John Chrysostom Teaching Being Transformative in Homily 1 on Chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Ephesians

  

γʹ. Οὐκοῦν εἰς τοῦτο ἐχάρισεν, εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης [6] τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἵνα δείξῃ τὴν χάριν αὐτοῦ, μένωμεν ἐν αὐτῇ. Εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης. Τί ἐστι τοῦτο; ἵνα τις αὐτὸν ἐπαινέσῃ; ἵνα τις δοξάσῃ; ἡμεῖς, ἄγγελοι, ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις; Καὶ τί τοῦτο; Οὐδέν· ἀνενδεὲς γὰρ τὸ θεῖον. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν βούλεται ἐπαινεῖσθαι καὶ δοξάζεσθαι παρ’ ἡμῶν; Ὥστε τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην θερμοτέραν ἡμῖν ἐγγενέσθαι. Οὐδενὸς γὰρ ἐφίεται τῶν παρ’ ἡμῶν, ἀλλ’ ἡ τῆς σωτηρίας μόνης, οὐ διακονίας, οὐ δόξης, οὐκ ἄλλου οὐδενός, καὶ πάντα διὰ τοῦτο ποιεῖ. Ὁ γὰρ ἐπαινῶν καὶ θαυμάζων τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν χάριν γεγενημένην, προσεκτικώτερος ἔσται καὶ σπουδαιότερος.

 

Ἥς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς, φησί. Οὐχ εἶπεν, Ἥς ἐχαρίσατο, ἀλλ’, Ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς· τουτέστιν οὐ μόνον ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπήλλαξε, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπεράστους ἐποίησε. Καθάπερ ἂν εἴ τις λαβὼν ψωραλέον τινά, καὶ λιμῷ καὶ νόσῳ διεφθαρμένον, καὶ γήρᾳ καὶ πενίᾳ καὶ λιμῷ, εὐθὺς εὔμορφον νεώτερον ἐργάσαστο, πάντας ἀνθρώπους νικῶντα τῷ κάλλει, σφοδρὰν μὲν τὴν αὐγὴν ἀφίεντα ἀπὸ τῶν παρειῶν, καὶ τὰς μαρμαρυγὰς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀποκρύπτοντα ταῖς τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν βολαῖς, εἶτα ἐν αὐτῷ καταστήσειε τῷ τῆς ἡλικίας ἄνθει, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο ἀλουργίδα περιβάλλοι καὶ διάδημα καὶ πάντα τὸν κόσμον τὸν βασιλικόν· οὕτως ἐξήσκησε τὴν ψυχήν ἡμῶν, καὶ κακὴν καὶ ποθεινὴν καὶ ἐπέραστον ἐποίησεν. Ἐπιθυμήσουσι γὰρ ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ψυχήν, ἀρχάγγελοι, πᾶσαι αἱ ἄλλαι δυνάμεις. Οὕτως ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπιχάριτας ἐποίησε, καὶ αὐτῷ ποθεινούς. Ἐπιθυμήσει γάρ, φησί, ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ κάλλους σου.

 

Ὅρα γὰρ οἷα πρὸ τούτου ἐπιβλαβῆ φθεγγόμενοι, οἷα κεχαριτωμένα ῥήματα φθεγγόμεθα νῦν. Οὐκέτι πλοῦτον θαυμάζομεν, οὐκέτι τὰ ἐνταῦθα, ἀλλὰ τὰ οὐράνια καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Οὐχὶ χαρίεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ παιδίον εἶναί φαμεν; ὅπερ ἂν μετὰ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ὥρας καὶ πολλὴν ἔχει τὴν ἐν τοῖς ῥήμασι χάριν; Τοιοῦτοί εἰσιν οἱ πιστοί. Ὅρα οἷα φθέγγονται οἱ μεμνημένοι. Τί γὰρ χαριέστερον ἐκείνου τοῦ στόματος γένοιτ’ ἄν, τοῦ τὰ θεωμαστὰ ῥήματα ἀφιέντος, καὶ καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ καὶ καθαροῖς χείλεσι μεταλαμβάνοντος τραπέζης μυστικῆς τοιαύτης μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἐμπρότητος καὶ τῆς παρρησίας; τί χαριέστερον τῶν ῥημάτων, δι’ ὧν ἀποτασσόμεθα τῷ διαβόλῳ; δι’ ὧν συντασσόμεθα τῷ Χριστῷ; τῆς ὁμολογίας ἐκείνης τῆς πρὸ τοῦ λουτροῦ; τῆς μετὰ τὸ λουτρόν; Ἐννοήσωμεν ὅσοι διεφθείραμεν τὸ βάπτισμα, καὶ στενάξωμεν, ἵνα δυνηθῶμεν αὐτὸ πάλιν ἀναλαβεῖν. Διὰ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου, φησί, ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. Πῶς; Οὐ μόνον ὅτι τὸν Υἱὸν ἔδωκε θαυμαστόν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ, ὥστε σφαγῆναι αὐτὸν τὸν ἀγαπώμενον. Πολλὴ ἡ ὑπερβολή· τὸν ἀγαπώμενον ὑπὲρ τῶν μισουμένων ἔδωκεν. Ὅρα πόσου ἡμᾶς τιμᾷ. Εἰ, ὅτε αὐτὸν ἐμισοῦμεν καὶ ἐχθροὶ ἦμεν, καὶ ἀγαπώμενον [7] ἔδωκε· τί οὖν ποιήσει λοιπὸν, ὅταν τούτῳ καταλλαγῶμεν διὰ τῆς χάριτος; Τὴν ἄφεσιν, φησί, τῶν παραπτωμάτων. Ἄνωθεν κάτω κάτεισι· πρότερον υἱοθεσίαν εἰπὼν καὶ ἁγιασμὸν καὶ ἀμώμους, καὶ τότε τὸ πάθος, οὐ μετρίων, οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῶν μεγάλων ἐπὶ τὰ μικρὰ κατήγων τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν μικρῶν ἐπὶ τὰ μεγάλα ἀνιών. Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω μέγα, ὡς τὸ αἷμα ἐκχυθῆναι τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν· καὶ τῆς υἱοθεσίας καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δωρεῶν τοῦτο μεῖζον, τὸ μηδὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φείσασθαι. Μέγα γὰρ τὸ ἀφεθῆναι τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, ἀλλὰ τὸ μεῖζον, τὸ διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Δεσποτικοῦ. Ὅτι γὰρ τοῦτο πολλῷ μεῖζον ἁπάντων, ὅρα πῶς καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἀνεβόησε λέγων· Κατὰ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. Πλοῦτος μὲν γὰρ κἀκεῖνος, πολλῷ δὲ πλείων οὗτος. Ἥς ἐπερίσσευσε, φησίν, εἰς ἡμᾶς. Καὶ πλοῦτος, καὶ, Ἐπερίσσευσε, τουτέστιν, ἀφάτως ἐξεχύθη. Οὐκ ἔνεστι λόγῳ παραστῆσαι, ὧν διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐπειράθημεν. Πλοῦτός γάρ ἐστι, πλοῦτος περισσεύων, πλοῦτος οὐκ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ, ὥστε πανταχόθεν ἀμήχανον αὐτὸν λεχθῆναι. Δεικνὺς δὲ πῶς εἰς περισσείαν ἔδωκεν, Ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει, φησὶ, γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ· τουτέστι, σοφοὺς καὶ φρονίμους ποιήσας τὴν ὄντως σοφίαν, τὴν ὄντως φρόνησιν. (John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Epistle to the Ephesians [Migne, PG 62:13-14])

 

 

So, then, it was for this that he bestowed grace, “unto the praise of the glory” [6] of his grace, and in order that he might show his grace, let us remain in it. “Unto the praise of glory”—what does this mean? Is it that someone may praise him? That someone may glorify him? We, angels, archangels, or rather the whole creation? And what of that? Nothing; for the divine nature lacks nothing. Why then does he desire to be praised and glorified by us? So that the love we have for him may become warmer in us. For he seeks nothing from us, except our salvation alone—not service, not glory, not anything else—and for this reason he does everything. For the one who praises and marvels at the grace shown toward him will be more attentive and more earnest.

 

“By which he graced us,” he says. He did not say, “by which he bestowed grace upon us,” but “he graced us”; that is, he not only freed us from sins, but also made us lovable. Just as if someone took a person covered with scabies, corrupted by famine and disease, worn down by old age, poverty, and hunger, and immediately made him into a handsome young man, one who surpasses all men in beauty, sending forth a strong radiance from his cheeks and hiding the sun’s glare with the rays of his eyes, then setting him in the bloom of youth and afterward clothing him with purple and a diadem and all the royal splendor—so he fashioned our soul, and made it both evil and desirable and lovable. For angels long to bend down and look upon such a soul, archangels, and all the other powers. So he made us charming and desirable to himself. “For the king,” he says, “will desire your beauty.”

 

See, then, what sort of words we spoke before, and what words full of grace we speak now. We no longer admire wealth, no longer the things here below, but the things in heaven and in the heavens. Do we not say that even that child is lovely, one who, together with the bloom of the body, also has much grace in speech? Such are the faithful. See what those who remember say. For what could be more lovely than that mouth, which utters the marvelous words and receives with a pure heart and pure lips the table of that mystic feast with such boldness and freedom? What words are more gracious than those by which we renounce the devil? By which we enlist under Christ? That confession before baptism? That after baptism? Let all of us who have corrupted baptism consider it, and let us groan, so that we may be able to take it up again. “Through the Beloved,” he says, “in whom we have redemption through his blood.” How? Not only because he gave his Son—an astonishing thing—but because he gave him in this very way, so that the beloved one should be slain. Great is the excess of it: he gave the beloved one for those who were hated. See how much he honors us. If, when we hated him and were enemies, he gave his Beloved [7], what then will he do once we are reconciled to him through grace? “The forgiveness,” he says, “of transgressions.” He moves from above to below: first speaking of adoption, holiness, and blamelessness, and then of the Passion; not descending from the greater to the lesser, but ascending from the lesser to the greater. For nothing is so great as the blood of God being poured out for us; and among the gifts of adoption and the rest, this is greater still—that he did not spare even his Son. Great indeed is the forgiveness of sins, but greater still is what comes through the blood of the Master. That this is much greater than everything else, see how he also cries out here, saying, “According to the riches of his grace, which he has abounded toward us.” For that was riches too, but this is far more. “Which he has abounded,” he says, “toward us.” Both “riches” and “he abounded” mean that it has been poured out beyond measure. It cannot be set forth in words, though we have experienced it through the works themselves. For this is riches—abounding riches—riches not of men but of God, so that it is impossible to describe it from every side. And showing how he gave it in abundance, he says, “In all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of his will”; that is, by making us wise and prudent, he made us possess true wisdom, true prudence.

 

 

Ignace de la Potterie on the Meaning of “Beginning” in John 6:64 and other Johannine Texts

  

If one compares him to the other authors of the New Testament, John in his Gospel and epistles is the one who most frequently uses the word “beginning.” In the Fourth Gospel, after the Prologue (cf. 1:1-2), which constitutes a separate unit, the word “beginning,” employed in itself, is found in two places (Jn 2:11 and Jn 8:25). In four other cases, it is either “ap’ archês,” (8:44 and 15:27) or “ex archês” (6:64 and 16:4), which in both instances mean “from the outset.” At Cana, the “beginning” is clearly specified: “The beginning of the signs...” (2:11); in the two other cases, on the contrary, it was the start of a much longer period, the commencement of a permanent reality, that of their relationship to Jesus: “From the outset you have been with me,” Jesus will say (Jn 15:27). Thus, the “beginning” in John is a concrete happening which is the start of a permanent relationship between Jesus and his disciples: it is the beginning of their faith in him.

 

We also find the word “beginning” in several places in the Johannine epistles. The opening verse of the First Epistle has this expression: “Ho ên ap’ archês,” “That which was from the beginning” (cf. 1 Jn 1:1-3). Contemporary exegesis is more and more unanimous in saying that here it is not a question of the eternalness of the Word, as at the beginning of the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 1:1), but of the “beginning” of the Christian tradition. And yet, the expression which one reads shortly after, “that which we have contemplated,” is exactly the same as that which occurs much earlier in the Prologue of the Gospel (Jn 1:14). In both instances we are dealing with a theology of revelation. The Word become flesh, of whom the witnesses “have contemplated the glory,” is “the unique Son of God come from the Father.” But in the epistle, John is more precise: “... we have contemplated..., we have seen and we render testimony... that which we have seen and heard, we announce it to you, too, that you also may be in communion with us” (1 Jn 1:2-3). “That which was from the beginning” for the witnesses — the historical self-revelation of Jesus to his disciples — the author links later to the message he announces to the Christians. Here, not only is the message transmitted, but the faith experience of the witnesses is shared as well.

 

But in his letters, John likewise addresses himself to Christians by using up to four times the same expression: “ékousate ap’ archês,” “(what) you have heard from the beginning.” The verb “ékousate” is a technical term for the kerygma. For the Christians of Asia Minor, to whom John sent his letters, the “beginning” is the moment when they, for the first time, heard Jesus spoken about by the witnesses of the Good News. It is indeed remarkable that the author brings about a fusion between what has been the “beginning” for him and the other witnesses and what it means for the Christians to whom he writes: all have communion in one and the same experience and the same practice (cf. 1 Jn 2:20-27). For John as for the other Christians, for all, the beginning of Christianity was the moment when they personally discovered Christ and received him in faith; that this happened earlier (for the first witnesses) or more recently (for the Christians), it is always the direct encounter with Christ and the acceptance of his message. The beautiful reflection of Blondel is appropriate here in light of Tradition: he characterizes it as a “collective experience,” a “spiritual continuity” of a Christological nature, which links the past (here, the time of the witnesses) and the present (the religious actuality of the community); all participate in one and the same experience: the discovery of and the personal encounter with Christ. (Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant [trans. Bertrand Buby; New York: Alba House, 1992], 173-75)

 

Ignace de la Potterie (RC) Admitting that Several Church Fathers, "Especially in the Greek Tradition," Understood John 2:4 to be Jesus Rebuking Mary

  

It is clear that in the case of the Cana account, the first interpretation of the formula is totally excluded; there is no hostility between Jesus and Mary here. We nevertheless have to point out that several Fathers of the Church, especially in the Greek tradition, have understood these words of Jesus as a reproach to Mary. Irenaeus will say: “to constrain her untimely hastiness,”’ and Chrysostom: “to expose her vain glory.” It is true that the formula of John is difficult to explain, and that modern exegesis remains hesitant about its meaning. Nevertheless, we believe that in the framework of the Bible and in the context of John, it does not have to be so paradoxical as it may seem to be. (Ignace de la Potterie, Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant [trans. Bertrand Buby; New York: Alba House, 1992], 184-85, emphasis in bold added)

 

The references are “Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, 16, 7: “Repellens eius intempestivam festinationem” (SC 30, 294) and “Chrysostom, in h.l..: “inanie gloriae” (PG 59, 130).”

Jans M. Moscicke on Jesus as Both Goats from Leviticus 16 in his Baptism and Temptation Narratives in Matthew 3-4

  

Jesus as Both Goats at his Baptism and Temptation (Matt 3.13-4:11)

 

I have maintained the plausibility that the compressed scene of Jesus’s death (Matt 27:50–54) evokes a typology of Jesus as the two goats of Yom Kippur moving in antithetical directions, first as the goat for YHWH offering his blood/lifeforce beyond the (cosmic) sanctuary veil (Matt 27:50–51a), and then as the goat for Azazel sent into the underworld (Matt 27:51b–53). If it can be shown that Matthew narrates Jesus’s ministry in terms of this two-fold schema elsewhere in his Gospel, then this reading becomes more probable.

 

Hannah An has recently argued that “the ritual prescriptions of the Day of Atonement, particularly those found in Leviticus 16:20–22, decisively inform our interpretation of the Matthean witness of Jesus’s baptism and temptation (Matt 3:5–4:1).” While I do not agree with all of her conclusions, An’s interpretive intuition may be correct.

 

First, there is a formal correspondence between the ritual of the two goats and the baptism-temptation in Matthew’s Gospel. The heavens are opened and Jesus is affirmed as God’s Son (Matt 3:16–17), which evokes the goat for YHWH (Lev 16:15–19). Immediately after this, Jesus is lead into the desert to be tempted by the Devil (Matt 4:1), which evokes the goat for Azazel (Lev 16:20–22). Matthew preserves this tight sequence derived from his Markan Vorlage (Mark 1:10–12), whereas Luke disrupts it by sandwiching Jesus’s genealogy between his baptism and temptation (Luke 3:23–38).

 

Second, a chief purpose of John’s baptism of Jesus in Matthew is to identify Jesus with sinful Israel. By means of John’s baptism, Matthew foreshadows Jesus’s redemptive role of “bearing infirmities” (Matt 8:17) and giving his life as a “ransom for many” (Matt 20:28) for the “forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). The baptism of John, who is from a priestly lineage (Luke 1:5), functions in a similar way to Aaron’s hand-leaning rite, whereby the sins of Israel are transferred onto the scapegoat before the goat’s banishment into the wilderness (Lev 16:21–22).

 

Third, having symbolically associated with sinful Israel, Jesus is immediately led “into the wilderness,” which reminds one of the journey of the goat for Azazel. Unlike his Lukan counterpart, who writes ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Luke 4:1), Matthew employs εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, a phrase that appears three times in Leviticus 16 LXX:

 

He shall release it [the scapegoat] into the desert [εἰς τὴν ἔρημον] … And he shall lay them [the sins] upon the head of the living goat, and shall send it by the hand of a ready man into the wilderness [εἰς τὴν ἔρημον]. And the goat shall bear their unrighteousness upon itself into a desolate land. And Aaron shall send away the goat into the wilderness [εἰς τὴν ἔρημον].

 

Matthew’s decision to retain εἰς τὴν ἔρημον is surprising, given that the form ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ occurs in Deut 6:4; 8:2, 16, that is to say, in the two chapters from which Jesus quotes Scripture in the temptation narrative (Deut 8:3 in Matt 4:4//Luke 4:4; Deut 6:16 in Matt 4:7//Luke 4:12; Deut 6:13 in Matt 4:10//Luke 4:8), and given that ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ may be the evangelist’s preferred phrase, as he writes it three times (Matt 3:1, 3; 24:26) and εἰς τὴν ἔρημον just one other time (Matt 11:7).

 

Fourth, Yom Kippur was popularly known as “The Fast” (ἡ νηστεία) and was characterized by the practice of prolonged fasting in the Second Temple period. Only Matthew explicitly states that Jesus proactively “fasted” (νηστεύω) in his temptation narrative (Matt 4:2; cf. Luke 4:2), recalling the hallmark abstinence from food and other forms of self-denial performed on Yom Kippur.

 

Fifth, the Day of Atonement was also associated with Israel’s wilderness afflictions, specifically Deuteronomy 8:3 and the tradition concerning manna. Having cited Deut 8:3, Philo then writes, “This affliction is propitiation; for on the tenth day also by afflicting our souls He makes propitiation [cf. Lev 16:30].” This connection is striking, given that Matthew (4:4) quotes the entirety of Deut 8:3b LXX, whereas Luke (4:4) only quotes half of this passage. Deuteronomy 8:3 also speaks about manna, which Philo, 1Q22, and the Festival Prayers relate to the fasting performed on the Day of Atonement.153 Jesus’s reliance on God’s heavenly sustenance (Matt 4:3–4; cf. Luke 4:3–4) evokes the anticipation of divine mercy on Yom Kippur.

 

In light of these points, Yom Kippur has likely influenced Matthew’s baptism- temptation narrative. The evangelist foreshadows Jesus as the goat for YHWH at his baptism and the goat for Azazel at his temptation. In the context of an elimination ritual, the priestly baptizer symbolically identifies Jesus with sinful Israel, which leads to Jesus’s immediate expulsion “into the wilderness.” There, Jesus fasts for forty days and nights and suffers Israel’s wilderness afflictions, recalling the great “Fast” of Yom Kippur performed in anticipation of God’s forgiveness. This association of Jesus with both goats of Leviticus 16 mirrors the Barabbas and Roman-abuse episodes (Matt 27:15–26, 27–31), where Jesus is respectively designated as goat for YHWH and goat for Azazel. It also seems to parallel the death-resurrection scene (Matt 27:50–54), where Jesus’s identity as both goats may also be assumed. The link between Matthew’s temptation and passion narratives is strengthened by the fact that, in his crucifixion account, Matthew uniquely has the passersby utter the phrase, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (Matt 27:40), the same phrase by which the Devil tempts Jesus in the wilderness (Matt 4:3, 6).

 

Finally, the parallel between Jesus’s temptation and descent to Hades narratives suggests a connection between the underworld and the Devil/ Satan/Azazel in Matthew’s thought (cf. Matt 4:1, 5, 8, 10, 11). But does the Gospel betray this connection elsewhere? The following points possibly suggest it does: (1) The Devil seems to subsume Azazel’s role in Matt 25:41 (cf. 1 En. 55.4). (2) There appears to be an association between Hades and the Azazel tradition in the evangelist’s Caesarea-Philippi narrative (Matt 16:13– 28). (3) According to Fletcher-Louis, Jesus’s rebuke, ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου σατανᾶ (Matt 16:23; also Mark 8:33), “may put Peter in the position not just of Satan, but of the demon Azazel,” as the scapegoat is verbally banished in m. Yoma 6:4 and Apoc. Ab. 13.12; 14.5. Only Matthew has Jesus repeat a nearly identical phrase at the end of his temptation narrative (ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ, Matt 4:10), which again seems to recall the expulsion of Azazel/the scapegoat.

 

Jesus’s descensus ad inferos may therefore plausibly be conceived as a journey “to the Devil/Satan/Azazel,” who apparently holds captive the righteous- dead in the underworld (Matt 12:29; 16:18; 27:52–53). Here, divergent paradigms of the atonement may converge in the evangelist’s thought, either intentionally or coincidentally. On the one hand, Matthew’s scapegoat typology might lead one to understand Jesus as bearing the world’s sins to the realm of the cosmos that is furthest away from God’s heavenly sanctuary. On the other hand, Matthew’s descent narrative seems to be connected to Jesus’s release of prisoners from Sheol and usurping cosmic authority from the Devil (Matt 4:8–10; 27:52–53; 28:16–20). Unfortunately, the evangelist does not tell the reader how these strands relate. One is left to speculate that, in Matthew’s thinking, Satan’s authority over the kingdoms of the world is linked to the world’s burden of sins that Jesus effectively eliminates, thereby destroying the means of Satan’s authority in the cosmos. (Jans M. Moscicke, The New Day of Atonement: A Matthean Typology [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 517; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020], 212-16)

 

On the association between Hades and the Azazel tradition in the Caesarea-Philippi narrative in Matt 16:

 

(1) Caesarea Philippi is located at the southern slope of Mount Hermon, where the Watchers bound themselves by an oath to corrupt humankind (1 En. 6.1–8). Whereas Mark (8:27) places Peter’s confession “on the way” to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, “Matthew [16:13] states that the incident occurred when Jesus and his disciples had come into the district of Caesarea Philippi, thus associating the event more closely with the setting of our tradition [i.e., Mount Hermon]” (Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” 591). (2) Caesarea Philippi was the locale of a grotto to the half-goat god Pan (ibid., 583, 590–91). Fletcher-Louis remarks, “Given the veneration of the half-goat and half-human god Pan from the beginning of the second century BC onwards, Jews must have seen a connection with the binding of Azazel, a goat-like demon at the same place” (“Sacral Son of Man,” 280). (3) Nickelsburg notes that, at Caesarea Philippi, “the eastmost headwaters of the Jordan welled up from a bottomless cave sacred to the god Pan” (Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” 590). The dark abyss reminds of the place of Asael’s infamous punishment (1 En. 10.4–6). Josephus describes the abyss at Caesarea Philippi as “a horrible precipice that descends abruptly to a vast depth” (J.W. 1.405), as a “cave in a mountain, under which there is a great cavity in the earth, and the cavern is abrupt, and prodigiously deep, and full of still water” (Ant. 15.364). According to Nickelsburg, Matthew’s unique “reference to the gates of Hades finds a counterpart in the subterranean waters of the grotto” (“Enoch, Levi, and Peter,” 598). (4) Fletcher-Louis observes that the Hebrew equivalent of πύλαι ᾅδου, שער י שא ו ל (cf. Isa 38:10), may be a pun on the word ש י ע ר , the Hebrew term for “goat-demon” (Lev 17:7; Isa 13:21; 34:14; 2 Chr 11:15) (“Sacral Son of Man,” 281). (5) He also posits that Jesus’s rebuke, “Depart from me, Satan” (Matt 16:23; Mark 8:33) evokes the figure Azazel. This allusion is strengthened by the clause, “For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things,” since this could also broadly summarize the fallen Watcher’s transgression. (Ibid., 215-16 n. 155)

 

 

R. Alastair Campbell on the Use of “Altar” (θυσιαστήριον) in Ignatius’s Epistles

  

What is wrong with a Eucharist or Agape when the bishop is absent is that it represents division in the church. It is noteworthy that Ignatius uses no word for the bishop's activity in the Eucharist, such as 'celebrating' or 'offering'.

 

εκείνη βεβαία ευχαριστία ήγείσθω, ή ύπό έπίσκοπον ουσα (let that Eucharist be considered valid which takes place under the presidency of the bishop) (Smyrn 8:1)

 

The Eucharist is 'under' the bishop, that is he presides, and all that matters is his legitimating presence rather than anything that he contributes to the proceedings. A contrary view might seem to be suggested by Ignatius' use of the word θυσιαστήριον (Eph 5:2; Mag 7:2; Trall 7:2; Philad 4). It might be thought that the use of a word taken from the vocabulary of sacrificial worship shows that for Ignatius the Eucharist is seen as a sacrifice which the bishop offers. It is doubtful whether this idea is really present. In the Ephesian passage, Ignatius is arguing for the importance of unity expressed in meeting together, and he supports it with a fourfold appeal to Scripture and common knowledge. There is an allusion to Jesus' words about the power of the prayer of the one or two together, to the Old Testament maxim that God resists the proud and to the well-known principle that to accept or reject the servant is to accept or reject the master. In such a context, it is likely that the θυσιαστήριον is not a Christian altar but the Jewish altar. Ignatius is doing what Paul also does, using the analogy of the Jewish altar to draw not so much a liturgical as a common-sense conclusion (1 Cor 9:13, 10:18). The words, εαν μη τις ή έντός του θυσιαστηρίου, ύστερεΐται του άρτου του θεου, (if anyone is not within the altar, he lacks the bread of God) look like an appeal to a truth considered self-evident; those who separate themselves from the sacrifice do not partake in whatever material or spiritual blessing is deemed to flow from it. The same is true in Trall 7:2. A comparison is being drawn between a state of affairs known to hold in the world of Judaism (‘He who is within the altar is pure ...’), and the situation in the church as Ignatius sees it (He who acts without the bishop, eldership or deacons is not pure in his conscience’). Accordingly, it seems doubtful whether Ignatius sees the bishop as a priest. Rather he is using the well-known and respected model of the Old Testament cultus to argue for unity in submission to the bishop. What we can say is that here, as in 1 Clem 40:5, Old Testament language is being used which will quickly lead to such a view of the bishop’s ministry. (R. Alastair Campbell, The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity [Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994], 220-21, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

Kenneth E. Farnsworth (LDS) on the Number of Denominations During a 1942 Debate

During a debate held in 1942 against Otis Gatewood (Campbellite), Kenneth E. Farnsworth (LDS) taught that there were 800, not 20,000+ faiths/denominations within Christianity:

 

Now I'm going to quote it and let you judge for yourself which of us is right. "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the Saints and the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come to a unity of the faith, unto a perfect knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man." If we have arrived at that, then they're certainly done away with, but I am sure we haven't. We have about 800 different faiths-more than that- and we're far from a unity of the faith. We're far from a perfect knowledge of the Son of God, even though the revelations of the Lord are able to make them known. We're far from that. (Kenneth E. Farnsworth, “The Bible: Complete and Final: Second Negative,” in Gatewood-Farnsworth Debate on “Mormonism” [Salt Lake City: Otis Gatewood, 1942], 164, emphasis in bold added)

 

Kenneth E. Farnsworth (LDS) Affirming Baptismal Regeneration During a 1942 Debate

During a debate against Otis Gatewood (Campbellite), Kenneth E. Farnsworth (LDS) affirmed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (a shared belief with Gatewood):

 

Now, Mr. Gatewood's church teaches that all who have died without being baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, will be damned. Mr. Gatewood's church teaches that all who have not been baptized by immersion for the remission of sins will be damned. Now if there are any good Catholics and Methodists in this congregation, that means that you and all of your ancestors that were sprinkled, baptized by sprinkling, are damned. That means that all those good ancestors of yours who were not baptized by immersion, are damned. If they were not baptized they were damned, because Mr. Gatewood teaches that baptism by immersion is essential to man's salvation. And I will show you by the scriptures that Mr. Gatewood is correct.

 

I quote from John 3:5. "Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." So Mr. Gatewood's church is right in teaching that unless a man is baptized by water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

 

Again we find in Acts 2 :38. ''Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Now if baptism is for the remission of sins, then surely it's essential to man's salvation, because unless you receive the remission of your sins you cannot be saved. So again Mr. Gatewood's church is right in maintaining that baptism is essential to salvation.

 

But what about those countless millions of honest souls who did not hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and who did not have the saving ordinance of baptism performed while they were here on this earth? That's the question I want you to keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen.

 

Now I'm going to give you an example showing clearly that even though a man confess Jesus, even though a man repent sincerely of his sins, he still is in his sins until he has been baptized for the remission of his sins. The example I call to your attention is that of Paul on his way to Damascus to persecute the saints, and while on the way he beheld a vision of the Lord Jesus Christ and was stricken blind. We are told that Paul neither ate nor drank for three days, but was in continual fasting and prayer. Certainly Paul was converted by that vision. Certainly Paul was repentant after seeing or beholding the Christ. And yet, when Ananias came to Paul, even after that conversion, even after that repentance, he said, "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." So Paul, even though converted, was still in his sins and had to be baptized and wash away his sins.

 

So Mr. Gatewood's church is right in teaching that baptism by immersion is essential to salvation, because the scriptures certainly teach that doctrine. And I want to ask you again, my friends, what about those countless millions of people, including the prophets, that did not have an opportunity of hearing the gospel of Christ, the only plan of salvation? They did not have the opportunity of being baptized by immersion for' the remission of sins.

 

Now, Mr. Gatewood, as I said, teaches that the mode of baptism must be by immersion, and I believe he is correct. I believe the Bible will bear him out in that. Col. 2:12 says,. "Being buried with him in baptism." Baptism there is com· pared to a burial. Certainly that indicates that it is by immersion. We find that Jesus came up straightway out of the water, showing further that immersion is the correct mode.

 

Now, my brothers and sisters, you recall a story in the Bible, a true story, where Naaman, a leper, heard of a prophet in Israel that could heal him of his leprosy. You have read that Naaman went to Israel; and he went to the prophet and the prophet sent a servant out to Naaman and said, "Go dip seven times in the River Jordan and you shall be cleansed of your leprosy." Naaman was very angry at first. Why should he dip in the River Jordan? But he went and dipped seven times in the River Jordan and was healed of his leprosy.

 

Now my friends, Naaman did as he was told. Suppose Naaman had sprinkled himself seven times—would Naaman have been cleansed? No, because he would have shown a lack of faith in God and certainly would not have been cleansed. But he was told to dip seven times and he dipped and was clean. And so the Lord has commanded us to be baptized, which means to be dipped, or immersed, and if you do anything else, you show a lack of faith in God.

 

So Mr. Gatewood is right and his church, in teaching that unless a man is born of the water and of the Spirit, and that by immersion, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. (Kenneth F. Farnsworth, “Baptism For the Dead: First Affirmative,” in Gatewood-Farnsworth Debate on “Mormonism” [Salt Lake City: Otis Gatewood, 1942], 9-11)

 

Farnsworth also understood that the atonement of Christ is the sole meritorious cause of salvation, while water baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation:

 

I am going to comment on the question that was asked me, "Why practice baptism for the dead and not tithing for the dead and so on and so forth?" Now, I am sure that Mr. Gatewood will admit that without the grace of Christ, Christ suffering on the cross for the sins of the world-my sins, your sins-of course, on condition of repentance and obedience to the gospel; without that grace there is no salvation. It is the grace of Christ makes possible the remission of sins. Now there is only one way for a man to have his sins remitted through the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that's by baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. The thing that makes baptism valid is the fact that Jesus Christ atoned on the cross for our sins, and those that believe and are baptized for the remission of sins will have them remitted. (Kenneth F. Farnsworth, “Baptism For the Dead: Fourth Affirmative,” in Gatewood-Farnsworth Debate on “Mormonism” [Salt Lake City: Otis Gatewood, 1942], 44, emphasis in bold added)