Category Archives: Opinion

Canonicity and the Self-Authenticating Scriptures

Posted on by
Reply
Antique Homemade Carpenter's Level

Antique Homemade Carpenter’s Level

Protestants are told the scriptures are self-authenticating; because the scriptures are God’s word, they have the power to convince us of their truth. This idea is promoted as a means of determining whether a particular book is canonical or not. However plausible this may sound, this is not a useful principle for determining canonicity. The self-authenticating principle can draw one astray into all manner of enthusiasms, allowing an individual or group to determine their own canon of scripture. This was the error of Marcion, who is the first one to devise a Christian canon that “self-authenticated” his preexisting heresies.

The problem is in the nature of canonicity, which is the principle (or principles) by which the scope of the canon is determined. Regarding this process, Dr. Eugenia Constantinou writes:

On what basis were certain books accepted and others rejected? What criteria were used? Did the authority of the book precede its canonization or was it recognized as authoritative because of its history or a particular quality that ultimately rendered it officially canonical? Which qualities were most important? Apostolicity? Prophecy? Spirituality? Perceived inspiration of the writer? Inspired reaction in the reader? Dogmatic importance? Orthodoxy of doctrine? Use by the community of faith? Didactic usefulness? Resonance with Christian experience?[1]

Scholars debate two different approaches: what John C. Peckham defines as the Community-Canon approach and the Intrinsic-Canon approach. Peckham describes the Community-Canon as “a collection of books deemed authoritative by a given community”, and the Intrinsic-Canon as “a collection of authoritative books that are authoritative because God commissioned [inspired] them.”[2] On the one hand, a text is authoritative because the community declared it to be so; on the other hand, a text is authoritative apart from the community’s declaration of the text to be scripture.

The Community-Canon Approach

The Community-Canon approach is based on the community’s declaration of certain books to be Scripture. This presupposes the existence of said books, and their recognition by and use within the community. The pure Community-Canon approach implies that the books are not Scripture until the community declares them to be so, but this is something of a straw man. There is no evidence for such an idea among the various Christian communities and their individual canons of Scripture. The early church was more concerned to declare particular books outside the canon than to positively decide upon the limits of the canon. But, when pressed by outside forces, or out of necessity, the community of faith found itself in the position of creating an authoritative collection of inspired writings.

Objections to the pure Community-Canon approach include the hostile reaction of the community of faith to the prophets, and the failure the community to immediately declare a text to be scripture. For example, Jeremiah’s writings were not immediately recognized as scripture. John C. Peckham writes:

The biblical concept of a true prophet refers to one divinely authorized to speak for God (Jer 15:19; Acts 3:18, 21). There is then, by definition, a divinely appointed authority belonging to true prophets that is thereby inconsistent with the epistemological[3] primacy of the community.[4]

In layman’s terms, the prophet’s being authorized to speak for God exists independently, apart from any criteria the community might use to determine the prophetic authority of the prophetic writing. The prophetic authority is, therefore, intrinsic to the text, and exists apart from the texts witness to and existence within the community.

Peckham then raises another interesting question: “What Constitutes a Legitimate and/or Adequate Community?” There were various canons circulating in the early church; seemingly each Bishop had his own opinion. And there were different communities of faith which considered themselves Christian, and considered themselves to have the authority to determine canonical issues. Among these was the early heretic Marcion, whose canon did not include the Old Testament, and included only portions of the New Testament. The Gnostics also had their own canonical texts that were rejected by the orthodox Christian community. Peckham writes:

Perhaps one might posit that a later community, whether a community of a particular time and place or the collective early Christian community over a period of time, is authoritative to determine canonicity. Yet the same problems apply to later communities. On what grounds should one accept that a later community is more legitimate and/or adequate to determine canonicity? As was the case for the earliest Christian community, the “community” is not monolithic decades or even centuries later. There are now and have been in ages past numerous communities that differ regarding the scope of sacred writings as canon. Examples include the times of the early church (the so-called canon of Marcion and Irenaeus’ view of the scriptures vs. his Gnostic opponents), over one thousand years later (the canon posited by the Council of Trent vs. the Thirty-Nine Articles), and more recent times (the Gospel revisions of the Jesus seminar). Hence, asserting that a later community might be authoritative to determine the canon likewise raises the question, “which community?”[5]

John C. Peckham fails to mention that this argument also applies to the Reformation. The idea that the Reformers could determine for themselves the canon of Scripture raises the question of their authority to do so. Did the Holy Spirit reveal Himself to the Reformers in a way that He had not revealed Himself to the previous 1,500 years of the body of Christ? By what authority were the Reformers able to make that decision on behalf of themselves and their followers, over and against the authority of the witness of the Holy Spirit to the historical Church? What were the criteria the Reformers used to determine which books were truly Scripture — which books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? It is interesting that Peckham mentions the Jesus Seminar, but fails to recognize that the Reformers functioned in exactly the same way when they devised their truncated canon.

Objections to the Community-Canon Approach

We must deal with the objections to the Community-Canon approach, so clearly defined by John C. Peckham. First, how do we account for the fact that the larger community of faith does not immediately attest to the inspiration of a particular book? Did not the Holy Spirit inspire the author to write it? And was it therefore not Scripture before the community declared it to be so? The solution to this dilemma is that communities are not time bound, but change and grow. The Holy Spirit is not subject to time; witness of the Holy Spirit comes as a still, small voice, working within the heart of the community, just as He worked within the heart of the prophet. Just as dripping water will eventually wear a hole through a rock, so the voice of the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, leading the community of faith to recognition of same.

The question of which community has the authority to decide is a more difficult one.[6] Just what is the proper basis upon which the community determines the canon? This is an important question, and was answered in different ways by different communities in the early church. Some churches used books that were later dropped from the canon by the larger community. Other books that were later included in the canon which were rejected at some point by large parts of the Christian world. Different bishops produced different canonical lists, lists which in some cases were changed by later bishops using different criteria. So what were these criterion used?

The primary basis was apostolicity. This did not mean that every New Testament book was written by an apostle, but that every book was consistent with the witness of the apostles. While this is a highly subjective assessment today, it was considerably more objective in the primitive church, which contained people who had been taught by the apostles themselves. As the earliest canonical testimonies contained the core of the New Testament as we know it today, we can safely say these books were confirmed by those who actually were taught by the apostles.

Part of apostolicity has to do with orthodoxy, with the regula fidei — the rule (or deposit) of faith. When the apostle Paul reminded the Thesselonians of all that he had taught them concerning the Gospel, he used the term “traditions”, which is a way of referring to the apostolic deposit, the rule of faith.

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.(2 Th 2:13-15)

Paul uses a similar line of thought when he addresses the Corinthians, telling them he is sending Timothy to remind them of “his ways” which he teaches everywhere, and to every church. In this extended passage he tells them not to follow the teachings of men, but to follow the rule of faith which is held in common among the churches — which we call orthodox doctrine.

I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. (1 Cor 4:16-17)

Another part of apostolicity is antiquity. Indeed, one of Tertullian’s arguments against the truncated canon of Marcion is that it doesn’t pass the test of antiquity. Tertullian argues the unedited version of Luke had been accepted from the time it was written, while Marcion’s edited version was unknown to the Church. In his writing, he connects apostolicity and antiquity.

That Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own—as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion’s swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches.  The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.[7]

Another important criterion was authorship. Was the author of a particular book known and accepted as an authority? The book of Hebrews was troubling, because the book does not state who wrote it, and the book’s authorship has been lost. Some, such as Eusebius, attribute the book of Hebrews to the apostle Paul. Yet the Pauline authorship is doubtful, and the Western Church did not include the book in its list of approved texts on the basis of its disputed authorship. Yet eventually, Hebrews was accepted as Sacred Scripture. The important thing to note is that authorship is a criterion while the status of a book is in doubt. Once the general consensus of the Church declares this or that book to be Scripture, the issue of authorship is no longer relevant.

Today there are any number of disputes as to the authorship of various books of the Old and New Testament. Many scholars believe that II Peter was not written by Peter, but instead by Peter’s disciples after his death. Some scholars believe the John who wrote Revelation is not the same as the John who wrote the Gospel of John. The authorship (in the modern sense) of the five books of Moses is in dispute. All this is troubling to the Protestant mind, and some have even lost their faith over issues such as these. Yet these issues are unimportant to the Orthodox, and indeed to other Christians. For them the Church has spoken, and the issue is settled. The books of Hebrews, II Peter, Revelation, and the Pentateuch are Scripture, no matter who the author is.

It should be obvious that one of the criterion used was that a book was consistent and free of contradiction. Of course the writing had to be internally consistent, but more important was that it did not contradict other writings considered to be either scripture or authoritative. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, argues that scripture does not contradict itself.

If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.[8]

Another important canonical criterion is that the writings were read in church. For a writing to be read in church, it needed to be authoritative. For example, Paul’s letters were written to be read aloud in church. They were then copied and passed on to other churches, who found them to be valuable and worthy of being read in church. The use of our New Testament books became part of regular church usage, a process Eusebius describes as their being “recognized” and “encovenanted”. Steve Rudd writes:

The regular use of writings in the ancient churches was also an important factor in their selection for the New Testament canon. This is what Eusebius had in mind when he mentioned that certain writings were “recognized” (homolegoumena) among the churches and became “encovenanted” (endiathekoi = “testamented” or “canonical”).[9]

One criterion that applied to the book of Jude was that a writing should not quote from books that were not part of the canon. Since Jude quotes the Book of Enoch, which was not part of the Septuagint, some argued that the book of Jude should not be approved for reading in church. Eventually this argument was deemed unpersuasive, and Jude became part of the New Testament canon.

These different criterions were not applied as part of some algorithmic process. There are books that meet these criterions, yet did not make it into the canon. The Didache was written prior to 70 A.D. and the destruction of the temple. Some wanted to attach it to the end of the Gospel of Matthew, where it seems a natural fit. As it describes the regular functioning of the church, its use was normative in the early church. It certainly does not contradict any other scripture text. And yet it did not make it into the canon. Some books like Clement 1, the epistles of Ignatius, and the Shepherd of Hermas were fully orthodox in doctrine, and were often read in church. And yet, eventually, they were left out of the canon.

The process of canonical formation is not a smooth, logical process. The rules were applied loosely, and sometimes were bent or ignored. The only rules that were applied across the board were that a writing had to be consistent with other scripture, and that it be fully orthodox in doctrine. The rest of the rules were applied in a seemingly haphazard fashion, a process that suggests a supra-rational approach, following the leading of the Holy Spirit working within the community of faith.

Epistemology and the Community-Canon Approach

Perhaps the greatest problem with the Community-Canon approach is that it uses an epistemological criterion (one determined by propositional knowledge) to determine the suitability of a book for inclusion into the canon. If the Biblical canon is a list of authoritative and inspired books compiled by the Christian community, then only the Christian community can recognize and define that list. If, however, canonicity is an epistemic criterion, then individuals and groups can each use different criterion and reason their way towards producing different lists. William Abraham describes the key difference between these two views.

The older way was prepared to leave scripture as both a gift of the Holy Spirit and as subject to the ongoing activity of the Spirit without worrying overmuch about epistemology. In my terms, the older way was content to leave scripture as a means of grace. The new fashion was to give primacy to ideas of revelation and inspiration as applying in some unique fashion to the Bible, and to limit scripture to the Bible. However, it is only someone already smitten by epistemology, and more precisely by the kind of epistemology furnished by Aquinas, who can accept the shift identified here so gladly and readily.[10]

For us to understand this argument, we must discuss the development of an epistemological role in theology — the foundation, source, and validity of revelatory truth. Richard Foley comments: “For the medievals, religious authority and tradition were seen as repositories of wisdom”. According to Foley, it was the enlightenment views of men like Descartes and Locke who “regarded tradition and authority as potential sources of error and took reason to be the corrective”.[11] But interestingly, this view did not originate with Locke and Descartes, but has its roots in the writings of Aquinas. William Abraham develops this thesis following this quote from the French theologian Yves Marie Joseph Cardinal Congar, who claims Thomas Aquinas inherited the following crucial assumptions from the Middle Ages:

First, the attributing of all true (and holy determinations of the life of the Church, to a [revelation, inspiration, suggestion], of the Holy Spirit.

Second, the practice of including the Fathers, the conciliar canons and even the pontifical decrees and (more rarely) the more outstanding treatises of the theologians, in the Scriptura Sacra [sacred Scripture], or again, without distinguishing, in the divina pagina [interpretation of scripture].[12] This is a practice of long standing; there seems no doubt but that it arises from the Decretum Gelasianum [Gelasian Decree ][13], which …had passed into canonical collections, and into those chapters which dealt with sources and rules.[14]

For William Abraham, and likely with Protestants in general, the implications are quite startling.

‘Scripture’ was not originally confined to the Bible; it had a much wider frame of reference. …What we see emerging in what follows is a quite different range of sense and reference. Over time, Scripture was cut back to apply materially to the Bible; and its primary function lay in that of operating as an authority.[15]

According to William Abraham, Thomas Aquinas developed that “special kind of rigour in theology”, and was therefore the first to distinguish the authority of the Bible from that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.[16] Thus, it was Aquinas that laid the foundations for the Reformation’s outright rejection of the Bible as interpreted by the Father’s and the Councils, and in favor of the Bible as interpreted by Reason and Conscience.

The Intrinsic-Canon Approach

As we have spoken unfavorably of the Community-Canon approach, and particularly with its reliance upon human reason and epistemological criteria, we bring ourselves to the Intrinsic Canon approach.

John C. Peckam’s arguments against the Community-Approach apply to the Intrinsic-Canon approach as well. As previously mentioned, Peckham defines the Intrinsic-Canon approach as “a collection of authoritative books that are authoritative because God commissioned [inspired] them.” There is something important missing here: is a book inspired apart from its being part of a collection of authoritative books? And how can there be a collection of such books apart from the community who collected them?

Peckham’s own explanation of the Intrinsic-Canon approach argues for the community’s recognition of certain texts as authoritative. Why? Because an inspired scripture is of no use to anyone if it is not recognized as such. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the inspiration of the writing, and this witness takes place within and to the community of believers — the Church.

If we deal with the two views atomistically, they seem like alternate and opposing approaches. However, we have already noted that the Intrinsic-Canon approach does not preclude the community’s involvement in recognizing that a particular book is authoritative and inspired. Therefore, in practical terms, the two approaches are much the same, and attempts to separate them are short-sighted at best.

As you will remember, John C. Peckham wrote of the prophet as being one “divinely authorized to speak for God.” Thus we must conceive of the Holy Spirit primarily working with individuals, and of inspiring them to write Sacred Scripture. Just as the Holy Spirit works with individuals apart from the community, so then the text produced is inspired apart from its being part of “a collection of authoritative books.”

This raises some important questions. Can we conceive of a single book being inspired, apart from its inclusion in a collection of inspired books? More importantly, is a book inspired apart from its witness to and within a community? And what is the role of the Holy Spirit in all this?

Objections to the Intrinsic-Canon Approach

The idea of an Intrinsic-Canon, of the inspiration of the text apart from the community’s recognition of said inspiration, is a problem historically. A prophet would speak, and then he, his amanuensis, or his followers would write down what he had to say. For the text’s continued existence, it had to be copied by hand, which was an expensive and laborious process. Thus we cannot conceive of a text’s existence apart from its usefulness to and recognition by the community.[17]

The case of Jeremiah is important in this regard. The original text of Jeremiah was destroyed by Jehoakim, king of Judah, and Jeremiah had to dictate another scroll to his scribe, Baruch. (Jeremiah 36) So the question becomes which text was inspired: the first scroll, or the second? Actually, both of them were inspired, but only one is canonical. How can this be? Because the Scripture is a witness to the revelation, not the revelation itself. Therefore, a pure Intrisic-Canon approach will not do, as it does not account for the problem of Jeremiah.

The Verbal Icon and the Witness of the Holy Spirit

Karl Barth, the most important Protestant theologian of the twentieth century, seems to argue against the Community-Canon approach when he states: “the Bible is the witness of divine revelation.” Barth thus draws a distinction between the revelation of God and the Bible as the witness to that revelation. Barth goes on to state: “there is a Word of God for the Church: in that it receives in the Bible the witness of divine revelation.”[18] Thus the Bible is the Word of God for the Church precisely because of its witness to divine revelation. Regarding this proposition, Barth writes:

A witness is not absolutely identical with that to which it witnesses. This corresponds with the facts upon which the truth of the whole proposition is based. In the Bible we meet with human words written in human speech, and in these words, and therefore by means of them, we hear of the lordship of the triune God. Therefore when we have to do with the Bible, we have to do primarily with this means, with these words, with the witness which as such is not itself a revelation, but only — and this is the limitation — the witness to it.[19]

Barth is careful to say that the Bible mediates the original revelation; that it is the means by which the revelation comes to us, the means by which the revelation accommodates itself to us, and the means by which the revelation of God becomes “an actual presence and event.”[20] In other words, the revelation of God is primary; the text of the Bible is absolutely dependent upon the initial revelation, and is a faithful witness to that revelation, but must be distinguished from it.

Here would be a good place to develop the idea of the “Verbal Icon”. The icon is an image of a thing, and not the thing itself. Thus the icon resembles and is symbolic of the object to which it refers. The icon therefore interprets and illumines reality.[21] When God says “Let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26), the Hebrew word used is צלם (tselem, pronounced tseh’- lem). The Greek translation of that term is εικων (eikon,pronounced  i-kone’), which is the source for our English word icon. Thus an icon is not, as is often thought, merely a visual symbolic representation: humans are the created icon of God; paintings may be the icon of Jesus, of saints, and of angels; and the Bible may be a “verbal icon” of God.[22]

This is important because the Scriptures are written in human language. Words are not the thing itself, but are symbols of that thing. The word “running” represents the act of running; the word “love” represents an abstract concept; the word “God” represents many things, not of which capture the essence of divinity. It is because of the consideration and condescension of God that we have this verbal icon at all. As St. John Chrystom says in his Homily 17 on Genesis:

Let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don’t get completely absorbed in the concreteness of the words, but realize that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness.

Robert C. Hill, the translator of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Genesis 1-17, writes of “the delicate balance or the two correlatives: in Chrysostom’s “theology of the Word — divine transcendence and considerateness for human limitations.” It is as though the text of Sacred Scripture represents both the immanence and transcendence of God. It is as if, to use an idea from C.S. Lewis, the inside is larger than the outside.[23] St. John of Damascus writes of the “womb in which the Uncontained dwelt.”[24] Germanos of Constantinople describes the infant Jesus, as being “wider than the heavens.”[25] Our Lord Jesus Christ was both locally present according to his humanity, and everywhere present and filling all things according to his divinity. We should therefore not be astonished at the idea that the God who is ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever existing and eternally the same, nevertheless shows consideration of human weakness by allowing His divinity to be circumscribed in human language. The bible is the verbal icon of God Himself.

If we accept the idea that the initial revelation of God is separate and distinct from the capture of that witness in the pages of Sacred Scripture, then we have a problem, for the Bible is witness to that revelation, and therefore not that revelation itself. Thus the Intrinsic-Canon approach to canonicity will not work. But the Community-Canon approach will not work either, for the revelation of God predates the community’s recognition of its witness in the text.

The resolution to this problem is quite simple, and remarkably profound. The previous approaches to canonicity ignore the work of the Holy Spirit. If we accept the Holy Spirit’s role as working with “holy men of God” (2 Pet 1:21) as opposed to the community as a whole, then it is possible for an inspired text to exist apart from its recognition as Scripture by the community. We know that it took time after a book was written and in use by the community before the community began to refer to it as Scripture. In nearly every case (with the possible exception of 1 Tim 5:18 and 2 Pet 3:15-16), what the New Testament authors speak of as Scripture is the Old Testament, even while using the books that would become the New Testament in their services. And, as we have mentioned previously, Paul referred to his own writings as “traditions” and “epistles” (meaning letters), rather than as Scripture (2 Th 2:15).[26]

However, the thesis that the Holy Spirit’s ministry is primarily to the individual is a problem. The very concept of the individual is a recent western phenomenon. The ancients considered themselves to be persons, but persons who were part of a larger whole. Their identity as persons, their self-worth and reason for living, was tied to the community they were part of. Thus the prophet was moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pt 1:21) to be a witness to the community and, eventually, his witness was accepted as such by that same community, as influenced by that same Holy Spirit. The Protestant conception of the Holy Spirit’s working primarily through individuals was unknown to the biblical authors, for whom inspiration developed within a community, and functioned as a witness to that community. Thus the inspiration of Sacred Scripture was for the community the witness of the Holy Spirit’s witness to the community, through the inspired text, of the original revelation of God. Thus the Holy Spirit doesn’t work at one level, through the person, but within and through the community as well.

If we accept the idea that the Holy Spirit works within the community, and in a special way to persons as a witness to that community, then it is possible a text could be inspired apart from the community’s initial recognition of such. However, the Holy Spirit works within the community towards its recognition of the Scriptures. And although we are limited by time, the Holy Spirit is not. From God’s perspective, it is unlikely there is any difference between the scripture’s recording of revelation, and the community’s recognition of that record as inspired.[27]

Bibliography

Abraham, William J. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Ambrose. “Letter XLII.” In The Letters of S. Ambrose, Bishop Of Milan, by Ambrose, translated by H. Walford, 282-287. London, Oxford, & Cambridge: James Parker And Co., And Rivingtons, 1881.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics I.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Constantinou, Eugenia Scarvelis. “Introduction to the Bible – Lesson 2: Inspiration and inerrancy.” Search the Scriptures. Ancient Faith Ministries, Jun 14, 2008.

Contantinou, Eugenia Scarvelis. Andrew of Caesarea And The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation. Translated by Eugenia Scarvelis Contantinou. Laval: Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université Laval, 2008.

Cunningham, Mary B., trans. Wider Than Heaven: Eighth-century Homilies on the Mother of God. Kindle Edition. Yonkers, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.

Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler. Systematic Theology: Tasks and Methods. Vol. 1, in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, by Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, 1-88. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1991.

Foley, Richard. Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Kruger, Michael J. “The Gospel Coalition.” Apocrypha and Canon in Early Christianity. March 13, 2013. http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/apocrypha-and-canon-in-early-christianity/ (accessed July 13, 2014).

Lewis, Clive Staples. The Last Battle. New York: Collier Books, 1970.

McGinn, Bernard. Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Rudd, Steve. Criteria used by apostolic fathers to determine canon. n.d. http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-criteria-of-apostolic-fathers.htm (accessed September 6, 2014).

Schaff, Philip. ANF01 The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1884.

Schaff, Philip, and Allan Menzies. ANF03 Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. Vol. 3. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2006.

Wimsatt, William Kurtz, and Monroe C. Beardsley. The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Kindle Edition. The University Press of Kentucky, 1953.

 

 Endnotes

[1] (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea And The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation 2008, 31)

[2] (Peckham, Intrinsic Canonicity and the Inadequacy of the Community Approach to Canon-Determination 2011)

[3] Epistomology is a philosophical concept having to do with the foundation, scope, and validity of knowledge.

[4] (Peckham, Intrinsic Canonicity and the Inadequacy of the Community Approach to Canon-Determination 2011, 209)

[5] (Peckham, Intrinsic Canonicity and the Inadequacy of the Community Approach to Canon-Determination 2011)

[6] There are a variety of ways to approach the issue. For myself, the question was answered when I became convinced through the pages of Scripture, the witness of the church fathers, and the evidence of Church history that the fullness of the Church was to be found only in Eastern Orthodoxy. However, my situation is odd, in that I began life as a Fundamentalist, coexisted uneasily with the Evangelicals for a time before I became Lutheran, and finally ended up as Eastern Orthodox. You could think of me as open-minded, or as unstable as water. Frankly, the question is between you and the Holy Spirit. Once you prayerfully examine the evidence, it may well be that the Holy Spirit wants you to stay where you are, using the canon approved by your community.

[7] (Schaff and Menzies, ANF03 2006, 581-582)

[8] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, 370)

[9] (Rudd n.d.)

[10] (Abraham 1998, x-xi)

[11] (Foley 2001, 13)

[12] Divina pagina refers to the interpretation of Scripture, (McGinn 1998, 127) and is one of the three early medieval terms used for theology, the other two being sacra doctrina and sacra scriptura (Fiorenza 1991)

[13] Tradition attributes the Decretum Gelasianum [Gelasian Decree ] to Pope Gelasius I, who was Pope from 492-496. The second part of the Decretum Gelasianum is a list of canonical scriptures. The list includes the Old Testament Scriptures which the Protestants consider to be Apocryphal, and the entire New Testament with the exception of 2 Corinthians. The third part discusses the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The fourth part makes the ecumenical councils authoritative and receives the works of a number of the church fathers. Finally, the fifth part contains a list of books compiled or recognized by heretics and schismatics, works which are not received by the church. It is possible that the list of Apocryphal books represents a tradition that can be traced back to Pope Gelasius, but was not actually written by him.

[14] (Abraham 1998, ix)

[15] (Abraham 1998, ix)

[16] (Abraham 1998, x)

[17] The idea that the preservation of a text is related to the community’s acceptance of the text leads to the idea that the number of preserved or extant manuscripts reflects the importance of that manuscript to the community. Michael J. Kruger, author of The Question of Canon, describes this as “Extant Manuscript” evidence, which concept us used to demonstrate the canonicity of the New Testament books over against the New Testament apocryphal writings — in particular, the gnostic texts recently discovered in the Nag Hammadi library. (Kruger 2013)

[18] (Barth, Church Dogmatics I.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God 2004, 462)

[19] (Barth, Church Dogmatics I.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God 2004, 463)

[20] (Barth, Church Dogmatics I.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God 2004, 463)

[21] (Wimsatt and Beardsley 1953, Kindle Locations 35-38)

[22] (Constantinou, Introduction to the Bible Lesson 2 2008)

[23] (Lewis 1970, 180)

[24] (Cunningham 2011, Kindle Location 1458)

[25] (Cunningham 2011, Kindle Location 3328)

[26] The recognition that Paul did not refer to his own writings as Scripture is significant, because Paul was something of a braggart. I understand that Paul was forced to defend his apostleship, as he was not one of the original twelve. Still, we know more about Paul’s torments from his own mouth, rather than from the mouths of others.

[27] Although God created time and is aware of its limitations upon us, God is apart from time, seeing the particular moment and the sweep of history all at once.

Canon and Canonicity

Posted on by
Reply
Antique Homemade Carpenter's Level

Antique Homemade Carpenter’s Level

The meaning of the Greek word canon (κανών) is problematic. Karel van der Toorn says the term itself is of “Christian coinage.”[1] The term canon means table, rule, or measuring stick. In early Christian usage, the term canon has reference to the regula fidei, the rule of faith. This concept is best captured by the apostle Paul when he says the scriptures are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17) This idea of canon as the regula fidei, the rule of faith, does not contain the idea of a list of authoritative writings.

When we think of the canon today, we generally think in terms of a list of inspired scriptures. However, the idea of canon as a list is a relatively recent development; the ancients used different term (pinakes or katalogos) for a catalogue of writings. Lee McDonald writes:

The word canon was not regularly used in reference to a closed collection of writings until David Ruhnken used it this way in 1768. In his treatise entitled Historia critica oratorum Graecorum, he employed the term canon for a selective list of literary writings. …In antiquity [the Greek word] pinakes is more commonly used of catalogues or lists.[2]

When modern theology conceives of canon as a list, it speaks solely of the text; when ancient theology conceives of canon as the rule of faith, it speaks of the revelation contained within the text. The two thoughts are not opposed to one another; a book becomes part of a list of scriptures texts because of the revelation contained therein. However, when we conceive of canon solely as a list, we wind up arguing over issues of canon and canonicity, rather than focusing on the revelation of Jesus Christ — which is, after all, the whole point of the Sacred Scriptures.

Catalogue, Dead Sea Scrolls

Catalogue, Dead Sea Scrolls

F. F. Bruce writes:

The Christian church started its existence with a book, but it was not to the book that it owed its existence. It shared the book with the Jewish people; indeed, the first members of the church were without exception Jews. The church owed its distinctive existence to a person — to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified, dead and buried , but ‘designated Son of God in power … by his resurrection from the dead ’ (Rom. 1: 4). This Jesus, it was believed, had been exalted by God to be universal Lord; he had sent his Spirit to be present with his followers, to unite them and animate them as his body on earth. The function of the book was to bear witness to him.[3]

Given that the function of Scripture is to bear witness to Him, it is curious that the idea of canon has shifted away from this idea to a mere listing of books. The discussion of the canon as a list of authoritative and inspired books, and canonicity as the process by which an individual text became part of that collection of books, has taken on increased urgency following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the gnostic writings contained in the Nag Hammadi library. Together these have fueled the imagination of biblical scholars, and have added detail to the background of our Sacred Scriptures — all of which have sparked a renewed interest in the subject of canon and canonicity.

The debates over canon and canonicity are taking place more among the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches than among the Christian communions of the east. Seemingly every Protestant introduction and commentary on the Scriptures covers the issues surrounding the canon. But in the 16th century theological conversation between the Protestants and the Orthodox, the issues of canon and canonicity didn’t come up at all — in part because the Lutherans never mentioned their use of a different canon.[4] Instead, the Lutherans argued for the authority of Scripture, an issue then Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II accepted without comment. The discussion between the Lutherans and the Orthodox really focused on what was authoritative for faith and practice. The Lutherans kept bringing up Scripture as the authority, and the Patriarch accepted their position but included Holy Tradition as part of that discussion. In a sense, neither of them understood the other’s position, and so they simply talked past one another.[5]

As for the Eastern Orthodox position, consider the following. The two-volume Introduction to the Old Testament by the Very Rev. Paul Nadim Tarazi[6], Professor of Old Testament at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, does not discuss the issues of canon and canonicity at all. This topic is also glossed over or ignored in most Eastern Orthodox dogmatics. By way of example, Dumitru Staniloae’s five-volume “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” discusses the nature of revelation, its relationship with the world at large, and its relation to the Church and Holy Tradition, but his books do not deal in any substantive manner with canonicity — at least not in a way the western Church would recognize. In Fr. John Breck’s book, entitled “Scripture in Tradition”, he avoids the subject of the canon altogether, instead focusing on the person and work of the Holy Spirit. How do we account for the difference between these approaches? What impact do these issues have upon the regula fidei, the faith once delivered to the saints?

While the use of canon as list is relatively modern, the issues regarding canon and canonicity have their roots in the Middle Ages. Fr. John Breck writes:

Scripture determines what constitutes genuine Tradition, yet Tradition gives birth to and determines the limits of Scripture. To many people’s minds, this way of envisioning the circular relationship between Scripture and Tradition appears untenable. The Protestant Reformers attempted to break this form of the hermeneutic circle by advancing the teaching known as sola scriptura [Scripture alone], holding that Scripture alone determines faith and morality… This was to a large extent in reaction to medieval Roman Catholicism which had separated Scripture and Tradition into separate domains, giving priority to the latter.[7]

When we debate the issues of canon and canonicity, it is helpful to discuss the Old Testament and the New Testament separately, because they each took very different paths in their development. As we know, the Old Testament is called “Scripture” by the New Testament authors, but there is little indication that the New Testament as we know it today was considered to be Scripture. There are two passages which may suggest some parts of the New Testament were considered Scripture (1 Tim:18 and 2 Pet 3:15-16), but as we will discuss in a later chapter, these are by no means conclusive. The apostle Paul did not refer to his writings as scripture, but instead categorized his teachings as “traditions”, and referred to his books as epistles (2 Th 2:15). Moreover, nowhere in the New Testament do we have a catalogue of canonical books, neither for the Old Testament books (which are explicitly called scripture) or for the writings of the New Testament.

The earliest evidence for the current list of Old Testament books comes from the period after the fall of Jerusalem, and is the first statement of what we now call the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. F. F. Bruce writes:

One of the clearest and earliest statements of these three divisions and their respective contents comes in a baraitha (a tradition from the period AD 70—200) quoted in the Babylonian Talmud, in the tractate Baba Bathra. This tradition assigns inspired or authoritative authors to all twenty-four books, and discusses their order.[8]

Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud

The problems with this reference to the Babylonian Talmud begin with the dates. A tradition dating from after the fall of Jerusalem, and as late as the end of the 2nd century, can scarcely be used to describe the state of Judaism in the time of Christ. This is especially true when we know that Judaism was forced to change in response to the destruction of the temple and the rise of Christianity. After the fall of Jerusalem, the center of Judaism could no longer be the temple, but was focused instead on the Hebrew Scriptures. And the Scriptures themselves changed in response to the growth of Christianity as a rival sect, a sect that used the Septuagint as its own Sacred Scriptures. This change in the Hebrew Scriptures began in the mid-2nd century, as demonstrated by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.[9]

Another problem is that the baraitha (or Babylonian tradition) quoted in the Babylonian Talmud was not authoritative, but was one of many voices in an ongoing discussion. That this particular bairaitha was not authoritative is demonstrated by its failure to be included in the Mishnah, which was completed sometime between 200 – 220 A.D. Not only that, but the proposed three-fold division of the scriptures was not adopted by the Christian community, who devised their own ordering and division of books.[10]

The example from the Babylonian Talmud demonstrates something that needs to be kept in mind, which is this: we cannot derive the pre-Christian status of the Jewish canon from post-Christian sources, because these are all arguing a point of view — one that is largely informed by and in opposition to Christianity.

The modern conception of canon as a list first began with the dispute between the Church of Rome and the Protestants, each of whom made the issue of the canon part of their dispute. But as there has never been a Reformation among the Orthodox, the issues of canon and canonicity are of no dogmatic importance in the East. Any splits among the Orthodox, including the Great Schism between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, were about Christology, not the Canon; each collection of authoritative writings arose by common consent among the different groups, rather than as part of a formal dogmatic stance.

The Ecumenical Councils were generally uninterested in the issues of canon and canonicity. Dr. Constantinou writes:

By that time, certain books were unquestioned, while most apocryphal works were recognized as such and universally rejected. But individual churches and bishops exercised their own discretion among disputed works. Clearly the issue was not resolved at [the first council of Nicea because no pressing need to create a definitive canon was perceived: the question of the canon was simply not a divisive issue. This lack of concern among the participants of the Nicene council with respect to the canon indicates that opinions about the canon were not essentially dogmatic. Two persons could disagree about the canon and both could be entirely orthodox in doctrine.[11]

So how were the limits of our current canon determined? Initially, while Christian writings were shared between the churches, the title of Scripture was reserved only for the Old Testament, while the boundaries of the Old Testament were somewhat undefined.[12] Dr. Eugenia Constantinou writes:

Until the end of the second century, the term “Scriptures,” referred exclusively to the Jewish scriptures. Just as they had been the sole Scriptures for Christ and the apostles they remained the only Holy Scripture of the Church for many decades. Christ himself had quoted them, appealed to them, interpreted them and, most of all, fulfilled them. The Law and the Prophets had been normative for so long that it was difficult to conceive of any other writings achieving such high status. Although it appears that Christian documents were read within the context of Christian worship services by the early second century, another hundred years passed before they were recognized as possessing a level of authority that placed them on par with the Old Testament.[13]

Unlike what many of us were taught, and what seemed reasonable given the Protestant understanding of the canon, the development of the list of New Testament books occurred over some time, in fits and starts. The early church had the regula fidei, the rule of faith, as their guide. This guide led them to gradually accept certain books as scripture, and reject others as either not consistent with the rule of faith, or not rising to the level of scripture. Many of us were taught that the New Testament canon was closed with the death of the apostle John, who before his death was able to grant his apostolic seal of approval to all the New Testament books. But the historical evidence does not support this idea. Instead, what we see is the process of the Church gradually coming to a consensus on the limits of the New Testament canon, a process guided by the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, working in and through the Church, the Bride of Christ.

There never was any formal agreement which settled the issues of canon and canonicity for the New Testament. This is why Martin Luther was able to consider eliminating books from the corpus of the New Testament — because in his day, the idea of canon as a list of books did not exist. Thus, when Martin Luther came into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, he appealed to his peculiar regula fidei as his guide to determining which books should be in the canon. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and Luther was not allowed to alter the catalogue of the New Testament (although he was allowed to separate the “Apocrypha” from the rest of the Old Testament. The restrictions placed upon Luther’s alteration of the canon was likely done for practical reasons; by this time the canonical consensus was deeply ingrained, and the people would not have stood for it.

In response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church held their Concilium Tridentinum, or Council of Trent, and in their fourth session (8 April, 1546 A.D.) published their catalogue of the biblical books. This catalogue was not new, having previously been published by the Council of Florence in 1422 A.D., and contained our current 27 book canon of the New Testament. Since the Council of Trent was convened in response to the Protestant Reformation, it had dogmatic significance for Catholic and Protestant alike (in the sense that it hardened the dogmatic positions of each.) Thus, although the list of New Testament books remains the same for Catholics and Protestants alike; what differentiates them is the manner and context in which the texts are interpreted.

Bibliography

Breck, John. Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Kindle Edition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010.

Constantinou, Eugenia Scarvelis. Andrew of Caesarea And The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation. Translated by Eugenia Scarvelis Contantinou. Laval: Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université Laval, 2008.

Mastrantonis, George. Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession. Edited by N. M. Vaporis. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Schaff, Philip. ANF01 The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1884.

van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Endnotes

[1] (van der Toorn 2007, 233)

[2] (McDonald 2007, 51)

[3] (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 27)

[4] In the late 17th century, a group of Lutheran theologians sent a Greek translation of their Augsburg confession to Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople. What followed is an intriguing correspondence which took place over a period of years. While this theological correspondence is well known among the Orthodox, surprisingly few Lutherans and Protestants know anything about it, and fewer still have read the actual texts. It is unclear what the Lutherans were trying to do. Some think the Lutherans were trying to convert the Ecumenical Patriarch (unlikely). Some think the Lutherans were trying to become part of the Orthodox Church (also unlikely). The text seems to indicate that the Lutherans merely wanted the Ecumenical Patriarch to accept that the Lutheran doctrine was consistent with that of the Orthodox Church; the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch is that it was not.

[5] (Mastrantonis 1982, passim)

[6] The Very Rev. Paul Nadim Tarazi is a controversial and polarizing figure, so perhaps we should not read too much into his failure to deal with the issue of canonicity.

[7] (Breck 2001, 11)

[8] (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture 2010, 29-30)

[9] (Schaff, ANF01 1884, Chapters LXXI and LXXII)

[10] (McDonald 2007, 164-165)

[11] (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea And The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation 2008, 38)

[12] (McDonald 2007, 22)

[13] (Constantinou, Andrew of Caesarea And The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation 2008, 32)

The Queen in Gold of Ophir

Posted on by
Reply
Icon of the Wise and Foolish Virgins

The Wise and Foolish Virgins

The 45th Psalm is one of the so-called messianic psalms, which are psalms which refer directly to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. William N. Harding defines a Messianic psalm as follows.

A Messianic psalm is a psalm that makes predictions about the Messiah. These predictions include predictions about His birth, His person-that He would be fully God and fully man in one person, His life, His death, burial, and resurrection, His ascension into heaven, His priestly ministry, His second coming, His victory over His enemies, and His universal reign on the earth.[1] In general, there are two criteria used for determining a Messianic psalm. First, if the New Testament claims the psalm is about the Messiah; and second, if the psalm can only be applied to the Messiah, and not another human being.

This second criteria is too scholastic for my taste as it goes counter to a typological understanding of the Old Testament. In the book Why Mary Matters, Ithe importance of Typology for the Christological understanding of the Old Testament is discussed.

In theology, a type (or figure) is a form of foreshadowing, with the type serving as a figure of the fulfillment, or antitype. Typology is the means used to resolve the seeming incongruities between the Old and New Testaments. We have the witness of Christ himself, who “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). This exposition clearly contained a number of Christological types, as Jesus often used types as a means of demonstrating the continuity between the Old Testament and himself.

For example, Jesus drew a typological comparison between the bronze serpent lifted up by Moses with the manner in which the Son of Man, being lifted up, would draw all men to himself (John 3:14; 12:32). Jesus spoke of the prophet Jonas, drawing a comparison between how Jonah spend three days and nights in the whale’s belly, to how He would Himself spend three days and nights in the earth. In these passages, the Old Testament type prefigures the New Testament antitype, or fulfillment.[2]

Given this, the criteria that the Messianic psalm may only be about Christ, and cannot be applied to another human being, is unduly restrictive. In the case of the 45th psalm, a well-known Messianic psalm, the Messianic portion is often restricted to the verses 6-7, as these are quoted in Hebrews 1:8-9.[3] The reason why the whole psalm is often not thought to be Messianic is that much of the psalm seems to refer to Solomon and the daughter of Pharoah. Charles Hadden Spurgeon thinks this is shortsighted, and that the entire psalm is about Christ.[4] But if we examine the psalm typologically, it can have Solomon as the type, using the flowery language often used when referring to royalty, with Christ being the antitype, or the fulfillment.

If we accept that psalm 45 was written in celebration of Solomon and the daughter of Pharoah, then in what way could the psalm be about Christ? And more importantly, if Solomon is the type of Christ in this psalm, then the daughter of Pharoah is the type of whom?

Psalm 45

1      My heart is indicting a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.
2      Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee forever.
3      Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4      And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
5      Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.
6      Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter.
7      Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
8      All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.
9       Kings’ daughters were among thy honorable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
10     Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house;
11     So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.
12     And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favor.
13     The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.
14     She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.
15     With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king’s palace.
16     Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.
17     I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

The second half of psalm 45 concerns the queen, her virgin companions, and those who entreat the Queen’s favor. Now if Solomon is the type of Christ in this psalm, then the daughter of Pharoah is the type of whom? This last a most interesting question, one for which the Protestant churches have an unsatisfactory answer. The first answer is to restrict the Messianic portion of the psalm verses 6-7, which is that portion quoted by the author of Hebrews. This is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons: first, because a biblical reference wasn’t just to the verse specifically quoted, but to the passage and its context; second, because verses 2-8 clearly may clearly be applied to Christ; and third, because a well-known Protestant hymn, Out of the Ivory Palaces, is derived from verse eight.

Out of the Ivory Palaces

My Lord has garments so wondrous fine,
And myrrh their texture fills;
Its fragrance reached to this heart of mine
With joy my being thrills.

Refrain:
Out of the ivory palaces,
Into a world of woe,
Only His great eternal love
Made my Savior go.

His life had also its sorrows sore,
For aloes had a part;
And when I think of the cross He bore,
My eyes with teardrops start.

[Refrain]

His garments, too, were in cassia dipped,
With healing in a touch;
In paths of sin had my feet e’er slipped—
He’s saved me from its clutch.

[Refrain]

In garments glorious He will come,
To open wide the door;
And I shall enter my heav’nly home,
To dwell forevermore.

[Refrain]

Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers, says the references to the queen and her virgin companions are all references to either individual believers, or to the Church.[5] Spurgeon then interprets verse 12 to indicate the “daughter of Tyre” and the “rich among the people” are those outside the church who pay homage to her. He states that when the church is holy, “there shall be [no] lack of treasure in her coffers when grace is in her heart.”[6] Spurgeon does not seem to be interpreting this eschatologically, but implying this is an earthly bounty. In this, Spurgeon is following the general Protestant Reformed tradition which emphasized hard work, frugality, and diligence — which doctrine is the source of the Protestant work ethic.[7]  This hard work, frugality, and diligence, undertaken as a means of providing the individual with assurance of salvation, resulted in a degree of prosperity. In the eyes of some, earthly prosperity was understood both as evidence that they were among the elect, and therefore as a sign of God’s favor. Thus Spurgeon’s interpretation contains the seeds of what has become, in our modern era, the Prosperity Gospel.[8]

I contend that the latter half of psalm 45 is about the Virgin Mary. She is the “queen in gold of Ophir” (v.9); her beauty so desired of the king is not her outward appearance, but that of her heart (v.13); and that the Church is represented by the virgins who accompany her (v. 14), and who venerate her (v.12). To make sense of this, we first have to understand the position of the queen in the Old Testament. The queen was not the wife of the king, but his mother. The king often had many wives, but only one mother. This subject in described in detail in this quote from the book Why Mary Matters.

In Jeremiah we have the following: “Say unto the king and to the queen, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.” Interestingly, the word for used for queen (הריבג, gebiyrah) actually means queen-mother. We see an example of this in the story of Athaliah, Queen Mother of Ahaziah, who ruled in her son’s stead after his death (2 Kings 11:1-20). The paradigmatic example of this is found in the relationship between Bathsheba and her son, King Solomon. Adonijah, who had attempted to usurp the throne of David, yet whose life was spared by Solomon, attempted to usurp the throne through trickery by means of a request made to Bathsheba; it was assumed that Solomon would grant Adonijah’s request for the virgin widow of his father David, thereby sealing Adonijah’s claim to the throne. Interestingly, in this story the king says he will not say no to his mother, yet ultimately denies the request of Adonijah (1 Kin 2:12-25).

The following illustration helps our understanding. There is a man in a sinking boat with his mother, his wife, and his daughter, and he can save only one of them. Who does he choose? In the East the answer is clearly the mother, because while a man may get married again, and may father a daughter again, he only has one mother. By this we come to an understanding of the Scriptural perspective on the Queen as the mother of King.[9]

So who is the mother of the Messiah? It can be none other than the Virgin Mary, accompanied by the Church, and honored by the Church.

[1] Harding, William N. “Messianic Psalms.” Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute. September 2008.
[2] Carlson, Kristofer. Why Mary Matters. 4th. Norfolk: Dormition Press, 2014. 296-297
[3] Living Word Bible Church. “The Messianic Psalms.” Living Word Bible Church. n.d. http://www.lwbc.co.uk/messianic_psalms.htm (accessed August 30, 2014).
[4] Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. The Treasury of David. Vol. I. III vols. Mclean: MacDonald Publishing Company, 1988. 315
[5] Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. The Treasury of David. Vol. I. III vols. Mclean: MacDonald Publishing Company, 1988. 319
[6] Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. The Treasury of David. Vol. I. III vols. Mclean: MacDonald Publishing Company, 1988. 320
[7] For more information, see Max Weber’s The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/opinions/outlook/worst-ideas/prosperity-gospel.html
[9] Carlson, Kristofer. Why Mary Matters. 4th. Norfolk: Dormition Press, 2014. 357-358

The Sinner’s Prayer: Lord Have Mercy 

Posted on by
Reply
Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.

Lord have mercy.

Some Protestants are offended by the number of times we Orthodox say “Lord have mercy” in the Divine Liturgy. If my count is correct, this is said 116 times every time we celebrate the Divine Liturgy. This doesn’t count all the movable bits — the various hymns sung at various feasts, saints days, and the like; it doesn’t count the Orthros, Matins, or the Hours chanted before each Liturgy, or the Post-Communion Prayers chanted after the Liturgy.

On his YouTube show “Have a Little Faith“, Zach Anner visits a Greek Orthodox Church and asks a Noah Johnson a question about prayer.  Noah tells him: “In Orthodoxy there’s really only one prayer…it’s ‘Lord have mercy’ and we pray that prayer for everything and everyone in the whole world.” The more I think about this, the more profound this is.

Zach Anner waving hello to Christ the Pantocrator (Ruler of All)

Zach Anna waving hello to the icon of Christ the Pantocrator (Lord of All)

What does it mean to pray “Lord have mercy?” This is an interesting question in itself. We should begin with the understanding that “Lord have mercy” was the cry of the beggar, the person in need who nonetheless had no claim upon anyone else. The beggar had no personal or familial ties to whomever was passing by; the best he or she could do was ask for mercy. The person giving alms was showing mercy upon the beggar. In one sense, this prayer illustrates our relationship with God. We have no claims upon God. God does not owe us anything. But God, in His mercy, provides us with existence, with being, and meets our physical and spiritual needs.

There are several examples of this type of prayer in the Gospel of Matthew. The first was the two blind men who followed after Jesus, crying out: “Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.” (Matt 8:27) The second example is the Canaanite woman who interceded with Jesus on behalf of her daughter: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David.” (Matt 15:22) And yet another example is of the man who interceded with Jesus on his son’s behalf: “Lord, have mercy on my son.” (Matt 17:15) In all these cases, Jesus was asked to heal someone. Yet no one dared demand healing, or imply that Jesus was obliged to heal them or anyone else. They simply asked for God’s mercy upon them and their loved ones. So, as we see, Lord have mercy is a prayer of intercession.

Lord have mercy has other connotations as well. The word mercy is the Greek word ελεεω (eleeo, el-eh-eh’-o). This is related to the Greek word for oil, ελαιον (elaion, el’-ah-yon). In the New Testament, there is a play on words here. Besides being used in cooking, oil was used to provide light, to heal the sick, to anoint someone, and as a means of cleansing the body.

Noah Johnson

Noah Johnson

When we pray “Lord have mercy”, we are asking God for enlightenment. With St. Basil the Great we pray: “Enlighten the eyes of my understanding; open my heart to receive your words; teach me your commandments and help me to do your will, confessing you from my heart, singing and praising your all-holy name: of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”[1]

When we pray “Lord have mercy”, we are asking God for healing. The Orthodox understanding of salvation is that sin is a sickness we must be healed from. In the words of the Psalmist, we are asking for the anointing of the Holy Spirit: “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.  Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” (Ps 51:2, 7, 10). Perhaps the best description of this is in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the Samaritan washes the injured man’s wounds, binding them with oil and wine. (Luk 10:33-34)

The idea of the “Lord have mercy” prayer having a connection to healing shares a natural affinity with its connection to repentance. In the pericope of the Pharisee and the Publican, the Publican dares not even lift his eyes to heaven, but beats his breast and prays: “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luk 18:13), which is one of the two prayers approved of by Jesus (the other being the Lord’s prayer). In like fashion, the psalmist opens  the psalm of repentance with these words: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.” (Ps 51:1)  This idea is extended in the Troparia of Repentance.

TROPARIA OF REPENTANCE

Have mercy on us, O LORD, have mercy on us, for laying aside all excuse, we sinners offer to you, our Master, this supplication: have mercy on us!

Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

O LORD, have mercy on us, for in you have we put our trust. Do not be angry with us, nor remember our iniquities, but look down on us even now, since you are compassionate and deliver us from our enemies; for you are our God and we are your people; we are all the work of your hands and we call on your Name.

Now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

O blessed Theotokos, open the doors of compassion to us whose hope is in you, that we may not perish but be delivered from adversity through you who are the salvation of the Christian people.

LORD have mercy! (12x)[2]

When we pray “Lord have mercy” 116 times in the Divine Liturgy, it has all these meanings. We repent of our sins, we ask for healing of soul and body, we pray that God would enlighten our hearts, and we intercede with God on other’s behalf. Some of these meanings receive a greater emphasis in specific parts of the service, but they are all present. Thus, as Noah Johnson says in his video interview with Zach Anner, all of our prayer can be summed up the short phrase: “Lord have mercy.”

 

 

[1] All Saints of Alaska Orthodox Church (2011-03-22). Prayer Book – In Accordance with the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Kindle Locations 61-63). Saint Arseny Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[2] All Saints of Alaska Orthodox Church (2011-03-22). Prayer Book – In Accordance with the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Kindle Locations 315-324). Saint Arseny Press. Kindle Edition.

 

Regarding Irreducible Complexity

Posted on by
Reply

One of the hallmarks of so-called Intelligent Design is a concept called Irreducible Complexity. The idea is that there are some biological structures or systems that are more than the sum of their parts, such that it is improbable that they evolved from simpler structures. Each piece of the system is necessary to the functioning of the whole, while each individual piece is of little use by itself. To put it another way, an incomplete structure of this sort provides no survival or reproductive benefit.

One of the most celebrated example of this is the eye. This is a system that is seemingly irreducibly complex, such that is unlikely that its parts could have developed other than as a complete system. This is the claim made by many creationists, anyway. For example, the website “Darwinism Refuted” describes the “40 or so basic components” of the eye, each of which needs to be present for the eye to function properly. The retina alone, the sites states, is made up of 11 different strata, each of which has a function to perform, each of which is necessary to the function of the eye.

I do not intend to attack this concept directly; there are plenty of books, articles, and websites which do a far better job of it. Instead, I intend to pursue a line of inquiry suggested by Dr. Francis Collins in his book, “The Language of God.” Dr. Collins notes: “The design of the eye does not appear on close inspection to be completely ideal. The rods and cones that sense light are the bottom layer of the retina, and light has to pass through the nerves and blood vessels to reach them.” (Collins 2006, 191) Another related problem is the blind spot created where the optic nerve passes through the retina and the nerves spread out to make contact with the photoreceptors.

Vertebrate vs. Octopus Eyes

Vertebrate vs. Octopus Eyes

 In vertebrate eyes (on the left), the nerve fibers route before the retina, blocking some light and creating a blind spot where the fibers pass through the retina and out of the eye. In octopus eyes (on the right), the nerve fibers route behind the retina, and do not block light or disrupt the retina. In the example, (4) denotes the vertebrate blind spot, which is notably absent in the octopus eye. In vertebrates, (1) denotes the retina and (2) the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in octopodes, (1) and (2) denote the nerve fibers and retina respectively.

Take a look at the diagram above. On the left is the vertebrate eye; on the right is the eye of the Octopus. The vertebrate eye has what is called an inverted retina, with the photoreceptors behind the nerves, resulting in a blind spot where the optic nerve penetrates the retina. The Octopus eye has a much better design, with the nerves behind the photoreceptors and exposed to the light, such that even the area where the optic nerve penetrates the retina is covered with light-sensing cells, resulting in better vision and no blind spot.

In the vertebrate vision system, the brain interpolates the missing information from the blind spot by using information from the other eye. This presumes overlapping fields of vision, such as is typical with predatory animals. But prey animals, like horses, do not have overlapping fields of vision, and must rely upon a second method, using the eye’s constant movement to fill in for the blind spot.

The photoreceptors in the human eye respond to wavelengths corresponding to Red, Green, and Blue. Our perception of colors is an artifact of our brain — the result of computationally intensive processing which converts the differential response to these three colors into the millions of colors we perceive.

Human vision spans the wavelengths from about 400 to 700 nanometers. Below 400 nanometers is what we call ultraviolet; above 700 nanometers is what we call infrared. If you look at the diagram below, you will see that the spectral sensitivity of the human eye varies wildly across the so-called visible spectrum. The diagram below demonstrates certain wavelengths that humans are extremely sensitive to, while others we don’t see well at all.

Mantis Shrimp: Extraordinary Eyes

Mantis Shrimp: Extraordinary Eyes

Now notice how the color vision of the Mantis shrimp is markedly superior to our own. Human photoreceptors are sensitive to three wavelengths; the Mantis shrimp photorecepters are sensitive to twelve wavelengths, with a great deal of overlap. Not only do Mantis shrimp see a wider part of the spectrum, but they are also sensitive to polarized light and multispectral images. Recent studies have demonstrated that the remarkable photoreceptors of the Mantis shrimp allow them to perceive color without requiring the heavy processing of the vertebrate eye and its computationally intensive comparisions. (Morrison 2014)

It is curious that human beings, being the pinnacle of God’s creation, would be saddled with a less than stellar visual system. The structure of our eyes is less sophisticated than that of octopods, and we see color less well than some insects and other marine invertebrates like the Mantis shrimp. If the human eye is the product of Intelligent Design, why did the Designer see fit to bless the lowly invertebrates with better visual systems than our own?

Bibliography

Collins, Francis S. The Language of God. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Morrison, Jessica. “Mantis shrimp’s super colour vision debunked.” Nature. January 23, 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/mantis-shrimp-s-super-colour-vision-debunked-1.14578 (accessed June 30, 2014).

 

 

The Harrowing of Hell

Posted on by
Reply
In Harrowing of Hades, fresco in the parecclesion of the Chora Church, Istanbul, c. 1315, raising Adam and Eve is depicted as part of the Resurrection icon, as it always is in the East.

The Harrowing of Hell. This representation of Christ’s descent into Hell shows Him breaking down the gates of hell and restoring Adam and Eve to Paradise.

The Harrowing of Hell

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.(1 Pet 3:18-22)

For Protestants, this is a difficult and most troubling passage, one whose meaning is unclear, and therefore subject to all sorts of interpretations. What does the phrase “spirits in prison” mean? Why did Jesus preach to them, and what was the content of His sermon?[i] When I was in High School, I remember a sermon on this passage in which it was claimed that the “spirits in prison” were the fallen angels, and Jesus message was: “I have beaten you.” While it made for a powerful sermon, this interpretation cannot be supported by the text — although in the absence of other evidence, it is certainly no worse than any of the other interpretations I heard.

And yet, none of the Protestant interpretations of this passage relate to the interpretation given by the early church, which was derived from the book of Tobit and various Old Testament passages, as illumined by the life of Christ. In the book of Tobit we read his prayer of thanksgiving, in which he makes reference to what most Christians call the Harrowing of Hell; the descent of Christ into Hell, where he led captivity captive — that is, from whence he delivered the Old Testament saints from their bondage of sin, death, and the devil.

Then Tobit wrote a prayer of rejoicing, and said, Blessed be God that liveth for ever, and blessed be his kingdom. For he doth scourge, and hath mercy: he leadeth down to hell [Hades], and bringeth up again: neither is there any that can avoid his hand (Tobit 13:1-2).

It is important to note that the verses above are from the King James Version, which tends to conflate the terms for Hell and Hades, translating them both as Hell. However, the word used here is not the Greek word for Hell, but the word for Hades [άδην], the place for disembodied spirits; in the Old Testament, this equates to the Hebrew word Sheol [שׁאול], being the grave, the abode of the dead. While in the New Testament Hades is reserved for the wicked awaiting judgment, in the Old Testament (prior to Christ’s Descent into Hades), Hades/Sheol held both the righteous and the damned.

One of the most important Old Testament passages concerning Christ’s descent into Hades is found in Psalms 24. This passage comes in two parts; the first declares that all of creation is the LORD’S, and states that only the pure in heart will stand in the holy place of God.

The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?

He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah. (Ps 24:1-6)

After this passage comes the word Selah, which is a musical and liturgical term, giving one time to pause and reflect upon what has come before. Reflecting on the fact that only the pure in heart will see God (Mt 5:8), we must ask who, then, is pure? Who is without sin? (Joh 8:7) The answer, of course is Jesus, who was tempted like us, yet without sin (Heb 4:15); who was offered for and on behalf of our sins, and was raised again without sin (Heb 9:28). In the remainder of Psalm 24 we see Christ, the King of glory, as being the one able to conquer the hold death had on humanity, and who has opened for us the gates of paradise.

Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.

Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.

Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.

Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah. (Ps 24:7-10)

These last verses from Psalm 24 are part of the Paschal liturgy of the Eastern Church. After reciting (and acting out) this passage, the doors of the church are flung open and the people enter, after which is sung the Easter troparion: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tomb bestowing life.” This refrain, dating as early as the 2nd century, contains the theological meaning of what is termed the Harrowing of Hell. Death could not hold Him. In defeating death, Christ led captivity captive (Ps 68:18; Eph 4:8), meaning He led the souls of the departed righteous out of their resting place, where they are now kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (1 Pet 1:5).

We should note that this doctrine is not some medieval invention of the Roman Catholic Church, but is in fact the universal witness of the Church into the apostolic age. We know this from a variety of sources; the New Testament itself, the apocryphal writings of the New Testament period, Christian poetry, and fathers of the early church.

New Testament sources include Jesus’ discussion of His impending three-day burial: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”(Matt 12:40); Christian tradition holds this to be a foretelling of Christ’s descent into Hell.[ii] Other incidental passages include Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:22-32); Paul’s sermon in the synagogue of Antioch (Acts 13:34-37); and “St Paul’s words that speak of how Christ ‘descended into the lower parts of the earth’ [Eph 4:9] and of his victory over death and hell.'[1 Cor 15:54-57; Rom 10:7; Col 2:14-15]”[iii] Perhaps the most important passage, which became a prototype for other writings of the post-apostolic period, is the passage from 1 Peter which opens this discourse.

Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev notes the Harrowing of Hell is much more prominent in the Christian Apocalypses than in the canonical texts. Among these texts, which were “indirectly” used by the early church are the Christiain interpolations into the Ascension of Isaiah and The Testament of Asher, along with the “Christian adaptation” of The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Other texts include The Gospel of Peter, The Epistle of the Apostles, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Sybilline Oracles, The Teachings of Silvanus, The Gospel of Bartholomew, and The Gospel of Nicodemus. This last book “exerted decisive influence on the formation of church doctrine on the subject.”[iv]

Besides the previously mentioned Easter troparion, which is dated to at least as early as the 2nd century, we should mention the poem “On Pascha” by St Melito of Sardis, and dated to the middle of the 2nd Century, a portion of which is quoted below.

66. When this one came from heaven to earth for the sake of the one who suffers, and had clothed himself with that very one through the womb of a virgin, and having come forth as man, he accepted the sufferings of the sufferer through his body which was capable of suffering. And he destroyed those human sufferings by his spirit which was incapable of dying. He killed death which had put man to death.

68. This is the one who covered death with shame and who plunged the devil into mourning as Moses did Pharaoh. This is the one who smote lawlessness and deprived injustice of its offspring, as Moses deprived Egypt. This is the one who delivered us from slavery into freedom, from darkness into light, from death into life, from tyranny into an eternal kingdom, and who made us a new priesthood, and a special people forever.

70. This is the one who became human in a virgin, who was hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from among the dead, and who raised mankind up out of the grave below to the heights of heaven.

71. This is the lamb that was slain. This is the lamb that was silent. This is the one who was born of Mary, that beautiful ewe-lamb. This is the one who was taken from the flock, and was dragged to sacrifice, and was killed in the evening, and was buried at night; the one who was not broken while on the tree, who did not see dissolution while in the earth, who rose up from the dead, raising up mankind below. [v]

Instead of placing the saving work of Christ into different categories and treating each atomistically (as is done in western theology), St Melito of Sardis connects it all into a seamless narrative, flowing from the pre-existence of the Son of God, His clothing of himself of the flesh of the Virgin Mary, His life, death, burial, and His raising of mankind from the grave by virtue of His own resurrection. This same method is repeated elsewhere in his “On Pascha”, to similar effect.

Another interesting bit of poetry comes to us by way of the Odes of Solomon, a work most scholars believe first appeared in Syria in the mid-second century. About their origin, Rutherford Hayes Platt states: “one of the most plausible explanations is that they are songs of newly baptized Christians of the First Century.”[vi] With this in mind, it is interesting to note that these Odes contain significant references to and descriptions of Christ’s descent into Hades.[vii] Ode 42 is particularly interesting, in that it describes both the “spirits in prison”, and the content of Christ’s preaching.

ODE 42.

The Odes of Solomon, the Son of David, are ended with the following exquisite verses.

1 I stretched out my hands and approached my Lord:

2 For the stretching of my hands is His sign:

3 My expansion is the outspread tree which was set up on the way of the Righteous One.

4 And I became of no account to those who did not take hold of me; andI shall be with those who love me.

5 All my persecutors are dead; and they sought after me who hoped in me, because I was alive:

6 And I rose up and am with them; and I will speak by their mouths.

7 For they have despised those who persecuted them;

8 And I lifted up over them the yoke of my love;

9 Like the arm of the bridegroom over the bride, So was my yoke over those that know me: And as the couch that is spread in the house of the bridegroom and bride,

12 So is my love over those that believe in me.

13 And I was not rejected though I was reckoned to be so.

14 I did not perish, though they devised it against me.

15 Sheol saw me and was made miserable: Death cast me up, and many along with me.

17 I had gall and bitterness, and I went down with him to the utmost of his depth:

18 And the feet and the head he let go, for they were not able to endure my face:

19 And I made a congregation of living men amongst his dead men, and I spake with them by living lips:

20 Because my word shall not be void:

21 And those who had died ran towards me: and they cried and said, Son of God, have pity on us, and do with us according to thy kindness,

22 And bring us out from the bonds of darkness: and open to us the door by which we shall come out to thee.

23 For we see that our death has not touched thee.

24 Let us also be redeemed with thee: for thou art our Redeemer.

25 And I heard their voice; and my name I sealed upon their heads:

26 For they are free men and they are mine. Hallelujah.

This last phrase sums up the soteriological [salvific] theology contained within the description of Christ’s Harrowing of Hell. We were all in bondage to sin, death, and the devil; Christ has broken our chains, destroyed the gates of hell, and declares to all: “They are free men and they are mine. Hallelujah.”

An interesting patristic passage comes to us by way of Eusebius, in “The Story Concerning the King of Edessa.” King Agbar of Edessa[viii] was ill with some form of wasting disease. Hearing of Jesus, the King wrote and besought Jesus to come and heal him. Jesus sent King Agbar a letter saying one of his disciples would come and heal his sicknesses and bring salvation to his people. This was accomplished after the resurrection of Christ when Thomas sent Thaddeus (one of the seventy) to Edessa. Thomas not only healed King Agbar and a great many others, but preached the following Gospel to them, which included a description of Christ’s descent into Hades:

Because I have been sent to preach the word of God, assemble me tomorrow all the people of thy city, and I will preach before them, and sow amongst them the word of life; and will tell them about the coming of Christ, how it took place; and about His mission, for what purpose he was sent by His Father; and about His power and His deeds, and about the mysteries which He spake in the world, and by what power He wrought these things, and about His new preaching, and about His abasement and His humiliation, and how He humbled and emptied and abased Himself, and was crucified, and descended to Hades, and broke through the enclosure which had never been broken through before, and raised up the dead, and descended alone, and ascended with a great multitude to His Father.[ix]

The fact that the Harrowing of Hell featured prominently in the Apocryphal texts, Christian poetry, and patristics testifies to the early origins of this Christian doctrine. And the fact that this doctrine is supported from the Old Testament, including both canonical and so-called Apocryphal texts, suggests the loss of something vital to the Gospel when the Apocrypha were separated from the rest of the Old Testament.

 

Endnotes

[i] We won’t even discuss the problematic phrase: “even baptism doth also now save us”.

[ii] (Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev 2009, 17)

[iii] (Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev 2009, 19)

[iv] (Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev 2009, 20-29)

[v] (St Melito of Sardis 1989, 20-23; 32-34)

[vi] (Platt 2007, 205)

[vii] See Odes 17, 22, 24, and 42.

[viii] Edessa was the capital city of Osreone, which was part of the Syriac empire. The country of Osreone is roughly located in the border area of Turkey and Syria; the city of Edessa is located in modern-day Turkey, and known as Şanlıurfa (or colloquially as Urfa).

[ix] (Schaff, ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Age 2005, 1098)

Bibliography

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev. Christ the Conqueror of Hell. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009.

Platt, Rutherford H. The Forgotten Books of Eden. Sioux Falls: NuVision Publications, LLC, 2007.

Schaff, Philip. ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Age. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005.

St Melito of Sardis. “On Pascha.” Edited by Jr. James T. Dennison. KERUX: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching (Kerux, Inc.) 4, no. 1 (1989): 5-35.

 

Signs and Wonders

Posted on by
Reply
Peace be with you, God will prosper you.

Prosperity Gospel

If a man desire much experience, she [wisdom] knoweth things of old, and conjectureth aright what is to come: she knoweth the subtilties of speeches, and can expound dark sentences: she foreseeth signs and wonders, and the events of seasons and times. (Wisdom 8:8)

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Mt 24:24)

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. (Mr 13:22)

Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. (Joh 4:48)

By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. (Ac 4:30)

And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. (Ac 5:12)

Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. (Ac 14:3)

Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Ro 15:19)

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2Co 12:12)

God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (Heb 2:4)

The phrase “signs and wonders” is used nine times in the New Testament, but never used in the Hebrew Scriptures. The phrase comes from the Wisdom of Solomon, and is found in an extended monologue on wisdom. Since we know wisdom to be allegorically associated with Jesus Christ, it is clear that it is Jesus Christ who foreseeth signs and wonders. Without the quotation from the Wisdom of Solomon, it is not clear what the difference is between the signs and wonders performed by Christ and His disciples, and the signs and wonders performed by the false prophets.

In Wisdom we see the growth of an individual who desires wisdom, which gives us a way of discerning between false prophets and true disciples.

  • The true disciples loves wisdom, and seeks her out (v. 1)
  • The true disciples seeks wisdom rather than riches (v. 5)
  • The true disciple is prudent (v. 6)
  • The true disciple loves righteousness (v. 7)
  • The true disciple practices the virtues (temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude) (v.7)[i]
  • The true disciple lives with wisdom, counseled by wisdom, and is comforted by wisdom (v. 9)

The false prophet, who is no true disciple, will be no lover of wisdom, and will seek to profit from the gospel. The false prophet will be extravagant rather than prudent, and will surround himself (or herself) with the things of this world. The false prophet will be self-indulgent and reckless, will show partiality, and will lack courage and strength.

Notice that Jesus warns against those who seek to persuade the faithful through signs and wonders, and those who seek after signs and wonders instead of the Christ who is the source. Those whose preaching is focused on signs and wonders, and those whose desire is for signs and wonders instead of Christ, are equally in error. Signs and wonders are not salvific, nor do signs and wonders validate the teaching of a prophet. When the nobleman approached Jesus and besought him to heal his son, Jesus stated: “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.” The nobleman’s reply demonstrated his belief: “Sir, come down ere [before] my child die.” No longer was he asking for a sign, he was merely seeking for Christ to visit to come before his son died. In seeking after healing, he received neither healing nor the presence of Christ; in seeking after Christ, the nobleman received both Christ and the healing of his son.

[i] The Greek word translated here as fortitude (ἀνδρείαν, andreian) can be translated in a variety of ways. The short definitions are manliness, manhood, manly spirit. Please note that these are to be interpreted in the fashion of the ancient world, in which certain characteristics were thought to be “manly virtues”. In fact, the Latin translation for ἀνδρείαν is virtus, from the Latin root vir, meaning man. Thus the opposite of the manly virtues would be the feminine weaknesses (according to the ancient accounting, not modern approach to gender distinctions.)

The Magnificat and its Old Testament Referents

Posted on by
Reply
Visitation ( visit of the Blessed Virgin Mary with Saint Elizabeth, Virgin Mary shown pregnant ), 14th century Wallpaintings, Timios Stavros Church in Pelendri, included in the UNESCO World Heritage List

The Visitation of the Virgin Mary to Elizabeth

The Magnificat (Luk 1:46-55)

The Lord hath cast down the thrones of proud princes, and set up the meek in their stead. (Sirach 10:14)

He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. (Luk 1:52)

Abraham was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him. (Sirach 44:19)

As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever. (Luk 1:55)

Mary’s Magnificat is one of the most notable prayers in all of Scripture. It is noteworthy for many things, not least of which is that it is filled with quotations from or allusions to scripture. Therefore, in context, it would be hard to say that a citation from Sirach is not scripture, when everything else quoted or alluded to is. Here is the text of the Magnificat, verse by verse, with all its Old Testament quotations and allusions.[1]

  • 46  And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

o    1 Sa 2:1 My heart rejoices in the LORD; in the LORD my horn is lifted high.

o    Ps 34:2,3 My soul will boast in the LORD; let the afflicted hear and rejoice. Glorify the LORD with me; let us exalt his name together.

o    Ps 103:1 Praise the LORD, O my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name.

  • 47  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

o    Ps 18:46b Exalted be God my Savior!

o    Isa 61:10 I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness.

  • 48a  For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:

o    1 Sam 1:11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

o    Ps 138:6 Though the LORD is on high, he looks upon the lowly, but the proud he knows from afar.

  • 48b  for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

o    Gen 30:13 And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.

o    Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

o    Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

  • 49a  For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;

o    1 Sam 2:1 And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation.

o    Ps 71:19 Your righteousness reaches to the skies, O God, you who have done great things. Who, O God, is like you?

o    Isa 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

o    Hab 3:18 Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.

  • 49b  and holy is his name.

o    1 Sa 2:2 There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you.

o    Ps 22:3 You are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel.

o    Ps 71:22b I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.

o    Ps 89:18 Indeed, our shield belongs to the LORD, our king to the Holy One of Israel.

o    Ps 99:3 Let them praise your great and awesome name – he is holy.

o    Ps 103:1b Praise his holy name.

  • 50  And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

o    Ps 103:17 From everlasting to everlasting the LORD’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children.

  • 51a  He hath shewed strength with his arm;

o    Ps 89:10 Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.

  • 51b  he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

o    1 Sa 2:3 Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the LORD is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed.

o    2 Sa 22:28 You save the humble, but your eyes are on the haughty to bring them low.

o    Ps 89:10 You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.

  • 52a  He hath put down the mighty from their seats,

o    1 Sa 2:4 The bows of the warriors are broken (as in Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, etc.)

  • 52b  and exalted them of low degree.

o    1 Sa 2:4b but those who stumbled are armed with strength.

o    1 Sa 2:8 He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. (As in Joseph, David, Daniel, Esther, etc.)

o    Ps 113:7-8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill; That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people.

  • 53a  He hath filled the hungry with good things;

o    1 Sa 2:5b but those who were hungry hunger no more.

o    Ps 103:5 who satisfies your desires with good things.

o    Ps 107:8,9 Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for men, for he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

  • 53b  and the rich he hath sent empty away.

o    1 Sam 2:5 Those who were full hire themselves out for food. (Note: This is the prayer of the barren Hannah, when she was blessed with a child.)

  • 54  He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

o    Ps 98:3;

o    Is 41:8-9

  • 55a  As he spake to our fathers,

o    Ps 25:6 Remember, O LORD, your great mercy and love, for they are from of old.

o    Ps 98:3 He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to the house of Israel.

o    Ps 105:8-11 He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant: “To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion you will inherit.”

o    Ps 136Aff. His love [mercy] endures forever.

  • 55b  to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

o    Gen 12:2-3 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

o    Ps 147:19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel.

o    Mic 7:20 You will be true to Jacob, and show mercy to Abraham, as you pledged on oath to our fathers in days long ago.

o    Sirach 44:19-22 Abraham was a great father of many people: in glory was there none like unto him; Who kept the law of the most High, and was in covenant with him: he established the covenant in his flesh; and when he was proved, he was found faithful. Therefore he assured him by an oath, that he would bless the nations in his seed, and that he would multiply him as the dust of the earth, and exalt his seed as the stars, and cause them to inherit from sea to sea, and from the river unto the utmost part of the land. With Isaac did he establish likewise for Abraham his father’s sake the blessing of all men, and the covenant, And made it rest upon the head of Jacob. He acknowledged him in his blessing, and gave him an heritage, and divided his portions; among the twelve tribes did he part them.

o    Other references: Gen 13:15; 22:16-18; 26:3-4; 28:13-14; Lev 26:42; Dt 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 25, 27; Ps 105:8-10

Bibliography

Jahn, Curtis A. Exegesis and Sermon Study of Luke 1:46-55 The Magnificat. Essay, Mequon: Wisconson Lutheran Seminary, 1997, 1-15.

Endnotes

[1] The cross-references for the Magnificat come from a number of sources. The versification is from an essay by Curtis A. Jahn. (Jahn 1997, 14-15)

Creation as a Trinitarian Act

Posted on by
1

From “Creation and the Heart of Man” by Fr. Michael Butler and Andrew Morriss

 

The Orthodox Church affirms that creation was a free act of God. However, the Orthodox go a step further and say that creation is not simply an act of God but a cooperative act of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For ‘in the beginning,’ when ‘God created the heavens and the earth,’ ‘the Spirit [pneuma] of God was moving over the face of the waters’ 4 and God the Father spoke through his Word, and the creation came to be. 5 Indeed, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca. 202) calls the Son and the Spirit the ‘two hands’ of God with which he formed the world, 6 and St. John of Damascus (d. 749) says,

Since, then, God, who is good and more than good, did not find satisfaction in self-contemplation, but in His exceeding goodness wished certain things to come into existence which would enjoy His benefits and share in His goodness, He brought all things out of nothing into being and created them, both what is invisible and what is visible. Yea, even man, who is a compound of the visible and the invisible. And it is by thought that He creates, and thought is the basis of the work, the Word filling it and the Spirit perfecting it.[1]

Or, as St. Basil the Great puts it,

When you consider creation I advise you to think first of Him who is the first cause of everything that exists: namely, the Father, and then of the Son, who is the creator, and then the Holy Spirit, the perfector.… The Originator of all things is One: He creates through the Son and perfects through the Holy Spirit.… Perceive these three: the Lord who commands, the Word who creates, and the Spirit who strengthens.[2]

These statements of the Fathers are perhaps most simply put in the Symbol of Faith (the Nicene Creed), which acknowledges that the Father is the ‘maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible,’ the Son is he ‘through whom all things were made,’ and the Holy Spirit is ‘the giver of life.’

Bibliography

Butler, Michael, and Andrew Morriss. Creation and the Heart of Man: An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Environmentalism. Kindle Edition. Edited by Dylan Pahman. Acton Institute, 2013.

Endnotes

[1] St. John of Damascus , On the Orthodox Faith, 2.2 (PG 94.864C10-65A5), cited in Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), The Mystery of Faith: An Introduction to the Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 43– 44.

[2] St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 16.38 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), 62– 63 (PG 32.136A15-B3, B9-10, C11-13).