over his

wife’s death or to lie on his side for many days.

Another major point of the passage that the book of Ezekiel was trying to convey

to the people was the nature of their rebellion. They had tried to disconnect from God and

failed. However, the appearance of the text makes one believe that the Israelites were not

recognizing the failure of their rebellion. They were acting “impudent and stubborn,” refusing

to acknowledge that God was stronger than they were. By the repetition of “rebellious house”

and other similar phrases, Ezekiel was conveying to the people that they were indeed rebellious

and God was not happy about their actions and attitude. It was because of their rebellion that

they were in exile and that the temple would be destroyed. The people needed to recognize

that alone they were nothing. Without God they were a weak nation, passed among the powers

of the world as a miniscule people. Only when they followed and trusted God had they been

powerful. By rebelling, they lost their might and strength. Again, Ezekiel’s name plays an

important role in not only portraying that God strengthened Ezekiel so that he could prophesy,

but also that by God’s strength alone is Israel powerful. Mārad, as explained earlier, is the

breaking of a treaty to establish independence. Israel attempted this, and they ended in exile.

They refused to recognize their own hand in their current circumstances, but God did not want

them to forget about it. God desired them to recognize the folly of their ways and not blind

themselves to the cause of their situation.

Verse 6 delivers an important message for Ezekiel since he was about to speak to a

nation that rejected the God whom he was proclaiming. Three times in the verse the command

“do not be afraid” is repeated. Although this particular message was not so much for the people,

Ezekiel needed to recognize that while the nation was a rebellious people, God was stronger.

God would guide Ezekiel and give him the strength to speak to a people who did not wish to

listen. The people could also gather from this reassurance to Ezekiel that the man prophesying

to them was protected by the Almighty God, and until the message had been completed in full,

God would not allow any hindrance to prevent this message from spreading.

After God tells Ezekiel to speak to the rebellious house of Israel, God commands Ezekiel

to eat a scroll with laments written on both sides of it. The message Ezekiel was to proclaim


19

would not be happy. This passage ends with an idea of warning to the Israelites. Not only

were they rebelling against God, but the prophecy Ezekiel was about to make would not be

comforting. The Israelites could expect the rest of the message to contain news of distress,

indicated by the words written upon the scroll. Their disobedience had brought punishment

upon them, and they could expect more as Ezekiel continued his prophecy. This distress had

already been written on the scroll and could not be changed. Therefore, they should prepare for

the declarations God was about to make regarding Israel and the coming punishment.

Finally, by looking at Ezekiel 2 in the immediate context, one discovers the glory of God

shining throughout Ezekiel’s call. The glory of God is displayed previously as Ezekiel falls before

the LORD. After the passage this glory continues to be seen as Ezekiel is overwhelmed by God’s

words and the vision of surrounding creatures. This glory, while not specifically mentioned

in chapter 2, is obviously seen by Ezekiel throughout this entire speech given by God and

throughout the process of eating the scroll. The people were disregarding the power and might

of God, so the glory of God held no importance to them at the time of the exile. However, God

did not want them to forget who was King. No earthly creature, whether it be Nebuchadnezzar,

Jehoiachin, Zedekiah, or a false idol, could ever replace God as King over all the earth. God’s

glory was beyond compare and God’s authority was above all. The people had forgotten this, or

at least neglected it, and sought after earthly power and glory for themselves above the glory

and leadership of God. This, however, caused the nation to be ridiculed and actually lose glory

rather than gain it as they sought to do.

CONCLUSION

After examining the background, context, purpose, and key words of Ezekiel 2 some

conclusions can be drawn in regards to the passage. Some points are relatively easy to discover,

but considering the book of Ezekiel was written over 2,500 years ago, much is likely overlooked

or misconstrued. The only possible way to prevent the misrepresentation of the message

of Ezekiel 2 is through an in-depth study of everything surrounding the passage. That was

attempted here, but much remains unknown about this passage. For example, while conclusions

can be drawn regarding the author of the passage, no one can say with absolutely certainty

who wrote every verse in Ezekiel 2 or even in the entire book of Ezekiel. Fortunately, while it


20

is important to know who wrote the passage, this would be unnecessary if the passage itself

had been lost. In other words, the passage would be made clearer if the exact identity of the

author were known and if his intentions of writing the book were made clear, but the passage

still carries meaning without all the questions being answered. The same can be said about the

culture in which this was written. No one will ever fully understand the culture and setting this

text was written in beyond what can be discovered through archeology and other contributing

texts. The time of the Jewish exile in Babylon has passed, and no one can relive that era to

comprehend the full meaning of the text. The important fact that one should remember after

researching all of this is that questions are acceptable. Without questions, new discoveries

would never be made. Because people ask questions, new facts arise, and the message can be

more understandable to the modern reader. Otherwise, the text would be dead, but the Word of

God is living and should never be allowed to reach such a point when Christians fail to form a

greater understanding of the words God has given to the world.

Jessi Jordan graduated from HPU in December 2015 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biblical Languages and the Guy D. Newman Honors Academy. Since then, she has begun working on a Master of Divinity degree at Yale Divinity School with a focus on political theology. She is interested in examining the relationship between politics and religion, and how they influence one another. She plans to begin studying at Heidelberg soon before eventually pursuing a PhD in theology.


21


22

Evidence for the Writing of Philippians from EphesusThomas Kyle

INTRODUCTION

Many details of the life of the Apostle Paul are well known and are widely held to be

true by many biblical scholars. It is easy for researchers to agree upon what early sources tell

directly about Paul’s life. However, it is less easy to get a unanimous consensus on topics that

are not directly specified in early literature about Paul. When these unspecified areas of concern

come up, much is left to speculation and assumption. In this case, the theory supported by the

most evidence should be considered the most likely to be true.1 It is often assumed that the

letter known as “Philippians” was written while Paul was imprisoned in Rome.2 While this

position has been held by the majority of scholars for a number of years, it does not hold on

to its title of “most likely” once it is questioned. While deciding which position to take, it is

important to make sense of the Bible. The use of logic and reason applied to what is already

known can help to shed new light on subjects once considered either hopeless or settled. Once

the texts are analyzed from a logical point of view, it becomes much more likely that the book of

Philippians was written by Paul while he was imprisoned in Ephesus.

TRADITION

One of the first topics that needs to be addressed when considering the true location for

the writing of Philippians is the idea of tradition. There are two different kinds of evidence, and

most of the evidence is internal textual evidence. Internal textual evidence is evidence which

comes from within the literary sources themselves. Ideas and theories can be constructed

from inside the text. The other kind of evidence is external, and this goes along with the idea

of tradition. The tradition, or external source, is what has been passed down from people who

lived during Paul’s time. It is logical that if one cannot arrive at a sure conclusion based on the

1 Moisés Silva, Philippians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992), 6.2 Ibid., 8.


23

internal evidence, then the external evidence should be given more weight.3 The idea is that the

external evidence comes from people who really knew what they were talking about. Tradition

places Paul in Rome while he wrote the letter to the Philippians. The only problem with the

logic placing Paul in Rome is that the external evidence we have is not based on first-century

tradition. It is just an assumption based on the same internal evidence present today, but it

was made many decades, or even centuries, after Paul wrote his letters.4 Therefore, the Roman

theory should not be given the benefit of the doubt based on tradition. It is based on internal

evidence just like the theories supporting other locations.

A PRISON IN EPHESUS

To help make a case for an Ephesian imprisonment, it is necessary to discover whether

Ephesus even had a prison in Paul’s day. There is a local tradition in present-day Ephesus that

infers that Paul was imprisoned in the fort on the hill of Astyages, which is home to what is

known as the Prison of Saint Paul.5 Unfortunately, the fort was built at a later date. This does

not, however, dismiss the fact that there is a local tradition that Paul was imprisoned in the city.

The fort could have been built at a later date on top of where Paul was imprisoned. It is also very

likely that Paul’s prison could just be somewhere in the general city among its many buildings.

Even if it is not possible to pinpoint the exact location of Paul’s prison in Ephesus, there is no

doubt that there was a prison there at the time. The population and wealth of the city would

have required a prison.6 The theater alone could hold nearly 25,000 people.7 The capital of Asia

Minor, and a city of that size in general, would surely have had a prison. Even some critics of the

Ephesian theory say that the possibility that Paul could have been imprisoned here is hard to

dismiss.8

3 Ibid., 6.4 Ibid..5 Merrill M. Parvis, “Ephesus in the Early Christian Era,” in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, Volume II,

David Noel Freedman and Edward F. Campbell, Jr., eds. (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1964), 339.6 Floyd V. Filson, “Ephesus and the New Testament,” in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 344.7 Parvis, “Ephesus in the Early Christian Era,” 338.8 Silva, Philippians, 8.


24

THE PRAETORIUM AND CAESAR’S HOUSEHOLD

It is often thought that because the Praetorian guard is mentioned in Philippians 1:13,

and those of Caesar’s household are mentioned in Philippians 4:22, that Paul must have been in

Rome. This is not the case. The Praetorium and those of Caesar’s household are both easy to fit

with the Ephesian theory.

A Praetorium is simply the headquarters of a praetor, or provincial governor. These

Praetoria would be guarded well in case there was trouble and the governor needed protection.

This kind of Praetorium would not have been found in Rome, but rather a Roman province.9

There is evidence in Ephesus of specific areas dedicated to emperor worship, and there was

even an imperial cult in the city.10 It is very likely that a Praetorium guard would have been

found in Ephesus.11 The text in Philippians 1:13, “it has become known throughout the whole

imperial guard” (NRSV), makes more sense for Ephesus. In Ephesus, there would have likely

been around two hundred Praetorian guards, while in Rome, there would have been nine or ten

thousand.12 Ephesus is simply more realistic.

There are a couple of explanations concerning those of Caesar’s household. Philippians

4:22 says, “All the saints greet you, especially those of the emperor’s household” (NRSV). Many

assume that this is a reference to Rome as the location of the writing of Philippians, but it is

not. If this is truly a reference to members of Caesar’s family, Ephesus is still valid. There was a

summer home that was used by imperial family members in Ephesus. If Paul was imprisoned

in the summer, as many people believe he was, this would put him in prison at exactly the time

that members of Caesar’s household would be expected to be there. Even still, another option is

found. Some believe that this verse refer to service people from Rome who were working for the

emperor.13 These service people who were united in trade would have likely formed groups in

every major city throughout the empire.14

9 Clayton R. Bowen, “Are Paul’s Prison Letters From Ephesus?,” American Journal of Theology 24, no. 1 (1920): 113.

10 Filson, “Ephesus and the New Testament,” 348.11 Silva, Philippians, 8; J. Peter Bercovitz, “Paul at Ephesus and the Composition of Philippians,”

Proceedings 8 (1988): 67.12 Bowen, “Are Paul’s Prison Letters from Ephesus?,” 113.13 Bowen, “Are Paul’s Prison Letters From Ephesus?”, 113.14 Bercovitz, “Paul at Ephesus and the Composition of Philippians.” 67.


25

LOGISTICS

One of the most common arguments against the Roman theory made by many

commentators is that Rome is just too far away.15 Ephesus provides a much closer and more

logical location when the numerous communication transactions are taken into account.

Depending on the conditions and route taken, it would have taken someone between one and

three months to make the trip from Rome to Philippi.16 On the other hand, it would have taken

someone only one or two weeks to travel from Ephesus to Philippi.17 If the unity of the letter of

Philippians is assumed, and at least four informational transactions were made, it would have

taken at least four months, or up to a whole year, for these events to unfold from Rome.18 In

contrast, it would have taken one month at best, or two to three months at worst for the events

to unfold from Ephesus. Of course, these numbers are assuming the unity of Philippians. There

are many scholars who would argue that Philippians is, in fact, two different letters. Some of

the major evidence that supports this point of view is that there is a benediction in Philippians

2:30 suggesting a break in the letter, the chronology of sending Epaphroditus back and forth

from Ephesus to Philippians makes sense, and one can see Paul’s progression in teaching about

the fruit of the spirit from the first half, to the last half of the book.19 That said, if Philippians is

really two letters, then it would have taken even longer for the whole correspondence to play

out. Additionally, it would have required more trips to be made back and forth, making the far

away Rome seem even less likely.

ONESIMUS

Another piece of evidence linking the writing of Philippians with Paul’s Ephesian

imprisonment is the person of Onesimus. Some scholars believe that Paul and Onesimus were

in prison together during the same stay in which Paul wrote Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon,

and Philippians. If this is true, then Ignatius of Antioch could give a unique insight on just where

they were being held. In Ignatius’ letter to the church in Ephesus soon after the turn of the

15 Silva, Philippians, 6.16 Matthew S. Harmon, “Fridays in Philippians - Paul’s Circumstances,” weblog, accessed April 17, 2015,

http://matthewsharmon.com/2012/10/05/fridays-in-philippians-pauls-circumstances.17 Ibid.18 Silva, Philippians, 7.19 Dr. Art Allen, interview with author, April 16, 2015.


26

first century, he mentioned the church leader Onesimus.20 This was written early enough for

the Onesimus who was imprisoned with Paul to still be alive if he was relatively young when

imprisoned. If the same Onesimus later became a pastor, it would only make sense that he

would go to a city in which he already had connections. Ignatius connects Onesimus to Ephesus,

and therefore connects the writing of both Philemon and Philippians to Ephesus (assuming that

these letters were written during the same imprisonment).

CONCLUSION

Even when all of the evidence is added up, it is impossible to reach an indisputable

conclusion. Without actually being present in Paul’s day, the solution that claims the most

supporting evidence should be given the most credibility. At the very least, the logic that has

been shown should serve to level the playing field between the Roman and Ephesian options

for the location of the writing of Philippians. All things considered, it could be said that Ephesus

makes a compelling case when it is examined in depth.

20 Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 1. See “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Buffalo, N.Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885), 1:49–65

Tom Kyle graduated from Howard Payne in May 2017 with a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Cross-Cultural Studies and a minor in Biblical Languages. He plans on getting a Certificate in Applied Linguistics from the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. He then hopes to become a member of Wycliffe Bible Translators to do translation work in South Asia.


27


28

He Descended into HellSamuel Marich

INTRODUCTION

Discussions of Jesus do not often find their way into the subject matter of this section of

the Creed. “No other clause of the Apostles’ Creed elicits more unease among Christians today

than the affirmation that Jesus Christ ‘descended into hell.’’’1 It is important, then, to affirm this

statement of the creed and to allow it to add as much shape to the lives of Christians as have the

other phrases of the Creed. Jesus Christ himself descended into hell after his death on the cross,

and this is proven by the claims of the church in the Apostles’ Creed, the Bible, tradition, and the

shape this truth has given to the liturgical practices of the church.

The phrase “he descended into Hell” is placed between two clauses which state that

“He [Christ] suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried;” and also that

“On the third day he rose again from the dead.” All of these clauses are clearly in the section

of the Apostles’ Creed that details the truths about the nature, life, and salvific work of Jesus

Christ. These three clauses serve to explain some key concepts of the Christian faith. First,

by explaining that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, it is clear that this happened at a real

point in history. Second, these clauses aim to show what Christ literally did at this point in his

ministry. According to the Creed, Jesus literally died by crucifixion and was physically laid in

a grave. So then, when the Creed states “he descended into Hell,” it is saying that this is the

next thing that Jesus did. This statement makes the claim that after his death, Jesus descended

into Hell, whatever that phrase may mean. This clause is then followed by the statement of his

resurrection. Therefore, when the question arises over what Jesus was doing between his death

and resurrection, this clause serves to witness to that conundrum. What did Jesus do from the

time of his death, through Holy Saturday, until his resurrection? The Creed says “he descended

into Hell.”

1 James F. Kay, “He Descended into Hell,” in Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles’ Creed, Roger E. Van Harn, ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 117.


29

OTHER CREEDS

While the main creed that is up for discussion is the Apostles’ Creed, looking at other

creeds to see what they contain concerning the “descent into hell” can deepen the role of this

statement in this creed, and what that means for Christians who recite the creed. There is not a

consensus between the creeds concerning the inclusion of this clause about Christ. For example,

the Athanasian Creed maintains the presence of this creedal clause. Conversely, the Nicene

Creed does not contain a reference to Christ’s descent. This creed moves quickly from the death

of Christ to the resurrection by only briefly mentioning that there were three days in the middle

of these two events. This is not helpful in discussing the actions of Christ during that time.

Therefore, it could potentially have two effects on the person reciting this specific creed.On the

one hand, it could encourage the reader to not be concerned with the work of Christ in those

three days. In the excitement to move to the recognition of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, one might

gloss over those three days. In doing so, the importance of the work that was accomplished

during those days might be neglected as well. On the other hand, this action may influence

anyone curious about the work accomplished during those three days to begin seeking more

knowledge concerning these events. In doing so, a greater theological understanding may be

attained.

The Masai Creed also does not contain a clause concerning this topic. This creed was

developed in the 1960s, a much more recent time of development than that of the Apostles’

Creed.2 The lack of a clause concerning Christ’s descent into hell in this more recently formed

creed may be a representation of the unease of Christians concerning the clause “He descended

into Hell.”

It has been disputed by many as to whether this phrase of the creed truly has any

biblical context on which to stand. The statement made by James F. Kay is that “its allegedly

weak scriptural support,” along with other factors, has caused many to ask if the clause should

be in the Creed at all. However, the truth is, “what the scriptures say at length, the creed says

briefly.”3 When the church was forming the Apostles’ Creed, it would not have placed this clause

2 “The Masai Creed,” accessed May 7, 2015, http://churchthenandnow.com/2009/10/29/the-masai-creed). 3 Nicholas Lash, Believing Three Ways in One God: A Reading of the Apostles’ Creed (Notre Dame, Ind., University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 8.


30

in the creed if it did not have scriptural support. But before the support from scripture for this

clause can be identified, the issue of the translation of the word “hell” must first be addressed.

Kay explains that “one of the difficulties interpreters face in grappling with ‘hell’ is the wide

semantic range of this term (from the Old English, helan, ‘to conceal’).”4 The word “hell” used in

the Creed is there to translate the “descendit ad inferna (from infernus, ‘that which is below’)”

or the “ad inferos (from inferus, ‘of the lower world’).”5 Kay goes on to explain that these two

terms have actually been used “interchangeably . . . thereby indicating they are simply Latin

synonyms for the ‘inferior’ or lower world.”6 However, “hell” has not only been the translation

for these two terms, but has also been used in translations of the Bible for “Hebrew and Greek

terms (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and in one instance, Tartarus).”7 Therefore, it is a challenge to

know exactly what the term “hell” stands for apart from its “use in particular contexts.”8 If the

term “hell” represents the word Sheol, then it could just mean “grave.”9 Kay explains that if

the understanding of “hell” is simply “buried,” then “at the most literal level . . . the descent ad

inferna means that Jesus Christ went to his grave like any other child of Israel.”10 Consequently,

“the descent into hell, in reinforcing the creedal ‘was buried,’ underscores that Jesus Christ

was truly dead.”11 But there is more to this creedal statement than just reiterating the idea

that Jesus was really buried. The term “hell” actually moves into a “scene of its own drama in

the salvation” due to the rich imagery present in the term Sheol since it “represents in Hebrew

and Jewish traditions ‘the place of the dead’ . . . a dark, lower world where the dead linger as

shadows of their former selves. . . .”12

BIBLICAL WITNESS

First Peter 3:18–20 says, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for

the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in

4 Kay, “He Descended into Hell,” 118. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., 119. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., 120. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.


31

the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former

times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah” (NRSV). Holding to the idea

that Hell is the prison of spirits, or Sheol, this verse recounts what is likely the descent of Christ

into that hell, in order to preach to the souls there. Another verse that supports the claim of this

clause states, “When it says, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended

into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all

the heavens, so that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:9–10, NRSV). And in Acts 2:23–24, another

passage that also attests to this truth of Christ’s descent into hell can be found with Peter having

said, “this man [Jesus], handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of

God, you [Israelites] crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised

him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power”

(NRSV). The New Revised Standard Version makes a note next to the word “death,” and states

that this term literally means the “pains of death.” All of that said, these verses have been dealt

with differently by various theologians in the history of the church. This will be shown in the

forthcoming discussion of the works on this subject by Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and Hans

Urs von Balthasar.

AQUINAS, CALVIN, AND VON BALTHASAR ON CHRIST’S DESCENT

In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas addresses the validity of this clause in the

Apostles’ Creed and the meaning behind it. In doing so, Aquinas first approached the eight

article subject by asking, “Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?” Beginning

with his disputational style, Aquinas named three different objections to the idea that Christ

descended into hell to which he begins his response by saying “It is said in the Creed: ‘He

descended into hell’: and the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:9): ‘Now that He ascended, what is it,

but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?’”13 Expounding upon that

idea, he then goes on to say that it was indeed “fitting for Christ to descend into hell” since he

“came to bear our penalty in order to free us from penalty. . . . But through sin, man had incurred

not only the death of the body, but also descent into hell.”14 Therefore, taking this to its logical

13 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (ST) III, q. 52, art. 1 14 Ibid.


32

conclusion, Christ not only died to save broken humans from death, but also from the descent

into hell. He affirms this with Isaiah 53:4,which reads, “Surely he has borne our infirmities and

carried our diseases” (NRSV). Aquinas also stated, “it was fitting when the devil was overthrown

by the Passion that Christ should deliver the captives detained in hell.”15 He supported this using

Zechariah 9:11, which says, “As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I

will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit” (NRSV). Aquinas shows that Jesus came

demonstrating “[his] power on earth by living and dying, so also He might manifest it in hell,

by visiting it and enlightening it.”16 He also makes sure to make note of the fact that the “name

of hell stands for an evil of penalty, and not for an evil of guilt.” Therefore, “it was becoming that

Christ should descend into hell, not as liable to punishment Himself, but to deliver them who

were.”17 Aquinas determines that the hell to which Christ descended is not the “hell of the lost

. . . where men are tormented with sensible pain on account of actual sins.”18 Aquinas believed

that Jesus could not have gone here because Jesus had no “actual sins.” Instead, he taught that

Christ’s descent did not happen the same way for each level of hell. Here it is important to

clarify that there is a historical understanding that there are different levels of hell into which

people have been sent.

The first level is the idea of Sheol, or “‘the hell of the Fathers,’ ‘the hell of the just,’

or ‘Abraham’s bosom.’” Kay explains this idea as “[a] ‘limbo’ where the souls of the faithful

departed, who died prior to Christ, were confined and ‘punished,’ but only in the sense of

exclusion from the beatific vision of God.”19 Aquinas claims that the descent of Christ into

the “hell of the lost” was in fact to “put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness.”20

Additionally, Aquinas wrote that Christ, “who is the Wisdom of God, penetrated to all the lower

parts of the earth, not passing through them locally with His soul, but by spreading the effects of

His power in a measure to them all.”21

The question that then presents itself, and that Aquinas deals with, is “Whether the

15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., III, q. 52, art. 2. 19 Kay, “He Descended into Hell,” 122. 20 Aquinas, ST III, q. 52, art. 2. 21 Ibid.


33

whole Christ was in hell?”22 There arises the issue of whether Christ was fully present in hell

because his body was in the grave. If part of him was in the grave and not in hell, then he wasn’t

completely there in hell. However, Aquinas quickly dismissed this issue by stating, “in the death

of Christ, although the soul was separated from the body . . . neither was separated from the

Person of the Son of God.”23 Continuing on, Aquinas then wrote, “Christ’s Person is whole in

each single place, but not wholly, because it is not circumscribed by any place: indeed, all places

put together could not comprise His immensity; rather is it His immensity that embraces all

things.”24 Not only was Christ fully in hell, but according to Aquinas he also spent some length of

time there. He explains that Christ was in hell for the same amount of time that his body spent

in the grave.25

John Calvin is also a strong supporter of the presence of this clause in the Apostles’

Creed. However, he supports it in a way that is starkly different than Thomas Aquinas. In

reflecting upon the importance of this clause of the Creed, Calvin said, “[believers] must not

omit the descent to hell, which was of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption

. . . which ought not by any means be disregarded . . . the omission of it greatly detracts from the

benefit of Christ’s death.”26

First, Calvin wished to address the accusation that this clause only reiterated the truth

that Christ died and went into the grave (which was present in the previous clauses). Here he

referenced the argument that the common use of the Latin “infernis for sepulcher,” which means

“grave,” is the correct way to use this clause.27 Calvin argued against using the idea that there is

no question about the “matter attended with no difficulty in clear and unambiguous terms.”28

He went on to say that if this was the case it would not fit with the principle of the creed in

general because the goal of any creed is to make simple declarations of Christian truths. If this

statement only serves to add additional imagery for what has already been explained, then it

22 Ibid., III, q. 52, art. 3. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., III, q. 52, art. 4. 26 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Henry Beveridge, trans. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2008), 330. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.


34

violates this goal.29

As mentioned before, Calvin’s defense of this clause in the Apostles’ Creed was quite

different than that of Aquinas. In addition, Calvin disagreed with much that has been said

by Aquinas concerning Christ’s descent into hell. Calvin stated that he differed with those,

including Aquinas, who used Psalm 107:16, which states, “For he shatters the doors of bronze,

and cuts in two the bars of iron” (NRSV). And the same went for those that used Zechariah

9:11. In doing so, he said that the idea that these verses were used to support the teaching

that “Christ descended to the souls of the patriarchs who died under the law, to announce his

accomplished redemption, and bring them out of the prison in which they were confined” is

“nothing but a fable.”30

Hans Urs von Balthasar is another theologian that has contributed much to the

discussion of this clause of the Apostles’ Creed. Historically coming after Aquinas and Calvin,

Hans Urs von Balthasar had the luxury of being able to view both of the stances held by these

two theologians. In his work, Mysterium Paschale, von Balthasar wrote an incredible amount of

material concerning the events of Easter. And as any good writer does, von Balthasar brought

a considerably unique understanding of these events. Von Balthasar explained, “without the

Son no one can see the Father (John 1:18), nor anyone come to the Father (John 14:6), and if,

without him, the Father is revealed to nobody (Matthew 11:27), then when the Son, the Word

of the Father, is dead, then no one can see God, hear of him or attain him.”31 This is the situation

behind the word “hiatus” in reference to Christ. He maintained that the teaching of the descent

of Christ is difficult by saying, “it now becomes extraordinarily difficult to keep together in

our sights the ‘absolute paradox’ which lies in the hiatus, and the continuity of the Risen One

with the One who died, having previously lived.”32 He goes on to say that death for any human

renders them mute. Therefore, since Jesus was fully human, he joins in this muteness, which

means that the “Speech, the Communication and the Mediation of God” becomes mute.33 These

teachings just begin to break the surface of what von Balthasar brought forth in Mysterium

29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., 331. 31 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter, Aidan Nichols, trans. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 49. 32 Ibid., 52. 33 Ibid., 50.


35

Paschale, but he warned his reader, “The danger is very real that we, as spectators of a drama

beyond our powers of comprehension, will simply wait until the scene changes. For in this

non-time, there appears to be no possibility of following him who has become non-Word.”34 We

cannot just brush aside the doctrine of the descent into hell of Christ simply because we cannot

understand. Instead of just seeking that change of scene, von Balthasar discusses what it means

for God to die. He wrote, “it is really God who assumes what is radically contrary to the divine,

what is eternally reprobated by God, in the form of the supreme obedience of the Son towards

the Father, and, thereby . . . discloses himself in the very act of his self-concealment.”35

The descent into hell necessarily has a Trinitarian nature. This Trinitarian understanding

helps us understand why the descent into hell was necessary. Von Balthasar claimed, “if

the Father must be considered as the Creator of human freedom . . . then judgment belongs

primordially to him, and thereby Hell also; and when he sends the Son into the world to save it

instead of judging it, and, to equip him for this function. . . . Then he must also introduce the Son

made man into ‘Hell’” to which he says “the Son cannot really be introduced into Hell save as a

dead man, on Holy Saturday.”36

This clause of the Apostles’ Creed serves not only to briefly say “what the scriptures

say at length,” but it also serves to establish the “field of play” for Christian life and thought.

This statement of the Creed makes it clear that Christ fully suffered what any human suffered,

not just the physical death and rising, but also his soul suffered all that a human soul would

suffer in death. This statement serves to solidify the incarnation of Jesus. If Christ was indeed

truly human, and if he truly died, then he fully experienced the death that humans experience.

This completes his incarnation. If this clause is left out there is much that has to be answered

concerning the events of Jesus’ life between his death and resurrection.

LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This clause has action in the life and liturgy of the church. It is not merely a statement

of belief but it brings shape into the life of the church. This comes to the forefront mostly in

the practices of Holy Saturday. One practice in the liturgy of the church is that of tenebrae. This

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid., 52. 36 Ibid., 175.


36

worship service of tenebrae is characterized by the gradual extinguishing of candles to signify

the gradual extinguishing of the life of Christ in the events of Good Friday.37 These serve to

set up the church to remember Holy Saturday. Another distinguishing aspect of the tenebrae

service is silence. There is a great deal of deliberate silence present in this service. The power

of this silence culminates at the end of the service when the worshipers that are gathered leave

in complete silence.38 Maintaining this silence is crucial to help the church keep in mind the

importance of Holy Saturday. If the church does not leave in silence, then the whole point of

the Good Friday service, to remember the death that Jesus died on the cross, risks being lost

as soon as people begin to have normal conversations that do not remember this occasion.

The silence that the followers of Jesus felt must be felt by the church today, if there is to be a

chance at a deeper perception of the joy of the resurrection that comes on Easter Sunday. This

silence makes people uncomfortable to say the least, especially in today’s culture where there

is constantly something trying to tear away the attention of the believer from the work of Christ

that the church witnesses to in these services. This uncomfortable feeling helps the church

remember the depths of the emotions felt by the followers of Jesus in scripture. They did not

immediately move to the excitement of the celebration of Easter; they did not even know that

it was to come. They felt immense pain and searing loss as their Messiah was dead, so we try to

feel that pain as well. It is during this time that it is remembered that Christ descended into hell.

This is important to remember here because it was during this time of pain that Christ was still

working. While his followers believed his ministry to be over, he was completing his work in

hell. Then comes the celebration of Easter. The hope that comes at the resurrection then is not

just for those who were alive but also for those who were dead.

CONCLUSION

The truth that Christ “descended into hell” must be maintained in the life of the church.

Though some would doubt so, this statement of the Apostles’ Creed brings a great deal of depth

to the Christian understanding of the work of Christ in the events involved in Easter, especially

the events of Holy Saturday. This clause is present in the Apostles’ Creed for a reason. The

37 John D. Witvliet, “An Introduction to Tenebrae Worship,” in Services of the Christian Year, vol. 5 of The Complete Library of Christian Worship, Robert E. Webber, ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 349. 38 Ibid.


37

church throughout time has given witness to the necessity of maintaining this truth through

many different practices. Although it is a tough subject that has been addressed in different

ways, there is an implicit necessity for each believer to wrestle with this claim. It may be easier

to align with other creedal statements than with this one, but to neglect it would be to neglect a

part of the incredible work of Jesus Christ.

In May 2017, Samuel Marich finished his first year of Master of Divinity studies at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University. He graduated from HPU in May 2015 with a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Practical Theology and minors in Music and Biblical Languages. He is continually trying to follow God and discern where he is being called to serve. He currently serves in the praise band at Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas.


38

The Communion of SaintsBobby Martinez

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the span of Christian history, a clause in the Apostles’ Creed known as “the

communion of saints” has been a point of contention for many theologians, pastors, and lay

people within the church catholic. Consequently, the contention surrounding the communion

of saints has caused many people within the church to develop a disembodied understanding

of the relationship between the historical body of Christ, the sacramental body of Christ in the

eucharist, and the ecclesial body of Christ that makes up the church catholic. That being said,

in the hopes of recapturing an important emphasis on the interconnected nature of the historic

body of Christ, the eucharistic body of Christ, and the ecclesial body of Christ, the overall goal

of this essay is to address the historical implications of the communion of saints, discuss the

clause’s creedal and biblical context, explain the clause’s theological implications in light of John

Calvin and Thomas Aquinas’ interpretations of the clause, describe the grammatical function

and unique language surrounding the clause, and lastly, discuss the clause’s liturgical shape

that it embodies in the various practices of the church. In sum, the overall goal of this essay is

to express the indispensable relationship between the eucharistic body of Christ, the historical

body of Christ, and the ecclesial body of Christ in light of the communion of saints.

CREEDAL CONTEXT

Separated into three main sections, each of the three sections of the Apostles’ Creed

briefly discusses the doctrines of the church with regard to their unique relationship with the

three persons of the Holy Trinity. Functionally speaking this was largely due to the fact that

the Apostles’ Creed was influenced by the baptismal creeds of the early church; leading many

scholars to believe that the Apostles’ Creed primarily drew its inspiration from one of the most

renown early baptismal creeds, “The Old Roman Creed.”1 Along with two other clauses from

the Apostles’ Creed, the communion of saints is one of three clauses that was absent from the

1 See Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, eds., Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 25–26.


39

Old Roman Creed. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Old Roman Creed did not mention

the communion of saints, perhaps an explanation for its inclusion in later creeds could be

discovered by carefully considering the evolution of the communion of saints.

As it was stated in the previous paragraph, the Apostles’ Creed is essentially separated

into three different sections that directly correlate with the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

Keeping that in mind, it should be noted that the communion of saints is preceded by two

clauses that read, “I believe in the Holy Spirit/the holy catholic church . . .” But because of the

fact that the clause, “I believe in the Holy Spirit,” is the beginning of the third section of the

Apostles’ Creed, it would be right to assume that “the communion of saints/the holy catholic

church” are to be understood in light of the Holy Spirit. But before one is to interpret the

communion of saints in light of the Holy Spirit, one must first consider how the holy catholic

church relates to the Holy Spirit.

In the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, “catholic” is defined as “deriv[ing] from

the Greek word καθολικός, and meaning ‘general’ or ‘universal.’”2 Additionally, another way it

was described was, “Of the universal Church as distinct from the local Christian communities .

. . applied thus to the faith of the whole Church, i.e. the doctrine believed ‘everywhere, always,

and by all.”3 In turn, if the catholicity of the church deals primarily with the faith of the whole

church, the communion of saints inherits a contextual basis in which it can be explained and

expressed in three different ways: “(1) The spiritual union existing between each Christian and

Christ, and so between each and every Christian. . . . (2) The fellowship of Christians upon earth

only. (3) The sharing of holy things . . . which all Christians have in the sacraments.”4

Directly following the communion of saints are the clauses “the forgiveness of sins/

the resurrection of the body/and the life everlasting.” Focusing on “the forgiveness of sins/the

resurrection of the body,” Acts 10 testifies to that which was briefly mentioned in the Creed

when Peter said,

We are witnesses to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death

by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear,

2 F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd revised edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 308.

3 Ibid..4 Ibid., 390.


40

not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and

drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people

and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. All

the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of

sins through his name (Acts 10:39–43, NRSV).

And regarding the closing clause of the Creed, “and the life everlasting,” it briefly explains

the promise of everlasting life that comes with Christians placing their hope and trust in the

incarnate and resurrected Christ.

On another note, as it was mentioned earlier, the communion of saints was not

present at all in the Old Roman Creed. However, during the life of Caesarius, bishop of Arles, a

Gallican Creed of the Sixth Century was said to have been one of the first creeds to include the

communion of saints.5 But it would not be until 750 CE in Dicta Abbatis Pirminii de singulis libris

canonicis scarapus that the church would discover a creed that mirrors that of the Apostles’

Creed read in churches today.6 However, it is important to note that the composition of various

creeds did not stop with the Apostles’ Creed. In all actuality, as time progressed, the language of

the Apostles’ Creed and the doctrines which it communicated would be nuanced in a variety of

ways as the church grew in age.

In reference to the Eastern church, Jaroslav Pelikan discussed the influence of the

Apostles’ Creed in the east saying, “although the creed has no original place in the tradition

of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it does appear in some Eastern collections of creeds.”7

Considering the fact that the Apostles’ Creed does appear in some Eastern collections, perhaps

it would not be wrong to assume that the Apostles’ Creed may have played a minor role in

further developing the doctrine of the communion of saints. For example, though not expressed

explicitly as “the communion of saints,” in Cyril Lucar’s 1629 Eastern Confession of the Christian

Faith, the language that is used in chapters 10 and 17 of the text is similar to that of the

eucharistic, catholic, and the ecclesial language that the majority of the Christian tradition has

generally ascribed to the communion of saints.

5 Bettenson and Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 26.6 Ibid.7 Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, “The Apostles’ Creed,” in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the

Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003), 1:668.


41

In Chapter 10 of Lucar’s confession, he is quoted saying, “We believe that what is called

the catholic church contains the faithful of Christ everywhere, those who, having departed,

are in their home in the fatherland, as well as those who are yet pilgrims on their way.”8 In this

specific portion of Lucar’s confession, similar to the way in which the communion of saints has

been understood in light of the universal church, Lucar’s understanding of the “catholic church”

directly refers to the “faithful of Christ everywhere” as “[those who] are in their home in the

fatherland . . . as well as those who are yet pilgrims on their way.”9 Thus, it is clear that Lucar’s

language does indeed paint an eschatological image of church catholicity that includes believers

of the past, present, and future.

And with regard to Chapter 17, Lucar then went on to focus on the sacramental

significance of the eucharist saying,

[W]e acknowledge and believe in the true and real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.

. . . For we believe that the faithful do eat the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . When,

therefore, we partake worthily of the body and blood of Christ and have completely

communicated, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled to our Head and united with

him, and one body with him, with certain hopes of being fellow heirs with him in the

kingdom.10

In turn, when Lucar’s statements mentioned above are directly compared to the traditional

interpretation of the communion of saints, it is clear that the language of real presence, unity,

catholicity, and ecclesial wholeness is nuanced in a very similar manner.

As a final note, considering all that has been said in this section, it should be noted that

in Latin, the doctrine of the communion of saints referred to as “communo sanctorum” expresses

“a fellowship of, or with, the saints.”11 In other words, this doctrine communicates the idea of

a unifying presence that binds saints together across space and time by means of their shared

faith in the Triune God, worship, prayer, and by receiving the eucharistic body of Christ along

8 Cyril Lucar, “The Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith,” in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 1:553.

9 Ibid.10 Ibid., 1:555.11 Joseph Sollier, “The Communion of Saints,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4 (New York: Robert

Appleton Company, 1908), accessed 21 March 2016, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm.


42

with other sacraments of the church. In the pages following this section, such ideas will be

addressed in greater detail.

BIBLICAL CONTEXT

Theologian Nicholas Lash has said, “what the Scriptures say at length, the Creed says

briefly.”12 With that in mind, just as other clauses within the Creed were required to have

a scriptural basis, the communion of saints was no different from the rest with regard to

its inclusion within the Apostles’ Creed. For this reason, passages like Philippians 1:3–5,

Romans 15:26, 2 Corinthians 9:13, 1 Corinthians 10:16, Philippians 3:10, 2 Corinthians 13:13,

Philemon 6, and Acts 2:42–47 are some of the many credible sources that accurately reflect the

significance of the communion of saints in the life of the church. That said, in order to see how

exactly the significance of the communion of saints is expressed in scripture, two things must

be considered: (1) The relationship of the biblical context of the communion of saints in light

of specific linguistic implications expressed in the Bible’s usage of the word koinonia. (2) The

definition, usage, and context of the word “hagios” in the New Testament. With that in mind, the

first half of this section will be spent considering the biblical context of the communion of saints

with regard to the word koinonia. In a similar manner, the second half of this section will consist

of in depth analysis of the word hagios in light of the New Testament.

The dictionary of the Fourth Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament defines the word

koinonia using the following terms: “Fellowship, a close mutual relationship, participation,

sharing in, partnership, contribution, and gift.”13 Keeping those terms in mind, Susan K. Wood,

in her contribution to Exploring and Explaining the Apostles’ Creed, made a suggestion that

directly lined up with that of the Greek New Testament’s definition of koinonia when she said,

“The noun koinonia has a considerable range of meanings in the New Testament.”14 This would

effectively be expressed when Wood went on to suggest that each of the passages in their

unique context had the potential to communicate the following ideas:

12 Nicholas Lash, Believing Three Ways in One God: A Reading of the Apostles’ Creed (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 8.

13 Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament. 4th edition (Nordlingen: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Dictionary 103.

14 Susan K. Wood, “The Holy Catholic Church, The Communion of Saints,” in Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles’ Creed, Roger E. Van Harn, ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 221.


43

(1) a sense of “close association”, (2) “an attitude of good will that manifests an interest

in a close relationship translated as generosity,” (3) “an abstract term for the concrete

‘sign of fellowship, proof of brotherly [or sisterly] unity, or the gift of contribution,” or (4)

“participation or sharing in something.”15

In light of Woods’ fourfold system, the significance of koinonia’s definitive nature is able to be

classified by carefully considering the biblical context of the communion of saints in greater

detail. For this reason, two scripture passages that make use of koinonia will be explored.

To begin the discussion on the biblical context of themes surrounding the communion of

saints, the first example to consider is Romans 15:25–27 where Paul says,

At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem in a ministry to the saints; for Macedonia

and Achaia have been pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints

at Jerusalem. They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owe it to them; for if the

Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service

to them in material things (NRSV).

In this passage, one can see a close sense of association, generosity, signs of fellowship, and the

idea of “sharing in” something. In accordance with Susan Wood’s model, this evidently reflects

all four of her classifications regarding the word koinonia. And in light of the original language,

when the first form of the word koinonia (κοινωνίαν) is translated, the word originally rendered

as “share” literally communicates an idea of “contribution” in verse 26.16 In a similar manner,

in verse 27, another form of koinonia, (ἐκοινώνησαν) which is rendered “have come to share”

literally means “have shared in.”17 Thus, in this passage, the significance of the participatory

aspect of sharing reflects a christocentric community in which people are collectively

involving themselves with the concerns of one another. In addition, this passage highlights the

significance of maintaining an understanding of the universal body of Christ that reflects the

ecclesiological implications of the communion of saints. In other words, this passage reflects

the importance of participating and involving ourselves with our brothers and sisters within

the church catholic in light of Christ’s character that was embodied and personified in the

incarnation (the historical body of Christ).

15 Ibid.16 Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, 562.17 Ibid.


44

In Acts 2:42–47, all four elements of Susan Wood’s fourfold koinonia system can also be

seen when the author of the book of Acts wrote:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of

bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs

were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in

common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all,

as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke

bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having

the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who

were being saved (NRSV).

In this passage the usage of the word koinonia differs from that of the Romans passage

because it is focused on a more refined form of fellowship. In regards to this specific portion

of the book of Acts, B.H. Carroll described the substance of this passage by saying, “They were

constant in attending upon the following things: The teaching of the apostles, the breaking

of bread, fellowship, and prayers.”18 Carroll would later describe the emphasis on these four

practices in the early church as “habit[s] of continual attention to the following things: (1)

Public worship; (2) the contribution worship; (3) the Lord’s Supper worship; (4) the prayer

meeting in worship.”19 In turn, one is able to conclude that in this portion of the book of Acts,

there is not only ecclesial expressions of koinonia and unity that were inspired by the character

of the incarnate God, but there is also biblical evidence of early forms of liturgy in which

the sacramental body of Christ may have been distributed amongst the masses as a form of

worship, and an expression of their solidarity with one another.

But who were these people living in strange communities that shared with one another?

In Greek, they draw their identity from the Greek word hagios (ἅγιος). However, in English,

these people are most commonly known as “saints.”

The word hagios can be briefly defined in the following manner: “Set apart to or by God,

sacred consecrated; holy, morally pure, upright; (οἱ ἅγιοι) God’s people. . . .”20 In light of the

18 B.H. Carroll, The Acts, An Interpretation of the English Bible 12 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1947), 104.

19 Ibid.20 Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, Dictionary 2.


45

Greek translation of saint, generally speaking, the term [hagios] is used in the New Testament

only in its plural form to refer to all members of churches who are Christians consecrated

to God through Jesus Christ.21 For this reason, the plural form of hagios is often seen in

introductory and closing portions of letters like 2 Corinthians and Philippians. However, though

the appearance of the plural form of hagios is commonly found in the beginning or end of many

New Testament letters, there are other places in scripture where the plural form of hagios

appears.

Although it has already been referenced once before in this section, consider once more

the language of Paul in Romans 15:25–27 in which he wrote,

At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem in a ministry to the saints; for Macedonia

and Achaia have been pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints

at Jerusalem. They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owe it to them; for if the

Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service

to them in material things (NRSV).

With regard to the bolded words, the plural form of hagios in Romans 15:25–27 can be seen

making an appearance twice within this passage as a reference to the gathered group of people

in Jerusalem. However, it is important to remember that these two plural appearances of hagios

(ἁγίοις and ἁγίων) are not just descriptors of a regular group of people, but rather descriptors

of a holy group of people defined by their closeness, generosity, fellowship, and willingness to

share in holy things. For this reason, this passage is not only a testament of the true definition of

hagios, but also a testament of the true definition of koinonia.

Thus, Romans 15:25–27 is one of many passages that provides a scriptural basis for

the communion of saints because of its emphasis on living in communion (koinonia) with

one another as God’s holy people (hagios). That said, in light of the biblical context of the

communion of saints, the communion of saints is able to find a scriptural basis for its existence

within the creed because of scriptural language that points to the importance of living in

communion with one another as God’s holy people.

21 Donald K. McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 246..


46

THEOLOGICAL EXPOSITION: THOMAS AQUINAS AND JOHN CALVIN

In Thomas Aquinas’ work, On the Apostles’ Creed, Aquinas approached the communion

of saints by establishing a relationship between the communion of saints and the forgiveness

of sins. In doing so, Aquinas opened article 10 of his treatise on the communion of saints by

saying, “As in our natural body the operation of one member works for the good of the entire

body, so also is it with a spiritual body, such as is the Church. . . . So, among the points of faith in

which the Apostles have handed down is that there is a common sharing of good in the Church.

This is expressed in the words, the communion of saints.”22 In other words, Aquinas sought to

communicate an idea in which members of the church worked for the good of each other by

working for the good of the church. Thus, when the sharing of good in the church takes place, it

is expressed in terms of the communion of saints.

After briefly establishing his ideas of “sharing of good” in relation to bodily language,

Aquinas went on to say, “Christ communicates His good, just as the power of the head is

communicated to all the members. This communication takes place through the sacraments

of the Church in which operate the merits of the passion of Christ, which in turn operates for

the conferring of grace unto the remission of sins.”23 And thus began Aquinas’ explanation of

the seven sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance, Unction, Holy Orders, and

Marriage) in light of “conferring grace unto the remission of sins.”

Aquinas began his discussion on the sacraments by explaining the significance of

baptism as a means of “conferring grace unto the remission of sins”: “The power of baptism

consists in this, that it cleanses from all sins as regards both their guilt and their punishment.”24

In relation to the sacrament of confirmation, Aquinas stressed the importance of the Holy Spirit

because of the fact that she (the spirit) was able to impart strength upon believers. In turn,

through the strength of the Holy Spirit, Aquinas felt that the Holy Spirit provided a means for

parents to see it through that their children were confirmed in the church. After discussing the

sacrament of confirmation, Aquinas then moved on to discuss the Eucharist by writing,

22 Thomas Aquinas, “The Apostles’ Creed,” in The Catechetical Instructions of Thomas Aquinas, Joseph B. Collins, trans. (New York: Wagner, 1939), 60–61.

23 Ibid.24 Ibid.


47

In the physical life, after man is born and acquires powers, he needs food to sustain

and strengthen him. Likewise, in the spiritual life, after being fortified, he has need of

spiritual food; this is the body of Christ: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and

drink His blood, you shall not have life in you’ [Jn 6:54].25

Moving on further down the list, Aquinas then touched on penance saying, “In the physical

life one who is sick and does not have recourse to medicine dies; so in the spiritual order, one

becomes ill because of sin.”26 But directly following that grim statement, Aquinas wrote, “Thus,

medicine is necessary for the recovery of health; and this is the grace which is conferred in

the sacrament of penance.”27 Arriving at the fifth sacrament, Aquinas explained its essential

role saying, “[S]ince no one can enter into eternal life until he is well cleansed, there is need

for another sacrament which will purify man of his sickness and prepare him for entry into

the heavenly kingdom.”28 After discussing the fifth sacrament, Aquinas then made note of the

important role that the sacrament of holy orders played in the life of the church by saying,

“[T]he sacrament of orders is necessary, by whose powers these sacraments are dispensed.”29

Lastly, Aquinas touched on the sacrament of matrimony briefly by saying, “in it, men [and

women] if they live uprightly, are saved; and thereby enabled to live without mortal sin.”30

Upon finishing his extensive discussion on the seven sacraments, Aquinas then began to

close his discussion on the remission of sins by referring back to the communion of saints. In

doing so, Aquinas said, “Through this communion [that seeks the good of others,] we receive

two benefits. One is that the merits of Christ are communicated to all; the other is that the

good of one is communicated to another.” In the end, Aquinas’ discussion on the communion

of saints was unique in the fact that it called attention to the importance of considering the

grace, goodness, and love extended to us by God in the sacraments. In doing so, by becoming

more aware of the goodness of God that the people of the church are recipients of, they train

themselves to learn how to extend the goodness of God to others.

25 Ibid., 62–63.26 Ibid.27 Ibid.28 Ibid.29 Ibid,. 64.30 Ibid.


48

On a very different note, John Calvin’s discussion on the communion of saints in

Institutes of the Christian Religion was drastically shorter than that of Aquinas’. Interestingly

enough, rather than reserving a specific section for the communion of saints, Calvin decided

to interpret the communion of saints in light of the clause in the Apostles’ Creed that dealt

with the catholic church. That said, in light of Calvin’s discussion on the creedal context of the

holy catholic church, it is important to note that he first dealt with “what sense of the article

of the Creed concerning the church is to be understood” before discussing his opinion on the

communion of saints.31

But before discussing the remainder of Calvin’s ideas in great detail, it must first be

noted that he had a unique take on the clause in the Apostles’ Creed that reads “I believe in

the holy catholic church.” This can be seen when he expressed his belief that the word “in” was

inserted in the clause when he wrote,

The particle in is often interpolated, but without any probable ground. I confess, indeed,

that it is the more unusual form, and is not unsupported by antiquity, since the Nicene

Creed, as quoted in Ecclesiastical History, adds the preposition. At the same time, we may

perceive from early writers, that the expression received without controversy in ancient

times was to believe ‘the Church,’ and not ‘in the Church.’32

This line of thinking was nuanced in a different manner when he later wrote

When in the Creed we profess to believe the Church [not in the Church], reference is

made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but to all the elect of

God, including the number of those who have departed this life. And, accordingly, the

word used is ‘believe,’ because oftentimes no difference can be observed between the

children of God and the profane, between his proper flock and the untamed herd.33

With regard to the preceding quote, when Calvin wrote about Christians professing to believe

the church (not “in” the church) in the recitation of the Creed, Calvin’s view of the communion

of saints in light of church catholicity were made evident when he wrote that “reference is made

not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but to all the elect of God, including

31 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Henry Beveridge, trans. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989), 279.

32 Ibid., 281.33 Ibid,. 282.


49

those who have departed this life.”34 In turn, Calvin was essentially expressing his belief that the

catholic church comprised of God’s elect (past and present).

As Calvin’s thoughts continued to develop, Calvin eventually went on to say,

All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head,

so they are as it were compacted into one body being knit together like its different

members; made truly of one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same

inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ.35

In doing so, Calvin put great emphasis on the fact that the catholic church is made up of the

ecclesiological communion of saints (past, present, and future) as a people that are not only

sharing in the “same inheritance of eternal life,” but also in “participation in one God and

Christ.” That said, though language pointing to the ecclesial understanding of the communion

of saints in light of the church catholic was definitely present in Calvin’s discussion, Calvin did

not explicitly make reference to the communion of saints. In addition, Calvin did not discuss

the communion of saints in sacramental terms. However, one of the last things that Calvin said

along the lines of the ecclesial understanding of communion of saints reads as such: “in order

to embrace the unity of the Church . . . it is not necessary, as I have observed, to see it with our

eyes, or feel it with our hands. Nay, rather from its being placed in faith, we are reminded that

our thoughts are to dwell. . . .”36

In light of two very different perspectives on the communion of saints, perhaps there are

things that can be learned from both theologians. On one hand, it could be said that Aquinas’

ability to coherently establish a connection between the remission of sins, the sacraments, and

the communion of the saints provides a unique approach that also allows one to look beyond

oneself and reflect upon the catholicity of the Church. On the other hand, perhaps it is also

important to remember the fact that there is always a possibility of one becoming so enamored

with tangible expressions of catholicity that they fail to remember the nature of God who is able

to work through things that are both seen and unseen.

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.36 Ibid., 283.


50

GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

What can we say about the communion of saints? Though the communion of saints is

generally interpreted in light of the sacraments, the church catholic, and the relationship that

the church embodies through sharing and participating in holy things, its general field of play

is limited to encouraging believers to consider the importance of embodying and cultivating

a spirit of unity within their local churches and the ecclesial body of Christ. In this sense, it

is an identity that one takes on when they commit their allegiance and lives to furthering

the kingdom of God through the work of the church. Whether it is in light of the sacramental

presence of Christ in the eucharist, fostering relationships within the local church, extending

the grace and peace of Christ to those inside and outside of our communities, or even breaking

bread with one another in the form of a church potluck, the greatest priority when dealing with

the communion of saints is the building of bridges in a spirit of unity. Thus, what can be said

about the communion of saints is that it should move those within the church to see outside of

themselves as they consider the transcendence of the Gospel.

However, though it is great for one to consider to communal implications of the

communion of saints, it is equally important to make note of what cannot be said about

the communion of saints. In other words, if the church seeks to embody a greater sense of

community, the people of the church must first know what hinders it from cultivating a greater

sense of unity within the ecclesial body of Christ. With regard to scripture, such an idea can

clearly be seen when Paul spoke out against such dangers in 1 Corinthians saying,

Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come

together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come

together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I

believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear

who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s

supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper,

and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat

and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who

have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not

commend you! (1 Cor. 11:17–22, NRSV).


51

Directly after speaking out against the divisive behavior of his audience, Paul then went on to

explain the importance of unity with regard to the Eucharist in greater detail when he said,

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the

night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke

it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same

way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me (1 Cor. 11:23–25, NRSV).

But perhaps one of the greatest testaments of the grammatical implications of the communion

of saints is when Paul spoke of the unified and communal foundation upon which the church

was built when he said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the

Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26, NRSV).

With all of that in mind, it seems as if the grammatical function of the communion of

saints is one that only makes sense in light of the language of Christ who sought to emphasize

the importance of reconciliation and unity of which the church makes sense in light of the

death of Christ. Assuming the previous suggestion is correct, perhaps the grammatical function

of the communion of saints is best represented in a statement that reads, “by this sacrament

[consisting of bread and wine] we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body

and Blood to form a single body.”37

In short, what can be said about the communion of saints is that it is centered around

unity in which the church grows together by means of the sacraments, formation within local

churches, and cultivating a greater sense of ecclesial unity on a global scale. Thus, if it is the

desire of the church to cultivate a sense of “communion” within the church catholic, the church

is tasked to reject hyper-individualistic ideas that directly contradict everything that can be said

about the communion of saints.

LITURGICAL SHAPE

When discussing the influence of the communion of saints in the liturgy of a local

church, it is important to note that not all churches within the universal church interpret this

clause in the same manner. In fact, most churches within the universal church have different

37 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 1994), §1331.


52

interpretations of the communion of saints that ultimately determine how it is expressed in

their liturgy. To give one example, though most Southern Baptists pride themselves in their

non-creedal identity, the language of an ecclesial interpretation of the communion of saints

is expressed in article VI of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message when the document states,

“The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the

redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”38

However, even though an ecclesial expression of the communion of the saints managed to find

its way into Southern Baptist life, a sacramental expression of the clause’s language that points

to the real presence of Christ seems to be absent from the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message’s

section on the Lord’s Supper: “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby

members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize

the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”39

On the other hand, Episcopalians believe that the communion of saints is not just a

reference to the ecclesial body of Christ, but also a reference to the sacramental body of Christ

in the eucharist. This can be seen in a eucharistic description found in the Episcopal church’s

website that reads, “Christ’s body and blood are really present in the sacrament of the eucharist

and received by faith. [Additionally] Christ’s presence is also known in the gathered eucharistic

community.”40 All of that said, where one church may celebrate catholicity and eucharistic

worship, another church may completely leave out any reference to the sacramental body of

Christ. However, it is not without good reason.

It should be known that the ambiguous language in reference to the clause allows

churches to interpret and express it differently. Once again bringing Susan Wood into the

conversation, She explains the primary reason for a sense of fluidity in reference to the clause:

In the Latin phrase sanctorum communion, ‘sanctorum’ can either be interpreted as a

neuter plural or masculine plural. If it is neuter plural, the translation is ‘a sharing or

partaking in holy things,’ the traditional term for the elements of the Eucharist. If it is a

38 “The Baptist Faith and Message” (2000), article VI, accessed April 20, 2016, http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp.

39 Ibid., article VII.40 “Eucharist,” Glossary, The Episcopal Church online, accessed April 21, 2016, http://www.

episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/eucharist.


53

masculine plural, the translation is ‘communion of saints,’ referring to the martyrs and

confessors, living and dead, and all who make up the body of Christ.41

In other words, the ambiguity of the language in which the communion of saints is expressed

allows churches to have different interpretations and means of expressing their appreciation

for doctrine of the communion of saints. Thus, the way in which the communion of saints is

expressed liturgically varies from church to church.

In light of churches in which the sacrament of the eucharist has a significant place in the

liturgy, one of the simplest forms of worship in which the communion of the saints is reflected is

in the singing of eucharistic songs. For example, the Episcopal Church’s Hymnal 1982 contains a

hymn with the following lines:

Come, risen Lord, and deign to be our guest;

We meet, as in that upper room they met;

One body we, one Body who partake

One with each other, Lord, for one in thee.42

Like many other eucharistic songs, the words of this specific song speak of gathering as a

community, being one collective body of Christ, and receiving of the body of Christ by means of

the eucharist. In short, the primary purpose of similar songs is to communicate the idea that the

communion of saints consists of God’s people gathering together as representatives of the body

of Christ and God’s people who partake in the consumption of the eucharistic body of Christ.

Aside from eucharistic songs, another practice that successfully communicates the

significance of the communion of saints is the inclusion of liturgical responses that encourage

congregants to participate in the liturgy. With the inclusion of such readings, such responses

allow the congregants to experience a sense of connectedness that directly correlates to that

which is expressed in the communion of saints. For this reason, listed below is an example of

what a typical responsorial reading may look like (with bold lines being said by the assembly,

and untreated lines reserved for the lector):

The kingdom of God is justice and peace.

Let us then pursue

41 Wood, “The Holy Catholic Church, The Communion of Saints,” 227. 42 “Come, Risen Lord, and Deign to Be Our Guest,” Hymnal 1982 (New York: Church Hymnal Corporation,

1985), #306.


54

The things that make for peace.

Where lies abound,

You call us to speak truth

We will speak your truth

Where greed takes all,

You call us to act justly:

We will act justly

Where violence consumes,

You call us to live peacefully

We will live peacefully. . .”43

To give one last example of the liturgical presence of the communion of saints in the

church, perhaps one of the most famous outward expressions of unity that carries the weight of

the communion of saints is the collective recitation of the Our Father (Lord’s Prayer). In this act,

a church verbally expresses their connectedness with one another through their shared faith.

For this reason, as a final example of the communion of saints’ presence in the liturgy, below

this text is the Our Father in the New Revised Standard Version.

Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not bring us to the time of trial,

but rescue us from the evil one (Matthew 6:9–13)

43 Christopher J. Ellis and Myra Blyth, eds., Gathering for Worship: Patterns and Prayers for the Community of Disciples (Norwich, England: Canterbury Press, 2005), 18.


55

CONCLUSION

What is the communion of saints? The communion of saints is God’s people that gather

in local church bodies in a spirit of unity, God’s people collectively united by faith in the Triune

God as the ecclesial body of Christ (past, present and future), and God’s people who partake

in the consumption of the eucharistic body of Christ where Christ’s presence is transcendent

beyond human comprehension. In that regard, understanding the communion of saints in light

of the sacraments, the church, the church’s relationships with others, and the incarnation is

essential if one desires to see a glimpse of God’s transcendent movement within the world as

we know it. Thus, perhaps the key to understanding what is at the heart of the communion of

saints is for the people of the church to first ask themselves what Christ may have meant when

he said, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Matthew

18:20, NRSV).

Set to attend George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University in Fall 2017, Bobby Martinez will continue studying theology as he pursues his Master of Divinity degree after completing his Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Practical Theology at HPU in May 2017.