I am implementing a change of course for this ongoing
series. The intent of my original plan was to be strictly
chronological, proceeding from the oldest to the newest contributions on “the
Great Apostasy”. However, certain comments published in the comboxes of the
previous AF thread (link), and in a thread over at ‘Nick’s Catholic
Blog’ (link), have prompted me to make some adjustments. Instead of examining a
number of works from the writings James E. Talmage and B.H. Roberts concerning
the “the Great Apostasy”, I am jumping forward to an essay written by Dr. Hugh
Nibley. Of the dozens of works I have read from an LDS viewpoint on this
topic—articles, essays, pamphlets and books—Nibley’s, “The Passing of the
Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme”, provides the best defense of
the LDS belief that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles in the
first century had fallen into a deep, wholesale apostasy, to the point that the
ordinances that had been authoritatively instituted, were no longer available
on Earth, and needed to be restored at a future date. Importantly, Nibley
focuses heavily on what the New Testament and a number of early Church Fathers
had to say on the issue of the apostasy, providing hundreds of quotes and/or
references from those sources to support his position
Dr. Nibley’s essay was first published in the Cambridge
journal, Church History (Vol. 30, Issue 2 – June 1961, pp. 131-154 - link); it was reprinted in the book, When The Lights Went Out – Three
Studies on the Ancient Apostasy (Deseret Book 1970, pp. 1-32 - link); again
in BYU Studies (Vol. 16.1, Autumn 1975, pp. 139-184 - link); and then in the
book, Mormonism and Christianity (Deseret Book/FARMS 1987, pp. 168-208 - link). Selections from the essay in this post will be from the online BYU
Studies PDF version (LINK)—the page numbers in the online version differ
from the original paper edition, so citations will include page numbers from both,
with the first being the online, and the second, the paper.
Nibley begins his treatment with the following:
A Somber Theme:—Ever since Eusebius sought
with dedicated zeal to prove the survival of the Church by blazing a trail back
to the Apostles, the program of church history has been the same: “To give a
clear and comprehensive, scientifically established view of the development of
the visible institution of salvation founded by Christ.” To
describe it—not to question it. By its very definition church history requires
unquestioning acceptance of the basic proposition that the Church did survive.
One may write endlessly about The Infant Church, l’Eglise naissante, die
Pflanzung der Kirche, etc., but one may not ask why the early Christians
themselves described their Church not as lusty infant but as an old and failing
woman; one may trace the triumphant spread of The Unquenchable Light through
storm and shadow, but one may not ask why Jesus himself insisted that the Light
was to be taken away. Church history seems to be resolved never to raise
the fundamental question of survival as the only way of avoiding a disastrous
answer, and the normal reaction to the question— did the Church remain on
earth?—has not been serious inquiry in a richly documented field, but shocked
recoil from the edge of an abyss into which few can look without a shudder.
(Page 1/139 – see online essay for footnotes)
In the next paragraph, Nibley outlines the “purpose of
this paper”:
The purpose of this paper is to list briefly the principal
arguments supporting the thesis that the Church founded by Jesus and the
Apostles did not survive and was not expected to. We shall consider the fate of
the Church under three heads: 1) the declarations of the early Christians
concerning what was to befall it, 2) their strange behavior in the light of
those declarations, 3) the affirmations and denials, doubts and misgivings of
the church leaders of a later day. Our theme is the Passing of the
Church, our variations, designated below by Roman numerals, are a number
of striking and often neglected facets of church history. (Page 1/140)
He then writes:
(I) Jesus announced in no uncertain terms that his message
would be rejected by all men, as the message of the prophets had been before,6 and that
he would soon leave the world to die in its sins and seek after him in vain.7 The
Light was soon to depart, leaving a great darkness “in which no man can work,”
while “the prince of this world” would remain, as a usual, in possession of the
field.8 (II) In their turn the Disciples were to succeed no better
than their Lord: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how
much more shall they call them of his household?”9 Like him they were to be “hated of all men,” going forth as
sheep among wolves, “sent last as it were appointed unto death,”10 with the
promise that as soon as they completed their mission the end would come.11 (Page
2/140)
[Notes:
6. Matthew, xvii:12; xxi:37–39; xxiii:31–37; Mark xii:6–8;
Luke xvii:25; John 1:5, 10–11; iii:11f, 19, 32; v:38, 40–47; vii:7; viii:19;
23f, 37f, 40–47; xv:22–25; cf. Acts iii:13–15.
7. Matthew xi:15; Luke ix: 41; xiii:25–27; xvii:22 John
vii:33f; xii:35f; xiii:33; xiv:30; xvi:16; cf. Acts iii:21.
8. John ix:4f; vix:30. Evil triumphs from Abel to the eschaton:
Matthew xxiii:35–39; xvii:12 Luke xi:51; Clementine Recognitions, iii.
61.
9. Matthew x:24f; Mark xiii:13; Luke x:16; John xv:18–21;
xvii:14: Acts xxviii:26f; F. C. Grant, “The Mission of the Disciples,” J.B.L.,
XXXI (1916), 293–314.
10. Matthew x:16–22, 28; xxiv:9; Mark xiii:9; Luke x:3;
John xvi:1–2, 33; I Corinthians iv:9; II Clement v.
11. Matthew. xxiv:14; xxviii:20; Mark xiii:10. Below,
notes 17,21.]
And then:
As soon as the Lord departs there comes “the lord of this
world, and hath nothing in me”; in the very act of casting out the Lord of the
vineyard the usurpers seize it for themselves, to remain in possession until
his return;18 no sooner does he sow his wheat than the adversary
sows tares and only when the Lord returns again can the grain be “gathered
together,” i.e., into a church, the ruined field itself being not the church
but specifically “the world.”19 After the sheep come the wolves, “not sparing the
flock,” which enjoys no immunity (Acts xx; 29) after sound doctrine come
fables;20 after the charismatic gifts only human virtues (1
Cor. xiii; 8, 13). The list is a grim one, but it is no more impressive than
(VI) the repeated insistence that there is to be an end, not the end of
the world, but “the consummation of the age.”21 It is to
come with the completion of the missionary activities of the Apostles, and
there is no more firmly-rooted tradition in Christendom than the teaching that
the Apostles completed the assigned preachingto the nations in their own
persons and in their own time, so that the end could come in their generation.22 (Page
2/140)
[Notes:
18. John xiv:30; Matthew xxi:38; Mark xii:7; Luke xx:14.
19. Matthew xiii: 24–30, 38. Both syllegein and synagogein
are used.
20. II Timothy. iv:2–4; II Thess. ii:9–12; Rom. i:21–31.
21. Matt. xxiv:14; cf. x:23; xxviii:20, where aeon refers
to that particular age. O. Cullmann, in W. D. Davies & D. Daube (eds.). The
Background of the New Testament and Its
Eschatology (Cambridge Univ., 1956), 417; cf. N. Messel, Die
Einheitlichkeit der
jüdischen Eschatologie (Giessen, 1915), 61–69,
44–50. See below, note 181.
22. Mark xiii:9f; Acts ii:16f, 33; Origen, In Mt. Comm.
Ser. 39, in P.G., XIII, 1655B, concludes that, strictly speaking, jam
finem venisse; so also John Chrysostom, In Ep Heb. xi, Homil. xxi.3,
in Migne, P.G. LXIII, 1655B.]
Shifting focus to the Apostolic Fathers, Nibley writes:
(X) The Apostolic Fathers denounce with feeling the all
too popular doctrine that God’s Church simply cannot fail. All past triumphs,
tribulations, and promises, they insist, will count for nothing unless the
People now repent and stand firm in a final test that lies just ahead; God’s
past blessing and covenants, far from being a guarantee of immunity (as many
fondly believe) are the very opposite, for “the greater the blessings we have
received the greater rather is the danger in which we lie.”33
(Page/s 4/142, 143)
[Note:
33. I Clem. xli. 4; xxi. 1; Barnab. iv. 9, 14; Ignat., Ephes,
xi. 1. “The last stumbling-block approaches . . .” Barnab. iv. 3, 9; I Clem.
vii. 1; II Clem. viif; xvi; Hermas, Vis., ii. 2; iv. 1.]
A bit later:
(XII) The call to repentance of the Apostolic Fathers is a
last call; they labor the doctrine of the Two Ways as offering to Christian
society a last chance to choose between saving its soul by dying in the faith
or saving its skin by coming to terms with the world.41 They
have no illusions as to the way things are going: the Church has lost the gains
it once made, the people are being led by false teachers,42 there is
little to hinder the fulfillment of the dread (and oft-quoted) prophecy, “. . .
the Lord shall deliver the sheep of his pasture and their fold and their tower
to destructions.”43 The original Tower with its perfectly cut and
well-fitted stones is soon to be taken from the earth, and in its place will
remain only a second-class tower of defective stones which could not pass the
test.44 In the Pastor of Hermas (Vis. iii. 11–13) the
Church is represented as an old and failing lady—“because your spirit is old
and already fading away”—who is carried out of the world; only in the world
beyond does she appear as a blooming and ageless maiden. The Apostolic Fathers
take their leave of a Church not busily engaged in realizing the Kingdom, but
fast falling asleep; the lights are going out, the Master has departed on his
long journey, and until he returns all shall sleep. What lies ahead is the
“Wintertime of the Just,” the time of mourning for the Bridegroom, when men
shall seek the Lord and not find him, and seek to do good, but no longer be
able to.”45 (Pages 4, 5/ 143, 144)
[Notes:
41.
Ignat., Magnes., v; II Clem. vi; Barnab. v; xviii; see K. Lake’s note on
Hermas in his Apostolic Fathers (Loeb ed., 1912), ii. 21, n. 1.
42. I
Clem. i; iii; xxiv; xix; Ignat., Trall, vii; Ephes., xvii; ix. 5;
Hermas, Vis., iii. 3, 10. Cf. Test. of Hezekiah, ii. 3B–iv. 18.
43. Didache,
xvi. 3; Barnab. xvi; Enoch lxxxix; lvi; lxvif; Logion No. xiv, in Patrologia
Orientalis, IV, 176f; cf. IX, 227f.
44.
Hermas, Vis. iii. 3–7.
45. Hermas, Sim. iii; iv; ix; I Clem. lviii;
Euseb., H. E., III. xxxi. 3; V. xxiv. 2.]
Two more selections before ending this introductory post
to Nibley’s essay:
Arguments
for Survival:—The arguments put forth by those who would prove the
survival of the Church are enough in themselves to cast serious doubts upon it.
(XXXIV) The first thing that strikes one is the failure of the ingenuity of
scholarship to discover any serious scriptural support for the thesis. There
are remarkable few passages in the Bible that yield encouragement even to the
most determined exegesis, and it is not until centuries of discussion have
passed that we meet with the now familiar interpretations of the “mustard seed”
and “gates-of-hell” imagery, which some now hold to be eschatological teachings
having no reference whatever to the success of the Church on earth. (Page
12/152)
And:
Christians
have often taken comfort in the axiom that it is perfectly unthinkable that God
should allow his Church to suffer annihilation, that he would certainly draw
the line somewhere. This is the very doctrine of ultimate immunity against
which the Apostolic Fathers thunder, and later Fathers remind us that we may
not reject the appalling possibility simply because it is appalling. (Page
13/153)
Shall
end here for now, hoping that the folk who are interested in this topic will
take the time to read the entire essay, and look up the extensive quotes and
references provided therein.
Grace
and peace,
