Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • St. John Chrysostom on Hebrews 6

    This past week seems to have been a good week for me reading St. John Chrysostom. It started from my reading of the book Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, and then looking up further contents for the selections. This is the second selection from the same author I’m quoting.

    I have written previously on Hebrews 6 and the possibility for those who have fallen away to repent and be restored. I want to quote Chrysostom, who takes a somewhat different angle, especially with the increased emphasis on baptism. In general, however, I found this very good reading. You can find the whole book on Christian Classics Ethereal Library, a wonderful resource page which I encourage you to visit.

    [8.] What then (you say)? Is there no repentance? There is repentance, but there is no second baptism: but repentance there is, and it has great force, and is able to set free from the burden of his sins, if he will, even him that hath been baptized much in sins, and to establish in safety him who is in danger, even though he should have come unto the very depth of wickedness. And this is evident from many places. “For,” says one, “doth not he that falleth rise again? or he that turneth away, doth not he turn back to [God]?” (Jer. viii. 4.) It is possible, if we will, that Christ should be formed in us again: for hear Paul saying, “My little children of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. iv. 19.) Only let us lay hold on repentance.

    For behold the love of God to man! We ought on every ground to have been punished at the first; in that having received the natural law, and enjoyed innumerable blessings, we have not acknowledged our Master, and have lived an unclean life. Yet He not only has not punished is, but has even made us partakers of countless blessings, just as if we had accomplished great things.

    Again we fell away, and not even so does He punish us, but has given medicine of repentance, which is sufficient to put away and blot out all our sins; only if we knew the nature of the medicine, and how we ought to apply it.

    What then is the medicine of Repentance and how is it made up? First, of the condemnation of our own sins; “For” (it is said) “mine iniquity have I not hid” (Ps. xxxii. 5); and again, “I will confess against myself my lawlessness unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart.” And “Declare thou at the first thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa. xliii. 26.) And, “The righteous man is an accuser of himself at the first speaking.” (Prov. xviii. 17.)

    Secondly, of great humbleness of mind: For it is like a golden chain; if one have hold of the beginning, all will follow. Because if thou confess thy sin as one ought to confess, the soul is humbled. For conscience turning it on itself causeth it to be subdued.

    Other things too must be added to humbleness of mind if it be such as the blessed David knew, when he said, “A broken and a contrite heart God will not despise.” (Ps. li. 17.) For that which is broken does not rise up, does not strike, but is ready to be ill-treated and itself riseth not up. Such is contrition of heart: though it be insulted, though it be evil entreated, it is quiet, and is not eager for vengeance.

    And after humbleness of mind, there is need of intense prayers, of many tears, tears by day, and tears by night: for, he says, “every night, will I wash my bed, I will water my couch with my tears. I am weary with my groaning.” (Ps. vi. 6.) And again, “For I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.” (Ps. cii. 9.)

    And after prayer thus intense, there is need of much almsgiving: for this it is which especially gives strength to the medicine of repentance. And as there is a medicine among the physicians’ helps which receives many herbs, but one is the essential, so also in case of repentance this is the essential herb, yea, it may be everything. For hear what the Divine Scripture says, “Give alms, and all things shall be clean.” (Luke xi. 41.) And again, “By alms-giving and acts of faithfulness sins are purged away.” (Prov. xvi. 6.) And, “Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms will do away with great sins.” (Ecclus. iii. 30.)

    Next not being angry with any one, not bearing malice; the forgiving all their trespasses. For, it is said, “Man retaineth wrath against man, and yet seeketh healing from the Lord.” (Ecclus. xxviii. 3.) “Forgive that ye may be forgiven.” (Mark xi. 25.)

    Also, the converting our brethren from their wandering. For, it is said, “Go thou, and convert thy brethren, that thy sins may be forgiven thee.” And from one’s being in close relations with the priests, “and if,” it is said, “a man hath committed sins it shall be forgiven him.” (Jas. v. 15.) To stand forward in defense of those who are wronged. Not to retain anger: to bear all things meekly.

    There are a couple of key points that I know would seem odd to my United Methodist congregation, though they aren’t contrary to Wesleyan theology.

    First, as I already mentioned, the strong emphasis on baptism and its character. One can repent, but cannot be rebaptized. Many modern church members see baptism as nothing more than a celebration of a life experience, rather than the deep spiritual reality reflected here and elsewhere in patristic literature.

    Second, the description of the nature of repentance and the activities and attitudes that go with it will be foreign to many modern Christians. Repentance often means to us that we say “I’m sorry” and express determination not to continue, with a level of determination that will keep us on the straight and narrow until nightfall.

    I might think some of the intensity reflected in this passage is perhaps slightly overdone, but then again, perhaps it is a necessary expression. Are we not more likely to treat our sin more lightly than it deserves than we are to treat it too harshly?

  • Chrysostom Quote on Suffering

    Sufferings are a perfecting and a cause of salvation. Do you see that to suffer affliction is not the fate of those who are utterly forsaken, if indeed it was by leading him through sufferings that God first honored his Son? And truly his taking flesh to suffer what he suffered is a far greater thing than creating the world out of things that are not. This is indeed a token of his lovingkindness, but the other far more. — On the Epistle to the Hebrews 4-4, quoted from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews.

    This quote in my reading today relates wonderfully to the post I wrote for my wife’s devotional list.

  • Notes on Mark 12:28-34

    Translation and Notes

    Overview

    There are parallel passages in Matthew 22:34-40 and Luke 10:25-28

    On the questioner, the Interpreter’s Bible comments:

    He is a model for the right approach both to Christ and to the scriptures. The psalmist speaks of “inquiring” in the temple (Ps. 27:4). We do so many other things there. We talk, we pray, we sing, we give. But so many never really inquire. That is the attitude which Jesus so eagerly welcomed. It is the reverent, humble search to learn the will of God for us and for our time; vastly different from the frequent attempt to bend the Almighty around until we can use him as a support for policies and points of view which we have already decided upon without reference to him. So often the common question “What would Jesus do?’ does not mark the beginning of a search at all. It marks the beginning of an argument. The conclusion usually runs something like this: “So, you see, Jesus would do just what I am doing.” — IB Exposition on Mark 12:28-34

    I agree with their assessment of the questioner. Many modern commentators try to make him out to be one of those questioners who was trying to trap Jesus, but there is nothing of that in the text here.

    I have adopted these two laws as a key to interpretation. You can see my essay on this at Hanging Biblical Interpretation.

    28And one of the scribes heard them debating, and when he saw that Jesus had answered them well, he came and asked him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”

    29Jesus answered, “First is, ‘Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord,

    Mar 12:29 – The Lord our God is one Lord – This is the foundation of the first commandment, yea, of all the commandments. The Lord our God, the Lord, the God of all men, is one God, essentially, though three persons. From this unity of God it follows, that we owe all our love to him alone. — John Wesley

    The quote is from Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

    30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heard and with all your soul and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31And the second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no greater commandment than these.”

    The second quote is from Leviticus 19:18. “First” in this sense is not chronological, but logical. Which commandment best sums up the law, or is most basic logically.

    32And the scribe said to him, “Excellent, teacher, you’re really right when you say that he is one, and there is none other than him, 33 and ‘loving him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength’ and ‘loving your neighbor as yourself’ is better than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

    Darrell Bock notes:

    “. . . Properly relating to God translates into properly relating to others. This is more important than any ritual. The rule of God presses for people to live righteously with one another” (p. 331).

    Mar 12:33 – To love him with all the heart – To love and serve him, with all the united powers of the soul in their utmost vigour; and to love his neighbour as himself – To maintain the same equitable and charitable temper and behaviour toward all men, as we, in like circumstances, would wish for from them toward ourselves, is a more necessary and important duty, than the offering the most noble and costly sacrifices. — John Wesley

    In this rare case the scribe is totally in tune with what Jesus says. This wasn’t a trap, but a genuine question, genuinely answered.

    34And when Jesus saw that he answered thoughtfully, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And nobody dared to ask him questions any more.

    Referring to this questioner and the young man of Mark 10:17, Wuest quotes Swete:

    “. . . In both cases something was wanting to convert admiration in discipleship. If wealth was the bar in the one case, pride of intellect may have been fatal in the other. The mental acumen which detects and approves spiritual truth may, in the tragedy of human life, keep its possessor from entering the kingdom of God.”

    It seems to me that this is reading more into the white spaces than one is getting from the text itself. The questioner was near the kingdom. There is no necessity to assume that he didn’t finish the journey. There is no negative comment about him in Mark at all. Any assumption that he failed to completely apply his insight in his own life and eventually become a disciple is just that—assumption.

  • Christian Carnival – Sorting Hat Edition

    . . . has been posted a the Bible Archive. Rather creative, though as a non-reader of Harry Potter, I perhaps do not comprehend most of it!

  • Notes on Mark 12:18-27

    Translation and Notes

    Note: These notes accompany my podcast on this passage, Angels and Marriage.

    18Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him, 19“Teacher, Moses wrote for us: ‘If a man’s brother dies, and leaves a wife, but no child, then his brother must take the wife, and raise up descendants for his brother.’

    The command here comes from Deuteronomy 25:5-10, though it is not quoted precisely. The situation, however exaggerated, was a realistic one under the Mosaic law. Having everyone alive at once who ever has lived would produce some significant practical complications, and this was just one of those possibilities.

    20There were seven brothers, and the first one took a wife and died without leaving a descendant. 21The second took her, and died, not leaving a descendant, and the third did the same thing. 22And all seven did so, but left no descendant. Finally the woman also died. 23In the resurrection, when they rise, to which of them does that woman belong? For they all had her!”

    It’s easy for us to laugh at the Sadducees, but they are not alone in trying to understand the spiritual and the supernatural based on common logic. Try answering the question yourself. How do you think such a situation could be handled?

    At the same time God is not nearly so limited in his ability to solve problems as we are. The bottom line here would be that we simply do not know how things will be done in the kingdom, or how relationships will operate.

    24Jesus said to them, “Here’s why you’re wrong: You don’t know the scriptures nor the power of God.

    Notice that Jesus does not merely tell them that they don’t know the scriptures. It is not a direct scriptural quote that will solve this problem for them, but rather an understanding of the power of God. The resolution is well beyond the level of discussion at which they are operating.

    25For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but they will be like the angels in heaven.”

    Now frequently people take this text as giving a definitive answer to how we’ll live in heaven. But I would suggest that this also results from not knowing the scriptures nor God’s power. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, but they also did not believe in angels. So Jesus points them to their own logic. Those raised from the dead live like the angels—whom the Sadducees also denied—making the whole discussion rather silly.

    But God who could make a resurrection happen can also provide a life for those so raised. This doesn’t mean, by the way, that there will be marriage in the kingdom of heaven. It means that the same God who can raise the dead (as the Sadducees denied) can also provide a new life for those who have been raised. “But just as it has been written, Eye has not seen, neither ears heard, nor have entered the heart of any person, the things which God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

    Without due consideration for the power of God, the scriptures will not make sense.

    26But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses at the bush, how God spoke to him and said, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27God is not the God of the dead, but of the living! You are very deceived!” — Mark 12:18-27

    It’s quite possible that this latter portion was not part of the same confrontation with the Sadducees, simply because the story ends so effectively with verse 25. Verses 26 and 27 may well have come from another answer to a question about the resurrection of the dead. In any case, they provide a very different response, in this case owing to the interpretation of the Torah. Since the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, or Pentateuch, as authoritative, it was important that the argument Jesus made for the resurrection come from that source (Exodus 3:6).

    It’s an interesting piece of interpretation, because we modern folks usually assume that when God identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he meant that he was they God they worshiped, not that he was continuing to be their God in present time. That is, however, the sense in which Jesus takes the passage.

    “God is the God of the living” suggests that we are not as ephemeral as it may appear.

  • Notes on Mark 12:13-17

    These notes accompany my podcast Caesar’s Stuff.

    Translation and Notes

    It’s important in reading any of these challenge stories to consider the challengers, the situation in which Jesus finds himself, and the goals he is trying to accomplish. For example, here he needs to respond to the questioners in such a way as to keep from taking the focus off of the kingdom. If he starts talking about the legality of the Roman tax, the topic will become temporal rule, and people will no longer be interested in talking about the type of people they are to become.

    13Some Pharisees and Herodians were sent to trap him with a controversial issue.

    This was not a usual alliance, but it was an alliance of two groups who would want Jesus to fail. His agenda of compassion as the guiding principle of holiness would challenge either of their agendas. For this particular mixed group it would be likely that no matter what Jesus said somebody would be happy and many people would be angry, and for them that would be a good thing.

    14When they got there they said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are honest, and you don’t concern yourself with what others think, because you don’t look at a person’s face, but you sincerely teach God’s way of life. Is it proper to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not?”

    Flattery is a dangerous thing. If they had really believed that Jesus didn’t care what other people thought, however, they might have realized that flattery would not work for him. I have seen this type of flattery used on a visiting speaker. In his introduction he may be praised for certain views that the leadership certainly hope he has, and which they desire him to emphasize. Those who speak the truth must have the discernment to recognize flattery.

    15But knowing their trickery he said to them, “Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius so I can look at it.” 16So they brought him one. Then he asked them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.”

    Caesar made the money, and Caesar gave the money value. Even coinage gains value through the authority of the person who mints it. The metal itself may have value, but it’s not the same as a coin. The better question was which kingdom would get allegiance. For Jesus, the importance of paying the Roman tax was of less importance, because he was not so much challenging the earthly kingdom with an alternate form of government. He was challenging it with a way of life and an allegiance to God and his principles.

    17So he said to them, “Give Caesar’s things to Caesar and God’s things to God.” And they were amazed at him. — Mark 12:13-17

    A less satisfactory answer, from the point of view of those who asked the question, can hardly be imagined. No wonder they were amazed! Jesus had really told them nothing. Those who try to make theologies of Christian involvement or non-involvement in politics out of this passage seem not to realize that Jesus intended NOT to answer the question.

    One point we might take from this incident is that Jesus kept the focus on his mission, and not on temporal things. It was more important to him to help make holy people than it was to solve their political problems. This doesn’t mean that, under the right circumstances, Jesus might not have given a clearer and more precise answer. It does mean that he subordinated this issue the the more pressing things he was trying to teach. Note the definite answer he gives to the question in verses 28-34. I’ve often heard folks say that the reason the scribe got a straightforward answer was that his was a sincere question. I don’t know how sincere it was, but I would note that it was centered on Jesus’ primary agenda.

  • Book: Conflict Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus

    This will not even be an attempt at a full review of this book by Marcus Borg. I just want to present a few notes. Such a review would take more time and more skill that I believe I can bring to bear.

    I generally find myself appreciating the spiritual implications that Borg finds in the teachings of Jesus, but I’m not always on the same wavelength in a historical sense. After reading N. T. Wright and Borg side by side, something they have made easy to do, I often feel more in tune with Borg’s conclusions and at the same time more in agreement with Wright’s arguments. There has to be something wrong with this, and perhaps in time I’ll get more clear on the issue. I have a strong streak of agnosticism regarding the details of any portrayal of the life of Jesus.

    But Conflict is a book that will be of value to you irrespective of your position on the historical details, because in it Borg goes into detail on the background for his conclusions about a considerable number of sayings of Jesus and even a few miracle reports, especially the healings on the Sabbath.

    He contends that the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees is often misunderstood. To put it simplistically, it is often seen as one of hypocrisy vs sincerity or surface vs. heart religion. Borg sees it as two different conceptions of the identify of Israel. In supporting this position he provides some wonderful fodder even for those who may come to different conclusions. I was particularly helped by the material on the temple, the meaning of the cleansing incident, and the predictions of its destruction.

    N. T. Wright provides an excellent introduction (15 pages) to the current edition, which is valuable in pointing out where Wright would disagree. The disagreements are not extensive, however, on this topic, and Wright strongly commends the book overall.

    I am glad I picked this volume up.

    Numerical rating: 4

  • Notes on Mark 12:1-12

    These notes accompany and supplement my podcast on the same passage.

    This parable is normally seen as a discussion of God’s relationship with the nation of Israel. Doubtless in the original context, with Jesus talking to Jews about how they had rejected prophets, and now were rejecting him, this was the meaning. Having noticed that, however, in my podcast on the passage I intend to focus on how this parable can apply to us in principle today. Here I’ll provide cross-references and a few historical notes. UBSIV lists no significant textual variants for this pericope.

    Parallel passages are Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19.

    This passage finds parts of its background in Isaiah 5:1-7, Isaiah 27:1-6, and perhaps Jeremiah 12:10-13.

    Translation and Notes

    1He began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a tower. He rented it out to tenants and left on a journey.

    Parables are often built around common situations that the audience would comprehend. A person who sets up a vineyard and then leases it out to others, expecting appropriate payment, was quite a comprehensible situation. In addition, the use of the vineyard in imagery by Isaiah, especially, would help tie this parable to Israel.

    Note the big difference between Isaiah’s parable and this one. In this case the rebuke is addressed to the leaders, to those who are supposed to tend to the vineyard. In Isaiah, the entire vineyard is addressed. It is supposed to bring forth fruit and does not. Jesus is carefully addressing a problem that is specific to the leadership of the time, and particularly the temple leadership.

    2And he sent a servant to his tenants at the appropriate time to receive the fruit from his vineyard. 3But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty handed. 4And again he sent another servant to them. They beat this one on the head this one and insulted him. 5He sent another one, and the killed that one. Then he sent many others. Some the beat, some they killed.

    One of the principles for interpreting a parable is that we don’t try to get too much meaning out of the details. A parable tends to drive home a particular point, and details are often there merely to fill out the narrative. An allegory, on the other hand, attempts to match symbol to specific reality at all points. The fact is that there is more of a continuum between a parable and an allegory. In this case, we are dealing primarily with a parable, but it has some features of an allegory, with the various servants representing prophets, and of course the son representing Jesus himself. Thus Matthew puts in additional detail by having some servants stoned.

    The key message here is that there was an expectation of result from the planting of this vineyard, and that the appropriate return is refused to the owner.

    6He still had one other person he could send–a beloved son. He finally sent him to them, saying, ‘They will honor my son!’ 7But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir! Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’

    It’s an odd sort of logic that is going on here. Did the tenants really expect to get by with this type of behavior? Did they hope, perhaps that the owner would decide this wasn’t worth the effort and risk, and never return? Speculation on that might go beyond the purpose of the parable, but I do think Jesus is placing an emphasis on the perverse nature of the behavior of the servants. They had every reason to hand over the fruit. It was their duty to do so, yet they determined not to, no matter what happened.

    8So they took him and killed him and threw him outside the vineyard. 9What then will the owner of that vineyard do? He will go and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

    The punishment is severe, but in proportion to the offense. I would point out that while the parable in its original intent clearly applies to the Israelite leaders, it is specifically to the leaders that it does apply. There is no notion here that God is throwing out Israel. Rather, the corrupt temple leadership which is not fulfilling God’s mandate for his people is to be eliminated, and the vineyard will be otherwise cared for.

    10Have you never read this scripture:

    The stone that the builders rejected
    is the very one that has become the cornerstone?
    11This comes from the Lord
    And it looks marvelous to us!”

    This passage and quotation (Psalm 118:22-23) emphasize the topic of the rejection of Jesus. Jesus certainly does see himself here as a man with a mission from God, and he also sees rejection of his mission as a grave hazard to the nations. By missing his agenda, the leaders are flirting with disaster.

    With the hindsight of history, we can say that rejecting the peaceful way that Jesus espoused certainly did lead to disaster, as Judea and Galilee attempted twice in only a little more than a century to throw off the Roman yoke. Their efforts were paid for in blood. It is common to think of those revolutionaries as the true patriots. But they might have done well to try a different approach.

    12And they sought to seize him, but they were afraid of the crowd, for they knew that the parable was spoken against them. They left him and went away. — Mark 12:1-12

    Mar 12:12They feared the multitude – How wonderful is the providence of God, using all things for the good of his children! Generally the multitude is restrained from tearing them in pieces only by the fear of their rulers. And here the rulers themselves are restrained, through fear of the multitude! — John Wesley

  • Notes on Mark 11:27-33

    These notes are intended to accompany my podcast A Question of Authority.

    Interpretations of this passage tend to focus on the conflict and how Jesus got out of it. He did, indeed, avoid a difficult situation in a very creative way. But there is an additional realm of discussion. Jesus suggested an entirely different way to think of authority.

    Working Translation and Notes

    27They entered Jerusalem again and while he was walking in the temple, the chief priests, scribes and elders came to him 28and said to him, “By what authority do you do these things? Or who gave you the authority to do these things?”

    These leaders quite naturally expect (or would require) an ordination or sending by an existing authority; Jesus is claiming to be an authority by authorization of God. Notice that questioning the authority of the temple hierarchy, which Jesus had done by casting out the money changers, was not an uncommon thing amongst Jews in the first century. This questioning would have been something Jesus had in common with the Pharisees, for example. Where he would differ with all of them would be in the solution.

    29But Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one thing, and if you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I’m doing these things. 30John’s baptism–was it from heaven, or from human sources? Answer me!”

    Besides the problem they think of (next verse), there is a simple problem here. If they answered this question they would imply something about how they thought authority could be verified. Their own authority rested partially on the Roman government, which had gotten involved in appointing the high priests, so there were any number of problems for them in this situation.

    31And they debated amongst themselves, saying, “If we say ‘From heaven’ he will say ‘then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32But if we say, ‘from human sources’”–they feared the crowd, because all held that John was a prophet.

    The crowd is neither an unmixed curse, nor an unmixed blessing. A crowd can often be led too easily. In fact, this precise question—the question of the source of authority—is very relevant to that particular issue. In his answer Jesus also suggested to the crowd something to consider. Why did they follow John the Baptist? Was it because of someone else’s authority, or because they recognized God speaking through him?

    33So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” — Mark 11:27-33

    But in a sense Jesus did answer their question by implying the possibilities. John the Baptist did not have an ordination or a warrant from accepted leadership. He proclaimed God’s message and people listened. Jesus could have mentioned at this point that John had endorsed his ministry, but what would have been the point? Jesus did not derive his authority from things that John the Baptist said about him, but from his heavenly father.

    Jesus had a way of not answering a question that frustrated those who were not honest seekers, and yet went well beyond an answer for those who were truly seeking.