William BARKLEY has been a lecturer in the Department of New Testament Studies for 28 years. He taught the New Testament and Ancient Greek. He took part in the activities of bible societies, such as the Society for New Testament Studies, the National Bible Society of Scotland. From 1943-1947 he was editor of the Sunday School Teachers magazine.
Author of a popular commentary on the Gospel, written in 1952-1958.
William BARKLEY quotes
William BARKLEY (1907-1978)- Scottish theologian, professor at the University of Glasgow
***
“We must remain united because we are all in Christ. Man cannot be at odds with his fellow men and remain in union with Jesus Christ. Whoever walks with Jesus Christ walks with all the strangers. A man's relationship with his fellow men is a good indication of his relationship with Jesus Christ."
***
“The power of Christian love should keep us in harmony. Christian love is that good will, that benevolence that never gets irritated and that always wants only the good for others. It is not just a heart urge, like human love, for example; it is a victory of the will, won with the help of Jesus Christ. This does not mean loving only those who love us, or those who please us, or those who are nice. And this means unshakable benevolence, even in relation to those who hate us, to those who do not like us, and to those who are unpleasant and disgusting to us. This is the true essence of the Christian life, and it affects us on earth and in eternity.”
***
"Man tends to confuse two things - regret about the consequences of sin and regret about sin. Many express extreme regret because of the mass of trouble that their sin has brought upon them. But if they were sure that they could avoid these consequences, they committed It's not sin that they hate, but its consequences. True repentance means that a person not only regrets the consequences that his sin has caused to himself and others, but also hates sin itself.
***
"For one prayer ascending to God in an age of prosperity, there are a thousand prayers in an age of distress. Many people who have never prayed when the sun shone for them begin to pray when the cold wind blows."
***
"History is not a random kaleidoscope of unrelated events, but an evolving process, where God sees the ultimate goal from the very beginning."
Dear users and visitors of our site! We have decided to remove from our library the writings of Protestant theologian from Scotland, Professor William Barclay. Despite the popularity of the works of this author among inquisitive readers, we believe that his works should not be placed on a par with the works of Orthodox writers and preachers, including the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church.
Many of William Barclay's thoughts can be judged as sound. Nevertheless, in his writings, in fundamental moments, there are such ideas that are a conscious deviation from the Truth, being "a fly in the ointment in a barrel of honey." Here is what the English Wikipedia writes about his views:
skepticism about the Trinity: for example, "Nowhere identifies Jesus with God";
faith in universal salvation;
evolution: “We believe in evolution, slowly rising up from the human to the level of the beast. Jesus is the end and culmination of the evolutionary process, because in Him people meet God. The danger of the Christian faith is that we have created Jesus as a kind of secondary God. The Bible never makes a second God to Jesus, but rather emphasizes Jesus' complete dependence on God."
For example, in analyzing the prologue of the Gospel of John and speaking of Christ, Barclay writes, “When John says that the Word was God, he does not say that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so the same as God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is, ”which gives reason to believe that he recognized the Evangelist’s attitude to Christ not as to one of the Persons of the absolutely One and Indivisible God, Who is one with the Father (), but only as equal to God. This perception of the gospel sermon gave reason to critics to suspect him of a penchant for tritheism.
Other statements of his also encourage a similar perception. For example: "Jesus is the revelation of God" (Comments on the Gospel of John). Or another, where the Holy Spirit is reported as an ally of Christ: "He speaks of His Ally– Holy Spirit” (Comments on the Gospel of John).
It is possible to conditionally distinguish biblical commentaries into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.
Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.
An example of "pastoral" comments is the sermons of Fr. Dmitry Smirnov.
There can be both classical “theological” comments (for example, the Saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.
In "popular science" commentary, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages is conveyed in popular language.
Finally, there are "technical" comments, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.
Barkley's comments are a typical example of "popular science" comments. He was never a great or major biblical scholar. Just an average professor with a good work capacity. His comments were never particularly popular, even among the Protestant milieu. And his popularity with us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when there was nothing at all in Russia as “popular science” comments.
***
W. Barclay's comments on the Books of Holy Scripture of the New Testament are widely known both in the countries of the Western world and in Russia. Strange as it may seem, many Russians who identify themselves with Orthodoxy not only find food for thought in his comments, but often take them as the surest guide to a deep understanding of the Gospel. It's hard to understand, but it's possible. In the course of presenting his views, the author gives many arguments, including historical and scientific-linguistic ones. Many of them seem convincing and indisputable. However, not all of them are. A significant drawback of the works of this author is the excessively weak consistency of their content with the Holy Tradition of the Church, and in some cases a direct contradiction to this source of Christian knowledge. W. Barclay's deviation from the purity of the gospel teaching affects a number of serious, fundamental issues of Christianity.
One of the most drastic digressions has to do with the question of the Church. Let's start with the fact that W. Barclay does not share the position on the existence of the One True Church, approved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and, going against the Gospel, insists on the existence of many saving Christian churches. At the same time, which is natural for such an approach, he accuses communities that claim to be called the only true one (in fact, there is only one such community - the Ecumenical Orthodox Church) of monopolizing Divine grace.
“Religion,” writes W. Barclay, “ should bring people together, not divide them. Religion should unite people into one family, and not split them into warring groups. The doctrine that claims that any church or any sect has a monopoly on the grace of God is false, for Christ does not divide, but unites Bible
It is clear that this statement, accepted by Protestants, cannot but arouse indignation among Orthodox Christians. After all, firstly, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church was founded by the Redeemer Himself, moreover, it was founded precisely as the only and only true; and it is to her that is entrusted the fullness of the saving doctrine, the fullness of the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the Orthodox Church has always called and still calls people to unity, true unity in Christ, which cannot be said about the ideologists of Protestantism, who insist on the possibility of the coexistence of many "saving", "Christian" "churches".
Meanwhile, W. Barclay compares God's with the Pharisees: No, the Pharisees did not want to lead people to God; they led them into their own Pharisaic sect. That's where their sin was. Is this one expelled from the earth, if even today they insist that a person leave one church and become a member of another before he can take a place at the altar? The greatest of heresies lies in the sinful belief that one church has a monopoly on God or His truth, or that some church is the only gate to the Kingdom of God » Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/23/).
The true unity of Christians implies, among other things, the unity of faith. The Orthodox have always professed the doctrine entrusted to it by the apostles, while the Protestant communities - that which they received as a legacy from the founders of these communities. It would seem that in the fact that the Church keeps the truths of faith intact, one can see that it is she who is the pillar and affirmation of the truth (). However, such an attitude to the truth is assessed by W. Barclay as one of the symptoms of a protracted chronic illness. Accordingly, those “churches” that allow the perversion of true (“old”) dogmas and the introduction of so-called new dogmas are considered to be healthy.
“In the Church,” he insists, “ this feeling resentment against the new has become chronic, and attempts to squeeze everything new into old forms have become almost universal"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/9/).
Perseverance in upholding the truths of the dogma W. Barclay refers to as a fossil: “ It really happened very often that a person who came with a message from God met with hatred and enmity. petrified orthodoxy » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible
Speaking in favor of free-thinking thinkers like the Protestants (and, of course, in favor of the Protestants themselves), the author seeks to assure his potential followers that the opposition that he shows against them is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and that it is as if the Redeemer Himself warned about it: Jesus warned His disciples that in the future they can unite against them society, Church and family"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/10/).
Recall what exactly unites the disciples of Christ, while the Protestant communities are the disciples of their leaders.
Speaking against the ancient church traditions, W. Barclay also denounces the tradition of monasticism, insisting that the doctrine of monasticism tends to separate "religion from life", and, therefore, it is false.
Here are his words: The teaching is false if it separates religion from life. Any teaching that says that a Christian has no place in life and in worldly activities is false. This was the mistake of monks and hermits. They believed that in order to live the Christian life, they must retire to the desert or to a monastery, to get out of this all-consuming and seductive worldly life. They believed that they could only be true Christians by leaving the worldly life. Jesus prayed for His disciples: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You save them from evil.” () » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/7/).
Concerning the problems of man's struggle with sinful thoughts and desires, the author points to the activities of the monks as an illustration of a strange and irregular form of struggle. Like, the monks, without realizing it, fencing themselves off from the real temptations of this world, fell into even greater temptations that were born in their memory or imagination. With his negative criticism, he did not bypass even the founder (one of the founders) of monasticism, an outstanding Christian ascetic, St. Anthony the Great.
In history, he believes, there is one notable example mishandling such thoughts and desires: stylites, hermits, monks, hermits in the era of the early Church. These were people who wanted to be free from everything earthly and, in particular, from carnal desires. To do this, they went to the Egyptian desert with the idea of \u200b\u200bliving alone and thinking only about God. The most famous of them is Anthony. He lived as a hermit, fasted, spent his nights vigilant, torturing his body. He lived in the wilderness for 35 years, which was an ongoing battle with his temptations... It is quite obvious that if anyone behaves carelessly, it applies to Antony and his friends.. Such is human nature that the more a person tells himself that he will not think about something, the more it will occupy his thoughts."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/5/).
W. Barclay's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks both at monasticism itself and at the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of service to God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, the monastic life, which implies a removal from worldly pleasures, worldly fuss, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to recall that for many centuries the monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for the laity: the monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; often, in difficult times, the monks helped the laity with bread and a ruble.
Finally, completely unaware of why monastic work was associated with spiritual exploits, and the monks themselves were often called ascetics, he defines the monastic life as very easy, and describes the monks themselves as fugitives from the real difficulties of life: “ It's easy to feel like a Christian in moments of prayer and meditation, it is easy to feel the closeness of God, when we are away from the world. But this is not faith - this is an escape from life. Genuine faith is when you get up from your knees to help people and solve human problems."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/17/).
In the end, the interpreter seeks to bring Christian worship and worship under the humanitarian doctrine: “ Christian ministry - this is not the service of a liturgy or ritual, this is a service to a human need. Christian service is not a monastic retreat, but an active participation in all the tragedies, problems and demands that people face"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/12/).
The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.
On the one hand, he does not seem to mind that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God the Father. In any case, some of his words, such as: “ When Glory came to this earth, He was born in a cave where people sheltered animals. Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/2/).
« God sent His Son into this world, - testifies W. Barkley, - Jesus Christ, so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship with God he had lost.(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/1/)
On the other hand, he ascribes to the Redeemer such traits as, for example, uncertainty about His chosenness (not to mention "uncertainty" in Divine dignity), ignorance of how to accomplish His mission, "which He entrusted".
“Thus,” Barclay prompts the reader, “ And in the act of baptism, Jesus received double certainty: that He really is God's Chosen One and that the way before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to be King"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/3/)
"Jesus," he continues his line, " went to the desert to be alone. spoke to him now He wanted to think about how to fulfill the mission that he had entrusted to Him. "(From the head - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/4/).
Already at the first acquaintance with these and similar statements one gets the impression that they are on the verge of admissible and inadmissible theologizing. The position of the interpreter is more clearly revealed in his attitude to the testimony of the Evangelist John the Theologian that Christ is none other than God the Word Incarnate. While formally recognizing that “the Word became flesh” (), W. Barclay, nevertheless, explains this gospel truth not in the spirit of the Gospel. Whereas the Orthodox teaches that the Word is a Hypostasis of the One Trinity God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, equally perfect and equal in honor to the other two Divine Hypostases, Barclay seeks to convince his readers of something else.
“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ originated in Judaism and at first all members of the Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus said nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent in the Greek world? ... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible, and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. Both in the Jewish and in the Greek worldview there was a concept words. Here it could be used in such a way that it corresponded to the worldviews of both the Hellenic and the Jew. It was something that lay in the historical heritage of both races; both of them could understand it"(From chapter - Barclay's commentary - Bible
It is known that in the understanding of (many) Jews it was conceived as the One, but not as the Trinity. The Word of God was comprehended in their minds as an active force, but not as a Divine Hypostasis (cf.: and God said...). Something similar was thought about the Logos (Word) and the mentioned Greeks.
“And so,” he develops his thought, “ when John was looking for a way to present, he found that in his faith and in the history of his people there was already an idea words, word, which in itself is not just a sound, but something dynamic -word God, by whom he created the earth; word from Targumi – Aramaic translation of the Bible – expressing the very idea of God's action; wisdom from the books of Wisdom - the eternal, creative and enlightening power of God. So John says, "If you want to see Word God's, if you want to see the creative power of God, if you want to see Word, through whom the earth was created, and by whom gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him Word God has come to you" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
As if confirming what was said above, U Barkley signals: “ . ..In the Greek world and in the Greek worldview, there is another name that we must get to know. In Alexandria lived a Jew named Philo, who devoted his life to the study of the wisdom of two worlds: the Greek and the Jewish. None of the Greeks knew as well as he did the Holy Scripture of the Jews, and not a single Jew knew as well as he did the greatness of Greek thought. Philo also loved and used this idea logos, words, reason God's. He believed that nothing in the world is older logos So what logos It is the instrument by which the world was created. Philo said that logos- this is the thought of God, imprinted in the universe; logos created the world and everything in it; God is the pilot of the universe, He holds logos like a helm and directs everything. According to Philo logos imprinted in the human brain, it gives a person reason, the ability to think and the ability to know. Philo said that logos mediator between the world and God, and that logos is a priest who presents the soul to God. Greek philosophy knew all about logos, she saw in logos the creative, leading and directing power of God, the power that created the universe and thanks to which life and movement are preserved in it. And so John came to the Greeks and said: “For centuries you have been thinking, writing and dreaming about logos, about the power that created the world and keeps order in it; about the power that gave man the ability to think, reason and know; about the power through which people entered into a relationship with God. Jesus is this logos, descended to earth." "The Word became flesh' John said. We can also express it like this: The Mind of God Incarnated in Man"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
Finally, Barclay explicitly points out that the Savior was identical with God, but was not “one” with God: “ When John says that the Word was God, he is not saying that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much like God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
And elsewhere: "The Word became flesh - in this, perhaps, as nowhere else in the New Testament, the human essence of Jesus is wonderfully proclaimed. In Jesus we saw the creative Word of God, directing the Mind of God, Who Himself incarnates in man. In Jesus we see how God would live this life if He were a man. If we had nothing more to say about Jesus, we could still say that He shows us how to live the life we need to live."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/)
How does W. Barclay explain that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father? He boils it down to the fact that Jesus is unique and most loved by God the Father. Here is how he says it himself: Jesus - only begotten Son. In Greek it is monogenesis, What means only Son, only begotten and in this case it fully corresponds to the Russian translation of the Bible. But the point is that long before the Fourth Gospel was written, this word lost its purely physical meaning and acquired two special meanings. It began to mean unique, special in its own way and especially loved, it is quite obvious that the only son also occupies a special place in the heart of the father and enjoys special love, and therefore this word has come to mean, first of all, unique. The writers of the New Testament are absolutely convinced that Jesus is unique, that there was no one like Him: He alone can lead God to people and people to God"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
Barclay, William
(Barklay, William, 1907-1978). Scottish biblical scholar. Born in Wick, he was educated at the universities of Glasgow and Marburg. In 1933 he was ordained a priest in the Church of Scotland and served in the industrial district of Clydeside. From 1947 Barclay lectured on NT at the University of Glasgow; in 1964 he received the title of professor. Barkley's book "Bible Day Back (NT)" (Daily Study Bible, NT) won worldwide acclaim and has been translated into many languages. Barkley's ability to find a common language with the most ordinary people, many of whom had nothing to do with religion, was later confirmed in a series of popular television programs about the Christian faith. Barclay always encouraged students to take an interest in the non-religious sphere and be aware of the problems of modern life. In doctrinal matters, Barclay took a universalist position and rejected the substitutionary nature of the atonement.
Restrainedly assessing the authority of Holy Scripture, he did not recognize the virgin birth, and considered miracles to be nothing more than a symbolic description of what Christ can do in the world. At the end of his life, Barclay advocated the idea of a two-level membership in the Church - for those to whom Christ is inwardly close, and those who are ready to completely surrender to Him. In 1974, Barkley retired, but until the last days of his life he continued to work on the v.-z. part of his book The Bible Day by Day.
J.D. Douglas Bibliography: Barclay,/! Spiritual Autobiogra-phy; R.D. Kernohan, ed., William Barclay; C.L. raw-lins, Barclay.
From the book History of Western Philosophy by Russell Bertrand From the book Novice and Schoolboy, Mentor and Master. Medieval Pedagogy in Persons and Texts the author Bezrogov V GWILLIAM FITZ-STEPHEN (?-1191) Secretary and confidant of the famous English Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket conceived and in 1173-1175. carried out the compilation of a biography, that is, a “life”, of his patron. He prefaced this life with a description of London of that time with
From the book Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary by Elwell WalterBarclay, Robert (Barklay, Robert, 1648-1690). Scot, the most important theologian of the early Quaker movement. Barclay's theology, developed on the basis of the teachings of biblical and ancient sources, was really hardened during the persecution of Quakers. At 28, Barkley wrote his first major
author Belyaev Leonid AndreevichPaley, William (Paley, William, 17431805). Anglican theologian. He graduated from the University of Cambridge, taught there (Christ College) philosophy and theology. Claimed that the "Thirty-nine Articles" of the Church of England contained "about 240 separate provisions, often contradicting one
From the book Christian Antiquities: An Introduction to Comparative Studies author Belyaev Leonid AndreevichSandy, William (18431920). Scientist, NC specialist. Ordained in 1867. In 187682 - Principal of Hatfield Hall in Durham. From 1882 until the end of his life he held professorships at Oxford. Sandy was the first to introduce English scholarship to Continental Biblical
From the book Theology of Creation author Team of authorsSweet, Henry Barclay (18351917). Anglican scholar. Professor of Theology in London (188290) and Cambridge (18901915). Author of works on the NT, OT and the Christian doctrine in general. Applying modern critical methods to biblical studies, treated scholars with respect,
From the author's bookTaylor, Nathaniel William (1786-1858). Creator of Newhaven theology. Modified Calvinism, combining it with the revivalism of the first decades of the 19th century, and thereby contributed to the development of evangelical theology. Born in 1786 in NewMilford (Connecticut), in
From the author's bookFarrar, Frederic William (1831-1903). Anglican theologian and writer. Born in Bombay, in the family of a missionary priest, he received a university education in London and Cambridge. He was strongly influenced by S. T. Coleridge and F. D. Maurice. Was ordained in 1854 or more
From the author's bookHawking, William Ernest (Hocking, William Ernest, 1873-1966). American Protestant scholar, philosopher and religious scholar. He taught at Andover Theological School, Yale and Harvard. He believed that philosophy should not remain the lot of academic research, but should identify and
From the author's bookChanning, William Ellery (1780-1842). The largest figure of Unitarianism in the first half. 19th century Growing up in Rhode Island, he was influenced by the sermons of the adamant Calvinist S. Hopkins. In his last year of study at Harvard, he experienced a religious conversion - an experience, about chrome
From the author's bookShedd, William Greenough Thayer (Shedd, William Greenough Thayer, 1820-1894), The largest, after Ch. Hodge, systematizer of American Calvinist theology in the years between the Civil War and the First World War. Shedd's father, a Congregationalist pastor, encouraged his son to study at the University of Vermont and
Dear users and visitors of our site! We have decided to remove from our library the writings of Protestant theologian from Scotland, Professor William Barclay. Despite the popularity of the works of this author among inquisitive readers, we believe that his works should not be placed on a par with the works of Orthodox writers and preachers, including the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church.
Many of William Barclay's thoughts can be judged as sound. Nevertheless, in his writings, in fundamental moments, there are such ideas that are a conscious deviation from the Truth, being "a fly in the ointment in a barrel of honey." Here is what the English Wikipedia writes about his views:
skepticism about the Trinity: for example, "Nowhere identifies Jesus with God";
faith in universal salvation;
evolution: “We believe in evolution, slowly rising up from the human to the level of the beast. Jesus is the end and culmination of the evolutionary process, because in Him people meet God. The danger of the Christian faith is that we have created Jesus as a kind of secondary God. The Bible never makes a second God to Jesus, but rather emphasizes Jesus' complete dependence on God."
For example, in analyzing the prologue of the Gospel of John and speaking of Christ, Barclay writes, “When John says that the Word was God, he does not say that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so the same as God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is, ”which gives reason to believe that he recognized the Evangelist’s attitude to Christ not as to one of the Persons of the absolutely One and Indivisible God, Who is one with the Father (), but only as equal to God. This perception of the gospel sermon gave reason to critics to suspect him of a penchant for tritheism.
Other statements of his also encourage a similar perception. For example: "Jesus is the revelation of God" (Comments on the Gospel of John). Or another, where the Holy Spirit is reported as an ally of Christ: "He speaks of His Ally– Holy Spirit” (Comments on the Gospel of John).
It is possible to conditionally distinguish biblical commentaries into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.
Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.
An example of "pastoral" comments is the sermons of Fr. Dmitry Smirnov.
There can be both classical “theological” comments (for example, the Saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.
In "popular science" commentary, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages is conveyed in popular language.
Finally, there are "technical" comments, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.
Barkley's comments are a typical example of "popular science" comments. He was never a great or major biblical scholar. Just an average professor with a good work capacity. His comments were never particularly popular, even among the Protestant milieu. And his popularity with us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when there was nothing at all in Russia as “popular science” comments.
***
W. Barclay's comments on the Books of Holy Scripture of the New Testament are widely known both in the countries of the Western world and in Russia. Strange as it may seem, many Russians who identify themselves with Orthodoxy not only find food for thought in his comments, but often take them as the surest guide to a deep understanding of the Gospel. It's hard to understand, but it's possible. In the course of presenting his views, the author gives many arguments, including historical and scientific-linguistic ones. Many of them seem convincing and indisputable. However, not all of them are. A significant drawback of the works of this author is the excessively weak consistency of their content with the Holy Tradition of the Church, and in some cases a direct contradiction to this source of Christian knowledge. W. Barclay's deviation from the purity of the gospel teaching affects a number of serious, fundamental issues of Christianity.
One of the most drastic digressions has to do with the question of the Church. Let's start with the fact that W. Barclay does not share the position on the existence of the One True Church, approved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and, going against the Gospel, insists on the existence of many saving Christian churches. At the same time, which is natural for such an approach, he accuses communities that claim to be called the only true one (in fact, there is only one such community - the Ecumenical Orthodox Church) of monopolizing Divine grace.
“Religion,” writes W. Barclay, “ should bring people together, not divide them. Religion should unite people into one family, and not split them into warring groups. The doctrine that claims that any church or any sect has a monopoly on the grace of God is false, for Christ does not divide, but unites Bible
It is clear that this statement, accepted by Protestants, cannot but arouse indignation among Orthodox Christians. After all, firstly, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church was founded by the Redeemer Himself, moreover, it was founded precisely as the only and only true; and it is to her that is entrusted the fullness of the saving doctrine, the fullness of the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the Orthodox Church has always called and still calls people to unity, true unity in Christ, which cannot be said about the ideologists of Protestantism, who insist on the possibility of the coexistence of many "saving", "Christian" "churches".
Meanwhile, W. Barclay compares God's with the Pharisees: No, the Pharisees did not want to lead people to God; they led them into their own Pharisaic sect. That's where their sin was. Is this one expelled from the earth, if even today they insist that a person leave one church and become a member of another before he can take a place at the altar? The greatest of heresies lies in the sinful belief that one church has a monopoly on God or His truth, or that some church is the only gate to the Kingdom of God » Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/23/).
The true unity of Christians implies, among other things, the unity of faith. The Orthodox have always professed the doctrine entrusted to it by the apostles, while the Protestant communities - that which they received as a legacy from the founders of these communities. It would seem that in the fact that the Church keeps the truths of faith intact, one can see that it is she who is the pillar and affirmation of the truth (). However, such an attitude to the truth is assessed by W. Barclay as one of the symptoms of a protracted chronic illness. Accordingly, those “churches” that allow the perversion of true (“old”) dogmas and the introduction of so-called new dogmas are considered to be healthy.
“In the Church,” he insists, “ this feeling resentment against the new has become chronic, and attempts to squeeze everything new into old forms have become almost universal"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/9/).
Perseverance in upholding the truths of the dogma W. Barclay refers to as a fossil: “ It really happened very often that a person who came with a message from God met with hatred and enmity. petrified orthodoxy » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible
Speaking in favor of free-thinking thinkers like the Protestants (and, of course, in favor of the Protestants themselves), the author seeks to assure his potential followers that the opposition that he shows against them is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and that it is as if the Redeemer Himself warned about it: Jesus warned His disciples that in the future they can unite against them society, Church and family"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/10/).
Recall what exactly unites the disciples of Christ, while the Protestant communities are the disciples of their leaders.
Speaking against the ancient church traditions, W. Barclay also denounces the tradition of monasticism, insisting that the doctrine of monasticism tends to separate "religion from life", and, therefore, it is false.
Here are his words: The teaching is false if it separates religion from life. Any teaching that says that a Christian has no place in life and in worldly activities is false. This was the mistake of monks and hermits. They believed that in order to live the Christian life, they must retire to the desert or to a monastery, to get out of this all-consuming and seductive worldly life. They believed that they could only be true Christians by leaving the worldly life. Jesus prayed for His disciples: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You save them from evil.” () » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/7/).
Concerning the problems of man's struggle with sinful thoughts and desires, the author points to the activities of the monks as an illustration of a strange and irregular form of struggle. Like, the monks, without realizing it, fencing themselves off from the real temptations of this world, fell into even greater temptations that were born in their memory or imagination. With his negative criticism, he did not bypass even the founder (one of the founders) of monasticism, an outstanding Christian ascetic, St. Anthony the Great.
In history, he believes, there is one notable example mishandling such thoughts and desires: stylites, hermits, monks, hermits in the era of the early Church. These were people who wanted to be free from everything earthly and, in particular, from carnal desires. To do this, they went to the Egyptian desert with the idea of \u200b\u200bliving alone and thinking only about God. The most famous of them is Anthony. He lived as a hermit, fasted, spent his nights vigilant, torturing his body. He lived in the wilderness for 35 years, which was an ongoing battle with his temptations... It is quite obvious that if anyone behaves carelessly, it applies to Antony and his friends.. Such is human nature that the more a person tells himself that he will not think about something, the more it will occupy his thoughts."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/5/).
W. Barclay's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks both at monasticism itself and at the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of service to God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, the monastic life, which implies a removal from worldly pleasures, worldly fuss, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to recall that for many centuries the monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for the laity: the monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; often, in difficult times, the monks helped the laity with bread and a ruble.
Finally, completely unaware of why monastic work was associated with spiritual exploits, and the monks themselves were often called ascetics, he defines the monastic life as very easy, and describes the monks themselves as fugitives from the real difficulties of life: “ It's easy to feel like a Christian in moments of prayer and meditation, it is easy to feel the closeness of God, when we are away from the world. But this is not faith - this is an escape from life. Genuine faith is when you get up from your knees to help people and solve human problems."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/17/).
In the end, the interpreter seeks to bring Christian worship and worship under the humanitarian doctrine: “ Christian ministry - this is not the service of a liturgy or ritual, this is a service to a human need. Christian service is not a monastic retreat, but an active participation in all the tragedies, problems and demands that people face"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/12/).
The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.
On the one hand, he does not seem to mind that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God the Father. In any case, some of his words, such as: “ When Glory came to this earth, He was born in a cave where people sheltered animals. Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/2/).
« God sent His Son into this world, - testifies W. Barkley, - Jesus Christ, so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship with God he had lost.(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/1/)
On the other hand, he ascribes to the Redeemer such traits as, for example, uncertainty about His chosenness (not to mention "uncertainty" in Divine dignity), ignorance of how to accomplish His mission, "which He entrusted".
“Thus,” Barclay prompts the reader, “ And in the act of baptism, Jesus received double certainty: that He really is God's Chosen One and that the way before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to be King"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/3/)
"Jesus," he continues his line, " went to the desert to be alone. spoke to him now He wanted to think about how to fulfill the mission that he had entrusted to Him. "(From the head - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/4/).
Already at the first acquaintance with these and similar statements one gets the impression that they are on the verge of admissible and inadmissible theologizing. The position of the interpreter is more clearly revealed in his attitude to the testimony of the Evangelist John the Theologian that Christ is none other than God the Word Incarnate. While formally recognizing that “the Word became flesh” (), W. Barclay, nevertheless, explains this gospel truth not in the spirit of the Gospel. Whereas the Orthodox teaches that the Word is a Hypostasis of the One Trinity God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, equally perfect and equal in honor to the other two Divine Hypostases, Barclay seeks to convince his readers of something else.
“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ originated in Judaism and at first all members of the Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus said nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent in the Greek world? ... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible, and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. Both in the Jewish and in the Greek worldview there was a concept words. Here it could be used in such a way that it corresponded to the worldviews of both the Hellenic and the Jew. It was something that lay in the historical heritage of both races; both of them could understand it"(From chapter - Barclay's commentary - Bible
It is known that in the understanding of (many) Jews it was conceived as the One, but not as the Trinity. The Word of God was comprehended in their minds as an active force, but not as a Divine Hypostasis (cf.: and God said...). Something similar was thought about the Logos (Word) and the mentioned Greeks.
“And so,” he develops his thought, “ when John was looking for a way to present, he found that in his faith and in the history of his people there was already an idea words, word, which in itself is not just a sound, but something dynamic -word God, by whom he created the earth; word from Targumi – Aramaic translation of the Bible – expressing the very idea of God's action; wisdom from the books of Wisdom - the eternal, creative and enlightening power of God. So John says, "If you want to see Word God's, if you want to see the creative power of God, if you want to see Word, through whom the earth was created, and by whom gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him Word God has come to you" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
As if confirming what was said above, U Barkley signals: “ . ..In the Greek world and in the Greek worldview, there is another name that we must get to know. In Alexandria lived a Jew named Philo, who devoted his life to the study of the wisdom of two worlds: the Greek and the Jewish. None of the Greeks knew as well as he did the Holy Scripture of the Jews, and not a single Jew knew as well as he did the greatness of Greek thought. Philo also loved and used this idea logos, words, reason God's. He believed that nothing in the world is older logos So what logos It is the instrument by which the world was created. Philo said that logos- this is the thought of God, imprinted in the universe; logos created the world and everything in it; God is the pilot of the universe, He holds logos like a helm and directs everything. According to Philo logos imprinted in the human brain, it gives a person reason, the ability to think and the ability to know. Philo said that logos mediator between the world and God, and that logos is a priest who presents the soul to God. Greek philosophy knew all about logos, she saw in logos the creative, leading and directing power of God, the power that created the universe and thanks to which life and movement are preserved in it. And so John came to the Greeks and said: “For centuries you have been thinking, writing and dreaming about logos, about the power that created the world and keeps order in it; about the power that gave man the ability to think, reason and know; about the power through which people entered into a relationship with God. Jesus is this logos, descended to earth." "The Word became flesh' John said. We can also express it like this: The Mind of God Incarnated in Man"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
Finally, Barclay explicitly points out that the Savior was identical with God, but was not “one” with God: “ When John says that the Word was God, he is not saying that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much like God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
And elsewhere: "The Word became flesh - in this, perhaps, as nowhere else in the New Testament, the human essence of Jesus is wonderfully proclaimed. In Jesus we saw the creative Word of God, directing the Mind of God, Who Himself incarnates in man. In Jesus we see how God would live this life if He were a man. If we had nothing more to say about Jesus, we could still say that He shows us how to live the life we need to live."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/)
How does W. Barclay explain that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father? He boils it down to the fact that Jesus is unique and most loved by God the Father. Here is how he says it himself: Jesus - only begotten Son. In Greek it is monogenesis, What means only Son, only begotten and in this case it fully corresponds to the Russian translation of the Bible. But the point is that long before the Fourth Gospel was written, this word lost its purely physical meaning and acquired two special meanings. It began to mean unique, special in its own way and especially loved, it is quite obvious that the only son also occupies a special place in the heart of the father and enjoys special love, and therefore this word has come to mean, first of all, unique. The writers of the New Testament are absolutely convinced that Jesus is unique, that there was no one like Him: He alone can lead God to people and people to God"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).
