at last we come to a father of the church whose whole life is on record.
of those of his predecessors we know hardly anything, except what we gather from their writings
and a little scrappy information.
..he was also, next to augustine, the most voluminous writer, though much of his work is lost.
origines adamantius was born at alexandria..
was the son of a devout christian, leonidas, who was either an egyptian or a greek
and was martyred in 202.
origen..then a boy of sixteen, encouraged his father
and entreated him not to be deterred from martyrdom by his affection for his wife and child.
indeed, it was only by hiding his clothes that his mother prevented the boy from offering himself as well.
there is a touching story that when origen was a child his father used to kiss his breast as he lay in bed,
regarding it as the temple of the Holy Ghost.
so that from childhood origen was dedicated to the church,
which he served unceasingly and with never flagging enthusiasm and industry till his death.
from his father he received an excellent all round education,
which enabled him at 18 to succeed clement as the head of the catechetical school.
in his youth he is said to have been seized by a mob,
carried to the temple of serapis,
dressed as a priest,
and ordered to distribute palms to the people
whereupon he distributed them boldly, not in the name of an ido,
but of their true Lord, Jesus Christ.
on his father's death, his mother being in poverty, he was patronized by a rich alexandrian lady
and gave lessons in grammar, collecting at the same time a library
but as he wished to be independent, he shortly afterwards sold the library for an annuity
of the equivalent of sixpence a day, resolving to teach gratuitously in future.
at the same time he led a completely ascetic life, sleeping on bare boards
and following literally the instruction in matthew not to have two coats or to wear shoes.
he seems to have been always working or praying, for he prayed into the middle of the night.
he is also said to have become an eunuch 'for the kingdom of heaven's sake'..
but his asceticism never made him austere in his relation to others.
from 204-215 he retained his position as catechist,..till 29 years of age.
..he also converted plutarch and accompanied him to his martyr's death.
indeed, he always made a point of cheering and encouraging the martyrs
and as a born christian seems to have been in less danger than the converts.
in 215 origen fled from alexandria on the occasion of a persecution of literary men by caracalla,
in revenge for some satirical writing; and about this time visited rome.
he also paid a visit to arabia to give religious instruction
and also to julia mammaea at antioch, the mother of alexander severus, afterwards emperor.
..was recalled to alexandria.
the next ten years were spent less in teaching than in writing.
during this period he was financed by ambrosius, formerly a valentinian gnostic, whom he had converted.
this useful friend provided him with 7 shorhand clerks, 7 transcribers
and a number of girls who were skilled in caligraphy.
then in 228 (aged 42) he went to greece by invitation for controversial purposes.
on the way, probably to strengthen his position,
the bishops of caesarea and jerusalem, or rather one of them, ordained him
and this finally turned demetrius (bishop of alexandria) against him,
so that when he returned to alexandria in 231, he found his position intolerable.
the complaint against him was that he had committed a breach of church order
in receiving ordination from any other than his own bishop;
possibly also that his self mutilation disqualified him.
there is no evidence that his views were questioned..
at any rate demetius called a local synod, which forbade origen to teach, but refused to depose him.
he therefore left alexandria for caesarea.
a little later demetrius called together three other bishops, who excommunicated and banished him.
where he got these bishops is not explained...
the eastern bishops, however, remained origin's firm friend.
on his way to caesara he preached in jerusalem on psalm
(
note: isaiah? 1.16-7
wash yourselves; make yourselves clean
remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes
cease to do evil,
learn to do good; seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow'.)
is said to have wept bitterly on giving out the text.
in 235 he retired, owing to a persecution, to cappadocia (central turkey),
where he was sheltered by a learned christian lady, juliana.
this lady possessed a valuable library, which was of great use to him,
especially as it included symmachus' translation of the old testament,
which he was thus enabled to include in the hexapla.
on that marvellous work of textual criticism he was engaged for 28 years.
he returned to palestine in 238.
finally we find him at tyre, where in 251 he was put to the torture in prison,
from the effect of which he never recovered.
his death at tyre occurred in 253/4;
the last work of his life being the 'contra celsum',
which was the crowning christian apology
and directed against the most powerful of all pagan attacks on christianity.
as regards the Tradition he says:
'seeing there are many who think they hold the opinion of Christ,
and yet some of them think differently from their predecessors;
yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles
and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved,
that alone is to be accepted as truth, which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition'.
..he then goes on to say that
'the holy apostles delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain necessary points,
leaving the grounds of their statements to be examined into by those who should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, ie. gifts of language, wisdom and knowledge.
but there were also, he thought, many points which were left entirely open to private speculation
the creed which follows is essentially, as with his predecessors, the apostles creed;
but with certain amplifications.
for instance, 'the Holy Ghost is associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son,
but it is not clearly distinguished (ie. by the apostolic tradition) whether a Son of God or not.
...the immense work which origen did in connection with the bible,
writing commentaries on almost every book,
and also criticizing various texts in his hexapla,
calls for a note here on the new testament canon.
until the period of the councils, no authoritative declaration was made by the church
as to the limits of the new testament or what books were to be considered inspired and what apocryphal.
books like the shepherd of hermas, the epistle of barabas, possibly the epistle of clement of rome
and many others, were treated as almost, if not quite, scripture;
and the views of the different churches varied.
but in the third century these apocryphal (doubtful author or authenticity) books
had almost entirely lost their hold,
and all the new testament books were firmly established,
except hebrews, james, II+III john, II peter and jude.
about these there was still a difference of opinion.
origen, as representing the church of alexandria,
accepted generally all the new teatament,
but spoke with caution of the disputed books;
he though II peter doubtful, also II+III john.
he once also admitted some doubt as to the authenticity of jude.
he also spoke of 'the epistle in circulation under the name of james.
as regards hebrews he says:
'i should say that the thoughts are the apostle's,
but the diction and composition that of some one who recorded from memory the apostle's teaching
and, as it were, illustrates with a brief commentary the sayings of his master...
the men of old time handed it down as paul's;
but who it was that wrote it, Cod alone knows certainly.
some say clement, while others assign it to luke. ...
the carthaginian church ignored Hebrews;tertullian accepted jude,
but appears not to have known james, II+III john or II peter.
the roman church did not accept hebrews as pauline. in asia minor there was no trace of jude and james; II peter very uncertain.
in the church of antioch the canon seems to have been complete about 300.
the muratorian canon gives the earliest list extant.
it was published in 1740 from a manuscript in milan,
which had been transcribed in the seventh or eighth century from a previous manuscript of about 170.
this omits james, II peter, hebrews.
the following books, therefore, hebrews, james, II peter, II+III john are called by roman catholics
deutero-canonical, as having been accepted later.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
11.30.2013 CHURCH FATHERS 7 - clement of alexandria - presbyter; head of the catechetical school, 190-202
'christianity is the heir of all past time and the interpreter of the future'
'philosophy also is a creation of Divine Providence'./
'the true Gnostic makes all philosophy his own,
because it is the divine preparation for the gospel;
he uses and studies the world because the world leads him to God'.
these sentences of his form suitable mottoes for ..clement,
since they express exactly the position taken up under his influence by the christian school of alexandria,
in advance of st. justin and in direct opposition to tertullian.
it is at last recognized that God was educating the world before the coming of Christ,
and that not by judaism alone.
the truth is now established that reason as well as revelation is a gift of God
and being so established, christian teachers have no longer any hesitation
in using existing philosophic methods and working over such philosophic doctrines the christian theology.
for a thousand years the great city of alexandria was the centre of all learning
and never, except in athens at her best period, was there such a brilliant home of culture.
founded in 322 bc by alexander the great, 15 years after the death of plato,
it at once assumed a literary importance
and on alexander's death the ptolemies nobly carried out the founder's intention.
the first of them established a library with 50,000 rolls of books,
the number of books gradually increasing to 500,000 or according to one account 700,000.
it was to the ptolemies also that the jews owed the septuagint.
the library was in two buildings-the museum (a place for musing or reflection) and the temple of serapis.
of these, the former was partially destroyed by fire in the time of julius caesar,
but replenished by cleopatra's present of the pregamus collection to mark antony.
the temple of serapis was destroyed in a christian riot in 391
and soon after that time both the learning and the christianity of alexandria began to decay,
until both alike were swept away by mahommedanism in the seventh century.
when hadrian visted alexandrea, he wrote that
'no one was idle-not even the blind, the lame or the crippled'
also that the people wer 'fickle, uncertain, blown about by every gust of rumour'.
the fact was that alexandrians were eclectic and critical.
the special feature of the alexandrian thought, christian, jewish and pagan alike,
was that it tried to absorb the best of everything
and be satisfied with nothing.
thus when origen, the great successor of clement, attended the lectures of the neo platonists,
over the door of the school were the opening verses of john's gospel
while numenius, a pagan, said that plato was only moses speaking greek.
but there was also a strong imaginative sentiment in all the schools,
which had 'a tendency to evaprate religion into allegory and philosophy into dreamy speculation,
while the critical spirit marred the creative power'.
thus alexandria..'with her learning and subtlety gathered together and fused all the elements of the old world
and created in her own manner a sort of universalism, vague rather than broad,
in which the religions of east and west were alike deprived of their exclusive character,
judaism itself being made to enter into alliance with the polytheistic religions,
which it so long proscribed.
born of this heterogeneous union, the alexandrian mind rose above all national divergences,
but it also rose above reality and above history, to the cloudy summits of speculation
and was utterly wanting in the historic sense.
strong in its allegorical method, it sported with facts;
and its philosophical theories were at once aspiring and unsubstantial.
the great proportion of jews in alexandria was remarkable.
a considerable number were imported by alexander himself into the city
and another forced importation was afterwards made in the time of ptolemy soter.
by the time of clement the nation had increased their numbers
to about 100,000 out of a total population of 300,000 besides the slaves
and they occupied two out of the five quarters into which the city was divided.
no wonder then that the influence of jewish upon alexandrian thought was very considerable.
but the reverse was also the case.
even earlier than our Lord's time, there were many jewish teachers in alexandria,
who caught the allegorizing spirit, and applied it widely to the old testament.
at the same time they had to some extent transformed
the jewish idea of Jehovah into the platonic idea of God or possibly his 'idea of the good'.
against this tendency, philo, the principal jewish-alexandrine, who was a contemporary of our Lord,
raised a partial protest;
partial, because he was himself carried away by the allegorizing tendency to a great extent.
but while he admitted that much of the less essential parts of the old testament were full of allegory,
there was always, he taught, an irreducible minimum, which was not only exactly and literally true,
but of divine revelation
and accordance with this revelation must be the test of the truth of all other philosophies.
the jews were, in his vies, priests and prophets for all mankind.
here, then, were two important facts which paved the way for the acceptance of christianity.
there had been a distinct revelation from God which established AUTHORITY:
there was a revealed message from God to ALL MANKIND.
but when it came to metaphysics, philo adapted himself to platonic views;
as, for instance, the divine apathy-that the first cause was behind all thought and feeling, passionless
also that matter was eternal.
but again, as thought and power must necessarily precede creation,
he accepted a theory of personalities, something like the aeons of the gnostics.
thought and power were among them;
but the chief of these forces was the Logos, the Mind of God declaring itself,
but a persona Mind and also essentially God.
here, then, were the two schools of though with which christianity had to contend,
and which she finally vanquished
the one an Eclectic Pagan school, which was founded mainly on plato,
but had incorporated material from all the other philosophic systems of the world;
the other a jewish school following to some extent the same lines
but with a foundation of Revelation, a message to mankind,
and a literature which christianity had already annexed.
the greeks had and opinion (pistis...faith): the jews a practical conviction (gnOsis...knowledge).
according to a tradition which lightfoot considers may be accepted,
the alexandrean church was founded by st. mark, probably as early as 40.
hence it was often called the evangelical see.
it is probable also that mark was the emissary of peter.
the catechetical school, which became so celebrated later on, may have been also founded by mark..
for a long time, however, it was only a training school for catechumens.
the correctness of the list of early alexandrine bishops is very doubtful,
nor were any of them prominent characters till towards the end of the third century.
the head of the catechetical school, who was appointed by the bishop,
but not necessarily even in orders, was a much more important personage.
...clement represents in three different ways a transitional period in christian history:
a transition from oral tradition to written definitions
from a study of the main points of revelation to that of the whole realm of human experience
a taking over of the whole life as an object of christian discipline.
his works are full of learning and contain quotations from 500 other authors.
he quotes from nearly all the books of the bible and also from many uncanonical books,
as if they were scripture.
like his predecessors and his contemporary tertullian, he recognizes
the 'tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles.'.
but the chief point in all his teaching is his claim..that the world's education was on a divine plan
and that if the law was the schoolmaster to lead the jews to Christ,
philosophy was the schoolmaster to lead the greek mind there.
...as regards clement's theology, his view was that it was impossible to give any written account of GOD,
that He was raised above all speech and thought and therefore undemonstrable
...yet God is completely known through the SON (logos)
who is wisdom, truth, science and everything of the same order.
thus He is the demonstration and explanation of truth
and the incarnation of the logos is the crown and consummation of the history of the world..
..of the trinity..'the Father of the universe is one: the Word of the universe is one:
the HOLY SPIRIT is one and the same everywhere
..as regards the atonement, 'christians are redeemed from corruption by the blood of the Lord
the Lord gave Himself as a Victim for us ..
..as regards BAPTISM..'it is a sovereign medicine, by which we are cleansed from all our sins
and cease at once to be wicked.
sins after baptism were to be purged by discipline, of which a part was public confession. (note: bible?)
this discipline is so necessary, that if not completed here, it must be after death
and it is then effected by a fire which pervades the soul, which is not destructive, but discriminating. (note!!!!)
LORD'S SUPPER..in eucharistic doctrine clement is rather deficient
and he seems rather to tend to symbolic teaching. (note: wrong?)
thus, 'the Lord in the Gospel brought this out by symbols,
when He said 'eat My flesh' and 'drink My blood' ,
describing exactly by metaphors the drinkable properties of faith and the promise'.
this is so unlike MOST of the patristic teaching
(note: is this or the bible the standard? is there no room for different interpretations?)
that one cannot help feeling that he was carried away by his tendency to allegorize.
li
'philosophy also is a creation of Divine Providence'./
'the true Gnostic makes all philosophy his own,
because it is the divine preparation for the gospel;
he uses and studies the world because the world leads him to God'.
these sentences of his form suitable mottoes for ..clement,
since they express exactly the position taken up under his influence by the christian school of alexandria,
in advance of st. justin and in direct opposition to tertullian.
it is at last recognized that God was educating the world before the coming of Christ,
and that not by judaism alone.
the truth is now established that reason as well as revelation is a gift of God
and being so established, christian teachers have no longer any hesitation
in using existing philosophic methods and working over such philosophic doctrines the christian theology.
for a thousand years the great city of alexandria was the centre of all learning
and never, except in athens at her best period, was there such a brilliant home of culture.
founded in 322 bc by alexander the great, 15 years after the death of plato,
it at once assumed a literary importance
and on alexander's death the ptolemies nobly carried out the founder's intention.
the first of them established a library with 50,000 rolls of books,
the number of books gradually increasing to 500,000 or according to one account 700,000.
it was to the ptolemies also that the jews owed the septuagint.
the library was in two buildings-the museum (a place for musing or reflection) and the temple of serapis.
of these, the former was partially destroyed by fire in the time of julius caesar,
but replenished by cleopatra's present of the pregamus collection to mark antony.
the temple of serapis was destroyed in a christian riot in 391
and soon after that time both the learning and the christianity of alexandria began to decay,
until both alike were swept away by mahommedanism in the seventh century.
when hadrian visted alexandrea, he wrote that
'no one was idle-not even the blind, the lame or the crippled'
also that the people wer 'fickle, uncertain, blown about by every gust of rumour'.
the fact was that alexandrians were eclectic and critical.
the special feature of the alexandrian thought, christian, jewish and pagan alike,
was that it tried to absorb the best of everything
and be satisfied with nothing.
thus when origen, the great successor of clement, attended the lectures of the neo platonists,
over the door of the school were the opening verses of john's gospel
while numenius, a pagan, said that plato was only moses speaking greek.
but there was also a strong imaginative sentiment in all the schools,
which had 'a tendency to evaprate religion into allegory and philosophy into dreamy speculation,
while the critical spirit marred the creative power'.
thus alexandria..'with her learning and subtlety gathered together and fused all the elements of the old world
and created in her own manner a sort of universalism, vague rather than broad,
in which the religions of east and west were alike deprived of their exclusive character,
judaism itself being made to enter into alliance with the polytheistic religions,
which it so long proscribed.
born of this heterogeneous union, the alexandrian mind rose above all national divergences,
but it also rose above reality and above history, to the cloudy summits of speculation
and was utterly wanting in the historic sense.
strong in its allegorical method, it sported with facts;
and its philosophical theories were at once aspiring and unsubstantial.
the great proportion of jews in alexandria was remarkable.
a considerable number were imported by alexander himself into the city
and another forced importation was afterwards made in the time of ptolemy soter.
by the time of clement the nation had increased their numbers
to about 100,000 out of a total population of 300,000 besides the slaves
and they occupied two out of the five quarters into which the city was divided.
no wonder then that the influence of jewish upon alexandrian thought was very considerable.
but the reverse was also the case.
even earlier than our Lord's time, there were many jewish teachers in alexandria,
who caught the allegorizing spirit, and applied it widely to the old testament.
at the same time they had to some extent transformed
the jewish idea of Jehovah into the platonic idea of God or possibly his 'idea of the good'.
against this tendency, philo, the principal jewish-alexandrine, who was a contemporary of our Lord,
raised a partial protest;
partial, because he was himself carried away by the allegorizing tendency to a great extent.
but while he admitted that much of the less essential parts of the old testament were full of allegory,
there was always, he taught, an irreducible minimum, which was not only exactly and literally true,
but of divine revelation
and accordance with this revelation must be the test of the truth of all other philosophies.
the jews were, in his vies, priests and prophets for all mankind.
here, then, were two important facts which paved the way for the acceptance of christianity.
there had been a distinct revelation from God which established AUTHORITY:
there was a revealed message from God to ALL MANKIND.
but when it came to metaphysics, philo adapted himself to platonic views;
as, for instance, the divine apathy-that the first cause was behind all thought and feeling, passionless
also that matter was eternal.
but again, as thought and power must necessarily precede creation,
he accepted a theory of personalities, something like the aeons of the gnostics.
thought and power were among them;
but the chief of these forces was the Logos, the Mind of God declaring itself,
but a persona Mind and also essentially God.
here, then, were the two schools of though with which christianity had to contend,
and which she finally vanquished
the one an Eclectic Pagan school, which was founded mainly on plato,
but had incorporated material from all the other philosophic systems of the world;
the other a jewish school following to some extent the same lines
but with a foundation of Revelation, a message to mankind,
and a literature which christianity had already annexed.
the greeks had and opinion (pistis...faith): the jews a practical conviction (gnOsis...knowledge).
according to a tradition which lightfoot considers may be accepted,
the alexandrean church was founded by st. mark, probably as early as 40.
hence it was often called the evangelical see.
it is probable also that mark was the emissary of peter.
the catechetical school, which became so celebrated later on, may have been also founded by mark..
for a long time, however, it was only a training school for catechumens.
the correctness of the list of early alexandrine bishops is very doubtful,
nor were any of them prominent characters till towards the end of the third century.
the head of the catechetical school, who was appointed by the bishop,
but not necessarily even in orders, was a much more important personage.
...clement represents in three different ways a transitional period in christian history:
a transition from oral tradition to written definitions
from a study of the main points of revelation to that of the whole realm of human experience
a taking over of the whole life as an object of christian discipline.
his works are full of learning and contain quotations from 500 other authors.
he quotes from nearly all the books of the bible and also from many uncanonical books,
as if they were scripture.
like his predecessors and his contemporary tertullian, he recognizes
the 'tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles.'.
but the chief point in all his teaching is his claim..that the world's education was on a divine plan
and that if the law was the schoolmaster to lead the jews to Christ,
philosophy was the schoolmaster to lead the greek mind there.
...as regards clement's theology, his view was that it was impossible to give any written account of GOD,
that He was raised above all speech and thought and therefore undemonstrable
...yet God is completely known through the SON (logos)
who is wisdom, truth, science and everything of the same order.
thus He is the demonstration and explanation of truth
and the incarnation of the logos is the crown and consummation of the history of the world..
..of the trinity..'the Father of the universe is one: the Word of the universe is one:
the HOLY SPIRIT is one and the same everywhere
..as regards the atonement, 'christians are redeemed from corruption by the blood of the Lord
the Lord gave Himself as a Victim for us ..
..as regards BAPTISM..'it is a sovereign medicine, by which we are cleansed from all our sins
and cease at once to be wicked.
sins after baptism were to be purged by discipline, of which a part was public confession. (note: bible?)
this discipline is so necessary, that if not completed here, it must be after death
and it is then effected by a fire which pervades the soul, which is not destructive, but discriminating. (note!!!!)
LORD'S SUPPER..in eucharistic doctrine clement is rather deficient
and he seems rather to tend to symbolic teaching. (note: wrong?)
thus, 'the Lord in the Gospel brought this out by symbols,
when He said 'eat My flesh' and 'drink My blood' ,
describing exactly by metaphors the drinkable properties of faith and the promise'.
this is so unlike MOST of the patristic teaching
(note: is this or the bible the standard? is there no room for different interpretations?)
that one cannot help feeling that he was carried away by his tendency to allegorize.
li
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
11.27.2013 CHURCH FATHERS 6 -tertullian, apologist, 150-220/40
tertullian was one of the most powerfu personalities in early church history,
and one of the most forcible and voluminous writers.
he introduces us in africa to an entirely new phase of church lif and thought.
and was also the founder of western theology and of ecclesiastical latin.
the influence of the african church was great on christianity generally, but especially on the west,
till the fifth century;
but when and by whom it was first planted no one knows;
(note: the ethiopian eunuch who was reading isaiah uncomprehendingly,
who philip led to Christ and baptized in the countryside as he was headed for home?)
suddenly it comes into history, fully organized and under many bishops,
towards the close of the second century.
africa, as we must now consider it, was not the whole northern seaboard of africa,
but the roman provice of africa, which in a general way
corresponded with the modern seaboards of tunis and tripoli.
the african chuch, therefore, was distinct from the church of egypt
which centered at alexandria and was greek.
the centre of the african church was carthage, which had been destroyed and ploughed up in 146 b.c.
but was colonized afresh by julius caesar in 46 b.c.
and in the second and third centuries was a prosperous trading colony;
without an aristocracy or a distinctive school of philosophy
and therefore with no great interest in the metaphysical questions which troubled the eastern mind;
eminently practical and so far as it was christianized,
profoundly interested in all that concerned the moral and spiritual welfare of mankind.
..the gifts of prophesying and of tongues were among the earliest features of the church;
but what either exactly meant is involved in some obscurity.
prophesying was apparently a kind of extempore preaching'
and those who had the gift formed something like an order,
instructing and edifying being a work rather assigned to them than to the presbyters.
that is comparatively simple. the speaking in tongues is more difficult to understan'
but what is most important to observe in it is that it was connected with ecstasy or trance.
it was recognized by irenaeus, who says,
'we have many brethren in the Church having prophetical gifts
and by the spirit speaking all kinds of tongues.'
by the fourth century, however, the speaking with tongues had disappeared;
for chrysostome says of it,
'this whole topic is very obscure;
but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts described,
which are such as then used to appear, but now no longer take place'.
to some extent, however, it reappeared in the prophesyings of the 15th century,
in Quietism in the 17th, among the quakers in the 17th and 18th and the irvingites in the 19th.
montanus, therefore, in the middle of the second century..
was not striking out any new line;
the innovation lay in the way he used his gift.
he was himself a phrygian, and had been a priest of cybele,
and was altogether a weak minded person.
after his conversion he commenced prophesying
and associated with himself two deaconesses, maximilla and priscilla,
who like him gave utterances 'in the spirit';
the essential condition being, that the mind was absolutely passive
and that they spirit swept over it, like the plectrum over the lyre
-a condition, in fact, of trance or ecstasy.
montanus called himself, and was called by his followers, the Paraclete;
not that he claimed to be the Holy Ghost Incarnate,
but that through him and his equally inspired and spiritual followers the Spirit
made fresh and suplementary revelations...
tertullian, writing as a montanist, calls the old testament dispensation Infancy, the New Youth,
and the days of the paraclete Maturity.
these parts of the christian dispensation, he teaches, which relate to the life and conversation,
admit to change and improvement.
on this very account our Lord sent the paraclete, to the end that,
as the weakness of man's nature rendered him incapable of bearing the whole truth at once,
the christian rule of life might be carried to perfection by the Holy Spirit substituted in the place of our Lord.
here, then, is the first sign of the roman catholic doctrine of development.
cardinal newman admits and in fact claims this, saying in his essay on development,
'the very foundation of montanism was development, though not of doctrine, yet of discipline and conduct.
and T, he adds, understood even the process of it.
...montanism..forerunner of development, ..was also of puritanism..in its most extreme form.
it tried to raise an impossible standard for humanity.
fasting a was carried to an impracticable point.
marriage was undesirable.
second marriage, which the church only dicouraged, was adultery.
military service was barred.
amusement of all kind was sinful.
profane learning was forbidden.
only those who could realize these high ideals were true christians and these were called the Spiritales;
the ordinary Catholics were only Psychichi, possessing souls, but not spirits;
sometimes they were only Carnales, mere bodily existences.
rule in the church depended on spiritual endowments and not on church order.
they exaggerated the idea of the priesthood of the laity.
they distinguished between venial and mortal sins.
..no doubt they were confronted with a growing worldliness in the church,
and there was some good in their aim;
but the effect on character was to produce gloominess, acerbity and spiritual pride.
this at any rate was the effect produced on tertullian.
they held firmly to orthodox doctrine; so did he.
indeed his most splendid doctrinal works were of the montanist period.
...his relation to tradition is seen in the praescription of heretics written when a catholic.
praescriptio was a legal term, putting the other side out of court before the cause was tried..
..because they do not obey the rule of faith;
which is that 'which prescribes the belief that there is only one God
and that He is none other than the creator of the world,
who produced all things out of nothing through His own word first of all sent forth
that the word is called His Son,
and under the name of God was seen in divers manners by the patriarchs;
heard at times by the prophets;
at last brought down by the Spirit and power of the Father into the Virgin Mary;
was made flesh in her womb and being born of her went forth as Jesus Christ
thenceforth preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven and worked miracl3es.
having been crucified, He rose again the third day
then having been caught away into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father
sent in His place the power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe
will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of eternal life and the heavenly promises,
and to condemn the wicked to eternal fire,
after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened together with the restoration of their flesh.
this rule, as ti will be proved, was taught by Christ.
..this is again substantially the apostles creed, as stated by irenaeus, but now in quite different words...
..here are a few famous sayings of T-
'what greater pleasure is there than to despise pleasure?the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
a christian must be made, not born.
Christ is truth, not custom.
it is contrary to religion to compel religion.
marcion...T was his principal refuter
..some account must be given of him
since, however much we may doubt
whether the other Gnostics were heretics or simply teachers of a rival philosophy,
marcion, the son of a bishop of sinope, started entirely from a christian standpoint
always sought to be restored to communion
founded a church of his own, which claimed to be christian in the fullest sense
but to explain his own peculiar views borrowed largely from the Gnostics.
he was ..a heretic, and the most dangerous of the gnostics
therefore polycarp called him 'the firstborn of satan'.
..T..devoted 5 books to him.
m came to rome to promulgate his views, but the Roman church refused him communion.
by this time all the heretical teachers had invaded rome.
..now the church there likewise partook of the words of tacitus..
'rome was a sink into which flowed all the crimes and baseness of the world'.
when M was refused communion, he asked the meaning of 'putting new wine into old bottles''
and made this the keynote of his teaching.
the new testament was not a completion or fulfilment of the old, but antagonistic to it.
the old..was to be entirely repudiated
and so much of the new as well,
as did not support his own view
which was that Christ was not the jewish messiah, who had yet to appear,
but the Son of the supreme God, who came to redeem the world form the imperfect deity of the old ..
-the demiurge in fact.
he said that Christ never came in the flesh at all, but only as a spirit:
so he is docetic-indeed more than all of them.
M's theology was a dualism.
there was a good God and a just God, meaning by just, inexorable (eye for eye and tooth for tooth)
the latter did not emanate from the former, but was a separate First Principle
...his just god was opposed to his good God, not as evil to good, but as imperfection to perfection.
he accepted just so much of the new testament as he could conveniently argue from;
10 of pau's epistles, and a mutilated edition of st luke (as paul's companion),
arranged by himself to suit the requirements of what he thought was the gospel according to paul,
whom he recognized as his great mater, but whose teaching he twisted and exaggerated.
the rest of the new testament he considered was written by judaizers.
T replied to the dualism of M
that if both his Gods were equal, possessing supreme power, duration and self existence,
they were really one
if unequal, only the higher was God at all
and if two, why not thirty?
how could material things be evil, or the work of imperfect deity,
if Christ used them in His sacraments?
since Christ has now come, why is Matter still allowed to continue?
why was Chris's redemption so long delayed?
why was all this unknown till marcion discovered it?
the antagonism between the testaments he refuted from paul's writings, which M had embodied
in his doctored bible.
the cavils against the old testament were met by showing, partly that he had misrepresented facts,
partly that he had drawn wrong inferences.
...T is said to have trampled on gnosticism,
as later athanasius did on arianism.
and one of the most forcible and voluminous writers.
he introduces us in africa to an entirely new phase of church lif and thought.
and was also the founder of western theology and of ecclesiastical latin.
the influence of the african church was great on christianity generally, but especially on the west,
till the fifth century;
but when and by whom it was first planted no one knows;
(note: the ethiopian eunuch who was reading isaiah uncomprehendingly,
who philip led to Christ and baptized in the countryside as he was headed for home?)
suddenly it comes into history, fully organized and under many bishops,
towards the close of the second century.
africa, as we must now consider it, was not the whole northern seaboard of africa,
but the roman provice of africa, which in a general way
corresponded with the modern seaboards of tunis and tripoli.
the african chuch, therefore, was distinct from the church of egypt
which centered at alexandria and was greek.
the centre of the african church was carthage, which had been destroyed and ploughed up in 146 b.c.
but was colonized afresh by julius caesar in 46 b.c.
and in the second and third centuries was a prosperous trading colony;
without an aristocracy or a distinctive school of philosophy
and therefore with no great interest in the metaphysical questions which troubled the eastern mind;
eminently practical and so far as it was christianized,
profoundly interested in all that concerned the moral and spiritual welfare of mankind.
..the gifts of prophesying and of tongues were among the earliest features of the church;
but what either exactly meant is involved in some obscurity.
prophesying was apparently a kind of extempore preaching'
and those who had the gift formed something like an order,
instructing and edifying being a work rather assigned to them than to the presbyters.
that is comparatively simple. the speaking in tongues is more difficult to understan'
but what is most important to observe in it is that it was connected with ecstasy or trance.
it was recognized by irenaeus, who says,
'we have many brethren in the Church having prophetical gifts
and by the spirit speaking all kinds of tongues.'
by the fourth century, however, the speaking with tongues had disappeared;
for chrysostome says of it,
'this whole topic is very obscure;
but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts described,
which are such as then used to appear, but now no longer take place'.
to some extent, however, it reappeared in the prophesyings of the 15th century,
in Quietism in the 17th, among the quakers in the 17th and 18th and the irvingites in the 19th.
montanus, therefore, in the middle of the second century..
was not striking out any new line;
the innovation lay in the way he used his gift.
he was himself a phrygian, and had been a priest of cybele,
and was altogether a weak minded person.
after his conversion he commenced prophesying
and associated with himself two deaconesses, maximilla and priscilla,
who like him gave utterances 'in the spirit';
the essential condition being, that the mind was absolutely passive
and that they spirit swept over it, like the plectrum over the lyre
-a condition, in fact, of trance or ecstasy.
montanus called himself, and was called by his followers, the Paraclete;
not that he claimed to be the Holy Ghost Incarnate,
but that through him and his equally inspired and spiritual followers the Spirit
made fresh and suplementary revelations...
tertullian, writing as a montanist, calls the old testament dispensation Infancy, the New Youth,
and the days of the paraclete Maturity.
these parts of the christian dispensation, he teaches, which relate to the life and conversation,
admit to change and improvement.
on this very account our Lord sent the paraclete, to the end that,
as the weakness of man's nature rendered him incapable of bearing the whole truth at once,
the christian rule of life might be carried to perfection by the Holy Spirit substituted in the place of our Lord.
here, then, is the first sign of the roman catholic doctrine of development.
cardinal newman admits and in fact claims this, saying in his essay on development,
'the very foundation of montanism was development, though not of doctrine, yet of discipline and conduct.
and T, he adds, understood even the process of it.
...montanism..forerunner of development, ..was also of puritanism..in its most extreme form.
it tried to raise an impossible standard for humanity.
fasting a was carried to an impracticable point.
marriage was undesirable.
second marriage, which the church only dicouraged, was adultery.
military service was barred.
amusement of all kind was sinful.
profane learning was forbidden.
only those who could realize these high ideals were true christians and these were called the Spiritales;
the ordinary Catholics were only Psychichi, possessing souls, but not spirits;
sometimes they were only Carnales, mere bodily existences.
rule in the church depended on spiritual endowments and not on church order.
they exaggerated the idea of the priesthood of the laity.
they distinguished between venial and mortal sins.
..no doubt they were confronted with a growing worldliness in the church,
and there was some good in their aim;
but the effect on character was to produce gloominess, acerbity and spiritual pride.
this at any rate was the effect produced on tertullian.
they held firmly to orthodox doctrine; so did he.
indeed his most splendid doctrinal works were of the montanist period.
...his relation to tradition is seen in the praescription of heretics written when a catholic.
praescriptio was a legal term, putting the other side out of court before the cause was tried..
..because they do not obey the rule of faith;
which is that 'which prescribes the belief that there is only one God
and that He is none other than the creator of the world,
who produced all things out of nothing through His own word first of all sent forth
that the word is called His Son,
and under the name of God was seen in divers manners by the patriarchs;
heard at times by the prophets;
at last brought down by the Spirit and power of the Father into the Virgin Mary;
was made flesh in her womb and being born of her went forth as Jesus Christ
thenceforth preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven and worked miracl3es.
having been crucified, He rose again the third day
then having been caught away into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father
sent in His place the power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe
will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of eternal life and the heavenly promises,
and to condemn the wicked to eternal fire,
after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened together with the restoration of their flesh.
this rule, as ti will be proved, was taught by Christ.
..this is again substantially the apostles creed, as stated by irenaeus, but now in quite different words...
..here are a few famous sayings of T-
'what greater pleasure is there than to despise pleasure?the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
a christian must be made, not born.
Christ is truth, not custom.
it is contrary to religion to compel religion.
marcion...T was his principal refuter
..some account must be given of him
since, however much we may doubt
whether the other Gnostics were heretics or simply teachers of a rival philosophy,
marcion, the son of a bishop of sinope, started entirely from a christian standpoint
always sought to be restored to communion
founded a church of his own, which claimed to be christian in the fullest sense
but to explain his own peculiar views borrowed largely from the Gnostics.
he was ..a heretic, and the most dangerous of the gnostics
therefore polycarp called him 'the firstborn of satan'.
..T..devoted 5 books to him.
m came to rome to promulgate his views, but the Roman church refused him communion.
by this time all the heretical teachers had invaded rome.
..now the church there likewise partook of the words of tacitus..
'rome was a sink into which flowed all the crimes and baseness of the world'.
when M was refused communion, he asked the meaning of 'putting new wine into old bottles''
and made this the keynote of his teaching.
the new testament was not a completion or fulfilment of the old, but antagonistic to it.
the old..was to be entirely repudiated
and so much of the new as well,
as did not support his own view
which was that Christ was not the jewish messiah, who had yet to appear,
but the Son of the supreme God, who came to redeem the world form the imperfect deity of the old ..
-the demiurge in fact.
he said that Christ never came in the flesh at all, but only as a spirit:
so he is docetic-indeed more than all of them.
M's theology was a dualism.
there was a good God and a just God, meaning by just, inexorable (eye for eye and tooth for tooth)
the latter did not emanate from the former, but was a separate First Principle
...his just god was opposed to his good God, not as evil to good, but as imperfection to perfection.
he accepted just so much of the new testament as he could conveniently argue from;
10 of pau's epistles, and a mutilated edition of st luke (as paul's companion),
arranged by himself to suit the requirements of what he thought was the gospel according to paul,
whom he recognized as his great mater, but whose teaching he twisted and exaggerated.
the rest of the new testament he considered was written by judaizers.
T replied to the dualism of M
that if both his Gods were equal, possessing supreme power, duration and self existence,
they were really one
if unequal, only the higher was God at all
and if two, why not thirty?
how could material things be evil, or the work of imperfect deity,
if Christ used them in His sacraments?
since Christ has now come, why is Matter still allowed to continue?
why was Chris's redemption so long delayed?
why was all this unknown till marcion discovered it?
the antagonism between the testaments he refuted from paul's writings, which M had embodied
in his doctored bible.
the cavils against the old testament were met by showing, partly that he had misrepresented facts,
partly that he had drawn wrong inferences.
...T is said to have trampled on gnosticism,
as later athanasius did on arianism.
11.27.2013 - CHURCH FATHERS 5 - justin martyr, apologist, born very early in second century. beheaded at rome 166
this man was basically an apologist for christianity.
later there also were apologias by tertullian, clement of alexandria and origin but
justin martyr was the apologist of the second century.
his first and most important was during the time antonius pius from 140-150
his second 164
also 'dialogue with trypho, an apology for christianity as opposed to judaism
the apologists seem to stand apart from the general history of christian thought.
the period of the apologists proper extends through nearly the whole of the second century,
the central figure being justin;
tertullian, clement of alexandria and origen, however, also wrote famous apologies,
but were not primarily apologists...
when hadrian came to the throne, the mild character of the man and his interest in foreign religions
seemed to present an opportunity to christians to make a frank appeal at rome for fair play.
during his reign quadratus and aristides presented the earliest apologies...
these apologies may have been actually read by the emperors or they may only have been
published in the form of 'open letters'.
in the reign of antonius pius, about 140-150,
justin produced his first and most important apology..
the apologists are not great theologians, though much may be learnt from justin as to the beliefs of the time.
the chief interest of their work lies in the pictures of christian life and worship at that day
and in fact that christians now make their first claim to state recognition.
justin had to defend his religion in three quarters, against
1. the state authorities
2. popular prejudice
3. the educated classes.
the state indeed cared very little about the religious point of view,
so long as no sedition was involved in it.
no christian was to be hunted out for punishment;
but if informed against as a revolutionary,
he was put to the test of sacrificing to the state gods,
or acknowledging the Genius of the emperor;
failing that, he was considered no good citizen and must meet his fate.
but why was he an object of popular prejudice?
because in the popular mind he was licentious;
he indulged in wild orgies;
he fed on human flesh;
and having no temple he was presumably an atheist.
further, he knew no distinction of rank, even between freeman and slave
and from one cause or another, he held aloof from most of the social institutions of the time.
so they summed him up by calling him the 'enemy of the human race.'.
all these views therefore must be combated;
by showing the state that the other kingdom he look for was not of this world
and that his life, if true to his creed, was absolutely innocent,
so that he was really the best of citizens;
while to the populace was shown, instead of orgies, the christian service
and the awful accusation of cannibalism was refuted by the blessed sacrament.
finally he required no temple made with hands.
'all who are persuaded and believe that the things taught and affirmed by us are true
and who promise to be able to live accordingly,
are taught to pray and beg God with fasting to grant them forgiveness of their former sins,
and we pray and fast with them.
then we bring them where there is water
and after the same manner of regeneration as we were regenerated ourselves, they are regenerated.
for in the name of God the Father and Lord of all things and of our saviour Jesus Christ
and of the Holy Ghost,
they then receive the washing of water:
for indeed Christ also said, 'except ye be born again, etc...
but after thus washing him who has professed and given his assent we bring him
to those who are called brethren:
where they are assembled together to offer prayers in common both for ourselves
and for the person who has received illumination,
and all others everywhere with all our hearts that we might be vouchsafed, now that we have learnt the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the Commandments,
that we might obtain everlasting salvation.
we salute one another with a kiss when we have concluded the prayers
then is brought to the president bread and a cup of water and wine, which he receives
and offers up praise and glory to the Father of all things, through the name of His Son
and of the Holy Ghost
and he returns thanks at length for our being vouchsafed these things by Him.
when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all who are present express their assent
by saying amen.
when the president has celebrated the eucharist and all the people have assented,
they whom we call deacons
give to each of those who are present a portion of the eucharistic bread and wine and water
and carry them to those who are absent.
now this food is called the eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake
but he who believes the truth of our doctrines and has been washed in the laver
for the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration
and who so lives as Christ hath directed.
for we do not receive them as ordinary food or ordinary drink, by as by the word of God
Jesus Christ our saviour was made flesh and had both flesh and blood for our salvation,
so also the food which was blessed by the prayer of the word which proceeded from Him
and from which our flesh and blood by assimilation receive nourishment, is
we are taught, both the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
later on J says:
'now on the day that is called sunday there is an assembly
in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts
and the records of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as we have time.
then the reader concludes and the president verbally instructs and exhorts us
to the imitation of these excellent things.
then we all together rise and offer up our prayers...
..justin was well qualified to make this defence,
because he had been himself attracted to the christians by the purity of their lives,
by their fidelity to their creed
and by their contempt for death.
all these things struck him as incompatible with the crimes alleged against them.
previous to that he had tested all the philosophic systems in his desire to find the truth
-pythagorean, stoic, epicurian, platonic
and had given them all up in despair:
when one day he met on the seashore an old christian missionary
who explained to him the fulfilment of the hebrew prophesies.
having tested this by his own study, he adopted christianity and taught it,
as he had other systems, in his philosopher's cloak.
but he embraced it with all his heart,
and finally about 166 gave his life for it.
justin is not content in his apology to defend christianity,
but assumes a strong aggressive attitude against the popular superstitions.
his attitude towards polytheism is chiefly marked by his theory of the daemons,
but also by the toleration and kindly spirit which he showed towards the heathen.
..later apologists, with the approximate dates at which they wrote, were
tatian 160, a disciple of justin...lapsed into heresy
appolinaris 176
athenagoras 177
melito of sardis 177
hermias 180
and theophilus 180
but none of these are accounted Fathers,
...the last named was the first writer who used the greek word, trias or trinity.
later there also were apologias by tertullian, clement of alexandria and origin but
justin martyr was the apologist of the second century.
his first and most important was during the time antonius pius from 140-150
his second 164
also 'dialogue with trypho, an apology for christianity as opposed to judaism
the apologists seem to stand apart from the general history of christian thought.
the period of the apologists proper extends through nearly the whole of the second century,
the central figure being justin;
tertullian, clement of alexandria and origen, however, also wrote famous apologies,
but were not primarily apologists...
when hadrian came to the throne, the mild character of the man and his interest in foreign religions
seemed to present an opportunity to christians to make a frank appeal at rome for fair play.
during his reign quadratus and aristides presented the earliest apologies...
these apologies may have been actually read by the emperors or they may only have been
published in the form of 'open letters'.
in the reign of antonius pius, about 140-150,
justin produced his first and most important apology..
the apologists are not great theologians, though much may be learnt from justin as to the beliefs of the time.
the chief interest of their work lies in the pictures of christian life and worship at that day
and in fact that christians now make their first claim to state recognition.
justin had to defend his religion in three quarters, against
1. the state authorities
2. popular prejudice
3. the educated classes.
the state indeed cared very little about the religious point of view,
so long as no sedition was involved in it.
no christian was to be hunted out for punishment;
but if informed against as a revolutionary,
he was put to the test of sacrificing to the state gods,
or acknowledging the Genius of the emperor;
failing that, he was considered no good citizen and must meet his fate.
but why was he an object of popular prejudice?
because in the popular mind he was licentious;
he indulged in wild orgies;
he fed on human flesh;
and having no temple he was presumably an atheist.
further, he knew no distinction of rank, even between freeman and slave
and from one cause or another, he held aloof from most of the social institutions of the time.
so they summed him up by calling him the 'enemy of the human race.'.
all these views therefore must be combated;
by showing the state that the other kingdom he look for was not of this world
and that his life, if true to his creed, was absolutely innocent,
so that he was really the best of citizens;
while to the populace was shown, instead of orgies, the christian service
and the awful accusation of cannibalism was refuted by the blessed sacrament.
finally he required no temple made with hands.
'all who are persuaded and believe that the things taught and affirmed by us are true
and who promise to be able to live accordingly,
are taught to pray and beg God with fasting to grant them forgiveness of their former sins,
and we pray and fast with them.
then we bring them where there is water
and after the same manner of regeneration as we were regenerated ourselves, they are regenerated.
for in the name of God the Father and Lord of all things and of our saviour Jesus Christ
and of the Holy Ghost,
they then receive the washing of water:
for indeed Christ also said, 'except ye be born again, etc...
but after thus washing him who has professed and given his assent we bring him
to those who are called brethren:
where they are assembled together to offer prayers in common both for ourselves
and for the person who has received illumination,
and all others everywhere with all our hearts that we might be vouchsafed, now that we have learnt the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the Commandments,
that we might obtain everlasting salvation.
we salute one another with a kiss when we have concluded the prayers
then is brought to the president bread and a cup of water and wine, which he receives
and offers up praise and glory to the Father of all things, through the name of His Son
and of the Holy Ghost
and he returns thanks at length for our being vouchsafed these things by Him.
when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all who are present express their assent
by saying amen.
when the president has celebrated the eucharist and all the people have assented,
they whom we call deacons
give to each of those who are present a portion of the eucharistic bread and wine and water
and carry them to those who are absent.
now this food is called the eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake
but he who believes the truth of our doctrines and has been washed in the laver
for the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration
and who so lives as Christ hath directed.
for we do not receive them as ordinary food or ordinary drink, by as by the word of God
Jesus Christ our saviour was made flesh and had both flesh and blood for our salvation,
so also the food which was blessed by the prayer of the word which proceeded from Him
and from which our flesh and blood by assimilation receive nourishment, is
we are taught, both the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
later on J says:
'now on the day that is called sunday there is an assembly
in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts
and the records of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as we have time.
then the reader concludes and the president verbally instructs and exhorts us
to the imitation of these excellent things.
then we all together rise and offer up our prayers...
..justin was well qualified to make this defence,
because he had been himself attracted to the christians by the purity of their lives,
by their fidelity to their creed
and by their contempt for death.
all these things struck him as incompatible with the crimes alleged against them.
previous to that he had tested all the philosophic systems in his desire to find the truth
-pythagorean, stoic, epicurian, platonic
and had given them all up in despair:
when one day he met on the seashore an old christian missionary
who explained to him the fulfilment of the hebrew prophesies.
having tested this by his own study, he adopted christianity and taught it,
as he had other systems, in his philosopher's cloak.
but he embraced it with all his heart,
and finally about 166 gave his life for it.
justin is not content in his apology to defend christianity,
but assumes a strong aggressive attitude against the popular superstitions.
his attitude towards polytheism is chiefly marked by his theory of the daemons,
but also by the toleration and kindly spirit which he showed towards the heathen.
..later apologists, with the approximate dates at which they wrote, were
tatian 160, a disciple of justin...lapsed into heresy
appolinaris 176
athenagoras 177
melito of sardis 177
hermias 180
and theophilus 180
but none of these are accounted Fathers,
...the last named was the first writer who used the greek word, trias or trinity.
Monday, November 25, 2013
11.24.2013 CHURCH FATHERS 4 - irenaeus, bishop of lyons in 180; lived about 125-200
according to chronological order, st. justin martyr should be considered next,
as his average date is 30 years earlier than that of irenaeus;
but he represents altogether a different school, that of the apologists;
whereas I is linked through polycarp to the apostolic age.
his life, though he was not an apostolic father, is a kind of supplement to theirs;
while as the first great constructive theologian, he himself forms a link
between the simple sub apostolic age and that of the great doctors of the church.
his early life was apparently spent in smyrna.
in middle life he was a presbyter at lyons, and afterwards bishop,
the intercourse between asia minor and gaul,
especially the porrt of lyons, being very close.
he was probably often in rome, where hegesippus reports having heard him lecture.
once expecially he visited rome, to explain to eleutherus the position of the montanists;
and while he was there the fearful persecution broke out in gaul (177),
when bishop pothinus, blandina the save girl, whom the beasts would not attack,
and many other christians were slaughtered,
as described in the circular letter of the churches of lyons and vienne,
which is the second authentic Act of martyrdom.
then in 180 he became bishop of lyons and was probably consecrated at rome by eleutherus,
since at that time there seems to have been only one see (the center of authority of a bishop)
in gaul.
from 182 to 188 he was engaged on his great work in refutation of gnostic heresies
as bishop of lyons he wrote a celebrated letter to victor of rome,
protesting against his excommunicating all churches
who did not conform to his own rule about observing easter.
st irenaeus is constantly appealed to in the controversy between rome and protestants
on two grounds.
one it this letter to victor;
and another is a statement in his great work that all churches must be in agreement with rome.
first, as to the letter
the quarto deciman controversy, already alluded to in the last chapter,
had by 188 become a burning question;
and although it seems to us rather strage that the church
should have been so distracted over a matter of ritual,
the proper day for keeping easter;
yet when the church was struggling under persecution for her very existence,
unity in externals in the face of the enemy was of the utmost importance.
(note: why is unity important in doctrines that are not central-the person and work of Christ?
unity in essentials, in all else liberty? why do we waste time with the misplaced focus of trying
to set each other straight on things that are not essential to the faith of Christ?
satan's oldest method..separating our heart from God and not loving every person..)
it was the necessity of a united front that was most prominent in the mind of ignatius,
when he upheld the bishop's office;
and later on it was a leading thought with cyprian.
victor was probably wise in trying to enforce uniformity,
though excommunication was a strong measure,
especially as the asiatic churches followed the example of st. john.
...the often quoted saying of irenaeus about the roman church is this:
'for with this church it is necessary that every church should agree
on account of its more potent principality,
that is, the faithful everywhere,
inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved in it by those who exist everywhere.
...a recent roman catholic book, (the faith of catholics) translates the passage quite differently.
'to this church it is necessary that all others should resort (convenire ad, not, cum.
in other words, all roads lead to rome.
to rome, as the metropolis, representatives of all the churches come from time to time,
and as she is a mirror reflecting the views of them all;
so in her the tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.
but in any case, it is always dangerous to quote isolated passages from the Fathers
apart from their context.
...what I was enforcing here was the apostolic tradition.
he showed that all the churches traced their bishops back to the apostles
and as it would take too long to recount all the successions,
he gives rome as the best example, ending with the above remark.
on the apostolic tradition I is very strong.
he is the first of several Fathers who state the creed of the church,
each in their own words,
showing that apparently there was as yet no written formula.
but their statements all substantially agree and are in effect the Apostles' creed.
this is the form in which I gives the Tradition:
'the Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth,
has received from the apostles and their disciples this Faith.
in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them;
and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation;
and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensation of God
and the advents and the birth from a virgin
and the passion and the resurrection from the dead,
and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord,
and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father
to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew the flesh of the whole human race,
in order that to Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour and King,
according to the will of the Invisible Father
every knee should bow etc. etc. and that every tongue should confess to Him
that He should execute just judgment upon all,
that He may send spiritual wickednesses and the angels who transgressed and became apostate
together with the ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men
into eternal fire,
but may in the exercise of His grace confer immortality
on the righteous and holy and those who have kept His commandments and persevered in His love,
some from the beginning and others from repentance, and may surround them with glory.
the Church having received this preaching and faith,
though scattered throughout the world, yet as if occupying but one house carefully preserves it
....for though the languages of the world are dissimilar,
yet the import of the tradition is one and the same...'
the chief reason we have for believing that the christian church was essentially the same
at the end of the second century as at first, both in faith and practice,
is the tenacity with which the tradition of the apostles was maintained.
Irenaeus says,
'polycarp at rome proclaimed himself to have received from the Apostles the one and only tradition
which hath been handed on by the Church.
'yes, and the church at ephesus, having had paul for its founder
and john abiding among them till the time of trajan, is a true witness of the apostles' tradition.
'the apostles having in the church as in a rich storehouse most abundantly deposited
whatever appertains to the truth.
and what if the apostles themselves had not even left us any scriptures,
ought we not to follow the course of that tradition,
which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted the churches?
'many barbarous tribes have salvation written in their hearts without ink and paper.
in fact the apostles delivered to their successors a certain rule of faith
which they were always to remember and which they infallibly remembered.
whether or not there was a definite formula
(a 'FORM of sound words,' as paul wrote to timothy)
we know not; probably not.
gradually the Church collected the sacred writings, and selected from them the canon.
but if the new testament had at the beginning been the main authority
without the tradition behind it,
there would have been much more error.
...besides the fact that the main articles of the faith were handed down by tradition,
the main institutions, such as the sacraments, relied on tradition.
origen says, for instance, that INFANT BAPTISM
(note: WHAT? was anyone baptized in the bible who was an infant?
is there another parallel verse to soften the edges of 'BELIEVE and be baptized'
...can an infant believe...end of discussion?!
this point alone decides in the direction of looking askance at any man as AUTHORITATIVE.
bottom line:
truth is ascertained by not one verse
nor by a billion men
nor by the closest men to Jesus
but by comparing scripture with scripture.
period.)
was in accordance with apostolic tradition;
and while there is no theory of the eucharist in the new testament,
a fairly uniform theory runs through the early Fathers.
it seems clear that they all believed that the elements were the Body and the Blood,
and that the Eucharist was an offering or sacrifice
they do not attempt to explain the Real Presence ..
but they continually used the analogy of the eucharist as an illustration of essential truths,
such as the twofold nature, human and divine, of Christ, or the reality of His humanity...
..whatever confusion there may have been at first between the orders of presbyter and bishop,
irenaeus, tertullian, clement of alexandria, origen, cyprian and eusebius
all make a strong point of the successions of bishops.
(note: this is a moot (of little or no practical value) point as the succession has long ago been lost.
the important point seems to be that every pastor preaches the whole bible as truth.)
...as bishop wordsworth pointed out, until the time of constantine,
the church fought the outside world;
when the Church became established, the world poured into the church
and she then had to fight distinct heresies, like arianism, that sprang up from within.
(note: why does the church ever have to fight heresies?
proclaim what the bible says and all who believe and follow it,
PRACTICE IT.
my, how we are moved IN SO MANY WAYS from the simplicity that is in Christ.)
at the same time there was a tendency in quite early days for christians,
especially if of jewish origin,
to get entangled in oriental speculations;
while the current heathen philosophy, platonic at root,
absorbed to some extent jewish and christian thought among other oriental systems,
platonism from the first having been tinged with orientalism.
this is why ignatius is probably attacking the same error,
when in one letter he alludes to Docetics and in another to Judaizers.
it was the error of the jewish mind dabbling in GNOSTICISM.
what was exactly meant by Gnosticism,it will be always difficult to explain;
especially as hardly any gnostic works remain.
we can only reconstruct them through their christian antagonists
and by the fifth century all trace of them had died out,
except the followers of marcion, who lingered on till the seventh.
all metaphysical schemes of that time were forms of gnosticism,
that is Theories of Knowledge.
christianity, as clement of alexandria afterwards claimed, being the highest of all.
but through all the other systems ran one main thought,
that MATTER IS EVIL;
the material world having been created by an inferior deity or a fallen angel,
whom they called the demiurge or world maker.
there was one Eternal Spirit, from whom emanated a graduated series of existences, called aeons;
each was a personification of some particular attribute of the deity;
and they all together made up the Pleroma or the Fullness of the Godhead.
the eclectic spirit of the gnostics tempted them to meddle with christianity.
they represented Christ
(not the Man Jesus, but the Logos or Word which dwelt in Christ)
as an Aeon. and while they adopted the theory of redemption,
they said the redeeming work was not life, suffering and death,
but the imparting of a saving knowledge (Gnosis).
the idea that a divine being could be tortured was abhorrent to them
and they invented various ways of getting over it,
such as the Docetic explanations combated by ignatius.
now the jewish sect, known as ebionites, only half accepted christianity.
to them Christ was the messiah, but not divine.
still He was the messiah; and as such could not have died on the cross.
they therefore adopted the Docetic views and it is specially against them that Ig was writing.
as time went on, they drifted more and more into Gn, the extremist views being held by the essenes.
..probably first appeared at the beginning of the second centry
and was rather a jewish than a christian sect, though constantly presenting temptations to christians.
paul's contention with judaizers was rather
that they should throw off the trammels of the law and ceremonial
with a view to the conversion of the gentiles, than with their erroneous doctrines;
yet his emphasizing the resurrection of the body as well as certain phrases like,
'the fullness (or Pleroma) of the Godhead bodily',
seem to point to a nascent Gn.
...warning the Church against its development.
the expression 'knowledge (Gnosis) falsely so called'...occurs..at once.
..it was reserved for irenaeus to make the first intellectual refutation,
and for the doctors of carthage and alexandria to follow it up;
till at last the Church arrived at the crowning refutation of docetism,
NOT BY CONVERSION OF THE GODHEAD INTO FLESH,
BUT BY THE TAKING OF THE MANHOOD INTO GOD.
it is starling that even in the reign of augustus the jewish population of the empire was 7%..
it is strange to think of the jewish as a missionary church,
though our Lord spoke of them as 'compassing heaven and earth to make one proselyte'.
both these statements, however, are true.
of course the 7% was not made up of jews by race.
there were many grades of judaism,
ranging from other semitic neighbouring tribes to the educated Roman who accepted the doctrines
and to some extent adopted the ritual, but remained uncircumciqed.
but in judaism the hellenic mind found much of absorbing interest;
a rational system of creation,
a just monotheism,
and also the oldest and most wonderful book in the world.
to a large extent, therefore, it adopted jewish philosophy;
while the jewish mind, flattered by the social and intellectual importance thus acquired,
turned its attention to founding schools of philosophy,
of which the most important professor was philo of alexandria.
but there were two great drawbacks for the greek in judaism;
one was that the jewish Jehovah created the material world
and was therefore, as it seemed, responsible for something evil
-creation was in fact rather a blunder-
and also judaism was at heart national and not universal;
even the circumcised proselyte had not, at any rate in the first generation, full privileges.
it was to meet the first difficulty that the Gnostics imagined two Gods;
the supreme and perfect God and the altogether inferior God, or demiurge, who created Matter.
the lower God was not a direct emanation from the higher;
but came after a long interval, which was bridged over by a succession of
Aeons or personifications of abstract ideas, such as Wisdom, Reason (the Logos) and the like.
whether the demiurge was a fallen and malicious angel or a well intentioned semi deity,
who was unconscious of any one higher than himself
and did his best, but did it imperfectly, is of no consequence;
Matter and Evil remained and from these Man must be redeemed.
but when the Gnostics had in this fashion settled accounts with judaism,
thy found themselves confronted by another religion,
advancing behind judaism and often confounded with it,
which was a world wide system and offered the fullest privileges to all;
which told them of a redeemer, and knew of no sacrifices or rites,
except the pure and simple mysteries
by which the scheme of the redemption could be applied to their souls.
here then was at last the true Gnosis.
Christ was to them the power that was to redeem them from the demiurg:
the New testament was to redeem them from the old.
the jews had been called the Second Race;
here then was the Third Race (tertium genus), whose nationality was the world.
as a natural consequence of their views, the greek gnostics looked on paul as the one great apostle;
because, though himself a jew of the jews, he was always fighting against judaism,
on the ground that judaism had found its completion in christianity;
the new testament had supplanted the old,
and the old now existed as a witness to the new.
on the other hand the essenes, the later ebionites, who became entangled in Gn fancies,
but still maintained the law as the basis of all religion,
gave great prominence to james and peter, in order to throw paul,
whom they considered the enemy, into the background.
Gn, while it lived, was of great service to the Church;
for it taught the Church to think and to equip herself
for an intellectual struggle with the educated classes.
it forced the church to formulate a theological system;
it gave her a literature and art.
then it utterly died, except the school of marcion which lingered on for some centuries...
as to irenaeus' theological position, we must note
that the catholic church never taught abstruse dogmas by choice;
she was forced into dogmatic positions by the attacks of rivals or heretics,
who wanted to bring christian truths within the logical limits of the human understanding.
in this respect Gn is the forerunner and type of most heresies.
what Irenaeus did,..was to establish a theology of facts;
he did not enter into the deeper questions while occupied, say, athanasius or augustine,
a century or two later.
he laid down facts:
that God is One
the the supreme God created the world out of nothing
that God was the God of the old testament
that the old testament was a revelation of the Most High
that Evil arose out of the free will of Man
the Christ was God Man
he shows the unity of His personality,
the essential character of His divinity
and the reality of His humanity
that there was nothing in matter that was irredeemable
and finally he asserts the resurrection of the entire man..the resurrection of the body.
irenaeus frees thought from abstractions.
God is not a creation of the mind, but a living unity,
combining purity, holiness, glory, intellect, love
and He is perceived by love, which emanates from Him to us.
as his average date is 30 years earlier than that of irenaeus;
but he represents altogether a different school, that of the apologists;
whereas I is linked through polycarp to the apostolic age.
his life, though he was not an apostolic father, is a kind of supplement to theirs;
while as the first great constructive theologian, he himself forms a link
between the simple sub apostolic age and that of the great doctors of the church.
his early life was apparently spent in smyrna.
in middle life he was a presbyter at lyons, and afterwards bishop,
the intercourse between asia minor and gaul,
especially the porrt of lyons, being very close.
he was probably often in rome, where hegesippus reports having heard him lecture.
once expecially he visited rome, to explain to eleutherus the position of the montanists;
and while he was there the fearful persecution broke out in gaul (177),
when bishop pothinus, blandina the save girl, whom the beasts would not attack,
and many other christians were slaughtered,
as described in the circular letter of the churches of lyons and vienne,
which is the second authentic Act of martyrdom.
then in 180 he became bishop of lyons and was probably consecrated at rome by eleutherus,
since at that time there seems to have been only one see (the center of authority of a bishop)
in gaul.
from 182 to 188 he was engaged on his great work in refutation of gnostic heresies
as bishop of lyons he wrote a celebrated letter to victor of rome,
protesting against his excommunicating all churches
who did not conform to his own rule about observing easter.
st irenaeus is constantly appealed to in the controversy between rome and protestants
on two grounds.
one it this letter to victor;
and another is a statement in his great work that all churches must be in agreement with rome.
first, as to the letter
the quarto deciman controversy, already alluded to in the last chapter,
had by 188 become a burning question;
and although it seems to us rather strage that the church
should have been so distracted over a matter of ritual,
the proper day for keeping easter;
yet when the church was struggling under persecution for her very existence,
unity in externals in the face of the enemy was of the utmost importance.
(note: why is unity important in doctrines that are not central-the person and work of Christ?
unity in essentials, in all else liberty? why do we waste time with the misplaced focus of trying
to set each other straight on things that are not essential to the faith of Christ?
satan's oldest method..separating our heart from God and not loving every person..)
it was the necessity of a united front that was most prominent in the mind of ignatius,
when he upheld the bishop's office;
and later on it was a leading thought with cyprian.
victor was probably wise in trying to enforce uniformity,
though excommunication was a strong measure,
especially as the asiatic churches followed the example of st. john.
...the often quoted saying of irenaeus about the roman church is this:
'for with this church it is necessary that every church should agree
on account of its more potent principality,
that is, the faithful everywhere,
inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved in it by those who exist everywhere.
...a recent roman catholic book, (the faith of catholics) translates the passage quite differently.
'to this church it is necessary that all others should resort (convenire ad, not, cum.
in other words, all roads lead to rome.
to rome, as the metropolis, representatives of all the churches come from time to time,
and as she is a mirror reflecting the views of them all;
so in her the tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.
but in any case, it is always dangerous to quote isolated passages from the Fathers
apart from their context.
...what I was enforcing here was the apostolic tradition.
he showed that all the churches traced their bishops back to the apostles
and as it would take too long to recount all the successions,
he gives rome as the best example, ending with the above remark.
on the apostolic tradition I is very strong.
he is the first of several Fathers who state the creed of the church,
each in their own words,
showing that apparently there was as yet no written formula.
but their statements all substantially agree and are in effect the Apostles' creed.
this is the form in which I gives the Tradition:
'the Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth,
has received from the apostles and their disciples this Faith.
in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and all things that are in them;
and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation;
and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensation of God
and the advents and the birth from a virgin
and the passion and the resurrection from the dead,
and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord,
and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father
to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew the flesh of the whole human race,
in order that to Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour and King,
according to the will of the Invisible Father
every knee should bow etc. etc. and that every tongue should confess to Him
that He should execute just judgment upon all,
that He may send spiritual wickednesses and the angels who transgressed and became apostate
together with the ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men
into eternal fire,
but may in the exercise of His grace confer immortality
on the righteous and holy and those who have kept His commandments and persevered in His love,
some from the beginning and others from repentance, and may surround them with glory.
the Church having received this preaching and faith,
though scattered throughout the world, yet as if occupying but one house carefully preserves it
....for though the languages of the world are dissimilar,
yet the import of the tradition is one and the same...'
the chief reason we have for believing that the christian church was essentially the same
at the end of the second century as at first, both in faith and practice,
is the tenacity with which the tradition of the apostles was maintained.
Irenaeus says,
'polycarp at rome proclaimed himself to have received from the Apostles the one and only tradition
which hath been handed on by the Church.
'yes, and the church at ephesus, having had paul for its founder
and john abiding among them till the time of trajan, is a true witness of the apostles' tradition.
'the apostles having in the church as in a rich storehouse most abundantly deposited
whatever appertains to the truth.
and what if the apostles themselves had not even left us any scriptures,
ought we not to follow the course of that tradition,
which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted the churches?
'many barbarous tribes have salvation written in their hearts without ink and paper.
in fact the apostles delivered to their successors a certain rule of faith
which they were always to remember and which they infallibly remembered.
whether or not there was a definite formula
(a 'FORM of sound words,' as paul wrote to timothy)
we know not; probably not.
gradually the Church collected the sacred writings, and selected from them the canon.
but if the new testament had at the beginning been the main authority
without the tradition behind it,
there would have been much more error.
...besides the fact that the main articles of the faith were handed down by tradition,
the main institutions, such as the sacraments, relied on tradition.
origen says, for instance, that INFANT BAPTISM
(note: WHAT? was anyone baptized in the bible who was an infant?
is there another parallel verse to soften the edges of 'BELIEVE and be baptized'
...can an infant believe...end of discussion?!
this point alone decides in the direction of looking askance at any man as AUTHORITATIVE.
bottom line:
truth is ascertained by not one verse
nor by a billion men
nor by the closest men to Jesus
but by comparing scripture with scripture.
period.)
was in accordance with apostolic tradition;
and while there is no theory of the eucharist in the new testament,
a fairly uniform theory runs through the early Fathers.
it seems clear that they all believed that the elements were the Body and the Blood,
and that the Eucharist was an offering or sacrifice
they do not attempt to explain the Real Presence ..
but they continually used the analogy of the eucharist as an illustration of essential truths,
such as the twofold nature, human and divine, of Christ, or the reality of His humanity...
..whatever confusion there may have been at first between the orders of presbyter and bishop,
irenaeus, tertullian, clement of alexandria, origen, cyprian and eusebius
all make a strong point of the successions of bishops.
(note: this is a moot (of little or no practical value) point as the succession has long ago been lost.
the important point seems to be that every pastor preaches the whole bible as truth.)
...as bishop wordsworth pointed out, until the time of constantine,
the church fought the outside world;
when the Church became established, the world poured into the church
and she then had to fight distinct heresies, like arianism, that sprang up from within.
(note: why does the church ever have to fight heresies?
proclaim what the bible says and all who believe and follow it,
PRACTICE IT.
my, how we are moved IN SO MANY WAYS from the simplicity that is in Christ.)
at the same time there was a tendency in quite early days for christians,
especially if of jewish origin,
to get entangled in oriental speculations;
while the current heathen philosophy, platonic at root,
absorbed to some extent jewish and christian thought among other oriental systems,
platonism from the first having been tinged with orientalism.
this is why ignatius is probably attacking the same error,
when in one letter he alludes to Docetics and in another to Judaizers.
it was the error of the jewish mind dabbling in GNOSTICISM.
what was exactly meant by Gnosticism,it will be always difficult to explain;
especially as hardly any gnostic works remain.
we can only reconstruct them through their christian antagonists
and by the fifth century all trace of them had died out,
except the followers of marcion, who lingered on till the seventh.
all metaphysical schemes of that time were forms of gnosticism,
that is Theories of Knowledge.
christianity, as clement of alexandria afterwards claimed, being the highest of all.
but through all the other systems ran one main thought,
that MATTER IS EVIL;
the material world having been created by an inferior deity or a fallen angel,
whom they called the demiurge or world maker.
there was one Eternal Spirit, from whom emanated a graduated series of existences, called aeons;
each was a personification of some particular attribute of the deity;
and they all together made up the Pleroma or the Fullness of the Godhead.
the eclectic spirit of the gnostics tempted them to meddle with christianity.
they represented Christ
(not the Man Jesus, but the Logos or Word which dwelt in Christ)
as an Aeon. and while they adopted the theory of redemption,
they said the redeeming work was not life, suffering and death,
but the imparting of a saving knowledge (Gnosis).
the idea that a divine being could be tortured was abhorrent to them
and they invented various ways of getting over it,
such as the Docetic explanations combated by ignatius.
now the jewish sect, known as ebionites, only half accepted christianity.
to them Christ was the messiah, but not divine.
still He was the messiah; and as such could not have died on the cross.
they therefore adopted the Docetic views and it is specially against them that Ig was writing.
as time went on, they drifted more and more into Gn, the extremist views being held by the essenes.
..probably first appeared at the beginning of the second centry
and was rather a jewish than a christian sect, though constantly presenting temptations to christians.
paul's contention with judaizers was rather
that they should throw off the trammels of the law and ceremonial
with a view to the conversion of the gentiles, than with their erroneous doctrines;
yet his emphasizing the resurrection of the body as well as certain phrases like,
'the fullness (or Pleroma) of the Godhead bodily',
seem to point to a nascent Gn.
...warning the Church against its development.
the expression 'knowledge (Gnosis) falsely so called'...occurs..at once.
..it was reserved for irenaeus to make the first intellectual refutation,
and for the doctors of carthage and alexandria to follow it up;
till at last the Church arrived at the crowning refutation of docetism,
NOT BY CONVERSION OF THE GODHEAD INTO FLESH,
BUT BY THE TAKING OF THE MANHOOD INTO GOD.
it is starling that even in the reign of augustus the jewish population of the empire was 7%..
it is strange to think of the jewish as a missionary church,
though our Lord spoke of them as 'compassing heaven and earth to make one proselyte'.
both these statements, however, are true.
of course the 7% was not made up of jews by race.
there were many grades of judaism,
ranging from other semitic neighbouring tribes to the educated Roman who accepted the doctrines
and to some extent adopted the ritual, but remained uncircumciqed.
but in judaism the hellenic mind found much of absorbing interest;
a rational system of creation,
a just monotheism,
and also the oldest and most wonderful book in the world.
to a large extent, therefore, it adopted jewish philosophy;
while the jewish mind, flattered by the social and intellectual importance thus acquired,
turned its attention to founding schools of philosophy,
of which the most important professor was philo of alexandria.
but there were two great drawbacks for the greek in judaism;
one was that the jewish Jehovah created the material world
and was therefore, as it seemed, responsible for something evil
-creation was in fact rather a blunder-
and also judaism was at heart national and not universal;
even the circumcised proselyte had not, at any rate in the first generation, full privileges.
it was to meet the first difficulty that the Gnostics imagined two Gods;
the supreme and perfect God and the altogether inferior God, or demiurge, who created Matter.
the lower God was not a direct emanation from the higher;
but came after a long interval, which was bridged over by a succession of
Aeons or personifications of abstract ideas, such as Wisdom, Reason (the Logos) and the like.
whether the demiurge was a fallen and malicious angel or a well intentioned semi deity,
who was unconscious of any one higher than himself
and did his best, but did it imperfectly, is of no consequence;
Matter and Evil remained and from these Man must be redeemed.
but when the Gnostics had in this fashion settled accounts with judaism,
thy found themselves confronted by another religion,
advancing behind judaism and often confounded with it,
which was a world wide system and offered the fullest privileges to all;
which told them of a redeemer, and knew of no sacrifices or rites,
except the pure and simple mysteries
by which the scheme of the redemption could be applied to their souls.
here then was at last the true Gnosis.
Christ was to them the power that was to redeem them from the demiurg:
the New testament was to redeem them from the old.
the jews had been called the Second Race;
here then was the Third Race (tertium genus), whose nationality was the world.
as a natural consequence of their views, the greek gnostics looked on paul as the one great apostle;
because, though himself a jew of the jews, he was always fighting against judaism,
on the ground that judaism had found its completion in christianity;
the new testament had supplanted the old,
and the old now existed as a witness to the new.
on the other hand the essenes, the later ebionites, who became entangled in Gn fancies,
but still maintained the law as the basis of all religion,
gave great prominence to james and peter, in order to throw paul,
whom they considered the enemy, into the background.
Gn, while it lived, was of great service to the Church;
for it taught the Church to think and to equip herself
for an intellectual struggle with the educated classes.
it forced the church to formulate a theological system;
it gave her a literature and art.
then it utterly died, except the school of marcion which lingered on for some centuries...
as to irenaeus' theological position, we must note
that the catholic church never taught abstruse dogmas by choice;
she was forced into dogmatic positions by the attacks of rivals or heretics,
who wanted to bring christian truths within the logical limits of the human understanding.
in this respect Gn is the forerunner and type of most heresies.
what Irenaeus did,..was to establish a theology of facts;
he did not enter into the deeper questions while occupied, say, athanasius or augustine,
a century or two later.
he laid down facts:
that God is One
the the supreme God created the world out of nothing
that God was the God of the old testament
that the old testament was a revelation of the Most High
that Evil arose out of the free will of Man
the Christ was God Man
he shows the unity of His personality,
the essential character of His divinity
and the reality of His humanity
that there was nothing in matter that was irredeemable
and finally he asserts the resurrection of the entire man..the resurrection of the body.
irenaeus frees thought from abstractions.
God is not a creation of the mind, but a living unity,
combining purity, holiness, glory, intellect, love
and He is perceived by love, which emanates from Him to us.
11.24.2013 CHURCH FATHERS 3 - polycarp, bishop of smyrna; lived about 69-155
'eighty six years, said polycarp on his trial before the proconsul,
have i served the Lord and He hath done me no wrong.
how then can i speak evil of my king who saved me?
in this 86 years lies the leading thought about polycarp.
his importance in history is not in his relation to any particular events
or heresy, or movement of the time;
nor has his one extant epistle any theological..interest;
but he is a human link between the apostles and the middle of the second century.
tow statements occur in the works of irenaeus,
who was at his zenith in 180 and had been polycarp's pupil,
to the effect that he often spoke of the apostles, especially john
and of his early intercourse with them and of their teaching.
it is not certain who the other apostles were;
but andrew probably died at ephesus, and philip not far away at hierapolis.
at any rate it is sufficient for us, that he should have been taught by st. john
and that in 155 there should have still survived a prominent bishop, who had been so instructed;
and further that he should have exercised person influence on..irenaeus,
who would carry on the testimony for 40 years more.
the character of P made him eminently suitable to be such a link.
he combined with a charity for non essentials a sturdy conservatism;
a simple faith; great piety..a disdain of persecution;
and an absolute intolerance of those who attacked the first principles of the faith.
the martyrdom of P is fully described in the circular letter of the church of smyrna,
which has thoroughly established itself as a genuine document,
and is of great interest as being the first authentic and contemporary 'Act' of a martyr.
it contains portents and miracles;
but they are such as might be easily founded on facts,
though probably colored by the heated imagination of the spectators.
the persecution at smyrna in 155, like that of antioch to which Ignatius had been sacrificed,
was a local disturbance.
renan points out that there was a great revival of pagan feeling in the middle of the second century;
a sort of counter reformation,
after a period of scepticism;
which cause keen animosity against those who refused to join in it.
this pagan reaction would no doubt be
quite in accordance with the spirit of the antonine emperors. (3 from 138-192)
the popular indignation against polycarp broke out on the occasion of the great anniversary of asia and was inflamed by the jews.
the proconsul at smyrna was reluctant to convict him,
but was forced by his insistence to carry out the law.
unlike ignatius, he by no means at first courted persecution,
but retired to a farm of his own in the country.
but when he learned that the guard was on its way to arrest him,
he made no further attempt to escape,
but surrendered with the words, 'thanks be to God.
the course of roman state persecutions of the christian church during this century deserves study.
trajan (98), hadrian (117) antonius pius (138),
under whom P suffered
and afterwards marcus aurelius (168) were wise and just emperors and by no means cruel;
they did not, like nero, wreak their spite on unpopular victims.
yet ignatius died under trajan, P under antoninus pius,
while marcus aurelius shed christina blood freely.
even under hadrian too the law was enforced, although this dilettante traveller
took a friendly interest in all varieties of religion,
liked to be initiated into religious bodies,
and seems to have had a lurking sympathy with christianity;
reserving a niche among his heathen gods and jewish patriarchs for the Sacred Figure;
and building, as they say, empty temples ready for the christians to take over if they wished.
in sub apostolic times it is probable that christianity
was regarded only as a degraded form of judaism,
a point of view which the jews themselves encouraged.
it would therefore have some claim to toleration,along with judaism, as an ethnic religion.
during the time when jews were giving trouble, previous to the fall of jerusalem,
they diverted attention from themselves to the christians.
by domitian's time, the difference between the two religions was beginning to be understood;
and though countless others were tolerated at rome,
christianity became illicita;
yet probably no definite enactments were made against it till the time of trajan.
christianity came under the ban of the government,
partly because it tolerated no other faith alongside of itself;
partly because it contained essential elements, which seemed dangerous to society,
to roman law and polity and even to the roman supremacy.
more surely than any one at that time realized, the new civilization of christianity
was waging a war of life and death against the old civilization of paganism as represented by rome;
and paganism, however little individual romans may have believed in their deities,
was the established religion of the state.
the antonine emperors would probably have laughed to scorn the idea of this danger;
but an uneasy feeling arose,
when christians refused to throw a pinch of incense, like everyone else,
on the altars of the state gods;
when they showed also a disinclination for military service;
and epecially when they repudiated the divinity of the caesars.
this strange cult of the reigning house sprang out of something much deeper than bombast.
it is difficult for us to grasp exactly what the romans understood by divinity,
but we know that their deities were personifications of ideas:
was not then the emperor the incarnation of the idea of rome, the eternal city,
weaving its spell over mankind, as it does even to the present day?
the christians were indeed unable to say
'we have no king but caesar'.
they had another king, who was to return and subdue all the empires of the world. indeed, for this reason special search was sometimes made for relatives of our Lord.
it must also be remembered that the emperors probably knew
very little about the details of the various persecutions,
at any rate at this time, as they were generally of a local character.
the social and popular prejudice against christians will be more suitably dealt with
in connection with st. justin martyr.
have i served the Lord and He hath done me no wrong.
how then can i speak evil of my king who saved me?
in this 86 years lies the leading thought about polycarp.
his importance in history is not in his relation to any particular events
or heresy, or movement of the time;
nor has his one extant epistle any theological..interest;
but he is a human link between the apostles and the middle of the second century.
tow statements occur in the works of irenaeus,
who was at his zenith in 180 and had been polycarp's pupil,
to the effect that he often spoke of the apostles, especially john
and of his early intercourse with them and of their teaching.
it is not certain who the other apostles were;
but andrew probably died at ephesus, and philip not far away at hierapolis.
at any rate it is sufficient for us, that he should have been taught by st. john
and that in 155 there should have still survived a prominent bishop, who had been so instructed;
and further that he should have exercised person influence on..irenaeus,
who would carry on the testimony for 40 years more.
the character of P made him eminently suitable to be such a link.
he combined with a charity for non essentials a sturdy conservatism;
a simple faith; great piety..a disdain of persecution;
and an absolute intolerance of those who attacked the first principles of the faith.
the martyrdom of P is fully described in the circular letter of the church of smyrna,
which has thoroughly established itself as a genuine document,
and is of great interest as being the first authentic and contemporary 'Act' of a martyr.
it contains portents and miracles;
but they are such as might be easily founded on facts,
though probably colored by the heated imagination of the spectators.
the persecution at smyrna in 155, like that of antioch to which Ignatius had been sacrificed,
was a local disturbance.
renan points out that there was a great revival of pagan feeling in the middle of the second century;
a sort of counter reformation,
after a period of scepticism;
which cause keen animosity against those who refused to join in it.
this pagan reaction would no doubt be
quite in accordance with the spirit of the antonine emperors. (3 from 138-192)
the popular indignation against polycarp broke out on the occasion of the great anniversary of asia and was inflamed by the jews.
the proconsul at smyrna was reluctant to convict him,
but was forced by his insistence to carry out the law.
unlike ignatius, he by no means at first courted persecution,
but retired to a farm of his own in the country.
but when he learned that the guard was on its way to arrest him,
he made no further attempt to escape,
but surrendered with the words, 'thanks be to God.
the course of roman state persecutions of the christian church during this century deserves study.
trajan (98), hadrian (117) antonius pius (138),
under whom P suffered
and afterwards marcus aurelius (168) were wise and just emperors and by no means cruel;
they did not, like nero, wreak their spite on unpopular victims.
yet ignatius died under trajan, P under antoninus pius,
while marcus aurelius shed christina blood freely.
even under hadrian too the law was enforced, although this dilettante traveller
took a friendly interest in all varieties of religion,
liked to be initiated into religious bodies,
and seems to have had a lurking sympathy with christianity;
reserving a niche among his heathen gods and jewish patriarchs for the Sacred Figure;
and building, as they say, empty temples ready for the christians to take over if they wished.
in sub apostolic times it is probable that christianity
was regarded only as a degraded form of judaism,
a point of view which the jews themselves encouraged.
it would therefore have some claim to toleration,along with judaism, as an ethnic religion.
during the time when jews were giving trouble, previous to the fall of jerusalem,
they diverted attention from themselves to the christians.
by domitian's time, the difference between the two religions was beginning to be understood;
and though countless others were tolerated at rome,
christianity became illicita;
yet probably no definite enactments were made against it till the time of trajan.
christianity came under the ban of the government,
partly because it tolerated no other faith alongside of itself;
partly because it contained essential elements, which seemed dangerous to society,
to roman law and polity and even to the roman supremacy.
more surely than any one at that time realized, the new civilization of christianity
was waging a war of life and death against the old civilization of paganism as represented by rome;
and paganism, however little individual romans may have believed in their deities,
was the established religion of the state.
the antonine emperors would probably have laughed to scorn the idea of this danger;
but an uneasy feeling arose,
when christians refused to throw a pinch of incense, like everyone else,
on the altars of the state gods;
when they showed also a disinclination for military service;
and epecially when they repudiated the divinity of the caesars.
this strange cult of the reigning house sprang out of something much deeper than bombast.
it is difficult for us to grasp exactly what the romans understood by divinity,
but we know that their deities were personifications of ideas:
was not then the emperor the incarnation of the idea of rome, the eternal city,
weaving its spell over mankind, as it does even to the present day?
the christians were indeed unable to say
'we have no king but caesar'.
they had another king, who was to return and subdue all the empires of the world. indeed, for this reason special search was sometimes made for relatives of our Lord.
it must also be remembered that the emperors probably knew
very little about the details of the various persecutions,
at any rate at this time, as they were generally of a local character.
the social and popular prejudice against christians will be more suitably dealt with
in connection with st. justin martyr.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
11.23.2013 CHURCH FATHERS 2 - st. ignatius, bishop of antioch (69-107), martyr
bishop of antioch from about 69-107
antioch was situated in the northwest of syria, about 20 miles up the orontes from the port seleucia;
which derived its name from seleucus, the general, who, on alexander the great's death,
took syria as his share of the macedonian empire.
according to the account inthe acts of the apostles,
st. paul and st. barnabas were more concerned than st. peter
in first preaching the gospel at antioch:
but tradition has always attributed the foundation of the church to st. peter,
and declared that he live there as bishop for 7 or 8 years before visiting rome.
on this account, it was an apostolic church;
and later a patriarchate with jurisdiction extending far away into the east.
the successors of st. peter at antioch, however,
never made the claims to universal rule, which were made by roman bishops.
...judaizing and docetism are the heresies denounced in these epistles
(note: the seven epistles by ignatius which were judged genuine)
but according to lightfoot, these were really one;
or rather the same set of teachers in each case were at work,
jews by birth, who were teaching a form of docetism.
this word will be more fully explained..in connection with gnosticism.
it is enough for the present to say that the docetic view
was that Christ never really suffered in the flesh, but only seemed to do so.
either the whole life of Christ was phantasmal;
or else they distinguished between the Divine Being and the human Jesus,
affirming that the Christ or Logos, descended on Jesus at His baptism,
and deserted Him before the crucifixion.
thus ignatius continually speaks of the REAL passion
and says that Christ was truly born, died and rose again
and that the Christ, who reappeared, ate and drank and was no incorporeal phantom.
the best way to guard against such errors
was to cling to the bishop (note: what if he was not following the bible?_
to remain united and to follow his teaching.
'where the bishop is, there is the church'.
(note: where ever Christ is, there is His body?)
..he clearly shows that bishops existed throughout asia minor,
for he alludes to those of ephesus, magnesia, tralles, philadelphia and smyrna;
he also speaks of them as established in the farthest parts of the earth.
nor were they itinerant, like timothy and titus, but localized;
and they ruled, though they were constitutional monarchs.
in rome also there was a bishop, though apparently with even less autocratic power than in asia;
perhaps because there was less heresy.
the point that ignatius leaves undecided is whether at that time
episcopacy was considered a divine institution, possessing doctrinal significance
and therefore a necessity to a true church;
or whether it was to be supported
because it happened to be the order of the churches he was addressing,
and therefore the only existing bond of discipline.
there is no proof that he looked on it as more than the latter.
on the other hand there is no proof that he did not.
in face of the very strong words he used, it is dangerous to argue from silence.
..as regards docetism, the following is the strongest quotation,
and a splendid defence of Christ's bodily resurrection:
'for i know and believe that He was in the flesh after the resurrection:
and when He came to peter and his company, He said
'lay hold and handle Me, and see that I am not a bodiless spirit
and straightway they touched Him and believed,
being joined to His flesh and blood.
wherefore also they despised death, nay, were found superior to it;
and after His resurrection He ate and drank with them,
as one in the flesh, though spiritually He was united with the Father.
..here and there in his writings are little flashes of epigram
(a witty, ingenious, pointed expression tersely expressed),such as:
he that truly possesses the words of Jesus is able also to listen to His silence
form yourselves into an harmonious chorus, of which the key note is God
the one bread, which is the medicine of life, the antidote of death
faith is the beginning of life, Love is the end
antioch was situated in the northwest of syria, about 20 miles up the orontes from the port seleucia;
which derived its name from seleucus, the general, who, on alexander the great's death,
took syria as his share of the macedonian empire.
according to the account inthe acts of the apostles,
st. paul and st. barnabas were more concerned than st. peter
in first preaching the gospel at antioch:
but tradition has always attributed the foundation of the church to st. peter,
and declared that he live there as bishop for 7 or 8 years before visiting rome.
on this account, it was an apostolic church;
and later a patriarchate with jurisdiction extending far away into the east.
the successors of st. peter at antioch, however,
never made the claims to universal rule, which were made by roman bishops.
...judaizing and docetism are the heresies denounced in these epistles
(note: the seven epistles by ignatius which were judged genuine)
but according to lightfoot, these were really one;
or rather the same set of teachers in each case were at work,
jews by birth, who were teaching a form of docetism.
this word will be more fully explained..in connection with gnosticism.
it is enough for the present to say that the docetic view
was that Christ never really suffered in the flesh, but only seemed to do so.
either the whole life of Christ was phantasmal;
or else they distinguished between the Divine Being and the human Jesus,
affirming that the Christ or Logos, descended on Jesus at His baptism,
and deserted Him before the crucifixion.
thus ignatius continually speaks of the REAL passion
and says that Christ was truly born, died and rose again
and that the Christ, who reappeared, ate and drank and was no incorporeal phantom.
the best way to guard against such errors
was to cling to the bishop (note: what if he was not following the bible?_
to remain united and to follow his teaching.
'where the bishop is, there is the church'.
(note: where ever Christ is, there is His body?)
..he clearly shows that bishops existed throughout asia minor,
for he alludes to those of ephesus, magnesia, tralles, philadelphia and smyrna;
he also speaks of them as established in the farthest parts of the earth.
nor were they itinerant, like timothy and titus, but localized;
and they ruled, though they were constitutional monarchs.
in rome also there was a bishop, though apparently with even less autocratic power than in asia;
perhaps because there was less heresy.
the point that ignatius leaves undecided is whether at that time
episcopacy was considered a divine institution, possessing doctrinal significance
and therefore a necessity to a true church;
or whether it was to be supported
because it happened to be the order of the churches he was addressing,
and therefore the only existing bond of discipline.
there is no proof that he looked on it as more than the latter.
on the other hand there is no proof that he did not.
in face of the very strong words he used, it is dangerous to argue from silence.
..as regards docetism, the following is the strongest quotation,
and a splendid defence of Christ's bodily resurrection:
'for i know and believe that He was in the flesh after the resurrection:
and when He came to peter and his company, He said
'lay hold and handle Me, and see that I am not a bodiless spirit
and straightway they touched Him and believed,
being joined to His flesh and blood.
wherefore also they despised death, nay, were found superior to it;
and after His resurrection He ate and drank with them,
as one in the flesh, though spiritually He was united with the Father.
..here and there in his writings are little flashes of epigram
(a witty, ingenious, pointed expression tersely expressed),such as:
he that truly possesses the words of Jesus is able also to listen to His silence
form yourselves into an harmonious chorus, of which the key note is God
the one bread, which is the medicine of life, the antidote of death
faith is the beginning of life, Love is the end
11.23.2013 EARLY CHURCH FATHERS - clement, bishop of rome (92-99AD)
taken from the 'handbook of the early christian fathers' by e. leigh-bennett
st. clement of rome, bishop of rome from about a.d. 92-99
all that we know of this first of the apostolic fathers
may be summed up in an account of st. irenaeus given about 100 years later.
'the blessed apostles, peter and paul, having built up the church of rome,
entrusted the bishopric to linus,
who was followed by anacletus,
and third in succession to the apostles clement obtained the bishopric;
who had also himself seen the blessed apostles,
and had conferred with them
and had still their preaching sounding in his ears,
and their traditions before his eyes;
not alone, for there were still many left of those who had been taught by the apostles.
in the time of this clement, no small dissension arising among the brethren at corinth,
the church at rome sent a very weighty epistle to the corinthians
reconciling them to peace and restoring their faith
and declaring to the m the traditions they had recently received from the apostles.'
from this statement we gather,
1. that there is no proof that the church of the first century regarded st. peter as the bishop of rome
in any sense apart from st. paul;
for after stating that that church was founded jointly by the two apostles
(which the roman church has always admitted),
it proceeds to say that they both jointly appointed linus as bishop.
2. it helps materially to fix the date of st. clement's bishopric,
....because it makes him third after the apostles (the tradition still preserved in the roman mass);
whereas at a later date it was held that clement came next to linus and was consecrated by st. peter.
3. it attributed to st. clement, or rather to the roman church,
the epistle known as the first to the corinthians,
ignoring other writings now known to be spurious. but for a long time attributed to him.
4. although st. clement was doubtless mainly responsible for that epistle,
and may have entirely composed it,
the personal element of the mediaeval and modern papacy is not found in it.
it was sent from the church of rome by the hand of clement.
on the other hand the roman church as such took rather an authoritative line in the epistle.
...a striking sentence appears in the third section (note: of clement's first epistle to the corinthians) bearing on the apostolic succession.
'the apostles knew through our Lord Jesus
that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.
for this cause therefore, having complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons
and afterwards they provided a continuance,
that if these should fall asleep,
other men should succeed to their ministrations.'
st. clement of rome, bishop of rome from about a.d. 92-99
all that we know of this first of the apostolic fathers
may be summed up in an account of st. irenaeus given about 100 years later.
'the blessed apostles, peter and paul, having built up the church of rome,
entrusted the bishopric to linus,
who was followed by anacletus,
and third in succession to the apostles clement obtained the bishopric;
who had also himself seen the blessed apostles,
and had conferred with them
and had still their preaching sounding in his ears,
and their traditions before his eyes;
not alone, for there were still many left of those who had been taught by the apostles.
in the time of this clement, no small dissension arising among the brethren at corinth,
the church at rome sent a very weighty epistle to the corinthians
reconciling them to peace and restoring their faith
and declaring to the m the traditions they had recently received from the apostles.'
from this statement we gather,
1. that there is no proof that the church of the first century regarded st. peter as the bishop of rome
in any sense apart from st. paul;
for after stating that that church was founded jointly by the two apostles
(which the roman church has always admitted),
it proceeds to say that they both jointly appointed linus as bishop.
2. it helps materially to fix the date of st. clement's bishopric,
....because it makes him third after the apostles (the tradition still preserved in the roman mass);
whereas at a later date it was held that clement came next to linus and was consecrated by st. peter.
3. it attributed to st. clement, or rather to the roman church,
the epistle known as the first to the corinthians,
ignoring other writings now known to be spurious. but for a long time attributed to him.
4. although st. clement was doubtless mainly responsible for that epistle,
and may have entirely composed it,
the personal element of the mediaeval and modern papacy is not found in it.
it was sent from the church of rome by the hand of clement.
on the other hand the roman church as such took rather an authoritative line in the epistle.
...a striking sentence appears in the third section (note: of clement's first epistle to the corinthians) bearing on the apostolic succession.
'the apostles knew through our Lord Jesus
that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.
for this cause therefore, having complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons
and afterwards they provided a continuance,
that if these should fall asleep,
other men should succeed to their ministrations.'
11.23.2013 peterson 4 - love
in his relationship with mephibosheth...
david emerges into prominence here as a lover.
his kingly rule was already marked by justice and fairness.
there is, though, anelement without which those qualities aren't complete and that element is love.
the hebrew word chesed, narrowly translated as 'love', is a large word.
no single word in our language is adequate to translate it,
so we revert to the use of adjectives to bring out the distinctive quality and broad reach of this love:
steadfast..loyal...covenantel love.
what we're after is an understanding that retains the affection and desire and intimacy
that commonly go with love,
as we sometimes experience it as parents and children, 'lovers' and friends,
but amalgamated now with the stability, dependability, unswerving commitment,
and steady reliability that we so commonly find wanting in ourselves and others.
chesed is often used in the biblical revelation to designate God's love.
but we humans, who have been created in the image of God,
are also capable of loving this way,
even though we never seem to get very good at it.
chesed is love without regard to shifting circumstances, hormones, emotional states and personal convenience.
this is the kind of love with which 'God so loved the world...'
this is the kind of love to which we aspire when we take marriage vows to love
'in sickness and health, till death do us part'.
all our scriptural witnesses, seconded by an impressive array of outside observers,
agree that venturing and practicing this kind of love is an absolutely necessary
\(even if very, very difficult)
condition of life lived on anything other than a biological level.
this is the kind of love with which david loved mephibosheth that day.
mephibosheth had never, or at least not for a long time, been loved like this.
...when david asks if there's anyone left of saul's family ('the house of saul')
whom he can love in jonathan's name,
he's asking, in effect, 'is there anyone left in the enemy camp whom i can love?
...he's looking for an enemy to love.
...david's first word to mephibosheth is the young man's name.
mephibosheth is recognized as a person.
he isn't a nameless exile.
he isn't a category of victim.
he has an name and david knows it-mephibosheth.
if there was any shame or dishonor associated with this name through the years...
it's wiped clean of ignominy as david addresses him in loyal love.
the name is used seven times in this story of their first meeting,
without a hint of opprobrium or denigration in the usage.
.
..mephibosheth.
a personal name.
we can't love in general.
we can't love by categories.
we can't love by decree or legislation.
we can love only a named person who has a past, present and future. mephibosheth.
the nature of love is clarified in david's words of reassurance:
'do not fear. II samuel 9.7
we come across this phrase frequently in the biblical revelation.
it's frequent for a reason: there's much to fear in life.
we constantly meet up with people who have more power than we have.
how will they use that power, that authority?
will they diminish us, exploit us, use us, get rid of us?
we learn to be cautious, put up defenses.
and then we come before God, a God of power and mystery.
how will he treat us?
will he punish us, destroy us, take away our freedom?
based on our experience, any of that is certainly possible, maybe even probable.
that's why we need so much reassurance: 'relax. it's going to be all right'.
the phrase is often on the lips of angels, the emissaries of God's good news.
it was often on the lips of Jesus,
who regularly brought frightened and bewildered men and women into the very presence of God.
here it's on david's lips.
mephibosheth had every reason to be deathly afraid of david at that moment, as we've seen.
he had no reason to think that david wasn't out to get rid of him,
the last vestige of saul's family,
but then he was disarmed and prepared for love by the gospel words 'fear not'.
david put content into the word love when he turned over to mephibosheth
all the lands of his grandfather saul so that he would have an independent income;
assigned ziba, who had once been servant to saul, to manage the farms and take care of his affairs;
and brought mephibosheth into his household as one of the family.
this is the way love LOOKS, not FEELS-generous, extravagant, uncalculating.
the love that germinated in a covenant became mature in the search for a long lost heir,
the restoration of confiscated lands and daily hospitality
at the royal table.
this love wasn't greeting card sentiment;
it had the substance of the good earth beneath it
and the regularity of three square meals a day to reinforce it.
...this is the characteristic davidic note, the anticipation of gospel.
david first sought out mephibosheth from a position of strength.
he used his strength to love generously, COVENANTALLY.
uncorrupted by power, love flowed unimpeded.
david treated mephibosheth with the love with which God had saved him.
in this...act of love to mephibosheth he's fatigued from battle,
(note: david has had to flee the rebellion instituted by his son absalom
ziba, mephibosheth's servant, plays him false to david..
the rebellion over, david meeting mephibosheth hears as much)
having barely survived the worst rejection and betrayal of his life,
grieving the terrible death of his son,
abandoned by many of his trusted friends.
and now mephibosheth stands before him..
there's been so much treachery in the past few days, so many faithless.
is mephibosheth one more who has betrayed his love?
if david has been betrayed by his own son, why wouldn't mephibosheth,
with a legitimate claim to the throne, also betray him?
it doesn't matter to david.
he doesn't have to know
he takes mephibosheth's story II samuel 19.26-8 at face value
and keeps faith with him.
he persists in his love of mephibosheth.
david in weakness, his kingdom in fragments about him,
is as strong as ever in love.
this is love with covenant steel in it to keep it steady persistent, committed.
david emerges into prominence here as a lover.
his kingly rule was already marked by justice and fairness.
there is, though, anelement without which those qualities aren't complete and that element is love.
the hebrew word chesed, narrowly translated as 'love', is a large word.
no single word in our language is adequate to translate it,
so we revert to the use of adjectives to bring out the distinctive quality and broad reach of this love:
steadfast..loyal...covenantel love.
what we're after is an understanding that retains the affection and desire and intimacy
that commonly go with love,
as we sometimes experience it as parents and children, 'lovers' and friends,
but amalgamated now with the stability, dependability, unswerving commitment,
and steady reliability that we so commonly find wanting in ourselves and others.
chesed is often used in the biblical revelation to designate God's love.
but we humans, who have been created in the image of God,
are also capable of loving this way,
even though we never seem to get very good at it.
chesed is love without regard to shifting circumstances, hormones, emotional states and personal convenience.
this is the kind of love with which 'God so loved the world...'
this is the kind of love to which we aspire when we take marriage vows to love
'in sickness and health, till death do us part'.
all our scriptural witnesses, seconded by an impressive array of outside observers,
agree that venturing and practicing this kind of love is an absolutely necessary
\(even if very, very difficult)
condition of life lived on anything other than a biological level.
this is the kind of love with which david loved mephibosheth that day.
mephibosheth had never, or at least not for a long time, been loved like this.
...when david asks if there's anyone left of saul's family ('the house of saul')
whom he can love in jonathan's name,
he's asking, in effect, 'is there anyone left in the enemy camp whom i can love?
...he's looking for an enemy to love.
...david's first word to mephibosheth is the young man's name.
mephibosheth is recognized as a person.
he isn't a nameless exile.
he isn't a category of victim.
he has an name and david knows it-mephibosheth.
if there was any shame or dishonor associated with this name through the years...
it's wiped clean of ignominy as david addresses him in loyal love.
the name is used seven times in this story of their first meeting,
without a hint of opprobrium or denigration in the usage.
.
..mephibosheth.
a personal name.
we can't love in general.
we can't love by categories.
we can't love by decree or legislation.
we can love only a named person who has a past, present and future. mephibosheth.
the nature of love is clarified in david's words of reassurance:
'do not fear. II samuel 9.7
we come across this phrase frequently in the biblical revelation.
it's frequent for a reason: there's much to fear in life.
we constantly meet up with people who have more power than we have.
how will they use that power, that authority?
will they diminish us, exploit us, use us, get rid of us?
we learn to be cautious, put up defenses.
and then we come before God, a God of power and mystery.
how will he treat us?
will he punish us, destroy us, take away our freedom?
based on our experience, any of that is certainly possible, maybe even probable.
that's why we need so much reassurance: 'relax. it's going to be all right'.
the phrase is often on the lips of angels, the emissaries of God's good news.
it was often on the lips of Jesus,
who regularly brought frightened and bewildered men and women into the very presence of God.
here it's on david's lips.
mephibosheth had every reason to be deathly afraid of david at that moment, as we've seen.
he had no reason to think that david wasn't out to get rid of him,
the last vestige of saul's family,
but then he was disarmed and prepared for love by the gospel words 'fear not'.
david put content into the word love when he turned over to mephibosheth
all the lands of his grandfather saul so that he would have an independent income;
assigned ziba, who had once been servant to saul, to manage the farms and take care of his affairs;
and brought mephibosheth into his household as one of the family.
this is the way love LOOKS, not FEELS-generous, extravagant, uncalculating.
the love that germinated in a covenant became mature in the search for a long lost heir,
the restoration of confiscated lands and daily hospitality
at the royal table.
this love wasn't greeting card sentiment;
it had the substance of the good earth beneath it
and the regularity of three square meals a day to reinforce it.
...this is the characteristic davidic note, the anticipation of gospel.
david first sought out mephibosheth from a position of strength.
he used his strength to love generously, COVENANTALLY.
uncorrupted by power, love flowed unimpeded.
david treated mephibosheth with the love with which God had saved him.
in this...act of love to mephibosheth he's fatigued from battle,
(note: david has had to flee the rebellion instituted by his son absalom
ziba, mephibosheth's servant, plays him false to david..
the rebellion over, david meeting mephibosheth hears as much)
having barely survived the worst rejection and betrayal of his life,
grieving the terrible death of his son,
abandoned by many of his trusted friends.
and now mephibosheth stands before him..
there's been so much treachery in the past few days, so many faithless.
is mephibosheth one more who has betrayed his love?
if david has been betrayed by his own son, why wouldn't mephibosheth,
with a legitimate claim to the throne, also betray him?
it doesn't matter to david.
he doesn't have to know
he takes mephibosheth's story II samuel 19.26-8 at face value
and keeps faith with him.
he persists in his love of mephibosheth.
david in weakness, his kingdom in fragments about him,
is as strong as ever in love.
this is love with covenant steel in it to keep it steady persistent, committed.
Friday, November 22, 2013
11.22.2013 PETERSON 3 - taking charge of God
over the centuries, as the christian imagination has reflected on uzzah's death,
one insight has appeared over and over:
it's fatal to take charge of god.
uzzah is the person who has God in a box
and officiously assumes responsibility
for keeping Him safe from the muck and dust of the world.
men and women who take it upon themselves to protect God from
the vulgarity of sinners and the ignorance of commoners
seep showing up in religious precincts.
in this imaginative context we can guess that uzzah's reflexive act
-reaching out to steady the ark as the oxen stumbled
-wasn't a mistake of the moment;
it was a piece of his lifelong obsession with managing the ark.
there were mosaic traditions that gave clear directions
regarding the handling of the ark:
it wasn't to be touched by human hands
but carried by levites using poles inserted through rings attached to the ark.
uzzah ignored (defied!)the mosaic directions
and substituted the latest philistine technological innovation-an ox cart, of all things. I sam.6
a well designed ox car is undeniably more efficient for moving the ark about than plodding levites.
but it's also impersonal-
the replacement of consecrated persons by an efficient machine,
the impersonal crowding out the personal.
uzzah is the patron saint of those who uncritically embrace technology
without regard to the nature of the Holy.
uzzah was in charge (he thought) of God
and meant to stay in charge.
uzzah had God where he wanted Him and intended to keep Him there.
the eventual consequence of this kind of life is death,
for God will not be managed.
God will not be put and kept in a box,
whether the box is constructed of crafted wood or hewn stone or brilliant ideas or fine feelings.
we don't take care of God; God takes care of us.
holy scripture posts uzzah as a danger sign for us:
'beware the God'.
it's especially important to have such a sign posted in places
designated for religious worship and learning.
we enter a church or school to learn God,
be trained in knowledge and obedience and prayer.
and we get what we came for
-truth that centers, words that command and comfort, rituals that stabilize,
work that has purpose, a community of relationships that strengthen, forgiveness that frees.
we find God.
we change our ways.
we repent and believe and follow.
we rearrange our circumstances and reestablish our routines
around what now gives meaning and hope.
we take on responsibilities in the wonderful new world of worship and work.
we advance in the ranks
and before we know it we're telling others what to do and how to do it.
all this is good and right.
and then we cross a line-we get bossy and cranky on behalf of God.
we begin by finding in God a way to live rightly and well,
and then along the way we take over God's work for Him
and take charge of making sure others live rightly and well.
we get the idea that we're important, self important, because we're around the Important.
religion is a breeding ground for this kind of thing.
not infrequently these God managing men and women
work themselves into positions of leadership.
over the years the basics with which they began,
the elements of reverence and awe,
the spirit of love and faith,
erode and shrivel.
finally there's nothing left.
they're dead to God.
uzzah is a warning.
if we think and act as he did,
we'll be dead men and women, soon or late.
dead in our spirits.
dead to the aliveness of God.
Jesus called such people 'whitewashed tombs...full of dead men's bones' matthew 23.27
uzzah's death wasn't sudden; it was years in the making,
the 'dead works' accumulating like dead men's bones within him,
suffocating the spirit of praise and faith and worship.
one insight has appeared over and over:
it's fatal to take charge of god.
uzzah is the person who has God in a box
and officiously assumes responsibility
for keeping Him safe from the muck and dust of the world.
men and women who take it upon themselves to protect God from
the vulgarity of sinners and the ignorance of commoners
seep showing up in religious precincts.
in this imaginative context we can guess that uzzah's reflexive act
-reaching out to steady the ark as the oxen stumbled
-wasn't a mistake of the moment;
it was a piece of his lifelong obsession with managing the ark.
there were mosaic traditions that gave clear directions
regarding the handling of the ark:
it wasn't to be touched by human hands
but carried by levites using poles inserted through rings attached to the ark.
uzzah ignored (defied!)the mosaic directions
and substituted the latest philistine technological innovation-an ox cart, of all things. I sam.6
a well designed ox car is undeniably more efficient for moving the ark about than plodding levites.
but it's also impersonal-
the replacement of consecrated persons by an efficient machine,
the impersonal crowding out the personal.
uzzah is the patron saint of those who uncritically embrace technology
without regard to the nature of the Holy.
uzzah was in charge (he thought) of God
and meant to stay in charge.
uzzah had God where he wanted Him and intended to keep Him there.
the eventual consequence of this kind of life is death,
for God will not be managed.
God will not be put and kept in a box,
whether the box is constructed of crafted wood or hewn stone or brilliant ideas or fine feelings.
we don't take care of God; God takes care of us.
holy scripture posts uzzah as a danger sign for us:
'beware the God'.
it's especially important to have such a sign posted in places
designated for religious worship and learning.
we enter a church or school to learn God,
be trained in knowledge and obedience and prayer.
and we get what we came for
-truth that centers, words that command and comfort, rituals that stabilize,
work that has purpose, a community of relationships that strengthen, forgiveness that frees.
we find God.
we change our ways.
we repent and believe and follow.
we rearrange our circumstances and reestablish our routines
around what now gives meaning and hope.
we take on responsibilities in the wonderful new world of worship and work.
we advance in the ranks
and before we know it we're telling others what to do and how to do it.
all this is good and right.
and then we cross a line-we get bossy and cranky on behalf of God.
we begin by finding in God a way to live rightly and well,
and then along the way we take over God's work for Him
and take charge of making sure others live rightly and well.
we get the idea that we're important, self important, because we're around the Important.
religion is a breeding ground for this kind of thing.
not infrequently these God managing men and women
work themselves into positions of leadership.
over the years the basics with which they began,
the elements of reverence and awe,
the spirit of love and faith,
erode and shrivel.
finally there's nothing left.
they're dead to God.
uzzah is a warning.
if we think and act as he did,
we'll be dead men and women, soon or late.
dead in our spirits.
dead to the aliveness of God.
Jesus called such people 'whitewashed tombs...full of dead men's bones' matthew 23.27
uzzah's death wasn't sudden; it was years in the making,
the 'dead works' accumulating like dead men's bones within him,
suffocating the spirit of praise and faith and worship.
11.22.2013 PETERSON 2 - friend
...friendship is a much underestimated aspect of spirituality.
it's every bit as significant as prayer and fasting.
like the sacramental use of water and bread and wine,
friendship takes what's common in human experience and turns it into something holy.
friendship with david complicated jonathan's life enormously.
he risked losing his father's favor
and willingly sacrificed his own royal future.
but neither the risk nor the loss deterred him;
he became and stayed david's friend.
jonathan's friendhip was essential to david's life.
it's highly unlikely that david could have persisted in serving saul without the friendship of jonathan.
jonathan, in striking contrast to his father, discerned God in david,
comprehended the danger and difficulty of his anointing
and made a covenant of friendship with him.
jonathan's friendship entered david's soul in a way that saul's hatred never did.
...martin buber, a great jewish man of God who encountered and survived much enmity in his lifetime
was a guest at haverford college, a quaker school in pennsylvania.
douglas steere was his host when they attended a quaker meeting.
one man broke the silence of the meeting to speak of
the great experience of meeting across language, racial, and religious boundaries,
the wonder of being able to reach across the barriers and touch another human being,
the touch turning strangers into friends.
then buber..said that meeting another was a great thing, but not the greatest thing.
the greatest thing any person can do for another is
to confirm the deepest thing in him, in her
-to take the time and have the discernment to see what's most deeply there, most fully that person,
and then confirm it by recognizing and encouraging it.
each of us has contact with hundreds of people who never look beyond our surface appearance.
we have dealings with hundreds of people
who the moment they set eyes on us begin calculating
what use we can be to them,
what they can get out of us.
we meet hundreds of people who take one look at us, make a snap judgment,
and then slot us into a category
so that they won't have to deal with us as persons.
they treat us as something less than we are;
and if we're in constant association with them, we become less.(note: ..necessarily?)
and then someone enters our life who isn't looking for someone to use,
is leisurely enough to find out what's really going on in us,
is secure enough not to exploit our weaknesses or attack our strengths,
recognizes our inner life and understands the difficulty of living out our inner convictions,
confirms what's deepest within us. a friend.
it's a great thing to be a jonathan.
without jonathan, david was at risk of either abandoning his vocation
and returning to the simple life of tending sheep
or developing a murderous spirit of retaliation to get even
with the man who was despising the best that was within him.
he did neither.
he accepted jonathan's friendship and in receiving it
received confirmation of samuel's earlier anointing to kingwork
and the God dominated imagination
that made it possible to live in and by God's Spirit in song and story.
lacking confirmation by the word of a friend,
(note: the old hymn...'what a friend we have in Jesus all our sins and griefs to bear,
what a privilege to carry, everything to God in prayer)
our most promising beginnings fizzle.
lacking confirmation in the presence of a friend, our bravest ventures unravel.
it's not unusual for any of us to begin something wonderful
and it's not unusual for any of us to do things that are quite good.
but it IS unusual to continue and to persevere...
it's every bit as significant as prayer and fasting.
like the sacramental use of water and bread and wine,
friendship takes what's common in human experience and turns it into something holy.
friendship with david complicated jonathan's life enormously.
he risked losing his father's favor
and willingly sacrificed his own royal future.
but neither the risk nor the loss deterred him;
he became and stayed david's friend.
jonathan's friendhip was essential to david's life.
it's highly unlikely that david could have persisted in serving saul without the friendship of jonathan.
jonathan, in striking contrast to his father, discerned God in david,
comprehended the danger and difficulty of his anointing
and made a covenant of friendship with him.
jonathan's friendship entered david's soul in a way that saul's hatred never did.
...martin buber, a great jewish man of God who encountered and survived much enmity in his lifetime
was a guest at haverford college, a quaker school in pennsylvania.
douglas steere was his host when they attended a quaker meeting.
one man broke the silence of the meeting to speak of
the great experience of meeting across language, racial, and religious boundaries,
the wonder of being able to reach across the barriers and touch another human being,
the touch turning strangers into friends.
then buber..said that meeting another was a great thing, but not the greatest thing.
the greatest thing any person can do for another is
to confirm the deepest thing in him, in her
-to take the time and have the discernment to see what's most deeply there, most fully that person,
and then confirm it by recognizing and encouraging it.
each of us has contact with hundreds of people who never look beyond our surface appearance.
we have dealings with hundreds of people
who the moment they set eyes on us begin calculating
what use we can be to them,
what they can get out of us.
we meet hundreds of people who take one look at us, make a snap judgment,
and then slot us into a category
so that they won't have to deal with us as persons.
they treat us as something less than we are;
and if we're in constant association with them, we become less.(note: ..necessarily?)
and then someone enters our life who isn't looking for someone to use,
is leisurely enough to find out what's really going on in us,
is secure enough not to exploit our weaknesses or attack our strengths,
recognizes our inner life and understands the difficulty of living out our inner convictions,
confirms what's deepest within us. a friend.
it's a great thing to be a jonathan.
without jonathan, david was at risk of either abandoning his vocation
and returning to the simple life of tending sheep
or developing a murderous spirit of retaliation to get even
with the man who was despising the best that was within him.
he did neither.
he accepted jonathan's friendship and in receiving it
received confirmation of samuel's earlier anointing to kingwork
and the God dominated imagination
that made it possible to live in and by God's Spirit in song and story.
lacking confirmation by the word of a friend,
(note: the old hymn...'what a friend we have in Jesus all our sins and griefs to bear,
what a privilege to carry, everything to God in prayer)
our most promising beginnings fizzle.
lacking confirmation in the presence of a friend, our bravest ventures unravel.
it's not unusual for any of us to begin something wonderful
and it's not unusual for any of us to do things that are quite good.
but it IS unusual to continue and to persevere...
11.22.2013 LEAP OVER A WALL by eugene h. PETERSON -God dominated imagination
reflections on the life of david
acquiring a God dominated imagination
...when david showed up at ephesdammim and joined saul's encampment in the valley of elah,
goliath dominated the scene.
the huge giant..twirling his 25 pound spear with the careless ease of a cheerleader twirling her baton
-was completely intimidating.
his taunts across the valley, easing and provoking the israelites,
each day made each man a little more of a coward.
goliath -his size, his brutality, his cruelty-centered the world.
goliath was the polestar around which everyone took his bearings.
the same debased imagination that treated goliath as important treated david as insignificant.
the men who were in awe of goliath were contemptuous of david.
arriving with 10 loaves of bread and 10 bricks of cheese for his brothers in the army,
david was treated by them with withering scorn.
their imaginations were so ruined by goliath-watching
that they were incapable of seeing and accepting a simple act of friendship.
the moment we permit evil to control our imaginations,
dictate the way we think,
and shape our responses,
we at the same time become incapable of seeing the good and the true and the beautiful.
but david entered the valley of elah with a God dominated, not a goliath dominated, imagination.
he was incredulous that everyone was cowering before this infidel giant.
(note: 10 of 'em should have rushed 'em from all sides and got rid of 'em quick the first time
he opened his mouth! same thing is true of any one of us if threatened by something too big
to deal with alone...tell 9 praying brothers about it quick and go to ask-seek-knock united prayer
until it's old news. if one is so unfortunate to not have other such brothers, ask-seek-knock fasting until the Omnipotent slices off it's head!)
weren't these men enlisted in the army of the living God?
God was the reality with which david had to do;
giants didn't figure largely in david's understanding of the world, the real world.
in the bethlehem hills and meadows, tending his father's sheep,
david was immersed in the largeness and immediacy of God.
he had experienced God's strength in protecting the sheep
in his fights with lions and bears.
he had practiced the presence of God so thoroughly
that God's word, which he couldn't literally hear,
was far more real to him than the lion's roar, which he could hear.
he had worshiped the majesty of God so continuously that God's love,
which he couldn't see,
was far more real to him than the bear's ferocity, which he could see.
his praying and singing,
his meditation and adoration
had shaped an imagination in him that set each seep and lamb, bear and lion
into something large and vast and robust: God.
his imagination was so thoroughly God-dominated
that he COULDN'T BELIEVE what he was seeing and hearing
when he walked into ephesdammim-goliath terror, goliath phobia.
it was an epidemic worse than cholera,
everyone down with golath sickness,
a terrible disease of spirit that had saul and his entire army incapacitated.
acquiring a God dominated imagination
...when david showed up at ephesdammim and joined saul's encampment in the valley of elah,
goliath dominated the scene.
the huge giant..twirling his 25 pound spear with the careless ease of a cheerleader twirling her baton
-was completely intimidating.
his taunts across the valley, easing and provoking the israelites,
each day made each man a little more of a coward.
goliath -his size, his brutality, his cruelty-centered the world.
goliath was the polestar around which everyone took his bearings.
the same debased imagination that treated goliath as important treated david as insignificant.
the men who were in awe of goliath were contemptuous of david.
arriving with 10 loaves of bread and 10 bricks of cheese for his brothers in the army,
david was treated by them with withering scorn.
their imaginations were so ruined by goliath-watching
that they were incapable of seeing and accepting a simple act of friendship.
the moment we permit evil to control our imaginations,
dictate the way we think,
and shape our responses,
we at the same time become incapable of seeing the good and the true and the beautiful.
but david entered the valley of elah with a God dominated, not a goliath dominated, imagination.
he was incredulous that everyone was cowering before this infidel giant.
(note: 10 of 'em should have rushed 'em from all sides and got rid of 'em quick the first time
he opened his mouth! same thing is true of any one of us if threatened by something too big
to deal with alone...tell 9 praying brothers about it quick and go to ask-seek-knock united prayer
until it's old news. if one is so unfortunate to not have other such brothers, ask-seek-knock fasting until the Omnipotent slices off it's head!)
weren't these men enlisted in the army of the living God?
God was the reality with which david had to do;
giants didn't figure largely in david's understanding of the world, the real world.
in the bethlehem hills and meadows, tending his father's sheep,
david was immersed in the largeness and immediacy of God.
he had experienced God's strength in protecting the sheep
in his fights with lions and bears.
he had practiced the presence of God so thoroughly
that God's word, which he couldn't literally hear,
was far more real to him than the lion's roar, which he could hear.
he had worshiped the majesty of God so continuously that God's love,
which he couldn't see,
was far more real to him than the bear's ferocity, which he could see.
his praying and singing,
his meditation and adoration
had shaped an imagination in him that set each seep and lamb, bear and lion
into something large and vast and robust: God.
his imagination was so thoroughly God-dominated
that he COULDN'T BELIEVE what he was seeing and hearing
when he walked into ephesdammim-goliath terror, goliath phobia.
it was an epidemic worse than cholera,
everyone down with golath sickness,
a terrible disease of spirit that had saul and his entire army incapacitated.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
11.21.2013 demoss 4 RETURNING A BLESSING
forgiveness unleashes joy.
it brings peace.
it washes the slate clean.
it sets all the highest values of love in motion.
in a sense, forgiveness is christianity at its highest level john macarthur
mituo fuchida was the lead pilot of the japanese attack on pear harbor
-a fearless, expert flier specially choosen for this commanding role,
the one who actually gave the order-Tora! Tora! Tora!-
to the 360 fighter planes poised at his flank.
he called the killing of 2300 american sailors 'the most thrilling exploit of my career.
but what most people don't know is that in 1949,
less than 8 years after the raid on pearl harbor,
this dive bombing daredevil came to faith in Christ.
God used two remarkable events to bring about this 'unlikely' conversion.
the first came shortly after the war, while fuchida was speaking to a friend
who had been among those captured and detained in the united states.
curious to hear how the americans had treated their prisoners,
he listened to his friend tell of an 18 year old volunteer
who consistently cared for and ministered to the needs of the japanese.
when the prisoners had asked why she was being so helpful to them, she said
-unexpectedly, illogically-'because japanese soldiers killed my parents.
the young woman's mom and dad had been missionaries
in japan during the escalation of international hostilities that led to world war II.
judged to be spies, they had been beheaded after fleeing to the philippines.
their daughter-not hearing this until 3 years later after being evacuated to the states
-had naturally reacted to the news with bitter grief and anger.
but knowing her parents, she ultimately came to the conclusion
that they would have forgiven their killers.
she just knew it.
therefore, she must forgive them, too.
not just forgive, but return blessing.
and that's why she was there, she said-in the camps, loving her enemies.
this notion astounded fuchida.
how could anyone respond to her parents' murder in this way?
then one day several years later,
he was handed a small leaflet while waiting at a railway station.
he probably would have tossed it,
but the fact that it was written by a fellow aviator piqued his interest.
sergeant jacob deshazer's 'i was a prisoner in japan'
is the first person account of an american pilot who had been forced to parachute from his plane
during the doolittle raiders' bombing of tokyo, in retaliation for pearl harbor.
deshazer was quickly captured by the japanese military.
he described his next three years as an endless nightmare of torture and starvation,
frequent executions that took the lives of his fellow detainees,
and solitary confinement that compressed his world into square feet
-but inflamed and enlarged his hatred.
tow years into his imprisonment, however, he had been handed some books to read
in the dim glow of his holding cell,
among them a bible.
like light in the darkness, the word penetrated his heart
-especially the verse that spoke so specifically to his present situation:
'love your enemies.
changed by God's grace, deshazer began deliberately speaking respectfully to his captors.
even when their treatment of him was cruel and degrading.
'i prayed for God to forgive my torturers, he wrote in the leaflet,
and i determined by the aid of Christ to do my best to acquaint these people with the message of salvation.
fuchida read deshazer's story with amazement,
then hurried to find a bible he could buy,
to see for himself where this strange command-'love your enemies'-really came from.
the story ends with fuchida coming to Christ, becoming an evangelist,
and even teaming up with deshazer to speak to large crowds throughout japan and asia,
leading both men to friendship and many to salvation.
SEALING THE DEAL
i've talked with people who believe THEY'VE TRULY FORGIVEN their offender
-they've pressed the delete key-
BUT THEY still FEEL STUCK EMOTIONALLY.
when they think of that person, they still feel tied up in knots.
they've not been able to move forward with any kind of peace or freedom.
something's still holding them back.
God's word gives us an important key to GOING ALL THE WAY WITH FORGIVENESS.
it REQUIRES THAT WE GO 'ABOVE AND BEYOND' just releasing our offender-that we extend the grace of God
and build bridges of love by returning blessing for cursing, good for evil.
BUT I'VE FORGIVEN HIM!
I'M NOT HOLDING A GRUDGE.
i applaud you for taking the courageous step of releasing your offender(s)
from the grip of your won anger and vengeance.
but there's more...
God wants you to live in the kind of freedom that radiates His light and love
from your smile to your handshake to the very soles of your feet.
true forgiveness goes a lot further than just saying, 'i've forgiven him.
as 17th century puritan pastor thomas watson put it:
WHEN DO WE FORGIVE OTHERS?
when we strive against all thoughts of revenge
when we will not do our enemies mischief,
but wish well to them,
grieve at their calamities,
pray for them,
seek reconciliation with them,
and show ourselves ready on all occasions to relieve them.
this is gospel forgiving.
..we are called to forgive others AS GOD HAS FORGIVEN US.
(note: 'forgive us our debts AS we have forgiven our debtors. matthew 6.12)
how has God forgiven us?
He didn't just say to us, 'you're forgiven.
He gave His Son's life for us when we were His enemies.
pursued us when we wanted nothing to do with Him.
adopted us into his family.
made us joint heirs with Christ.
has promised to never leave or forsake us.
comforts us
and meets our needs.
'daily loads us with benefits. psalm 68.19
that kind of extravagant, undeserved grace models the way we are to forgive.
to forgive someone throws open the blinds and raises the windows,
letting the fresh breezes of God's grace begin its healing work.
but when we take the deliberate step to bless our offenders
-to love our enemies-
we are able to enter into the full power of forgiveness.
...there's simply no reason in the world,
even when thinking in terms of the most crippling situations you've faced
-'unforgivable' situations, to hear some of us talk
-why you can't participate with God in obtaining full, complete and conquering victory.
but to do so, you're going to have to take seriously
-and literally-
everything God says about it.
which includes something that may seem unthinkable: BLESSING YOUR OFFENDERS.
as i suggested in the last chapter,
God often chooses to leave behind
some of the painful memories
the lingering feelings
and effects of past hurts,
so we can be merciful and compassionate
toward those who are going through similar ordeals.
this is actually a great privilege bestowed upon us by a God more loving than many expect Him to be,
who has never met a circumstance so dreadful that it can't be recast into a trophy of
His mercy and grace.
but having said that, i do not believe for a minute that you should have to live
the rest of your life under the weight and burden of all these unresolved emotions.
and the reason many of us are still there,
the reason we haven't yet moved on to more complete healing in these areas...
is because we've stopped short of actually blessing those who have wronged us.
we need to go on.
we need to finish what god has started.
for our good.
for their good,
for God's glory.
..in her book 'to fly again', gracia tells of one of their captors,
a young man they called '57' because of the M57 rocket launcher
he always carried as they set out on their marches.
he was always sullen, always cranky, always arguing
they never knew what he was going to do next
and looking like he was ready to bite their heads off.
they never knew what he was going to do next
and what they might possibly do to keep from so easily offending him.
but gracia's husband, martin, discovered one day that '57' suffered from serious headaches,
which probably was what brought on most of his touchy reflexes.
so martin began offering him pain relievers
from their small stash of medicines and other crude provisions.
'the fellow's attitude toward martin changed instantly, gracia remembers.
from that moment on, my husband was his friend...
...romans 12.17..first, repay no one evil for evil...
v19 vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
..'to the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink....
overcome evil with good. v20-1
...think of joseph talking to his frightened brothers
who had wanted to kill him and had sold him into slavery.
..non-retaliation=mercy
..minister to needs=grace
..he said to them,
'do not fear;
i will PROVIDE for you and your little ones.
thus he COMFORTED them and SPOKE KINDLY to them genesis 50.21
..paul to the corinthians regarding a church member who had sinned grievously
and was now in need of restoration:
FORGIVE him, COMFORT him and 'REAFFIRM YOUR LOVE FOR HIM' II corinthians 2.7-8
think of luke 6.27-8
LOVE your enemies
DO GOOD to those who hate you
BLESS those who curse you
PRAY FOR those who spitefully abuse you
(note: v36-8
BE MERCIFUL...(this word means 'lament and regret the misfortune and death of anyone who
refuses to accept God's forgiveness...refuses to do what God says'...the heart behind mercy)
DO NOT JUDGE (ie. you are bad! romans 2.1)
DO NOT CONDEMN (ie. i will lock you out of my life and refuse to help or even be kind to you
in any way matthew 18 parable about forgiveness)
PARDON (ie. so you can with confidence (finally!) and faith,
'forgive our (my) debts AS we (i) forgive our (my) debtors..)
DO GOOD ..good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over.)
....'but no matter who it is or what he's done,
you can at least do this:
you can pray for him.
i mean really pray for him.
you may sigh and say, "i don't think i can pray for God's blessing
on that man or that woman...
i don't even WANT God to bless them!
but i assure you, as you begin to do it anyway out of simple obedience to the word of God,
you'll discover what i've found to be true in my own life:
you can't long hate someone you're praying for,
someone you're asking God to bless and restore to a right relationship with Him.
our main goal for our offenders should be their reconciliation,
first and foremost with God and then, if possible, with us.
we may be able to help bring about that ultimate objective
by building bridges of love and blessing across the divide.
regardless of their response, how can we keep the walls up, refusing to seek their blessing and restoration
-and then expect to experience free flowing fellowship with God ourselves?
THE POWER OF CALVARY LOVE
we are not the only ones who are set free
when we choose to forgive and bless those who have sinned against us.
in God's great economy,
we become instruments of His redemptive work-conduits of His mercy and grace
-in the lives of those who are on the receiving end of that blessing.
they are brought face to face with the reality of calvary love
-when they know they deserve just the opposite.
in the end, such unmerited, unexplainable measures may prove to be
the means of bringing them to brokenness and repentance over their sin.
recently i received an e mail from a colleague who knew i was working on a book on forgiveness
and was prompted to remind me of the impact in his life when his wife felt
the blows of his betrayal and answered back with blessing.
to this day, he can recall as if it were yesterday the haunted look,
the terror filled expression in his wife's face
when he first confessed to her the rampant immorality in his life.
'she was so hurt, he wrote, it was beyond comprehending.
i will never forget the awful conversation we had.
but there is something else he still recalls,
something that has proved to be even more powerful than the hurt
-not only in his wife's life but in his own restoration:
'one thing that sticks out in my mind now,, nearly four years later,
is the lack of recrimination and the absence of 'stabbing back' just to hurt me in return.
to be sure, she was devastated and 'very, very angry'.
humanly speaking, she had every right to be.
but through it all-
the loss of many of her dear friends,
the turmoil in her own immediate family as a result of her husband's sin,
and even going to work to replace his lost income-
'she has NOT ONCE spoken to me with bitterness, meanness or rancor.
'i am amazed by it, he said.
i continue to be .
i believe the incredible love and sacrifice of my wife is the reason we are still together today
and i am serving the Lord again.
that heart to forgive didn't come easily for this woman.
a couple weeks after the exposure of her husband's sin,
she had to make a 16 hour trip.
on the way home, she spent the entire time in prayer
-crying out to the Lord, pouring out her heartache,
praying for her husband and their children
and trying to determine whether she should leave her husband.
that trip proved to be a turning point.
it was during that seemingly endless drive home
that God reminded her of all that He had gone through for her
-that HIS forgiveness had extended to her sin.
in her heart, she knew God was giving her a choice:
to respond in love and grace, as God had received her,
or to refuse God's grace and become a bitter woman.
'thankfully, her husband wrote, she chose the latter.
because of that choice,
i am here today-restored,
back in fellowship with God, my family and others.
kit has not been an easy road.
it has required hard discussions, intense accountability, and counsel from caring, godly people.
but it has all been possible because my wife chose to forgive.
i cannot think about it without realizing once again the incredible grace and love of God.
and i for one will be forever grateful'.
i can't promise you that blessing your offender will result in that kind of 'storybook ending'.
but i can pretty much promise you this:
if you choose NOT to bless in return,
you are almost certainly assured of never seeing the reconciliation your heart longs for.
i have seen God do the unbelievable
as His children have been willing not only to forgive their offenders,
but to step out and return good for evil.
i often counsel women, 'believe it or not,
if you'll let Him,
God can actually fill your heart with deep love and compassion
for that person you have hated for years!
i have seen Him do just that.
yes, it's a miracle of God's grace. it's a miracle you can experience
-not just once but over and over again, as you cultivate a heart of forgiveness
-forgiving others, as He has forgiven you.
it brings peace.
it washes the slate clean.
it sets all the highest values of love in motion.
in a sense, forgiveness is christianity at its highest level john macarthur
mituo fuchida was the lead pilot of the japanese attack on pear harbor
-a fearless, expert flier specially choosen for this commanding role,
the one who actually gave the order-Tora! Tora! Tora!-
to the 360 fighter planes poised at his flank.
he called the killing of 2300 american sailors 'the most thrilling exploit of my career.
but what most people don't know is that in 1949,
less than 8 years after the raid on pearl harbor,
this dive bombing daredevil came to faith in Christ.
God used two remarkable events to bring about this 'unlikely' conversion.
the first came shortly after the war, while fuchida was speaking to a friend
who had been among those captured and detained in the united states.
curious to hear how the americans had treated their prisoners,
he listened to his friend tell of an 18 year old volunteer
who consistently cared for and ministered to the needs of the japanese.
when the prisoners had asked why she was being so helpful to them, she said
-unexpectedly, illogically-'because japanese soldiers killed my parents.
the young woman's mom and dad had been missionaries
in japan during the escalation of international hostilities that led to world war II.
judged to be spies, they had been beheaded after fleeing to the philippines.
their daughter-not hearing this until 3 years later after being evacuated to the states
-had naturally reacted to the news with bitter grief and anger.
but knowing her parents, she ultimately came to the conclusion
that they would have forgiven their killers.
she just knew it.
therefore, she must forgive them, too.
not just forgive, but return blessing.
and that's why she was there, she said-in the camps, loving her enemies.
this notion astounded fuchida.
how could anyone respond to her parents' murder in this way?
then one day several years later,
he was handed a small leaflet while waiting at a railway station.
he probably would have tossed it,
but the fact that it was written by a fellow aviator piqued his interest.
sergeant jacob deshazer's 'i was a prisoner in japan'
is the first person account of an american pilot who had been forced to parachute from his plane
during the doolittle raiders' bombing of tokyo, in retaliation for pearl harbor.
deshazer was quickly captured by the japanese military.
he described his next three years as an endless nightmare of torture and starvation,
frequent executions that took the lives of his fellow detainees,
and solitary confinement that compressed his world into square feet
-but inflamed and enlarged his hatred.
tow years into his imprisonment, however, he had been handed some books to read
in the dim glow of his holding cell,
among them a bible.
like light in the darkness, the word penetrated his heart
-especially the verse that spoke so specifically to his present situation:
'love your enemies.
changed by God's grace, deshazer began deliberately speaking respectfully to his captors.
even when their treatment of him was cruel and degrading.
'i prayed for God to forgive my torturers, he wrote in the leaflet,
and i determined by the aid of Christ to do my best to acquaint these people with the message of salvation.
fuchida read deshazer's story with amazement,
then hurried to find a bible he could buy,
to see for himself where this strange command-'love your enemies'-really came from.
the story ends with fuchida coming to Christ, becoming an evangelist,
and even teaming up with deshazer to speak to large crowds throughout japan and asia,
leading both men to friendship and many to salvation.
SEALING THE DEAL
i've talked with people who believe THEY'VE TRULY FORGIVEN their offender
-they've pressed the delete key-
BUT THEY still FEEL STUCK EMOTIONALLY.
when they think of that person, they still feel tied up in knots.
they've not been able to move forward with any kind of peace or freedom.
something's still holding them back.
God's word gives us an important key to GOING ALL THE WAY WITH FORGIVENESS.
it REQUIRES THAT WE GO 'ABOVE AND BEYOND' just releasing our offender-that we extend the grace of God
and build bridges of love by returning blessing for cursing, good for evil.
BUT I'VE FORGIVEN HIM!
I'M NOT HOLDING A GRUDGE.
i applaud you for taking the courageous step of releasing your offender(s)
from the grip of your won anger and vengeance.
but there's more...
God wants you to live in the kind of freedom that radiates His light and love
from your smile to your handshake to the very soles of your feet.
true forgiveness goes a lot further than just saying, 'i've forgiven him.
as 17th century puritan pastor thomas watson put it:
WHEN DO WE FORGIVE OTHERS?
when we strive against all thoughts of revenge
when we will not do our enemies mischief,
but wish well to them,
grieve at their calamities,
pray for them,
seek reconciliation with them,
and show ourselves ready on all occasions to relieve them.
this is gospel forgiving.
..we are called to forgive others AS GOD HAS FORGIVEN US.
(note: 'forgive us our debts AS we have forgiven our debtors. matthew 6.12)
how has God forgiven us?
He didn't just say to us, 'you're forgiven.
He gave His Son's life for us when we were His enemies.
pursued us when we wanted nothing to do with Him.
adopted us into his family.
made us joint heirs with Christ.
has promised to never leave or forsake us.
comforts us
and meets our needs.
'daily loads us with benefits. psalm 68.19
that kind of extravagant, undeserved grace models the way we are to forgive.
to forgive someone throws open the blinds and raises the windows,
letting the fresh breezes of God's grace begin its healing work.
but when we take the deliberate step to bless our offenders
-to love our enemies-
we are able to enter into the full power of forgiveness.
...there's simply no reason in the world,
even when thinking in terms of the most crippling situations you've faced
-'unforgivable' situations, to hear some of us talk
-why you can't participate with God in obtaining full, complete and conquering victory.
but to do so, you're going to have to take seriously
-and literally-
everything God says about it.
which includes something that may seem unthinkable: BLESSING YOUR OFFENDERS.
as i suggested in the last chapter,
God often chooses to leave behind
some of the painful memories
the lingering feelings
and effects of past hurts,
so we can be merciful and compassionate
toward those who are going through similar ordeals.
this is actually a great privilege bestowed upon us by a God more loving than many expect Him to be,
who has never met a circumstance so dreadful that it can't be recast into a trophy of
His mercy and grace.
but having said that, i do not believe for a minute that you should have to live
the rest of your life under the weight and burden of all these unresolved emotions.
and the reason many of us are still there,
the reason we haven't yet moved on to more complete healing in these areas...
is because we've stopped short of actually blessing those who have wronged us.
we need to go on.
we need to finish what god has started.
for our good.
for their good,
for God's glory.
..in her book 'to fly again', gracia tells of one of their captors,
a young man they called '57' because of the M57 rocket launcher
he always carried as they set out on their marches.
he was always sullen, always cranky, always arguing
they never knew what he was going to do next
and looking like he was ready to bite their heads off.
they never knew what he was going to do next
and what they might possibly do to keep from so easily offending him.
but gracia's husband, martin, discovered one day that '57' suffered from serious headaches,
which probably was what brought on most of his touchy reflexes.
so martin began offering him pain relievers
from their small stash of medicines and other crude provisions.
'the fellow's attitude toward martin changed instantly, gracia remembers.
from that moment on, my husband was his friend...
...romans 12.17..first, repay no one evil for evil...
v19 vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
..'to the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink....
overcome evil with good. v20-1
...think of joseph talking to his frightened brothers
who had wanted to kill him and had sold him into slavery.
..non-retaliation=mercy
..minister to needs=grace
..he said to them,
'do not fear;
i will PROVIDE for you and your little ones.
thus he COMFORTED them and SPOKE KINDLY to them genesis 50.21
..paul to the corinthians regarding a church member who had sinned grievously
and was now in need of restoration:
FORGIVE him, COMFORT him and 'REAFFIRM YOUR LOVE FOR HIM' II corinthians 2.7-8
think of luke 6.27-8
LOVE your enemies
DO GOOD to those who hate you
BLESS those who curse you
PRAY FOR those who spitefully abuse you
(note: v36-8
BE MERCIFUL...(this word means 'lament and regret the misfortune and death of anyone who
refuses to accept God's forgiveness...refuses to do what God says'...the heart behind mercy)
DO NOT JUDGE (ie. you are bad! romans 2.1)
DO NOT CONDEMN (ie. i will lock you out of my life and refuse to help or even be kind to you
in any way matthew 18 parable about forgiveness)
PARDON (ie. so you can with confidence (finally!) and faith,
'forgive our (my) debts AS we (i) forgive our (my) debtors..)
DO GOOD ..good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over.)
....'but no matter who it is or what he's done,
you can at least do this:
you can pray for him.
i mean really pray for him.
you may sigh and say, "i don't think i can pray for God's blessing
on that man or that woman...
i don't even WANT God to bless them!
but i assure you, as you begin to do it anyway out of simple obedience to the word of God,
you'll discover what i've found to be true in my own life:
you can't long hate someone you're praying for,
someone you're asking God to bless and restore to a right relationship with Him.
our main goal for our offenders should be their reconciliation,
first and foremost with God and then, if possible, with us.
we may be able to help bring about that ultimate objective
by building bridges of love and blessing across the divide.
regardless of their response, how can we keep the walls up, refusing to seek their blessing and restoration
-and then expect to experience free flowing fellowship with God ourselves?
THE POWER OF CALVARY LOVE
we are not the only ones who are set free
when we choose to forgive and bless those who have sinned against us.
in God's great economy,
we become instruments of His redemptive work-conduits of His mercy and grace
-in the lives of those who are on the receiving end of that blessing.
they are brought face to face with the reality of calvary love
-when they know they deserve just the opposite.
in the end, such unmerited, unexplainable measures may prove to be
the means of bringing them to brokenness and repentance over their sin.
recently i received an e mail from a colleague who knew i was working on a book on forgiveness
and was prompted to remind me of the impact in his life when his wife felt
the blows of his betrayal and answered back with blessing.
to this day, he can recall as if it were yesterday the haunted look,
the terror filled expression in his wife's face
when he first confessed to her the rampant immorality in his life.
'she was so hurt, he wrote, it was beyond comprehending.
i will never forget the awful conversation we had.
but there is something else he still recalls,
something that has proved to be even more powerful than the hurt
-not only in his wife's life but in his own restoration:
'one thing that sticks out in my mind now,, nearly four years later,
is the lack of recrimination and the absence of 'stabbing back' just to hurt me in return.
to be sure, she was devastated and 'very, very angry'.
humanly speaking, she had every right to be.
but through it all-
the loss of many of her dear friends,
the turmoil in her own immediate family as a result of her husband's sin,
and even going to work to replace his lost income-
'she has NOT ONCE spoken to me with bitterness, meanness or rancor.
'i am amazed by it, he said.
i continue to be .
i believe the incredible love and sacrifice of my wife is the reason we are still together today
and i am serving the Lord again.
that heart to forgive didn't come easily for this woman.
a couple weeks after the exposure of her husband's sin,
she had to make a 16 hour trip.
on the way home, she spent the entire time in prayer
-crying out to the Lord, pouring out her heartache,
praying for her husband and their children
and trying to determine whether she should leave her husband.
that trip proved to be a turning point.
it was during that seemingly endless drive home
that God reminded her of all that He had gone through for her
-that HIS forgiveness had extended to her sin.
in her heart, she knew God was giving her a choice:
to respond in love and grace, as God had received her,
or to refuse God's grace and become a bitter woman.
'thankfully, her husband wrote, she chose the latter.
because of that choice,
i am here today-restored,
back in fellowship with God, my family and others.
kit has not been an easy road.
it has required hard discussions, intense accountability, and counsel from caring, godly people.
but it has all been possible because my wife chose to forgive.
i cannot think about it without realizing once again the incredible grace and love of God.
and i for one will be forever grateful'.
i can't promise you that blessing your offender will result in that kind of 'storybook ending'.
but i can pretty much promise you this:
if you choose NOT to bless in return,
you are almost certainly assured of never seeing the reconciliation your heart longs for.
i have seen God do the unbelievable
as His children have been willing not only to forgive their offenders,
but to step out and return good for evil.
i often counsel women, 'believe it or not,
if you'll let Him,
God can actually fill your heart with deep love and compassion
for that person you have hated for years!
i have seen Him do just that.
yes, it's a miracle of God's grace. it's a miracle you can experience
-not just once but over and over again, as you cultivate a heart of forgiveness
-forgiving others, as He has forgiven you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)