Nielsen’s Nook

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

the resurrection of the body, [1] and life eternal. [2] Amen.

[1] σαρκὸς (σάρξ) is the word St. John uses to speak of the Incarnation where the Logos became flesh (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, Jn 1:14). This is the flesh that was just like ours. The difference between us and Jesus is that Jesus overcame sin, and swallowed up death by his own death. τοῦτο γινώσκοντες ὅτι ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ· “This we know, that our outmoded self was crucified with him with the result that the body of sin was sacked, that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.” (Ro 6:6, author’s translation)

[2] αἰώνιον (αἰώνιος) that is, life without beginning or end, timeless, eternal. This is the kind of life that Jesus possessed as the Second Person of the Trinity. It is the kind of life that swallowed whole the condemned life that humanity ekes out as a result of the Fall and sin. It is the life that a New Humanity, one rooted in Christ Jesus participates in by mystical union, Christ giving himself to his people via means of grace, (e.g., the Word, sacraments and prayer).

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

the forgiveness [1] of sins

[1] When used with ἁμαρτία, ἄφεσις speaks of the forgiveness or “cancellation of the guilt” of sins (BAGD). 1 Esdr 4:62 employs the word to denote “release from captivity” in the context of Israel being allowed to return from exile to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. The LXX of Isaiah, regarding the Day of the Lord, is compelled “κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν” (Isa 61:1 LXX) to proclaim the release of the captives and restoring sight to the blind. Here ἄφεσιν is used to translate the Hebrew דְּרוֹר (dərôr), which has the idea of liberty or free flowing as in Ex 30:23 where it is used to describe myrrh (BDB). So when ἄφεσιν arrives in the NT there is a tremendous history and colorful circumference to its semantic field (cf. this list from BAGD: Mt 26:28; Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; Lk 3:3; Lk 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 5:31). Thus, the nature of the forgiveness Christians confess is one that is liberating and free-flowing, one that deals with the forensic (cancellation of the guilt) and the existential (liberation from sin’s dark grip).

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

I believe in the Holy Spirit, [1] the holy catholic [2] church, the communion [3] of saints

[1] τὸ πνευμα το Ἅγιον is a double articular phrase, not uncommon, but seeking to make sure we understand which Spirit the Creed confesses (lit. the Spirit the holy one).

[2] καθολικὴν (καθολικός) speaks of the universal or general “in contrast to a single congregation. The Martyrdom of Polycarp (ca after 156 AD) fleshes out some of the semantics. Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν σωτῆρα τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν καὶ κυβερνήτην τῶν σωμάτων ἡμῶν καὶ ποιμένα τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. “… Jesus Christ, the savior of our souls and captain of our bodies and shepherd of the catholic church which is throughout the inhabited earth.” (author’s translation)

[3] κοινωνίαν (κοινωνία) is the often used and not-very-understood word for fellowship or communion. Philippians 2:1 speaks of communion of/with the Spirit. Εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος. If therefore there is any comfort in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any communion with the Spirit. (author’s translation) Semantically, the idea of communion seems to capture the more ready notion of fellowship and its connection to participation. In other words, κοινωνία suggest an active participation in the fellowship that is the basis for all things common.

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

is seated at the right hand of God the Father, All-Powerful [1] from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

[1] παντοδυνάμου (παντα + δύναμις) a compound adjective (singular genitive), functioning in an attributive sense to explain to us about the one at whose right hand Jesus now sits. It is worth noting that in most English translations of the Creed both the beginning phrase, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty” and this phrase use the same English word where two synonymous but distinctly different Greek words appear. The English translations have followed the Latin translation in which παντοκράτορα and παντοδυνάμου are rendered derivations of omnipotens. We use “All-Powerful” to indicate the variation in the Greek.

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

on the third day he was raised [1] from among the dead, was taken up [2] into heaven,

[1] ἀναστάντα (ἀνίστημι) in this passive participial form is not used in the NT. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians (9:2) writes οὐ γὰρ τὸν νῦν ἠγάπησαν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα καὶ δι ̓ ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναστάντα (They [the Apostles] did not love this present age, but the one who died for our sakes and who was raised by God for us).

[2] ἀνελθόντα (ἀνέρχομαι) It should be noted that this may be a continuation of the passive aorist participle form that has been used of the other verbal elements in the Creed; however, it may also be functioning as a deponent, meaning middle/passive form serving with active meaning. Ambiguously, Jesus either ascended into heaven or was taken up to heaven. Given that the passive is used throughout the Creed, it seems that the former possibility is the better translation. Much like the ambiguity in John 3, when Jesus answers Nicodemus, the prefix ἀνα here can augment the type of going/coming to mean “to return” or “to go up.” In a very real since both are true, Jesus is confessed to be the incarnate God come from heaven, now returned. In terms of the hierarchy of places in the Fallen scheme of things, heaven is indeed a step up. The NT uses the word in speaking of ascension in elevation (in a clearly active aorist form). ἀνῆλθεν δὲ εἰς τὸ ὄρος Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐκάθητο μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, But Jesus went up on the mountain and sat there with his disciples (Jn 6:3). When speaking of traveling to Jerusalem NT writers would speak of going up to it (again active aorist). οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, neither did I go up to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17). This is also true in the LXX (active aorist). τὴν ὁδὸν, ἐν ἧ ἀνῆλθεν, the way by which he came up (3 Kings 13:12 LXX, 1 Kings 13:12 English). See also Josephus, Antiquities 6.314.

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Translation

And in Jesus Christ, his son, the only begotten one, [1] our Lord, who was conceived [2] of the Holy Spirit, born [3] of the Virgin Mary, suffered [4] under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, was put to death, [5] and was buried, [6] after he descended into the lower regions of the earth… [7]

[1] ὸν μονογενῆ comes as the second in a double apposition, which in rendering our translation in this more wooden fashion we attempt to show. The word has to do with the singularly unique place that Jesus occupies as the God-Man.

[2] συλληφθέντα a mysterious word. None of the literature I have access to discusses this.

[3] γεννηθέντα a word rendered born and speaking of Jesus’ incarnate existence into time and space and purposefully different than μονογενῆ which is used to speak of the Son’s eternal relationship to the Father. γεννηθέντα is used in the LXX and NT to speak of biological birth: Job 14:1; Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28. 1 Clement 30:5 employing an adjectival form of the word reads εὐλογημένος γεννητὸς γυναικὸς ὀλιγόβιος, blessed is woman’s short-lived offspring.

[4] παθόντα (πάσχω) baldly refers to ones experience or treatment; however, even in classical literature it is not often used to refer to positive experiences. The LXX always uses the word to refer to the enduring of suffering and/or death. (BAGD, πάσχω)

[5] θανόντα (θανατόω) especially the death sentence and its execution. There is also a figurative dimension which entails spiritual or eternal death (BAGD).

[6] ταφέντα (ταφή) 1 Clement 16:10 καὶ δώσω τοὐς πονηροὐς ἀντἱ τῆς ταφῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ· And I will give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death.

[7] Compare the Latin descendit ad inferna with κατελθόντα εἰς τὰ κατώτατα. The Greek seems to be a clear reference to Ephesians 4:9-10. In both the Ephesians passage and the Greek of the Creed, the lower regions (τὰ κατώτατα) is a realm that is not given the identification of Hell as Christians would think of it today or perhaps thought of it by the time the Latin text was received, rendering τὰ κατώτατα as inferna. The underworld in Greek thought was not necessarily the place of eternal punishment after death but simply the place the dead went indiscriminately. Philip Schaff comments, “This clause was unknown in the older creeds, though believed in the Church, and was transferred into the Roman symbol after the fifth century, probably from that of Aquilcia, A.D. 390, where it first appears among Latin creeds…” (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, p 45, fn 43). I commend the entire note to your reading.

Dr. Craig Higgins, Pastor of Trinity Church in Rye, New York wrote an article in the Journal of Biblical Counseling, “Spiritual Formation and the Lord’s Supper: Remembering, Receiving, Sharing,” which I mentioned yesterday when I shared a Robert Bruce quote from the article. I have put together a reflection on the article that largely agrees with it, focusing on elements of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and its Shorter Catechism (SC). The goal here is not in any way to project that this is the only way to read the WCF or SC but it is a way that I find is both plausible and has historical precedent.[1]

WCF 21.5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[2] (emphasis added)

I read this section of the WCF chapter entitled “Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day” and see that there is a list given of liturgical elements that are at the very least assumed to be part of “ordinary religious worship.” I take “ordinary religious worship” to mean at least Sunday Worship but conceivably more often. [3] The list is essentially 1) Word preached to obedient hearts, 2) singing, and 3) sacraments.

Section 5 comes in the context of 21.1) Worship must be scriptural, 21.2) Triune, and 21.3-4) lawfully prayerful. So, the implication from my reading of the WCF seems to be clear. If we lack the preaching of the word in our corporate worship is that not un-ordinary? If we did quarterly sermons, would that not be un-ordinary? The same with singing. Interestingly, prayer seems to be assumed as the atmosphere but not listed out as one of these “parts of the ordinary religious worship of God.”

My point about the Eucharist in light of the WCF is furthered when we take in to consideration the list that follows the phrase “are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God.” There we see things that appear most obvious to be the sorts of things that would be appropriate in Corporate Worship but unnecessary. Hence, even the explicit “upon special occasions” and “several times and seasons” is given.

In elucidating the vital role that Word, Sacraments and Prayer play in the spiritual health of a believer, the Shorter Catechism Questions 85 - 96 answer the question “What does God require of us to escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin?” Answer: Faith, Repentance and the diligent use of all the outward means where by Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption. (Dr. Higgins points this out in his article). Those outward means are of course defined as the Word, Sacraments and Prayer - all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Q88). The sacraments are those sensible signs which Christ has blessed and in which the Spirit works to give us Christ and the benefits of the New Covenant (Q92).

Dr. Higgins also made mention of Q92 in the paper. Frankly, the language of representing and sealing can obfuscate the matter (at least to contemporary ears). Either Christ is given or he is not. Certainly he is represented; we would expect that if Christ is given in something instrumentally or otherwise. Whatever the case, we have established it is Christ who is given and in giving himself in the Eucharist we are “made partakers of his body and blood” to our “spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.”

Scripture teaches at least this about the Eucharist and it is, after all, our confessional document returning us to the tradition of our fathers which is the milieu in which we both interpret scripture and execute its practice. We submit ourselves to scripture in the context of tradition that we may not be impaled upon the pike of private interpretation, dislocated from the Church that has handed down to us the faith that we hold dear.

That being said, let me ask a question that is intended to provoke discussion, but not wrath or divisiveness. Does any minister or church body have the prerogative to withhold the very means of grace given to us by Christ from His sheep at any point of Ordinary Religious Worship especially when our own Presbyterian tradition has said that the Eucharist is part of the “ordinary religious worship of God?”

[1] I am writing to a Presbyterian audience, but I hope that any Christian would be able to engage this article.

[2] Thanks to Matt Bradley for pointing these distinctions of the WCF out to me.

[3] In other words, it would be quite un-ordinary if churches decided to meet only monthly to engage in corporate worship.

Parts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

NB: Received texts from Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom electronic edition of Christian Classic Ethereal Library.

Translation

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, [1] Maker [2] of heaven and earth.

[1] παντοκράτορα is a compound word made up of παντα meaning “all” or “every” and κράτος which connotes a glorious divine might and rule. Josephus employs a slightly different variation of this word structure when he writes, “When, therefore, those that had intended thus to destroy Daniel by treachery were themselves destroyed, king Darius sent [letters] over all the country, and praised that God whom Daniel worshipped, and said that he was the only true God, and had all power. He had also Daniel in very great esteem, and made him the principal of his friends.” (Ant 10.263) This is the same root (κράτος) that Hebrews 2:14-15 uses to contrast Christ’s supreme power with the power over death that the devil possesses, “¹⁴ Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, ¹⁵ and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.” (NRSV) The Latin renders omnipotentem, which of course is where we get the English word omnipotent.

[2] ποιητὴν the accusative form of ποιητής is traditionally rendered “Maker”, which is correct but should be nuanced to the English speaking mind. In Acts 17:28, St Paul is addressing the Athenians and uses the term to refer to the Greek poets. This gives us the semantic understanding that when God writes the lines of creation and history, he did not simply make something but he made it as living poetry. All Creation, heaven and earth, is the Great and Living Poem.

The Mercies of God as the Basis for Sanctification and Paul’s Urging

Paul had written to the church at Rome. That church had some life in it in its own right. He was hashing out some of the main points of the Gospel for them and he turns to urge these good Christian people towards their created purpose. In the language of the Westminster Confession we might summarize this call or urging the Apostle Paul makes as, “I urge you to be sanctified in body and mind for that is the most human thing you can do!”

But if we’re not careful, if we don’t take the context and what has come before Romans 12:1-2 in to consideration, we might miss the very basis by which Paul expects Christians to grow in grace in demonstrating more clearly the likeness of God in greater fellowship with Him.

There are two indicators in the passage that I want you to recognize. The first and most obvious is the word translated “therefore”. That clues us in that Paul’s assertions about mind-body sanctification are predicated upon or assume more basic building blocks of faith.

The second indicator is the phrase translated “by the mercies of God.” The word here for “mercies” or “compassions” is a word unique to Paul excepting one occurrence in the Epistle to the Hebrews and it points us back to the ideas in the previous chapters of the Epistle. There we find that God was not content to give everyone over to the lusts of their flesh to defile their bodies and demonstrate their minds as failed.

God in his mercies was pleased to change the very desire structure of our hearts. In binding us to Christ by faith alone we have been justified as Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Kevin D. Johnson at Reformed Catholicism has made another post that has grabbed my attention. Given the scope of Nielsen’s Nook (pastoral, ecumenical, irenic), there are a number of reasons I bring this lengthy post to your attention here. I summarize the article here:

Johnson had been a supporter of the Federal Vision (FV) in its initial articulations from 2002. Today he wonders whether FV is as consistent with Reformed theology as once claimed. In the last year of pastoring a church, and I take it - existentially feeling the weight of responsibility for those in his care, he has begun to think differently about the matter. He asks the question:

Is Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

In his pastoral critique of FV he warns against of a tendency in which obedience to the commandments is emphasized in contradistinction to being a regenerate covenant member. Johnson sees this resulting in a sort of skewing of the work of preaching.

Second, a danger of raising clergy (teaching and ruling elders) to a place of authority which is contrary to historic Presbyterian polity and just as alarming is the resultant “negative treatment of women.”

Third, including himself explicitly here, Johnson states that:

… Federal Vision theology has often served to muddy the waters concerning the grace of Christ operative in the life of believers and in and among the Church.

Fourth, Johnson argues that to the degree in which Presbyterian and Reformed churches leave their Reformed traditions for Episcopalian/Anglican or Roman Catholic communions, FV demonstrates itself pastorally impotent to “properly combat nominalism in Reformed circles.”

Fifth, while Johnson argues elsewhere that the two sacraments of the Reformed churches are undervalued, he sees FV as swinging “the pendulum” too far. The result is that the sacraments become the emphasis and begin to eclipse the Lord Jesus who is signified in them. He gives a anecdotal illustration here of children in worship services in paedocommunion congregations who are allowed to sleep undisturbed through the entire liturgy except when the bread and wine are received. He makes a fine point when he says:

it is high time that gospel-centered, Christ proclaiming preaching took center stage again in these environments. The sacraments mean nothing without the accompanying Scripture being proclaimed in our services and I see more change in a congregation when the Word is properly proclaimed then I ever have through devotion to the sacraments.

He concludes by calling FV proponents to not hide behind misunderstanding, but to acknowledge the significant pastoral problems involved in adopting FV theology. While Johnson does not use this terminology, he seems to be arguing for the engagement of a semper reformanda disposition, a spirit of prayerful scriptural self-correction. Seeking to combat the nominalism that is present in Reformed churches (in those who propound FV, in those who oppose FV, and in those who don’t care) is a good thing; however, the answer does not seem to be without but has been with us since the beginning:

Heartfelt Holy Spirit inspired regeneration of the hearts of men who rely exclusively on Christ, the preaching and presentation of Christ in our churches, a centering on the grace of the gospel of Christ–these are the things that will fix nominalism in our churches and it is what will keep us away from implementing solutions which really can be a departure from the gospel if we’re not careful. We should be thankful for the heritage we have in those that have gone before us and look back once again at the classic formulations of our faith–’the faith once for all delivered to the saints’.