Just Pondering

Free documents online @docstoc.com

2009-08-22T09:23:00.009-04:00

Get free documents online or buy and sell documents such as articles, papers, etc.
Awesome free desktop toos available for download. Check it out!

Three Views on the Millennium

2009-01-22T01:16:00.004-05:00

THREE VIEWS ON THE MILLENNIUM

By

Jens Randolff

November 10, 2008

A Christian woman was once talking to a servant of Christ about the assurance of her safety in the Saviour and said, “I have taken a single ticket to Glory, and do not intend to come back.” Whereupon the man of God replied: “You are going to miss a lot. I have taken a return ticket, for I am not only going to meet Christ in Glory, but I am coming back with him in power and great glory to the earth.”

—Sunday School Times[1]

INTRODUCTION

Few issues have caused as much controversy and debate over the centuries as has the subject of the millennium, and it will unlikely be resolved in this life. Conservative theologians generally hold to one of the three major views with regard to eschatology: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism. Those who use an allegorical method generally uphold an amillennial or postmillennial view, while those who apply a literal hermeneutic embrace a premillennial view.[2] Henceforth, the controversy surrounding the issue stems from one’s interpretation of Revelation 20:4, “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” and whether or not said statement should be understood literally or symbolically. The answer determines in part one’s doctrine of last things.[3]

With the closing of the apostolic age the early church fathers began to argue over the “chiliasm” (χιλιάς (chilias), άδος (ados), ἡ (hē): group of a thousand (Lk 14:31; Ac 4:4; 1Co 10:8; Rev 5:11; 11:13; 14:1)[4], the view of the literal “thousand–year” reign of Christ on earth.

That this issue would dominate much of the theological as well as doctrinal thought over the next three centuries is evidenced by the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. The literal or pre-millennial view, once dominant in the early church, was abandoned in favor of the amillennial view championed by the leaders of the Alexandrian school, including Clement (155–216) and Origen (around 185–254), who taught that the Bible is to be understood as an extended allegory.[5] However, it was not until Augustine standardized the amillennial view that the allegorical approach to interpretation of the scriptures was firmly established. It would be the generally accepted position for nearly twelve hundred years until the emergence of the postmillennial view in the 1700s.

It is the author’s intend to provide a general, unbiased overview of the definition, development, and scriptural support of these three positions. The author’s view will be expressed at the conclusion of this paper.

I. Amillennial View

A.‎ Basic Premises:‎
The amillennial interpretation has been the major eschatological view of the Catholic Church since the time of Augustine and likely is the majority view of today’s church. Amillennialists tend to discard the promise of a literal thousand year kingdom on earth with Christ reigning on the throne. However, proponents of an amillennial or non-millennial view do not all come to a consensus as to how to arrive at this conclusion.

i) Some feel, as did Augustine, that the entire present age is the millennial kingdom and that God is reigning in the hearts of men who put their trust in Him. This, of course, does not provide any literal fulfillment of the millennial kingdom.

ii) Some hold that the millennial kingdom is being fulfilled in heaven through Christ’s spiritual reign over the earth. Often they do not consider the period a literal 1,000 years, and they minimize the literal meaning of the prophecies relating to it.

iii) More recently, some now hold that the Millennium will be fulfilled in the new heaven and new earth in eternity. Therefore, it does not need to be fulfilled now.[6]

B.‎ Points of Strength:‎

Stanley Grenz, a premillennialist turned amillennialist writes:

“The kingdom of God is a transcendent reality that can be confused with no earthly kingdom prior to the final transformation of creation. No earthly city can ever hope to become the New Jerusalem, except through a radical transformation both of human nature itself and of the universe that through the Fall unwillingly participates in the human predicament.”[7]

Amillennialists are quick to point out that their position dates back to the early church, as evidenced in the epistle of Barnabas, who applied to the church the Old Testament promises given to Israel.[8] Amillennialists also hint that their position was, at least in part, the position of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and in modern times G. C. Berkouwer, Floyd E. Hamilton, Stanley Grenz, Anthony Hoekema, Louis Berkhof, William E. Cog, Abraham Kuyper, Stephen Travis, Leon Morris, Michael Wilcock, G. K. Beale and Philip Hughes, as well as many other noted scholars.

According to amillennialists “the end of the ages” (cf. 1 Cor 10:11) is progressing right now. Christ has set up his kingdom in the “Body of Christ”--the church. The first resurrection has already occurred through the gift of faith, which constitutes a spiritual rising from death to life. In support of this position Amillennialists cite such verses as John 3:34–35; 5:24; Romans 6:4–5, 13; Ephesians 2:5–6; Colossians 2:13; 3:1.[9]

C.‎ Points of Weakness:‎

The problem with the amillennialism approach is that it does not provide an intelligent explanation of many passages in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, both of which teach a literal kingdom. This is true also of Revelation 20. Amillennialists claim that Revelation 20:1–6 applies to Christ’s first coming, not His second coming. Furthermore, they content that Satan is bound now and that Revelation 20:5 (those who ‘come to life’) does not refer to resurrected martyrs of the tribulation but rather to people in this age who are saved.

However, understanding Revelation 20:1–6 to refer to Christ’s first appearance lacks convincing scriptural support, because it ignores the sequence of events described in Revelation 19 and 20. Beginning in 19:11 a series of prophecies are given, which start with the Greek conjunction kai, translated “and.” The word “kai” occurs more than two dozen times in Revelation 19:11–20:15, which indicates a consecutive fulfillment of the prophesied events. There are many other examples, which will not be addressed here.[10]

II.‎ Post-millennial View

A.‎ Basic Premises:‎

i) Postmillennialism is the most recent of the three major millennial views. Although some elements of postmillennialism occurred earlier, Daniel Whitby (1638–1725) is usually considered the one who introduced postmillennialism. It became the predominant view of orthodoxy in the nineteenth century.

ii) Postmillennialism, like amillennialism, adopts a non-literal or figurative interpretation of prophecy. Postmillennialism has as its background the history of amillennialism, beginning in the third century, which established for many the concept that prophecy cannot be interpreted literally. Postmillennialism was influenced partly by the fact that the predictions of some amillennialists that Christ would come relatively soon did not materialize. Though it is not entirely clear, it seems that Augustine (A.D. 354) believed that Christ would return in A.D. 650, and that the Millennium had already begun before Christ was born. When Christ did not return in 650, some believed He would come in the year 1000, somewhat similar to the modern-day interest in the next millennium in the year 2000.

iii) Forerunners of Daniel Whitby included Joachim of Fiore (1132–1202), who thought that Christ would return shortly after a new age was established in 1260. However, as stated, Whitby gave the first comprehensive presentation of postmillennialism. Like amillennialists, he taught that Revelation 20:1–6 does not portray events following the Second Coming, but that the passage refers back to Jesus’ death in which He defeated Satan. The binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1–3), then, occurred at the first coming of Christ, and verse 4 refers not to the resurrection of Tribulation martyrs but to the salvation of individuals in the present age.[11]

B.‎ Points of Strength:‎

Postmillennial proponents see references to a “golden age” and the triumphant reign of Christ as being fulfilled before He returns. To support their position post-millennialists cite such passages as Psalms 2:8; 22:27; 47; 72; 86:9; Isaiah 2:2–4; 11:6–9; Jeremiah 31:34; Daniel 2:35, 44; and Micah 4:1–4.

Furthermore, those who adhere to a postmillennial view argue that since the Gospel is the power of God (Rom. 1:16), it is unfathomable how anyone could suggest that the world will not be converted. God wishes all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Therefore, to pray for these events to come about to pray in the will of God.[12]

C.‎ Points of Weakness:‎

To build the kingdom on the premise of the first coming of Christ produces a theological error with serious ramifications with regard to the rule of Christ on earth as promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–16). To claim that Christ established the Davidic kingdom at His first advent requires a non-literal approach to the promises made to David, resulting in confusion between the church and the kingdom, as well as the danger of promoting kingdom ethics ahead of church ethics. Thus Christians are urged to live the kingdom here and now.

That mistake was made by some during the earthly life of Christ (Luke 19:11). The truth is that the messianic kingdom will be inaugurated at the second coming of Christ. At that time the promise made to Abraham and his descendants will be fulfilled (Gen. 15:18–21). Then the promise made to David that his descendant (Messiah) will sit on the throne of the kingdom forever will be fulfilled. Without a Millennium in which all these promises can be fulfilled, the promises have to be canceled for some reason or be fulfilled in Israel’s past or in the present non-literally.[13]

III.‎ Pre-millennial View

A.‎ Basic Premises:
‎
There exist various interpretations with regard to a pre-millennial approach to eschatology. Among premillennialists who view the kingdom as following the second coming of Christ, there are three schools of thought: the historical, the dispensational and the soteriological view. However, for the purpose of this paper only the first two positions will be discussed:
i) Those who follow a historical fulfillment of the Book of Revelation, believe that some events of Revelation 6–18 are being fulfilled now. They hold that the Second Advent and the kingdom that follows are literal events and that the historic premillennialists see the church, rather than ethnic Israel, as prominent in the millennial period. However, according to this view, many of the events leading up to Revelation 6–18, have already been fulfilled.[14]

ii) The majority view among premillennialist, is that after the second coming of Christ the millennial kingdom will be the fulfillment of God’s theocratic program, as well as of the promise made to David that his kingdom and throne would continue forever over Israel. Furthermore, those who interpret the prophecies literally consider Christ to be the head of this theocracy, reigning supremely over the entire world for a literal one thousand years.

In addition, it is presumed that Israel is given a special role in the redemptive work of God in the end times, resulting in a restored millennial temple in Jerusalem complete with Levitical priests and animal sacrifices. This viewpoint is often referred to as the dispensational pre-millennial view, a literal kingdom on earth. The proponents of this view take into consideration the fact that Christ literally fulfills prophesies in Scripture concerning the kingdom on earth.[15]

B.‎ Points of Strength:‎

The biblical, theological, and historical basis of premillennialism stands firm. Premillennialism is rooted in the knowledge that the Bible is based in God’s unconditional covenants with Abraham and David, thus pointing to a literal, political, earthly messianic kingdom. Jesus offered this kingdom to the Jews, but they rejected it; Jesus set up a spiritual kingdom of which the church is a part, anticipating the day when He will restore the political kingdom to Israel as promised. At His Second Coming (Rev. 19), Christ will establish a thousand-year reign (20), after which God will reign for all eternity in the new heaven and new earth (21–22). Denying this view fails any consistent application of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Consequently, the allegorical method, when applied to other Scripture, would undermine the whole of evangelical Christianity.[16]

C.‎ Points of Weakness:
‎
Opponents of the premillennial view claim that the major weakness of premillennialism is its lack of a firm biblical basis. They further state that while the second coming of Christ is certainly part of the gospel, the millennial reign of Christ is only hinted at in a few places. Thus, the need for interpreting Revelation 20 in the light of the wider Scriptures is preferred over interpreting the Scriptures through the lens of Revelation 20, as do most premillennialists.

In addition some opponents such as reformed theologian Adrio König content that premillennialism can be rightly criticized for entertaining an overly pessimistic view of world history, sometimes bordering on fatalism. König states:

“Chiliasts simply write off the world as incorrigible, painting a one–sided picture of total decay spreading over the entire world. Little room is left in their view for a gospel that includes the promise of victory—even in this life. So it is not strange that they fail to do justice to the coming of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus.”[17]

CONCLUSION

The author holds to the dispensational pre-millennial view for the following reasons:

The basic disagreement among the three proponents previously discussed is founded on whether one’s method of biblical interpretation is literal and allegorical. The author, upon comparing the different methods, finds the allegorical approach used by amillennialists and post-millennialists to be foundationally flawed.

The allegorical method of interpretation is based on an invalid hermeneutic for all true meaning is literal meaning, Henceforth, any allegorical (non-literal) method of interpretation presupposes a literal meaning; one cannot know what is non-literal without first establishing what is literal. For that reason alone an allegorical hermeneutic is self-defeating, lacks objective criteria, defies common sense, and is inconsistent as well as unbiblical.

On the other hand, the literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation is supported by several factors:

First, “the renewal of all things” (Matt. 19:28) indicates it will be in the end times, not during Jesus’ years on earth.

Second, the word “tribes” (ibid.) with regard to Israel, is never used in any context other than a reference to literal tribes of people.

Third, sitting on a throne and judging Israel, which Jesus said He would do (John 12:48–49) is a prophetic (messianic) fulfillment.

Fourth, the prophecies in Daniel, when seen in a literal political context, foretells of a time when “the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever” (7:18; cf. v. 22).[18]

Furthermore, regarding the messianic kingdom, the following should be noted:

First, from Genesis to Revelation there are promises of a literal, political kingdom in which the Ruler (Messiah) will reign on earth.

Second, this kingdom was (1) promised in the Old Testament, (2) was presented by John the Baptist, and offered by Jesus, and His disciples to the Jews in the Gospels, (3) was rejected by the Jewish authorities, (4) was, in accord with God’s eternal plan, purposely delayed while bringing Gentiles into the new body (the church), (5) will be offered again by Jesus at His Second Coming, and (6) will be accepted by the Jewish nation and fulfilled in the Millennium (Rev. 20:1–6). To allegorize away these yet unfulfilled prophecies violates the literal, historical-grammatical biblical interpretation; if the same allegorical hermeneutic were applied to the rest of Scripture, it would undermine the foundation of the historic Christian faith.[19]

END NOTES

1. Paul Lee Ten, Encyclopaedia of 7700 Illustrations: A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers (Garland TX: Bible Communications, 1996, c1979).

2. Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005), 547.

3. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1989), 380.

4. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997), DBLG 5942.

5. Charles R. Swindoll, and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1352.

6. Ibid.

7. John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, Includes Indexes (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 624.

8. Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 214.

9. D. H. Kromminga, The Millennium in The Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1945), 30-40.

10. Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 99.

11. Swindoll and Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology, 1352.

12. Charles R. Swindoll, and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1351.

13. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999), 513.

14. Ibid, 591.

15. Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN.: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Rev 19:11-21.

16. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 623.

17. Ibid, 595.

18. Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory, 93.

19. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things, 480.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bloesch, Donald G. The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Charles Caldwell Ryrie. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005.

Gregg, Steve, ed. Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997.

Grenz, Stanley J. The Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Kromminga, D. H. The Millennium in The Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systemic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

________. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995, c1972.

Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997.

Swindoll, Charles R., and Roy B. Zuck. Understanding Christian Theology. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003.

Ten, Paul Lee. Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers. Garland TX: Bible Communications, 1996, c1979.

Walvoord, John F. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Includes Indexes. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990.

The Issue Of Tongues Spoken on the Day of Pentecost

2009-01-22T01:06:00.003-05:00

What kinds of tongues were being spoken at Pentecost? Were any of them unknown (so-called “heavenly”) languages?

The issue of the “speaking in tongues” has been hotly debated by individuals and across the various Christian denominations alike. Each side has offered its interpretation as well as evidence in defense of its position. However, no consensus has been reached as of yet, nor is it likely to occur in this life.

At the heart of the issue lies the interpretation of Acts 2:4. Two opinions exist regarding the nature of “tongues” or languages spoken by the disciples. One side argues that the believers were uttering unintelligible sounds, or heavenly languages and that the miracle lies in the Holy Spirit’s intervention on behave of the audience and their ability to understand the words spoken, “each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). The other side argues that the miracle lies in the ability of the disciples to speak in languages, which they had not previously known, “By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me, says the Lord.” (Isa. 28:11-12, NET)

No matter, which interpretation one holds to be correct, the purpose for the “sign,” which “utterly amazed” those present, was intended for the Jews. They had required a sign of Jesus, based on established precedents such as could be found in Exodus 4:8 and Isaiah 7:11. The Apostle Paul considered “tongues” (languages) to be a “sign” for unbelievers as stated in 1 Cor. 14:22, while interpreted tongues (heavenly languages), were for the edification of the church.[1] For this reason, we cannot equate the events of Pentecost with “tongue speaking” in the Corinthian church. The believers who spoke in other tongues at Pentecost did not speak for the edification of the church and the hearers did not need interpreters because they heard and were able to understand their own languages.[2]

The majority of evangelical scholars content that the tongues spoken on Pentecost were genuine languages not previously learned rather than the ecstatic sounds Paul addressed in his first epistle to the church in Corinth. (1 Cor. 14:1–12). Two major arguments in defense of said view are as follows: (1) the use of the word διάλεκτος [dialektos /dee·al·ek·tos/] in Acts 1:6 and 8, can only refer to a language or dialect. (2) Acts 2:5-12 specifically emphasizes the fact that people of different languages understood the message of the Apostles in their own language.

As previously mentioned, some maintain that the miracle in Acts 2 was one of hearing as well as speaking. However, such view is not supported by the text and fails to do justice to those who, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues. Nonetheless, “when people filled with the Holy Spirit proclaim the gospel, a supernatural ministry always takes place. When the hearers respond, a miracle of understanding certainly follows.”[3] The Christian who is filled with the Spirit becomes the Spirit’s mouthpiece. In the case of the believers in Jerusalem, they demonstrated that the Holy Spirit controlled and enabled them by speaking in “tongues.” While unbelievers dismissed the Pentecost miracle as the ramblings of drunks, three thousand believers repented, were baptized, and joined the church.[4] (Acts 2:41)

END NOTES:

1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary On The Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1989), Acts 2:2.

2. William G. MacDonald, “Glossolalia in The New Testament,” in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research On Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 134.

3. Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 25.

4. Simon J. Kistemaker, and William Hendriksen, vol. 17, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of The Acts of The Apostles . Accompanying Biblical Text Is Author's Translation., New Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 78

Note:
Source of Greek translations: Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001, c1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Commentary On The Bible. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1989.

Gangel, Kenneth O. Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Kistemaker, Simon J., and William Hendriksen. Vol. 17, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of The Acts of The Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.

MacDonald, William G. “Glossolalia in The New Testament.” In Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research On Glossolalia. Edited by Mills, Watson E. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.

Understanding the Meaning of the Feast of Tabenacles

2009-01-22T01:01:00.002-05:00

UNDERSTANDING THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES

To truly understand the Feast of Tabernacles, one must understand that Egypt symbolically represents a state of mind that is devoid of spiritual enlightenment. The Apostle John wrote in Revelation 11:8: "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Israel was spiritually dead (in “spiritual Egypt”) during the time of Christ’s ministry (Rom. 5:12-14; Matt. 8:22). John likened Israel to the Egyptian dead (Ex. 12:30) and the dead sacrifices on the altar in the tabernacle. By the tabernacle pattern, the dead bodies of sacrificed animals were found in the Court Round About with the altar for sin sacrifices and the water laver for washing.
Christ came on earth to fulfill (Mt. 5:17-18; Lk. 24:44-45) or bring to an end the Old Covenant, including the feasts, ceremonies, and sacrificial worship of God (Rom. 10:1-4) and to establish a New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-13). The Feast of Tabernacles is symbolic of Christ’s fulfilling of Prophesy. The Feast was supposed to remind Israel of how they dwelt in booths on their journey out of the land of Egypt yet, to Christians, it represents a universal principle of the human soul receiving the Holy Spirit and rejoicing at its revealed presence.
The sacrificial lambs and goats slain in Egypt during the Passover released Israel from captivity (Heb. 10:1-6) as Christ’s death released us from spiritual captivity. Israel’s physical migration from Egypt to the Promised Land is representative of the believer’s journey from spiritual darkness, bondage, and ignorance into knowledge of the Holy Spirit and eternal life (Rom. 12:2). What held Israel in bondage at the time of Jesus, were the religious teachers of Israel and the Law of Moses, which condemned them (Rom. 8:1-2). Christ’s death brought an end to the law and victory over sin, for He was the atoning sacrifice (Jn. 1:29).
Solomon’s temple, which was dedicated on the Feast of Tabernacles, is a picture of Christ’s body (2 Chr. 7:8-10). Jesus made the analogy of His body being a temple when He said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (Jn. 2:18-21). During a later discourse at the temple, Jesus spoke of “living water.” The Jewish audience knew the religious rituals and ceremonies performed by the priests during this day, but they did not grasp the implication of Jesus’ mention of water. Of course, Christ did not speak of the water the priest dipped with a golden pitcher from the Pool Siloam and poured out at the base of the altar on the last day of the feast. Jesus analogy foretold of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost following His death and resurrection. His words of truth represented the “living water,” which is the Holy Spirit.
In closing, the end of harvesting represents the church of believers gathering resurrected souls together into one body in Christ (Lk. 10:2; Rev. 14:5). It is also symbolic of the harvesting or gathering of spiritual principles (Rom. 5:1-5) and applying them to tribulations as one goes through life. The gathering of knowledge of these principles adds strength to one's faith in the Holy Spirit.

Resources Consulted
Geisler, Norman L. ; Nix, William E.: A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago : Moody Press, 1996, c1986
Karleen, Paul S.: The Handbook to Bible Study : With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York : Oxford University Press, 1987
Richards, Larry ; Richards, Lawrence O.: The Teacher's Commentary. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1987, S. 727
Walvoord, John F.; Zuck, Roy B.; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985, 2:301

THE IDENTITY OF “HE” IN DANIEL 9:27

2009-01-22T00:49:00.003-05:00

THE IDENTITY OF “HE” IN DANIEL 9:27

By

Jens Randolff

December 11, 2008

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

Matthew 24:4-5, ESV

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

I.Why “he” is the antichrist

A.Basic Premise

i.Argument #1

ii.Argument #2

II.Why “he” is not the Christ

A.Basic Premise

B.Weakness

i.Issue #1

i.Issue #2

III.Why “he” is not Antiochus Epiphanes

A.Basic Premise

B.Weakness

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABSTRACT

My Thesis Statement: In this paper I intend to offer an answer to the question: “Who is the “he” of Daniel 9:27 and on what basis do you build your argument?”

INTRODUCTION

The identity of the individual of Daniel 9:27 referred to only as “he” has been the subject of great debate. As is the case with most prophesies concerning the issue of eschatology, there exist a number of varying interpretations. Some see the “he” to be Christ himself, others see here a reference to the antichrist, while still others identify the ”he” to be a conquering, dictatorial government.

This final seven-year period in Daniel’s seventy weeks is commonly known among futurist interpreters as the “Great Tribulation” because of the suffering and severe testing which is to be endured by those living on the earth at that time. Classical interpreters, however, see the initial fulfillment of Daniel’s prophetic sections in past historical events, with the ultimate fulfillment for many prophecies to be experienced in the end times.

This final period of the “times of the Gentiles” is projected by futurists to begin when “he” makes a covenant to protect Israel for a seven-year period (Is. 28:14–17). The first three and a half years (42 months; Rev. 13:1–5) will be known to the Jews as “the beginning of sorrows” (Matt. 24:8), as “he” gathers a coalition of nations under his might and persuasion (Rev. 13:3–5).

At mid-point of Daniel’s Seventieth Week (after 31 ½ years), “he” will change his stance toward the Jews and demand that they worship him. This is the “abomination of desolation”, which Daniel and Paul refer to (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:2–4). It will include the desecration of the temple and great persecution of Israel.[1]

It is the author’s intend to demonstrate that the “he” can only refer to one person – the antichrist. The author shall attempt to introduce sufficient evidence for his position while discounting two of the most common alternative views as to the issue in question.

I. Why “he” is the antichrist

A. Basic Premise

The entire Christian dispensation, beginning with the crucifixion of Christ, is left out of Daniel 9:24-27 as it incidentally occurs between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week. Verses

9:26-27 address the events following the end of the Christian dispensation.

The judgment of God upon His people is to allow the destruction of their “city and sanctuary” (9:26). This destruction is to be brought about by the people of a Prince, who will appear and subsequently be destroyed at the end of the seventieth week.

This “Prince” is the “he” of Dan. 9:27 – the antichrist, connected with and at the head of the revived Roman Empire. The “Prince” (v. 26) should not be confused with the one who headed the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70 as this was but an illustration of a future invasion and destruction to be led by the antichrist.[2] This is evident from the fact that Dan. 9:27 infers that this Prince is to play his part in the yet future seventieth week.

Additional evidence further makes it clear that the subject of v. 27 is none other than the antichrist, “the Prince that shall come” (v. 26). By the time “he” appears on the scene, large numbers of Jews will have returned to their land (cf. Isa. 18), and it is with them the “he” makes a covenant. This will be regarded by God with indignation, as a covenant with Death,and an agreement with Sheol. But while this covenant is accepted by the majority of the Jews, God will again reserve to Himself a remnant that will refuse to bow to “Baal”. That there

will be a remnant is clear from the text, which states that the covenant will be with “many” not all.

The fact that Daniel states that “he”, after three and a half years, will issue a decree ordering the sacrifices to cease, and the worship of Jehovah to be directed to him, further underscores the identity of “he” as being the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:4).[3]

i. Argument #1

Daniel. 9:27 should be viewed in light of Revelation 13:11–15. By linking these scriptures together, the following facts come to the forefront. (a)The false Prophet will perform great wonders, and will command men to shape a likeness of the beast. The erecting of this “image” will most likely be accompanied by supernatural phenomena and the “image” itself will possess supernatural power, for it shall be able to “speak” (Rev.13:15). (b) The “image” will stand in the holy place (Matt. 24:15) - the rebuilt Temple at Jerusalem. (c) This “image” will be set up during the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week (Da 9:27; 12:11) while “he” poses as the Christ. (d) The “daily sacrifice” will cease when “he” drops his religious pretensions and defies heaven as well as earth. The image will be the object of worship, and those who refuse to worship it will be killed (Rev. 13:14, 15). (e) This “image” is termed by Christ the abomination of desolation.” The term “abomination” is an Old Testament expression connected with idolatry, and signifies some special idol or false god (see Deut. 7:26; 1 Kings 11:5-7).[4]

ii. Argument #2
Daniel 11:21-37 leads to same conclusion as it treats the analogous period in the same manner as does 9:17; From Daniel 11:21-24; 30b-37 to the end of the chapter the text provides a continuous history of the antichrist. Henceforth, it serves to solidify the claim that “he” of 9:27 is indeed one and the same – the antichrist. Beginning with 11:21, Daniel speaks of a vile person who will not be given the kingdom but who will come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries the details surrounding said person are divided into three parts This “Vile Person” is the “Prince of the Covenant,” therefore, identifying him as the “Prince” of 9:26, 27.
Verse 23 states that after he has made a covenant he will work deceitfully. This “covenant” is undoubtedly the seven-year treaty confirmed with Israel, made early on in antichrist’s reign. It is also the period during which the pollution of the sanctuary and the ceasing of the daily sacrifice culminate into the abomination of desolation. There can be little doubt that these verses are relating what will take place during the seventieth week. The mention of polluting the Sanctuary is an unmistakable reference to “the abomination of desolation,” i.e. the setting up of an idol to the antichrist in the Temple. It should be pointed out that the repeated use of the plural pronoun in this verse, the “they”, refers to the Antichrist and the False Prophet (cf. Rev 13).
Verses 23-31 address the interval from the time when “he” makes a covenant with Israel, to the taking away of the daily sacrifice and subsequently the setting up of the abomination of desolation.Following these events there will exist a brief season when “he” shows his true colors and openly defies God, while causing death and mayhem on earth (32–37 - [45]). A significant detail found in verse 32 is the allusion made to the faithful remnant—those who do know their God.[5]
The King in v. 36 and the “Vile Person” are one and the same. This is not only apparent by the absence of any break in the prophecy, but also by the connecting “and” with which the verse opens. Removing any lasting doubt is definitely established by the fact that in v. 27 (note context) the “Vile Person” is expressly termed a “king!” The contents of this thirty-sixth verse clearly connects “the king” with the Man of Sin of 2 Thess. 2:3, 4, identifies him with the “little horn” (cf. 7:23; 8:25) and refers to the “he” in 9:27.[6]

II. Why “he” is not the Christ

A. Basic Premise
Matthew Henry and others, contents that Christ is the “Prince that shall come” and that He employs either the Roman armies in His service, which are his armies (Mt. 22:7), belonging to a monarchy yet to come, or perhaps the Gentiles who, although still strangers, will become the people of the Messiah, yet later will destroy the Jews. The destruction by war and the subsequent end of that war is to be the decreed desolation (26).[7]
Preterist, Dr. Kenneth Gentry contents that the indefinite pronoun ‘he’ does not refer back to ‘the prince who is to come’ of verse 26." Fellow preterist, Gary DeMar, insists that it is Jesus who ‘will make a firm covenant with the many,’ not the antichrist. Yet, such an interpretation is not only erroneous but also violates the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew text.

B. Weakness
i. Issue #1
The above interpretations are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The text mentions a time period, and then announces what God will achieve in this period (v.24). God’s ultimate objective is of primary importance and the schedule only of secondary importance, a fact often reversed by scholars who seem to focus on the time period rather than on God’s objective. The text deals with time in relation to the Messiah in vv.25–26a and focuses on a man whom Jesus Christ would later call ‘the abomination of desolation’ (vv.26b–27; Matt 24:15, etc.).[8]
Another important fact is that in Hebrew grammar, as with most languages, a pronoun would refer to the nearest antecedent, unless there was a contextual reason to think otherwise. In this instance, the nearest antecedent in agreement with "he" is "the prince who is to come" in verse 26. Only a priori theological bias could lead a scholar of ancient Hebrew to reach any other conclusion.

ii. Issue #2
Leon Wood makes some interesting observations. The unusual manner of mention regarding that “prince” in verse 26, calls for further reference such as that of verse 27. There would be no plausible reason for the earlier mention unless something further were to be said regarding him, for he does nothing nor plays any part in activities there described. In addition, the event of vv. 26-27 cannot refer to Christ for several reasons. “He” makes a covenant with “many,” however, Christ made no such covenant. God made a Covenant of Grace with man, and Christ fulfilled the requirements under it.
Amillennials suggest that Christ confirmed or fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant; however, the Gospels give no indication that Christ did with His first coming. Had Christ made a covenant with people during His lifetime, the idea of mentioning it only here in the overall thought of the passage is simply not reasonable. The idea of the seventieth week, here closely associated with “he”, does not correlate with the life and ministry of Christ, as His ministry did not last seven years. Furthermore, the fact that “he” orders "sacrifice and offering” to cease is unlikely in reference to Christ in this context, since Christ’s death did not stop sacrifices and offerings.Amillennials argue that “sacrifice and offering” ceased subsequent to Christ's atoning death. Yet, although, sacrifices and offerings are indeed of no further use, and thus cease in principle, the manner in which the alleged reference is stated here seems improbable, as it is difficult to rationalize why such a fundamental truth would be expressed in such uncertain language.[9] Henceforth, it is safe to conclude that the immediate context of this passage and the book as a whole supports the author’s view that “he” refers to none other than the antichrist.

III. Why “he” is not Antiochus Epiphanes

A. Basic Premise

Interpretations of this message vary enormously, and depend on the interpreter’s wider view of the fulfillment of prophecy. Liberal scholars, who view the writing of Daniel in the context of the second century B.C., see the period in question to stretch from the sixth century to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On that premise, the four hundred and ninety years are being either understood in round terms, or literally and, perhaps, mistakenly.

Those who hold to the view that “he” indeed refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, point out that a grave “abomination of desolation” was committed in 168 B.C. Under the reign of Antiochus, an altar was constructed on top of the great altar of burnt offerings, and a pig, considered an unclean animal by Jews, was sacrificed there; not to mention that a statue of the Greek deity “Zeus” was erected in the “Holy of Holies.” This act precipitated the Maccabean revolt, which Antiochus attempted unsuccessfully to put down with great cruelty (167-164 B.C.).

B. Weakness

The fact that this abomination does not occur until the consummation, suggests that verse 27 describes the “abomination of desolation” of the antichrist who is yet to come against the living God (cf. Matt. 24:15) and not that of Antiochus.[10] From the perspective of the NT, one can hardly arrive at any conclusion other than that the Anointed One (Da 9:25) is fulfilled in Jesus Christ whose death on the cross brings atonement and the end of guilt (9:24). As some conservative interpreters have demonstrated by means of various calculations, the figure of four hundred and ninety is a chronologically exact prediction of the death of Christ.[11]

CONCLUSION

In summary, Daniel 9:27 succinctly captures the horror of the path that humanity is currently following. It must have pained Daniel tremendously to learn that “he” - the antichrist, will be so convincing that he will persuade even some of the angels in Heaven to follow Satan’s earlier example and rebel against their Creator.

Verse 9:27 links the times of Daniel to the future and thus, to “he” - the antichrist, who will act on Satan’s behalf on earth. The ruler of this world, through his representative, will be granted the power to destroy life to such an extraordinary degree (v.24) that the human race will come to the brink of extinction. It will only be by divine intervention that a remnant of humanity will be saved (Mark 13:20).

This vision therefore maps the course of history to the arrival of the ultimate apostate man whose time, during the course of transgressing against God, will finally end. God will terminate his reign, put an end to the desolator and to desolation, and usher in His reign of righteousness under the Messiah.[12]

END NOTES

1. Jack W. Hayford, and Gary Curtis, Until The End of Time: Revealing The Future of Humankind: a Study of Daniel and Revelations, Spirit-Filled Life Bible Discovery Guides (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1994).

2. Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993), Da 9:1.

3. Arthur Walkington Pink, The Antichrist, Reprint (Originally Published: Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, 1923. With New Foreword. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005), 154.

4. Ibid, 169.

5. Ibid, 159.

6. Pink, The Antichrist, 160.

7. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991), Da. 9:20

8. M.S. Mills, Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel (Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999), Da 9:24.

9. Leon Wood, A Commentary On Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 257.

10. The NKJV Study Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), Da 9:27.

11. D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Rev. Ed. Of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited By D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970., 4th Ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 1994), Da 9:20.

12. M.S. Mills, Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel (Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999), Da 9:1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Rev. Ed. Of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited By D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970., 4th Ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Darby, J. N. Synopsis of The Books of The Bible: Ezra to Malachi. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.

Hayford, Jack W., and Gary Curtis. Until The End of Time: Revealing The Future of Humankind: a Study of Daniel and Revelations. Spirit-Filled Life Bible Discovery Guides. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1994.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991.

Mills, M.S. Daniel: A Study Guide to The Book of Daniel. Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999.

Pink, Arthur Walkington. The Antichrist. Reprint. Originally Published: Swengel, Pa. : Bible Truth Depot, 1923. With New Foreword. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005.

The NKJV Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1993.

Wood, Leon. A Commentary On Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

THE OCCASION AND DATE OF THE BOOK OF ROMANS

2009-01-21T09:11:00.004-05:00

by
JENS RANDOLFF

AUGUST 20, 2008‎
‎ ‎
‎“Our calling is not primarily to be holy men and women, but to be proclaimers of the gospel of ‎God … Paul was not conscious of himself. He was recklessly abandoned, totally surrendered, and ‎separated by God for one purpose—to proclaim the gospel of God.”‎
Oswald Chambers.‎[1]

Introduction

Paul’s address to the Romans is possibly the greatest example of epistolary writing in all of the ‎New Testament (NT). Its significance is evident in that it is listed first in virtually every list of ‎Paul’s writings, even though; it was not first in the order of composition. Paul’s audience were ‎the citizens of the capital of the Roman empire, which further underscores the importance of ‎Paul’s work and theme and content of his writing. The epistle to the Romans also ties neatly ‎into the Book of Acts, in that Acts concludes rather abruptly with Paul’s imprisonment in ‎Rome. Henceforth, Paul’s letter follows naturally in the order of Bible books.‎[2]
Questions as to the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans have never been ‎successfully challenged in, particularly in the early days of the church. All the old orthodox, as ‎well as all the old heterodox testimonies without a single exception ascribe this epistle to Paul, ‎the Apostle of Jesus Christ. The Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome and Polycarp, both ‎confidently quoted from it. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and Irenaeus in the second century, ‎as well as Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in the third, considered Paul’s epistle to the ‎Romans to be genuine. Even in more recent times, the most searching investigations of ‎modern criticism have not been able to cast any real doubt.‎[3]

Occasion

Although, the Founder of the church in Rome remains unknown, the Catholic Church credits ‎the Apostle Peter, as being its founder and even proclaims him to be her original bishop. ‎However, such claims are born of an ancient tradition, even though; the Vatican Church ‎continues to promote such claims as a fact not to be doubted, despite clear evidence to the ‎contrary.‎[4]
Paul was known only by reputation to the large Christian community in Rome; ‎therefore, he began his letter with an introduction, which was longer than usual. It was also ‎more theological and personal in nature than any of his previous or later epistles. Paul ‎unapologetically stated his credentials and his message: “called by God to preach the gospel of ‎God.”[5]‎ ‎ He wanted to make certain that the Roman people received what he had to say—that ‎they would not “turn him off” before they had a chance to read his arguments and learn about ‎his theology.[6]‎
The Church in Rome, in Paul’s days, was comprised of Jews and Gentiles (1:5, 6, 13; ‎‎2:17ff. 7:1–6; 11:13; 15:15f.), and there existed a real propensity for conflict between the two ‎groups. It is for that reason that Paul stressed the point that “there is no distinction between ‎Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all” (10:12).[7]‎ ‎ Paul’s goal was to provide answers ‎and to teach both, the unbelieving as well as the believing Jew; to confirm the Christian, while ‎converting the non-believing Gentile; and to affirm to the Gentile convert and Jew alike, that ‎all are equal regarding one’s religious condition, and rank in the Divine favor.‎
Furthermore, the forgiveness of sin by grace through faith in Christ, independent of ‎nationality is clearly stated, contrary to the position of some proselyte Jewish Christians, who ‎were advocating sort of a cross between law and gospel criteria for salvation and attempting to ‎shut out the Gentiles “from any share in the blessings of salvation brought in by the Messiah.”‎[8]
‎ ‎
Date

Scholars generally agree that Paul wrote Romans in March of 58, near the end of his third ‎missionary journey, just prior his departure from Corinth (Acts 20:1–6). Paul had previously ‎visited Corinth on his second missionary journey. He spend eighteen months there, sharing the ‎gospel in Corinth and in Greece (Acts 18:11). On his third missionary journey, Paul stayed ‎close to three months (Acts 20:3). He had left Philippi early in April, immediately after the ‎Jewish Passover and departed Corinth for Jerusalem when the shipping season opened. Paul ‎was accompanied by the eight fellow believers delegated to offer the collection of relief ‎supplies to the famine-stricken believers in Jerusalem and Palestine (Acts 20:4; 24:17). Before ‎Paul left Corinth on this journey, he wrote Romans.‎[9]

Endnotes:

[1]. James Reimann, ed., My Utmost for His Highest: An Updated Edition in Today's Language : The Golden Book of Oswald Chambers (Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House; reprint, Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson, 1992).

[2]. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: an Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985). 2:435

[3]. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 3 of 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008). Part two, xiii.

[4]. Ibid, xiv.

[5]. Kenneth Boa, and William Kruidenier, vol. 6, Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 16.

[6]. R. Kent Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991), 16

[7]. William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 12-13, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Accompanying Biblical Text Is Author's Translation. New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 2.

[8]. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991). Ro 1:1.

[9]. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to The Romans (Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936), 5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boa, Kenneth, and William Kruidenier. Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman ‎Reference. Vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.‎

Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of ‎Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 12-13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-‎‎2001.
‎
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible: Complete and ‎Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1991.‎

Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness From Heaven. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.‎

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, ‎On The Old and New Testaments. Vol. 3 of 3. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, ‎‎2008.‎

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to The Romans. Columbus, OH: ‎Lutheran Book Concern, 1936.‎

Walvoord, John F., Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge ‎Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985.
‎
Reimann, James, ed. My Utmost for His Highest: An Updated Edition in Today's Language : The ‎Golden Book of Oswald Chambers. Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House. Reprint, ‎Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson, 1992.‎

PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN HIS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

2009-01-21T09:04:00.003-05:00

by Jens Randolff

October 3, 2008‎

‎ ‎
CONTENTS

TABLES iv
INTRODUCTION ‎1‎
BIBLIOGRAPHY ‎18‎

TABLES

TABLE 1. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in His Epistle to the Romans[1]
Rom 1:17‎ Hab 2:4‎ IF: “as it is written.”‎
Rom 2:24‎ Isa 52:5‎ IF: “as it is written.”‎
Rom 3:4‎ Ps 51:4 [MT= 51:6; LXX= ‎‎50:6] ‎ IF: “as it is written.”‎
Rom 3:10–18‎ Pss 14:1–3 [LXX= 13:1–3]; 5:9 ‎‎[MT and LXX= 5:10]; 140:3 ‎‎[MT= 140:4; LXX= 139:4]; ‎‎10:7 [MT= 9:28]; Isa 59:7–8; Ps ‎‎36:1 [MT= 36:2; LXX= 35:2] ‎ IF: “as it is written.”‎
Rom 4:3, 9, 22‎ Gen 15:6 ‎ IF: “What does the ‎scripture say?” ‎
Rom 4:7–8‎ Ps 32:1–2 [LXX= 31:1–2]‎ IF: “as David also says.”‎
Rom 4:17‎ Gen 17:5‎ IF: “as it is written.”‎
Rom 4:18‎ Gen 15:5‎ IF: “according to that ‎which was said.”‎
Rom 7:7‎ Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21‎ IF: “the law said.”‎
Rom 8:36‎ Ps 44:22 [MT= 44:23; LXX= ‎‎43:23] ‎ IF: “as it is written.”‎
Rom 9:7‎ Gen 21:12‎ IF: “but.” ‎
Rom 9:9‎ Gen 18:10, 14‎ IF: “this is the word of ‎promise.”‎
Rom 9:12‎ Gen 25:23‎ IF: “it was said to her.”‎
Rom 9:13‎ Mal 1:2–3‎ IF: “as it is written.” ‎
Rom 9:15‎ Exod 33:19‎ IF: “to Moses he said.”‎
Rom 9:17‎ Exod 9:16‎ IF: “the scripture said to ‎Pharaoh.”‎
Rom 9:25–26‎ Hos 2:23 [MT = 2:25], 1:10 ‎‎[MT = 2:1] ‎ IF: “as he [God] said also ‎in Hosea.”‎
Rom 9:27–28‎ Isa 10:22–23‎ IF: “Hosea cried out ‎concerning Israel.”‎
Rom 9:29‎ Isa 1:9‎ IF:“as Isaiah said before.”‎
Rom 9:33‎ Isa 28:16; 8:14‎ IF: “as it is written.”‎
Rom 10:5‎ Lev 18:5‎ IF:“Moses wrote.”‎
Rom 10:6–8‎ Deut 30:12–14‎ IF:“the righteousness that ‎is by faith speaks in this ‎manner.”‎
Rom 10:11‎ Isa 28:16‎ IF:“the scripture says.”‎
Rom 10:13‎ Joel 2:32 [MT and LXX= 3:5] ‎ IF:“for.”‎
Rom 10:15‎ Isa 52:7‎ IF:“as it is written.” ‎
Rom 10:16‎ Isa 53:1‎ IF:“Isaiah says.”‎
Rom 10:18‎ Ps 19:4 [MT= 19:5; LXX= ‎‎18:5] ‎ IF:“yes, indeed ‎‎(μενοῦνγε).”‎
Rom 10:19‎ Deut 32:21‎ IF:“Moses says.”‎
Rom 10:20–21‎ Isa 65:1–2‎ IF:“Isaiah says.”‎
Rom 11:3‎ ‎1 Kgs 19:14‎ IF:“the scripture says of ‎Elijah.”‎
Rom 11:4‎ ‎1 Kgs 19:18‎ IF:“What was the divine ‎response to him?”‎
Rom 11:8‎ Isa 29:10; Deut 29:4 [MT= ‎‎29:3] ‎ IF:“as it is written.”‎
Rom 11:9–10‎ Ps 69:22–23 [MT= 69:23–24; ‎LXX 68:23–24] ‎ IF:“David says.”‎
Rom 11:26–27‎ Isa 59:20–21; 27:9‎ IF:“as it is written.”‎
Rom 11:34–35‎ Isa 40:13; Job 41:11 [MT and ‎LXX= 41:3] ‎ IF:“for.”‎
Rom 12:19–20‎ Deut 32:35; Prov. 25:21–22‎ IF:“it is written … says ‎the Lord.”‎
Rom 13:9‎ Exod 20:13–17; Deut 5:17–21‎ IF:“for this.”‎
Rom 13:9‎ Lev 19:18‎ IF:“if there is any other ‎commandment, it is ‎summed up in this word.”‎
Rom 14:11‎ Isa 45:23‎ IF:“as it is written.”‎
Rom 15:3‎ Ps 69:9 [MT=69:10; LXX= ‎‎68:10] ‎ IF:“as it is written.”‎
Rom 15:9‎ Ps 18:49 [MT=18:50; LXX= ‎‎17:50] ‎ IF:“as it is written.”‎
Rom 15:10‎ Deut 32:43‎ IF:“again he says.”‎
Rom 15:11‎ Ps 117:1 [LXX=116:1] ‎ IF:“and again.”‎
Rom 15:12‎ Isa 11:10‎ IF:“and again Isaiah says.”‎
Rom 15:21‎ Isa 52:15‎ IF:“as it is written.”‎

IF Introductory Formula
LXX Septuagint (A = Alexandrinus; B = Vaticanus)‎
MT Masoretic Text

INTRODUCTION

The epistle to the Romans is the first of three letters in the New Testament (NT) based on one ‎verse of Scripture, "The righteous will live by his faith." (Hab. 2:4, HCSB), which is found in ‎Rom. 1:17.[2]‎ ‎ Here the apostle Paul is almost literally quoting Hab. 2:4b, and he could not have ‎chosen a better prophecy from which to quote. The passage fits the situation exactly and in ‎connection with the question, "What must I do to be accepted by God?" it remains true as well ‎that "The righteous will live by his faith." "In quietness and confidence shall be your strength" ‎‎(Isa. 30:15).[3]‎
Paul‘s message is nothing other than a proclamation of the scriptures. His purpose is to ‎communicate that in the person of Jesus Christ (1:1-7; 10:1-4; 15:4; 16:25-27) the “gospel of ‎God concerning His Son” is the fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT) prophesies. Paul quotes ‎roughly 60 times from the OT, not counting his frequent use of allusions throughout the ‎epistle, more times than in any of his other letters.[4]‎ ‎ His quotes originate mostly from the book ‎of Psalms and the book of Isaiah [see table 1], and his references to or quotations from the Old ‎Testament are often paraphrased, summarized, and in some cases, such as Rom 3:10-18, a ‎compilation of quotes from several books, paragraphs, and verses.‎
An interesting fact is Paul’s use of allusions, which make up the central theological ‎vocabulary of this epistle, such as “gospel”, “promise”, “faith”, “son of God”, “Holy Spirit”, to ‎name a few, all of which are rooted in Hebrew Scripture. Paul also uses allusions to capture ‎broader subjects without directly quoting any text, such as his references to the “fall of man” ‎and his godless and unrighteous nature (1:18-32), Adam’s transgressions (5:12-21), as well as ‎human conflict with God’s law (7:7-25), which are references to the Genesis 3 narrative.‎
Furthermore, Paul’s ever so slight hints to the Shema’, (‎שְׁמַע‎ [shâma` /shem•ah/], Heb. ‎‎“hear), form the foundation on which he rests his argument through the end of Romans 11 ‎and beyond. However, the only subtle allusion is found in Romans 3:30.‎[5]

Significance of the Shĕma‘‎
The central teaching of Judaism, the Shĕma‘, proclaims: “Listen,[6] Israel: The Lord our God, ‎the Lord is One.” (Deut. 6:4, HCSB).[7]‎ ‎ It was the Jewish confession of faith, proclaiming the ‎unity of God,[8]‎ ‎ and following the exile, became the canonic creed of the Jewish faith never to ‎be seriously questioned again.[9]‎ ‎ It is the best-known verse in all of Judaism and was widely used ‎in Jewish liturgy.[10] ‎ The last letters of the first and last words of this verse are written in Hebrew ‎Bibles in oversized script, thereby forming the Hebrew word ‘witness’ to indicate that by this ‎verse Jews bore witness to the oneness and uniqueness of their God.[11]‎
Paul employs the Shĕma‘ to support his argument that if there is only one God, then ‎this necessitates that He is the not only God of the Jews, but the God of all.[12]‎ ‎ Jesus Himself ‎distinguished the Shĕma‘ as the first commandment in the law (Mark 12:29).‎[13] ‎ ‎

Justification by Faith
Paul, being a Jew himself and having been trained as a Pharisee, naturally had a greater ‎understanding of Jewish thought and theology than most. It is perhaps for that reason alone, ‎that Paul repeatedly cites the OT to make his point. He makes reference to the Patriarchs and ‎their standing before Jehovah, to make his argument. For example, Paul destroys the wrongful ‎use of Abraham, the Jewish model of models, as an example of the conventional "works-‎salvation" view. Salvation for Abraham was “sola fide” and Paul illustrates his point by quoting ‎from the book of Genesis, "Abram believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as ‎righteousness." (Gen 15:6. HCSB)‎
Furthermore, Paul makes the argument that Abraham was declared righteous while still ‎a Gentile, which he remained for some fourteen to twenty-nine years before he became a Jew! ‎Henceforth, "sola fide" was a Gentile principle long before it became Jewish reality. Abraham is ‎the father of uncircumcised believers and the father of circumcised believers—not on the ‎ground of circumcision, but of faith.‎
If circumcision and its many blessings had nothing to do with Abraham's justification, ‎the Law had even less to do with it. Paul explains in verse 13, "For the promise to Abraham or ‎to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not through the law, but through the ‎righteousness that comes by faith"‎
Having established the "faith alone" principle, Paul goes on to say, "Now to the one ‎who works, pay is not considered as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does ‎not work, but believes on Him who declares righteous the ungodly, his faith is credited for ‎righteousness." (Rom 4:4, 5, HCSB).‎
This must have been an enervating concept and unsettling terms to the traditional ‎Jewish ear. First, Paul discourages working for salvation. Second, the self-contradictory ‎description of God as a "God who justifies the wicked" (literally the ungodly) assaulted ‎traditional sensibilities. The Old Testament repeatedly denounces the acquittal of the wicked ‎and the condemnation of the innocent. In fact, to discourage such injustice God presented ‎himself as an example saying, "I will not justify the guilty." (Exodus 23:7, HCSB). Thus, to say ‎that God justifies the wicked seemed outrageous to the law-abiding Jews. However, the ‎difference lies between law and grace. God forbids in the Law what in fact he does by grace in ‎the gospel.[14]‎

Further Evidence

Having established that Abraham was regarded as righteous by faith before his good works, and ‎having sufficiently stated the “sola fide” principle, Paul turns the attention to yet another great ‎Old Testament saint—King David. He retells the narrative of David's blessedness and joyous ‎relief at having his sins against Bathsheba and Uriah forgiven, an undeserved righteousness ‎bestowed upon him, as described in Psalm 32:1, 2.‎
Paul explains that David states the same principle when he speaks of the blessedness of ‎the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:‎
‎"How happy is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!‎
How happy is the man the Lord does not charge with sin, and in whose spirit is no deceit!" (Ps ‎‎32:1-2, HCSB)[15]‎
David had unmerited righteousness credited to him is, because of faith! He had broken ‎three of the ten Commandments outright when he coveted Bathsheba, committed adultery, ‎and murdered Uriah. The Old Testament sacrificial system made no provision for such ‎premeditated sin.[16]‎ ‎ This is why David cried in Psalm 51:16,17:‎
‎"You do not want a sacrifice, or I would give it; You are not pleased with a burnt ‎offering. The sacrifice pleasing to God is a broken spirit. God, You will not despise a broken ‎and humbled heart."‎[17]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the most influential voice in Judaism was the voice of "father Abraham," so ‎Paul suggests to his readers that they study the patriarch on the matter of faith: "What then can ‎we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? [the matter of faith versus ‎works]?" (Rom 4:1, HCSB) The significance of Paul's line of arguing is that the testimony of ‎the founder of the faith would have far-reaching importance.‎[18]
Paul draws this magnificent conclusion: "This is why the promise is by faith, so that it ‎may be according to grace, to guarantee it to all the descendants—not only to those who are of ‎the law, but also to those who are of Abraham's faith. He is the father of us all" (Rom 4:16, ‎HCSB). The universal principle of grace teaches us that salvation comes by faith alone.[19]‎
The church father Origen, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, reasoned ‎it syllogistically (brackets added): "This is a rhetorical argument, which goes like this:‎
‎[Major Premise:] Someone who is justified by works has nothing to boast of before God.‎
‎[Minor Premise:] But Abraham did have something to glory in before God.
‎[Conclusion:] Therefore he was justified by faith and not by works."[20]‎
The final doxology in Paul’s epistle is directed at the church in Rome to remind the ‎brethren of the guilty, idolatrous nature of man (1:18-23)
‎
‎25 Now to Him who has power to strengthen you
according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the sacred secret
kept silent for long ages, ‎26 but now revealed and made known
through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God,‎
to advance the obedience of faith among all nations— ‎27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ—‎
to Him be the glory forever! Amen.‎
‎(Rom 16:25-27, HCSB)‎

Here, Paul reiterates that that the church in Rome was established by God, not man. ‎Furthermore, Paul reminds his audience that the work of an apostle depends solely on the ‎power of God, which is also the message of the gospel and the promulgation of Jesus Christ. ‎The mystery of Israel’s salvation is found in Scripture (11:25-27) and in the mystery of the ‎gospel, which was silent for long ages (16:25d). Yet, the mystery has now been “revealed and ‎made manifest” (16:25c, 26a [cf. 1:17; 3:21]). Thus, that which was present in Scripture is now ‎revealed.‎[21]
Paul’s giving glory “to the only wise God” is an expression of salvation received, as ‎implied in his earlier allusion to Genesis 3. It shows Paul’s “gratitude for God’s revelation of ‎His saving grace in Christ Jesus. Paul’s praise and worship of God is in response to God’s ‎mercy and unexpected work of salvation through Jesus the Messiah. God alone is wise and “to ‎Him be the glory forever, Amen.”‎

Endnotes:

[1] Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Vancouver: ‎W.B. Eerdmans; Regent College Pub., 1999), 92.‎

‎[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor ‎Books, 1993), 362.
‎
‎[3] William Hendriksen, and Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's ‎Epistle to The Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 63-65. ‎
‎
[4] G.K. Beale, and D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament ‎‎(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic; reprint, Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007), 607.
‎
[5]‎ Ibid‎

‎[6] Some other versions render it “hear”.‎

‎[7] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker ‎Books, 1999), 730. ‎

[8] Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive ‎Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2d ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 467. ‎

[9] Scot McKnight, Introducing New Testament Interpretation: Guides to New Testament Exegesis; 1 ‎‎(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), 40. ‎
‎
[10] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period, 51.‎
‎
[11] Beale, and Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, 607. ‎
‎
[12] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, vol. 6 (Grand ‎Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, c1998), 205. ‎

[13] Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row, and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible ‎Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 939. ‎

[14] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to The Romans (London: The Tyndale Press, 1966), 114. ‎
‎
[15] R. Kent Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991), 92. ‎
‎
[16] A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 401. ‎

[17] Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven, 92.‎

[18] Kenneth Boa, and William Kruidenier, Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman ‎Reference, vol. 6 (Nashville, TN: Broadman amp; Holman Publishers, 2000), 127. ‎

[19] Hughes, Romans: Righteousness From Heaven, 94.‎
‎
[20] Gerald Bray, ed., Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. 6 (Downers Grove, IL: ‎InterVarsity Press, 2005), 105. ‎

‎[21] Beale, and Carson, eds., Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, 692-93. ‎

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, A. A. The Book of Psalms. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981.‎

Achtemeier, Paul J., Publishers Harper & Row, and Society of Biblical Literature. Harper's ‎Bible Dictionary, Includes Index., 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.‎

Beale, G.K., and D.A. Carson, eds. Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old ‎Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. Reprint, Nottingham, England: ‎Apollos, 2007.
‎
Boa, Kenneth, and William Kruidenier. Romans, Holman New Testament Commentary; ‎Holman Reference. Vol. 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman amp; Holman Publishers, 2000.‎

Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture. Vol. 6. Downers ‎Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.‎

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to The Romans. London: The Tyndale Press, 1966.‎

Corley, Bruce, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics: A ‎Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2d ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman & ‎Holman, 2002.
‎
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker ‎Books, 1999.
‎
Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of ‎Paul's Epistle to The Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
‎
Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness From Heaven. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
‎
Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period, 2d ed. Vancouver: Regent ‎College Pub., 1999.
‎
McKnight, Scot. Introducing New Testament Interpretation: Guides to New Testament Exegesis; ‎‎1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989.
‎
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, vol. 6. ‎Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, c1998.‎

Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe's Expository Outlines On The Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor ‎Books, 1993.‎

Should Everybody be a Missionary? By Jens Randolff

2007-10-25T22:17:00.001-04:00

Should everybody be a "missionary?"‎

Since the time of Christ’s issuing of the Great Commission, to preach the gospel throughout “all ‎the world,” the history of the Christian church has been in great part a history of missions. ‎Although, not every Christian is called to become a full-time missionary in the classic sense of ‎the word, all Christians, without exception, are commissioned to share God’s message.‎
Too often so-called Christians maintain that their faith is “something” private when ‎confronted by those who seek to discuss religion. Their refusal to engage in dialogue, more often ‎than not, is a response to fear, fear of being exposed as phonies or hypocrites. Yet others are ‎afraid to reveal their inaptness with regard to knowledge of the Scriptures. Of course there are ‎those who simply are too shy or timid to speak out and thus the Holy Spirit may intervene by ‎empowering them with a sudden boldness at the right moment.‎
To consider one’s faith a private matter is to disobey Christ for neither Christ nor His ‎disciples kept the Gospel to themselves. Had they done so a whole lot fewer Christians would ‎have found themselves on the lunch menu of some lion in the Roman circus. Jesus was very clear ‎on what He expected of Christians then as well as now, which is to proclaim the Gospel to the ‎ends of the world. Thus, in a broader sense of the word, everybody is called to be a missionary, ‎even if his “end of the world” is his or her place of employment or next-door neighbor.‎

The Rise of Islam: A Brief History From Its Beginning To The Schism And Subsequent Onset Of Secretarian Violence

2007-10-25T04:11:00.004-04:00

By: Jens Randolff

04 July 2007

TABLE OF CONTENS

Timeline

Foreword

Introduction

CHAPTER I

A. Fundamentals

1. The Prophet

2. The five pillars of Islam

3. The Qur’an

4. The Sunnah

B. Beginnings

1. Flight to Medina

2. Early Battles

a. Battle of Badr

b. Battle of Uhud

c. Battle of Medina

d. Conquest of Mecca

CHAPTER II

A. The Great Schism

1. Muhammad’s Death

2. Quest for a Successor

3. The Caliphs

a. Abu Bakr

b. Umar

c. Uthman

d. Ali

e. The Umayyad Dynasty

B. Sectarianism

1. Sunnis

2. Shiites

C. Conclusion

GLOSSARY

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TIMELINE

A.D. 610 Prophet Muhammad receives first revelation.

616 Persecution of Muhammad and his followers begins.
620 Arabs from Yathrib[1] offer Muhammad leadership of their community.
622 Year of the hijrah.[2]
624 Battle of Badr.
625 Battle of Uhud.

627 Battle of the “Trench,” Muslims massacre all men of the Jewish tribe of Qaynuqah.

628 Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Mecca and Medina.
630 Muhammad captures Mecca without bloodshed, but has some city leader executed.
632 Death of the Prophet Muhammad.
632-34 Abu Bakr is caliph. Wars of riddah (“apostasy”). Abu Bakr defeats the rebels and unites tribes.
634-44 Umar is elected caliph. Muslim armies invade Iraq, Syria and Egypt.
638 Muslims capture Jerusalem, which becomes third holiest city to Islam.
641 Muslims control Syria, Palestine and Egypt.
644 Caliph Umar is assassinated.
644-50 Uthman becomes caliph. Muslims conquer Cyprus, Tripoli (N. Africa) and establish Muslim rule in Iran Afghanistan and Sind.
656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated.
656-60 Ali becomes caliph. First fitnah (“civil war”) ensues.
656 Battle of the “Camel.” Ali’s partisans win battle.
657 Attempt to resolve conflict fails. Muslims split into sects. The Kharijites secede from the Arab union.
661 Caliph Ali is assassinated by a Kharijites extremist.
661-80 Muawiyah becomes caliph and establishes the UmayyahDynasty. Capital is moved to Damascus.
680-92 Yazid I becomes second caliph of Umayyad Dynasty. Second fitnah.
680 Shi’ites declare Husayn, Ali’s second son, the rightful caliph. Husayn is killed on his way to Kufah by Yazid’s troops on the plains of Kabala.
683 Death of Yazid and his only son and successor to the caliphate.
684 Kharijites revolt and set up independent state in central Arabia.
685-705 Abd al-Malik becomes caliph and restores power to the Umayyad Dynasty.
691 Kharijites and Shi’ite forces defeated.
705-17 Caliphate of al-Walid. Spain comes under Muslim control.
743-44 Abbasid faction begins to oppose Umayyad rule.
749 Abbasid forces capture Kufah and effectively end Umayyad rule.
750-54 Abbu al-Abbas al-Saffah becomes first Abbasid caliph. He massacres all members of the Umayyad family.[3]

FOREWORD

On September 11, 2001, America experienced the worst attack on its soil to this day. The attackers were followers of the fastest growing and second largest religion in the world and Americans, in particular Christians, were finally forced to take notice. Up to that point, Islamic terrorism had been thought of as a phenomenon confined to the Middle East, parts of Europe and maybe American interests overseas even after a previous bomb incident in New York a few years earlier.. America paid dearly for its ignorance of Islam’s goal of world domination.

Although, this paper will limit itself to the events surrounding the early days of Islam and the schism between two Islamic sects, Sunni and Shiite, it is the author’s sincere hope that America will begin to take a greater interest in the message and goal of this religion. It is a dangerous misconception to think of Islamic terrorists as a small group of fanatics, when in fact their actions are representative of the teachings of Muhammad, their great “prophet.” Violence and terror are their means to an end. This is well supported in the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet Muhammad, and is the second most sacred text of Islam.

Muhammad’s words, but more importantly his actions and practices are the standard by which every Muslim is expected to live.[4] Muhammad is considered Allah's final prophet and the Quran the eternal, unalterable words of Allah himself. Therefore, the entire Muslim concept of morality and justice rests upon the interpretation of the Qur’an and what is outlined in the Sunnah[5] (way), the Hadith[6] (sayings) and the Sira (life) of the Prophet. The Sira was authored by Muhammad bin Ishaq, one of Islam's great eighth century scholars and offers a detailed

description of the events of A.D. 622, the year of the Hijra.

The Hijra is considered more significant than the date of Muhammad's birth or death or that of the first Qur’anic revelation. When Muhammad left Mecca with his companions Islam transformed into a political-military movement. The Islamic calendar attests to the significance of the event by setting year one from the date of its occurrence.[7] This is also the point that Islam changed from a relatively tolerant creed to its current form of oppression and persecution of all “infidels” and unbelievers were given the choice to convert to Islam or to die by the sword.

Islam is not a religion of peace, but is first and foremost a political-military movement, regardless of what some may want the world to believe. Self-professed Muslims who claim to abhor violence are either deceiving others and themselves or simply do not understand the teachings and doctrines of their own religion. Islam is and always has been a religion spread by the sword, and the world can either accept the facts or face the consequences, just as America had to that infamous morning of September 11, 2001.

INTRODUCTION

Islam is a monotheistic belief system that shares its early ancestry with Jews and Christians alike. Yet, soon after its founding Islam turned from a religion of peace and tolerance to one of violent conquest and forced conversions or death to all unbelievers. After Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632, up to the end of temporal rule of the Caliphs in A.D. 935 Islam was also marked by infighting and sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The root cause for this schism was the decision of who should be appointed successor to Muhammad’s now vacant leadership position. It became an issue that would remain unresolved for centuries to come.

In this paper, I will attempt to accomplish two things. In the first halve of Chapter One, I will present the reader with a brief history of the Prophet Muhammad, an overview of the basic tenets of Islam, a short explanation of the Qur’an as well as a look at the sunnah, Islam’s other sacred text.

The second halve of Chapter 1 will address the events surrounding the Prophet’s flight from Mecca to Medina, which constitutes the actual beginning of the Muslim movement. Furthermore, I will offer a glimpse at the early battles under Muhammad’s command, the elimination of Muslim opposition and subsequent “conversion by the sword,” as well as an increasing disregard for human life, in particular that of unbelievers.

In Chapter 2, I intend to describe the events that led to the schism among Muslims and the subsequent rise of sectarian violence. I will begin by attempting to show the political-spiritual disarray that resulted from the power vacuum, following the Prophet’s death. Next, I will list the individuals who succeeded Muhammad as leader of Islam and the nation, and make mention of some of the major events occurring during their reign.

Last, I will give a brief look at the various factions that developed as a consequence of the schism, followed by the conclusion of this paper.

CHAPTER I

FUNDAMENTALS

The Prophet

Muhammad's prophetic career began in A.D. 610 when he was forty years old. The prophet’s early message was one of peace, repentance and charity, not unlike the message preached some 600 years earlier by Christ and His disciples. For fourteen years, Muhammad tried to spread his “gospel” among the inhabitants of Mecca, trying to gain converts for Islam, without much success one might add. The prophet mainly experienced harassment and rejection from those around him. It was not until his flight to Medina[8] in A.D. 622, that Muhammad began to attract followers of his new religion. The event also marks the point in time that Muhammad developed into a powerful political and military leader who would become an able commander and strategist, systematically conquering and killing those who opposed him.

The Five Pillars of Islam

The five pillars of Islam are the most fundamental declaration of the Muslim faith and are comprised of:

1. Faith (iman) in the oneness of Allah and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad as indicated by the Shahadah (“declaration”), -- "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

2. The five scheduled daily prayers (salah).

3. Alms-giving (zakat).

4. Fasting (sawm) during the month of Ramadan.

5. Pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca for those who are able.[9]

The pillars do not reveal the nature or requirements for the Muslim faith and are somewhat universal among most religions, in particular with regard to the second through fifth pillar -- prayer, alms giving, fasting, and pilgrimage.

The Qur’an

The Qur’an is considered the final revelation from God to mankind through his last prophet Muhammad, yet, unlike the Christian Bible, it is not the only authoritative source of God’s message. The Quran is about as long as the Christian New Testament and is comprised of 114 suras^{^[10]} of varying lengths which are arranged from longest to shortest rather than a in any logical sequence. Furthermore, the Qur’an reads more like a book of poetry, not unlike the book of Psalms in the Old Testament. Two aspects unique to Islam are the idea, that the prophethood of Muhammad supersedes all others. For example, Jesus is recognized by Muslims as one of the prophets of the past, but His teachings are considered obsolete after Muhammad allegedly received revelations from Allah through the Archangel Gabriel. The second interesting fact is, that the Qur’an contradicts itself in some places, but any such contradiction is readily explained by citing 2-106 which states: “Such of Our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?”[11]

According to Islamic teaching, Muhammad received his first revelations around A.D. 610 in a cave outside of Mecca. There he was instructed to “read” or “recite” what had been revealed to him by Allah.[12] After having received God’s revelation Muhammad then dictated it to his followers who in turn memorized fragments of the Quran and wrote them down at a later time. The many fragments, together with oral tradition, where compiled into book form by Uthman who ruled as the third Caliph, some years after Muhammad's death.

Muhammad would have many more revelations over the next twelve years, and while still residing in Mecca, he attempted to turn the people from their pagan worship. Although Muhammad strongly opposed paganism, he was very tolerant and respectful toward the monotheistic Christians and Jews. However, this tolerance would later give way to persecution, forced conversions and even genocide.[13]

The Sunnah

By Muslim standards, Muhammad is considered the "ideal man"[14]but not divine. Islam forbids any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, whether painting, statue or otherwise, as not to tempt believers into idolatry. Because Muhammad is the standard for moral and ethical conduct, his actions are never judged or compared to any independent moral standard. This would explain why Muhammad’s marriage to a six year old and the subsequent consummation of such union at age nine would later be considered a blessing for any man to be sought.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88; Narrated Ursa: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).”[15]

The Sunnah details “the way” of the prophet, in order to guide the faithful in living a good and holy life.[16] As mentioned earlier, the Qur’an alone does not contain enough guidance and the believer depends equally on the Qur’an as well as the Sunnah.

Knowledge contained in the Sunnah comes primarily from the hadiths or “reports” about Muhammad's life, which were passed down orally over a period of roughly 150 years before eventually being codified in the ninth century A.D. The hadiths and the sunnah are often used synonymously and are regarded as the most important body of Islamic texts after the Qur’an. Because of the vast number of alleged sayings, many were identified as fraud while still others were recognized but given low importance. While the absolute authenticity of even a sound hadith is not guaranteed, they are nonetheless accepted as authoritative within an Islamic context.[17]

BEGINNINGS

Flight to Medina

In 622 Muhammad and his “companions,” as they were called, made the Hijra[18], from Mecca to the oasis of Yathrib -- later renamed Medina -- about 200 miles to the north. Muhammad had made enemies among the influential businessmen and city leaders who rejected his monotheistic religion and ideas of reform. They saw their businesses threatened which relied heavily on the pilgrimage of pagan worshippers to the Ka’ba.[19]

Fearing for his safety Muhammad decided to flee the city for the oasis of Yathrib. He sent some of his companions ahead to prepare for his arrival and to ensure his welcome by the Medinan tribes.

Just as Muhammad was about to set out on his flight, a group of recent Muslim converts pledged their loyalty to him and made their way ahead of the Prophet to Medina.

Early Wars

Battle of Badr

Upon settling in Medina following the Hijra, Muhammad began a series of razzias (raids) on caravans of the Meccan Quraish tribe on their way to Syria in the hope of asserting financial pressure on his enemies.[20] The Meccans however, were alerted to the prophet’s plans and met him enroute on the plains of Badr. The ensuing battle would become Muhammad’s first major engagement and victory. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 287.)[21]

Upon returning to Medina, Muhammad gave the residents from the Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa an ultimatum -- accept Islam, leave or face annihilation. The Jews chose to leave Medina if they could retain their property, which Muhammad granted. After banishing most of the Jewish population, Muhammad turned against individuals he considered disloyal and had them killed. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270.)[22]

Battle of Uhud

The Meccan Quraish, after having rallied its warriors and regrouped, planned to counter-attack Muhammad and his troops in Medina. However, Muhammad was alerted to the approaching enemy and decided instead to meet them on the battlefield. When he and his troops reached a small hilly area called Uhud, Muhammad began issuing orders to the commander of his archers as he would take the main body to do battle. The plan demonstrated once again Muhammad’s military ability. However, when the battle commenced and Muslim victory seemed assured, the archers left their position and chased after the spoils of war. The tide turned against Muhammad’s forces and they were soundly defeated.[23]

After the loss at Uhud Muhammad limited his military exploits to raiding caravans, a pastime that was not only pleasing in the sight of Allah but also financially quite rewarding. It literally paid to be a Muslim. Under Muslim law, it was completely permissible to enrich oneself with the property of the “infidel.”

Next, Muhammad set his sights on the tribe of Bani Nadir, after having received a vision, warning him of an attempt on his life. after Uhud. The Muslims prepared for battle with the Bani Nadir. Yet, before any blood could be shed, the Bani Nadir agreed to go into exile permitting they would be allowed to keep their movable possessions. Muhammad agreed to these terms and effectively had rid himself of yet another foe, without losing any of his men.

Battle of Medina

In 627 AD, Muhammad faced the greatest military threat since his flight from Mecca five years earlier. The Quraish of Mecca gathered a large force and were planning to deal Muhammad and his followers a fatal blow by attacking them at their home base in Medina. Remembering their defeat at Uhud, Muhammad decided against meeting the enemy in the open. Instead, he and his troops took shelter in Medina, as it offered protection on three sides by lava flow formations. The enemy would have to attack from the northwest from a valley that opened in between the flows. Muhammad quickly formulated a plan, deciding on digging a trench, thus, essentially cutting the city off from its enemies.

The plan worked and the attackers were effectively halted from mounting a large-scale assault. After managing to send only a few small raiding parties across the obstacle, over the next few days, the Meccans decided to give up and to return to their city. Following his victory, Muhammad turned his attention to the third Jewish tribe at Medina, the Bani Quraiza. Muhammad had previously exiled the Bani Qaynuqa and Bani Nadir, for the Bani Quraiza he had a more severe solution in mind.

“Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy bin Akhtab and Kab bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, "Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!” This went on until the Apostle made an end of them.”[24]

Following yet another of the Muslims' raids, this time on a place called Khaibar, "The women of Khaibar were distributed among the Muslims" as was usual practice. The raid at Khaibar had been against the Bani Nadir, whom Muhammad had earlier exiled from Medina.[25]

Conquest of Mecca

In 632 A.D., just ten years after having fled Mecca, Muhammad achieved his ultimate triumph when he and ten thousand Muslims and allied tribes descended upon Mecca. Muhammad, by now an able military commander, captured the city without bloodshed. Although, the actual conquer did not cause any bloodshed, the aftermath was a different story. "The Apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba.” (Sira, p550)

“Allah's Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, "Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Kaba (taking refuge in the Kaba).” The Prophet said, "Kill him." (Sahih Al-Bukhari , Volume 3, Book 29, Number 72; Narrated Anas bin Malik.)[26]”

Following the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad outlined the future of his religion.

CHAPTER II

The Great Schism

Muhammad’s Death

Muhammad had been able to unify his army of believers, transcending tribal rivalries and territorial claims. With the death of the Prophet in 632 came the task of appointing a successor, but without any record of Muhammad having chosen his replacement, confusion and discontent ensued. It seemed the future of Islam, still in its infancy, was uncertain. The Muslim community, or umma, under the guidance of Muhammad’s close friends and advisors decided to select a caliph[27] or “deputy,” to continue Muhammad’s goal of spreading the Islamic faith.

The Caliphs

From the beginning, there was disagreement over who should rightfully become caliph. The umma eventually elected Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad's fathers-in-law. This would mark the start of sectarianism, as one group wanted to see Ali, the prophets-son-in law, take the reins, claiming that Muhammad himself had chosen him. However, the decision stood and Ali would not be caliph for the time being.

Abu Bakr (632-634)

Having ascended to the position of leadership over all of Islam Abu Bakr soon faced a major crisis. Scores of believers, even entire tribes, renounced their Muslim faith and reverted to their former religious and political practices. In the case of the Bedouins, who had been present in the Arabian Peninsula before the birth of Islam, the refusal to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr lead to armed conflict known as the ridda (“apostasy”) wars.[28] The uprising was eventually crushed in A.D. 633 following several small battles between Bedouin and Muslim forces This conflict with the Bedouins demonstrated the fragility of the new faith and the need to spread Islam beyond its existing borders. Abu Bakr was determined to continue Muhammad’s vision of conquest, despite the urging of some of his comrades to delay such expedition. Bakr’s intended targets were the Sassanid Empire, which ruled much of Persia and Iraq, and the Byzantine Empire, which ruled southern Europe, Syria, and Egypt and at the time controlled the naval traffic of the Mediterranean Sea. A jihad was declared against the Christian Byzantines in Syria, but before Abu Bakr was able to set his plan in motion and to carry out the invasion, he fell ill. Remembering the struggle to find a leader after Muhammad’s death, Bakr made certain to name a successor for the caliphate. Before his death, he elected Umar^{^[29]}, another of Muhammad's fathers-in-law, as his successor. Abu Bakr died in August, 634, just over two years after taking power.[30]

Umar (634-644)

That appointment of Umar went virtually unchallenged and the new caliph added “Commander of the Faithful^” to his title, implying that the caliph was not only the political but the spiritual leader as well. The new title would remain in use for all subsequent caliphs from then on.

Despite his lofty title, Umar would be remembered more for his military rather than his spiritual leadership. Umar’s focus was on realizing the expansion of Islam as had been the vision of Muhammad and Abu Badr.

The Muslims’ first excursion led them into Syria, which they conquered in A.D. 635. With its capitol, Damascus, firmly in Muslim hands the focus shifted to the next target – Jerusalem. The city held significance for Muslims, Jews and Christians alike as a holy city and in A.D. 637, Muslim troops conquered Jerusalem. The Muslim occupiers implemented a policy of religious tolerance, which was well received by the majority of citizens who had suffered persecution under Byzantine rule. Realizing the potential benefits of this policy in aiding Islamic rule, Umar made sure not to alienate the occupied people. His policy of tolerance was motivated by military, political and economic factors rather than acceptance of other believes.

During Umar’s reign, several taxes were imposed on the Syrians. The institution of the kharaj, that landowners and peasants paid according to the productivity of their fields, and the jizya, paid by non-Muslims in return for the freedom to practice their own religion. Umar did not replace the Syrian civil servants until he was able to implement a system designed to govern the newly conquered territories. He even retained Greek as the official language for administration for another 50 years.

Under Umar’s leadership Muslim conquest continued and over the next decade territory under Islamic rule extended far into the four corners of the world. In A.D. 636 the Muslims won the decisive Battle of Qadisiyya near the Euphrates River, marking the beginning of the end of the Sassanid Empire. Muslim forces continued to push eastward occupying Ctesiphon, the capital, on the Tigris River. Continuing east into Persia, Umar’s military, conquered city after city and by A.D. 653 Muslim forces, by then under Uthman’s command would reach the Oxus River in Central Asia. Here they would occupy the eastern-most Persian province, Khurasan, of the Sassanid Empire.

First, Muslim troops again turned west toward Egypt. They crossed the Sinai Peninsula into Egypt and in 641 the ancient fortress of Babylon fell to the invaders.[31] The following year, Umar’s army accepted the surrender of the Byzantine Patriarch Cyrus, and took possession of Alexandria and the Nile Delta. As was already the custom in Syria, the kharaj and jizya taxes, were now also imposed in Persia and Egypt.

Unlike Syria, Persia proved to be more difficult to subdue. The Sassanid Empire had its own state religion, Zoroastrianism, but most Persians adhered to Zoroastrianism not only because it was their state religion, but also because it was an integral part of their culture and identity. Furthermore Persians carried a lot of national pride and considered the Arab Muslims an inferior people with an inferior civilization. These problems persisted even after many Persians had accepted Islam as their new faith. Nationalism overshadowed religious affiliation and in A.D. 644 Umar was assassinated by a Persian Christian in 644.[32]

Uthman

With the death of Umar in 644, Islamic conquest slowed down considerably. A council of Muhammad's companions elected Uthman as the new caliph because he was a distant relative of the influential Umayyad family, which would soon establish the first Islamic dynasty. Uthman continued the military actions of his predecessor. In A.D. 645 his forces repelled the Byzantine attempt to re-take Alexandria and in 647 conducted raids west of Egypt, further into North Africa.

Under, Uthman rule the construction of a naval fleet began in order to protect the Mediterranean sea ways against enemy naval forces. The newly commissioned Muslim navy proved quite capable of guarding the Islamic empire and facilitated the conquest of the island of Cyprus in A.D. 649. The conquest of Persia, which began under Umar, was completed by Uthman in A.D. 653 when Muslim forces reached the eastern boundary of the old Sassanid empire.

Although, Uthman had managed to further increased the size of the Islamic empire and strengthen its military might by adding a navy, his political and spiritual leadership drew a lot of criticism. His appointing of family members to high political offices, and depleting the state treasury faster than it could be refilled met a lot of opposition. Yet, Uthman’s most controversial deed was his plan to canonize the Qur’an. His intend was to produce a true and complete version of the scriptures, standardized and error-free. Uthman completed this task, despite accusations of tampering with the sacred text.

Uthman’s work would later be recognized as a major contribution to the establishment of accepted Islamic doctrine. However, it did not happen in his lifetime. In June of 656 a group of Egyptian rebels assassinated Uthman in his home. It would spell the end of the caliphate.[33]

Ali

Following Uthman’s violent death Ali’s supporters, at last, saw a chance to take control of the Islamic empire and declared him the new caliph. Ali reluctantly accepted and one of his first actions as caliph was to declare a general amnesty for all, who had been involved in Uthman’s death. Next, he replaced members of Uthman’s Umayyad who held political offices, with men loyal to him. In response, Mu'awiya, the main representative of Uthman’s Umayyad, challenged Ali’s right to the caliphate, and the Islamic world plunged into civil war. For the first time Muslims fought against Muslim as the empire divided into rival camps. On one side were those who stood behind Ali and who would be known from that point on as Shi’ites. On the opposing side stood the powerful Umayyads who represented the Muslim majority and were known as Sunnis.

Ali‘s position was further challenged by Talha and Zubair, two companions of the Prophet, and A'isha, one of the Prophet's widows,. The first battle, the Battle of the Camel, took place in December 656 and resulted in the death of Talha and Zubair and the capture of A'isha. The resulting carnage shocked the Muslim community and some spoke out, declaring that Muhammad would never have condoned such violence over the caliphate.

Eventually, Ali and Mu'awiya agreed to have the rightful claim to the caliphate decided by a Qur'anic tribunal, and the looser would give up his claim to the position. The tribunal announced its ruling several month later, asking both men to abandon their claims to the caliphate. Ali refused to step down, despite his earlier promise to accept the tribunals ruling and the civil war continued. Ali’s actions had unforeseen consequences and caused a division within the Shi'ite movement itself. A faction within the Shi’ite movement calling itself the Kharijites took offense when Ali agreed to let a tribunal decide the fate of the caliphate. They held the opinion, that only Allah could make such a decision and that Ali should have placed his trust in him alone. The Kharijites decided to elect their own caliph from among themselves and to leave the Islamic alliance. They eventually met Ali and his loyalists in battle but were utterly defeated.

In July 660, Mu'awiya declared himself caliph in Jerusalem and gained the support of the governor of Egypt. Next he forged an alliance with the Syrian army, which launched an attack on Ali's camp in Iraq under the banner of Mu'awiya.

In early 661, Mu'awiya got some unlikely support from the Kharijites, when they assassinated Ali. With Ali out of the way, Mu'awiya was able to consolidate his power over the Islamic empire when he established the first Islamic dynasty in the name of his family, the Umayyads.[34]

The Umayyad Dynasty

One of Mu'awiya's first tasks as caliph was to re-organize the administration of the Islamic empire by dividing the empire into manageable provinces. Mu'awiya appointed governors for each province and moved the capital of the new dynasty to Damascus, Syria. Next, he organized as many of the empire's nomads as possible into military units in the hope of instilling a sense of unity with and loyalty to the empire.

Before his death in A.D. 680, Mu'awiya named his son Yazid as his successor, which caused some discontent among the Muslim leadership. The caliphate had traditionally been an elected office, as to prevent the empire from becoming an autocratic monarchy. Yazid's succession was inevitable but he was not a popular leader and his reign ended with his death just three years later. However, during Yazid's reign the Shi'ites again had their eyes on the caliphate, only this time under the leadership of Ali's second son, Husain. He died in the Battle of Karbala, Iraq, and the place became a destination for Shi’ite pilgrimages.

Following Yazid’s death in 683, the issue of how to legitimize hereditary succession to the caliphate became a pressing issue. Soon after Yazid’s death his only son and heir passed away, which essentially left the caliphate of the Umayyad dynasty unoccupied. After a period of several months the issue was resolved when a cousin, Marwan, became the elect. The Umayyads had successfully overcome the first challenge to their dynasty, and when Marwan died soon after becoming caliph, his son Abd al-Malik, was able to resume the office and would rule for 21 years, until his death in A.D. 705. During his reign the empire underwent several administrative changes. Arabic became the official language of administration in the empire, coins were stamped with Arabic words and symbols, replacing the Christian and Zoroastrian symbols and the Umayyad dynasty under Abd al-Malik succeeded in solidifying the Islamic empire. Abd al-Malik also managed to eliminate the remnants of the Arabic nomadic lifestyle thus effectively pulling the empire together into a coherent state.

From A.D. 680 until 692, a second civil war ensued. The Mawali,[35] consisting mostly of Persian converts to Islam, challenged the authority that Arabs held in the Islamic empire. Under the leadership of a man named Mukhtar they sought to rise from their second-class status imposed by the Arabs, but after many years of fighting, Abd al-Malik's forces prevailed over the Mawali, and in A.D. 692 an era of peace was ushered in.

In A.D. 705 Walid I succeeded his father, Abd al-Malik, and oversaw much of the empire's territorial expansion. His reign lasted until A.D. 715 and he would leave a lasting example of his legacy, the Umayyad Mosque, which he built in Damascus.

The next 28 years saw just two caliphs who ruled over the vast Islamic empire. Just as Walid I before them, Suleyman (A.D. 715-24) and Hisham (A.D. 724-43), were competent political leaders who advanced the administrative capabilities of an empire, that had nearly doubled in size since A.D. 680.

By 670, Arabs had taken Tunisia, by 675,the construction of Kairouan which would become the North African base of the empire and Islam’s third holiest city. It was the centre of the Islamic faith in the Maghrib and Arabs were able to focus on the true "prize" of North Africa, the ancient city of Carthage, located north of Kairouan. Arab troops first raided Carthage in 678, and by 695, conquered it. The Byzantine Empire was finally defeated.

Next Arabs turned their attention to the Berbers and by the early 8th century, 12,000 Berbers had been recruited into the Arab army and would prove invaluable in future conquests. Islam would now be able to expand their empire all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. By 710, Arab armies had taken Tangier under the command of the Berber Tariq, who in A.D. 711 led them into Spain.

Before the Muslim invasion, the Iberian peninsula included present-day Spain and Portugal, and had been a Christian territory, ruled by the Visigoths. At the time of the Arab invasion civil war was raging over who would ascend to the throne. Tariq's military exploited the disorganization of the Spanish defenders and successfully subdued Spain.[36] Muslims forces completed their advance and conquered most of the Iberian peninsula swiftly and setting up their Spanish capital at Cordoba in 717.

Giving their military successes the Arabs continued their push northeast, crossed the Pyrenees and occupied several Frankish cities, including Bordeaux. The Muslim advance came finally to a halt in A.D. 732 when they were defeated by the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers. Muslims would remain on the southern side of the Pyrenees for the next 700 years.

The third region that the Umayyads chose for conquest was Central Asia stretching east to the Indus River. The goal was to establish a route into China in order to secure a piece of the highly profitable silk trade. The various Turkish communities were unorganized, and at best loosely allied, which made them an easy target. . The Muslims also wanted a route into China, to enable their participation in the lucrative silk trade. From the eastern province town of Khurasan, Persia, the Muslim forces crossed the Jaxartes River into China in A.D. 714 and briefly occupied the town of Kashgar. The following year Muslims troops conquered Bukhara and Samarkand located in Central Asia. It were these early engagements between Muslims and Turks that would eventually lead to their conversion to Islam and the subsequent birth of the Ottoman Empire.

Muslim expansion was also directed southward and soon reached the Indus Valley. The conquering Muslim army brought the area under its control and by A.D. 712, its forces established a foothold in Sindh territory, setting the stage for a further move into India. Islam spread throughout occupied territory often causing lasting changes, such as in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The ever-increasing Umayyad Empire began to experience the same fate that had befallen the Roman empire centuries earlier. A loss of control over the vast territory gave way to revolts, uprisings internal struggles and betrayals. It spelled out the end of the Umayyad Dynasty as the region's political leaders. In the north the Berber clans revolted against Arab discrimination and from A.D. 739 to 742 they led an armed struggle against their oppressors before being defeated. In Persia, the Kharijites continued to oppose the authority of the caliph and were gaining strength.

Besides the ongoing tensions between Arabs and various mawali groups, there was animosity between the ruling Umayyad class and fellow Arabs for economic reasons. While the ruling class was enjoying the spoils of conquest the lower class, Arabs and mawali alike, were living in poverty.

Additionally, the Umayyad families began to fall apart, and while they began to self-destruct, by in-fighting and a series of palace coups, many of their enemies began to join ranks. One group, led by descendants of Muhammad's uncle Abbas, called themselves the Abbasids and in a series of military actions they eventually managed to throw the Umayyads out of power in A.D. 750.

After Abbu l’Abbas took power the Abbasids promised their followers reform and proclaimed that under their rule religion would transcend race. During the reign of the Abbasid caliphate, Islam continued to spread and made additional territorial gains for Muslims. Within just a little over 100 years after Muhammad’s death Islam had established itself as a major world religion, and one of the most capable military forces on the globe. However, not all was well, as Islam began to split along ethnic lines, despite the Abbasids' early promise of Islamic unity.[37]

Sectarianism

Historical Background

One of the major subjects of contention for the Sunni and Shiite Islamic sects alike center around the issue of whether to select new leadership from a pool of qualified, pious individual who would follow the customs of the Prophet or to chose a successor exclusively through the Prophet’s bloodline. Although, the first successor, Abu Bakr, was chosen based on the former criteria that did not resolve the issue and remained hotly debated.

The majority of Muslims accepted Abu Bakr as the rightful successor. However, supporters loyal to Ali,[38] claimed that he was the rightful caliph, and that Muhammad had chosen Ali himself. The prophet’s cousin and son-in-law had played a prominent role during Muhammad’s lifetime, but lacked seniority within the Arabian tribal system.

This situation was unacceptable to some Ali loyalists who declared that Abu Bakr and the two subsequent caliphs (Umar and Uthman) were not rightful caliphs and that their election to the post was in direct violation of divine order. The events that followed have already been discussed at the beginning of the chapter.

Sunnis

Sunni[39] Muslims always constituted the overwhelming majority of the Islamic empire and could be found in most Muslim counties. Although, no sub-sects developed, there existed among Sunnis four accepted, but different schools of law. Sunnis came into being in A.D. 632 and their theology was well developed by the 10^th century.

Sunnis appointed the first three caliphs from among their ranks, based on the claim, that Muhammad had not designated a successor. Sunnis were of the opinion, that Abu Bakr, having been a companion and father-in-law of the prophet, was the rightful successor.

According to Sunni doctrine the Qur’an and other holy texts were the main authority followed by the ijma’[40]of the Muslim community. Under certain circumstances doctrine also permitted any Sunni taqiya.[41]

Sunnis recognized Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem as “holy cities” and observed Eid al-adha[42] and Eid al-Fitr[43] as major holidays.

Shi’ites

Shi’ites[44] made up the second largest sect in Islam, yet they only constituted a fraction of the Muslim population. Their followers were concentrated in Iraq and Persia where they divided into sub-sects, the largest being the ‘Ithna ‘Ashariyah[45] followed by the Isma’iliyah[46] and the Zaydiyah.[47] Other, smaller splinter-cells existed in the far corners of the empire.

The Shi’a Muslims came into being between A.D. 632 to 650, during the struggle over the caliphate and separated from mainstream Islam in A.D. 680, following the violent death of Ali’s son, Husayn. One of the major points of contention was the Shi’ite claim, that prior his death Muhammad had named his successor. The Prophet allegedly chose Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), the husband of his daughter Fatimah, who incidentally was Muhammad’s cousin as well.

Unlike their Sunni counterpart, Shi’ites believed that the religious authority apart from the Qur’an and other sacred texts lay with their spiritual leader – the infallible imam. Another difference was that taqiya was emphasized. Shi’a Muslims recognized the three “holy cities” Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem but added the cities of Najaf and Karbala to the list and also observed an additional holiday – Ashura.[48]

CONCLUSION

Violence has been an integrated part of Islam, since its transition to a recognized religion in A.D. 622 at Medina, and such violence was primarily directed at the unbelievers or “infidels.” However, the use of force did not confine itself to the unbelievers alone, but began to permeate the entire Muslim belief system, in particular with regard to the social and moral laws of Islam’ known as shari’ah law. Shari’ah law was filled with calls for copal punishment, including the most primitive methods of execution such as “beheading” and “stoning.” Furthermore, anyone renouncing Islam or converting to a different religion was automatically found guilty of riddah and condemned to death. In theory and practice, women suffered most under the law as it assured their continued oppression and their status of second-class citizens.

Muhammad’s initial goal of the early days, such as social justice, religious tolerance and increased women’s rights was gradually being replaced by calls for Muslim supremacy, jihad or “holy war” against non-Muslims and women’s subservience to a male dominated society. All under the guise of the Holy Qur’an: “Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?”[49]

With regard to sectarianism, violence became the means of resolving political, theological and spiritual matters among the Muslim Sects, in particular in the areas of Iraq and Persia.[50] The rift between the sects led to different interpretations of the law, changes in worship practices, even the application of different scriptural sources as it relates to the sunnah. Islam would never again enjoy the unity and common spirit of its early days. Yet, the impact on the movement would only be temporary as the desire for conquest and world domination was carried on individually by the two major Islamic sects –the Sunni and the Shi’ite’.

GLOSSARY

Allah: Muslim name for God.

Abu Bakr: A rich and respected merchant of Mecca, one of the first converts to Islam, and a close friend and companion of Muhammad. According to the Sunnis he was the first Muslim Caliph.

A.H. (After Hijrah), abbreviation for the years in Muslim calendar after the flight of Muhammad (in A.D. 622); used to divide time, as A.D. is for Christians.

Adhan: Daily call to prayer by the muezzin from the mosque.

Ahad: The oneness of God; the negation of any other number. The denial that God has any partner or companion associated with him.

Ali: The son of Abu Talib, the first cousin of Muhammad, who married Fatimah, the youngest daughter of the Prophet. He is recognized by Shi’ite Muslims as the true successor of Muhammad, from whom come the succession of Imams. He is the fourth Caliph according to the Sunnis.

Alms: (See Sadaga.)

Aqida: A statement of religious belief, a creedal affirmation.

Ayat: A verse of the Qur’an.

‘Ayisha: The third wife of Muhammad and daughter of Abu Bakr.

Bahira: A Nestorian monk who lived in Basrah on the caravan routes and was a strong influence on Muhammad.

Baraka: A blessing.

Caliph (Khaliph): Title of the spiritual and political leader who took over after Muhammad’s death.

Deen: Muslim religious practice, such as, reciting the creed, praying, fasting, and giving alms, as distinct from a belief (iman).

Fatima: The daughter of Muhammad by his first wife and wife of Ali.

Fatwa: A religious/legal judgment. An expert legal opinion of Qur’anic law.

Five Pillars: The chief religious duties of Muslims, namely, to recite the creed (shahadah); to pray (salat); to fast (sawm); to give alms (zakat); to make the pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca at least once in their lifetime.

Hadith: Literally, a story; an oral tradition later written down of what the prophet supposedly said (sunna), did, or approved of—something said or done in his presence.

Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca; one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Hijrah: Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina in A.D. 622, thus the date used by Muslims to divide time before and after, as Christians use B.C. and A.D.

Hanif: An original monotheist, such as Abraham, who holds a prominent position among the prophets.

Ijma: Consensus of Muslim legal scholars introduced in the eighth century to standardize legal theory and practice, as opposed to ijtihad (“to endeavor” or “exert effort”), the individual thought of the earlier period.

Ijtihad: Private opinion, as opposed to ijma, or consensus held by Muslim scholars.

Imam: A leader; a person considered by Sunni Muslims to be an authority in Islamic law and theology. A kind of Muslim pope in Shi’ite Islam. Shi’ites accept the succession of Imams. After the twelfth century the imam went into hiding when the source of authority was transferred to the ulama, who were considered collectively to be the representatives of the hidden Imam.

Iman: A Muslim belief, such as, in God, angels, prophets, Scriptures, and final judgment, as distinguished from Muslim practices (deen).

Islam: The religion revealed to Muhammad, meaning “submission” (to the will of Allah).

Ishmael: The first son of Abraham by his wife’s handmaid, Hagar. Muslims believe Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son of God’s promise to Abraham.

Jihad: Sacred struggle with word or sword in the cause of Allah; a holy war.

Jizyah: Tax paid by Jews and Christians to Muslim rulers, as opposed to pagans who were forced either to accept Islam or die.

Ka’ba: A cubical stone building in the court of the mosque at Mecca that is called the “House of God,” toward which Muslims turn in prayer. This building contains the black stone supposedly given by Adam to Gabriel and used by Abraham who allegedly built the Ka’ba with his son Ishmael. This black stone has been kissed by Muhammad and Muslims since his time.

Khadija: Muhammad’s first wife and first to believe that his message was from God.

Khalifa: God’s trustee on earth (i.e., man).

Kafir: An unbeliever; the opposite of a believer, mumin.

Kufr: Infidelity or apostasy.

Koran: (See Qur’an.)

Mahdi: “The guided one,” or coming world leader of righteousness. Sunnis wait for the first one to appear and Shi’ites believe the last Imam, who disappeared in A.D. 874, will someday reappear as the Mahdi.

Mansukh: The abrogation of an earlier revelation (see Nasikh).

Mecca: The birthplace of Muhammad located in Saudi Arabia, considered the most holy city by Islam. It must be visited at least once in a lifetime by all Muslims who are physically and financially able.

Medina: The second most holy city of Islam (after Mecca), previously named Yathrib, where Muhammad fled in A.D. 622 (see Hijrah).

Muhammad: The founder of Islam, born around A.D. 570 and died A.D. 632. He is considered by the Muslims to be the last and final prophet of God through whom God gave the revelations in the Qur’an.

Mujahidin: Muslims who fight in holy wars (see Jihad).

Mumin: A believer in contrast to an unbeliever (see kafir).

Muslim: Literally, “one who submits” (to God), a follower of Muhammad.

Nabi: A prophet sent by God with his message.

Namaz: Prayers. A word commonly used in India for the daily salat.

Nasikh: That which abrogates, as mansukh is that which is abrogated.

Omar (Umar): According to Sunni teaching, the second Caliph and principal advisor to the first Caliph, Abu Bakr.

Qadar: The determination of all things by God, his decree of good and evil.

Qur’an (Koran): Believed by Muslims to be the full and final revelation of God to mankind, conveyed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel over a twenty-three-year period and corresponding perfectly to the eternal original in heaven.

Ramadan: The ninth month of the Muslim lunar year now devoted to fasting, when the Qur’an was supposedly brought down to the first heaven.

Rasul: An apostle, one who brings a message or revelation from God. Muslim tradition lists 124,000 prophets. However, the most prominent prophets are five (or six): Muhammad (the Apostle of God), Noah (the Preacher of God), Abraham (the Friend of God), Moses (the Speaker with God), and Jesus (the Word of God). Some also include Adam (the Chosen of God) as the sixth person in the list. Muhammad is believed to be the last and final prophet with the full and final revelation of God in the Qur’an, the “seal of all the prophets.”

Sadaqa: Charity, almsgiving to the poor and needy. Muslims are obligated to give one fortieth (2.5 percent) of their income in alms.

Salam: Peace; a greeting of peace.

Salat: Prescribed five daily prayers, one of the Five Pillars of Islamic faith. Muslims are required to say 17 complete prayers each day. They may pray individually or collectively. On Friday at noon Muslims are required to gather at the Mosque to pray.

Shahadah: Literally, “to bear witness,” which is done by reciting the creed, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.” Saying this sincerely is all that is necessary to become a Muslim.

Shahid: A witness, and then a martyr who has born witness by his death.

Shi’ites: The major Islamic sect that believes, in contrast to Sunnis, that Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali, was the true successor to Muhammad in the leadership of the Islamic community.

Sirat [or Seerat]: Literally, the bridge over hell. Metaphorically, the narrow path to heaven.

Sufis: The mystical wing of Islam that renounces worldly attachments, sees God in all things, and strive for union of their beings with God’s. In contrast to orthodox Islamic monotheism (God created all), they tend toward pantheism (God is all). Some have virtually deified Muhammad, something considered anathema by orthodox Muslims.

Sunna: Written Islamic tradition about Muhammad’s conduct, considered authoritative by Sunni Muslims.

Sunnis: The main body of Islam that comprises about 80 percent of all Muslims who, in contrast to the Shi’ites, believe that the true line of succession from Muhammad is found in the four Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, and Ali.

Sura (Surah, Surat): A chapter in the Qur’an of which there are a total of 114.

Tawrat: Jewish Torah or Law of Moses.

Umar: An early convert to Islam and a devoted follower of Muhammad. The second Muslim Caliph.

Uthman: Another early convert to Islam and the third Muslim Caliph.

ENDNOTES

[1] Later known as Medina.

[2] or “migration”; year one of the Islamic calendar

[3] Karen Armstrong, Islam. (New York: The Modern Library, 2000), xiii-xvii

[4] Alfred Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam. (New York: Books For Libraries, A Division of Arno Press, 1980), 10 -11.

[5] The term Sunnah refers to the specific actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.

[6] Mazhar U. Kazi, A Treasury of Ahadith. (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Abul-Qasim Publishing House, 1992) 1-2.

[7] The years of the Islamic calendar (which employs lunar months) are designated in English "AH" or "After Hijra."

[8] Also known as “The City of the Apostle of God.”

[9] Norman L. Geisler, and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002), Appendix 2

[10] Not to be confused with the Sira, which refers to the life of the Prophet.

[11] Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1930) 2-106

[12] Ibid 96

[13] Pickthall, ix-xiii.

[14] Arabic: al-insan al-kamil

[15] USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Text, “Introduction to Translation of Sahih Bukhari.” Trans. M. Muhsin Khan, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

[16] Guillaume, 10 -11.

[17] http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

[18] (“emigration” or “flight”), designated year one of the Arabic calendar.

[19] Reza Aslan, No god but God. , (New York: Random House, 2005), 44-45

[20] Aslan, 82-83

[21]http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

[22] Ibid

[23] Aslan, 76-77

[24] Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, (The Life of Muhammad). Trans. A. Guillaume, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 464.

[25] Sira, p511

[26] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

[27] Arabic: khalifa

[28] Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveler. Trans.ed. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Rev. ed. (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1997), p. 595-598.

[29] Abdullah bin 'Umar was one of the sahabah, or a companion of Muhammad, and was highly respected as such.

[30] Aslan, 107- 136.

[31] Located south of present-day Cairo.

[32] Aslan, 107- 136.

[33] Aslan, 107- 136.

[34] Aslan, 107-136.

[35] non-Arab Muslims.

[36] The “Rock of Gibraltar was first named by the Arab conquers, who called it: Jabal Tariq, or Mountain of Tariq.

[37] Aslan, 136-137.

[38] Full name: Ali ibn Abi Talib

[39] Trans. “well-trodden path” or “tradition.”

[40] Trans: “consensus.”

[41] Trans: “concealment of one’s faith for reasons of self-protection.”

[42] Trans: “Festival of Sacrifice”

[43] “Ramadan”

[44] Trans: “party” or “partisan.”

[45] Trans: “Twelvers.”

[46] Trans: “Seveners.”

[47] Trans: “Fivers”

[48] Trans: “the tenth day” – “Shi’ites: Marks the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali; in addition Sunnis: Day of fasting, liberation of Moses and Israelites from Pharaoh”

[49] Pickthall, 2-106.

[50] Modern-day Iran.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, Karen, Islam. New York, N.Y.: The Modern Library, 2000.

Aslan, Reza, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. New York, N.Y.: Random House Inc, 2005.

Geisler, Norman L., and Saleeb, Abdul, Answering Islam : The Crescent in Light of the Cross. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 2002

Guillaume, Alfred, The Traditions of Islam. New York: Books For Libraries, A Division of Arno Press, 1980.

Ishaq, Ibn, Sirat Rasul Allah, (The Life of Muhammad), trans. Alfred Guillaume. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Kazi, Mazhar U., A Treasury of Ahadith. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Abul-Qasim Publishing House, 1992.

Naqib al-Misri, Ahmad ibn, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Rev. ed. Beltsville, Amana Publications, 1997.

Pickthall, Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, trans., New York, N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930.

Renard, John, 101 Questions and Answers on Islam. New York, N.Y.: Gramercy Books, 1998.

USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Text, “Introduction to Translation of Sahih Bukhari,” trans. M. Muhsin Khan, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

The Reformation of Martin Luther

2007-10-25T01:44:00.002-04:00

>by Jens Randolff

September 13, 2007

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL OUTLINE *

PART I
Background

1. Childhood

2. Education

3. Monastic Life

4. Professorship

PART II
A. Reformation
1. Visit to Rome
2. Revelations
3. Romans 1:16-17
B. Key Theological Tenets
C. Offensive
1. The 95 Theses
2. Burning of the “Bull”
D. Defense
1. Diet of Worms
2. Diet of Augsburg

CONCLUSION

*Scripture quotations marked HCSB have been taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Holman CSB®, and HCSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

TABLES

Timeline

1483 (November 10) Martin Luther is born in Eisleben

1505 Becomes Augustinian Monk in Erfurt

1512 Doctor of Theology at Wittenberg University

1517 (October 31) Luther Nails his 95 Theses to the church doors in Wittenberg

1518 Diet of Augsburg-Interview with Prierias

1520 (December 10) Burns Papal Bull after having been excommunicated

1521 (April 17) Diet of Worms and subsequent “exile” at the Wartburg (fortress)

1521 Luther translates the New Testament into German

1522 Return to Wittenberg

1525 Luther marries Katharina von Bora

1529 Attempt to reconcile the German states at the Diet of Spires

1534 Publishes the complete Bible in German

1546 (February 18) Luther dies while visiting Eisleben

INTRODUCTION

“Here I stand; I can do naught else. God help me. Amen.”^¹ These were the words spoken by Martin Luther before the Diet of Worms on April 17, 1521, thus sealing his fate of becoming the number one enemy of the church in Rome. Just how exactly did this faithful and pious Augustinian monk go from being a devout Roman-Catholic to opposing the very institution he once belonged to? How did Luther, in only six years, bring about a movement known today as the Reformation? It appears that this great theologian and teacher would receive as much revelation from Romans 1:16-17 as would the students attending his lectures.

PART I

Background

Childhood and Youth (1483-1501)

Martin Luther, originally Martin Luder, was born on November 10, 1483 at a time when great changes were about to take place, changes, which Luther would soon take his part in.

Luther's father, was raised a farmer's son, but moved his family from Eisleben to Mansfeld shortly after Luther's birth in 1484 to try to better the family's financial situation by mining copper. He was successful and by 1491, the Luder's were one of the most respected families in Mansfeld. Luther's mother, Margarete Luder was a harsh disciplinarian who raised her many children with an iron fist.

Education (1501-1505)

Martin attended the Latin school (Lateinschule) in Mansfeld where harsh and antiquated teaching methods of the Middle Ages still dominated. Luther was a quiet, reserved yet talented student who was intimidated by the strict order.

In 1497, Luther went to Magdeburg where he attended the school Brothers for living together (a boarding school; Brueder fuer Gemeinsames Leben) but in 1498 went to Eisenach where he lived with relatives and was educated at the town's parish school.

Luther’s parents were financially able to send their son Martin to the university in Erfurt in 1501. Hans Luther, Martin's father, hoped to help his son by sending him to law school so he could later be a lawyer and have a secure future.

The University of Erfurt, founded in 1392 was one of the best German universities at the time, which is most likely the reason Luther's father chose the university for his son. The requirement in those days dictated that in order to study a specific field such as Law, Medicine or Theology, one had to earn a Baccalaureate in the seven Liberal Arts. Luther received his in 1502 and went on to receive his Master's degree in 1505. His father hoped that, if Luther continued on this path, he would successfully complete his law studies and soon be offered a good position in a law practice somewhere.

Monastic Life (1505-1512)

Luther’s career plans changed drastically on July 2, 1505 when he swore to become a monk in exchange for his surviving a severe lightning and thunderstorm. To his friends surprise and his parents anger Luther stood by his oath ‎ and would not change his mind when each tried to convince the successful student to continue his law studies. Instead, he entered the Mendicant order of the Augustinian monks in Erfurt and took his vow in 1506.

During Luther's time, monastic life was harsh, consisting of fasting, prayer and work. Each day began at 3 am with the first hourly prayers. This time had a lasting impact on Luther, and above all brought him to a closer relationship with the Bible, which characterized his later life and work.

Luther was ordained as a priest in Erfurt in 1507and began to study Theology at the University of Erfurt. During his studies, he was introduced to ideas of the Humanists and embraced their slogan “Ad Fontes”- back to the Source! To Luther this meant the study of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek.

Professorship (1512-1517)

After receiving his doctorate in Theology in 1512, Luther took a position as Professor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg. He lectured on the book of Psalms (1514-15), the Epistle to the Romans (1515-16), Galatians (1516-17), and Hebrews (1517-18), all the while struggling with his own religious understanding.

A circle of theologians began to form around Luther, among them Nikolaus von Amsdorf and Karlstadt. In 1514, Luther became the priest for Wittenberg's City Church.

PART II

Reformation

Visit to Rome

In November 1510, on behalf of seven Augustinian monasteries, Luther set out for a visit to Rome or as Luther referred to her: “the eternal city.” When he, after a long and difficult journey, finally approached the city and viewed her from afar, Luther is said to have fallen on his knees exclaiming, "I greet thee, thou Holy Rome, thrice holy from the blood of the martyrs."

Upon entering the “Holy City,” Luther performed the religious duties customary for a pious visitor. The Pope had promised everyone who, on his knees, would climb up Pilate's Stair, an indulgence and Luther, wishing to gain such an indulgence, humbly crawled up the marble steps.^² It was said that the steps had been miraculously transported to Rome from Jerusalem.

Luther’s reverence for Rome was short lived and would soon be replaced by disillusionment. Luther was shocked by the worldliness of the Roman clergy and their condescending attitude toward believers who had pilgrimaged to Rome. Upon his return to Erfurt Luther remarked that the clergy acted "as if the poor laity stunk in their sacred noses."

Revelations

It is often necessary for truth, in order to produce a lasting effect on the mind, to be repeatedly presented to it. Luther’s religious enlightenment began during his intensive study of the Epistle to the Romans when he realized that salvation came through the grace of God, not through good works: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek. For in it God’s righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith,” (Romans 1:16-17).^³

The faith, which saved Luther from the terrors of death, became the soul of his theology and would mark the turning point in the Reformer’s life, as well for the Reformation. Luther later stated that he came to this decisive realization while sitting in his study room at the Wittenberg monastery. The actual time of Luther’s revelation is debatable, however, his experience is generally known as the Tower experience (Turm erlebnis).

“I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: "The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.'“ I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: "The just person lives by faith.” All at once, I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.”^⁴

Romans 1:16-17

"But this great doctrine of a salvation which emanates from God and not from man, was not only the power of God to save the soul of Luther, it also became the power of God to reform the Church; a powerful weapon which the apostles wielded, a weapon too long neglected, but at length brought forth in its primitive luster from the arsenal of the mighty God.”

Luther wrote about faith that it was not what some people thought it was and that human dreams were but a delusion. Since people observed that faith was not followed by good works or a better life, they fell into error, even though they heard and spoke much about faith. Subsequently man decided that faith was not enough, but that one had to do good works and be pious in order to be saved. Luther further wrote that the common belief held that by hearing the gospel, man started working, creating by his own strength and a thankful heart, which proclaimed, “I believe!'' This however was a human idea, a dream from which the heart never learned anything. It did nothing and neither did reform result from this faith.

Instead, Luther contented, faith was God working in the believer, resulting in changes within, thus giving new birth to a person (John 1:13). The Old Adam died and made man a new creation by changing the heart, spirit, thoughts and all of man’s power. It also brought the Holy Spirit with it. Therefore, faith was a living, creative, active and powerful thing.

Luther went on to say that faith could help but to do good works and did not stop to ask if good works ought to be done. Instead, faith had already done them and continued to do them without ceasing. Therefore, anyone who did not do good works in this manner was an unbeliever, stumbling about looking for faith and good works, even though he did not know what faith or good works were. Yet, never the less the unbeliever gossiped and rambled about faith and good works with many words.

Luther considered faith to be a living, bold trust in God's grace, carrying with it enough certainty of God's favor that the believer would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Furthermore, such confidence and knowledge of God's grace brought man happiness, joy and boldness. Luther felt that the Holy Spirit made this happen through faith and because of it; the believer freely, willingly and joyfully did good to everyone, served everyone, suffered anything, and loved and praised the Lord for showing such grace. Luther further contended that it would be just as impossible to separate faith and works as it would be to separate heat and light from fire!

Luther concluded his commentary on faith with a warning: “Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.”^⁵

Key Theological Tenets

Luther firmly, almost stubbornly, stood his ground when defending his believes. Starting with his 95 Theses, Luther developed a theology that was rooted in the Scriptures, as he understood them at the time. Luther was condemned by the “Church” not for spreading a false Gospel, but rather for exposing the anti-biblical views and practices of the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church as an institution.

Luther considered the following to be key theological tenets:

1. Ultimate authority is neither the Pope nor Councils nor the tradition of the Church as expressed in the Canon Law, but the Word of God alone, as expressed in the life of Christ and the Scriptures.

2. Justification is achieved by faith alone, and that works are completely ineffective in contributing to salvation, although genuine faith will always produce good works.

3. The priesthood of all believers, which abolishes the idea of a special clergy set apart from the laity.

4. Sacraments are to be understood as (a) outward signs of invisible grace (b) instituted by Christ and (c) exclusively Christian.

5. The sacraments, strictly considered, are limited to two: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Luther’s interpretation of the sacraments differed greatly from the views held by medieval Catholicism.

a. The Lord's Supper:^⁶ Luther adamantly insisted that there was no sacrifice with regard to the Mass and that the priest did not offer up God upon the altar nor was Calvary being re-enacted. In Luther’s view, a sacrifice was something presented by man to God; yet, man is simply incapable of offering anything. God gives, man receives and is thankful. Luther denied the doctrine of transubstantiation but he did not deny a real and even a physical presence of God at the Supper.

b. Baptism: Luther insisted that the sacraments were worthless apart from faith, yet he retained infant baptism. Luther explained that there existed two levels of faith, faith awake and faith asleep and since faith was a gift from God, there was no reason to assume that God should withhold such a gift from a child. Luther later modified his position and held that a child was sustained by the faith of the parents (sponsor) since children at birth became participants in the life of the Christian community.

c. Marriage: It is valid among Jews and Muslims as well as Christians, instituted by God and approved by Christ. Therefore, it is a rite that should be blessed by the Church, but which is nevertheless not a monopoly of the Church.

d. Ordination: Not instituted by Christ. Although a rite of the Church, it confers no indelible status. What distinguishes a pastor from the rest of the congregation is simply that the congregation has delegated to him the performance of a particular office, in virtue of his administrative abilities and/or qualities as a scholar and preacher.

e. Extreme unction (anointing a dying person with oil) is nothing but superstition.

f. Confirmation is not a sacrament, as it has not been instituted by Christ. However, it is worth retaining as a rite of the Church.

g. Penance: Close to being a sacrament, inasmuch as Christ enjoins everyone to "Be penitent."

h. Confession: An element of the traditional sacrament, which had its uses for the sinner. Nevertheless, it does not qualify as a sacrament because Christ never instituted visible signs for the invisible bestowal of grace enabling the sinner to be penitent.

6. Monasticism is abolished.

a. Theological issues: Luther was slow in coming to this conclusion, and it was not until after he had been excommunicated that he abandoned the cowl^⁷. Luther’s reason was two-fold. First, it was partly biblical, as scripture did not demand lifelong vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Second and more importantly was Luther's principle that man could do nothing to save himself. Since monasticism was regarded as a life where man could perform works of supererogation, Luther wanted to abolish the overriding motive for taking the cowl.

b. Political issues: Luther’s move toward the abolition of monasticism was welcomed by the nobility as it meant unforeseen revenue by confiscating and selling abbeys and convents. During the middle ages, the Church had accumulated vast land holdings and other real property and the proceeds from the sale of these properties provided a welcome one-time infusion of cash into the prince’s purse. More importantly, it solidified support for the prince and the newly established religion from a new land-owning class committed to maintaining their state's sovereignty.^⁸

Offensive

The 95 Theses^⁹

Philip Melancthon, one of Luther’s closest friends, wrote about his mentor’s life and times including the events surrounding the posting of the 95 Theses. Melancthon explains that, when Luther was in his course of study, Tetzel,^¹⁰ a Dominican monk, was circulating venal indulgences in these regions. Melancthon referred to Tetzel as “a most shameless Deceiver” and went on to describe how Luther was angered by Tetzel's “impious and execrable debates and, burning with the eagerness of piety.” Luther, having gained a new understanding of the Scriptures, after having studied the Epistle to the Romans, was greatly distressed by Tetzel’s sale of indulgences. He saw it as misinforming lay people about crucial aspects of God's plan for redeeming fallen humanity. Luther felt that to be misinformed in essentials about the nature of God meant that what one ended up obeying is a false image of God, which constituted a "mortal sin" and, if not corrected, would lead to damnation. Specifically, Albert's indulgence (as represented by Tetzel) encroached on the sacrament of penance.

In response Luther published propositions concerning indulgences and publicly attached them to the “Temple,” adjacent to Wittenberg Castle, “on the day before the feast of all Saints, 1517.” Luther’s “propositions,” which became known as the famous 95 Theses, were originally written and published in Latin. However, with the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press Luther’s theses were translated, copied and quickly distributed throughout Germany and later Europe.

Tetzel, true to his character, and hoping to obtain favor with the Roman Pontiff, called together his supporters and ordered them to gather evidence against Luther. Meanwhile Tetzel himself engaged in public debates, demanding “…this Heretic must be condemned to fire…” and he publicly burned Luther's propositions concerning indulgences This opposition and the verbal attacks forced Luther to respond to Tetzel and his supporters in kind.

Melancthon wrote that Luther at the time “as yet suspecting or dreaming nothing about the future change of rites, was not at all completely throwing out indulgences themselves, but only urging moderation.” Melancthon further noted that even Duke Friedrich, looking far ahead, realized that events had been set in motion, which, although for a praiseworthy cause, nevertheless little by little kindled the flame that would wander wider, as is said in Homer about the Quarrel, from small fear at first, soon it lifted itself into the upper air.”^¹¹

Luther wrote his 95 Theses systematically to achieve the desired effect by addressing the issues in like groups:

Thesis 1-6 dealt with the issue of penance and Luther outlined the issue of sin and the need for repentance, while at the same time stating that the pope had neither the power nor the will to forgive sin.

Theses 7-8 focused on Tetzel's claim that the indulgences he was selling were issued by the pope and had the power to remit guilt for sins. Thesis 7 stated that remission of guilt, though only done by God, is something God has chosen to do only for those who submit themselves to the Church, and, as such, participate in the sacraments. In other words, there is no salvation outside the Church. Luther did not speak out against the priesthood. Rather, he declared the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers.^¹²

Theses 8-29 focused on the claim that the indulgences issued by the pope had the power to remit the penalties owed by souls in purgatory^¹³. Purgatory was believed to be the "place" (or state) in which souls who died in God's grace may expiate venial sins or satisfy divine justice for the temporal punishment still due for remitted mortal sin.

In Thesis 20 Luther conceded the power of the Pope to remit all penalties of only the restricted class of temporal penalties imposed in the sacrament of penance or due under the canons of governing the assignment of satisfactions in penance, i.e. Sins committed but not yet dealt with by receiving the sacrament of penance. Luther would later declare that penance actually did not qualify as a sacrament

Thesis 22 stated that neither other penalties, for example, those actually due for souls in purgatory, nor guilt attaching to sins are within the power of the Pope to remit. Hence, Luther declared that the claims Tetzel was making for the indulgence he sold in the Pope's name were fraudulent (Thesis 24). Furthermore, Luther warned that people were being lead to believe these claims at the peril of their soul (Thesis 32).

Luther's tactics in the Ninety-five Theses implied that Luther himself assumed that the Pope was unaware of the doctrinal errors being preached in his name by Tetzel. Thus, Luther afforded the pope the opportunity to repudiate Tetzel's behavior.

In Thesis 23 Luther conceded that it was possible for some rare individuals to pass directly to heaven. Yet, he did not go so far as to support the Church’s claim that the saints died in a state of excess of merit earned from Supererogation^¹⁴, The performance of works beyond what was regarded as necessary for salvation was said to produce a surplus of merit, which then passed into the Treasury of Merit. This supposed “merit storage” could be drawn from to substitute for the temporal penalties that would otherwise be due for sin.

Thesis 27 quoted one of the jingles attributed to Tetzel, which went like this. (The rhymes, incidentally, are the same in German and English.)

"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings,

The soul from Purgatory springs."

Theses 30-52 focused on the risks Tetzel's claims posed to the people who were deceived into believing in the value of indulgences, i.e., the misunderstandings about justification that were perpetrated among the living.

In Theses 30-40, the chief emphasis were on the necessity for sinners, to properly understand the requirement for genuine contrition, and to point out that indiscriminate peddling of indulgences implicitly preached the contrary.

Thesis 32, dealt with Letters of pardon, the documents certifying the granting of an indulgence. Here Luther accused Tetzel and his customers of committing venial, or mortal, sins.

Thesis 33 addressed the inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God is the divine grace conveyed in the blood of Christ shed in the Crucifixion.

In Thesis 35, Luther refuted the confessional license, which was said to exempt the holder from the necessity for confession. Luther insisted that confession was an essential element in the process by which one achieved "justification."

Thesis 36. Compunction is a synonym for "contrition," "regret," "repentance." Luther again insisted that repentance is an essential element in the process of justification.

Theses 41-46 discussed the risks associated with equating the purchase of pardons to instances of good works...

Thesis 50 renounced the flow of capital from the German North to Italy for the building of St. Peters Cathedral.

Theses 52-56 summed up Luther’s line of attack and examined the theory of what constitutes the Treasury of the Church. Subsequent theses did not seem to be organized in a definite pattern, although there were clearly issues where Luther focused on a particular theme. Such was the case with Theses 56-68, which reviewed the true Treasures of the Church or with Theses 81-91, which took a rhetorical turn in restating that Tetzel brought the Pope into disrepute with the laity by “stimulating them to sarcastic impieties.”

Thesis 62 would later play a crucial role in Lutheran Theology and eventually lead to the breach between Luther and the Roman Catholic Church.

Burning of the “Bull”^¹⁵

On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo X issued his Bull, officially excommunicating Luther. Since the posting of the 95 Theses and the completion of the final draft of the Bull three years had gone by. The event was significant for several reasons. It was the last Bull to be issued to Latin Christendom and the first to be disobeyed by a large number of people. Another interesting fact was that Luther burned the Bull instead of being burned himself.

A copy of the Bull was delivered to every major city in Germany to be posted. Luther’s old enemy, Eck, personally delivered the copies, accompanied by a small contingent of supporters. In southern Germany, his presence did not meet any opposition and Luther’s works were burned in public. In the north however, Eck was greeted by supporters of Luther and he was forced to seek refuge from the crowds in most cities. The copies posted by Eck were burned, ripped apart thrown in the river or disposed of in other ways. The copy delivered to Wittenburg was publically burned. Thus, the reformation was secured in Northern Germany.^¹⁶

Defense

Diet of Worms^¹⁷

In 1520, Pope Leo X issued a bull of excommunication against Luther and ordered the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation to execute it. However, Charles V, only 21 years old at the time, was reluctant to enact the pope’s decree. He had managed to get himself elected Emperor in 1519 and did not want to alienate the German princes, many of whom were already suspicious enough of the consolidation of Habsburg power.

Furthermore, Luther had gathered a following among the German nobility, most importantly, Luther's own powerful sovereign, the Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony who insisted that German subjects be tried only before a German body. Since the Imperial Diet was in session at Worms at the time, Luther was summoned to appear before its delegation for questioning. Frederick secured a safe-conduct pass from the emperor guaranteeing Luther’s save passage to and from Worms.

The papal representatives at the Diet were given strict instructions from Pope Leo X to prevent the questioning from turning into a debate. Instead, Luther was to be put on the defensive. On day one of the proceedings, Luther was asked to acknowledge or deny authorship of a list of his works, which had been declared to be in error. He acknowledged authorship. Next Luther was asked if he was willing to recant his “erroneous” ideas. In response, Luther asked for a 24 hours continuance in order to prepare his response and the request was granted.

The next day the council reconvened, in the presence of the Emperor and the assembled princes and nobles of the Empire. Luther faced Dr. Ecken, an official in the administration of the Archbishop of Trier and the interrogator for these proceedings. Luther had not prepared a written statement but instead delivered his remarks impromptu, culminating his response with the now famous words: “Here I stand; I can do naught else. God help me. Amen.”

Diet of Augsburg

The Diet of Augsburg commenced on Monday, June 20, 1530 after some delay. The purpose was to secure help from the German nobility against the invading Turks under Suleiman “the Magnificent.” However, there was little hope for cooperation from either side. The Catholic Church considered Protestants to be a greater evil than the Muslims while Lutherans considered the pope to be as much a threat as the Turks.

While Emperor Charles wanted to concentrate on the pressing issue of the Turkish invaders, the German nobility insisted on discussing church matters. Finally, the emperor conceded to reading the proposed confession, but again the German representatives made their demands. The confession was to be read publically before the entire assembly. Charles again gave in to the demands under the condition that the confession would be read in Latin.

Finally, the Elector of Saxony secured permission to have the entire confession read in German and on June 25, 1530 Dr. Baier, vice-chancellor of Electoral Saxony, addressed the assembly.

The papal delegation was caught off guard by the moderate tone of the confession and the Bishop of Augsburg, Christoph von Stadion later remarked in a private setting, that the reading contained nothing but pure truth. Furthermore, Duke William of Bavaria went as far as to censure Dr. Eck for having misrepresented the Lutheran position after the Diet of Worms.

The Diet of Augsburg would become the most significant event of the reformation, second only to the events of October 31, 1517. Luther praised his friend Melancthon for his successful effort. In all, seven princes signed a copy of the confession at the risk of losing their royal office, thus giving the document legitimacy.^¹⁸

CONCLUSION

The reformation is first and foremost a testimony to God’s infinite wisdom and His perfectly laid out plan for mankind. Martin Luther was born into period in history where society was desperate for change and it was this very atmosphere that prepared the way for the man and his ideas.

Luther was not the first to try to bring about change in the Church; many had gone before him and failed. Yet it was not a case of Luther being smarter, more gifted or more charismatic than his predecessors. It was all a matter of God’s timing. The political situation in Europe, the revived educational system and, to no small degree, the invention of the printing press all made it possible for Luther’s ideas to be heard and take hold in society.

Luther was by no means perfect, nor was he correct in all of his assumptions; some of his theology was even flawed by today’s standard. Yet, Luther was relentless, even stubborn in defending his ideas and his faith and he opened the doors so that others could follow and continue to build on his reformation of the Christian Church.

APPENDIX I

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

25. The power, which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons.

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.^¹⁹

APPENDIX II

Exsurge Domine ; Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520

Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics "whose last defense," as Jerome says, "is to start spewing out a serpent's venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished." For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, "It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man's, or what is worse, the devil's."

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world's glory, and contrary to the Apostle's teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.

These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church's advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church's independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance. Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord's field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has beeri made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord's field as harmful thorn bushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): "I will be with you to the consummation of the world"; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

{And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned. Furthermore, this Martin is to recant perpetually such errors and views. He is to inform us of such recantation through an open document, sealed by two prelates, which we should receive within another sixty days. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform us of his recantation by coming to Rome. We would prefer this latter way in order that no doubt remain of his sincere obedience.

If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.}^²⁰ . . .

APPENDIX III

Martin Luther:

Excerpts from his account of the confrontation at the Diet of Worms

(1521)

“[Dr. Ecken:] . . . Do you wish to defend the books which are recognized as your work? Or to retract anything contained in them? . . .

[Luther:] Most Serene Lord Emperor, Most Illustrious Princes, Most Gracious Lords . . . I beseech you to grant a gracious hearing to my plea, which, I trust, will be a plea of justice and truth; and if through my inexperience I neglect to give to any their proper titles or in any way offend against the etiquette of the court in my manners or behavior, be kind enough to forgive me, I beg, since I am a man who has spent his life not in courts but in the cells of a monastery; a man who can say of himself only this, that to this day I have thought and written in simplicity of heart, solely with a view to the glory of God and the pure instruction of Christ's faithful people. . . .

. . . Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships: I ask you to observe that my books are not all of the same kind.

There are some in which I have dealt with piety in faith and morals with such simplicity and so agreeably with the Gospels that my adversaries themselves are compelled to admit them useful, harmless, and clearly worth reading by a Christian. Even the Bull, harsh and cruel though it is, makes some of my books harmless, although it condemns them also, by a judgment downright monstrous. If I should begin to recant here, what, I beseech you, would I be doing but condemning alone among mortals, that truth which is admitted by friends and foes alike, in an unaided struggle against universal consent?

The second kind consists in those writings leveled against the papacy and the doctrine of the papists, as against those who by their wicked doctrines and precedents have laid waste Christendom by doing harm to the souls and the bodies of men. No one can either deny or conceal this, for universal experience and world-wide grievances are witnesses to the fact that through the Pope's laws and through man-made teachings the consciences of the faithful have been most pitifully ensnared, troubled, and racked in torment, and also that their goods and possessions have been devoured (especially amongst this famous German nation) by unbelievable tyranny, and are to this day being devoured without end in shameful fashion; and that thought they themselves by their own laws take care to provide that the Pope's laws and doctrines which are contrary to the Gospel or the teachings of the Fathers are to be considered as erroneous and reprobate. If then I recant these, the only effect will be to add strength to such tyranny, to open not the windows but the main doors to such blasphemy, which will thereupon stalk farther and more widely than it has hitherto dared. . . .

The third kind consists of those books which I have written against private individuals, so-called; against those, that is, who have exerted themselves in defense of the Roman tyranny and to the overthrow of that piety which I have taught. I confess that I have been more harsh against them than befits my religious vows and my profession. For I do not make myself out to be any kind of saint, nor am I now contending about my conduct but about Christian doctrine. But it is not in my power to recant them, because that recantation would give that tyranny and blasphemy and occasion to lord it over those whom I defend and to rage against God's people more violently than ever.

However, since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil." If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching.

And so, through the mercy of God, I ask Your Imperial Majesty, and Your Illustrious Lordships, or anyone of any degree, to defeat them by the writings of the Prophets or by the Gospels; for I shall be most ready, if I be better instructed, to recant any error, and I shall be the first in casting my writings into the fire. . . .

Thereupon the Orator of the Empire, in a tone of upbraiding, said that his [Luther's] answer was not to the point, and that there should be no calling into question of matters on which condemnations and decisions had before been passed by Councils. He was being asked for a plain reply, without subtlety or sophistry, to this question: Was he prepared to recant, or no?

Luther then replied: Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.

On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.

Amen.”^²¹

ENDNOTES

1 Jesse L. Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 120

2 Known as the Scala Santa.

3 HCSB

4 Otto Clemen, Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Works, (Berlin: de Gruyter. 1967), Vol. 4, pp. 421-428

5 An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546. (Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), Vol. 63, pp.124-125.

6 Originally called a Eucharist.

7 The special "habit" or robe worn by monks.

8 Roland H. Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 1952), pp.46-50.

9 See Appendix I for a copy of Luther’s 95 Theses.

10 Latin: Tecelius

11 Philip Melancthon: A History of the Life and Actions of the Very Reverend Dr. Martin Luther, Faithfully Written by Philip Melancthon. (Wittenburg, 1549)

12 John F. H. New, The Renaissance and Reformation: A Short History, 2d ed. (New York: Wiley, 1977).

13 Latin “purgare,” "to purge" (to purify by getting rid of defilement).

14 Clement VI's reasoning in the bull Unigenitus 1343

15 See Appendix II for a copy of the Bull.

16 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3d ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), Vol. 7, pg. 228-232.

17 See Appendix III for a partial transcript

18 Philip Schaff, Vol. 7, pp. 695-700

19 Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. Works of Martin Luther: (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38

20 Hans J. Hillerbrand, trans. & ed., The Reformation in its own Words (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964), pp80-84

21 Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of The Christian Church, 3d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp221-224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bainton, Roland H.: The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Boston: Beacon Press, 1952, pp. 46-50

Bettenson, Henry, ed.: Documents of the Christian Church, 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 221-224

Clemen, Otto, ed., Bro. Thornton, Andrew, OSB, trans.: Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Works (1545) by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546, 6th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967, Vol. 4, pp. 421-428

Hillerbrand, Hans, J., trans. &ed.: The Reformation in its own Words. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964, pp. 80-84

Hurlbut, Jesse Lyman: The Story of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 197, pg 120.

Irmischer, Johann K. ed., Rev. Smith, Robert E., trans.: An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, Luther's German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546. Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854, Vol. 63, pp.124-125.

Luther, Martin: Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences: October 31, 1517. Electronic ed. Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 95 Theses #1-95

Melancthon, Philip: A History of the Life and Actions of the Very Reverend Dr. Martin Luther, Faithfully Written by Philip Melancthon. Wittenburg, 1549. [sic.] From Hymns of the Reformation by Martin Luther, reprint, by J. Unwin, London, 1845.

New, John F. H. The Renaissance and Reformation: A Short History, 2d ed. New York: Wiley, 1977, pg 130.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, 3d ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996, Vol. 7, pp. 227-232, 695-700.

Spaeth, Adolph, Reed, L.D., Jacobs, Henry E., et Al., trans. & eds. Works of Martin Luther Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, Vol. 1, pp. 29-38

Are We Living In the End of Times?

2007-06-22T05:15:00.000-04:00

It has recently occurred to me that this world is rapidly falling apart. I guess I have gotten so used to the news and all the reports of murder, war and sex scandals that I simply failed to notice how the events have grown exponentially. Remember when Charles Manson and his followers killed the pregnant Sharon Tate? People were shocked and stunned. This just was not something you had heard of before.
Now, just over the last five years or so we have had a number of cases like it. Lacy Peterson, the case in Ohio that is ongoing, and a lady in Raleigh, NC a couple of weeks ago. And there were others. It is still shocking, but generally people are not completely stunned by such news anymore. Homicide is now the number one cause of death for pregnant women, as a new study just announced.
Teen age violence keeps rising, school shootings and senseless acts of violence are becoming more and more frequent, and the killers are getting younger all the time. At the same time we see a government that no longer is for the people. While members of congress have voted themselves a 15% pay raise each year for the past decade or so, the minimum wage has remained consistently low. Politicians have put themselves above the law and we have let them get away with it. America just does not seem to care anymore. To think that more people voted for American Idol contestants than in any governmental/presidential election in the last 12 years says a lot about our society.
There are currently more wars going on than I can remember and a lot of them include large scale genocide. Rwanda and Burundi, Bosnia, and most recently Dafur and Iraq. Yes, Iraq. Shiites and Sunnis are trying to wipe each other of the map and let's not forget the threats made by Iran to exterminate Israel, God's chosen people.
Maybe I am way off base here, but world events as well as domestic issues are beginning to sound more and more like something out of the Book of Revelation. And while the world is working hard to self-destruct, we as a nation are trying to get rid of God. His name has been banned from public schools and government facilities, the Navy even tried to forbid Chaplains to invoke the name of Christ. Members of Congress and the Senate can choose which book to swear their oath on, Bible, Koran or any other book seems fine, maybe soon we will have someone take their oath on the satanic bible. After all, Wicca is now recognized as a valid religion in the military and there are actually Wicca pastors (witches?) serving in our armed forces.
I actually put the blame on the Church and mainstream Christians. Let us be honest, when was the last time some of us have stepped out of our comfort zone and proclaimed the Gospel publicly or simply offered to pray for a co-worker? I am probably in many ways as guilty as the next person when it comes to evangelism, but I do take the opportunity, when it presents itself and refuse to hide my faith. Anyone who says that their faith is private must be reading a different Bible than me. I do not remember Jesus or His disciples keeping their faith private, had they done so a whole lot fewer Christians would have found themselves on the lunch menu of some lion in the Roman circus.
This is my first blog ever, so take it easy on me with your critiques. God bless. In Christ,

Rudi