Blogroll: The Hadley Rectory
I read blogs, as well as write one. The 'blogroll' on this site reproduces some posts from some of the people I enjoy reading. There are currently 8 posts from the blog 'The Hadley Rectory.'
Disclaimer: Reproducing an article here need not necessarily imply agreement or endorsement!
Psalm 10:15 שְׁ֭בֹר זְר֣וֹעַ רָשָׁ֑ע וָ֜רָ֗ע תִּֽדְרוֹשׁ־רִשְׁע֥וֹ בַל־תִּמְצָֽא׃
According to the accents, וָרָע goes with what follows (ASV: “Break thou the arm of the wicked; And as for the evil man, seek out his wickedness till thou find none”).According to the vocalization (conjunctive waw with qamets), it belongs with what precedes (ESV: “Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none”). The Greek (Ps 9:36) reflects the vocalization division by reading σύντριψον τὸν βραχίονα τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ, ζητηθήσεται ἡ ἁμαρτία αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ δι᾿ αὐτήν (NETS: “Crush the arm of the sinner and evildoer; his sin shall be sought out, and he shall no more be found on account of it”).
Deuteronomy 6:7b בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃
Note the pausal form בְּבֵיתֶךָ (contextual form: בְּבֵיתְךָ). According to the vocalization, there are two groups of words of unequal length, the first “at home” in general and the second consisting of three specific actions included in the “at home” context. [TR: Is it possible to be בַדֶּרֶךְ and בְּבֵיתְךָ at the same time? I doubt it. Maybe the pausal form singles out בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ as the most intentional context for teaching, while the other three examples are about snatching every opportunity?]By contrast, the accents divide the four items into two contrasting pairs, homelife and travel, rest and activity.
Genesis 16:4 ויָּבֹ֥א אֶל־הָגָ֖ר וַתַּ֑הַר וַתֵּ֙רֶא֙ כִּ֣י הָרָ֔תָה וַתֵּקַ֥ל גְּבִרְתָּ֖הּ בְּעֵינֶֽיהָ׃
According to the accentuation the main division comes with וַתַּהַר which is marked by the accent atnaḥ, the first half of the verse leading to the pregnancy, the second half describing what happened as a result.According to the vocalization, the pausal form הָרָתָה designates the main verse division, thus making Sarah’s reaction to Hagar’s pregnancy stand out. Cf. the way in which in Gen. 17:27 the pausal form עָשָׂתָה (with atnaḥ; here vocalisation and accentuation agree) highlights the information that follows, “into the hand of Jacob her son.”
But the God who brings forth day and night is the God who gives times of refreshment following times of thirst. God gives storm and peaceful passage, God gives times of sorrow and fear and God gives times of joy...
For Christians what is important is not how life is in and of itself but how God works on me at this moment. God casts me out and he accepts me again, he destroys my work and he builds it up again. “I am the LORD, and there is no other I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil” (Isaiah 45:7). Thus Christians live within the times appointed by God, not from their own conception of life. Thus they do not say that they are always in trials, always asked to prove themselves, but they pray in times of safekeeping, God would not let the time of trial come upon them.
Rough English translation of the following:
Eine Niederlage zeigt dem vitalen und ethischen Menschen, daß die Kräfte noch wachsen müssen, ehe sie die Probe bestehen. Darum ist seine Niederlage niemals unwiderruflich. Der Christ weiß, daß ihn in der Stunde der Versuchung jedes Mal alle seine Kräfte verlassen werden. Darum ist für ihn die Versuchung die dunkle Stunde, die unwiderruflich werden kann. Darum sucht er nicht nach Bewährung seiner Kraft, sondern betet: führe uns nicht in Versuchung…Der Gott aber, der es Tag und Nacht werden läßt, der gibt auf Zeiten des Durstes Zeiten der Erquickung, Gott gibt Sturm und er gibt ruhige Fahrt, Gott gibt Zeiten der Sorge und Angst und Gott gibt Zeiten der Freude …Nicht was das Leben an sich sei, sondern wie Gott jetzt mit mir handelt, ist dem Christen wichtig. Gott verstößt mich und er nimmt mich wieder an, er zerstört mein Werk und er baut es wieder auf. »Ich bin der Herr und keiner mehr, der ich das Licht mache und schaffe die Finsternis, der ich Frieden gebe und schaffe das Übel« (Jesaja 45, 7). So lebt der Christ aus den Zeiten Gottes und nicht aus seinem eigenen Begriff vom Leben. So sagt er nicht, er stehe allezeit in Versuchung und alle Zeit in der Bewährung, sondern er betet in den Zeiten der Bewahrung, Gott wolle die Zeit der Versuchung nicht über ihn kommen lassen.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Illegale Theologenausbildung: Sammelvikariate 1937-1940, DBW 15, 373-374
Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word Books, 1983), 156.
"They have abandoned Christian morality and embraced sexual immorality (2:2, 10, 14, 18), giving themselves over to the inordinate satisfaction of their desires, including drunkenness and gluttony (2:13). They engage in self-indulgent behavior and revelry in the context of the common banquet of the Christians. Although they promise “freedom” (2:19), they are people who live without moral law and are not subject to the divine command (2:21; 3:17). In truth, they are nothing more than “slaves of corruption” (2:19). One of their principal motivations is avarice (2:3, 14), viewing others as a means of gain, people to be exploited for their own ends. The heretics are arrogant in their denial of the Lord and their slander of celestial beings (2:2, 10, 12, 18), a trait especially evident in their strident skepticism (3:3–4)...
"The error of the heretics is doctrinal and not only moral. Peter calls them “false teachers,” who have tried to introduce “heresies of destruction” into the congregations (2:1) by using deceptive means (2:3). At the heart of the error is their skepticism regarding the coming of the Lord and the divine judgment on the day of the Lord (3:3–10). Their argument is that future judgment will never occur, and they rest their case on the apparent delay in the Lord’s advent (3:4, 9; cf. 2:3). They criticize the apostolic preaching regarding the coming as an invention of the preachers themselves and tag their proclamation as nothing more than “myth.” They even place prophetic inspiration in doubt, claiming that the prophets spoke of their own accord and incorrectly interpreted their own visions (1:20–21). This eschatological skepticism translates into an affirmation of liberty that throws off moral restraint (2:19; 3:3–4). Moreover, the heretics have sought support in Paul’s Letters, whose message they have twisted (3:15–16). The doctrinal and moral errors of the false teachers are joined at the hip. In fact, at the head of his denunciation Peter declares that the heresy is a denial of the Lord, who has bought them (2:1). At the heart of this denial is the rejection of his sovereignty over their moral lives (2:10).
"The false teachers are members of the Christian communities among whom they promote their error...
"The differences between the situations presented in Jude and 2 Peter argue against identifying the opponents as the same in both letters. The root of the moral problem that Jude combats is a perversion of the doctrine of grace (v. 4). On the other hand, the doctrinal error that is the foundation for the immorality of the opponents in 2 Peter is the negation of the parousia of Christ and future judgment (3:3–10)."
Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 151–153.
Jesus charges members of the church to confront those whom we think have sinned against us. He does not say that if we think we have been wronged we might consider confronting the one we believe has done us wrong. Jesus tells us that we must do so because the wrong is not against us, but rather against the body, that is, the very holiness of the church is at stake. Moreover, to be required to confront those whom we believe have wronged us is risky business because we may find out that we are mistaken.
Anger and lust are bodily passions. We simply are not capable of willing ourselves free of anger or lust. Jesus does not imply that we are to be free of either anger or lust; that is, he assumes that we are bodily beings. Rather, he offers us membership in a community in which our bodies are formed in service to God and for one another so that our anger and our lust are transformed...Alone we cannot conceive of an alternative to lust, but Jesus offers us participation in a kingdom hat is so demanding that we discover we have better things to do than to concentrate on our lust. If we are a people committed to peace in a world of war, if we are a people committed to faithfulness in a world of distrust, then we will be consumed by a way to live that offers freedom from being dominated by anger or lust.
Our speech always takes place in the presence of God. “Thus disciples of Jesus should not swear, because there is no such thing as speech not spoken before God. All of their words should be nothing but truth, so that nothing requires verification by oath. An oath consigns all other statements to the darkness of doubt. That is why it is ‘from the evil one’” (Bonhoeffer)
[Jesus] does not promise that if we turn the other cheek we will avoid being hit again. Nonretaliation is not a strategy to get what we want by other means. Rather, Jesus calls us to the practice of nonretaliation because that is the form that God’s care of us took in his cross. In like manner Christians are to give more than we are asked to give, we are to give to those who beg, because that is the character of God.
To be a disciple of Jesus, to be ready to be reconciled with those with whom we are angry, to be faithful in marriage, to take the time required to tell the truth – all are habits that create the time and space to be capable of loving our enemies.
We are called...to be perfect, but perfection names our participation in Christ’s love of his enemies.
Excerpted from Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew (SCM Theological Commentary on the Bible; London: SCM Press, 2006), pp. 68-72.
This does not mean that those who would follow Jesus do so that they may be seen. Nor are disciples called to be different in order to be different. Jesus clearly thinks that disciples will be different, but that difference is because of what he is – the Son of God...
Each of the Beatitudes names a gift, but it is not presumed that everyone who is a follower of Jesus will possess each beatitude. Rather, the gifts named in the Beatitudes suggest that the diversity of these gifts will be present in the community of those who have heard Jesus’s call to discipleship. Indeed, to learn to be a disciple is to learn why we are dependent on those who mourn or who are meek, though we may not possess that gift ourselves...
the source for any understanding of the Beatitudes must be Jesus. It is from Jesus that we learn what it means to be “poor in spirit.” Thus Paul can commend the Philippians to have “the same mind...that was in Christ Jesus” [Philippians 2:5-8]
Paul does not assume that our poverty of spirit is the same as Jesus’s self-emptying, but rather that Jesus’s poverty has made it possible for a people to exist who can live dispossessed of possessions. To be poor does not in itself make one a follower of Jesus, but it can put you in the vicinity of what it might mean to discover the kind of poverty that frees those who follow Jesus from enslavement to the world. Not to be missed, moreover, is the political significance of such poverty. Too often we fail to recognize our accommodation to worldly powers because we fear losing our wealth – wealth that can take quite diverse forms.
Perhaps no beatitude is more christocentric that Jesus’s commendation of those who mourn, for they are, like him, prepared to live in the world renouncing what the world calls happiness and even peace...Like Jesus, moreover, the disciples endure injustice with the hard meekness that still hungers and thirsts for righteousness. Yet the righteousness of this new people is blessed by the mercy seen in the forgiveness that Christ showed even to those who would kill him. Such a people are capable of peacemaking because they are sustained by the purity derived from having no other telos but to enact the kingdom embodied in Jesus.
Excerpted from Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew (SCM Theological Commentary on the Bible; London: SCM Press, 2006), pp. 58-65.
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, School of Prayer (London: Daybreak, 1989), p. xiii
(1) What is the human condition?Young claims that the Catechism only designates our “self-centred rebellion against God” (Answer 2) as sin but not our “fallen and corrupt nature” (Answer 47). I am not sure this is true, given that Answer 2 speaks of our general human condition as “the state of sin” which is explicated in the very next answer as follows:“Sin alienates me from God, my neighbor, God’s good creation, and myself. I am hopeless, guilty, lost, helpless, and walking in the way of death. (Isaiah 59:2; Romans 6:23).”Consequently Answer 5 rejects any notion that we can mend our relationship with God , stating, “I have no power to save myself, for sin has corrupted my conscience and captured my will. Only God can save me. (Ephesians 2:1-9; John 14:6; Titus 3:3-7).”
Young would be right to observe that the Catechism does not use the phrase “original sin” but his judgement that “I am born a sinner by nature, separated from God” (Answer 106) is too little too late seems to me harsh.
(2) How may a person repent and place faith in Jesus Christ?Young reads the Catechism’s answer as an Arminian statement and consequently in contradiction to the Articles. I can see why one might read it this way and I regret the Catechism’s failure to reference Ephesians 2:8 but the criticism is nevertheless not justified and this for two reasons. First, the “How” in the question cited (Answer 14) is arguably not concerned with the condition for repentance but its practical outworking. This seems to me clear from the sequence of questions. In other words, Question 14 does not ask, “can each of us repent and place faith in Jesus Christ as and when we wish or does this need God’s enabling?” It asks “how do you go about repenting and placing faith in Jesus Christ” and affirms that anyone at any time (and presumably anywhere) can do so, e.g., without any need for special rites or occasions, cf. Acts 16:31-34 and Romans 10:9, two of the Scripture references given.
Secondly, among the Scripture references given in Answer 14 is John 15:16 (“You did not choose me but I chose you”) and Answer 108 states that God “shows his saving grace by bringing to faith in Christ those who are far from him. (Romans 5:1-11),” thus affirming that we cannot come to faith in Christ apart from grace.
(3) Are there more than two sacraments?The ACNA Catechism accepts the language of “sacrament” not only in relation to the “sacraments of the Gospel” (Answer 104), namely Baptism and Holy Communion, but also in relation to the other “five commonly called Sacraments” (Article 25). Young rightly notes the difference between Article 25 and Answer 117 which defines the difference between the two “sacraments of the Gospel” and the five “sacraments of the church.” The Answer reads“They are not commanded by Christ as necessary for salvation, but arise from the practice of the apostles and the early Church, or are states of life blessed by God from creation. God clearly uses them as means of grace.”Article 25 notes that these sacraments “have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles.” The addition of the word “corrupt” is of course significant but its omission need not be as odious as Young makes it out to be. Given that the way in which these rites were enacted at the time it is understandable that the Articles add the word “corrupt” but the way in which these rites are used today within ACNA and elsewhere is different from the common practices in 16th century Roman Catholicism. So unless one were to argue that one or more of these rites, having originated in corruption, should be dropped altogether, it seems feasible to drop the word “corrupt” without thereby implying that these rites were never practised in corrupt ways.
The main thrust of the sentence just quoted from Article 25 is not entirely unambiguous, “Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel.” Does this mean that they should not be called “sacraments” at all, as Young implies? Why then the addition “of the Gospel”? The concern of the English reformers was to make sure that Baptism and Holy Communion are clearly distinguished from any other rites that may be called sacraments (and the ACNA Catechism follows this); they were on the whole not as hard-line as Young on the use of the word “sacrament.” The proof of this seems to me in the second Book of Homilies, Homily 9. Young instead, in his first post, appeals to the earliest commentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles, written by Thomas Rogers.
The position espoused by Thomas Rogers has been present within the Church of England from the 16th century until today and is also found in other commentaries on the Thirty-Nine Articles. But it is not the one codified in the Articles or Homilies. In a second post, Young rightly points out that “numbering the Sacraments at seven is not following the teaching of the apostles or the early church” and that the Eastern Orthodox churches have not adopted the number “seven” (Young acknowledges that the Roman Catholic church is not entirely rigid about the number either). But while he is thus aware of a fluid and broader understanding of the term, he seems to believe that the use the word “sacrament” pretty much inevitably leads us to think of other rites “as being Sacraments in the same way that Baptism or the Lord’s Supper are.” He therefore believes that “If we call these other things sacraments we need to qualify it EVERY TIME by saying that they are not really Sacraments in the truest sense.”
Such anxiety over the use of the word “sacrament” seems to me unnecessary. The Articles and Homilies seem to me less anxious about safeguarding the word “sacrament.” They are concerned with making sure that people understand the difference between Baptism and Holy Communion, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, rites which are not “commanded by Christ as necessary for salvation” (Answer 117).
Given the broad understanding of God’s grace reflected in the Catechism, and rightly so, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to deny that God uses means of grace other than Baptism and Holy Communion. The ACNA Catechism does not disallow the use of the word “sacrament” in contexts other than the two sacraments of the Gospel and the five sacraments of the church. It arguably allows for people to hold to a more Eastern Orthodox position but as ACNA is part of the Western church it does not seem to me unreasonable and harmful to single out “confirmation, absolution, ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick” as “sacraments of the church.”