Cloud of Witnesses: Introduction

Dr. David C. Noe

This is the first in a Grapevine series on Christian history. The title is taken, as you can guess, from Hebrews 12:1.

The arrangement of these articles will be chronological, stretching from the earliest times of the church in the post-Apostolic period to the close of the Patristic era. As with virtually every historical question, there is disagreement as to when this age concludes, some placing it in the 800s, others closer to 1300. We will employ the earlier date inasmuch as the resources of learning and interest from 100-800 are more than sufficient for our purposes.

Before we examine, in the next installment, the life and work of the first luminary it is proper to explain something about the method followed in selecting these individuals and why you, dear Christian, should care in the first place. 

The writers of the Patristic era are divided conveniently into two groups not by geography, although this plays a role, but by the language in which they wrote, whether Greek or Latin. In Christ's own day, the universal language was Koine Greek, a simplified dialect of the tongue spoken by Plato and Aristotle in Athens' past. Koine is the language the writers of the New Testament use. Its linguist sovereignty over the Mediterranean was virtually guaranteed by the conquests and subsequent Hellenization of Alexander of Macedon in the 330s B.C. Every educated individual of the first century A.D., however, and sometimes even those whose education was not very strong, spoke at least one additional language, usually that of the locale in which they were born and raised. In Palestine it was Aramaic, in Asia Minor it might be Karian, on the Italian peninsula Oscan or some other forgotten language.

In time, however, because of Rome's political supremacy Latin displaced every other language in the western Mediterranean, southern Europe, and N. Africa for commerce, theology, and philosophy. But in the East, Greek persisted, with the areas of greatest scholarship being centered around Antioch, Athens, and Alexandria in Egypt. (The destructions wrought by Titus in 70 permanently disqualified Jerusalem as a center of learning.) For the first three centuries of the Christian era theologians and philosophers often trafficked in both languages, though usually stating a preference. When the Roman Tetrarchy arose under Diocletian in 284, however, the Empire was split in its administration between east and west. This deepened the underlying differences between the practitioners of the two languages. Constantine's refounding of an eastern capital at Nova Roma (always called Constantinople), moving it from the insignificant city of Nicomedia, started to tap the nails in the coffin of this division. By 1054 the lid was completely down, and what is called the Great Schism separated the two churches in a way that seems irreparable. There were theological and political reasons for this rift to be sure, but a strong underlying factor was the difference in language and culture.

Not surprisingly, given geography and temperament, Protestants have always found more common ground with the Western than Eastern church, with the Fathers who spoke Latin than those who spoke Greek. The writings of Tertullian, Jerome, and most of all Augustine were more often on the lips of Calvin and Luther than what Basil, Athanasius, and John Chrysostom produced. Nevertheless, Calvin himself had a very good knowledge of the Greek Fathers and relied upon them heavily for some of his commentaries on and interpretations of the Scriptures. In the preface he contributed to an edition of Chrysostom's Homilies, Calvin recommended that the students of Scripture above all read the following Patristics: in Greek, Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil, and Chrysostom; in Latin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome and Augustine.

Taking Calvin's advice, therefore, this series of articles will examine the Greek and Latin Fathers in chronological order, beginning next time with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. So long as the readers' patience lasts, two segments will be devoted to each of the ten. The first will be biographical, the second will deal with works and theological significance.

Why should you, as a twenty-first century Protestant, care what these men did and thought in millennia past? The story of how Christ has preserved and blessed his body the church, that she may steadily advance against the dark hosts of hell, is one from which we may derive tremendous comfort. Next to the knowledge of God that we gain from his infallible Word, and that which we gain from creation, we may humbly add the knowledge to be gained from his providential workings in the history of the church. No doubt erroneous conclusions can be drawn and mistakes can be made in the discernment of his purposes in history. Still, when we see how the divinity of Christ, the character of the Trinity, the nature of the true sacraments, all these fundamental doctrines have been taught and believed with remarkable continuity from the church's earliest foundations, we may praise God for His mercy and be confident that in the trials which our generation faces He will not abandon us or cause us to fall short of those who have gone before. Perhaps we also can learn to say as courageous martyrs of old have said: "Bring on the lions. Stoke the fires."