Theodoret of Cyrus: God, Kindly Disposed Toward Noah, Commanded Omni

What is the meaning of "The Lord smelled a pleasing ordor"? This indicates God's kindliness toward Noah - not that he was pleased with the smell. Nothing smells worse than burning bones but God commended the attitude of the offerer. God has no body divided into parts that we should imagine him with a nose, for smell comes through the nose. So he rewarded Noah with blessing, and since he was the seed of the human race, the root of human nature, and a second Adam, God gave him the blessing which the first Adam had received immediately after his creation: "Increase, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Fear of you and dread of you will be upon all the beasts of the earth, upon all the birds of the heaven, upon everything that moves on the earth, and upon all the fish of the sea; I have put them under your control." The word took effect. All things were in dread even of man's shadow: those that swim, those on land, those that fly. Then delivering the law about the eating of flesh, he commanded Noah to consume flesh as well as vegetables.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 53 on Genesis, p. 113 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: God Does Not Have Second Thoughts

Why was the bulk of the human race wiped out by the flood? ... He did this, not, as some commentators claim, out of anger or on second thoughts, as these are, of course, human states, from which the divine nature is free. Second thoughts are typical of those who learn how things really stand only after experience; they make their plans in ignorance of the future, but later, in the light of experience, realizing that their decision was wrong, have second thoughts. By contrast, God sees what will happen many generations in the future as if it had already happened; it is with foresight and foreknowledge that he governs the universe. Why, then, would he have second thoughts when he plans everything in accord with his own foreknowledge? In God's case, therefore, a second thought is a change in the plan of salvation: "I have second thoughts about anointing Saul king" is equivalent to "I have decided to depose him and appoint someone else." Similarly, in this case: "I regret making the human being," means "I have decided to destroy humanity." But being merciful he preserved Noah as seed for the race.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 50 on Genesis, p. 107 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Careless Reading of Scripture is the Cause of Error Among Ordinary Folks

Yet careless reading of holy Scripture is the cause of error among ordinary people. For after saying that Seth was born of Adam, and Enosh of Seth, the historian added, "He hoped to be called the name of the Lord God." Now, Aquila renders this: "That was the time when a beginning was made of calling on the name of the Lord," but this verse expresses in riddling form the idea that, thanks to his virtue, this man was the first to hit upon the divine name and was called "God" by his kindred. Hence, his offspring were styled "sons of God," just as we are called "Christians" from Lord's title "Christ."

If you do not accept this interpretation on account of Aquila's version, listen to God speaking through the prophet David: "I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High;" and "God has taken his place in an assembly of gods; in their midst, he will judge goods." This is the title he gives to rulers, as indicated by what follows: "How long will you deliver unjust judgments and take the part of sinners? Judge in favor of orphan and poor, give justice to the lowly and needy" and so on; and again, "The Lord God of gods spoke and summoned the earth," that is the Lord God fo those who had been accorded this title. Hence, the lawgiver said, "You shall not revile gods or malign rulers of your people."

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 47 on Genesis, pp. 100-01 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Adam Received Sin's Penalty for Race

Therefore, Adam also had to pay the penalty for his sin for the benefit of the race. He had received the first law, and a very light one at that. While he was regaled with an abundance of fruits of all kinds, the eating of one alone was forbidden. But if an ill-tempered creator inflicted the punishment of death for just a little food, as the ill-omened Marcion claims, how is it that, with all humanity rushing headlong into the worst wickedness and sin, he did not inflict universal ruin but gave his Son and bestowed the gift of salvation through cross and passion?

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 37 on Genesis, p. 81 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Imagine if Woman Had Been from Some Less Romantic Part of Adam

Why did he form the woman from the side of Adam?

It was the will of the Creator of the order of nature to bring the sexes together in harmony. Therefore, he formed Adam from the earth, and the woman from Adam, to demonstrate the identity of nature and to instill in them a natural affection for each other. If even after this, husbands fight with wives, and wives with husbands, what would they not have done if he had formed the woman from some other source?

He showed his wisdom not only in dividing, but also in reuniting, them, for marriage combines the sexes into one. Scripture says, remember, "The two will become one flesh." The truth of this is confirmed by experience. Through marital intercourse one fruit sprouts up from both, its seed coming from him, its nourishment from her, with the Creator of nature bringing it to full term.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 30 on Genesis, p. 69 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Tree Provided Experience of Evil

How could those endowed with reason and made in the divine image be unable to distinguish good and evil? How could the Depths of Righteousness impose a law on those who were naturally unprovided with this knowledge and unaware that it was good to keep the commandment and fatal to break it? So it follows that they had the knowledge, and what they gained later was experience.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 27 on Genesis, p. 65 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Name of the Tree is Metonymic, Like the "Living Water" for Baptism

Should the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil be taken as spiritual or material?

According to holy Scripture, they also sprouted from the ground, so they had a nature no different from that of other plants. Just as the tree of the cross was a tree and is called "saving" because salvation is accompanied by faith in it, so these trees were products of the soil. By divine decree the one was called the "tree of life," the other, since the perception of sin occurred in connection with it, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Adam was set a trial with regard to the latter, whereas the tree of life was proposed as his prize for keeping the commandments. Similarly, the patriarchs bestowed names on places and wells. They called one "well of vision," not because it granted faculty of sight, but because the Lord of the universe was seen near it, and another "well of broad places," because the people of Gerar, who had often fought over the other wells, did not interfere with those digging this one. Likewise, there was a "well of the other" because the people used to swear oaths nearby. And the name "Bethel" or "House of God" was given to Luz, because that was where the Creator of the universe appeared to Jacob. There was a "hill of witness," not that the hill was alive, but because that was where they made treaties with one another. Likewise baptism is called "living water," not because the water of baptism has a different nature, but because, through that water, divine grace confers the gift of eternal life. Thus, the "tree of life" received its name from the divine decree and the "tree of knowledge" from the sense of sin gained in connection with it. To that point, they had no experience of sin, but afterwards, when they had partaken of the forbidden fruit, they suffered the pangs of conscience for breaking the commandment.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 26 on Genesis, pp. 63-65 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Rash to Abandon Scripture for Reason

Some commentators locate Paradise in heaven.

Since holy Scripture says, "God caused to grow up from the ground every tree that is beautiful to behold and good to eat," it is quite rash to abandon the teaching of the Spirit and follow one's own reasoning.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 25 on Genesis, p. 61 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Scripture has Innumerable Proofs of Trinitarian Orthodoxy

In the Holy Trinity, by contrast, we understand three substances, united without confusion, and subsisting of themselves. God the Word has been begotten of the Father before the ages but is inseparable from the one who begat him, and the most Holy Spirit proceeds from the God and Father, and is also understood as an individual substance: "The one and same Spirit activates everything and allots to each one individually as he wishes." There is no need, however, to go on at length; one can find innumerable proofs of this doctrine in holy Scripture.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 20 on Genesis, pp. 55-57 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Image of God - Judgment

Likewise, humans reign and judge in imitation of the God of the universe. Yet, in judging, God has no need of witnesses for prosecution or defense, for it was as an eyewitness to the abominable crime that he condemned Cain. In contrast, given his ignorance of the facts, when man sits in judgment, he needs witnesses for defense and prosecution.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 20 on Genesis, p. 55 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Image of God - Dominion and Creation

Other commentators have claimed that humanity was made "in God's image" in the sense that it possess the ability to rule. Their clearest proof text is the command subsequent to the act of creation: "and let them rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the reptiles crawling on the earth." God who enjoys lordship of all things, gave the human being authority over all irrational beings.

In addition, one can discover other ways in which man imitates his archetype. In imitation of the Creator, man also creates houses, walls, cities, harbors, ships, dockyards, chariots, and countless other things, including likenesses of heaven, representations of the sun, moon, and stars, and images of people and brute beasts. Nonetheless, the difference in creating is infinite. The God of the universe creates from both the existent and the non-existent, and, without effort or lapse of time, puts his intention into effect as soon as he wills it. But a human being who sets out to make an object requires material, as well as tools, planning, consideration, time, effort, and the assistance of other trades. The builder requires a bronze smith, and the bronze smith a metallurgist and a charcoal maker, and all these require woodcutters, while woodcutters require planters and farmers; every trade borrows what it needs from the others. Yet creating even in this fashion, the human being to some extent imitates the Creator as an image its archetype; the image has the external appearance of its archetype, but not its capacity for action, since it lacks the soul, which moves the body.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 20 on Genesis, p. 53 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Human-esque Descriptions of God are Anthropomorphisms

These simpletons fail to understand that the Lord God, when speaking to humans through humans, adjusts his language to the limitations of the listeners. Since we see with our eyes, he refers to his power of vision as "eyes." He refers to his power of hearing as "ears," since it is through those organs that we hear, and to his command as a "mouth." But they should have paid attention not only to those words but also to those that teach of God's uncircumscribed nature: "Where am I to go from your Spirit, and where am I to flee from your face? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I descend to Hell, you are present" and so on. Furthermore, the Lord said to the Samaritan woman, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Now, if God is spirit, surely he is simple, without composition, and beyond representation. There is no point, however, in prolonging the argument, for their folly is obvious.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 20 on Genesis, p. 51 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Consider Creation as a Whole to see the Goodness of the Parts

This is how we should judge: not focusing on each item of creation in isolation, but examining its usefulness to the whole. Fire, for example, can scorch, not only destroying bodies but also burning houses, ships, and crops, yet it is one of the four basic elements of which everything is composed, and mortal nature cannot survive without it. Similarly, water inundates the land, destroys houses, and is responsible for the death of great numbers of sailors. It also harms people who drink it at the wrong time or in excessive quantities, but no one who was not entirely mad ever categorized water as deadly. It irrigates the land and nourishes plants, brute beasts, and human beings. So, this is how we examine each of the other creatures; we do not look at it in isolation to see whether it is harmful or beneficial but consider whether it contributes to the common good.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 18 on Genesis, p. 43 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Reptiles a Means to Bring us to God

He gave the reptiles hollows so they would hide away and not harm the human race. But to prevent us from going on free from injury and coming to scorn the creeping things as though they had no power to cause harm, every once in a while God, in his wise governance of our affairs, allows two or three people out of countless thousands to be stung by scorpions or bitten by snakes so we will dread suffering something similar, call on God the Creator for assistance, and entreat the protection of his all-powerful providence.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 18 on Genesis, p. 41 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Astrology is Irreligious

In our interpretation of the phrase "for signs," we do not follow the fools, whose idle astrological notions found no acceptance with Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, or the Stoics. Now, if those raised on mythological fables abhorred this irreligious myth, what believer in the divine word could tolerate ideas that are not only irreligious but downright foolish? "Signs," then, is the term which holy Scripture uses for indications of the time for sowing, planting, winnowing, and cutting down trees for building ships and houses. From these, sailors have learned when to lift and when to cast anchor, when to unfurl and furl the sail, for experience has taught them the risings and settings of the stars. Furthermore, the observance of a comet, shooting star, or meteor has often informed us of an enemy attack, an invasion of locusts, or a plague on cattle or people. So this was the kind of "signs" meant by Scripture, not those figments of rank folly and irreligion.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 15 on Genesis, p. 37 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Don't Be Dogmatic Where Scripture is not Explicit

Now, I do not state this dogmatically, my view being that it is rash to speak dogmatically where holy Scripture does not make an explicit statement; rather, I have stated what I consider to be consistent with orthodox thought.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 4 on Genesis, p. 19 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: God is Self-Sufficient

The Lord God, therefore, does not need anyone to sing his praises, for he is by nature free of need. Instead, it was only out of his goodness that he conferred existence on angels, and archangels, and all of creation.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Question 4 on Genesis, p. 17 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Requirement for Exegesis of Scripture

Exegesis of holy Scripture ... requires a mind with wings that can behold the divine and will dare to enter the innermost sanctuary of the Spirit.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Preface to Commentary on Song of Songs, as provided by the translator in Theodoret's Questions on the Octateuch, Preface, p. 5, FN5 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Author Interprets Scripture

Hence, although I am not in good health, I have undertaken this project, trusting not in myself, of course, but in the one who dictated this manner of composition for the Scriptures, as it belongs to him to bring to the fore the meaning concealed in the text. He it was, after all, who in the sacred Gospels presented his teaching in parables and then provided the interpretation of what he had said in riddles. My appeal, therefore, shall be to gain illumination of the mind from him, so I may endeavor to penetrate the innermost sanctuary of the most Holy Spirit.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Preface, pp. 3-5 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

Theodoret of Cyrus: Removing Contradictions is Clarification of the Unclear

Previous scholars have promised to resolve apparent problems in holy Scripture by explicating the sense of some, indicating the background of others, and, in a word, clarifying whatever remains unclear to ordinary people.

- Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Questions on the Octateuch, Preface, p. 3 (2007), Robert C. Hill translator.

John Chrysostom: Place the Honycomb of Scripture on the Dinner Table

For your part, for the time being hold on to what was said, remember it, and teach it to those who have not heard it. Let everyone meditate on it in church, in the marketplace and at home; nothing is sweeter than attention to the divine sayings. Listen, at any rate, to what the inspired author says of this, "Your sayings are like honey in my throat, better than honey and the honeycomb in my mouth." So place this honeycomb on your table at evening so as to fill it completely with spiritual sweetness. Have you not noticed how affluent people bring in harpists and flute players after the meal? They turn their house into an auditorium; for your part turn your house into heaven, doing so not by altering the walls or changing the foundations, but by inviting the Lord of heaven to your table. God is not ashamed to be at such meals: in that setting there is spiritual teaching, there also sobriety, gravity and simplicity, there husband and wife and children, harmony and friendship, people linked by the bonds of virtue, there in the midst is Christ.

- John Chrysostom (around A.D. 347 to around A.D. 407), Sermon 8 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, pp. 142-43 (2004), Robert C. Hill translator.

John Chrysostom: Listen to Scripture - Not Us

So much for them; now listen to what is said by us - or, rather, not by us but by the divine Scripture; it is not our teaching we cite but that of the Holy Spirit.

- John Chrysostom (around A.D. 347 to around A.D. 407), Sermon 7 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, pp. 126-27 (2004), Robert C. Hill translator.

John Chrysostom: Just as Thief Saw Christ with Faith, Christ Saw his Faith

What did you see that was worthy of a kingdom? A man crucified, flogged, mocked accused, spat upon, scourged - is this, tell me, worthy of a kingdom? Do you notice that he saw with the eyes of faith, and did not examine appearances? Hence God did not examine mere words, either; instead, just as the fellow had regard for divinity, so God had regard for the brigand's heart, saying, "This day you will be with me in paradise."

- John Chrysostom (around A.D. 347 to around A.D. 407), Sermon 7 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, p. 125 (2004), Robert C. Hill translator.