Wright wrote this book due to his concern for missions and its relation to the Bible. While growing up, he heard missions proclaimed using proof-texts such as the Great Commission. He became discontented with this approach, especially when he did his academic studies in Bible and did not talk about missions at all. This book is an attempt to relate God, his people, and missions in a more biblical fashion. Wright argues for the basic idea of the Bible being missional: namely, God’s mission, not our mission (Wright uses missions for cross-cultural missions and missional for anything relating to mission). He shows through this book how God’s mission can be used as a basic hermeneutic to read the Bible, not as an alien hermeneutic imposed on the text but as a natural hermeneutic arising from the text itself. Since this is an excellent book, I have included a short overview of the argument of the book. The book is well worth reading. 

Robert Hill: Reading the Old Testament in Antioch

A central part of the history of the early church is the dynamic between Antioch and Alexandria, a dynamic which exists to this day, albeit under different names. But as useful as this handle is for speaking in broad terms, does it accurately reflect the situation? This book sets out to present how the Old Testament was viewed in Antioch, specifically in the commentaries of the primary Antiochenes. 

Several characteristics appear throughout most of these primary sources. Most of the writers do not treat their opponents in a kind manner. For example, Cyril has strong words throughout his work for his opponent, such as the comment that a certain idea “is nothing but foolishness and stupidity, the frenzy of a crazed mind” (53). These writers treated theology with the utmost importance and worked very hard to convince others of the correctness of their viewpoint.

Another common characteristic is that the authors display a stunning acquaintance with the Bible. In the days before computers and the printing press, their knowledge of verses and ideas from diverse place in the Bible is very impressive. However, I sometimes get the feeling that they practice the same kind of procedure as I have heard too often in evangelical pulpits: the preacher has a great idea and needs to find a text to give authority to his idea.

The hermeneutics of these authors is a fascinating subject. They make some good arguments from contexts of which I would not have thought, although sometimes I would not make the same argument. Cyril argues against the conjunction idea of the incarnation by appealing to psalmic passages where the psalmist says he is bound to God. Since the psalmist is not thereby worshipped, then neither should the son who is conjoined to God. But since the son is indeed worshipped, the conjoining idea is wrong (73).

Many of the logical arguments used by the fathers were also somewhat suspicious in my ears. For example, Athanasius argues for the orthodox view on the basis of its lacking a specific name. As soon as a group gets a name (Arians, Marcionites, Valentinians, etc.), they have passed over into heresy. But a Christian is simply a Christian, because they follow Christ and not a person (64-65).

One of the greatest contributions of reading these authors is that we get a sense of the times and how people thought. Seeing Scripture and theology from other perspectives helps to show us blind spots in our own theology and understanding. While the effect is much more dramatic if we travel to other countries, a similar effect can be found by reading the primary sources in history. Part of this effect is seeing what kinds of beliefs are automatically assumed by them, such as the impassibility of God by Cyril (117). An underlying anti-Semitism can be seen on occasion, such as the reference by Basil to the Jews of Stephen’s time as “Christ-killers” (45). Basil assumes it is clear that salvation is through baptism. “How are we saved? Obviously through the regenerating grace of baptism” (46).  Basil assumes that slavery can be a good institution on occasion (80). The repeated references by Arius to Alexander as “Pope” was disconcerting at first (29). It is easy to forget that “Pope” was not always limited to the bishop of Rome.

In contrast to the previous thought, on the other hand, it is also interesting how some things never change. Even though many assumptions are different, many of the same battles are being fought today. For example, Athanasius records the various views of the creation of the world, which sound fairly similar to some of the battle lines today in that very area (26-27).

The last book was centered around the Christological controversy. Similar to the other volume, it opened with an historical overview and then without further comment presented the works of the major players in the debate, such as Melito, Irenaeus, Origen, Apollinaris, Theodore, Nestorius, and Cyril.

Several of the writings contained interesting points. Melito’s thoughts on the Passover intrigued me for reasons other than Christology.  His homiletics shown through brilliantly with such examples as the Egyptian man who claimed that he was third born, so that the angel of death would not kill (but the angel knew he was lying, so his plan did not work) (36). Melito says that “the events which happen are unimportant apart from their character as parables and as preliminary sketches” (37), a comment which sounds almost modernistic liberal, as he argues that the historicity of the events do not matter. Athanasius remarked that the phrasing “he bore” (Matthew 8:17) is important: if it was simply “he cured”, then it would simply be someone from the outside doing something to us, and would leave us to sin again, instead of fundamentally taking care of the problem (89-90).

The final two books are compilations of primary sources based around a theme. The first theme is the Trinitarian controversy and includes a selection of writings from most of the main individuals in the debate, including Arius, Alexander, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, as well as the decrees of the council of Antioch and Nicea. Before the writings a historical survey is given to help the reader place the selections into their historical context. The historical overview of the Trinitarian controversy tended towards extreme language at points. A prime example of this is the claim that “[n]o doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament” (2). While it is true that the wording of Nicene is not found there, Nicene does not seem to be a conceptual advance over the New Testament, only a linguistic development. 

The purpose for putting this collection together was multifaceted. It was desired to give English readers a way to read about the debate from the participants themselves instead of being filtered through a secondary interpretation. One of the main hoped for results is increase a sense of the ecumenical spirit as the readers grapple with the diversity that was present in the early church (vii). The methodology is an essentially chronological selection of important texts from the debate, beginning with an historical overview but otherwise presenting no comments on the texts.

Several of the selections were highlights for my reading. The canons of Nicea (51-56) were helpful in illuminating what other issues were important to the bishops of the day, such as castration of bishops, the lapsed, the prohibition of bishops from moving from city to city, and whether one should kneel or stand for prayer. The letter by Eusbius to his church was a fascinating exercise in politics, as Eusebius tries to convince them that his own version has won the day. He goes so far as to explain how to get around the anathematizing of “before he was begotten, he was not”: even before he existed in actuality, he existed in potentiality (60). Athansius coins a great phrase: “Arian-maniacs” (65) This is a helpful book for understanding the debate. Apparently Princeton uses this book in their MDiv theology classes.

The work by Basil is considerably different than that of Cyril. Basil is fighting the group which stated that the Holy Spirit was fundamentally different than God. While Basil never calls the Holy Spirit “God” he makes it clear throughout his work that this is what he believes, and the lack of a direct statement is theologically astute because it protects Basil from modalism. The specific issue Basil is discussing is the use of prepositions in doxological statements. Basil bases his argument upon extensive discussion of these prepositions as they are used in Scripture as well as a broad array of Scriptural arguments for the Trinity as he understands it. His argument is quite logical and progresses step by step through all the evidence he presents. While he does spend an excessive amount of time on prepositions, this is no grammatical text, but a pastoral desire to see follow people God in a better fashion.