Nielsen’s Nook

Commentary

[a] ἐγένετο not simply that word spoken was reliable but that over the course of redemptive history the word spoken through the angels was demonstrated as reliable.

[b] ἔνδικον based on what is right, hence just, deserved (BAGD, 263). See also Romans 3:8.

[c] ἀμελήσαντες as an aorist active participle which “implies a condition on which the fulfillment of the idea indicated by the main verb depends. Its force can be introduced by if in translation.” (Wallace, GGBB, 632).

[d] The Byzantine text (BT) ends the question here, while in NA27 and UBS4 this interrogative sentence runs to the end of verse 4.

[e] Literally the pronoun ἥτις.

[f] λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι It should be noted that λαβοῦσα is an active feminine aorist participle, the antecedent of which is σωτηρίας. So literally “salvation which was at the beginning received to be spoken through the Lord.”

[g] A scriptural appeal to apostolic succession, by a writer one generation removed from the apostles.

[h] συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος (συν+επι+μαρτυρέω) with the dative gives a meaning: to bear witness or testify with simultaneously by means of something (BAGD, 787). The present active participle form reinforces the concurrence of the God’s witness through, with and by the Lord Jesus and those who heard Jesus personally (i.e., the apostles). Given that the simultaneity occurs with events that are fixed clearly in the past for the writer of Hebrews (e.g., the Incarnation and subsequent life of Christ), συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος is translated in the past tense.

[i] Signs, wonders and manifold miracles are given here as those things God was doing concurrently in and through the life of Jesus as a testimony to the great salvation being wrought by Him for the Church.

[j] μερισμός the separation and distribution (of the gifts).

It occured to me this morning, while observing fellow parishoners receiving Holy Communion, that there seemed to be a distinct impression from the Reformation in the distribution of the elements. It is my understanding that in the period prior to the Reformation churches celebrated the Eucharist generally once a year and when it was celebrated laity received only the bread, never the wine.

One of the things the Reformation fought to recover in the Church Catholic was both the frequency and unity of the Eucharist that they perceived present in the Church Fathers. It is communion with the undivided Christ that is promised in the Eucharist. As such both kinds, bread and wine, which the Lord commissioned, should be used. Further, with such weighty thing as communion—communion with the Living and Incarnate Christ being offered—it made sense to incorporate the Eucharist back into the regular corporate worship of the Church.

I do not know at this point how this plays out in Roman or Eastern Orthodox churches (or for that matter churches outside of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Dallas); however, what I see at St. John’s is that it is the Lay Eucharistic Minister and the Sub-Deacon, both being laity, who serve the consecrated chalice to the parish during Holy Communion. Perhaps this is a visible reminder that the chalice has been returned to the people that they might celebrate their full and gracious bond to the undivided and perfect Christ.

Chapter 14 of Calvin’s Institutes is a marvelous treatise on the Sacraments, which are “another aid to our faith related to the preaching of the gospel.” [1] It is the words that accompany the Sacraments that makes them what they are. [2] “A sacrament is never without a preceding promise but is joined to it as a sort of appendix, with the purpose of confirming and sealing the promise itself, and of making it more evident to us and in a sense ratifying it.” [3]

At this point Calvin seems to be saying, that God conveys grace to his people through the symbiosis of Word and Sacrament. It is not “enough if the priest mumbled the formula of consecration” to himself; rather, the words of institution should be “added to the element and it will become a sacrament.” As such the sacrament “requires preaching to beget faith.” [4]

Sacraments as Seals

Calvin then deals with an objection that apparently was contemporary with him. The objection went something like this. If the word that precedes the sacrament is the true will of God then the sacrament adds nothing to it. If the word that precedes is not the will of God, then the sacrament that is predicated on that word will not teach it.

Calvin replies concisely that the sacraments function much like government seals. If the seals were attached to a blank piece of paper, these seals would be in vain; however, when they are “added to the writing, they do not on that account fail to confirm and seal what is written.” [5]

The sacraments, being signs or tokens of God’s covenant, are therefore, “exercises which make us more certain of the trustworthiness of God’s Word.” As “visible words,” sacraments represent “God’s promises as painted in a picture.” [6] Calvin goes on to say that we are free to call sacraments “the pillars of our faith”:

For as a building stands and rests upon its own foundation but is more surely established by columns placed underneath, so faith rests upon the Word of God as a foundation; but when the sacraments are added, it rests more firmly upon them as upon columns. Or we might call them mirrors in which we may contemplate the riches of God’s grace, which he lavishes upon us. For by them he manifests himself to us (as has already been said) as far as our dullness is given to perceive, and attests his good will and love toward us more expressly than by word. [7]

Conclusion

It seems explicit that for Calvin, to have the word alone, preached or read, is expressly deficient in the attestation of God’s good will and love towards us. That is not to say that the Word is not sufficient for our salvation. Rather it is to say that the Word on its own terms establishes the sacraments as an outward means by which Christ communicates to us Himself and all the benefits of redemption.[8] As such “Christ is the matter or (if you prefer) the substance of all the sacraments; for in him they have all their firmness, and they do not promise anything apart from him.” [9]

I’d welcome your reflections on this. I would expect, but cannot promise, that my wife will have a pretty insightful reflection on this at Per Caritatem.

[1] Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John Thomas McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols., The Library of Christian Classics ; V. 20-21 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 4.14.1.

[2] Ibid., 4.14.6.

[3] Ibid., 4.14.3.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 4.14.5.

[6] Ibid., 4.14.6.

[7] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[8] This is purposefully Westminster Confession language which I hope will be helpful for Reformed Christian readers of a Presbyterian or Reformed heritage. See specifically questions 85-97 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

[9] Calvin, 4.14.16.

For further reading see, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology)

I saw a tremendous movie last night that I wanted to put on your radar if you haven’t seen it yet. It’s a story about two boys, friendship, family, courage, forgiveness, and living in the bentness of life.

I have seen the New York Times Bestselling book around but given my general pessimism to literature and film today, I never bothered to find out more. 

Kite Runner’s historical setting was interesting to me on two fronts. First, it incorporated a look into the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, where most of the story takes place. Aside from having an affinity for things Russian, I found the reality presented how war of any kind radically changes people. Second, the Afghan and Islamic culture in which the story is told is rich and fascinating to one who knows very little about either.

The story is extremely well told. That is unequivocally rare these days. The use of symbols like the kite and the pomegranate are powerful. The use of parallelism and perhaps even some sort of chiasm were masterful. Kite Runner shares the same media as movies but has elevated itself to that of film. In terms of awards and recognition, it was nominated for nothing compared to what it should have been. But that’s the world we live in. This movie will move you. It is not intended for mere entertainment.

Commentary

[a] δεῖ περισσοτέρως is a sort of emphatic comparative. In other words, based on the superlative position of Jesus Christ that has been argued in chapter 1, the reader is urged to take greater heed or pay greater attention to the tradition that has been circulated about Jesus. This is different than saying listening to everything said about Jesus. “What we have heard” seems to be very specific and related to chapter 1. In the metaphor of “drifting away” it should be noted that it is not Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father that is warned of drifting away from those who hear and are careless with their faith; rather, it is those who hear and are careless that drift from Jesus. It is no semantic game to say that the one who sits at the right hand of the Father, being our telos and celebration, is in fact the means by which we process and progress in life.

[b] The Byzantine Text (BT) and Textus Receptus (TR) has an inverted word order (ἡμᾶς προσέχειν) from the NA27 and UBS4 texts (προσέχειν ἡμᾶς), which does not change translation, but is noted here.

[c] μήποτε after verbs of fearing, being concerned, etc. that. . . not, lest (BAGD, 519).

[d] παραρρέω to flow by, slip away; figuratively: to be washed away, drift away (BAGD, 621). Proverbs 3:21 LXX uses παραρρέω in urging readers to hold fast to good counsel and thought. Υἱέ, μὴ παραρρυῇς, τήρησον δὲ ἐμὴν βουλὴν καὶ ἔννοιαν, ἵνα ζήσῃ ἡ ψυχή σου, καὶ χάρις ἦ περὶ σῷ τραχήλῳ. Son, you should not let these drift away, but guard my counsel and thought, so that your soul will live and grace might be around your neck (author’s translation). There are apparently variant spellings for παραρρέω: NA27/USB4 (παραρυῶμεν), BT/TR (παραρρυῶμεν).

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - January 25, 389), also known as Saint Gregory the Theologian or Saint Gregory Nazianzen, was a 4th-century Archbishop of Constantinople. He is widely considered the most accomplished rhetorical stylist of the patristic age. As a classically trained speaker and philosopher he infused Hellenism into the early church, establishing the paradigm of Byzantine theologians and church officials.
St Gregory made a significant impact on the shape of Trinitarian theology among both Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking theologians, and he is remembered as the “Trinitarian Theologian.” Much of his theological work continues to influence modern theologians, especially in regard to the relationship among the three Persons of the Trinity. Along with two brothers, Saint Basil the Great and Saint Gregory of Nyssa, he is known as one of the Cappadocian Fathers.
Gregory is venerated a saint in both Eastern and Western Christianity. In the Roman Catholic Church he is among the Doctors of the Church; in Eastern Orthodoxy and the Eastern Catholic Churches he is revered as one of the Three Holy Hierarchs along with Saint Basil the Great and Saint John Chrysostom.

View the rest of this Wikipedia article.