THE PASSOVER CONTROVERSY
One issue that stands out in the reversal of the apostolic teaching is the Passover controversy that was finally settled at the Council of Nicea. To this day, almost all the Church follows the clearly erroneous decree which came forth from that council. There were two main issues for the Council of Nicea. The first concerned the heretical writings of Arius and his followers. "But there was another subject which occasioned considerable uneasiness in the Church, viz. the difference which arose among the orientals [those of the East, i.e. those who were not part of the western Roman Empire] with respect to the proper day of keeping Easter, some celebrating that festival in the manner of the Jews, and others following the custom of Christians throughout the rest of the world...The emperor, therefore, finding that the quiet of the Church was not a little disturbed by these two evils [the Passover controversy and the Arian heresy], assembled (by the advice of some of the prelates, according to Rufinus,) a general council, inviting, by letter, all the bishops to meet at Nice, in Bithynia, and furnishing them with a means of conveyance. In consequence, a great number of them, not less than three hundred and eighteen, arrived from various cities and territories, attended by a vast concourse of the inferior clergy. Daily and ample provision was made by Constantine for the support and accommodation of this numerous body." 1
When they assembled, Constantine greeted them with an admonition against
disunity: "It was, my dear friends, my most cherished wish, that I might one
day enjoy the sight of this convention. Having been indulged in this desire,
I return thanks to God, the ruler of all, who, in addition to innumerable
other favors, has granted me this greatest of all blessings, to see you
assembled together, and united in your minds. May no malignant foe disturb
in future our public happiness. After the complete subversion, by the help
of God our preserver, of the tyranny of those, who warred against the Most
High, let no malevolent demon again expose the divine law, in any other
manner, to slander and detraction. An internal sedition in the Church is, in
my apprehension, more dangerous and formidable than any war, in which I can
be engaged; nor do foreign concerns, however unfortunate, affect my mind with
so sensible a grief as this unhappy affair...and hoping that by my
interference, a remedy might be applied to the evil, I sent for you all,
without delay." 2
Constantine had united the Empire. Now he intended to deliver the Church as
well from "internal sedition." Unity was the order of the day.
How did the Passover controversy arise? Jesus had celebrated Passover on the
fourteenth of Nisan because that is its Biblical date. He observed all the
Levitical holy days on the days when God had decreed and designed them to be
observed. The Apostles and the first-century Church did much the same.
"At first the Christian Passover was celebrated at the same time as the
Jewish, this simultaneous observance was preserving the Jewish ritual in the
Christian festival, and strengthening the bonds between Christianity and
Judaism. The date must be changed. In some quarters the Church attempted to
restrict the celebration to a single day, 14 Nisan; elsewhere - and this
became the prevailing custom - she made Holy Week the week in which fell 14
Nisan (the day when the Jewish feast began), and removed the festival, which
had already changed its character, to the Sunday following Holy Week. In all
these cases there was dependance on the Jewish calendar, a 'humiliating
subjection' to the Synagogue which irked the Church.
"Besides changing their dates, the Church also gave to the Jewish festivals,
which she adopted, a purpose different from that which they had for the Jews.
[Thus] Sunday commemorates the resurrection of the Lord, the victory over
the Jews." 3
Sometime in the second century, some of the churches in the west, among the
Gentiles, began to celebrate Passover/Easter so that their commemoration of
the Lord's resurrection would always take place on a Sunday regardless of the
Biblical calendar. Towards the end of the second century, these western
churches, led by the bishops of Rome, Caesarea, and Jerusalem (where there
were no longer Jewish bishops), began to agitate for all the churches to keep
the Passover on their fixed Sunday, rather than on the fourteenth of Nisan.
They also were accustomed to using the Roman calendar, rather than the
Biblical calendar.
Eusebius says, "There was a considerable discussion raised about this time,
in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observance of the
paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by a remoter tradition,
supposed that they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon for the
festival of the Savior's passover, in which day the Jews were commanded to
kill the paschal lamb...But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this
manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world...there were synods
and convocations of the bishops on this question...There is an epistle extant
even now, of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided
Theophilus, bishop of the church in Cesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of
Jerusalem. There is another epistle extant on the same question, bearing the
name of Victor [the bishop of Rome]..." 4
"The bishops, however, of Asia, persevering in observing the custom handed
down to them from their fathers, were headed by Polycrates. He, indeed, had
also set forth the tradition handed down to them, in a letter which he
addressed to Victor and the church of Rome.
" 'We,' said he, 'therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto
nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which
shall rise again in the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he will come
with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the
twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters.
His other daughter, also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy
Ghost, now likewise rests in Ephesus. Moreover, John, who rested upon the
bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate, both
a martyr and teacher. He is buried in Ephesus; also Polycarp of Smyrna, both
bishop and martyr. Thraseas, also, bishop and martyr of Eumenia, who is
buried at Smyrna. Why should I mention....
" 'All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the
gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. Moreover,
I, Polycrates, who am the least of all of you, according to the tradition of
my relatives, some of whom I have followed. For there were seven, my
relatives bishops, and I am the eighth; and my relatives always observed the
day when the people (i.e. the Jews) threw away the leaven. I, therefore,
brethren, am now sixty-five years in the Lord, who having conferred with the
brethren throughout the world, and having studied the whole of the sacred
Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at those things with which I am threatened,
to intimidate me. For they who are greater than I, have said, "We ought to
obey God rather than men."'
"...Upon this, Victor, the bishop of the church of Rome, forthwith
endeavoured to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with the
neighboring churches, as heterodox, from the common unity. And he publishes
abroad by letters, and proclaims, that all the brethren there are wholly
excommunicated."5
There were others, like Irenaeus, who "with much severity" exhorted Victor to
withdraw his decree. Irenaeus reminded Victor of what had happened about
fifty years earlier. Anicetus, the bishop of Rome at that time, had tried to
persuade Polycarp. "For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to
observe it, because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our
Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated..."6 In another
section, Eusebius says this about Polycarp: "He always taught what he had
learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the
only true doctrine." 7
Apparently Victor withdrew his decree, but the controversy was not resolved.
It was merely muted for a time. The church at Rome continued to press for
its own supremacy. Jerusalem had already been physically destroyed, but it
still had to be destroyed as a spiritual competitor. The issue, in a
slightly altered form, was finally settled by the Council of Nicea in 325
A.D.
There it was decided that all the churches should celebrate the Passover, or
actually Easter, on the ecclesiastically chosen Sunday rather than the
Biblical date. All the churches were thus informed. The Emperor Constantine
sent his personal exhortation to all the churches concerning the decision of
the Council.
What the Emperor said had great weight. After all, Constantine was the one
who had ended the persecution of the churches. He was the founder of the
holy Roman Empire. He openly, personally professed the Christian faith. He
had convened the council. The churches, therefore, were more than willing to
hear whatever he had to say to them.
What he had to say to them is a clear presentation of the sentiment and
theology that ruled in the Council of Nicea. It expresses what then became
the nearly universal sentiment and theology of the Church. So, though the
letter is long, it is well worthwhile to look at the complete text of the
Emperor's personal exhortation to all the churches. It was a major force in
changing the nature of the Church and of subsequent Western and world
history. There are some very significant elements in it.
"Constantine, august, to the Churches.
"Having experienced, in the flourishing state of public affairs, the
greatness of the divine goodness I thought it especially incumbent on me to
endeavor that the happy multitudes of the Catholic [i.e. universal] Church
should preserve one faith, be united in unfeigned love, and harmoniously join
in their devotions to Almighty God. But this could not otherwise be effected
in a firm and solid manner, than by an examination, for this purpose, of
whatever pertains to our most holy religion, by all the bishops, or the
greater part of them at least, assembled together. Having therefore convened
as many as possible, I myself being present, and, as it were, one of you,
(nor do I deny that I exceedingly rejoice in being your fellow-servant,)
every thing was examined, until a unanimous sentiment, pleasing to God, who
sees all things, was brought to light; so that no pretence was left for
dissension or controversy respecting the faith.
"When the question arose concerning the most holy day of Easter, it was
decreed by common consent to be expedient, that this festival should be
celebrated on the same day by all, in every place. For what can be more
beautiful, what more venerable and becoming, than that this festival, from
which we receive the hope of immortality, should be suitably observed by all
in one and the same order, and by a certain rule. And truly, in the first
place, it seemed to every one a most unworthy thing that we should follow the
custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who,
polluted wretches! having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are
justly blinded in their minds.
"It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should
perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more
legitimate order, which we have kept from the first day of our Lord's passion
even to the present times. Let us then have nothing in common with the most
hostile rabble of the Jews. We have received another method from the
Saviour. A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion.
In pursuing this course with a unanimous consent, let us withdraw ourselves,
my much honored brethren, from that most odious fellowship.
"It is indeed in the highest degree preposterous, that they should
superciliously vaunt themselves, that truly without their instruction, we
cannot properly observe this rite. For what can they rightly understand,
who, after the tragical death of our Lord, being deluded and darkened in
their minds, are carried away by an unrestrained impulse wherever their
inborn madness may impel them. Hence therefore it is, that, even in this
particular, they do not perceive the truth, so that continually wandering in
the grossest error, instead of duly reforming their calculation, they
commemorate the passover twice in the same [Roman] year. Why then should we
follow those who are acknowledged to labor under a grievous error? for we
will never tolerate the keeping of a double passover in one year.
"But if what I have said should not be thought sufficient, it belongs to your
ready discernment, both by diligence and prayer, to use every means, that the
purity of your minds may not be affected by a conformity in any thing with
the customs of the vilest of mankind. Besides, it should be considered that
any dissension in a business of such importance, and in a religious
institution of so great solemnity, would be highly criminal. For the Saviour
has bequeathed us one festal day of our liberation, that is, the day of his
most holy passion; and it was his pleasure that his Church should be one; the
members of which, although dispersed in many and various places, are yet
nourished by the same spirit, that is by the will of God.
"Let the sagacity of your holiness only consider, how painful and indecorous
it must be, for some to be experiencing the rigors of abstinence, and others
to be unbending their minds in convivial enjoyment on the same day; and after
Easter, for some to be indulging in feasting and relaxation, while others are
occupied in the observance of the prescribed fasts. Wherefore, that a
suitable reformation should take place in this respect, and that one rule
should be followed, is the will of divine providence, as all, I think, must
perceive.
"As it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have
nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our
Lord; and as that order is most convenient which is observed by all the
churches of the West, as well as those of the southern and northern parts of
the world, and also by some in the East, it was judged therefore to be most
equitable and proper, and I pledged myself that this arrangement should meet
your approbation, viz. that the custom which prevails with one consent in the
city of Rome, and throughout all Italy, Africa and Egypt, in Spain, Gaul,
Britain, Lybia, the whole of Greece, the diocese of Asia, Pontus and Cilicia,
would be gladly embraced by your prudence, considering that not only the
greatest number of churches exist in the places which have been already
mentioned, but also that it is most religious and equitable that all should
wish what the strictest reason seems to require, and to have no fellowship
with the perjury of the Jews.
"And, to sum up the whole in a few words, it was agreeable to the common
judgment of all, that the most holy feast of Easter should be celebrated on
one and the same day. Nor is it becoming, that in so sacred an observance
there should be any diversity; and it is better to follow that decision, in
which all participation in the sin and error of others is avoided.
"This being the case, receive with cheerfulness the heavenly and truly divine
command. For whatever is transacted in the holy councils of the bishops, is
to be referred to the divine will. Wherefore, having announced to our
beloved brethren what has been already written, it is your duty to receive
and establish the arguments already stated, and the observance of the most
holy day; that when I shall come into your beloved presence, so long desired
by me, I may be able to celebrate, with you, on one and the same day, the
holy festival, and that in all things I may rejoice with you; seeing that the
cruelty of the devil is taken away by divine power, through my
instrumentality, and that your faith, your peace and concord is everywhere
flourishing.
"May God preserve you, my beloved brethren." 8In this letter, Constantine officially establishes an anti-Judaic foundation
for the doctrine and practice of the Church, and declares that contempt for
the Jews, and separation from them, is the only proper Christian attitude.
"...it seemed to every one a most unworthy thing that we should follow the
custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who,
polluted wretches! having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are
justly blinded in their minds. It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the
practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the
celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order....Let us then have
nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews...
"In pursuing this course with a unanimous consent, let us withdraw
ourselves...from that most odious fellowship.
"Why then should we follow those who are acknowledged to labor under a
grievous error? ...But if what I have said should not be thought sufficient,
it belongs to your ready discernment, both by diligence and prayer, that the
purity of your minds may not be affected by a conformity in any thing with
the customs of the vilest of mankind...
"As it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have
nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our
Lord...
"it is most religious and equitable that all should wish what the strictest
reason seems to require, and to have no fellowship with the perjury of the
Jews..."
Constantine attributed this anti-Judaic foundation to Jesus-"We have received
another method from the Saviour. A more lawful and proper course is open to
our most holy religion." - and commands, with all the authority of the
Emperor, that the entire Church accept and promote such attitudes, doctrine,
and practice, since whatever the bishops decide in council is the will of
God. He threatens that any dissent from these views must be considered
highly criminal.
"...every thing was examined, until a unanimous sentiment, pleasing to God,
who sees all things, was brought to light; so that no pretence was left for
dissension or controversy respecting the faith...
"...Besides, it should be considered that any dissension in a business of
such importance, and in a religious institution of so great solemnity, would
be highly criminal.
"...and as that order is most convenient which is observed by all the
churches of the West...receive with cheerfulness the heavenly and truly
divine command. For whatever is transacted in the holy councils of the
bishops, is to be referred to the divine will.
"Wherefore, having announced to our beloved brethren what has been already
written, it is your duty to receive and establish the arguments already
stated, and the observance of the most holy day; that when I shall come into
your beloved presence, so long desired by me, I may be able to celebrate,
with you, on one and the same day, the holy festival, and that in all things
I may rejoice with you; seeing that the cruelty of the devil is taken away by
divine power, through my instrumentality..."
All of this was written so that no Christian would celebrate Passover on the
Biblically ordained day of the 14th of Nisan. (Eusebius apparently provided
the new calendar for determining the day to be celebrated.) This is not an
insignificant letter.
The most revealing question to ask is, "When did God give such authority over
the Church to Constantine?" It is a question that was not really articulated
at that time nor in most of the sixteen and a half centuries since.
The relationship of Church and State which began under Constantine was seen
as the greatest blessing of God. There was an end to what had seemed like
endless persecution. But with that end of persecution and the beginning of a
new alliance came great compromises which have distorted the nature of the
Church to this day.
At the conclusion of the Council of Nicea, Constantine held a banquet which
vividly demonstrated what had happened to the Church of the One despised and
rejected of men. At the banquet, Eusebius greatly praised the Emperor before
the assembled leaders of the Church.
Eusebius himself describes the proceedings: "...No one of the bishops was
absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can
possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were
stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God
passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private
apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the
table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned to them on either
side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ, and appeared more like
a dream than a reality." 9
Eusebius is somewhat misleading. It is true that some of the Church leaders
were brought into close relationship to the emperor, his private apartments,
and his table - in time, such privileges became a measure of religious
success - but it is highly doubtful that all the men of God walked through
the circle of guards and soldiers without fear. The emperor intended the
drawn swords to teach a lesson.
On the Passover controversy, the Council of Nicea had chosen an anti-Biblical
course and demanded conformity to it. The swords were a way of indicating
the necessity of conforming to the official decree.
"St. Athanasius remarks a difference of language, in pronouncing on this
subject [the Passover], from that which was used in reference to the faith
[the Arian controversy]. With respect to the latter it is said, 'this is the
catholic faith, we believe,' &c., in order to show that it was no new
determination, but an apostolic tradition. Accordingly, no date is given to
this decision, neither the day nor the year being mentioned. But with regard
to Easter, it is said, 'we have resolved as follows,' in order to show that
all were expected to obey....But not withstanding the decision of the council
there were some quartodecimans [from the Latin for 14th], as they were
termed, who remained pertinaciously attached to the celebration of Easter on
the fourteenth of the moon, and among others the Audeans, schismatics of
Mesopotamia. They found fault with the council, reproachfully remarking,
that this was the first time that the ancient tradition, through complaisance
for Constantine, had been departed from." 10
In convening the council, Constantine had already declared that whoever would
disturb the unity of the Church was a "malignant foe" motivated by a
"malevolent demon," exposing God's law to "slander and detraction." He had
already declared that, "an internal sedition in the Church is, in my
apprehension, more dangerous and formidable than any war, in which I can be
engaged...and hoping that by my interference, a remedy might be applied to
the evil, I sent for you all, without delay."
Constantine had achieved political victory, in the name of the Lord, by the
sword. He was not about to trade in his weapons. He intended to use what
had brought him victory in the Empire to achieve victory in the Church.
"He [Constantine] published also another letter, or more properly an edict,
directed to the bishops and people, condemning Arius and his writings...that
if any book written by Arius shall be found, it shall be committed to the
flames, that no monument of his corrupt doctrine may descend to future ages.
He declares that whoever shall be convicted of having concealed any book
composed by Arius, instead of burning it, shall suffer death immediately
after his apprehension...At the same time, Arius and the two prelates who
adhered the most obstinately to his party, Secundus and Theonas, were
banished by the emperor." 11
From that point on, Church doctrine was to be enforced by the sword of the
State. Those who would not conform were to be exiled or put to death. The
books of heretics - those who taught what was contrary to the accepted
teaching - were to be burned and exterminated from the earth. After all, as
Constantine had written, "no pretence was left for dissension or controversy
respecting the faith."
The Church ceased to be the Church of Jesus, and became the Church of
Constantine. It was no longer the bride of Messiah. It had become the bride
of Caesar.
The light within turned to darkness. The Church changed from a means of
salvation into a means of destruction. It poisoned the waters of eternal
life, turning them into an everflowing fountain of death. Through the
centuries, the Constantinian Church has sought and brought the death of
millions and millions of people throughout the world. Many of them have been
Jewish.
Jesus had warned His followers, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them;
and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But not so
with you, but let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest,
and the leader as the servant." (Lk.22:25-26) Constantine presented himself
as the Benefactor of the Church, having ended the persecution, and therefore
expected the Church to conform to his will. The prophetic voice of the
Church vis a vis the State was silenced, and a hierarchical structure was
imposed upon it.
That Constantine should reign over the earth for God was seen as a high
spiritual truth. That Jesus, the King of kings, should reign over all the
earth from Jerusalem was derided as carnal and unspiritual.
Under Constantine, Eusebius wrote a history of the Church that pointedly
eliminated any positive reference to the restoration of Israel and the
earthly reign of Jesus. The only place that remained for the Jews in the
plan and purpose of God was to serve as the earthly, temporal representation
of the eternal misery and condemnation that awaited all who were outside the
Church.
The Church was now officially Contra Judaeos and Adversus Judaeos - set
against and set in opposition to the Jews. Thus was established the
anti-Judaic foundation on which both doctrine and practice were then built.
The historical and theological eradication of the Jews prepared the way for
the "lawful" attempts to physically eradicate them.
The "holy councils" to which Constantine referred produced a new "divine
will." The Church itself replaced the power of God with the might of the
Roman Empire. The Church became its own kingdom. The Church, which had been
persecuted for so long by "the cruelty of the devil," was soon to become the
persecutor.
At that time, it seems that there was no one to contest such a decision in
the Holy Roman Empire. Gone were the days of the prophets and apostles.
Gone were men like Polycarp and Polycrates, who were willing to tell the
religious authorities in the Church, as Peter and John had told the religious
authorities in the Sanhedrin, "We must obey God, rather than men."
The Church made a significant official change both in doctrine and in the
way doctrine was to be established. As Constantine wrote "to the Catholic
Church of Alexandria," "For what was approved by 300 bishops can only be
considered as the pleasure of God, especially as the Holy Spirit, dwelling in
the minds of so many and such worthy men, has clearly shown the divine will."
12 God's Truth was to be determined by Church councils, and not by the Word
of God. Consequently, the teaching which was a blasphemous heresy to Justin
Martyr became the new, unchallengeable orthodoxy.
It is remarkable that this change was made over such a clear, but seemingly
insignificant issue as when the Church should celebrate the Passover. The
Bible sets the date for Passover as the fourteenth of Nisan. That is when
Jesus celebrated the Passover. The apostles did the same.
The Apostle Paul, whose ministry was to the Gentiles, observed the Biblical
dates. The book of Acts records, simply in passing, that Passover (Acts
20:7), Shavuos/Pentecost (Acts 20:16), and Yom Kippur/the Day of Atonement
(Acts 27:9) were fixed, significant dates for Paul. The Church built by the
Apostles knew when Passover was, but from the Council of Nicea on, the Church
over which Constantine presided would no longer observe the Biblical date,
because it was too Jewish.
The Bible itself was too Jewish. The doctrines of men, on the other hand,
could be whatever men wanted them to be.
As a final note on the Council of Nicea, Canon VII speaks of the Bishop of
Aelia. "Aelia" is the name that the Roman Emperor Hadrian had given to
Jerusalem after the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion.
"Canon VII: Since custom and ancient tradition require that the bishop of
Aelia be held in veneration, let him have the next degree of honor to the
metropolitan [the bishop of Caesarea], without prejudice to the appropriate
authority of the latter." 13 Jerusalem had her name taken away, and she was
placed in subjection to the church that had embraced Origen.
Constantine and Eusebius institutionalized many serious errors. They made
changes that were to plunge the Church and the world into a literal thousand
years of darkness. They laid a different foundation than Jesus and His
apostles had laid. A new era in the history of the Church had begun. In
actuality, a new Church began.
"Eusebius tells the story in The Last Days of Constantine. 'All these
edifices the emperor consecrated with the desire of perpetuating the memory
of the Apostles of our Saviour before all men. He had, however, another
object in erecting this building (i.e., the Church of the Apostles at
Constantinople): an object at first unknown, but which afterwards became
evident to all. He had, in fact, made a choice of this spot in the prospect
of his own death, anticipating with extraordinary fervour of faith that his
body would share their title with the Apostles themselves, and that he should
thus even after death become the subject, with them, of the devotions which
should be performed to their honour in this place, and for this reason he
bade men assemble for worship there at the altar which he placed in the
midst. He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church,
like sacred pillars in honour and memory of the apostolic band, in the centre
of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it.
Thus, as I said, he had provided with prudent foresight an honourable
resting-place for his body after death, and, having long before secretly
formed this resolution, he now consecrated this church to the Apostles,
believing that this tribute to their memory would be of no small advantage to
his own soul. Nor did God disappoint him of that which he so ardently
expected and desired.'" 14
"Planning the Church of the Apostles, Constantine had dreamed of resting
there forever in the midst of the Twelve, not merely one of them, but a
symbol of, if not a substitute for, their Leader. During the months of the
church's construction, his agents had been busy in Palestine collecting
alleged relics [i.e. bones] of the apostles and their companions, to be laid
up in the church with his body, awaiting the general resurrection."15
"The project was started but not completed. However, an official search was
made for the locations of the bodies of the Apostles, and this official
search was possibly the precipitating cause for the inventory which was made
for the Apostolic remains or relics. After this time there arose the
practice of the veneration of relics." 16
Constantine sought bones and buildings as the focus of worship. Worship that
focused on a building naturally "neglected the weightier provisions of the
law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." Those are indispensable parts of
the worship that God seeks. In the new order, worship gained a form, an
appearance, without life, light, or service.
Jesus had said, "those who worship God must worship in spirit and truth." It
was not the building, but the people. It was not the city, but the Spirit.
Constantine built buildings which were called churches, and people who were
not the Church began to fill them. They "went to church," but they did not
seek to "be the Church."
Rome was to become the new "holy city," geographically defining and
confining worship. In many ways, Constantine laid a new foundation for the
Church. To this day, the Church bears his image. That is what he
intended.
Paul had warned the Gentile believers in Rome, "Don't be arrogant towards the
natural branches. Don't be ignorant of God's faithfulness to the Jewish
people." There were three things that especially characterize the theology
and practice of the Constantinian church, the church built on an anti-Judaic
foundation: 1. Arrogance towards the Jews; 2. Ignorance of God's plan for
Israel and the transformation of the world; and 3. A leadership that has
acted as lord and not as servant.FOOTNOTES
1. "A Historical View of the Council of Nice," Isaac Boyle, The
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, translated by Christian
Frederick Cruse, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1989, Pp.9-10 of section
following the ecclesiastical history
2. ibid., P.16, quoting Theodoret, I.7
3. Les Juifs dan l'empire romain I, Paris 1914, P.308ff, quoted in "A Note on
the Quartodecimans," C.W. Dugmore, Studia Patristica, Vol.IV, Berlin, 1961,
P.412
4. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, op. cit., Bk. 5, Ch. 23,
P.207
5. ibid., Bk.5, Ch.24, Pp.208-209
6. ibid., Bk. 5, Ch. 24, Pp.210-211
7. ibid., Bk.4 , Ch.14, P.141
8. ibid., Pp.51-54, following the ecclesiastical history.
9. ibid., "A Historical View of the Council of Nice," Isaac Boyle, P.27
10. ibid., Pp.22-23
11. ibid., P.26
12. ibid., P.51, following the ecclesiastical history.
13. ibid., P.56
14. J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius, P.395, quoted in The Search for the Twelve
Apostles, William Steuart McBirnie, Tyndale House, Wheaton, IL., 1977, P.19
15. John Holland Smith, Constantine the Great, Pp.301-302, quoted in The
Search for the Twelve Apostles, William Steuart McBirnie, Pp.19-20
16. The Search for the Twelve Apostles, P.20