Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Last Sunday of the Year

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31–46)

For as much as God differs from a human being, so a heavenly judgment differs from an earthly one. For the splendor of an earthly judge rests on his appearance, but the majesty of Christ the judge rests in truth, as the prophet attests: “Our God comes manifestly, he does not keep silence, before him is a devouring fire, round about him a mighty tempest.” He says, “manifestly,” no longer veiled in the body as before so that scarcely even the good people could recognize him, but he will come manifest in glory so that even the evil people will confess him against their will, so that whoever despised him in his humility may recognize him in his power. And those who did not want to know how sweet his mercy is will perceive how dire his wrath is. “Our God … does not keep silence.” He did not say, “And he will be silent,” showing that he will keep quiet about himself, but his very glory will speak about him.…

Because he granted the grace to know him to all nations, he will rightly judge in each instance, so that neither the good will lose the fruits of their goodness without the doctrine of truth nor the evil will escape the punishment for their evil because of the excuse of ignorance. For just as at night the full shape of items does not appear but even a gem seems like a rock and a rock is thought to be a gem, so also before the coming of Christ the difference between human hearts is not apparent but also the evil are endured as if they were good and the good are despised as if they were evil. And whenever the illumination of the gospel has been preached and come to all nations, then the quality of all their wills has been revealed and all the nations rendered without excuse. And so then all people will be gathered justly to judgment because whoever gives a commandment beforehand implicitly proclaims that there will be a future judgment.…

You gave what you could not always hold on to; receive those things you may possess forever. Quite rightly you who sowed one thing on earth will receive a hundredfold in heaven. For the righteousness of people cannot earn as much as the kingdom of heaven was created to be, but it is based on the power of God that was able to prepare it. For if he had wanted to create the kingdom of heaven according to the limits of human righteousness, he would have created it at any rate after the works of human beings had been done. But now because he established the reward of the saints not according to what human beings deserve but according to his bountifulness, so before he created the saints in this age, he prepared the kingdom of heaven in heaven. For this reason he burdens with such labors those whom he knows to be his before the foundation of the world, and he makes them labor so long until they are made worthy of the heavenly kingdom because the kingdom of God is not plundered in accordance with the moderate capacity of people, but people are elevated in accordance with the greatness of the kingdom.…

“Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire.’” It is as though he could not endure their presence or to look on them, so he says, “Depart from me.” For just as carnal people delight to see the carnal appearance of the world, but if we see some things broken or deformed in any way, it is as though our sight has been wounded, so also God, who delights in the holiness of souls, cannot bear to look at sinful souls, as though he were weighed down by them. It is as though he were to say to them, “You are like rottenness and filth, nor can I endure you as long as you are standing in my court.”

Incomplete Commentary on Matthew 54.33–34, 41

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.” So they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way. (Matthew 22:15–22)

Where did [the Pharisees] go? To the Herodians. For he did not say, “they advised” but “they took counsel.” And from the time when they came together with the Herodians, it appears that they mulled over with them a counsel of entrapment of this kind. A farmer does not need the help of that person whose land he possesses. Whoever has righteousness needs the support of nobody except God. He who walks in the iniquities of the devil needs the help of the devil. For a farmer of God does not seek after the aid of the devil, but a farmer of the devil does not find the aid of God, even if he asks for it. Did you ever see a thief ask of God that he succeed in his thievery? Or did one going to fornication place the sign of the cross in his forehead so that he would not be arrested for his crime? But if he did it, not only is he not helped, but he still further is betrayed because the righteousness of God does not know how to give support to misdeeds. So also those who desired to assault Christ quite appropriately did not hasten to the servants of God (that is, religious people) but to the Gentiles (that is, to the Herodians).

The conspiracy matched the conspirators. But who could give counsel against Christ except for the devil, who was the adversary of Christ? For the priests thought to themselves, “If we alone went and asked Christ, even if Christ said that it is not right to pay tribute to Caesar, nonetheless nobody will believe us when we speak against him, for already everybody knows that we are his enemy. But the testimony of enemies is rejected at a trial as suspect, even if it is true.” But they did not want to ask Christ by themselves because they were greatly suspected of hostility against Christ, lest by chance they be suspected of laying a trap for him and not be able to do so. For a manifest enemy is better than a pretend friend. As long as the enemy is feared, he is easily avoided, but as long as the pretend friend is not recognized, he prevails. Therefore, they sent their disciples to him,since they were less well known and less suspected, so that they might easily deceive him in a hidden manner or, if they were caught, they might be less embarrassed in front of him.…

But Jesus, aware of their malice, did not answer calmly in line with their speech but spoke harshly in line with their cruel conscience because God speaks more to the soul than to the body and replies to wills, not words. “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin. He said to them, “hypocrites,” so that they could find in their heart among themselves what they heard in the ear so that they would consider that he knew the human heart and so they would not dare to complete what they were contemplating to do. Therefore, see that the Pharisees indeed flattered him in order to destroy him, but Jesus routed them in order to save them, because an angry God is more useful for a human being than an appeased human being is.

Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, Homily 42

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to “set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”; and “a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. (Matt 10:34–39)

He did not say that he would separate child from parent but “against his parent,” because he does not mandate a physical separation but a spiritual one. Whoever is separated physically is separated from his parent but is not against him. But whoever is separated spiritually, he is with his parent in body but against his parent in the faith. For whoever is far away from his parent is not against him by back talking, flattering and arguing. One cannot believe that he is ordering us to leave our parent when he had said, “Honor your father and your mother.” Therefore, if you have an unbelieving parent, obey him, and you will find the reward for your respect, and he will have his own condemnation for his unbelief. And so he did not say, “Whoever loves his parent is not worthy of me,” but he said, “He who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Just as it is one’s duty to love parents after God, so it is a breach of duty to love them more than God. Therefore, if you have an unbelieving parent, obey him. But if he wants to plunge you into the same pit of unbelief in which he is, then love God more than your parent, because he is not the parent of your soul but of your flesh. But only God is the Father of all holy souls. Render to each person what belongs to him. Offer the obedience of the flesh to your parents in the flesh, but offer holiness of the soul to your spiritual parents.

And truly there is nothing that we ought to love more than God. Friends leave, parents fail, but Christ alone never leaves or fails at any time as long as we ourselves want to be with him. When we leave this world, every soul returns to its place, and nobody remembers the emotions of the flesh once the flesh has left—the parent does not remember his child nor the child his parent. Everything that we received from the earth will be released to the earth, and we will have nobody with us except our works; if they are good, they will redound to our glory; if they are bad, they will redound to our punishment.

One bears his cross, if he was prepared for every danger for God’s sake, even to the point of death, rather than leave Christ. Even if such a person escapes a cross by God’s mercy, he nonetheless is daily crucified as far as his intention is concerned. So even if he suffers no such thing, he nonetheless receives its reward. The will is rewarded, not the deed, because the will comes from our will, but the deed is accomplished by the grace of God.

It is better to die for God and to live forever than to live for yourself and to die forever. If he died for us, when he was not able to die unless he wanted to, how much more ought we to die for him, since we are mortal, even if we do not want to be? If the Lord died for his servants and this without a reward, it is more just that a servant should die for his Lord—especially when this is rewarded.

Anonymous, Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, Homily 25

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost

Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?” But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?” And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.” And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Matt 21:23–27)

Knowing their irreformable evil, the Lord asked them an entirely rhetorical question, not that they might understand it and respond but that they should be hindered from interrogating Him further, for He had commanded, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs,” and it was not fitting that what the Lord commanded should be violated. But it would have profited them nothing, even if He had answered directly, since a darkened will cannot discern what is of the light. What good is it to show something beautiful to a blind man? Spiritual blindness consists of an evil heart, and evil people are not able to understand the mystery of devotion any more than the blind can gaze upon the splendor of the light. When a stealthy hunter sees a place to dig a trap, he also raises a net adjacent to it so that wherever the prey he is seeking to capture attempts to flee, it will either be caught in the net or fall into the pit. Likewise, the Lord set a trap for the chief priests and elders by means of His simple question, in such a way that if they professed John to have come from heaven, He would be able to ask them, “Why, then, did you not believe him?” But if they replied that John was of the world, they would thereby have run into the danger of being stoned to death by the people, as though fleeing into a hunter's trap. It was proper that the Lord teach His interrogator and weaken his tempter in whatever way He could and confound the cleverness of his reproach with rational arguments, while not making known the truth of His own mystery. The Lord did virtually the same thing elsewhere to the devil, who had cited against him a scriptural text without understanding it: “For it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning you, and they will hold you in their hands, lest your foot stumble on a rock.’” The Lord did not respond, “That is not what this Scripture means.” Rather, He left the devil ignorant of the true meaning of the text and instead refuted him with another, clearer passage from Scripture in order to confound the devil's arrogance without revealing the prophetic mystery.

Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 39

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost

Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Matt 13:3–9)

“The sower went forth to sow,” not simply going from place to place but with deliberate design. He did not go where He had not been before, nor did He abandon the place he had left, because God is everywhere. He did not go beyond His presence because God is everywhere. Rather, He went out because God is present where His righteousness is honored. Where His righteousness is not present, neither is God fully received. Those who are within His righteousness are found inside, and those who are not within His righteousness are found outside. Therefore, as long as God was in heaven where all are righteous, He was inside. Coming forth into the fallen world, however, which was completely outside God's righteousness, He went outside in order to bring it inside. Therefore, since all nations, disdaining God's righteousness, were living under the power of the devil, He went forth outside in order to sow righteousness in the world, where it had been absent before on account of their sins. “The sower went out to sow.” It was not sufficient for Him to say, “He went out to sow,” but He added, “The sower went out to sow” to point out that He was not a new sower and was not doing this work for the first time. It was just like God to do this. He has always been sowing. Indeed, from the beginning of the human race, it was natural for God to sow the seeds of knowledge. He is the One who, through Moses, sowed among the people the seeds of the commandments of the law. He is the One who, speaking through the prophets, sowed not only the remedies of things present but also the knowledge of things future. He went out so that in a human body and through Himself, He might sow His divine commandments.

Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 31

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Sixth Sunday after Epiphany

You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.” But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!” shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. (Matt 5:21-26)

This second fulfillment of the Law was done according to the law of how to live. When Christ did these things and taught them, He fulfilled the Law and did not break it. For the commandment of Christ is not contrary to the Law but is broader than the Law. The commandment of Christ includes the Law in itself, but the Law does not include Christ’s commandment. Therefore whoever fulfills the commandments of Christ tacitly fulfills in them also the commandments of the Law, for whoever does not grow angry all the more does not kill. But whoever fulfills the commandment of the Law does not altogether fulfill the commandment of Christ. Often an individual does not kill because he fears punishment, but nonetheless, he is angry. Do you see then, that the Law is fulfilled by grace but not abolished? Then without these commandments of Christ, the commandments of the Law are not able to stand. For if a license is granted to become angry, a reason for committing homicide is also given, for it is from anger that murder originates. Remove anger, and there will be no murder. Everyone who is angry without cause, as far as his will is concerned, commits murder, even if he does not do so out of fear. Consequently, there is not as much grief as if it had happened, but the sin of the angry person is just as great. So John in his canonical epistle says, “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer.”…

See the mercy of God, how He looks more at the advantages to people than at His own honors. For if He were regarding his own honors, He would have said, “Meanwhile, offer your sacrifice and later go and be reconciled.” Now, however, He says, “Go, first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” It is as if He would say to him, “Go. I am gladly despised and freely suffer the loss of my honor, and I, your Lord, willingly await you, My servants, only so that you can come in friendship. Go, then, so that you can know that I love the harmony of My faithful more than sacrifices”—because the sacrifices of humankind do not profit God, but indeed their love effects God’s glory.

Anonymus, Incomplete Commentary on Matthew 11

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17–18)

The Law and the Prophets do these two things: they both prophesy about Christ, and they establish a law of how to live, both of which Christ fulfilled. He fulfilled the Law concerning Himself when He was born and called Emmanuel, when He was circumcised, when He was presented in the temple and a sacrifice was offered for Him, namely, two turtledoves or two doves, and when He was in Egypt. When He returned to Nazareth, when He rode a donkey to the temple, when He was praised by children, when He was crucified between wicked men, when He drank vinegar and gall, when He commended his spirit into the hands of His Father when He left behind His clothing to be divvied up, when He descended to hell and visited all who slept there, when He ascended in a crashing sound, when He sat at the right hand of God, when moreover He will come, calling the earth from east to west when He will sit in the valley of Jehoshaphat and judge all the nations, He fulfills the prophecies, because unless these things had happened, all the prophets would be liars. But now they have been fulfilled and will yet be fulfilled, when the stars fall and the sun is darkened and the moon is turned the color of blood and when the sky will be folded like a book.

But inasmuch as it is a law of how to live He fulfilled the Law in two ways. First, He set free the outward forms of the Law but fulfilled completely its inner truths. For example, in the Law it commands that one ought not to do any servile work on the sabbath except what is necessary for the soul, namely, that which is necessary for human life. This is symbolic because God ceases from His work on the sabbath. But spiritually, according to the truth of the gospel, the servile work is sin, because “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” But every good work is not a servile one but a free one and is done for the freedom of the soul, although it seems that the very work is a physical work at first glance. Do you see then that Christ fulfilled the Law when he worked on the sabbath and did not break it? That He revealed it, not hid it? Again, it had been written that one ought not to touch leprosy. This has a figurative meaning, for leprosy is understood to be sin. Thus, when Christ touched leprosy, He did not break the Law but fulfilled it. By cleansing the leper, He worked righteousness, not sin. And thereby He touched righteousness, not sin, which is truly leprosy. For He who did not sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth, certainly did not touch leprosy, that is, sin.

Anonymous, Incomplete Commentary on Matthew 10

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to the Third Sunday after Epiphany

Now when Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, He departed to Galilee. And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles:
The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light,
And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death
Light has dawned. (Matt 4:12–16)

As history teaches, these tribes migrated to Babylon before all the rest. Most aptly, then, the mercy of the Lord visited first those whom the wrath of God had struck before all the rest, and those who were first to be led into bodily captivity were themselves led back earlier from their spiritual captivity.

The Jews were sitting in darkness, since they were under the Law, in which the righteousness of God had not been manifested; even though there was righteousness there, nonetheless it had been covered in certain figures and types of carnal matters. What sort of light of righteousness was there in the circumcision of the foreskin? They were largely shadows according to the Law, which had not been given to reveal the righteousness of God but to punish the hardness of their hearts, as the Lord says, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.” It was given not to save them but to blind them so that, inebriated by the Law, they might not recognize the light, which they did not deserve to see in the shadows, that is, in their sins.

The great light is Christ. There were many lights among the Jews. Moses and Aaron and Joshua and the other judges and prophets were lights. Every teacher was a light of theirs, whom He illuminated by teaching, as it is written, “You are the light of the world.” But the great light is Christ. The Gentiles sat in the region and shadow of death either because they were doing deadly iniquities or because they worshiped idols and demons, whose worship led them to eternal death.

From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17)

That is, the blessing of the heavenly kingdom, which God has prepared for the faithful, is at hand. It is furthermore as if he should say, “Prepare yourselves through repentance and through patience to lay hold of the blessing of the heavenly kingdom, which will draw near the time of meting out a reward. You who fear calamities or desire good things, pay heed because the kingdom of heaven will draw near. If calamities do not terrify you, then let good things delight you; or if you do not long for the kingdom, at least fear the torments. Let the just rejoice because soon their troubles are ended and good things begin. Let sinners grieve because already their goods are passing away and their troubles are beginning. How does it harm just people to have suffered troubles when they have begun to be amid good things? For even a memory of past troubles not only does not harm but also furthermore greatly delights. As long as troubles are present, they seem grave, but when they have passed, their recollection is grounds for boasting. Or how does it help sinners that they have pursued good things when they have begun to be amid troubles? For the recollection of past goods not only does not help but further burdens one. As long as they are present, they seem delightful, but when they have passed, their memory rather afflicts. And what sort of fruit did Christ’s preaching of repentance bear him? He sowed a word of repentance and harvested undefiled preachers of repentance.

Anonymous, Incomplete Commentary on Matthew 6

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to Epiphany

When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Matt 2:9–11)

Shall we see what sort of glorious thing they rejoiced to see in the lad, since they had undertaken the hard work of such a long journey in order to see a king? They did not see a palace resplendent with marble, did they? They did not see His mother crowned with a diadem and lying on a golden bed, did they? They did not see a child clad in gold and purple, did they? They did not see a royal courtyard echoing with all sorts of people, did they? But what did they see?… If, then, they had come to seek an earthly king, they would have been more confused than glad, because they would have undertaken the hard work of such a journey for no reason. But because they were seeking a heavenly king, even though they saw nothing royal in Him, nonetheless they rejoiced, being content with the testimony of the star alone. Their eyes could not notice that the boy appeared contemptible because the spirit in their hearts showed Him to be one to be revered. Moreover, if they had sought Him out as an earthly king, they would have remained with Him once they had found Him, as often happens in this age, as people leave behind their own king and hasten to another. But they worshiped this king and returned to their own, so that they had a heavenly king over their souls but an earthly king over their bodies.

They fulfilled the confession of the Gentiles in Christ, and they indicated that the prophecy of Isaiah had been fulfilled, who says, “All those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you; they shall come up with acceptance on my altar.” [Is 60:7] When at once they recognized Him and opened their treasure chests, they showed their offering through the very gifts that were fitting for the Gentiles in Christ. Because they recognize Him to be a king and a pure first-fruits and one precious to the saints, they offered the gold that had been stored away for themselves. Because they understood His divine and heavenly origin, they brought Him the fragrance of incense, a type of the pure prayer offered in the sweet fragrance of the Holy Spirit. Because they understood His human and temporal death, they gave Him myrrh.

Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, 2

Patristic Wisdom: Looking to Holy Trinity Sunday

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Mt 28:16–20)

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For “the Lord your God is one Lord.”* And again, “Has not one God created us? Have we not all one Father?”† And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.”‡ And again, “One Lord Jesus Christ.”§ And in another place, “What is His name, or what His Son’s name, that we may know?”‖ And there is also one Paraclete. For “there is also one Spirit,”¶ since “we have been called in one hope of our calling.”** And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,”†† with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] “works one and the self-same Spirit.”‡‡ There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Therefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” not unto one having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor.

Pseudo-Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians 2

*  Deuteronomy 6:4
†  Malachi 2:10
‡  John 1:18
§  1 Corinthians 8:6
‖  Proverbs 30:4
¶  Ephesians 4:4
** 1 Corinthians 12:13
†† Ephesians 4:4
‡‡ 1 Corinthians 12:11

Language for God in Patristic Tradition by Mark Sheridan – Book Review

When reading the Church Fathers, there are times when they are befuddling.  Why did they suddenly take this turn or that, which seemingly has nothing at all to do with the passage at hand?  Why did they go to such great lengths to explain themselves?  Many times we need a road map.  Mark Sheridan has provided just such a map, uncovering for the reader the mindset of the patristic writers in their wrestling and explanation of God’s self-revelation.  The author gleans primarily from Origen’s body of work to demonstrate how the Alexandrian father influenced exegesis for centuries afterward, even to today.

The author begins by examining the early writers as they wrestled with God's transcendence in communicating with mankind.  How could someone so completely “other” express himself in human terms?  Could a self-limiting language accurately convey the expanse of divine meaning?  What has been left unsaid that can only be extracted through the work of the Holy Spirit?  These questions are not those readily considered by the modern reader of Scripture, but to one such as John Chrysostom, this was paramount:

Chrysostom seems constantly to be concerned that his hearers will take the text too literally, and he frequently (several hundred times) introduces this distinction between God’s “considerateness” in formulating things in a human way and what is “a sense befitting God” (Sheridan, 41).

The literal meaning of a text was never in doubt, and we see the great care with which they mined the depths of Scripture in order to correctly expound the spiritual meaning and application.  Knowing their reverence for the Bible, we can understand how writers like Origen earned a reputation for overly spiritualizing in his commentaries and homilies.  We can readily admit that he overstepped the typology and figures the inspired writers used.

Alexandrian homileticians were not the only group to attempt to a spiritual extraction from their sacred text.  Philo, a Jew living at the time of Christ, was noteworthy in his use of allegory to explain the Hebrew Scriptures.  Also, a chapter is offered to the Greek and Latin philosophers who attempted the same rhetorical device to explain their concepts of divinity.  Perhaps this might be the weakest aspect of the book, since the intent is to explain biblical rather than pagan anthropomorphism, but it does lend an historical background to the patristic practice.

After this background information, Sheridan turns his attention to specific passages of the Hebrew Scriptures: first, by gathering patristic comments on Jesus’ and Paul’s use of Torah in teaching; second, by engaging three classic cases from the nation of Israel; and third, by reviewing the imprecatory portions of Psalms.  Each of these requires its own chapter to properly establish how the Fathers interacted with these in light of the New Testament.  These chapters of applying what has been presented in the prior chapters and developing the exegetical sense of the early church, especially as it relates to the Alexandrian school.  Lastly, we are offered a comparison of modern with patristic understanding of the problem texts mentioned in the previous chapters.

Overall, this book is worth the read and is not beyond most readers.  Preachers and teachers would do well to take up this work and learn how the Early Church addressed the Bible.  Plus there is bonus material.  As good as this book is, I found the appendix to be absolute gold.  Sheridan summarizes Christian hermeneutics during the first centuries of the church.  The three major points addressed are:

1. Presuppositions about the Nature of the Text of the Scriptures
2. Criteria for a Correct Interpretation
3. Some Rules of Interpretation

This summary information from the Church Fathers is as applicable to today as it was 1700-1800 years ago and demonstrates that these early expositors were taking greatest care.  I dare say that if the modern Church took the same level of care in their attention to holy things, much exegetical nonsense would be avoided.


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from IVP Academic.  I was not required to write a positive review.  The opinions I have expressed are my own.  I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions - Book Review

Roger Pearse is the editor of a translation work, Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions, comprising letters to both Stephanus and Marinus on various subjects from the gospel texts.  Complete letters and fragments have been compiled from the Greek, along with fragments from Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic translations.  The entire book is typeset with the original language from which the accounts are taken on the left and English on the right, allowing the reader to view the original with the translation.  Readers of volumes in the Loeb Classical Library will be familiar with this format.

Although Eusebius may be more commonly known for his Ecclesiastical History, these letters are evidence of a student of scripture as he gives logical explanations for Matthew’s genealogy, among them the precedence of David, missing generations, and differences from Luke.  Along with these are apparent inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection: the timing, women present, Jesus’ interaction with Mary Magdalene, and so on.  Some of the explanations are familiar and can be found in any commentary, however some are unique and worthy of notation.  Bible students having a conservative view of the gospel texts will appreciate what is presented.

This work is intended to be the first in a series from Chieftain Publishing.  Origen’s homilies on Ezekiel had been in progress, but more material surfaced adding time and effort to the project.  I look forward to its arrival.


Roger Pearse has been advocating the translation of the early church materials, as well as availability of texts in the original languages, for several years.  His online presence includes The Tertullian Project, which deals primarily with the North African apologist but extends to other patristic authors as well (see here for a complete collection.)  In addition, his blog gives incites and updates to ongoing and prospective projects, as well as miscellaneous reflections.

Defending Christ by Nicholas L. Thomas – Book Review

I purchased Defending Christ by Nicholas L. Thomas in an effort to further research on Arnobius of Sicca.  While this work did not aid toward the specifics of my research, the author did a good job in presenting five early Latin apologists in their defense of Christianity.  The author compares and contrasts styles of argumentation in chronological order* to show how authors may have borrowed from one another or addressed similar issues.

I found the lack of direct scriptural citation to be interesting.  Each was more intent on presenting the Christian position in general terms assuming the specific propositions from which they are derived are true.  Instead, each apologist brings his argument to the cause to lay out the reasonableness of the Christian position, the unfairness of attacks against believers, and the folly of continued pagan worship.

Thomas does a good job of interconnecting the thought processes between these men and bringing out individual rhetorical styles.  Minucius Felix is noted for his elegance and Tertullian for prowess in building a legal case.  Lactantius, the last of the men chronologically, set out to draw from and improve upon the argumentation of the North African writers who preceded him, as noted in Divine Institutes.

Although Tertullian fully pleaded the same cause in that treatise which is entitled the Apology, yet, inasmuch as it is one thing to answer accusers, which consists in defense or denial only, and another thing to instruct, which we do, in which the substance of the whole system must be contained, I have not shrunk from this labor, that I might complete the subject, which Cyprian did not fully carry out in that discourse in which he endeavors to refute Demetrianus (as he himself says) railing at and clamoring against the truth.… For, since he was contending against a man who was ignorant of the truth, he ought for a while to have laid aside divine readings, and to have formed from the beginning this man as one who was altogether ignorant, and to have shown to him by degrees the beginnings of light, that he might not be dazzled, the whole of its brightness being presented to him. (5.4.1)

I was disappointed that the section covering Arnobius did not dwell more on his arguments, dwelling on his relation to the others.  This is understandable since the apologist is a professional rhetorician, not a theologian, something his errant scriptural support demonstrates.  Instead he plays to his strengths and argues against the pagans with an offensive polemic akin to Martin Luther’s denunciations of foolhardy doctrine and practice.†

All in all, I appreciate this book explaining the united effort given to the defense of Christ while undergoing Roman persecution.  It is my hope that this will assist believers in learning of the early apologists and how they built upon their predecessors to logically address cultural, if not legal, opposition to the gospel.


*  Exact chronology is impossible, especially in the case of Minucius Felix, however the relative placement of the original works assists in understanding the relationship of ideas.
†  And who doesn’t like a good smack down where it is richly deserved?

The Righteousness of One by Jordan Cooper - Book Review

Available at Amazon

From the back cover:

Since the publication of E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977, Paul's soteriology has received extensive evaluation in light of second temple Judaism.  These works have focused on exegesis of the Pauline text and evaluating Sanders' proposal of covenantal nomism within the second temple Jewish literature.  There has been an unfortunate gap in this discussion: historical theology.  This work addresses the historical claims made by proponents of the New Perspective on Paul regarding Luther's theology and the early church.  In The Righteousness of One, Jordan Cooper demonstrates that the portrait of Luther given by many of the New Perspective writers is a caricature, read through the lens of both Protestant scholasticism and twentieth-century existentialist theology.  Luther's views are more nuanced and balanced than many Pauline interpreters are willing to admit.  In light of this reevaluation of Luther's own theology, early Patristic writings are evaluated in terms of similarity and disparity between Patristic Pauline interpretation and Lutheran Pauline interpretation, and thus it becomes apparent that there is continuity between the patristic tradition and Luther's reading of the Pauline text.  Rather than being driven purely by medieval debates about merit, Luther's reading of Paul is both exegetically sensitive and consistent with the broader catholic tradition.

My understanding of the New Perspective of Paul (NPP) cannot be considered anywhere near comprehensive.  What I have gleaned from that hermeneutic is derived mainly from critiques of Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright, plus my own reading of Dunn's commentary on Romans and Wright's The New Testament and the People of God.  The latter especially has an engaging writing style that allows him to handily communicate and apply NPP to the New Testament.

The outstanding question to be asked for any developing theory must be: Is it true?  Rather than using the time-tested method of comparing what is proposed with that which was handed down from previous generations to establish veracity, proponents of NPP have dismantled what had been commonly taught and built a completely new supporting framework in order to promulgate their teaching.  They assert that Martin Luther, being a victim of medieval theology and philosophy, misunderstood the apostle Paul concerning justification, so that those who followed built on a faulty platform.  Jordan Cooper undertakes the thesis that Luther was not mistaken about justification and righteousness, but actually followed in the steps of the Early Church Fathers.

Cooper builds his case by first articulating what Luther taught and believed about soteriology, especially as it is developed in his commentary on Galatians.  This helps to establish what came from the reformer rather than how he is portrayed amongst the NPP authors.  True, Luther did develop his thinking over time, yet we are able to get a firm grasp on his position.

Next, the author draws from four early sources—Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Diognetus, and Justin Martyr—which addressed the basis of salvation.  He wisely notes that these do not have a fully-developed soteriology, yet they are useful because of common elements across the works, demonstrating a developing teaching consistency in the Christian world.  These works are shown to contain the rudimentary elements upon which the Reformers built, with the conclusion that Luther was faithful in building on what the early church had believed and taught.

Cooper does a solid job of building his case for consistency from Paul to Luther using the post-apostolic fathers.  Being a revision of his master's thesis, I understand why he used only a limited number.  Perhaps there might be an enlarged edition of this work, drawing from more sources in the patristic era in order to further bolster the argument.  Still, I recommend the work for those wanting some background while dealing with the New Perspective.

Read the Fathers

I just learned about a reading program entitled Read the Fathers.  As might be derived from the title, the plan is to read through the copies of the Church Fathers in the public domain over a seven-year period as a group and interact with those are also reading along.  This is a great opportunity for people to learn that the Christianity did not simply start with Jesus and leapfrog to when their denomination or local church began.

As one who has read the multi-volume Ante-Nicene Fathers, I can affirm there is much good material alongside the bad as doctrine was being worked out.  Also, there language and thought patterns you may not understand, but others that are clear, distinct, and familiar.

The reading plan began December 2, but that should not dissuade anyone from starting.  The passages are not lengthy.

Living in the Past to Protect the Future

My friends think I live in the past.  For instance, this morning at Bible study we were discussing the upcoming small group material, John Piper's Don't Waste Your Life.  Out of this conversation I was asked what authors I enjoyed and the first name out of my mouth was John Chrysostom, fourth-century bishop of Antioch.  Both men started laughing and said, "I knew it."

This anecdote is relevant because of a question recently sent in to Worldview Everlasting:

I heard a quote several years ago but don’t know where to look to put it into proper context or who to give credit for the quote, can you help?  It goes something like this: "The trouble with the Evangelicals is, they believe the church started with them."

Think about that for a minute.  You know it is true.  The overwhelming majority of Evangelicals want to leapfrog from the first century to the present, convinced that everything in between is just a lesson in how the church got everything wrong.  In essence they believe their groups, whether founded in the nineteenth, twentieth, or twenty-first century, were established to right the centuries of bad teaching and practice.  That is just nearsightedness.

What you hold as a matter of faith and practice came from centuries of labor in the scriptures.  We have the opportunity to take the long view and see the triumphs, mistakes, and sins of men who were trying to either remain faithful or be self-seeking.  That is just one benefit of knowing the history.

Consider the response to the WE question mentioned above:

As far as I know, this isn’t so much a “saying” as it is an observation made by more historical churches.  The founding of the “New World” gave immense opportunity for new denominations to surface.  Each was convinced that they had found profound new insights into Christianity.  How did this happen? Simple, in the early days of founding the United States, there were plenty of people, but very few historical resources, so Christian groups were left with very little to go about reading and understanding the Bible.  Couple that with a large “anti-Catholic” sentiment, what you have is a formula for ecclesiastical ignorance based on ecclesiastical arrogance.  Mostly what the Evangelicals were able to do, was resurrect old heresies that the Church had dealt with several hundreds of years earlier.

So what we have are groups trying to “get back to the basics” and they don’t really know what the basics are.  It’s quite sad, really.  The reason we pay attention to the history of the Church (both good and bad), is because it shows us where we have gone and where we have gone wrong.

There is more, but this suffices to make the point I wanted to bring out: those who do not study church history and heresy are doomed to repeat it.

Ancient Hymns for Home Worship

Last week I posted quotes by nineteenth-century theologian Edmond de Presenssé from his work Christian Life and Practice in the Early Church.  This is a good book, though I wish he gave more detail on how he formed his opinions on certain matters.  The following are ancient hymns from his chapter "Worship in the Home" (pp. 230-231).  Notice that though these are simple and brief, they communicate a profound understanding of the Lord and our response to him.

Morning Hymn
Day by day will I bless You,
And will praise Your name forever,
And from age to age.
Grant, O Lord, that we may be kept this day also without sin.
Blessed are You, O Lord, the God of our fathers, and
        Your name is to be praised and glorified forever.  Amen.

Evening Hymn
Blessed are You, O Lord: teach me Your judgments.
O Lord, You have been a refuge to us from generation to generation.
You, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
You have healed my soul [in] that I have sinned against You.
O Lord, to You I flee for refuge.
Teach me to do Your will,
Because You are my God;
Because You are the Fountain of life.
In Your light shall we see light.
Extend Your mercy to those who know You.  Amen.

Twilight Hymn
Calm light of the celestial glory,
O Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father,
We come to You now as the sun goes down,
And before the evening light
We seek You, Father, Son,
And Holy Spirit of God.
You are worthy to be forever praised by holy voices.
O Son of God, You give life to us,
And therefore does the world glorify You.

Lord's Prayer: Perfect Model, Summary of the Whole Gospel

If prayer thus conceived is, as it were, the grand harmony of the Christian soul, the keynote of the religious life, it is no less necessary that it find utterance in distinct petitions.  The Lord's Prayer remains forever the one perfect model, the summary of the whole gospel.*  Hence the great theologians who have written on prayer have delighted to dwell upon this theme.

They regard it rather as an outline of what daily prayer should be, than as a sacred formulary to be repeated as if the words had in them some magic charm.  Undoubtedly, the prayer which addresses the Father in the very words of his own Son must be peculiarly dear to Him.  The Master, who foresaw all our human needs, gave us in the Lord's Prayer an example of the manner and spirit in which we might make known to God all the petitions arising out of the varied necessities of our lives.†

Edmond de Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice in the Early Church, 222.

* Tertullian – For it has embraced not only the special duties of prayer, be it veneration of God or petition for man, but almost every discourse of the Lord, every record of His Discipline; so that, in fact, in the Prayer is comprised an epitome of the whole Gospel.  On Prayer, 1

† Tertullian – In summaries of so few words, how many utterances of the prophets, the Gospels, the apostles—how many discourses, examples, parables of the Lord, are touched on!  How many duties are simultaneously discharged!  The honor of God in the “Father;” the testimony of faith in the “Name;” the offering of obedience in the “Will;” the commemoration of hope in the “Kingdom;” the petition for life in the “Bread;” the full acknowledgment of debts in the prayer for their “Forgiveness;” the anxious dread of temptation in the request for "Protection."  On Prayer, 9

Prayer Is Life with God

Prayer, according to Clement of Alexandria,* is in truth life with God.  When we only move our lips, or even without the lips our soul speaks silently to God, the inarticulate cry reaches His ear, for He knows from afar off the thought of the heart that is yearning after Him.

Edmond de Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice in the Early Church, 221.

* See Stromateis, VII.7

Early Christianity Video Series

There are four of a five-part series of videos taught by Dr. Korey Maas entitled Early Christianity: From Embattled to Established which covers early church history.  Each is less than an hour long.  I recommend them as good introduction.

1. Christianity's Early Expansion
2. Christianity's Early Persecution
3. Christianity's Early Defense
4. Unavailable
5. Christianity's Early Establishment