Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:12:51.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Apocalypse of John and the Liturgy of the Ancient Church

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Otto A. Piper
Otto A. Piper
Affiliation:
Princeton Theological Seminary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interpretations of the last book of the New Testament usually dwell upon its visions of things to come. Except for its prayers and hymns, however, little attention has been paid to its liturgical character. This fact is the more surprising since it is just in that respect that the Apocalypse of John differs mostly strikingly from other Jewish and Christian apocalyptic writings. Its visions are presented within a framework of liturgical activities, and toward the end of the book it is hardly possible to dissociate the acts of worship from the visions of the future. This close relationship shows that its liturgical portions are not a purely literary device. Rather in the Seer's mind they form part of the revelatory process itself representing the reaction of initiated creatures to the gradual disclosure of the saving purpose of God and its execution. From the historical viewpoint, this liturgical framework of the Apocalypse of John is interesting, because it contains a number of features which, in a similar manner, occur also in the liturgies of the Ancient Church. Thus it is from the liturgical character of the Apocalypse that the historical development of the Christian liturgy becomes intelligible. Out of the perplexing diversity of its types, the formative principle of its early stages emerges, and a number of motives become visible, some of which have determined its history to the present day. Others, which have no longer a vital role assigned to them, were, nevertheless, preserved on account of the significance originally attached to them. Among these features I mention the ideas of the Eucharistic Parousia, the Church's participation in the angelic worship, the emphasis placed upon the worthiness of the interpreter of Scripture, the connection between the Confession of Sins and the Eucharist, the separation of the believers and unbelievers prior to the heavenly meal, the celebration of the Eucharist as an act of the Church in its cosmic totality, the association of the Eucharist with the Judgment of the World, and the interpretation of the liturgy as a spiritual battle. It will suffice to single out two of these features, which for their lack of centrality in the liturgies are particularly apt to illustrate our point, viz. the participation of the Church in the angelic worship, and the worthiness of the interpreter of Scripture.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 1951 , pp. 10 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Characteristic of the modern approach to Revelation is the fact that in Christian Worship, Ten Lectures delivered in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, in the autumn of 1896–1897, the Apocalypse is completely ignored. Macdonald, Alexander B., in Christian Worship in the Primitive Church (1934)Google Scholar makes a few passing remarks. In Nielen, Joseph Maria, Gebet und Gottesdienst im Neuen Testament (1937)Google Scholar, Eng. Tr., The Earliest Christian Liturgy (1941)Google Scholar, the relatively numerous references to Revelation dwell almost exclusively upon non-essential points. The work is characteristic of the modern Roman Catholic treatment of the history of the liturgy. The overwhelming majority of Catholic students of the liturgy are interested in the Canon of the Mass and its historical antecedents only.

2 So, e.g. Victorinus, ' Commentarius in Apocalypsin (CSEL XXXIX), ch. IV, 3, both in the original form (p. 50, 4–5)Google Scholar and in Jerome, 's recension (p. 51, 6–7)Google Scholar. The same view is held by Milligan, W., Book of Revelation, 1889, p. 69.Google Scholar

3 Test. Levi, 3:8.Google Scholar

4 Rev. 1:6Google Scholar, ep. I Chron. 24:1.Google Scholar

5 E.g. Charles, R. H., Revelation of St. John (I.C.C.) Vol. I, p. 116.Google Scholar

6 It is the basic error of Gunkel, Bousset and the School of Comparative Religion in general to assume that the Seer did not understand the mythological material he used, and that thus little, if any, meaning is to be sought behind his imagery. That a good deal of it goes back to pagan myths should not be denied. But it is amazing what intelligent use the Seer made of this material so that it became subservient to his ideas.

7 E.g. Ps. 103: 20ff; Ps. 148:1; ep. Ps. 69:34; Isa. 6:1–3.

8 E.g. I Enoch, 29:12ffGoogle Scholar; 40:3ff; 71:9ff; Test. Levi, 3:5fGoogle Scholar, 8 and 18:6; II Enoch, 17:1Google Scholar; 18:9; Asc. of Isa. VII, 15, 19, 20, etc.

9 Tobit 12:15; see also Drews, P., Art. “Trishagion,” in RE 3 XX, p. 127.Google Scholar

10 Cp. e.g. the parallelism in Ps. 148:1, “Praise ye the Lord from the heavens” and v. 7, “Praise the Lord from the earth.”

11 The praise of God, e.g. which the host of angels sings at the birth of Jesus (Lk. 2:13), lacks the participation of an earthly congregation. In Heb. 1:7Google Scholar, the quotation from Deut. 32:43bGoogle Scholar refers to the angelic adoration of the Son, though in the original context it may have spoken with reference to the heavenly worship of God. Cp. the “heavens” in the parallel member v. 43a.

12 See also Rev. 22:8–9.

13 Hermas, , Vis. III, 4, 2Google Scholar: the angels build the church and they praise God when the work is completed: Sim. IX, 27:3Google Scholar, they minister to the Lord.

14 Origen, , Adv. Cels. VIII 34Google Scholar, speaks of the believers as imitating the piety towards God “of the thousand thousands of angels standing before God and ministering unto him.”

15 I Clem. 34:5–7Google Scholar; Apostolic Tradition XXXVI, 12Google Scholar (edition of Dix, Gregory, p. 67)Google Scholar; Sarapion's Prayer Nr. 1 (edition by Wobbermin, Georg, “Altchristliche Liturgische Stuecke aus der Kirche Aegytens” in Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. II, 3b, 1 (1898) p. 4, 10–11Google Scholar, (in the future referred to as “Wobb.”); Liturgy of St. Mark, Brightman, E. F., Liturgies Eastern and Western (1896), v. I, Eastern Liturgies, (in the future referred to as “Br.”) p. 122, 18–25 and 137, 1–6Google Scholar; Liturgy of StJames, , Br. p. 34, 27–30, cp. p. 50, 16–31Google Scholar; Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles (Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Edition, 1899, (in the future referred to as “A-NF”.) v. VII, p. 564 and 568; Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, Thanksgiving, Br. p. 385, 3–6.

16 Sarapion's Collection, First Sunday Prayer, Wobb, , Nr. 19, p. 15, 1–2Google Scholar; cp. Nr. 24, p. 17, 12–14.

17 Liturgy of StMark, , Br. p. 124, 28–30 and p. 129, 20–24Google Scholar; Liturgy of StJames, , Br. p. 61, 26–29.Google Scholar

18 Sarapion, Prayer for the Congregation, Nr. 27, Wobb, , p. 19, 8–9.Google Scholar

19 E.g. Tertullian, , De AnimaGoogle Scholar, ch. 9.

20 Stromata VIII, 7.Google Scholar

21 Daniel himself probably thought of human beings waiting for the Divine judgment.

22 Fiebig, Paul, Berachoth, (1906) p. 32Google Scholar, thinks that the Trishagion was already used in Jesus' day in the first blessing before the Shema. See also Drews, , 1 c. p. 127Google Scholar. But while thac may be so there is no evidence that in Judaism the Trishagion was combined with Dan. 7:10 as in Rev. and the early Christian liturgies.

23 Wobb. Nr. 1, p. 5, 5–12.Google Scholar

24 Br. p. 131, 25.

25 The fact that in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 35 the congregation is enjoined to emulate the praise of the holy seraphim together with the six-winged cherubim is, despite the Jewish character of the prayers of the seventh book, hardly to be interpreted as a deliberate rejection of the idea of a common heavenly worship. The whole passage represents a highly advanced form of the angelic liturgy.

26 Br. p. 34, 29. The reference to the heavenly powers is probably influenced by Ps. 148:1–2 where angels and “powers” are called upon to praise God. The passage is already used by Justin (Dialogue 85, 24)Google Scholar as the basis of a theological idea.

27 Br. p. 42, 1–6.

28 Br. 58, 25–31 cp. Syriac Liturgy of St. James, Br. 29, 30–32.

29 Br. p. 50, 16–32; cp. also the Anaphora of the Jacobites, Syrian, Br. p. 86, 1–18.Google Scholar

30 A-N F, v. VIII, p. 561.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., p. 564.

32 Trishagion Prayer, Br. 313–314: a similar idea in Basil, S.'s Liturgy alone, Br. 312, 15–24Google Scholar, adopted by the Byzantine Liturgy, Br. 368, 8–10.

33 Liturgy of the Presanctified, Great Entrance, Br. 384, 21–22.

34 Wetter, Gillis Petersson, “Altchristlichen Liturgien: Das christliche Mystermium” in Forsehungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Neue Folge, 11, Heft, 1921, (referred to below as “Wetter, Mysterium”) p. 183Google Scholar, note 46.

35 II Cor. 3:14–18.Google Scholar

26 Eph. 1:17.Google Scholar

37 Rom. 3:21–22Google Scholar, cp. II Tim, , 1–10.Google Scholar

38 John, 15:15Google Scholar; 17:20; cp. Rom. 16:26–27. In the New Testament as in contemporary literature gnorizein denotes not simply ‘to make known’ but rather ‘to reveal or proclaim a mystery, a person's intentions.’ See Kittel, Gerhard, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Vol. I, p. 718–19.Google Scholar

39 Did. IX, 2.Google Scholar

40 Did. IX, 3.Google Scholar

41 Did. X, 2.Google Scholar

42 In Genesin, homily II, 3, quoted in Cabrol, Fernand and Leclercq, Henri, Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica, v. I, 1 (1902)Google Scholar, Nr. 1085. The work is below referred to as Cabrol, , Monumenta.Google Scholar

43 In Genesin, hom. IV, 6Google Scholar (Cabrol, , MonumentaGoogle Scholar, Nr. 1094, cp. also homily XIII, 1, Cabrol, Nr. 1111 and hom. XV, 7Google Scholar, Cabrol, Nr. 1117.

44 In Numeros, hom. XV, 9Google Scholar, Cabrol. Monumenta, Nr. 1242.

45 In Josue, hom. XVII, 3Google Scholar, cp. In Genesin, hom. VIII, 1Google Scholar; XII, 1; XV, 7; In Levit., hom. I, 1Google Scholar; VI, 6: etc.

46 Victorinus, who 1, c., ch. V, 1 (p. 60, 4–6, cp. 61, 4–9); V, 2 (p. 62, 11–16 cp. 63, 15–19); VI, 1 (p. 66, 18–21, cp. 67, 18–21) gives the right interpretation of the ceremony, probably reproduces an earlier tradition. See , R. E. XX, p. 646, 1–9.Google Scholar

47 Wobb. Nr. 19, p. 15, 4.Google Scholar

48 Br. p. 38, 5–8.

49 Liturgy of the Jacobites, Coptic, Br. p. 153, 20–25.Google Scholar

50 Br. p. 38, 26–39, 4; similarly, Liturgy of St. Mark, Br. p. 117, 22–26, and Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles, A-N F, v. VII, p. 561.Google Scholar

51 For instance, Liturgy of StMark, , Br. p. 135, 19–21.Google Scholar

52 Wobb, , p. 15, 7.Google Scholar

53 E.g. Missale Romanum.

54 Prayer after Gospel Lesson, Liturgy of the Jacobites, Coptic, Br. p. 157, 5–8Google Scholar; cp. Prayer after the Pauline Lesson, Liturgy of the Jacobites, Syrian, Br. p. 78, 23–27.Google Scholar

55 Prayer after the Pauline Lesson, in the Liturgy of the Coptic Jacobites, Br. 153, 25.

56 Prayer after Catholicon, Liturgy of the Jacobites, Coptic, Br., p. 154, 9.Google Scholar

57 In Jer., hom. XIV, 14.Google Scholar

58 Srawley, J. H., Early History of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. (1947), p. 43.Google Scholar

59 Srawley, , 1. c., p. 17Google Scholar; Lietzmann, Hans, Messe und Herrenmahl (1926), p. 125.Google Scholar

60 Oesterly, W. O. E., Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (1925)Google Scholar; Nielen, , 1. c., p. 72–102.Google Scholar

61 See note 8 above, cp. also Strack, und Billerbeck, , Commentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (1928), v. III, p. 573Google Scholar; Windisch, Hans, Hebräerbrief (Handbuch zum NT, Nr. 14, 2nd ed., 1931), p. 69 and 113.Google Scholar

62 Drews, P., with reference to Did. IX and X in Handbuch der Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, hrsg. von Edgar Hennecke (1904), p. 269.Google Scholar

63 Cullmann, Oscar, Urchristentum und Gottesdienst (1944), p. 7.Google Scholar

64 Rev. 1:10.Google Scholar

65 Ibid.

66 John, 4:23.Google Scholar

67 Rev. 4:9.Google Scholar

68 Oesterley, , 1. c., p. 100Google Scholar, reaches the same conclusion from sources of the early second century.

69 Cabrol, , Dictionnaire d' Archéologie chrétienne, v. I, p. 1888.Google Scholar

70 Warren, F. E., Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante- Nicene Church (1897), p. 172.Google Scholar