Addressing Sarah (Kimball) Gheen’s membership in the Christian Science movement, Joseph F. Smith, in a letter to his wife, wrote that he was:
Sorry about Sarah’s sickness. But
wish she could get sick enough of her fragment of religion to renew her
covenants before she dies. (Joseph F. Smith, letter to Alice Smith, July 29,
1912)
Would that more Latter-day Saint members, especially
leaders, had this attitude towards false religions (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
2 Baruch 48:42-47 reads:
42 And I answered
and said:
O Adam, what did you do to all
who were born after you? And what will be said of the first Eve who obeyed the
serpent, 43 so that this whole multitude is going to
corruption? And countless are those whom the fire devours.
44 But again I
shall speak before you.
45 You, O Lord,
my Lord, you know that which is in your creation, 46 for you
commanded the dust one day to produce Adam; and you knew the number of those
who are born from him and how they sinned before you, those who existed and who
did not recognize you as their Creator. 47 And concerning all
of those, their end will put them to shame, and your Law which they
transgressed will repay them on your day. (OTP 1:637)
4 Ezra 7:118 reads:
O Adam, what have you done? For
though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who
are your descendants.(OTP 1:541)
2 Baruch (54: 15–19) reads:
15 For, although Adam sinned
first and has brought death upon all who were not in his own time, yet each of
them who has been born from him has prepared for himself the coming torment.
And further, each of them has chosen for himself the coming glory. 16 For
truly, the one who believes will receive reward. 17 But now, turn
yourselves to destruction, you unrighteous ones who are living now, for you
will be visited suddenly, since you have once rejected the understanding of the
Most High. 18 For his works have not taught you, nor has the artful work
of his creation which has existed always persuaded you. 19 Adam is,
therefore, not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become
our own Adam. (OTP 1:640)
Commenting on these texts, with a focus on the latter, Miryam
T. Brand noted that:
Here, as opposed to the literary
lament penned in 48: 42–47, the author presents a statement directly opposing the
idea of Adam as the originator of future generations’ sins. Adam’s sin has,
instead, caused the ultimate death of his descendants (54: 15). This direct
polemic is unlike anything found in 4 Ezra. In 2 Bar. 54: 15–19 the goal of the
author is to ensure that sinners take responsibility for their own sins, a
concern that is not reflected unambiguously in 4 Ezra. According to this
passage in 2 Baruch, sins are the result of a completely free decision: each
sinner has “prepared for himself” (and has not been burdened from the beginning
with a soul already inclined toward evil), and has consequently “rejected the
understanding of the Most High” (54: 17).
This emphasis on individual
responsibility can also be found in 2 Bar. 56: 10–14, where the mating of the
angels with human women in Gen 6: 2 is ultimately attributed to Adam’s sin,
which begat human lust (56: 6). In this passage the author is careful to
emphasize that, while some angels sinned, the majority of angels restrained
themselves (56: 14). Hence one can choose not to sin even when faced with lust
and granted the total “freedom” of angels (56: 11).
How then could the author of 2
Baruch present a lament blaming Adam for the sins of future generations? In
both 4 Ezra 7:118 and in 2 Bar. 48: 42–47, the lament addressed to Adam is
literarily motivated. By addressing the progenitor of humankind and lamenting
his tremendous error, an error with horrendous consequences for future
generations, the protagonist emphasizes the truly tragic position of “contemporary”
sinners. Despite the common literary use of Adam’s sin in lament form, for
neither 4 Ezra nor 2 Baruch does Adam’s role as first sinner take a central
place in the author’s theological approach to sin. In 2 Baruch, the possibility
of such a role for Adam’s sin is openly rejected alongside an emphasis on total
free will. In contrast, in 4 Ezra the desire to sin is inherited from Adam and
is thus both basic to humanity and inevitable; whether this desire was created
within him or whether it results from his sin matters little to the protagonist
Ezra or to the book’s intended audience, who must deal with the consequences
regardless. The toil and travail that Adam has brought to the world according
to the angel in 4 Ezra 7: 11–12 is likewise now a basic feature of this world
that both the righteous and the wicked must experience; it remains only to hope
for the next world. The question of who will merit the realization of this hope
is yet another bone of contention between Ezra and the angel.
The dialogue in 4 Ezra represents
the empirical difficulty with conventional wisdom that resulted from the Temple’s
destruction and the magnitude of the tragedy it represented. On the one hand,
Ezra accepts that the destruction of the Temple is a punishment for Israel’s
sins. On the other hand, these sins, whose scale does not seem to match the
enormity of the punishment received, are nearly inevitable as part of the human
condition. The “solution” proposed in 4 Ezra that this situation will only be
righted during the eschaton or after death (4 Ezra 13; 14: 34–35) is a sad
expression of what must have seemed an almost impossibly grim reality to the
author. (Miryam T. Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its
Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature [Journal of Ancient Judaism
Supplements 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2013], 140-41)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
(7) We believe that at the age of
perfection baptism effects either the purgation of the original fault or the
abolition of actual sin. For children, however, the effect of baptism is that
they are washed only from the original sin that they contracted from Adam
through their first birth. If they should have died before they are
regenerated, without doubt they are separated from the kingdom of Christ, our
savior testifying: “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of
water and Spirit” [John 3:5]. Accordingly, children are baptized with
another person professing, because as yet they do not know how to speak or
believe. This is also the case with the sick, the speechless, and the deaf, on
whose behalf another professes so as to respond on their behalf while they are
being baptized. (8) However, although original sin passes away through the
regeneration, nevertheless the punishment of the mandated death, which entered
through the transgression, remains even in those whom the baptism of the savior
cleanses from the fault of the origin. This is the case accordingly so that one
will know that the hope of future happiness follows through regeneration, not
so that he can be absolved from the punishment of temporal death. (Isidore of Seville,
De Ecclesiasticis Officiis [trans. Thomas L. Knoebel; Ancient Christian
Writers 61; New York: The Newman Press, 2008], 110, emphasis in bold added)
There are three kinds of baptism:
first, the baptism by which the stains of sin are washed away through the
washing of regeneration. Second, the baptism by which one is baptized in his
blood through martyrdom. By this baptism also Christ was baptized so that both
in this, as in the others, he might give an example to the believers, as he was
saying to his disciples the sons of Zebedee: “Are you able to drink the cup
that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” [Mark
10:38]. Therefore water and blood symbolize a twofold baptism: the one by which
we are regenerated by a washing, the other by which we are consecrated by
blood. (3) There is also a third baptism, of tears, which is accomplished
laboriously, as the one who “every night … flood[s his] bed with tears” [Ps
6:7], who imitates the conversion of Manasseh and the humility of the people of
Nineveh through which mercy followed, who imitates the prayer of that publican
in the Temple, “who, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but
was beating his breast” [Luke 18:13].
For the water of baptism is that
which flowed from the side of Christ at the time of the passion, and there is
no other element that purges all things in this world, that enlivens all
things. Therefore, when we are baptized in Christ we are reborn through that
water so that, purified, we might be brought to life. (Isidore of Seville, De
Ecclesiasticis Officiis [trans. Thomas L. Knoebel; Ancient Christian
Writers 61; New York: The Newman Press, 2008], 109)
כֹּהֵן
(kōhēn). n. masc. priest. Someone who mediates between the divine and the human in or around a
place of worship.
Although this word is a noun, the
vocalic pattern shows that it was originally a participle. The original meaning
of the root is not certain, but it is also used to refer to a religious
official in Ugaritic (khn), Imperial
and Middle Aramaic (כהן, khn),
and Phoenician (כהן, khn).
In the OT, kōhēn refers to priests
who are descendants of Aaron and Levi, as well as to certain non-Levitical
priests such as Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20) and Jethro (Exod 18:1) and priests
of other gods (e.g., a priest of Baal; 1 Kgs 11:18). At a later point, the
meaning of this root was restricted so that it referred only to Levitical
priests. Accordingly, Targum Onqelos (an Aramaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch)
refers to Jethro as a רבא (rabbāʾ,
“teacher”) and to Melchizedek as a משׁמישׁ
(mĕšamêš, “minister”). The Peshitta
(the Syriac version of the OT) refers to both of these as ܟܘܡܪܐ (kumrāʾ), a term used for all non-Levitical priests; kumrāʾ is cognate with the Hebrew term כֹּמֶר (kōmer; see below). (Daniel
E. Carver, “Priesthood,” in Lexham
Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Bible Reference
Series [Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014], Logos ed. [RB: kohen does not
appear in 1 Kings 11:18, but it appears in 1 Kings 8:11])
כֹּמֶר (kōmer). n. masc. priest.
Used only of idolatrous priests.
This word is unrelated to the
main Hebrew words for priests and priesthood and is used only for idolatrous
priests (2 Kgs 23:5; Hos 10:5; Zeph 1:4). It is cognate with the Syriac ܟܘܡܪܐ (kumrāʾ), which is not restricted to idolatrous priests, since it is
used for Melchizedek. (Daniel E. Carver, “Priesthood,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas
Mangum et al., Lexham Bible Reference Series [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press,
2014], Logos ed.)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Addressing all bishops, not the Bishop of Rome singularly, canon 102 of the Council of Trullo (AKA Quinisext), held A.D. 692, reads:
It behoves those who have
received from God the power to loose and bind, to consider the quality of the
sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion, and to apply medicine
suitable for the disease, lest if he is injudicious in each of these respects
he should fail in regard to the healing of the sick man. For the disease of sin
is not simple, but various and multiform, and it germinates many mischievous
offshoots, from which much evil is diffused, and it proceeds further until it
is checked by the power of the physician. Wherefore he who professes the
science of spiritual medicine ought first of all to consider the disposition of
him who has sinned, and to see whether he tends to health or (on the contrary)
provokes to himself disease by his own behaviour, and to look how he can care
for his manner of life during the interval. And if he does not resist the
physician, and if the ulcer of the soul is increased by the application of the
imposed medicaments, then let him mete out mercy to him according as he is
worthy of it. For the whole account is between God and him to whom the pastoral
rule has been delivered, to lead back the wandering sheep and to cure that
which is wounded by the serpent; and that he may neither cast them down into
the precipices of despair, nor loosen the bridle towards dissolution or
contempt of life; but in some way or other, either by means of sternness and
astringency, or by greater softness and mild medicines, to resist this sickness
and exert himself for the healing of the ulcer, now examining the fruits of his
repentance and wisely managing the man who is called to higher illumination.
For we ought to know two things, to wit, the things which belong to strictness
and those which belong to custom, and to follow the traditional form in the
case of those who are not fitted for the highest things, as holy Basil teaches
us. (NPNF2 14:408)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
The following comes from Robert A. Sungenis, who has written a lot in favor of Catholic theology (e.g., Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice) and against Protestantism (e.g., Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification). What stood out is how Sungenis downplays the significance of the patristics and their witness (at least in comparison to many pop-level Catholic apologists who often [falsely] appeal to the unanimous consent of the fathers for various doctrines):
Often we are tempted to think
that support for a doctrinal truth can be garnered simply by finding a
representative sample of Fathers of the early Church who held the same opinion.
Often the Catholic interpreter will quote one, two, or perhaps even a dozen
Fathers on a matter of doctrine and consider the case closed. Unfortunately, it
is simply not that easy. Unless the Fathers had a consensus wherein all of them
agreed on a certain matter of Christian doctrine, the doctrine is neither
established nor required for belief. The Catholic should consider the testimony
of the Fathers influential and valuable, but certainly not final. The reason is
that the Catholic Church does not regard the Fathers as possessing an inspired
gift for deciding matters of doctrine, nor does the Church regard the Fathers
as superior interpreters of Scripture compared to exegetes of a later time.
Truth be told, some of the Fathers were poor at exegeting Scripture. Some of
them did not even know the languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew. At other
times the Fathers not only contradicted one another, but a Father would
sometimes contradict himself, or give two or more opinions on a certain passage
of Scripture. In fact, some of the Fathers held beliefs that were later
regarded as dubious or even heretical by the Church. (Robert A. Sungenis,
“Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews Just Before the Return of Christ?,”
in Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies & Corrections [State
Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 634)
The main reason the Church
invests the Fathers with a certain degree of influence or authority regarding
Catholic doctrine is that their consensus on a certain belief is a strong sign
that the doctrine originates from Christ and the Apostles. [272] If their
teaching is unanimous, such that they all interpret a text of the Bible
precisely the same, then it can be assumed, barring some intervention by the
magisterium, that the teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit, either by
written revelation (2Tm 3:16) or oral revelation (1Th 2:13), which were both
commanded to be preserved in Tradition (2Th 2:15). It is the divine origin of a
particular doctrine that makes the doctrine a requirement of belief for
salvation, not the majority or common opinion of the Fathers, the medieval or
theologians and prelates of today. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Should We Expect a
Mass Conversion of Jews Just Before the Return of Christ?,” in Catholic/Jewish
Dialogue: Controversies & Corrections [State Line, Pa.: Catholic
Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 634-35)
[272] “We say [the Fathers] are
of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any
text of the Bible as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their
unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down form the
Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, II,
1893).
There are instances in which the
Fathers held to a consensus on various points of doctrine, but the Church, who
is the final authority, has not chosen to dogmatize the consensus into a
requirement for personal belief and salvation (e.g., geocentrism, the sons of
God in Gn 6:1-2 were fallen angels, etc). There are other instances in which
there exists very little testimony from the Fathers on a given doctrine, yet
the Church has chosen to dogmatize the doctrine and make it a requirement for
salvation (e.g., the Assumption of Mary). Sometimes there is a germ of doctrine
in the Fathers which is enhanced by the medieval theologians, but which the
Church eventually rejects (e.g., limbo). [273] Additionally, there are cases in
which an absolute consensus exists very early among the Fathers on a given
doctrine and which the Church dogmatizes early in her history (e.g., baptismal
regeneration), yet other times there is a developing consensus which the Church
dogmatizes rather later in her history (e.g., transubstantiation,
justification, canon of Scripture). Hence, when we enter into a study of the
patristics, we must tread lightly. As reliable as they often were, the Fathers
were fallible men just like theologians of today. In fact, the tools of
biblical exegesis we have today, as well as the exegetical knowledge and easy
access of Greek and Hebrew not available to some Fathers, contemporary exegetes
of Scripture have a distinct advantage in discovering the truths of Holy Writ
that there not always available to the Fathers. What the Fathers had to their
distinct advantage is their close proximity to the Apostles, and thus we would
expect that, if and when there was a bridge from the Apostles to the Fathers on
a certain point of doctrine, the Fathers would most likely provide us with
consensus testimony to that divine source, yet even then, they may not do so in
very case. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews
Just Before the Return of Christ?,” in Catholic/Jewish Dialogue:
Controversies & Corrections [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics
International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 635)
The case of Limbo is especially
significant since Pope Benedict XVI recently approved a papal commission
document that essentially removed Limbo from the teaching of the Church. This
shows that even cherished theological ideas from tradition, if not officially
accepted and dogmatized by the Church, can be eliminated by a future pope or
council. (Ibid., 635 n. 275)
In his position as patriarchal
head of his own church, [Ross Wesley] LeBaron sees himself as preparing the way
for the great man who will hold the special Mighty and Strong office. “I am not
the prophet spoken of as the One Mighty and Strong,” he as emphatically
written, “my work is that of an Elias or forerunner to this great prophet—much as
John the Baptist was before the coming of Christ” (Ross W. LeBaron, Letter to John
Wolf, February 14, 1959). (Lyle O. Wright, “Origins and Development of the
Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times” [MA Thesis; Brigham Young
University, 1963], 40)
Elias
Maurice Lerrie Glendenning, who
heads the Order of Aaron as a purported firstborn son of Aaron, claims to
receive revelations from Elias. Glendenning teaches that the One Mighty and Strong
is Christ, the great Elias. (James R. Christianson, “The Aaronic Order and/or
The True Order of Aaron, Term paper, Brigham Young University, 1959). (Lyle O.
Wright, “Origins and Development
of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times” [MA Thesis;
Brigham Young University, 1963], 41)
[on “The Right of the Firstborn”]:
LeBaronism maintains that Moses
held this authority and that it was this office of “Right of the Firstborn”
that fulfilled the promise to Abraham that through him and his seed all the
families of the earth should be blessed—that is, they would be blessed in the
priesthood which Abraham and his seed were to hold.
The holding of this office is
said to have been what constituted Abraham the “father of the faithful.” It was
this office that was supposedly taken out of Israel with Moses, yet after the loss
of the office all three departments of ecclesiastical government—spiritual,
civil, and temporal—were carried on under the patriarchal authority of the
priesthood of Aaron. No prophets between Moses and Christ held the office Moses
held, but it was conferred upon Christ by Moses, according to the LeBarons.
Christ bestowed the office upon John the Revelator, who as “Elias” completed
Joseph Smith’s power of restoration by bestowing the office upon Joseph in the
Kirtland Temple in 1836.
Table 2 lists the men from Adam
to the present said to have held this office, the early history of which Joel
LeBaron has summarized by declaring their belief to be that:
. . . Adam brought a certain
office with him, which of course is the Melchizedek office . . . that Adam left
this office with Enoch, that Enoch left it with Lamech, his grandson; that
Lamech left it with Noah, his son; that Noah passed it to Melchizedek;
Melchizedek passed it to Abraham; that Abraham gave it to Esaias and through a
line of prophets to Jethro; and Jethro gave this to Moses; Moses gave this
personally to Christ, and Christ gave this personally, after the same pattern
exactly, to John his beloved disciple; that John his beloved disciple gave it
to Joseph Smith April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland temple; that there was no man on
the face of this earth in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith that could give
that office to another but himself, following the same pattern exactly as it
came down form the days of Adam to him, no change. (Joel F. LeBaron,
Tape-recording of an address given at Ogden, Utah, in 1961, a copy of which is
in the writer’s possession; the original is in the possession of Wendell L.
Hansen, Ogden, Utah.) (Lyle O. Wright, “Origins and Development of the
Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times” [MA Thesis; Brigham Young
University, 1963], 139-40)
Further Reading:
1 Clement. Clement, bishop of
Rome, shared the same worldview as Philo of an eternal fabric or constitution
of the world from which the world was created. Clement stated: “Thou . . .
didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. Thou, Lord, didst
create the earth.” The terms used here by Clement are significant. He asserts
that God did “make manifest” (ἐϕανεροποίησας) the “everlasting fabric of the
world” (Σὺ τὴν ἀέναον τοῦ κόσμου σύστασιν). He is referring to an eternal
substrate that underlies God’s creative activity. Clement is important because
he is at the very center of the Christian church as it was then developing. His
view assumed that God had created from an eternally existing substrate,
creating by “making manifest” what already existed in some form. The lack of
argumentation or further elucidation indicates that Clement was not attempting
to establish a philosophical position; he was merely maintaining a generally
accepted one. However, the fact that such a view was assumed is even more
significant than if Clement had argued for it. If he had presented an argument
for this view, then we could assume that it was either a contested doctrine or
a new view. But because he acknowledged it as obvious, it appears to have been
a generally accepted belief in the early Christian church. (Blake Ostler, “Out
of Nothing: A History of Creation Ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought,” FARMS
Review 17, no. 2 [2005]: 293-94)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
The difficulty in interpreting
4:22 rests in great measure on the meaning of “from” in the phrase translated “salvation
is from the Jews.” The Greek preposition translated “from” is ek (sometimes
ex). This preposition can mean “of” as in “a part of” or “can be found
within.” It can also mean “out of” or “emerging from.”
Those who read 4:22 as the positive
counterbalance to the negative portrayal of the Jews interpret “salvation is
from the Jews” as “belonging to or reserved for Jews only.” But in Greek the
phrase can just as easily be read “salvation emerges from the Jews.” John’s point
here is not to emphasize that the Jews are the origin of salvation but that
Jesus is the one through whom salvation comes. In other words, Jesus, the Jew
who, by rights, should not have been speaking to a Samaritan woman, is the
salvation that comes from the Jews. This analysis supports the idea that, while
Ioudaioi is a positive term here, the point of the verse is not to
stress Jesus’s Jewish origins so much as to draw attention to Jesus himself.
It may seem that an interpreter keen
to avoid Judeophobic teachings of this passage might do well to focus on the
positive resonances of John 4:22 and downplay the Christological and rhetorical
elements of the verse in its context within the gospel. Taking this route,
however, amounts to an apologetic reading that, perhaps paradoxically, may reinforce
the anti-Judaism it is attempting to avoid. A more successful, as well as more
critically defensible, approach is to situate this passage within its literary
and theological context in John’s Gospel. Doing so allows us to see that 4:22,
like 8:44, contributes to the gospel’s rhetorical program. (Adele Reinhartz, “Gospel
of John,” in Judeophobia and the New Testament: Texts and Contexts, ed.
Sarah E. Rollens, Eric M. Vanden Eykel, and Meredith J. C. Warren [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2025], 146)
THE SCAPEGOAT
To support the penal substitution
view of sacrifice, specifically that the blood of the animal is shed in place
of the blood of the offerer, advocates refer to the ceremony of the scapegoat
on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:8-10, 20-22). The penal substitution
interpretation assumes that in the regular sin offering the sins of the
offerer are symbolically placed on the sacrificial animal by the laying on of
hands in the same manner as with the scapegoat. But there are differences
between the scapegoat and the sin offering. The Scapegoat is not killed and its
blood is not shed. IT is sent into the desert. The sin offering, however, is
pure and is offered to God. The scapegoat is impure, and anyone who touches it
is also considered impure. Therefore, the priest who carried out the ceremony
and the one appointed to release the scapegoat in the wilderness both had to
purify themselves afterward (Lev 16:26). In addition, both hands of the priest
are laid on the scapegoat whereas only one is placed on the sin offerings and
the other sacrifices in which there is no thought of removing sin (such as the
burnt offering and the peace offering). Most revealing is the fact that not
once in the NT, when the author speaks of the sacrifice of Christ, is the
ceremony of the scapegoat mentioned.
The scapegoat, then, is not a
type of Christ, for in the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement the two ideas of
a sacrificial victim and sin-bearing are mutually exclusive. An animal could be
sacrificed or offered to God only because it was thought not to be
contaminated with the sins of the people. This clearly presents a contradiction
for juridical theories of the Atonement. The use of the blood signified the
expiation or washing away of sin by a sinless life that had been offered to and
accepted by God. On the Day of Atonement one goat symbolized the means of
atonement and the other the effect of atonement: bearing away the sins
of the people to the land of forgetfulness. The ritual contains no idea of
punishment.
It was during the Reformation
that the exegesis of the rite changed to reflect the newly developed penal
substitution theory. The scapegoat provided a ready illustration of a theory of
the Atonement founded on the alleged imputation of sins to Christ. However,
there is no scriptural evidence for interpreting the scapegoat as a type of
Christ. Attempts to create such comparisons are mere exercise in typology
unfounded in Scripture. A change in the Christian understanding of redemption
is what allowed the association of Christ with the scapegoat. (Vee Chandler, Victorious
Substitution: Exploring the Nature of Salvation and Christ’s Atoning Work [Eugene,
Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2025], 107-8, italics in original)
Huge credit to Stephen Smoot//the B H Roberts Foundation for the following:
John Taylor’s
1886 Revelation (cf. Primary
Sources)
John
Taylor revelation, 1886 September 27, Church History Catalog, MS
34928
There is no particular merit in
"discovering" vast numbers of "hitherto unrecognized"
Hebrew roots, particularly when the pas- sages being explicated make sense with
the old established roots. Nevertheless, classical Hebrew undoubtedly possessed
a much richer vocabulary than has been preserved in our limited corpus of
texts, and where none of the old roots make sense in the context, as is
certainly the case in Ps. xxii 17c, it is legitimate to suggest a new root. The
only requirements are that the root be well-attested in a cognate language or
languages, the difference in root consonants, if any, be explainable by the
principles of Semitic phonology, and the meaning suggested for the new root be
consistent with its attested meaning in the cognate languages and with the context
in the other language where it is posited. (J. J. M. Roberts, “A New Root for an Old Crux, Ps. XXII
17c,” Vetus Testmentum 23, no. 2 [April 1973]: 251)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
The Scriptural testimony
against the Papalist interpretation of St. Luke xxii. 32.
154. Additional evidence
that St. Peter had no office of strengthening the brethren other than that
which, as has been said, he shared in common with the rest of the Rulers of the
Church, is afforded by the fact that the word στηριζειν, used by St. Luke in the
passage (or its compounds) is also used by the same writer with reference to
the work of St. Paul and others in the Acts of the Apostles.
So St. Paul and St. Barnabas are
related to have confirmed [επιστηριζοντες] the disciples of Lystra, Iconium,
and Antioch. [Acts 14:22] So St. Jude and St. Silas confirmed [επεστηριξαν] the
brethren of Antioch. [Acts 15:32] So St. Paul confirmed [επιστηριζων] the
Churches of Syria and Cilicia, [Acts 15:41] and the disciples in Galatia and
Phrygia, [Acts 18:23] whilst St. Paul used the word GK to describe the purpose
for which he sent Timothy to the Thessalonian Church. [1 Thess 3:2]
155. It is, moreover,
specially worthy of note that the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans says of
himself: 'I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift,
that you may be established,' [Rom 1:10] εις το στηριχθηναι υμας, words which
show that he regarded himself as one who should be the instrument whereby a
gift of strength should be conferred on the Christians of Rome. A fact which is
specially interesting, as the Roman Christians on Papalist principles were the
peculiar charge of Peter, who was actually at this very time, according to the
Papalist figment of his twenty-five years' tenure of the Roman See, seated in
'the Chair' which he had placed there. St. Paul's statement therefore would
have been, if the Papalist interpretation of St. Luke xxii. 32 were true, in a
very special manner an infringement of the prerogatives of Peter, whilst, on
the other hand, it would accurately describe the result of the faithful
discharge of that Apostolic office which he held in common with St. Peter and
the rest of the Apostolic College, and be perfectly consistent with the
position of joint-founder with St. Peter of the Church at Rome, which was his
privilege. (Edward Denny, Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims of the Papacy
As Set Forth in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum [London: Rivingtons, 1912], 77-78)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
En ce temps arriva la mort de Romulus (39-715). Il fut toujours en guerre,
et toujours victorieux; mais, a umilieu des guerres, il jeta les fondements de
la religionet des lois. Une longue paix donna moyen à Numa, son successeur,
d'achever l'ouvrage (40-714). Il formala religion, et adoucit les mœurs
farouches du peupleromain. De son temps, les colonies venues de Corinthe, et de
quelques autres villes de Grèce, fondèrent Syracuse en Sicile, Crotone,
Tarente, et peut-être quelques autres villes dans cette partie de l'Italie, à
qui de plus anciennes colonies grecques répandues dans tout le pays avaient
déjà donné le nom de Grande-Grèce.
Cependant Ezéchias, le plus pieux et le plus justede tous les rois après
David, régnait en Judée. Sennachérib, fils et successeur de Salmanasar,
l'assiégea dans Jérusalem avec une armée immense (44-710) : elle périten une
nuit, par la main d'un ange. Ezéchias, délivréd'une manière si admirable,
servit Dieu avec tout son peuple, plus fidèlement que jamais. Mais, après la
mortde ce prince (56-698), et sous son fils Manassès, le peupleingrat oublia
Dieu, et les désordres s'y multiplièrent
L'Etat populaire se formait alors parmi les Athéniens, et ils commencèrent
à choisir les archontes annuels, dont le premier fut Créon (67-687).
Pendant que l'impiété s'augmentait dans le royaume
de Juda, la puissance des rois d'Assyrie, qui devaient en être les vengeurs,
s'accrut sous Asaraddon, fils de Sennachérib. Il réunit le royaume de Babylone
à celui de Ninive (73-681), et égala dans la grande Asie la puissance des
premiers Assyriens. Les Mèdes commençaient aussi à se rendre considérables.
Déjocès, leur premier roi, que quelques-uns prennent pour l'Arphaxad nommé dans
le livre de Judith, fonda la superbe ville d'Ecbatane, et jeta les fondements
d'un grand empire. Ils l'avaient mis sur le trône pour couronner ses vertus, et
mettre fin aux désordres que l'anarchie causait parmi eux. Conduits par un si
grand roi, ils se soutenaient contre leurs voisins, mais ils ne s'étendaient
pas. (Jacques-Bénigne
Bossuet, Discours
Sur L’Histoire Universelle [New York : The Odyssey Press Inc., 1966],
64-65)
English Translation:
At that time, the death of Romulus occurred
(39–715 BC). He was always at war, and always victorious; but, in the midst of
his wars, he laid the foundations of religion and of the laws. A long peace
gave his successor, Numa, the opportunity to complete the work (40–714 BC). He
organized the religion and softened the fierce manners of the Roman people. In
his time, colonies from Corinth and from some other Greek cities founded
Syracuse in Sicily, Crotone, Tarentum, and perhaps a few other towns in that part
of Italy, to which the older Greek colonies scattered throughout the region had
already given the name “Magna Graecia.”
Meanwhile, Hezekiah—the most devout and the most
righteous of all the kings after David—reigned in Judah. Sennacherib, son and
successor of Shalmaneser, besieged him in Jerusalem with a vast army
(44–710 BC): it perished in a single night by the hand of an angel. Hezekiah,
delivered in so miraculous a manner, served God with all his people more
faithfully than ever. But after the death of that prince (56–698 BC), and under
his son Manasseh, the ungrateful people forgot God, and their disorders
multiplied.
At that same time, the popular state was forming among
the Athenians, and they began to choose annual archons, the first of whom was
Creon (67–687 BC).
While impiety was increasing in the kingdom of Judah,
the power of the Assyrian kings—destined to be their avengers—grew under
Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib. He united the kingdom of Babylon with that of
Nineveh (73–681 BC), and equaled in Greater Asia the power of the early
Assyrians. The Medes were also beginning to become significant. Deioces, their
first king—whom some identify with the Arphaxad mentioned in the Book of
Judith—founded the splendid city of Ecbatana and laid the foundations of a
great empire. They had placed him on the throne to crown his virtues and to end
the disorders that anarchy was causing among them. Led by so great a king, they
held their own against their neighbors, though they did not yet expand their
territory.
WHEN
One of the most hotly disputed
questions between scientists and religionists is that which has to be with
time. Archbishop Usher's Bible chronology seems to have been generally accepted
with an authority almost equal to that of the scriptures themselves. This is
regrettable. We might have been better off without his attempted fixing of the
historical dates of the Old Testament. Authorities of the subject say that,
"While the Old Testament contains a great many chronological notices, it
has no chronological system. A chronological system requires some fixed event
or point of time from which all dates may be reckoned. No such event finds
mention in the Old Testament. The earliest fixed date of the Old Testament
history is given us by the inscription of Shalmaneser II of Assyria 860-824 B.
C." Modern schools of archaeological research are pushing the border of
time back father and father so that our children are acquiring a far greater
range of historical vision than their parents dreamed of in their school days.
Geological time reaches back by millions and billions of years.
Sir James Jeans in the opening
paragraph of his little book already referred to, says that man has been on the
earth for approximately three hundred thousand years, and that the earth is
about two billion years old. Quoting him: "Some two thousand million years
ago our planetary system came into existence." It appears that most
scientists are in practical agreement on the matter in the May number, 1931, of
"Current History," under the department of Science Service of which
Watson Davis was editor, the following authoritative statement is made on the
subject: "The age of the earth is at least 2,000,000,000 years according
to a committee of scientists appointed by the National Research Council, who
have been investigating the problem for the past four years. The radioactive
minerals uranium and thorium, which spontaneously disintegrate into lead, give
the best clue to the earth's age. By carefully analyzing the radioactive
minerals and their products in a sample of rock, it is possible to tell how
long it has been in existence. The oldest rock from Dinyaya Pala, Carelita,
Russia. It is 1,853,000,000 years old, and as it occurs in rocks that were
intruded into the surrounding rocks which therefore must be older, the
scientists conclude that the age of the earth must be in round numbers at least
2,000,000,000 years. Estimates of the age of the earth have been multiplied by
more than twenty during the last three decades. The old idea that the amount of
sale in the ocean is an index of the earth's age was found by the National
Research Council committee to be unreliable as only 100,000,000 years can be
accounted for by this method. At the turn of the century this was a favorite
figure for the earth's age."
Professor E. W. Brown, Yale
astronomer, concluded that while there are no known astronomical methods, the
two billion year age is consistent with astronomical probabilities.
In one of these addresses of a
few weeks ago we quoted Dr. J. D. Haldane, a famous scientist of England, who
was introduced before the University of California "as possibly the most
brilliant man alive." in reporting the remarks of Mr. Haldane made on the
occasion. It was stated that he figures that "the earth was probably two
billion years old in Cambrian times and life probably had existed for some five
hundred million years at that time." Taking these figures as they are
intended the earth's age would be placed at two-and-a-half billion years. (Nephi
L. Morris, “The How When and Why of The Earth and Man—A Cosmogony Revealed Through
Joseph Smith,” box 4, folder 20, Nephi L. Morris papers, 1870-1943, Special
Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah)
On the insertion, beginning in 1840, to 1 Nephi 20:1 (= Isa 48:1) of the phrase “or out of the waters of baptism”:
This change was made by the
author, Joseph Smith, and is apparently an attempt to clarify the meaning of “the
waters of Judah.” It is admitted by the Church that Joseph Smith probably used
the King James version of the Bible as a guide when he translated the sections
of the Bible found in the Book of Mormon. It is possible that for this reason
the quotation “or out of the waters of baptism” was omitted. Whatever the
reason, the quotation at least givens a meaning, and a logical meaning, to “the
waters of Judah.,” for Dr. Alfred Edersheim states that the Jewish law
required:
That those who had contracted Levitical
defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed “proselytes
of the Covenant,” were to be admitted to the full participation in the
privilege of Israel by the three-fold rites of circumcision, baptism and
sacrifice—the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgement and symbolic removal
of mortal defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. (Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Vol. 1, pp.
273-274) (Larry Wilcox, "A Comparative Analysis of Those Portions of the
Bible Found in the Book of Mormon," p. 5, August 29, 1949, Box 11, Folder
9, Louis C. Zucker papers, 1904-1982, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott
Library, University of Utah)
Isaiah 29 – II Nephi 27.
II Nephi 27 quotes several verses of the 29th chapter of Isaiah. Again there is
no indication in the surrounding text that they are quotations. For this reason
they shall not be discussed here. Furthermore, they are woven into the sermon
which is being given by Nephi. (Larry Wilcox, "A Comparative Analysis of
Those Portions of the Bible Found in the Book of Mormon," p. 17, August
29, 1949, Box 11, Folder 9, Louis C. Zucker papers, 1904-1982, Special
Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah)
In his essay, “From the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS),” Hugh W. Nibley, commenting on the Essenes community, noted that, according to Roman Catholic scholar Georg Molin:
The proper title for them, the
name they gave themselves, he maintains, is “Latter-day Saints”—and he deplores
the preemption of that name at the present time by a “so-called Christian
sect.”
I decided to track down a copy of the book. Here are pp.
146-47:
Here is a transcription:
Entschlossen trennt sich die
heilige Kriegsschar von dem Gottesvolk, das Gott verraten hat, von seinen
Priestern und Königen, die die ersten im Sündigen sind, und wartet auf den Tag,
da Gott sie in den Kampf senden wird, dem allen ein Ende zu machen. Von
Sturmzeichen sieht sie sich aller Orten umgeben. Sie haben ihre Propheten gut
gelesen (vor allem Jes, Ez, Hag, Sach, Mal). Schreibt nicht Ezechiel, daß sich
im Tale Hinnom vor Jerusalem der Endkampf abspielen wird? Der Gog von Magog
sammelt dort alle Völker des Nordens, aber Gott vertilgt ihn und seine Scharen.
Was verschlägt es, wenn die Macht der Welt groß ist, wenn die Kittim mit
gewaltiger Macht einherziehen, die Frevler in Jerusalem zu strafen. Hat nicht
Gott auch Sanheribs Heer vernichtet, weiß nicht die Chronik von wunderbaren
Siegen zu berichten, bei denen Juda kaum die Hand zu rühren brauchte. Nur rein
bleiben muß man und Gottes Gesetz einhalten, um Seine Hilfe zu empfangen. Und
weil man nicht weiß, wann es sein wird, kann man nicht warten mit Umkehr,
Reinigung und Unterwerfung unter Gottes Willen. Jeden Tag gilt es bereit zu
sein.
So erscheint die ganze
Lebensführung der Sekte immer im Lichte des letzten Tages. „Heilige der
letzten Tage“ hat sich später eine „christliche“ Sekte genannt. Unserer
Sekte hier kann man diesen Titel mit Recht geben. Daß sie den Weg des Judentums
konsequent zu Ende gingen, wer will es ihnen verübeln? Kannten sie einen
anderen doch nicht. Sie gingen ihn mit einem heiligen Ernst, der beschämend
wirkt. Aber hie und da dämmert es auf in ihren Schriften, besonders in den
Hymnen, daß der Mensch von sich aus mit aller Mühe nicht gerecht sein könne,
daß er ganz auf die Gnade Gottes angewiesen sei. (Georg Molin, Die Söhne des
Lichtes: Zeit und Stellung der Handschriften vom Toten Meer [Munich: Verlag
Herold Wien, 1954], 146-47)
English Translation (from ChatGPT using the "reason" option [I don't know German!])
Resolutely the holy war-host separates itself from the
people of God who have betrayed Him— from its priests and kings, who are
foremost in sinning— and waits for the day when God will send it into battle to
put an end to all this. Everywhere it sees itself surrounded by signs of the
storm. They have read their prophets well (especially Isaiah, Ezekiel, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi). Does not Ezekiel write that the final battle will take
place in the Valley of Hinnom before Jerusalem? There Gog of Magog gathers
together all the peoples of the north, but God destroys him and his hordes.
What does it matter if the power of the world grows great, if the Kittim march
in with overwhelming might to punish the wrongdoers in Jerusalem? Did God not
also annihilate Sennacherib’s army? Does not the chronicle recount marvelous
victories at which Judah scarcely needed to lift a hand? One need only remain
pure and keep God’s law in order to receive His aid. And since no one knows
when that day will come, one cannot delay repentance, purification, and
submission to God’s will. Every day it is necessary to be ready.
Thus the entire way of life of the sect always appears
in the light of the last day. A “Christian” sect later called itself the “Holy
Ones of the Last Days [RB: Alt. “Latter-day
Saints] Our sect
here may rightly be given that title. Who can blame them for carrying
the path of Judaism through to its end? After all, they knew no other. They
walked it with a holy solemnity that can even embarrass. Yet here and there it
dawns in their writings—especially in the hymns—that Man, by his own efforts,
cannot attain righteousness; he is wholly dependent on the grace of God.
In his “Timeline of Doctrinal Errors,” we find the following entry from Athanasius Schneider:
Magisterial Positivism
Holds that all teachings, acts, and commands of
a pope or ecumenical council are automatically infallibly true, morally good,
and necessary to obey. Implicitly gives primacy to the Magisterium above Holy
Scripture and Tradition, as occurs when representatives of the Magisterium
manifestly teach or act to undermine revealed truths of the perennial
sacramental and liturgical praxis of the Church. Such was the case under Pope
Paul VI (+1978), who sought in 1970 to proscribe the venerable millennium-old Roman
Rite of Mass and forbid its celebration, and with Pope Francis, who
contradicted the Church’s perennial moral and sacramental praxis in 2016 by
authorizing the reception of Holy Communion to public adulterers, (See Letter
to the Bishops of the Buenos Aires region of September 5, 2016. In his later
audience with the Cardinal Secretary of State, “Ex audientia SS.mi” [June 5,
2017], the pope declared this approval to be “authentic Magisterium.”) and in
2023 by authorizing the blessings of adulterous or sodomitical couples. (See
Declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings from
December 18, 2023.) Magisterial Positivism justifies all such deviations
through an artificial “hermeneutic of continuity” or semantic exercises of “squaring
the circle,” or irrational obedience. (Athanasius Schneider, Flee From Heresy:
A Guide to Ancient and Modern Errors [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press,
2024], 63-64)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
English Translation taken from:
Origen, Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom (Ancient
Christian Writers; trans. John J. O’Meara; New York: Newman Press, 1954)
|
|
English |
Greek |
|
Chapter 10 |
All this has been said on the
supposition, that even though we should gain nothing else by our prayer, we
gain the most excellent benefits in understanding how to pray and disposing
ourselves accordingly. It is evident that the man who prays thus, even while
he is still speaking and contemplating the power of Him who is listening to
him, will hear the words, Behold, I am
here. He will have cast off any dissatisfaction about Providence before
he prays. This is clear from the text: If
thou wilt take away the chain out of the midst of thee and cease to stretch
out the finger and to speak the word of murmuring. For he who is well
satisfied with whatever happens, is free from every chain, and does not
stretch out his finger to God who arranges what He wills for our training;
nor does he even murmur his difficulties in secret, not being heard by men.
For like the murmuring of evil servants who criticize, but not openly, the
commands of their masters, is the murmuring of those who do not dare with
their voice and whole soul to speak ill of Providence because of what
happens. They act as if they hoped that their complaints would not be known
to the Lord of all. I think this is what is meant in Job: In all these things that happened to him
Job did not sin “with his lips” against God; whereas it was written of
the previous trial: In all these things
that happened to him Job sinned not before God. And the word which
enjoins that this murmuring should not take place is also to be found in
Deuteronomy: Beware lest perhaps a
hidden word steal into thy heart, something forbidden, and thou say: The seventh year draweth nigh and so
on. |
Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὡς καθʼ ὑπόθεσιν εἴρηται, καὶ εἰ μηδὲν ἡμῖν ἐπακολουθήσει εὐχομένοις, ὅτι τὰ κάλλιστα κερδαίνομεν, τὸ καθὸ δεῖ εὔχεσθαι νενοηκότες καὶ κατορθοῦντες· σαφὲς δὲ ὅτι ὁ οὕτως εὐχόμενος ἔτι λαλῶν ἀκούσεται, τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ ἐπακούοντος ἐνορῶν, τὸ Ἰδοὺ πάρειμι· πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς τὴν Πρόνοιαν δυσαρέστησιν πρὶν εὔξασθαι ἀποβεβληκώς. Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι δηλούμενον ἐκ τοῦ, Ἐὰν ἀφέλῃς ἀπὸ σοῦ σύνδεσμον καὶ χειροτονίαν καὶ ῥῆμα γογγυσμοῦ· τοῦ εὐαρεστουμένου τοῖς γινομένοις,
ἐλευθέρου ἀπὸ παντὸς δεσμοῦ γεγενημένου, καὶ μὴ ἀντιχειροτονοῦντος τῷ Θεῷ. ἃ βούλεται πρὸς γυμνάσιον ἡμῶν διατασσομένῳ· ἀλλὰ μηδὲ κατὰ τὸ κρυπτὸν τῶν λογισμῶν γογγύζοντος χωρὶς ἀκουστῆς ἀνθρώποις φωνῆς· ὅντινα γογγυσμὸν, δίκην πονηρῶν οἰκετῶν οὐκ ἐν φανερωτέρῳ αἰτιωμένων τὰς προστάξεις τῶν δεσποτῶν, γογγύζουσιν οἱ μὴ τολμῶντες μὲν φωνῇ καὶ ὅλῃ ψυχῇ κακολογεῖν ἐπὶ τοῖς συμβαίνουσι τὴν πρόνοιαν· οἱονεὶ δὲ βουλόμενοι καὶ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Κύριον ἐφʼ οἷς δυσαρεστοῦνται λαθεῖν. Καὶ οἶμαι τοῦτʼ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἐν Ἰώβ· Ἐν τούτοις πᾶσι τοῖς συμβεβηκόσιν οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Ἰὼβ τοῖς χείλεσιν ἐναντίον τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐπὶ τοῦ πρὸ αὐτοῦ πειρασμοῦ ἀναγεγραμμένου·
Ἐν τούτοις πᾶσι τοῖς συμβεβηκόσιν οὐδὲν
ἥμαρτεν Ἰὼβ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. Ὃ δὴ προστάσσων μὴ δεῖν (83) γίνεσθαι ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ ὁ λόγος φησί· Πρόσεχε μήποτε γένηται ῥῆμα κρυπτὸν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ἀνόμημα, λέγων, Ἐγγίζει τὸ ἔτος τὸ ἕβδομον, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Ὁ τοίνυν οὕτως εὐχόμενος τοσαῦτα προωφεληθεὶς (84) ἐπιτηδειότερος γίνεται ἀνακραθῆναι τῷ πεπληρωκότι τὴν πᾶσαν οἰκονομίαν (85) τοῦ Κυρίου Πνεύματι, καὶ τῷ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν πεπληρωκότι διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος (86) οὕτως· Οὐχὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ, λέγει Κύριος; Ἔτι δὲ (87) διά τε τῆς προειρημένης καθαρεύσεως, καὶ τῆς εὐχῆς τοῦ μέσον καὶ τῶν μὴ γινωσκόντων αὐτὸν ἑστηκότος Λόγου Θεοῦ, οὐδενὸς ἀπολειπομένου τῆς εὐχῆς μεθέξει, συνευχομένου πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα τῷ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ μεσιτευομένῳ· ἀρχιερεὺς γὰρ τῶν προσφορῶν ἡμῶν καὶ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα παράκλητός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ· εὐχόμενος ὑπὲρ τῶν εὐχομένων, καὶ συμπαρακαλῶν τοῖς παρακαλοῦσιν,οὐκ ἂν ὡς ὑπὲρ οἰκείων εὐξάμενος (88) τῶν μὴ διʼ αὐτοῦ συνεχέστερον εὐχομένων, οὐδʼ ἂν ὡς ὑπὲρ ἤδη ἰδίων παράκλητος ἐσόμενος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῶν μὴ πειθομένων ταῖς εἰς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἐκκακεῖν διδασκαλίαις· Ἔλεγε γὰρ, φησὶ, παραβολὴν πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι, καὶ μὴ ἐκκακεῖν· Κριτής τις ἦν ἔν τινι πόλει, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· Καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων· Καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτούς· Τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον, καὶ πορεύσεται πρὸς αὐτὸν μεσονύκτιον (89), καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ· Φίλε, χρῆσόν μοι τρεῖς ἄρτους, ἐπειδὴ φίλος
μου παρεγένετο ἐξ ὁδοῦ πρός με, καὶ οὐκ ἔχω ὃ παραθήσω αὐτῷ· καὶ μετʼ ὀλίγα· Λέγω ὑμῖν εἰ καὶ οὐ δώσει αὐτῷ ἀναστὰς, διὰ τὸ εἶναι φίλον αὐτοῦ, διά γε τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτοῦ, ἐγερθεὶς, δώσει
αὐτῷ, ὅσων χρῄζει. Τίς δὲ μὴ προτραπῇ τῶν τῷ ἀψευδεῖ στόματι πιστευόντων Ἰησοῦ, ἀόκνως εὔχεσθαι, λέγοντος· Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν· πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει; ἐπεὶ ὁ χρηστὸς Πατὴρ τὸν ζῶντα ἄρτον αἰτούντων ἡμῶν αὐτὸν, οὐχ ὃν βούλεται λίθον τροφὴν γενέσθαι τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀντικείμενος, δίδωσι τοῖς τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς υἱοθεσίας εἰληφόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρός· καὶ δίδωσιν ὁ Πατὴρ τὸ ἀγαθὸν δόμα ὕων ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν (90). |
|
Chapter 15 |
If we understand what prayer
really is, we shall know that we may never pray to anything generated—not
even to Christ—but only to God and the Father of all, to whom even Our
Saviour Himself prayed, as we have already said, and teaches us to pray. For
when He is asked, Teach us to pray,
He does not teach how to pray to Himself, but to the Father, and to say: Our Father, who art in heaven, and so
on. For if the Son, as is shown elsewhere, is distinct from the Father in
nature and person, then we must pray either to the Son and not to the Father,
or to both, or to the Father only. Everyone will agree that to pray to the
Son and not to the Father would be very strange, and maintained against the
clearest evidence; and if to both, then we must obviously pray and make our
requests in the plural saying, “Grant ye,” “favour ye,” “provide ye,” “save
ye,” and everything similar in the same way. But this is clearly incongruous,
nor can anyone point out where anyone has used it in Scripture. There
remains, then, to pray to God alone, the Father of all, but not apart from
the High Priest who was appointed with an oath by the Father, according to
the words: He hath sworn and he will
not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. 2. The saints, then, in their
prayers of thanks to God acknowledge their thanks to Him through Christ
Jesus. And as, if one is to pray correctly, one does not pray to Him who
prays Himself, but rather to the Father whom Our Lord Jesus taught us to call
upon in our prayers, in the same way one must not offer a prayer to the
Father apart from Him. He Himself makes this clear when He says: Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask my
Father anything, He will give it to you in my name. Hitherto you have not
asked anything in my name. Ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be
full. He did not say simply, ask me,
or ask the Father; but rather, If you ask the Father anything, He will
give it to you in my name. Until Jesus taught this, no one had asked the
Father in the name of the Son; and what Jesus said was true—Hitherto you have not asked anything in my
name; and true too—Ask, and you
shall receive, that your joy may be full. 3. But suppose someone,
believing through confusion about the meaning of the term “worship” that we
should pray to Christ Himself, brings against us the text, Let all the angels of God worship Him—which
is admittedly said of Christ in Deuteronomy: we should reply that the Church,
too, called by the prophet “Jerusalem,” is said in the following text to be
“worshipped” by kings and queens, that nurse her and provide for her: Behold I will lift up my hand to the
Gentiles and will set up my standard to the islands. And they shall bring thy
sons in their arms and carry thy daughters upon their shoulders. And kings
shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nurses. They shall worship thee
with their face toward the earth, and they shall lick up the dust of thy
feet. And thou shalt know that I am the Lord and thou shalt not be confounded. 4. And as He has said: Why callest thou me good? None is good but
one, that is God the Father, so He might equally say: “Why prayest thou
to me? One should pray to the Father alone, to whom I also pray. Learn this
from the Scriptures. You should not pray to Him who has been set over you as
High Priest257 by the Father, nor to the Advocate who has this
office from the Father; but you should pray through your High Priest and
Advocate who can have compassion on
your infirmities, being tempted in all things like as you are, but,
through the gift of my Father, tempted
without sin. Learn, then, what great gift you have received from my
Father, through having received the
spirit of adoption of sons in your rebirth in me, so that you may be
called sons of God and my brothers.
Surely you have read the words said by me, in the person of David, to the
Father about you: I will declare Thy
name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise Thee. It is
not right that they who have been held worthy to have the same Father with
Him, should pray to their Brother. You should pray with me and through me to
the Father alone.” (pp. 57-60) |
Ἐὰν δὲ ἀκούωμεν, ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστι
προσευχὴ, μἡποτε οὐδενὶ τῶν γεννητῶν προσευκτέον ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ αὐτῷ τῷ Χριστῷ
(55), ἀλλὰ μόνῳ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων καὶ Πατρὶ, ᾧ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν
προσηύχετο, ὡς προπαρεθέμεθα, καὶ διδάσκει ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι· ἁκούσας γὰρ,
Δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι, οὐ διδάσκει αὑτῷ προσεύχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ Πατρὶ,
λέγοντας· Πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· εἰ γὰρ ἕτερος, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις
δείκνυται, κατʼ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείμενός (56) ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἤτοι
προσευκτέον τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ οὐ τῷ Πατρὶ, ἤ ἀμφοτέροις, ἢ τῷ Πατρὶ μόνῳ. Τὸ μὲν οὖν
τῷ Υἰῷ καὶ οὐ τῷ Πατρὶ, πᾶς ὁστισοῦν ὁμολογήσει εἶναι ἀτοπώτατον καὶ παρὰ τὴν
ἐνάργειαν (57) λεχθησόμενον ἄν· εἰ δὲ ἀμφοτέροις, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἀξιώσεις
προσενεγκοῦμεν πληθυντικῶς, παράσγεσθε, καὶ εὐεργετήσατε, καὶ ἐπιχορηγήσατε,
καὶ σώσατε, καὶ εἴ τι τούτων ὅμοιον, διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν λέγοντες· ὅπερ καὶ αὐτόθεν
ἀπεμφαῖνον, οὐδὲ ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς ἔχει τις δεῖξαι κείμενον ὑπό τινων
λεγόμενον· λέγεται (58) τοίνυν προσεύχεσθαι μόνῳ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ τῶν ὅλων Πατρί· ἀλλὰ
μὴ χωρὶς τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ὅστις μεθʼ ὁρκωμοσίας κατεστάθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς κατὰ
τό· Ὤμοσε, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται· σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν
Μελχισεδέκ. Εὐχαριστοῦντες οὖν οἱ ἅγιοι ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ἑαυτῶν τῷ Θεῷ, διὰ
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ χάριτας ὁμολογοῦσιν (59) αὐτῷ. Ὥσπερ δὲ τὸν ἀκριβοῦντα τὸ
προσεύχεσθαι οὐ χρὴ τῷ εὐχομένῳ προσεὑχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὅν ἐδίδαξεν ἐπὶ τῶν εὐχῶν
καλεῖν Πατρὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς· οὕτως οὑ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ προσευχήν τινα
προσενεκτέον τῷ Πατρί· ὡς αὐτὸς τοῦτο παραδείκνυσι σαφῶς οὕτω λέγων· Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν
λέγω ὑμῖν, ἄν τι αἰτήσητε τὸν Πατέρα μου, δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. Ἔως ἄρτι
οὐκ ᾐτήσατε οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου· αἰτεῖτε καὶ λήψεσθε, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ
πεπληρωμένη· οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν· Αἰτεῖτέ με, οὐδὲ, Αἰτεῖτε τὸν Πατέρα, ἁπλῶς, ἀλλʼ Ἐάν
τι αἰτήσητε τὸν Πατέρα, δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. Ἕως γάρ διδάξει (60) ταῦτα
ὁ Ἰησοῦς, οὐδεὶς ᾐτήκει τὸν Πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Υἰοῦ· καὶ ἀληθὲς ἦν ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ
λεγόμενον τό· Ἕως ἄρτι οὐκ ᾐτήσατε οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου· ἀληθὲς δὲ καὶ τό·
Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ λήψεσθε, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη. Ἐὰν δέ τις, οἰόμενος
(61) δεῖν αὐτῷ τῷ Χριστῷ προσεύχεσθαι, συγχεόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐκ τοῦ προσκυνεῖν
σημαινομένου, προσάγῃ ἡμῖν τὸ, Προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ (62),
ὁμολογουμένως ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ περὶ Χριστοῦ εἰρημένον· λεκτέον πρὸς αὐτὸν, ὅτι
καὶ ἡ Ἐκκλησία, Ἱερουσαλὴμ πσρὰ τοῦ προφήτου ὀνομαζομένη, προσκυνεῖσθαι ὑπὸ
βασιλέων καὶ ἀρχουσῶν γινομένων τιθηνῶν αὐτῆς καὶ τροφῶν, λέγεται διὰ τούτων·
Ἰδοὺ αἴρω εἰς τὰ ἕθνη τὴν χεφά μου, καὶ εἰς τὰς νήσους ἀρῶ σύσσημόν μου· καὶ ἄξουσι
τοὺς υἱούς σου ἐν κόλπῳ, τὰς δὲ θυγατέρας σου ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων ἀροῦσι. Καὶ ἕσονται βασιλεῖς τιθηνοί σου· οἱ δέ ἄρχουσαι
αὐτῶν τροφοί σου. Ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς προσκυνήσουσί σε καὶ τὸν χοῦν τῶν ποδῶν
σου λείξουσι. Καὶ γνώσῃ, ὅτι ἐγὼ Κύριος καὶ οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσῃ. Πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι,
κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα· Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ
Πατήρ (63)· εἰπεῖν ἄν· Τί ἐμοὶ προσεύχῃ; Μόνῳ τῷ Πατρὶ προσεύχεσθαι χρὴ, ᾧ κἀγὼ
προσεύχομαι· ὅπερ διὰ τῶν ἁγίων Γραφῶν μανθάνετε ἀρχιερεῖ γὰρ τῷ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
(64) κατασταθέντι ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ παρακλήτῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι λαβόντι,
εὔχεσθαι ἡμᾶς (65) οὐ δεῖ, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀρχιερέως καὶ παρακλήτου, δυναμένου
συμπαθεῖν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν (66), πεπειρασμένου κατὰ πάντα ὁμοίως ἡμῖν
(67), ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν δωρησάμενόν μοι Πατέρα πεπειρασμένου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας.
Μάθετε οὖν ὄσην δωρεάν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρός μου εἰλήφατε διὰ τῆς ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀναγεννήσεως
τὸ τῆς υἱοθεσίας πνεῦμα ἀπειληφότες, ἵνα χρηματίσητε υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, ἀδελφοὶ δὲ ἐμοῦ·
ἀνέγνωτε γὰρ τὴν διὰ τοῦ Δαυΐδ ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ εἰρημένην περὶ ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα
φωνήν Ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ Ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε. Ἀδελφῷ
δὲ προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς κατηξιωμένους ἑνὸς αὐτοῦ (68) Πατρὸς οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον·
μόνῳ γὰρ τῷ Πατρὶ μετʼ ἐμοῦ καὶ διʼ ἐμοῦ ἀναπεμπτέον ἐστὶν ὑμῖν προσευχήν. |