Nothing New Under the Sun

You have my apologies for letting this blog go dormant for so long. I hope to write more in time, but this first year of postgraduate studies has been time-engaging, to say the least!

Today I spent a fair amount of time in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series gathering some bibliographic information on Patristic commentaries. In the process I came across a number of interesting quotations that you may find interesting. Enjoy!

Origen on “Chr-easters”: Tell me, you who come to church only on festal days, are the other days not festal days? Are they not the Lord’s days? It belongs to the Jews to observe religious ceremonies on fixed and infrequent days.… God hates, therefore, those who think that the festal day of the Lord is on one day. Homilies on Genesis 10.3 (FC 71:162–63).

Jerome on how the overseers should be viewed: Be obedient to your bishop and obey him as your spiritual father. Sons love and slaves fear. “If I am a father,” he says, “where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear?” In your case one man combines in himself many titles to your respect. He is at once monk, bishop and uncle. But the bishops also should know themselves to be priests, not lords. Let them render to the clergy the honor that is their due that the clergy may offer to them the respect which belongs to bishops. Letter 52.7 (LCC 5:322).

Jerome on treating the Church as a business: Is it not written, “He says, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’ ”? We read this in Isaiah: “But you have made it a den of thieves (Lk 19:46).” …

Where we read, “You have made it a den of thieves,” John’s Gospel had instead, “You have made it a house of business.” Wherever there are thieves, there is a house of trafficking. Would that it were applied only to the Jews and not the Christians! We would, indeed, weep for them but rejoice for ourselves. But now, in many places, the house of God, the house of the Father, has become a place of business.… I who am speaking and each one of you, priest, deacon or bishop, who yesterday was a poor man, who today is a rich man in the house of God! Homilies on Mark 83 (Mark 11:15–17) (FC 57:182–83).

Another interesting interpretation I came across was how several Fathers treated Ezekiel 44:1-3 (ESV) “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east. And it was shut. ² And the Lord said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it. Therefore it shall remain shut. ³ Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord. He shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.”

Jerome, Theodoret of Cyr, Rufinus of Aquileia, and Ambrose explicitly take it as a reference to the (perpetually) Virgin Mary. I have to say, it’s not the least convincing argument I’ve heard.

Jerome: Some people nobly understand the Virgin Mary as the door that is closed, who before and after birth remained a virgin, through which only the Lord God of Israel enters. Commentary on Ezekiel 13.44.1–3 (CCL 75:646).

Theodoret of Cyr: It is very likely that these words refer to the womb of the Virgin, through which no one enters and from which no one departs other than the only one who is the Lord. Commentary on Ezekiel 16.44 (PG 81:1233).

Ambrose: What is that gate of the sanctuary, that outer gate facing the east and remaining closed? Is not Mary the gate through whom the Redeemer entered this world? Letter 44 (FC 26:227).

Jerome: Christ himself is a virgin, and his mother is also a virgin; though she is his mother, she is a virgin still. For Jesus has entered in through the closed doors, and in his tomb—a new one hewn out of the hardest rock—no one is laid either before him or after him.… Mary is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel, always shut and always shining and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies. Letter 48.21 (NPNF 2 6:78).

Rufinus of Aquileia: What could be said with such evident reference to the inviolate preservation of the Virgin’s condition? That gate of virginity was closed: through it he came forth from the Virgin’s womb into this world; and the virginity was preserved inviolate, and the gate of the Virgin remained closed for ever. Therefore the Holy Spirit is spoken of as the creator of the Lord’s flesh and of his temple. Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 9 (NPNF 2 3:547).

I know I’m not providing any added context or commentary, but you’ll survive. This is just a brief return to the blogosphere before I return to the world of summative essays and research proposals. Read the Fathers!

Matthew Moss is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.

Time for a History Lesson

In our study of the history of Christianity we commonly restrict our focus to the Greco-Roman Empire. “East” and “West” are references to Constantinople and Rome. Greek and Latin are the prerequisite languages. The terms of Aristotle and Plato underlie many discussions. And yet this focus tends to leave a large chunk of Christendom outside our purview.

As western Christians our focus on the history of Christianity west of the Holy Land is understandable. Nevertheless early Christian missionaries (possibly even Apostles) also went outside the Greco-Roman world. Of course we are aware of this, but how much do we really study this group of Christians who are east of “the East?”

I think the average amount of knowledge would string together a few loose strands. We could start with St. Thomas and his reported mission to India. Fast forward three hundred years and one might make note of an ascetic theologian and hymn-writer, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Skip ahead another century or two and the Church historian encounters Nestorius, that great schism that preceded “The Great Schism,” and the resultant Nestorianism. At that point our historical knowledge of Far Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy more or less stops. We could recount more of the history of Islam in this time and place than we could of their Christian co-inhabitants.

That brings us to the modern day. We hear reports of the persecution of Christians (Nestorians?) throughout the Mid-East. How did they get there? If they’ve been there since the start how on earth have they survived two-thousand years without a Constantine? 

Personally, I have found the study of Asian/Middle Eastern Christianity to be truly fascinating! That is why I recommend the below book to any of you who desire to expand your knowledge of the history of Christianity. This is more than just a “continuing Ed.” opportunity. I truly believe that studying history gives us an invaluable perspective on current events. So as you and your parishioners hear of the persecutions in Africa and the Middle East, this historical context of who these Christians are and how they have survived and spread will be well worth the price of the book!

Furthermore, as the western world becomes more hostile to Christianity we could greatly benefit from the experience of these Eastern Christians. We can learn from their methods of survival even if we do not adopt their Nestorian theology. The centrality of theological schools (and monasteries), the preservation of a unique liturgical language (Syriac) in the Arabic speaking world, and their own missionary journeys as far east as China will appear time and again throughout their history. These factors and more proved indispensible for the survival, preservation, and prosperity of Christians who have lived through Zoroastrian, Muslim, Khan, and more Muslim domination.

A History of Christianity in Asia: Beginnings to 1500 by Samuel Hugh Moffett. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009. 560 pages - $25.34 (New)

Moffett’s book is broken down into three parts:
I. From the Apostles to Muhammad

II. Outreach: The Ends of the Earth (From Alopen to the Crusades)

III. The Pax Mongolica: From Genghis Khan to Tamerlane

My only serious critique is that I find Moffett’s handling of the Christological controversy between Cyril and Nestorius to be biased in favor of the latter. Obviously that chaffs my Lutheranism, especially when he invokes Luther for a completely unfounded defense of Nestorius. Citing F. Loofs’ Nestorius and his Place in the History of Christian Doctrine, Moffett claims, “Judged by his own words at last, Nestorius is revealed as not so much ‘Nestorian’ and more orthodox than his opponents gave him credit for. Luther, for example, after looking over all he could find of his writings decided that there was nothing really heretical in them.”

In the interest of brevity, I will just provide a few American Edition of Luther’s Works references that openly and directly record Luther’s condemnation of Nestorius as a heretic (not just Nestorianism): 15:339; 38:310, and in the extremely thorough On the Councils and the Church 41:94ff.

It’s an egregious error and one that Lutherans will not be quick to overlook. However, I did not get the impression that Moffett has an axe to grind in defense of Nestorius. Thus, he does not allow his sympathy for Nestorius to resound throughout the subsequent centuries of events that he covers. Whatever he believes about Nestorius & Cyril he acknowledges the resulting schism as historical fact and moves on from there.

I know a history book is a break from my usual recommendations of OT works, but I am a fan of history too. I highly recommend you purchase this book or put it on a “wish list” since Pastor Appreciation Month is just around the corner.