Читать книгу 1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the Centuries - Rebecca Skaggs - Страница 51

The “living stone” imagery interests several ancient writers. For instance, Origen is impressed that “the church is a body and a house of God built upon living stones” (Comm. on John, 10: 266 OFP: 1762: ccel.org). Augustine explains the metaphor with a somewhat different slant:

The Lord will repay his faithful followers who are so lovingly, so cheerfully, so devotedly carrying out these works, to the effect that he includes them in the construction of his own building, into which they hasten to fit as living stones, fashioned by faith, made solidly firm by hope, cemented together by charity.

(Sermons 337: WSA 3/9: 271)

For Didymus the Blind, the important point is that believers as living stones are built upon the Living Stone [Christ] and the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Comm. on 1 Peter, PG 39: 1762). Theodoret elaborates on the means by which believers are incorporated into God’s spiritual house: “Those who he calls beforehand are accepted into the church of God … by sharing a common origin … by thinking and saying the same things and sharing the same minds and thoughts, we are built together into one house” (Catena, CEC: 51: my tr.).

Origen raises a different issue; he is concerned with how those who have died “insufficiently instructed but with a record of acceptable works” might still become “living stones.” He explains that even after death, one can become a living stone:

He [the one who has died without becoming a living stone] will be capable of receiving instruction in that Jerusalem, the city of the saints, i.e., he will be educated and moulded, and made a living stone, a stone elect and precious, because he has undergone with firmness and constancy the struggles of life and the trials of piety; and will there come to a truer and clearer knowledge of that which here has been already predicted. (On First Principles 2.11.3: ccel.org)

Augustine is also concerned with the state of the unborn, but has a somewhat more negative perspective:

With the exception of the cornerstone which is Christ, I do not see how men are to be built into a house of God, to contain God dwelling in them, without being born again, which cannot happen before they are born the first time. (Letters 187.31 FC: 30: 246)

For Hilary of Arles, the implication of being built upon such a foundation of Christ and his apostles has serious spiritual ramifications:

You have been built on a good foundation, that of the apostles, prophets and patriarchs … those of you who believe in Christ are more than just stones, you are sons of God! (Intro. Comm. on 1 Peter, PLSupp 3: 89: ACC)

Other writers emphasize what it means for Christ to be the cornerstone. Cyril of Alexandria points to the unity he brings: “Peter calls Jesus Christ a chosen and precious stone, fashioned by glory and splendor of divinity … because through one faith it [the stone] binds together in unity the two, Israel and the Gentiles.” (Catena, CEC 51–52: my tr.). Didymus elaborates on this unity:

Although we are from many different nations, the fact that we have all repented of our sins and accepted a common will and a common mind gives those who have repented one doctrine and one faith. (Comm. on 1 Peter, PG 39: 1763–1764: my tr.)

Didymus, however, acknowledges the “dark side”; that although Christ is the chosen cornerstone to believers, to those who do not believe, he is “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, considered worthless by the builders who have rejected him. These builders are the scribes and the Pharisees” (Catena, CEC 52–53, my tr.). Bede also shares this particular outlook (Comm., 1985: 81–2).

Other early writers examine the reason for this stumbling – is it on account of their own free choice or has it been predetermined by God? Didymus understands the stumbling to be the result of choice: “The position in which they find themselves [as unbelievers] is one which they have chosen, for it starts with unbelief: God was patient with those who despised his mercy, but ultimately left the choice to them” (Comm. on 1 Peter, PG 39: 1762–1763).

Oecumenius agrees and states very clearly that, “God is not to be held responsible for this, for no cause of damnation can come from him who wants everyone to be saved” (ibid., my tr.).