Our Father, by grace

Yet the love of God for humanity is such that by grace he becomes Father of those in relation to whom he had previously only been Maker. He becomes their Father when created human beings receive "into their hearts the Spirit of the Son, crying out, 'Abba, Father'" (Gal. 4:6), as the apostle says. These are the ones who, by receiving the Word, receive authority from him "to become children of God" (John 1:12). Being creatures by nature, they would not become "sons" except by receiving the Spirit of the natural and true Son. So it was in order to bring this about and to make humanity receptive of divinity that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14). . . . Accordingly, the Father calls "sons" those in whom he sees his own Son and he says "I begot" since "begetting" signifies "son," while "making" is indicative of the works. Therefore, we are not begotten first but made, for it is written, "Let us make humanity" (Gen. 1:26). But when we later receive the grace of the Spirit, we are henceforth said to be also begotten.

Athanasius

Orations against the Arians

Sheer grace (Augustine)

Let us then rejoice in this grace, so that our glorying may bear witness to our good conscience by which we glory, not in ourselves but in the Lord. That is why Scripture says, "He is my glory, the one who lifts up my head." For what greater grace could God have made to dawn on us than to make his only Son become the Son of man, so that human beings might in their turn become children and heirs of God? Ask if this were merited; ask for its reason, for its justification, and whether you will find any other answer but sheer grace.

Ascribing reality of created things to God is "credible, acceptable, and coherent" (Iraneaeus of Lyons)

They (the Gnostics) tell us that moist substance proceeded from the tears of Achamoth, lucid substance from her smile, solid substance from her sadness, mobile substance from her fear. Here, they say, puffing themselves up, is the highest wisdom. In fact, it deserves nothing but contempt; it is truly ridiculous. Ignorant of the power of a spiritual and divine substance, they do not believe that God, who is mighty and rich in all things, created matter. Instead, they believe that their "Mother," whom they call "woman from woman," produced the vast matter of creation out of the passions mentioned above! They ask where the Maker obtained the matter of creation. But they do not ask where this "Mother" of theirs . . . obtained all those tears, all that sweat and sadness, and all the other material things she emitted!

But to ascribe the reality of created things to the power and will of the God of all is credible, acceptable, and coherent. It can rightly be said: "What is impossible with men is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). Men cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of already existing matter. God, however, is superior to men, because He calls into being the matter of His creation when previously it did not exist.

Against Heresies

A tale of two Philips?

Reading the Church Fathers is always a richly rewarding, although sometimes frustrating, experience. For all their wisdom, these early saints and doctors of the church were not without their quirks. Irenaeus, for instance, taught that Jesus lived well into his fifties. Origen espoused numerous novel doctrines, particularly in his later years. Papias was repudiated by Eusebius for claiming to have received directly from the apostles "certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things" including "his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth." Commenting on such teachings, Eusebius observes, "I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures."

Maybe some of these aberrations are more than mere quirks, but we must always be charitable when considering the nascent theology of the early Fathers, keeping in mind that many of them sealed their testimony with the blood of martyrdom. Still, reading some of their exegetical works can be somewhat amusing at times. In reading from John Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, I came across this rather dubious exegetical stretch.

Why were these [the believers in Samaria] not in receipt of the Holy Spirit? It may be that Philip kept this honor for the apostles, or that the did not have this gift or that he was one of the seven. The last is most likely. Thus, I take it, this Philip was one of the seven, the one after Stephen, while the Philip in the story of the eunuch was one of the apostles.

This "two Philips" theory does not hold up under even the most rudimentary of exegetical scrutiny. "Philip" is named among the eleven in the Upper Room prior to Pentecost (Acts 1.13), but that very fact itself means he would have been in Jerusalem with the other apostles (who, except for Peter and John's brief follow-up visit to Samaria, were the only ones among the disciples who were not scattered following the death of Stephen, Acts 8.1), not on the road to Gaza at the time of the encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8.26-40). Furthermore, the wider context makes it clear that the Philip who first proclaimed Christ to the Samaritans and the Philip who met the Ethiopian eunuch are one and the same. Luke structures the narrative in such a way as to demonstrate the important evangelistic role this Philip began to take on in the immediate aftermath of the death of his fellow deacon Stephen. The encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch came immediately after Peter and John completed the work he began in Samaria. Immediately after baptizing the eunuch, he wound up in Azotus and continued his evangelistic work throughout "all the towns until he came to Caesarea," further suggesting that this Philip is one of the seven, not one of the twelve. The apostles, even after the death of James and the imprisonment of Peter, were still holding down the fort in Jerusalem as late as the Jerusalem Council, recorded in Acts 15.

The baptism of the eunuch, Rembrandt, 1626

It is difficult to understand why Chrysostom found it necessary to presume the Philip who preached Christ to the Samaritans and the Philip who preached Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch were two different people. He seems concerned over the fact that the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit until the arrival of Peter and John. By assuming the Philip who met the eunuch was an apostle, Chrysostom removes any lingering question about how the eunuch might have received the Spirit, as well. Yet, the Holy Spirit does not seem to be the exclusive property of the apostles, even before Philip's visit to Samaria. Stephen was "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6.5). Moreover, it is "the Spirit" who prompts Philip to engage the eunuch in conversation. Perhaps, between his initial visit to Samaria and his subsequent travels down the road to Gaza, Philip received additional instruction with regard to the Holy Spirit from the apostles (which would have been easy, since Peter and John soon arrived on the scene). His hasty departure from Jerusalem after the outbreak of persecution may have left him with an adequate, yet incomplete, understanding of the gift of salvation. This would be the case later with Apollos (Acts 18.24-28), who "was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John." It fell to Priscilla and Aquila to "[explain] to him the way of God more accurately." It is only speculation that this would have also been the case with Philip. Nevertheless, there is no need to try to explain away a relatively minor quibble over early church order by splitting one Philip into two.

Do not neglect the external (Gregory the Great)

Some, on the contrary, undertake the charge of the flock, but wish to be so free for spiritual occupations, as not to give any time at all to external matters. Now, when such people wholly neglect to attend to what pertains to the body, they afford no help to their subjects. It is no wonder that their preaching is disregarded for the most part, for while chiding the deeds of sinners, and not giving them the necessities of the present life, their words certainly do not find sympathetic listeners. Doctrine taught does not penetrate the minds of the needy, if a compassionate heart does not commend it to the hearts of hearers; but the seed of the word does germinate promptly, when the kindness of a preacher waters it in the hearer's heart. Therefore, that the ruler may be able to plant within, he must also, with irreproachable intention, make provision for what is external. Let pastors, then, give their entire devotion to the inner life of their subjects, yet not neglect to provide for the exterior life also.

Easier for the sun not to shine than for the Christian not to send forth light

Nothing is colder than a Christian who does not care for the salvation of others.

You cannot plead poverty here; for the poor widow who put in two copper coins will be your accuser. Moreover, Peter said, "Silver and gold I have none," and Paul was so poor that he often went hungry and lacked necessary food.

You cannot plead lowliness of birth; for the apostles also were lowly men and of humble parents. You cannot allege want of education; for they too were unlearned men. You cannot plead infirmity, for Timothy was of delicate health and was frequently ill.

Everyone can be of profit to his neighbour, if he will fulfill his role.

Look at the trees of the forest; how strong they are; how beautiful, how large also, and smooth, and of great height, but they do not bear fruit. If we had a garden, we should much rather have pomegranates or fruitful olive trees. The others are for the delight of the eye, not for profit, which in their case is very small.

Men who are interested only in themselves are like the forest trees, or rather they are not even so good. In fact, they are fit only for the fire, while the forest timber can be used for building houses and palisades. Such are the foolish virgins of the parable, chaste indeed and decent and modest, but as they are of no profit to anyone they are rejected. Such are they who do not nourish Christ.

Observe that none of these are charged with particular sins of their own, with fornication, for instance, or with perjury; in short, with no sin but that of being without use to another. Such was the man who buried his talent, showing indeed a blameless life, but not being useful to others. . . .

Do not say, "It is impossible for me to induce others to become Christians," for if you were really a Christian, it would be impossible for you not to do so. As all nature acts in accordance with its own properties, so in this case, too; this is part of the very nature of being a Christian.

Do not insult God. To say that the sun cannot shine would be to insult him; to say that being a Christian is useless is to insult God and call him a liar. It is easier for the sun not to give heat, not to shine, than for the Christian not to send forth light; it is easier for the light to be darkness than for this to be so.

John Chrysostom

R.R. Reno on New Commentary Series, "The Church's Bible"

From First Things:

A new series of biblical commentaries, The Church’s Bible, is an encouraging sign of the times. Headed up by Robert Wilken, this ambitious and handsomely produced series aims to gather portions of ancient and medieval commentaries and present them to contemporary readers in an accessible fashion. So far three volumes are out: Song of Songs, Isaiah, and 1 Corinthians. Extended sections of classical exegesis allow us see the tradition as a living voice, capable of helping us think more clearly and more deeply about the meaning of the holy Scriptures.

The symposium in a recent issue of the estimable theological journal Pro Ecclesia provides assessments by Katherine Greene-McCreight, Paul Griffiths, and Claire Mathews McGinnis. There are, of course, interesting critical observations about the specific content of the individual volumes, as well as a general appreciation of the careful selection and fluid translation of extended portions of ancient and medieval commentaries. But interspersed are also some tantalizing general suggestions about our very modern (or even postmodern) habits of biblical reading, and the positive contribution the tradition can make.

Greene-McCreight paints in the broadest strokes. By her reckoning, The Church’s Bible needs to be understood as part of a much larger trend. She notices that there is “a growing ambivalence toward historical-critical methods of the Bible, an ambivalence shared by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.” The old confidence that rigorous historical-critical study will somehow carry us forward “has waned in parts of the academy, and many scholars are seeking different methods and readings.” One significant strand in this new, experimental moment is undoubtedly, as Greene-McCreight puts it, “the reconsideration of patristic exegesis, its postures and assumptions about the biblical text, and the results of its readings.”

Greene-McCreight is surely right. Ancient and medieval methods of reading tilt in the direction of allegory and typology. This approach presumes that the literal sense of a biblical passage also contains a rich potential to point toward spiritual truths. The account of Israel’s passage through the Red Sea offers a classic example. Their deliverance through water guides us toward reflection on baptism.

The New Testament and the Church’s liturgy are full of these sorts of readings of the Old Testament. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading passages from Isaiah (Isa. 53:7–8), and he asks Philip, “To whom do these words refer, to the prophet himself or to someone else?” Philip takes this question as the occasion to proclaim to him “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Paul develops an allegorical reading of the Genesis account of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:22–31. He treats their story as foreshadowing the relation between followers of Christ and those who remain loyal to the Mosaic covenant alone.

In spite of the pervasive role of allegorical and Christ-focused interpretation in New Testament, the almost universal scholarly consensus has been against this approach. It was not long ago that Church historians might relish the subtle doctrinal arguments of Athanasius or Augustine, but put aside their biblical interpretations as “fanciful.” When Brevard Childs published his commentary on Exodus in the 1970s, he included a section on the history of interpretation that cited ancient and medieval commentators. It seemed revolutionary at the time: a biblical scholar who even notices, much less takes seriously something other than modern historical-critical interpretation!

The situation is quite different today. Patristic exegesis is a growth industry. Take a look at the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, edited by Tom Oden. Although it adopts a somewhat different approach (presenting much shorter portions of classical interpretation), this extensive, multi-volume project also aims to renew our contemporary biblical imaginations with the rich resources of the tradition. And the marketplace has responded with enthusiasm; the series has been a smashing success.

This doesn’t surprise me. Lots of folks, Greene-McCreight writes, “are trying to break out of the stranglehold of historical criticism’s universally accepted method and assumptions about the biblical text and their rather puny theological results.” One way forward, she notes, is to ask an obvious question: whose Bible? Should we think of the Bible as a diverse textual source for historians to use in their efforts to reconstruct the religion and culture of ancient Israelites or early Christians? Or does the Bible belong to the Church as the living Word of God?

Our answers need not be exclusive. Claire Mathews McGinnis reviews the volume of ancient and medieval commentary on Isaiah, and she observes, “As the volume’s contents demonstrate, early Christian readers were simply not interested—or not primarily interested—in the kinds of questions most biblical scholars are trained to ask.” Origen and Augustine did not set out to give an account of the different layers of tradition that make up the canonical text. However, traditional, theologically saturated readings of Isaiah certainly do not rule out modern historical-critical questions.

That said, it obviously makes a difference which questions readers make primary. Will they be those of the Church or the university? Pulpit or seminar room?

Religious readers clearly need to tilt in the direction of the pulpit. Greene-McCreight observes that the academic guild of historical-critics almost always consider themselves the only people who are “serious readers of the Bible.” Others, including the Church fathers of course, don’t measure up. “This, in my opinion,” Greene-McCreight writes, “is ludicrous, for I am not familiar with many historical critics who know enough about the history of interpretation of the Bible even to make such a judgment.”

The neglect of classical modes of interpretation is unfortunate. All too often the result is a generalized allergy toward any role for faith and doctrine in biblical interpretation. The effect has been a diminution of modern biblical preaching. After some decades of listening to sermons and homilies, Paul Griffiths can remember only one treatment of the Song of Songs. This neglect stands in striking contrast to the earlier Christian tradition. For centuries, Christians gave a great deal of attention to the Song of Songs, an intensely erotic love poem that crackles with passion and desire. The working assumption was that Ephesians 5—the union of a man and a woman pointing to the mystery of Christ’s marriage to the Church—provided the key to the meaning the Song of Songs. In the medieval period, a rich monastic tradition added to the patristic reading of the bride as the Church and bridegroom as Christ, reading the bride as the individual monk who seeks to give himself entirely to Christ.

These days, the predominance of a narrow mentality among biblical scholars (and theologians as well) has, as Griffiths says, “inoculated” us against what we often assume to be “the premodern errors of allegory and typology and figurative exegesis in general.” As a result, we have difficulty making much sense out of a great deal of Scripture. Why a love poem? What could Leviticus possibly say to us? Ezra and Nehemiah? Numbers? 1 and 2 Chronicles? Without classical modes of spiritual interpretation, vast stretches of scripture can easily seem dry, dusty, and empty.

Not every strand of traditional exegesis will nourish faithful reading today. As Robert Wilken points out in the introduction to the volume on Isaiah, ancient Christian readers saw themselves engaged in an interpretive struggle against their Jewish contemporaries, who obviously read the Law and Prophets differently. In this struggle, a spirit of polemic and invective produced many exegetical passages that, as Wilken puts it, “do not make for edifying reading today.”

Yet, in the main, the Church fathers and medieval commentators offer a rich trove of spiritual insight. The historical critical tradition is losing its position as the sole arbiter of “serious” and “intellectually respectable” interpretations of the Bible. We are beginning to discern more pluralistic, more spiritually forthright modes of biblical exegesis for our age. The Church’s Bible can help us along the way.

Clement of Rome, 23 November

Clement was the third bishop of Rome after Peter and the first besides the Apostle to have left behind a written record of his ministry. His Letter to the Corinthians remains a significant work of patristic literature to this day. It echoes many of themes from Paul's letter to the same church years before.

Let the one truly possessed by the love of Christ keep his commandments. Who can express the binding power of divine love? Who can find words for the splendor of its beauty? Beyond all description are the heights to which it lifts us. Love unites us to God; "it cancels innumerable sins," has no limits to its endurance, bears everything patiently. Love is neither servile nor arrogant. It does not provoke schisms or form cliques, but always acts in harmony with others. By it all God's chosen ones have been sanctified; without it, it is impossible to please him. Out of love the Lord took us to himself; because he loved us and it was God's will, our Lord Jesus Christ gave his life's blood for us -- he gave his body for our body, his soul for our soul.

See then, beloved, what a great and wonderful thing love is, and how inexpressible its perfection. Who are worthy to possess it unless God makes them so? To him therefore we must turn, begging of his mercy that there may be found in us a love free from human partiality and beyond reproach. Every generation from Adam's time to ours has passed away; but those who by God's grace were made perfect in love and have a dwelling now among the saints, and when at last the kingdom of Christ appears, they will be revealed. "Take shelter in your rooms for a little while," says Scripture, "until my wrath subsides. Then I will remember the good days, and will raise you from your graves."

Happy are we, beloved, if love enables us to live in harmony and in the observance of God's commandments, for then it will also gain for us the remission of our sins. Scripture pronounces "happy those whose transgressions are pardoned, whose sins are forgiven. Happy the one," it says, "to whom the Lord imputes no fault, on whose lips there is no guile." This is the blessing given those whom God has chosen through Jesus Christ our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever.

Let us fix our attention on the blood of Christ and recognize how precious it is to God his Father, since it was shed for our salvation and brought the grace of repentance to all the world.

If we review the various ages of history, we will see that in every generation the Lord has "offered the opportunity of repentance" to any who were willing to turn to him. When Noah preached God's message of repentance, all who listened to him were saved. Jonah told the Ninevites they were going to be destroyed, but when they repented, their prayers gained God's forgiveness for their sins, and they were saved, even though they were not of God's people.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the ministers of God's grace have spoken of repentance; indeed, the Master of the whole universe himself spoke of repentance with an oath: "As I live," says the Lord, "I do not wish the death of the sinner but the sinner's repentance." He added this evidence of his goodness: "House of Israel, repent of your wickedness. Tell my people: If their sins should reach from earth to heaven, if they are brighter than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, you need only turn to me with your whole heart and say, `Father,' and I will listen to you as to a holy people."

In other words, God wanted all his beloved ones to have the opportunity to repent and he confirmed this desire by his own almighty will. That is why we should obey his sovereign and glorious will and prayerfully entreat his mercy and kindness. We should be suppliant before him and turn to his compassion, rejecting empty works and quarreling and jealousy which only lead to death.

We should be humble in mind, putting aside all arrogance, pride, and foolish anger. Rather, we should act in accordance with the Scriptures, as the Holy Spirit says: "The wise must not glory in wisdom nor the strong in strength nor the rich in riches. Rather, let the one who glories glory in the Lord, by seeking him and doing what is right and just." Recall especially what the Lord Jesus said when he taught gentleness and forbearance. "Be merciful," he said, "so that you may have mercy shown to you. Forgive, so that you may be forgiven. As you treat others, so you will be treated. As you give, so you will receive. As you judge, so you will be judged. As you are kind to others, so you will be treated kindly. The measure of your giving will be the measure of your receiving."

Let these commandments and precepts strengthen us to live in humble obedience to his sacred words. As Scripture asks: "Whom shall I look upon with favor except the humble, peaceful one who trembles at my words?"

Sharing then in the heritage of so many vast and glorious achievements, let us hasten toward the goal of peace, set before us from the beginning. Let us keep our eyes firmly fixed on the Father and Creator of the whole universe, and hold fast to his splendid and transcendent gifts of peace and all his blessings.

Almighty God, who chose your servant Clement of Rome to recall the Church in Corinth to obedience and stability: Grant that your Church may be grounded and settled in your truth by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and may evermore be kept blameless in your service; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.