Book Brief: Peter Pan

Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Magical for the most part. Started out brilliantly, then dropped off some, then ended brilliantly again. Great storytelling.


View all my reviews

Selections from Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) was a philosophically astute church father and apologist who was well-versed in the writings of Plato and others. These are some significant passages I highlighted while reading through his writings. I’m noting these passages simply for their significance; not because I agree with everything in them.

On the Lord’s supper:

“And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.” – First Apology, ch. 66 

“And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” – First Apology, ch. 65

Nowadays it isn’t uncommon to see the supper marginalized to the point of being treated as an optional add-on in the worship service, for those who are into that sort of thing. Contrast this with Justin’s day, when deacons would labor to ensure that even those who were absent had an opportunity to partake.

On baptism:

“And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing [of baptism] published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves.” – First Apology, ch. 62

“God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 18 

“What need, then, have I of circumcision, who have been witnessed to by God? What need have I of that other baptism, who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost?” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 29

A few things to note here: (1) Justin speaks of the sprinklings performed in pagan temples as imitations of Christian baptism, which is telling as to how he understood the mode of baptism. (2) Justin conceptually relates baptism to circumcision. This theological connection is not a later invention of paedobaptists. It’s a very early idea, presumably based on Colossians 2:11–12.

On the Trinity in Genesis 1-3:

“These are the words: ‘And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.’ In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us,’ [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 62

This trinitarian interpretation of the first-person plural language used of God in Genesis 1-3 is sometimes viewed as passé today. But it’s significant to note that it’s a very early Christian interpretation.

On the Old Testament as Christian Scripture:

“For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 29

A wonderful jab at Jewish pride. The Old Testament doesn’t belong to Jews; it belongs to Christians. Jews don’t even understand the Scriptures they profess to revere.

On pagan philosophy:

“And so, too, Plato, when he says, ‘The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless,’ took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things.” – First Apology, ch. 44 

“For no one trusted in Socrates so as to die for this doctrine, but in Christ, who was partially known even by Socrates (for He was and is the Word who is in every man, and who foretold the things that were to come to pass both through the prophets and in His own person when He was made of like passions, and taught these things), not only philosophers and scholars believed, but also artisans and people entirely uneducated, despising both glory, and fear, and death.” – Second Apology, ch. 10 

“Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians.” – Second Apology, ch. 13

“To God, nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship.” – Fragments on the Resurrection, ch. 5 

I do love those last two lines. In all reality, it’s the secular worldview that’s mythical. Secularists believe in fairy tales.

On Christ’s second coming:

“There would be two advents of His,—one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 32

This struck me as a chilling statement.

On the new covenant:

“Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 11 

“Even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 85

 On the Lord’s day:

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” – First Apology, ch. 67

“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” – First Apology, ch. 67

On faith and reason:

“By means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith.” – First Apology, ch. 10 

On marriage and gender:

“But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children.” – First Apology, ch. 29

“What seemliness is there in a woman’s girding herself with armour, or in a man’s decorating himself with cymbals, and garlands, and female attire, and accompanied by a herd of bacchanalian women?” – Discourse to the Greeks, ch. 2

On guardian angels:

“God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law—for these things also He evidently made for man—committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them.” – Second Apology, ch. 5

On Christian martyrdom:

“For it is plain that, though beheaded, and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; but the more such things happen, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 110

Both a Husband and a Father

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:2–5)

Conservative Christians typically argue that these requirements assume the overseer will be a man, and so only men are qualified. I’ve used that argument before, and it seems valid enough to me; but at the same time, there are other assumptions embedded in Paul’s qualifications. And what are they?

Well, for one, Paul assumes that the elder will be a husband (“the husband of one wife”), which would rule out single men. If an overseer must be a one-woman man, then where does that put the no-woman man? Furthermore, Paul assumes that the overseer will be a father, as we’re told that “he must manage his own household well . . . keeping his children submissive.”

So if it’s reasonable to argue, on the basis of Paul’s assumptions, that an overseer must be a man, then it’s also reasonable to argue, by the same token, that an overseer must be both a husband and a father. Conversely, if it is not reasonable to argue, based on this passage, that an overseer must be a husband and a father, then neither is it reasonable to argue, based on this passage, that an overseer must be a man.

Choose ye this day.

“In Truth, God Knows”

There’s a well-known statement that Origen made concerning the authorship of Hebrews. It’s quoted in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (6.25.14). Origen said, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows.” Lots of scholars point to this statement as early evidence that Christians have always been uncertain about who wrote Hebrews.

But David Alan Black and some others argue that Origen is here only referring to the amanuensis (secretary); that is, the person who penned the epistle, rather than the actual author who dictated it (see Rom. 16:22).

In response to this argument, David Allen has this to say:

“Writers such as J. Hug, S. Davidson, and D. Black—who argued that Origen’s statement ‘as to who wrote the epistle’ referred to the one who wrote it down for Paul, that is, who functioned as his amanuensis or translator—find themselves swimming upstream against the context and usage of the Greek ho grapsas” (Hebrews, NAC, p. 32).

As for swimming upstream against the context, here’s the fuller context of Origen’s statement:

“If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote [ho grapsas] the epistle, in truth, God knows.”

It seems to me that, in Origen’s view, Hebrews is just as much the words of Paul as the Sermon on the Mount is the words of Jesus. It’s true that Jesus was not the one who wrote down the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew did. But if I want to quote a statement from the Sermon on the Mount, I’m typically going to preface it with “Jesus said” rather than “Matthew said,” even though I recognize that Matthew was the one who actually wrote the words down.

I’ve transcribed sermons and lectures before. And one of the things you learn as you transcribe is that when spoken words are being turned into written words, there will inevitably be times when you have to smooth out the language. And many times the decisions I make as a transcriber will reflect my own writing style. But when I’m all done transcribing, I won’t have something that I can call my own work. Because it’s not my own work; it’s the work of the preacher or teacher.

Which is why Origen says that anyone who holds Hebrews to be from Paul should be commended — because he viewed the epistle/sermon as ultimately Paul’s work. Though in this case, maybe it’s better to say that Hebrews was not so much the work of an amanuensis, but rather a transcriber. Perhaps the person took notes as he heard Paul’s sermon preached and then later filled out the notes into a complete written sermon.

Now, understand that we’re still only talking about Origen’s view. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with his assessment; I’m just trying to understand his view as he actually expresses it. And in my judgment, Origen held that Hebrews was far more Pauline than most scholars would have us think. Origen would have been entirely comfortable prefacing a quotation from Hebrews with “Paul said,” and in fact, he does this himself on multiple occasions. See the long list of examples in Black’s short book, The Authorship of Hebrews.

As for swimming upstream against ho grapsas (the words “who wrote”), consider that Tertius described his own work as an amanuensis using the exact same words: “I Tertius, who wrote [ho grapsas] this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom. 16:22).

Allen writes:

“Mitchell noted the many places in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History where the Greek verb graphō (‘to write’) ‘refers both to authorship and to actual penning’ and thus concluded ‘Black’s distinction between author and amanuensis cannot be maintained in light of this evidence’” (Hebrews, NAC, p. 32).

But there are a number of problems with that. First off, Eusebius is quoting a statement made by Origen. So what matters is how Origen uses graphō; not how Eusebius uses it.

Second, for what it’s worth, there is a place where Eusebius talks about the amanuenses of Origen, and he describes them as being skilled in kalligraphein (“elegant writing”), a word clearly related to graphō.

But aside from that single instance, I’m not aware of any other place where Eusebius even mentions the task of an amanuensis. In which case, Mitchell’s argument turns out to be based on a remarkably unfair standard. If you never talk about what an amanuensis does, then of course you’re not going to use graphō to describe the task of an amanuensis.

But what term would Eusebius have been expected to use in describing what an amanuensis does? It seems reasonable enough to assume that he would have been perfectly comfortable using the same word that Tertius used in Romans 16:22, namely graphō. Why not?

Against a Pauline Hebrews

The HCSB Study Bible articulates some standard arguments against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

“The text of Hebrews does not identify its author. What we do know is that the author was a second-generation Christian, for he said he received the confirmed message of Christ from ‘those who heard’ Jesus Himself (2:3). Because Paul claimed his gospel was revealed directly by the Lord (1Co 15:8; Gl 1:12), it is doubtful that he was the author of Hebrews.”

That’s a worthwhile argument, but I think it’s far from decisive. Hebrews 2:3 reads, “It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard.” The first clause refers to Jesus’s preaching of the gospel during his earthly ministry with the original twelve disciples (i.e. “those who heard”). The word translated “attested” is actually rendered as “confirmed” in most English translations. The idea is that “those who heard” had “confirmed” this writer’s message – which sounds a whole lot like Paul’s interaction with Peter, James, and John as described in Galatians:

“And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:9).

And again, the HCSB Study Bible:

“The author was familiar with Timothy, but he referred to him as ‘our brother’ (13:23), rather than as ‘my true son in the faith,’ as Paul did (1Tm 1:2).”

This, on the other hand, is a terrible argument. You would expect Paul to use more affectionate language when writing directly to Timothy than when writing to others about Timothy. Besides, Paul refers to Timothy as “our brother” in multiple other letters (2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philem. 1:1). Consider also Romans 16:21, where Paul refers to Timothy simply as “my fellow worker.” Does all this count as evidence that Paul wasn’t the author of these letters, since he didn’t use a more affectionate designation for Timothy? Of course not.

Augustine on 1 Timothy 2:4

A brief postscript to my previous post on 1 Timothy 2:4. There I said that Augustine held to the third view, which is true. But it turns out that he actually articulated both the third view and the second view.

Here’s Augustine articulating the third view:

“Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He ‘will have all men to be saved,’ although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, ‘Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will. . . . And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: ‘The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:’ not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him.”

But right after this, Augustine goes on to articulate the second view:

“Or, it is said, ‘Who will have all men to be saved;’ not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will . . ., but that we are to understand by ‘all men,’ the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men.”

So Augustine seems to have held that both these interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4 were reasonable options. The quotes are from The Enchiridion, ch. 103.

All People

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4).

This passage is often wielded against a Calvinistic understanding of election and regeneration. So I figured it would be good to write out some thoughts on it. To my knowledge, this passage, and specifically God’s desire for “all people to be saved” has historically been understood in basically three ways.

1. “All people” refers to every individual human being. 

2. “All people” refers to all kinds of human beings. 

3. “God desires all people to be saved” means that everyone who is saved, is saved because God desires them to be so.

Which of these three views do I hold personally? For a long time now, I’ve vacillated between the first and second. I think the first view has the appeal of being the most natural reading. The second view, while not quite as natural, is still entirely reasonable, and makes for less theological tension. The third view is interesting (and Augustine held to it, just saying), but it’s contextually cumbersome.

Let’s start with the third view and work backwards. When Jesus healed a deaf man in Mark 7, the crowd responded by saying, “He has done all things well” (Mark 7:37). They did not mean that Jesus had actually done all things, period. The point was that everything Jesus did do, he did well. Consider a further example of another Greek writer, Clement of Rome, using a similar way of speaking:

“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men.”

Clement does not intend to say that God has actually justified every human being. In context, what he’s saying is that everyone who has ever been justified was justified in the same way, namely by faith. So even though Clement says that “God has justified all men,” he’s actually only talking about the people that God has, in fact, justified.

A similar thing could be going on in 1 Timothy 2:4. It might be that the point is not to say that God desires the salvation of every human being in some potential sense, but rather that everyone who is actually saved is only saved because God desired it to be so. No one has ever been saved without God desiring them to be saved. He desires the salvation of all people – that is, all people who are actually saved.

Now, I don’t anticipate that this interpretation will gain much of a following. And while I do think it’s at least linguistically feasible, and thus not as absurd as some people might immediately think, I don’t think it fits well with the point Paul is making in the passage. But since this was the way Augustine interpreted the verse, I figured it was at least worth an honorable mention.

Let me now try and defend the reasonableness of the second view, that “all people” refers not to every single human being, but to all kinds of people. The Greek word for “all” is pas. Consider a few examples of this word being used in Scripture.

Jesus says to the apostles, “You will be hated by all [pas] for my name’s sake” (Matt. 10:22). Now, since Jesus used the word all, does that mean we’re supposed to think that every human being would hate the apostles? Of course not. There were thousands of people who did not hate the apostles and their message. The most sensible way to understand Jesus here is that he’s referring to all kinds of people. Whatever tribe, tongue, or nation that the apostles would come in contact with, they could count on facing opposition. They would be hated by all – which is to say, all kinds. And Jesus doesn’t have to specify the word “kinds” because it’s simply inherent to one of the ways pas can be used.

In Acts 22:15, Ananias says to Paul, “You will be God’s witness to all people of what you have seen and heard.” I don’t think Ananias was trying to say that Paul would be a witness to every human being. Here it’s far more natural to understand the word “all” in a general sense. Paul would be a witness to all kinds of people. He would be the apostle to all Gentile nations.

Consider also that in 1 Timothy 6:10 (“The love of money is the root of all [pas] evil”), many English translations render pas as “all kinds.” This is simply a reasonable way that the word pas can be faithfully translated.

So given these things, it’s very possible that this is the sense in which “all” should be understood in 1 Timothy 2:1-4. In which case, Paul is calling Timothy, in verse 1, to pray for all kinds of people. This would fit naturally with verse 2, where Paul goes on to specify particular classifications: “for kings and all who are in high positions.” And I see no reason not to assume that the “all people” of verse 1 is the same “all people” of verse 4. So likewise, the point of verse 4 would be that God desires the salvation of all kinds of people. People from every walk of life, every social class. Every tribe, tongue, and nation. God does not discriminate between Jew and Gentile, or between kings and commoners.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the first view is actually correct, that God desires the salvation of every individual human being. Would this undermine a strong Calvinistic understanding of election and regeneration? I don’t think so. John Piper has written a pretty careful article in which he argues that God’s choice of only some people for salvation is not inconsistent with his desire for all human beings to be saved. And he backs up his case with numerous lines of biblical evidence. I commend that article to you.

Moreover, consider a statement that Paul himself makes in his next letter to Timothy:

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

Here we see that the way in which people come to a knowledge of the truth is by God’s granting them repentance, which is being clearly presented as something that God may or may not choose to do. So even if we affirm that God desires every human being to come to a knowledge of the truth (as in 1 Tim. 2:4), we’ve still got to reckon with the fact that God does not always grant what is necessary in order for people to come to that knowledge. No one’s escaping this mystery.