Why ‘from the blood of Abel’,
who first suffered martyrdom, is not to be wondered at all, but it must be
asked, why ‘up to the blood of Zechariah’, when not only are there many who were
killed after him up to the birth of Christ, but also immediately after Christ’s
birth the innocent children in Bethlehem were killed by this generation.
Perhaps because Abel was a shepherd of sheep, and Zechariah a priest, and the
one was slain in the field, and the other in the courtyard of the temple, he wanted
to make known under their name martyrs of both kinds, that is to say, bot the laity
and those dedicated to the office of the altar. (Bede, Commentary on the
Gospel of Luke [trans. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis; Translated Texts
for Historians 85; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2025], 412)
While I am pretty critical of Trent Horn on the topic of "Mormonism," I stand by what I said back in 2017: His The Case for Catholicism is the best single-volume apologetic work by a modern Catholic author and he does great work against abortion. I also consider him one of the better mainstream apologists for Rome. Today, he just released a pretty good review of Michael Horton's defense of Sola Scriptura. Horton focused on Gal 1:8 and 1 Cor 4:6. You can see Trent's video here:
I have already discussed 1 Cor 4:6 a few times on this blog. However, I decided to add to the discussion by checking out (1) the Peshitta and (2) some instances of the text in the Migne series.
A machine translation (I will admit I used ChatGPT as I
have never formally studied Syriac) renders the text as:
These things, therefore, my
brothers, have been committed to you in accordance with your own
measure—serving as the seal of my authority. And Apollos is among you so that
you may not become overly exalted beyond what is written, nor should any man be
commended in regard to his fellow as if he were greater than a man
This coheres well with another translation, that of
Hastings:
These things, my Brethren, I
have stated concerning the person of myself and of Apollos, for your sakes;
that, in us, ye might learn not to think [of men], above what is written; and
that no one might exalt himself in comparison with his fellow, on account of
any person. (The Syriac New Testament: Translated into English from the
Peshitto Version [9th ed.; trans. James Murdock; Boston: H. L. Hastings
& Sons, 1915], Logos ed.)
In context, it appears that, at least in this tradition
(all translation is interpretation, after all), what is in view is not the formal
sufficiency of Scripture, but one should not place men “above what is written”
(whether the Scripture in general or the Old Testament texts referenced by Paul
earlier).
During a cursory check of my works from the Syriac
Fathers (e.g., Ephrem; Jacob of Serugh), there is no discussion of 1 Cor 4:6. A
search of the patristics up until the year 600 revealed only 24 references to
this passage (according
to the Bibl Index). I decided to check the references for (1) Athanasius in
PG 26 and (2) Theodoret of Cyrus in PG 82.
“Now, in saying this he signifies something else—that
they have become one in our unity; are they indeed one with one another? In
this way, since we are one by nature and truth, they could not otherwise become
one unless they had learned true unity. Moreover, in our midst this very sign
is present—as we hear Paul declare: ‘Thus I have conformed both myself and
Apollos, that you might learn among us not to be of a nature exceeding that
which is written to exist.’
Therefore, among us there is not in the Father what
the Son is in Him but rather a pattern and likeness—so that, in effect, they
may learn from us (as it is said, “From among us let them learn”). For just as
Paul taught the Corinthians, so the unity of the Son and the Father is set
forth as the foundation and doctrine for all. By beholding the natural unity of
the Father and the Son, they can learn how they too must be one in mind toward
one another.
And if it is necessary to offer another explanation
regarding this saying, it can again be demonstrated that among us there is an
equality with that which is proclaimed—by the power of the Father and the
Son—so that, becoming one, we all proclaim the same truth; for without God this
could not come into being, and indeed it is found once more in the divine
words, ‘In God we shall produce power,’ and ‘In you we shall trample our
enemies.’
Thus it is evident that in the name of the Father and
the Son we are enabled, by becoming one, to possess a secure bond of love.
Again, extending this same thought, the Lord declares: ‘And I have given them
the glory which you gave me, that they may be one, just as we are one.’ Here he
does not say that they should be “in You, as I am,” but rather “as we are” –
for they do not demonstrate absolute identity, but rather a likeness and
pattern of that which is spoken.”
Theodore of
Cyrus (PG 82:256B-C):
«Ώστε μή πρό καιρού τι
κρίνετε, Έως εν ό Κύριος έλθη, ος καί φωτίσει τά κρυπτά τού σκότους, καί
φανερώσει τάς βουλάς τών καρδιών, καί τότε ό έπαινος γενήσεται έκάστω άπό τού
Θεού. » Υμεϊς, φησίν, όράτε τά φαινόμενα, Θεψ δε δήλα καί τά χρυπτόμενα · άλλά
κατά τόν παρόντα βίον ού πάντα γυμνοί, έν έκείνω δε πάντα δήλα γενήσεται. Το
δίκαιον τοίνυν κριτήριον άναμείνατε · δψεσθε γάρ τηνικαϋτα δικαίας τάς
αναρρήσεις. Καί επειδή έν τοϊς πρόσθεν έαυτόν είς μέσον προτέθεικε, καί τόν
Άπολλώ, καί τόν Κηφάν, άπό των μειζόνων δεικνύς του γινομένου τήν άτοπίαν,
άναγκαίως λοιπόν τήν κατηγορίαν γυμνοί.
“Therefore, do not judge
prematurely until the Lord has come—He who will illuminate the hidden recesses
of darkness and reveal the counsels of the heart—so that then the praise from
God will be made perfect. He says, ‘Behold the appearances, and see that which
is manifested and made illustrious; yet in this present life you are not always
exposed, whereas in that life all things will be made clear.’ Therefore, hold
fast to the just standard; for you will clearly perceive the righteous
expressions. And because in times past he set himself among them—along with
Apollos and Cephas—thereby showing through the greater ones the incongruity of
what was taking place, the charge against them is necessarily laid bare.
“Thus, brethren, I have
conformed both myself and Apollos to our own manner, that you might learn among
us not to think in ways beyond what is written.” For we were the teachers of
teachers, having received the preaching from God; and we did not impose our own
titles, but rather urged that we be called by Christ. Look at how much
unseemliness is evident in what is happening among them. For it is said: “Learn
among yourselves not to think beyond what is written.” And it is written, “Let
him who wishes be first among you, and let the last be the last of all.” And,
“Let each be called to remain in his own place.” One should not be above
another. For they divided themselves—some from one group, others from
another—and those coming from the latter contended with one another, each
exalting his own teachers above the rest in a spirit of rivalry.
It appears that neither
commentator interpreted it as teaching the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
In this research three indications of “divine assembly”, “divine
council”, and “pantheon” are to be interchangeably used to denote the plurality
of deities. (Sang Youl Cho, Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the
Hebrew Bible: A Comparative Study of their Nature and Roles [Deities and
Angels of the Ancient World 2; Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2007], 1
n. 3)
ilm
“Gods”
This term is a generic form which expresses the plurality of Ug. il,
“god” (KTU 1.1 iv 6, and passim). Lesser deities are often stated as
“gods” in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.3 iii 32; 1.15 iii 19; 1.17 i 2-3, etc.).
All lesser deities in the celestial assembly may be identified as “gods” as
well as their master god. (Ibid., 11)
The Song of Songs as well,
according to Ambrose, contains a typological prefiguration of baptism (DM
7.35), in the Bride’s words, “I am dark and beautiful”, if interpreted, not
literally, but allegorically (as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa had done, joining
the Bible and Greek philosophy in their exegesis, including the maxim “Know
Yourself”): “the Church, who has received these clothes thanks to the laver of
regeneration (baptism), says in the Song of Songs: ‘I am dark and beautiful, O
daughters of Jerusalem’: dark because of the weakness of human condition, and
beautiful thanks to the divine grace; dark because I am constituted by sinners,
beautiful thanks to the sacrament of faith [fidei sacramentum]”. (Haec
vestimenta [. . .] Ecclesia, per lavacrum regenerationis adsumpta, dicit in
canticis: “Nigra sum et decora, filiae Hierusalem”: nigra per fragilitatem
condicionis humanae, decora per gratiam; nigra quia ex peccatoribus, decora fidei
sacramento.) Sacramentum fidei is the sacrament of baptism, since it is
through baptism that one becomes a Christian, either at birth or after
converting. (Ilaria L. E. Ramelli , “The Sources of Augustine on Christ’s Death
and Resurrection as Exemplum and Sacramentum: Origen and
Ambrose?,” in Origen, the Philosophical Theologian: Trinity, Christology,
and Philosophy-Theology Relation [Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 160; Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2025], 489)
We read this in the ninetieth
Psalm, but there the prophecy is not about Christ, but about a holy man. The
devil, therefore, interprets the Scripture badly. Indeed, if he knew that it
was really written about the Saviour, he ought to have said what follows in the
same Psalm and which is directed against himself: ‘You will walk upon the asp
and the basilisk, and you will trample underfoot the lion and the dragon.’ He
speaks of the help of the angels as if to one who is weak; like an equivocator,
he is silent about the fact that he is trampled under. (Bede,
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [trans. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith
Wallis; Translated Texts for Historians 85; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2025], 217)
Rightly is
she called ‘full of grace’, who without a doubt contains a
grace which no other woman ever merited, in that she will conceive and bear
the very author of grace. . . . When he saw that she was troubled by
this unusual salutation, he calls by name as if she were intimately known, and
bids her not to fear, which is only natural given that he alone had custody
over her. And because he had said she was full of grace, he both affirms that
same grace more fully and explains it more copiously saying: [Luke 1:31] Behold
you will conceive in your womb, and you will bring forth a son, and you will
call his /32/ name Jesus. Jesus means ‘saviour’ or ‘salvific’. The
angel who was speaking to Joseph explained the mystery of his name, saying: For
he will save his people from their sins. He does not say ‘the people of
Israel’ but ‘his people’, that is, a people called both from foreskin and from
circumcision into the unity of faith, so that after they have been gathered together
from different sides there might be one sheepfold and one shepherd. (Bede,
Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [trans. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith
Wallis; Translated Texts for Historians 85; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2025], 131-32)
Our justification. Human
nature is substantially constituted by the union of flesh and spirit, and the
full functioning and development of human persons is conditioned by this union.
The fall of mankind, the redemption, and the subsequent mysteries of grace are
determined in their effects upon us by this constitution of our nature. In
particular, the redemption of the body, above described, is the redemption of
the human spirit as well, and apart from the latter, the former is an idle
tale. If the resurrection of Christ makes possible the conversion of our
corruptible bodies into spiritual ones, it does so because it enables our
spirits to transcend their earthly weaknesses, and to subject their bodies to
the uses for which they have learned through holy discipline to employ them.
The effects of the resurrection in relation to the body and the spirit of man
are branches of one mystery of glorification. In relation to our spirits, the
initial effect of our Lord’s resurrection—mediated through the Body of Christ,
by our incorporation therein—is our justification [cf. Rom. 4:25].
And our justification is the inception of our sanctification and entire
transformation in disposition and character, after the pattern of the
righteousness of God in Christ. This whole mystery of justification and
sanctification is made possible, both in inception and in progress, by Christ’s
meritorious redemption, and by the dispensation of grace which His resurrected
opened up. But because of the peculiarly-immediate causal relation in which the
resurrection stands to the sacramental dispensation of grace, flowing from HIs
glorified Manhood, Scripture connects justification primarily with that fact [Rom.
4:25]. (Francis J. Hall, Anglican
Dogmatics, ed. John A. Porter, 2 vols. [Nashotah, Wis.: Nashotah House
Press, 2021], 2:254-55)
In technical parlance, the meritorious cause of
justification is the death of Christ, but its direct causal antecedent is
the resurrection (Rom. 4:25). (Ibid., 2:255 n. 1)
