The Beginnings of the Church

What Jesus' enemies were concerned about was not simply to wreak vengeance upon an individual who had offended them. They wanted to put a stop to a movement that threatened to endanger their position as leaders. The simplest way was to kill the Master. His disciples, a group of enthusiasts without training or standing, could very well be disregarded. None of them were, therefore, molested. When they had gibbeted the leader they felt the matter was disposed of.

So, indeed, it seemed. Nothing is more certain than the fact that the disciples were utterly perplexed and disheartened by the sudden events of the day. Face to face with the terrible reality, Jesus' warnings had little effect. A Messiah seized by his foes, humiliated, scourged, bound to a cross—how could such a thing be? They could not think of him as the Messiah now, but as "a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people." They had "hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel," but their dream was over (Luke 24:13-21).

Just as certain, however, is the fact that almost at once a radical change took place. The scattered company gathered together. The perplexity was gone. Instead there were men with a clear and confident conviction. The fear had vanished. In the city in which their Master was killed, before the people that had seen his shameful death, they were ready to speak their faith in him. And it was not simply an old faith regained; there was a courage and a joy that surpassed the old days. They were not mere followers now, they were leaders. And all this was not a passing enthusiasm. Under these men as leaders a great movement began which in a couple of generations spread throughout the whole empire. What was the cause of this transformation?

The first cause was the conviction that Jesus was living. That was the center and foundation of all else. From all the New Testament writings that touch this period we hear the same word: Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and appeared to his disciples. The earliest and most important record is that of Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, written some twenty years after Jesus' death. Paul undoubtedly received this word directly from Peter, whom he visited at Jerusalem only a few years after Jesus' death (Gal I. 18). He declares to the Corinthians that what he preached to them was the common faith of the church as he himself had received it—"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also" (1 Cor 15:3-8). The other reports are found in the book of Acts and the four Gospels.

When we come to a closer study of these records we are met by two questions: How are we to reconcile the apparent differences in these accounts; and, How are we to conceive the manner of the resurrection and of these appearances? It may be stated at the very first that only by violence can these accounts be Harmonized in their details. Matthew gives the appearances in Galilee, Luke in Jerusalem, while the last part of Mark's Gospel has been unfortunately lost to us, as the note given in our American Standard Revised Edition indicates. There have been differences of interpretation likewise as to the manner of the resurrection and the appearances. Our oldest witness, Paul, lays no stress upon the physical. He believes, of course, in a bodily resurrection, but he will not dogmatize about the nature of that body. He seems to put Jesus' resurrection in line with the resurrection of the saints, of which he says: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:20-53). In the same way Paul classes Jesus' appearance to him on the way to Damascus with that to the disciples after his resurrection. Luke, on the other hand, emphasizes the physical, even to the extent of picturing Jesus as eating (Luke 24:39-43).

To the first question we may answer: While it is not possible to reconcile these differences now, neither is it necessary. In the years that elapsed between these events and the writing of the Gospels, it was inevitable that such discrepancies should arise. The fundamental fact, however, is clearly held by all these writers. The very discrepancies emphasize the central agreement. Nor is it important to be able to answer the second question. The actual issue is whether we believe in the reality of the spiritual world. If the physical is all there is of life, then these stories are mere hallucinations. But if the real life be the personal and spiritual, then the manner of these appearances is not vital, and to attempt to decide is simply to try to answer the unanswerable. The one clear fact, without which the wonderful story of early Christianity is a mere riddle, is the fact that these disciples were following a living Lord, and not a dead and defeated leader.

What this conviction meant that Jesus was living we cannot overestimate. If he were living, then he was the Messiah, then his death was part of the will and plan of God. Then too Jesus would come again and establish his Kingdom upon the earth. It is this confidence in the second appearing of Jesus and in his final triumph, that fills the whole early church with hope and joy. The Christians are those who wait for the appearing of their Lord.

What is the relation of these narratives of the resurrection to Christian faith today? Are they not its foundation? And if so, are not these discrepancies a serious hindrance? To this we must answer: The conviction of the living Christ is central for Christian faith today. But the foundation of that conviction is not primarily the story of the appearances. It is, rather, the personality of Christ itself; it is this life that shines forth in the Gospels, convincing us of its reality and of the God whom it shows forth, and proving its reality by what it did for the early church and for the generations since, and by what it will do today for those who surrender to it. The real foundation is not a historical argument or proof; it is this personal moral conviction and experience.

Next to their conviction of the living Christ, there is another great fact that stands at the beginning of the Christian church and accounts for the transformation of these men. That was the gift of the Spirit. These disciples believed that their Lord would some time return in glory, but their religion was not simply one of waiting. Their Master was the exalted Christ at the right hand of God and he had given to them the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God was in their midst and in their hearts now. God was not a doctrine, he was a presence. Religion was not a mere duty, it was a life which they already possessed. There is a spirit of enthusiasm that fills these pages of Acts, a spirit of joy and a sense of power. "And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitudes of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common. And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all" (Acts 2:43, 46, 47; 4:31-33).

This full measure of enthusiasm and power had not been granted the disciples at once. Nor did they begin their public work immediately after the assurance that Jesus was risen. They were to wait together in Jerusalem in prayer until they were prepared for the great task. "Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all. Judæa and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). This was the word of the risen Christ to them. Luke describes how he was seen by the disciples for the last time and then taken from them (Acts 1:6-11; Luke 24:51). The idea of an ascension distinct from the resurrection appears only with Luke, not being mentioned by Paul or in the other Gospels. Obedient to the word, the disciples gathered together daily in prayer in Jerusalem, one hundred and twenty of them in number. Pentecost was the name given by Greek-speaking Jews, or Hellenists, to the feast that came on the fiftieth day after the passover. The climax of their waiting came on that day. "And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:1-4).

For Christian thought the word "Pentecost" means now not a Jewish but a Christian festival. The name commonly used in English is Whitsunday. The day has been called the birthday of the Christian Church. That is going too far. That day might be fixed at the time when Peter and the others first confessed Jesus as the Christ. But Pentecost was the beginning of Christianity as a militant and conquering fellowship. The conviction that Jesus was living and the gift of the Spirit go together as the two great facts that explain the being and power of the early church. The first named gave the church its great hope; the second added to the hope for the future an actual possession for the present. While they still looked forward, they were nevertheless conscious of a rule and presence of God in the world and in their life. Religion was a possession, not a mere hope.

Two questions arise in connection with Luke's description. According to the accounts in Acts, the Spirit had not been given to the disciples before. This is not the uniform New Testament conception. The fourth Gospel declares that on the very first day of the resurrection Jesus breathed upon his disciples and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). More important is the word that Jesus spoke to Peter after his confession at Cæsarea Philippi: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but thy Father who is in heaven" (Matt 16:17). It was God's Spirit who had shown this to Peter. All true life in men is due to the Spirit of God. In this case it was simply an unusual experience under unusual conditions, marking the beginning of a new epoch.

The gift of tongues of which Luke speaks is one that we find mentioned elsewhere, especially in Paul's letters. Luke conceives it as the ability to speak in foreign languages. Visiting Jews in Jerusalem, coming from many countries, were attracted by what had happened here in Pentecost, and as they came together Luke declares they heard the disciples speaking the varied tongues which these visitors represented. Paul's description of the gift of tongues is quite different (1 Cor 14:14:1-33). It was a rapt ecstatic utterance, coming from men under strong spiritual excitement. Of themselves these utterances did not convey any meaning, either to Christians or to others. Outsiders coming in and listening would naturally think these people mad; and while Paul believed it to be the work of the Spirit, he rated it below that earnest but ordered and, intelligible speaking which he called prophesying.

If there is any contradiction here, we must give Paul the preference. He is a witness at first hand, writing of what he himself has seen and known. Luke, in these first chapters, is using material that has been handed down to him. Even in Luke's narrative there are some things that suggest that what occurred is not different from what we find with Paul. If these visitors had heard the disciples speaking in foreign languages, they would not have charged them with drunkenness (Acts 2:13). Peter, replying to this charge, makes no reference to the foreign speech at all. No one can say that such a miracle could not have occurred. Within Christian writings, however, miracles must be judged by the principles of the Christian faith and according to their moral meaning and spiritual value. Such a gift of foreign speech would have had two possible meanings, one to convince these outsiders, the other to aid the disciples in later foreign missionary work. It failed to do the first and we find no reference anywhere to the latter. It was not the foreign speech, but the preaching from a heart filled with the Spirit like Peter's, that won the many that were added that day.

Peter's speech shows that the early church saw in this experience the fulfillment of the prophecies, found not only with Joel 2:28, 29 but elsewhere, which set forth the gift of the Spirit as the mark of the Messianic age. For many years Israel had felt herself without the living voice of a prophet. God was far away. Men had only his laws. In the new age it was to be different; God was to speak again with men and dwell with them. It was not merely, then, that they had seen their risen Lord and that they rejoiced in the hope of his coming; they had with them day by day this witness and inspiration of God's presence.

Directions for Reading and Study

As to the resurrection, read for general statements 1 Cor. 15:3-8; Acts 1:1-11.

Appearances in Jerusalem: Matt 28:1-10; Luke 24:1-53. Appearances in Galilee: Matt 28:16-20. The gift of the Holy Spirit: Acts 1:12-14; 2:1-21. Compare 1 Cor 14:1-33 as to the speaking with tongues; note the points of likeness and difference between this and the picture in Acts 2.