As informative as his last commentary was, Chrysostom speaks even more to the point in his second commentary on Hebrews 11, specifically in his exegesis of the verse: "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God; so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Here, he specifically states certain standards which are required for faith to exist.

"Faith needs a generous and vigorous soul, and one rising above all things of sense, and passing beyond the weakness of human reasonings. For it is not possible to become a believer, otherwise than by raising one's self above the common customs [of the world]."

Faith, according to Chrysostom, is not simply an intellectual assertion to a proposition. That is, an individual must have a certain disposition in order for them truly to have faith. Beyond the disposition, there exists an aspect of activity and agency, for the believer must rise above all things of sense and pass beyond the weakness of human reasonings. Furthermore, he said that one becomes a believer by rising above the common customs of the world. That is, if a person remains in the ways of the world, acting according to the mores of secular culture, they do not have true faith.

He also affirms Dr. Whitlark's reading of Hebrews as an exhortation and encouragement for a suffering, fatigued Church:

"Inasmuch then as the souls of the Hebrews were throughly weakened, and though they had begun from faith, yet from circumstances, I mean sufferings, afflictions, they had afterwards become faith-hearted, and of little spirit, and were shaken from [their position], he encouraged them."

Here, "he" refers to the author of Hebrews, and so he interprets the inclusion of the old testament heroes as a sort of paradigm after which the early Church could model itself, both as an inspiration and an example.

Last time, Dr. Whitlark asked after the meaning of faith, particularly with reference to it being "the substance of things hoped for."

First off, I figured I'd start with the the Greek word for faith, both in its noun and in its verb form, that is, "pistis" and "pisteuo." The definitions offered in the glossary to my edition of the Greek New Testament are as follows:

pistis - faith, trust, belief; the Christian faith; conviction, good conscience; body of faith, doctrine; assurance, proof; promise

pisteuo - believe (in), have faith (in); believe, believe in; have confidence in, entrust

For now, I'll just leave this as a reference and move on to reflection on what it means for faith to be the "substance of things hoped for." On this subject, Chrysostom says, "For since the objects of hope seem to be unsubstantial, Faith gives them substantiality, or rather, does not give it, but is itself their substance. For instance, the Resurrection has not come, nor does it exist substantially, but hope makes it substantial in our soul."

I think this may mean that faith is instrumental in making the objects of faith real for us. That is, he says that the "objects of hope seem to be unsubstantial" and at the same time "faith [...] is itself their substance." By this, we understand that the objects of hope have an element not only of future promised thing, but also of intangibility. That is, "The Resurrection" is an idea (and a future event) which does not exist as a thing, but our faith makes the Resurrection substantial in our soul. By this, I think he means that we are formed to the Resurrection, that our souls are oriented or imprinted with the Resurrection. For us, the Resurrection does not, and will not, exist for us without faith. That is not to say that it will not happen for those who have faith, but that we will not be resurrected if we have no faith. Our faith is what makes the Resurrection real in us.

Does that make sense Dr. Whitlark?

Continuing my examination of John Chrysostom's commentary on Hebrews, I decided to read through his thoughts on Hebrews 11, the chapter which discusses faith extensively. His thoughts, while not necessarily revolutionary to me, are very interesting.

For instance, of the very opening verse of Hebrews 11 ("Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report"), Chrysostom notes that faith is not simply belief in the unseen. He does confirm that it certainly entails this, but remarks that true faith is actually for "a man [to] be more fully assured with respect to things invisible, than he is with respect to things that are most clearly seen." That is, true faith is more certain that Christ is Risen in Israel than that the sun is risen outside.

Perhaps even more fascinating is his interpretation of what it means when the author of Hebrews calls faith, "the evidence of things not seen." Chrysostom explains that faith is the substance of the objects of hope. That is, the things we hope for seem unsubstantial (ethereal, or imaginary), but he interprets the verse to mean that faith is in fact the substance of Christ's Return, which has not happened yet, and does not have substance in the outside world, but is substantial in our souls because of our faith.

However, he does not appear to limit the meaning of "evidence of things unseen" to one layer of interpretation. Beyond the above interpretation, he also says that faith is a sort of proof of God's existence, insofar as it is the logical conclusion one must make from the truth of God's prophecies. That is, Christ foretold many things, many of which have come to pass. Chrysostom says that therefore, we may reasonably believe, by virtue of these fulfilled prophecies, in the hope of the fulfillment of all Christ's prophecies. This faith is all the evidence we need of things unseen, because the things seen have inspired this faith in us.

This week I read St. John Chrysostom's exegesis on Hebrews 6:1-6 and he reads it in the following way.

Essentially, he equates being "renewed to repentance" with the renewal we receive through Christ's Crucifixion. This renewal is what allows us to "put off the old man" spiritually and begin to form ourselves to the mind of Christ. However, in his view, we experience this renewal through the sacrament of baptism, which cleanses us of original sin, renewing us to repentance. Therefore, he interprets this passage, at least in part, to indicate that we can only be baptized once, like it says in the Nicene Creed ("we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins").

This is confirmed according to Chrysostom in the "crucifying afresh" and "putting Christ to shame" verses from the passage. Christ's sacrifice is all-encompassing, therefore to indicate that a man is in need of a second renewal to repentance is to indicate that Christ's first sacrifice was not sufficient, but that another is needed. Thus, Christ would have to be crucified again. However, we experienced the fullness of the Crucifixion in baptism, and needing a second baptism would be akin to requiring a second Crucifixion.

He also equates "having tasted the Spirit" with experiencing the remission of sins.

Perhaps the most puzzling part of his exegesis however is the following excerpt, concerning which I have yet to reach final conclusions.

"But if we should be always going to be saved by grace we shall never be good. For where there is but one grace, and we are yet so indolent, should we then cease sinning if we knew that it is possible again to have our sins washed away? For my part I think not."