Chronology of the New Testament (continued) – Circumcision

Chronology of the New Testament (continued)

(2) The Apocalypse. — This work gives us our last chronological indications in NT. Like 1 Peter, it implies persecution for the Name; but, unlike 1 Peter, it implies emperor-worship. The tone of antagonism to the Empire is entirely diiferent from that of St. Paul’s Epistles and the Acts. Rome-worship was greatly developed by Domitian, and was scarcely at all prominent In Nero’s time. ‘This feature in Rev., then, points to the scene being laid in the Domltianic persecution; and that date is argued for by Swete (Apocalypse, p. xcv. ff. — the most complete English commentary on the work) and Ramsay (Ch. in Rom. Emp. p. 295 fit.). It is accepted by Sanday iJThSt viii. 481 ff., July 1907). Lighttoot, however (Bill. Ess. p. 61, Sup. Rel. p. 132), and Westeott (St. John, Introd. p. Ixxxiv.) argue for a date during Nero’s persecution, mainly because of the difference of style between Rev. and Jn., the latter being dated late in the century; this argument assumes identity of authorship, and makes little allowance for a, possible difference of scribes. Other arguments for the Neronic date have been taken from the number of the Beast, which is supposed to spell, in Hebrew letters, the names Nero Caesar, and from the indication as to the’ kings’ (emperors) in 17. The earlier date was in fashion a generation ago, but a reaction has lately set in, and the opinion of Irenseus is now largely supported, namely, that the book was written towards the end of the reign of Domitian, who died a.d. 96 (Iren. Haer. V. 30. 3; Euseb. HE ill. 18). The evidence seems to preponderate largely in favour of the supposition that the last decade of the 1st cent. Is that illustrated by the last book of the NT Canon.

III. Results. — The following table gives the dates arrived at by Harnack, Turner, Ramsay, and Lighttoot, respectively. The results of Llghtfoot are in the main also those of Wieseler, Lewin, and Schllrer. To the present writer the intermediate dates seem to be the only ones which fulfil all the necessary conditions; but Turner’s year for St. Paul’s conversion appears less probable than Ramsay’s. In view, however, of the confusion in reckoning Imperial years, lunar months, and the like, it would be vain to expect anything like certainty in determining NT dates. [In the table w = winter, sp=spring, s = summer, a= autumn.]

H. T. R. L. Nativity of Christ, B.C. .. 7«i or6sp 6s Baptism of Christ, A.D. .. 27sp 25io or26sp .. Crucifixion . . . 29 or 30 29 29 30 Conveision of St. Paul 30 35 or 36 33 34 First Visit to Jerusalem 33 38 35 37 Second Visit ... 44 46 45aand46sp 45 First Miss. Journey . 45-46 ? 47-48 47-^9 48-49 Council (Third Visit) . 47 49 49u) and 60sp 51 Second M. J. and

Fourth Visit . . 47-50 49-52 50-53 51-54 Third Miss. Journey . 50-54 62 53-57 64-58 Fifth Visit and arrest . 54 56 57 58 Festus succeeds . . 56 583 69s 60 or 61 St. Paul’s arrival in

Rome . . . 57sp 59sp 60sp 61sp Acquittal 61sp 61u)or62sp 63sp Death of St. Paul .64 64 or 65 67 67 Death of St. Peter .64 64 or 65 80 64

A. J. Maclean.

Chrysolite, Chrysoprase

See Jewels and Precious Stones.

Church

1. The word ecdesia, which in its Christian application is usually tr. ‘church,’ was applied in ordinary Greek usage to the duly constituted gathering of the citizens in a self-governing city, and it is so used of the Ephesian assembly in Acts 19:39. It was adopted in the LXX to tr. a Heb. word, qahal, signifying the nation of Israel as assembled before God or considered in a religious aspect (Judges 21:8. i Ch 29. Deuteronomy 31 etc.). In this sense it is found twice in the NT (Acts 7:38 rv ■ church,’ Hebrews 2:12 B,v ‘congregation’). The term Is practically equivalent to the familiar ‘synagogue’ which, however, was more frequently used to translate another Heb. word, ‘Mhah. This will probably explain our Lord’s words in Matthew 18:17. For’ synagogue’ was the name regularly applied after the Babylonian exile to local congregations of Jews formally gathered for common worship, and from them subsequently transferred to similar congregations of Hebrew Christians (James 2:2). ‘Tell it to the ecdesia’ can hardly tefer directly to communities of Jesus’ disciples, as these did not exist in the time of the Galilaean ministry, but rather to the Jewish congregation, or its representative court, in the place to which the disputants might belong. The renewal of the promise concerning binding and loosing in v. 18 (cf. le") makes against this interpretation. And the assurance of Christ’s presence in v. 20 can have reference only to gatherings of disciples. But it may well be that we have these sayings brought together by Matthew in view of the Christian significance of ecdesia. There is no evidence that ecclesia, like ‘synagogue,’ was transferred from the congregation of Israel to the religious assemblies which were its local embodiment. But, though not the technical term, there would be no difBcuIty in applying it, without fear of misunderstanding, to the synagogue. And this would be the more natural because the term is usually applied to Israel in its historical rather than in its ideal aspect (see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 12).

2. Ecclesia is used constantly with its Christian meaning in the Pauline Epistles. Its earliest use chronologically is probably in 1 Thessalonians 1:1. But the growth of its use is best studied by beginning with Acts. Here the term first occurs in 5:11. applied to the Christians of Jerusalem in their corporate capacity. In 1 St. Peter is represented as standing up ‘in the midst of the brethren.’ Thus from the first Christians are a brotherhood or family, not a promiscuous gathering. That this family is considered capable of an ordered extension is evident (o) from the steps immediately taken to fill a vacant post of authority (1). and (b) from the way in which converts on receiving baptism are spoken of as added to a fellowship (2 AV ‘added to the church,’ but see RV) which continues in the Apostles’ teaching, and the bond of a common table and united prayer (2). This community is now called ‘the assemblage of them that believed’ (4). the word used, as compared with its employment elsewhere, suggesting not a throng or crowd but the whole body of the disciples. In Exodus 12:6 we have the phrase ‘the whole assembly of the congregation(Gr. synagSgi) of Israel.’ When, therefore, it became necessary to find a collective name for ‘the believers,’ ecclesia, the alternative to ‘synagogue,’ was not unnaturally chosen. For the disciples meeting in Jerusalem were, as a matter of fact, the true Israel (Gal 6:16). the little flock to whom was to be given the Messianic Kingdom (Luke 12:32). Moreover, they were a Christian synagogue, and, but for the risk of confusion, might have been so called. The name, therefore, as applied to the primitive community of Jesus, is on the one hand universal and ideal, on the other local and particular. In either case the associations are Jewish, and by these the subsequent history of the name is determined.

3. As Christianity spread, the local units of the brotherhood came to be called ecclesice (Acts 9:31 13:1 14:23 15:41 20:17 etc.), the original community being now distinguished as ‘the ecclesia in Jerusalem’ (8:1). Thus we reach the familiar use of the Pauline Epistles, e.g. the ecclesia of the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 1:1). of Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) cf. 1 Peter 5:13. Revelation 2:1 etc. "They are summed up in the expression ‘all the ecdesicc of Christ’ (Romans 16:16). This language has doubtless given rise to the modern conception of ‘the churches’; but it must be observed that the Pauline idea is territorial, the only apparent departure from this usage being the application of the name to sections of a local ecclesia, which seem in some instances to ha ve met for additional worship in the houses of prominent disciples (Romans 16:5. 1 Corinthians 16:19 etc.). The existence of independent congregations of Christians within a single area, like the Hellenistic and Hebrew synagogues (see Acts 6:1, 9). does not appear to be contemplated in the NT.

4. The conception of a Catholic Church in the sense of a constitutional federation of local Christian organizations in a universal community is post-Apostolic. The phrase is first found in Ignatius (c. a.d. 115; see Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, Pt. 2. ii. p. 310). But in the 1st cent, the Church of Jerusalem, as the seat of Apostolic authority (Acts 8:1, 14), still exercises an influence upon the other communities, which continues during the period of transition to the world-wide society. At .Jerusalem Saul receives the right hand of fellowship and recognition from the pillar Apostles (Galatians 2:9). Thence Apostles go forth to confirm and consolidate the work of evangelists (Acts 8:14). Thither missionaries return with reports of newlyfounded Gentile societies and contributions for the poor saints (Acts 15:2 24:17, 1 Corinthians 16:1–3). It is this community that promulgates decisions on problems created by the extension of Christianity (Acts 15:22–29). Till after the destruction of the city in a.d. 71 this Church continued, under the presidency of James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 2:12. Acts 12:17 15:13 21:18), and then of other members of the Christian ‘royal family’ (Eusebius, HE iii. 11, 19, 20), to be the typical society of Jesus’ disciples.

5. But already in the NT that ideal element, which distinguished the primitive fellowship as the Kingdom of Messiah, is beginning to express itself in a conception of the ecclesia which, while it never loses touch with the actual concrete society or societies of Christians, has nevertheless no constitutional value. It is scarcely possible to suppose that the adoption of the name ecclesia for the Christian society was altogether unrelated to the celebrated use of the word by the Lord Himself in His conversation with the disciples at Csesarea Philippl (Matthew 16:13–20))). Two suggestions with regard to this passage may be dismissed. The first is that it was interpolated to support the growth of ecclesiastical authority in the 2nd cent.; this rests solely on an assumption that begs the question. The second is that ecclesia has been substituted for ‘kingdom in our Lord’s utterance through subsequent identification of ideas. But the occasion was one that Christ evidently intended to signalize by a uruque deliverance, the full significance of which would not become apparent till interpreted by later experience (cf. Matthew 10:38. John 6:53). The metaphor of building as applied to the nation of Israel is found in the OT (Jeremiah 33:7; cf. Amos 9:11. Psalms 102:16). There is therefore little doubt that Jesus meant His disciples to understand the establishment of Messiah’s Kingdom; and that the use of the less common word ecclesia, far from being unintentional, is designed to connect with the new and enlarged Israel only the spiritual associations of Jehovah’s congregation, and to discourage the temporal aspirations which they were only too ready to derive from the promised Kingdom.

6. The Kingdom of God, or of Heaven, is a prominent conception in the Synoptic Gospels. It is rather the Kingdom than the King that Christ Himself proclaims (Mark 1. cf. Matthew 4:17). The idea, partially understood by His contemporaries, was broadened and spiritualized by Jesus. It had been outlined by prophets and apocalyptic writers. It was to realize the hopes of that congregation of Israel which had been purchased and redeemed of old (Psalms 74:2). and of which the Davidie monarchy had been the pledge (Micah 4:8. Isaiah 55:3 etc.). Typical passages are Daniel 2:44 7:14. This was the Kingdom which the crowd hailed at the Triumphal Entry (Matthew 21:9))). Christ begins from the point of Jewish expectation, but the Kingdom which He proclaims, though not less actual, surpasses any previous conception in the minds of His followers. It is already present (Luke 11:20 17:21 RVm) in His own Person and work. It is revealed as a historical institution in the parables of the Tares (Matthew 13:24 ff.) and the Drag-net (13:47 ff.). Other parables present it as an ideal which no historical institution can satisfy, e.g. Treasure hid in a field (13:44), a merchantman seeking goodly Pearls (13:45). a grain of Mustard Seed (IS"- We cannot solve the problem involved in Christ’s various presentations of the Kingdom by saying that He uses the word in different senses. He is dealing with a reality too vast to be submitted to the human understanding otherwise than in aspects and partial views which no powers of combination will enable us adequately to adjust. The twofold conception of the Kingdom as at once a reality and an ideal is finally brought home by those utterances of Jesus which refer its realization to the end of the age. Daniel’s prophecy is to be realized only when the Son of Man shall come in His Kingdom (24:3, 15 25:31 26:64). It is then that the blessed are to inherit what nevertheless was prepared for them from the beginning of time (25:34). And all views of the Kingdom which would limit it to an externally organized community are proved to be insufficient by a declaration like that of Luke 17:20, 21. But even when contemplated ideally, the Messianic Kingdom possesses those attributes of order and authority which are inseparable from a society (Matthew 19:28).

It is hardly to be doubted, therefore, that the name ecclesia, as given to the primitive community of Christians at Jerusalem, even if suggested rather by the synagogue than by our Lord’s declaration to St. Peter, could not be used without identifying that society with the Kingdom of God, so far as this was capable of realization in an institution, and endowing it with those ideal qualities which belong thereto. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost, fulfilling as it did the expectation of a baptism of fire that was to accompany the establishment of the Kingdom (Acts 1:5. 2:3, 4. Matthew 3:11). connects the Church with the Kingdom, and the scattering of its members after Stephen’s death (Acts 8:1) would begin to familiarize the disciples with the idea of the unity in Christ unbroken by local separation (cf. 8:1 and 9:31).

7. But it is only in the theology of St. Paul that we find the Kingdom of the Gospels interpreted in terms of the actual experience of the Christian ecclesia. The extension of the fellowship beyond the limits of a single city has shown that the ideal Church cannot be identified simpliciter with any Christian community, while the idesdization of the federated ecclesice, natural enough in a later age, is, in the absence of a wider ecclesiastical organization, not yet possible. It is still further from the truth to assert that St. Paul had the conception of an invisible Church, of which the local communities were at best typical. " We have no evidence that St. Paul regarded membership of the universal ecclesia as invisible’ (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 169). The method by which the Apostle reached his doctrine of the Church is best illustrated by his charge to the elders at Miletus to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers (Acts 20:28). Here the local Ephesian Church represents practically God’s Church purchased with His precious blood (v. 28). a real community of which visibility is an essential characteristic, but which by the nature of the case is incapable of a complete manifestation in history. The passage combines in a remarkable degree the three elements in the Divine Society, namely, the redeemed congregation of Israel (Psalms 74:2). the Kingdom or ecclesia of Messiah (Matthew 16:18). and the body established upon the Atonement (Colossians 1:20–22. Ephesians 2:13). All three notes are present in the teaching of the Epistles concerning the ecclesia. It is the historical fact of the inclusion of the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:13) that is the starting-point. Those nations which under the old covenant were alien from the people of God (Ephesians 2:12) are now included in the vast citizenship or polity (v. 13 ff.) which membership in a local ecclesia involves. The Church has existed from all eternity as an idea in the mind of God (S’-"), the heritage prepared for Christ (l’»- 11). It is the people of possession (1:14. cf. 1 Peter 2:9. Titus 2:14). identified with the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12). and as such the immediate object of redemption(5^); but through the reconciliation of the Cross extended (2:14). and, as it were, reincorporated on a wider basis (v. 15). as the sphere of universal forgiveness (v. 16), the home of the Spirit (v. 18), and the one body of Christ (4:12 etc.), in which all have access to the Father (2:18). The interlaced figures of growth and building (4:12, 16). under which it is presented, witness to its organic and therefore not exclusively spiritual character. Baptism, administered by the local ecclesice and resulting in rights and duties in respect of them, is yet primarily the method of entrance to the ideal community (Romans 6:3, 4. 1 Corinthians 12:13. Galatians 3:27, 28. Ephesians 4:5). to which also belong those offices and functions which, whether universal hke the Apostolate (1 Corinthians 12:27, 28) or particular like the presbyterate (Acts 20:17, 28; of. 1 Corinthians 12:8–11. Ephesians 4:11). are exercised only in relation to the local societies. It is the Church of God that suffers persecution in the persons of those who are of ‘the Way’ (1 Corinthians 15:9. Acts 8:3 9:1) is profaned by misuse of sacred ordinances at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:22) becomes at Ephesus the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

That St. Paul, in speaking of the Church now in the local now in the universal sense, is not dealing with ideas connected only by analogy, is proved by the ease with which he passes from the one to the other use (Colossians 4; cf. 1:18, 24 and Eph. passim). The Church is essentially visible, the shrine of God (1 Corinthians 3:16, 17). the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:23 etc.); schism and party-strife involving a breach in the unity of the Spirit (4:3). Under another figure the Church is the bride of Christ (5:25 ff.). His complement or fulness (1:23). deriving its lite from Him as He does from the Father (v. 22. 1 Corinthians 11:3).

8. Thus the Biblical view of the Church differs alike from the materialized conception of Augustine, which identifies it with the constitutionally incorporated and oecumenical society of the Roman Empire, with its canon law and hierarchical jurisdiction, and from that Kingdom of Christ which Luther, as interpreted by Ritschl, regarded as ‘the inward spiritual union of believers with Christ’ {Justiflcaiion and Reconciliation, Eng. tr. p. 287). The principle of the Church’s life is inward, so that ‘the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ’ remains the object of Christian hope (Ephesians 4:13). But its manifestation is outward, and includes those ministries which, though marred, as ^story shows, by human failure and sin, are set in the Church for the building up of the body (v. 11, 12) Just as members of the legal Israel are recognized by our Lord as sons of the Kingdom (Matthew 8:12). so the baptized are the called, the saints, the members of the body. There is no warrant in the NT tor that sharp separation between membership in the legal worshipping Church and the Kingdom of God which is characteristic of Ritsphlianism.

9. The Church in its corporate capacity is the primary object of redemption. This truth, besides being definitely asserted (Ephesians 5:25, 27. Acts 20:28, Titus 2:14). is involved in the conception of Christ as the second Adam (Romans 5:12–21. 1 Corinthians 15:20–22). the federal head of a redeemed race; underlies the institutions of Baptism and the Eucharist ; and is expressed in the Apostolic teaching concerning the two Sacraments (see above, also 1 Corinthians 10:16–18 ll^‘-»). The Church is thus not a voluntary association of justified persons for purposes of mutual edification and common worship, but the body in which the individual believer normally reaUzea his redemption. Christ’s love for the Church, for which Hebrews 6 (Ephesians 6). constituting a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of possession (1 Peter 2:5, 9) through His blood (Ephesians 2:13). completes the parallel, or rather marks the identity, with the historical Israel. Membership in Abraham’s covenanted race, of which circumcision was the sign (Genesis 17:9). brought the Israelite into relation with Jehovah. The sacrifices covered the whole’ church in the wilderness’(Ac 7). and each worshipper approached God in virtue of his inclusion in the holy people. No foreigner might eat of the Passover (Exodus 12:45). The propitiatory ritual of the Day of Atonement was expressly designed for the consecration of the whole nation (Leviticus 16). So the sacrifice of the Cross is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7). The worship of the Christian congregation is the Paschal feast (v. 8, cf. Hebrews 13:10–15). In Christ those who are now fellow-citizens have a common access to the Father (Ephesians 2:18. Hebrews 10:22). Through the Mediator of a new covenant (12:24) those that are consecrated (10:14, 22) are come to the Church of the first-born (12:23), which includes the spirits of the perfected saints lib.) in the fellowship of God’s household(Eph 2. Hebrews 10:21). See also following article.

J. G. Simpson. CHURCH GOVERNMENT.— 1 . The general development seems fairly clear, though its later stages fall beyond NT times. The Apostles were founders of churches, and therefore regulated and supervised the first arrangements; then were added sundry local and unlooal rulers; then the unlocal died out, and the local settled down into the three permanent classes of bishops, elders, and deacons. The chief disputed questions concern the origin of the local ministry, its relation to the other, and the time and manner in which it settled down under the government of (monarchical) bishops.

2. Twice over St. Paul gives something like a list of the chief persons of the Church. In 1 Corinthians 12:28 he counts up — ‘first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powers; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues.’ It will be noticed that all the words after the first two plainly describe functions, not offices. A few years later (Ephesians 4:11) he tells us how the ascended Lord ‘himself gave some sis apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the work of service’ (fOakonia) — they are all of them ‘deacons’ {diakonoi), whatever more they may be.

3. At the head of both lists is the Apostle. The Apostles were not limited to the Eleven, or to the number twelve, though twelve was always the ideal number (1 Corinthians 15:5. Revelation 21:14; perhaps Acts 2:14 &). Whether Matthias remained an Apostle or not, Paul and Barnabas were certainly Apostles (e.g. Acts 14:14). and so was James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19). The old disciples Andronicus and Junias (not Junia) were ‘notable’ Apostles (Romans 16:7). On the other hand, Timothy seems excluded by the greetings of several Epistles (e.g. 2 Co.), and Apollos by the evidence of Clement of Rome, who most likely knew the truth of the matter.

The Apostle’s first qualification was to have seen the risen Lord (Acts 1:22. 1 Corinthians 9:5). for his first duty was to bear witness of the Resurrection. This qualification seems never to have been relaxed in NT times. A direct call was also needed, for (1 Corinthians 12:28. Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 4:11) no human authority coidd choose an Apostle. The call of Barnabas and Saul was acknowledged (Acts 13:3) by a commission from the church at Antioch; and if Matthias remained an Apostle, we must suppose that the direct call was represented by some later Divine recognition.

Therefore the Apostle was in no sense a local official. His work was not to serve tables, but to preach and to make disciples of all nations, so that be led a wandering life, settling down only in his old age, or in the sense of making, say, Ephesus or Corinth his centre for a while. The stories which divide the world among the Twelve are legends: the only division we know of was made (Galatians 2:9) at the Conference, when it was resolved that the Three should go to the Jews, Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles. With this preaching went the founding and general care of churches, though not their ordinary government. St. Paul interferes only in cases of gross error or corporate disorder. His point is not that the Galatians are mistaken, but that they are altogether falling away from Christ ; not that the Corinthian is a bad offender, but that the church sees no great barm In the matter. He does not advise the Corinthians on further questions without plain hints (1 Corinthians 6:5 10:14 11:14) that they ought to have settled most of them for themselves.

4. Next to the Apostle comes the shadowy figure of the Prophet. He too sustained the Church, and shared with him (Ephesians 2:20 3:5) the revelation of the mystery. He spoke ‘in the spirit’ words of warning, of comfort, or it might be of prediction. He too received his commission from God and not from men, and was no local officer of a church, even if he dwelt in the city. But he was not an eye-witness of the risen Lord, and ‘the care of all the churches’ did not rest on him. Women also might prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5). like Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:9) at Csesarea, or perhaps the mystic Jezebel (Revelation 2:20) at Thyatira. Yet even in the Apostolic age prophecy (1 Thessalonians 5:20) is beginning to fall into discredit, and false prophets are flourishing (1 Jn., 2 Pet., Jude). This may be the reason for the marked avoidance of the name ‘Apostle’ by and of St. John.

6. It will be seen that St. Paul’s lists leave no place for a local ministry of office, unless it comes in under ‘helps and governments’ on ‘pastors and teachers.’ Yet such a ministry must have existed almost from the first. We have (1) the appointment of the Seven at Jerusalem (Acts 6) ; (2) elders at Jerusalem in the years 44, 50, 58 (11:30 15:6, 22 21:18). appointed by Paul and Barnabas In every church about 48 (14:23), mentioned James 5:14; at Ephesus in 58 (Acts 20:17). mentioned 1 Peter 5:1; (3) PhcEbe a deaconess at Cenchrese in 58 (Eo 16). bishops and deacons at Philippi in 63 (Philippians 1:1). Also in the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy at Ephesus about 66 is (1 Timothy 3, 4) in charge of four orders: (1) bishops (or elders) (5:1) (2) deacons; (3) deaconesses (3:11) (‘women’ [in Gr. without the article] cannot be wives of deacons); (4) widows. With Titus in Crete only bishops are mentioned (Titus 1:5). To these we add (5) the prominent guasi-episcopal positions of James at Jerusalem in 44 (Acts 12:17). in 50, and in 58; and (6) of Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and in Crete.

To these we must not add ( 1 ) the ‘young men’ (neoteroi) who carried out Ananias (Acts 5:6). [The tacit contrast with presbyteroi is of age, not office, for it is neaniskoi who bury Sapphira]; (2) the indefinite proistamenoi of 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and Romans 12:8. and the equally indefinite hegoujnenoi of some unknowp church shortly before 70 (Hebrews 13:7, 17). [If these are officials, we can say no more than that there are several of them]; (3) the angels of the seven churches in Asia. [These cannot safely be taken literally.]

6. The questions before us may be conveniently grouped round the three later offices of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon. But bishop and deacon seem at first to have denoted functions of oversight and service rather than definite offices. The elder carries over a more official character from the synagogue; but in any case there is always a good deal of give and take among officials of small societies. If so, we shall not be surprised if we find neither definite institution of offices nor sharp distinction of duties.

(1) Deacons. The traditional view, that the choice of the Seven in Acts 6 marks the institution of a permanent order of deacons, is open to serious doubt. The opinion of Cyprian and later writers is not worth much on a question of this kind, and even that of Irenseus is far from decisive. The vague word diakonia (used too in the context of the Apostles themselves) is balanced by the avoidance of the word ‘deacon’ in the Acts (e.g. 21 Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven). Since, however, Phoebe was a deaconess at Cenchrese in 58, there were probably deacons there and at Corinth, though St. Paul does not mention any; and at Philippi we have bishops and deacons in 63. In both cases, however, the doubt remains, how far the name has settled into a definite office. See art. Deacon.

(2) Elders. Elders at Jerusalem receive the offerings in 44 from Saul and Barnabas. They are joined with the Apostles at the Conference in 50, and with James in 58. As Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every city on their first missionary journey, and we find elders at Ephesus in 58, we may infer that the churches generally had elders, though there is no further certain mention of them till the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Peter. Probably James 5:12 is earlier, but there we cannot be sure that the word is official.

The difference of name between elders and bishops may point to some difference of origin or duties; but in NT (and in Clement of Rome) the terms are practlcally equivalent. Thus the elders of Ephesus are reminded (Acts 20:28) that they are bishops. In the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy appoints ‘bishops and deacons’; Titus, ‘elders and deacons,’ though Timothy also (1 Timothy 5:17) has elders under him. The qualifications of the elder, as described to Titus, are practically those of the bishop as given to Timothy, and it is added (Titus 1:7) that the elders must be such ‘because the bishop must be blameless,’ etc. — which is decisive that the bishop’s office was at least as wide as the elder’s. Moreover, in both cases the duties implied are ministerial, not what we call episcopal. If the elder’s duty is to rule (1 Timothy 5:17). he does it subject to Timothy, much as a modern elder rules subject to his bishop.

(3) Bishops. See Bishop. H. M. Gwatkin.

Churches, Robbers of

This is in Acts 19:37 an AV mistranslation (RV has ‘robbers of temples’). Even the RV is inexact. The word ought to be translated simply ‘sacrilegious persons,’ that is, persons acting disrespectfully to the goddess of Ephesus. In 2 Maccabees 4:42 (RV ‘author of the sacrilege’) the expression is applied to Lysimachus, brother of Menelaus the high priest, who perished in a riot caused by sacrilege

(B.C. 170). A. SOUTER.

Churches, Seven

See Angels of the Seven Churches, Revelation [Book of], also the artt. on Ephesus, Sivtyrna, etc.

Chusi

Chusi (Judith 7:18). mentioned with Ekrebel (‘Akrdbeh), is possibly Kuzah, 5 miles S. of Shechem and 5 miles W. of ‘Akrabeh.

Chuza

( Araer. RV Chuzas). The steward of Herod Antipas. His wife Joanna (wh. see) was one of the women who ministered to our Lord and His disciples (Luke 8:3).

Cimmerians

The name, which has come to us through the Greek, of the people known as Gomer (wh. see) in the Bible, the Gimirre of the cuneiform inscriptions. J. F. McCURDY.

Cinnamon

Cinnamon (Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17. Song of Songs 4:14, Revelation 18:13). Almost without doubt the product of Cinnamomum zeylanicum of Ceylon. The inner bark is the part chiefly used, but oil is also obtained from the fruit. Cinnamon is still a favourite perfume and flavouring substance in Palestine. E. W. G. Masterman.

Circuit

Circuit occurs 4 times in AV: I S 7’^ (a late and doubtful passage, ace. to which Samuel went on circuit to various high places). Job 22:14 (RVm and Amer. RV ‘vault,’ i.e. the vault of heaven), Psalms 19:6 (of the sun’s course in the heavens), Ecclesiastes 1:6 (of the circuits of the wind). Besides retaining these instances, RV substitutes’ made [make] a circuit ‘for AV’ fetch a compass’ in 2 Samuel 5:23. 2 Kings 3:9. Acts 28:13. See Compass.

Circumcision

This rite is not of Israelite origin; there are some good grounds for the belief that it came to the Israelites from the Egyptians. The fact of a flint being used for its performance (Joshua 5:2, 3) witnesses to the immense antiquity of the rite. Its original meaning and object are hidden in obscurity, though the theory that it was regarded as a necessary preliminary to marriage has much to commend it. Among the Israelites it became the sign of the Covenant People; whoever was uncircumcised could not partake of the hopes of the nation, nor could such join in the worship of Jahweh; he could not be reckoned an Israelite (Genesis 17:14). Not only was every Israelite required to undergo circumcision, but even every slave acquired by the Israelites from foreign lands had likewise to be circumcised (Genesis 17:12, 13) ; according to Exodus 12:48, 49 even a stranger sojourning in the midst of Israel had to submit to the rite, at all events if he wished to join in the celebration of the Passover. Originally male children were not circumcised in Israel (cf. Joshua 5:5–9). but boys had to undergo it on arriving at the age of puberty; but in later days the Law commanded that every male child should be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (Leviticus 12:3).

In the OT there are two accounts as to the occasion on which circumcision was first practised by the Israelites; according to Genesis 17:10–14 the command was given to Abraham to observe the rite as a sign of the covenant between God and him, as representing the nation that was to be; while according to Exodus 4:25, 26 its origin is connected with Moses. It was the former that, in later days, was always looked upon as its real origin; and thus the rite acquired a purely religious character, and it has been one of the distinguishing marks of Judaism ever since the Exile. The giving of a name at circumcision(Lk 1 2:21) (jiij not belong to the rite originally, but this has been the custom among Jews ever since the return from the Captivity, and probably even before.

In the early Church St. Paul had a vigorous warfare to wage against his Judaizing antagonists, and it became a vital question whether the Gentiles could be received into the Christian community without circumcision. As is well known, St. Paul gained the day, but it was this question of circumcision, which involved of course the observance of the entire Mosaic Law, that was the rock on which union between the early Christians and the Judaizing Christians split. Henceforth the Jewish and the Christian communities drifted further and further apart.

Circumcision in its symbolic meaning is found fairly frequently in the OT; an ‘uncircumcised heart’ Is one from which disobedience to God has not been ‘cut off’ (see Leviticus 26:41. Deuteronomy 10:16 30:6) the expression ‘uncircumcised lips’ (Exodus 6:12, 30) would be equivalent to what is said of Moses, as one who ‘spake unadvisedly with his lips’ (Psalms 106:33. cf. Isaiah 6) in Jeremiah 6:10 we have the expression’ their ear is uncircumcised ‘in reference to such as will not hearken to the word of the Lord. A like flgurative use is found in the NT (e.g. Colossians 2).

W. O. E. Oesterley.