Pages

Paul - the Apostle of the Gentiles


PAUL - The APOSTLE of the GENTILES

It has been suggested by some eminent scholars that the matter of the Canonical Gospels is, to a large extent, 'mythical', and that the Gnosis of Ancient Egypt was carried into other lands by the underground passage of the 'Mysteries', to emerge at last as the legend of 'Historic Christianity'.
It is suggested that the 'mythical Christ' was as surely continued from Egypt as were the 'mythical types' of the Christ on the Gnostic Jewels, and in the Catacombs of Rome !
Once this ground is felt to be firm underfoot it emboldens and warrants some in cutting the Gordian knot that has been so deftly complicated for us in the Epistles of Paul.


Paul of Tarsus
The result of such speculation suggests that Paul was the 'opponent' and not the apostle of Historic (that is Judaic) Christianity.
It is well known to all serious students of the subject that there was an original rent or rift of difference between the Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and the other founders of Christianity, whom he first met in Jerusalem - namely, Cephas (or Peter), James, and John.
He did not think much of them personally, but scoft at their pretensions to being 'Pillars of the Church'.
Those men had nothing in common with him from the first, and never forgave him for his independence and opposition to the last.
It is significant that two voices are heard contending in Paul's Epistles.
They propound different doctrines which it is suggested are so fundamentally opposed as to be for ever irreconcilable.
The two doctrines in question are those of the Gnostic Christ, and the 'historic Jesus'.
Both cannot be true to Paul; and it has been suggested that both doctrines were not originally derived from Paul.

PAULINE THEOLOGY


From a political perspective Pauline Christianity can be seen as a method of taming a dangerous sect among radical Jews, and making it palatable to Roman authorities.
Pauline Christianity was essentially based on Rome, and made use of the administrative skills which Rome had honed.
Its system of organization with a single bishop for each town was the means by which it obtained its hegemony.
The theological aspect is the claim that Paul transmuted Jesus the Jewish messiah into the universal (in a wider meaning "catholic") Saviour.
Mainstream Christianity relies on Paul’s writings as integral to the biblical theology of the New Testament, and regards them as supposed amplifications and explanations claimed to be consistent with the teachings of Jesus and other New Testament writings.
There is, however, a Pauline distinction different from that found elsewhere in the New Testament, a distinction that unduly influenced later Christianity.
The pejorative use of the expression "Pauline Christianity" relies in part upon a thesis that Paul's supporters, as a distinct group, had an undue influence on the formation of the canon of scripture, and also that certain bishops, especially the Bishop of Rome, influenced the debates by which the dogmatic formulations known as the Creeds came to be produced, thus ensuring a Pauline interpretation of the gospel.
The thesis is founded on differences between the views of Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem, and also between the picture of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles and his own writings, such that it is claimed that the essential Jewish or Old Testament character of the faith was lost.
It has been suggested that Paul radically distorted Jesus' teachings, and that Paul was instrumental in the church's "deviation" from Jesus' teaching and practices.
It has also been stated that 'Paul spoiled the message of Christ.'
And it is significant that the Ebionites believed Paul was a false prophet, whose task was not to convert Romans to Christians but Christians to Romans.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, wrote in the latter half of the 2nd century that the Ebionites rejected Paul as an apostate from the law, using only a version of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, known as the 'Gospel of the Ebionites'.
It has also been postulated that several key elements were added by Paul to Christian theology that were not evident in Jesuism.
These included:

Original sin
Making Jews the villains
Making Jesus divine
Transubstantiation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood
Jesus' death being seen as atonement for human sin
Making Jesus the Messiah
Shifting the emphasis from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom
Enlarging the chosen people to include anyone who accepted Jesus as Saviour
Making salvation a matter of belief in Jesus almost regardless of the demands of the Torah
Establishing a hierarchy (literally a holy order) to create and control a Church, and more importantly, to create and control the beliefs of its membership.


The argument made that Christian doctrine (that is, the teachings of Jesus) was subsequently distorted by Paul and the Church of Rome depends on a view as to how the canon of Scripture came to be compiled, about which relatively little is known.
The earliest references to Paul's writing are fragmentary: Clement of Rome, writing about AD 95, quotes from 'The Letter to the Romans'; Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 115) quotes from 'The First Letter to the Corinthians', 'The letter to the Romans', and from 'The First Lettter to Timothy' and 'The Letter to Titus' as if authoritative, not merely as the opinion of one writer.
Among the more radical views regarding Paul is the contention that Jesus was a mythical figure, and that Christianity was in good part invented by Paul.
More widely influential is the view that Paul was utterly opposed to the disciples, based upon his view that 'The Acts of the Apostles' was late and unreliable, and that Catholic Christianity was a synthesis of the views of Paul and the Judaising church in Jerusalem.
In addition, the view that Paul took over the faith, and transformed the Jewish teacher, Jesus, to the 'Son of God' is still widely accepted.
As for the 'New Testament' itself, there are evident tensions between the Judaizing party and Paul's views, which are made plain by a comparison between 'The Acts of the Apostles' and Paul's letters in which Paul is often seen as anti-Jewish (pro-Hellenization or Romanization).

PAULINE MYSTICISM

Pauline mysticism is mysticism associated with Pauline Christianity.
Pauline mysticism shows distinct differences from 'mystical theology'.
A survey of the mysticism of Paul the apostle suggests that there are different types of Mysticism.
Paul's mysticism is not of the kind that attempts a contact with the cosmic or super-natural.
It is of a different kind.
This mysticism is not a 'God contact mysticism'.
It is a 'Christ Mediation Mysticism', in which man cannot achieve a union with God directly, but may enter into a union with Christ, who is both man and God.
This contact is made not by magical rites, sacraments or any works on our part, but by a literal co-experiencing of Christ's death and resurrection.
Pauline mysticism and Gnostic or Hellenistic Christian mysticism have been considered to be in direct contrast with one another.
Pauline mysticism is not about “being one with God or being in God” and 'son-ship' to God is not conceived as “an immediate mystical relation to God, but as mediated and effected by means of a mystical union with Christ”.
Paul does not commend any kind of “God mysticism”, but rather saw human beings to enter into relation with God by means of a “Christ mysticism”, and it is this mysticism which is central to Paul's message.
The fundamental thought of Pauline mysticism runs thus: in the mystery of
"I am in Christ; in Him I know myself as a being who is raised above this sensuous, sinful, and transient world and already belongs to the transcendent; in Him I am assured of resurrection; in Him I am a Child of God."
Another feature of Paul’s mysticism is that the Christian is “conceived as having died and risen again with Him”, thus, the believer has been set free from 'Sin and the Law', and now possesses the 'Spirit of Christ', and is thus assured of resurrection.
'Christ mysticism' experienced by Christians is reckoned by Paul to be a kind of co-experiencing of Christ’s death and resurrection: And as for redemption, it is accomplished by Jesus’ resurrection.
The perishable world is a stage on which angels of heaven and demons do battle.
Jesus also becomes a 'Messianic King', with command over angels who is able to defeat all who oppose God.
Paul emphasise 'justification by faith alone' (Sola fide), in the 'Epistle to the Romans'.
Christ’s death is portrayed as a 'sin offering', which erases sin and makes God’s forgiveness possible.
This “righteousness by faith” is also individualistic, and detached from participation in the 'mystical Body of Christ', and it does not lead to an ethical theory:
Paul arrives at the idea of a faith which rejects not only the 'works of the Law', but works in general.
Yet, ethics are not absent from the thought of Paul, but rather they are re-conceived.
By participating in Christ’s death and resurrection, the believer becomes a 'new creation'.
In principle the believer is no longer able to sin.
However, this participation proceeds gradually making ethics necessary.
It is only in so far as a man is purified and liberated from the world that he becomes capable of truly ethical action”.
Paul describes ethical action in many ways, including sanctification, giving up the service of sin, and living for God.
'Love' is seen as the highest manifestation of this ethical life.
Paul is seen as the architect of this "cross centred" theology, referring to Jesus as "Christ" and stressing his messianic role.
His resurrection is seen as the prototype for the future resurrection of all of humanity.
St. Paul had often been criticized for directing attention away from the life and teachings of Jesus to a more mystical religion revolving around the godlike Christ, one focused upon his saving death.
It had also been pointed out that his concept is almost entirely absent from the speeches of the disciples as described in the Acts of the Apostles.
Redemption is seen as an act of ascent, not mystical experience.



Scripture - The Letter to the Hebrews

© Copyright Peter Crawford 2013
THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS


'Letter to the Hebrews', or 'Epistle to the Hebrews' is the traditional name of a text that the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament simply called 'To the Hebrews”'' (ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ).
Scholars of Greek consider its writing to be more polished and eloquent than any other book of the New Testament.
Since the earliest days of the Church, the authorship has been debated.
The book has earned the reputation of being a "masterpiece".
It also has been described as the most "intricate" New Testament book.
Scholars believe Hebrews was written for a mixed audience of Jewish and Gentile Christians who lived in Rome or perhaps Jerusalem.
The central theme of the epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and his role as mediator between God and humanity.

Dating and Background

Scholars argue over where Hebrews fits in the 1st century world.

Qumran Scrolls 
It has been argued that the conceptual background of the priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews closely parallels presentations of the messianic priest and Melchizedek in the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls).
While not enough is known about Hebrews or its background, its dependence on any early Jewish tradition cannot be proved.
In both Hebrews and Qumran a priestly figure is discussed in the context of a Davidic figure; in both cases a divine decree appoints the priests to their eschatological duty; both priestly figures offer an eschatological sacrifice of atonement.
Although the author of Hebrews was probably not directly influenced by Qumran's "Messiah of Aaron", these and other conceptions did provide a precedent... to conceive Jesus similarly as a priest making atonement and eternal intercession in the heavenly sanctuary.
Hebrews is a very consciously "literary" document.
The purity of its Greek was noted by Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius (Historia Eccl. , VI, xiv), and Origen of Alexandria asserted that every competent judge must recognize a great difference between this epistle and those of Paul (Eusebius, VI, xxv).
Hebrews does not fit the form of a traditional Hellenistic epistle, lacking a proper prescript.

Greek Septuagint
Modern scholars generally believe this book was originally a sermon or homily, although possibly modified after it was delivered.
Hebrews contains many references to the Old Testament - specifically to its Greek Septuagint text.

The Septuagint - from the Latin word septuaginta (meaning seventy), is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek. The title and its Roman numeral acronym "LXX" refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who completed the translation as early as the late 2nd century BCE. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the "Greek Old Testament" ("Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα"). This translation is quoted in the New Testament, particularly in the writings of Paul the Apostle, 'The Letter to the Hebrews', and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.

In the Oldest Greek manuscripts the Epistle to the Hebrews follows the other letters to the Churches and precedes the pastoral letters.
In the later Greek codices, and in the Syriac and Latin codices as well, it holds the last place among the Epistles of St. Paul; this usage is also followed by the 'textus receptus', the modern Greek and Latin editions of the text, the Douay and Revised Versions, and the other modern translations.

The Text

The Letter opens with a statement of the superiority of the New Testament Revelation by the Son over the Old Testament Revelation by the prophets (Hebrews 1:1-4).
This opening includes an exaltation of Jesus as "the radiance of God's glory, the express image of his being, and upholding all things by his powerful word". [1:1–3]
The Letter presents Jesus with the titles "Son of God", "priest" and "high priest".
The Letter casts Jesus as both exalted Son and high priest, a unique dual Christology.
It then proves, and explains from the Scriptures, the superiority of this 'New Covenant' over the 'Old' by the comparison of the 'Son' with the 'angels' as mediators of the Old Covenant (i, 5-ii, 18), with Moses and Joshua as the founders of the Old Covenant (iii, 1-iv, 16), and, finally, by opposing the high-priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech to the Levitical priesthood after the order of Aaron (v, 1-x, 18).

Jesus as High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek

In the 'Letter to the Hebrews', Jesus is spoken of as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), and so Jesus plays the role of the king-priest once and for all. 
According to the author of 'Letter to the Hebrews' (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under Law of Moses.
Melchizedek is referred to again in Hebrews 5:6-10; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:1-21: 'Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'; and Hebrews 8:1.
'And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises (Hebrews 7:5-6).
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:11-12).
The author of 'Letter to the Hebrews' discusses this subject considerably, listing the following reasons for why the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic priesthood:


Melchizedek and Abraham
Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek; later, the Levites would receive tithes from their countrymen.
Since Aaron was in Abraham's loins then, it was as if the Aaronic priesthood were paying tithes to Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:4-10)
The one who blesses is always greater than the one being blessed.
Thus, Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.
As Levi was yet in the loins of Abraham, it follows that Melchizedek is greater than Levi. (Heb. 7:7-10)
If the priesthood of Aaron were effective, God would not have called a new priest in a different order in Psalm 110. (Heb. 7:11)
The basis of the Aaronic priesthood was ancestry; the basis of the priesthood of Melchizedek is everlasting life.
That is, there is no interruption due to a priest's death. (Heb. 7:8,15-16,23-25)
Christ, being sinless, does not need a sacrifice for his own sins. (Heb. 7:26-27)
The priesthood of Melchizedek is more effective because it required a single sacrifice once and for all (Jesus), while the Levitical priesthood made endless sacrifices. (Heb. 7:27)


Melchizedek - a Priest Forever
The Aaronic priests serve (or, rather, served) in an earthly copy and shadow of the heavenly Temple, which Jesus serves in. (Heb. 8:5)
The epistle goes on to say that the covenant of Jesus is superior to the covenant the Levitical priesthood is under.
It is interesting to note that Melchizedek's name means "king of righteousness" according to the author of Hebrews, and that being king of Salem makes Melchizedek the "king of peace." Heb. 7:3 states, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he (Melchizedek) remains a priest forever."
Melchizedek gave Abraham bread and wine, which Christians consider symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the sacrifice to confirm a covenant.

Mormon Interpretation of the Priesthood of Melchizedek

The 'Letter to the Hebrews' had a profound effect on the theological and liturgical developments in the Church of the Latter Day Saints founded by Joseph Smith.
In the words of the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith, "All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it" (TPJS, p. 180).
Most often, however, the name Melchizedek Priesthood is used in the Church to describe the higher priesthood and its offices.
"There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic…. The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things" (D&C 107:1, 8). The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the keys to the kingdom, and "in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest".


click below for more information about
   


Jesus as Mediator

The central thought of the entire Letter is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and his position as mediator between man and God.

Christ the King
The Letter states clearly the Divine Nature of Christ as well as Christ's human nature, and this aspect of the Epistle's Christology has been described as Johannine, in that it confirms to the Christological assertions contained in the Gospel of St John.
The Letter describes Christ as raised above Moses, above the angels, and above all created beings, as the glory of the Father, the express image of His Divine nature, which is the eternal and unchangeable, true Son of God, 'Who upholdeth all things by the word of His power' (i, 1-4).
It is explained, however, that the Son desired, however, to take on a human nature and to become in all things like unto us human beings, sin alone excepted, in order to redeem mankind (ii, 9-18; iv, 15, etc.).
By 'obediance even unto death' He gained for Himself the eternal glory which He now also enjoys in His most holy humanity. (i, 3; ii, 9; viii, 1; xii, 2, etc.).
The Letter then states that in heaven Christ now exercises forever His priestly office of mediator (vii, 24 sq.).
This doctrine of the priestly office of Christ forms the chief subject-matter of the Christological argument, and goes on to establish the pre-eminence of the New Covenant over the Old.
The person of the High-priest, after the order of Melchisedech, His sacrifice, and its effects are opposed, in an exhaustive comparison, to the Old Testament institutions.
The Letter lays special emphasis on the spiritual power and effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, which have brought all mankind, atonement and salvation that are complete and sufficient for all time (i, 3; ix, 9-15, etc.).
In the Christological expositions of the letter other doctrines are treated.
Special emphasis is laid on the setting aside of the Old Covenant, its incompleteness and weakness, its typical and preparatory relation to the time of the Messianic salvation that is realized in the New Covenant (vii, 18 sq.; viii, 15; x, 1, etc.).
In the same manner the letter refers at times to the four last things, the resurrection, the judgement, eternal punishment, and heavenly bliss (vi, 2, 7 sq.; ix, 27, etc.).

Neo-Platonism

Plato
One of the most significant aspects of the Letter to the Hebrews is its reliance on Neo-Platonic concepts.
Scholarly evaluation has tended to see the epistle’s thought-world as essentially Platonic, moving in a vertical, dualistic universe of realms heavenly and earthly, the former containing the genuine reality, the latter its imperfect imitation
It should be remembered that Jewish thought, as influenced by older Near Eastern philosophy, contained an element of verticality in a dualistic higher-lower world concept.
It was simpler than the later Platonism, reduced we could say to “heaven” and “earth” in which certain things on earth, especially holy places, had prototypes in heaven.
Such concepts underwent expansion and sophistication under the influence of Platonism, just as older Jewish traditions about personified Wisdom were enriched by the concept of the Greek Logos (as in the Alexandrian document of Hellenistic Judaism, 'The Wisdom of Solomon').
Thus, there should be no objection to referring to the higher-lower world thinking in Hebrews as 'Platonic'.

Pharos - Alexandria
As for the document’s provenance, it has been styled 'Alexandrian' because of its elements reminiscent of the Middle Platonic philosophy of that Egyptian city, but it could be from any number of centrers in the eastern Mediterranean which could have been exposed to Alexandrian influences, while still allowing for a certain amount of divergence.
There are notable differences from the particular approach of Philo, the premier Jewish-Platonic philosopher of Alexandria in the period prior to the Jewish War, which is when the Epistle to the Hebrews needs to be dated.

Heavenly and Earthly Sanctuaries 


No other New Testament document so clearly illustrates the higher and lower world thinking of Platonic philosophy as the 'Epistle to the Hebrews'.


The Desert Tabernacle - Tent
The writer places the sacrifice of Christ in heaven itself, in “the real sanctuary, the 'tent' (tabernacle) raised by the God and not by man” (8:2).
This 'tent' (tabernacle) of Christ’s priesthood “is a greater and more perfect one, not made by men’s hands, not part of the created world (9:11).
Christ’s “sacrifice” is not spoken of in terms of a crucifixion on Calvary.
The suffering and death he underwent are treated almost in secondary fashion, given relatively little attention in the writer’s soteriological scheme of things.

σωτηρία sōtēria "salvation" from σωτήρ sōtēr "savior" - is the study of religious doctrines of salvation. Salvation theory occupies a place of special significance and importance in Christianity and Gnosticism
In the academic field of religious studies, soteriology is understood by scholars as representing a key theme.

Rather, the “sacrifice” is the act of the new High Priest Christ who, following his death, brings his own blood into the heavenly sanctuary, and there offers it to God as an atonement for sin. This act has “secured an eternal salvation” (9:12), and established a New Covenant.
It is portrayed as a higher world, more perfect counterpart to the action of the high priest on earth who, on the yearly Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), brings the blood of sacrificed animals into the inner sanctuary of the Temple, offering it to God to obtain forgiveness for the people’s sins.
Christ’s heavenly sacrifice is deemed to have supplanted the earthly ones.
Not only is Christ’s sacrifice not identified with Calvary, the writer never introduces into his parallel duality of heavenly High Priest and earthly high priests the idea that an important part of Jesus’ act of sacrifice had taken place on earth.
This is something which would have seriously compromised the purity of his higher-lower world comparison - indeed made it unworkable.
The author has said that the blood of Christ’s sacrifice is “unblemished, spiritual and eternal” (9:14), and that this kind of superior (to the earthly) sacrifice is “required to cleanse heavenly things” (9:23).
For the complete sacrifice has been offered in the realm of the spirit…in the eternal order of things…it belonged essentially to the higher order of absolute reality.
Scholars often speak of scriptural ‘types’ - figures, pronouncements, events in the Old Testament - serving as the model for later counterparts in the New Testament -  a case of biblical ‘prototypes’ (or ‘archetypes’) prefiguring ‘antitypes’ in the life of Jesus on earth, the latter being the copy of the former.
This is the linearity of classical Jewish thought, the “then” and the “now” (or often the “soon to be”)
However, the Epistle to the Hebrews has blended this Jewish thought with the Greek in a unique fashion.
First, we have the ingredient of classic Platonism.
The higher world contains the perfect model, the lower world its imperfect copy or reflection.


The Earthly Sanctury
In the 'Letter to the Hebrews' this kind of Platonic relationship applies to the two sanctuaries, the one in heaven and the one on earth, and the two types of sacrifice performed within them. This relationship operates in the most important aspect of the epistle, the presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus.
In regard to the sanctuaries themselves, the relationship is that the perfect sanctuary in heaven exists first, and the earthly sanctuary is an imperfect copy of the heavenly.
The heavenly sanctuary is essentially timeless; it was created by God at the beginning and the earthly sanctuary has been modeled on it, right from the first tent-sanctuary at Sinai set up by Moses, following heavenly directions to the subsequent incarnations of the Temple in Jerusalem.
But in regard to the events within those sanctuaries, we have the opposite situation.
Of the two counterpart actions, the sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary came first in  earthly time, while Jesus’ single heavenly sacrifice is treated as coming later, and in a sense has been modeled on them - although it exists in a timeless realm.
In regard to these actions, therefore, the prototype is on earth, and the antitype, or copy, is apparently in heaven, in terms of earthly time.


Jerusalem Temple - Herod the Great
Moreover, again an apparent (but not actual) reverse of classic Platonism, while the “perfect” sanctuary itself came first, followed by the “imperfect” copy on earth, the perfect sacrifice - that of Christ - appeared to come second, and was apparently (but not actually) modeled on the imperfect first sacrifices, those of the earthly high priests in the earthly sanctuary.
This paradox is only apparent, however, as the imperfect concept of time as a consecutive succession of instants or moments that we are forced to use is not in accordance with the concept of time applicable to Platonic plane of perfection.
The central concern of the 'Letter to the Hebrews' is the comparison between what happens on earth in the sacrifices performed by the Jewish high priest in the earthly sanctuary, and what happens in heaven in the new High Priest Jesus’ own sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary.
An earthly event is set opposite a heavenly event, a material act opposite a spiritual act.
The reason for the focus on the first tent-sanctuary (tabernacle) set up by Moses at Sinai is because this represents the establishment of the Original Covenant, against which is set Jesus’ sacrifice in heaven as the establishment of the New and Eternal Covenant.
The Old Covenant began in the desert of the Exodus.
The New Covenant began with Jesus’ sacrifice in heaven, where his blood was offered in the heavenly tabernacle. (It is never stated as beginning with his death, let alone on earth or Calvary.)
In this context, Christ’s sacrifice in heaven is treated as something ‘subsequent’ to its scriptural archetype in Sinai.
This is the sole dimension of linearity in the epistle’s thought about prototype and antitype, but it is a mix of Jewish and Greek.
It is supplemented by the only ‘history to history’ sequence in view: a progression from the record of scripture, God speaking in the past, to the new revelation derived from scripture, God speaking in the present, sometimes through the (scriptural) voice of the Son.
As one can see, the picture of Platonic, historical, and sequential relationships in this document is exceedingly subtle and complex, and it is not helpful to try to introduce an 'historical Jesus' into the centre of the sophisticated theo-philosophical mix.

 The Logos in the Letter to the Hebrews


Philo
For Philo, the Logos is seen in the beginning of creation.
It's origin is in the mind of God before anything in this lower world is made.
This Logos must be emanated before anything else because God “needs” something to interact with between itself and that which will be created.
Philo states, “…the Logos was conceived in God’s mind before all things and is manifested in connection with all things.”
After this Logos emanates from the mind of God, The emenates lower types of manifestations from the Divine Mind.
These emanations of the Logos then become differentiated into the various hierarchies of celestial beings.
It is important to note that, since the Logos is a projection of divine reality and being, it can be called God.
This Logos can also be deemed an apospasma, or extension of God.
This extension is seen in the intermediaries which Philo regulates as the workings and acts of the Logos in the midst of men, and at times, as a cosmic force.
Sometimes the wording in Philo’s writing seems to imply that the Logos is a thinking soul rather than just a world of ideas or mind of God which emanates.
But the idea of the Logos always constitutes an intermediary between God and men.
The Logos is an intermediary in the ethical salvation of man.
As a Platonist, Philo understood the 'world of the forms' as those forms which exist as thoughts in God’s mind, as His ideas for the cosmos.
This world of thoughts is actually the Logos, and is understood as the subordinate mind of God.
From this 'plane' of forms all other things emanate and are created.
At this point, however, one can now see the difference between the writings of Philo and his conception of the 'divine Logos', and the author of the Hebrews, who attributes the “Logos” to the incarnate Son of God.
The Logos of Philo is a metaphysical abstraction, but for the author of the 'Letter to the Hebrews' the eternal Logos is also a specific individual.
Philo’s “son of God” is the Logos which acts as an oblivious force, whereas the Logos of the Letter to the Hebrews (and John’s Gospel) is God’s Son.

The Heavenly Sanctury

The new sanctuary and Christ’s sacrifice within it are things “revealed”.
The Sinai tent-sanctuary (Tabernacle) contained inner and outer parts (as the Temple in Jerusalem did), with access to the inner room restricted to the High Priest, and only once a year (9:7); access to God under the Old Covenant was limited.
Thus it is possible to interpret the structure of the tent, with entry to the inner tent hidden by the outer tent that stood before (or around) it, to be a symbol that the heavenly sanctuary and Christ’s sacrifice within it were “undisclosed” throughout Jewish history.
That dual tent structure, with its “hidden” inner tent, was a deliberate “symbol” intended by God, and directed at those who truly believed, who would one day understand that the better and ultimate way into God’s presence was still to come.
This way to the new sanctuary, the establishment of the New Covenant, was “not yet revealed,” (9:8), as long as the outer sanctuary and the Old Covenant remained in place.
Now, however, it has been revealed (even though the temple cult was still functioning at the time of the writing of the Epistle, although its demise was expected shortly [8:13]).

The Heavenly Sanctuary
The New Covenant was taking effect, while the Old was fading fast.
But note how this is presented.
The Holy Spirit had created “a symbol pointing to the present time” (the time of the writing of the Epistle) (9:9).
But what specifically was it pointing to ?
As noted, what had happened in the “now” to bring this about was a disclosure; a revelation.
It was not the act of Jesus that had occurred to bring about the new order, but the revelation of that act through the new interpretation of scripture, including of the Christ's own voice within it
God’s abolition of the 'Old Covenant' was by means of Jesus’ act, but its application was through the revelation of that act.
As the author presents it, the coming into effect of the 'New Covenant' occured at the time of such a discovery, and the spread of that knowledge - the “time of revelation” - which is what the writer and his community perceived themselves as being a part of.
It had not come into effect at the time of Jesus’ act itself.
Thus the Holy Spirit had pointed not to Jesus, but to the time of knowledge about Jesus and his heavenly acts.
Scripture is not fulfilled in history.
Scripture is fulfilled in the heavenly sphere, as newly interpreted out of scripture.
Thus the “earlier” and the “later” lie both within the pages of scripture.
to be continued
© Copyright Peter Crawford 2013





Anglo-Catholic Architecture- 1918-1938: A Study in Liturgy and Style

© Copyright Peter Crawford 2013
Anglo-Catholic Architecture 1918-1938
A Study in Liturgy and Style
Excerpts from a Lecture given by Evan McWilliams at St John's College, Oxford - UK - June 2013

to view images full size - click on images and open in a new tab 

In 1954 W.H. Randoll Blacking authored a pamphlet, the introduction to which perfectly captured the attitude of the majority of church architects of his generation, and to a degree, the entire inter-war period in architecture.



Throughout the ages man’s greatest artistic effort has been exercised in the service of religion and although, generally speaking, this can scarcely be said at the present time, yet for the Christian designer it must always be his prime concern. It is very seldom possible nowadays that a large amount of money becomes available to build a new church or to re-arrange an old one; but this fact makes it all the more important that great care should be given to what is really essential in planning and design. A church is the simplest of buildings; it is the House of God, where He is to be worshipped, and where the two sacraments of the Prayer Book rite are to be administered and the ministry of the Word spoken; the essentials are, therefore, a Holy Table (which should be the focal point of the place), a Font, and accommodation for the ministers and worshippers: all other considerations are of secondary importance.
It is useful to remember, amongst other things, that some of the most beautiful ancient churches are quite simple in design and rely upon a fine sense of proportion for their effect; that a whitewashed interior in which the beauty of gold and colour can be afforded only around the holy table is often more worshipful than an elaborately designed whole; and that a comparatively small building filled with worshippers is always preferable to a large church in which a seemingly small congregation is dispersed in various parts of the place.”
This pamphlet is quoted at length because it lays out a framework for understanding the churches of the three decades between the wars.
Were Blacking’s prose reduced to a maxim, it might be:

'Artistic merit, Appropriateness to function'.

St Alban - Abington - 1938
Blacking, of course, formulated the preceding statement in 1954.

Despite this, the building selected to illustrate this maxim dates from 1938.

The church of St Alban, Abington exemplifies the condition of church architecture at the end of the 1930s.

A nondescript brick exterior conceals a clean white interior - well lit - with a spacious chancel behind an open, classical rood screen.

There is an English altar - two candles only - with its riddel curtains.

A three-seat sedilia stands south of the altar, and a piscina in the east wall.

All is tidy and elegantly simple. 

This church- and many like it- were the perfect stage for the gently regal ceremonial of the Book of Common Prayer with its rolling Cranmerian prose.


Blacking died in 1958, and the next generation of architects were not prepared to continue what they saw as a stagnant tradition.
Given the powerful, long-lasting influence of men like Blacking, is it any wonder that writers of the following generation - such as Peter Hammond - were so dismissive of the condition of English architecture ?
All attempts,’ wrote Hammond, ‘to reproduce the outward forms of another age, however excellent the period chosen, are essentially misguided.”
But one can’t help but wonder if Hammond really understood the architecture he spoke about so dismissively.
Furthermore, in following Hammond’s course, the architectural and art historical establishment have left a whole period of significant, and sometimes excellent, architecture to moulder away, unstudied and unloved.
The underlying assumptions of Blacking’s generation about church building are immensely important if the inter-war years are to be understood as a period of dramatic change and new vitality in the art of church building, in direct response to a galaxy of fresh liturgical ideas revolving around the golden year 1928.

Archbishop Davidson - 1927
The New English Prayer Book - Punch
Archbishop Randall Davidson
1928 is the year the combined Convocations of Canterbury and York proposed a 'Prayer Book' revision, which could have set an entirely new trajectory in the worship of the Church of England, anticipating the Alternative Service Book of 1980 by some fifty-odd years.
A revision proposed in 1927 had failed and it was hoped the newly improved Book would fare better, however, due to opposition from extreme Protestants, extreme Anglo-Catholics, and, significantly, to the votes of non-English members of the House of Commons, the proposed Book - widely accepted by the Church leadership - failed to become legal and remains to this day ‘the Deposited Book’ not authorized for general use.
However, failure of the 'Prayer Book Measure' to pass muster in Parliament should not be understood as the end of the liturgical matter.
The research and scholarly production necessarily involved in producing a new version of the Book of Common Prayer brought into a clearer light the history of the 'Prayer Book' itself and its relationship to the other Western liturgies, both Catholic and Protestant.

Walter Frere - Bishop of Truro
Some Principles of
Liturgical Reform
Among those many scholars involved in such exploration of the Church’s tradition was Walter Frere, Bishop of Truro from 1923-35, whose writing on such diverse topics as medieval music in the city of York and Franciscan influence on religious services demonstrated a commitment to a fuller understanding of Western Christianity and an attempt to contextualize Anglican worship within the wider life of the Church universal.
That the wide dissemination of this type of scholarship resulted in a broadened vision of the Church of England and, to a degree, its Catholicization is borne out in the 1936 report Doctrine in the Church of England.
The report was commissioned in 1922, and its thoroughness accounts for the length of time lapsing between then and its publication fourteen years later.

On the sacraments in particular the divergence of opinion from the Protestant position articulated in the 'Book of Common Prayer', when interpreted in its most literal sense, is noticeable.
The Commission described ‘real presence’ and ‘receptionism’ as “types of theology admissible in the Church of England” apparently unconcerned that these theologies were mutually exclusive due to contradictory Biblical exegesis.
The evolving nature of belief in the Church of England was partially a result of the manner in which her ordinands were trained.
The 1924 Lichfield Manual, published for use at Lichfield Theological College, included the entire cycle of monastic offices and private prayers for the priest at the Holy Communion. 
These prayers were entirely out of character with the theology of the Prayer Book, as then in use, but represent the shift, even in the more moderate theological colleges, to a catholic understanding of the sacraments.

Lichfield Cathedral
Theological College
Such an influx of Catholic doctrine invariably informed liturgical practice and, in addition to influential individuals such as Percy Dearmer, whose ‘The Parson’s Handbook’ had run to twelve editions by 1932, organizations like 'The Alcuin Club' continually pressed for acceptance of broader liturgical standards and more opportunities for reviving the rites and ceremonies of the pre-Reformation English Church.
The architectural implications of such a new expression of theological and liturgical variety were many and here Blacking’s requirement that a church be of artistic merit and suited to its intended function comes into focus. In truth, ‘Artistic merit, Appropriateness to function’ as a defining statement on church architecture could date from any year.
Merit and appropriateness are naturally evolving terms; they accommodate themselves to the prevailing climate.
So it was that in the three decades between the end of the First World War and the beginning of the Second, the changing theological and liturgical world fostered a change in the aesthetic world.

First, ‘appropriateness to function’ came to mean ‘designed to accommodate full catholic ceremonial’ now, if not entirely legal, at least broadly accepted as part of the Anglican heritage.
On a practical level this required more open chancels, greater prominence for altars and fonts, and larger sacristies and vestries to accommodate more priests and more ceremonial accoutrements for use at various times of the church year.
Second, ‘artistic merit’ evolved from a limited, purely Gothic, vocabulary to include Classical elements, and even fully Classical buildings.
Tudor-Gothic window types came into greater use, as inter-war churches were generally smaller and less elaborate than their pre-war counterparts.
Gone were the days of complex Decorated tracery - but for the east widow perhaps.
Here economic considerations played a strong part in aesthetic change but lack of funds did not stop architects from wild flights of fancy.

All Saints’ 1926 - Mortlake
J.B. Tolhurst
St Katharine Cree (1631)
J.B. Tolhurst’s extraordinary 1926 proposal for All Saints’, Mortlake recalls the seventeenth-century St Katharine Cree (1631) in its striking combination of Classical nave with Gothic vaulting.
But for the east window, the tracery is vaguely fifteenth-century French. 
It also reflects the continuing fascination with late-medieval furnishings in its sumptuous rood screen.
The new stylistic synthesis seen with Tolhurst at All Saints’ was championed by more famous architects like Ninian Comper and represents the most bold approach to church design since the Caroline period when the Church of England was at its most theologically and liturgically creative.



St Andrew and St George - 1920 - Ninian Comper
St Andrew and St George - 1920
Ninian Comper
His 1920 church of St Andrew and St George is an exciting combination of near-Tuscan columns, Gothic vaulting, and seventeenth-century Scottish window tracery with a Renaissance rood screen and ciborium over the altar.
The exterior is boxy and slightly naive but striking in its simplicity- a great contrast to the elegant interior.
Even in the work of architects who tended to be rather sedate - such as Charles Nicholson- there was a new openness to experimentation.

St Laurence - Eastcote - 1932
St Laurence - Eastcote - 1932
At St Laurence, Eastcote the nave arcade could be by a provincial architect of the late seventeenth century.
Likewise the Classical brick surround of the south porch is suggestive of a building which has grown accretively, despite its dating from 1932.

All Saints’ - Hillingdon - 1932
Built that same year is All Saints’, Hillingdon which similarly suggests a Caroline milieu - an England of Renaissance learning and a Gothic past still remembered.
More obviously Renaissance in flavour is St George, Newbury.


St George - Newbury
F.C. Eden - 1933
Here, F.C. Eden placed a ciborium over the altar in the manner of an early Christian basilica.


St George - Newbury
F.C. Eden - 1933

The Italian flavor of this design is observable in the unbuilt facade where a Palladian loggia features below a playful scrolled bellcote.


The idea of the ciborium, or altar canopy, runs through the work of many in the inter-war period.






St Anselm - Kennington - 1933
Adhead & Ramsey
St Anselm - Kennington - 1933
Adhead & Ramsey
St Anselm, Kennington by Adhead & Ramsey offers a Romanesque variation on the theme.
Again we see a plain exterior that conceals a plain, whitewashed interior with the altar as its central focus.








All Saints’- Hockerill - 1936
Stephen Dykes-Bower
All Saints’- Hockerill - 1936
Stephen Dykes-Bower
One unusual example of setting apart the altar is seen at All Saints’, Hockerill by Stephen Dykes-Bower where the altar has been magnified by what might be either an enormously over-scaled ‘English altar’ or a ciborium missing its top.

The use of a rose window in the east wall is striking as well, making this church slightly less demure than its period counterparts despite the similarly plain interior clearly intended as a background for the liturgy and not as an object to be admired in itself.

Probably the most ideal example of a ciborium in a parish church is that at St Philip Cosham (1938).

Comper’s St Andrew and St George which we saw earlier was built for the Scottish Episcopal church but this building- a variation on the same theme- is Anglican and demonstrates just how much the building revolved around the altar as its liturgical center.

Observe how the plan seems to grow out from the sanctuary, how the canopied altar is itself a miniature vaulted interior - a most holy place within a holy place.
As with St Andrew and St George the exterior of St Philip is sweetly naive, a sort of cardboard Gothic, with a delightfully elegant bellcote serving as the facade’s crowning glory.
Canopies of considerable prominence also appeared at this time over fonts, in accord with the new emphasis on the conveyance of sacramental grace through baptism.

The cover here at St Philip is fine indeed, a playful tempietto topped by an ogee dome (standing below one of Comper’s characteristically elaborate organ cases).

One of the largest examples of the period dates from 1933 and was designed by W.H. Randoll Blacking for St Alban’s Cathedral- not a parish church but I felt it just had to be included.
Again, the merging of the Gothic spire form with Classical ornament is reminiscent of experiments undertaken in the late seventeenth century. 
On a scale more typical of the time is the cover at St Laurence, Eastcote by Nicholson.

Cool Classicism is exemplified by St Paul, Blackley by Taylor & Young, where a pristine interior gently moves the eye to the east-end apse, and the altar with its unusual Solomonic altar cross.
The crisp, scaled-down monumentality of the interior matches the exterior, where very little ornament relieves large expanses of brick, lending it a stark, classical aspect.
Less pristine are the churches of J. Harold Gibbons.
Experimentation can lead to powerfully beautiful results but it can also open the door to quirkiness for its own sake.

This seems to be particularly the case at St Mary, Kenton where there’s just a lot of everything everywhere. Note, once again, the ciborium over the altar.
Significant for the period is Gibbons’ placement of the sacristy visibly behind the high altar, recalling the similar placement of Lady chapels in the work of Temple Moore just one generation before.
Giving such visual importance to the place of priestly preparation had never before been seen and it appears to be unique in the annals of inter-war church design.
Like many church architects of his day, Gibbons was not a pedantic Gothicist, as his earlier St Francis, Bournemouth demonstrates.

Examples of new ways of thinking about church design in the inter-war period could be multiplied.
One final observation, however.
Hammond, who was referenced earlier, claimed that reproducing the outward forms of another age were essentially misguided. 
Of hat age or ages might he have been speaking ?
Reproduction was far from the minds of inter-war church architects and artists.
Rather than copying the past, they raided it for fresh ways to express a newly developing, Catholicized Anglicanism.
The Church of England’s architectural reaction to exciting liturgical scholarship and doctrinal evolution is itself equally exciting.
In the realm of artistic merit, and that of appropriateness to function, as understood in their time, inter-war churches shine.
The age of the great scholarly experiment of 'Prayer Book' revision can be seen in churches all over the country, and in designs like Tolhurst’s which, sadly, remain only on paper.
The inter-war period in church building was not stagnant.
It was not just “more of the same.
It was a flowering of imagination - albeit limited by financial considerations.
It was a last sparking of vibrant life before a great pall of death spread across Europe for the second time in a single century.