Category Archives: church history

Five Cities that Ruled the World: Douglas Wilson

Posted on November 1, 2009 | Leave a comment

In Five Cities that Ruled the World, theologian Douglas Wilson takes readers through the life of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and New York.

Wilson covers the history of the world from Melchizedek to 2009 in five brief and fast moving chapters. With the skill of an experienced teacher, the author highlights the important events while passing over insignificant and boring details. Each chapter concentrates on one city: its origin, its uniqueness, its weakness, its greatness, its influence, and, in most cases, its decline. But whether the city is still strong, as is New York, or has exceeded its “lifespan of greatness,” as has Rome, each still profoundly influences our world today.

This is no ho-hum text laden with seemingly unrelated facts and dates. Wilson’s history is filled with interesting and amusing anecdotes and humor. But the work is still serious and accurate. What role did each city play in the history of the church? How did freedom and liberty, or the lack thereof, lead to the greatness, or fall, of each city? How did the ideals and philosophies of each city affect the rest of the world? And how do they apply to us today? Wilson also weaves Scripture into each story, and he ends by looking forward to that final great city, the New Jerusalem.

If you are interested in secular or church history, then this book is for you. But you don’t have to be a theologian or historian to understand or enjoy it, and you certainly don’t have to be either to benefit from it. We know more about the world today by knowing more about the world of yesterday. Five Cities that Ruled the World will whet the appetite for a deeper knowledge of history and Scripture. I recommend it.

Update: You can read my interview of author Douglas Wilson here.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Book Reviews, church history, history, Thomas Nelson

Beer in (Church) History

Posted on October 10, 2009 | Leave a comment
Beer has played a large role in, yes, church history. And why is it any wonder when the Lord himself enjoyed wine with His disciples?

The following bits of trivia come from The Search for God and Guinness, by Stephen Mansfield. They can be substantiated by many other historical accounts.

“Monasteries brewed beer as a social service—because it was a healthier drink than water and with less alcohol than the harder liquors a man might choose—but also to raise the funds that a monastic enterprise required.”

“At the time of Luther, ‘a gallon of beer per day was the usual allowance per person, even for nuns.’ This may help to explain why beer figures so prominently in the life and writings of the great reformer.” Luther’s wife, Katie, “was a skilled brewer.”

“Luther spent much of his life in the taverns of Wittenberg and not just because he loved to drink beer. He often mentored his students there, studied there, met important visitors there, and, upon occasion, even taught classes there.”

Calvin shared Luther’s view of beer and wine. In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote: “We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food…or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.” He also wrote: “It is permissible to use wine not only for necessity, but also to make us merry.”

“It is testimony to the importance of beer in their story that the brewery was the first permanent building the Pilgrims constructed. As Gregg Smith has written in his excellent history of beer, “Their critical shortage made a brew house a priority among the structures built that first winter in Plymouth. Even if the Pilgrims’ supply weren’t scarce, the need for a brewery was immediate.’”

“To prevent a similar experience, when the Puritans sailed to New England a decade later in 1630, they made sure that beer was in plentiful supply. Just one of their five ships, the Arbella, carried 42 tuns of beer.” (A “tun”—not “ton”—equals 252 gallons.)

“John Wesley drank wine, was something of an ale expert, and often made sure that his Methodist preachers were paid in one of the vital currencies of the day–rum. His brother, Charles Wesley, was known for the fine port, Madeira, and sherry he often served in his home; the journals of George Whitefield are filled with references to his enjoyment of alcohol. At the end of one of his letters, he wrote, ‘Give my thanks to that friendly brewer for the keg of rum he sent us.’”

If you like the above quote, you can order the T-shirt here.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in church history

Did Christ Descend into Hell?

Posted on September 22, 2009 | Leave a comment
The Apostle’s CreedI believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

Amen.
The above version of the Apostle’s Creed was taken from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. If you are familiar with the Creed, you probably noticed the omission of the phrase, “He descended into hell,” just before, “the third day he rose from the dead.” In chapter 27 of Systematic Theology, Dr. Grudem spends nine pages (586-594) discussing why the phrase should not be included in the Creed.First, according to Dr. Grudem, the phrase did not appear at all in the earliest versions of the Creed. From 200 to 650 A.D., the phrase only appeared in two versions, and the author of these understood “hell” to mean hades (the grave) rather than geena (place of punishment). These versions did not have the phrase, “and buried,” so “descended into the grave” would have meant just that. Later versions mixed the two phrases, and so the confusion began.

Dr. Grudem then deals with the passages of Scripture that have been used to support a descent into hell (Acts 2:27, Romans 10:6-7, Ephesians 4:8-9, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6). He does a good job of showing that these verses do not teach that Christ descended into hell and that it is a big stretch to say that they do.

Scripture does, however, seem to contradict the descent into hell theory. Grudem uses three quotes from Jesus on the cross. First, Jesus said to the thief, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that Jesus ascended rather than descended at death. Second, as Jesus was dying, he proclaimed that, “It is finished.” Had he still to descend into hell, for whatever reason, his work would not have been finished. And third, Jesus cried, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” Again, this shows that his spirit went immediately to heaven rather than into hell.

Dr. Grudem concludes by saying that the only argument for retaining the phrase, “He descended into hell,” is that it has been around for so long. “But an old mistake is still a mistake….My own judgment is that there would be all gain and no loss if it were dropped from the Creed once for all. Concerning the doctrinal question of whether Christ did descend into hell after he died, the answer from several passages of Scripture seems clearly to be no.”

→ Leave a comment

Posted in church history

Review: Idelette

Posted on July 7, 2009 | Leave a comment

Idelette

Edner Gerstner

Idelette Stordeur lived in Strasbourg with her husband, Jean, and her two children, Charles and Judith. Having been banished from Geneva, John Calvin was the pastor of the Strasbourg church. He was with Idelette at Jean’s bedside the night that Jean died.

Martin Bucer, who had originally persuaded the reformer to come to Strasbourg, believed that the widow Stordeur would make the perfect Madam John Calvin. Within a short time, both parties agreed.

For eight years, Idelette Calvin faithfully loved and served her husband. Together they returned to Geneva, where she happily lived in the shadow of the great reformer. She shared in the ridicule directed toward her husband by the ungodly, and she shared in ministering to the sheep. With complete selflessness, Madam Calvin spent her time helping her husband accomplish his work. Even in her painful and early death, her desire was to please him by dying well.

After her death, Calvin wrote the following to his friend Pierre Viret: “My sorrow is no common one. I have lost the excellent companion of my life, who, if misfortune had come upon us, would have gladly shared with me, not merely exile in wretchedness, but death itself…. She has always been a faithful helper in my work. Never have I suffered the least hindrance from her.”

Idelette is a biographical novel based upon a true story. I am not qualified to fully judge its accuracy. From the dedication, it is evident that the author made accuracy a goal: “To my husband, a professor of church history, without whose help this novel would have been much more interesting, but far less accurate.”

Readers interested in reformation history would enjoy this book, as would anyone who enjoys a good novel. I rarely take the time to read fiction, but I could not put this short (160 pgs.) book down. I benefitted from reading it, and so I recommend it to you.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Book Reviews, church history, John Calvin

Paving the Way for Christianity Through Nebuchadnezzar

Posted on August 29, 2008 | Leave a comment

“The conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, uniting many kingdoms into one, formed an important link in the long chain of events designed by God to prepare the way for the kingdom of Christ. If Christianity had been introduced at an earlier period than it was, it would have found the world divided into a large number of independent kingdoms, commonly at war with one another… No apostle could have traveled from kingdom to kingdom but at the risk of his life. It pleased God, therefore, to raise up a succession of great conquerors, whose work was to bring the kingdoms of the world into one.”

William G. Blaikie, Bible History in Connection with the General History of the World.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in church history, God's providence

The Revolt of Mattathias: Was it Justified?

Posted on August 28, 2008 | Leave a comment

A coin showing the face of Antiochus IV

During the intertestamental period, after the death of Alexander the Great and the end of Greek rule over Palestine, Israel fell under Syrian rule (198-167 B.C.). Antiochus IV, who called himself “Epiphanes” (manifestation of God), was the king. He wanted to advance Hellenism throughout the land; at the same time, he wanted to end Jewish worship.Antiochus made it a capital offence to observe the Sabbath, own any portion of the Old Testament, circumcise a male child, or worship in the temple. He also forced the Jews to worship his pagan gods, and he even sacrificed a sow on the altar in the temple.

A priest from a small village began a revolt; his name was Mattathias. After an officer of Antiochus tried to bribe Mattathias to offer a pagan sacrifice, another Jew agreed to do so. In his zeal Mattathias slew them both and fled into the wilderness with his sons. Thus began what is known as the Maccabean revolt. You can read about it in secular history books as well as 1st Maccabees from the Apocrypha.

This week in class we are debating the following question: were Mattathias and his sons justified in revolting? I say yes. Not only were they justified, but they were obligated to revolt. They had a mandate from God to worship in a particular way; another man was telling them that they could not. Who were they to obey?

The writer of 1 Maccabees certainly justifies their actions:

“Thus Mattathias showed his fervent zeal for the law, just as Phinehas had done by killing Zimri son of Salu” (1 Macc. 2:26).

“Thus they saved the law from the Gentiles and their kings, and broke the power of the tyrant” (1 Macc. 2:48).

A friend of mine believes that justifying these violent acts may in fact be one of the reasons that the Maccabees are considered apocryphal and not part of the inspired scriptures. I don’t know. But I do know that our Old Testament justifies similar acts:

After Jehu slew the king of Israel and the King of Judah, then Jezebel, then all of Ahab’s sons and family, then all of the priests of Baal, we read this:

“And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel” (2Kings 10:30).

My friend mentioned above believes that Mattathias and his sons were not justified based upon NT verses such as the following:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Romans 13:1-2 (ESV)

What do you think?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Apocrypha, church history

Why Read the Apocrypha?

Posted on August 25, 2008 | Leave a comment
Well, why not? This is a question I’ve had to ask myself lately. Do I not read it because it’s not inspired? Neither is anything else I read other than the 66 books of the Bible. Do I not read it because “reformed people don’t read the Apocrypha?” I’ve read a lot of evidence that the reformers and Puritans, though they rejected it as uninspired, knew the contents of the Apocrypha well.

So, why read it? I have two answers. First, it will help us to converse with our Catholic friends. My New Testament Professor mentioned this to me today. His saying that reminded me of a recent experience. A few weeks ago, we had some Catholic friends over for burgers. As we discussed the Bible, the conversation turned to the Apocryphal books. I found myself in the uncomfortable position of being totally ignorant of what my friend considered to be part of the Bible. So I see that my professor is right; having at least some knowledge of the books would give me more credibility with Catholics when trying to convince them from scripture.

Here’s the second reason. The historical narratives in the Apocrypha will help us to understand what took place during the intertestamental period (the time between Malachi and the birth of Christ). In order to understand the political landscape in Israel during the time of our Lord’s earthly ministry, we ought to know what took place during the previous 3-4 centuries. I plan to read First and Second Maccabees with the same purpose and caution that I read Josephus with: to gain a better general understanding of Jewish life and history while not taking everything as absolute fact.

So I set out to find a copy of the Apocrypha, thinking that I would end up having to order it. We have one little used book store in Eastland that rarely has anything I’m interested in. When I walked in I asked the lady if she had any Bibles. She said, “Yes, but we don’t sell them. Do you need a Bible?” I said, “No ma’am, I just need a copy of the apocrypha for a class I’m taking.” “I have one,” she said, and she handed me an old, cloth covered New English Bible complete with the Apocrypha. “It’s the only one we have, but you can take it.” So I’m off to read something that I have had only negative thoughts about. But I’ll read it with the expectation that I can grow and benefit from my reading it as much as I do from any other uninspired literature – maybe more.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Apocrypha, Bible study, church history