Tag Archives: James 1

Soren Kierkegaard, The Mirror of the Word, Part 5

01 Tuesday May 2018

Posted by in Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In this section, Kierkegaard makes some interesting observations about resolutions — and about desire.

Finally, if we true benediction thou art to behold thyself in the mirror of the Word, thou must not straightway forget what manner of man thou art, not be the forgetful hearer (or reader) about whom the Apostle speaks, ‘He beheld his natural face in the mirror, and straightway forgot what manner of man he was.’

Kierkegaard lays emphasis upon the immediacy of the action: I have seen something of myself, I will regard that, I will do that immediately — not tomorrow. The great promise, I shall never forget is of little value. It is the not forgetting right now which is key. It is what happens “in the next hour” which matters.

He then takes this positive resolution and speaks of more damaging resolutions. The man who resolves (he choses gambling) to never gamble will almost certainly gamble. The better determination is, I will not gamble tonight. It is the immediacy which grants strength.

He refers to a hoaxing lust: one who is hoaxed by lust, and one who hoaxes lust:

Lust is strong merely in the instant, if only it gets its own way instantly, there will be no objection on its part to make promises for the whole life. But to reverse the situation so as to say, “No, only not to-day, but to-morrow and the day after, & c.” that is to hoax lust. For it if has to wait, lusts loses its lust; if it is not invited to enter the instant it announces itself,and before everyone else, if it is told that it will not be granted admittance until tomorrow, then lust understand (more quickly that the most ingratiating and wily courtier or the most artful woman understand what it signifies to meet with such a reception in the antechamber), lust understands that it is no longer the one and all, that is say, it is no longer ‘lust’. 

 

Soren Kierkegaard, The Mirror of the Word, Part 4

27 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by in Exegeting the Heart, James, Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Now we come to the primary purpose of discourse: What does it mean to use the Word of God as a “mirror”:

It is required that when thou readest God’s Word in order to see thyself in the mirror, thou must remember (so as really to get to the point of seeing thyself in the mirror), thou must remember to say to thyself continually, “It is I am that am here addressed, it is about me this is said.”

He calls this the “seriousness” of reading.  To explain this proposition, Kierkegaard uses an analogy and an example from the Bible. First, to explain what it means to be addressed by the Word.

King David had sinned grievously. He thought he successfully covered up his adultery and Uriah’s death. Then the prophet Nathan came to David and told a story. A rich man with a large flock had a friend come to dinner. The rich man was neighbor to a poor man whose family had only a single lamb which they had raised as a pet.  To feed his guest, the rich stole the poor man’s lamb and served it to the friend. David shocked and angry pronounced death upon the rich man. Nathan said, to David, “Thou art the man.”

Kierkegaard explains what has happened here:

Behold, this tale which the prophet recited was a story, but this, “Thou art the man,” was another story– it was a transition to the subjective.

He then gives an example how we could read the Word as Mirror. He uses the parable of the Good Samaritan.  The story entails a serious of people who should know better and who pass a wounded man on the side of the road. Only the despised Samaritan stops and cares for the wounded man. When we read this, we can easily hold a smug attitude and this and think, I am glad I am not like this priest in the story. But:

No, when thou readest God’s Word, it must be in all seriousness, and thou shalt say, “This priest is me. Alas, that I could be so uncompassionate — I who call myself a Christ — and in a way I am also a priest …

And so the Word is a mirror. We must be careful to not look at the mirror — which creates distance from the Word’s work, but look into the mirror and see ourselves reflected and exposed there. The Word of God works best and right when it exegetes the reader: it exposes the reader’s heart for examination.

[Next will be not forgetting what he have seen; and an examination of the psychology of resolutions.]

 

Soren Kierkegaard, The Mirror of the Word, Part 3

25 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by in James, Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Kierkegaard has explained that there is “reading and reading”. The Word is given not to be observed and interpreted, but to effect and transform. Yes, understanding what is contained in the Word is a part of understanding anything — but there is a kind of reading to understand which keeps the text trapped and distant.

He gives this analogy: a king issues a command. The public begins to “interpret” his command. The interpretations become more complex. There is an entire literature dedicated to reading and writing upon the interpretations. But at no point is command ever obeyed.

Since the Word is a “mirror” according to James, Kierkegaard also condemns a kind of reading which sees the mirror but never looks into the mirror.

To really read the Word, we must be “alone” with the Word:

Oh, to be alone with the Holy Scriptures! — and if thou are not, then thou art not reading the Holy Scriptures.

That this thing of being alone with God’s Word, that this is a dangerous business, is tacitly admitted ….

And then he makes an interesting confession:

And to my thinking it is only human that a man shrinks from letting the Word really get the mastery of him — if no one else will admit it, I admit that I do. It is human to beg God to have patience if one cannot at once do what one ought to do, and yet promises to strive; it is human to beg God to have compassion, seeing that the requirement is too exalted for one — if on one else will admit this of himself, I admit that I do it.

This coming face-to-face with God in the Word of God is a dangerous business. Perhaps the reason it does not seem so, is that we so rarely read.

Kierkegaard speaks of those who do not read the Word at all — most. Then there are those who read in some sort educated way to learn about the text — but not to let the text change them.  And that is not even the necessary reading. The reading which is needed is the reading which perturbs one, that changes one.

If we have not had the experience of asking God for patience and mercy when we read the Word, then it is perhaps because we have not read to be changed. Now I am not saying that should be reluctant to change: we must change. Instead, I am saying that we if have not read in such a way as to feel weight of the words in the Word, then we have not read rightly.

(part four will follow)

Soren Kierkegaard, The Mirror of the Word, Part Two

24 Tuesday Apr 2018

Posted by in Exegeting the Heart, Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“What is Required in Order to Derive True Benediction From Beholding Oneself in the Mirror of the Word?

“First of all, what is required is that thou must not look at the mirror, not behold the mirror, but must see thyself in the mirror.”

At this point, Kierkegaard is getting to what the Word is supposed to do to one when it is read: specifically, what does this passage in James say the Word is supposed to do when it is read. He explains this by referring to “reading and reading”:

Thus the lover [who had received a letter] had made a distinction between reading and reading, between reading the dictionary and reading the letter from the lady love.

This means that when we read the Word, we must not treat the Word as the object and we the subject in control: rather, the Word is the subject and we are the object being examined. — This is not bare subjectivity of meaning — this does not mean that there are thousand “meanings” in the text and thus all ‘readings’ are equally valid. It would be easy to understand Kierkegaard as advocating some sort of hyper-reader-response theory:

So the lover made a distinction, as regards this letter from his beloved, between reading and reading; moreover, he understood how to read in such a way that, if there was a desire contained in the letter, one ought to begin at once to fulfill it, without wasting a second.

Think now of God’s Word. When thou readest God’s Word eruditely — we do not disparage erudition, far from it — but remember that when thou does read God’s Word eruditely, with a dictionary & c., thou are not reading God’s Word …

There are words on the page, that is true. But the reading does not stop at understanding the words: the words are there to do something to the reader. The one who reads the lover’s letter is not merely engaged in an intellectual exercise; the reading is undergone to change the reader.

There is a “point” to reading the Word:

And if there is a desire, a commandment, an order, then (remember the lover!), then be off at once to do accordingly.

To which one may object, but what of all the obscure and difficult passages. Kierkegaard answers brilliantly: well there are many things you do understand. Tell you what: do all the things which you in fact can understand, and after you have done all that let us consider the obscure passages.

This gets to a matter of Hebrews 5:14. There is a correlation between our ability to uderstand the Word and our obedience to the Word. Our correspondence in life to the Word, our correspondence in affection transforms our ability to understand:

14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Cognition

Behavior                       Affection

Each of these three affect the other. Kierkegaard is explaining that if we read merely for cognition, we have not read the Word. It is not inert knowledge which one seeks, but transformation. And James 1:22 explains that one transformation which must take place is that the Word must illuminate and expose the reader: the reader is being examined and seen when the Word is rightly read.

How then is this done? What does it look like in practice?

Soren Kierkegaard, The Mirror of the Word Part One

23 Monday Apr 2018

Posted by in Faith, Faith, James, Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

How to Derive True Benediction from Beholding Oneself in the Mirror of the Word

James 1:22 to the End

Fifth Sunday After Easter

 

Introduction

Kierkegaard prefaces his discourse with a note about the necessary “eloquence” of Christian preaching: it must be an eloquence of word and action:

He who is to preach ought to live in the thoughts and conceptions of Christianity; this should be his daily life — if such is the case, then (as Christianity teaches) thou shalt have eloquence enough, and just what is needed, when thou dost speak straightforwardly without special preparation. On the other hand, it is a false eloquence,  if without being concerned with these thoughts or living in them, one sits down from time to time to make a collection of such thoughts, culling them perhaps from the field of literature, and working them up together into a well-developed discourse, which then is learned perfectly  by rote and is admirably delivered, both with respect to elocution and with respect to movement of arms. No, just as in a well-appointed house one is not obligated to go downstairs to fetch water, but by pressure already has it on the upper floors merely by turning the tap, so too is with real the Christian orator, who, just because Christianity is his life, has eloquence, and precisely the right eloquence, close at ham, immediately present with him ….

For the sermon ought not to establish an invidious distinction between the talented and the untalented, it ought rather in the unity of the Holy Ghost fix attention exclusively upon the requirement that actions must correspond to words.

This idea of correspondence between actions and words is worked in the subsequent discourse on the correspondence between faith and action. There must be an integrity between what is said, and what is done.

The Sermon

Kiekegaard preaches on the following text:

James 1:22–27 (ESV)

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Kierkegaard begins his consideration of these words with the apparent contradiction of Martin Luther: we are saved by faith alone. He then notes the nature of human depravity when it comes to works:

yet every man has a disposition either to want to have merit from works when they are to be done; or, when faith and grace are to be stressed, to want to be as far as possible liberated entirely from works.

Luther sought to work around that dual tendency:

Luther wanted to take away the meritoriousness from works and apply it in a somewhat different place, namely to witnessing for truth. Worldliness, which understood Luther radically, did away entirely with meritoriousness — and with works along with it.

Luther also notes that “faith is a perturbing thing”. Well, then if faith is a perturbing thing, “To what effect has faith, which thou sayest thou hast, perturbed thee?”

That is the trouble. And what sort of disquiet should come from faith? The disquiet of faith will seek to change things to conform to the faith — whether it is the religious order or a disquiet of “inward order.”  “A true love-affair is a disquieting thing, but it does not occur to the lover to want to change the established order.”

Kierkegaard mentioning Luther’s trouble with James suggests that perhaps Luther did not realize how easily one could twist “faith alone” to mean faith apart from effect upon one. “That does not apply to the Lutheran doctrine, but it applies to me: I have reason to know that I am not an upright soul, but a crafty fellow.”

Since I am a crafty fellow, I think to think more carefully about what is meant by this “faith alone”. “So it doubtless would be well to examine a little more carefully the subordinate clauses (works, existence, witnessing and suffering for the truth, works of love, & c.), the subordinating clauses of Lutheranism.”

It is that examination of what faith must do that occupies the discourse proper.

Mortification of Sin, Study Guide Chapter 11c (John Owen)

08 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Deuteronomy, Discipleship, John Owen, Micah, Mortification, Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series will be found here

10860509706_a1c6719766_o

Seventh General:

Rise mightily against the first actings of thy distemper, its first conceptions; suffer it not to get the least ground. Do not say, “Thus far it shall go, and no farther.” If it have allowance for one step, it will take another.

  1. Sin in our actions begins as sin our hearts:

20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Mark 7:20–23 (ESV)

Thus, sin first begins in our thoughts and affections, it is an idea and desire before it ever becomes an action. Read James 1:14-15: What are the steps there listed for the beginning of sin?

Read Genesis 3:6: What takes place in Eve before she takes the fruit?

What about sins which seem to spring up spontaneously without any precursor, such a rage of anger: in what ways do such sins have start? Consider a recent experience of anger: What thoughts and desires had to be in place for anger to be possible? How would an increase in humility, pity, love have altered your heart in such a way that anger would not have been expressed? By way of comparison — consider other sins which you see others commit but you do follow in yourself. What is different your thoughts and affections that lead you to not following in that sin?

  1. We must stop sin at first actings.

It is impossible to fix bounds to sin. It is like water in a channel,—if it once break out, it will have its course. Its not acting is easier to be compassed than its bounding. Therefore doth James give that gradation and process of lust, chap. 1:14, 15, that we may stop at the entrance.

 

Continue reading →

Falling Round About You

03 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by in affliction, James, Submission, temptation, Thomas Goodwin

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

18007866380_c7a7d1beef_o

When you fall into [trials], as into a pit and snare, and so they falling round about you; so as you have nothing to stand or lean upon, but all about you fails with you and under you, so as in all outward appearance ye are sunk and overwhelmed with the ruins. In this case to ‘count it all joy,’ to shout as men in harvest, or that have gotten great spoils; when their miseries are so great that they cannot be endured, that yet their joy must be so great as more cannot be expressed; this is the hardest duty that ever was required of the distressed hearts of men. And yet God would not require it if it were not attainable; and it is attainable by no other principles but of Christianity. And argues that our Christian religion, which is the only true wisdom, ver. 5, hath so spiritful and sovereign a virtue in it that it is able to raise spirits up unto thus high and glorious a pitch and perfection in this life.

Thomas Goodwin, Patience and Its Perfect Work

1 Clement 11, Translation and Commentary

29 Wednesday May 2013

Posted by in 1 Clement, Faith, Genesis, Greek, Hospitality, James

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Because he showed hospitality and was godly, Lot was saved when Sodom and all the surrounding country was destroyed by fire and sulphur. The Master has made clear already that he does not forsake those who trust him; but those of a contrary bent, he appoints to pain and punishment.  For even Lot’s wife, though she went out with him did not have the same mind; and she was appointed as a sign for everyone, a salt pillar which remains until today: those doubled-minded, those who doubt the power of God will find themselves also tokens of God’s judgment for all generations.

 

XI. Διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν Λὼτ ἐσώθη ἐκ Σοδόμων, τῆς περιχώρου πάσης κριθείσης διὰ πυρὸς καὶ θείου· πρόδηλον ποιήσας ὁ δεσπότης, ὅτι τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπʼ αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει, τοὺς δὲ ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας εἰς κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν· 2 συνεξελθούσης γὰρ αὐτῷ τῆς γυναικός, ἑτερογνώμονος ὑπαρχούσης καὶ οὐκ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, εἰς τοῦτο σημεῖον ἐτέθη ὥστε γενέσθαι αὐτὴν στήλην ἁλὸς ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης, εἰς τὸ γνωστὸν εἶναι πᾶσιν ὅτι οἱ δίψυχοι καὶ οἱ διστάζοντες περὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως εἰς κρίμα καὶ εἰς σημείωσιν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς γίνονται.

Comment:

Clement continues to press his point to the rebellious Corinthians. Here he notes that God rescues those who trust God (as shown by Lot’s hospitality and godliness). Yet those who doubt God’s power will find themselves (like Lot’s wife) the subject of God’s judgment.

Translation:

 

 

 

Διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν

Because of/due to hospitality and godliness

Dia + the accusative means “owing to, thank to, on account of, in consequence of” …dia tous qeous eswxomhn I was saved thanks to the gods” …Smyth, 1685.2.d, p. 375. By throwing this clause prior to the main action of the sentence (the salvation of Lot), Clement forces attention on the cause of the salvation.

            In referencing “hospitality”, Clement apparently refers to the hospitality granted to the angels (that Lot would have been hospitable at other times may not be doubted, but it is likely not in view):

19 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Genesis 19:1–3 (ESV)

As for godliness, while the LXX does not use the word “godliness” to describe those saved (it uses the word “righteous”);  the negative – ungodly (asebhs) is used to describe those who will be destroyed (Gen. 18:24, LXX).

Λὼτ ἐσώθη ἐκ Σοδόμων

Lot was saved from Sodom

Saved is a “divine passive”. The preposition “ek” shows that Lot was taken out from the middle of, as opposed to the side of, Sodom.

τῆς περιχώρου πάσης κριθείσης

of the surrounding country, all of it, was judged

At the time when all the area was judged.

The article probably is used to refer to the monadic (Wallace, 223) judgment – the only one of its kind.  This is an example of the first attributive position, article, adjective (here an adjectival phrase), substantive.

The genitive here refers to the time during which the judgment took place: Lot was saved at the time of judgment (Wallace, 122).  For thorough examination of the theme of rescue from judgment, see God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment, James M. Hamilton, Jr.

διὰ πυρὸς καὶ θείου

by means of fire and sulphur

Symth  notes that dia plus genitive can reference the “means” of an action and gives the example, dia toutou grammata pemyas sending a letter by this man. Smyth, 1685.1.d, 374.

πρόδηλον ποιήσας ὁ δεσπότης

before plainly he did the master: the Master made clear [to Lot] beforehand

“Made/did” is an aorist participle, subordinated to the main verb forsake in the next clause. This is a temporal participle, it tells us when the Master acted: First, the participle is aorist (which tends to indicate an time prior to a principle, present, active verb; Wallace, 624). Second, the adverb, before-clear/plain (beforehand is the closest English) requires a temporal reference.

ὅτι τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπʼ αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει

that those who hope (those hoping) upon him he would not leave behind

Here hoti functions as a content conjunction (that), “This use involves a conjunction that introduces a subject ….” Wallace, 678.

The verb is singular, because the subject is the Master: the Master does not leave

Symth notes that epi + the accusative can mean “reference”. Symth also has a note that epi + accusative can be used to bring out “hostility” towards; hence, it could also bring a positive intense relationship.  Here is an interesting note, “To express purpose epi with accusative is generally used when the purpose involves actual or implied motion toward an object; epi with dative is used when the purpose may be attained by mental activity” (Smyth, 1689.3.d, note; 379).

τοὺς δὲ ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας

but those inclined to

The de sets up a contrast with those saved.

The substantive is a present, active accusative participle those existing.

The adjective (heteroklineis) means, inclined to, having a propensity for (a metaphorical use derived from leaning) – here there is a contrast with those who hope. Thus, the hetero-leaning is leaning away from trust in God.

Εἰς κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν

to punishment and mistreatment he [God] appoints

συνεξελθούσης γὰρ αὐτῷ τῆς γυναικός

For [when] she had gone out with him, the wife

She had gone out: an adverbial, temporal participle.

ἑτερογνώμονος ὑπαρχούσης καὶ οὐκ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ,

being otherwise opinioned and not in one mind (not having the same mind, as Lot)

εἰς τοῦτο σημεῖον ἐτέθη

            to this sign she was appointed

The verb tiqhmi is repeated here from the preceding sentence: God has appointed to punishment those who will not hope on him. Lot’s wife was appointed to be a “sign”.

 ὥστε γενέσθαι αὐτὴν στήλην ἁλὸς

so that she became a salt pillar

hoste with the anarthrous infinitive expresses result: With the result that she became (Wallace, 610)

ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης

until this day

εἰς τὸ γνωστὸν εἶναι πᾶσιν

to be known by all

Eis is here used to express the goal, purpose, intention of God’s action. Smyth, 686.d, 376.

ὅτι οἱ δίψυχοι καὶ οἱ διστάζοντες

that the double-minded and the doubting

The language here very much echoes James 1:5-8:

5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. James 1:5–8 (ESV)

While the world “doubled-minded” is the same in Clement and James, the word for “doubt” is different. Neither Holmes nor Grant note this as an allusion to James. Grant writes, “It is obviously a concept characteristic of Jewish Christianity” (Grant, Apostolic Fathers vol. 1, p. 33).

περὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως

concerning the power of God

Peri + genitive, concerning, Smyth, 1393.b, 383.

Lot’s wife (and those like her) doubt the power of God.

εἰς κρίμα καὶ εἰς σημείωσιν

for judgment and for a sign

πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς γίνονται

for/thoughout all generations they are

Those like Lot’s wife are a made to be a sign of those who doubt.

The dative emphasizes the point in time – here defined as “all generations”.