I was trying to think about Dr. Whitlark's question to one of my earlier posts (does faith have a christological focus) and I went back to meditate a little on the first verse of chapter 11, and Chrysostom's commentary on it.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.
O what an expression has he used, in saying,
an evidence of things not seen.
For [we say] there is
evidence,
in the case of things that are very plain. Faith then is the seeing things not plain (he means), and brings what are not seen to the same full assurance with what are seen. So then neither is it possible to disbelieve in things which are seen, nor, on the other hand can there be
faith unless a man be more fully assured with respect to things invisible, than he is with respect to things that are most clearly seen. 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. This is [the meaning of]
the substance of things.
I wonder now, especially since Dr. Whitlark pressed me on the "things hoped for" and "things not seen" parts if this could not refer to Christ. That is, by their faith in what they could not see (Christ) they "obtained a good report." That is, according to traditional Christianity, the old testament fathers were also justified by Christ's sacrifice. This would also work, given that this is what enabled them to "obtain a good report."
Faith, then, is our participation in the body of Christ, which is why it "is itself their substance," and it is, of course, entirely Christ focused. This understanding also seems to have ramifications for our understanding of Christ, because He is a God who is made substantial in us through our faith (though of course He does not require our faith to be substanital in Himself).
No comments:
Post a Comment