Robert Alter on Song of Solomon 8:5

  

she who bore you. The vocalization of the Masoretic Text indicates a verb, “she bore you” (yeladetkha), but the conventions of parallelism would lead us to expect a poetic substitution for the noun “mother” in the preceding verset (thus the translation supposes yoladetkha), and this is in fact the vocalization reflected in the Septuagint and in one version of the Syriac. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:614; cf. the difference between MT Psa 110:3 and LXX Psa 109:3)

 

Robert Alter on Song of Solomon 5:16

  

His mouth is sweetest drink. The reversion to the mouth does not really violate the vertical movement of the poem downward because it is a kind of summary at the end: the beloved, having canvassed her lover’s beauty from head to foot, returns to the physical site of those kisses that epitomize physical intimacy with him and give her such gratification. Mamtaqim, “sweetest drink” (which in modern Hebrew means “candy”), is in biblical usage something sweet that is drunk, as its appearance in Nehemiah 8:10 makes clear. This links the phrase with the beginning of the first poem of the Song, in which the lover’s kisses are better than wine: the first thing she says about her lover in the whole sequence of poems is also what she says about him, summarizing what she feels, at the end of this poem. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:605)

 

Review of the Jacob Hansen/Allie Beth Stuckey Debate

 

Review of the Hansen/Stuckey Debate

Mary Jane Woodger on the "Salvation" of All Animals

Commenting on D&C 77:

  

Because of the Atonement, all animals will be heirs of salvation in their own spheres. The spirits of animals are eternal and in the likeness of their bodies. (Mary Jane Woodger, The Essential Doctrine and Covenants Companion: Key Insights to your Gospel Study [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2012], 152)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

B. H. Roberts Foundation, Teachings on Animal Spirits (cf. Primary Sources)

Notes on Sanhedrin 7:9 from the Jerusalem Talmud

I recently encountered the claim that Sanhedrin 7:9 in the Jerusalem Talmud teaches non-pagans were kissing/venerating icons/idols, and that this is a polemic against the common early Christian veneration of images. Such is used to support the Second Council of Nicea (and, for Catholics, the twentieth-fifth session of the Council of Trent). However, the text and its interpreters do not seem to support this being a description of Christian practices. What follows is (1) the text of the tractate and (2) commentaries thereon:

 

The Text of Sanhedrin 7:9 from the Jerusalem Talmud:

 

משנה: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹבֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַמְקַטֵּר וְאֶחָד הַמְנַסֵּךְ וְאֶחָד הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְהַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו לֶאֱלוֹהַּ וְהָאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵלִי אַתָּה. אֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק וְהַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמַּרְבִּיץ הַמַּרְחִיץ הַסָּךְ הַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ:

 

MISHNAH: The worshipper of strange worship whether he worships, or sacrifices, or burns incense, or makes a libation, or prostrates himself; also one who accepts it as a god and says to it: you are my god.

 

But one who embraces, or kisses, or sweeps clean, or sprinkles water; one who washes, rubs with oil, clothes, or puts shoes on it, violates a prohibition. He who makes a vow in its name or keeps one in its name violates a prohibition. One who defecates in front of Baal Pe`or follows its worship. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship.

 

הלכה: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כול׳. אַזְהָרָה לָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְנַיִין. לֹא תָעָבְדֵם. כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. אֶתִ יְי הוּא מְגַדֵּף וְנִכְרְתָה. וְלֹא מְגַדְּף כָּתוּב. כְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לַחֲבֶירוֹ. גִּידַּפְתָּה אֶת כָּל הַקְּעָרָה וְלֹא שִׁיַירְתָּה בָהּ כְּלוּם. מָשָׁל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָעְזָר אוֹמֵר. לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין וּקְעָרָה שֶׁלְגְּרִיסִין בֵּינֵיהוֹן. פָּשַׁט אֶחָד אַת יָדָו וְגִידֵּף אֶת כָּל הַקְּעָרָה וְלֹא שִׁיֵיר בָהּ כְּלוּם. כָּךְ הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁיֵיר לְאַחֲרָיו מִצְוָה. עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְהוֹצֵאתָ הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֶל שְׁעָרֶיךָ וגו׳ עַד וּסְקַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ.

 

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die.

 

לֹא תָעָבְדֵם. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד כָּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה בִּכְלָל הָיְתָה וְלָמָּה יָצָאת. לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ. אֶלָּא מַה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה מְיוּחֶדֶת מַעֲשֶׂה יָחִיד וְחַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. אַף אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה כָּל מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חַיָיבִין עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָעְזָר אָמַר. זִיבֵּחַ וְקִיטֵּר וְנִיסַּךְ בְּהֶעֱלֶם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מוֹדֶה שֶׁאִם עָבְדָהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ בַּעֲבוֹדַת הָגָּבוֹהַּ בַּעֲבוֹדַת הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב עַל כַּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. כְּדָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִים. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ. מַטִּי תָּנָהּ לַקָּדָשִׁים.

 

Do not worship them. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them. Prostration was included; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.

 

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִיבֵּחַ לָהּ טָלֶה בַעַל מוּם חַיָיב. מַאי כְדוֹן. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַיי אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. כָּל לַיי אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן.

 

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty. From where this? As Rebbi Hila said, do not do such to the Eternal, your God. Anything that you might do for the Eternal, your God, you may not do in this case.

 

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. לֹא תָעָבְדֵם כְּלָל. לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לֶהֶם פְּרָט. כִּי לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כָּהֲנָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי הִילָא. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן כְּלָל. זוֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם פְּרָט. בִּלְתִּי לַיי לְבַדּוֹ. חָזַר וָכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וְהַכֹּל בִּכְלָל. וְרִיבָה אֶת הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֶמְרָה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה. הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה שֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲשֶׂה.

 

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them, a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned, a detail. Only for the Eternal alone, He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself) do not exemplify actions.

 

מְנַיִין לָאוֹמֵר לוֹ. אֵלִי אַתָּה. רַב אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל וגו׳. מֵעַתָּה אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְבַּח וִיקַטֵּר וָיֹאמַר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב לְהַזְכִּיר אֶלָּא גְּנָיָין שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ. לֹא לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מַאי כְדוֹן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אֲמִירָה וְנֶאֶמְרָה אֲמִירָה בַּמֵּסִית. מָה אֲמִירָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַמֵּסִית עָשָׂה בָהּ אֲמִירָה כְמַעֲשֶׂה. אַף אֲמִירָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן נַעֲשֶׂה בָהּ אֲמִירָה כְמַעֲשֶׂה.

 

From where about him who says, “you are my god”? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: They prostrated themselves before it, and sacrificed to it, and said, these are your gods, Israel. Then he should not be guilty unless he sacrifice, burn incense, and declare. Rebbi Yose said, the verse is written only for the disgrace of Israel. They prostrated themselves before it, not before Heaven. And sacrificed to it, not to Heaven. And said, not to Heaven. What about this? Saying is mentioned here and saying is said about one who leads astray. Since for saying mentioned about one who leads astray, saying is equated with acting, also for the saying mentioned here, we have to equate saying with acting.

 

כָּתוּב וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲבֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לָהֶם וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אוֹ לַיָּרֵחַ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא וְלַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. אֵין כָּאן כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֶלָּא רִיבּוּיִים. הָתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וְהָא כָתוּב כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. מֵעַתָּה אֵין כָּאן כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֶלָּא רִיבּוּיִים. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּכָתַב וָי״ו. אָמַר רַב יוֹחָנָן בַּר מַרְיָיא. כָּל הֵן דַּאֲנָא מַשְׁכַּח וָי״ו אֲנָא מְחִיק לֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדֵּמָא. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. מַה שֶׁבַּיָּמִים יְהוּ אֲסוּרִין וּמַה שֶׁבַּגִּיגִּיּוֹת וְשֶׁבַּבֵיבָרִים יְהוּ מוּתָּרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכָל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם. רִיבָה.

 

It is written: He went and worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and to the moon. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is not said to the sun but and to the sun. That is not principle and detail but addition. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina objected before Rebbi Ze`ura; is it not written any which have fins and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales? Then this is not principle and detail but additions since there is written and? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, anywhere I am encountering and, I am deleting it. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria should be permitted. The verse says, and anything which lives in water, an addition.

 

רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הָאוֹמֵר לוֹ. אֵלִי אַתָּה. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי וַחֲכָמִים. הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהּ מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בִּכְפִיפַת קוֹמָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה בֵין הַמַּעֲלֶה וְהַמּוֹרִיד קוֹמָתוֹ מַה בֵין הַמַּעֲלֶה וְהַמּוֹרִיד שִׂפְתוֹתָיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כַּמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כַּמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. קִרְיָיא מְסַיֵיעַ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה. הַמְגַדֵּף וְהַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה שֶׁאֵינָן מַעֲשֶׂה מְנַיִין.

 

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself), what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body, he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself), which are not action, from where? (source)

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:1

מתני' אחד העובד עכו"ם. בדבר שדרך עבודתה בכך:

 

“Mishnah: One who worships idolatry (avodah zarah)—[he is liable] in a manner that is its customary way of being worshipped.”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:2

ואחד הזובח כו'. העובד העכו"ם באחת מארבע עבודת הללו חייב אפילו אין דרך עבודתה בהן וכל שאר עבודות חוץ מאלו אינו חייב עד שיעבוד כדרך עבודתה:

 

“And likewise, one who sacrifices, etc.: one who worships idolatry (avodah zarah) through any one of these four forms of worship is liable, even if it is not the customary manner of its worship. But with regard to all other forms of worship besides these, one is not liable unless he worships in the manner that is its customary way of being worshipped.”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:3

והמקבלו עליו לאלוה. ואפילו באמירה בעלמא דאיתקש לזביחה דכתיב ויזבחו לו ויאמרו אלה אלהיך:

 

“And one who accepts it upon himself as a god—even by mere speech—is liable, for this is compared to sacrifice, as it is written: ‘They sacrificed to it and said: These are your gods.’”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:4

והאומר לו אלי אתה. בפניו ואתא סיפא לגלויי רישא דאי תנא רישא ה"א ה"מ בפניו אבל שלא בפניו לא תנא סיפא בפניו מכלל דרישא שלא בפניו ואפי' הכי חייב:

 

“And one who says to it, ‘You are my god’—[this refers to saying it] in its presence. The latter clause comes to clarify the first: for if it had taught only the first clause, I would have said that this applies specifically when said in its presence, but if not in its presence, no. Therefore it teaches in the latter clause ‘in its presence,’ from which it follows that the first clause refers to [even] not in its presence—and even so, he is liable.”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:5

אבל המגפף כו'. שלא כדרכה:

 

“But one who embraces [it], etc.—[this refers to doing so] not in its customary manner [of worship].”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:6

המגפף.. מחבק:

 

“Ha-megapef — [that is:] one who embraces (meḥabek).”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:7

עובד בל"ת. דלא מיחייב מיתה שלא כדרכה אלא בהנהו דפרט בהו קרא:

 

“He transgresses a negative commandment (lo ta‘aseh), for one is not liable to the death penalty for [idolatrous worship] performed not in its customary manner, except in those [acts] that Scripture explicitly specifies.”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:8

הנודר בשמו. קונם עלי כל פירות שבעולם בשם ע"א פלונית אם ארחץ:

 

“One who vows in its name—[for example:] ‘Konam (a vow) upon me are all the fruits of the world, in the name of such-and-such an idol, if I bathe.’”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:9

המקיים. נשבע בשמו:

 

“Ha-mekayyem—[this means:] one who swears in its name.”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:10

עובר בלא תעשה. ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו:

 

“He transgresses a negative commandment—[as it is written:] ‘And the name of other gods you shall not mention.’”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:11

הפוער עצמו. מתריז רעי בפניו:

 

“One who ‘opens himself’—[that is:] he excretes before it.”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:12

זו היא עבודתו. ואפילו נתכוון לבזותו חייב עליו מיתה:

 

“This is its [i.e., the idol’s] mode of worship; and even if he intended to demean it, he is liable to the death penalty on its account.”

 

Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:13

והזורק אבן למרקוליס. שמצדדים שלשה אבנים אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן ואחת מלמעלה על גביהן וקורים אותה ישראלים מרקוליס שהוא חילוף השבח אבל העובדים אותה קורין אוחה קוליס שהוא לשון שבח ועובדין אותה בזריקת אבנים:

 

“And one who throws a stone at Marculis—[this refers to the idol] for which they place three stones, one on this side and one on that side, and one above them on top of the two, and the Israelites call it Marculis, which is a corruption of the word of praise; but those who worship it call it Markulis, which is a term of praise, and they worship it by throwing stones.”

 

Ohr LaYesharim on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:

 

Ohr LaYesharim on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1

משנה
העובד עבודה זרה – שנשנה בהלכה ד שדינו בסקילה, - אחד העובד – בין שהוא עובד את האליל בדבר שדרך עבודתו בכך, ואחד המזבח, ואחד המקטר, ואחד המנסך, ואחד המשתחוה – בין שהוא זובח קורבן לאליל, ובין שהוא מקטר קטורת, ובין שהוא מנסך יין, ובין שהוא משתחווה לאליל, אפילו אין דרך עבודת האליל בכך, והמקבלו עליו לאלוה – שמקבל עליו את האליל שיהא לו אלוהות, והאומר לו: אלי אתה – לשון המקרא: "לְפִסְלוֹ יִסְגָּד לוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּחוּ וְיִתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו וְיֹאמַר: הַצִּילֵנִי כִּי אֵלִי אָתָּה" (ישעיהו מד,יז). אבל המגפף – המחבק את פסל האליל, והמנשק והמכבד – המטאטא לפניו, והמחבק (מילה זו ישנה בשני כתבי יד של המשנה, אך אינה בכתב יד אחר של המשנה. אין לגרוס 'והמחבק', ונראה שנכתב תחילה על הגיליון כפירוש ל'המגפף' ואחר כך נכנס לתוך נוסח המשנה בין 'המכבד' ו'המרבץ' שבאים בכל מקום יחד) והמרבץ – המזלף מים לפניו, המרחיץ, הסך, המלביש והמנעיל - עובר בלא תעשה – שנאמר: "ולא תעבדם" (שמות כ,ה). הנודר בשמו והמקיים – הנשבע בשמו - עובר בלא תעשה – שנאמר: "ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזכירו" (שמות כג,יג). הפוער עצמו לבעל פעור – המגלה את עצמו, שעומד ערום לפניו ועושה צרכיו בפניו, אף על פי שדרך ביזיון הוא, - זו היא עבודתו – וחייב סקילה. והזורק אבן במרקוליס – באליל מרקוריוס, - זו היא עבודתו – שהיו מעמידים את פסלו בצידי הדרכים על עמוד של אבן ומצידו מצבה, לפי שהיה נחשב למגן הדרכים והמסחר, ומי שהיה עובר על יד הפסל היה נותן אבן על המצבה.

 

Mishnah

 

“One who worships an idol” — this is repeated here in the halakhah because its ruling is stoning. “One who worships” — whether he serves the idol in the manner that is its customary form of worship, or one who sacrifices, one who burns incense, one who pours a libation, or one who bows down — whether he sacrifices an offering to the idol, or burns incense, or pours wine, or bows to the idol, even if that is not the idol’s customary mode of worship; “and one who accepts it upon himself as a god” — that is, one who accepts the idol as a deity for himself; “and one who says to it, ‘You are my god’” — the language of Scripture: “he falls down before it, bows to it, prays to it, and says, ‘Save me, for you are my god’” (Isaiah 44:17).

 

“But one who embraces it,” meaning one who embraces the idol’s image, “and one who kisses it, and one who honors it” — sweeping before it, “and one who hugs it” — this word appears in two manuscripts of the Mishnah, but not in another manuscript of the Mishnah. It should not be read as “and one who hugs it”; rather, it seems it was first written in the margin as an explanation of “one who embraces it,” and later entered into the Mishnah text between “one who honors it” and “one who sprinkles” — which always appear together — “and one who sprinkles” — sprinkling water before it, washing it, anointing it, clothing it, and putting shoes on it — transgresses a negative commandment, as it is said: “You shall not worship them” (Exodus 20:5).

 

“One who vows by its name” and “one who fulfills [such a vow]” — meaning one who swears by its name — transgresses a negative commandment, as it is said: “And the name of other gods you shall not mention” (Exodus 23:13).

 

“One who exposes himself to Baal Peor” — that is, one who uncovers himself, stands naked before it, and relieves himself before it, even though this is an act of disgrace — this is its mode of worship, and he is liable to stoning.

 

“And one who throws a stone at Merculis” — that is, the idol of Mercurius — this is its mode of worship: they would set up its image by the roadside on a stone pillar, with a heap of stones beside it, because it was regarded as a protector of travelers and commerce, and anyone passing by the idol would add a stone to the heap.

 

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:1

מתני' אחד העובד. עכו"ם בדבר שעבודתה בכך:

 

“Mishnah: One who worships.” [This refers to] idolatry, in the manner that is its customary form of worship.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:2

וא' המזבח וכו'. באלו ד' עבודות חייב באחד מהן אע"פ שאין דרך עבודתה בכך וכל שאר עבודות אינו חייב עד שיעבוד בדרך עבודתה:

 

“And one who sacrifices, etc.” With these four forms of worship, one is liable for any one of them, even if that is not the idol’s customary mode of worship; but for all other forms of worship, one is not liable unless he serves it in its customary way.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:3

והמקבל עליו לאלוה. אפילו באמירה בעלמא חייב דאתקש לזביחה דכתיב ויזבחו לו ויאמרו אלה אלהיך:

 

“And one who accepts it upon himself as a god.” Even by mere speech he is liable, because it is compared to sacrificing, as it is written: “And they sacrificed to it and said, These are your gods.”

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:4

והאומר לו אלי אתה. בפניו ותנא סיפא לגלויי רישא דאי תני רישא הוי אמינא דוקא בפניו אבל שלא בפניו לא תנא סיפא בפניו מכלל דרישא שלא בפניו ואפילו הכי חייב:

 

“And one who says to it, ‘You are my god.’” This means in its presence. And the latter clause comes to clarify the first: if the first clause alone had been taught, I would have said that this applies only in its presence, but not when not in its presence; therefore the latter clause teaches “in its presence,” from which it follows that the first clause refers to [even] not in its presence, and nevertheless he is liable.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:5

אבל המגפף. מחבק:

 

“But one who embraces it.” [That is,] one who hugs it.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:6

והמכבד והמרבץ. לפניה:

 

“And one who honors it and one who sweeps before it.” [These acts are done] before it.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:7

עובר בל"ת. דלא תעבדם יתירה כתיב ודברים אלו בכלל עבודה הן ואעפ"כ אינו לוקה על אחת מהן לפי שאינן בפירוש:

 

“He transgresses a negative commandment.” The phrase “You shall not worship them” contains an extra term, and these acts are included in the category of worship; nevertheless, one does not receive lashes for any one of them, since they are not explicitly stated.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:8

הנודר בשמו. קונם עלי דבר זה בשם ע"ז פלוני:

 

“One who vows by its name.” [For example:] “This thing is forbidden to me as konam by the name of such-and-such an idol.”

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:9

והמקיים בשמו. שבועה נשבע תרגומו מקיים:

 

“And one who fulfills [a vow] by its name.” “To swear” is translated [in Aramaic] as “to fulfill.”

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:10

עובר בל"ת. ושם אלהים אחרי' לא תזכירו ולוקה על לאו זה. הפוער עצמו. מתריז ריע לפניו:

 

“He transgresses a negative commandment.” [This is from] “And the name of other gods you shall not mention,” and he is liable to lashes for this prohibition.
“One who exposes himself.” [That is,] he defecates in front of it.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:11

זו היא עבודתו. וחייב עליה מיתה ואם נתכוין לבזותו חייב עליה חטאת מפני שמוטעה הוא והרי עבודתה בכך:

 

“This is its mode of worship.” He is liable to death for it; and if he intended to demean it, he is liable for a sin-offering, because he is mistaken, since this is its mode of worship.

 

Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:12

הזורק אבן למרקוליס. שעובדין אותו בזריקת אבנים וכן המסלק אבן מלפניו ג"כ דרך עבודתו בכך וחייב ואם נתכוין לרוגמו חייב חטאת. מר קוליס. תילוף השבח. מר לשון חילוף הוא כמו במר דשחוטה במר דכנתא. קילוס שבח:

 

“One who throws a stone at Merculis.” It is worshiped by throwing stones. Likewise, one who removes a stone from before it [also acts] in its mode of worship, and is liable. And if he intended to stone it, he is liable for a sin-offering.

 

“Mar Kolis.” A corruption of praise. “Mar” means reversal, as in “mar de-shḥitah” and “mar de-khanta.” “Kilis” means praise.

 

 

Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:

 

Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:1

ואחד הזובח. עי' בקונט'. בבבלי פריך וליחשוב נמי זורק (פירש"י כי היכי דאשכחן בעכו"ם זביחה קיטור וניסוך דכתיב ויזבחי לו אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו ישתו יין נסיכם מצינו נמי זריקה בל אסיך נסכיהם מדם) אמר אביי זורק היינו מנסך דכתיב בל אסיך נסכיהם מדם. וקשה ל"ל לאביי לאתויי קרא בל אסיך כו' הא עיקר קושית המקשה היא מהך קרא לפירש"י. וע"ק לפירושו קושית תו' בד"ה וליחשוב כו' ע"ש. וע"ק מנ"ל שאינו חייב על כל עבודת פנים כגון המקבל והמוליך ואי משום דלא אשכחן הכי בקרא שהן עבודות לעכו"ם כמ"ש רש"י וכי בשביל כך נפטרנו וכ"ש דקשה לרש"י ותו' שמביאין מקראות מדברי קבלה הנוכל לומר דכוונת התורה לדברי הקבלה והא דכתוב שם זביחה והקטרה לא נכתב שם לכוונה זו דניליף מיניה איסורא והיתירא. לכך נראה הא דקאמר המזבח והמקטר והמנסך חייב יליף מדאסרינהו רחמנא לעשותן בחוץ וכתיב בשחוטי חוץ ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים ש"מ כל הנך דאסיר בחוץ הם עבודות לעכו"ם ולכך פריך וליחשוב נמי הזורק דמפורש איסורו בקרא וזרק הכהן את הדם וגו' ומשני כלל התנא איסור זריקה בכלל הניסוך דמצינו שגם בלשון המקרא זריקה קרוי ניסוך דכתיב בל אסיך נסכיהם מדם. והיינו טעמא דלא תנן המקבל והמוליך שאין חייב עליהן בחוץ. ודלא כרש"י והכ"מ פ"נ ע"ש:

 

“And likewise one who sacrifices.” See the commentary (kuntres). In the Bavli it asks: why does it not also list one who sprinkles (the blood)? (Rashi explains: just as we find with idolatry sacrificing, burning [incense], and libation—since it is written, “They sacrificed to it… they ate the fat of their sacrifices… they drank the wine of their libations”—so too we find sprinkling, as it is written, “They shall not pour out their libations of blood.”) Abaye said: “One who sprinkles is [included in] one who pours a libation,” as it is written, “They shall not pour out their libations of blood.”

 

But this is difficult: why does Abaye need to bring the verse “They shall not pour out…”—after all, the main question of the one who asked already comes from this very verse, according to Rashi. And there is a further difficulty with his explanation from the question of Tosafot (s.v. ve-liḥshov, see there).

 

Another difficulty: from where do we know that one is not liable for all the inner Temple services, such as receiving [the blood] and bringing [it to the altar]? And if you say it is because we do not find these mentioned in Scripture as acts of idolatry, as Rashi writes—does that exempt us? All the more so is this difficult for Rashi and Tosafot, who bring verses from the Prophets: can we really say that the Torah’s intent depends on later Scriptural writings? And those verses that mention sacrificing and burning were not written for the purpose of deriving legal prohibitions and permissions from them.

 

Therefore, it appears that when the Mishnah states that one who sacrifices, burns incense, or pours a libation is liable, it derives this from the fact that the Merciful One forbade performing these acts outside [the Temple]. As it is written regarding slaughtering outside: “They shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat-demons.” From here we learn that all those acts prohibited outside [the Temple] are [considered] acts of idolatrous worship.

 

Accordingly, it asks: why not also list one who sprinkles, since its prohibition is explicitly stated in the verse, “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood…”? And it answers: the Tanna included the prohibition of sprinkling within that of libation, since we find that even in biblical language, sprinkling is called “libation,” as it is written, “They shall not pour out their libations of blood.”

 

And this is also the reason why the Mishnah does not teach [liability for] receiving and bringing [the blood], since one is not liable for them outside [the Temple]. And this is not in accordance with Rashi or the Kesef Mishneh (see there, ch. 9).

 

Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:9:1:2

זו היא עבודתה. עי' בקונט'. והרמב"ם והר"ב פירשוה לענין חיוב חטאת. וכתב הכ"מ דאלו במזיד ולסקילה א"א דהא מוטעה הוא. וכתב התי"ט ותימא על רש"י שמפרש זהו עבודתו וחייב עליה מיתה וי"ל דעתו כיון שהתרו בו אע"פ שהוא מוטעה וסובר כיון דמכוין לבזותו בין בהתראתן כלום אפ"ה חייב מיתה דהא התרו ביה ע"כ. לפום ריהטא היה נראה לתרץ בזה קושית תו' דף ס"ה בד"ה הואיל כו' וקשה לפירש"י השתחואה נמי ישנה בלב כדאמרינן גבי אנדרטא אי לא קיבלה באלוה לאו כלום הוא ע"כ דהשתא חזינן בעכו"ם שאינה בלב דהא אפי' מכוין לבזותו חייב. והא דקאמר באנדרטא ואי לא קיבלה באלוה לאו כלום הוא. איירי בשוגג כמפורש שם ובשוגג ודאי פטור אם אין לבו לעבירה. אך קשה הא בעובד מאהבה ומיראה אמר רבא דפטור אי קבליה באלוה אין אי לא לא. ופירש"י פטור בין במזיד בין בשוגג דלאו כלום עביד. הרי דאפי' במזיד בעינן אף בעכו"ם קבלה בלב. וליכא למימר הא דקאמר ברכת השם ישנה בלב כאביי ס"ל העובד מאהבה ומיראה חייב. דהא רבא הוא דמשני הכי. ודוחק לומר דה"ק ר' יוחנן כאביי ס"ל. ועוד לרבא תיקשי מתני' דקאמר זו היא עבודתו וחייב וא"נ אחיוב חטאת קאי קשה הא אפי' בעובד מאהבה ומיראה פוטר רבא אפי' מחטאת כדמוכח בש"ס דף ס"א וכן פירש"י שם כ"ש מכוין לבזויי ולא לעבדה שיש לפטרו טפי כמ"ש תו' דף ס"ד בד"ה אע"ג. וממ"ש יתבאר לך שמ"ש המהרש"א שם ומיהו התו' כו' ע"ש משמע דסברי תו' דחייב חטאת אפי' לא נתכוין לעבדה דברי תימא הם וקשיין ליה דברי הש"ס דף ס"א וצ"ע. אך עיקר תמיהתו של התי"ט ליתא שהרי כתב תו' דף ס"ד בד"ה אע"ג דמכוין לבזויה ולעובדו בביזוי דאי לא קמיכווין אלא לבזות הא אפי' עובד מאהבה ומיראה פטור לרבא כו' ע"ש ונראה שזו היא דעת הרמב"ם בחיבורו פ"ג מה' עכו"ם הפוער עצמו לפעור כדי לבזותו והזורק אבן למרקוליס כדי לבזותו הואיל ועבודתו בכך חייב ומביא קרבן על שגגתו ע"כ. האריך לומר ומביא קרבן כו' ללמד דחייב דתנן במתני' חיוב מיתה הוא ולא חטאת. ולפי פי' הכ"מ הל"ל חייב חטאת על שגגתו ולפמ"ש ניחא דסד"א כתיב לעושה בשגגה ומעשה זה לבזותו הוא יהא פטור קמ"ל דאפ"ה חייב. ומ"ש בפירושו חייב חטאת לאו דוקא. ומעתה אין מקום לקושית הרמ"ך פ"ג מה' עכו"ם ופ"ה מה' יסודי התורה ע"ש:

 

“This is its mode of worship.” See the commentary (kuntres). Rambam and the Bartenura explain this with respect to liability for a sin-offering (ḥatat). The Kesef Mishneh writes that this cannot refer to liability for stoning in a case of intentional transgression, since he is mistaken (mut‘eh).

 

The Tosafot Yom Tov writes: it is surprising regarding Rashi, who explains “this is its mode of worship, and he is liable to death.” One may answer that Rashi’s view is that since he was warned, even though he is mistaken and thinks that since he intends to demean it the warning is meaningless, nevertheless he is liable to death, for he was indeed warned.

 

At first glance, it would seem possible to resolve with this the difficulty raised by Tosafot (Sanhedrin 65b, s.v. ho’il), who ask: according to Rashi, bowing (hishtaḥavayah) should also be considered an act “of the heart,” as we say regarding a statue (andarta): if he did not accept it as a god, it is nothing. But now we see with idolatry that it is not [dependent] on the heart, for even if he intends to demean it, he is liable.

 

However, this is not difficult: when it says regarding the statue, “if he did not accept it as a god, it is nothing,” that refers to an unintentional case (shogeg), as explained there; and in a case of error, he is certainly exempt if his heart is not directed toward the transgression.

 

Yet there remains a difficulty: regarding one who worships out of love or fear, Rava says he is exempt unless he accepts it as a god; if he does not, he is not liable. Rashi explains that he is exempt both intentionally and unintentionally, since he has done nothing. Thus, even in intentional idolatry, acceptance in the heart is required.

 

One cannot answer that the statement that “blessing [i.e., cursing] the Name is of the heart” follows Abaye, who holds that one who worships out of love or fear is liable—for it is Rava who gives that answer. And it is forced to say that Rabbi Yoḥanan follows Abaye.

 

Moreover, according to Rava, our Mishnah is difficult, for it says “this is its mode of worship and he is liable.” Even if you say this refers to liability for a sin-offering, it is still difficult, since Rava exempts even from a sin-offering one who worships out of love or fear, as is clear in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 61b), and so Rashi explains there. All the more so, one who intends to demean rather than to worship should be even more exempt, as Tosafot write (Sanhedrin 64b, s.v. af al gav).

 

From what I have written, you will understand that what the Maharsha writes there—namely that Tosafot hold that one is liable for a sin-offering even if he did not intend to worship—is astonishing, and it conflicts with the Talmud (61b), and requires further investigation.

However, the main difficulty of the Tosafot Yom Tov is not valid, for Tosafot themselves write (Sanhedrin 64b, s.v. af al gav) that the case is where he intends both to demean it and to worship it through that act of degradation; for if he intended only to demean it, then even one who worships out of love or fear is exempt according to Rava.

 

And it appears that this is also the opinion of Rambam in his Mishneh Torah (Hil. Avodah Zarah 3): one who exposes himself to Peor in order to demean it, or one who throws a stone to Merculis in order to demean it—since this is its mode of worship, he is liable, and he brings a sacrifice for his inadvertent transgression.

 

Rambam lengthens his language—“and he brings a sacrifice”—to teach that the liability stated in the Mishnah is for death, not merely for a sin-offering. According to the Kesef Mishneh, he should have said explicitly “liable for a sin-offering for his inadvertent act.” But according to what I have written, it is clear: one might have thought that since Scripture says “for one who performs [the act] inadvertently,” and here his act is intended as degradation, he should be exempt; therefore it teaches that even so, he is liable.

 

And when Rambam writes in his commentary “liable for a sin-offering,” it is not precise. Accordingly, there is no longer any difficulty from the objection of the RaMaḥ (see Hil. Avodah Zarah ch. 3 and Hil. Yesodei ha-Torah ch. 5).

 

Further Reading:

 

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

Ephrem the Syrian, "A Word on the Heretics" vs. the Immaculate Conception of Mary

There is, unfortunately, no modern, complete English translation of Ephrem’s short prose “A Word on Heretics” (Greek: Logos peri Haerētōn). Its text survives only in Syriac and in a Latin rendering found in Assemani’s Opera Omnia.

 

The following is a Russian translation of a portion of the work. Notice how Ephrem does not affirm the Immaculate Conception of Mary; instead, as with many Eastern Fathers, he teaches that Mary was purified at the annunciation:

 

А если желаешь узнать, что и морские животные суть вода, то читай закон и услышишь, как Бог свидетельствует, что повелел водам с прочими животными произвести и живущих в раковинах, ибо это – пресмыкающиеся в водах. Бисер происходит из нечистых животных; и Христос родился от естества, подвергшегося нечистоте и имеющего нужду в очищении Божиим посещением. Как молния проницает все, так и Бог. И как молния озаряет сокровенное, так и Христос очищает и сокровенное естество. Он очистил и Деву, и потом родился, дабы показать, что где Христос, там проявляется чистота во всей силе. Очистил Деву, предуготовив Духом Святым; и потом утроба, став чистой, зачинает Его. Очистил Деву при Ее непорочности, поэтому и родившись, оставил Девой. Перед восходом солнечным все делается световидным. А если солнце, выходя наружу, все озаряет собой, что произведет оно, всецело заключенное в храмине? Если Христос, озарив Павла с небес, обратил его к благочестию и волка сделал овцой, гонителя – апостолом, бесчеловечного – сердобольным, и непокорного – благопокорным, то не тем ли более Божие Слово, внутренно пребывая в Марии, соделывало Ее чуждой всего нечистого и плотского? Приял залог – веру Отроковицы, и благодать не только преклонилась к Ней, но по справедливости сообщила Ей силу нетления. Вера принесла в дар естество, а благодать, восприявшая его, не попустила уже прикоснуться к нему тлению, но усвоила себе, как царь, взяв себе в собственность сосуд простолюдина. И стала Мария – не женой, но Девой по благодати. Не говорю, что Мария стала бессмертной, но что осияваемая благодатью Она не возмущалась греховными пожеланиями. (source)

 

Here is an English translation:

 

And if you wish to learn that even sea creatures are also water, read the Law and you will hear how God bears witness that He commanded the waters, together with the other creatures, to bring forth also the creatures that live in shells, for these are the reptiles in the waters. Pearl comes from unclean animals; and Christ was born from a nature that had been subject to uncleanness and had need of purification by God’s visitation. Just as lightning penetrates everything, so does God. And just as lightning illumines what is hidden, so Christ cleanses even hidden nature. He cleansed the Virgin, and then was born, in order to show that where Christ is, there purity is manifested in all its power. He cleansed the Virgin by preparing her through the Holy Spirit; and then, when her womb had become pure, it conceived Him. He cleansed the Virgin while preserving her inviolate; therefore, even after giving birth, He left her a Virgin. Before the sun rises, everything becomes sun-like. And if the sun, when it comes forth outside, illumines everything with itself, what will it produce when wholly enclosed in a chamber? If Christ, shining from heaven upon Paul, turned him to piety and made a wolf into a sheep, a persecutor into an apostle, a cruel man into a compassionate one, and a disobedient man into one who obeys God, how much more would the Word of God, dwelling inwardly in Mary, make her чуждой — alien — to everything unclean and fleshly? He accepted the pledge, the faith of the Maiden, and grace not only inclined toward her, but also justly granted her the power of incorruption. Faith offered up nature as a gift, and grace, having received it, no longer allowed corruption to touch it, but appropriated it to itself, as a king taking for his own property the vessel of a commoner. And Mary became not a wife, but a Virgin by grace. I do not say that Mary became immortal, but that, being illumined by grace, she was not troubled by sinful desires.

 

 

Felix L. Cirlot on Confirmation and the Acts of the Apostles

  

DIVISION II

 

224. Let us take next the question of the proper minister of “Confirmation” in the early Church. I take this next because it happens to be possible to settle the point more easily and decisively than is the case with Ordination, as far as the direct evidence goes; and because it has, as I shall endeavor to show below, a decisive even if only indirect bearing on the question of the primitive minister of Ordination.
225. The fact that St. Paul “confirms” (or is represented as “confirming”) in Acts 19:1-6 would not by itself necessarily indicate that the power to “confirm” in the early Church was limited to Apostles. But if we can find other evidence pointing in that direction, it will provide some slight measure of confirmation to such a conclusion. And such evidence, by an almost incredible coincidence, we do find in the only other passage which mentions “Confirmation” at such length as to leave open any possibility that the point might be made clear. The passage, of course, is Acts 8.
226. This passage tells us how St. Philip, one of the Seven chosen and ordained in Acts 6:1-6, went down to Samaria, made some converts, and baptized them. When the Apostles at Jerusalem heard this, they sent down to Samaria St. Peter and John. The narrative does not explicitly assign the reason why they were sent—why it should have been deemed necessary to send them. But we can arrive at the answer to that question with a very high degree of probability. For the reason is not likely to have been to impart to them any secret teaching that was known only to the Apostles but not to St. Philip. If so, why impart to newly made converts secrets which even the tried and true man chosen to be one of “the Seven” had not been allowed to know? It was not to baptize them, for we are explicitly told in the narrative that they were already baptized before the Apostles arrived. Nor can any other plausible guess be made, except the one which the whole narrative favors.
     
     That guess is that, although St. Philip was an eloquent preacher, and a worker of great signs and wonders, and an adequate teacher, and was fully able to baptize them, he was unable to “confirm” them, to give to them the supreme gift of the Holy Spirit. We do later find just that same limitation on the power to “confirm.” Is it not logical and highly probable, especially in the absence of any alternative explanation, to suppose that this later-attested limitation was already in force? That would explain fully and easily why it was necessary to send the Apostles down to Samaria, not to make additional converts, but to do something for those already made by someone below the rank of an Apostle.

227. This conjectural explanation receives overwhelming support from the text of the narrative itself. To begin with, we are told just one thing that the Apostles did when they arrived. We read “(The Apostles) prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet He was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” Apparently our conjecture was right!
228. But someone may think that the evidence produced so far falls short of being clear enough to be completely decisive. Let us therefore notice certain added language which makes it utterly irresistible. We read in Acts 8:18, “Now, when Simon (Magus) saw that through the laying on of the Apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered money to them, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. Etc.” It is hard to see how language could make it clearer that the Apostles had a power which Simon Magus did not have, yet greatly wanted. The reason they had it and Simon did not was because it was “the gift of God” and God had given this gift to the Apostles and not to Simon. Since there is no reason to suppose Simon to have been any different in this respect from any other layman, it follows that all laymen lacked the power to “confirm.” Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that St. Philip also lacked this power; for if he had possessed it there would have been no necessity for the Apostles to have sent some of their own number. Hence if St. Philip was a deacon, as seems probable to the present writer, we must conclude that deacons also lacked the power to “confirm” those they could baptize. If he was a presbyter, then presbyters also lacked the power.
229. It is worth noting that the implication of this whole narrative is that Baptism alone, when separated from “Confirmation,” did not confer the gift of the Spirit. For we may be sure that Simon would not have cared by what means—baptism or the laying on of hands—he could “give” the Holy Spirit, as long as he could “give” Him at all. And as a layman he would have had the power to baptize. This conclusion confirms very strongly our decision in Chapter XII that “Confirmation” was universally practiced. For there is no doubt that every Christian was supposed to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, if this gift was not given in baptism as distinguished from “Confirmation,” we would be forced to conclude that the two were always combined wherever an Apostle was present, and that in such a case the terms “Baptism” or “baptize” always include both the washing and the laying on of hands. On the other hand, since only an Apostle (and possibly but doubtfully a presbyter) could “confirm,” it would be necessary to separate the washing from the laying on of hands when no “competent minister” of “Confirmation” was present.
230. It may be objected that we dare not trust the historicity of the Simon Magus episode. I do not see any valid reason why we should distrust it. But for the benefit of those who do, it should be emphasized that St. Luke (or the author of his source, if he is here closely dependent on one) could not have credited the story, and could not have expected his readers to understand it, unless the presuppositions of the narrative had been generally shared by Christians at the time the narrative was written down. So it would follow that the limitation of the power to “confirm” which we have found implicit in the whole narrative must have been axiomatic to Christians at least by the last quarter of the first century, since St. Luke very probably wrote Acts at some time during that period.

232. An upholder of the presbyterian hypothesis would maintain that the custom attested for the fourth century of allowing presbyters to “confirm” with chrism blessed by the Bishop was the same practice that was in use in the first three centuries, even though it completely lacks attestation (as far as I know) during that period. Some believers in the Catholic position would hold that during the first two centuries and a large part or the whole of the third century the power to “confirm” was limited to Apostles, deutero-apostles, and monarchical Bishops.
     
     For myself I think that the acquisition of the right to “confirm” by the presbyters came about as a result of a change of view as to what was the “essential matter” (as the later Western Church would express it) of “Confirmation.” I think that during the period before and after St. Hippolytus the right to anoint with the chrism previously blessed by the Bishop had been allowed to the presbyters, and that this ceremony had been a part of the complete Initiatory Rite. But I think that at that early date the question had not yet been raised clearly as to what was the essential part of “Confirmation.” If this reconstruction is correct it will be seen that when the question was raised, and as soon as the view came to prevail in any locality that the anointing with chrism was the essential part of “Confirmation” rather than the laying on of hands, that change would automatically carry with it the inference that mere presbyters had the essential power to “confirm,” since they had been allowed already for a long time to anoint with the chrism blessed by the Bishop.
     
     If this reconstruction is right, it will confirm very strongly the view I have expressed above that, far from the right to “confirm” having been more closely restricted as the Church came down the ages, it became less closely restricted. But even on the presbyterian hypothesis it has not become more closely restricted; it has remained unchanged. Thus on neither theory has there been any narrowing of this right. There is no direct Jewish antecedent of “Confirmation” and consequently there cannot have been any Jewish precedent as to the “proper minister” of “Confirmation” differing from the earliest attested Christian practice. So we have no reason to raise any question as to the possibility of a very primitive Christian practice agreeing with such a hypothetical Jewish practice rather than with the earliest attested Christian practice. Consequently, there is no justification for doubting that even in the earliest days of “Confirmation” the practice concerning the “proper minister” was the same as it certainly was when we come to our first evidence on the point. Thus the objection based on a rejection of the historicity of the Simon Magus story leaves our main conclusion quite unaffected.

232.                  From a very different standpoint it might be objected that, since the Simon Magus story probably is historical, it shows only that the power to “confirm” was thus restricted during the first decade of Christianity, and that the narrative has no historical value for the practice of the last half of the first century. But it is very unlikely that St. Luke could have told the story in the way he has, without saying a word in explanation of the “dogmatic” presuppositions of the strange episode, unless those presuppositions had been as axiomatic to him and his anticipated readers as it was to the characters in the narrative on the assumption that the narrative is strictly historical. Moreover, since we find the same restriction implied in the narrative to have been in existence as soon as we come to our next clear evidence at the end of the period of silence, and since there is neither evidence nor any a priori probability of any change between the Simon Magus episode and the established practice toward the end of the second century, and even earlier, the probability would be all in favor of the same restriction having been in force throughout the first two centuries, even if the chronological gap in the actual evidence is from c. 35 A.D. to St. Hippolytus rather than from the date of Acts to St. Hippolytus.

233. There are two other phenomena in the early evidence which are too indefinite to be much more than straws in the wind, but which I am inclined to think are at least that, and thus to give some measure of confirmation to our main conclusion. In St. Ignatius we find him emphasizing that “without the Bishop (i.e. apart from his permission) it is not lawful either to baptize or to hold a love feast.” I believe I have established in my book, The Early Eucharist, that the term translated “love feast” would mean the Eucharist, along of course with the common community meal which the Eucharist began and ended. Also in the Didache we find careful directions given for the immersion part of Baptism and for the Eucharist. But neither St. Ignatius nor the Didache mentions the laying on of hands, and it appears that we would have a right to expect them to do so if the ministry of “Confirmation” and Ordination were not limited to the Bishop.
     
     But if everyone knew and no one challenged that only the Bishop could “confirm” and ordain, then we can understand without difficulty why St. Ignatius did not have to forbid the schismatics to “lay on hands” without the Bishop's permission. We can also understand in that case why the Didache, which presupposes local Churches in which there are normally only “bishops and deacons” but no resident Apostles, deuter-apostles, nor monarchical Bishops, should not include directions how to do what its resident ministers had no power to do—viz., to “confirm” and ordain. The Apostles, who are the pretended authors of the book, are presumably expected to do the “confirming” and ordaining when they visit the local Churches periodically. The direction in the Didache to choose for themselves worthy men as “bishops and deacons” does not mean that they are to be ordained by those who elect them. The local Church did have the power to elect its own “bishops and deacons” and hence direction is given on the subject. But it did not have the power to ordain them, so no directions are given on that point. Of course this explanation is conjectural. But the alternative explanation that the laying on of hands was not important enough to require mention in such contexts is negated by its obvious importance in Hebrews 6:1-4. And it seems that if a satisfactory explanation can be found, it is more scientific to accept it as probable than to attribute the double phenomenon to pure coincidence.

234. Thus it seems that the evidence is completely onesided in favor of the conclusion that the right to minister “Confirmation” was limited to presbyters or others of still higher rank. And it is very probable184 that for over two centuries not even presbyters were able to “confirm.” (Felix L. Cirlot, Apostolic Succession: Is it True? An Historical and Theological Inquiry [Felix L. Cirlot, n.d.], 170-75)

 

 

An alternative possibility is that Baptism was found to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit when ministered by an Apostle, and hence would not always, at least at first, include the laying on of hands when so ministered; but that it was found not to convey the Holy Spirit when ministered by a layman or deacon (and probably by a presbyter) and hence had to be supplemented by later action by an Apostle as soon as possible. Since “rebaptism” was apparently never practiced, even in the earliest days, the Apostles had to resort to a different means for mediating the gift of the Holy Spirit. Naturally, for reasons already developed in Chapters XII-XIII, they resorted to the laying on of hands; and the outward evidences of the gift of the Spirit which were common in those early days showed that in so doing they had correctly read the will of God; if indeed some prophet, speaking obviously “in the Spirit,” had not explicitly told them what to do the first time the question arose. But either of these reconstructions leaves “Confirmation” a “sacrament” which only a few members of the Church (Apostles and possibly presbyters) would have the power to minister. So on either theory, it is a very important illustration of our main thesis in this chapter. (Ibid., 172 n. 180)