Hippolytus (d. 236 AD) on the Psalter

Hippolytus (bishop in Rome around 220-236 AD) wrote quite a bit for the benefit of the early church; many of his writings have been recovered and translated.  One particular fragment I found fascinating is his short introduction to the Psalter (found with other writings of his in Ante Nicene Fathers, V.199ff).  I’ll summarize his brief discussion here – notice how he wrestled with many of the things we still wrestle with today.

1) Authorship.  Hippolytus disagreed with some in his day that David wrote all the psalms.  He notes a tradition that Esdra “collected in one volume, after the captivity, the psalms of several [persons]….”  In other words, “as they are therefore the words of so many thus collected together, they could not be said by any one who understands the matter to be by David alone.”

2) More on authorship.  He suggests, following a Hebrew scholar he does not name, that when one psalm has an inscription (i.e. of David) the “inscriptionless” psalms following it were also written by that author.  This, he posits, is how the collector put the Psalter together.  Hippolytus does write that he isn’t certain here, but says it is plausible.

3) On the inspiration of the Psalter: “It is entirely the voice and utterance of the most Holy Spirit.”

4) On the number of psalms (150):  He says the three 50′s reflect the Sabbath of Sabbaths – that is, the new beginning, the eighth, “of a really new rest that remains above the Sabbaths.”  The 50th, the 100th, and the 150th psalm, Hippolytus notes, all contain clear gospel praise reflecting the fulfillment of the Sabbath.  He also suggests that the 5 book division of the Psalter reflects the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible).

5) On the order of the psalms: They “are not found in regular historical order.”  Instead, the collector/redactor ordered them for a higher purpose than historical chronology, namely, the theology reflected in the numbering and content of the psalms.

6) On music: David was a gifted singer and composer, Hippolytus writes.  The psaltery’s (Hebrew: nabla) sound was “high” and came from the upper parts of the instrument, which was fitting for the psalms, because they lift our minds beyond the music to heaven.  Thus we should not “suffer ourselves to be borne down by the pleasure of melody to the passions of the flesh.”  In a beautiful way, he reflects the order and glory of psalm-praise to the beautiful melody of Christ’s sinless life. Christ “maintained in all things, as it were, harmony towards the Father” (he quotes Is 53.9 and John 3.31).

There are quite a few implications of Hippolytus’ remarks on the Psalter.  First, these things should be consulted and discussed by OT critics/scholars of every stripe.  Second, this small fragment of an intro to the Psalter reminds us that many of these church fathers were brilliant scholars who would make many of us look like twittering school children!  Third, these writings are a great testimony to the Word of God.  The early church had a 5-book, 150 psalm Psalter which they understood to be written ultimately by the Spirit of God as a Christian collection of praise to God for the gospel.  There are more implications; these are just three.  Any more come to mind?

Speaking of early church history, I just noticed that T. Oden edited a sort of devotional that contains brief portions of the early church fathers.  It is called (fittingly), Ancient Christian Devotional: A Year of Weekly Readings. Click the link and you’ll be able to see a preview of the book – looks pretty good.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Shift in the Bible’s Assessment of Solomon

Over a year ago, I began to ponder the shift that takes place in the Bible’s assessment of Solomon. In some passages, he’s praised for his consummate wisdom and opulence. In others he’s parodied for his womanizing and idolatry. Pretty soon, one begins to wonder whether or not a given description of Solomon is really an under-handed jab at this very ironic figure.

Enter Walter Brueggemann. Brueggemann has long been known for his imaginative and innovative readings of the OT. In his book Solomon: Israel’s Ironic Icon of Human Achievement, he surveys biblical (OT and NT) and extra-biblical texts relating to Solomon as he describes how Solomon’s story has been passed down and employed through the imaginative testimony of various ancient readers.

Here’s the table of contents:

1. Beginning Points: History and Canonicity
2. The Larger Narrative in Which “Solomon” is Embedded
3. The Beloved Son amid Rough-and-Tumble Power
4. How a Modest Solomon Became a Large Narrative Solomon: 1 Kings 3-11
5. “Solomon” as Temple Builder
6. “Solomon” as Wise King
7. “Solomon” as Economic Genius
8. The Deuteronomic Proviso: The Voice of Ironic Criticism
9. Chronicles: Solomon Glorious, One-Dimensional, Minus Irony
10. Solomon as Durable Teacher: Proverbs
11. Solomon in Canonical Extrapolation: Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs
12. Solomon among the “Praises of Israel”
13. Solomon in Four Belated Refractions
14. Postscript: Solomon in the New Testament Perspective

The more I began to think about Solomon, the more I realized a book about his variagated portrait in the OT was necessary. I began to outline various chapters in my head of how such a book might look and was therefore delighted to find that I was beaten to the punch by Brueggemann himself!

Anyone interested in reception history and innerbiblical interpretation will find this volume to be a delightful read!

_________________
Andrew

A “Fresh” Definition of Faith?

It is no new thing for people to try to bring a new insight or “fresh” perspective to faith – one can trace this sort of thing throughout church history.  Today, many people like to talk about a “living faith” or a “faithful faith” or “obedient faith” which justifies.  Here’s a great response to those who are not content with the “unfresh” or “stale” definition of justifying faith.

“Faith may seem a slight thing to some; and they may wonder how salvation can flow from [simply] believing.  Hence they try to magnify it, to adore it, to add to it, in order that it may appear some great thing, something worthy of having salvation as its reward.  In doing so, they are actually transforming faith into a work, and introducing salvation by works under the name of faith.  They show that they understand neither the nature nor the office of faith.”

“Faith saves, simply by handing us over to the Savior.  It saves, not on account of the good works which flow from it; not on account of the love which kindles it; not on account of the repentance which it produces; but solely because it connects us with the Saving One.  Its saving efficacy does not lie in its connection with [our] righteousness and holiness, but entirely in its connection with the Righteous and Holy One.”

Quotes from Horatius Bonar, The Blood of the Cross (New Ipswich: Pietan Publications, 1997), 59.  This short booklet makes me want to read a few Banner of Truth publications by Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousness and Words Old and New.  I’ve been on a Puritan “kick” again lately, along with the church fathers (still).  Stay tuned for some stuff from Hippolytus (c. 200 AD).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Walter Brueggemann on the Surrounding Nations

I came across a really interesting section (pgs. 502-18) in Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament. It’s subtitled: “Yahweh and the Superpowers.” In this, Brueggemann works through the OT’s imaginative testimony concerning the superpowers with which Israel concerned itself throughout its history, namely Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Persia. He notes that in one way or another, each nation is the servant of YHWH – i.e., it does his bidding – even as they (at least three of them) are said to be his enemies, the recipients of his judgment.

I find the OT’s depiction of Persia quite intriguing. Whereas the other nations received mostly critical reviews in Israel’s testimony, Persia is lauded as what Brueggemann calls a “Positive, Responsive Power” to YHWH’s direction (pg. 515). Brueggemann explains:

The fouth and final superpower with whom Israel had to deal is Persia. Persian policy and influence were profound on the shaping of Judaism. Our knowledge of this relationship is only now being seriously addressed as a major issue in Old Testament interpretation. It is clear, moreover, that the rhetoric and imagination of the Old Testament are not evoked by Persia in the way that the previous superpowers had done. Thus, even though the Persian empire is crucial for the shaping of Judaism, it does not figure so largely in matters that concern theological interpretation.
Theology of the Old Testament, pg. 515.

Thus while Persia no doubt serves an important theological role in Israel’s testimony as the nation whose kings facilitate the return from exile, the rebuilding of the temple and reconstruction of Jerusalem’s walls, it does not evoke the same imagination as does Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. (Some exceptions of note can be found in Isaiah, Ezra and 2 Chronicles, of course.) One might expect more messianic and eschatological material to be cast in explicitly Persian garb. Instead, Persia receives a much flatter character than the others. Bruggemann suggests why:

Darius the Persian is able to enter fully into praise of the God of Israel. Compared to the complicated and vexed story of Yahweh with the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians, the story of Yahweh with the Persians lacks drama. On the horizon of this testimony, the Persians are not recalcitrant vassels of Yahweh, need not be broken by Yahweh, and so need no Yahwistic recovery. In this modeling of nations as partners, Persia is the exemplar of a positive, responsive partner.
Theology of the Old Testament, pg. 518.

They say that in raising kids, it is the more difficult ones that receive most of their parents’ attention. Parents are warned to not neglect time and energy on their more compliant and well-behaved children. Perhaps something similar is going on in Israel’s testimony concerning the Persians. This nation, while accomplishing great things for Israel and receiving its due commendation, lacks the sturm und dram of the others.

Thinking about Persia has been raising quite a lengthy list of questions for me. Hopefully I’ll find time to blog about them. While our sources for understanding the history of the Persian period are sparse, it is a fascinating period for understanding some of the development of Jewish religion, as well as some of the editing and preserving of the biblical texts.
_____________
Andrew

Calvin on “Free Election” in Ephesians 1

In preparing for a Catechism Sermon on Lord’s Day 10, I spent a little time working through Calvin’s comments on Psalm 145 and Ephesians 1, two passages often mentioned in the secondary literature either on providence or Lord’s Day 10.  Once again, Calvin had this nice little gem on Ephesians 1 worth sharing!

The foundation and first cause, both of our calling and of all the benefits which we receive from God, is here declared to be his eternal election. If the reason is asked, why God has called us to enjoy the gospel, why he daily bestows upon us so many blessings, why he opens to us the gate of heaven, – the answer will be constantly found in this principle, that he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world. The very time when the election took place proves it to be free; for what could we have deserved, or what merit did we possess, before the world was made? How childish is the attempt to meet this argument by the following sophism! “We were chosen because we were worthy.” We were lost in Adam; and therefore, had not God, through his own election, rescued us from perishing, there was nothing to be foreseen. The same argument is used in the Epistle to the Romans, where, speaking of Jacob and Esau, he says, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” (Rom. ix. 11.) But though they had not yet acted, might a sophist of the Sorbonne This objection has no force when applied to the depraved natures of men, in whom nothing can be seen but materials for destruction. reply, God foresaw that they would act.

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul: Galatians and Ephesians, pg. 197-98.

__________
Andrew