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.

 

Doubt in the Face of God

Posted on by
Reply

Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peaceWhy I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace by Frank Schaeffer

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The Prophet Job declared: “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” And yet it was the same Job also stated: “Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. …Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?” This is the same Job who cries out: “Why is light given to a man whose way is hid, and whom God hath hedged in?”

The prophet Job is conflicted. He rejoices in God, and has hope in the bodily resurrection. And yet at the same time he curses the day he was born to this life of trouble, this life of sin and strife. Why does God give light and life to a man, only to have him suffer torment. Why?

Let Job stand in for humanity, and you have the human condition. The torments of Job are the torments of us all. Even when things are going well, we know things could turn on a dime. And, ultimately, we all die. So what is the point of it all?

And yet there are great books, there is beautiful music, and there is the sort of love that transcends this mortal coil, that brings us out of ourselves and points the way to — to what exactly? We don’t really know, except to say that everything in our human experience tells us this material existence cannot be all there is. For if we as humans know love and beauty, and if we recoil at horror and death, then we know that none of this makes sense if this material world is all there is. For death is normal, it comes to us all. We cannot escape death; all we can do it try to rise above it before it takes us all. And yet what does it mean to rise above it, if this material world is all there is? Why bother trying? Why not do as Job’s wife suggested — why not curse God and die?

We have our dreams, our desires, and our doubts. Does God exist? Well no, God does not exist in the same way we exist. If there is indeed a God, this God must stand apart from this existence. This God must transcend this world of matter and energy in the same way that art, love, and companionship transcend our mortal existence — the same way art, love, and companionship provide our lives with meaning and purpose. Is God good? Well no, not in the way we think of good, as something defined in terms of our lives, something that provides benefit to the things we appreciate and the persons we love. The goodness of God, if indeed it exists, cannot be defined on our terms; the greater cannot be defined in terms of the lesser.

And so, as Frank Schaeffer writes, we can doubt the love of God, the goodness of God, and indeed the existence of God — or at the very least the certainties provided by our faith communities — while still seeing signs of the existence of God all around us. We can taste God in the flesh of a freshly picked tomato on a warm summer’s day; we can hear God in the laughing of grandchildren; we can see God in the faces of those who know us best, and love us anyway.

View all my reviews

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).

 

The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Posted on by
2
Dead Sea Scroll

Dead Sea Scroll

It is not just the addition of vowel points and word spacing that differentiates the Masoretic text from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that entire texts have been changed. The Book of Psalms, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, is quite different, including a number of psalms missing from both the Masoretic text and the LXX.[i] The book of Jeremiah is quite different, and agrees with the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. Karel Van Der Toorn, in his book “Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible”, writes:

Biblical scholars have long been aware of the fact that the Greek translation of Jeremiah as extant in the Septuagint is shorter by one-seventh than the text in the Hebrew Bible. Its arrangement of the material, moreover, differs at some points from that in the Hebrew text. The most striking instance is the position of the Oracles against the Nations. Whereas the Septuagint places them right after 25:13 (“ And I will bring upon that land all that I have decreed against it, all that is recorded in this book — that which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations”), the Hebrew Bible has them at the end of the book (Chapters 46-51). The discoveries in the Judean Desert have yielded a fragment of a Hebrew version of Jeremiah (4QJerb) that agrees with the Septuagint (henceforth JerLXX) against the Hebrew text known from the Masoretic tradition (Henceforth JerMT). Based on this fragment, scholars have concluded that the Greek translation goes back to a Hebrew text of Jeremiah that differs in important respects from the Hebrew Bible. The differences between JerMT and JerLXX are such that they cannot be attributed to scribal errors in the process of transmission. Nor can the Hebrew vorlage[ii] of the Septuagint be interpreted as an abbreviated version of the book. In view of their different placement of the Oracles against the Nations, JerMT and JerLXX represent two different editions of the same book. Chronologically, the edition reflected in JerLXX  precedes the one extant in JerMT.[iii]

Lawrence Boadt, in his book “Reading the Old Testament“, confirms this. He writes:

There were quite a variety of copies of the Hebrew Old Testament available by the time of Jesus. Since copying had gone on for a long time already, many different editions circulated, some longer with sections added in, some shorter with sections omitted. All had some change or error in them. Since a scribe in one area often copied from a local text, the same error or change often appeared regularly in one place, say, Babylon, but not in text copied in Egypt. Thus, at the time of Christ, three major “families” or groupings of text types could be found: The Babylonian, the Palestinian, and the Egyptian. …Only at the end of the first century A.D. did the rabbis decide to end the confusion and select one text, the best they could find, for each part of the Bible. In the Pentateuch they chose the Babylonian tradition, but in other books, such as the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, they followed the Palestinian-type text.

These first century rabbis also inaugurated a method of guaranteeing the text from any more glosses and additions, though not completely from copying errors. They counted words, syllables, and sections, and wrote the totals at the end of each book of the Old Testament. …The standard Hebrew text that resulted from the decisions of these early rabbis has become known as the “Masoretic text,” named after a later group of Jewish scholars of the eighth to eleventh centuries A.D., the masoretes, or “interpreters,” who put vowels into the text, and thus “Fixed the words in a definitive form. No longer could a reader be confused by whether the word qtl in the text meant qotel, “the killer,” or qatal, “he killed.”[iv]

Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible were from the 10th or 11th century. The fact that these two manuscripts exist at all is something of a miracle, because the Jews have a tradition of destroying old, worn manuscripts. Because these were the only extant manuscripts in Hebrew, the Reformers (and the scholar Erasmus) chose them when translating the Old Testament, under the influence of the Renaissance humanists and their cry: “ad fontes”; to the sources. However, we not have older manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts supporting the ancient idea that the Hebrews altered their texts in response to the challenge of Christianity.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest texts of the Hebrew Bible were in two manuscripts from the 10th or possibly the early 11th century known as the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex. These manuscripts—the Aleppo Codex, which was recovered partially after a fire and somehow brought to Jerusalem, and the Leningrad Codex, which is now in St. Petersburg—both of these nearly identical texts are what scholars call the rabbinic recension.[v]

The problem is this. The Masoretes fixed the text in a form significantly different than that used by the Jewish diaspora for several hundred years. This was a radical emendation of the text which, when coupled by the Masoretic vowel pointing, fixed the interpretation of the text. Thus it is clear that as Judaism underwent substantial changes subsequent to the destruction of the temple, so too did the text used as the basis for their faith.

Endnotes

[i] (J. A. Sanders n.d.)

[ii] Vorlage: a prior version of a text under consideration.

[iii] (van der Toorn 2007, 199-200, van der Toorn 2007)

[iv] (Boadt 1984, 73-74)

[v] (Shanks 2007, 19)

Bibliography

Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Paulist Press, 1984.

Sanders, J. A. “English Translation of the Psalms Scroll (Tehillim) 11QPs.” ibiblio.org. n.d. http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/psalms.html (accessed January 02, 2014).

Shanks, Hershel. “The Dead Sea Scrolls—Discovery and Meaning.” Biblical Archaeology Society. Biblical Archeological Society. 2007. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/the-dead-sea-scrolls-discovery-and-meaning/ (accessed January 30, 2014).

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

 

The Hebraic Origins of Matthew’s Gospel

Image

Reply

A number of the New Testament Greek texts we have today may not be the original language the books were conceived in, let alone written in. This is most obviously true in the case of Matthew, for which we have explicit evidence for its being originally written in Hebrew. The earliest church fathers are generally known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who form a contiguous chain from the Apostles to the 1st Ecumenical Council ( A.D., 325), also known as the Council of Nicea. They provide a consistent testimony to the Hebraic origins of Matthew’s Gospel.

The earliest witness to the Hebraic origin of Matthew is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, in Asia Minor. The church historian Eusibius references his (now lost) Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (c. 100), where he speaks concerning the Hebrew origin of the Gospels. Eusebius quotes Papias as follows:

Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could. (Schaff 1890, 317)

Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) was Bishop of Lyons in France. Most of his literary endeavors were undertaken in the last quarter of the second century A.D. Irenaeus states:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their owndialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. (Schaff, ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus 1884, 685)

Origen (first quarter of the third century), in his commentary on Matthew, states:

Among the four Gospels,which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of Godunder heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once apublican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts fromJudaism, and published in the Hebrew language. (Schaff, NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine 1890, 571)

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (circa 325 A.D.), writes:

For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Schaff, NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine 1890, 265)

There are additional references in the later church fathers (generally known as the Post-Nicean Fathers, dating from approximately 325 A.D.). Epiphanius, for instance, writes at length about the Jewish-Christian sect of the Nazarenes:

They have the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. It is carefully preserved by them as it was originally written, in Hebrew script. (Bivin and Blizzard Jr. 1994, Kindle Locations 214-215)

Epiphanius also writes about the Ebionites, another Messianic sect:

And they too accept the Gospel of Matthew. . .They call it “according to the Hebrews,” and that is the correct way of speaking since Matthew alone of the New Testament writers presents the gospel in Hebrew and in the Hebrew script. (Bivin and Blizzard Jr. 1994, Kindle Locations 215-217)

Eusebius writes of Saint Pantaenus the Philosopher, a second century convert from the Stoics, who for a time was a missionary to India, and who discovered a Hebrew edition of Matthew that had reportedly been left there by Bartholemew.[1]

Pantænus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time. (Schaff, NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine 1890, 445-446)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, says the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem 2013, Kindle Locations 4317-4318)

The great bible scholar St. Jerome provides some of the most compelling testimony to Matthew’s Gospel being originally written in Hebrew. In his De Viris Illustribus, or On Illustrious Men (A.D. 492), Jerome writes of extant copies of the Gospel of Matthew that still existed in the library at Caesarea and among the Nazarenes.

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene. (Schaff, NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical 1892, 626)

David Blivin and Roy Blizzard Jr., in their book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, write of the Hebraic background of the New Testament. They point out that although the New Testament documents are written in Greek, they are thoroughly Hebrew in their grammatical construction, which accounts for what many scholars call the “poor Greek” of the New Testament.

It should be emphasized that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is, in its entirety, highly Hebraic. In spite of the fact that portions of the New Testament were communicated in Greek, the background is thoroughly Hebrew. The writers are Hebrew, the culture is Hebrew, the religion is Hebrew, the traditions are Hebrew, and the concepts are Hebrew. (Bivin and Blizzard Jr. 1994, Kindle Locations 82-84)

Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, Dr. David Scaer notes that as Matthew was written as a catechesis, Matthew would have used several scribes as amanuenses. Thus, there would have been multiple autographs. (Scaer 2004, 102) It is unclear when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, but it must have happened rather quickly, after which the Greek text became the standard text, used in the increasingly Gentile church in preference to the original Hebrew text.

So what does this matter, you may ask? It matters because the only texts we have of the Gospel of Matthew are in Greek, and are therefore translations of the original Hebrew. We have the witness of Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, not only to the original text of Matthew’s Gospel being composed in Hebrew, but that it was translated into Greek by multiple people, “as best they were able.” This would account for some of the differing textual traditions of the Gospel of Matthew, and for the extensive Hebraisms found therein.

A Hebraism is a Hebrew idiom that is a literal word for word translation into another language — in our case, Greek. From there, our English bibles tend towards a literal, word for word translation of the Greek text. An idiom is generally defined as “a speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on.” (FARLEX n.d.) A literal, word for word Greek translation of a Hebrew idiom results in a text that is obscure, often violates the rules of Greek grammar, and is therefore amenable to misinterpretation. From David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jr.’s book, we will provide but a single example of a Hebraism from the Gospel of Matthew, one that changes the typical interpretation of the text.

A mistranslation of the eighth beatitude may also have been the cause of erroneous theology. Matthew 5:10 reads: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” On the basis of this translation, one would quite naturally assume that there is some religious merit in being persecuted for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Early in the second century A.D. this idea developed and found its fruition in the martyrdom of millions during the years of the ten severe persecutions until the Edict of Toleration by Constantine in 311 A.D. The idea of gaining religious merit through suffering persecution or through martyrdom has continued in the theological consciousness of the church to the present day. Is this really what Jesus is referring to in Matthew 5:10? Does Jesus mean that religious merit can be obtained by suffering persecution? Are we to seek persecution? No! This eighth beatitude should be translated: “How blessed are those who pursue righteousness, for of these is the Kingdom of Heaven.” There are actually four mistranslations in this one verse. We should not translate “persecute,” but “pursue.” Secondly, “righteousness” is an unfortunate translation in English. “Salvation” or “redemption’ would be more accurate. (See our discussion on page 60.) Thirdly, “theirs” also leaves the wrong impression. We do not possess the Kingdom. The correct translation would be “of these,” or “of such as these” as in Luke 18:16, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them, for of such as these is the Kingdom of God.” Fourthly, the Kingdom of Heaven is not futuristic, as is so often understood. (See our discussion on pages 62-65.) In the eighth beatitude Jesus is not discussing persecution at all. He is describing people whose chief desire is for God to redeem the world. The Beatitudes are a description of the kind of people who make up the Kingdom of Heaven. This beatitude, like the others, characterizes the “Kingdom Man,” who wants above all else for God to rule in the life of every person. The eighth beatitude echoes the fourth beatitude which speaks of those who “hunger and thirst [i.e., ‘desire above all else’] for righteousness,” in other words, for God to save the lost. It also echoes Matthew 6:33 in which Jesus says that we are to “seek first [i.e., ‘desire above all else’] His righteousness [i.e., ‘salvation ].” (Bivin and Blizzard Jr. 1994, Kindle Locations 591-604)

Bibliography

Bivin, David, and Roy Blizzard Jr. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebrew Perspective. Revised Edition. Shippensburg: Destiny Image Publishers, 1994.

FARLEX. The Free Dictionary. n.d. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiom (accessed April 26, 2014).

Scaer, David P. Discourse in Matthew: Jesus Teaches the Church. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004.

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.

—. NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by Arthur C. McGiffert and Ernest C. Richardson. Vol. 1. 14 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1890.

—. NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical. New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Kindle Edition. Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. 2013.

[1] There was a Roman trade route to India, with a sizeable Jewish population living there.

Ambiguam I – The Monad and the Triad

Posted on by
Reply
The Holy Trinity by the hand of Andrei Rublev

The Holy Trinity
by the hand of
Andrei Rublev

From Saint Gregory the Theologian’s First Oration on the Son:

For this reason the Monad from the beginning moved toward a dyad and at the Trinity came to a halt.

And again, from his Second Oration on Peace:

The Monad moved on account of its abundance, the dyad was surpassed — for it is beyond matter and form, out of which bodies are made — the Trinity was defined, on account of its perfection.

If, while considering the apparent contradiction, O servant of God, you were at a loss regarding the real agreement, it would nevertheless not be possible for two statements to be more unified in meaning than these. for the phrase “the dyad was surpassed” means the same thing as “not coming to a halt in the dyad,” just as the phrase “the Trinity was defined” means the same thing as the “movement of the Monad comes to a halt in the Trinity.” For we believe in a monarchy that is neither begrudging of its bounty (in the sense of being restricted to a single person), nor disorderly (in the sense of being poured out ad infinitum), but which is constituted by a Trinity that is equal in honor by nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “whose wealth is their identity of nature and the single manifestation of their splendor,” and whose “divinity is neither poured out beyond these three, lest we introduce a multitude of gods, nor bounded within them, lest we be condemned for poverty in divinity.”

This is not, however, a causal explanation for the cause of beings, which is itself beyond all being, but the demonstration of a pious opinion about it, since the Godhead is a Monad (but not a dyad), and a Trinity (but not a multitude), for it is without beginning, bodily form, or internal strife. For the Monad is truly a Monad: it is not the origin of the things that come after it, as if it had expanded after a state of contraction, like something naturally poured out and proliferating into a multitude, but is rather the inherently personal reality of the consubstantial Trinity. And the Trinity is truly a Trinity, not the sum of a divisible number, (for it is not an aggregation of monads, that it might suffer division), but the inherently essential subsistence of the three-personed Monad. The Trinity is truly a Monad, for such it is; and the Monad is truly a Trinity, for as such it subsists, since there is one Godhead that in essence is a Monad and in subsistence a Trinity.

And finally, having heard the word “movement,” you wondered how the Godhead, which is beyond infinity, is said to “move,” understand that movement is something that happens to us, and not to the Godhead. For first we are illumined by the principle of its being, after which we are enlightened regarding the mode of its subsistence, for the fact of being is always grasped before the manner of being. Thus the “movement” of the Godhead is the knowledge — through illumination — of its existence and how it subsists, manifested to those who are able to receive it.

St Maximus the Confessor, The Ambigua to Thomas

On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The "Ambigua," Volume I

How can the impure lay hands on the pure?

Posted on by
Reply
Icon of St Maximus the Confessor, making his defense before the imperial court.

Icon of St Maximus the Confessor

But as for me, how can I say Jesus is Lord, when I have not yet received the Spirit of holiness? How can I speak of the Lord’s powers when I am mute, having firmly closed my intellect through attachment to corruptible things? How can I render audible even some of His praises when I am deaf? For the ear of my soul, on account of my love for the passions, is entirely turned away fro the blessed voice of the Word. How will the Word, who by nature conquers` the world, but does not appear to the world, appear to me, conquered as I am by the world, since He is essentially unknowable to minds enamored of material things? How would it not be an act of insolence for a profane man to rush in among sacred things, and for the impure to lay hands on the pure?

St Maximus the Confessor, The Ambigua to Thomas

On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The "Ambigua," Volume I