Language for God in Patristic Tradition by Mark Sheridan - EXCERPT

8/10/2019 Language for God in Patristic Tradition by Mark Sheridan - EXCERPT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-for-god-in-patristic-tradition-by-mark-sheridan-excerpt 1/33

M SF T C. O

L G P T

W B

A

Y • Z





L G

P TW B

A

M SF T C. O

Y • Z

Copyrighted Material. www.ivpress.com/permissions



In erVarsi y Press P.O. Box , Downers Grove, IL -World Wide Web: www.ivpress.com Email: [email protected]

© by Mark Sheridan

All righ s reserved. No par o his book may be reproduced in any orm wi hou writen permission om In erVarsi y Press.

In erVarsi y Press® is he book-publishing division o In erVarsi y Chris ian Fellowship/USA® , a movemen o s uden s and acul y ac ive on campus a hundreds o universi ies, colleges and schools o nursing in he Uni ed S a es o America, and amember movemen o he In erna ional Fellowship o Evangelical S uden s. For in orma ion abou local and regional ac ivi ies,wri e Public Rela ions Dep ., In erVarsi y Chris ian Fellowship/USA, Schroeder Rd., P.O. Box , Madison, WI

- , or visi he IVCF websi e a www.in ervarsi y.org.

Scrip ure quo a ions, unless o herwise no ed, are om heNew Revised Standard Version o the Bible, copyrigh by he Division o Chris ian Educa ion o he Na ional Council o he Churches o Chris in he USA. Used by permission. All righ s reserved.

Cover design: Cindy Kiple In erior design: Be h McGill Image: ‘Origin eaching he Sain s’ by Eileen McGuckin, www.sgt.org

ISBN - - - - (prin ) ISBN - - - - (digi al) Prin ed in he Uni ed S a es o America

As a member o he Green Press Ini ia ive, In erVarsi y Press is commited o pro ec inghe environmen and o he responsible use o na ural resources. o learn more, visi greenpressini ia ive.org.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataSheridan, Mark. Language or God in pa ris ic radi ion : wres ling wi h biblical

an hropomorphism / Mark Sheridan. pages cm

Includes index. ISBN - - - - (pbk. : alk. paper). God--Biblical eaching. . An hropomorphism. . God

(Chris iani y) . Bible—Hermeneu ics. . Bible—Cri icism,in erpre a ion, e c. I. i le. BS .S

. ’ --dc

P

Y




Contents

Foreword by homas C. Oden

Note o Gratitude

Abbreviations

Introduction

God Is Not Like Humans

he Philosophers’ Critique o Myth and theDe ense o Homer hrough Allegorical Interpretation

Hellenistic Jewish Interpretation o the Scriptures

he Interpretation o the Scriptures in the New estament: A

Model or Later Writers he Early Christian Writers

hree Classic Cases

he Special Problem o the Psalms

Ancient and Modern Ways o Dealing with

the Problematic exts Appendix: Ancient Christian Hermeneutics: he Presuppositions,the Criteria and the Rules Employed

Biographical Sketches o Early Christian Writers and OtherSigni icant Authors

Select Bibliography

Name and Author Index

Subject Index

Scripture Index




Introduction

A , Greek, Jewish andChristian, were critical o certain presentations o God that a ributed tothe divinity human characteristics and emotions. For them these were notmerely questions or speculation or theorizing, but concepts or misunder-standings that could inuence human behavior adversely. Tis is a per-ennial problem, not just a premodern one. Te goal o this book is to showhow ancient writers perceived the problem and how they dealt with it.

Ancient Christian writers accepted the Scriptures o both the Old andNew estaments as inspired, or as “divine writings,” and they were con-cerned that these writings should be interpreted in a way that is “ ing to”or “worthy o God.” Tey were also quite sensitive to the charge that manypassages in these Scriptures posed a challenge to such an understanding.However, they were not the rst to con ront the problem. Many Greek and Jewish authors had already aced the challenge. One o the earliest, i notthe earliest, to ormulate the problem was the Greek philosopher Xeno-phanes o Colophon, who lived in the late sixth century . . He has beencalled an “intellectual revolutionary” or whom “the problem o God” wascentral. He is amous or stating, “I ca le and horses had hands, and wereable to paint with their hands, and to ashion such pictures as men do, thenhorses would pa ern the orms o the gods afer horses, and cows afer

1 See Werner Jaeger,Te Teology o he Early Greek Philosophers: Te Gifford Lec ures (Ox ord: Clar-endon, ), pp. - .




LA NGUAGE FOR GOD IN PA R IS IC R ADI ION

ca le, giving them just such a shape as those which they nd in themselves.” Tis was generally understood as a criticism o the highly anthropomorphicdepiction o the gods in Greek mythology. Te surviving ragments o

Xenophanes’s writings were preserved because they were cited with ap-proval by the late second-century Christian writer Clement o Alexandria,and through him they exerted inuence on later Christian writers. Teinuence o the Greek philosophical tradition on Christian interpretation will be explained more ully later on.

Hellenistic Jewish writers experienced a similar difficulty with a literalreading o the Pentateuch, the Scriptures a ributed to Moses. As thepseudonymous second-century- . . Jewish author o the Leter o Aris eas explains: “For you must not all into the degrading idea that it was out oregard to mice and weasels and other such things that Moses drew up hislaws with such exceeding care. All these ordinances were made or the sakeo righteousness to aid the quest or virtue and the per ecting o character.” Tis kind o interpretation was developed extensively by later Greek-speaking Jewish writers such as Aristobulus (second century . .) andespecially Philo o Alexandria (a contemporary o St. Paul), who greatlyinuenced later Christian authors.

Te most inuential o these Christian authors in developing the tra-dition o interpretation both in the East and in the West was Origen o

Alexandria. One o his greatest concerns was the misinterpretation o theScriptures on the part o the ordinary, simple people. As he stated in his basic workOn Firs Principles ( . ): “[Te simple] think o Him [God]things such that they would not a ribute to the most cruel and unjusthuman being. Te reason why all those we have mentioned have mistaken,impious, and vulgar conceptions about the divinity derives rom the inca-pacity o interpreting spiritually the Scriptures, which are accepted onlyaccording to the literal sense.” Origen’s solution to the problem was boththeoretical and practical, as will be explained at length.

2 Te Greek text is preserved by Clement o Alexandria,S rom. . (Xenophanes B ). See Jaeger, p. .3 Leter o Aris eas , in R. H. Charles, ed.,Te Apocrypha and he Pseudepigrapha o he Old es amen (Ox ord: Clarendon, ).




In roduc ion

Misinterpreting the Scriptures that is, reading them literally withoutan interpretation “worthy o God” could also have a disastrous effect onthe spiritual li e o the Christian, as the early fh-century Latin writer John Cassian explained: “We have heard that some people try to excusethis most destructive disease o the soul [anger] by a empting to extenuateit by a rather detestable interpretation o Scripture. Tey say that it is notharm ul i we are angry with wrongdoing brothers, because God himselis said to be enraged and angered with those who do not want to know himor who, knowing him, disdain him.” For Cassian, interpreting the Scrip-tures in a manner “worthy o God” was a major part o the contemplativeli e, but it also had direct inuence on the daily li e o the Christian.

Modern commentators in what is usually called the “historical-critical”tradition, which dates rom the late seventeenth century, tend to be o-cused on recovering the original meaning o the biblical texts as ar as pos-sible. Tat means trying to reconstruct the historical situation in whichthey were wri en, identi ying the author or authors and ollowing thedevelopment o various layers o redaction o the texts where that is per-tinent. o engage in such reconstruction, it is not necessary to be a be-lieving Christian. Ancient Christian commentators had a quite differentorientation. Tey sought to nd a meaning that was use ul or relevant “ orus,” to use the Pauline phrase ( Cor : ), in other words, a Christianmeaning. Te ancient commentators did not have the critical tools at theirdisposition to trace the Scriptures’ complex historical growth, but they didengage in “theological” interpretation; that is, they interpreted the Scrip-tures in the light o their understanding o the nature o God. As we shallsee, they ound a way to neutralize the older or problematic texts by inter-preting them in the light o other or later ones.

Te notion o “theological interpretation” may need urther explanation.First, a word about “theological.” Te word is being used here in theoriginal sense o the wordheology , which is composed rom the Greek words heos (“God”) andlogos (“discourse”), that is, a discussion o the

4 John Cassian,Te Ins i u es , ACW , trans. and anno. Boni ace Ramsey, O.P. (New York: Te NewmanPress, ), p. .





nature o God or o divinity. Tis Greek word (heologia and related orms)had a long history, especially in philosophical discourse, be ore it enteredinto the Judeo-Christian vocabulary. Later Philo o Alexandria would callMoses the “theologian” (heologos), because he was intimate with God and was able to speak about the divine nature. For similar reasons the Evan-gelist John came to be known as “the theologian.” Te goal here is to set inrelie one aspect o ancient Christian interpretation, that o reading andinterpreting rom the point o view o a certain understanding o God.

Te notion o “theological interpretation” should be understood herethen as the search or the correct understanding o the biblical texts by themajor early Christian writers, especially those in the Greek and Latin tradi-tions. Te principal tool used in this search was an understanding o God,o the divine nature, derived in part rom the Greek philosophical tradition,particularly the exclusion rom the divine nature o anthropomorphic (inhuman orm) and anthropopathic (with human passions) traits, but alsoin ormed by the understanding o God as revealed by Jesus Christ, a chieaspect o which was the divine love or humankind ( philan hrōpia). Whatdid not con orm to these essential traits had to be excluded rom (or dis-tinguished rom) the “true” meaning o Scripture, and the text had to beinterpreted so as to provide a meaning that both con ormed to or was ing to the divine nature and was use ul. Tis la er criterion o use ulnessderives rom the statement ound in imothy : , that “all scripture isinspired by God and is use ul or teaching, or reproo , or correction, andor training in righteousness.”

Perhaps it should be emphasized that this book is chiey about speci-cally “Christian” interpretation. Tere were other kinds o interpretationo biblical texts in the ancient world, including Jewish and what the Chris-

5 For a brie sketch o this history, see G. Ebeling, “Teologie,” in Die Religion in Geschich e und Gegenwar ;Handwör erbuch ür Teologie und Religionswissenschaf , ed. K. Galling, rd ed. ( übingen: Mohr, ),

pp. - .6 Philo, Mos. . .7 For the notion o and the role o the “use ul” in ancient interpretation, see Mark Sheridan, “Te Concepto the ‘Use ul’ as an Exegetical ool in Patristic Exegesis,” inFrom he Nile o he Rhone and Beyond: S udiesin Early Monas ic Li era ure and Scrip ural In erpre a ion (Roma: Ponticio Ateneo Sant’Anselmo, ),pp. - .




In roduc ion

tians regarded as “heretical” interpretations such as those o Marcion orthe various “Gnostic” interpretations o Valentinus, the Leter o P olemy oFlora , and those ound in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. Most o these, with the exception o Marcion, did not have direct inuence on the devel-opment o Christian interpretation and lie outside the scope o this book.Te Hellenistic Jewish interpretations, however, were to have a strong in-uence on Christian exegesis, as will be explained in chapter three. Manymodern interpreters o different religious traditions or even secular onescan ofen agree on what might have been the original historical se ing andmeaning o particular texts, because modern interpreters seek to establishthe original meaning o the biblical texts. Ancient Christian interpreters were not primarily interested in the original meaning, but rather in ndinga meaning that is suitable or us in other words, a Christian meaning.

Te rst chapter o this book explains how the phrase, “God is not likehumans,” ound in Numbers : , was used by both Philo o Alexandriaand Origen o Alexandria to introduce important distinctions or the un-derstanding o Scripture. Tese included the distinction between theology(concerning the divine nature =heologia) and the divine plan (oikonomia).Using phrases rom Numbers and Deuteronomy, both authors drew ananalogy between the way a ather speaks to children and the way God isofen portrayed in the Scriptures. Tis was perhaps the most compre-hensive solution ever developed or dealing with problematic texts, and it was a specically theological solution, because it was based on an under-standing o what God is like considered in himsel . Other Christian writerssuch as John Chrysostom, although they did not use these texts, developeda similar approach based on the notion o the divine condescension (syn-ka abasis) in dealing with humans. Te chapter also notes the three prin-cipal adversaries or publics to which these explanations were directed byOrigen: the philosophers exemplied by Celsus, the heretics represented by Marcion and the simple aith ul, the majority in the church.

Te second chapter describes the development o the philosophers’theological critique o the Greek mythology ound in the epic poetry as-cribed to Homer and the de ense o Homer developed through allegorical






In roduc ion

For Philo Moses was above all a theologian (heologos): he spoke about thedivine nature.

Te ourth chapter seeks to show how later Christian interpreters un-derstood and used some o the texts in the New estament that seemed tointerpret Old estament texts in a new way. At the center o the New es-tament interpretations o Old estament was the gure o Jesus. Te texts were used to interpret him, and he was used to interpret the texts, as heseemed to have done during his li etime. Jesus is portrayed in the Newestament as criticizing the law and even seeming to contradict it: “It wasalso said, ‘Whoever divorces his wi e, let him give her a certicate o di- vorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wi e, except on theground o unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marriesa divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt : - ; c . : - ; Deut : ). Inthe second occurrence o this teaching (Mt : - ), Jesus is presented usingthe principle o interpreting Scripture by means o Scripture. He citesGenesis against Deuteronomy.

Te relationship o Paul to the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (latercalled anak) was complex. He was raised as a Pharisee, but came to regardlegal observance as an obstacle to the preaching o the gospel among theGentiles. His polemic against imposing the law on the Gentiles in Gala-tians and Romans is well-known. His arguments go beyond expediencyand assert that the law o Moses as a code o observances is no longer valid.Paul also alludes to the principle o what is ing to God: what is con-sidered un ing to or unworthy o God must be interpreted allegorically,as he interprets the law regarding muzzling the ox that treads the grain in Corinthians : - .

New estament authors showed a variety o approaches toward the Jewish Scriptures and made selective, even i extensive, use o them. By theend o the second century and probably as a result o the Marcionite con-troversy, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings had been included in theChristian canon. At the same time, a change in the concept o Scriptureitsel was becoming apparent, especially in writers such as Clement o Al-

10 See Philo, Mos. . .






In roduc ion

tullian states: “But the Christian truth has distinctly declared this principle,‘God, i he is not one, is not,’ because we more properly [dignius] believethat that has no existence which is not as it ought to be.” Te same termi-nology can be ound occasionally in the writings o Hilary, Ambrose and Jerome, but it abounds in Augustine, who was o course well acquainted with philosophic criticism o the classical or poetic portrait o the godsound in Cicero and other Latin writers.

Te sixth chapter examines three different texts or sets o texts thatposed a particular challenge in terms o the concept o God: the story othe creation in Genesis, which abounds in anthropomorphisms; the storyo Abraham, Sarah and Hagar in Genesis , which seemed to condoneadultery; and the story o the conquest o the land in the book o Joshua.In Deuteronomy : - the Israelites are commanded to annihilate sevennations in the land into which they are to enter, a command to engage inethnic cleansing duti ully carried out in the book o Joshua. But thiscommand was very difficult to reconcile with the divine philan hrōpia (“love o humankind”) revealed by Jesus Christ. Te solutions earlyChristian interpreters proposed to these theological questions were chieyin terms o allegorical interpretations.

Te seventh chapter is dedicated to the special problem o the book oPsalms, which by the time o Jesus was thought to have been wri en byDavid, who was a prophet. But this book is lled with anthropomorphismsand “anthropopathisms” (to coin a word), especially the anger o God, as well as with imprecations directed against enemies and cries or vengeance.By the ourth century, i not be ore, this most heterogeneous o all the books o the Old estament had become the Christian prayer book. It wasused extensively in the liturgy and recited in its entirety by monks andnuns. However, the psalms, produced over hundreds o years and inspired by different theologies, ofen contained sentiments difficult to reconcile with the teaching o Jesus Christ. It was necessary to give them a Christianmeaning. Te early Christian interpreters employed a variety o techniquesto do this, including the determination o the speaker in the passage, inter-

12 ertullian, Marc. . ; ANF : .





preting passages as prophecy ullled already or to come about in theuture, and o course allegory. But the leading criterion was theological,

what was ing to the nature o God.Te nal chapter offers a comparison o ancient and some modern or

recent approaches to dealing with these texts. Although many o the pre-suppositions o ancient interpretation are no longer tenable in the light oour historical knowledge and many o the rules used by ancient Christianinterpreters may no longer be viable, their theological interpretation o thetexts still has value or us today. Finding a Christian meaning or the Scrip-tures is still a challenge. Tis chapter seeks to compare how ancient andmodern interpreters meet this challenge, especially with re erence to sometexts already examined in chapters six and seven.

Tose unacquainted with ancient methods o interpretation may nd ituse ul to begin with the appendix on ancient Christian hermeneutics (p. ).




God Is Not Like Humans

God is no as man o be deceived nor as heson o man o be hrea ened.

N :

As a man he akes on he manners o his son.

D :

A C quotations citedabove in order to explain how biblical texts should be read, as will be ex-plained in this chapter. Tese two texts were understood to re er to thedistinction betweenheologia (who God is) andoikonomia(what Goddoes). Origen o Alexandria used the wordheologia (“theology”) to re erto the nature o God as he is in himsel in distinction rom his plan orhuman salvation (oikonomia). In hisHomilies on Jeremiah he distinguishes between when “the Scriptures speak theologically about God in relation

1

Tese verses have been cited as they are cited by Origen. Te ancient versions differed rom one another.Te (translated rom the Hebrew text) has: “God is not man, that he should lie, / or a son o man, thathe should repent.” Te Greek version o the Septuagint in a modern translation ( ) gives: “God is notto be put upon like man, / nor is he to be threatened like a son o man.”

2 : “you have seen how the L your God bore you, as a man bears his son.” ( ): “You saw,how the Lord God nursed you, as some person would nurse his son.”






God Is No Like Humans

and with a discussion o his divinity [heologia].” Many other earlyChristian writers made this distinction and used the word “theology” in arestricted sense (compared to later use) to re er to the nature o God.

Rather than discussing this subject in the abstract, it is best to introducesome examples o how this was done. In the history o Christian biblicalinterpretation it is not an exaggeration to say that all roads lead to or romthe gure o Origen o Alexandria, whose imposing corpus o biblical com-mentaries lef an indelible mark on all later patristic exegesis. It is use ul,there ore, to begin with a passage rom Origen’s homilies on the book o Jeremiah to illustrate the nature o this “theological” interpretation. Aferciting Jeremiah : - , a speech a ributed to God, which ends with thephrase “I will repent about the good which I decreed to do to them,” Origenobserves that “to repent seems to be culpable and unworthy not only oGod but also o the wise man” and he adds: “But God, a oreknower o what happens in the uture, is unable not to have decided to be good andto repent or this.”

At this point Origen decides to broaden the discussion rom a particular verse to a wider discussion o the divine nature. He states: “But see what we are generally taught about God. Where ‘God is not as man to be de-ceived nor as the son o man to be threatened’ (Num : ), we learnthrough this text that God is not as man, but through another text that Godis as a man, when it says, ‘For the Lord your God has taught you as a manteaches his son’ (Deut : ), and again, ‘As a man he takes on the mannerso his son’ (Deut : ).” Te two contrasting statements that God “is notas man” and that he “is as a man,” drawn rom Numbers : and Deuter-onomy : serve to introduce a programmatic affirmation about the natureo Sacred Scripture: “whenever the Scriptures speak theologically[ heologōsi] about God in relation to himsel and do not involve his plan

7

Eusebius,His . eccl. . . . See also Dem. evang. , proem. .8 E.g., see Basil, Adversus Eunomium (PG : ); Gregory o Nazianzus, In heophania(orat. ); Gregoryo Nyssa,Con ra Eunomium . . - , ; G. H. E inger, Teodore o Cyrus: Eranis es (Ox ord: Claren-don Press, ), pp. , .

9 Origen,HomJr . . .10 Ibid., . . .





or human ma ers [oikonomia], they say that he is not as a man.” On theother hand, “whenever the divine plan involves human ma ers, it carriesthe human intellect and manners and way o speaking.” It is, says Origen,

“just as we, i we are talking with a two-year-old child, speak inarticulately because o the child or it is impossible, i we observe what is ing orthe age o a ull-grown man, and when talking to children, to understandthe children without condescending to their mode o speech somethingo this sort also seems to me the case with God whenever he manages therace o men and especially those still in ants ( Cor : ).” Origen de-scribes how mature adults even change the names o things or smallchildren. Tis does not mean that the adults are immature, but that in orderto converse with children they speak in a childlike language. Te Greek word translated here as “condescending” (synka abasis) is used also byother early Christian authors, notably John Chrysostom, to describe whatGod is doing in Scripture.

Te same holds true or God. He speaks to us as children, as it is said:“Behold, I and the children which God has given me” (Is : ; Heb : ).In other words, the Scriptures contain, rom a theological point o view,in antile language, and Origen underscores this point, saying, “to speakmore dramatically, as a baby.” Tis then is the meaning o the statementin Deuteronomy, when it says that “the Lord your God took on yourmanners as a man would take on the manners o his son” (Deut : ). Tereader looking at a modern translation rom the Hebrew text o Deuter-onomy may be con used, or the Hebrew text is different. But Origen wasreading the Greek version known as the Septuagint in which there areound two variant readings or this verse. One contains the Greek verbrophophorein , which allows the translation o the verse: “as someone

would nurse [literally “provide ood or”] his son”; and the other variant,the one in Origen’s manuscript, has the Greek verbropophorein , whichcan be translated: “as someone would take on the manners o his son.” It

11 Ibid., . . .12 Ibid., . . .13 Ibid., . . .





is a difference o one le er, but Origen’s version allows him to develop a whole theory about the nature o the Old estament Scriptures. o insiston this word (ropophorein), he suggests that “those who have translatedrom the Hebrew, ailing to nd a suitable Greek term, seem to have rep-resented it as, ‘Te Lord your God took on your manners,’ (that is, he hastaken on your manners) as i some man would take on the manners o (inlight o this example which I have mentioned) his son.” Origen may inact be correct in saying that the translators coined the word, because itcannot be ound in all o the Greek literature available to us prior to thetime o the Septuagint.

Armed with this idea, that God like a ather takes on the manners o ason, that is, adapts himsel to the limited human perspective, Origen canexplain the original question that was the point o departure; namely, howis it possible that God can be said to repent? “Since we really do repent, when he talks with us who repent, God says, ‘I repent,’ and when hethreatens us, he does not pretend to be a oreknower, but he threatens usas one speaking to babes. He does not pretend that he oreknows all things be ore their generation (Dan ( ): ), but as one who, so to speak, playsthe part o a babe, he pretends not to know the uture.” He also threatensthe nation on account o its sins, just as a ather might threaten a child.

Only children would read the text literally. In short, God is not reallylike a man, and according to Origen, one can nd numerous other passagesthat correspond to this phrase: on the one hand, “whenever the Scripturesspeak theologically about God in relation to himsel and do not involve hisplan or human ma ers, they say that he is not as a man.” On the otherhand, when the divine plan involves human ma ers, it assumes a humanmode (ropos) and accommodates itsel to human language. Te word “ac-commodate” corresponds (in a theological-etymological sense) to theGreek wordropophoreo. Tus, by means o a supposed etymology or playon words, Origen has created a general theory to explain (or neutralize) all

14 Ibid.15 Ibid.16 Ibid., . . .







Tese things must be understood as “obscure” sayings in the sense oProverbs : , “to understand a proverb and a gure, the words o the wiseand their riddles.” Te word “gure” here translates the wordainigma a inGreek ( rom which comesenigmain English), which could more literally be translated as: “dark or obscure sayings.” In other words, talk about God’sanger, regret and so on constitutes obscure sayings that need to be properlyinterpreted to give them a sense that is “worthy o God,” that is, suitable tothe divine dignity. Origen explains that the word o God is not like that oall others.

For o no one else is the word a living being, o no one else is the word God,or o no one else was the word in the beginning with that one o whom it

was the word, even i it was only . . . rom a certain beginning. So indeed theanger o God is an anger . . . o no one else, an anger o none whatever, and just as the word o God has something o a nature alien beyond every wordo anyone else and what is God and what is a living being while being a word, what subsists in itsel and what is subject to the Father, has an aliennature so too, since once it was named as being o God, what is calledanger has something alien and different rom all the anger o him who isangry, so too his wrath has something individual. For it is the wrath o thepurpose o the One who reproves by wrath, who wishes to convert the onereproved through the reproo .

Having made clear that the word o God is not like human words nor to be interpreted in terms o human passions, Origen is able to speak o wrath,anger and regret as part o the “reproving work o God” and the “educative work o God.” All o this explanation has been, as Origen himsel says, “apre ace” to commenting on the saying o Jeremiah: “You deceived me, andI was deceived” (Jer : ). Afer offering many other examples o the “ed-ucative work o God,” Origen returns to the image o a ather correctinghis son: “Perhaps then, as a ather wishes to deceive a son in his own in-terest while he is still a boy, since he cannot be helped any other way unlessthe boy is deceived, as a healer makes it his business to deceive the patient

23 Ibid.24 Ibid., . . .







cites a number o texts: Psalm : ; Jeremiah : ; Samuel : ; Chron-icles : ; Ephesians : . By comparing these texts, says Origen, one arrivesat the conclusion that it is a question o correction on the part o God. Hepretends to be angry, as one does with children in order to make an im-pression. He notes that each one brings this wrath on himsel because ohis own sins, as Paul states in Romans : - . Furthermore he observes thatthe Logos (Word) teaches us not to be angry at all, as it says in Psalm : :

“Cease rom anger and orsake wrath,” and Paul also says: “You too mustput aside these, wrath, anger, evil, blasphemy, shame ul talk” (Col : ). Heconcludes that the Scripture would not have a ributed to God that whichit has commanded us to abandon completely. Obviously, he says, one mustinterpret all the re erences to God’s anger in the same way that we interpretre erences to his sleep, citing Psalm : and Psalm : . He concludeshis re utation o Celsus:

Tere ore we do not a ribute human passions [an hrōpopa hos] to God,

nor do we hold impious opinions about Him, nor are we in error when weproduce explanations concerning Him rom the scriptures themselves bycomparing them with one another. Te task o those o us who give an intel-ligent account o Christianity is simply to deliver our hearts rom stupidityas well as we can and to make them sensible.

In hisCommen ary on Mathew , Origen takes up again the two texts oNumbers : (“God is not as man to be deceived”) and Deuteronomy

: (“Te Lord your God took on your manners as a man would take onthe manners o his son”) in the context o the explanation o the parable othe wedding east (Mt : ), where we nd the phrase “Te kingdom oheaven is like a man, a king.” Using a technique o interpretation that as-sumes every word must have some signicance, Origen takes as his startingpoint the word “man,” which seems superuous, because the comparisonin the parable is with a king. But in this understanding there are no super-

uous words in Scripture. Every word counts and is present or somereason. He explains: “It could certainly have said: ‘the kingdom o heaven30 Ibid., . . .31 Ibid., . . .





is like a king’ without the addition o ‘man,’ but since this term is present,it must also be explained.” Ten Origen makes a direct allusion to Philoo Alexandria, saying: “Someone be ore us has wri en books on the alle-gories o the sacred laws and has presented texts both where it is narratedo God as i He had human passions as well as texts that set in relie Hisdivinity.” Next Origen cites the two texts o Numbers and Deuteronomy.

Actually Philo had also used these two texts to treat o the nature o God.o Philo we shall return later in chapter three.

Origen continues, saying that he will put orth the parables where Godis called “man” as an answer to the “heterodox who put themselves in op-position to the God o the Law, o the Prophets and o the creation becauseo what is expressed in this manner in the ancient Scriptures.” Te word

“heterodox” is a clear allusion to Marcion, who, a hundred years earlier, hada ributed “the ancient writings,” that is, the Old estament, to a differentGod rom the Father o Jesus Christ. Origen asks rhetorically: “i God iscompared to a man [in the parables o the Gospels], or what reason, in line with these parables, do you not accept that the anger, the wrath, the changeo heart, o decisions, being seated or taking a walk by God are not also aparable?” In short he is suggesting that there is a lack o theological con-sistency on the part o the ollowers o Marcion, who in the time o Origen were still quite active and seen as a threat to correct belie . He then poses asecond rhetorical question: “i , as a consequence o God being called ‘man’in the parable, you do not want to understand in a parabolic sense all thepassages o Scripture that ascribe human passions to Him, then tell us whythe God o the universe is called ‘man’ in the Gospel, since (as you suppose)he has nothing human in Him.” Origen’s logic is that, since God is com-pared to a “man” (a king) in the parable (which the Marcionites accept) andthere it must be interpreted in a symbolic sense, they ought to be willing tointerpret all the other passages o the Scriptures that ascribe human charac-

32 Origen,ComM . .33 Ibid.34 Ibid., . .35 Ibid.36 Ibid.





teristics to God also in a gurative sense. Te heart, then, o the theologicalproblem is the a ribution o human passions to God.

We will not pause here to ollow all o Origen’s argumentation, but it isimportant to note the introduction into this passage o the technical Greekterm an hrōpopa hos(with human passions), which is ound or the rsttime in Greek literature in the works o Philo. In these two works ( AgainsCelsus and theCommen ary on Mathew) Origen was responding to thephilosophical criticism o Celsus and to the heretical criticism o Marcionand his ollowers, but he was also concerned about the “simple” persons inthe church and the danger or them o a ributing human passions to God,as can be seen rom the comparison with the small children in theHomilieson Jeremiah noted earlier. Te problem o the “simple” was in act a majorconcern o Origen and not only in the last period o his li e when he waspreaching at Caesarea. Tese people, who are actually the majority, aredesignated by many terms in his works: the many, the uneducated, unlet-tered, and so on. Already in his workOn Firs Principles , wri en when he was still in Alexandria, he had observed in the ourth book, dedicated tothe interpretation o Scripture, “Moreover, even the simpler o those whoclaim to belong to the Church, while believing indeed that there is nonegreater than the Creator, in which they are right, yet believe such thingsabout him as would not be believed o the most savage and unjust o men.”

According to Origen, the reason people “hold alse opinions and makeimpious or ignorant assertions about God appears to be nothing else butthis, that scripture is not understood in its spiritual sense, but is interpretedaccording to the bare le er.”

Origen was concerned, then, with three distinct categories o persons:the philosophers represented by Celsus, the heretics represented byMarcion and the simple believers. In the next chapter we will take a lookat the philosophical tradition. In act Christianity had presented itselalmost rom the beginning as a philosophy, the only true philosophy. Paul’sspeech in the Areopagus (Acts : ) is the rst step in this direction. It

37 Origen, PArch . . .38 Ibid., . . .







Old estament passages ound in the Pauline le ers, especially Galatiansand – Corinthians. Among the Gospels only that o Luke was acceptable,since Luke had been the riend and companion o Paul. Marcion insistedon reading the texts o the Old estament literally, rejecting any kind ospiritual interpretation, and so or him the only consistent solution wasto reject it. Marcion’s ideas were condemned by the Roman church in ,afer which he ounded his own church. Marcion’s inuence was wide-spread, as can be seen by the numerous denunciations o him or cen-turies to come. His teaching also led indirectly to the establishment o thecanon o the New estament, that is, o the list o officially recognized writings o the church. In reality Marcion had arrived too late on the sceneto effect such a rejection o the Old estament. Christian interpretationso these writings were already deeply embedded in the tradition, as caneasily be seen by the numerous re erences to Old estament writings inthe New estament.

Te challenge articulated by Marcion was, however, taken seriously byearly Christian writers, and much early Christian interpretation was developed to demonstrate that the real meaning o the Old estament textsis not in contradiction with the teaching o Jesus Christ. Marcion hadposed in a dramatic way the problem o reading the Old estament with aChristian sense. However, his solution was, rom a theological point o view, very poor, or it ended up producing another god besides the Fathero Jesus Christ.

Te theological interpretation o the Scriptures by the early Christian writers being described here did not involve a rejection o portions oScripture as did that o Marcion. Rather it was an interpretation that ofendistinguished between the literal or obvious sense and what Christian writers understood to be the true or Christian meaning o the Scriptures. With regard to the Old estament Scriptures, this meant a more pro oundor hidden meaning. Origen and many other early Christian interpreters viewed or valued the le er o the Scriptures in a way similar to that o

40 For a summary o Marcion’s doctrine and additional re erences, see A. A. Stephenson, “Marcion,” in NewCa holic Encyclopedia , ed. B. A. Marthaler (Detroit: Tomson Gale, ), : - .





Marcion, but they assumed that Scripture had to have a deeper or non-literal meaning. Tis assumption was not limited to the Alexandrian school, which included Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Didymus and Cyril, but ex-tended also to Antiochene writers such as John Chrysostom and Teo-doret o Cyrrhus. Clement o Alexandria developed a theory that allsacred texts in all religions contained hidden meanings.

Where ore, in accordance with the method o concealment, the truly sacred Word, truly divine and most necessary or us, deposited in the shrine o

truth, was by the Egyptians indicated by what were called among themady a , and by the Hebrews by the veil. Only the consecrated that is, thosedevoted to God, circumcised in the desire o the passions or the sake olove to that which is alone divine were allowed access to them.

Afer surveying also all the writings o the philosophers, he concludes:

For only to those who ofen approach them, and have given them a trial byaith and in their whole li e, will they supply the real philosophy and the

true theology. Tey also wish us to require an interpreter and guide. For sothey considered, that, receiving truth at the hands o those who knew it well, we would be more earnest and less liable to deception, and those worthy othem would prot. Besides, all things that shine through a veil show thetruth grander and more imposing; as ruits shining through water, andgures through veils, which give added reections to them.

In addition it is interesting to note that one o the common ways odescribing Sacred Scripture or Philo, Origen and many others in antiquity was as the “sacred oracles” (heia logia, hieroi chrēsmoi). Oracles by theirnature are obscure and require an interpretation. Tis notion is reectedin the modern phrase “oracular” speech, meaning enigmatic or obscure.

Te problems Origen con ronted were still there years later, when

41 Te term “Alexandrian School” is here used to designate a school o thought or interpretation in which

allegory was used to nd the deeper meaning o Scripture. It also designates the catechetical school o Alexandria, o which Origen was appointed head by the bishop. Te term “Antiochene School” is alsoused to designate a school o thought, beginning with Diodore o arsus about . For more on thisdistinction, see chap. below.

42 Clement,S rom. . ; ANF : .43 Ibid., . ; ANF : . Clement devotes . - to this subject and returns to it later in the same work.





John Chrysostom, amous or his preaching in the city o Antioch, alsoound it necessary to distinguish constantly between God as he appears inthe economy o salvation and as he is in himsel . Although he did not makeuse o the text o Numbers : as Philo and Origen had done, he did usethe category o God’s condescension (synka abasis), or willingness toadapt himsel to the level o human beings. In a homily on the story oNoah in Genesis, where the text says: “God was mind ul o Noah, and oall the wild animals, all the ca le, all the birds, and all the reptiles that were with him in the ark” (Gen : ), Chrysostom observes: “Notice once again,I ask you, the considerateness o Sacred Scripture: ‘God was mind ul,’ itsays. Let us take what is said, dearly beloved, in a sense be ing God[ heoprepōs], and not interpret the concreteness o the expressions romthe viewpoint o the limitations o our human condition. I mean, as ar asthe ineffable essence is concerned, the word is improper; but as ar as ourlimitations are concerned, the expression is made appropriately.” Teimportant distinction here is between the “considerateness” o Sacred(divine) Scripture and “a sense be ing God.” Te Greek word (synka a-basis) translated here as “considerateness” is also ofen translated as

“condescension.” Te notion o God’s “considerateness” is in direct re-lation with the “limitations o our human condition,” which can be moreliterally translated: “the weakness o our human nature.” Te idea is similarto that o Origen when he speaks o God’s acting like a parent towardchildren. For Chrysostom, God behaves with “considerateness,” that is, ina human way, so that he can communicate with and be understood byhumans. We must not take these expressions literally but interpret them

“in a sense be ing God.” Te Greek word used here (heoprepōs) had long been used in the tradition o biblical interpretation as a kind o ag to avoida literal reading o the texts or, as Chrysostom says, to avoid understanding

“the concreteness o the expressions rom the viewpoint o the limitations

44 John Chrysostom,Homilies on Genesis – , FC , trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, DC: CatholicUniversity o America Press, ), p. .

45 In his introduction to John Chrysostom,Homilies on Genesis – , FC (Washington, DC: CatholicUniversity o America Press, ), translator Robert C. Hill objects to the translation “condescension” because it suggests “patronizing” (p. ).





o our human condition.” Tus, when the text says that “God was mind ulo Noah” and o all the animals, this is not to be understood in the same way that humans are “mind ul” o something. Te word is appropriate tous, not to God.

Chrysostom seems constantly to be concerned that his hearers willtake the text too literally, and he requently (several hundred times) intro-duces this distinction between God’s “considerateness” in ormulatingthings in a human way and what is “a sense be ing God.” In Psalm wend these words in re erence to God: “I you do not turn back, he willmake his sword gleam; his bow he bent and prepared it, and on it he pre-pared implements o death; he orged his arrows or those that are being burnt” (Ps : - ). Chrysostom asks how “the one who merely bylooking is capable o turning the world upside down” can be said to havesword and bow, implying that this is absurd. But then he offers a moreextended reection on the question o such language. He asks: “Why onearth, then, is such language used? For the reason o the materialism othe listeners, and or the purpose o startling their thinking through theamiliar names o these weapons. What need has he o weapons, afer all,in whose hand rests the spirit o us all and be ore whose gaze no one canstand their ground?” He asks rhetorically: “would anyone with sense be bold enough to take these words in the way they are spoken?” Tis ocourse is intended to be a reductio ad absurdum. Te answer is that thepsalmist “proceeds to employ materialistic expressions so that even thoseextremely dull may understand that one should not stop short at the ex-pressions but derive rom them ideas appropriate to God.” Chrysos-tom’s real concern, however, is not that people will imagine God usinghuman weapons literally, but that they will think o him as having humanpassions, and so he continues: “And so i anyone wonders why on earthanger and wrath are mentioned in connection with God, much more willthey wonder in this case. I , however, these things are not to be taken in

46 John Chrysostom,Commen ary on he Psalms , trans. Robert C. Hill (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Ortho-dox Press, ), : .

47 Ibid.48 Ibid.





the sense spoken but in a sense appropriate to God, it is clear that this istrue also o anger and wrath.” o a ribute anger to God is not appro-priate (heoprepōs). Evidently Chrysostom had difficulty convincing hisaudience o this, or he continues by noting in regard to the expression

“He has strung his bow and reared it”: “why are you surprised i this ex-pression is used in the Old estament when even in the New . . . John sayssomething similar? ‘But even now the axe is lying at the root o the trees.’So what is this? Is God imitating a woodcu er chopping wood with hisaxe?” Obviously that too is an absurd idea, as is the idea that God isreally angry. It appears that or Chrysostom, as or Origen, a majorconcern was with the “simple,” those in his congregation who took thetexts too literally and did not rise to a meaning “worthy o God.”

One more text rom Chrysostom is worth adding here because o itsclose resemblance to the ather-child comparison employed by Origen. Incommenting on the rst line o Psalm : “Lord, in your anger do notcensure me, nor in your rage correct me” he warns:

When you hear o anything o anger and rage in God’s case, do not get theidea o anything typical o human beings; the words, you see, arise romconsiderateness. Te divine nature, afer all, is ree o all these passions. Onthe contrary, he speaks this way so as to make an impression on the mindso more materialistic people. For in our case, too, when we converse withoreigners, we use their language; i we speak with children, we babble away

with them, and even i we are extremely gifed, we show considerateness ortheir undeveloped state. What is surprising in our doing this when we do italso in actions, like biting our nails and eigning anger, all or the sake oinstructing the children? God likewise, wanting to make an impression onmaterialistic people, made use o such words. For in so speaking, you see,his concern was not or his own glory but or the benet o his listeners.

It is striking that, although the re erences to Numbers and Deuter-onomy are missing, the same basic image o a ather correcting children is

49 Ibid.50 Ibid., : - .51 Ibid., : .





used, as had been done earlier by Philo and Origen, to distance God as heis in himsel rom the presentation in the text.

o summarize what has been presented in this chapter: the overarchingcomparison between a human ather’s way o speaking to children and the way God is presented in Scripture serves to prevent the text o the Scrip-tures rom being read too literally. o do so would be to read the sacredtext in a way unworthy o God. God as he is in himsel (heologia) must bedistinguished rom the way he is presented in the economy o salvation. Inthe Scriptures God adapts himsel (shows “considerateness”) to the humancondition (“human weakness”). Tis undamental distinction is developedthrough the introduction o a technical vocabulary, which includes theterms an hropomorphic and an hropopa hic.o think o God with suchtraits or ascribe them to God was to think o God in terms not “worthy oGod” (axios ou heou) or not ing to God (heoprepēs), or not suitable/appropriate to God (anoikeion). We will encounter this terminology overand over again, or it provided the basic tools to the ancient Christian in-terpreters or nding a meaning use ul to us.

Y • Z

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	intervarsity-press-samples
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Language for God in Patristic Tradition by Mark Sheridan - EXCERPT

Documents