What about the scandal?

In the theology of the cross, the theme of recapitulation ranks high in value. However, there is one problem. Recapitulation alone cannot fully account for the nature of crucifixion. Compelling as Irenaeus’s account is, it does not incorporate and make sense of the factor of Christ’s gruesome death. This is the lacuna — the blank space begging to be filled — in much of what has been written in church history about the cross. The scandal, the hideousness, the obscenity, and above all the shame and dereliction inherent in the manner of Jesus’ death have been passed over in silence more often than not.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 549

Gregory of Nyssa on evil

Among the Greek Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa makes the point well: “All wickednessis marked by the absence of good [steresis agathou]. It does not exist in its own right, nor is it observed to have subsistence. . . . Nonbeing has no subsistence; and the Creator of what exists is not the Creator of what has no subsistence. The God, therefore, of what exists is not responsible for evil, since he is not the author ofwhat has no existence” (“Address on Religious Instruction,” 282). Gregory compares evil to blindness, which is a privation of light.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 422–23 n. 78

Father, We Praise Thee (Gregory the Great)

504 Father, We Praise Thee

1 Father, we praise you, now the night is over,
   active and watchful, standing now before you;
   singing, we offer prayer and meditation:
   thus we adore you.

2 Monarch of all things, fit us for your mansions;
   banish our weakness, health and wholeness sending;
   bring us to heaven, where your saints united
   joy without ending.

3 All-holy Father, Son, and equal Spirit,
   Trinity blessed, send us your salvation;
   yours is the glory, gleaming and resounding
   through all creation.
                         Gregory the Great
                         Trans. by Percy Dearmer
                         The Methodist Hymnal, 1964 edition

Theodoret of Cyprus on the incarnation

But Apollinaris, who values drivel more than truth, and who sets his homely prattle before the pious dogmas, says God the Word put on flesh and used it rather like a veil; and that, having no need of a soul, He takes the place of a soul in the body. But, my dear, someone may say to Apollinaris that God the Word had no need of a body either, for He had no lack at all. He was able even to carry out our salvation by a simple command; but He wanted also to have some properly arranged communion with us. To that end He assumed sinful nature and justified that nature by His own deeds. He set it free from the bitter tyrants, Sin and Devil and Death, and deemed it worthy of heavenly thrones, and through that which He assumed He gave to all the race a share in liberty.—Theodoret of Cyprus in William A. Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 3:242

Cyril of Alexandria on the incarnation

They are utterly stupid who represent, I know not how, that Christ was able to err, because of His having been made incarnationally into a form like us. . . . And if he wore the nature of man for this very reason, that just as that nature in Adam was weakened, in Himself it might prove most powerful and superior to sin, why do they waste their time vainly seeking what they cannot possibly find? . . . Just as in Adam we were condemned because of his disobedience and his transgression of the command, so too in Christ we have been justified because of His utter sinlessness and His perfect obedience and blamelessness; and it is in Him that human nature has its boast.—Cyril of Alexandria in William A. Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 3:236

Ambrose on the incarnation

Letter of Ambrose to Sabinus, a Bishop. ca. AD 390

Just as in the form of God, He lacked nothing of the divine nature and its fullness, so too in the form of man there was nothing lacking in Him, by the absence of which He might have been judged an imperfect man; for He came to save the whole man. It would not have been fitting for One who accomplished a perfect work in others to allow anything imperfect in Himself. If something was lacking in His humanity, He did not redeem the whole man; and if He did not redeem the whole man, He was a deceiver when He declared that He had come to save the whole man. But He did not deceive, because “It is not possible for God to lie. ” Because He came, therefore, to save and redeem the whole man, it follows that He took upon Himself the whole man, and that His humanity was perfect.—Ambrose in William A. Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 2:148

Father, we thank Thee who hast planted (Didache)

307 Father, we thank Thee who hast planted

1 Father, we thank Thee who hast planted
   Thy holy Name within our hearts.
   Knowledge and faith and life immortal
   Jesus Thy Son to us imparts.

2 Thou, Lord, didst make all for Thy pleasure,
   didst give man food for all his days,
   giving in Christ the Bread eternal;
   Thine is the pow'r, be Thine the praise.

3 Watch o'er Thy church, O Lord, in mercy,
   save it from evil, guard it still.
   Perfect it in Thy love, unite it,
   cleansed and conformed unto Thy will.

4 As grain, once scattered on the hillsides,
   was in this broken bread made one,
   so from all lands Thy church be gathered
   into Thy kingdom by Thy Son.
                         Didache (c. 110)
                         Trans. by F. Bland Tucker
                         Methodist Hymnal, 1964 edition

<idle musing>
I had never seen this hymn before. It's a loose translation of the Didache, an early church document full of Christian teachings (didache in Greek means "teaching") dating from somewhere between the late first century to around 120 CE. It is an important source for early Christian practices.

The hymn itself isn't terribly popular, only occurring in about 62 hymnals. No wonder I don't recall ever seeing it!
</idle musing>

Christian, dost thou see/feel/hear them?

275 St. Andrew of Crete (first tune). Greek Hymn (second tune) 6. 5. 6. 5. D.

1 Christian, dost thou see them
   On the holy ground,
   How the hosts of darkness
   Compass thee around?
   Christian, up and smite them,
   Counting gain but loss:
   Smite them by the merit
   Of the holy Cross!

2 Christian, dost thou feel them,
   How they work within,
   Striving, tempting, luring,
   Goading into sin?
   Christian, never tremble;
   Never be down-cast;
   Gird thee for the battle,
   Watch and pray and fast.

3 Christian, dost thou hear them
   How they speak thee fair;
   “Always fast and vigil?
   Always watch and prayer?”
   Christian, answer boldly:
   “While I breathe, I pray.”
   Peace shall follow battle,
   Night shall end in day.

4 “Well I know thy trouble,
   O my servant true;
   Thou art very weary,—
   I was weary too:
   But that toil shall make thee,
   Some day, all Mine own:
   But the end of sorrow
   Shall be near My Throne.”
                         Andrew of Crete 660–712
                         Tr. by John M. Neale
                         The Methodist Hymnal 1939 edition

<idle musing>
I don't recall ever singing this hymn (to either tune). It isn't real common, occurring in just over 300 hymnals.
</idle musing>

Tertullian and philosophy

Tertullian is often interpreted as an irrational fideist who rejected reason altogether, and is frequently regarded as the source of the phrase Credo quia absurdum (“I believe what is absurd,” sometimes altered to “I believe because it is absurd”). However, this quotation is actually not to be found in Tertullian’s extant writings. The quotation is, however, in the spirit of Tertullian, who often glories in paradoxical overstatement. For example, he says that the resurrection of Christ is “certain because it is impossible.” However, when one looks at such passages in context it is clear that Tertullian is not rejecting reason altogether, but emphasizing the ways in which human thinking that is not shaped by revelation goes awry. In fact, he emphasizes the rationality of God throughout his writings. Human thinking is distorted by human sinfulness, and thus if we are to gain true wisdom we must receive it from God, who thus makes it possible for ordinary, uneducated people to gain an understanding of salvation.—Evans, A History of Western Philosophy, 128

It takes a village (church)

For the fathers, then, hermeneutics is not an objective science that can be practiced by any scholar within any context. Rather hermeneutics in Christ becomes a spiritual, communal, interpretive art. It can be safely, wisely and fruitfully exercised only by those whose minds and hearts have been soaked in and shaped by the gospel itself—within the Christian community's reflection, devotion and worship.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 195

<idle musing>
That completes our quick little trot through the fathers. I hope you enjoyed it and are stimulated to read the originals.

Monday I'll start excerpting from IVP's A History of Western Philosophy from 2018. I picked it up at AAR/SBL that year and it's been staring at me, daring me to pick it up and read it ever since. I finally did : )
</idle musing>

Yes, Virginia, there (still) is a metanarrative

The fathers insist that the narrative of the Bible is a continuous, deeply connected story from Genesis through Revelation. The Old Testament is not discontinuous with the New. Rather the themes presented in the Old Testament find their fulfillment in the narrative structure of the New Testament. Continuity and fulfillment characterize the entire story. Most importantly, the fathers insist that the biblical narrative reaches its culmination, its thematic climax, with the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of God. Indeed, the incarnational, soteriological and eschatological foci of the New Testament further clarify and deepen the Old Testament witness itself. We will read the Bible ineffectively and incorrectly, the fathers warn, if we fail to read its individual parts in the light of its overarching, unifying message.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 191

<idle musing>
I know I've used that blog title at least once before, but I like it. Especially because it is true. Our age likes to split the Bible into smaller sections and look at the theology of a book, or section of a book, or a section of the canon. The big projects of the early-to-mid-twentieth century, such as Eichrodt and van Rad with their huge, two volume theologies aren't being produced anymore. But you can buy any number of books with the title/subtitle/theme of "the theologies of the Bible." We've lost sight of the metanarrative.

Lewis was right (see yesterday's post), we do need the writers and books of the past to correct our blindness!
</idle musing>

It's a slow-going read

People bred by their culture to expect a text to address and immediately answer problems, questions or issues that by their intrinsic nature demand a slower, broader and deeper response will often find themselves frustrated by patristic writers. The quest for immediate spiritual or intellectual gratification is rarely successful; short-term solutions to long-term problems ultimately break down. The fathers are insistent that spiritual, theological and biblical insight does not appear overnight. Instead, they adamantly insist that the Bible opens itself to those who have immersed themselves in its riches and pondered it deeply within the context of prayer, worship and communal reflection.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 180

</idle musing>
All of which are taboo in our instant-on, instant gratification, soundbite-oriented world. No wonder we produce few mystics and saints!

Much as we would like, there is no instant maturity. It requires nurturing a daily, moment-by-moment walk with God. That means putting the phone down!
</idle musing>

Ambrose has a word for you

Ambrose asks, Have not the rich lost all sense of proportion in their self-indulgence? Their riches have blinded them to the needs of the poor, daily paraded before their very noses.

You give coverings to walls and bring men to nakedness. The naked cries out before your house unheeded; your fellow-man is there, naked and crying, while you are perplexed by the choice of marble to clothe your floor. A poor man begs for money in vain; your fellow-man is there, begging bread, and your horse champs gold between his teeth. Other men have no corn; your fancy is held by precious ornaments. What a judgment you draw upon yourself! The people are starving, and you shut your barns; the people are groaning, and you toy with the jewel upon your finger. Unhappy man, with the power but not the will to rescue so many souls from death, when the price of a jewelled ring might save the lives of a whole populace.

—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 175

<idle musing>
Indeed! Can you imagine the sermons he would give today? Not too many christians, in the US at least, would meet his approval. In fact, he would question whether or not the label Christians should even be applied to much of what passes for Christianity in this country.
</idle musing>

Jerome's hermeneutics

Because he [Jerome] is convinced that the overarching biblical narrative is one piece, inspired by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and continually pointing to God’s culminating act in the incarnation and redemptive work of the Son, Jerome consistently looks for connections in the story, many of which are not immediately apparent. He, like other fathers, will force us to read the particular text in light of the whole gospel narrative within the context of the Christian community.

The danger of this approach, though, particularly for those fathers seeking an allegorical sense in the biblical text, is to discern a message in the text that only they can see. The danger of subjectivism is apparent.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 115

Ambrose and Augustine on hermeneutics

It is important to note that the comments of Ambrose and Augustine concerning the “literal” meaning of a biblical text were made in response to Christian interpreters who disregarded common literary devices such as metaphor and insisted on interpreting the Old Testament in an extremely wooden, often corporeal sense. Too many in Ambrose’s own congregation considered exegesis a “spontaneous, immediate, and unconsidered” exercise. Various “errors and absurdities” were the result. Ambrose did not ignore the literal sense of the text, “but in many cases called the spiritual sense what we would consider to be the figurative literal sense.” [De Margerie, Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 2:79]—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 105

<idle musing>
The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh? I've often said that we could use more literary interpreters and fewer engineer ones. By that meaning those who understand the literary techniques versus the literalistic, blueprint approach to scripture that seems to be far too common. Or else people wax eloquent in the allegorical approach, an equally dangerous approach…
</idle musing>

Chrysostom's theodicy

Chrysostom consistently argues that the gospel of Christ has effectively sucked the poison out of the Christian's suffering. The realities God has introduced into the world through Christ have conquered harm as a continuing, unjust, unrighteous reality, a permanent source of lasting damage to the Christian. Suffering overcomes harm, John contends, through the cross of Christ.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 97–98

<idle musing>
And he would know about suffering! If you don't know his story, you should read about him. He was exiled for standing up against the emperor. In those days "speaking truth to power" didn't get you a social media following! It got you exile, and probably death.
</idle musing>

Chrysostom's practical theology

For Chrysostom, solid doctrine add sound living remained an inseparable whole. What we know must deeply affect how we live. If not, the truth of the gospel is short-circuited and the watching world perceives a skewed picture of the gospel’s reality. Chrysostom views Paul, above all others, as the expert at fusing knowledge and life.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 96–97

<idle musing>
A recurring theme in the church fathers. For them there was no salvation apart from a change in conduct. In other words, no cheap grace.

We could do with a good bit of that theology! Not works righteousness, mind you, but as I like to say: heart holiness.
</idle musing>

Basil's hermeneutics

Basil here illustrates a fundamental patristic hermeneutical principle. The old must be read and interpreted in light of the new. The narrative of Scripture is a continuum progressing to a culmination in Christ. As the texts of the old covenant are watered by the revelation the new covenant brings, they themselves blossom even more fully.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 92

Basil takes aim. Better duck, he's aiming at you!

Yes, Basil would make many modern Christians uncomfortable, particularly those raised in an affluent environment where every need for food, shelter and clothing is well met. The modern martyrs and prisoners of the faith would more readily recognize his voice. Without doubt Basil would consider the affluent Western lifestyle at best a spiritual smokescreen that, like the lifestyle of many of his own wealthy contemporaries, could blind one to the need for utter dependence upon God and sensitivity to the needs of the surrounding poor. Later, while serving as an auxiliary bishop in Caesarea, Basil would witness firsthand the horrors of famine and the even greater horror of wealthy Christians turning a blind eye to the needs of the poor.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 83

<idle musing>
The more things change, the more they stay the same! Wealthy christians are still turning a blind eye. John Michael Talbot's "Would You Crucify Him" has been running though my mind the last several weeks. Even though it was written in the 1970s, it seems terribly relevant.

Sometimes, in the cool of the evenin'
The truth comes like a Lover through the wind
Sometimes, when my thoughts have gone misleadin'
She'll ask that same old question once again...

CHORUS 1:
Would you crucify Him
Would you crucify Him..., my old friend?
Now would you crucify Him...,
I'm talking 'bout the sweet Lord Jesus
If He'd walk right here among you once again?

She's askin', How many times have you looked down to the harlot
Lookin' through her tears, pretendin' you don't know?
But once you were just like her, how can you be now so self righteous
When in the name of the Lord you'd throw the first stone

CHORUS 2:
Would you crucify Him
Now would you crucify Him..., my religious friend?
Now would you crucify Him...,
I'm talking 'bout the sweet Lord Jesus
If He'd walk right here among you once again?

So now I turn to you through your years of your robes and your stained-glass windows
Do you vainly echo your prayers, say you're "pleasing the Lord"
Profess the Marriage with your tongue, but your mind dreams like the harlot
But if the Judge looks to your thoughts can't you guess your reward?

But yet how many times have you quoted from your Bible
To justify your eye for your eye and your tooth for your tooth?
You say that He didn't mean what He was plainly sayin'
But like the Pharisee, my friend, you're an educated fool!

CHORUS 3:
And somehow... I think they'd crucify Him
I think they'd crucify Him..., my religious friends.
Now would you crucify Him...,
I'm talking 'bout the sweet Lord Jesus
If He'd walk right here among you once again?

Now would you crucify Him...I'm talking 'bout the sweet Lord Jesus
If He'd walk right here among you once again?

Again, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I just read this the other day: "What the world needs—far more than gold, lithium, or faster silicon chips—is wisdom: an awe and delight in God and a desire to follow his ways." Yep.
</idle musing>

Continuity

Rather than producing a forced harmony, the comparison of texts acknowledges the Spirit's overriding authorship of the entire Bible. Because the New Testament Scriptures are in continuity with those of the Old Testament, Gregory feels free to interpret the Old in light of the New. To fail to do so is to practice a wooden literalism that fails to observe the Bible's deeper unity in the Spirit.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 76-77