Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles

Article VIII

Of the Three Creeds

The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

De Tribus Symbolis

Symbola tria, Nicaenum, Athanasii, et quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur omnino recipienda sunt et credenda; Scripturarum testimoniis probari possunt.

(Composed in 1552 by the English Reformers)

Fr. Robert Hart

Before getting into the meat of this Article, it is necessary to discuss the final few words as they relate to the present day controversies about the nature of Anglicanism. The simple straightforward words, “for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture,” should present no problem to anyone who understands the Catholic Tradition of the Universal Church.  Unfortunately, however, we live in a time when people react to those words because they have been given misinformation in the place of education, and wrongfully imagine some great dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition.

          In 1552 that apparent dichotomy was unheard of. The English Reformers made no new statement by writing these words, and certainly created no innovation. The popular notion, widely assumed in our time, that they were rejecting the Catholic Tradition in favor of a new doctrine of sola scriptura, as if it had been invented in the sixteenth century, has already been corrected in a previous chapter of this series that dealt with Article VI. In short, there was nothing revolutionary, innovative or rebellious in their words.

          It is correct and accurate, therefore, to point out what it is that critics of the English Reformers are actually saying when they make their objection: They are really saying, if they would think about it, that they do not believe that the Catholic Tradition of the Universal Church is Scriptural.

Such a claim runs counter to the official beliefs of all Catholic churches, contradicting the stated beliefs not only of Anglicans, but of the Papal Communion of the Church of Rome, and the Catholic churches called Orthodox. The words that close Article VIII are echoed in recent Vatican documents, such as Dominus Iesus (released under the Papal imprimatur of Pope John-Paul II in 2000), that says very simply about the Scriptures, “These books have God as their Author.” We, as orthodox Anglicans, have our respective disagreements with Rome and Orthodoxy (as they do with each other). But, none of our communions (in our case, Continuing Anglicans of the Concordat churches) would argue that the words of the Creeds ought to believed due to some inherent authority of their own, or that they presented new doctrines that “developed” by some evident and discernable process we may call authoritative.

          It may seem like a clever argument to amateur theologians, especially those who are champion jousters on the internet, to declare that the closing words of Article VIII create a separation from the Catholic Tradition. It may seem clever to those who imagine the existence of some Canon of the Tradition. Like the mysterious “Q” document, however, such a canon tends to be arbitrary, often colored by subjective tastes or misinformation. The real Canon, properly called the Canon, is the Scripture. On that the English Reformers wrote in perfect accord with the Catholic Tradition of the Universal Church, and with the mind of the most ancient catholic bishops and doctors who met at Nicea in 325 AD and in Constantinople in 381 AD.

          Indeed, if any extra Biblical formula of doctrine may be called a canon of the Tradition, it is the Nicene Creed (or to be more exact, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). But, is it really extra Biblical? Granted, the Creed itself is not in the Bible; but, it is a summary of the Doctrines of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, recalling the facts of our salvation history and of our future assurances as promised by God. Everything in it comes from the Bible, and all of the arguments made in Nicea (325) were drawn from the Bible. The final edited version of the Creed, as made in Constantinople (381 AD), was simply a practical way of making the Creed available for adaptation to liturgy and for use in teaching, as the purpose was now one of teaching the people rather than one of silencing heresy (of course, I am foreshadowing points we will make below in this chapter).

          St. Athanasius (circa 293-373), who eventually became the Archbishop of Alexandria, was a deacon at the Council of Nicea. He served as a chief apologist for the orthodox doctrine against the heresy of Arius. St. Athanasius made his arguments from Scripture, in fact he made them ex scriptura sola, because Scripture was the only available source of direct Apostolic teaching. The records of the Council make these things certain: It was not some thing called “the Petrine chrism” of the as yet unknown concept of “papal infallibility” (a new “dogma” as late as 1870 AD), nor was it some “Development of Doctrine” based simply on consensus in the Council. It was the arguments drawn from Scripture that won the day.

          The balance is found in this simple fact: The Church understood the meaning of Scripture before the Council; the heresy of Arius clashed with Tradition, that is, with the doctrine of the Church that had been taught, after the deaths of the Apostles, from the Scriptures within the body of doctrine that was handed down.  But, it is equally true that the heresy of Arius clashed with the body of doctrine that was handed down within the Scriptures.

So, as we noted in our chapter on Article VI, those who see a dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition simply do not understand the authentic Catholic Tradition of the Universal Church. The words that close Article VIII were not innovative, revolutionary or contrary to Catholic Tradition. If they may be called Protestant words, then it is in accord with the authentically Anglican conviction that true Reformation restored Catholic Faith; it did not reject it. Indeed, on what basis other than the Catholic Tradition of the Universal Church could the Church of England have asserted so boldly, and with complete confidence, the closing words? “For they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” Not merely supported, but proved, to say without doubt.

          The Apostles’ Creed is so-called not because it came from the Apostles in its present form, but because it summarized their doctrine. This most ancient of creeds commonly used today, was drawn from baptism rites, and it was interrogative. That is, it was addressed to the catechumen just before baptism in the form of questions and answers: “Do you believe in God the Father?” The answer was, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” And so on.

          The Creed called Nicene was born in controversy. But, much misinformation is embraced today about the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Partly because of a poorly researched fiction novel called The DaVinci Code (apparently intended to mean the Leonardo Code; for even the title itself is the first indication of historical laziness and error), and partly because of sensational (howbeit financially profitable) works by very bad scholars such as Elaine Pagels, it is wrongly believed by many uneducated people that the Council of Nicea was about Gnosticism, that it was run by Emperor Constantine to fit some agenda of his own (as if he had reason to care deeply about who won a theological debate), and even by many that certain books were removed or “banned” from the Bible. None of these assumptions and popular notions is true; in fact, none of them are even partially accurate.

          Another misconception comes from a school that has, in their own imaginations, elevated Cardinal Newman’s seriously flawed theory of Doctrinal Development into a dogma of the Church (in this case, of Rome). Because the word homoousion  (or homoousios -“of one substance”) was first used in the Council, arguments have been put forward to the effect that the Council taught something new, or that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not clear from the Scriptures, all to argue for their cherished notion from a nineteenth century argument against Protestantism. But, what they really end up supporting is the Arian heresy itself, echoing in their own way the error of modern Arians called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” who teach their people that the Council invented the doctrine of the Trinity. Trying to argue for their favorite version of what they call “Catholicism” they simply argue against the Christian faith altogether.

          Yes, the Council did coin the word homoousion. But, just as the word “Trinity” is a quick way to refer to a doctrine of the Apostles that is revealed very clearly in the Scriptures, though the word is not in the Bible, so too this word. The word homoousion is not in the Bible, but the teaching it speaks of most certainly is.

          Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria who taught that the Son was a created being, not God. Following with that same logic, he taught that the Holy Spirit was merely an impersonal force. His bishop, Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria, was the one who first opposed him. In rebellion against his bishop, Arius continued to teach his heretical doctrine. The bishops of the Church gathered at Nicea not for the purpose of trying to figure out whether or not the Son is equal to the Father or merely a creature, a created and lesser god, but to defend the teaching of the Church against serious error. Arius was not summoned there to help them with a “discernment process.” Instead, in a real way, he was the subject of a heresy trial. The result of the Council was “the Creed called Nicene.” Since the Book of Common Prayer uses this title for the final edited version that was produced decades later, we may be sure it is that version of which the Article speaks. For your benefit, however, let us take a look at both of them together (the translations are modern).

Nicea 325 AD

We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], of one substance [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

1. And those who say
1. "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that
2. he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia], affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration: 

these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

Constantinople 381

We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance (Gr. homousion) with the Father, through whom all things were made; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father's right hand; he is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end. And in the Spirit, the Holy, the Lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen.

As is obvious, the Creed of Constantinople as adapted for use in liturgy, with each believer affirming it himself (I believe) is “the Creed called Nicene.” The doctrine is one and the same, but the second version is stated in a completely positive manner, partly because they may have felt some relief from that particular controversy in which the actual Nicene version was written, and partly to make the Creed a tool for instruction to be used locally in the churches.

The Creed as finalized in Constantinople gives a more thorough teaching about the Holy Spirit for the same reason that the Nicene Creed says so much more about the Son than had been said in the Apostle’s Creed. That is, because of heresy the Church was forced to clarify even more precisely what her teaching always had been. Between 325 and 381, the heretical school of the Pneumatamachi (fighters against the Spirit), sometimes called the Macedonians (due to their place of origin) taught that Holy Spirit is not a Person, but merely a force. The most famous writer to oppose them was the Cappadocian Father, Saint Basil. The final Creed called Nicene clarifies for us that the Holy Spirit is fully God, equal to the Father and to the Son, “who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.”

The Creed of Saint Athanasius or Quicunque vult  is named after the saint not because anyone supposed he had written it, but simply in his honor as one who defended the true doctrine of the Trinity. Unlike the Creeds of Nicea and Constantinople, it was written in Latin only. The records of the Ecumenical Councils had been written in both Greek and Latin, including the Creeds. But, this Creed is a product of the western Church.

          The purpose of this creed is one of instruction, particularly on the subject of the Trinity. For example, the creed provides clarification that, although there can be no separation between the Persons of the Godhead, we have been given revelation sufficient to make distinctions between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not confusing them.

          One objection that is made to this creed has to do with the opening: “Whosoever will be saved : before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.  Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled : without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.  And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.”

Taken every literally, this opening seems to make proper theological learning a necessary work one must perform to be saved. Furthermore, such a crass doctrine of salvation by learning rules out the salvation of little children, or of the simple who cannot learn. It seems to be a valid objection on the face of it. In fact, however, the opening of this creed is really about the danger of teaching false doctrines, not different in intended meaning from St. Paul’s words in Galatians 1:8,9:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Nor is it really different in meaning from the words of the Creed written in Nicea in 325 AD, “these [false teachers] the Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes.”

It is also important that the point is about the God we worship, not One we vainly presume to comprehend with our intellect. The creed says, “That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.” This cannot really be different from the words of Jesus in John, the fourth chapter (22-24):

“Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

The fruit of our salvation, even in this life as well as in the world to come, is that we are given revelation sufficient to worship God in truth as he has revealed it, and grace to worship Him in truth because He changes our hearts by His Spirit.

Fr. Laurence Wells

This is the first Article where the version contained in the American Prayer Book differs significantly from that in the English Prayer Book.  Whereas the original named the "Symbola tria," (a feature held in common with Lutheran and Continental Reformed Confessions), the American Book has this article only in a truncated and mangled form, with the Athanasian Symbol purposefully excluded. 

The major point of Article VIII is to keep the doctrinal heritage of the Anglican tradition firmly plugged in to Catholic tradition.  The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have already been covered in the first seven Articles.  But Article VIII goes out of the way to insist that these are no new discoveries or sectarian doctrines; we have received these doctrines because we belong to an older and greater tradition.

Therefore we must deplore the surgery on Article VIII which took place in the early American Church as we give thanks for the correction of that crime in the Affirmation of St Louis, which happily affirms the place of the Athanasian Symbol.  But the scar serves to remind us of how close the American Church in its infancy came to even more drastic steps.  In 1785 a trial liturgy, called the "Proposed Book," was set forth which omitted not only the Athanasian Creed but the Nicene Creed as well.  We must thank Bishop Seabury for resisting this book and the English bishops who reviewed the thing for their severe remonstrances.  In the Prayer Book adopted in 1789, the Nicene Creed was salvaged, and for good measure, it was made an option at the Daily Office.  But most of the time it is still just an option even in the Communion Office.  Under the rubric on page 71, a parish church could get by with saying the Nicene Creed only five times a year.  Surely it is a sign of the Holy Ghost residing in the Body of Christ that the Nicene Creed did not go the way of the Decalogue and the Exhortations into virtual desuetude.  The Athanasian Creed, however, was not restored and has become almost unknown to American Anglicans.

Anyone who wants to know the Athanasian Creed better should try to get his hands on a thin book (only 140 pages) by J. N. D. Kelly entitled "The Athanasian Creed."  He shows that the earliest evidence of this Creed is in the writing of Caesarius, who was bishop of Arles, in France, in the first half of the 6th century of the Christian Era.  The least ancient of the Three Creeds, the Athanasian Creed (which is familiarly known from its opening Latin words Quicunque vult)  has its origins well within the Conciliar period. 

What is not so commonly known about the Quincunque is that it clearly asserts the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit, the controversial Filioque.*  In it we find:  "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."  This is not the place to explore that thorny issue.  But wherever the authority of the Athanasian Creed is acknowledged, we are (to put it bluntly) stuck with the Filioque.  The evidence seems to be that this clause "leaked" through osmosis from the Athanasian into the version of the Nicene Creed set forth at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.  Whereas the usual narrative holds that this Council altered the Nicene Creed in a high-handed and illegal manner, it might be argued that the Filioque was merely a clarifying gloss borrowed from an equally authoritative Creed. 

Fr Hart has written well of the oblique manner in which this Article (probably without a conscious intention) affirms the final appeal to Scripture.  The verbiage in the original is "firmissimis Scripturarum testimoniis."  The Latin word order is contrived to intensify the superlative "most certain."  We note that in the 16th century, the inerrancy of Scripture was not under debate.  The Articles assume a hierarchy of doctrinal authority.  At the lowest level, the Articles themselves (a contemporary and regional manifesto), next, three classic documents which embody the universal Church's deposit of faith, and finally and supremely, the Word of God written in the Scriptures.

_____

* This subject was covered in the chapter of this series on Article V. 

This concludes Part I, "The Catholic Articles, I-VIII." In the next chapter we begin Part II, "Personal Religion, Articles IX-XVIII."

African bishop defends and supports American "dissenters"

The never ending soap opera of division and strained relations caused by the Archbishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), John Hepworth, has resulted in a very open letter from their own Right Reverend Michael Gill, Bishop of Pretoria and Southern Africa. It was posted by David Virtue on VOL. In it, the African bishop writes to support and defend Rt. Rev. Daren Williams, Rt. Rev. Brian Marsh and Rt. Rev. Stephen Strawn (Anglican Church in America, ACA), who together had been the subject of public attack from Abp. Hepworth via certain blogs. These bishops had been attacked for their decision to abide, each one, by his own conscience by refusing the "offer" to join the new "ordinariate" that may (or may not) be established in the U.S. under the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus. 


Bishop Gill has called this attack "trial by blog," naming quite specifically the chief offenders among bloggers, and accusing Abp. Hepworth of abusing the opportunity provided by these direct public forums. 

Bp. Gill writes: 


As far as we in the CoB (College of Bishops) are aware, The Messenger Journal remains the official forum to disseminate TAC information. The College of Bishops has never ratified either the Anglo Catholic blog, nor Catholicusanglicanus as an official mouthpiece for the TAC, despite the Primate using both as such from time to time as it has suited him. Much of the "correspondence" addressed to you and ostensibly copied to the TAC College of Bishops, appearing on those blogs, has never arrived in our email inboxes, nor ever been received in hard copy. The so-called recipients would therefore never even know that the letters exist. 


He writes as well that the TAC "Patrimony of the Primate" rule that has been invoked by  Abp. Hepworth lacks the authoritative status attributed to it by Hepworth. 


I am also aware that you all agreed to the "Patrimony of the Primate" proposal from Archbishop Falk and Archbishop Hepworth in your House of Bishops, to function under Bishop Moyer, but the application of this dubious innovation seems to have been seriously divisive. The subsequent foundation of a 'Pro-Diocese' under Bishop Campese in the USA within the Patrimony of the Primate is particularly worrying to me as a fellow TAC Bishop Ordinary, as our TAC Concordat requires that any new Diocese go through the College of Bishops for approval and discussion. 


Here, on The Continuum, we have posted our own criticism of Hepworth's high and heavy handed treatment of Bishops Williams, Marsh and Strawn, and of the potential dangers of the highly divisive, entirely uncatholic and innovative TAC version of "Patrimony of the Primate." All the way back in September we posted defense and support of the three ACA bishops offered by the Chancellor of the Anglican Catholic Church, Original Province (ACC-OP), Rev. Canon John Hollister (his Open Response). I have written about the intrusion into parish unity and the utter chaos that the TAC "Patrimony of the Primate" threatens to unleash, most recently in February.

More Monday recreation

I think it was in 1998 that I composed this, beginning as an improvisation.

Second Sunday in Lent

(I Kings 8: 37-43)

I Thess. 4:1-8 
Matt.15: 21-28

Prologue:

Sadly, in this period of history, some of the clergy have preached a false gospel about another Jesus (II Cor. 11), not the Christ of the Scriptures. They have abused the text from St. Matthew and taught that Jesus was enlightened by this experience, that He overcame his Jewish prejudices, and that he learned to accept others for who they were. Can they really imagine that this Man, who years earlier at the age of twelve knew the truth of His unique relationship with His Father (Luke 2:49), suffered the same foolishness that is common to fallen and sinful men? In fact, their message is blasphemy and heresy. They drag the Lord Jesus down to our level, as if He was from below, as if he was of this world (John 8:23).

Jesus acted and spoke deliberately to this woman, with perfect wisdom and genuine compassion-as always. He knew what he was doing, and had no need of enlightenment. He is the Light. In Him was no darkness then, and in Him is no darkness now. He saw clearly then, and He sees clearly now. It is he Who teaches, and it is we who learn from Him. His words and actions that day were perfect, and we have no reason to presume otherwise.

Something strange to us
Nonetheless, in today’s Gospel we do see something strange to our way of thinking, as modern Westerners long accustomed to thinking of Christianity as universal, perhaps even as democratic in the classic sense, maybe as egalitarian to some degree, or, at the very least, as polite. We see Jesus appear unwilling to help this Gentile woman until she humbly acknowledges that she, not being Jewish, is like a dog asking for scraps that fall from the Israelite table.
           It seems even more strange after the Morning Prayer lesson from I Kings in which Solomon asks God to grant the prayers of the stranger who comes and prays in the Temple, having heard of God’s great Name, that all the world may know that there is only one God. It seems strange when we remember that Jesus had angered the people of His hometown by saying that they would reject Him, but that as Elijah was sent to a Gentile widow, and as Elisha had cured the leper Naaman, from Syria, His own ministry would benefit even the Gentiles who would trust Him.
          The story of Naaman is very dramatic, and a lot like this story. The Syrian General, who had been Israel’s enemy, came to be healed by the prophet Elisha. By the grace of God, he was healed, but not before humbling himself and accepting the one demand that the prophet made; that he wash himself in the Jordan river (and what do we learn from this? Naaman’s mikvah, his cleansing, in the River Jordan signifies that some day the Gentiles would be able to enter into the covenant by baptism). The prophet did not even bother to come meet this very important man, but simply sent a messenger. At first Naaman was angry and started to leave in a huff, but his friends reasoned with him. Like this woman we read of today, he had to humble himself in order to receive a gift from God.

    Of course, Jesus did grant her request, and before He was finished, He commended her for her faith. But why did He put her through it? What point was He making?

   
The New Covenant and children of Abraham
The point has everything to do with the Covenant, specifically the Covenant that God made with Abraham. Abraham is the father of the people of Israel, which means, as St. Paul would write, that he was the father of all who have faith in the true and Living God, the true God Who is known only by the revelation of Himself. Out of that Covenant came the other Covenants, the Covenant of Sinai, when the Law was given to the people who were freed from slavery in Egypt, and the Covenant of the Kingdom made with David. These grew out of the Covenant that God made with Abram, when he was yet uncircumcised, that is when he was still a Gentile named Abram, and had not yet become Abraham, circumcised and the father of Isaac, and thereby the father of a multitude.

     The last Covenant to grow out of the Covenant of promise to Abraham was the Covenant that Jesus Christ would make, the New Covenant, the B’rit Hadashah, prophesied of by Jeremiah:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake, though I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying Know the LORD: For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the LORD: For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jer. 31: 31-34)."

     In a few minutes we will hear the words of Jesus: "This is My Blood of the New Testament, shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sin." The disciples at the Last Supper knew what He was referring to, for they knew these words of the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

    But, before proceeding with what we can say about that, we need to see that the Gentile woman who came to Jesus was not included in the Covenants of God made with Israel. She was, to use the words of Isaiah, from the 57th chapter of his book, one who was "afar off." St. Paul described the situation of the entire Gentile world in these words: "Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles...at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world..." He concludes, "But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2: 11-13)."

    Our Lord helped the woman, and granted her prayer, as she was the stranger coming to the One Who was greater than the temple, and was making her prayer of the One true God, the only God in all the earth (I Kings 8:41-43). But, first He made clear the truth, and it was for her to accept it in humility. She was an outsider, and was not requesting something to which she was entitled; she was not one of the children. Understand, that her faith changed this, as faith did for the centurion whose servant was healed. Foretold in that ancient story of Naaman is the truth of what happens when one who is “afar off” has faith. When Jesus commended this woman’s faith, He was not simply granting her request, but acknowledging her as a daughter of Abraham, a Gentile no longer.
    This is lost on many people who cannot understand the words of this woman, when she spoke with humility. Against the warning of St. Paul they "boast against the root" that bears them, that is against the Jewish heritage of the Church by which all Christians are made children of Abraham through faith in Jesus Christ. They presume, they boast, and think that God is a modern egalitarian Who accepts everyone and everything as six of one and half a dozen of the other. We are very comfortable hearing about the New Covenant, and the forgiveness of sins, but what does it all entail? What do we need to be asking and learning?

    Is the New Covenant made with all mankind? We know that there is only one God, and that Jesus would send His disciples on the mission, the true mission of Israel, to be the light of the world, a light to the nations. "Go and make disciples of all nations," He would tell them, after His resurrection, "baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matt. 28: 19,20) So, it seems that the Covenant is with all mankind equally- right? Wrong.

    Look again at the words that Jeremiah spoke, to which Jesus clearly alluded, by speaking of the New Covenant. Jeremiah said that the New Covenant is with the house of Israel; it is not made with the nations. It is part of the Covenant of Promise made with Abraham. The only people with whom God made the New Covenant are the Israelites, not the Gentiles. If you understand that, you must then begin to understand why the Great Commission is given with these provisions and conditions: The disciples from all nations must be baptized in the Name of God, the Trinitarian Name; and they must be taught to live by all of Christ’s commandments.

    The New Covenant brings with it the Law written on the human heart, the forgiveness of sins, and the knowledge of God. The people who enter into it by baptism, and who have faith in Jesus Christ, are not Gentiles; Christians are not called Gentiles; rather St. Paul says "ye were Gentiles in time past." He writes to the Roman Christians that they have been grafted into the tree of Abraham. He tells the Ephesians and the Corinthians that they were Gentiles (past tense), and that when they used to be Gentiles they were led astray by dumb idols. But, now, in Christ, they have been brought near by the Blood of the Messiah, the Blood of the New Covenant and the forgiveness of sins.

    The Law is written on our hearts, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. We read it and learn it; but more than simply that, it is within us on a deep level of conscience that is unknown to unbelievers. For we know not only the Law of Christ- about which more needs to be said- we know the One Who gives it. We know and love the Lawgiver; we are personally affected by His great act of love when we think of the cross of His Passion. We know what it means that we are bought with a price, that is, His blood. His Spirit is within us, and we have a conscience quick to feel, which we could not have otherwise. This is the meaning of the Epistle reading for this day, St. Paul’s first Epistle to the Thessalonians: "This is the will of God, even your sanctification."

    In Lent we are reminded of this portion of the New Covenant in a special way, not to be forgotten the rest of the year; that the Holy Spirit writes the Law on our hearts, and that we know God in a manner that makes our consciences grieve when we sin against Him; and that convicts our consciences to live in a way that pleases Him. For, having entered into the New Covenant, and having been made a part of Israel by faith, we are given that Law as our guide, we are given the forgiveness of sin, and we know the Lord. The words of Isaiah are true for us: "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our king, He is our Salvation." (Isaiah 33:22)

    The message of the Church to God’s ancient people of Israel is, "the temple is here, the sacrifice is here, the Messiah Whom we know will come again; this is your heritage as children of Abraham, born to live under the New Covenant." Our message to the whole world, and its many nations which, to this day, worship many false gods, is, "there is no God in all the earth but in Israel; We know Him through Jesus Christ."

And now unto God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost be ascribed, as is most justly due, all might, majesty, dominion, power and glory henceforth world without end. Amen. 

For further study see this also.

Fr Wells' Bulletin Inserts

LENT II

Concerning the Gospel:

Today's Gospel is echoed in one of our most beloved prayers, the Prayer of Humble Access, with the words “We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table.” This is derived from the Canaanite woman's humble plea, “Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.”

This Gospel is truly a puzzling passage. Many have stumbled in its interpretation. Some have said that Jesus was having a bad day, treated the woman rudely, but came around when she outwitted him with her clever reply. Others have opined that Jesus shared the prejudices of his Jewish race against Gentiles, but this woman helped him to overcome his narrowness. Really!

We must study the reactions of Jesus to this woman carefully. He moves from (1) utter silence, to (2) a statement of His mission, then to (3) a statement of testing, and finally to (4) a statement of delight and abundant grace. “Great is thy faith! Be it unto thee even as thou wilt.”

The silence of Jesus reminds us that God is sovereign and acts on His own timetable. The statement of His mission, “but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” reminds us of the great separation and demarcation which runs from “the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman” in Genesis 3 to the final separation of the sheep and the goats at the Last Judgment. And yes, indeed, God truly tests us. No person of faith will claim that God has never tested him. The untested person probably has no faith at all or faith in small degree.

Possibly (and here we cannot be sure) the Gentile woman only knew of Jesus as a wonder-worker, someone who could simply oblige her desires, like the nine lepers who were healed and promptly abandoned Jesus. Her words “thou son of David” surely appear to recognize Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world, but that had to be tested.

The scene changed when the woman expressed her own humility, unworthiness, and utter dependence on Divine grace. The woman has no one else to go to; she has no other option, no other place to look for healing. Jesus is her last resort. Her prayer is the prayer of desperation.

When we learn that we too are just as needy as this woman, having no Saviour but Jesus, and are truly the dogs eating crumbs from God's table, then we too will hear Jesus's own voice speaking to us here and now, “Great is thy faith! Be it unto thee even as thou wilt.”

Concerning the Epistle:

“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification,” St Paul writes in the passage we read today from I Thessalonians. Paul is well known for his unfolding of the great theme of Justification, God's gracious act in simply declaring sinners to be righteous when we look to Christ as our Saviour. That simple faith unites us to Christ so that His righteousness becomes our righteousness and God accepts us as perfectly righteous in His sight.

But as joyful a message as this is, there is more. The rest of the Good News is continued in the word “sanctification.” Whereas Justification is a judicial decree, declared once for all when the sinner turns to Christ, this is continued in a process which has no end in this lifetime. Paul wrote elsewhere “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). Put simply, the Christian is not only a man who believes in Christ, but a person undergoing a process. That process is called sanctification.

Sanctification means becoming holy. In this text in I Thessalonians Paul was thinking of passages in the Old Testament, such as Leviticus 19:2. “You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy.” That sounds like an impossible command. Jesus did not make matters any easier when He said, “Be ye therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). We know what this word “perfect” means: faultless, without blemish, surpassing all standards of excellence. Paul tells us this is the will of God for us.

At this point we are bound to feel a bit of spiritual frustration and say, “That is too hard. God is asking too much of us.” We can hide behind a mask of false humility and say, “Oh, I know I will never be perfect.” That trite saying all too frequently really means, “I am satisfied with myself exactly as I am; I feel no need to improve.”

God never commands anything He does not give grace to fulfill. When our dear Lord said, “Be ye therefore perfect,” His words were both command and promise. “Be ye perfect” can also mean, “you will be perfect.”

Holiness, sanctification, perfection (these three words are all the same) have been called “the moral result of Christ's atoning work.” They refer to the inward moral rehabilitation, in which sinful hearts slowly become pure hearts, unclean minds become clean minds, impure lives become pure lives. That is God's will for us and His work in us. It has been well said that God loves us enough to accept us as we are, but too much to leave us as we are.

From the Rector’s Desk

As prepared for my congregation at St. Benedict's

Why do we fast in Lent (each according to one’s state of health)? A lot of theories get thrown around about this question, and a few half-baked answers come with them. The most clear and consistent answer from the Bible may seem strange at first; that is until we practice it. The reason given for fasting is to humble oneself before God. This is stated most directly in Psalm 35:13: “But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.” The Law of Moses associates fasting primarily with the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), detailed in Leviticus chapter 16. Jewish tradition calls this day “the Fast,” which is reflected in the New Testament (Acts 27:9).

            This humbling of one’s soul, to humble yourself before Almighty God, is very consistent with the purpose of Lent. The practice is not designed to make you feel humble (though it can). Rather, it is the Biblical method by which one does humble oneself in practice. And, just as the quotation from the Psalm (above) demonstrates fasting that goes with prayer for others, so the Prophet Isaiah tells us that God’s chosen fast is accompanied by works of mercy, giving alms to care for the needs of the poor. This combines the three things Jesus spells out for us as works we should all do in secret, not to be seen by others, but by God Who sees in secret. In the sixth chapter of Matthew we see that Christ’s Disciples (i.e. all Christians) are supposed to practice good works of prayer, fasting and mercy to the poor, content to please an audience of One.

St. Patrick's Breastplate

For the Saint's Day

We sing seven of these verses in the American Hymnal 1940. This is a translation of the whole thing as St. Patrick wrote it.  Sláinte!

I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this day to me forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in the Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour,
The service of the seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.

I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch,
His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.

Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.

Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.

Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.

Lent reading

The following was written in 1688 by Bishop Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, as a letter to all his clergy preparing them for Lent. We posted this before in 2009. It is valuable to read each year early in this season. 

All Glory be to God.

Reverend Brother,

THE time of Lent now approaching, which has been anciently and very Christianly set apart, for penitential humiliation of Soul and Body, for Fasting and Weeping and Praying, all which you know are very frequently inculcated in Holy Scripture, as the most effectual means we can use, to avert those Judgments our sins have deserv'd; I thought it most agreeable to that Character which, unworthy as I am, I sustain, to call you and all my Brethren of the Clergy to mourning; tomourning for your own sins, and to mourning for the sins of the Nation.

In making such an address to you as this, I follow the example of St. Cyprian, that blessed Bishop and Martyr, who from his retirement wrote an excellent Epistle to his Clergy, most worthy of your serious perusal, exhorting them, by publickPrayers and Tears to appease the Anger of God, which they then actually felt, and which we may justly fear.

Remember that to keep such a Fast as God has chosen, it is not enough for you to afflict your own soul, but you must also according to your ability, deal your bread to the Hungry: and the rather, because we have not onely Usual objects of Charity to relieve, but many poor Protestant Strangers are now fled hither for Sanctuary, whom as Brethren, as members of Christ, we should take in and Cherish.

That you may perform the office of publickIntercessour the more assiduously, I beg of you to say daily in your Closet, or in your Family, or rather in both, all this time of Abstinence, the 51st Psalm, and the other Prayers which follow it in the Commination. I could wish also that you would frequently read and meditate on the Lamentations of Jeremy, which HolyGregory Nazianzen was wont to doe, and the reading of which melted him into the like Lamentations, as affected the Prophet himself when he PenÍd them.

But your greatest Zeal must be spent for the Public Prayers, in the constant devout use of which, thePublick Safety both of Church and State is highlyconcern'd: be sure then to offer up to God every day the Morning and Evening Prayer; offer it up in your Family at least, or rather as far as your circumstances may possibly permit, offer it up in the Church, especially if you live in a great Town, and say over the Litany every Morning during the whole Lent. This I might enjoyn you to doe, on your Canonical Obedience, but for Love's sake I rather beseech you, and I cannot recommend to you a more devout and comprehensive Form, of penitent and publick Intercession than that, or more proper for the Season.

Be not discourag'd if but few come to the Solemn Assemblies, but go to the House of Prayer, where God is well known for a sure Refuge: Go, though you go alone, or but with one besides your self; and there as you are God's Remembrancer, keep not silence, and give Him no rest, till He establish, till He make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.

The first sacred Council of Nice, for which the Christian world has always had a great and just veneration, ordains a Provincial Synod to be held before Lent, that all Dissensions being taken away a pure oblation might be offer'd up to God, namely of Prayers and Fasting and Alms, and Tears, which might produce a comfortable Communion at the following Easter: and that in this Diocese, we may in some degree imitate so Primitive a practice, I exhort you to endeavour all you can, to reconcile differences, to reduce those that go astray, to promote universal Charity towards all that dissent from you, and to put on as the Elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another and forgiving one another, even as Christ forgave you.

I passionately beseech you to reade over daily your Ordination Vows, to examine yourself how you observe them; and in the Prayers that are in that Office, fervently to importune God for the assistance of His good Spirit, that you may conscientiously perform them. Teach publickly, and from house to house, and warn every one night and day with Tears; warn them to repent, to fast and to pray, and to give Alms, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, warn them to continue stedfast in that faith once delivered to the Saints, in which they were baptiz'd, to keep the word ofGod's Patience, that God may keep them in the hour of Temptation; warn them against the sins and errours of the age; warn them to deprecate publick judgments, and to mourn for publick provocations.

No one can reade God's holy Word but he will see, that the greatest Saints have been the greatest Mourners: David wept whole Rivers; Jeremy wept sore, and his Eyes ran down in secret places day and night like a Fountain; Daniel mourned three full weeks, and did eat no pleasant bread, and sought God by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth and ashes; St. Paul was humbled and bewailed and wept for the sins of others; and our Lord himself when He beheld the City wept over it. Learn then of these great Saints, learn of our most compassionate Saviour, to weep for the publick, and weeping to pray, that we may know in this our day, the things that belong to our peace, lest they be hid from our eyes.

To mourn for National Guilt, in which all share, is a duty incumbent upon all, but especially on Priests, who are particularly commanded to weep and to say, Spare Thy people, O Lord, and give not Thine Heritage to reproach, that God may repent of the evil, and become jealous for His Land, and pity His people. [4/5]

Be assur'd that none are more tenderly regarded by God than such Mourners as these; there is a mark set by Him on all that sigh and cry for the abominations of the Land, the destroying Angel is forbid to hurt any of them, they are all God's peculiar care, and shall all have either present deliverance, or such supports and consolations, as shall abundantly endear their Calamity.

Now the God of all Grace, who hath called you unto His eternal Glory by Christ Jesus, make you perfect,stablish, strengthen, settle you in the true Catholic andApostolick Faith profess'd in the Church of England, and enable you to adorn that Apostolick Faith with anApostolick Example and Zeal, and give all our whole Church that timely repentance, those broken and contrite hearts, that both Priests and People may all plentifully sow in Tears, and in God's good time may all plentifully reap in Joy.

From the Palace in Wells,

Febr. 17. 1687.

Your affectionate
Friend and Brother,

Tho. Bath and Wells.

First Sunday in Lent

II Corinthians 6:1-10
Matthew 4:1-11

This week we have seen a disaster, another great earthquake and tsunami, bringing back memories of what happened with the great tsunami that hit on Dec. 26, 2004, and of the earthquake in Haiti only a little more than a year ago. A lot of people have died, a lot are still unaccounted for, and many are suffering. The full dangers regarding a nuclear power plant are not yet known.

I cannot help but think, when I hear Christians trying so hard to make sense out of the evil in the world, that they need to read my younger brother’s second book, The Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart. Because in that book he states the most liberating truth of all about the evils that happen so often in the world. Namely, that we should not try to make sense out of them. Christ did not come to make sense out of the evil in the world, neither to justify God against the charge that suffering and tragedy must indicate some kind of flaw, or lack of true goodness. Christ did not come to show that evil and woe, whether by human malice or natural disaster, fit a larger and higher purpose that is somehow necessary in God’s scheme of things. Indeed, he never suggests that it does. The Gospel for today shows that a time comes to resist temptations that are spiritual in nature; and the internal pressure to commit bad theodicy is one that I wish most clergymen would resist.

What Christ did in fact actually come to do, is told to us by Saint John: “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil (I John 3:8).” The cross of Christ made use of the evil that is done by violent men and unjust authorities; but it does not fit into a pattern that needs evil in order to balance the scales and make the universe work. On His cross He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In His resurrection he destroyed death.

The liberating truth of the Gospel is not that God will make sense of evil and tragedy; but rather that Christ has won the victory against the senseless, meaningless condition of suffering and death, of sorrow and tragedy, that we experience while we live in this condition of being fallen, subject for the time being to pain in a world that knows death because it knows sin. The fact that we will die, and that life is "this vale of sorrows,” that illness, poverty and disaster fall upon all sorts and conditions of men, will yield and give way at Christ’s coming again to the fullness of complete victory over every consequence of Adam’s Fall. Death will be no more, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Our hope is not that we will someday make sense of evil; Our hope is in the Living Christ Who was dead and is alive forevermore, who holds the keys of Hell and of death; Who will, when He returns in glory, destroy the last enemy- Death- and share with us the spoils of His conquest over the grave.

So, I cannot make sense of the Holocaust, or the American Holocaust of millions of innocent babies murdered by abortion. And, as my brother’s book was dealing with quite directly, I cannot make sense of the tsunami that killed so many people on December 26th of 2004, or of the disasters that have hit Haiti and Japan. I am free to mourn, and to face sorrows, not because I believe they must make sense, but because I know that they make no sense, ultimately- even when they are used for good by Providence, as the selling of Joseph into Egypt, and the good use made of Christ’s cross. In my article forTouchstone, titled Her Mother’s Glory, I related the fact that my beloved adopted daughter was conceived by rape. After my wife’s courageous battle to have and to keep her daughter, against all the forces that were trying to pressure her to abort the child, I married Diane and adopted Hannah (who is now grown up and happily married). God alone is the Author of Life, even when something as hideous as rape has been committed; and no child is unworthy to see the light of day because of someone else’s sin. This is what I wrote about that:

“What if the Author of Life takes the opportunity to do good from someone’s evil? The injustice done to Joseph resulted in the saving of his life, and that of millions of people, foreshadowing the good done for the whole world by the unjust crucifixion of a young rabbi from Nazareth. It is ever the way of God to make good come from the evil that men do.”

Providence is always at work, and so, yes, God takes the evil that men do and turns it into good. This is not because He needs the evil; He is not dependent upon anything- certainly not evil. It is simply that He always wins, and His goodness cannot be deterred or overcome. When evil is as evil as it can be, God is still good and is also All-powerful, able to give life and to act by His eternal character of Love. As Joseph said, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive (Genesis 50:20).”

All of this relates to the last of the three temptations we read about today. The Devil tempted the Lord to enter right away into His kingdom and, as clichés go, to “make the world a better place.” The temptation was to avoid the cross, and to put an immediate end to the apparent problems of the world, but not to the real problem of the world. He could end hunger and poverty and injustice and make the world safe for Utopianism, and also avoid the suffering, humiliation and death that was an inherent part of the cross.

The message of today's Gospel is not, "imitate Jesus: if he could do it so can you." Yes, try to imitate Jesus the best you can by doing always what pleases the Father. But, when, not if but when, you fail, confess your sins and receive God’s forgivness. This is one area in which you cannot imitate Jesus, for he had no sins to repent of. We have no power in ourselves, of ourselves, to save ourselves. The temptations of Jesus in this passage from Matthew are strange to us. They exist on a higher level than the carnality we must wrestle with. I have never been tempted to use divine power to turn stones into bread. Have any of you? I have been tempted to eat when I was fasting, and tempted to satisfy the body in ways that are outside of God's will; but, never to turn stones into bread.

Let us back up and take a good look at these three temptations. The scriptures tell us that our Lord Jesus Christ was “tempted in every point like as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).” This can be misunderstood. He lived in the real world as a real man. But, even in His human nature He did not have the problem we have, namely that thing called concupiscence. His human nature was not deprived of the grace to live above “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (I John 2:16).” The point of the Gospel for today is not that we can follow His example and be perfect. We cannot. We are supposed to imitate Christ in His life of obedience to the Father’s will, of self-denial and of holiness. We also find, at the end of the day, that no day has gone by in which we have lived without sin by thought, word or deed. Not so Christ. He lived His entire life without sin, born of a virgin and having come into the world from above as its Lord.

So, looking again at the third temptation, many people are tempted to “make the world a better place” by worshiping the Devil; or even if by worshiping some thing they give in to the Devil, the idolatry still serves his end. Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon worshiped themselves; Marx worshiped economic power as the only true force; Hitler worshiped racial purity; and many modern American Utopians worship some form of education or some ideology. Even people who believe that the only hope for the world is to spread Democracy, must face reality.

Christ was presented by the Devil with a temptation to rule the world with perfect justice, and to end man’s outward troubles. But the real problem of the world is not ignorance and injustice; it is not inequity and woe, hunger and unequal distribution, or whatever evil you can name. Christ will rule the world with perfect justice when He comes again in glory; but first He took away sin and overcame death; just as the Old Testament first speaks of Messiah as the priest who offers sacrifice for sin, and only after that as the King. For, ultimately, all that really plagues us are those two things that are always connected: Sin and death. He came the first time as the Suffering Servant, and will return as the Lord of Glory. And, He will not make sense of those things that plague us. He will take them away forever, and wipe away the tears from off all faces.

For now, we must overcome in this life, "all that is in the world," hoping not to have our questions answered about how God could allow suffering; hoping, rather for something better and eternal.

Fr Wells' bulletin inserts


LENT I

Concerning the Epistle (a splendid passage woefully neglected in sermons)

For anyone unfamiliar with the word “paradox,” this is the term for a a statement which seems to contradict itself but actually points to a deeper truth. The Christian faith is full of paradoxes. The Gospel is all about how God hates sin but loves sinners. That makes no sense to the unbeliever, but it is the Christian's joyful hope. This Gospel is a far cry from the lying message which claims that God ignores sin and indulges sinners.

Today's reading from 2 Corinthians concludes with a series of magnificent paradoxes. Describing his own ministry, and by implication describing the ministry of the whole Church, Paul writes,

“as deceivers, and yet true
as unknown, yet well known,
as dying, and behold, we live,
as chastened, and not killed,
as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing,
as poor, making many rich,
as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.”

Although Paul was writing in his own defense, in the face of critics and detractors, in each step of the sevenfold series in this text, Paul was thinking of the Lord Jesus. In the desert of temptation, Jesus was falsely accused by Satan by pretending to be the Son of God: “If thou art the Son of God.....” In His earthly life and ministry Jesus was unknown, dying, chastened, sorrowful, poor, and having nothing. That was the route which led Him directly from the humiliation of His baptism with sinners to the shame and disgrace of His death on the cross.

If mankind or any human individual had designed for itself a Saviour (or a god!), we would surely have come up with something very different. We would have preferred a god (notice the small g, which indicates a false god) which winks at sin, ignores evil, and shuns suffering. We would surely have chosen a messiah who was rich, successful, popular, entertaining, and undemanding. Because Jesus taught and lived the “way of the cross,” He was none of those things. The cross, so prominently placed at the threshold of our churchyard, stands as God's stern rebuke to all earthly notions of success.

Yet He is now acknowledged as true and well-known (“the Way, the Truth, and the Life”). Once poor, He has made us rich. Once “having nothing” (even stripped of His very garments), He is now Lord of heaven and earth.

Concerning the Gospel:

Recapitulation” is a helpful word for understanding today's Gospel. To recapitulate means to repeat or re-tell; the current slang term “re-cap” /_almost_/ expresses what we are talking about. The New Testament frequently presents Jesus as the One Who Recapitulates, the one who relives the history of His people. In His visit to Egypt as a child and in His Baptism in the Jordan , He was reliving or replaying the history of His Israelite people. He was particularly “re-capping” that history as He spent 40 days in the wilderness, as His ancestors had spent 40 years there.

But the recapitulation runs are deeper than just the history of God's  covenant people, Israel. What we see in today's Gospel is a repetition of the very oldest story in the history of mankind, the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, that sad, moving and haunting story told in Genesis 3. Both stories involve the devil presumptuously making suggestions. To Adam and Eve he said, “Ye shall be as God.” To Jesus he said “If thou be the Son of God.” In both instances, in Eden and in the desert, Satan used a clever and insidious sort of logic. Adam and Eve were indeed made in “the image and likeness of God,” Jesus was indeed the incarnate Son of God, and the devil tried to use both facts to his own evil advantage.

But the recapitulation goes only so far. We know how the temptation of Adam and Eve worked out, with their tragic rebellion and banishment from God's presence, a sinful condition for all their descendants who sinned in them and fell with them, and misery and suffering for all mankind. But the temptation of Jesus has the very opposite conclusion: He rejects Satan's suggestions, resists the power of sin, and scores a decisive victory. J. H. Newman expressed this splendidly in Hymn 343: Stanzas 2 and 3:

O loving wisdom of our God, When all was sin and shame,
A second Adam to the fight, And to the rescue came.
O wisest love! That flesh and blood, Which did in Adam fail,
Should strive afresh against the foe, Should strive, and should prevail.

Each one of us has chapters in his life which he would like to re-write, to tell his story with another conclusion. But thanks to the Gospel we are not trapped in the sad words of the Rubaiyat, “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.” In His victory over sin and Satan, the victory finished on the Cross, realized in His resurrection, but initiated in His temptation, Jesus has given each of us a new biography, with a New Life, having a new conclusion. When Jesus said, “Get the hence, Satan,” He proclaimed a new outcome and a new destiny for each one of us.

Jesus not only recapitulated the history of His people; he reversed it. And as He reversed our story, He redeemed us by undoing what we have done.