---

Essay 79 (6-25-05)

THE APOSTLES' CREED AS COMMON GROUND (2)

We are not to suppose that the earliest Christians waited all that long before confessing their faith in creedal form. If they started with the simple confession that Jesus is Lord, they were not long in expanding on what they meant by that. Some of these creedal statements – sometimes described as hymns – found their way into the New Testament. The most elaborate one is in 1 Tim. 3:16:

There is still another in 1 Cor. 8:6, which barely expands upon Jesus being Lord: "For to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." Here he states the essence of the believer’s faith, and it is "bitarian" rather than trinitarian.

These creeds – and others like them – anticipated the Apostles’ Creed, which began to take form in the third century and had its virtual present form by the fifth. All the creeds centered in Christ. They began with God, to be sure, but they emphasized Christ, God’s "inexpressible gift." We will now comment upon the particulars about Christ in the Apostles’ Creed.

2. And (we believe) in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord.

Early on the object of the church’s devotion was seen as both human and divine. He was Jesus, a human being like ourselves, but he was also the Christ, "the anointed one of God." And as the Christ he was the Son of God. This was Peter’s confession in Mt. 16:16: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." In time they saw him also as Lord – a term reserved for the Ceasars in Rome.

On Pentecost the apostle Peter declared that God had made him both Lord and Christ, and by the time Paul wrote Romans – about 57 A.D. – he could say, which may have been still another creedal hymn, "If you will declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary.

This may understandably be questioned as sufficiently "apostolic" to be part of the Apostles’ Creed. While the testimony of Matthew and Luke – who tell the story of a virginal conception, a better description than virgin birth – is impressive, there is a weighty problem in making this doctrine "fundamental" to the Christian faith, as fundamentalists have been doing for almost two hundred years.

The problem is that "the virgin birth" was not part of the kerugma, the apostolic message. It is never mentioned in the sermons in Acts. And it is never referred to by the premier interpreter of the Christian faith, the apostle Paul. This is a herculean problem to those who would make this doctrine essential to the evangelical faith.

If Paul did not know about the doctrine – after receiving revelations from the Lord and interviewing other apostles – there is a problem. If he did know about it, and yet did not include it when he listed the "musts" as noted above, then the problem is even more serious. The fundamentalists would be delighted if Paul had included in Rom. 10:9-10 "and if you believe in the virgin birth," but it isn’t there or anywhere else in his preaching or writing.

Then there is Mark who began his account with "the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." Are we to say that Mark does indeed give us the gospel, the full gospel of Jesus Christ? But he makes no mention of the virgin birth. Even more puzzling – if indeed this is a fundamental doctrine – is that John, who is eager to present the supernatural character of Jesus – even his preexistent equality with God -- makes no allusion to the doctrine of a virginal conception.

While I personally believe in the miraculous conception of our Lord and have no reservation about this part of the creed, I can understand why some do have a problem. Some in fact see this doctrine as infringing upon what Heb. 2:17 clearly says about Jesus -- "It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brethren." But anyone who came into this world without having an earthly father is not completely like the rest of us. If our Lord is "fully man" as well as "fully divine" -- as the church has always believed -- how do we explain a supernatural birth? If the Holy Spirit "fathered" him would he not be only partly human?

And how are we to respond when someone points out that Mary herself in Lk. 2:48 says that Joseph was his father? Explain it as we might, is it likely that she would have said this if she knew he was miraculously conceived? And would she have joined other family members in supposing he had lost his mind, as in Mk. 3:21,31. She in fact, in the main, appears to treat him as an ordinary child – like the rest of us -- who sometimes got a little out of line. But had her son been the only person in human history to be born without an earthly father – a monstrosity? – would her attitude toward him have been different?

But still, in spite of the difficulties. I believe in what has become a part of the church’s creeds through the centuries, that Jesus was indeed "conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary." I am especially impressed by Dr. Luke’s testimony. It is inconceivable to me that Luke – the careful researcher that he was, which likely included interviews with Mary herself – would have included this story in his "orderly account" had it been but a myth, as is argued.

And yet I disagree with the fundamentalists in making this doctrine a "fundamental." There are too many sincere, intelligent believers who confess Jesus as Lord and who believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead -- but who find the evidence for this doctrine inconclusive -- to say that one cannot be a true Christian who does not believe it.

Suffered under Pontius Pilate

This part if the creed places the gospel story in its historical context. God is working in and through history. The Roman governor is an agent in God’s hands. While he was acting freely and on his own responsibility, it was nonetheless according to "the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). The creed properly places the suffering of the Son of God under Roman authority. God’s pivotal act in the story of redemption took place in human history among the kingdoms of men and under their jurisdiction.

Pilate would of course have filed a report for the Roman emperor about what happened, and there is a lot of legend as to what he might have said. Interestingly and oddly, Pilate’s role in the gospel story has been seen as so substantial – and he himself as "at heart a believer"-- by some Orthodox churches that they have canonized him and given him a saint’s day!

Was crucified, dead, and buried

These facts, unlike the story of the Virgin Birth, were part of the apostolic proclamation (kerugma). This is how Paul spells out the facts of the gospel in 1 Cor. 15:4-5: "I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures."

These facts – crucifixion (death), burial (hades), resurrection – Peter preached on Pentecost in Acts 2: "Him you have taken and by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death, whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death" (v. 23-24). It is "the thing preached" all through Acts.

The fact of burial was especially poignant in that it emphasized that the Son of God was indeed dead. It sets the stage for the resurrection. Paul was at last to relate these facts to Jesus being Lord: "To this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living" (Rom. 14:9).

The Jews had four ways of execution (sword, strangling, fire, stoning), but they did not crucify, even though many ancient nations did. The Romans likely borrowed it from the Phoenicians. Ancient writers such as Livy and Cicero described it as most terrible and most shameful of deaths. It was so dreadful and horrible that Rome would not inflict it upon their own citizens.

The gospel writers tell of Jesus’ crucifixion with astonishing brevity – "Now it was the third hour, and they crucified him" (Mk. 15:25). There was no need to describe it in detail, for the excruciating horror of it was well known. Conquering generals sometimes crucified thousands at a time. The cross came to stand for shame as well as horror.

It is the irony of history that the one sent by God to bring love, peace, and brotherhood to a troubled world – one who had done no wrong -- should be subjected to the most ignominious death ever devised by man’s ingenius cruelty..

He descended into hell

This could well be revised to read hades rather than hell, hades referring to the realm of departed spirits. The same correction is suitable for Acts 2:27: "You will not leave my soul in hades." Like all other righteous ones, upon death Jesus went to Paradise, as he assured the thief on the cross, "Assuredly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Lk. 23L43).

We may conclude that at that time at least, before the resurrection, hades was divided into two parts, Tartarus and Paradise, which divided the righteous from the wicked. Thus distinction is made in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk, 16). While both are in hades, Lazarus is in Abraham’s bosom, a reference to Paradise, while the Rich Man "being in torment in hades" is separated into Tartarus.

While we assume that Jesus "in the spirit" went where Lazarus went, to Paradise or Abraham’s bosom, there is a reference to his "preaching to the spirits in prison" during this time (1 Pet. 3:18), which may imply a visit to hades in general to evangelize. This is likely what is referred to in 1 Pet. 4:6 where it is said that "the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

However mysterious it may be to us, the Bible appears to be telling us that Christ not only "descended into hades" at the time of his death on the cross, but "in the spirit" he preached to those separated from God – perhaps demons as well as wicked human beings – so that after suffering for their sins they might at last "live with God in the spirit." Could this be what Paul envisions in Philip. 2 where he sees demons and men alike – all creation – at last bowing to Christ and acknowledging him as Lord?

                                                            (To be continued)

Personal

I am writing this on June 25, which happens to be St. Pontius Pilate Day, as celebrated by our brethren in both the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox and the Abbysinian Orthodox churches. Both churches elevated him to sainthood and gave him a saint’s day. And on this day I have been writing about him! Pilate, who crucified Christ, a saint! What a concept of the grace of God! And it is one more illustration of how diverse the church is, all around the world. Have a great St. Pontius Pilate Day! It takes some getting used to.

For several weeks at our home congregation, the Singing Oaks Church of Christ in Denton, Texas, I have conducted a "Sharing Purple Passages" class. The title itself attracted interest in that folk wondered what I meant by purple passages. I explained that purple was not just a color, but stood for royalty, outstanding, and high quality. I noted that while all truths are equally true, all truths are not equally important, and so some verses are more important than others. Some verses are especially precious to us, some even bathed in our tears of joy and sadness. So, we’ve been sharing verses that especially touch our hearts and minds – a good way to do body life, which is my main purpose. We must find ways to move beyond simply being an audience listening to professionals. This is one way to share our faith.

[TOP].