Naming the Nameless November 11, 2009
Posted by Damian in Early Christian Belief and Patristics.Tags: Cain, Jephthah, Job, Jubilees, Moses, Noah, Potiphar, Seth, witch of Endor
add a comment
From a fun post at the Scriptorium Daily on the nameless characters in the bible:
Cain’s wife. Never mind where she came from, what was her name? Awan. And Seth’s wife was named Azura. Where does this information come from? the apocryphal Book of Jubiliees, chapter 4.
Noah’s wife? Metzger says that over 100 different names have been assigned her! Emzara is the one given in Jubilees.
Potiphar’s wife? Zuleika, according to postbiblical Jewish legends.
The daughter of Pharaoh who took Moses from the water and raised him as prince of Egypt? Thematis, or maybe Bithiah.
Job’s wife? Well, the first one was named Sitis, and the second one was Dinah, the daughter of Jacob.
Jephthah’s daughter? Seila.
The witch of Endor? Sedecla.
Click through for more. I think I’d like to read Metzger’s chapter on the nameless.
Justification in 1 Clement, Part 2: Has God justified everyone? October 9, 2009
Posted by Damian in Early Christian Belief and Patristics.Tags: faith, Jesus, hell, Clement, sacrifice, atonement, justification, dead, hell is empty, common faith, justified by works
add a comment
I recently found myself a copy of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, and so I’ve had a chance to finally read through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers for the first time. Reading through the first letter of Clement, I came across two mentions of Justification. In this post, I’ll talk about the second (I wrote about the first yesterday):
And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or piety, or works that have been done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. (32 v.2)
Now, I freely admit I’m not up on the ongoing debate on Justification. I haven’t read the most recent books by John Piper or Tom Wright. So I’m not talking about justification in the technical senses argued in those books (although, if you wish, you can bring it up for discussion – just be prepared to do a lot of explaining).
This passage – to me – seems to suggest something that I’ve argued in the past by virtue of efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice (in five parts: One, Two, Three, Four and Five). That is everyone who has existed, exists and will exists, have to be saved, simply because the sacrifice of a divinity is worth that much and so much more. To paraphrase what Clement says here: We Christians are not justified on our own, or through our wisdom, or by being devoted to God, or by manifesting our faith in actions, but through faith, and through faith God has justified everyone who has ever been, and everyone who ever will be.
There are two sides to this verse. The first ties into what we discussed yesterday. I said: Only God knows if we truly have faith. But the only true evidence of a life of faith are the actions a man takes regarding his faith. However, here Clement speaks (in my understanding, at least) as if not even our actions justify us. Contrary to what he said in 31 v.4, he says that none of these things, including our actions, can justify us.
But he says something furthermore that I found fascinating: We are justified through faith, by which God has justified all who have existed from the beginning. I must ask the question: How can faith justify those who have not the chance to have faith, that is, the dead? I suggest three possible answers:
- Clement is speaking of Christ descending to the dead: Hell is empty, and that all the dead have faith and are justified.
- Clement is speaking of a common faith: All who have ever existed have possessed faith, but only through Christ has that faith come to justify them.
- Clement is speaking of an abstract faith: Because faith can now be placed in Jesus, all are justified.
One way I find it hard to interpret Clement, is in the way that most view faith: Faith in Jesus justifies individuals. This is because Clement claims that all who have ever been born have been justified. To me, this passage of Clement, whatever his meaning, certainly lends credence to my belief that that for Christ’s sacrifice to regarded as effective, its effect must be universal. Is anyone aware of any interpretations of this passage in the literature or in commentaries?
Justification in 1 Clement, Part 1: By faith? October 8, 2009
Posted by Damian in Devotional, Early Christian Belief and Patristics.Tags: apostolic fathers, belief, by faith alone, Clement, faith, Isaiah, James, John Piper, justification, justification by faith alone, N.T. Wright, sola fide, Tom Wright
add a comment
I recently found myself a copy of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, and so I’ve had a chance to finally read through the writings of the Apostolic Fathers for the first time. Reading through the first letter of Clement, I came across two mentions of Justification. In this post, I’ll talk about the first:
Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. (30 v.3)
Now, I freely admit I’m not up on the ongoing debate on Justification. I haven’t read the most recent books by John Piper or Tom Wright. So I’m not talking about justification in the technical senses argued in those books (although, if you wish, you can bring it up for discussion – just be prepared to do a lot of explaining).
I think that this passage says a lot about what we mean by faith, and what we mean by sola fide: Justification by faith alone. I’ll paraphrase: In situations of argument, we should be graceful, agreeable, humble and self-controlled, and should not retaliate or slander those who disagree with us. It is enough we should be justified by what we do and have done.
There seem to me to be two evidences of faith. The first is our words : “I have believe in God, the father almighty…et cetera” , or, if you’re of a less traditional upbringing, “I accept Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Saviour”. These speak about faith, but are simply words. One can say the words, but have no faith, very little faith, or be a cup overflowing with faith.
The second evidence of faith is our actions: The things that we do. We can contribute to charity; work at soup kitchens; dig wells. I can have a career as a doctor, or as an aid worker, or as a lifesaver. We can bring good news to those without hope, we can heal those who are broken, we can bring justice to those who suffer injustice, set free those who are captive. James 2:20 speaks of this, saying that faith without works is dead. Again, to paraphrase: It doesn’t matter what we say, for if our actions do not display our faith, we do not have faith.
Only God can see to the issue of what lies in our hearts. Only God knows if we truly have faith. But the only true evidence of a life of faith are the actions a man takes regarding his faith. I think God will judge us on that evidence. It seems to me that I agree with Clement: We are justified by our works, and not by our words.
Canon vs. Scripture October 6, 2009
Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Early Christian Belief and Patristics.6 comments
Two interesting quotes from Michael W. Holmes “The Biblical Canon” (in the Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies) struck me as relevant to my post last week regarding whether or not our Christian canon should be closed (thanks Mike Bird):
‘…it is clear that ‘canon’ presumes the existence of ’scripture’, but ’scripture’ does no require a ‘canon’. There can be scripture without a canon, but no canon without scripture – no ‘list’ or ‘catalogue’, because there would be nothing to put on the list. Canonicity is a matter of list-making, not scriptural status.
[...]
We may ask: Is it ‘a list of authoritative books’ or ‘an authoritative list of books’? In the former, the emphasis is on the intrinsic authority of the books, whereas in teh altter, the focus is on the ascribed authority of the list. Some have argued that only the latter properly catches the meaning ‘ canon’, in the sense of a closed official list, incapable of alteration, that consciously both includes and excludes.
In my experience, the fact that a writing is in the Bible (the fact that it’s on ‘the List’) indicates its scriptural status to most Christians. Hence, it is the authority of the list that tends to be revered, rather than the authority of the books. This is made especially evident in the fact apocryphal books have now for the most part been rejected from most Protestant bibles: People recognize anything on ‘the list’ as authoritative.
J.K. Gayle on uses of feminine language in describing God September 27, 2009
Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Early Christian Belief and Patristics, Relating to God.Tags: holy spirit, Isaiah, psalms, Matthew, Luke, Hebrew, Gospel of Matthew, Augustine, Psalm, Job, gender, feminine God, solomon, female God, femininity, masculinity, feminine characteristics, womb, beyond gender, is God male?, God is a mother figure, rechem, el maleh rachamim, word-play, Rob Bell's She, nooma, she, wombful, goddess, odes of solomon, julian of norwich, julian, Calvin, God as mother, Gospel of Luke, breast, Confessions, Augustine's Confessions, the breast of Jesus, mother hen, shadow of your wings, shelter in the shadows of your wings, shelter
2 comments
J.K Gayle has entered the feminine language conversation, writing a series of posts. The first tackles how Jesus described himself in the gospels with reference to women; the second featured Clarence Jordan’s translations of the same passages, and the third collects some references within the tradition that were new to me, but more importantly, looks at the “de-feminising” effect of translation into Greek from Hebrew of a lot of Jesus imagery. There’s some bits and pieces I want to reproduce here, basically because I’d like to be able to access them easily.
- Leviticus 14:10, Isaiah 53:7 and 2 Samuel 12:2-3 all reference the sacrificial lamb as a ewe-lamb. Christ’s title as ‘Lamb of God’ is a feminine one.
- Links for uses of feminine language in Augustine: Homily 3 on the 1st Letter of John, and from Sermon 369:
Whoso knows that he is born, let him hear that he is an infant; let him eagerly cling to the breasts of his mother, and he grows apace. Now his mother is the Church; and her breasts are the two Testaments of the Divine Scriptures. Hence let him suck the milk of all the things that as signs of spiritual truths were done in time for our eternal salvation, that being nourished and strengthened, he may attain to the eating of solid meat, which is, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Our milk is Christ in His humility; our meat, the selfsame Christ equal with the Father. With milk He nourishes you, that He may feed you with bread: for with the heart spiritually to touch Christ is to know that He is equal with the Father.
and
Our savior, born of the Father apart from any day…. Go on being filled with wonder; the one who bore him is both mother and virgin; the one she bore is both speechless infant and Word. Rightly did the heavens speak…. Give suck, mother, to our food; five suck to the bread that came down from heaven (Jn 6:58), and was placed in a manger…. Give your breast to the one who made you such that he might be made in you, who both gave you the gift of fertility when he was conceived, and did not deprive you of the honor of virginity when he was born; who before he was born chose for himself both the womb from which he would be born and the day on which he would be born.
- Links to the prayers of St. Anselm and Julian of Norwich.
Thanks for your involvement, J.K.! I really appreciate your input – you’ve taught me a lot in these posts.


