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])

 

Joel W. Palka (2002) on "Dexterous Maya Nobles and Left-Handed Enemies"

  

Dexterous Maya Nobles and Left-Handed Enemies

 

Other intriguing effects and reversed placement of figures occur in Maya imagery when people are shown wielding spears and shields while in the standard frontal position. Since warriors and “normal, superior, and good” humans use their right hands to brandish a spear and their left hands to hold shields, some adjustments had to be made with regards to the left/right structure, placement of individuals, and hand use. Hence, warriors are frequently shown unconventionally on the viewer’s left with the left sides of their bodies entering the zone of contact so that their shields do not block their frontally viewed bodies. In this manner they can accurately be shown as right-handed spear users and properly grabbing shields or captives with their left hands while in unobstructed frontal view. Warriors properly using a spear in the right hand and a shield in the left while in frontal view can actually be shown oriented to their right and entering the zone of contact with the right sides of their bodies, but their posture and handedness become confused (Figure 9). The body is often shown in a contorted manner but the use of the spear in the right hand is clear: the artist placed the spear passing behind and to the right of the head and a right hand is shown grasping the spear (see similar techniques in the central Mexican manuscript El Lienzo de Tlaxcala [Chavero 1979] and in the Cacaxtla murals [Baird 1989; McVicker 1985]).

 

Ostensibly, it was more important to depict ancient Maya elites, combatants, and peak figures holding objects in their right hands than to have the left sides of their bodies entering the zone of contact. A fascinating illustration of Maya handedness, figure placement, and left/right symbolism can be found in the battle scene on the Classic period painted murals at Bonampak, Mexico (see Figure 10). The victorious Bonampak king and army are shown on the viewer’s left so that they may wield their spears in their right hands and be unobstructed by the shields in their left hands. They clash with enemy soldiers on the viewer’s right. What is particularly interesting is that the defeated enemies are all left-handed! It is doubtful that this army of southpaws was like the feared 400 left-handed biblical soldiers under Benjamin (“son of the right hand”) or high-status Aztec fighters mimicking their patron deity Huitzilopochtli (“Hummingbird of the left”). Moreover, Miller (1986:110) observes that for some perplexing reason a few conquered enemy warriors in the Bonampak murals have two left hands and some victors have two right hands. It seems likely that this particular doubling of right or left hands was intentional. I suggest that the creators of the murals emphasized that the enemy soldiers were left-handed combatants who were inferior, lame, weak, impure, and perhaps more feminine, and were destined to be beaten in battle. The double right-handed victors, however, were depicted as superior, powerful, pure, and righteous.

 

Defeated left-handed warriors (shields in their right hands and spears in their left hands) are also seen in the Maya-influenced murals of Cacaxtla, Mexico (see Baird 1989; McVicker 1985) and on decorated Maya ceramics (see Kerr 1989:14, File no. 503). In the Codex Nuttall (Miller 1975, see codex pages 70 and 75), a Mixtec manuscript from Oaxaca, Mexico, right hands are frequently drawn on left arms of spear-wielding nobles to indicate the preference for right-handed warriors. Some important deity figures in the art of ancient central Mexico are also sometimes shown with two right hands or two left hands as in the Mexican Codex Borgia (see Diaz and Rodgers 1993:22, Plate 56), possibly to signal their varying roles, statuses, and behaviors. Handedness, figure orientation, and left/right structured meaning can also be seen in Precolumbian Olmec, Teotihuacan, Zapotec, and Aztec art in Mexico (see images in Berdan and Anawalt 1997; Berlo 1992; Marcus 1992; Tate 1999). (Joel W. Palka, “Left/Right Symbolism and the Body in Ancient Maya Iconography and Culture,” Latin American Antiquity 13, no. 4 [December 2002]: 432-34)

 

 

Figure 9 (p. 432):

 

 

 

Figure 10 (p. 433):

 

 

 

 

Joel W. Palka on the Left/Right Symbolism Among the ancient Maya

  

Distinctions between the left and right in spatial orientation and the body are commonplace in contemporary Maya cultures (see Earle 1986:163; Gossen 1974; Hunt 1977:95-115; Palka 2000). There is frequently a hierarchy (or ranked complementarity) in these paired distinctions with a pre- eminence of the right for the Maya, which now can be linked to the distant past. In modern and colonial Mayan language dictionaries, for instance, the word for "right signifies right hand, great, large, principal and true, while "left" means lame, subordinate, left-handed, and untrue. There may have been similar meanings of left and right and the body in the Classic period and long before Colonial influences.

 

. . .

 

The primacy of the right and the use of the right hand by superordinate persons and central figures in the images appear to be of critical importance in Classic Maya iconography. Moreover, the heightened significance of the right side of the body and right- handedness apparently reflects cultural meanings, symbolism, and values in ancient Maya society or at least in elite culture. In fact, the percentage of right- oriented figures in ancient Maya art is so high that forgeries (especially left-handed figures in contemporary tourist art), accidentally reversed images in publications (see Kerr 2000:957, File no. K6294, for reversed figures and text; Miller 1999:165, No. 143, for incorrect left-handed scribe), pieces from particular artists or workshops (see Reents-Budet 1994:294-309 for distinctive left-oriented Holmul ceramics), together with low-quality objects (no hieroglyphs and more crudely executed designs) presumably made by nonelites (see Kerr 2000:922, File no. KS 103), can be easily spotted since the standards of Maya right orientation, hand use, and preeminence of the right are violated. In the predictable left/right structure in the Classic period images, the Maya elite presented the expected order of their world and proper patterns of human behavior. (Joel W. Palka, “Left/Right Symbolism and the Body in Ancient Maya Iconography and Culture,” Latin American Antiquity 13, no. 4 [December 2002]: 420, 429-30)

 

Eucharistic Adoration/Worship in the Libri Carolini (c. 790s)

  

[67]

 

This verse of the psalmist reflects the error that has taken root in the hearts of some, so much so that they establish synods and attempt to use testimonies from the Holy Scriptures to support the worship of images, believing they can defend themselves when they hear that the footstool of the Lord is to be worshipped. They think they possess a helmet to protect the head of the body, lest the flashing sword inflict wounds; they believe they have a breastplate to guard their bodies against the blows of the arrows of their stability; they think they have gained protection through a shield, by which they do not fear the flight of wounding missiles. But in doing so, they either succumb to the truth or flee, stripped of these defenses, as they have misused them in vain and useless ways, and they will feel the sharpness of the spiritual sword wielded by holy men, so much so that they will not even believe they possess any strength. Is it because the footstool of the Lord is commanded to be worshipped by the prophet that the worship of images should be established? What, then, is the similarity between the footstool of the Lord and material images? Or what communion is there between the ineffable works of God and images made by any craftsman? Or what association exists between such an excellent and glorious mystery and the figures crafted by human ingenuity? Or where is it instituted that images should be worshipped, just as it is instituted that the footstool of the Lord should be worshipped? For David does not say: "Worship the images of certain saints," as he says: "Worship the footstool of the Lord"; nor does the Lord say: "The works of human hands are my throne, but images are the footstool of my feet"; rather, He says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool" (Isaiah 66:1). Therefore, listen, most foolish error, or rather, insane delusion; listen, incomparable madness; listen, ridiculous sloth; listen to blessed Ambrose teaching what the footstool of the Lord is and how it is to be worshipped: "The apostles worshipped the Lord, because they bore witness to the faith and received the teaching of faith. The angels worship Him, of whom it is written: 'And let all His angels worship Him.'" They worship not only His divinity but also His footstool, for it is holy. And shortly afterward: "But lest anyone think that the example seems to pertain to the mystery of the Lord's incarnation, let us consider what the prophet says: 'And worship the footstool of His feet.' For we should not assess the footstool according to human usage. For God is neither corporeal nor limited, so that we should think of the footstool as a support for His feet; nor do we read that anything other than God is to be worshipped, for it is written: 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve' (Matthew 4:10). How, then, could the prophet command worship under the law, being nourished and educated in the law? It is therefore not a trivial question, and we should therefore consider more carefully what the footstool is. For we read elsewhere: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.' But the earth is not to be worshipped by us, for it is a creation of God. Let us see, however, whether the prophet says that the earth is to be worshipped, which the Lord Jesus took upon Himself in the assumption of flesh. Thus, the footstool is understood as the earth, and through the earth, the flesh of Christ, which we today worship in the mysteries and which the apostles worshipped in the Lord Jesus, as we have said above. For Christ is not divided, but is one; nor was He denied as the Son of God, born of the Virgin, when He was worshipped. Therefore, since the sacrament of the incarnation is to be worshipped, and the incarnation is the work of the Holy Spirit, as it is written: 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). This footstool of the Lord is also referred to by the most diligent seeker, Saint Augustine, as the body of the Lord. (source; number in square brackets refers to the page number of the original language source)

 

 

[87]

 

XXVII. That it is a great temerity and an immense absurdity to equate the aforementioned images with the body and blood of the Lord, as is written in the same vanity that was composed for their adoration.

 

When the Lord says in the Gospel: "True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth," we marvel at the madness of those who have become so negligent in the adoration of images that, although it is clear that they possess neither spirit nor truth, they presume not only to worship them but also to equate them with the body and blood of the Lord, saying: "Just as the body and blood of the Lord pass from the fruits of the earth to the significant mystery, so too may the images crafted by the art of artisans pass into the veneration of those whose likenesses they are made." This is because the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord is granted to us by the same Mediator of God and men through the hand of the priest and the invocation of the divine name, while the images, needing no imposition of hands or mystery of consecration, are formed and assembled only by those who are experienced in the art of painting and skilled in the crafting of colors, or by those who, through the knowledge of the material's properties, can compose faces through some craft or skill. Certainly, for the consecration of these images, the priest, adorned with the sacred vestments, mixing the prayers of the surrounding people with his own, makes remembrance of the Lord's passion and resurrection from the dead, as well as of His glorious ascension into heaven, and these are presented by the hands of angels at the sublime altar of God and in the sight of His majesty. The painter, seeking suitable places for his work, should only pursue the beauty of colors and the enhancement of his craft. Therefore, it is exceedingly distant from the path of truth, reason, and discretion for anyone to attempt to equate images with the body and blood of the Lord. For Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, is said to have offered not an image but bread and wine as a type of the body and blood of the Lord. In the Mosaic account, in the prefiguration of our Redeemer, whose flesh we take for the remission of sins, and by the blood of the striking angel we escape the onslaught, the lamb is commanded to be eaten by families, and the use of images to be venerated or adored is entirely repudiated. The psalmist also sang of the bread of angels, namely Christ, to be eaten by men, and he likened the creators of images to those that are created, saying with sweet melody. For the Author of the human race, who did not disdain to take on flesh for our salvation, established the saving beginning on the day of His most sacred passion, connecting the two opposing walls in Himself as the cornerstone, thus making the two one. Taking the bread, blessing it, and breaking it, He gave this command to His disciples: "Take," He said, "and eat: This is my body." Similarly, after supper, He took the cup and gave it to His disciples, saying: "Take and drink. For this is the cup of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, which will be poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins. Whenever you do this, do it in remembrance of me." (source; number in square brackets refers to the page number of the original language source)

 

 

[88]

 

Since, therefore, the Church holds clearly and more brightly the document of this most evident and most sacred mystery through the mystical figures of the Old Testament and through the institution of the New Testament, there is no longer any excuse for this most insolent use of the adoration of images, which is not only not commanded but is also prohibited by the page of the Old Testament and is not only not permitted in the series of the New Testament but is also condemned. For He who said: "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink," and "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him," did not say: "My image is truly life, and the picture inscribed with my name is truly salvation," nor did He say: "Whoever paints my likeness and worships my manufactured image abides in me, and I in him." And He who said: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," did not say: "Unless you paint my image and worship my likeness constructed by art, you will not have life in you." He who said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh," and "Whoever believes in me will never hunger or thirst," has said nothing similar about an image, since, as we have previously mentioned, He established the commemoration of His most sacred passion not in the works of artisans or worldly arts, but in the consecration of His body and blood, nor did He decree that His faith and confession should be made in pictures, but in the mouth and heart, as Scripture says: "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." For when He says: "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you," He clearly shows that we should not remain in images and images in us, but that we should remain in Him through faith and His words in us through the study of reading and the fulfillment of works. The Apostle Paul, indeed, a chosen vessel, sees that the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord should not be equated with every sacrament but should be preferred above nearly all, saying: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself." Since he shows such diligence in examining those who approach to partake of these, and he strikes with such severity those who come to receive them carelessly and unworthily, nothing similar is mentioned about those who flee the adoration of images, but on the contrary, he speaks of those who misuse images, saying: "And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man." Thus, there is a great distance, beyond what the eye of the mind can grasp, between the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord and the images depicted by the art of painters, since the former is made by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God, while the latter is visibly made by the hand of an artist. The former is consecrated by a priest through the invocation of the divine name, while the latter is painted by a painter through the knowledge of human art. The former is carried to the sublime altar of God by angelic hands, while the latter is placed by human hands, constructed for the gaze of the onlookers. Through the former, sins are forgiven; through the latter, if misused, they are added to. The former has no need of growth, nor is it diminished in any way; the latter grows according to the artist's skill in beauty and is, in a way, diminished; the former confirms the newness of antiquity and the antiquity of newness. (source; number in square brackets refers to the page number of the original language source)

 

The Libri Carolini (c. 790s) Interpreting Malachi 1:11 as a Prophecy of Both the Eucharist and Prayers of New Covenant Believers

  

[177]

 

They think they are insisting on good works, but this scandal will harm us to the same extent that the display of such insolent obedience benefits them, because it is clear that the order demands that they be compelled to render to the aforementioned images a response of obedience similar to the sense of honor they are known to receive, even though they are utterly insensate. But perhaps those wishing to frustrate our assertion will say: 'Why do you mock those who arrange lights and burn incense before senseless images, when we also arrange lights and burn incense in basilicas, which are equally devoid of sense?' To this, a simple objection can arise, for it is one thing to illuminate places dedicated to divine worship and to offer the smoke of prayers and incense to God in those same places, and another to offer light to an image that has eyes but sees nothing, and to burn incense to something that has nostrils but does not smell; it is one thing to venerate places dedicated to divine worship, and another to offer lights and incense to any painted images adorned with colors; it is one thing to venerate the house of the Lord's majesty, built by all the faithful and solemnly dedicated by the pontiff, and another to irrationally kiss images composed by various painters while offering gifts. For the Lord says, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer' (Isaiah 56:7); likewise elsewhere: 'Acceptable gifts shall be offered upon my altar, and my house of prayer shall be honored' (Malachi 1:11)." Indeed, that place is to be honored with many honors, where faithful people gather from all sides, and their supplications are heard by God, and the mysteries of our salvation are celebrated, and a sacrifice of praise is offered to God, where, with the faithful people bringing sacrifices to God through the hands of the priests, there is an angelic gathering, where the harmonious sound of those singing often resounds, where the waves of divine readings irrigate the hearts of the listeners. Moreover, in many of those places that boast of offering lights and incense to images, from which we, who disdain to do so, are thought to suffer scandal, such places dedicated to divine worship are so despicable that, as we have learned from our legates or from those who, during the time of the revered memory of the most illustrious man, my father, or those who have been sent by us to those parts, many basilicas in their lands are found to lack not only lights and incense but even the coverings themselves. For in the kingdom granted to us by God, basilicas, with His assistance, which He deems worthy to preserve, overflow abundantly with gold, silver, gems, and the most beautiful adornments, while we, who refuse to arrange lights and burn incense before images, adorn places dedicated to divine worship with the most precious things. (source; number in square brackets refers to the page number of the original language source)