John the Baptist being the Greatest "among those born of women" in Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron

  

There is none [greater] among those born of women. With regard to the prophets, he was more eminent than they, although born of a woman. He is less than those born of the Spirit, concerning whom the evangelist has said, To those who received him he gave them the power to become sons of God. For John [preached] a baptism of repentance, but these a baptism for the remission of sins. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes IX §14a [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 161)

 

The theology of baptism in Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) vs. Feeneyism

In his commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, it appears that Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) believed one would appropriate the saving graces of water baptism, in extraordinary instances, through other means than literal water baptism. In his comments on the "baptism" of the apostles, we read:

The disciples were baptizing, because they [themselves] had been baptized. They would not have been able to baptize others if they [themselves] had not been baptized. The meaning of this therefore is that the one who has bathed does not need anything [further]. If you wish, [you can understand] from this that they were baptized with water. And if [you can understand] from this that they were baptized with water. And if not, take note that he said to them, You are cleansed because of my word which I have spoken with you. Accept that this word was baptism for them, since baptism is rendered holy by this same word. Just as John was rendered holy by the commandment that he had received, so too he rendered holy that baptism, which had been entrusted [to him].

 

Moreover, [some] say that, when he gave them his body, this was a baptism for them. For, if they had been baptized or were baptized, but without possessing faith in his body and blood, [how] could he have first said to them, if you do not eat and drink you will not have life? When these were angry, he said to the twelve, Do you too wish to go away? Simon said to him, We believe and we know. In what did they believe, if not in that which those [others] were unable to believe – that is to say, they were not even [able] to listen to it. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes V § 15-16 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 101)

 

Carmel McCarthy on the dating of Chester Beatty MS 709

  

The vellum manuscript acquired by Sir Chester Betty in 1957 contains a total of seventy-five folios and consists of two clearly distinct sections. The first ten folios reproduce an exchange of letters between Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus relating to the corruptibility or incorruptibility of the body of Christ, while the remaining sixty-five folios contain a substantial portion of Ephrem’s Diatessaron Commentary. The parchment is consistently thick in this first part, whereas in the second it is sometimes thick, sometimes thin. Leloir observes that since the writing in this first part is a mixture of the Estrangela, Nestorian and Serta scripts, and contains certain distinctive orthographic features, it should be dated several centuries later than the second part, probably in the eighth or ninth century. The script in the second part is Estrangela, and Leloir dates this part of the manuscript to the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century, at the latest. He cites certain peculiarities of script as a basis for this dating, and compares its script to that of MS Syriac Add. 12150 of the British Museum [written in Edessa in 411/412 AD] which contains writings of Clement of Rome. Titus of Bosra and Eusebius of Caesarea Valdivieso agrees with this dating, also citing MS Syriac Add. 12150, as well as three further MSS of a slightly labor period. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 28)

 

Mark 13:32 and the "Divine Deception" Apologetic of Ephrem the Syrian (306-373)

  

[No one knows that day, neither an angel nor the Son. This is like what he said, Depart from me, cursed of my Father, into the eternal fire, because I do not know you. Just as he knew who were sinners, but said to them on account of their deeds, I do not know you, so too, although he knew the moment of his coming, he declared that he did not know it, lest he be questioned [any further] about it. But, let us go further and ask, “Did he know the Father or not?” he did know him, as it is written, No one knows the Father except the Son and no one knows the Son except the Father. How then did he not know the moment of his coming? If he knew the Father, what could he not know that would be greater than the Father? Or, for what reasons would [the Father] have hidden the moment of his coming from him? Would it have been so that he would appear to be less great than [the Father], and that his nature would be manifested as being merely that of a creature? If this were so, then, when the moment would be revealed to him and the trumpet would sound for him to come down from heaven, he himself would become like [the Father].

 

The [apostle] also said, The design of God is Christ, through whom all the secrets of wisdom and knowledge have been revealed. If all these hidden things are revealed through him, how can the moment of his coming be hidden from him? If he does not know the day of his coming, neither does he know the days when he is not coming. Some day that the Spirit knows what has been made by [God], because it searches the depths of God, but does the Son not know these things [too]? They had questioned him about the moment, but he referred to the day, and declared, “I do not know,” firstly to prevent hem asking [any further] questions, and secondly, so that the signs [which he had announced] would be useful, such as sickness for the sick person who does not know the day of his death. He highlighted his signs so that, from the first day, all peoples and ages would think that his coming would take place in their day. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes XVIII §16 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 279-80)

 

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) on the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15

  

[Because Israel, symbolically called “son” since Egypt, had lost its sonship through having worshipped Baal and offered incense to idols, John gave them [a title] which suited them, Race of vipers. Because these had lost that title of sonship, which had been poured over them through grace in the days of Moses, they received from John a name which was congruent with their deeds.

 

[After the Lord went down into the land of the Egyptians and had returned from there, the evangelist said, Now the true word spoken by the prophet is accomplished. He said, I will call my son out of Egypt. He also said, He will be called a Nazarene, because in Hebrew nezer means a “sceptre” and the prophets calls him a “Nazarene” because he is the son of the sceptre. Because he was brought up in Nazareth, the evangelist notes that this is like that [other prophecy], He will be called a Nazarene.

 

The prophecy was in John but the mysteries of the prophecy were in the Lord of John, just as the priesthood was in the son of Zechariah, and the kingdom and the priesthood were in the Son of Mary. The Law [came] through Moses, with the sign of the lamb and many other symbols. Amaleck, the waters rendered sweet, the brazen serpent, but the truth of [these things came[ through Jesus, our Lord. The baptism of John was higher than the Law, but inferior to [the baptism] of the Messiah, because no one baptized in the name [of the Trinity] before the time of his exaltation.

 

John went off into the desert, not to become wild there, but to render tame in the desert the wilderness of the inhabited [land]. For passion, which causes trouble like a wild beast in the midst of an inhabited [land] at peace, clams down and becomes tame when it goes off to the desert. Be convinced of this from the example of Herod’s passion. It was fierce in the midst of the inhabited land] at peace, and burned illegitimately for his brother’s wife, to the extent that [Herod] lost the mild and gentle John, who [had lived] peacefully in the desert, and had made no use of marriage, even though allowed him by the Law. The Word became flesh and lived among us, that is the Word of God, through the flesh which he assumed, lived among us. He did not say, “near us” but among us, to show clearly that it was our sake that he clothed himself with our flesh, in accordance with what he said, My flesh is food. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes III §8-9 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 77-78)

 

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) on the Reason for Jesus Coming into the World

A few days late, but some Christmas-themed thoughts from Ephrem the Syrian:

  

[Why did our Lord clothe himself with our flesh? So that this flesh might experience victory, and that [humanity] might know and understand the gifts [of God]. For if God had been victorious without the flesh, what praise could one render him? Secondly, so that [our Lord] might show that, at the beginning, he experienced no jealousy towards him [who had wanted] to become God. For he in whom [our Lord] was abused is greater than he in whom he was dwelling when [Adam] was great and glorious. This is why [it is written], I have said, You shall be gods. Thus, the Word came and clothed itself with flesh, so that what cannot be grasped might be grasped through that which can be grasped, and that, through that which cannot be grasped, the flesh would raise itself up against those who grasp it. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes, I §1 [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 39)

 

The use of Amos 3:7 in Revelation 10:5-7 and the lack of "warning judgments"

 An objection I have seen raised against the Latter-day Saint appeal to Amos 3:7, a common “proof-text” used to support the need for modern prophets/continuing revelation is why God does not reveal to them disasters (natural or otherwise) in advance. A potential answer may be found in the light of Rev 10:5-7 which uses Amos 3:7 and Dan 12:6-7. As Richard Bauckham wrote:

 

The revocation of the seven thunders is explained by the angel’s solemn declaration in 10:5-7. Here we need carefully to observe the allusions both to Daniel 12:6-7 and to Amos 3:7. (Italics indicate allusions to Daniel’ underlining indicates allusions to Amos.)

 

Revelation 10:5-7: Then the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and the land raised his right hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the land and what is in it, and the sea, and what is in it: ‘There will be no more delay, but in the days of the sound of the seventh angel, when he is about to blow his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, as he announced to his servants the prophets.

 

Daniel 12:6: One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was upstream, ‘How long shall it be until the end of these wonders?’ The man clothed in linen, who was upstream, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven. And I heard him swear by the one who lives forever that it would be for a time, times and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end, and all these things would be accomplished.

 

Amos 3:7: Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, without revealing his secret (סוד) to his servants the prophets.

 

The reason why there are to be no more warning judgments is that there is now to be no more delay before the final period of history, Daniel’s period of ‘a time, times and half a time,’ in which the secret purpose (μυστηριον) of God for the coming of his kingdom is to be accomplished. This is the secret purpose which God announced to Daniel and to other prophets of the Old Testament period. But to them it remained mysterious. Daniel did not understand the words of the man clothed in linen (Daniel 12:8) and was told that they were to remain sealed until the time of the end (Daniel 12:9). The full meaning of what Daniel and the other prophets foresaw with regard to the last days of history before the end remained mysterious to them. Only now to John will the scroll of God’s purpose for the coming of his kingdom, now unsealed, be given.

 

Unlike Amos, Revelation does not say that God revealed (נלה) his secret to his servants the prophets, but that he announced (ευηγγελισεν) it. This makes it clear that the prophets themselves remained a secret, while also suggesting its character as the good news of the coming of God’s Kingdom.

 

This is the significance of בשׂר (translated by ευαγγελιζομαι in Jewish Greek) in its theologically significant Old Testament occurrences (Isa 40:9; 41:27; 52:7; 61:1; cf. also Ps 40:9 [10]; 68:11; and especially Ps 96:2-3). It is the significance which ευαγγελιζομαι has in Revelation’s only other use of the verb (14:6). (Richard Bauckham, “The Conversion of the Nations,” in The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation [London: T&T Clark, 1993], 260-62, emphasis in bold added)

 

Amos 3:7 is not a text I myself use to support the need for continuing public revelation. However, it does support the doctrine of the "divine council." On this, see David E. Bokovoy, "‮בקעי תיבב ודיעהו ועמש:‬ Invoking the Council as Witnesses in Amos 3:13," JBL 127, no. 1 (Spring, 2008): 37-51.

Further Reading

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura