Christ is born, glorify Him!

Christ from heaven, go out to meet Him!

Christ on earth, be exalted!

Sing to the Lord all the whole earth; and that I may join both in one word, let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, for Him who is of heaven and then of earth. Christ in the flesh, rejoice with trembling and with joy; with trembling because of your sins, with joy because of your hope.
Again, the darkness is past; again Light is made; again Egypt is punished with darkness; again Israel is enlightened by a pillar. The people who sat in the darkness of ignorance, let them see the great Light full of knowledge.

Old things have passed away, behold all things have become new. The letter gives way, the Spirit comes to the front. The shadows flee away, the truth comes in on them. Melchizedek is concluded. He who was without Mother becomes without Father (without mother of His former state, without father of His second). The laws of nature are upset; the world above must be filled. Christ commands it, let us not set ourselves against Him.

O clap your hands together all you people, because unto us a Child is born, and a Son given unto us, whose government is upon His shoulder (for with the cross it is raised up), and His name is called The Angel of the Great Counsel of the Father. Let John cry, prepare the way of the Lord; I too will cry the power of this Day. He who is not carnal is Incarnate; the Son of God becomes the Son of Man, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Let the Jews be offended, let the Greeks deride; let heretics talk until their tongues ache. Then shall they believe, when they see Him ascending into heaven; and if not then, yet when they see Him coming out of heaven and sitting as Judge.

This is our present Festival; it is this which we are celebrating today, the Coming of God to Man, that we might go  forth, or rather (for this is the more proper expression) that we might go back to God – that putting off of the old man, we might put on the new; and that as we died in Adam, so we might live in Christ, being born with Christ and crucified with Him and buried with Him and rising with Him.

For I must undergo the beautiful conversion, and as the painful succeeded the more blissful, so must the more blissful come out of the painful. For where sin abounded grace did much more abound; and if a taste condemned us, how

much more does the passion of Christ justify us?

Therefore let us keep the Feast, not after the manner of a heathen festival, but after a godly sort; not after the way of

the world, but in a fashion above the world; not as our own, but as belonging to Him who is ours, or rather as our master’s; not as of weakness, but as of healing; not as of creation, but of re-creation.

I behold a new and wondrous mystery! My ears resound to the Shepherd’s song, piping no soft melody, but chanting full forth a heavenly hymn.

The Angels sing!
The Archangels blend their voices in harmony!
The Cherubim hymn their joyful praise!
The Seraphim exalt His glory!
All join to praise this holy feast, beholding the Godhead here on earth, and man in heaven. He who is above, now for our redemption dwells here below; and he that was lowly is by divine mercy raised.

Bethlehem this day resembles heaven; hearing from the stars the singing of angelic voices; and in place of the sun, enfolds within itself on every side the Sun of Justice.

And ask not how: for where God wills, the order of nature yields. For He willed, he had the power, He descended, He redeemed; all things move in obedience to God.

This day He Who Is, is Born; and He Who Is becomes what He was not. For when He was God, He became man; yet not departing from the Godhead that is His. Nor yet by any loss of divinity became He man, nor through increase became he God from man; but being the Word He became flesh, His nature, because of impassibility, remaining unchanged.

And so the kings have come, and they have seen the heavenly King that has come upon the earth, not bringing with Him Angels, nor Archangels, nor Thrones, nor Dominations, nor Powers, nor Principalities, but, treading a new and solitary path, He has come forth from a spotless womb.

Yet He has not forsaken His angels, nor left them deprived of His care, nor because of His Incarnation has he departed from the Godhead.

And behold,
Kings have come, that they might adore the heavenly King of glory;
Soldiers, that they might serve the Leader of the Hosts of Heaven;
Women, that they might adore Him Who was born of a woman so that He might change the pains of child-birth into joy;
Virgins, to the Son of the Virgin, beholding with joy, that He Who is the Giver of milk, Who has decreed that the fountains of the breast pour forth in ready streams, receives from a Virgin Mother the food of infancy;
Infants, that they may adore Him Who became a little child, so that out of the mouth of infants and sucklings, He might perfect praise;
Children, to the Child Who raised up martyrs through the rage of Herod;
Men, to Him Who became man, that He might heal the miseries of His servants;
Shepherds, to the Good Shepherd Who has laid down His life for His sheep;
Priests, to Him Who has become a High Priest according to the order of Melchisedech;
Servants, to Him Who took upon Himself the form of a servant that He might bless our servitude with the reward of freedom;
Fishermen, to Him Who from amongst fishermen chose catchers of men;
Publicans, to Him Who from amongst them named a chosen Evangelist;
Sinful women, to Him Who exposed His feet to the tears of the repentant;
And that I may embrace them all together, all sinners have come, that they may look upon the Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world.

Since therefore all rejoice, I too desire to rejoice. I too wish to share the choral dance, to celebrate the festival. But I take my part, not plucking the harp, not shaking the Thyrsian staff, not with the music of pipes, nor holding a torch, but holding in my arms the cradle of Christ. For this is all my hope, this my life, this my salvation, this my pipe, my harp. And bearing it I come, and having from its power received the gift of speech, I too, with the angels, sing: Glory to God in the Highest;
and with the shepherds: and on earth peace to men of good will.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Mar 4:14
The sower soweth the word — or, as in Luke (Luk_8:11), “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.” But who is “the sower?” This is not expressed here because if “the word of God” be the seed, every scatterer of that precious seed must be regarded as a sower. It is true that in the parable of the tares it is said, “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man,” as “He that soweth the tares is the devil” (Mat_13:37, Mat_13:38). But these are only the great unseen parties, struggling in this world for the possession of man. Each of these has his agents among men themselves; and Christ’s agents in the sowing of the good seed are the preachers of the word. Thus, as in all the cases about to be described, the sower is the same, and the seed is the same; while the result is entirely different, the whole difference must lie in the soils, which mean the different states of the human heart. And so, the great general lesson held forth in this parable of the sower is, that however faithful the preacher, and how pure soever his message, the effect of the preaching of the word depends upon the state of the hearer’s heart. Now follow the cases. See on Mar_4:4.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:14
The sower soweth the word (ho speiron ton logon speirei). Not put thus clearly and simply in Mat_13:19 or Luk_8:11.

Adam Clarke
Mar 4:15
These are they – Probably our Lord here refers to the people to whom he had just now preached, and who, it is likely, did not profit by the word spoken.

Where the word is sown – Instead of this clause, four copies of the Itala read the place thus – They who are sown by the way side, are they Who Receive The Word Negligently. There are thousands of this stamp in the Christian world. Reader, art thou one of them?

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Mar 4:15 And these are they by the wayside, where the word is sown; but, when they have heard, etc. — or, more fully (Mat_13:19), “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.” The great truth here taught is, that hearts all unbroken and hard are no fit soil for saving truth. They apprehend it not (Mat_13:19) as God’s means of restoring them to Himself; it penetrates not, makes no impression, but lies loosely on the surface of the heart, till the wicked one – afraid of losing a victim by his “believing to salvation” (Luk_8:12) – finds some frivolous subject by whose greater attractions to draw off the attention, and straightway it is gone. Of how many hearers of the word is this the graphic but painful history!

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:15
Where the word is sown (hopou speiretai ho logos). Explanatory detail only in Mark.

Satan (Satanas) where Mat_13:19 has the evil one (ho poneros) and Luk_8:12 the devil (ho diabolos).

Sown in them (esparmenon eis autous). Within them, not just among them, “in his heart” (Matt.).

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Mar 4:16
And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground, etc. — “Immediately” the seed in such a case “springs up” – all the quicker from the shallowness of the soil – “because it has no depth of earth.” But the sun, beating on it, as quickly scorches and withers it up, “because it has no root” (Mar_4:6), and “lacks moisture” (Luk_8:6). The great truth here taught is that hearts superficially impressed are apt to receive the truth with readiness, and even with joy (Luk_8:13); but the heat of tribulation or persecution because of the word, or the trials which their new profession brings upon them quickly dries up their relish for the truth, and withers all the hasty promise of fruit which they showed. Such disappointing issues of a faithful and awakening ministry – alas, how frequent are they!

Jerome: Note that which is said, “is straightway offended.” There is then some difference between him who, by many tribulations and torments, is driven to deny Christ, and him who at the first persecution is offended, and falls away, of which He proceeds to speak, “That which is sown among thorns.” To me He seems here to express figuratively that which was said literally to Adam; “Amidst briers and thorns thou shalt eat they bread,” [Gen_3:18] that he that has given himself up to the delights and the cares of this world, eats heavenly bread and the true food among thorns.

Adam Clarke
Mar 4:19
The deceitfulness of riches – This is variously expressed in different copies of the Itala: the errors – delights of the world – completely alienated (abolienati) by the pleasures of the world. The lusts of other things – which have not been included in the anxious cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches. All, all, choke the word!

Jerome: And it is elegantly added, “The deceitfulness of riches choke the word;” for riches are treacherous, promising one thing and doing another. The tenure of them is slippery as they are borne hither and thither, and with uncertain step forsake those that have them, or revive those that have them not. Whence the Lord asserts, that rich men hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven, because their riches choke the word of God, and relax the strength of their virtues.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Mar 4:19
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in — or “the pleasures of this life” (Luk_8:14).

choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful — First, “The cares of this world” – anxious, unrelaxing attention to the business of this present life; second, “The deceitfulness of riches” – of those riches which are the fruit of this worldly “care”; third, “The pleasures of this life,” or “the lusts of other things entering in” – the enjoyments in themselves may be innocent, which worldly prosperity enables one to indulge. These “choke” or “smother” the word; drawing off so much of one’s attention, absorbing so much of one’s interest, and using up so much of one’s time, that only the dregs of these remain for spiritual things, and a fagged, hurried, and heartless formalism is at length all the religion of such persons. What a vivid picture is this of the mournful condition of many, especially in great commercial countries, who once promised much fruit! “They bring no fruit to perfection” (Luk_8:14); indicating how much growth there may be, in the early stages of such a case, and promise of fruit – which after all never ripens.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:19
The lusts of other things (hai peri ta loipa epithumiai). All the passions or longings, sensual, worldly, “pleasures of this life” (hedonon tou biou) as Luke has it (Luk_8:14), the world of sense drowning the world of spirit. The word epithumia is not evil in itself. One can yearn (this word) for what is high and holy (Luk_22:15; Phi_1:23).

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:20
Bear fruit (karpophorousin). Same word in Mat_13:23 and Luk_8:15. Mark gives the order from thirty, sixty, to a hundred, while Mat_13:23 has it reversed.

Catena Aurea

Jerome: And it is to be noted, that as in the bad ground there were three degrees of difference, to wit, that by the way side, the stony and the thorny ground; so in the good soil there is a three-fold difference, the hundred-fold, the sixty-fold, and the thirty- fold. And in this as in that, not the substance but the will is changed, and the hearts as well of the unbelieving as the believing receive seed; as in the first case He said, “Then cometh the wicked one, and carrieth off that which is sown in the heart;” and in the second and third case of the bad soil He said, “This is he that heareth the word.” So also in the exposition of the good soil, “This is he that heareth the word.” Therefore we ought first to hear, then to understand, and after understanding to bring forth the fruits of teaching, either an hundred-fold, or sixty, or thirty.

Remig.: The thirty-fold then is borne of him who teaches faith in the Holy Trinity; the sixty-fold of him who enforces the perfection of good works; (for in the number six this world was completed with all its equipments;) [margin note: Gen_2:1] while he bears the hundred-fold who promises eternal life. For the number one hundred passes from the left hand to the right; and by the left hand the present life is denoted, by the right hand the life to come.

Otherwise, the seed of the word of God brings forth fruit thirty-fold when it begets good thoughts, sixty-fold when good speech, and an hundred-fold when it brings to the fruit of good works.

Aug., Quaest Ev., i, 9: Otherwise; There is fruit an hundred-fold of the martyrs because of their satiety of life or contempt of death; a sixty-fold fruit of virgins, because they rest not warring against the use of the flesh; for retirement is allowed to those of sixty years’ age after service in war or in public business; and there is a thirty-fold fruit of the wedded, because theirs is the age of warfare, and their struggle is the more arduous, that they should not be vanquished by their lusts.

Or otherwise; We must struggle with our love of temporal goods that reason may be master; it should either be so overcome and subject to us, that when it begins to rise it may be easily repressed, or so extinguished that it never arises in us at all. Whence it comes to pass, that death itself is despised for truth’s sake, by some with brave endurance, by others with content, and by others with gladness — which three degrees are the three degrees of fruits of the earth — thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and an hundred-fold.

And in one of these degrees must one be found at the time of his death, if any desires to depart well out of this life.

Jerome, vid. Cyp. Tr. iv. 12: The hundred-fold fruit is to be ascribed to virgins, the sixty-fold to widows and continent persons, the thirty-fold to chaste wedlock.

Adam Clarke
Mar 4:21
Is a candle – put under a bushel! – The design of my preaching is to enlighten men; my parables not being designed to hide the truth, but to make it more manifest.

Albert Barnes
Mar 4:21
Is a candle brought … – A candle is not lit up to be put immediately under a measure or a bed, where it can give no light. Its design is to give light. So my preaching by parables is not designed to obscure the truth, but to throw light on it. You should understand those parables, and, understanding them, should impart the truth to others also, as a candle throws its beams upon a dark world.

Bushel – The word here used in the original means a measure for grain containing about 12 quarts.

Bed – A couch, either to sleep on at night or to recline on at their meals. Probably the latter is here meant, and is equivalent to our saying a candle is not brought to be put “under” the table, but “on” it. See the notes at Mat_23:6.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:21
Not to be put on the stand? (ouch hina epi ten luchnian tethei). First aorist passive subjunctive of tithemi with hina (purpose). The lamp in the one-room house was a familiar object along with the bushel, the bed, the lampstand. Note article with each. Meti in the Greek expects the answer no. It is a curious instance of early textual corruption that both Aleph and B, the two oldest and best documents, have hupo ten luchnian (under the lampstand) instead of epi ten luchnian, making shipwreck of the sense. Westcott and Hort actually put it in the margin but that is sheer slavery to Aleph and B. Some of the crisp sayings were repeated by Jesus on other occasions as shown in Matthew and Luke. To put the lamp under the bushel (modion) would put it out besides giving no light. So as to the bed or table-couch (klinen) if it was raised above the floor and liable to be set on fire.

George Haydock
Mar 4:22 All my parables, doctrines, and actions, which appear now to you so full of mystery, shall not always be so: in due time they shall all be publicly expounded by you, my apostles, and by your successors. (Tirinus)

THEOPHYL; Having before said to His Apostles, To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others in parables; He now shows that by them at length must the same mystery be revealed also to others, saying, No man when he has lighted a candle covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Mar 4:22
For there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested, etc. — See on Mat_10:26, Mat_10:27; but the connection there and here is slightly different. Here the idea seems to be this – “I have privately expounded to you these great truths, but only that ye may proclaim them publicly; and if ye will not, others will. For these are not designed for secrecy. They are imparted to be diffused abroad, and they shall be so; yea, a time is coming when the most hidden things shall be brought to light.”

Marvin Vincent
Mar 4:22
Which shall not be manifested (εὰν μὴ ίνα φανερωθη) The A. V. makes Christ say that every hidden thing shall be revealed. This is wrong. He says that things are hidden in order that they may be manifested. Concealment is a means to revelation.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:22
Save that it should be manifested (ean me hina phanerothei). Note ean me and hina. Luk_8:17 has it that shall not be made manifest (ho ou phaneron genesetai). Here in Mark it is stated that the temporary concealment is for final manifestation and a means to that end. Those who are charged with the secret at this time are given the set responsibility of proclaiming it on the housetops after Ascension (Swete). The hidden (krupton) and the secret (apokruphon) are to be revealed in due time.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:23
Repeats Mar_4:9 with conditional form instead of a relative clause. Perhaps some inattention was noted.

Matthew Poole
Mar 4:24
Ver. 24,25. Whoso considereth the connection of these words,

with what measure ye mete, &c., with the first words in the verse,

Take heed what ye hear, and compares the former with the parallel texts, Mat_7:2 Luk_6:38, will wonder what the force should be of the argument. For in both the parallel texts the latter words in this verse seem to be used as an argument to persuade them to justice and charity towards men, from the punishments of the violations of the law concerning them, by way of retaliation. Nor are there any sins so ordinarily as those of that kind so punished. But they can have no such force here, following those words, Take heed what ye hear. But, as I said before, there is nothing more usual than diverse applications of the same common saying, or proverbial expression. The saying is true, whether it be understood of men or of God, As we deal with God, so will God deal with us.

Take heed what ye hear. Luke saith, how ye hear. Take heed what ye hear; as much as, Take heed to what you hear, that you may receive the word not as seed by the way side, or in thorny or stony ground, but as in good ground. This seemeth rather to be the sense of our Saviour, than to give a caution by these words to men to examine what they hear, searching the Scriptures whether what they hear doth agree with them, though that also be the duty of all conscientious persons, as appeareth from Act_17:11 For saith our Saviour, God will deal with you as to his providence as you deal with him. If you allow the word of God but a little hearing, you shall reap from it heard little profit and advantage; this appeareth to be the sense from the following words.

And unto you that hear shall more be given; that is, unto you that hear, so as you attend, understand, believe, hearken, and obey, God will give further knowledge of Divine mysteries.

THEOPHYL; But the Lord ceases not to teach us to hearken to His word, that we may be able both to constantly, meditate on it in our own minds, and to bring it forth for the instruction of others. Hence it follows, Take heed therefore how you hear; for whosoever has, to him shall be given. As if he says, Give heed with all your mind to the word which you hear, for to him who has a love of the word, shall be given also the sense of understanding what he loves; but whoso has no love of hearing the word, though he deems himself skillful either from natural genius, or the exercise of learning, will have no delight in the sweetness of wisdom; for oftentimes the slothful man is gifted with capacities, that if he neglect them he may be the more justly punished for his negligence, since that which he can obtain without labor he disdains to know, and sometimes the studious man is oppressed with slowness of apprehension, in order that the more he labors in his inquiries, the greater may be the recompense of his reward.

Albert Barnes
Mar 4:24
Take heed what ye hear – Or, consider well what you hear. Make a good improvement of it.

With what measure ye mete … – You shall be treated according to the use you make of your opportunities of learning. If you consider it well, and make a good improvement of what you hear, you shall be well rewarded. If not, your reward shall be small. This is a proverbial expression. See it explained in the notes at Mat_7:1-2.

Mete – Measure. With what measure ye measure.

Unto you that hear – To you who are “attentive,” and who improve what you hear.

John Calvin

Mar 4:26
So is the kingdom of God.Though this comparison has the same object with the two immediately preceding, yet Christ appears to direct his discourse purposely to the ministers of the word, that they may not grow indifferent about the discharge of their duty, because the fruit of their labor does not immediately appear. He holds out for their imitation the example of husbandmen, who throw seed into the ground with the expectation of reaping, and do not torment themselves with uneasiness and anxiety, but go to bed and rise again; or, in other words, pursue their ordinary and daily toil, till the corn arrive at maturity in due season. In like manner, though the seed of the word be concealed and choked for a time, Christ enjoins pious teachers to be of good courage, and not to allow their alacrity to be slackened through distrust.

Matthew Poole
Mar 4:26
Ver. 26-29. Our evangelist alone taketh notice of this parable, nor hath it any particular explication annexed. If we expound it with relation to what went before, the scope of it seemeth to be, to let us know that God will have an account of men for their hearing of his word, and therefore men had need to take heed what they hear, as Mark saith, and how they hear, as Luke phrases it: thus Mar_4:29 expounds the former, with the help of our Saviour’s exposition of the parable of the tares, on which he had told us, Mat_13:39, The harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. There is another notion of God’s harvest, Mat_9:37 Joh_4:35, where God’s harvest signifies a people inclined and prepared to hear and to receive the gospel. But withal this parable of our Saviour’s may be of further use to us.

So is the kingdom of God, &c.; that is, Such is the providential dispensation of God, in gathering his church by the ministry of the word, as men’s casting of seed into the ground: when the husbandman hath cast his seed into the ground, he is no more solicitous about it, nor doth he expect to discern the motion of it; but having done what is his part, he sleepeth, and riseth again, leaving the issue to God’s providence.

The earth bringeth forth fruit of herself, yet not without the influence of heaven, both in the shining of the sun and the falling of the dew and of the rain; neither doth its fruit appear presently in its full ripeness and perfection, but gradually is made perfect; first there appears the blade, the herb, then the ear, then the grain, which by degrees groweth to its full magnitude, and then hardeneth, and then the husbandman putteth in his sickle: so the ministers of the gospel ought faithfully to do their parts in sowing the seed of the gospel, then not to be too solicitous, but to leave the issue unto God. Where the seed falls upon good ground, the word will not be unfruitful: the minister of the gospel doth not presently discern the fruit of his labour, he at first, it may be, seeth nothing of it, but is ready to cry out, I have laboured in vain; but though the seed lie under the clods, and seems choked with the corruption of man’s heart, yet if the soul be one to whom it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, it shall spring out, the word will be found not to be lost; but first will spring the blade, then will appear the ear: the fruit of the word preached appears by degrees, sometimes at first only by creating good inclinations in the soul, and desires to learn the way of the Lord more perfectly, then in acts further tending to perfection, at last in confirmed habits of grace. It is not thus with all, in some the word brings forth nothing but the blade, a little outward profession, which dwindles away and dies; in some the profession holds longer, but they never come to confirmed habits of virtue and holiness. But there will come a harvest, when God will come with his sickle to reap the fruit of his seed sown; therefore men had need take heed what and how they hear. This I take to be the sense of this parable.

Adam Clarke
Mar 4:26
So is the kingdom of God – This parable is mentioned only by Mark, a proof that Mark did not abridge Matthew. Whitby supposes it to refer to the good ground spoken of before, and paraphrases is thus: – “What I have said of the seed sown upon good ground, may be illustrated by this parable. The doctrine of the kingdom, received in a good and honest heart, is like seed sown by a man in his ground, properly prepared to receive it; for when he hath sown it, he sleeps and wakes day after day, and, looking on it, he sees it spring and grow up through the virtue of the earth in which it is sown, though he knows not how it doth so; and when he finds it ripe, he reaps it, and so receives the benefit of the sown seed. So is it here: the seed sown in the good and honest heart brings forth fruit with patience; and this fruit daily increaseth, though we know not how the Word and Spirit work that increase; and then Christ the husbandman, at the time of the harvest, gathers in this good seed into the kingdom of heaven.” I see no necessity of inquiring how Christ may be said to sleep and rise night and day; Christ being like to this husbandman only in sowing and reaping the seed.

Albert Barnes
Mar 4:27
And should sleep, and rise night and day – Should sleep in the night and rise by day, for so the expression is to be understood. That is, should live in his usual way, without exerting any influence over the growing grain. By this we are not to infer that men are to use no diligence in the obtaining and in the growth of piety; but the illustration shows only that as we cannot tell how grain grows, so we cannot tell the mode in which piety increases in the heart.

He knoweth not how – This is still true. After all the researches of philosophers, no one has been able to tell the way in which grain grows. They can observe one fact after another; they can see the changes; they can see the necessity of rains and suns, of care and shelter, but beyond this they cannot go. So in religion. We can mark the change; we can see the need of prayer, and self-examination, and searching the Scriptures, and the ordinances of religion, but we cannot tell in what way the religious principle is developed and strengthened. As God unseen, yet by the use of proper means, makes the grass to flourish, so God unseen, but by proper means, nourishes the soul, and the plants of piety spring up, and bloom, and bear fruit. Compare the notes at Joh_3:8.

Adam Clarke
Mar 4:28
Bringeth forth – of herself – Αυτοματη. By its own energy, without either the influence or industry of man. All the endlessly varied herbage of the field is produced in this way.

The full corn – Πληρη σιτον, Full wheat; the perfect, full-grown, or ripe corn. Lucian uses κενος καρπος, Empty fruit, for imperfect, or unripe fruit. See Kypke.

The kingdom of God, which is generated in the soul by the word of life, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, is first very small; there is only a blade, but this is full of promise, for a good blade shows there is a good seed at bottom, and that the soil in which it is sown is good also. Then the ear – the strong stalk grows up, and the ear is formed at the top; the faith and love of the believing soul increase abundantly; it is justified freely through the redemption that is in Christ; it has the ear which is shortly to be filled with the ripe grain, the outlines of the whole image of God. Then the full corn. The soul is purified from all unrighteousness; and, having escaped the corruption that is in the world, it is made a partaker of the Divine nature, and is filled with all the fullness of God.

Albert Barnes
Mar 4:28
For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself – That is, it is done without the power of man. It is done while man is engaged in other things. The scope of this passage does not require us to suppose that our Saviour meant to say that the earth had any productive power of itself, but only that it produced its fruits not by the “power of man.” God gives it its power. It has no power of its own. So religion in the heart is not by the power of man. It grows he cannot tell how, and of course he cannot without divine aid, control it. It is by the power of God. At the same time, as without industry man would have no harvest, so without active effort he would have no religion. Both are connected with his effort; both are to be measured commonly by his effort Phi_2:12; both grow he cannot tell how; both increase when the proper means are used, and both depend on God for increase.

First the blade – The green, tender shoot, that first starts out of the earth before the stalk is formed.

Then the ear – The original means the stalk or spire of wheat or barley, as well as the ear.

The full corn – The ripe wheat. The grain swollen to its proper size. By this is denoted, undoubtedly, that grace or religion in the heart is of gradual growth. It is at first tender, feeble, perhaps almost imperceptible, like the first shootings of the grain in the earth. Perhaps also, like grain, it often lies long in the earth before there are signs of life. Like the tender grain, also, it needs care, kindness, and culture. A frost, a cold storm, or a burning sun alike injure it. So tender piety in the heart needs care, kindness, culture. It needs shelter from the frosts and storms of a cold, unfeeling world. It needs the genial dews and mild suns of heaven; in other words, it needs instruction, prayer, and friendly counsel from parents, teachers, ministers, and experienced Christians, that it may grow, and bring forth the full fruits of holiness. Like the grain, also, in due time it will grow strong; it will produce its appropriate fruit – a full and rich harvest – to the praise of God.

Adam Clarke
Mar 4:29
He putteth in the sickle – ΑποϚελλει, he sendeth out the sickle, i.e. the reapers; the instrument, by a metonomy, being put for the persons who use it. This is a common figure. It has been supposed that our Lord intimates here that, as soon as a soul is made completely holy, it is taken into the kingdom of God. But certainly the parable does not say so. When the corn is ripe, it is reaped for the benefit of him who sowed it; for it can be of little or no use till it be ripe: so when a soul is saved from all sin, it is capable of being fully employed in the work of the Lord: it is then, and not till then, fully fitted for the Master’s use. God saves men to the uttermost, that they may here perfectly love him, and worthily magnify his name. To take them away the moment they are capable of doing this, would be, so far, to deprive the world and the Church of the manifestation of the glory of his grace. “But the text says, he immediately sendeth out the sickle; and this means that the person dies, and is taken into glory, as soon as he is fit for it.” No, for there may be millions of cases, where, though to die would be gain, yet to live may be far better for the Church, and for an increase of the life of Christ to the soul. See Phi_1:21, Phi_1:24. Besides, if we attempt to make the parable speak here what seems to be implied in the letter, then we may say, with equal propriety, that Christ sleeps and wakes alternately; and that his own grace grows, he knows not how, in the heart in which he has planted it.

On these two parables we may remark: -

1. That a preacher is a person employed by God, and sent out to sow the good seed of his kingdom in the souls of men.

2. That it is a sin against God to stay in the field and not sow.

3. That it is a sin to pretend to sow, when a man is not furnished by the keeper of the granary with any more seed.

4. That it is a high offense against God to change the Master’s seed, to mix it, or to sow bad seed in the place of it.

5. That he is not a seeds-man of God who desires to sow by the way side, etc., and not on the proper ground, i.e. he who loves to preach only to genteel congregations, to people of sense and fashion, and feels it a pain and a cross to labor among the poor and the ignorant.

6. That he who sows with a simple, upright heart, the seed of his Master, shall (though some may be unfruitful) see the seed take deep root; and, notwithstanding the unfaithfulness and sloth of many of his hearers, he shall doubtless come with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him. See Quesnel.

Albert Barnes
Mar 4:29
Immediately he putteth in the sickle – This is the way with the farmer. As soon as the grain is ripe it is cut down. So it is often with the Christian. As soon as he is prepared for heaven he is taken there. But we are not to press this part of the parable, as if it meant that all are removed as soon as they are fit for heaven. Every parable contains circumstances thrown in to fill up the story, which cannot be literally interpreted. In this, the circumstance of sleeping and rising cannot be applied to Christ; and in like manner, the harvest, I suppose, is not to be literally interpreted. Perhaps the whole parable may be differently interpreted. The seed sown may mean the gospel which he was preaching. In Judea its beginnings were small; yet he would leave it, commit it to his disciples, and return to his Father. The gospel, in the meantime, left by him, would take root, spring up, and produce an abundant harvest. In due time he would return, send forth the angels, and gather in the harvest, and save his people forever. Compare the notes at Mat_13:31-33.

Catena Aurea
Mar 4:30-32
Jerome: The man who sows is by most understood to be the Saviour, who sows the seed in the minds of believers; by others the man himself who sows in his field, that is, in his own heart. Who indeed is he that soweth, but our own mind and understanding, which receiving the grain of preaching, and nurturing it by the dew of faith, makes it to spring up in the field of our own breast?

“Which is the least of all seeds.” The Gospel preaching is the least of all the systems of the schools; at first view it has not even the appearance of truth, announcing a man as God, God put to death, and proclaiming the offence of the cross. Compare this teaching with the dogmas of the Philosophers, with their books, the splendour of their eloquence, the polish of their style, and you will see how the seed of the Gospel is the least of all seeds.

Chrys.: Or; The seed of the Gospel is the least of seeds, because the disciples were weaker than the whole of mankind; yet forasmuch as there was great might in them, their preaching spread throughout the whole world.

And therefore it follows, “But when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs,” that is among dogmas.

Aug.: Dogmas are the decisions of sects [margin note: placita sectarum], the points, that is, that they have determined.

Jerome: For the dogmas of Philosophers when they have grown up, shew nothing of life or strength, but watery and insipid they grow into grasses and other greens, which quickly dry up and wither away. But the Gospel preaching, though it seem small in its beginning, when sown in the mind of the hearer, or upon the world, comes up not a garden herb, but a tree, so that the birds of the air (which we must suppose to be either the souls of believers or the Powers of God set free from slavery) come and abide in its branches. The branches of the Gospel tree which have grown of the grain of mustard seed, I suppose to signify the various dogmas in which each of the birds (as explained above) takes his rest. [margin note: Psa_55:6]

Let us then take the wings of the dove, that flying aloft we may dwell in the branches of this tree, and may make ourselves nests of doctrines, and soaring above earthly things may hasten towards heavenly.

Hilary: Or; The Lord compares Himself to a grain of mustard seed, sharp to the taste, and the least of all seeds, whose strength is extracted by bruising.

Greg., Mor., xix, 1: Christ Himself is the grain of mustard seed, who, planted in the garden of the sepulchre, grew up a great tree; He was a grain of seed when He died, and a tree when He rose again; a grain of seed in the humiliation of the flesh, a tree in the power of His majesty.

Hilary: This grain then when sown in the field, that is, when seized by the people and delivered to death, and as it were buried in the ground by a sowing of the body, grew up beyond the size of all herbs, and exceeded all the glory of the Prophets. For the preaching of the Prophets was allowed as it were herbs to a sick man; but now the birds of the air lodge in the branches of the tree. By which we understand the Apostles, who put forth of Christ’s might, and overshadowing the world with their boughs, are a tree to which the Gentiles flee in hope of life, and having been long tossed by the winds, that is by the spirits of the Devil, may have rest in its branches.

Greg.: “The birds lodge in its branches,” when holy souls that raise themselves aloft from thoughts of earth on the wings of the virtues, breathe again from the troubles of this life in their words and comfortings.

Albert Barnes
Mar 4:30
Whereunto shall we liken … – This shows the great solicitude which Jesus had to adapt his instructions to the capacity of his disciples. He sought out the most plain and striking illustrations – an example which should be followed by all the ministers of the gospel. At the same time that the instructions of the pulpit should be dignified as our Saviour’s always were they should be adapted to the capacity of the audience and easily understood. To do this the following things are necessary in a minister:

1.“Humility.” A freedom from a desire to shine, and to astonish the world by the splendor of his talents, and by his learning and eloquence.

2. “Good sense.” A satisfaction in being understood.

3. Acquaintance with the habits of thought and manner of speaking among the people. To do this, frequent contact with them is necessary.

4. “A good sound education.” It is the people of ignorance, with some smattering of learning, and with a desire to confound and astonish people by the use of unintelligible words. and by the introduction of matter that is wholly unconnected with the subject, that most often shoot over the heads of the people. Preachers of humility, good sense, and education are content with being understood, and free from the affectation of saying things to amaze and confound their auditors.

Albert Barnes
Mar 4:31-32
The kingdom of heavens See the notes at Mat_3:2. It means here either piety in a renewed heart or the church. In either case the commencement is small. In the heart it is at first feeble, easily injured, and much exposed. In the church there were few at first, ignorant, unknown, and unhonored; yet soon it was to spread through the world.

Grain of mustard-seed – The plant here described was very different from that which is known among us. It was several years before it bore fruit and became properly a tree. Mustard, with us, is an annual plant: it is always small, and is properly an herb. The Hebrew writers speak of the mustard-tree as one on which they could “climb,” as on a fig-tree. Its size was much owing to the climate. All plants of that nature grow much larger in a warm climate, like that of Palestine, than in colder regions. The seeds of this tree were remarkably small, so that they, with the great size of the plant, were an apt illustration of the progress of the church and of the nature of faith, Mat_17:20.

Young converts often suppose they have much religion. It is not so. They are, indeed, in a new world. Their hearts glow with new affections. They have an elevation, an ecstasy of emotion, which they may not have afterward like a blind man suddenly restored to sight. The sensation is new and especially vivid, yet little is seen distinctly. His impressions are indeed more vivid and cheering than those of him who has long seen and to whom objects are familiar. In a little time, too, the young convert will see more distinctly, will judge more intelligently, will love more strongly, though not with so much “new emotion,” and will be prepared to make more sacrifices for the cause of Christ.

Marvin Vincent
Mar 4:32
Groweth up
Mark only.
Herbs (των λαχάνων)
Rev., rightly, the herbs; those which people are wont to plant in their gardens. The word denotes garden – or pot-herbs, as distinguished from wild herbs.

Shooteth out great branches (ποιει κλάδους μεγάλους)
Lit., maketh, etc. Rev., putteth out. Peculiar to Mark. Matthew has becometh a tree. On branches, see note on Mat_24:32. One of the Talmudists describes the mustard-plant as a tree, of which the wood was sufficient to cover a potter’s shed. Another says that he was wont to climb into it as men climb into a fig-tree. Professor Hackett says that on the plain of Akka, toward Carmel, he found a collection of mustard-plants from six to nine feet high, with branches from each side of a trunk an inch or more in thickness. Dr. Thomson relates that near the bank of the Jordan he found a mustard-tree more than twelve feet high.

Lodge (κατασκηνουν)
See on Mat_8:20. Lit., pitch their tents.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 4:32
Groweth up (anabainei). Mat_13:32 When it is grown (hotan auxethei).
Under the shadow thereof (hupo ten skian autou). A different picture from Matthew’s in the branches thereof (en tois kladois autou). But both use kataskenoin, to tent or camp down, make nests in the branches in the shade or hop on the ground under the shade just like a covey of birds. In Mat_8:20 the birds have nests (kataskenoseis). The use of the mustard seed for smallness seems to have been proverbial and Jesus employs it elsewhere (Mat_17:20; Luk_17:6).

Here is the rest of my essay. . . with the introduction posted yesterday repeated.

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). It was this exclamatory declaration which burst forth from the mouth of Thomas when the resurrected Jesus appeared to him giving proof of His resurrection. His confession was simple. Jesus was both Ku,rio,j and Qeo.j. Yet while there is simplicity in the confession, since Christians are monotheistic there is inherent complexity in the meaning. This complexity did not escape the early Christians thinkers who were challenged to reconcile their belief in Jesus as God and monotheism.

In some way the challenge rested on their understanding of the nature of truth. On the one hand, to believe in monotheism was to believe that the nature of truth is eternal, permanent, and universal.[1] While, on the other hand, to believe Jesus is God was to believe that the truth of God is transitory, relative, and personal.[2] While heresies arose from holding either viewpoint alone, the early Christian thinkers had to learn how it was that Christian truth, which is eternal, is not lost or distorted upon uniting itself with the concrete, limited, and transitory through the work and person of Jesus Christ.[3] How then did this occur? How did the earliest Christian thinkers reconcile their beliefs about Jesus with their monotheism? My answer is the earliest Christian thinkers reconciled their beliefs by interpreting and affirming the kerygma of Jesus in light of the Old Testament allowing the storied, dynamic involvement of God through Christ to inform a static identity of God in Jesus which was a normative, explanatory articulation of Jesus shown to be consistent with the affirmed kerygma and their monotheistic belief.

As a financial reconciliation is performed so that a beginning balance is shown to equal an ending balance through various reconciling items, I would like to propose we think of how the earliest Christian thinkers reconciled their beliefs in Jesus and monotheism in a similar manner. The scope of this essay will begin with the affirmed and interpreted kerygma as the beginning balance, while the ending balance will be the theological language proposed by Tertullian which was later familiarized in the Nicene Creed. However, just as the beginning and ending financial balances do not appear equal without reconciling items, so too, I will show how the kerygma interpreted and affirmed in light of the Old Testament is reconciled through a storied, dynamic retelling of the involvement of God through Jesus which informed a static articulation of the identity of God in Jesus.[4] Therefore, I will unfold my thesis thematically in three main parts overlapping various early Christian thinkers using them as examples to show more generally how the kerygma interpreted through the Old Testament and the retelling of the involvement of God led to a clear, precise, and bounded articulation of Jesus using contemporary language which exposed the depths of Thomas’ confession Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (John 20:28).

The kerygma of Jesus was interpreted and affirmed in light of the Old Testament

To understand the kerygma as the beginning balance in our reconciliation, first, we must understand how the original kerygma, interpreted in light of the Old Testament by the apostles, led to an interpreted kerygma recorded as the New Testament. Stated another way, how did the message proclaimed by Jesus become the message proclaimed by the apostles? The answer is that it had to be interpreted. Kerygma, which means literally “proclamation”, refers to the content of the Gospel message proclaimed. Jesus originated the message by “proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” (Mark 1:14-15). Yet this Gospel message encompassed more than just oral teachings. It included all of Jesus’ work including his incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, all of which needed interpretation.

The basis for this interpretation was the Old Testament Scripture. Read in light of what God has wrought in Christ, the Scriptures provided the terms and images, the context, within which the apostles made sense of what happened, and with which they explained and preached the definite and unexpected manner in which God had acted in Christ.[5] In other words, the Old Testament story, full of Christological concepts such as the Suffering Servant, Messiah, and Son of Man, founds its continuity in the kerygma of Jesus. The apostles’ basis for their interpretation was not only their commitment to eternal truth found in the Old Testament (II Timothy 3:14-15) but an understanding as to the way in which Jesus interpreted himself (Luke 24:27). Therefore, as the apostles reflected upon the full work of Jesus in light of the Old Testament, they could confidently proclaim in the New Testament “that Christ died according to the Scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (I Cor. 15:4).

While the Old Testament served as the basis by which the apostles interpreted the original kerygma, the Old Testament also served as the basis by which the apostolic fathers and early Christian apologists affirmed the interpreted kerygma of the New Testament. With regard to the reconciliation of Jesus as God and monotheism, New Testament passages such as I Corinthians 8:6[6] became the basis for which later Christians were able to affirm both the unchanging truth of monotheism and the newly revealed mystery that Jesus is God. Yet this affirmation by the apostolic fathers did not occur simply as a direct quotation of New Testament passages, but as an affirmation of its conceptual truth through the Old Testament.

Ignatius of Antioch provides numerous examples of crystallized articulations of the same apostolic interpretation in his seven letters, yet surprisingly he never appeals to the New Testament writings to substantiate his own theological affirmations.[7] Writing to the Smyrnaeans, he proclaims, “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God”. [8] He goes on to recount various events proclaimed in the Gospel, culminating in the Passion and Resurrection with only echoes of biblical passages. Scriptural truth underlies all his letters, but only occasionally does he quote a specific passage. While this may be related to the fact that he writes on his way to martyrdom in Rome, it seems to indicate something else. In another letter written to the Philadelphians he writes, “If I do not find it in the charters, I do not believe it in the Gospel.”[9] Interestingly, the charters he refers to is not the New Testament, but the Old Testament.[10] Therefore, while he may not specifically quote a passage, he is reflecting upon the Old Testament and in reflection retelling the Gospel story consistent with the apostles. In the same letter he states, “But to me the charters are Jesus Christ”.[11] Ignatius is saying that Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the Old Testament. Therefore, the result is an affirmation of the New Testament interpretation of Jesus through a reflection of the Gospel correctly understood from the Old Testament.

While Ignatius provides insight into how the interpreted kerygma of the New Testament was affirmed in light of the Old Testament, it is Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho which provides the greatest clarity into how monotheism and the belief in Jesus as God were affirmed in light of the Old Testament. Recording a conversation with a Hebrew named Trypho, Justin defends the Christian use of the Old Testament showing not only how the prophetic nature of the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in the kerygma of Jesus but how the kerygma of Jesus is the interpretative key for understanding the prophetic nature of the Old Testament. Therefore, Justin is able to say to Trypho, “The Scriptures are much more ours than yours. For we let ourselves be persuaded by them, while you read them without grasping their true import”.[12] While the Jews interpreted the Old Testament as having its meaning in keeping the law, Justin argues that Christians find its meaning and fulfillment through the hermeneutical lens of the kerygma. As a result, the Old Testament should not be understood in a merely rigid, literal sense, but in a prophetic, anticipatory sense where the kerygma of Jesus gives the Old Testament ultimate meaning but also demonstrates its continuity. This continuity ultimately allowed Justin to affirm that monotheism and the belief that Jesus is God are not mutually exclusive. Thus, his understanding of the Old Testament allowed him to read the prophets as those who “both glorified the creator of all things as God and Father and proclaimed his Son, the Christ”[13]. Like Ignatius, Justin does not directly cite the writings of the apostles, although clearly he is reflecting upon their interpretation, even referring to their writings as “memoirs”[14] and using the term Gospels for the first time in the plural[15]. However, while there is very little direct reference to their writings, Justin through his use of the Old Testament affirms the apostolic teaching providing an example of how the interpreted kerygma of the apostles recorded in the New Testament was affirmed in light of the Old Testament. 

The storied, dynamic involvement of God through Christ informed a static articulation of the identity of God in Jesus

With a beginning balance established, we now focus on the process by which this interpreted and affirmed belief that Jesus is God consistent with monotheism developed into a more precise articulation of the identity of God in Jesus. While early Christian thinkers interpreted and affirmed Jesus as God while still holding to their monotheistic convictions, there became an increasing need to articulate further the identity of God in Jesus. This need was triggered by the various aberrations which defined the relation of one God and Jesus as God outside the bounds of the interpreted kerygma accelerating the need to develop a normative articulation. Yet rather than develop a fundamental ontology of “being” or “communion”, which would almost certainly eclipse the identity of Jesus sought to be explained, the aim of the theological task was to articulate as precisely as possible the canon of truth.[16]

As this task was carried out by various early Christian thinkers over a period of time, there is a noticeable movement in the manner of articulation which furthered more precise articulation. I contend this manner or pattern of articulation was a continual return to the involvement of God[17], which was the driving force in the deepening of the theological articulation of the identity of Jesus.[18] Problems arose when the manner of articulation began with the identity of Jesus rather than the involvement of God. Many of these articulations were found to be inadequate and outside the bounds of the interpreted kergyma, because they neglected a certain aspect of the work of God. While inadequate, the articulations were nonetheless important, but it was the return to the work of God in light of these deficient articulations which propelled a more precise articulation of Jesus’ identity. Therefore, I maintain that the storied, dynamic involvement of God through Jesus informed a static articulation of God in Jesus found in later creeds such as the Nicene Creed. To understand how this process worked, we return to Justin Martyr and briefly examine his Logos Model.

With regard to the Logos Model, Justin’s primary concern is to explain how it is that Christians hold to monotheism while also recognizing the full deity of Christ.[19] Therefore, his intent is to articulate the identity of Jesus as God without undermining monotheism. However, to do this, Justin begins with the identity of Jesus rather than the involvement of God. He uses the language of Logos found in John 1:1-14 to identify Jesus as God explaining that the Logos is God’s Son, a reality distinct from the Father but begotten of him for the creation of the world.[20] Although Justin speaks in the traditional manner of Jesus Christ, as the Word, revealing God, he shares a common philosophical presupposition of his day that as God is totally transcendent to created reality he needs an intermediary, his Logos, to act for him and to mediate between himself and creation.[21] Since he understands God as only transcendent and stationary not also immanent and dynamic, Justin undermines the very revelation of God in Christ[22] portraying Jesus as a lower level divine mediator not equal with God. While his articulation upholds monotheism, it fails as an adequate explanation of the identity of Jesus as God. The reason it fails is that he does not fully allow the dynamic involvement of God to inform the identity of Jesus. Rather he begins with the identity of Jesus as the Logos allowing a presupposition of the identity of God, radical transcendence, to inform the involvement of God in the work of creation and revelation. The result is an inadequate articulation of the identity of Jesus placing Him as a lower level being who is not God.  

While the Logos model was inadequate, it was not a complete failure. It upheld monotheism despite concerns of divine plurality, but more importantly, it forced early Christian thinkers to return to the involvement of God as the starting point for informing the identity of Jesus. This is most clearly demonstrated in the work of Ireneaus, who was a conscious heir of the teachings of Justin Martyr.[23] As Ireneaus addressed the heresies of Gnosticism and Marcionism, he returned to the involvement of God in creation. The pattern of his thought as he suggests in Epideixis was to start with the Creator and then to pursue the history of salvation up to its final consummation.[24] Using this approach, he shows how God as Creator has had a dynamic, directional plan from the very beginning desiring to become intimately involved with humankind, the model of which is the future incarnation. For Ireneaus God’s plan continued to unfold throughout salvation history finding its ultimate expression in the “recapitulation” of all things in Christ.[25] Unlike Justin, Ireneaus emphasized a dynamic, storied involvement of God which led to an identity between the Word of God in and through Scripture resulting in the Word of God becoming flesh. It was this returning to and reflecting upon the dynamic and storied involvement of God which pushed further more precise articulation regarding the identity of Jesus.

The result was a normative, explanatory articulation of Jesus consistent with affirmed kerygma and monotheistic belief.

With a clear understanding of the interpreted and affirmed kerygma as the beginning balance and the storied, dynamic retelling of the involvement of God as the reconciling element, the result was an ending balance which was a normative, explanatory articulation of Jesus consistent with affirmed kerygma and monotheistic belief. This is best demonstrated by Tertullian in Against Praxeas, who introduced language which influenced later creed terminology. Writing against the Modalistic Monarchians, who wanted to assert the absolute unity of the divine denying distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Tertullian drew upon his legal background. He introduced two new terms, substantia (“substance”) and personae (“person”), to articulate that the threeness revealed in the economy of God was in no way incompatible with God’s essential unity.[26] This language became foundational to explain the identity of Jesus, since it did not distort the eternal truth of monotheism while also describing the dynamic and transitory work of Jesus. Such language later influenced the Nicene Creed providing a normative articulation of the identity of Jesus. Thus, while the theological language was different than the interpreted kerygma, the theological thought was exactly the same.

Therefore, we return to the original question. How did the earliest Christian thinkers reconcile their belief about Jesus with their monotheism? I have argued that the beginning balance was the kerygma interpreted and affirmed in light of the Old Testament, which through a continual return to the storied, dynamic involvement of God informed the static identity of God in Jesus working itself out in normative, explanatory language consistent with the affirmed kerygma and monotheistic belief. While this describes reconciliation in language, it does not describe reconciliation in belief. Why? As the words burst forth from the mouth of Thomas, “My Lord and my God!”, the belief burst forth from the hearts of the early Christian thinkers. Thus, proving while there is complexity in the meaning, there has always been simplicity in the faith.

[2] Ibid, 26.

[3] Ibid, 25.

[4] In other words, soteriology informed Christology. The result was a snapshot of contextual Christological articulation. The scope of this essay limits such articulation to Tertullian, who proposed language influential in later creeds. These creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, are examples of static, point in time normative, explanatory articulations of the identity of Jesus.

[5] Behr, John. The Way to Nicaea. The formation of Christian theology, v. 1. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 27.

[6] In the passage, Paul affirms “for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist”.

[7] Ibid, 85.

[8] Smyrn., 1.

[9] Phld., 8.2.

[10] Behr, 87.

[11] Phld., 8.2.

[12] Dial., 29.2.

[13] Ibid, 7.3.

[14] Ibid, 106.7.

[15] Ibid, 66.8.

[16] Behr, John. The Way to Nicaea. The formation of Christian theology, v. 1. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 74-5.

[17] I use the phrase “involvement of God” to indicate the dynamic, transitory work of God, which better captures the transcendence of God and that the nature of his work as recorded in Scripture is also personal and relative.

[18] This manner of articulation is consistent with the telling of the Gospel story in Scripture. The opening of Scripture reads “In the beginning God created. . .” Rather than begin with an explanation of the identity of God, the author presupposes the existence of God, thus allowing the work of God or “involvement” of God to inform the identity of God.

[19] J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen & Co. , 1903), 124.

[20] Norris, Richard A. The Christological Controversy. Sources of early Christian thought. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 10.

[21] Behr, 103.

[22] Ibid, 104.

[23] Norris, 11.

[24] González, 160-1.

[25] Ibid, 166.

[26] Kelly, 113.

We speak of a ‘Big Bang’ but don’t mean a ‘bang’ like an explosion, which has a centre and a shock wave that moves spherically out into air from the explosion.

Instead, the ‘Big Bang’ happened everywhere in the Universe at once, with no centre. Shortly after the ‘Big Bang’, density and pressure of the Entire Universe were the same everywhere. So, pressure difference could not possibly create an explosion. The ‘Big Bang’ wasn’t a bang at all.

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Entire Universe increased by 10^30 (a million trillion trillion) times, in less than a second. We call this remarkable phenomenon, the ‘Big Bang.’

Read the article

Read what the Early Church Fathers said about this

Luke 2:8-12

CATENA AUREA

THEOPHYL; The infancy of the Savior was impressed upon us, both by frequent heraldings of Angels and testimonies of Evangelists, that we might be the more deeply penetrated in our hearts by what has been done for us. And we may observe, that the sign given us of the newborn Savior was, that He would be found not clothed in Tyrian purple, but wrapped in poor swaddling clothes, not laying on gilded couches, but in a manger.

MAXIMUS; But if perhaps the swaddling clothes are mean in your eyes, admire the Angels singing praises together If you despises” tile manger, raise your eyes a little, and behold the new star in heaven proclaiming to the world the Lord’s nativity. If you believe the mean things, believe also the mighty. If you dispute about those which betoken His lowliness, look with reverence on what is high and heavenly.

GREG. It was in a mystery that the angel appeared to the shepherds while they were watching, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, implying that they are thought worthy above the rest to see sublime things who take a watchful care of their faithful flocks; and while they themselves are piously watching over them, the Divine grace shines widely round about them.

THEOPHYL; For in a mystery, those shepherds, and their flocks, signify all teachers and guides of faithful souls. The night in which they were keeping watch over their flocks, indicates the dangerous temptations from which they never cease to keep themselves, and those placed under their care. Well also at the birth of our Lord do shepherds watch over their flocks; for He was born who says, I am the good Shepherd: but the time also was at hand in which the same Shepherd was to recall His scattered sheep to the pastures of life.

ORIGEN; But if we would rise to a more hidden meaning, I should say, that there were certain shepherd angels, who direct the affairs of men, and while each one of them was keeping his watch, an angel came at the birth of the Lord, and announced to the shepherds that the true Shepherd had arisen. For Angels before the coming of the Savior could bring little help to those entrusted to them, for scarcely did one single Gentile believe in God. But now whole nations come to the faith of Jesus.

John Calvin
Luk 2:8
8.And there were shepherds It would have been to no purpose that Christ was born in Bethlehem, if it had not been made known to the world. But the method of doing so, which is described by Luke, appears to the view of men very unsuitable. First, Christ is revealed but to a few witnesses, and that too amidst the darkness of night. Again, though God had, at his command, many honorable and distinguished witnesses, he passed by them, and chose shepherds, persons of humble rank, and of no account among men. Here the reason and wisdom of the flesh must prove to be foolishness; and we must acknowledge, that “the foolishness of God” (1Co_1:25 ) excels all the wisdom that exists, or appears to exist, in the world. But this too was a part of the “emptying of himself,” (Phi_2:6 ) not that any part of Christ’s glory should be taken away by it, but that it should lie in concealment for a time. Again, as Paul reminds us, that the gospel is mean according to the flesh, “that our faith should stand” in the power of the Spirit, not in the “lofty words of human wisdom,” or in any worldly splendor, (1Co_2:4;) so this inestimable “treasure” has been deposited by God, from the beginning, “in earthen vessels,” (2Co_4:7,) that he might more fully try the obedience of our faith. If then we desire to come to Christ, let us not be ashamed to follow those whom the Lord, in order to cast down the pride of the world, has taken, from among the dung of cattle, to be our instructors.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:8
There were – shepherds abiding in the field – There is no intimation here that these shepherds were exposed to the open air. They dwelt in the fields where they had their sheep penned up; but they undoubtedly had tents or booths under which they dwelt.

Keeping watch – by night – Or, as in the margin, keeping the watches of the night, i.e. each one keeping a watch (which ordinarily consisted of three hours) in his turn. The reason why they watched them in the field appears to have been, either to preserve the sheep from beasts of prey, such as wolves, foxes, etc., or from freebooting banditti, with which all the land of Judea was at that time much infested. It was a custom among the Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts, about the passover, and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain: during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As the passover occurred in the spring, and the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole of the summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could he have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light upon this disputed point. See the quotations from the Talmudists in Lightfoot.

The time in which Christ was born has been considered a subject of great importance among Christians. However, the matter has been considered of no moment by Him who inspired the evangelists; as not one hint is dropped on the subject, by which it might be possible even to guess nearly to the time, except the chronological fact mentioned above. A late writer makes the following remark: “The first Christians placed the baptism of Christ about the beginning of the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and thence reckoning back thirty years, they placed his birth in the forty-third year of the Julian period, the forty-second of Augustus, and the twenty-eighth after the victory at Actium. This opinion obtained till a.d. 527, when Dionysius Exiguus invented the vulgar account. Learned and pious men have trifled egregiously on this subject, making that of importance which the Holy Spirit, by his silence, has plainly informed them is of none. Fabricius gives a catalogue of no less than 136 different opinions concerning the Year of Christ’s birth: and as to his birth Day, that has been placed by Christian sects and learned men in every month in the year. The Egyptians placed it in January – Wagenseil, in February – Bochart, in March – some, mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, in April – others, in May – Epiphanius speaks of some who placed it in June – and of others who supposed it to have been in July – Wagenseil, who was not sure of February, fixed it probably in August – Lightfoot, on the 15th of September – Scaliger, Casaubon, and Calvisius, in October – others, in November – but the Latin Church, supreme in power, and infallible in judgment, placed it on the 25th of December, the very day on which the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of their goddess Bruma.” See more in Robinson’s Notes on Claude’s Essay, vol. i. p. 275, etc. Pope Julius I. was the person who made this alteration, and it appears to have been done for this reason: the sun now began his return towards the northern tropic, ending the winter, lengthening the short days, and introducing the spring. All this was probably deemed emblematical of the rising of the Sun of righteousness on the darkness of this world, and causing the day-spring from on high to visit mankind.

Albert Barnes
Luk 2:8
The same country – Round about Bethlehem.

Shepherds – Men who tended flocks of sheep.

Abiding in the field – Remaining out of doors, under the open sky, with their flocks. This was commonly done. The climate was mild, and, to keep their flocks from straying, they spent the night with them. It is also a fact that the Jews sent out their flocks into the mountainous and desert regions during the summer months, and took them up in the latter part of October or the first of November, when the cold weather commenced. While away in these deserts and mountainous regions, it was proper that there should be someone to attend them to keep them from straying, and from the ravages of wolves and other wild beasts. It is probable from this that our Saviour was born before the 25th of December, or before what we call “Christmas.” At that time it is cold, and especially in the high and mountainous regions about Bethlehem. But the exact time of his birth is unknown; there is no way to ascertain it. By different learned men it has been fixed at each month in the year. Nor is it of consequence to “know” the time; if it were, God would have preserved the record of it. Matters of moment are clearly revealed; those which “he” regards as of no importance are concealed.

Keeping watch … – More literally, “tending their flocks “by turns” through the night watches.”

John Calvin
Luk 2:9
9.And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon themHe says, that the glory of the Lord shone aroundthe shepherds, by which they perceived him to be an angel. For it would have been of little avail to be told by an angel what is related by Luke, if God had not testified, by some outward sign, that what they heard proceeded from Him. The angel appeared, not in an ordinary form, or without majesty, but surrounded with the brightness of heavenly glory, to affect powerfully the minds of the shepherds, that they might receive the discourse which was addressed to them, as coming from the mouth of God himself. Hence the fear, of which Luke shortly afterwards speaks, by which God usually humbles the hearts of men, (as I have formerly explained,) and disposes them to receive his word with reverence.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:9
The angel of the Lord came upon them – Or, stood over them, επεστη. It is likely that the angel appeared in the air at some little distance above them, and that from him the rays of the glory of the Lord shone round about them, as the rays of light are projected from the sun.

They were sore afraid – Terrified with the appearance of so glorious a being, and probably fearing that he was a messenger of justice, coming to denounce Divine judgments, or punish them immediately, for sins with which their consciences would not fail, on such an occasion, to reproach them.

Albert Barnes
Luk 2:9
The glory of the Lord – This is the same as a “great” glory – that is, a splendid appearance or “light.” The word “glory” is often the same as light, 1Co_15:41; Luk_9:31; Act_22:11. The words “Lord” and “God” are often used to denote “greatness” or “intensity.” Thus, “trees of God” mean great trees; “hills of God,” high or lofty hills, etc. So “the glory of the Lord” here means an exceedingly great or bright luminous appearance perhaps not unlike what Paul saw on the way to Damascus.

John Calvin
Luk 2:10
10.Fear not The design of this exhortation is to alleviate their fear. For, though it is profitable for the minds of men to be struck with awe, that they may learn to “give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name,” (Psa_29:2;) yet they have need, at the same time, of consolation, that they may not be altogether overwhelmed. For the majesty of God could not but swallow up the whole world, if there were not some mildness to mitigate the terror which it brings. And so the reprobate fall down lifeless at the sight of God, because he appears to them in no other character than that of a judge. But to revive the minds of the shepherds, the angel declares that he was sent to them for a different purpose, to announce to them the mercy of God. When men hear this single word, that God is reconciled to them, it not only raises up those who are fallen down, but restores those who were ruined, and recalls them from death to life.

The angel opens his discourse by saying, that he announces great joy; and next assigns the ground or matter of joy, that a Savior is born. These words show us, first, that, until men have peace with God, and are reconciled to him through the grace of Christ, all the joy that they experience is deceitful, and of short duration. Ungodly men frequently indulge in frantic and intoxicating mirth; but if there be none to make peace between them and God, the hidden stings of conscience must produce fearful torment. Besides, to whatever extent they may flatter themselves in luxurious indulgence, their own lusts are so many tormentors. The commencement of solid joy is, to perceive the fatherly love of God toward us, which alone gives tranquility to our minds. And this “joy,” in which, Paul tells us, “the kingdom of God” consists, is “in the Holy Spirit,” (Rom_14:17.) By calling it great joy, he shows us, not only that we ought, above all things, to rejoice in the salvation brought us by Christ, but that this blessing is so great and boundless, as fully to compensate for all the pains, distresses, and anxieties of the present life. Let us learn to be so delighted with Christ alone, that the perception of his grace may overcome, and at length remove from us, all the distresses of the flesh.

Which shall be to all the people. Though the angel addresses the shepherds alone, yet he plainly states, that the message of salvation which he brings is of wider extent, so that not only they, in their private capacity, may hear it, but that others may also hear. Now let it be understood, that this joy was common to all people, because, it was indiscriminately offered to all. For God had promised Christ, not to one person or to another, but to the whole seed of Abraham. If the Jews were deprived, for the most part, of the joy that was offered to them, it arose from their unbelief; just as, at the present day, God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. Although this joy is confined to a few persons, yet, with respect to God, it is said to be common. When the angel says that this joy shall be to all the people, he speaks of the chosen people only; but now that, the middle wall of partition” (Eph_2:14 ) has been thrown down, the same message has reference to the whole human race. For Christ proclaims peace, not only, to them that are nigh, “but to them that are, far off,” (Eph_2:17,) to “strangers” (Eph_2:12 ) equally with citizens. But as the peculiar covenant with the Jews lasted till the resurrection of Christ, so the angel separates them from the rest of the nations.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:10
Behold, I bring you good tidings – I am not come to declare the judgments of the Lord, but his merciful loving-kindness, the subject being a matter of great joy. He then declares his message. Unto you – to the Jews first, and then to the human race. Some modern MSS. with the utmost impropriety read ἡμιν, us, as if angels were included in this glorious work of redemption; but St. Paul says, he took not upon him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, i.e. the nature of Abraham and his posterity, the human nature; therefore the good news is to you, – and not to yourselves exclusively, for it is to all people, to all the inhabitants of this land, and to the inhabitants of the whole earth.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:10
I bring you good tidings of great joy (euaggelizomai humin charan megalen). Wycliff, “I evangelize to you a great joy.” The active verb euaggelizo occurs only in late Greek writers, lxx, a few papyri examples, and the N.T. The middle (deponent) appears from Aristophanes on. Luke and Paul employ both substantive euaggelion and verb euaggelizo very frequently. It is to Paul’s influence that we owe their frequency and popularity in the language of Christendom (George Milligan, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, p. 143). The other Gospels do not have the verb save Mat_11:5 and that in a quotation (Isa_61:1).

John Calvin
Luk 2:11
11.This day is born to you Here, as we lately hinted, the angel expresses the cause of the joy. This day is born the Redeemer long ago promised, who was to restore the Church of God to its proper condition. The angel does not speak of it as a thing altogether unknown. He opens his embassy by referring to the Law and the Prophets; for had he been addressing heathens or irreligious persons, it would have been of no use to employ this mode of speaking: this day is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord For the same reason, he mentions that he was born in the city of David, which could serve no purpose, but to recall the remembrance of those promises which were universally known among the Jews. Lastly, the angel adapted his discourse to hearers who were not altogether unacquainted with the promised redemption. With the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets he joined the Gospel, as emanating from the same source. Now, since the Greek word Greek, as Cicero assures us, has a more extensive meaning than the Latin word Servator, and as there is no Latin noun that corresponds to it, I thought it better to employ a barbarous term, than to take anything away from the power of Christ. And I have no doubt, that the author of the Vulgate, and the ancient doctors of the Church, had the same intention. Christ is called Savior, because he bestows a complete salvation. The pronoun to you is very emphatic; for it would have given no great delight to hear that the Author of salvation was born, unless each person believed that for himself he was born. In the same manner Isaiah says, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given,” (Isa_9:6;) and Zechariah, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee lowly,” (Zec_9:9.)

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:11
A Savior, which is Christ the Lord – A Savior, σωτηρ, the same as Jesus from σωζειν, to make safe, to deliver, preserve, to make alive, thus used by the Septuagint for החיה hecheiah, to cause to escape; used by the same for פלט to confide in, to hope. See the extensive acceptations of the verb in Mintert, who adds under Σωτηρ: “The word properly denotes such a Savior as perfectly frees us from all evil and danger, and is the author of perpetual salvation.” On the word Jesus, see Joh_1:29 (note).

Which is Christ. Χριστος, the anointed, from χριω to anoint, the same as משיה Messiah, from משח mashach. This name points out the Savior of the world in his prophetic, regal, and sacerdotal offices: as in ancient times, prophets, kings, and priests were anointed with oil, when installed into their respective offices. Anointing was the same with them as consecration is with us. Oil is still used in the consecration of kings.

It appears from Isa_61:1, that anointing with oil, in consecrating a person to any important office, whether civil or religious, was considered as an emblem of the communication of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. This ceremony was used on three occasions, viz. the installation of prophets, priests, and kings, into their respective offices. But why should such an anointing be deemed necessary? Because the common sense of men taught them that all good, whether spiritual or secular, must come from God, its origin and cause. Hence it was taken for granted,

1. That no man could foretell events, unless inspired by the Spirit of God. And therefore the prophet was anointed, to signify the communication of the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge.

2. That no person could offer an acceptable sacrifice to God for the sins of men, or profitably minister in holy things, unless enlightened, influenced, and directed by the Spirit of grace and holiness. Hence the priest was anointed, to signify his being divinely qualified for the due performance of his sacred functions.

3. That no man could enact just and equitable laws which should have the prosperity of the community and the welfare of the individual continually in view, or could use the power confided to him only for the suppression of vice and the encouragement of virtue, but that man who was ever under the inspiration of the Almighty.

Hence kings were inaugurated by anointing with oil. Two of these offices only exist in all civilized nations, the sacerdotal and regal; and in some countries the priest and king are still consecrated by anointing. In the Hebrew language, משח mashach signifies to anoint; and המשיח ha-mashiach, the anointed person. But as no man was ever dignified by holding the three offices, so no person ever had the title ha-mashiach, the anointed one, but Jesus the Christ. He alone is King of kings, and Lord of lords: the king who governs the universe, and rules in the hearts of his followers; the prophet to instruct men in the way wherein they should go; and the great high priest, to make atonement for their sins.

Hence he is called the Messias, a corruption of the word המשיח ha-mashiach, The anointed One, in Hebrew; which gave birth to ο Χριστος, ho Christos, which has precisely the same signification in Greek. Of him, Melchizedek, Abraham, Aaron, David, and others, were illustrious types; but none of these had the title of The Messiah, or the Anointed of God: This does, and ever will, belong exclusively to Jesus the Christ.

The Lord. Κυριος, the supreme, eternal Being, the ruler of the heavens and the earth. The Septuagint generally translate יהוה Yehovah by Κυριος. This Hebrew word, from היה hayah, he was, properly points out the eternity and self-existence of the Supreme Being; and if we may rely on the authority of Hesychius, which no scholar will call in question, Κυριος is a proper translation of יהוה Yehovah, as it comes from κυρω, – τυγχανω, I am, I exist. Others derive it from κυρος, authority, legislative power. It is certain that the lordship of Christ must be considered in a mere spiritual sense, as he never set up any secular government upon earth, nor commanded any to be established in his name; and there is certainly no spiritual government but that of God: and indeed the word Lord, in the text, appears to be properly understood, when applied to the deity of Christ. Jesus is a prophet, to reveal the will of God, and instruct men in it. He is a priest, to offer up sacrifice, and make atonement for the sin of the world. He is Lord, to rule over and rule in the souls of the children of men: in a word, he is Jesus the Savior, to deliver from the power, guilt, and pollution of sin; to enlarge and vivify, by the influence of his Spirit; to preserve in the possession of the salvation which he has communicated; to seal those who believe, heirs of glory; and at last to receive them into the fullness of beatitude in his eternal joy.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:11
Is born (etechthe). First aorist passive indicative from tikto. Was born.

Saviour (soter). This great word is common in Luke and Paul and seldom elsewhere in the N.T. (Bruce). The people under Rome’s rule came to call the emperor “Saviour” and Christians took the word and used it of Christ. See inscriptions (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 344).

Christ the Lord (Christos Kurios). This combination occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and it is not clear what it really means. Luke is very fond of Kurios (Lord) where the other Gospels have Jesus. It may mean “Christ the Lord,” “Anointed Lord,” “Messiah, Lord,” “The Messiah, the Lord,” “An Anointed One, a Lord,” or “Lord Messiah.” It occurs once in the lxx (Lamentations 4:20) and is in Ps. of Sol. 17:36. Ragg suggests that our phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ” is really involved in “A Saviour (Jesus) which is Christ the Lord.” See note on Mat_1:1 for Christ and note on Mat_21:3 for Lord.

George Haydock
Luk 2:12 On the eastern side of the town of Bethlehem, say St. Justin, St. Jerome, &c. there was a cave cut in the side of a rock, in which was a manger used by the people of those environs; so that these shepherds easily understood the angel, who told them they should find him laid in a manger. Sts. Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, say that they found the child between an ox and an ass, according to the version of the Septuagint. Habacuc iii. 2.: You shall find him laid between two beasts. In the place where this crib was, St. Helen built a magnificent church in honour of the blessed Virgin Mary. Ven. Bede says that she built another in honour of the three shepherds; whence St. Bernard concludes, that there were only three shepherds that came to adore the divine infant in the manger. (Tirinus)

John Calvin
Luk 2:12
12.And this shall be a sign to you The angel meets the prejudice which might naturally hinder the faith of the shepherds; for what a mockery is it, that he, whom God has sent to be the King, and the only Savior, is seen lying in a manger! That the mean and despicable condition in which Christ was might not deter the shepherds from believing in Christ, the angel tells them beforehand what they would see. This method of proceeding, which might appear, to the view of men, absurd and almost ridiculous, the Lord pursues toward us every day. Sending down to us from heaven the word of the Gospel, he enjoins us to embrace Christ crucified, and holds out to us signs in earthly and fading elements, which raise us to the glory of a blessed immortality. Having promised to us spiritual righteousness, he places before our eyes a little water: by a small portion of bread and wine, he seals, the eternal life of the soul. But if the stable gave no offense whatever to the shepherds, so as to prevent them from going to Christ to obtain salvation, or from yielding to his authority, while he was yet a child; no sign, however mean in itself, ought to hide his glory from our view, or prevent us from offering to him lowly adoration, now that he has ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father.

CATENA AUREA
Luk 2:13-14
THEOPHYL; Lest the authority of a single Angel should appear small, as soon as one had revealed the sacrament of the new birth, straightway there was present a multitude of the heavenly host. Rightly has the attending Chorus of Angels received the name of heavenly host, seeing they both humbly bring their aid to that Leader mighty in battle, Who has appeared to put down the powers of the air, and also themselves by their celestial arms bravely vanquish those opposing powers lest they should prevail as they wish in tempting men. But because He is both God and man, rightly do they sing Peace to men and Glory to God.

As it follows, Praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest. As soon as one Angel, one messenger, had brought the good tidings that God was born in the flesh, the multitude of the heavenly host broke forth in the praise of the Creator, in order both to fix their devotion on Christ, and to instruct us by their example, that as often as any of the brethren shall sound forth the word of sacred learning, or we ourselves shall have brought these holy things home to our minds, we should with our whole heart, our mouths and hands, return praise to God.CHRYS. Of old, indeed, Angels were sent to punish, as, for instance to the Israelites, to David, to the men of Sodom, to the valley of weeping. Now on the other hand they sing the song of thanksgiving to God: because He has revealed to them His coming down to men.

GREG. At the same time they also give praises because their voices of gladness accord well with our redemption, and while they behold our acceptance, they rejoice also that their number is completed.

THEOPHYL; They wish also peace to men, as they add, On earth peace to men, because those whom they had before despised as weak and abject, now that our Lord has come in the flesh they esteem as friends.

CYRIL; This peace has been made through Christ, for He has reconciled us by Himself to God and our Father, having taken away our guilt, which was the ground of offense also. He has united two nations in one man, and has joined the heavenly and the earthly in one flock.

THEOPHYL; For whom they ask peace is explained in the words, Of good will. For them, namely, who receive the new born Christ. For there is no peace to the ungodly, but much peace to them that love the name of God.

ORIGEN; But the attentive reader will ask, How then does the Savior say, I came not to send peace on the earth, whereas now the Angels’ song of His birth is, On earth peace to men? It is answered, that peace is said to be to men of goodwill. For the peace which the Lord does not give on the earth is not the peace of good will.

AUG. For righteousness belongs to good will.

CHRYS. Behold the wonderful fill working of God. He first brings Angels down to men, and then brings men up to heaven. The heaven became earth, when it was about to receive earthly things.

John Calvin
Luk 2:13
13.And suddenly there was present with the angel a multitude An exhibition of divine splendor had been already made in the person of a single angel. But God determined to adorn his own Son in a still more illustrious manner, This was done to confirm our faith as truly as that of the shepherds. Among men, the testimony of “two or three witnesses” (Mat_18:16 ) is sufficient to remove all doubt. But here is a heavenly host, with one consent and one voice bearing testimony to the Son of God. What then would be our obstinacy, if we refused to join with the choir of angels, in singing the praises of our salvation, which is in Christ? Hence we infer, how abominable in the sight of God must unbelief be, which disturbs this delightful harmony between heaven and earth. Again, we are convicted of more than brutal stupidity, if our faith and our zeal to praise God are not inflamed by the song which the angels, with the view of supplying us with the matter of our praise, sang in full harmony. Still farther, by this example of heavenly melody, the Lord intended to recommend to us the unity of faith, and to exhort us to join with one consent in singing his praises on earth.

Albert Barnes
Luk 2:14
Glory to God – Praise be to God, or honor be to God. That is, the praise of redeeming man is due to God. The plan of redemption will bring glory to God, and is designed to express his glory. This it does by evincing his love to people, his mercy, his condescension, and his regard to the honor of his law and the stability of his own government. It is the highest expression of his love and mercy. Nowhere, so far as we can see, could his glory be more strikingly exhibited than in giving his only-begotten Son to die for people.

In the highest – This is capable of several meanings:

1. In the highest “strains,” or in the highest possible manner.

2. “Among” the highest that is, among the angels of God; indicating that “they” felt a deep interest in this work, and were called on to praise God for the redemption of man.

3. In the highest heavens – indicating that the praise of redemption should not be confined to the “earth,” but should spread throughout the universe.

4. The words “God in the highest” may be equivalent to “the Most High God,” and be the same as saying, “Let the most high God be praised for his love and mercy to people.”

Which of these meanings is the true one it is difficult to determine; but in this they all agree, that high praise is to be given to God for his love in redeeming people. O that not only “angels,” but “men,” would join universally in this song of praise!

On earth peace – That is, the gospel will bring peace. The Saviour was predicted as the Prince of peace, Isa_9:6. The world is at war with God; sinners are at enmity against their Maker and against each other. There is no peace to the wicked. But Jesus came to make peace; and this he did,

1. By reconciling the world to God by His atonement.

2. By bringing the sinner to a state of peace with his Maker; inducing him to lay down the weapons of rebellion and to submit his soul to God, thus giving him the peace which passeth all understanding.

3. By diffusing in the heart universal good-will to people – “disposing,” people to lay aside their differences, to love one another, to seek each other’s welfare, and to banish envy, malice, pride, lust, passion, and covetousness – in all ages the most fruitful causes of difference among people. And,

4. By diffusing the principles of universal peace among nations. If the gospel of Jesus should universally prevail, there would be an end of war. In the days of the millennium there will be universal peace; all the causes of war will have ceased; people will love each other and do justly; all nations will be brought under the influence of the gospel. O how should each one toil and pray that the great object of the gospel should be universally accomplished, and the world be filled with peace!

Good will toward men – The gift of the Saviour is an expression of good-will or love to people, and therefore God is to be praised. The work of redemption is uniformly represented as the fruit of the love of God, Joh_3:16; Eph_5:2; 1Jo_4:10; Rev_1:5. No words can express the greatness of that love. It can only be measured by the “misery, helplessness,” and “danger” of man; by the extent of his sufferings here and in the world of woe if he had not been saved; by the condescension, sufferings, and death of Jesus; and by the eternal honor and happiness to which he will raise his people. All these are beyond our full comprehension. Yet how little does man feel it! and how many turn away from the highest love of God, and treat the expression of that love with contempt! Surely, if God so loved us “first,” we ought also to love him, 1Jo_4:19.

John Calvin
Luk 2:15
15.After that the angels departed Here is described to us the obedience of the shepherds. The Lord had made them the witnesses of his Son to the whole world. What he had spoken to them by his angels was efficacious, and was not suffered to pass away. They were not plainly and expressly commanded to come to Bethlehem; but, being sufficiently aware that such was the design of God, they hasten to see Christ. In the same manner, we know that Christ is held out to us, in order that our hearts may approach him by faith; and our delay in coming admits of no excuse.

But again, Luke informs us, that the shepherds resolved to set out, immediately after the angels had departed. This conveys an important lesson. Instead of allowing the word of God, as many do, to pass away with the sound, we must take care that it strike its roots deep in us, and manifest its power, as soon as the sound has died away upon our ears. It deserves our attention, also, that the shepherds exhort one another: for it is not enough that each of us is attentive to his own duty, if we do not give mutual exhortations. Their obedience is still farther commended by the statement of Luke, that they hastened, (ver. 16;) for we are required to show the readiness of faith.

Which the Lord hath revealed to us They had only heard it from the angel; but they intentionally and correctly say, that the Lord had revealed it to them; for they consider the messenger of God to possess the same authority as if the Lord himself had addressed them. For this reason, the Lord directs our attention to himself; that we may not fix our view on men, and undervalue the authority of his Word. We see also that they reckon themselves under obligation, not to neglect the treasure which the Lord had pointed out to them; for they conclude that, immediately after receiving this intelligence, they must go to Bethlehem to see it. In the same manner, every one of us, according to the measure of his faith and understanding, ought to be prepared to follow wheresoever God calls.

Catena Aurea
Lk 2:25-28
AMBROSE; Well is he called righteous who sought not his own good, but the good of his nation, as it follows, Waiting for the consolation of Israel.

GREG. NYSS. It was not surely worldly happiness that the prudent Simeon was waiting for as the consolation of Israel, but a real happiness, that is, a passing over to the beauty of truth from the shadow of the law. For he had learnt from the sacred oracles that he would see the Lord’s Christ before he should depart out of this present life. Hence it follows, And the Holy Spirit was in him, (by which indeed he was justified,) and he received an answer from the Holy Spirit.

AMBROSE; He desired indeed to be loosed from the chains of bodily infirmity, but he wails to see the promise, for he knew, Happy are those eyes which shall see it.

GREG. Hereby also we learn with what desire the holy men of Israel desired to see the mystery of His incarnation.

THEOPHYL; To see death means to undergo it, and happy will he be to see the death of the flesh who has first been enabled to see with the eyes of his heart the Lord Christ, having his conversation in the heavenly Jerusalem, and frequently entering the doors of God’s temple, that is, following the examples of the saints in whom God dwells as in His temple. By the same grace of the Spirit whereby he foreknew Christ would come, he now acknowledges Him come, as it follows, And he came by the Spirit into the temple.

ORIGEN; If you will touch Jesus and grasp Him in your hands, strive with all your strength to have the Spirit for your guide, and come to the temple of God. For it follows, And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, (i.e. Mary His mother, and Joseph His reputed father,) to do for him after the custom of the law, then took he him up in his arms.

THEOPHYL; Now the righteous man, according to the law, received the Child Jesus in his arms, that he might signify that the legal righteousness of works under the figure of the hands and arms was to be changed for the lowly indeed but saving grace of Gospel faith The old man received the infant Christ, to convey thereby that this world, now worn out as it were with old age, should return to the childlike innocence of the Christian life.

John Calvin
Luk 2:25
25.And, lo, there was a man in Jerusalem The design of this narrative is to inform us that, though nearly the whole nation was profane and irreligious, and despised God, yet that a few worshippers of God remained, and that Christ was known to such persons from his earliest infancy. These were “the remnant” of whom Paul says, that they were preserved “according to the election of grace,” (Rom_11:5.) Within this small band lay the Church of God; though the priests and scribes, with as much pride as falsehood, claimed for themselves the title of the Church. The Evangelist mentions no more than two, who recognised Christ at Jerusalem, when he was brought into the temple. These were Simeon and Anna. We must speak first of Simeon.

As to his condition in life we are not informed: he may have been a person of humble rank and of no reputation. Luke bestows on him the commendation of being just and devout; and adds, that he had the gift of prophecy: for the Holy Spirit was upon him. Devotion and Righteousness related to the two tables of the law, and are the two parts of which an upright life consists. It was a proof of his being a devout man, that he waited for the consolation of Israel: for no true worship of God can exist without the hope of salvation, which depends on the faith of his promises, and particularly on the restoration promised through Christ. Now, since an expectation of this sort is commended in Simeon as an uncommon attainment, we may conclude, that there were few in that age, who actually cherished in their hearts the hope of redemption. All had on their lips the name of the Messiah, and of prosperity under the reign of David: but hardly any one was to be found, who patiently endured present afflictions, relying on the consolatory assurance, that the redemption of the Church was at hand. As the eminence of Simeon’s piety was manifested by its supporting his mind in the hope of the promised salvation, so those who wish to prove themselves the children of God, will breathe out unceasing prayers for the promised redemption. For we, “have need of patience” (Heb_10:36 ) till the last coming of Christ.

And the Holy Spirit was upon him The Evangelist does not speak of “the Spirit of adoptions” (Rom_8:15,) which is common to all the children of God, though not in an equal degree, but of the peculiar gift of prophecy. This appears more clearly from the next verse and the following one, in which it is said, that he received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, and that, by the guidance of the same Spirit, he came into the temple Though Simeon had no distinction of public office, he was adorned with eminent gifts, — with piety, with a blameless life, with faith and prophecy. Nor can it be doubted, that this divine intimation, which he received in his individual and private capacity, was intended generally for the confirmation of all the godly. Jesus is called the Lord’s Christ, because he was anointed by the Father, and, at the same time that he received the Spirit, received also the title, of King and Priest. Simeon is said to have come into the temple by the Spirit; that is, by a secret movement and undoubted revelation, that he might meet Christ.

John Gill
Luk 2:25 And behold there was a man in Jerusalem,…. Not in Nazareth, or Bethlehem, but in Jerusalem, the metropolis of the nation: one that lived there, was an inhabitant of that city, and a person of fame and note. So Joseph ben Jochanan is called (z) איש ירושלם a man of Jerusalem, an inhabitant of that place:

whose name was Simeon;

and the same man was just and devout; he was a holy good man in his life and conversation; he was one that feared God, and avoided evil; he was righteous before men, and devout towards God, and exercised a conscience void, of offence to both:

waiting for the consolation of Israel; that is, the Messiah; for this was one of his names with the Jews, who sometimes style him, מנחם, “the comforter”: for so they report (e) that “there are some that say his name is Menachen the comforter; as it is said, “because the comforter that should relieve my soul is far from me”. Lam_1:16.

And again (f), It is observed, that “the name of the Messiah is Menachem, the comforter; and Menachem, by “gematry”, or numerically, is the same with Tzemach, the branch, Zec_3:8.

And so they often call him by the name of the “consolation”: אראה בגחמה, which Dr. Lightfoot renders, “so let me see the consolation”, but should be rendered, “may I never see the consolation”, was a common form of swearing among them; and used much by R. Simeon ben Shetach, who lived before the times of Christ, of which there are several instances (g):

“says R. Juda ben Tabai, אראה בנחמה “may I never see the consolation”, if I have not slain a false witness. Says R. Simeon ben Shetach, to him, “may I never see the consolation”, if thou hast not shed innocent blood.

The gloss (h) on it is,

“it is a light word, (the form) of an oath, in short language; as if it was said, may I never see the consolations of Zion, if he has not done this.

Again (i),

“says R. Simeon Ben Shetach, אראה בנחמה “may I never see the consolation”, if I did not see one run after his companion, into a desolate place, &c.

Now they might easily collect this name of the Messiah, from several passages of Scripture, which speak of God’s comforting his people, at the time of redemption by the Messiah; and particularly, from its being part of his work and office, to comfort them that mourn, for which he was anointed by the Spirit of the Lord, Isa_61:1. And when he is called here, “the consolation of Israel”, it is not to be understood of the whole Jewish nation; for he was so far from being a comfort to them, as such, that through their corruption and wickedness, he came not to send peace, but a sword; and to set at variance the nearest relations and friends among themselves; and through their unbelief and rejection of him, wrath came upon them to the uttermost: but of the true and spiritual Israel of God, whom he has chosen, redeemed, and calls, whether of Jews or Gentiles; his own special and peculiar people, the heirs of promise; and who are often mourners in Zion, and being frequently disconsolate on account of sin, the temptations of Satan, and the hidings of God’s face, stand in need of consolation from him: and in him there is what is always matter and ground of consolation; as in his person, he being the mighty God, and so able to save to the uttermost; in his blood, which speaks peace and pardon, and cleanses from all sin; in his righteousness, which is pure and perfect, and justifies from all iniquity, in his sacrifice, which expiates all the transgressions of his people; in his fulness, which is sufficient to supply all their wants; and in his power, by which he is able to keep them from falling, and to present them faultless before God. And he does often comfort them by his Spirit, by his word, and ordinances, by the promises of his Gospel, by the discoveries of pardoning grace, through his blood, and by his gracious presence: nor are his consolations small, but large and abundant, strong, solid, and everlasting. Now for the Messiah under this character, Simeon was waiting, hoping in a little time to see him; since he knew, both by the prophecies of the Old Testament, particularly by Daniel’s weeks, and, by divine revelation, that the time was just at hand for his coming,

and the Holy Ghost was upon him; not in a common and ordinary way, as he is upon all that are called by grace, as a Spirit of regeneration and sanctification: and as he was upon many others, who at this time were waiting and looking for the Messiah, as well as he; but in an extraordinary way, as a spirit of prophecy: for though prophecy had ceased among the Jews, from the times of Malachi, yet upon the conception and birth of Christ, it now returned; as to Zacharias, Elisabeth, and the virgin Mary, and here to Simeon, as is clear from what follows,

(z) Pirke Abot. sect 4. 5. (a) Pirke Abot, sect. 2. T. Bab. Yoma, fol, 69. 1. T. Hieros. Yoma, 3. & 43. 3. (b) Ganz. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 25. 1. (c) Ib. par. 2. fol. 14. (d) Juchasin, fol. 66. 2. (e) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2. Echa Rabbati, fol. 50. 1. T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 5. 1. (f) Kimchi in Zech. iii. 8. (g) T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 16. 2. & Maccot, fol. 5. 2. (h) Tosaphot in Chagiga ib. (i) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 37. 2. & Shebout, fol. 34. 1. Vid. & Cetubot, fol. 67. 1. & Echa Rabbati, fol. 49. 2.

Albert Barnes
Luk 2:25
Whose name was Simeon – Some have supposed that this Simeon was a son of the famous “Hillel,” a distinguished teacher in Jerusalem, and president of the Sanhedrin; but nothing is certainly known of him but what is here related. He was an aged man, of distinguished piety and reputation, and was anxiously expecting the coming of the Messiah. Such an “old age” is especially honorable. No spectacle is more sublime than an old man of piety and high character looking for the appearing of the Lord, and patiently waiting for the time to come when he may be blessed with the sight of his Redeemer.

Just – Righteous before God and man; approved by God as a righteous man, and discharging faithfully his duty to man.

Devout – This word means “a religious man,” or a “pious” man. The original expresses the idea of “good reputation, well received,” or of high standing among the people.

Waiting for the consolation of Israel – That is, waiting for the “Messiah,” who is called “the consolation of Israel” because he would give comfort to them by his appearing. This term was often applied to the Messiah before he actually appeared. It was common to swear, also, by “the consolation of Israel” – that is, by the Messiah about to come. See Lightfoot on this place.

The Holy Ghost … – He was a holy man, and was “divinely inspired” respecting the Messiah about to appear.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:25
Devout (eulabes). Used only by Luke (Act_2:5; Act_8:2; Act_22:12) in the N.T. Common in ancient Greek from Plato on. It means taking hold well or carefully (eu and labein) and so reverently, circumspectly.

Looking for the consolation of Israel (prosdechomenos paraklesin tou Israel). Old Greek verb to admit to one’s presence (Luk_15:2) and then to expect as here and of Anna in Luk_2:38. Paraklesin here means the Messianic hope (Isa_11:10; Isa_40:1), calling to one’s side for cheer.

Upon him (ep’ auton). This is the explanation of his lively Messianic hope. It was due to the Holy Spirit. Simeon and Anna are representatives of real piety in this time of spiritual dearth and deadness.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:26
It was revealed unto him – He was divinely informed, κεχρηματισμενον – he had an express communication from God concerning the subject. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him. The soul of a righteous and devout man is a proper habitation for the Holy Spirit.

He should not see death – They that seek shall find: it is impossible that a man who is earnestly seeking the salvation of God, should be permitted to die without finding it.

The Lord’s Christ – Rather, the Lord’s anointed. That prophet, priest, and king, who was typified by so many anointed persons under the old covenant; and who was appointed to come in the fullness of time, to accomplish all that was written in the law, in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning him. See the note on Luk_2:11.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:27
He came by the Spirit into the temple – Probably he had in view the prophecy of Malachi, Mal_3:1, The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple. In this messenger of the covenant, the soul of Simeon delighted. Now the prophecy was just going to be fulfilled; and the Holy Spirit, who dwelt in the soul of this righteous man, directed him to go and see its accomplishment. Those who come, under the influence of God’s Spirit, to places of public worship, will undoubtedly meet with him who is the comfort and salvation of Israel.

After the custom of the law – To present him to the Lord, and then redeem him by paying five shekels, Num_18:15, Num_18:16, and to offer those sacrifices appointed by the law. See Luk_2:24.

Catena Aurea
Luk 2:28-32
GREEK EX. Simeon blessed God also, because the promises made to him had received their true fulfillment. For He was reckoned worthy to see with his eyes, and to carry in his arms the consolation of Israel. And therefore he says, According to your word, i.e. since I have obtained the completion of your promises. And now that I have seen with my eyes what was my desire to see, now let you your servant depart, neither dismayed at the taste of death, nor harassed with doubting thoughts: as he adds, in peace.

ATHAN. That is to say, the salvation wrought by Christ for the whole world. How then was it said above that he was watching for the consolation of Israel, but because he truly perceived in the spirit that consolation would be to Israel at that time when salvation was prepared for all people.

John Calvin
Luk 2:29
29.Thou now sendest thy servant away From this song it is sufficiently evident, that Simeon looked at the Son of God with different eyes from the eyes of flesh. For the outward beholding of Christ could have produced no feeling but contempt, or, at least, would never have imparted such satisfaction to the mind of the holy man, as to make him joyful and desirous to die, from having reached the summit of his wishes. The Spirit of God enlightened his eyes by faith, to perceive, under a mean and poor dress, the glory of the Son of God. He says, that he would be sent away in peace; which means, that he would die with composure of mind, having obtained all that he desired.

But here a question arises. If he chose rather to depart from life, was it amidst distress of mind and murmuring, as is usually the case with those who die unwillingly, that Simeon was hurried away? I answer: we must attend to the circumstance which is added, according to thy word God had promised that Simeon would behold his Son. He had good reason for continuing in a state of suspense, and must have lived in some anxiety, till he obtained his expectation. This ought to be carefully observed; for there are many who falsely and improperly plead the example of Simeon, and boast that they would willingly die, if this or the other thing were previously granted to them; while they allow themselves to entertain rash wishes at their own pleasure, or to form vain expectations without the authority of the Word of God. If Simeon had said exactly, “Now I shall die with a composed and easy mind, because I have seen the Son of God,” this expression would have indicated the weakness of his faith; but, as he had the word, he might have refused to die until the coming of Christ.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:29
Now lettest thou (nun apolueis). Present active indicative, Thou art letting. The Nunc Dimittis, adoration and praise. It is full of rapture and vivid intensity (Plummer) like the best of the Psalms. The verb apoluo was common for the manumission of slaves and Simeon here calls himself “thy slave (doulon sou), Lord (Despota, our despot).” See 2Pe_2:1.

John Calvin

Luk 2:30
30.For my eyes have seen This mode of expression is very common in Scripture; but Simeon appears to denote expressly the bodily appearance of Christ, as if he had said, that he now has the Son of God present in the flesh, on whom the eyes of his mind had been previously fixed. By saving I understand the matter of salvation: for in Christ are hid all the parts of salvation and of a happy life. Now if the sight of Christ, while he was yet a child, had so powerful an effect on Simeon, that he approached death with cheerfulness and composure; how much more abundant materials of lasting peace are now furnished to us, who have the opportunity of beholding our salvation altogether completed in Christ? True, Christ no longer dwells on earth, nor do we carry him in our arms: but his divine majesty shines openly and brightly in the gospel, and there do “we all,” as Paul says, “behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord,” — not as formerly amidst the weakness of flesh, but in the glorious power of the Spirit, which he displayed in his miracles, in the sacrifice of his death, and in his resurrection. In a word, his absence from us in body is of such a nature, that we are permitted to behold him sitting at the right hand of the Father. If such a sight does not bring peace to our minds, and make us go cheerfully to death, we are highly ungrateful to God, and hold the honor, which he has bestowed upon us, in little estimation.

John Calvin
Luk 2:31
31.Which thou hast prepared By these words Simeon intimates, that Christ had been divinely appointed, that all nations might enjoy his grace; and that he would shortly afterwards be placed in an elevated situation, and would draw upon him the eyes of all. Under this term he includes all the predictions which relate: to the spread of Christ’s kingdom. But if Simeon, when holding a little child in his arms, could stretch his mind to the utmost boundaries of the world, and acknowledge the power of Christ to be everywhere present, how much more magnificent ought our conceptions regarding him to be now that he has been set up as a, “standard to the people,” (Isa_49:22,) and has revealed himself to the whole world.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:31
Which thou hast prepared – Ο ητοιμασας, which thou hast Made Ready before the face, in the presence, of all people. Here salvation is represented under the notion of a feast, which God himself has provided for the whole world; and to partake of which he has invited all the nations of the earth. There seems a direct allusion here to Isa_25:6, etc. “In this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things,” etc. Salvation is properly the food of the soul, by which it is nourished unto eternal life; he that receiveth not this, must perish for ever.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:31
Of all the peoples (panton ton laon). Not merely Jews. Another illustration of the universality of Luke’s Gospel seen already in Luk_1:70 in the hymn of Zacharias. The second strophe of the song according to Plummer showing what the Messiah will be to the world after having shown what the Messiah is to Simeon.

John Calvin
Luk 2:32
32.A light for the revelation of the Gentiles Simeon now points out the purpose for which Christ was to be exhibited by the Father before all nations. It was that he might enlighten the Gentiles, who had been formerly in darkness, and might be the glory of his people Israel There is propriety in the distinction here made between the people Israel and the Gentiles: for by the right of adoption the children of Abraham “were nigh” (Eph_2:17 ) to God, while the Gentiles, with whom God had made no “covenants of promise,” were “strangers” to the Church, (Eph_2:12.) For this reason, Israel is called, in other passages, not only the son of God, but his first-born,(Jer_31:9;) and Paul informs us, that “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Rom_15:8.) The preference given to Israel above the Gentiles is, that all without distinction may obtain salvation in Christ.

A light for revelation means for enlightening the Gentiles Hence we infer, that men are by nature destitute of light, till Christ, “the Sun of Righteousness,” (Mal_4:2,) shine upon them. With regard to Israel, though God had bestowed upon him distinguished honor, yet all his glory rests on this single article, that a Redeemer had been promised to him.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:32
A light to lighten the Gentiles – Φως εις αποκαλυψιν εθνων – A light of the Gentiles, for revelation. By Moses and the prophets, a light of revelation was given to the Jews, in the blessedness of which the Gentiles did not partake. By Christ and his apostles, a luminous revelation is about to be given unto the Gentiles, from the blessedness of which the Jews in general, by their obstinacy and unbelief, shall be long excluded. But to all true Israelites it shall be a glory, an evident fulfillment of all the predictions of the prophets, relative to the salvation of a lost world; and the first offers of it shall be made to the Jewish people, who may see in it the truth of their own Scriptures indisputably evinced.

Albert Barnes
Luk 2:32
A light to lighten the Gentiles – This is in accordance with the prophecies in the Old Testament, Isa. 49; Isa_9:6-7; Psa_98:3; Mal_4:2. The Gentiles are represented as sitting in darkness that is, in ignorance and sin. Christ is a “light” to them, as by him they will be made acquainted with the character of the true God, his law, and the plan of redemption. As the darkness rolls away when the sun arises, so ignorance and error flee away when Jesus gives light to the mind. Nations shall come to his light, and kings to the brightness of his rising, Isa_60:3.

And the glory … – The first offer of salvation was made to the Jews, Joh_4:22; Luk_24:47. Jesus was born among the Jews; to them had been given the prophecies respecting him, and his first ministry was among them. Hence, he was their glory, their honor, their light. But it is a subject of special gratitude to us that the Saviour was given also for the Gentiles; for:

1. We are Gentiles, and if he had not come we should have been shut out from the blessings of redemption.

2. It is he only that now.
“Can make our dying bed.
Feel soft as downy pillows are,
While on his breast we lean our head,
And breathe our life out sweetly there.”

Thus our departure may be like that of Simeon. Thus we may die in peace. Thus it will be a blessing to die. But,

3. In order to do this, our life must be like that of Simeon. We must wait for the consolation of Israel. We must look for his coming. We must be holy, harmless, undefiled, “loving” the Saviour. Then death to us, like death to Simeon, will have no terror; we shall depart in peace, and in heaven see the salvation of God, 2Pe_3:11-12. But,

4. Children, as well as the hoary-headed Simeon, may look for the coming of Christ. They too must die; and “their” death will be happy only as they depend on the Lord Jesus, and are prepared to meet him.

Marvin Vincent
Luk 2:32
A light (φως)
The light itself as distinguished from λύχνος, a lamp, which the A. V. often unfortunately renders light. See on Mar_14:54.

To lighten (εις αποκάλυψιν)
Wrong. Rev., correctly, for revelation. Wyc., to the shewing. It may be rendered the unveiling of the Gentiles.

Gentiles (εθνων)
Assigned to the same root as έθω, to be accustomed, and hence of a people bound together by like habits or customs. According to biblical usage the term is understood of people who are not of Israel, and who therefore occupy a different position with reference to the plan of salvation. Hence the extension of the gospel salvation to them is treated as a remarkable fact. See Mat_12:18, Mat_12:21; Mat_24:14; Mat_28:19; Act_10:45; Act_11:18; Act_18:6. Paul is called distinctively an apostle and teacher of the Gentiles, and a chosen vessel to bear Christ’s name among them. In Act_15:9; Eph_2:11, Eph_2:18; Eph_3:6, we see this difference annihilated, and the expression at last is merely historical designation of the non-Israelitish nations which, as such, were formerly without God and salvation. See Act_15:23; Rom_16:4; Eph_3:1. Sometimes the word is used in a purely moral sense, to denote the heathen in opposition to Christians. See 1Co_5:1; 1Co_10:20; 1Pe_2:12. Light is promised here to the Gentiles and glory to Israel. The Gentiles are regarded as in darkness and ignorance. Some render the words εις αποκάλυψιν, above, for the unveiling of the Gentiles, instead of for revelation. Compare Isa_25:7. Israel, however, has already received light by the revelation of God through the law and the prophets, and that light will expand into glory through Christ. Through the Messiah, Israel will attain its true and highest glory.

Catena Aurea Luk 2:33-35
ORIGEN; They who explain this simply, may say that He came for the fall of unbelievers, and the rising again of believers.

CHRYS. As the light though it may annoy weak eyes, is still light; in like manner the Savior endures, though many fall away, for His office is not to destroy; but their way is madness. Wherefore not only by the salvation of the good but by the scattering of the wicked, is His power shown. For the sun the brighter it shines, is the more trying to the weak sight.

AMBROSE; That is, to distinguish the merits of the just and the unjust, and according to the quality of our deeds, as a true and just Judge, to decree punishment or rewards.

BASIL; The sign which is spoken against is called in Scripture, the cross. For Moses, it says, made a brazen serpent, and placed it for a sign.

GREG. NYSS. He has joined together honor and dishonor. For to us Christians this sign is a token of honor, but it is a sign of contradiction, inasmuch by some indeed it is received as absurd and monstrous, by others with the greatest veneration. Or perhaps Christ Himself is termed a sign, as having a supernatural existence, and as the author of signs.

AUG. Or by this is signified that Mary also, through whom was performed the mystery of the incarnation, looked with doubt and astonishment at the death of her Lord, seeing the Son of God so humbled as to come down even to death. And as a sword passing close by a man causes fear, though it does not strike him; so doubt also causes sorrow, yet does not kill; for it is not fastened to the mind, but passes through it as through a shadow.

THEOPHYL; But now even down to the close of the present time, the sword of the severest tribulation ceases not to go through the soul of the Church, when with bitter sorrow she experiences the evil speaking against the sign of faith, when hearing the word of God that many are raised with Christ, she finds still more falling from the faith, when at the revealing of the thoughts of many hearts, in which the good seed of the Gospel has been sown, she beholds the tares of vice overshooting it, spreading beyond it, or growing alone.

John Calvin
Luk 2:33
33.And his father and mother were wondering Luke does not say, that they were astonished at it as a new thing, but that they contemplated with reverence, and embraced with becoming admiration, this prediction of the Spirit uttered by the lips of Simeon, so that they continued to make progress in the knowledge of Christ. We learn from this example that, when we have once come to possess a right faith, we ought to collect, on every hand, whatever may aid in giving to it additional strength. That man has made great proficiency in the word of God, who does not fail to admire whatever he reads or hears every day, that contributes to his unceasing progress in faith.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:33
His father and his mother (ho pater autou kai he meter). Luke had already used “parents” in Luk_2:27. He by no means intends to deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus so plainly stated in Luk_1:34-38. He merely employs here the language of ordinary custom. The late MSS. wrongly read “and Joseph” instead of “his father.”

Were marvelling (en thaumazontes). The masculine gender includes the feminine when both are referred to. But en is singular, not esan, the normal imperfect plural in this periphrastic imperfect. This is due to the wide space between copula and participle. The copula en agrees in number with ho pater while the participle coming last agrees with both ho pater kai he meter (cf. Mat_17:3; Mat_22:40). If one wonders why they marvelled at Simeon’s words after what they had heard from Gabriel, Elisabeth, and the Shepherds, he should bear in mind that every parent is astonished and pleased at the fine things others see in the child. It is a mark of unusual insight for others to see so much that is obvious to the parent. Simeon’s prophecy had gone beyond the angel’s outline and it was surprising that he should know anything about the child’s destiny.

John Calvin

Luk 2:34
34.And Simeon blessed them If you confine this to Joseph and Mary, there will be no difficulty. But, as Luke appears to include Christ at the same time, it might be asked, What right had Simeon to take upon him the office of blessing Christ? “Without all contradiction,” says Paul, “the less is blessed of the greater,” (Heb_7:7.) Besides, it has the appearance of absurdity, that any mortal man should offer prayers in behalf of the Son of God. I answer: The Apostle does not speak there of every kind of blessing, but only of the priestly blessing: for, in other respects, it is highly proper in men to pray for each other. Now, it is more probable that Simeon blessed them, as a private man and as one of the people, than that he did so in a public character: for, as we have already said, we nowhere read that he was a priest. But there would be no absurdity in saying, that he prayed for the prosperity and advancement of Christ’s kingdom: for in the book of Psalms the Spirit prescribes such a εὐλογία,—a blessingof this nature to all the godly.

“Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; we have blessed you in the name of the Lords” (Psa_118:26.)

Lo, this has been set This discourse was, no doubt, directly addressed by Simeon to Mary; but it has a general reference to all the godly. The holy virgin needed this admonition, that she might not (as usually happens) be lifted up by prosperous beginnings, so as to be less prepared for enduring afflictive events. But she needed it on another account, that she might not expect Christ to be received by the people with universal applause, but that her mind, on the contrary, might be fortified by unshaken courage against all hostile attacks. It was the design, at the same time, of the Spirit of God, to lay down a general instruction for all the godly. When they see the world opposing Christ with wicked obstinacy, they must be prepared to meet that opposition, and to contend against it undismayed. The unbelief of the world is—we know it—a great and serious hinderance; but it must be conquered, if we wish to believe in Christ. There never was a state of human society so happily constituted, that the greater part followed Christ. Those who will enlist in the cause of Christ must learn this as one of their earliest lessons, and must “put on” this “armor,” (Eph_6:11,) that they may be steadfast in believing on him.

It was by far the heaviest temptation, that Christ was not acknowledged by his own countrymen, and was even ignominiously rejected by that nation, which boasted that it was the Church of God; and, particularly, that the priests and scribes, who held in their hands the government of the Church, were his most determined enemies. For who would have thought, that he was the King of those, who not only rejected him, but treated him with such contempt and outrage?

We see, then, that a good purpose was served by Simeon’s prediction, that Christ was set for the ruin of many in Israel The meaning is, that he was divinely appointed to cast down and destroy many. But it must be observed, that the ruin of unbelievers results from their striking against him. This is immediately afterwards expressed, when Simeon says that Christ is a sign, which is spoken against Because unbelievers are rebels against Christ, they clash themselves against him, and hence comes their ruin This metaphor is taken from a mark shot at by archers, as if Simeon had said, Hence we perceive the malice of men, and even the depravity of the whole human race, that all, as if they had made a conspiracy, rise in murmurs and rebellion against the Son of God. The world would not display such harmony in opposing the Gospel, if there were not a natural enmity between the Son of God and those men. The ambition or fury of the enemies of the Gospel carries them in various directions, faction splits them into various sects, and a wide variety of superstitions distinguishes idolaters from each other. But while they thus differ among themselves, they all agree in this, to oppose the Son of God. It has been justly observed, that the opposition everywhere made to Christ is too plain an evidence of human depravity. That the world should thus rise against its Creator is a monstrous sight. But Scripture predicted that this would happen, and the reason is very apparent, that men who have once been alienated from God by sin, always fly from him. Instances of this kind, therefore, ought not to take us by surprise; but, on the contrary, our faith, provided with this armor, ought to be prepared to fight with the contradiction of the world.

As God has now gathered an Israel to himself from the whole world, and there is no longer a distinction between the Jew and the Greek, the same thing must now happen as, we learn, happened before. Isaiah had said of his own age, “The Lord will be for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense, to both the houses of Israel,” (Isa_8:14.)

From that time, the Jews hardly ever ceased to dash themselves against God, but the rudest shock was against Christ. The same madness is now imitated by those who call themselves Christians; and even those, who lay haughty claims to the first rank in the Church, frequently employ all the power which they possess in oppressing Christ. But let us remember, all that they gain is, to be at length crushed and “broken in pieces,” (Isa_8:9.)

Under the word ruin the Spirit denounces the punishment of unbelievers, and thus warns us to keep at the greatest possible distance from them; lest, by associating with them, we become involved in the same destruction. And Christ is not the less worthy of esteem, because, when he appears, many are ruined: for the “savor” of the Gospel is not less “sweet” and delightful to God, (2Co_2:15,) though it is destructive to the ungodly world. Does any one inquire, how Christ occasions the ruinof unbelievers, who without him were already lost? The reply is easy. Those who voluntarily deprive themselves of the salvation which God has offered to them, perish twice. Ruin implies the double punishment which awaits all unbelievers, after that they have knowingly and wilfully opposed the Son of God.

And for the resurrection This consolation is presented as a contrast with the former clause, to make it less painful to our feelings: for, if nothing else were added, it would be melancholy to hear, that Christ is “a stone of stumbling,” which will break and crush, by its hardness, a great part of men. Scripture therefore reminds us of his office, which is entirely different: for the salvation of men, which is founded on it, is secure; as Isaiah also says, “Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread; and he shall be for a sanctuary,” or fortress of defense, (Isa_8:13.) And Peter speaks more clearly: “To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house. Wherefore also it is contained in Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion the head-stone of the corner, elect, precious, and he that believeth in him shall not be confounded. Unto you, therefore, which believe, he is precious: but unto them who are disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,” (1Pe_2:4; Isa_28:16.)

That we may not be terrified by the designation bestowed on Christ, “a stone of stumbling,” let it be instantly recollected, on the other hand, that he is likewise called the “corner-stone,” on which rests the salvation of all the godly. Let it be also taken into account, that the former is accidental, while the latter is properly and strictly his office. Besides, it deserves our notice, that Christ is not only called the support, but the resurrection of the godly: for the condition of men is not one in which it is safe for them to remain. They must rise from death, before they begin to live.

Adam Clarke
Luk 2:34
This child is set for the fall – This seems an allusion to Isa_8:14, Isa_8:15 : Jehovah, God of hosts, shall be – for a stone of stumbling and rock of offense to both houses of Israel; and many among them shall stumble and fall, etc. As Christ did not come as a temporal deliverer, in which character alone the Jews expected him, the consequence should be, they would reject him, and so fall by the Romans. See Rom_11:11, Rom_11:12, and Matthew 24. But in the fullness of time there shall be a rising again of many in Israel. See Rom_11:26.

And for a sign – A mark or butt to shoot at – a metaphor taken from archers. Or perhaps Simeon refers to Isa_11:10-12. There shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an Ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: – intimating that the Jews would reject it, while the Gentiles should flock to it as their ensign of honor, under which they were to enjoy a glorious rest.

That the thoughts (or reasonings) of many hearts may be revealed – I have transposed this clause to the place to which I believe it belongs. The meaning appears to me to be this: The rejection of the Messiah by the Jewish rulers will sufficiently prove that they sought the honor which comes from the world, and not that honor which comes from God: because they rejected Jesus, merely for the reason that he did not bring them a temporal deliverance. So the very Pharisees, who were loud in their professions of sanctity and devotedness to God, rejected Jesus, and got him crucified, because his kingdom was not of this world. Thus the reasonings of many hearts were revealed.

Albert Barnes
Luk 2:34
Simeon blessed them – Joseph and Mary. On them he sought the blessing of God.

Is set – Is appointed or constituted for that, or such will be the effect of his coming.

The fall – The word “fall” here denotes “misery, suffering, disappointment,” or “ruin.” There is a plain reference to the passage where it is said that he should be “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,” Isa_8:14-15. Many expected a temporal prince, and in this they were disappointed. They loved darkness rather than light, and rejected him, and fell unto destruction. Many that were proud were brought low by his preaching. They fell from the vain and giddy height of their own self-righteousness, and were humbled before God, and then, through him, rose again to a better righteousness and to better hopes. The nation also rejected him and put him to death, and, as a judgment, “fell” into the hands of the Romans. Thousands were led into captivity, and thousands perished. The nation rushed into ruin, the temple was destroyed, and the people were scattered into all the nations. See Rom_9:32-33; 1Pe_2:8; 1Co_1:23-24.

And rising again – The word “again” is not expressed in the Greek. It seems to be supposed, in our translation, that the “same persons would fall and rise again; but this is not the meaning of the passage. It denotes that many would be ruined by his coming, and that many “others” would be made happy or be saved. Many of the poor and humble, that were willing to receive him, would obtain pardon of sin

and peace – would “rise” from their sins and sorrows here, and finally ascend to eternal life.

And for a sign … – The word “sign” here denotes a conspicuous or distinguished object, and the Lord Jesus was such an object of contempt and rejection by all the people. He was despised, and his religion has been the common “mark” or “sign” for all the wicked, the profligate, and the profane, to curse, and ridicule, and oppose. Compare Isa_8:18, and Act_28:22. Never was a prophecy more exactly fulfilled than this. Thousands have rejected the gospel and fallen into ruin; thousands are still falling of those who are ashamed of Jesus; thousands blaspheme him, deny him, speak all manner of evil against him, and would crucify him again if he were in their hands; but thousands also “by” him are renewed, justified, and raised up to life and peace.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:34
Is set for the falling and the rising up of many in Israel (Keitai eis ptōsin kai anastasin pollōn en tōi Israēl). Present indicative of the old defective verb appearing only in present and imperfect in the N.T. Sometimes it is used as the passive of tithēmi as here. The falling of some and the rising up of others is what is meant. He will be a stumbling-block to some (Isa_8:14; Mat_21:42, Mat_21:44; Rom_9:33; 1Pe_2:16.) who love darkness rather than light (Joh_3:19), he will be the cause of rising for others (Rom_6:4, Rom_6:9; Eph_2:6). “Judas despairs, Peter repents: one robber blasphemes, the other confesses” (Plummer). Jesus is the magnet of the ages. He draws some, he repels others. This is true of all epoch-making men to some extent.

Spoken against (antilegomenon). Present passive participle, continuous action. It is going on today. Nietzsche regarded Jesus Christ as the curse of the race because he spared the weak.

John Calvin
Luk 2:35
35. But also a sword shall pierce thy own soul This warning must have contributed greatly to fortify the mind of the holy virgin, and to prevent her from being overwhelmed with grief, when she came to those distressing struggles, which she had to undergo. Though her faith was agitated and tormented by various temptations, yet her sorest battle was with the cross: for Christ might appear to be utterly destroyed. She was not overwhelmed with grief; but it would have required a heart of stone not to be deeply wounded: for the patience of the saints differs widely from stupidity.

That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed There are some who connect this clause with a part of the former verse, that Christ is set for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel; and who include in a parenthesis what we have just now explained about the sword: but it is better, I think, to refer it to the whole passage. The particle that, ὅπως ἄν, in this passage, does not strictly denote a cause, but merely a consequence. When the light of the Gospel arises, and persecutions immediately spring up, there is, at the same time, a disclosure of affections of the heart, which had been hitherto concealed: for the lurking-places of human dissimulation are so deep, that they easily remain hidden till Christ comes. ) But Christ, by his light, discloses every artifice, and unmasks hypocrisy; and to him is properly ascribed the office of laying open the secrets of the heart. But when the cross is added to doctrine it tries the hearts more to the quick. For those who have embraced Christ by outward profession, often shrink from bearing the cross, and, when they see the Church exposed to numerous calamities, easily desert their post.

Albert Barnes
Luk 2:35
Yea, a sword … – The sufferings and death of thy Son shall deeply afflict thy soul. And if Mary had not been thus forewarned and sustained by strong faith, she could not have borne the trials which came upon her Son; but God prepared her for it, and the holy mother of the dying Saviour was sustained.

That the thoughts … – This is connected with the preceding verse: “He shall be a sign, a conspicuous object to be spoken against, that the thoughts of many hearts may be made manifest – that is, that they “might show” how much they hated holiness. Nothing so “brings out” the feelings of sinners as to tell them of Jesus Christ. Many treat him with silent contempt; many are ready to gnash their teeth; many curse him; all show how much by nature the heart is opposed to religion, and thus are really, in spite of themselves, fulfilling the scriptures and the prophecies. So true it that “none can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost,” 1Co_12:3.

A.T. Robertson
Luk 2:35
A sword (rhomphaia). A large sword, properly a long Thracian javelin. It occurs in the lxx of Goliath’s sword (1 Samuel 17:51). How little Mary understood the meaning of Simeon’s words that seemed so out of place in the midst of the glorious things already spoken, a sharp thorn in their roses, a veritable bitter-sweet. But one day Mary will stand by the Cross of Christ with this Thracian javelin clean through her soul, stabat Mater Dolorosa (Joh_19:25). It is only a parenthesis here, and a passing cloud perhaps passed over Mary’s heart already puzzled with rapture and ecstasy.

May be revealed (apokaluphthosin). Unveiled. First aorist passive subjunctive after hopos an and expresses God’s purpose in the mission of the Messiah. He is to test men’s thoughts (dialogismoi) and purposes. They will be compelled to take a stand for Christ or against him. That is true today.

Advent is well come nigh! A truth calendrical and etymological. So, I thought I might delve into one obscure word in this season’s vocabulary.

The word ‘Maranatha’ appears in I Corinthians 16.22 and Didache 10.6. Respectively:

εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. μαράνα θά.

If anyone does not love the Lord, let them be anathema. Marana tha.

ἐλθέτω χάρις καὶ παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος. Ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ Δαυείδ. εἴ τις ἅγιός ἐστιν, ἐρχέσθω· εἴ τις οὐκ ἔστι, μετανοείτω· μαρὰν ἀθά· ἀμήν.

May grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let them come; if anyone is not, let them repent; maran atha; amen.

It is an Aramaic phrase (although Luther tried to twist it into a totally different Hebrew phrase — מָחֳרַם מָוְתָה māḥăram mothâ, ‘devoted to death’). It was once thought to be a curse word, associated to its preceding anathema in the I Corinthians verse, but is clear that the ancient authors who promoted this interpretation had a rather hazy understanding of the phrase. However, that verse is part of Paul’s concluding prayer for the Corinthians, and forms a rather disjointed collection of prayed aphorisms:

• All the brethren send greetings.
• Greet one another with a holy kiss.
• I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.
• If anyone does not love the Lord, let them be anathema.
• Maranatha.
• The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
• My love be with all of you in Christ Jesus.

In the Didache, ‘Maranatha’ appears as part of the doxology of the eucharistic prayer. The short phrases here have been considered by some to be meant to be recited in versicle and response form:

• Celebrant: May grace come and this world pass away.
• Congregation: Hosanna to the God of David!
• Celebrant: If anyone is holy, let them come; if anyone is not, let them repent.
• Congregation: Maranatha! Amen!

The odd use of this Aramaic phrase in Greek texts seems to be a liturgical formula handed on by the first Aramaic-speaking Christians. Just as today’s Syriac Orthodox liturgy has the regular prayer cadence ܒܪܟ ܡܪܝ ܐܡܝܢ barrekh Mor amin (‘Bless, my Lord, amen’), ‘Maranatha’ is a doxological ‘Come, our Lord’ or ‘Our Lord is come’. Its exact meaning depends on how the phrase should be broken down into two words:

1. either māran ăthā
2. or māranā thā.

The earliest manuscripts don’t help as they have no word break or accents. Whether it is māran or māranā, the first word means ‘our Lord’, from mārē, ‘Lord’, and the possessive suffix -an or -anā, meaning ‘our’. The other word, as ăthā, is the perfect tense of the verb ‘to come’ — ‘he has come’ — as thā it is the apocopated imperative of the same verb — ‘come!’.

Patristic scholarship favoured the division māran ăthā, but, if this can only be read as ‘our Lord has come’, it lacks the apocalyptic character we might expect (although this fits with the spirit of the alternative opening to the modern eucharistic prayers: ‘The Lord is here./His Spirit is with us.’). Modern scholarship has tended to favour the division māranā thā to get us the meaning ‘our Lord, come!’. The encouragement for this interpretation is usually gleaned from placing the phrase parallel to Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ (Amēn, erchou kyrie Iēsou, ‘Amen, come Lord Jesus’) of Revelation 22.20, and related to the eucharistic context of ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ (hosakis gar ean esthiēte ton arton touton kai to potērion pinēte, ton thanaton tou kyriou katangellete achri hou elthē, ‘So, everytime you eat this bread and drink the drink, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes‘) in I Corinthians 11.26.

The first-person plural pronominal suffix is -anā in Biblical Aramaic, Qumran Aramaic, Judaean Aramaic and the standard Targums, whereas -an is found in the Midrashim, both Talmuds, Samaritan Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Syriac. So which Aramaic does the word come from? Most assume Judaean Aramaic, but I have a suspicion that the source might have been the dialect of Antioch (-an?). Either way, by the time the Church Fathers got involved in the debate, the Aramaic speakers they knew used -an.

The verb ăthā ‘to come’ is far more problematic: is it an imperative or an indicative? If it’s indicative, it’s tense is perfective, ‘he has come’, although it is possible in Aramaic that this has what we would translate as a present-tense sense ‘he has come, and is now here’. The Syriac Peshitta supports this word division with its ܡܪܢ ܐܬܐ māran ethā.

If it’s imperative, ‘come!’, there are problems with the spelling. The apocopated form thā, that is often favoured today doesn’t exist in any variety that has the ending -anā. Then ăthā is the usual form for the imperative. The word ‘maranatha’ could then be achieved by the ellision of the reduced vowel into the preceding, strong ā: māranā-[ă]tha.

It seems ‘Maranatha’ is fossilised phrase from the earliest prayers at the church’s eucharistic gathering, a prayer that Christ might come and be round the table where his disciples gather to feast his memory. What better phrase for Paul to write to the Corinthians, after teaching them of the eucharist, to share with them this symbol of Christ-fellowship? Come, our Lord, be among your people.

Pronunciation: [mɑˈranɑˌθɑ], maa-RA-naa-THAA, where capitals are stressed syllables, and ‘aa’ is like the first vowel in ‘father’, ‘a’ is as in ‘fat’.

A PDF version of this article is available at www.garzo.co.uk/documents/maranatha.pdf.

“Silence of lips is better and more wonderful than any edifying conversation. Strive to acquire humility and submissiveness. Never insist that anything should be according to your will, for this gives birth to anger. Do not judge or humiliate anyone, for this gives birth to anger. Do not judge or humiliate anyone, for this exhausts the heart and blinds the mind, and thereon leads to negligence and makes the heart unfeeling.”

-St. Barsanuphius-

Recently, a Roman Catholic bishop announced that Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kennedy, would not be allowed to receive the Lord’s Supper due to his public support of abortion rights. The bishop’s announcements met mixed reviews. Some applauded the bishop for calling Patrick Kennedy, who holds membership in the Roman Catholic Church, to turn from a position which is diametically opposed to the Biblical position regarding life at all stages, which is faithfully confessed by the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Others decried the bishop for meddling in politics – separation of church and state (an ahistorical and non-constitutional position) supposedly means for such persons that one can claim membership in a church on Sunday while opposing central teachings of that church the rest of the week.

This latter view runs counter to Christian history, Biblical Christianity, and Christian love. While many historical examples exist, most dramatic is that of Roman Emperor Theodosius. In AD 390, a riot broke out in Thessalonica. Theodosius over-reacted (to put it lightly), ordering the slaughter of some seven thousand people. Bishop Ambrose of Milan, where Theodosius lived, called upon the emperor to repent of his grave sin. When he refused, Ambrose excommunicated him. Ambrose’s actions were not without effect. A month later, Theodosius prostrated himself before Ambrose in the cathedral, repented of his sin, and received Christ’s forgiveness. Words fail to capture how significant it was that the Roman Emperor would be subject to church discipline. He could not claim a separation between his faith and his political actions as Emperor. So also for those who are in political office today – if they claim faith in Christ and willlingly join a Christian congregation, they submit themselves to the discipline of the church.

Biblical testimony bears this out as well. Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth deals with various troubles confronting that congregation. One of those troubles is their abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s discussion of such comes to a head in chapter eleven. He points out that those who abuse the Lord’s Supper are guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ which they receive in the Supper. Such profanation of Christ results in the Supper being received not as a blessing, but as a condemnation. Thus, the Church has historically practiced discipline regarding the Supper. Those who are engaged in public sin (including the support of the murder of the unborn) are restricted from receiving the Supper. Such discipline is not a statement that some are better than others, but that repentant sinners benefit from the Supper; impenitent sinners are harmed by the Supper. The latter are kept from the Supper out of Christian love that the person not be harmed.

Post-modern America struggles with such a concern for others. Radical individualism and relativistic ethics leaves many believing that I should only worry about myself. Such a self-centered approach is the opposite of love and it is counter to Biblical teaching. Consider the prophet Ezekiel (cf. Ezekiel 3). He is called by the Lord to be a watchman. He is to call others to repentance for if he does not, then their blood is on his head. So also, the Church and her pastors bear that same responsibility to call sinners to repentance, lest their blood be on the Church’s head. Consider also Isaiah’s prophetic call (Isaiah 6). His reaction upon seeing the Lord is “Woe is me for I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips.” Isaiah recognizes not only his personal sin, but also the corporate sin which is his through the sin of his nation. The Church bears the sin of its members as well, all the more so when it condones such sin through silence, refusing to call the sinner to repentance.

On the practical side, I am fully aware that this is not an easy practice to follow. If it were easy, then all would do it. Yet, we are to live in love for others, even when it makes us uncomfortable. So how should we approach such situations? First, the sin must be established upon Biblical grounds, not upon personal feelings on a subject. Second, the matter must be communicated in a manner that reveals Christian love as its motivation, not anger or vindictiveness. Third, the goal must be forgiveness. We’re not trying to put them in their place; we’re seeking for them to know the freeing power of Christ’s forgiveness. Fourth, don’t go this alone. This is where your pastor and other leaders (Board of Elders at most Lutheran congregations) are to be of assistance. Finally, pray. Pray that you will speak the right words; pray that they will listen; pray that the Lord’s will be done.

Isaac bless Jacob

Shalom Aleichem, we are now into the study of the Haftarah portion for Parashah Toldot and that is Malachi l:l-2:7. Now the first five verses of the prophecy state God’s love for Jacob and hatred for Esau, referring to the children of Jacob (Israel) and the children of Esau (Edom) respectively. Those five verses of Jacob and Esau material provide the connection to this week’s Torah portion which tells the story of the birth of Jacob and Esau and their subsequent competition for the covenant blessings. The rest of the Haftarah portion addresses the priesthood. By reminding Israel of God’s love for them and His covenant choice of their nation, the prophet hopes to remind a lax and seemingly despondent priesthood of their covenant obligations and responsibilities. From here, we can see that HaShem would not tolerate laxity in worship and demands sincere praise offerings from His people. As it is written in John 4:23, “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.”

Ending on a positive note, the traditional Haftarah reading concludes with an exhortation to emulate Aaron the priest who practiced peace and taught Torah. A true priest of God is a messenger of the LORD: For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 2:7) The prophecies of Malachi are further explored in the Haftarah portion for Shabbat HaGadol. I will not share this study at my blog here because again there are too many significant points to cover to give it a proper summary. Hence, all I can say is that FFOZ Torah Club editors had certainly done a wonderful awesome solid job here for HaShem/Elohim in proclaiming Torah to His people in the glorious Name of His beloved Son Yeshua.

“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert” (Malachi 1:2-3). God loved Jacob but hated Esau. That sentiment made the first chapter of Malachi a natural selection from the prophets for the Haftarah portion to accompany the Torah’s Jacob and Esau incident above.

Church Fathers and early Christian writers frequently quoted Malachi 1:10 and similar passages throughout the prophets to support their premise that God never desired literal sacrifices or a literal Temple. The Church Fathers misappropriated God’s rebukes about the mishandling of Temple ritual to justify their theology of contempt for the Temple and sacrificial system. Christian theology placed the sacrificial system of the Temple in antithesis to the sacrifice of Jesus. In their disputations with the Jewish community, Christian apologists pointed to the historic destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and a litany of proof texts that they had plucked out of context to demonstrate that God had been against Torah and the Temple all along. Theologically, the Church joined the Edomite battle cry against God’s Temple in Jerusalem: “Raze it, raze it to its very foundation” (Psalm 137:7).

So what did we learnt from this Haftarah study? Well, first I would say that God’s promises are always steadfast and will not waver for anything. Second, worship Him in truth and do jovial charity as much as one can through the Help of Ruach HaKodesh so that our prayers may be answered as He see fits. Third, study Torah and meditate on the divine Scripture daily to seek Him in all our needs.

Alright, let’s move on to the next Parashah study and that is Vayetze. The Haftarah portion for this Parashah is on Hosea’s prophecy. In the book of Hosea, we can see many poetic structure of the biblical prophecies that many find it difficult to understand. Hosea’s poetry makes heavy use of metaphors and similes. At times, the prophet’s Hebrew poetry is hard to decipher. The prophet Hosea makes two references to the story of Jacob. He briefly retells a few highlights from the Jacob narratives, including the story of Jacob’s flight to Aram, struggle with the angel, and encounter with God at Bethel as written in Hosea 12:3-4 and 12: In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his maturity he contended with God. Yes, he wrestled with the angel and prevailed; He wept and sought His favor. He found Him at Bethel and there He spoke with us. (Hosea 12:3-4) This serves as the point of connection to Torah portion Vayetze, which describes Jacob’s vision at Bethel. In Hosesa 12:12 we read, “Now Jacob fled to the land of Aram, and Israel worked for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.” This also reference to the Jacob story in the Torah portion and offers a concise summary of it.

In Hosea 12:4, we find that though judgment hung over the house of Israel, the nation still had time to repent. The prophet Hosea encouraged the children of Israel to think back to their father Jacob the wrestler. While still in the womb, Jacob wrestled with his brother Esau in a contest to be the first-born and to inherit the blessings of Abraham. As an adult, he wrestled with God in the form of the Angel of the LORD, refusing to let go until the LORD blessed him. Eventually Jacob prevailed over the angel. The people of Israel should be like their father Jacob. They should not give up or accept a fatalistic resignation to judgment. Instead, the prophet encourages them to cling to God and to struggle for the blessing. How did Jacob prevail over the angel? “He wept and sought His favor” {12:4). Hosea hence invited the people to wrestle with God in prayer, contrition, and true repentance, weeping before God and seeking His favor. The prophet says, “Therefore, return to your God, observe kindness and justice, and wait for your God continually” (12:6). In Hebrew, the word “return” is the same as “repent.” Jacob saw the vision of the ladder and the angels ascending and descending at Bethel. Hosea also encouraged the people of Ephraim to seek the LORD out at Bethel where God first appeared to Jacob.

The prophet Hosea did not tell the people to bring sacrifices to Bethel, instead, he told them to seek the LORD with genuine repentance, weeping, and prayer. Instead of sacrifices, he told them, “Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him, ‘Take away all iniquity and receive us graciously, that we may present the fruit of our lips”‘ (14:2). Thus Hosea’s brief recounting of Jacob’s encounter at Bethel is the reason that Sephardic synagogues use this passage as the Haftarah selection.  OK, what this teaches us is that HaShem/Elohim desire our prayers and praise offerings (worship) and not animal ritual sacrifices as we read in Psalm 51:16-17.

You do not desire a sacrifice, or I would offer one.
     You do not want a burnt offering.
The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit.
     You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God.

In Psalm 51, David confesses his sin without holding back. He implores the Lord to forgive him and create within him a clean heart. Then David adds that HaShem does not “desire a sacrifice” or a “burnt offering.” Yet there is a sacrifice that is pleasing to the Lord. “The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God” (51:17).

When we sin, HaShem is not impressed by the things we try to do to atone for ourselves. We cannot offer anything to motivate Him to forgive us. After all, HaShem can produce all the things He needs. But we can offer that which we alone can give to the LORD: our open hearts, our sorrow over our sin, our fervent intention to repent. This is the “sacrifice” HaShem desires from us.

Next week Friday we will be looking forward to Chanukah celebration with family, relatives and friends as well as believing brothers and sisters in Messiah. Get ready for a big miracle to occur in our life…..

Part II of my presentation of the four sermons on the Anti-Christ given by John Henry Cardinal Newman during Advent in 1835 before his conversion.  Part I is here.

In this second sermon Newman concentrates on what we can glean of  the Anti-Christ  from Scripture and from the writings of the Fathers of the Church.  One thing stands out in this sermon for me.  The idea that the reign of the Anti-Christ may involve both ferocious atheism and a return to paganism.  This seems like a contradiction, but Newman points to the French Revolution:

In that great and famous nation which is near us, once great for its love of CHRIST’S Church, since memorable for deeds of blasphemy, which lead me here to mention it, and now, when it should be pitied and prayed for, made unhappily our own model in too many respects,-followed when it should be condemned, and admired when it should be excused,-in the capital of that powerful and celebrated nation, there took place, as we all well know, within the last fifty years, an open apostasy from Christianity; not from Christianity only, but from every kind of worship which might retain any semblance or pretence of the great truths of religion. Atheism was absolutely professed; -yet in spite of this, it seems a contradiction in terms to say it, a certain sort of worship, and that, as the prophet expresses it, “a strange worship,” was introduced. Observe what this was.

I say, they avowed on the one hand Atheism. They prevailed upon an unhappy man, whom their proceedings had forced upon the Church as an Archbishop, to come before them in public and declare that there was no God, and that what he had hitherto taught was a fable. They wrote up over the burial places that death was an eternal sleep. They closed the Churches, they seized and desecrated the gold and silver plate belonging to them, turning these sacred instruments, like Belshazzar, to the use of their impious revellings; they formed mock processions, clad in priestly garments, and singing profane hymns. They annulled the divine ordinance of marriage, resolving it into a mere civil contract to le made and dissolved at pleasure. These things are but a part of their enormities.”

Yet at the same time the French Revolutionaries made an idol of the State and of abstractions.  Think  of the worship of the Goddess of Liberty.

After abjuring our LORD and SAVIOUR, and blasphemously declaring Him to be an impostor, they proceeded to decree, in the public assembly of the nation, the adoration of Liberty and Equality as divinities; and they appointed festivals besides in honour of Reason, the Country, the Constitution, and the Virtues. Further, they determined that tutelary gods, even dead men, may be canonized, consecrated, and worshipped; and they enrolled in the number of these some of the most notorious infidels and profligates of the last century. The remains of the two principal of these were brought in solemn procession into one of their Churches, and placed upon the holy altar itself; incense was offered to them, and the assembled multitude bowed down in worship before one of them,-before what remained on earth of an inveterate enemy of CHRIST.

This is all fascinating when we consider what has happened since Newman’s day.  Communist regimes have brutally assaulted the Church and proclaimed the reign of atheism.  The Nazis were hostitle to Christianity, Hitler considering it to be a Jewish fable and only waiting for the end of the war to settle accounts with the Churches.  The collapse of religious faith in Europe and the rise of militant atheism are facts of life in our time.  Yet at the same time we see a growth in paganism:  Gaia worship, Wicca and all of the New Age mumbo-jumbo.  Heinrich Himmler, chicken farmer turned Reichsfuhrer SS, was ahead of his time in his attempts to revive Nordic paganism.  A regime that is both atheist and pagan seems much less likely in our time than in Newman’s, and Newman was quite perceptive in highlighting this as key to understanding developments which were in their infancy during his life.  As another wise Englishman C. S. Lewis put it in the Screwtape Letters:

I wonder you should ask me whether it is essential to keep the patient in ignorance of your own existence. That question, at least for the present phase of the struggle, has been answered for us by the High Command. Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. We are really faced with a cruel dilemma. When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all he pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and sceptics. At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. The “Life Force”, the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits”—then the end of the war will be in sight.

 Newman’s second sermon on the Anti-Christ is most definitely a sermon for our time when atheism and paganism often seem to walk the same path.  Here is the text of the sermon:

“Every spirit that confesseth not that
JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh,
is not of GOD, and this is that spirit of Antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come,
and even thou already is it in the world.”

ST. JOHN tells us in these words what the characteristic of the Antichrist should be who is to come; viz. that he shall openly deny our Lord JESUS CHRIST to be the SON of GOD come in the flesh from heaven. So exactly and fully was this description to answer to him, that to deny CHRIST might be suitably called the spirit of Antichrist; and the deniers of Him might be said to have the spirit of Antichrist, to be like Antichrist, to be Antichrists. The same thing is stated in a former chapter. “Who is the Liar, but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST? he is the Antichrist, that denieth the FATHER and the SON. Whosoever denieth the SON, the same hath not the FATHER;” from which words, moreover, it would appear that Antichrist will be led on from rejecting the SON of GOD, to the rejection of GOD altogether, either by implication or practically.

I shall now make some further observations on the characteristic marks of the predicted enemy of the Church; and, as in those I made last week, I shall confine myself to the interpretations of Scripture given by the early Fathers.  My reason for doing so is simply this,-that on so difficult a subject as unfulfilled prophecy, I really can have no opinion of my own, nor indeed is it desirable I should have, or at least that I should put it forward in any formal way. The opinion of any one person, even if he were the most fit to form one, could hardly be of any authority, or be worth putting forward by itself; whereas the judgment and views of the early Church claim and attract our especial regard, because for what we know they may be in part derived from traditions of the Apostles, and because they are put forward far more consistently and unanimously than those of any other set of teachers. Thus they have greater claims on our attention than those of other writers, be their claims little or great; if they are little, those of others are still less. The only really strong claim which can be made on our belief, is the clear fulfillment of the prophecy. Did we see all the marks of the prophecy satisfactorily answered in the past history of the Church, then we might dispense with authority in the parties setting the proof before us. This condition however can hardly be fulfilled, because the date of Antichrist comes close upon the coming of CHRIST in judgment, and therefore cannot have happened so as to allow of being appealed to. Nor is any history producible which fulfils all the marks of Antichrist clearly, though some are fulfilled here and there. Nothing then is left us, (if we are to take up any opinion at all,-if we are to profit, as Scripture surely intends, by its warnings concerning the evil which is to come), but to go by the judgment of the Fathers, whether that be of special authority in this matter or not. To them therefore I had recourse last week, and now shall have recourse again. To continue then the subject with the early Fathers as my guides.

1. It seems clear that St. Paul and St. John speak of the same enemy of the Church, from the similarity of their descriptions. They both say, that the spirit itself was already at work in their day. “That spirit of the Antichrist,” says St. John in the text, “is now already in the world.” “The mystery of iniquity doth already work,” says St. Paul. And they both describe the enemy as characterized by the same especial sin, open infidelity. St. John says, that “he is the Antichrist that denieth the FATHER and the SON:” while St. Paul speaks of him in like manner as “the adversary and rival of all that is called GOD, or worshipped;” that “he sitteth as GOD in the temple of GOD, setting forth himself that he is GOD.” In both these passages, the same blasphemous denial of GOD and religion is described; but St. Paul adds, in addition, that he will oppose all existing religion, true or false, “all that is called God, or worshipped.”

Two other passages of Scripture may be adduced, predicting the same reckless impiety; one from the eleventh chapter of Daniel: “The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the GOD of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished…. Neither shall he regard the GOD of his fathers, nor the Desire of women (that is, as it would appear, the Messiah, to be His mother being the especial privilege and object of hope among the Jewish women), nor regard any god-for he shall magnify himself above all.” 

The other passage is faintly marked with any prophetic allusion in itself, except that all our SAVIOUR’S sayings have a deep meaning, and the Fathers take this in particular to have such. “I am come in MY FATHER’S Name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” This they consider to be a prophetic allusion to Antichrist, whom the Jews were to mistake for the Christ. He is to come “in his own name.” Not from GOD, as even the SON of GOD came, who if any might have come in the power of His essential divinity, not in GOD’S Name, not with any pretence of a mission from Him, but in his own name, by a blasphemous assumption of divine power, thus will Antichrist come.

To the above passages may be added those which speak generally of the impieties of the last age of the world, impieties which we may believe will usher in and be completed in Antichrist:

“Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. . . . Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried: but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.” “In the last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of GOD, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof:” “scoffers walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?” “despising government, presumptuous. . . self-willed, not afraid to speak evil of dignities…. promising men liberty, while themselves the servants of corruption:” and the like.

2. I just now made mention of the Jews: it may be well then to state what was held in the early Church concerning Antichrist’s connexion with them.

Our LORD foretold that many should come in His name, saying “I am Christ.” It was the judicial punishment of the Jews, as of all unbelievers in one way or another, that having rejected the true Christ, they should take up with a false one; and Antichrist will be the complete and perfect seducer, towards whom all previous ones are approximations, according to the text just quoted, “If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” To the same purport are St. Paul’s words after describing Antichrist; “whose coming,” he says, “is . . . with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause GOD shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the Truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Hence, considering that Antichrist would pretend to be the Messiah, it was of old the received notion that he was to be of Jewish race and to observe the Jewish rites.

Further, St. Paul says that Antichrist should “sit in the Temple of God;” that is, according to the earlier Fathers, in the Jewish Temple. Our Saviour’s own words may be taken to support this notion, because He speaks of “the Abomination of Desolation,” (which, whatever other meanings it might have, in its fulness denotes Antichrist,) “standing in the holy place.” Further, the persecution of CHRIST’S witnesses which Antichrist will make, is described by St. John as taking place in Jerusalem. “Their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, (which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt,) where also our LORD was crucified.”

Now here a remark may be made. At first sight, I suppose, we should not consider that there was much evidence from the Sacred Text for Antichrist taking part with the Jews, or having to do with their Temple. It is, then, a very remarkable fact that the apostate emperor Julian, who was a type and earnest of the great enemy, should, as he did, have taken part with the Jews, and set about building their Temple. Here the history is a sort of comment on the prophecy, and sustains and vindicates the early interpretations of it which I am relating. Of course I must be understood to mean, and a memorable circumstance it is, that this belief of the Church that Antichrist should be connected with the Jews, was expressed long before Julian’s time, and that we still possess the works in which it is contained. We have the writings of two Fathers, both Bishops and martyrs of the Church, who lived at least one hundred and fifty years before Julian, and less than one hundred years after St. John. They both distinctly declare Antichrist’s connection with the Jews.

The one of them speaks as follows: “In the Temple which is at Jerusalem the adversary will sit, endeavouring to show himself to be the Christ.”

And the other says, “Antichrist will be he who shall resuscitate the kingdom of the Jews.”

What makes this still more observable is that the recent Shadow of Antichrist, whom our fathers or we ourselves saw, by a sort of fatality (so to speak) took up the cause of the Jews and was almost hailed by them as their Messiah, and seemed to be drawn irresistibly towards and to hover about the Holy Land, which the early Church considered would be the scene of Antichrist’s exploits.

3. Next let us ask, Will Antichrist profess any sort of religion at all? Neither true God nor false God will he worship: so far is clear, and yet something more, and that obscure, is told us. Indeed, as far as the prophetic accounts go, they seem at first sight incompatible with each other. Antichrist is to “exalt himself over all that is called God or worshipped.” He will set himself forcibly against idols and idolatry, as the early teachers agree in declaring. Yet in the book of Daniel we read, “In his estate shall he honour the God of forces; and a God whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory.” What is meant by the words translated “God of forces,” and afterwards called “a strange God,” is quite hidden from us, and probably will be so till the event; but any how some sort of false worship is certainly predicted as the mark of Antichrist, with this prediction the contrary way, that he shall set himself against all idols, as well as against the true GOD.

Now it is not at all extraordinary that there should be this contrariety in the prediction, for we know generally that infidelity leads to superstition, and that the men most reckless in their blasphemy are cowards also. They cannot be consistent if they would. But let me notice here again a remarkable coincidence, which is contained in the history of the last fifty years,-a coincidence between actual events and prophecy sufficient to show us that the apparent contradiction in the latter may easily be reconciled, though beforehand we nay not see how; sufficient to remind us that the all-watchful eye, and the all-ordaining hand of GOD is still over the world, and that the seeds sown in prophecy above two thousand years since, are not dead, but from time to time, by blade and tender shoot, give earnest of the future harvest. Surely the world is impregnated with unearthly elements, which ever and anon, in unhealthy seasons, give lowering and muttering tokens of the wrath to come!

In that great and famous nation which is near us, once great for its love of CHRIST’S Church, since memorable for deeds of blasphemy, which lead me here to mention it, and now, when it should be pitied and prayed for, made unhappily our own model in too many respects,-followed when it should be condemned, and admired when it should be excused,-in the capital of that powerful and celebrated nation, there took place, as we all well know, within the last fifty years, an open apostasy from Christianity; not from Christianity only, but from every kind of worship which might retain any semblance or pretence of the great truths of religion. Atheism was absolutely professed; -yet in spite of this, it seems a contradiction in terms to say it, a certain sort of worship, and that, as the prophet expresses it, “a strange worship,” was introduced. Observe what this was.

I say, they avowed on the one hand Atheism. They prevailed upon an unhappy man, whom their proceedings had forced upon the Church as an Archbishop, to come before them in public and declare that there was no God, and that what he had hitherto taught was a fable. They wrote up over the burial places that death was an eternal sleep. They closed the Churches, they seized and desecrated the gold and silver plate belonging to them, turning these sacred instruments, like Belshazzar, to the use of their impious revellings; they formed mock processions, clad in priestly garments, and singing profane hymns. They annulled the divine ordinance of marriage, resolving it into a mere civil contract to le made and dissolved at pleasure. These things are but a part of their enormities.

On the other hand, after having broken away from all restraint towards GOD and man, they gave a name to the reprobate state itself into which they had thrown themselves, and exalted it, that very negation of religion, or rather that real and living blasphemy, into a kind of God. They called it LIBERTY, and they literally worshipped it as a divinity. It would almost be incredible, that men who had flung off all religion should be at the pains to assume a new and senseless worship of their own devising, whether in superstition or in mockery, were not events so recent and so notorious.

After abjuring our LORD and SAVIOUR, and blasphemously declaring Him to be an impostor, they proceeded to decree, in the public assembly of the nation, the adoration of Liberty and Equality as divinities; and they appointed festivals besides in honour of Reason, the Country, the Constitution, and the Virtues. Further, they determined that tutelary gods, even dead men, may be canonized, consecrated, and worshipped; and they enrolled in the number of these some of the most notorious infidels and profligates of the last century. The remains of the two principal of these were brought in solemn procession into one of their Churches, and placed upon the holy altar itself; incense was offered to them, and the assembled multitude bowed down in worship before one of them,-before what remained on earth of an inveterate enemy of CHRIST.

Now, I do not mention all this as considering it the fulfilment of the prophecy, nor, again, as if the fulfilment when it comes will be in this precise way, but merely to point out, what the course of events has shown us in these latter times, that there are ways of fulfilling sacred announcements that seem at first sight contradictory,-that men may oppose every existing worship, true and false, and yet take up a worship of their own from pride, wantonness, policy, superstition, fanaticism, or other reasons.

And further, let it be remarked that there was a tendency in the infatuated people I have spoken of, to introduce the old Roman democratic worship, as if further to show us that Rome, the fourth monster of the prophet’s vision, is not dead. They even went so far as to restore the worship of one of the Roman divinities (Ceres) by name, raised a statue to her, and appointed a festival in her honour. This indeed was inconsistent with exalting themselves “above all that is called God;” but I mention it, as I have said, not as throwing light upon the prophecy, but to show that the spirit of old Rome has not passed from the world, though its name is almost extinct.

Still further, it is startling to observe, that that former apostate in the early times, the Emperor Julian, he too was engaged in bringing back Roman Paganism.

Further still, let it he observed that Antiochus too, the Antichrist before CHRIST, the persecutor of the Jews, he too signalised himself in forcing the Pagan worship upon them, introducing it even into the Temple.

We know not what is to come; but this we may safely say, that, improbable as it is that Paganism should ever be publicly restored and enforced by authority for any time, however short, even three years and a half, yet it is far less improbable now than it was fifty years ago, before the event occurred which I have referred to. Who would not have been thought a madman or idiot, before that period, who had conjectured such a portentous approximation to Paganism as actually took place.

4. Now let us recur to the ancient Fathers, and see whether their further anticipations do not run parallel to the events which have since happened.

Antichrist, as they considered, will come out of the Roman Empire just upon its destruction;-that is, the Roman Empire will in its last days divide itself into ten parts, and the enemy will come up suddenly out of it upon these ten, and subdue three of them, or all of them perhaps, and (as the prophet continues) “shall speak great words against the MOST HIGH, and shall wear out the saints of the MOST HIGH, and think to change times and laws, and they shall be given into his hand until a time, times, and the dividing of time.” Now it is very observable that one of the two early Fathers whom I have already cited , expressly says that the ten states (the “toes” of Dan. ii.) which will at length appear, shall be democracies. I say this is observable, considering the present state of the world, the tendency of things in this day towards democracy, and the instance which has been presented to us of democracy within the last fifty years, in those occurrences in France to which I have already alluded.

Another expectation of the early Church was that the Roman monster, after remaining torpid for centuries, would wake up at the end of the world, and be restored in all its laws and forms; and this too, considering those same recent events to which I have alluded, is certainly worth noticing also. One of the Fathers whom I have already quoted, expressly deduces from a passage in the xiiith chapter of the Apocalypse, that “the system of Augustus, who was founder of the Roman Empire, shall be adopted and established by him (Antichrist), in order to his own aggrandizement and glory. This is the fourth monster whose head was wounded and healed; in that the empire was destroyed and came to nought, and was divided into ten. But at this time Antichrist, as being a man of resources, will heal and restore it; so that it will be active and vigorous once more through the system which he establishes.

I will but notice one other expectation falling in with the foregoing notion of the re-establishment of Roman power, entertained by the Fathers whom I have cited several times; viz. one concerning the name of Antichrist, as spoken of in the xiiith chapter of Revelations: “Here is wisdom,” says the inspired text, “let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” They both give a name, (the letters of which together in Greek make up this number) characteristic of the position of Antichrist as the head of the Roman Empire in its restored state, viz. the word Latinus, or the Latin king.

The earlier of these Fathers speaks as follows: “Expect that the empire will first be divided into ten kings; then while they are reigning and beginning to settle and aggrandize themselves, suddenly one will come and claim the kingdom, and frighten them, having for his name the very number 666; him recognize as the Abomination of Desolation. This is implied in the Apostle’s saying, ‘When they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come on them.” Then he goes on to mention, together with two other words, the name of Latinos as answering to the number, and says of it, “This is very probable since it is the name of the last empire;-for the Latins (that is, the Romans) are now in power.”

The other Father thus speaks: “Since . . . the wound of the first monster was healed . . . and it is plain that the Latins are that empire, therefore he is called the Latin King (Latinus), the name passing from the empire to an individual.” Whether this anticipation will be fulfilled or not, we cannot say. I only mention it as showing the belief of the Fathers in the restoration and re-establishment of the Roman empire, which has certainly since their day been attempted.

It seems then, on the whole, that, as far as the testimony of the early Church goes, Antichrist will be an open blasphemer, opposing himself to every existing worship, true and false,-a persecutor, a patron of the Jews, and a restorer of their worship, and, further, the author of a novel kind of worship. Moreover, he will appear suddenly, at the very end of the Roman empire, which once was and now sleeps; that he will knit it into one, and engraft his Judaism and his new worship (a sort of Paganism, it may be) upon the old discipline of Caesar Augustus; that in consequence he will earn the title of the Latin or Roman King, as best expressive of his place and character; lastly, that he will pass away as suddenly as he came.

Now concerning this, I repeat, I do not wish to pronounce how far the early Church was right or wrong in these anticipations, though events since have variously tended to strengthen its general interpretations of Scripture prophecy.

It may be asked, What practical use is there in speaking of these things, if they be doubtful? With a short notice of this objection, I shall conclude.

First, it is not unprofitable to bear in mind that we are still under what may be called a miraculous system. I do not mean to maintain that literal miracles are taking place now, but that our present state is a portion of a providential course, which began in miracle, and at least at the end of the world, if not before, will end in miracle. The particular expectations above detailed may be right or wrong; yet an Antichrist, whoever and whatever he be, is to come; marvels are to come; the old Roman empire is not extinct; the devil, if bound, is bound but for a season; the contest of good and evil is not ended. I repeat it, in the present state of things, when the great object of education is supposed to be the getting rid of things supernatural, when we are bid to laugh and jeer at believing every thing we do not see, are told to account for every thing by things known and ascertained, and to assay every statement by the touchstone of experience, I must think that this vision of Antichrist, as a supernatural power to come, is a great providential gain, as being a counterpoise to the evil tendencies of the age.

And next, it must surely be profitable for our thoughts to be sent backward and forward to the beginning and the end of the Gospel times, to the first and second coming of CHRIST.

What we want, is to understand that we are in the place in which the early Christians were, with the same covenant, ministry, sacraments, and duties;-to realize a state of things long past away; -to feel that we are in a sinful world, a world lying in wickedness; -to discern our position in it, that we are witnesses in it, that reproach and suffering are our portion,-so that we must not “think it strange” if they come upon us, but a kind of gracious exception if they do not;-to have our hearts awake, as if we had seen CHRIST and His Apostles, and seen their miracles,- awake to the hope and waiting for His second coming, looking out for it, nay, desiring to see the tokens of it thinking often and much of the judgment to come, dwelling on and adequately entering into the thought, that we individually shall be judged. All these surely are acts of true and saving faith; and this is one substantial use of the Book of Revelations, and other prophetical parts of Scripture, quite distinct from our knowing their real interpretation, viz. to take the veil from our eyes, to lift up the covering which lies over the face of the world, and make us see, day by day, as we go in and out, as we get up and lie down, as we labour, and walk, and rest, and recreate ourselves, the Throne of GOD set up in the midst of us, His majesty and His judgments, His SON’S continual intercession for the elect, their trials, and their victory.

May GOD enable us all thus to walk by faith, not by sight, and live in the past and future, not in the present!

from the Ladder of Divine Ascent – St. John Climacus
Pride is a denial of God, an invention of the devil, contempt for men. It is the mother of condemnation, the offspring of praise, a sign of barrenness. It is a flight from God’s help, the precursor of madness, the cause of downfall. It is the cause of satanic possession, the source of anger, the gateway of hypocrisy. It is the fortress of demons, the guardian of sins, the source of hardheartedness. It is the denial of compassion, a bitter Pharisee, a cruel judge. It is the foe of God. It is the root of blasphemy.

Pride begins where vainglory leaves off. Its midpoint comes with the humiliation of our neighbor, the shameless parading of our achievements, complacency, and unwillingness to be found out. It ends with the spurning of God’s help, the exalting of one’s own efforts and a devilish disposition.

Listen, therefore, all who wish to avoid this pit. This passion often draws strength initially from the giving of thanks, and at first it does not shamelessly urge us to renounce God. I have seen people who speak aloud their thanks to God but who in their hearts are glorifying themselves, something demonstrated by that Pharisee with his “O God, I thank You” (Luke 18:11).

Pride takes up residence wherever we have lapsed, for a lapse is in fact an indication of pride. And an admirable man said once to me, “Think of a dozen shameful passions. Love one of them, I mean pride, and it will take up the space of all the other eleven.”

A proud Christian argues bitterly with others. The humble Christian is loath to contradict them.

The cypress tree does not bend to the ground to walk, nor does the haughty Christian bend down in order to gain obedience.

The proud man wants to be in charge of things. He would feel lost otherwise.

“God resists the proud” (James 4:6). Who then could have mercy on them? Before God every proud man is unclean. Who then could purify such a person?

For the proud correction is a fall, a thorn (cf. 2 Cor. 12:7) is a devil, and abandonment by God is madness. Whereas in the first two instances there are human cures available, this last cannot be healed by man.

To reject criticism is to show pride, while to accept it is to show oneself free of this fetter.

Pride and nothing else caused an angel to fall from heaven. And so one may reasonably ask whether one may reach heaven by humility alone without the help of any other virtue.

Pride loses the profits of all hard work and sweat. They cried out, but there was none to save them, because they cried out with pride. They cried out to God, but He paid no heed since they were not really trying to root out the faults against which they were praying.

An elder, very experienced in these matters, once spiritually admonished a proud brother who said in his blindness, “Forgive me, father, but I am not proud.” “My son,” said the wise old man, “what better proof of your pride could you have given than to claim that you were not proud?”

A help to the proud is submissiveness, a tougher and humbler way of life, and the reading of the supernatural feats of the Fathers. Even then there will perhaps be little hope of salvation for those who suffer from this disease.

While it is disgraceful to be puffed up over the adornments of others, it is sheer lunacy to imagine that one has deserved the gifts of God. You may be proud only of the achievements you had before the time of your birth. But anything after that, indeed the birth itself, is a gift from God. You may claim only those virtues in you that are there independently of your mind, for your mind was bestowed on you by God. And you may claim only those victories you achieved independently of the body, for the body too is not yours but a work of God.

Do not be self-confident before judgment has been passed on you. Remember the guest at the marriage feast. He got there, and then, tied hand and foot, he was thrown into the dark outside (cf. Matt. 22:13). So do not be stiff-necked, since you are a material being. Many although holy and unencumbered by a body were cast out of Heaven.

When the demon of pride gets a foothold for himself among his own servants, he appears to them, in sleep or awake, and he looks like a holy angel or martyr and he hints at mysteries to be revealed or spiritual gifts to be granted, that the wretches may be deceived and driven utterly out of their minds.

If we were to die ten thousand times for Christ, we would still not have repaid what we owe, for in value rather than physical substance there is no comparison between the blood of God and that of His servants.

We should always be on the lookout to compare ourselves with the Fathers and the lights who have gone before us. If we do, we will discover that we have scarcely begun the ascetic life, that we have hardly kept our vow in a holy manner, and that our thinking is still rooted in the world.

A real Christian is one whose soul’s eye is not haughty and whose bodily senses are unmoved.

A Christian is one who fights his enemies, like the wild beasts that they are, and harries them as he makes his escape from them.

To be a Christian is to know ecstasy without end and to grieve for life.

A Christian is shaped by virtues in the way that others are shaped by pleasures.

A Christian has an unfailing light in the eye of the heart.

A Christian is an abyss of humility in which every evil spirit has been plunged and smothered.

Pride makes us forget our sins, for the remembrance of them leads to humility.

Pride is utter poverty of soul disguised as riches, imaginary light where in fact there is darkness. This abominable vice not only stops our progress but even tosses us down from the heights we have reached.

The proud man is a pomegranate, rotten within, while outwardly radiant.

A proud Christian needs no demon. He has turned into one, an enemy to himself.

Darkness is alien to light. Pride is alien to every virtue.

Blaspheming words rise up in the hearts of the proud, heavenly visions in the hearts of the humble.

A thief hates the sun. A proud man despises the meek.

It happens, I do not know how, that most of the proud never really discover their true selves. They think they have conquered their passions and they find out how poor they really are only after they die.

The man ensnared by pride will need God’s help, since man is of no use to him.

I captured this senseless deceiver once. It was rising up in my heart and on its shoulders was vainglory, its mother. I roped them with the noose of obedience and flailed them with the whip of humility. Then I lashed them and asked how they had managed to gain access to me. “We have no beginning and no birth,” they said, “for we are the source and the begetters of all the passions. The strongest opposition to us comes from the contrition of heart that grows out of obedience. We can endure no authority over us, which is why we fell from heaven though we had authority there. In short, we are the authors and the progenitors of everything opposed to humility, for everything that favors humility brings us low. We prevail everywhere except in heaven. So, then, where will you run to escape us? You will find us often where there is patient endurance of dishonor, where there is obedience and freedom from anger, where there is willingness to bear no grudge, where one’s neighbor is served. And our children are the falls of those who lead the life of the spirit. Their names: Anger, Calumny, Spite, Irritability, Shouting, Blasphemy, Hypocrisy, Hatred, Envy, Argumentativeness, Self-will, Disobedience.

“There is only one thing with which we cannot interfere, and the violence you do us will make us admit what this is. If you can honestly condemn yourself before the Lord, then indeed you will find us as flimsy as a cobweb. For, you see, Vainglory is pride’s saddle-horse on which I am mounted. But holy Humility and Self-accusation will laugh at the horse and its rider and will joyfully sing the song of triumph: ‘Let us sing to the Lord, for He has been truly glorified. Horse and rider He has thrown into the sea’ (Exod. 15:1), into the depths of humility.”

Such is the twenty-third step. Whoever climbs it, if indeed anyone can, will certainly be strong.

Concerning unspeakably blasphemous Thoughts

As we have already heard, from a troublesome root and mother comes a most troublesome offspring. What I mean is that unspeakable blasphemy is the child of dreadful pride. Hence the need to talk about it, since it is no ordinary foe but is far and away the deadliest enemy of all. Worse still, it is extremely hard to articulate and to confess it and therefore to discuss it with a spiritual healer, and the result has been to cause frustration and despair in many people, for like a worm in a tree this unholy enemy gnaws away all hope.

This atrocious foe has the habit of appearing during the holy services and even at the awesome hour of the Mysteries, and blaspheming the Lord and the consecrated elements, thereby showing that these unspeakable, unacceptable, and unthinkable words are not ours but rather those of the God-hating demon who fled from heaven because, it seems, of the blasphemies he uttered there too against the Lord. It must be so, for if these dreadful and unholy words are my own, how could I offer humble worship after having partaken of the sacred gift? How could I revile and praise at the same time?

This deceiver, this destroyer of souls, has often caused men to go mad. And no other thought is as difficult to admit in confession, which is why so many are dogged by it all their days. In fact nothing gives demons and evil thoughts such power over us as to nourish them and hide them in our hearts unconfessed.

If you have blasphemous thoughts, do not think that you are to blame. God knows what is in our hearts and He knows that ideas of this kind come not from us but from our enemies.

Drunkenness leads to stumbling. Pride leads to unholy thoughts. The drunkard will be punished not for his stumbling but for his drunkenness.

Those unclean and unspeakable thoughts come at us when we are praying, but, if we continue to pray to the end, they will retreat, for they do not struggle against those who resist them.

This unholy demon not only blasphemes God and everything that is divine. It stirs up the dirtiest and most obscene thoughts within us, thereby trying to force us to give up praying or to fall into despair. It stops the prayer of many and turns many away from the holy Mysteries. It has evilly and tyrannously wearied the bodies of some with grief. It has exhausted others with fasting and has given them no rest. It has struck at people living in the world, and also at those leading the monastic life, whispering that there is no salvation in store for them, murmuring that they are more to be pitied than any unbeliever or pagan.

Anyone disturbed by the spirit of blasphemy and wishing to be rid of it should bear in mind that thoughts of this type do not originate in his own soul but are caused by that unclean devil who once said to the Lord, “I will give you all this if only You fall down and adore me” (Matt. 4:9). So let us make light of him and pay no regard whatever to his promptings. Let us say, ‘Get behind me, Satan! I will worship the Lord my God and I will serve only Him’ (Matt. 4:10). May your word and your effort rebound on you, and your blasphemies come down on your own head now and in the world to come.” To fight against the demon of blasphemy in any way other than this is to be like a man trying to hold lightning in his hands. For how can you take a grip on, seize, or grapple with someone who flits into the heart quicker than the wind, talks more rapidly than a flash, and then immediately vanishes? Every other kind of foe stops, struggles a while, lingers and gives one time to struggle with him. But not this one. He hardly appears and is gone again immediately. He barely speaks and then vanishes.

This particular demon likes to take up residence in the minds of simpler and more innocent souls, and these are more upset and disturbed by it than others. To such people we could quite rightly say that what is happening to them is due not to their own undue self-esteem but to the jealousy of the demons.

Let us refrain from passing judgment or condemnation on our neighbor. If we do, then we will not be terrorized by blasphemous thoughts, since the one produces the other.

The situation here is like that of someone shut up in his own house who overhears but does not join in the conversation of passersby. The soul that keeps to itself overhears and is disturbed by the blasphemies of devils who are merely transients.

Hold this foe in contempt and you will be liberated from its torments. Try cleverly to fight it and you will end up by surrendering, for the man who tries to conquer spirits by talk is like someone hoping to lock up the winds.

There was once a zealous monk who was badly troubled by this demon. For twenty years he wore himself out with fasting and vigils, but to no avail, as he realized. So he wrote the temptation on a sheet of paper, went to a certain holy man, handed him the paper, bowed his face to the ground and dared not to look up. The old man read it, smiled, lifted the brother and said to him, “My son, put your hand on my neck.” The brother did so. Then the great man said, “Very well, brother. Now let this sin be on my neck for as many years as it has been or will be active within you. But from now on, ignore it.” And the monk who had been tempted in this fashion assured me that even before he had left the cell of this old man, his infirmity was gone. The man who had actually experienced this told me about it, giving thanks to Christ.

He who has defeated this vice has banished pride.

Read also

Combat Pride through Kindness

Heal Pride through Forgivness

Catena Aurea
Mar 2:13-17
Chrys.: Now this is the same publican who is named by all the Evangelists; Matthew by Matthew; simply Levi by Luke; and Levi, the son of Alphaeus, by Mark; for he was the son of Alphaeus. And you may find persons with two names in other parts of Scripture; as Moses’ father in law is sometimes called Jethro, sometimes Raguel.

Bede, in Marc., 11: So also the same person is called Levi and Matthew; but Luke and Mark, on account of their reverence and the honour of the Evangelist, are unwilling to put the common name, while Matthew is a just accuser of himself, and calls himself Matthew and publican. He wishes to shew to his hearers that no one who is converted should despair of his salvation, since he himself was suddenly changed from a publican into an Apostle. but he says that he was sitting at the ‘teloneum,’ that is, the place where the customs are looked after and administered. For ‘telos’ in Greek is the same as ‘vectigal,’ customs, in Latin.

Theophylact: For he sat at the receipt of custom, either, as is often done, exacting from some, or making up accounts, or doing some actions of that sort, which publicans are wont to do in their abodes, yea this man, who was raised on high from this state of life that he might leave all things and follow Christ. Wherefore it goes on, “And He saith to him, Follow Me, &c.”

Bede: Now to follow is to imitate, and therefore in order to imitate the poverty of Christ, in the feeling of his soul even more than in outward condition, he who used to rob his neighbour’s wealth, now leaves his own. And not only did he quit the gain of the customs, but he also despised the peril, which might come from the princes of this world, because he left the accounts of the customs imperfect and unsettled. For the Lord Himself, Who externally, by human language, called Him to follow, inflamed him inwardly by divine inspiration to follow Him the moment that He called him.

Pseudo-Jerome: Thus then Levi, which means Appointed, followed from the custom-house of human affairs, the Word, Who says, “He who doth not quit all that he has, cannot be My disciple.”

Theophylact: But he who used to plot against others becomes so benevolent, that he invites many persons to eat with him.Wherefore it goes on: “And it came to pass, that as Jesus sat at meat in his house.”

Bede, in Marc. i, 12: The persons here called publicans are those who exact the public customs, or men who farm the customs of the exchequer or of republics; moreover, those also, who follow after the gain of this world by business, are called by the same name. They who had seen that the publican, converted from his sins to better things, had found a place of pardon, even for this reason themselves also do not despair of salvation.

And they come to Jesus, not remaining in their former sins, as the Pharisees and Scribes complain, but in penitence, as the following words of the Evangelist shew, saying, “For there were many who followed Him.”

For the Lord went to the feasts of sinners, that He might have an opportunity of teaching them, and might set before His entertainers spiritual meats, which also is carried on in mystical figures. For he who receives Christ into his inward habitation is fed with the highest delights of overflowing pleasures.

Therefore the Lord enters willingly, and takes up His abode in the affection of him who hath believed on Him; and this is the spiritual banquet of good works, which the rich cannot have, and on which the poor feast.

Bede: If by the election of Matthew and calling of the publicans, the faith of the Gentiles is expressed, who formerly were intent on the gains of this world; certainly the haughtiness of the Scribes and Pharisees intimates the envy of the Jewish people, who are vexed at the salvation of the Gentiles. It goes on: “When Jesus heard it, He saith unto them, They that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick.”

He aims at the Scribes and Pharisees, who, thinking themselves righteous, refused to keep company with sinners. He calls Himself the physician, Who, by a strange mode of healing, was wounded on account of our iniquities, and by His wound we are healed. And He calls those whole and righteous, who, wishing to establish their own righteousness, are not subject to the righteousness of God. Moreover He calls those rich and sinners, who, overcome by the consciousness of their own frailty, and seeing that they cannot be justified by the Law, submit their necks to the grace of Christ by repentance. Wherefore it is added, “For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, &c.”

John Gill
Mar 2:15 And it came to pass, that as Jesus sat at meat in his house,…. In the house of Levi; not in the custom house, or toll booth, for that he left; but in his house in the city of Capernaum, where he had him, and made an entertainment for him, in token of gratitude, for the high favour bestowed on him:

many publicans and sinners sat also together, with Jesus, and his disciples; being invited by Levi, and not objected to by Christ; See Gill on Mat_9:10.

for there were many, and they followed him; either Christ whom they had observed to have called Matthew, and had heard preach by the sea side; or else Matthew; and so the Persic version renders it, “for many followed Matthew”. The Ethiopic version reads the words, “and they were many”, that is, publicans and sinners, “and the Scribes and Pharisees followed him”; mentioned in the next verse, from whence it seems to be taken; though true it is, that not only a large number of publicans and sinners followed Christ, but also many of the Scribes and Pharisees; yet with a different view from the former, not to get any advantage to themselves, but, if they could, an advantage against Christ.

John Wesley
Mar 2:15 Many publicans and notorious sinners sat with Jesus – Some of them doubtless invited by Matthew, moved with compassion for his old companions in sin. But the next words, For there were many, and they followed him, seem to imply, that the greater part, encouraged by his gracious words and the tenderness of his behaviour, and impatient to hear more, stayed for no invitation, but pressed in after him, and kept as close to him as they could.

Albert Barnes
Mar 2:15
Sat at meat in the house – The words “at meat” are not in the original. The phrase means “as he reclined at his meal,” or “as he was eating.” This feast was made by Matthew in honor of the Saviour. See Luk_5:29.

Publicans – See the notes at Mat_5:47.

Sinners – Sinners of abandoned character – of the same character that publicans commonly sustained – fit companions of publicans – great sinners.

There were many – That is, many “disciples.” Their following him, leaving their homes, and going with him from place to place, was proof of their attachment to him. There is no doubt that our Saviour, in the early part of his ministry, was extremely popular. Multitudes of the common people attended him, and gave conclusive evidence that they were his real disciples, and it was only after much opposition from the rich and the great that he ever became unpopular among the people. Perhaps no preacher has ever attracted so universal attention, and produced so decisive effects upon mankind, as did our Lord in his personal ministry.

Adam Clarke
Mar 2:16
Sinners – By αμαρτωλοι, the Gentiles or heathens are generally to be understood in the Gospels, for this was a term the Jews never applied to any of themselves, See the note on Mat_9:10.

How is it that he eateth – Some very good MSS., several versions, with Chrysostom and Augustin, read, Why doth Your Master eat?

A.T. Robertson
Mar 2:16
The scribes of the Pharisees (hoi grammateis ton Pharisaion). This is the correct text. Cf. “their scribes” in Luk_5:30. Matthew gave a great reception (dochen, Luk_5:29) in his house (Mar_2:15). These publicans and sinners not simply accepted Levi’s invitation, but they imitated his example “and were following Jesus” (kai ekolouthoun autoi). It was a motly crew from the standpoint of these young theologues, scribes of the Pharisees, who were on hand, being invited to pick flaws if they could. It was probably in the long hall of the house where the scribes stood and ridiculed Jesus and the disciples, unless they stood outside, feeling too pious to go into the house of a publican. It was an offence for a Jew to eat with Gentiles as even many of the early Jewish Christians felt (Act_11:3) and publicans and sinners were regarded like Gentiles (1Co_5:11).

John Calvin
Mar 2:17
Not they who are in health need a physician It is evident from Christ’s reply that the scribes erred in two ways: they did not take into account the office of Christ; and, while they spared their own vices, they proudly despised all others. This deserves our particular attention, for it is a disease which has been always very general. Hypocrites, being satisfied and intoxicated with a foolish confidence in their own righteousness, do not consider the purpose for which Christ was sent into the world, and do not acknowledge the depth of evils in which the human race is plunged, or the dreadful wrath and curse of God which lies on all, or the accumulated load of vices which weighs them down.

The consequence is, that they are too stupid to feel the miseries of men, or to think of a remedy. While they flatter themselves, they cannot endure to be placed in their own rank, and think that injustice is done them, when they are classed with transgressors. Our Lord glances at this second error by replying, that they who are in health have no need of a physicianIt is an ironical admission, and is intended to show that they are offended when they see sinners, because they claim righteousness for themselves. Because you are in health, (he says,) you despise the sick, are offended at them, and cannot endure the sight of them: but a physician ought to be affected in a very different manner. He afterwards points out that he must discharge the duties of a physician, because he has been sent by the Father to call sinners

Though Christ begins with reproof, yet if we desire to make progress in his doctrine, what he has put in the second place must receive our first consideration. He came to quicken the dead, to justify the guilty and condemned, to wash those who were polluted and full of uncleanness, to rescue the lost from hell, to clothe with his glory those who were covered with shame, to renew to a blessed immortality those who were debased by disgusting vices. If we consider that this was his office and the end of his coming, — if we remember that this was the reason why he took upon him our flesh, why he shed his blood, why he offered the sacrifice of his death, why he descended even to hell, we will never think it strange that he should gather to salvation those who have been the worst of men, and who have been covered with a mass of crimes.

He whom you detest appears to you to be unworthy of the grace of Christ. Why then was Christ himself made a sacrifice and a curse, but that he might stretch out his hand to accursed sinners? Now, if we feel disgust at being associated by Baptism and the Lord’s Supper with vile men, and regard our connection with them as a sort of stain upon us, we ought immediately to descend into ourselves, and to search without flattery our own evils. Such an examination will make us willingly allow ourselves to be washed in the same fountain with the most impure, and will hinder us from rejecting the righteousness which he offers indiscriminately to all the ungodly, the life which he offers to the dead, and the salvation which he offers to the lost.

Adam Clarke
Mar 2:17
To repentance – This is omitted by ABDKL, twenty-seven others; both the Syriac, Persic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Vulgate; six copies of the Itala; Euthymius and Augustin. Griesbach has left it out of the text; Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of the omission. See on Mat_9:13 (note). I leave it as in the parallel place above quoted. Properly speaking, the righteous cannot be called to repentance. They have already forsaken sin, mourned for it, and turned to God. In the other parallel place, Luk_5:32, all the MSS. and versions retain μετανοιαν, repentance.

Catena Aurea
Mar 2:18-22
Gloss.: As above, the Master was accused to the disciples for keeping company with sinners in their feasts, so now, on the other hand, the disciples are complained of to the Master for their omission of fasts, that so matter for dissension might arise amongst them. Wherefore it is said, “And the disciples of John and the Pharisees used to fast.”

Chrys.: The disciples of John, therefore, and of the Pharisees, being jealous of Christ, ask Him, whether He alone of all men with His disciples could, without abstinence and toil, conquer in the fight of the passions.

Bede: But John did not drink wine and strong drink, because he who has no power by nature, obtains more merit by abstinence. But why should the Lord, to whom it naturally belonged to forgive sins, shun those whom he could make more pure, than those who fast? But Christ also fasted, lest He should break the precept, “He ate with sinners,” that thou mightest see His grace, and acknowledge His power. It goes on; “And Jesus said unto them, Can the children, &c.”

Theophylact: We must also understand that every man whose works are good is the son of the Bridegroom; he has the Bridegroom with him, even Christ, and fasts not, that is, does no works of repentance, because he does not sin: but when the Bridegroom is taken away by the man’s falling into sin, then he fasts and is penitent, that he may cure his sin.

Bede: But in a mystical sense, it may thus be expressed; that the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, because every man who boasts of the works of the law without faith, who follows the traditions of men, and receives the preaching of Christ with his bodily ear, and not by the faith of the heart, keeps aloof from spiritual goods, and wastes away with a fasting soul. But he who is incorporated into the members of Christ by a faithful love cannot fast, because he feasts upon His Body and Blood.

It goes on, “No one seweth a piece of” rough, that is, “new, cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filleth it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.”

Bede: For He compares His disciples to old bottles, who would burst at spiritual precepts, rather than be held in restraint by them. But they will be new bottles, when after the ascension of the Lord, they are renewed by desiring His consolation, and then new wine will come to the new bottles, that is, the fervour of the Holy Ghost will fill the hearts of spiritual men. A teacher must also take heed not to commit the hidden things of the new mysteries to a soul, hardened in old wickedness.

Theophylact: Or else the disciples are likened to old garments on account of the infirmity of their minds, on which it was not fitting to impose the heavy command of fasting.

Bede: Neither was it fitting to sew on a new piece; that is, a portion of doctrine which teaches a general fast from all the joy of temporal delights; for if this be done, the teaching is rent, and agrees not with the old part. But by a new garment is intended good works, which are done externally, and by the new wine, is expressed the fervour of faith, hope, and charity, by which we are reformed in our minds.

John Calvin
Mar 2:18
Then come to him the disciples of John.Luke represents the Pharisees as speaking: Mark appears to connect both. And, indeed, there is no room to doubt that the Pharisees maliciously endeavored, by this stratagem, to draw the disciples of John to their party, and to produce a quarrel between them and the disciples of Christ. A resemblance in prayers and fastings was a plausible pretext for associating at this time: while the different manner in which Christ acted was an occasion of enmity and dislike to men whose temper was unamiable, and who were excessively devoted to themselves.

This example reminds us, that prudence and caution are necessary to prevent wicked and cunning men from sowing divisions among us on any slight grounds. Satan has a wonderful dexterity, no doubt, in laying those snares; and it is an easy matter to distress us about a trifle. But we ought especially to beware lest the unity of faith be destroyed, or the bond of charity broken, on account of outward ceremonies. Almost all labor under the disease of attaching undue importance to the ceremonies and elements of the world, as Paul calls them, (Gal_4:3; Col_2:8;) and accordingly they do not hesitate, for the most part, to prefer the merest rudiments to the highest perfection. This is followed by another evil arising out of fastidiousness and pride, when every man would willingly compel the whole world to copy his example. If any thing pleases us, we forthwith desire to make it a law, that others may live according to our pleasure.

When we read that the disciples of John were caught by these snares of Satan, let us first learn not to place holiness in outward and indifferent matters, and at the same time to restrain ourselves by moderation and equity, that we may not desire to restrict others to what we approve, but may allow every one to retain his freedom. As to fasting and prayers, it ought to be understood, that John gave his disciples a particular training, and that for this purpose they had stated days for fastings, a settled form, and fixed hours of prayer. Now, I reckon those prayers among outward observances. For, though calling on God holds the first rank in spiritual worship, yet that method of doing it was adapted to the unskilfulness of men, and is justly reckoned among ceremonies and indifferent matters, the observance of which ought not to be too strictly enjoined. Of the reason why John’s discipline was more severe than that of Christ we have already spoken, and a more convenient opportunity for treating of it will again occur.

John Gill

Mark 2:18

saying, why do we, and the Pharisees, fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? Not that they wanted to know the reason why they and the Pharisees fasted; that they could account for themselves, but why Christ’s disciples did not: and this is said not so much by way of inquiry, as reproof; and their sense is; that Christ’s disciples ought to fast, as well as they and the Pharisees, and not eat, and drink, and feast in the manner they did. The fastings here referred to are not the public fasts enjoined by the law of Moses, or in any writings of the Old Testament; but private fasts, which were enjoined by John to his disciples, and by the Pharisees to their’s; or which were, according to the traditions of the elders, or of their own appointing, and which were very “often” indeed: for besides their fasting twice a week, on Monday and Thursday, Luk_18:12 they had a multitude of fasts upon divers occasions, particularly for rain (c). If the 17th of Marchesvan, or October, came, and there was no rain, private persons kept three days of fasting, viz. Monday, Thursday, and Monday again: and if the month of Cisleu, or November, came, and there was no rain, then the sanhedrim appointed three fast days, which were on the same days as before, for the congregation; and if still there was no rain came, they added three more; and if yet there were none, they enjoined seven more, in all thirteen, which R. Acha and R. Barachiah kept themselves (d). Fasts were kept also on account of many other evils, as pestilence, famine, war, sieges, inundations, or any other calamity; sometimes for trifling things, as for dreams (e), that they might have good ones, or know how to interpret them, or avoid any ill omen by them; and it is almost incredible what frequent fastings some of the Rabbins exercised themselves with, on very insignificant occasions. They (f) say,

“R. Jose צם תמניי צומין, “fasted fourscore fasts” to see R. Chiyah Rubba; at last he saw, and his hands trembled, and his eyes grew dim: –R. Simeon Ben Lakish צם תלת מאוון צומין, “fasted three hundred fastings” to see R. Chiyah Rubba, and did not see him.”

Elsewhere it is said, that R. Ase fasted “thirty days” to see the same person, and saw him not (g). Again (h),

“R. Jonathan fasted every eve of the new year, R. Abin fasted every eve of the feast of tabernacles, R. Zeura fasted “three hundred fasts”, and there are that say “nine hundred fasts”.”

This may serve to illustrate and prove the frequency of the Jewish fastings. Luke represents this question as put by the Pharisees, which is here put by the disciples of John: it was doubtless put by both agreeing in this matter; and which shows that John’s disciples were instigated to it by the Pharisees, who sought to sow discord between them, and to bring Christ and his disciples into contempt with them.

(c) Misn. Taanith, c. 1. sect. 4. 5, 6. & c. 3. sect. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (d) T. Hieros. Taanlot, fol. 65. 2. & 66. 4. (e) T. Bab. Sabbat. fol. 10. 1. Maimon Taaniot, c. 1. sect. 12-14. (f) T. Hieros. Cilaim, fol. 32. 2. & Cetubot, fol. 35. 1. (g) Midrash Kohelet, fol. 79. 1. (h) lb. Nedarim, fol. 40. 4. & Taanioth, fol. 66. 1.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 2:18
John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting (esan hoi mathetai Ioanou kai hoi Pharisaioi nesteuontes). The periphrastic imperfect, so common in Mark’s vivid description. Probably Levi’s feast happened on one of the weekly fast-days (second and fifth days of the week for the stricter Jews). So there was a clash of standpoints. The disciples of John sided with the Pharisees in the Jewish ceremonial ritualistic observances. John was still a prisoner in Machaerus. John was more of an ascetic than Jesus (Mat_18:1.; Luk_7:33-35), but neither one pleased all the popular critics. These learners (mathetai) or disciples of John had missed the spirit of their leader when they here lined up with the Pharisees against Jesus. But there was no real congeniality between the formalism of the Pharisees and the asceticism of John the Baptist. The Pharisees hated John who had denounced them as broods of vipers. Here the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees (hoi mathetai Ioanou kai hoi mathetai ton Pharisaion) join in criticizing Jesus and his disciples. Later we shall see Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, who bitterly detested each other, making com- mon cause against Jesus Christ. So today we find various hostile groups combining against our Lord and Saviour. See notes on Mat_9:14-17 for comments. Matthew has here followed Mark closely.

John Calvin
Mar 2:19
15. Can the children of the bridegroom mourn?Christ apologizes for his disciples on the score of the season, alleging that God was still pleased to indulge them in joyous feelings, as if they were present at a marriage: for he compares himself to the bridegroom, who enlivens his friends by his presence. Chrysostomthinks that this comparison was taken from the testimony of John the Baptist, He that hath the bride is the bridegroom,(Joh_3:29.) I have no objection to that view, though I do not think that it rests on solid grounds. Let us be satisfied with Christ’s declaration, that he spares his disciples, and treats them with gentleness, so long as he is with them. That none may envy them advantages which are of short duration, he gives warning that they will very soon be treated with greater harshness and severity.

The apology rests on this consideration, that fasting and prayers are adapted to sorrow and adversity: extraordinary prayers I mean, such as are here mentioned. Christ certainly intended to accustom them, by degrees, to greater patience, and not to lay on them a heavy burden, till they gained more strength. Hence we ought to learn a twofold instruction. When the Lord sometimes endures the weakness of our brethren, and acts towards them with gentleness, while he treats us with greater severity, we have no right to murmur. Again, when we sometimes obtain relief from sorrow and from vexations, let us beware of giving ourselves up to enjoyments; but let us, on the contrary, remember that the nuptials will not always last. The children of the bridegroom, or of the nuptial bed, is a Hebrew phrase, which denotes the guests at a marriage.

Adam Clarke
Mar 2:19
Can the children of the bride-chamber – Νυμφωνος. Or, νυμφιου, bridegroom, as the Cod. Bezae and several versions have it. These persons were the companions of the bridegroom, who accompanied him to the house of his father-in-law when he went to bring the bride to his own home. The marriage-feast among the Jews lasted seven days; but the new married woman was considered to be a bride for thirty days. Marriage feasts were times of extraordinary festivity, and even of riot, among several people of the east.

When the bridegroom shall be taken from them, etc. – There was one annual fast observed in the primitive Church, called by our ancestors the spring fast, and, by us, Lent; by the Greeks τεσσερακοϚη, and by the Latins, Quadrigessima. This fast is pretended to be kept by many, in the present day, in commemoration of our Lord’s forty days’ fast in the wilderness; but it does not appear that, in the purest ages of the primitive Church, genuine Christians ever pretended that their quadrigessimal fast was kept for the above purpose. Their fast was kept merely to commemorate the time during which Jesus Christ lay under the power of death, which was about Forty Hours; and it was in this sense they understood the words of this text: the days will come, etc. With them, the bridegroom meant Christ: the time in which he was taken away, his crucifixion, death, and the time he lay in the grave. Suppose him dying about twelve o’clock on what is called Friday, and that he rose about four on the morning of his own day, (St. John says, Early, while it was yet dark, Mat_20:1), the interim makes forty hours, which was the true primitive Lent, or quadrigessimal fast. It is true that many in the primitive Church were not agreed on this subject, as Socrates, in his Church History, book v. chap. 22, says, “Some thought they should fast one day; others two; others more.” Different Churches also were divided concerning the length of the time, some keeping it three, others five, and others seven weeks; and the historian himself is puzzled to know why they all agreed in calling these fasts, differing so much in their duration, by the name of Quadrigessima, or forty days’ fast: the plain obvious reason appears to me to have been simply this: They put Days in the place of Hours; and this absurdity continues in some Christian Churches to the present day. For more on fasting, see Mat_6:16.

A.T. Robertson
Mar 2:19
The sons of the bridechamber (hoi huioi tou numphonos). Not merely the groomsmen, but the guests also, the paranymphs (paranumphoi of the old Greek). Jesus here adopts the Baptist’s own metaphor (Joh_3:29), changing the friend of the bridegroom (ho philos tou numphiou) to sons of the bridechamber. Jesus identifies himself with the bridegroom of the O.T. (Hos_2:21), God in his covenant relation with Israel (Swete). Mourning does not suit the wedding feast. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all give the three parables (bridegroom, unfulled cloth, new wineskins) illustrating and defending the conduct of Jesus in feasting with Levi on a Jewish fast-day. Luk_5:36 calls these parables. Jesus here seems iconoclastic to the ecclesiastics and revolutionary in emphasis on the spiritual instead of the ritualistic and ceremonial.

John Calvin
Mar 2:21
21. And no man putteth a piece of fresh cloth.He supports the preceding statement by two comparisons, one of which is taken from garments, and the other from vessels of wine. Those who think that he compares worn-out garments and decayed bottles to the Pharisees, and new wine and fresh cloth to the doctrine of the gospel, have no probability on their side. The comparison is beautifully adapted to the matter in hand, if we explain it as referring to the weak and tender disciples of Christ, and to a discipline more strict than they were able to bear. Nor is it of any consequence that the idea of being old does not agree with scholars who were only commencing: for, when Christ compares his disciples to old bottles and torn garments, he does not mean that they were wasted by long use, but that they were weak and wanted strength. The amount of the statement is, that all must not be compelled indiscriminately to live in the same manner, for there is a diversity of natural character, and all things are not suitable to all; and particularly, we ought to spare the weak, that they may not be broken by violence, or crushed by the weight of the burden. Our Lord speaks according to the custom of the country, when he uses the word bottles instead of tuns or casks.

John Gill
Mar 2:22 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles,…. As in the former parable, our Lord exposes the folly of the Scribes and Pharisees, in their zealous attachment to the traditions of the elders; so in this, he gives a reason why he did not call these persons by his Gospel, who were settled upon the old principle of self-righteousness, but sinners, whom he renews by his Spirit and grace: for by “old bottles” are meant, the Scribes and Pharisees. The allusion is to bottles, made of the skins of beasts, which in time decayed, waxed old, and became unfit for use: such were the wine bottles, old and rent, the Gibeonites brought with them, and showed to Joshua, Jos_9:4 and to which the Psalmist compares himself, Psa_119:83 and which the Misnic doctors call חמתות, and their commentators (o) say, were נודת של עור, “bottles made of skin”, or “leather”, and so might be rent. Of the use of new and old bottles, take the following hint out of the “Talmud” (p).

“The bottles of the Gentiles, if scraped and חדשים, “new”, they are free for use; if ישנים, “old”, they are forbidden.”

Now the Scribes and Pharisees may be signified by these old bottles, being natural men, no other than as they were born; having never been regenerated, and renewed in the spirit of their minds; in whom the old man was predominant, were mere formal professors of religion, and self-righteous persons: and by “new wine” is meant, either the love and favour of God compared to wine, that is neat and clean, because free from hypocrisy in him, or motives in the creature; to generous wine, for its cheering and reviving effects; and to new wine, not but that it is very ancient, even from everlasting, but, because newly manifested, in the effectual calling and conversion: or the Gospel is signified by wine, for its purity, good flavour, and pleasant taste; for its generous effects, in reviving drooping spirits, refreshing weary persons, and comforting distressed minds; and by new wine, not that it is a new doctrine, an upstart notion, for it is an ancient Gospel, but because newly and more clearly revealed by Christ and his apostles: or the blessings of grace which spring from the love of God, and are manifested in the Gospel, such as pardon of sin, reconciliation and atonement, justifying and sanctifying grace, spiritual joy and peace, and the like. Now as the new wine is not put into old bottles,

else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: so the love of God, the Gospel of the grace of God, and the blessings of it, are not received and retained, nor can they be, by natural men, by self-righteous persons: they do not suit and agree with their old carnal hearts and principles; they slight and reject them, and let them run out, which proves their greater condemnation.

But they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. By “new bottles” are meant sinners, whom Christ calls by his grace, and the Spirit regenerates and renews, who are made new creatures in Christ; who have new hearts, and new spirits, and new principles of light, life, love, faith, and holiness, implanted in them; who have new eyes to see with, new ears to hear with, new feet to walk with, to and in Christ, new hands to work and handle with, and who live a new life and conversation. Now to such as these, the love of God is manifested and shed abroad in their hearts; by these, the Gospel of Christ is truly received and valued, and these enjoy the spiritual blessings of it; and so both the doctrine of the Gospel, and the grace of God, are preserved entire, and these persons saved in the day of Christ.

(o) Jarchi & Bartenora in Misn. Celim, c. 24. sect. 11. & Negaim, c. 11. sect. 11. (p) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 33. 1.

Adam Clarke
Mar 2:22
New wine into old bottles – It is still the custom, in the eastern countries, to make their bottles of goat skins: if these happened to be old, and new wine were put into them, the violence of the fermentation must necessarily burst them; and therefore newly made bottles were employed for the purpose of putting that wine in which had not yet gone through its state of fermentation. The institutes of Christ, and those of the Pharisees, could never be brought to accord: an attempt to combine the two systems would be as absurd as it would be destructive. The old covenant made way for the new, which was its completion and its end; but with that old covenant the new cannot be incorporated.

Christian prudence requires that the weak, and newly converted, should be managed with care and tenderness. To impose such duties and mortifications as are not absolutely necessary to salvation, before God has properly prepared the heart by his grace for them, is a conduct as absurd and ruinous as putting a piece of raw, unscoured cloth on an old garment; it is, in a word, requiring the person to do the work of a man, while as yet he is but a little child. Preachers of the Gospel, and especially those who are instruments in God’s hand of many conversions, have need of much heavenly wisdom, that they may know to watch over, guide, and advise those who are brought to a sense of their sin and danger. How many auspicious beginnings have been ruined by men’s proceeding too hastily, endeavoring to make their own designs take place, and to have the honor of that success themselves which is due only to God.

Catena Aurea
Mar 2:23-28
Theophylact: For David, when flying from the face of Saul [1 Sam 21] went to the Chief Priest, and ate the shew-bread, and took away the sword of Goliath, which things had been offered to the Lord. But a question has been raised how the Evangelist called Abiathar at this time High Priest, when the Book of Kings calls him Abimelech.

Bede: There is, however, no discrepancy, for both were there, when David came to ask for bread, and received it: that is to say, Abimelech, the High Priest, and Abiathar his son; but Abimelech having been slain by Saul, Abiathar fled to David, and became the companion of all his exile afterwards. When he came to the throne, he himself also received the rank of High Priest, and the son became of much greater excellence than the father, and therefore was worthy to be mentioned as the High Priest, even during his father’s life-time. It goes on: “And He said to them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”

For greater is the care to be taken of the health and life of a man, than the keeping of the sabbath. Therefore the sabbath was ordered to be observed in such a way, that, if there were a neccesity, he should not be guilty, who broke the sabbath-day; therefore it was not forbidden to circumcise on the sabbath, because that was a necessary work. And the Maccabees, when necessity pressed on them, fought on the sabbath-day.

Wherefore, His disciples being hungry, what was not allowed in the law became lawful through their necessity of hunger; as now, if a sick man break a fast, he is not held guilty in any way. It goes on: “Therefore the Son of man is Lord, &c.” As if He said, David the king is to be excused for feeding on the food of the Priests, how much more the Son of man, the true King and Priest, and Lord of the sabbath, is free from fault, for pulling ears of corn on the sabbath-day.

Bede: But in a mystical sense the disciples pass through the corn fields, when the holy doctors look with the care of a pious solicitude upon those whom they have initiated in the faith, and who, it is implied, are hungering for the best of all things, the salvation of men.

But to pluck the ears of corn means to snatch men away from the eager desire of earthly things. And to rub with the hands is by example of virtue to put from the purity of their minds the concupiscence of the flesh, as men do husks. To eat the grains is when a man, cleansed from the filth of vice by the mouths of preachers, is incorporated amongst the members of the Church.

Again, fitly are the disciples related to have done this, walking before the face of the Lord, for it is necessary that the discourse of the doctor should come first, although the grace of visitation from on high, following it, must enlighten the heart of the hearer. As well, on the sabbath-day, for the doctors themselves in [p. 53] preaching labour for the hope of future rest, and teach their hearers to toil over their tasks for the sake of eternal repose.

Theophylact: Or else, because when they have rest from their passions, then are they made doctors to lead others to virtue, plucking away from them earthly things.

Bede: Again, they walk through the corn fields with the Lord, who rejoice in meditating upon His sacred words. They hunger, when they desire to find in them the bread of life; and they hunger on sabbath days, as soon as their minds are in a soothing rest, and they rejoice in freedom from troubled thoughts; they pluck the ears of corn, and by rubbing, cleanse them, till they come to what is fit to eat, when by meditation they take to themselves the witness of the Scriptures, to which they arrive by reading, and discuss them continually, until they find in them the marrow of love; this refreshment of the mind is truly unpleasing to fools, but is approved by the Lord.

John Calvin

Mar 2:23
Jesus was walking on the Sabbath It was the design of the Evangelists, in this history, to show partly what a malicious disposition the Pharisees had, and partly how superstitiously they were attached to outward and slight matters, so as to make holiness to consist in them entirely. They blame the disciples of Christ for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath, during their journey, when they were pressed with hunger, as if, by so doing, they were violating the Sabbath. The keeping of the Sabbath was, indeed, a holy thing, but not such a manner of keeping it as they imagined, so that one could scarcely move a finger without making the conscience to tremble. It was hypocrisy, therefore, that made them so exact in trifling matters, while they spared themselves in gross superstitions; as Christ elsewhere upbraids them with paying tithe of mint and anise, and neglecting the important matters of the Law, (Mat_23:23.)

It is the invariable practice of hypocrites to allow themselves liberty in matters of the greatest consequence, and to pay close attention to ceremonial observances. Another reason why they demand that outward rites should be more rigorously observed is, that they wish to make their duty toward God to consist only in carnal worship. But it was malevolence and envy, still more than superstition, that led them to this act of censure; for towards others they would not have been equally stern. It is proper for us to observe the feelings by which they were animated, lest any one should be distressed by the fact, that the very Doctors of the Law were so hostile to Christ.

Adam Clarke
Mar 2:23
At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn – “The time is determined by Luke in these words, εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω, that is, on the Sabbath from the second-first.

“Provision was made by the Divine law that the sheaf of first-fruits should be offered on the second day of the pass-over week, Lev_23:10, Lev_23:11. On the morrow after the Sabbath, the priest shall shake (or wave) it. Not on the morrow after the ordinary Sabbath of the week, but the morrow after the first of the pass-over week, which was a Sabbatic day, Exo_12:16; Lev_23:7. Hence the seventy, επαυριον της πρωτης, the morrow of the first day; the Chaldee, the morrow after the holy day. The rabbins, Solomon and Menachen, have it, On the morrow after the first day of the pass-over feast; of which mention had been made in the verses foregoing.

“But now, from the second day of the pass-over solemnity, wherein the sheaf was offered, were numbered seven weeks to pentecost: for the day of the sheaf, and the day of pentecost did mutually respect each other; for on this second day of the pass-over, the offering of the sheaf was supplicatory, and by way of prayer, beseeching a blessing upon the new corn, and leave to eat it, and to pot in the sickle into the standing corn. Now, the offering of the first-fruit loaves on the day of pentecost, (Lev_23:15-17), did respect the giving of thanks for the finishing and housing of the barley-harvest. Therefore, in regard of this relation, these two solemnities were linked together, that both might respect the harvest; that, the harvest beginning; this, the harvest ended: this depended on that, and was numbered seven weeks after it. Therefore, the computation of the time coming between could not but carry with it the memory of that second day of the pass-over week; and hence pentecost is called the feast of weeks, Deu_16:10. The true calculation of the time between could not otherwise be retained, as to Sabbaths, but by numbering thus: this is σαββατον δευτεροπρωτον, the first Sabbath after the second day of the pass-over. This is δευτεροδευρερον, the second Sabbath after that second day. And so of the rest. In the Jerusalem Talmud, the word שבת פרוטוגמייא shebeth protogamiya, the Sabbath, πρωτογαμιας, of the first marriage, is a composition not very unlike.” Lightfoot.

His disciples were an hungered – Were hungry. The former is a mode of expression totally obsolete. How near does the translation of this verse come to our ancient mother-tongue, the Anglo-Saxon! – The Healer went on rest-day over acres: truly his learning knights hungred, and they began to pluck the ear and eaten – We may well wonder at the extreme poverty of Christ and his disciples. He was himself present with them, and yet permitted them to lack bread! A man, therefore, is not forsaken of God because he is in want. It is more honorable to suffer the want of all temporal things in fellowship with Christ and his followers, than to have all things in abundance in connection with the world.

Albert Barnes
Mar 2:23
At that time – Luke Luk_6:1 fixes the time more particularly. He says that it was “the second Sabbath after the first.” To understand this, it is proper to remark that the “Passover” was observed during the month “Abib,” or Nisan, answering to the latter part of March and the first of April. The feast was held seven days, commencing on the fourteenth day of the month Exo. 12:1-28; Exo_23:15, on the “second” day of the paschal week. The law required that a sheaf of “barley” should be offered up as the first-fruits of the harvest, Lev_23:10-11. From this day was reckoned seven weeks to the feast of “Pentecost” Lev_23:15-16, called also the feast of weeks Deu_16:10, and the feast of the harvest, Exo_23:16. This second day in the feast of the Passover, or of unleavened bread, was the beginning, therefore, from which they reckoned toward the Pentecost. The Sabbath in the week following would be the “second Sabbath” after this first one in the reckoning, and this was doubtless the time mentioned when Christ went through the fields. It should be further mentioned, that in Judea the barley harvest commences about the beginning of May, and both that and the wheat harvest are over by the twentieth. Barley is in full ear in the beginning of April. There is no improbability, therefore, in this narrative on account of the season of the year. This feast was always held at Jerusalem.

Through the corn – Through the “barley,” or “wheat.” The word “corn,” as used in our translation of the Bible, has no reference to “maize,” or “Indian corn,” as it has with us. Indian corn was unknown until the discovery of America, and it is scarcely probable that the translators knew anything about it. The word “corn” was applied, as it is still in England, to wheat, rye, oats, and barley. This explains the circumstance that they “rubbed it in their hands” Luk_6:1 to separate the grain from the chaff.

To pluck the ears of corn – They were hungry, Mat_12:1. They therefore gathered the wheat or barley as they walked and rubbed it in their hands to shell it, and thus to satisfy their appetite. Though our Lord was with them, and though he had all things at his control, yet he suffered them to resort to this method of supplying their wants. When Jesus, thus “with” his disciples, suffered them to be “poor,” we may learn that poverty is not disgraceful; that God often suffers it for the good of his people; and that he will take care, in some way, that their wants shall be supplied. It was “lawful” for them thus to supply their needs. Though the property belonged to another, yet the law of Moses allowed the poor to satisfy their desires when hungry. See Deu_23:25.

John Calvin
Mar 2:24
Mar_2:24.Why do they on the Sabbath what is not lawful? The Pharisees do not blame the disciples of Christ for plucking ears of corn from a field that was not their own, but for violating the Sabbath; as if there had been a precept to this effect, that famishing men ought rather to die than to satisfy their hunger. Now the only reason for keeping the Sabbath was, that the people, by sanctifying themselves to God, might be employed in true and spiritual worship; and next, that, being free from all worldly occupations, they might be more at liberty to attend the holy assemblies. The lawful observation of it, therefore, must have a reference to this object; for the Law ought to be interpreted according to the design of the Legislator. But this shows clearly the malicious and implacable nature of superstition, and particularly the proud and cruel dispositions of hypocrites, when ambition is joined to hatred of the person. It was not the mere affectation of pretended holiness, as I have said, that made the Pharisees so stern and rigorous; but as they expressly wished to carp at every thing that Christ said or did, they could not do otherwise than put a wrong meaning in cases where there was nothing to blame, as usually happens with prejudiced interpreters. The accusation was brought—according to Matthew and Mark—against our Lord, and—according to Luke—against his disciples. But there is no inconsistency here; for the disciples were in all probability so harassed, that the charge was directed chiefly against the Master himself. It is even possible that the Pharisees first wrangled with the disciples, and afterwards with Christ, and that, in the rage of their malice, they blamed him for remaining silent, and permitting his disciples to break the Sabbath.

John Gill
Mar 2:24 But when the Pharisees saw it,…. Who went along with him, or followed him, being employed to make observation on his words and actions,

they said unto him; Luke says, “unto them”, the disciples: it seems, they took notice of this action both to Christ and his disciples, and first spoke of it to the one, and then to the other, or to both together:

behold thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day! they mention it with astonishment, and indignation. What they refer to, is not their walking on the sabbath day: this they might do, according to their canons, provided they did not exceed two thousand cubits, which were a sabbath day’s journey (f) nor was it their passing through the corn fields; though, according to them (g),

“it was not lawful for a man to visit his gardens, ושדותיו, “or his fields”, on the sabbath day, to see what they want, or how the fruits grow; for such walking is to do his own pleasure.”

But this they knew was not the case of Christ, and his disciples, who were not proprietors of these fields: nor was it merely their plucking the ears of corn, and rubbing and eating them, which were not their own, but another man’s; for this, according to the law, in Deu_23:25 was lawful to be done: but what offended the Pharisees was, that it was done on a sabbath day, it being, as they interpret it, a servile work, and all one as reaping; though, in the law just mentioned, it is manifestly distinguished from it. Their rule is (h).

“he that reaps (on the sabbath day) ever so little, is guilty (of stoning), ותולש תולדה קוצר הוא, and “plucking of ears of corn is a derivative of reaping”;”

and is all one as its primitive, and punishable with the same kind of death, if done presumptuously: so Philo the Jew observes (i), that the rest of the sabbath not only reached to men, bond and free, and to beasts, but even to trees, and plants; and that ου ερνος ου κλαδον, αλλ’ ουδε πεταλον εφειται τεμειν, “it was not lawful to cut a plant, or branch, or so much as a leaf”, on a sabbath day: and it may be what might make this offence of the disciples the more heinous was, that they plucked these ears, and ate them, and so broke their fast before morning prayer; for a man might not eat any thing on a sabbath day until morning prayers were ended in the synagogue, nor indeed on any other day; for they used not to eat bread till after they had offered the daily sacrifice, which was about the third hour of the day, or nine o’clock in the morning; nor did they eat till the fourth hour, or ten o’clock (k).

(f) Ib. c. 27. sect. 1. (g) R. Moses Kotzensis Mitzvot Tora prec. neg. 65. (h) Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 8. sect. 3. & 7. 1. (i) De Vita Mosis, 1. 2. p. 657. (k) Vid. Targum in Eccl. x. 17. Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 6. sect. 4

Albert Barnes
Mar 2:24
Upon the Sabbath day – The Pharisees, doubtless desirous of finding fault with Christ, said that in plucking the grain on the “Sabbath day” they had violated the commandment. Moses had commanded the Hebrews to abstain from all servile work on the Sabbath, Exo_20:10; Exo_35:2-3; Num_15:32-36. On any other day this would have been clearly lawful, for it was permitted, Deu_23:25.

John Calvin
Mar 2:25
Have you not read what David did? Christ employs five arguments to refute their calumny. First, he apologizes for his disciples by pleading the example of David, (1Sa_21:6.) While David was fleeing from the rage of Saul, he applied for provisions to the high-priest Ahimelech; and there being no ordinary food at hand, he succeeded in obtaining a part of the holy bread. If David’s necessity excused him, the same argument ought to be admitted in the case of others. Hence it follows, that the ceremonies of the Law are not violated where there is no infringement of godliness. Now Christ takes for granted, that David was free from blame, because the Holy Spirit bestows commendation on the priest who allowed him to partake of the holy bread. When he says, that it was not lawful to eat that bread but for the priests alone, we must understand him to refer to the ordinary law: they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy, (Exo_29:33.)

If David had attempted to do what was contrary to law, it would have been in vain for Christ to plead his example; for what had been prohibited for a particular end no necessity could make lawful.

Adam Clarke
Mar 2:25
Have ye not read what David did – The original history is in 1Sa_21:1-6.

When he was an hungered – Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the ancients concerning this story in these words: “Our rabbins of blessed memory say, that he gave him the shew-bread, etc. The interpretation also of the clause, Yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel, is this: It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for us to eat These Loaves, taken from before the Lord, when we are hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for the table sanctifieth), it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten. And a little after, There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life, beside idolatry, adultery, and murder. That is, a man, according to them, should do any thing but these in order to preserve life.” See Lightfoot.

He entered into the house of God – Viz. the house of Ahimelech the priest, who dwelt at Nob, with whom the tabernacle then was, in which the Divine presence was manifested.

And did eat the shew – bread – Τους αρτους της προθεσεως – in Hebrew, לחם פנים lechem panim – bread of the presence, or faces, because this bread was to be set continually, לפני יהוה lipney Yehovah, before the face of Jehovah. See the notes on Exo_25:23, Exo_25:30.

John Gill
Mar 2:26 How he went into the house of God,…. The tabernacle; for the temple was not yet built: thither David went to get bread for himself and his men, being hungry: so in a spiritual sense, where should such go, who are hungering and thirsting after righteousness, but into the house of God? Here is bread enough, and to spare; here is a table furnished with excellent provisions; here the Gospel is dispensed, which is milk for babes, and meat for strong men; here Christ, the bread of life, is set forth, whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed; here the ordinances are administered, which are breasts of consolation to the children of God; here is a feast of fat things, all things are ready, and souls are welcome, and therefore it must be right to attend here. And this was on the sabbath day that David went into the house of God: when the showbread loaves were removed, and divided, among the priests, and new ones were placed in their room: and so under the Gospel dispensation, on the Lord’s day, the day set apart for public worship, it becomes the saints to go up to the house of the Lord, and feed upon the provisions of it: they are a royal priesthood, they are priests, as well as kings to God; and their business is in the house of the Lord, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to him; and as the goodness and fulness of his house appertains to them, they do well to attend and partake thereof.

In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges (k) Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, “under Abimelech the high priest”; and in an ancient copy of Beza’s, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle επι may be so rendered, about, or “before Abiathar was high priest”, as it is in Mat_1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give,

“the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, הרי כהן גדול אמור, “lo! he is called an high priest”.”

So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call (m) Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father’s days, and very little after: to which may be added, that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, 2Sa_8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, 1Ch_18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, 1Ki_1:25. And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, “it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest”: for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.

And did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? Who not only ate the showbread, which was set before the Lord, and was sacred, and which none but the priests might eat of, after it was removed from the table; but he did this on the sabbath day; and he not only eat of it himself, but the soldiers that were with him: and all this with the knowledge and leave of the high priest: for the Jews (n) have no reason to charge this evangelist and the others with an error, that others besides David ate of the showbread, urging that he came alone to Ahimelech; since it is evident from 1Sa_21:2,

that David had servants in company with him when he fled, though they did not attend him when he went to the high priest; and that he asked bread, and it was given him, not only for himself, but for the young men that he had appointed to be at such a place: and therefore, if this was allowed to David and his men, when hungry, it ought not to be charged as an evil upon the disciples, for plucking and rubbing a few ears of corn to satisfy their hunger, though on a sabbath day; and especially when he, who was Lord of the sabbath, was present, and admitted of it; See Gill on Mat_12:4.

(k) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 9. c. 28. p. 419. (l) Siphra, fol. 17. 2. apud Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messiah, par. 2. p. 73. (m) Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 16. 2. (n) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 28. p. 420. Jacob Aben Amrara apud Kidder, Demonstr. of the Messiah, par. 3. p. 48.

and did eat the shewbread; for that this is meant by the hallowed bread, in 1Sa_21:6 is certain; though R. Joseph Kimchi (n) thinks it was the bread of the thank offering; to which R. Levi ben Getsom (o) seems to incline: but the general sense of the Jewish doctors (p) is, that it was the showbread; and which is very clear from that text, and is rightly affirmed by Christ;

which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests: see Lev_24:5 and so the Jews say that this bread אסור לזרים, “is forbidden to strangers” (q); that is, to any but the priests, which, after the burning of the frankincense, was divided equally among them: that course of priests that came into the service had six cakes, and that which went out six; though the high priest had a right to half himself, but he did not use to take it, it being judged not to his honour to do so (r). No hint is here given, nor in the history, in 1Sa_21:1 that it was on the sabbath day that David came to Ahimelech, and ate the showbread; but this is observed, and disputed, by the Jewish writers. Some indeed are in a doubt about it; but others (s) readily give into it, that it was on the sabbath day, which he chose to flee in, for the greater safety and preservation of his life: and indeed it seems reasonable it should be on that day; since on that day only the showbread was removed from the table, and other loaves put in the room. One of their writers (t) says,

“that showbread was not to be eaten, but on the day, and night of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath day; and on the going out of the sabbath David came there.”

Now our Lord’s argument stands thus, that if David, a holy, good man, and, the men that were with him, who were men of religion and conscience, when in great distress, through hunger, ate of the showbread, which was unlawful for any to eat of but priests, the high priest himself assenting to it; then it could not be criminal in his disciples, when an hungred, to pluck, rub, and eat a few ears of corn, which were lawful for any man to eat, even though it was on the sabbath day: and for the further vindication of them, he adds,

(n) Apud R. David Kimchi in 1 Sam. xxi. 6. (o) In ib. (p) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 95. 2. R. David Kimchi, Abarbinel & Laniado in 1 Sam. xxi. 6. (q) Laniado & Abarbinel in ib. (r) Maimon. Hilch. Tamidin, c. 4. sect. 12. 14. (s) Bemidbar Rabba Parash. 23. fol. 231. 9. Laniado Cli Jaker, fol. 226. 4. & 227. 2, 3, 4. & Jelammedenu in ib. (t) R. Isaiah in 1 Sam. xxi. 5.

Marvin Vincent
Mar 2:26
The shewbread (τοὺς άρτους της προθέσεως): Lit., the loaves of proposition, i.e., the loaves which were set forth before the Lord. The Jews called them the loaves of the face, i.e., of the presence of God. The bread was made of the finest wheaten flour that had been passed through eleven sieves. There were twelve loaves, or cakes, according to the number of tribes, ranged in two piles of six each. Each cake was made of about five pints of wheat. They were anointed in the middle with oil, in the form of a cross. According to tradition, each cake was five hand-breadths broad and ten long, but turned up at either end, two hand-breadths on each side, to resemble in outline the ark of the covenant. The shewbread was prepared on Friday, unless that day happened to be a feast-day that required sabbatical rest; in which case it was prepared on Thursday afternoon. The renewal of the shewbread was the first of the priestly functions on the commencement of the Sabbath. The bread which was taken off was deposited on the golden table in the porch of the sanctuary, and distributed among the outgoing and incoming courses of priests (compare save for the priests). It was eaten during the Sabbath, and in the temple itself, but only by such priests as were Levitically pure. This old bread, removed on the Sabbath morning, was that which David ate.

John Gill
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them,…. Continuing his answer to them, and adding, in confirmation of what he had said, and for the further vindication of his disciples,

the sabbath was made for man; for his good, and not for his hurt; both for the good of his soul, that he might have an opportunity of attending divine worship, both in public and private; and for the good of his body, that he might have rest from his labour; and this was the end of the original institution and appointment of it; and therefore works of necessity are not forbidden on this day; such as are for the necessary comfort, support, and preservation of life; or otherwise it would be apparent, that the sabbath was not appointed for the good, but for the hurt of men. By “man”, is not meant all mankind; for the sabbath was never appointed for all mankind, nor binding upon all; only the Jews, who are emphatically called “man”, or “men”; see Eze_34:30, upon which the Jewish writers remark (o), that

“they are called, אדם, “man”; but the idolatrous Gentiles, and nations of the World, are not called “men”;”

but dogs, beasts, &c. Our Lord may here be thought to speak in their language, as he does in Mat_. 15:26; see Gill on Mat_15:26. And that the observation of the seventh day, was only designed for the children of Israel, seems manifest from Exo_31:16, “wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant; it is a sign between me and the children of Israel”; and not between him and the rest of the world: and in Exo_31:14, “ye shall keep the sabbath, for it is holy unto you”: on which the Jews (p) make this remark, עממין לכם ולא לשאר, “to you, and not to the rest of the nations”: nor did they ever think that the Gentiles were obliged to observe their sabbath, only such who became proselytes to their religion; even those who were proselytes of righteousness: for a proselyte of the gate, was not bound to observe it; for so says (q) Maimonides,

“those who take upon them the seven commandments of Noah only, lo! they are as a proselyte of the gate, and they are free to do work on the sabbath day for themselves, openly, as an Israelite on a common day.”

Yea, they not only say, they were not obliged to keep the sabbath, but that it was not lawful for them to observe it; and that it was even punishable with death them to regard it; for so they say (r),

“a Gentile that keeps the sabbath before he is circumcised, is guilty of death, because it is not commanded him.”

They judged them unworthy of having this precept enjoined them, as being not men, but beasts, and worse than they, and had not the privilege the ass has: hence one of their commentators (s) says,

“concerning the rest of an ass, thou (O Israelite!) art commanded; but concerning the rest of a Gentile, thou art not commanded.”

And not man for the sabbath; who was in being long before that was appointed and enjoined.

(o) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 114. 2. Zohar in Exod. fol. 35. 4. (p) Zohar in Exod. fol. 26. 4. (q) Hilchot Sabbat, c. 20. sect. 14. (r) Debarim Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 234. 4. (s) Bartenora in Misn. Sabbat, c. 24. sect. 1.

Albert Barnes
Mar 2:27
The sabbath was made for man – For his rest from toil, his rest from the cares and anxieties of the world, to give him an opportunity to call off his attention from earthly concerns and to direct it to the affairs of eternity. It was a kind provision for man that he might refresh his body by relaxing his labors; that he might have undisturbed time to seek the consolations of religion to cheer him in the anxieties and sorrows of a troubled world; and that he might render to God that homage which is most justly due to him as the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, and Redeemer of the world. And it is easily capable of proof that no institution has been more signally blessed to man’s welfare than the Sabbath. To that we owe, more than to anything else, the peace and order of a civilized community. Where there is no Sabbath there is ignorance, vice, disorder, and crime. On that holy day the poor and the ignorant, as well as the learned, have undisturbed time to learn the requirements of religion, the nature of morals, the law of God, and the way of salvation. On that day man may offer his praises to the Great Giver of all good, and in the sanctuary seek the blessing of him whose favor is life. Where that day is observed in any manner as it should be, order prevails, morals are promoted, the poor are elevated in their condition, vice flies away, and the community puts on the appearance of neatness, industry, morality, and religion. The Sabbath was therefore pre-eminently intended for man’s welfare, and the best interests of mankind demand that it should be sacredly regarded as an appointment of merciful heaven intended for our best good, and, where improved aright, infallibly resulting in our temporal and eternal peace.

Not man for the sabbath – Man was made “first,” and then the Sabbath was appointed for his welfare, Gen_2:1-3. The Sabbath was not “first” made or contemplated, and then the man made with reference to that. Since, therefore, the Sabbath was intended for man’s “good,” the law respecting it must not be interpreted so as to oppose his real welfare. It must be explained in consistency with a proper attention to the duties of mercy to the poor and the sick, and to those in peril. It must be, however, in accordance with man’s “real good on the whole,” and with the law of God. The law of God contemplates man’s “real good on the whole;” and we have no right, under the plea that the Sabbath was made for man, to do anything contrary to what the law of God admits. It would not be for our “real good,” but for our real and eternal injury, to devote the Sabbath to vice, to labor, or to amusement.

Matthew Poole
Mar 2:28
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Some interpreters make these two arguments:

1. The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath; therefore it is in my power to dispense with this action of my disciples, though it had been contrary to the letter of the law: or rather, therefore it is in my power to interpret the law, which I myself made.

2. The sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath. A law made for the good of another bindeth not, in such cases where the observation of it would be evidently for his harm and ruin. The law of the sabbath was made for the good of man, that he might have a solemn time, in which he should be under an obligation to pay his homage unto God; this must not be so interpreted as would tend to the destruction of a man.

I find interpreters divided about that term the Son of man. Some think that it is not to be interpreted, as usually in the gospel, concerning Christ; but of ordinary men, and that man’s lordship over the sabbath is proved by the subserviency of it to his good, to which end also it was ordained. But certainly that is both a dangerous and unscriptural interpretation: dangerous to give man a lordship over a moral law, for it is very improper to call any lord of a thing, because he hath the use of it, and it is for his advantage: I cannot see but we may as well make man lord of the whole ten commandments as of one of them. Unscriptural, for though our Saviour useth this term more than threescore times in the gospel, yet he always useth it with relation to himself, never with reference to any mere man; neither is there any necessity to understand it otherwise here. Christ affirming himself Lord of the sabbath, spake properly enough to the Pharisees’ quarrel; for it must needs then follow, that he had power to dispense with the observation of it at particular times, and much more to give a true and right interpretation of the law concerning it.

John Gill
Mar 2:28 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. By “the Son of man” is meant, not any man, as some have thought; for no mere man is lord of any law, moral or ritual, natural or positive; or has a power of disposing of it, and dispensing with it at pleasure; but Christ himself; which is the constant sense of this phrase in the New Testament, and is a character of the Messiah in the old, Dan_7:13 who, as he was the institutor of the sabbath among the Jews, that being a ritual, and of mere positive institution, could dispense with it, and even abrogate it at his pleasure. The Jews so far agree to this, that he that commanded the law of the sabbath, could dispense with it; they say (z), that

“the day on which Jericho was taken was the sabbath day; and that though they slew and burnt on the sabbath day, מי שצוה על השבת צוה לחלל שבת, “he that commanded the observation of the sabbath, commanded the profanation of it”.”

And since Christ is greater than the temple, and has all the perfections of the divine nature in him, is equal to the Father in power and glory; and even as mediator, has all power in heaven and earth given him; so as he is Lord of all other things, he is of the sabbath, and has a power of dispensing with it, and even of abolishing it; see Col_2:16 and since the Lord of the sabbath had a power of dispensing with it, and made use of it in the cases of David and his men, and of the priests in the temple formerly; the Pharisees ought not to think it strange, that the Son of man, who is equally Lord of the sabbath, dispensed with it in his disciples now.

(z) R. David Kimchi in Josh. vi. 11.

Adam Clarke
Mar 2:28
The Son of man is Lord – See on Mat_12:7, Mat_12:8 (note). Some have understood this as applying to men in general, and not to Christ. The Son of man, any man is Lord of the Sabbath; i.e. it was made for him, for his ease, comfort, and use, and to these purposes he is to apply it. But this is a very harsh, and at the same time a very lax, mode of interpretation; for it seems to say that a man may make what use he pleases of the Sabbath; and, were this true, the moral obligation of the Sabbath would soon be annihilated.

God ordained the Sabbath not only to be a type of that rest which remains for the people of God, but to be also a mean of promoting the welfare of men in general.

The ordinances of religion should be regulated according to their end, which is the honor of God, and the salvation of men. It is the property of the true religion to contain nothing in it but what is beneficial to man. Hereby God plainly shows that it is neither out of indigence or interest that he requires men to worship and obey him; but only out of goodness, and to make them happy. God prohibited work on the Sabbath day, lest servants should be oppressed by their masters, that the laboring beasts might have necessary rest, and that men might have a proper opportunity to attend upon his ordinances, and get their souls saved. To the Sabbath, under God, we owe much of what is requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul.

Date of birth unknown; died about the year 215

Saint Clement was a great theologian and the head of The Catechetical School of Alexandria. The start of his journey in the Christian faith and most likely his birthplace Athens.

After being a servant to many theological maters Saint Clement found himself in Alexandria. He founded his school that he headed up for 20 years, and had over 180 students. Alexandria was fitting for such an endeavor. It was the center for culture and trade. It was a city mixed with culture and philosophical thought. Neo-Platonism was widespread as well as Gnosticism. The Jews also were there in large numbers, and also adopted the secular philosophical culture. Alexandria truly was the most enlightened colony of the Dispersion.

Given the landscape of Alexandria St. Clement took on the task of trying to foster up true faith among the people. He wrote the Protreptikos pros Ellenas (Hortatory Discourse to the Greeks). It was a lofty and well written appeal for the Faith. His apologetic works effectively impacted pagan and the faithful alike.

I find it very interesting the St. Clement took The Greeks science and philosophy to be like the Torah of the Hebrews. They are a preparation for the Gospel. He made sure all students were given a solid education that was both The Gospel of Christ and a sound liberal teaching.

Great regard surrounded St. Clement and his school. He was known as a man who would sit with non-christian scholars. He paved the way for his understudy Origen who is arguably one of the greatest theologians of Greek Christianity.

We should strive to be like St. Clement. Finding balance within Christian theology and liberal thought. Using Scripture, Holy Tradition, and reason (science) when it comes to our understanding of faith. Mostly to be open to positive dialog with those of other faith traditions.

Prayers
O God of unsearchable mystery, who led Clement of Alexandria to find in ancient philosophy a path to knowledge of your Word: Grant that your Church may recognize true wisdom, wherever it is found, knowing that wisdom come from you and leads to you; through our Teacher Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

One of the reasons that I, along with others, find GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy to be so addictive is his description of his journey from unbelief to faith in Christ. Key in that journey was his early recognition of the healthy approach to life found in fantasy literature. Therein, life is ordered as it ought to be. Good triumphs over evil. Triumph only comes after significant commitment and dedication to a principled life.

While Chesterton does not put it into such words, the world of fantasy calls upon us to be greater, while this life leaves us grappling with our sinfulness. This life is a fallen life; the world of fantasy is life as it ought to be. The world of fantasy is what Chesterton calls Elfland, a land which, in his words, is “nothing more than the sunny country of common sense.”

This appreciation for Elfland was transmitted from Chesterton to his fellow Christian Brits – JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis. The latter is known for his employment of the fantasy genre of literature (The Chronicles of Narnia and the Space Trilogy) as an overt means to communicate the Christian faith. The former is considered by many to be the master of fantasy literature with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was not written as an allegory of the Christian faith. Yet, Tolkien did write the trilogy from a decided Christian worldview, a worldview that believed good triumphs over evil after dedicated, principled action – a theme shared by fantasy literature and Christianity.

It is this shared theme which prompts Chesterton to speak of Santa Claus as one who points us to Christ. Yes, Chesterton knows of the historical Saint Nicholas who certainly confessed Christ, but, in Chestertonian fashion, he sees the “Ethics of Elfland” shining through Santa Claus, thus reminding us of Christ. Thus, Chesterton writes of his days prior to coming to faith: “The test of all happiness is gratitude; and I felt grateful, though I hardly knew to whom. Children are grateful when Santa Claus puts in their stockings gifts of toys or sweets. Could I not be grateful to Santa Claus when he put in my stockings the gift of two miraculous legs? We thank people for birthday presents of cigars and slippers. Can I thank no one for the birthday present of birth?”

In the ethics of Elfland, Santa Claus teaches us that there is One who is defined as giver of good gifts, to whom I owe my highest gratitude.

Hermas [A.D. 80]

“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery” (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr [A.D. 151]

“In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts” (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).

“And so those who make second marriages according to human law are sinners in the sight of our Teacher” (First Apology 250: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.ii.iii.html)

Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 208]

“That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’ And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband” (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).

Tertullian [approx 200AD]

And the reason why He has abolished divorce, which “was not from the beginning,” is, that He may strengthen that which “was from the beginning”—the permanent conjunction, (namely), of “two into one flesh:”  for fear that necessity or opportunity for a third union of flesh may make an irruption (into His dominion); permitting divorce to no cause but one—if, (that is), the (evil) against which precaution is taken chance to have occurred beforehand.  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.vii.ix.html

Origen [AD 248]

“Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her” (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Elvira [AD 300]

“Likewise, a woman of the faith who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not receive Communion—unless he that she has left has since departed from this world” (Canon 9).

“If she whom a catechumen [an unbaptized person studying the faith] has left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that Communion is not to be given to her even at death” (Canon 10).

Basil the Great [375]

“A man who marries after another man’s wife has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery in the case of the first woman; but in the case of the second he will be guiltless” (Second Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).

Ambrose of Milan [AD 389]

“No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. ‘If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce’; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another” (Abraham 1:7:59 [A.D. 387]).

“You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’” (Commentary on Luke 8:5 [A.D. 389]).

Jerome [AD 396]

“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another” (Letters 55:3 [A.D. 396]).

“Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives” (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

Pope Innocent I [AD 408]

“[T]he practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead” (Letters 2:13:15 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine [AD 419]

“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery” (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).

“A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication” (ibid., 2:4:4).

“Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419]).

“In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously” (ibid., 1:17:19).

Of this bond the substance // undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live; and that it should be unlawful for one consort to be parted from the other, except for the cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church; so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation for ever. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvi.v.xi.html)

Thomas Aquinas [approx 1250]

Article. 4 – Whether it was lawful for a divorced…I answer that, According to the first above mentioned opinion, she sinned by marrying another husband after being divorced, because her first marriage still held good. For “the woman . . . whilst her husband liveth, is bound to the law of her husband” (Rom. 7:2): and she could not have several husbands at one time. But according to the second opinion, just as it was lawful by virtue of the Divine dispensation for a husband to divorce his wife, so could the wife marry another husband, because the indissolubility of marriage was removed by reason of the divine dispensation: and as long as that indissolubility remains the saying of the Apostle holds. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP.ii.XP_Q67.XP_Q67_A4.html)

Article. 5 – Whether a husband can marry again… I answer that, Nothing supervenient to marriage can dissolve it: wherefore adultery does not make a marriage cease to be valid. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i, 10), “as long as they live they are bound by the marriage tie, which neither divorce nor union with another can destroy.” Therefore it is unlawful for one, while the other lives, to marry again. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP.ii.XP_Q62.XP_Q62_A5.html?highlight=divorce#highlight)

Article. 1 – Whether it is lawful for a husband…I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital intercourse with the unfaithful one. There are however seven cases to be excepted in which it is not lawful to put away a wife who has committed fornication, when either the wife is not to be blamed, or both parties are equally blameworthy. The first is if the husband also has committed fornication; the second is if he has prostituted his wife; the third is if the wife, believing her husband dead on account of his long absence, has married again; the fourth is if another man has fraudulently impersonated her husband in the marriage-bed; the fifth is if she be overcome by force; the sixth is if he has been reconciled to her by having carnal intercourse with her after she has committed adultery; the seventh is if both having been married in the state of unbelief, the husband has given his wife a bill of divorce and she has married again; for then if both be converted the husband is bound to receive her back again. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP.ii.XP_Q62.XP_Q62_A1.html)

Other

From the high view of marriage, and also from an ascetic over-estimate of celibacy, arose a very, prevalent aversion to re-marriage, particularly of widows. The Shepherd of Hermas allows this reunion indeed, but with the reservation, that continuance in single life earns great honor with the Lord. Athenagoras goes so far as to call the second marriage a “decent adultery.”

The Montanists and Novatians condemned re-marriage, and made it a subject of discipline.

Tertullian came forward with the greatest decision, as advocate of monogamy against both successive and simultaneous polygamy.

He thought thus to occupy the true middle ground between the ascetic Gnostics, who rejected marriage altogether, and the Catholics, who allowed more than one.

“Non prohibemus secundas nuptias, ” says Ambrose, “sed non suademus.” None of the fathers recommends remarriage or even approves of it. Jerome represented the prevailing view of the Nicene age. He took the lowest view of marriage as a mere safeguard against fornication and adultery, and could conceive of no other motive for second or third marriage but animal passion. “The first Adam, ” he says, “had one wife; the second Adam had no wife. Those who approve of digamy hold forth a third Adam, who was twice married, whom they follow” (Contra Jovin. 1). Gregory of Nazianzum infers from the analogy of marriage to the union of Christ with his church that second marriage is to be reproved, as there is but one Christ and one church (Orat. XXXI). (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.x.xii.html?highlight=remarriage#highlight)

Below was a useful summary of the church’s position on divorce and remarriage by the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  The full article can be found here.

The concluding summary was (emphasis added):

The views of church leaders and scholars have been guided by their interpretation of the biblical teachings on marriage and divorce. Not all have interpreted these passages in like manner. Indeed, some have come virtually to opposite conclusions. Because they were writing largely for men, most of their remarks and illustrations concern women at fault. Generally, however, either directly or by allusion, they agree that what applies to one sex applies equally to the other.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers generally permitted divorce on the ground of adultery. Some even required it. At the same time, remarriage was usually forbidden. Not only did it cut off any chance of marital reconciliation, but many in the church regarded marriage as an indissoluble bond which continued unbroken until the death of one spouse. Thus (prior to such an occurrence), remarriage was an adulterous act and the offender was liable to [p.141] excommunication. There was not, however, unanimity. Some, like Origen, allowed remarriage after a divorce on the ground of adultery. Others (e.g., the Council of Arles), while deploring remarriage, did not require excommunication as a penalty. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers were stricter in their interpretations of Jesus’ sayings. No matter what a spouse had done, remarriage following divorce was out of the question.

Augustine’s position became the foundation of the Roman Catholic view of marriage as a sacrament. When contracted between two communicants, marriage is indissoluble. Where only one is a believer, spiritual adultery is involved and a divorce may be permitted (along with remarriage, under certain conditions). This position was challenged during the Renaissance by some of the humanists (e.g., More and Erasmus), but it was reaffirmed during the Counter-Reformation by the Council of Trent as official dogma. Numerous impediments to marriage were noted, however, whereby marriages might be annulled.

The Protestant Reformation brought a fresh examination of the biblical teachings. The Continental Reformers, while holding a high view of marriage, eschewed its sacramental nature. They permitted remarriage by an innocent party after a divorce because of adultery or desertion.

The Anglicans generally held positions close to those of Roman Catholicism. While scandalized by the notion of marriage as a sacrament, they nonetheless tended to regard remarriage after divorce as adultery (although there were those who diverged from that opinion).

The dissenting denominations tended to follow the views of the Reformers. Some, like Milton, were very flexible as to cause, but most followed the Westminster divines in pronounced restraint.

Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel reflecting an ancient Christian perspective of 'appropriation'

Tonight President Barrack Obama announced the United States’ intention to increase troop levels by 30,000. At this point the U.S. and other Western nations have been embroiled in an arduous struggle with groups like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others. The clarion call for the majority of the western world was the attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001. These are difficult and painful realities that all of us in one way or another are forced to presently deal with.

These current political realities, however, betray a cultural war that has been going on for at least five hundred years – perhaps even two millennia. This cultural war is a struggle of ideas and broad disagreement on how truth is discovered. It is a disagreement on what role reason plays in an individual’s life and what place should things like religion and revelation play within society. Beginning with Greek rationalism in the sixth century BCE western civilization began to undergo a significant shift in its orientation to the natural world and to the intellect. Prior to this the Greeks conceptualized nature as the expression of various deities and as events in history as expressions of their various and capricious wills. This shifted, though, with the advent of philosophy in both the pre-Socratic and post-Socratic period. Democritus for example argued that all living things were composed of atoms (discreet instances of matter that could no longer be broken down) and that things like people, animals, and other organisms were merely the composite of these particles. Death was simply the dissolution of these particles and birth was their recombining in new forms. Socrates too, in his various dialogues, questioned the logic of divine worship, and of grounding morality in the will of a deity (‘Eutrypho’ is one example). He argued instead that these things could be discovered through reason; the careful and slow task of asking questions of one’s self, and the physical world around us. Our knowledge would always be limited to some degree but we could at least know some things.

The chief antagonist to ancient philosophy was the nascent Christian church. Early Christians argued that God’s revelation in Jesus had preeminence over human reason. Reason’s role was important, but subservient to what God had made known to us through revelation. If reason posed serious questions to what had been revealed, than it must be misguided. An expression of mankind’s desire to not submit to their creator. Anything that agreed with the Christian revelation was a pre-cursor to the Gospel. The early father’s of the church like Irenaeus, Origen, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa and others argued for something known as ‘appropriation.’ Since Jesus was God’s word, they argued, all that is found by human reason and agrees with the Gospel was actually an expression of God’s revelation in pre-Christian cultures. In this sense, people like Socrates were viewed as ‘Pre-Christian christians’ and could thus be ‘appropriated’ by the Church. One example of this perspective is Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel in which biblical Hebrew prophets are alternated with Greek Oracles who also foretold the coming of Jesus. This perspective in which revelation has preeminence and reason a subservient role was consolidated in the West when Emperor Justinian ordered Plato’s Academy closed in 529 AD and the study of philosophy apart from revelation was outlawed.

This was not to last forever, however. Beginning in the thirteenth century western Europe underwent a Renaissance in which classical Greek and Roman literature was rediscovered. Emphasis slowly began to shift and society again began to view reason differently. People began to re-read the works of Plato, and other philosophic treatises that had survived. The result was the emergence of nascent Science: studies in anatomy, medicine, and more. Emphasis began to be placed on learning the original languages in order to read texts in their original context. An emerging sense of history as ‘other’ began to appear. This eventually led to the Enlightenment of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Religion increasingly had a more and more marginalized role within western Europe. By the time the nineteenth century was coming to a close the inroads had gone so far that religious institutions began to react. The early twentieth century saw the creation of religious groups that insisted upon the ‘fundamentals’ of their religion. These groups increasingly saw themselves as in reaction to the dominant culture who had largely undercut religion’s importance in every day life.

Now at the beginning of the twenty-first century this same war of ideas continues. The battles of the past century in the West has become the battle of the current century among Islamic communities. Muslims like Abul Ala Muwadudi, a Pakistani journalist and politician in the 1950’s feared that Islam itself was under threat and about to disappear. The result was a united attack and mobilization against secular modernism throughout the 60’s and 70’s. A man by the name of Sayyid Qutb took this even further. He argued that not only the west but also Islamic society itself had become permeated with secularism and had to be purged. It was men like this who inspired Ossama Bin Laden and others to form the Islamic fundamentalist coalition against western nations like the U.S. They feel as though their very religion and way of life are at stake.

In the end only history will tell us how this will end and where it will all lead. What is clear, however, is that the issues we are facing are not simply geo-political or militaristic. They are ideological. What is needed is a broad cultural education. We need to learn our current place in history and we need bright people in our universities to write and educate. Again, no one knows where this will all lead but personally I think there is a ‘Brave new world’ ahead and this current issue is another expression of fundamentalism’s reaction to religion’s increased marginalization. The religious traditions that have nurtured us for the past 2500 years cannot remain as they have; they will need to evolve as they always have. Refusal to adapt is simply to court further marginalization. Religion must meet our needs and fears: ones now shaped by stem cell research, cloning, and genetic engineering. Again, only time will tell.

If this topic interests you, read the following to get started out: The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism by Karen Armstrong.

December 6 has been set aside by Christians for over a millenium to remember St. Nicholas of Myra, the historic figure behind Santa Claus (Santa being “Saint” and Claus being an abbreviation of “Nicholas”). Troubled by the crass materialism of the American treatment of Christmas, many Christians consider jettisoning St. Nick altogether. I encourage Christians to recall and proclaim the true St. Nicholas, who not only gave gifts to children, but more importantly confessed Christ. To that end, since December 6 falls upon a Sunday this year, I gave consideration to commemorating St. Nicholas during the Divine Service. I decided not to do so as it could create challenges for parents of young children, challenges which they can and should address, but which I ought not thrust upon them without advance warning and preparatory work.

Nevertheless, it meet, right and salutary for Christians to reflect upon St. Nicholas on December 6. He stands for us as a fine example of Christian charity and faithful confession of Christ. A light-hearted, yet poignant treatment of Nicholas’ place in Christian history, authored by Dr. Gene Edward Veith, may be read here. What follows is my own synopsis of St. Nicholas’ life and work.

St. Nicholas died on December 6, 343 AD, giving rise to that day being set aside for his commemoration.  He truly is a fine Christian example for us all.  He was bold in his proclamation of Christ which even led him to be imprisoned during the reign of Diocletian, who issued an edict in 303 AD authorizing the systematic persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire.  While St. Nicholas’ unflinching faith in the face of persecution is admirable, his contributions to Christianity are even more renowned for his service at the Council of Nicea, which set forth the Biblical teaching of Christ’s divinity in the words of the Nicene Creed.  St. Nick was also known for displaying his faith through loving service of others.  That characteristic was most clearly seen in the gifts that he would give to impoverished children.  This, of course, is the historic basis for Santa delivering gifts to children. 

It is a faithful portrayal of St. Nicholas to describe him as being one with the shepherds in his devotion of Christ which spurred him on to glorify and praise God for all that he had heard and seen of Christ. Christians have an excellent opportunity to join in that glorification and praise of God by using the message of the historic St. Nicholas to cause the light of Christ to shine and thus redefine our culture’s interest in Santa Claus.  Some would prefer to ditch St. Nicholas altogether due to the commercialization of his name.  Yet the perversion of someone’s true personality is not a sound reason to pretend they do not exist.  I would pray that after I have entered the Church Triumphant in heaven I would be defended by Christians still on earth from someone misrepresenting me.  Our brother-in-Christ deserves better than us passing him off as non-existent or allowing him to remain simply a commercial/cultural icon in the minds of many.  Just as the apocryphal story of the cherry tree does not bring Americans to altogether dump George Washington, Christians ought to defend and speak well of the true St. Nicholas.  Likewise, Lutherans (along with many other Christians) are not ready to dump Martin Luther, even though some have erroneously taught that he is the progenitor of certain Nazi policies (this is the Shirer Myth – with a heavy accent on myth).  So too, The DaVinci Code and other cultural phenomena have spoken falsely of Christ, yet we are certainly not ready to let falsity trump the Truth.

It is apparent that much of Europe and North America has lost sight of the historic reason for lifting up jolly old Saint Nicholas (a.k.a. Santa Claus).  This beloved brother in Christ, who has served for centuries as an example of Christian charity, has become morphed in recent generations (at least in America) into something other than one who kneels at the cradle of the Savior, paying homage as did the shepherds.  A Christ-less Santa Claus is not only a disgrace to Nicholas, but to Christ who created Nicholas, died and rose for him, and called him to faith.  Nicholas’ faithful service in the church as a pastor and Christ’s grace in choosing to use him for such means should stand as a call to action for Christians today.  When I am asked if I believe in Santa Claus, I am proud to say, “I believe the same thing that Santa believes; I believe in Christ.” 

Such a loss of focus upon the true Santa Claus is a reminder to us of the importance of and challenges within traditions.  Traditions are incredibly important as they shape and frame a community’s identity and basic worldview.  Yet traditions are also challenging because when the tradition is morphed, the community’s identity and worldview morphs along with it.  When society seeks to drain a Christian saint of his eternal identity, how ought we react?  Go along with it?  Deny the saint?  Or, how about we stand up and speak the truth, for the sake of our brother who now resides in Christ’s presence, for the sake of Christ’s honor, and for the sake of speaking the truth, the Gospel to those who need it. 

It is also a reminder to us of the importance of establishing healthy traditions within our own homes, our congregation, our community, etc.  Those traditions can include eating Sunday breakfast together each week at an hour that allows the whole family to be in church and Sunday school every week.  Those traditions can include lighting each family member’s baptismal candle on their baptismal birthday.  Those traditions can include eating supper together each evening, followed by the reading of a family devotion.  Those are the kinds of traditions which honor Christ and build up the family.