Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

Below is a short review I wrote up for a class presentation, which deals with Chrysostom's homilies (1 & 2) "On the Obscurity of the Old Testament". I interact here mainly with his first homily but if you want to get an idea of how he did exegesis and thought about the relationship of the New Testament to the Old, you may find some of this review helpful. Enjoy. + + + + + + If one of the overarching characteristics Diodore of Tarsus’ writings was reverence for the text (e.g. the Bible), strands of this can certainly be found in the works of his one of his students, St. John Chrysostom, whose works also advance a rigorous devotion to and a rather high view of Scripture. This is evidenced, for example, from the beginning of his “On the Obscurity of the Old Testament” by statements such as “the depths of inspired sentiments,” (8) “inspired authors” (10) and later in the same work “see how nothing is passed over by the divine Scripture,” “divine writings” (20) and “inspir...

To the twenty-first century mind time and history are conceived of in one way: linear. This, of course, is reflected in the use of timelines where events are dated and ordered chronologically. Yet, to Israel, time and history were understood differently. For them, time was not linear but periodic, cyclical and therefore, rhythmic. It was the rhythm of the festal and non-festal times that gave rhythm to Israel’s life. Yet, it was not the festivals themselves that gave Israel the bulk of her identity but rather the God who acted in and thus, linked these events together. Israel’s expectation, wrapped up in circularity, was always that their God, who has already acted on their behalf, would surely act again in a similar way. Yet, with the prophets, there occurred a type of breakthrough in understanding God’s actions in time and history: the future. This new facet of time is what Von Rad referred to as Israel’s “eschatological element” ( OT Theology , V.II, 113). This element, Von Rad argu...

Thought I'd share this brief video that was pointed out to me. Enjoy.

Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets , Perennial Classics edition. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2001. Pp. vii-672. ISBN 0-06-093699-1. Abraham J. Heschel’s The Prophets is both a voluminous and ambitious work. Heschel, now deceased, was unapologetically and avowedly Jewish in his views and lifestyle. Heschel’s daughter, Susanna, has remarked that her father’s disposition came from Israel’s prophets, who, for him, “were not simply biblical figures…but models for his life” (xiv). Indeed, Heschel, like the prophets, was a man whose heart grew heavy from all of the injustice in the world. He lived during the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and the Holocaust (which he escaped, though his parents did not). Clearly, Heschel’s understanding of God was colored by such events. To him, God was not absent or distant, an Unmoved Mover as Aristotle argued but rather the Most Moved Mover (xviii). To some, Heschel’s understanding of God might be too anthropomorphic. Such persons though, Heschel a...

Over the last few years I have done a lot of thinking, reading and researching on the issue of theodicy (in its simplest form: God can either be all-loving or all-powerful but not both at the same time). It has continually been the prophetic passages of Scripture that have been the hardest to wrap my head around. For instance, today I was reading Amos 3.6, which says: "Or if the horns are blown in the city will the people not tremble? Or if there is disaster in the city has the Lord not made it (or: acted)?" Clearly, here and at many junctures all throughout Amos, it is God who is involved in heaping disaster upon the people. And that is the issue: Yes, an all-powerful God can do this but how could an all-loving God do it? Doesn't God have to be one or the other? There are a couple of ways that I have been dealing with this issue: 1. From a theological point-of-view, I have re-configured my definitions of the "omnis" (e.g. "all"-whatever). ...

In Isaiah 64, the author of that chapter reflects on some of Israel’s history. He repeatedly acknowledges that Israel has not been humble before God, that they have forgotten God’s mighty deeds among them and that they have continually fallen short. After speaking about these issues, the writer says: “Yet, O Lord, You are our Father. We are the clay, You are The Potter; we are all the work of Your hand. Do not be angry beyond measure, O Lord and do not remember our sins forever. Oh, look upon us, we pray, for we are all your people” (Isa. 64.8-9). It is interesting to me that the author acknowledges God here as The Potter, while at the same time reminding his audience that they are the clay. Probably, there is more going on in this statement than the simple implication that God has created humanity. The context seems to suggest that the author here is referring to Israel and how God brought her—despite her many failings—to the place she now is. Yet, from a theological standpoint, there...

This week I was translating what is perhaps the most famous section of the entire Bible: Deuteronomy 5.1-22 (The Ten Commandments). While translating verse 7, the first commandment, I came across something interesting, something I had never thought of before. In English, the verse reads, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Of course, this is God speaking to the Israelites. But the statement is rather interesting because that term “before” can be taken a couple of different ways (e.g. in terms of degree or in a locative sense). In Hebrew, the word used for “before me” here, is ’el-panay. This term is associated with the word face and has a number of nuances to it (e.g. “face,” “above,” “presence,” etc.). A derivative of the same term is used in Genesis 1.2 “…darkness was upon the face of the deep.” However, it might well be the case that here, in Dt. 5.7, the term is supposed to be taken in a locative sense and thus, meant to connote “presence.” One might even appeal to Dt. 5.4, w...

The more I read Mark’s Gospel account, the more I notice all of the Old Testament echoes in the text. These referents have led me to think that, especially in the opening chapters of his Gospel account, Mark wants to portray Jesus as a type of mixed figure—an Elijah plus Moses-like figure but much greater. This has also led me to ask whether or not the transfiguration scene is key or central to understanding what Mark is trying to say? That question, I’m still working out; any insight would be appreciated. Back to the lecture at hand. Look, for instance, at the opening chapters in Mark’s narrative. Already in verse 1, the first word, “arche” is used, which means “beginning.” Thus, there is an echo back to Genesis. Next, the term “Messiah” is used—this is clearly a Jewish referent. Just as well, two prophets, Isaiah and Malachi are quoted here. There are definitely links to the Hebrew Scriptures here. In verse 6, it is John who is portrayed as one in the likeness of Elijah, here too, th...