Sarah E. Watson et al. (2023) on Medicinal Plants and Treatments at Piedras Negras, Guatemala, During the Classical Period (cf. Alma 46:40)

  

MEDICINAL PLANTS AND TREATMENTS

 

In the ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature of contemporary Southeastern Mesoamerica, medicinal plants are prepared and used in a wide variety of ways (Lentz 1986, 1993; Lentz et al. 1998; Nelson Sutherland 1986; Standley and Steyermark 1946). Whole plants or constituent parts may be applied directly or transformed into special concoctions by boiling, mashing, burning, grating, and grinding; teas or infusions may be prepared from flowers, leaves and bark; and resins and latex may be extracted from a variety of plants and trees.

 

Various economic tree and plant species are planted and tended in contemporary Maya communities, including many with medical uses recorded in ethnographic research (Abramiuk et al. 2011; Anderson 1995; Atran et al. 2004; Avilez-López et al. 2020; Balick and Arvigo 2015; Barrera Marín et al. 1976; Berlin et al. 1974; Blanco and Thiagarajan 2017; Breedlove and Laughlin 1993a, 1993b; Casagrande 2002; Castañeda Medinilla and Aceituno de García 1978; Cook 2016; Hanks 1990; Kashanipour and McGee 2004; Kufer et al. 2005; Pérez-Nicolás et al. 2017; Redfield 1950; Thiel and Quinlan 2020; Walshe-Roussel et al. 2019). In some cases, the Maya even set aside parts of the forest as reserves that included medicinal plants (Anderson 1995:141).

 

Medicinal plants and food plants, of course, are not mutually exclusive categories. While some medicinal plants were consumed for their healing properties, others were incorporated into medicines as part of the preparation process (Ankli et al. 1999:147). Moreover, in books of incantations, such as the Ritual of the Bacabs (Roys 1965), some plants are merely cited—called upon for their spiritual properties, even in cases where the plant itself was not physically used in the ceremony or healing practice. Many medicinal plants also had diverse healing properties. Several of the identified plant species recovered from the Southeast Marketplace have been recorded with multiple medical uses based on ethnohistoric and ethnographic reports.

 

Fisherman’s tobacco (Borrichia arborescens; Asteraceae), recovered in the form of several charred seeds from the interior of the market area and adjacent to Structure S-18 (Table 2), is a source of medicine and food currently found in Southern Florida, the Yucatan Peninsula, Belize, and the West Indies (Lentz and Dickau 2005:244; Nash and Williams 1976:215; Setzer et al. 2015:11). The species may also correspond to the single sunflower family (Asteraceae) phytolith recovered from residues on a human maxillary molar (Table 1). The B. arborescens shrub grows on rocky beaches, dunes, or areas bordering mangrove swamps (Collantes-Chávez-Costa et al. 2019:143; Flores-Olvera et al. 2016:Table 17.1; Nash and Williams 1976:215). Its leaves are made into a tea used to treat whooping cough, back pain, and colds in the Exumas; decoctions are used to relieve colds, coughs, and back pain in the Bahamas; and the plant is used as a treatment for influenza in Barbados (Cohall and Carrington 2012:Table 2; Eldridge 1975:325; Setzer et al. 2015:11).

 

Nance (Byrsonima crassifolia; Malpighiaceae) also has a wide variety of different usages. This tree grows as far north as Florida and as far south as Brazil (Maldonado-Peralta et al. 2016) and is found in the countries of Trinidad, St. Martin, and Puerto Rico (Rivero-Cruz et al. 2009:156). Its fruits are edible (Maldonado- Peralta et al. 2016; Martínez-Vásquez et al. 1999:79; Oliveira et al. 2017:134) and even can be fermented to make chicha (Lentz and Dickau 2005:128). Its wood is used for fuel, construction, and charcoal (Breedlove and Laughlin 1993b:418; Laughlin 1975:248). Extracts from this tree’s wood and bark are used to create dyes and can also be used as treatment for diarrhea (Balick and Arvigo 2015:112; Geck et al. 2020:Table 3; Lentz and Dickau 2005:128), coughs, skin infections, snake bites (Rastrelli et al. 1997:647; Rivero-Cruz et al. 2009:156), and dysentery (Breedlove and Laughlin 1993b:436; Laughlin 1975:248; Muñiz Ramirez et al. 2013:27). Nance is also recorded as a treatment for loose teeth, toothaches, and a means to improve overall oral hygiene (Breedlove and Laughlin 1993b:439; Lentz and Dickau 2005:128; Muñiz Ramirez et al. 2013:27; Rivero-Cruz et al. 2009:156). Tzotzil people treat loose teeth by brewing nance bark and holding it in their mouths, or they simply chew the bark raw (Laughlin 1975:248). Byrsonima crassifolia was recovered in the form of several charred seeds from the interior of Structure S-7 in the market area (Table 2), as well as 125 wood fragments from across the marketplace area (Table 3).

 

Trumpet tree (Cecropia peltata; Cecropiaceae) currently grows as far north as Mexico and as far south as Brazil (Fleming and Williams 1990:163; Nayak 2006:20), and this medium-sized tree of the Lowlands can be found in open fields (Michel et al. 2007: Table 1). The taxon was recovered solely in the form of a single charred seed from the market area (Table 2). Trumpet tree can be used to treat a wide variety of skin ailments ranging from ringworm to infections (Balick and Arvigo 2015:495–497). Furthermore, it has been recorded as a treatment for chills, fatigue (Kashanipour and McGee 2004:55), diarrhea, and arthritis, and it can be used as a mouthwash to manage bad breath (Balick and Arvigo 2015: 495–497). Lacandon Maya soak crushed Cecropia peltata leaves in cool water, then ingest the mixture in small doses to treat chills and fatigue (Kashanipour and McGee 2004:55). The Q’eqchi’ use the leaves from the trumpet tree to help expel placentas, lower wombs, and to treat insomnia and nerves (Michel et al. 2007:Table 1).

 

Creeping false holly (Jaltomata procumbens; Solanaceae) is a herb found in thickets or forests in the Southwestern United States through Panama (Lentz and Dickau 2005:217). The leaves can be ingested as a potherb and as a remedy for stomach aches and bowel pains, and its fruit is edible (Breedlove and Laughlin 1993a:218; Cagnato 2018:184; Lentz and Dickau 2005:217). In Colombia, this species is used as a diuretic and as means to treat fevers (Gyllenhaal et al. 1986:Table 1). This species was recorded by Martín de la Cruz in the Cruz-Badiano Codex, an indigenousauthored manuscript and the earliest surviving book of medicine written in the Americas (Chavarría and Espinosa 2019:17). In the Cruz-Badiano Codex, it is recorded that a distillate of Jaltomata procumbens roots can be used to treat eyes that are being affected by an illness (Chavarría and Espinosa 2019:17). Creeping false holly is currently used as a treatment for ulcers, bilis, diarrhea, and nerves in Mexico (Chavarría and Espinosa 2019:17). This taxon was recovered in the form of several charred seeds, from only one location in the marketplace area (Table 2).

 

Jamaican pepper (Piper hispidum; Piperaceae), recovered solely from beside Structure S-18 in the form of seven charred seeds (Table 2), is a common shrub that grows in the American tropics in secondary growth and along streambanks of seasonal evergreen forests (Breedlove and Laughlin 1993a:159). The flowers, leaves, roots, and stems are utilized in medical and healing practices (Choco et al. 2018:Table 1; Lentz and Dickau 2005:51). The black pepper family (Piperaceae) is full of species that are used by Maya people to cure a variety of ailments. Piperaceae species are used to treat the disorders that affect the muscular-skeletal system, digestive system, infections, genitourinary system, and cellular tissue (Blanco and Thiagarajan 2017:Table 1; Geck et al. 2020: Table 3; Lentz and Dickau 2005:51). Tea made from the leaves of Piper hispidum can be consumed to treat constipation and urinary stoppage (Breedlove and Laughlin 1993a:159), and the unprocessed leaves and flowers are used to treat insect and snake bites and it can be used as a skin cleanser (Lentz and Dickau 2005:51; Lentz et al. 1998:Table 1). Piper hispidum can also treat muscle pain, coughing, and general ailments and sicknesses (Balick and Arvigo 2015:423). The Q’eqchi use the leaves of the plant to treat dysmenorrhea, amenorrhea, and body aches (Michel et al. 2007:Table 1).

 

Evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata; Onagraceae), recovered from the interior of the market area in the form of a single charred seed (Table 2), is used to treat inflammations, diabetes, and infections (Munir et al. 2017; Rodríguez-Chávez et al. 2017). Oenothera laciniata is naturalized in South America and is also found in the eastern United States (Dietrich and Wagner 1988). This species occurs in a great diversity of habitats and in 1988 it was recorded as a “nearly cosmopolitan weed” (Dietrich and Wagner 1988:9). A 2017 study revealed that the roots and stems of this plant have good antioxidant activity (Munir et al. 2017). Species within the genus Oenothera have been noted for a range of incredible healing properties, but some of the larger categories include antioxidants, anti-inflammatories, and antimicrobials (Ko et al. 2021). In Korea, the root of Oenothera laciniata is classified as an anti-inflammatory drug that can treat skin ailments like burns and boils (Yoon et al. 2009:429). It has also been claimed to be effective in treating asthma, chronic cough, and tuberculosis in Korea (Yoon et al. 2009:429). However, in spite of its perceived efficacy elsewhere in the world, to date there are no recorded uses in the Maya area.

 

Plants in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) aid the healing of a wide range of ailments. Various species are used to treat ailments of the circulatory, digestive, integumentary, muscular, renal, reproductive, and respiratory systems (Rodríguez-Chávez et al. 2017:Table 1). Specific examples of their many uses by modern communities include the treatment of snake bites, uterine infections, menstrual cramps, stomach aches, muscle soreness, toothaches, and mouth sores (Balick and Arvigo 2015:202–222; Caamal-Fuentes et al. 2011: Table 2; Kashanipour and McGee 2004:Appendix 1; Lentz and Dickau 2005:243–252; Michel et al. 2007:Table 1; Paulraj et al. 2013:3; Rodríguez-Chávez et al. 2017:Table 1). We recovered residues from the sunflower family in two of our analyses, as charred seeds in the general marketplace area and inside Structure S-7 (Table 2), and as phytoliths on discarded human teeth (Table 1).

 

We recovered pine family (Pinaceae) residues as pollen adhering to two human teeth (Table 1) and as two charred wood fragments in marketplace deposits (Table 3). The resinous wood of pine trees has been used in several healing and sacred ceremonies (Balick and Arvigo 2015; Morehart et al. 2005). We posit here that the resin itself—with pollen trapped inside—may have been used in dental health preparations. We have found no other types of pollen associated with human teeth, as might be expected with the consumption of honey, and we have found no other pine family pollen outside of these tooth residues. Pine family taxa are the only specimens we recovered that are nonlocal, given local habitat availability and the needs of pine species to survive. Thus, we argue, pine family products would have been specially acquired, as we discuss further on. The concentrations of balsam (Myroxylon balsamum) charcoal identified in Late Classic occupation levels adjacent to Structure S-18 in the marketplace (42 specimens; Table 3) may indicate the use of the fragrant resinous bark as a curative ingredient. Similarly to pine, this taxon has been used both in medicinal decoctions and burned to drive away evil spirits (Balick and Arvigo 2015). The bark, root, leaves, or resin of other wood taxa identified in the charcoal also have medicinal properties. For example, decoction of lancewood (Mosannona depressa; n = 2) root is used as diuretic; the ground bark of habin (Piscidia piscipula; n = 34) serves for toothache; bark of pukte (Bucida buceras; n = 1) helps cure skin eruptions; and the leaves of succoutz (Drypetes brownie; n = 19) are toasted and powdered to treat mycosis (Atran et al. 2004; Balick and Arvigo 2015; see Table 3). (Sarah E. Watson, Joshua T. Schnell, Shanti Morell-Hart, Andrew K. Scherer, and Lydie Dussol, “Health Care in the Marketplace: Exploring Maya Medicinal Plants and Practices at Piedras Negras, Guatemala,” Ancient Mesoamerica 34, no. 2 [2023]: 393-95, 397-98)

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Despite the fact that most of the identified plants have multiple uses, including nonmedicinal applications, the presence of such an abundance and diversity of botanical remains with medicinal properties helps support the hypothesis that the Southeast Marketplace was a place of both healing and exchange. It is highly likely that a range of healing practices were conducted in this area alongside common marketplace activities such as the procurement and selling of durable goods and foodstuffs.

 

Paired with the bioarchaeological findings, our analyses suggest that some plants were used to treat tooth ailments. At least four of the eight identified taxa (Byrsonima crassifolia, Cecropia peltata, and Asteraceae family species) have recorded uses in oral health treatments which corroborates the previous discovery of therapeutic tooth extractions in the marketplace (Schnell and Scherer 2021). Byrsonima crassifolia is used as a treatment for loose teeth and toothaches in Mexico (Breedlove and Laughlin 1993b:439; Muñiz Ramirez et al. 2013:27; Rivero-Cruz et al. 2009:156). The Tzotzil people brew nance bark and hold it in their mouths, or they simply chew the bark raw to treat loose teeth (Laughlin 1975: 248). In Belize, Cecropia peltata leaves are brewed into a tea to treat bad breath caused by liver ailments (Balick and Arvigo 2015:496). Additionally, plants in the Asteraceae family have a plethora of different usages. Some species are specifically used to treat toothaches, gum pain, and bad breath in Mexico and Belize (Balick and Arvigo 2015:206–222; Rodríguez-Chávez et al. 2017: Table 1). These plants may have been sold or traded, but also could have been used on-site by dental practitioners or other specialists offering services to market patrons.

 

Moreover, there is evidence that Piedras Negras residents may have used pine family resins in some way for tooth ailments, given the pine family pollen recovered from two pathological teeth that had been pulled and discarded with other marketplace trash. Furthermore, there is evidence of pine resin used in dental health in the Maya area (the resinous wood is brewed as tea for loose teeth by the Tzotzil; Breedlove and Laughlin 1993b:439) and elsewhere in the world (as “chewing gum”; Carrión-Prieto et al. 2018). Recent organic compositional analyses of ancient, modified Maya teeth have also revealed the presence of pine family residues (Bolio et al. 2021), supporting the general use of pine species with dental preparations. Resin-filled wood of pine is used by modern practitioners in the Maya area to treat coughs (boiled) or parasites (powdered and consumed), and the smoke from the burning wood can serve as insect repellent (Balick and Arvigo 2015). Other, similar tree resins may point to additional uses of pine resin. For example, in Belize, copal resin (Protium copal) is used to extract teeth. Fresh resin is applied to the cavity of a decayed tooth which then swells up and breaks the tooth apart, leaving the pieces to be removed by hand (Balick and Arvigo 2015:243).

 

In the case of the plant remains from the Southeast Marketplace, it is difficult to know which human agents were responsible for bringing these plant remains into the market or how many of these plants were used. We suspect some fragrant wood charcoals are associated with sweatbath activities, and the pine family pollen residues are associated with resin preparations for dental health. We know that contemporary stands of pine are at least 30 km distant from Piedras Negras, and would have required special acquisition and movement, similar to the transport of pine for ritualized purposes at Tikal, as documented by Lentz and colleagues (2015). All the other plants are currently found nearby, though it is difficult to assess which were growing in the immediate vicinity of the site and which were traded in from more distant forest stands and wetlands.

 

Our macrobotanical findings provide insight into the types of activities other than healing that were likely taking place within the Southeast Marketplace. For example, an abundance of carbonized seeds and wood discovered in situ suggests that some plants were processed directly on the spot. These data support the hypothesis that preparation and production was as much a part of market activities as the exchange and sale of durable goods. Such findings are consistent with ethnohistoric accounts of Maya markets during the colonial period (Las Casas 1958), as well as the lithic (Roche Recinos 2021) and bone (Schnell 2017) evidence from the Southeast Marketplace.

 

Alongside the recovered plant remains with recorded medical uses, there were also several species that are consumed as a source of food. Residues from matrices in the marketplace included charred seeds from the goosefoot family and the common bean, as well as a carbonized food glob containing maize and an amaranth species, suggesting that food preparation and cooking occurred in ancient marketplaces just as they do across the world today. In the past 15 years, there has been an increase in ancient Maya marketplace studies (Bair 2010; Cap 2015a; Chase and Chase 2014; Dahlin et al. 2007; Hirth 2009; Shaw 2012; Shaw and King 2015), suggesting that foodstuffs were almost certainly among the goods exchanged and thus should be expected in the archaeological record (Fedick 2017a, 2017b). Indeed, specific plant species indicative of common Mesoamerican foodstuffs, such as chiles, beans, maize, and tomatoes, previously have been identified in marketplace excavations (Coronel et al. 2015; Eppich and Freidel 2015; Fedick 2017b; King 2015). If, however, we think beyond the traditional exchange of foodstuffs and durable trade goods and assume that other activities, such as the offering of medical services, was conducted in such places, we would expect a greater diversity of plant species.

 

We suggest that our findings from the Southeast Marketplace are consistent with data reported in the broader literature on marketplace activities, where medicinal practice forms a common part of market activities and may have specialized areas. To date, however, this is the first marketplace targeted for research on medicinal practice. We suspect that other marketplaces in the ancient Maya world also have evidence of such activities, but identifying them would require a targeted approach to the paleoethnobotanical remains and osteological remains, if available.

 

Given the remains of medicinal herbs, seeds, and fruits, alongside woods with fragrant and healing smoke, all found in proximity to a high concentration of sweatbaths and discarded human teeth with pathologies, the evidence is compelling that this area was a locus of medical practice, among other activities. Medicinal plants and services were likely sought out by visitors to the marketplace, in some cases looking for specific practitioners and in other cases seeking access to particular medicinal plants that didn’t grow in their own home gardens and forest stands. Given the formalized sweatbaths and the expertise often implicated in successful health care, and specifically dental extractions, we argue for the presence of medical practitioners who might have possessed specialized knowledge and helped to manage the physical and spiritual health of the community. (Ibid., 398-99)

 

 

Brant Gardner on Alma 43:46 as Potential Evidence for Indigenous “Others” in Book of Mormon Lands Before Lehi Arrived

  

46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. (Alma 43:46)

 

 

This quotation is not in any extant is scripture. Presumably, it was a revelation to Lehi, since the question of how to relate to potential enemies would have been extremely important to him. Yahweh’s principle was that lethal force is justifiable in self-defense but that offensive actions are not acceptable. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 4:582)

 

Lehi would have been concerned about this issue in the Old World as he prepared for his family’s journey into the unknown. If this is an unrecorded revelation to Leh, it confirms that the New World was occupied with potential enemies. Only in that case is this revelation appropriate. An empty land would render it irrelevant. (Ibid., 582 n. 23, emphasis in bold added)

 

The "No-Will" Debate between Robert Roberts and John Birkenhead et al. in the March 1877 Issue of The Christadelphian

I am currently trying to track down perhaps the rarest publication in Christadelphian history, John Birkenhead, Letters on the doctrine of God-manifestation, and Extracts from the most recent and advanced writings of the late John Thomas, M.D. (Manchester: John Heywood, 1877) (pamphlet). I have a few leads, which, with some luck, may result in finding this work or at least shedding some light on where an extant copy may be found (I was told by one biographer of John Thomas that he has been trying to find it for 50+ years).

 

It deals with the issue of “no-willism” and other issues relating to the reception of the Phanerosis (“God-manifestation”) doctrine of John Thomas. The following is taken from The Christadelphian 14, no. 153 (March 1877): 130-37 and contains extracts of the writings of Birkenhead et al. debating this issue (for the few who follow this blog who are interested in Christadelphian issues):

 

The No-Will Nullification of Christ’s Work & Mission

 

That Christ had a personality, will, or character of his own, developed by trial, is one of the most obvious facts of his case as narrated in the gospels, and as depicted in all the allusions to him in the apostolic epistles. It is a self-evident necessity of the case. We never heard it disputed by any class of professors of faith in him. Whether it be the mere-manist, or the Trinitarian, or the believer in the truth that Jesus was the exhibition in the seed of David of the divine character which had been spiritually ingrained in his conception, and afterwards developed by growth and experience and nurtured by assistance from above; and afterwards the direct manifestation of the Father’s wisdom and power by the descent and abiding presence of the Holy Spirit at his baptism, we never until now met with the denial of his personal and independent volition except in the pages of a remote ecclesiastical history. It has sprung up now through a mistaken construction of the fact that he was God in manifestation. It has ensnared some whom we regret: at the originator we are not surprised. It is an obliteration of our Elder Brother; the eclipse of the captain of our salvation; the blotting out of “the mediator between God and man.” As such, it is a serious interference with the truth—the substitution of incomprehensible phrases and embarrassing definitions for a glorious and practical fact: the existence and submission and love of our personal head and friend, with whom we hope shortly to be united.

 

In the intelligence from Sale two months ago, we were obliged to indicate the reservation arising from the acceptance of this error. Brother Birkenhead responded by requesting insertion of the following notice:

 

“The brethren and sisters at Sale wish it to be understood, that in relation to the doctrine of ‘God-manifestation,’ they believe that in accordance with Jehovah’s statement to Moses, He caused a portion of His Spirit to become a flesh and blood body, in which He veiled Himself, and through which He manifested Himself from its birth, forward. The eternal Christ-power veiled in the flesh, and the flesh in which the Christ Deity dwelt was known to men as Jesus Christ, was and is the true Deity. The side which men saw was the flesh, which the indwelling and ever present Deity used for the purpose of His manifestation of righteousness or character, which character being produced by the Spirit or Eternal Christ-Power, was without spot, and 33½ years from the birth of the flesh, the flesh was given by Deity for the life of the world. Having provided and offered this spotless Lamb, which took away our sins, the body was again vivified and raised to Spirit nature, so that Jesus Christ, who was first God manifest in flesh, is now God justified in Spirit, believing that the flesh and blood body seen by men was prepared for the use of the invisible Deity dwelling therein (from the moment of its formation, and not simply from the immersion of Jesus), and whose intelligence, wisdom and power thus embodied, were manifested through the flesh in the various words spoken and actions performed, we understand all scriptural statements concerning Jesus Christ in harmony therewith, and give the glory therewith to the Eternal Spirit, Jehovah, while at the same time we honour the Son as we honour the Father, because the Son was the Father in flesh-manifestation, His Spirit having become that flesh.”

 

To this the Editor returned the following answer:

 

Birmingham, 14th Jan., 1877.

 

Dear Brother Birkenhead,—Your letter deals only with points of agreement. I should have been glad if you could be equally satisfactory as to the conclusions you draw from the premisses laid down. If you can say “yes” to each of the following questions our difficulty will be at an end:

1.—Had Christ, the manifestation of God, a will of his own, which he voluntarily subjected to the requirements of his Father who sent him?

 

2.—Did Christ undergo probation before exaltation?

 

I should feel unspeakable relief if you could answer these questions affirmatively. God forbid I should misrepresent you. It goes hard with me I assure you to be at issue with those with whom I have been in so much unity in the truth as with you; but you leave me no alternative if you cease to confess the truth in that element of it which you now call in question. Relieve me of my embarrassment by saying “Yes” to the questions. I will then know how to deal with the statement which you desire to be published.—Faithfully yours in the hope of present and future unity,

 

Robert Roberts.

 

P.S.—Loveto all of your house.

 

Sale, Jan. 15th, 1877.

 

Dear Brother Roberts,—Yours of yesterday is to hand, in which you ask me to give an answer to two questions. I will willingly do so, but must trouble you to write me again before I do it. The matter at issue is of the greatest importance, therefore we shall do well to avoid doing anything hastily, and we must strive to avoid misunderstanding. For these reasons I think it well that, in the words of the Dr., “The first thing we ought to do is to arrive at a distinct comprehension of what each one understands by the phrase Jesus Christ,” and in addition to this also, what each one understands by the words “will,” “voluntary” and “probation.” As these words occur in your questions, I must ask you to write me again, when I will gladly answer you. This is certainly necessary, as they are all words having various meanings. (Here followed lengthy extracts from writings on the subject by Dr. Thomas and the Editor). Excuse me writing at such length. Please to give me the necessary assistance that I may know what you mean in the questions by the words “Christ,” “the manifestation of God,” “will,” “voluntary” and “probation,” and I will immediately reply.—In the hope that we may all be found prepared to enter the presence of Jehovah’s glory in Christ at his coming, and reciprocating your love expressed for us, believe me to remain, yours faithfully,

 

J. Birkenhead.

 

Birmingham, 22nd January, 1877.

 

Dear Brother Birkenhead.—I have been too busy with a pamphlet on the Eastern Question and with the coming Christadelphian to answer your letter. In doing so now, I must be very brief.

 

1.—By “Christ” I mean that individual personage whom Paul describes as “the man Christ Jesus;” and of whom Peter says “God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power.”

 

2.—By “will” I mean individual volition or power of choosing according to the ideas before the mind.

 

3.—By “voluntary” I mean the exercise of this power.

 

4.—By “probation” I mean proof, trial, temptation.

 

I hope these definitions will enable you to say “Yes” to the questions I have propounded, and which I here repeat. 1.—Did Christ, the manifestation of God, have a will of his own which he voluntarily subjected to the requirements of the Father who sent him? 2.—Did Christ undergo probation before exaltation?

 

I would remark with regard to your quotations from the Dr. and myself, that while quoting one part of our statements, you leave out of account and object to other parts. This ought to suggest to you that your treatment of the Scriptures, which cannot stand up and speak for themselves as living writers can, may be of the same one-sided character. Hoping we may not be separated, I remain, with love to all, your brother in the hope.

 

Robert Roberts.

 

P.S.—I have no sympathy or connection with any who say Christ was a mere man.

 

In answer to this, a long letter was sent, from which we subjoin extracts sufficient to indicate the nature of the reply as follows.

 

Sale, January 25th, 1877

 

Dear Brother Roberts.—Your note came duly to hand, but great pressure of business has prevented me answering sooner, which, however, does not much matter, as it is too late for anything I may have to say to influence you in regard to putting or not putting my former communication in the February Christadelphian.

 

I regret that what you have further said in your last letter in explanation of terms used in your first one, is not such as we can heartily say Yes to. We may misunderstand you; but some of the expressions used convey ideas which we cannot endorse, while others are still indefinite.

 

The personage alluded to by Paul when he said “the man Christ Jesus,” is certainly the one whom he, in the chapter following that from which the phrase is quoted, speaks of as “God who was manifested in the flesh,” but, at the time he wrote was “God justified in Spirit,” the same personage throughout. So also the personage whom Peter speaks of as being “anointed with Holy Spirit and power” is the same he speaks of as “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” . . You ask, “Had this personage a will of his own or independent volition? Independent of the flesh in which he was manifested? Yes. Independent of the Eternal Christ Power? No. Had he the power of choosing according to the ideas before his mind? Yes, as God unmanifested has; but that the Son could have chosen to do evil we do not believe any more than he unmanifested could have so chosen. The word “subjected” also implies the idea of “opposition” on the part of the will existing in the Son, which we cannot endorse for the reasons given above.

 

That in the living flesh and blood man, existed, as in us, impulses and natural inclinations, which required keeping within legal bounds, we fully recognise; but this was done by the eternal Christ Power dwelling in the Son, and constituting him Jesus Christ, or God manifest in flesh, and not by the good organisation of the Son as a man merely. I need scarely say that after the Eternal Spirit, in accordance with the oracle, “I will be who I will be,” became Jesus of Nazareth, there were steps of progression in the manifestation of himself. Just so much of his intelligence, wisdom and power were manifested through the body preprepared” as he, the Christ Deity, thought proper, so that the Son spoke and acted according to the wisdom and power dwelling in him; so that while the Son, as a second intelligence, was ignorant of various things during the days of his flesh, he was at the same time as Jesus Christ, or the human and divine in combination—the personage by whom the worlds were made—the true Deity, whom to know is life eternal, and such we cannot recognise as having a volition independent of the Father.

 

The “subjection” of “the man Christ Jesus” to the requirements of the Father, was the result not of the good intentions of the human, carried out by the assistance of the Divine Spirit, but the result of the divine intelligence, wisdom and power of the Spirit, which was the directing and controlling power embodied. Without this we say “the man” would not have been “Christ Jesus”—in combination they were Jesus Christ.

 

To your second question, did “the man Christ Jesus” undergo trial, or temptation before exaltation? we answer Yes, as Christ before he clothed himself with our sinful flesh, was tried, tempted and proved by the Israelites in the wilderness 40 years. So when he became “the man Christ Jesus,” he was tried, tempted and proved by the Israelites again.

 

With reference to your remark that our quotations from the Scriptures may be as one-sided as those from the Dr.’s and your own writings, we would say that we can understand and harmonize all the statements of the Scriptures upon both the sides of this glorious subject, which, however, we are unable to do with the Dr.’s and your own; and while we can heartily endorse many things you both have written, there are others we cannot. The first we quote, because we believe them to be the exposition of Scripture; the others we leave alone for the opposite reason.—That you and all truly desirous of God’s glory, with us, may then be accepted, with love from those associated with me, I remain, dear brother, yours fraternally,

 

J. Birkenhead.

 

Remarks on the Foregoing

 

The confusion apparent in the foregoing is the simple result of failing to distinguish between God and the manifestation of God. This distinction is visible in all the information we have of Christ or allusion to him. It is involved in the very fact that he is the Son of God. It is a distinction so constantly conspicuous in the New Testament, that we shall not cease to hope concerning our friendly correspondent, that in the continuous and contemplative reading of it, the distinction will so dawn upon him and those with him, as to compel them to recognise it and to throw down the barrier which the denial of Christ’s voluntary obedience at present interposes.

 

The letter draws metaphysical distinctions between the Spirit that formed and fashioned the man Christ Jesus, and the flesh-nature in which the form was exhibited. It is this that creates the difficulty. It is an unscriptural way of dealing with the subject. We are not to speak of Christ as if he were a compound of two chemical substances; we are to look at him as a whole—the Word made flesh—the man Christ Jesus—the Son of God. If we do this, we can have no difficulty in recognising his independent volition and his individual distinction from the Father, to whom he was obedient. His manifestation of God and his individual compliance with the will of God are facts, and they are consistent facts to those who take the subject in its practical New Testament form, without seeking to square it in its abstract elements. We ought not to distress ourselves with abstractions. They are beyond the range of the human intellect. It is facts we have to deal with, and the facts in this case are matters of testimony. We must receive all matters of testimony. It is a mistake to discard a testified fact, because we are unable to reconcile it with some other fact. It is a testified fact that Christ obeyed, that he obeyed for the joy set before him; that he was tempted; that though he were a son, he learned obedience, and with strong crying and tears, he made supplication to the Father, and was heard in that he feared (Phil, 2:8; Heb. 12:2; 2:18: 4:15; 5:7, 8.) To say that these things are not so because he was the Word made flesh, is to reason against the testimony. It is not for us to say what the effect of the incarnation of Jehovah’s word must have been; it is ours to receive the testimony of what it was. The letter, under a wrong guidance, fails to do this, but makes use of the God side of Jesus to blot out the obedient and well-beloved Man of Sorrows. The letter makes the obedience of Christ the act of God in the Son, instead of the act of the Son to God. It does this from a fear that to say it was the Son’s obedience, would be to say it was the obedience of the “man merely.” There is a wholesome fear of mere-manism; but it is misplaced here. You cannot have the obedience of a “mere man” where no mere man was. The man Christ Jesus was not a mere man, but the exhibition of the divine character by the means employed in bringing him into the world. After his anointing, he was the exhibition of the Father’s power and wisdom, as well as character.

 

Take away the individual volition of the man Christ Jesus, and you destroy the beauty of this most blessed matter. This is done in the well-meant but misleading definitions of the foregoing letter. The answer to the second question, for instance, completely nullifies the fact of the Father’s subjection of Christ to trial. It says Christ was “tried, tempted and proved” as God was “tried, tempted and proved by the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years.” Now, the testimony of Paul is that he was “tempted in all points like as we are.”—(Heb. 4:15.) The letter says he was tempted like as God was. Can God be tempted with evil? James says No.—(Jas. 1:13.) It is testified that Christ was faithful.—(Heb. 3:2.) To whom was he faithful? According to the indiscriminating language of the letter, he was God faithful to himself or faithful to the Israelites. Paul’s representation of the matter is, “He was faithful to Him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.”—(Heb. 3:2.) This is the completest condemnation of the No-will theory. It takes away Christ’s faithfulness to God: it hides the Son of God and destroys the relation between our Elder Brother and our common Father. It is testified that the Father “scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” That Jesus was no exception is expressly testified in the declaration that “though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered.”—(Heb. 5:7, 8.)

 

The writer cannot harmonise his theory with these testimonies. He says he can; no doubt he thinks so, but true discrepancies remain in logic, even if a man be not able to see them. The writer cannot reconcile what Dr. Thomas has written on the subject, and he finds the same difficulty in what the Editor has written. One of these writers is alive, and asserts harmony to exist where the writer of the foregoing letter sees contradictions. What does this mean, except that the latter is not accurately putting all parts of the subject together. An argument against the view that Christ is a mere man necessarily lays stress and emphasis on the divine side of the case; but there is no exclusion (though there may be no mention) of co-ordinate truth. Christ is the Spirit’s work, but an argument to prove this is wrongly construed if it is construed to exclude the Spirit’s mode of doing the work. This mistake has been made—we doubt not in good faith on the part of some. We are sorry for it, but we are not at liberty to partake in the error resulting from this mistake. We pray that God may restore unity among all who, in sincerity and truth, seek to do His will and to uphold the glory of his name in the earnestness and simplicity of childhood.

 

Editor.

 

Anonymous Letter on the Subject

 

An anonymous writer has printed and circulated a letter on the subject of the pamphlet, from which the following are

 

EXTRACTS.

 

Brethren,—The theory advocated in a pamphlet on the subject of God-manifestation recently published, is an evidence that there are men in the ecclesias now, as in the days of the apostles, “who are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth;” and who merit the rebuke of the apostle, “when ye ought to be teachers ye have need that one teach you which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat.” It is deeply to be regretted that through the action of these “unstable souls,” the ecclesias should be distracted by the discussion of a metaphysical quibble which savours of the jargon of the schools rather than of the truth, and which will retard the growth in spiritual things of those entangled by it. The effects of the controversy have already been disastrous; but whilst we mourn this we remember that the Highest Authority has said, “offences must come,” and we can only reiterate the warning, “Woe unto that man by whom they come.”

 

We endorse the opinion brother Roberts has expressed concerning the pamphlet, that “it is an incompetent manipulation of the divine word;” and we think the most cursory perusal of it must convince the reader that the champions of the theory advocated therein lack that essential qualification of the “workman that needeth not to be ashamed,” the ability to “rightly divide the word of truth,” and that their present action entitles them to a position among those “who strive about words to no profit.” We have yet to learn that salvation depends either upon the discussion or belief of such speculations as those raised in the tract; if it does, very few of the poor of this world, for whom the gospel is specially designed, will stand at the last among the redeemed.

 

The present controversy is an illustration of the truth of the proverb, “History repeats itself;” for in the days immediately subsequent to the times of the apostles, when truth was displaced by error, and when, as had been predicted, men began to turn from the simplicity of the gospel to indulge in the various speculations which were raised by men of perverse minds, great distraction resulted from the discussion of the questions whether there existed in the Christ a human and a divine will, or whether the human was not altogether absorbed by the divine? and also whether the “human will of Christ sometimes acted from its own impulse, or whether it was always instigated by the divine nature?” “Upon these questions,” says Mosheim, “arose severe contests which divided the Commonwealth as well as the Church into two parties.”—(Mosheim’s Ecc. His., Mundock’s Trans., pp. 256–257.) “This controversy,” he adds, “is a striking illustration of the fallacious and hazardous nature of every religious peace which is made to rest on ambiguous phraseology.”—(Mosheim’s Ecc. His., Mundock’s Trans., pp. 256, 258, sec. 10.) When it is stated that the above questions were preceded by a denial, on the part of some, that the body of Christ was mortal (or under the Edenic law), we have evidence from the past and present experience of the brethren that these “last days” of the Gentiles have seen the revival of two forms of ancient error.

 

The two writers are in antagonism to each other, and this proves that they do not understand the abstractions which they discuss. The very fact that certain desires existed which could not be gratified, and appetites which could not be indulged without sin, is evidence that the “impassive Jesus” of the pamphlet, is not the Jesus who “gave us an example that we should follow in his steps,” in the fact “that though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” Moreover, “if the flesh was dead all the way through” we fail to perceive the relevancy of the contrast which the apostle draws between the first and second Adams. “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” From this we learn that death was the consequence of disobedience or sin, which resulted from “the will of the flesh which existed as desires or appetites, obtaining the supremacy and not being subordinated to the will or law of God. Life is obtained through one, who “loved righteousness and hated iniquity,” and who was successful in subordinating “the will of the flesh” to the will of God. This is the plain scriptural statement of the matter; but it is to be feared that the clouds of philosophical dust which have been raised will have disordered the mental vision of some, and thus prevent them perceiving the simplicity of the apostle’s teaching; however, the application of the Spirit’s eye salve will speedily restore such injured organs to their wonted clearness. We thank you, brother Birkenhead, for your admission, although we do not suppose that when you penned the words you understood their purport, or knew that in your admission you conceded the point at issue. We say, blessed be God “the will of the flesh” in our “Elder Brother” never became a controlling power in him, but your confession of his victory we heartily endorse; and we find consolation in the thought, while enduring this present evil world, that our “Great High Priest”

 

“Knows what sore temptations mean

 

For he has felt the same.”

 

And because “he was tempted in all things like unto his brethren” “he is able to succour” the toilers who are endeavouring to win a place in the kingdom of God. Herein is the true sweetness of his victory, and we are content to rest in the assurance that while fighting to win the stephan of an endless life, his loving heart is full of sympathy towards us, and his grace is promised to help us, because he has experienced the fierceness of the battle, and hence it is that he has given that heart-cheering promise which has oft infused renewed vigour into weary strugglers,—“To him that overcometh will I give to sit down on my Father’s throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne.”

 

“We believe,” says D.B., “that Jesus Christ was the Lord of Hosts himself;” and if dogmatic assertion was proof, then the statement would be firmly established. But the proof has not been furnished, and until it is given we must reject the assertion as teaching, which is not warranted by the form of words “which the Spirit teacheth.” Meanwhile we shall be glad to have answers to following questions:—

 

If the Jesus Christ of the New Testament was “the Lord of Hosts himself,” the “Holy One of Israel that inhabiteth eternity,” how could he be begotten?—(page 26.) How could he be son to “the Lord of Hosts?” How could he be inferior to his Father?—(John 14:28.) Would not the glory be equal, the majesty co-eternal? Are not the same things equal? How could the Lord of Hosts, who knoweth the end from the beginning, be limited in knowledge?—(Mark 13:32.) How could the Lord of Hosts be wiser than the “Lord of Hosts?” Yet Jesus Christ was ignorant of some things known to his Father.—(Acts 1:7.) If he was the “Lord of Hosts,” why that wailing agonised cry from the cross, “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?” Did God forsake the Lord of Hosts? Was “the Lord of Hosts crucified through weakness?” Did “the Lord of Hosts” die?” if he did, he was not the “King Immortal;” if he did not the definition is false; its originator is at liberty to seat himself on the horn of the dilemma he finds most comfortable. Christ died and was buried (1 Cor. 15:3, 4, ) and raised (Acts 13:37, ) by “the Lord of Hosts,” but, if Jesus Christ was “the Lord of Hosts himself” we are called upon to believe that “the Lord of Hosts” required to be perfected “for Christ was made perfect through suffering.” That he required to be made obedient, “for Christ learnt obedience by the things which he suffered.” That he had “desires and appetites” which were in antagonism to his own law, for Christ’s were subordinated thereto; and finally we are gravely asked to believe that in Gethsemane’s garden “the Lord of Hosts himself” prayed that “not his own will, but the will of the Lord of Hosts might be done.” These considerations abundantly prove how far the Spirit’s teaching is the theory under consideration. Another advance and its upholders will be landed in the mazes of Trinitarianism; even now the conclusion irresistibly follows from their premisses, that Mary was the “Mother of God, ” for she was the Mother of Christ, and Christ, say they, is the Lord of Hosts himself.

 

How startling is the following extract when we remember the source from which it emanates. “The Spirit of God, powerful and glorious, came down from heaven, was made flesh, and became a Jewish child, and thus left its glory and became poor, that by his righteousness and shedding of blood, he might remove the curses . . and being raised from the dead, was received back again to glory, even the glory he had before the world was.”

 

We could understand a Trinitarian writing in such a strain; but how a Christadelphian could do so, is utterly incomprehensible.

 

“The Spirit came,” “the Spirit left,” &c. The only “Eternal Spirit” recognised by the Holy Oracles is “the King Eternal,” but He did not become poor; He did not leave His glory; He did not become a Jewish child; and, therefore, the exegesis given must be rejected. The “son of His love,” made in all points like unto his brethren, “was content, for the joy set before him, to endure the cross, despising the shame,” and, although in the form of God, humbled himself unto the death of the cross. There is apostolic authority for this, but there are no grounds for supposing that Paul meant that “effluent matter” “was rich but became poor.” The teaching leads logically to the unscriptural dogma of a co-eternal Son: its upholders may deny this, but their denial will only prove that they do not understand the meaning of their own words.

 

Is it not evident from the foregoing that the pamphleteers do not perceive the distinction which the Scriptures maintain between “the Lord of Hosts” and “his servant in whom he delighted?” and, consequently, there is practically an entire obliteration of the “Man Christ Jesus,” who, by loving obedience, wrought out the Father’s will. Dr. Thomas taught not so. His language on the subject unmistakably proves that he is at variance with the theorists: “The ‘grace of God’ was upon Adam, and imparted to him much wisdom and knowledge, but still left him free to obey the impulse of the flesh rather than the divine will. This was the case with Jesus, who, in his discourses, always maintained the distinction between what he called ‘mine ownself’ and the Father who dwelt in him by His effluence. ‘The Son,’ said he, ‘can do nothing of himself,’ and this he repeated in the same discourse, saying, ‘I can of mine ownself do nothing.’ He refers all the doctrine taught, and all the miracles performed, to the Father, whose effluence rested upon him and filled him. If this be remembered it will make the ‘hard sayings’ of his teachings easy to be understood.”—(Phanerosis, p. 43.)

 

If Jesus had not the power to disobey, how can we understand his own words to the official of the High Priest: “Thinkest thou that 1 can not now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?—(Mat. 27:53.) This proves, beyond the possibility of cavil, that Jesus had the power to bring about certain things which would have resulted in the non-fulfilment of the Scriptures, and if they had been broken he would have sinned; he must, therefore, have had the power, though not the purpose, to escape from suffering and disobey. We think this cannot be controverted. The distinction will be clear to minds of ordinary discernment. We see no reason for believing that the great principle upon which God had promised to exalt men to glory and immortality, viz., perfection through trial, was violated or set aside in the case of Christ. The denial of this is mischievous, and we are prepared to resist doctrines which teach that the human was entirely absorbed in the divine. Whilst we firmly adhere to the “mystery of Godliness,” and believe that God worked through Christ in a special manner, we are not prepared to endorse other “mysteries” which render it impossible to understand testimonies which teach Jesus Christ has been exalted to the Father’s right hand, because in the exercise of his own choice he obediently passed through the valley of death.

 

Many portions of the letters manifest on the part of the writers a desire to be wise above what is written, and to not only speculate upon the modus operandi of Deity in the bringing of his Son into the world, but also to explain it as though they had been present at the operation. The history of the past, evidences the evil results which have flowed from such action. It is surprising that men cannot be satisfied with scriptural explanations instead of continually itching after fresh theories by which to explain the modes of Divine working: the invariable result is a “darkening of counsel by words without knowledge.”

 

We regret the circumstances which have called it forth, but trust that the advocates of the doctrines combated will abandon their unscriptural position and seek again “the old paths.” The doctrine advocated is not advance in knowledge, but the reverse. We admit that increased acquaintance with the word should produce clearer perceptions of its teachings or growth in the truth, but this is very different to beginning in “second childhood” to discuss what are the first principles of the faith into which we have been immersed.

 

Louis C. Jonker on 1 Chronicles 29:20-22 and the Davidic King

  

[29:20-22a] After “blessing” YHWH in the preceding section, David now urges “the whole assembly” to bless YHWH their God. These are David’s last words in the Chronicler’s literary work. His final act is to inspire his people to praise YHWH’s greatness. Then all the assembly responded positively to his words and “blessed YHWH, the God of his ancestors, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before YHWH and the king.” This is only the third time in Chronicles that somebody prostrated themselves before the deity (hithpael of šḥh). In 1 Chr 16:29 the term was used in the Psalm quotation to encourage the people to worship God after the ark of the covenant of YHWH was brought to Jerusalem. In 21:21 Ornan prostrated himself before the king when he came to Ornan’s threshing floor, to be identified as the site where the temple would be built. In the present verse, 29:20, “All Israel prostrated themselves before YHWH and the king,” as mediator of the deity’s presence among them. (Louis C. Jonker, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2026], 304)

 

 

On 1 Chron 29:22b:

 

It is interesting that the Masoretic Text lets Solomon sit “on the throne of YHWH” 9v. 23). The LXX replaces this, however, with “the throne of David” (cf. 28:5). The Chronicler’s narrative in 1 Chr 17, 22, and 28-29 reveal his ideological understanding clearly: Solomon is portrayed as the representation of YHWH. Although he is the successor of David, Solomon is revered in Chronicles as the ideal king, as the one worthy of being the temple builder. (Louis C. Jonker, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2026], 305)

 

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephrem the Syrian, “On Repentance”

  

You do this same thing in your thoughts, and I will provide the work of the Apostle to you as evidence. I will show you that your words slander the Apostle, and I urge you to repentance. What does he say to the Galatians who had deviated from the faith? My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. Since they had been born through the birth pangs of Paul, that is, though trials and tribulations, on this account he said that, I travail in birth again, except that they had already been baptized in Christ. If he did not cast away the entire Church of a city, composed of believers who had apostatized, but whom he also prohibited from being baptized a second time, or repeatedly, he surely was not telling the unbaptized, Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? He surely was speaking to the unbaptized, saying, Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He surely did not say to the unbaptized, he, therefore, that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? If the Apostle did not cut off repentance for the clergy, then do you say that after baptism there is no repentance? (Saint Ephrem the Syrian: On Repentance [trans. Matthew Keil; Patristic Nectar, 2026], 95-96)

 

 

Post-Baptismal Forgiveness of Sins in Ephrem the Syrian, "On Repentance"

  

He gave us repentance as a purifying water. If we trespass at all, we are washed clean through it. We have it as a laver not of regeneration only, but of renewal. If we commit any sin, once washed through it, we become pure. The Law had the ashes of a heifer for sprinkling; we have the mortification of repentance. There they were made clean through ashes, and we by eating bread like ashes are delivered from the charges against us. The Law also provides hyssop for purification, but the Gospel proclaims the eating of herbs for forgiveness through repentance. The Baptist, eating herbs, rendered himself a perfect man because, through his preaching of repentance, he became a beacon to those repenting. The sprinkling of purification also contained water, as among us, too, it is customary for the penitent to drink water in moderation. (Saint Ephrem the Syrian: On Repentance [trans. Matthew Keil; Patristic Nectar, 2026], 26)

 

Commenting on the use of Titus 3:5, the translator noted that:

 

There is a distinction being drawn here between the two, final clauses of this verse from Titus, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit. The distinction is thus between baptism (the washing of regeneration) and repentance after baptism (renewing of the Holy Spirit). (Ibid., 26 n. 24)

 

 

You say there is no repentance after baptism. And how did John the Evangelist say that, We have Christ as our advocate with the Father, and He is the propitiation for our sins, not for our only, but also for the whole world? And the Saint included himself, so that he might show that repentance extends even to those who, after receiving such great grace as this, have sinned, to the extent and degree that the most holy Evangelist John attained. You say there is no repentance after baptism. You are the wicked servant who buried his talent beneath the earth, for you did not preach repentance, so that the word through it might traffic the souls of sinners unto the acquisition of salvation from condemnation. Learn, therefore, that it is impious to disobey repentance. (Saint Ephrem the Syrian: On Repentance [trans. Matthew Keil; Patristic Nectar, 2026], 100)

 

Louis C. Jonker on 1 Chronicles 21:1

  

The change from “YHWH” in Samuel to “a military opponent” in Chronicles solved the theological discrepancy in the source text, in which YHWH incites David but then punishes him for the very deed of the census. By involving another subject, the discrepancy is avoided, but even more is thereby achieved, Throughout his work the Chronicler supports the ideology that the king should rely on YHWH and not on his own military power or any other human means. The punishment that follows later in the narrative is thus a punishment not for the census that was held, but for the fact that David let his people be counted to determine his military strength against an opponent instead of relying on YHWH. (Louis C. Jonker, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2026], 257; Jonker translates the noun שָׂטָן as “a military opponent” [ibid., 251])