Introduction
In my view, the most important issue facing the Church today is how to interpret the Bible. This has come home to me many times in clergy meetings in which it was impossible for Episcopal clergy to come to any agreement on important issues facing the church. As these meetings unfolded, almost no one would appeal to Scripture. That did not surprise me. As seminary students, everyone had been trained in the historical critical method, and this method simply isn't competent to deal with certain fundamental questions. I shall come back to that. Further, they knew that biblical scholars had already researched Scripture on various matters and come to contrary conclusions. How were they to know who was right and who was wrong? Generally speaking, our conversations went nowhere.
To get past these impasses, we need to know certain fundamental facts. First, we needed to know that there are serious limitations on the historical critical method of interpreting Scripture. Secondly, we needed to know that the Church, from the beginning, was plagued by false teachers who interpreted the Scripture from an alien perspective. The antidote to these false teachers was the tradition, the body of creed like doctrine that gave the road map for a true interpretation of Scripture. That tradition was eventually formulated in the Creeds, and it is the Creeds that guide the right interpretation of Scripture. Further, every way of interpreting Scripture entails a doctrine of God, and every doctrine of God leads to a particular way of interpreting Scripture. If a way of interpreting Scripture does not reflect the orthodoxy of the Creeds, then it will lead to error. In that regard, I have examined the underlying theology of a number of biblical exegetes and those results are included in this section of my web page.(1)
As a result of the foregoing, I shall do three things in this essay. First, I shall describe how to approach Scripture in light of the Nicene Creed. In this process, I shall draw on four theologians, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Hooker, and Barth. These four theologians are very different. Nevertheless, they are all orthodox and they all interpreted Scripture in light of the Creed. Secondly, I will outline how to apply an orthodox understanding of Scripture to three areas of concern sexuality, economics, and violence. Finally, I shall summarize the strengths and limits of the historical critical method as I learned it in seminary and have seen it practiced in the church. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations in this essay are from the Nicene Creed.
The Importance of Doctrine for Interpreting Scripture
From the beginning the Church recognized that false conceptions of God would lead to wrong interpretations of Scripture. Against these false conceptions, the Church upheld the regula, the rule of faith, that proto creedal body of apostolic doctrine that taught the truth in succinct form and rightly guided biblical interpretation. In the second century, for example, the Gnostics falsely interpreted Scripture because of wrong doctrine.(2) They believed in a first principle of divine light that became imprisoned in matter by the monster god, Ialdabaoth. This god created the material world and revealed himself in the Old Testament where his name was "Yahweh." Christ countered the works of Ialdabaoth and delivered the light from its prison within the body. By this and related heretical systems, the Gnostics undermined the biblical revelation by pitting the New Testament against the Old and denying the redemption of the body.
Against this, Irenaeus proclaimed that right interpretation was given by the doctrine of the apostles handed down in the Church through the bishops. The Gnostics falsely interpreted Scripture because they did not believe this doctrine, but rather, interpreted Scripture from an alien perspective. In several places Irenaeus gave summaries of that apostolic doctrine, and his summaries have clear affinities with the Apostles' Creed, both doubtless arising from the same "ancient tradition."
To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. ... Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they [the barbarians] do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.(3)
Because of apostolic doctrine Irenaeus held that God was One. This one God who revealed himself in the whole of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. This God directly created the world. He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of law and prophets, the Father of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the Old Testament, neither in part nor in whole, could be separated from the New.(4)
The importance of creeds or apostolic doctrine for the ancient Church did not mean that creeds were a center of authority equal and distinct from Scripture itself. Scripture was always the supreme authority, and right doctrine could not go against it. Here is patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly, speaking of Irenaeus and the Church Fathers.
In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he [Irenaeus] never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture. Indeed it was enshrined in Scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason Scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrines not discoverable in it.
In regard to the Church Fathers, Kelly again comments,
There is little need to dwell on the absolute authority accorded to Scripture as a doctrinal norm.(5)
As with the Church Fathers, so it was with early Anglicanism. Anglicanism is a reformed Church, a Church that goes back to the Church of the first few centuries. For that reason, Anglicanism claims the Creeds as guiding right biblical interpretation. That is the great tradition of the Church. Here are typical statements by contemporary students of Anglicanism.
In a sense of course, the classical catholic creeds, Apostles' and Nicene, are themselves also official statements that establish for the Episcopal Church the particular way in which scripture is authoritatively interpreted on major points of doctrine.(6)
The tradition of the first five centuries (which mean in effect the first four ecumenical councils through to Chalcedon) have always enjoyed a special authority in classical Anglicanism, which also appealed to the "three Creeds" as a hermeneutical principle for the interpretation of Scripture.(7)
In his battle with the Puritans, Hooker did not, as far as I know, specifically mention the Creeds as a norm of biblical interpretation. He affirmed as much, however, in that he held that the interpretative tradition of the Church, especially the Church of the first few centuries, should guide our understanding of the Bible. This interpretative tradition, however, had its basis in the apostolic doctrine, the doctrine of the Creeds. Hooker drew upon that tradition, and he was especially wary of those who claimed the "Spirit" for novel interpretations. In his view, it was better to present carefully reasoned arguments from Scripture as interpreted by the Church Fathers than to appeal to the Spirit.(8)
By the time of Barth, the heretical methods of interpreting Scripture that afflict the Church today were in full force. In response, before Barth begins to interpret Scripture, he sets forth significant portions of doctrine by which to guide his exegesis.(9)
God as One yet Triune
The one God who is the author of the whole of Scripture is also one God in three persons. The Creed affirms that this triune God acts in three ways, creation by the Father, the incarnation of the Son, and "life of the world to come" as the final work of the Spirit. From this it follows that Scripture is to be read as a single narrative with three primary acts, beginning with creation in Genesis, centering in the Incarnation, and ending with the new heavens and new earth of Revelation.
Jesus Christ, the Center of Scripture
Within this global context, not all portions have equal weight. Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture, the key to interpreting the whole. His is, to quote the Creed, "the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made." This implies that whenever God speaks or acts, whatever words or deeds come forth from God, these words and deeds reflect Jesus Christ since Jesus Christ is the "only Son of God." For example, when God spoke creation into being, it was made through Jesus Christ, "Through him all things were made." Similarly, in the Old Testament, whenever God spoke or acted, Jesus Christ is the one who was seen or heard, though in a hidden manner. His resurrection, for example, is "in accordance with the Scriptures," that Scriptures being the Old Testament. When the Holy Spirit brings the "life of the world to come," it will occur when Jesus Christ "will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." For this reason, Jesus Christ is the center, the theme of Scripture.
Athanasius understood this quite clearly. In his view, the Father forever sends forth the Son or Word as the sun sends forth sunlight.(10) As a result, when God speaks, acts, or appears, the Word that comes forth is always Jesus Christ. Therefore, he will affirm that the image of God in humanity is an image of Jesus Christ the Word.(11) He will also affirm that whenever God spoke or acted in the Old Testament, the content of God's act or speech was Jesus Christ. Therefore, when God revealed himself to such persons as Abraham, Moses, and Daniel, what they saw was Christ in a hidden form.
If Divine adoration was neither due to Him [Christ], nor paid Him, until after His death, how is it that Abraham worshiped him in his tent, (Gen. xviii), Moses in the bush (Exod. iii.), and Daniel saw thousands upon thousands of angels ministering unto Him? (Dan. vii:10).(12)
Similarly, Irenaeus will say the following, speaking of Abraham seeing three men approaching him as he stood under the oak at Mamre.
Now two of the three were angels, but one was the Son of God with whom Abraham spoke, pleading on behalf of the inhabitants of Sodom, ... So, Abraham was a prophet and saw things of the future, which were to come to pass, the Son of God in human form that He [Christ] was to speak with men and eat food with them, and then bring down judgment from that Father who is Lord over all ...(13)
In this way, both Irenaeus and Athanasius read the Old Testament Christologically, as the Son of God revealed in hidden form. Hooker and Barth make similar claims. For both, Christ is active in the Old Testament as the salvation of God.(14)
The Theory of Recapitulation
Once it is understood that the Old and New Testaments are related in Jesus Christ, it becomes necessary to spell out that relationship. To this end, all the Church Fathers adopted what is called the "theory of recapitulation." This idea, based on Romans five, is the notion that the whole of humanity was "found in Adam," and all, by Adam's sin, suffered the consequences of the Fall. Christ then reversed the disobedience of Adam by his obedience so that those who believe in him will have eternal life. The patristic scholar, J.N.D. Kelly, describes recapitulation in these words,
This is none other than the ancient idea of recapitulation which Irenaeus derived from St. Paul, and which envisages Christ as the representative of the entire race. Just as all men were somehow present in Adam, so they are, or can be, present in the second Adam, the man from heaven. Just as they were involved in the former's sin, with all its appalling consequences, so they can participate in the latter's death and ultimate triumph over sin, the forces of evil and even death itself. Because, very God as He is, He has identified Himself with the human race, Christ has been able to act on its behalf and in its stead; and the victory He has obtained is the victory of all who belong to Him. All the fathers, of whatever school, reproduce this motif.(15)
Hooker states the matter as follows:
Adam is in us as an original cause of our nature, and of that corruption of nature which causeth death, Christ as the cause original of restoration to life; the person of Adam is not in us, but his nature, and the corruption of his nature derived unto all men by propagation; Christ having Adam's nature as we have, but incorrupt, deriveth not nature but incorruption and that immediately from his own person into all that belong unto him. As therefore we are really partakers of the body of sin and death received from Adam, so except we be truly partakers of Christ, and as really possessed of his Spirit, all we speak of eternal life is but a dream.(16)
Theologically, the theory of recapitulation has its basis in the creedal history, beginning with creation, the first Adam, salvation in Christ, the second Adam, and ending with the "life of the world to come." When this is fleshed out in terms of the biblical narrative, it gives rise to the biblical history Adam, sin, corruption and fall, the giving of the Law, the monarchy, the prophets, apocalyptic, Christ the center of Scripture, the Epistles and early Church, and ending with the final age described in the Book of Revelation. Since God's revelation is always one yet three, revelation on any topic begins with creation, continues with the biblical narrative, centers in Christ, and ends with Revelation. Therefore, when I discuss sexuality, violence, and economic life from a biblical perspective, each will be placed in the context of the biblical narrative, a narrative that has its theological foundation in the three great acts of the triune God.
The Theory of Types
All four theologians studied here held to a theory of types. According to this doctrine, the New Testament witness to Christ is the full light of God. The Old Testament witness is a shadow, figure, or type, of what is fully revealed in the New. For example, the tree of the life in the Garden of Genesis 2 is a type of the cross, the offering of the Passover Lamb a type of Christ's offering, the escape from Egypt through the Red Sea a type of baptism, the Old Testament sacrificial system a type of Christ's sacrifice, the Davidic kingship of type of Christ's kingship, and so forth. This approach recognizes that the Old Testament did not fully reveal God, only in Jesus Christ is he fully revealed. Yet, the Old Testament was not simply a disposable preamble to the New. It revealed God in an incipient manner. Hooker, quoting Justin Martyr and Augustine, gives the classical formulation,
The cause of their reading first the Old Testament, then the New, and always somewhat out of both, is most likely to have been that which Justin Martyr and St. Augustin observe in comparing the two Testaments. "The Apostles," saith the one, "have taught us as themselves did learn, first the precepts of the Law, and then the gospels. For what else is the Law but the Gospel foreshewed? What other the Gospel, than the Law fulfilled?" In like sort the other, "What the Old Testament hath, the very same the New containeth; but that which lieth there as under a shadow is here brought forth into the open sun. Things there prefigured are here performed." Again, "In the Old Testament there is a close comprehension of the New, in the New an open discovery of the Old."(17)
Allegory was another method used by some of the Church Fathers for making sense of the Old Testament. From the perspective of the Creed, however, the essence of God is given in his acts. The Creed narrates the three principle acts, creation, incarnation, and the life of the world to come. These frame and center the biblical revelation. Allegory tended to see God's acts as timeless reflections of a heavenly realm. As a result, allegorical meaning was a description of the heavenlies. Typological meaning had its basis in history, God's action on earth. Meaning, from a typological perspective, is that God will act now as he has always acted, prior acts being types of subsequent ones. Of the two, allegorical or typological, the typological is closer to the Creed. Kelly sums up the matter in these words,
Of these two methods of exegesis the characteristically Christian one was typology, which had its roots firmly planted in the Biblical view of history. In its struggle with the Marcionites the Church found it an invaluable weapon for countering their attempt to separate the two Testaments.(18)
Typological exegesis worked along very different lines. Essentially it was a technique for bringing out the correspondence between the two Testaments, and it took as its guiding principle the idea that the events and personages of the old were "types" of, i.e. prefigured and anticipated the events and personages of the New. The typologist took history seriously, it was the scene of the progressive unfolding of God's consistent redemptive purpose. Hence he assumed that, from the creation to the judgment, the same unwavering plan could be discerned in the sacred story, the earlier stages being shadows or, to vary the metaphor, rough preliminary sketches of the later. Christ and His Church were the climax; and since in all his dealings with mankind God was leading up to the Christian revelation, it was reasonable to discover pointers to it in the great experiences of his chosen people.(19)
Salvation, the Theme of Scripture
Although there is all sorts of information in Scripture, its primary aim is to teach the way of salvation. This follows from the fact that Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture, and that the purpose of his incarnation was for "us and our salvation." Salvation is a two fold event with a certain order. It is first an act of God, followed by a human response. Of the two, the act of God comes first, the human response or accompaniment is second. This is because the Creed first states that Jesus Christ is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," and then, secondly, that he "became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man." First he was God, a God that became a human being who saved other human beings. Athanasius and Barth speak of it as follows,
He was not, therefore, first man and then God; but first God and then man, in order that He might make us like gods."(20)
He, the eternal Word, became and is flesh. His unity with it became and is irreversible. And so the statement in Jn. 1:14 is irreversible. An abstract declaration about flesh as the Word is quite impossible. Flesh became and is the Word only to the extent that the Word became and is flesh.(21)
The great acts of God described in the Creed are creation, incarnation, life of the world to come, and in that context, the human responses, that of Jesus Christ, Pilate, Mary, and the Church. These acts and human responses are events, things that happened, are happening, and will happen. All the theologians quoted here know that the primary theme of Scripture is salvation, and further, that salvation is a divine event that entails a human response.
Salvation Begins as Miraculous Acts of God
Further, although God providentially orders events and works through natural processes, it must also be said that God acts miraculously in the common sense meaning of the term. Creation by "God, the Father, the Almighty," is the first of God's great miraculous acts, and the Church has understood this act as ex nihilo, out of nothing. This, by definition, is a miracle beyond comprehension. The Incarnation is also miraculous. All the theologians discussed here believe in a miraculous virgin birth and a bodily resurrection as stated in the Creed. All believe in a miraculous Second Coming followed by the "life of the world to come." All believe that Jesus did miracles of the sort narrated in the gospels.
Furthermore, the creedal pattern of one God as three persons entails miracle. This is because what God does in incarnation is not simply a continuance of creation, but the dawn of a new creation, a new miraculous order that will be completed on the last day.(22) For this reason, Hooker divides his laws into natural and supernatural, the latter being caused by God's miraculous action in which, "besides the course of nature," God heals and restores the corruption of nature caused by sin.
Laws therefore concerning these things are supernatural, both in respect of the manner of delivering them, which is divine; and also in regard of the things delivered, which are such as have not in nature any cause from which they flow, but were by the voluntary appointment of God ordained besides the course of nature, to rectify nature's obliquity withal.(23)
Miracle is also a consequence of the doctrine of recapitulation. According to this doctrine, the result of Adam's sin was corruption and this included the corruption of the body. Jesus not only healed people spiritually and emotionally, but bodily, and these miraculously healings were the foretaste of the final healing, the resurrection of the body into an incorruptible state. For this reason, Athanasius will use the fact that Jesus healed and cast out demons, not only when he lived in the flesh, but also in Athanasius' own time, as proof of Jesus' power over death and corruption.
But they who disbelieve in the resurrection afford a strong proof against themselves, if instead of all the spirits and the gods worshipped by them casting out Christ, who, they say, is dead, Christ on the contrary proves them all to be dead. For if it be true that one dead can exert no power, while the Saviour does daily so many works, drawing men to religion, persuading to virtue, teaching of immortality, leading on to a desire for heavenly things, revealing the knowledge of the Father, inspiring strength to meet death, showing himself to each one, and displacing the godlessness of idolatry, and the gods and spirits of the unbelievers can do none of these things, but rather show themselves dead at the presence of Christ, their pomp being reduced to impotence and vanity whereas by the sign of the cross all magic is stopped, and all witchcraft brought to nought, and all the idols are being deserted and left, and every unruly pleasure is checked, and everyone is looking up from earth to heaven whom is one to pronounce dead? Christ, that is doing so many works? but to work is not proper to one dead.(24)
Athanasius had this to say about St. Anthony, whom he knew personally.
Through him the Lord healed the bodily ailments of many present, and cleansed others from evil spirits. And He gave grace to Anthony in speaking, so that he consoled many that were sorrowful, and set those at variance at one, exhorting all to prefer the love of Christ before all that is in the world.(25)
The Literal Sense Comes First
All four theologians, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Hooker, and Barth, begin with the literal or common sense meaning of any passage of Scripture. This does not deny that certain passages are poetical, metaphorical, or saga.(26) Literal means the passage is to be read as it stands, with its apparent meaning in the context of the whole of Scripture. History is to be read as history, poetry as poetry, saga as saga, the proclamation of the four gospels as proclamation. The book of Job, for example, is a poem. It does not need to be read literally as history, but it has literal meanings that apply to God's action in history.
The literal meaning is a consequence of the incarnation, the creedal statement that Christ "became incarnate from the Virgin Mary and was made man." Incarnation does not mean that the "infinite appeared in the finite" as in liberal theology,(27) but that God became finite, so that the finite, as finite literal words and deeds are the revelation of God. A few more words are in order.
To begin with, many passages are quite clear in an immediate literal sense. For example, the initial events in Mark's gospel are the following: 1. A precursor, John the Baptist. 2. Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. 3. Temptation. 4. Preaching. 5. Calling of disciples. 6. Teaching. 7. Exorcism. 8. Healing. 9. Massive healings and exorcisms. 10. Forgiveness of sins. 11. Calling of more disciples. 12. Associations with outcasts. 12. More teaching, healings, and exorcisms. 13. Commissioning of the disciples to preach and cast out demons. 14. More teaching ... The primary meaning of this is obvious. First, God acted in the person of his Son, heralded by John the Baptism. This is to be proclaimed by the Church. Jesus was baptized and those who accept Jesus need to be baptized. Jesus was tempted, and the devil will tempt Jesus' followers today. Christians are called to be his disciples, to proclaim and do what he did. They are to preach, teach, heal, cast out demons, associate with outcasts, and forgive in his name, and all of this because God in Jesus Christ does today what Scripture proclaims he did then. All this means salvation, salvation principally being God's acts and their human counterparts.
The interpretation of Mark given here could be amplified, but this is the bedrock meaning. Even this fundamental meaning depends upon the text being placed in a wider context of original good creation, sin and resulting corruption, the restoration of a corrupted human nature by Jesus Christ, crucifixion and resurrection, ascension, giving of the Spirit, and the formation of the Church as the "body of Christ," doing what Jesus did in his Name. It goes without saying that the interpretation given here is not the interpretation given in a great deal of scholarly exegesis. But so much scholarly exegesis overlooks the obvious meaning of the text God's saving actions and the role of the Church is carrying out those actions.
Other passages are not so easy to interpret literally. For example, in his battle with Arius, Athanasius was forced to reckon with Proverbs 8:22 which stated that "The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His works." This passage refers to Wisdom, and since Wisdom is one way in which God reveals himself, Wisdom is Jesus Christ. As a result, Arius used the passage to say that Christ was created, the first of God's creatures, the "beginning of His ways." This would seem to be the obvious and literal meaning. Athanasius accepted that the Wisdom of God is Jesus Christ, and therefore, he had to make sense of Proverbs 8:22. Even if he didn't agree with its immediate meaning, the text had to mean something, something he could understand. Since he read Scripture as a narrative whole, he interpreted the text in light of the whole of Scripture. This inquiry comprised seventy six sections of biblical analysis.(28) In the process the literal meanings of the words shifted in relationship to one another, and throughout he was guided by apostolic doctrine, the creedal teaching that Jesus Christ is not a creature. In the end, he arrived at a meaning of Proverbs 8:22. That interpretation was not an initial literal meaning, but a theological literal meaning, one that emerged out of a theological analysis of the whole of Scripture, beginning with the literal sense.
As interpreted by Athanasius, the words "the beginning of His ways, for His works," referred to the creation of Jesus' human nature, but not his divine nature. Jesus' saving work on earth began with the creation of his human nature. In this way, Jesus' divine nature was eternal, the second person of the Trinity, but his human nature was created, the beginning of his ways upon earth. This, from a historical critical sense is far afield, but Athanasius read the whole of Scripture to know God, and this is what Scripture as a whole taught him about God's Son. He began with the literal sense, but ended with a theological sense that enshrined a mystery, the mystery of how God's Son could be God yet also a human being. Throughout, he was guided by apostolic doctrine. Patristic scholar Francis Young describes Athanasius' method and his reliance on apostolic doctrine with these words,
Discernment of the mind of scripture meant discernment of its underlying coherence, its unitive testimony to the one true Son of God, and that discernment involved what we might call a critical stance towards a literalising view of religious language. Nevertheless, to discern the mind of scripture did involve two things: (1) the assembly of texts pointing to the same conclusion, and (2) respect for the normal or "earthly" meaning of words, appropriately modified, or perhaps I should say "elevated," for their theological content. The interpretation may not be literal, but, in the majority of cases, it is also far from allegorical. The categories usually used to discuss patristic exegesis are inadequate to the task.(29)
Athanasius is not neglectful of the details of the text. But fundamentally it is his sense of the overarching plot, a sense inherited from the past and ingrained in the tradition of the Church, which allows him to be innovative in exegetical detail and confident of providing the correct and "pious" reading. The "Canon of Truth" or "Rule of Faith" expresses the mind of scripture, and an exegesis that damages the coherence of that plot, that hypothesis, that coherence, that skopos, cannot be right.(30)
Essentially, Athanasius accepted the dictum that no passage of Scripture should be interpreted in contradiction to others, and secondly, that obscure passages could be clarified by obvious ones. For example, John 1:1 and 1:14 together claim that Christ is God, and this in apparent contradiction to Proverbs 8:22. It therefore appeared that Scripture both affirmed and denied that the Son of God was God and not a creature. In this case, given the apparent contradiction, Athanasius was forced to engage in an exhaustive biblical analysis in order to resolve the contradiction.(31)
Hooker also began with the literal sense, although, like Athanasius, he could transform a literal meaning in light of a wider context. For example, before he addressed the controversial subject of the sacraments, he first laid the Trinitarian and Christological groundwork in seven chapters of dense orthodox doctrine, exhaustively drawing upon the Church Fathers and Scripture.(32) Then and only then was he willing to consider the Eucharist. As a result of his analysis, he came to know literal, specific, and concrete things about the sacrament. For example, the biblical phrase, "this is my body," had literal meaning for Hooker. It did not mean that the communion bread became the material body that Jesus had when he was alive. That might be an immediate literal meaning. It meant that Jesus resurrected body imparts incorruptible and eternal life to those who receive the bread. How this happens is a mystery, but it is only a mystery because aspects of it can be described through a doctrinal and biblical analysis, and the biblical analysis entailed making sense of the initial meaning of the biblical words in relation to the whole of revelation. In the midst of his discourse on sacraments, Hooker comments,
I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous that this licentious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words, as alchymy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of any thing what it listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth to nothing.(33)
In short, the literal meaning does not deny that God is a mystery, but God is a mystery only because God has revealed himself, and done so in ways the mind can understand.(34) That God is only a mystery because he has revealed himself clearly must be asserted over against the ecstatics who claim that God is ultimately a mystery beyond any knowing whatsoever.(35) More could be said on this subject, but the point is clear. By virtue of the incarnation, the reader of Scripture is called to begin with the literal meaning, a meaning worked out in the context of the whole of Scripture with Christ at the center.
Scripture is Complete for Its Purpose
In his battle with the Gnostics, Irenaeus was especially critical of their claim to possess the viva voce, the living voice of revelation. This is the claim made by revisions in the Church today. They believe that the Spirit is leading the Church into new revelations. Against this, Irenaeus claimed that the apostles did not proclaim their revelation until they had received a final, complete, and perfect revelation that they wrote down in Scripture. As a result, those who claim to go beyond Scripture by an appeal to the viva voce, are, in fact, claiming to be "improvers of the apostles."
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.(36)
When, however, they [the Gnostics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: ...(37)
Hooker makes the same claim. Repeatedly, against the enthusiasts of his day who claimed the Spirit for their novel revelations, he claimed the complete, sufficient, revelation of God in Scripture. In making this claim, he believed he was in agreement with the Church Fathers. This is important. It means that Hooker did not, like the revisionists, interpret Scripture as the first stage of an ongoing revelation. He rejected the notion that there are "new revelations from heaven." In his view, God no longer speaks to the world. He guides the elect, but he does not reveal any new decisive truths that must be affirmed by the Church. The following quotations make this quite clear.
And even hereby it cometh to pass, that first such as imagine the general and main drift of the body of sacred Scripture not to be so large as it is, nor that God did thereby intend to deliver, as in truth he doth, a full instruction in all things unto salvation necessary, the knowledge whereof man by nature could not otherwise in this life attain unto: they are by this very mean induced either still to look for new revelations from heaven, or else dangerously to add to the word of God uncertain tradition, that so the doctrine of man's salvation may be complete; which doctrine we constantly hold in all respects without any such thing added to be so complete, that we utterly refuse as much at once to acquaint our selves with any thing further. Whatsoever to make up the doctrine of man's salvation is added, as in supply of the scripture's insufficiency, we reject it. Scripture purposing this, hath perfectly and fully done it.(38)
Now forasmuch as there hath been reason alleged sufficient to conclude, that all things necessary unto salvation must be made known, and that God himself hath therefore revealed his will, because otherwise men could not have known so much as is necessary; his surceasing to speak to the world, since the publishing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the delivery of the same in writing, is unto us a manifest token that the way of salvation is now sufficiently opened, and that we need no other means for our full instruction than God hath already furnished us withal.(39)
To urge any thing upon the Church requiring thereunto that religious assent of Christian belief, wherewith the words of the holy prophets are received, to urge any thing as part of that supernatural and celestially revealed truth which God hath taught, and not to shew it in Scripture, this did the ancient Fathers evermore think unlawful, impious, execrable. And thus as their speeches were meant, so by us they must be restrained.(40)
When rightly seen, the Creed also affirms that Scripture is complete for its purpose. The Creed states that Jesus Christ is the "only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made." This is not true of any other person, movement, time, or created reality. Jesus Christ is the decisive revelation of God upon earth, and the only knowledge that we have of his incarnation is given in Scripture. Nowhere else do we learn about the person who was born of Mary and suffered under Pontius Pilate. Of course he continues to act upon earth through Word and Sacrament, but these actions do not constitute new revelations. Word and Sacrament are based upon Scripture. They reflect his saving action as revealed in Scripture.
Further, now that Christ is "seated at the right hand of the Father," the only decisive revelation that remains is his coming "again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." When that happens, and it will be a cosmic event, we will know more of Jesus Christ, something decisive in addition to what is now given in Scripture. Until then, there are no decisive, normative revelations. Consistently, the Church has rejected the notion of new revelations. Montanus was one of the first to make such claims, and he was rejected as a heretic. Others have made the same claim, the Spiritual Franciscans of the Middle Ages, the enthusiasts of Hooker's day, the revisionists of our own day.
Further, the article on the Church, the third article of the Creed, comes after the second article on Jesus Christ. This is because the Spirit was not fully given until Christ had been resurrected and ascended to the right hand of the Father.(41) Then, and only then, was the Spirit poured out because the Spirit's work is to make real in the Church the prior saving action of Jesus Christ, and that action was not complete until his ascension. The Spirit was not poured out to make the Church a source of continuing revelation, but to reveal to the Church the revelation that had already taken place. For this reason the Church established the canon of Scripture, not because it can place itself over Scripture as the revisionists assert, but rather, to safeguard the Church from receiving new revelation by placing it under the apostolic witness enshrined in Scripture. That is what makes a Church "apostolic," fidelity to the teaching of the apostles given in Scripture.
Sexuality, Violence, and Economic Life
An Outline
Given the foregoing considerations, I will now outline, in light of Scripture, the topics of sexuality, violence, and economic life. I pick these three because, scripturally, they can be illumined with the same set of biblical ideas. As I discuss these matters, I will not be quoting Scripture in any detail. The reader can check the ideas given here against the biblical narrative. My treatment will be global. In that context, a more detailed treatment is, of course, possible. The creed, however, presents a global perspective. Within that global perspective there are a variety of legitimate perspectives. Apart from a creedal perspective, however, detailed exegesis can fail to see the forest for the trees. I will begin by reading Scripture as a single narrative with three great acts, starting with creation.
The Church Fathers, as well as Hooker and Barth, read the creation narratives of Genesis one and two as God's intent for the whole of creation prior to sin, corruption, and death. The male and female of Genesis 1:26, and the Adam of Genesis 2, are understood to represent the human race, even if some commentators think there was a single individual person, Adam. This person, Adam, representing all persons, lived in a world devoid of violence, nor was there any economic want. The bounty of the garden was sufficient to meet every economic need. Further, sexuality was understood to exist in the context of the man and the woman, Genesis 1:28 and 2:23 4.
These conclusions as seen in Genesis one and two are substantiated Christologically. Jesus located marriage, and therefore sexuality, in the context of creation of male and female. He did not advocate violence, but "turned the other cheek." Against sin, his words could sting, but only for the sake of the sinner. Out of zeal for his father's house he drove the moneychangers out of the temple. But even here, the whip he used, following John's gospel, may have been made of rushes since no sticks or weapons were allowed in the temple.(42) In the end, rather than fight, he gave up his life. In regard to economic life, he practiced simplicity, denying all greed. Miraculously, he fed the five thousand and thereby vindicated God's original hope that the whole of humanity enjoy the economic bounty of Eden.
Through Adam's sin, Adam and Eve were placed under the sentence of death and cast out of the garden. At that point, God's original intent was forfeited. In regard to violence, Cain killed Abel, Lamech exulted in revenge, and violence became a perennial feature of human life. In regard to economic life, life became a brutal battle for survival, not only in regard to the ground itself bearing thorns and thistles, but human beings exploited each other economically through such things as slavery. In regard to sexuality, a number of alternatives emerged, such things as rape, incest, adultery, divorce and remarriage, concubinage, homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, and virtually every sexual alternative imaginable.
Genesis one through eleven describes the spread of these sorts of sins and God's judgment against human disobedience. Beginning in Genesis twelve, however, God takes a new approach. God calls Abraham, and this call ultimately results in the deliverance from Egypt, the giving of the Law, and the entrance into the Promised Land. These are the fundamental, saving Old Testament events, and they constitute the first step toward restoring the original intent of creation as known in Jesus Christ. As will be shown later, these events are types that will be fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
In regard to economic life, the Promised Land of Canaan was apportioned among the tribes, clans, and families, together with legislation that ensured that the land perpetually remain in the family. When land was lost, it was to be restored in the Jubilee. This was to ensure that all families had access to land, work, and production. Other laws were instituted to protect the poor, such as not lending at interest. Limits were placed on slavery, though the institution was not fully abolished. Limits were also set on violence, not only the sixth commandment against murder, but also cities of refuge to protect against blood vengeance. In regard to sexuality, certain alternatives were forbidden, adultery, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality, but polygamy, concubinage, and divorce and remarriage continued.
According to the New Testament, the Church Fathers, Hooker, and Barth, this first step was a shadow, a partial revelation that was not fulfilled until the new covenant of Jesus Christ. As such, it was not perfect, though it was a step toward God's perfect will. The Exodus, for example, was a type of the deliverance from sin given in Jesus' cross and resurrection. The entrance into the Promised Land a type of the Kingdom of God entered into by baptism. The limits on indiscriminate sex hint at Jesus' abstinence as well as his commands forbidding divorce and remarriage. Other aspects of the Old Testament revelation, however, involved commands that directly violated the revelation in Jesus Christ. Most conspicuous were God's commands to slaughter Israel's enemies, including at times, every man, woman, and child. The root of these commands is the action of God in Passover, the killing of Egypt's first born, either directly by God himself or by an angelic representative. This violence does not reflect God's perfect will, but his permissive will. It expresses the fact that disobedience to God, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, always entails death. In spite of Moses' warnings, Pharaoh and his hosts did not obey God. Israel herself was disobedient, but by the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb, Israel escaped death. Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb. In Christ we see that God's perfect will is to himself suffer the penalty of sin and thereby liberate the human race. In this light, the Old Testament commands to kill Israel's enemies are a type of the death of Christ who willingly died that all might live.(43) Apart from the Old Testament revelation, that sin is extremely serious and leads to death, the cross of Christ becomes unnecessary. Apart from the New Testament, the biblical commands to kill can be taken as God's decisive will.
According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. From this perspective, the second great Old Testament event, after the giving of the Law, was the Word of God that came to the prophets. Among many aspects, Christologically considered, three come to the fore. First, there is the recognition, already noted, that the wages of sin are death. The prophets announced that Israel had broken God's covenant, and the penalty of this sin was exile and death. In that sense, Israel's suffering was a type of Christ's suffering. Secondly, the suffering servant poems of Isaiah proclaimed that suffering, willingly accepted, leads to redemption. Thirdly, Jeremiah looked forward to a new covenant of the heart rather than the external coercion of the Law.
When Isaiah's message of the suffering servant is applied to economic life, sexuality, and violence, it means that salvation is not given by the conquest of one's enemies, as was the message of Exodus and the Conquest, but in loss, exile, and deprivation. It was through Jesus' suffering, willingly accepted, that salvation, atonement, and healing in these three areas of life become possible.
In regard to sex, Jesus did not marry and he practiced sexual abstinence. As sinless, he did not even look upon a woman to lust after her. Economically, he lived on the margins. He practiced radical sharing, even telling certain persons to give up all they had to follow him. He fed the five thousand and gave his body, his whole self, as bread for the world. He did not practice violence, but forgiveness. After his resurrection, he poured out his Spirit upon his followers. By the power of that Spirit his utter self giving was so penetrating that those who believed in him were given new hearts. This new heart was given through forgiveness, Jesus' atoning death on the cross. By the power of his resurrection believers are brought into the very presence of God, and empowered by the Spirit to live the life of God. This is the profound mystery and joy of the Christian faith. God shares his very life with believers. This is the great saving act of God, and its human response is that Christians can begin to live a holy life. The believers in Jerusalem, for example, held all things in common and shared with all in need.
At the same time, however, the "life of the world to come" has yet to manifest. As a result, believers find themselves born anew yet still afflicted with sin and death. For this reason, the Church was never fully able to implement the ethic of Jesus. There were, of course, exceptions. The saints and the great monastic movements of the Church, with their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, were attempts to live the ethic of Jesus at full flame. In general, however, the Church has accepted an ethic somewhere between the Old Testament covenant ethic and the teachings of Christ. In regard to sexuality, this has entailed the rejection of polygamy and concubinage as these violated the one man and one woman expectation of creation as taught by Christ. The Old Testament injunctions against incest, bestiality, homosexuality, and adultery were reinforced. The Church has not uniformly insisted on Jesus' perfect teaching in regard to divorce and remarriage. It has, at times, been seen as the lesser of two evils. The tradition of annulment reflects this compromise. In regard to economic life, the Church in the Middle Ages attempted to curb the acquisitive instinct and apply biblical teaching on economic life, including Old Testament legislation. This met with varying success, but the attempt was made. The formation of capitalism led to the exoneration of the acquisitive instinct together with economic practices that contradicted the medieval period, significant Old Testament teaching, as well as the life and teaching of Jesus. As such, the present economic order reflects only limited aspects of the biblical view of economics.(44) The recent emphasis on the tithe returns to Old Testament teaching, but it does not do justice to the economic ethic of Jesus. In regard to violence, there has always been a pacifist tradition within Christian thought, but the primary tradition has been to accept some form of just war theory in regard to the conduct of nations. At the individual level, it has been widely recognized that Christians are called to radically forgive and to turn the other cheek in certain circumstances, yet this has been tempered by the recognition that the coercion of law is necessary to restrain evil. In sum, the revelation in Christ went beyond the Old Testament ethic. This has been reflected in the life of the Church, with most practices falling somewhere on a continuum between the Old Testament and the new life of Christ.
The foregoing entails another consideration at this point. The Old Testament Law was both national and religious since Israel as a nation was defined by her allegiance to Yahweh. During the first few centuries of the Church's existence, Christianity was not the religion of the Roman Empire, nor is it the religion of most countries in the world today. As a result, the Church has often found herself in two realms, the realm of Christ's Kingdom, realized in the Church, and the realm of Caesar, the kingdoms of this world. Under these conditions, Christian teaching has generally accepted some degree of leniency in regard to public actions, with a stricter ethic applying to the Church's internal life. In general, the leniency applies more to economic and military practice than sexual matters since the latter are not public events. The ancient pagan societies used public sexual liturgies, but neither the Old Testament nor Christian teaching has ever affirmed pagan sexual license.
Finally, in the "life of the world to come," there will be no hunger, no violence, and no sexuality (Mt. 22:30). On that day, Satan, sin, and death will be conquered forever. God's original intent, the peace of Eden, will be established. On that day "there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain" any more, for God will "wipe every tear from their eyes." (Rev. 21:4)
The foregoing is a global perspective, an outline of a far more complex picture. Yet the Creed is an outline. It presents a global perspective. It gives the three great acts of God centering in Jesus Christ who redeemed a good creation corrupted by sin and thereby laid the foundation for the life of the world to come. Within that context, far more can be said. Nevertheless, if the Church is to remain true to the Trinitarian and Christological pattern of her unique God, her way of understanding Scripture must also reflect that pattern, a pattern enunciated in the Creed. These are the boundaries, boundaries given by the Creed, and she must remain within them. Patristic scholar Francis Young describes the matter in these words,
Neither the Rule of Faith nor the creed was in fact a summary of the whole biblical narrative, as demonstrated earlier in The Art of Performance. They provided, rather, the proper reading of the beginning and the ending, the focus of the plot and the relations of the principal characters, so enabling the "middle" to be heard in bits as meaningful. They provided the "closure" which contemporary theory prefers to leave open. They articulated the essential hermeneutical key without which texts and community would disintegrate into incoherence.(45)
The Historical Critical Method
In this final section I will make a few comments on the historical critical method as I learned it in seminary and as I have seen it practiced in the life of the Church.
First, the historical critical method, when rightly used, can shed light upon the biblical narrative. Scripture is an historical narrative. The Creed narrates the primary acts of that history, creation, Jesus Christ, the final age. Since the historical critical method focuses on history, it can illumine the revelation of God in the biblical narrative. Further, the critical method has made a significant contribution to an understanding of the meaning of words, the genre of various biblical passages, the customs, events, and practices that render specific texts intelligible from an historical point of view. All of this is to the good and must be maintained. At the same time, however, the method has several critical weaknesses. In fact, the use of the historical critical method tends to promote heretical ways of interpreting Scripture, and this for several reasons.
First, as normally used, it is theologically neutral. As such, it is compatible with both orthodox and heretical ways of understanding Scripture. For example, volume three of "The New Church's Teaching Series," the text by Michael Johnston, Engaging the Word, makes full use of the historical critical method. At the same time, however, Johnston's theology, the picture of God he uses to interpret Scripture, is heretical.(46) Because of his heretical theology, he abuses Scripture. The historical critical method does nothing to prevent this abuse.
Secondly, the method usually begins with the question, "What did a particular passage mean in its original context, and what does it mean now?" To get at the original context, one applies critical tools to uncover the social, economic, and religious context in which the text was originally written. That is what it meant then, its Sitz im Leben. Several consequences usually follow.
Among other things, this approach isolates the passage from its place in the biblical narrative. In fact, it is frequently the case that the biblical narrative plays no role in discerning the original meaning of a passage. How could it? Most of the Bible, the Old Testament, was written before the time of Christ, and therefore, the original meaning has no historical reference to Christ or the whole of the New Testament. As for the New Testament, many passages have connections to the Old Testament because the writers, in their original context, knew the Old Testament. But that doesn't imply that the passage should be placed in the context of the biblical narrative as a whole. For example, exegetes have noted that Matthew's genealogy of Christ goes back to Abraham, while Luke goes back to Adam. Accordingly, Matthew is seen as a Jewish gospel, rather than seeing it as a Jewish gospel in light of the whole biblical narrative.
Secondly, once the original meaning is discerned, it becomes obvious that what a passage cannot mean now what it originally meant. Life today is quite different from the way of life that lies behind any particular biblical text. For example, the Holiness Code of Leviticus 17 26 contains legislation governing sacrifices, eating of blood, sexual relations, harvesting, witchcraft, how hair should be cut, who can approach the alter, slavery, special feasts, penalties for various wrongs, redemption of land and of persons, the tithe, and much, much more. This Code assumes an ancient agrarian way of life that no longer exists. It was written and collated by priests whose views of the world are different from our own. It assumes conceptions of human nature, or even conceptions of God, that differ from what many people think today. What aspects of this ancient legislation should we accept today? Simply reading the Holiness Code in its original context can scarcely answer that question. Hooker knew how to answer that question. So did Barth, or Irenaeus, or Athanasius. Hooker could address this question because he read Scripture as a narrative whole in the context of the tradition of the Church. He knew that certain matters could be changed, others could not. In light of that wider perspective, he knew that Old Testament concepts of God and human nature needed to be read in light of the New Testament. He also knew the biblical legislation governing moral matters could not be altered. Legislation pertaining to Israel as a particular national entity need not apply today. Old Testament legislation having to do with sacrifices was abolished by the sacrifice of Christ. Hooker could make these judgments because he discerned a biblical pattern. He noticed that the New Testament itself addressed what could be kept of the Old Law, what modified, and what abolished. But this implies that the Old Testament must be read with the New in mind. Here is Hooker,
In a word, we plainly perceive by the difference of those three laws which the Jews received at the hands of God, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, that if the end for which and the matter according whereunto God maketh his laws continue always one and the same, his laws also do the like; for which cause the moral law cannot be altered: secondly, that whether the matter whereon laws are made continue or continue not, if their end have once ceased, they cease also to be of force; as in the law ceremonial it fareth: finally, that albeit the end continue, as in that law of theft specified and in a great part of those ancient judicials it doth; yet forasmuch as there is not in all respects the same subject or matter remaining for which they were first instituted, even this is sufficient cause of change: and therefore laws, though both ordained of God himself, and the end for which they were ordained continuing, may notwithstanding cease, if by alterations of persons or times they be found insufficient to attain unto that end. In which respect why may we not presume that God doth even call for change or alternation as the very condition of things themselves doth make necessary.(47)
Further, the focus on the historical world behind the text usually emphasizes the human world, the world of everyday life. Most biblical scholars so focus on this world, the customs, thought forms, traditions, and the formation of the text prior to writing, that they ignore or marginalize the text's clear and evident meaning. This is especially true when the text proclaims God miraculous acts. Most exegetes of Mark, for example, so busy themselves with all sorts of critical and historical questions that they leave aside what the text so clearly proclaims.(48) The text proclaims that God, to quote a previous paragraph, acts today to "preach, teach, heal, cast out demons, associate with outcasts, and forgive in his name, and all of this because God in Jesus Christ does today what Scripture proclaims he did then." This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the historical critical method as practiced in the Church today. The Church really doesn't, in the name of Jesus, do today what Scripture proclaims Jesus did in the flesh.
Finally, the question, "What did it mean then, and what does it mean now?" removes the reader from the world of Scripture itself. This approach assumes there is a "then" and a "now," the time of a particular biblical passage and our time. Chronologically speaking, there are two different times. When Scripture is read as a narrative whole, however, the Bible's time includes the time of the reader. Scripturally speaking, the reader is inside Scripture, somewhere after the Epistles and before the final events narrated in Revelation. If one begins with "What did it mean then?" this takes the reader outside of Scripture. The reader then stands over the text, assessing what applies now and what does not. If, however, the reader absorbs the whole of Scripture, part measured by whole and whole by part, and if the Bible speaks to a reader who stands within the biblical narrative, then very different spiritual dynamics come into play. It becomes clear that God is acting to transform us and our world, that all of us are, in various aspects of ourselves and common life, somewhere along the line from paganism to law, from law to gospel, from gospel to that final consummation in which we will enter into the glorious liberty of the sons and daughters of God. When Scripture is read this way, God acts decisively as his Word, judging, forgiving, empowering, and setting his people free to live the life of Christ now. All that is so very different from what happens when Scripture is read critically.
In sum, the historical critical method has furthered our knowledge of the biblical history, the meanings of words, the customs and thought forms of Scripture itself, and given us a deeper awareness of Scripture's various genres. At the same time, however, it is compatible with heretical ways of interpreting Scripture. It cannot solve the problem of what aspects of a text directly apply today, it tends to marginalize God's great acts, and it places the reader over any particular passage of Scripture rather than under the whole of Scripture. As such, the historical critical method is best used in the context of a creedal understanding of the Word of God.
Endnotes
1. See the following: Mystical Paganism, Timothy Sedgwick's Sacramental Ethics, Engaging the Word, The New York Hermeneutic.
2. A good introduction to Gnostic thought can be found in The Gnostic Scriptures, a New Translation with Annotations and Introduction by Bentley Layton. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1987.
3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III,4,2.
4. Here is Irenaeus,
Wherefore I do also call upon thee, LORD God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favor towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III,vi,4.)
5. Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978, pp. 39, 42.
6. Frederick Houk Borsch, (ed.) The Bible's Authority in Today's Church. Valley Forge: Trinity press International, 1993, p. 56.
7. Booty, John and Sykes, Stephen, eds. The Study of Anglicanism, London: SPCK/Fortress Press, 1988, p. 91.
8. See, for example, Hooker, Lawes, III,vii,15. In Hooker's view, it was foolish to look for "new revelations from heaven." II,viii,5. In section vii, Book II, Hooker addresses the claims of the Puritans who argued that they relied upon Scripture and not the opinions and ideas of mere mortals. Against this, Hooker responded that yes, Scripture was the highest norm, but the interpretation of Scripture should be guided by human authority, the "Church, and of the principal pillars therein." II,vii, 4. Over the course of his writings, Hooker's chief sources for interpreting Scripture are the Church Fathers. For him, these were the "principal pillars."
9. Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1, Part One, translated by G. W. Bromiley, Edinburgh: T&T; Clark, 1975, pp. 43 44, 300 1. Barth placed major portions of doctrine, Trinity and Christology, at the head of his Dogmatics because he understood that modernism, as much then as now, is capable of interpreting Scripture from an heretical perspective.
10. Light and sunlight is probably the most common analogy Athanasius uses to describe how the Son eternally comes forth from the Father. See Athanasius, Against the Arians, II,33; II,41; III,4; III,14; III,36; III,66.
11. Athanasius, Against the Heathen. A Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Volume IV. Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, editors, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978, p. 5.
12. Athanasius, Against the Arians, I,38.
13. Irenaeus, On the Apostolic Preaching, section 44.
14. Barth's Christological reading of the whole of Scripture can be seen throughout his Church Dogmatics. He lays the groundwork for this approach in the opening volume of his Dogmatics. See especially Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1, Part One, translated by G. W. Bromiley, Edinburgh: T&T; Clark, 1975, pp. 111 24.
As a priest of the Anglican Church, Hooker would have sworn allegiance to the Articles of Religion, specifically Article VII which states that Christ gives salvation in the Old Testament. Here is Hooker, affirming the same,
So that the general end both of Old and New [Testaments] is one; the difference between them consisting in this, that the Old did make wise by teaching salvation through Christ that should come, the New by teaching that Christ the Saviour is come, and that Jesus whom the Jews did crucify, and whom God did raise again from the dead, is he. I,xiv,4
15. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1960, pp. 376 7.
16. Hooker, Lawes, V,lvi,7. A clear exposition of Barth's views on the matter can be found in his Christ and Adam, Man and Humanity in Romans 5, translated by T.A. Smail. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956. Barth coordinates Adam and Christ, but understands Adam in terms of Christ and not vice versa.
17. Hooker, Lawes, V,xx,6.
18. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 1978, p. 71.
19. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 1978, p. 71.
20. Athanasius, Against the Arians, I,39.
21. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV,2, p. 47. The emphasis on God's act as the prior event in revelation pervades the whole of Barth's theology, and is a critical aspect of his critique of modernism since Schleiermacher. In Barth's view, Schleiermacher ultimately believed that the flesh became the Word since "1. Anthropological possibility, 2. historico psychological reality and 3. method do in fact constitute the schema which is actually followed in the introductions to Schleiermacher's Der Christlicher Glaube ... " (I,1, p. 37) In other words, Schleiermacher believed that a human faculty the "feeling of absolute dependence," was given form by historical and psychological conditions (the message of the gospel), and this apart from God's triune speech. In this way, the human became the "Word" apart from God speaking.
22. See my essay on how God as transcendent and triune implies that God does miracles, Knowing the Christian God.
23. Hooker, Lawes, I,xi,6. Schleiermacher was the first great theologian to deny miracles, and he was never able to develop an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because, without miracle, he could not distinguish between God in creation and God in incarnation. I have discussed this elsewhere, Friedrich Schleiermacher.
24. Athanasius, On the Incarnation. The Library of Christian Classics. Volume III. Christology of the Later Fathers. Hardy, Edward Rochie, and Richardson, Cyril C., editors. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954, p. 85.
25. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. Translated into English with Prolegomena and Explanatory Notes under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Volume 4, St. Athanasius, Selected Works and Letters, p. 569
26. Barth uses the concept of "saga" to describe the character of the two creation narratives. See his Church Dogmatics, III,1, pp. 76 94.
27. Tillich is typical,
The nature of finite reason is described in classical form by Nicolaus Cusanus and Immanuel Kant. The former speaks of the docta ignorantia, the "learned ignorance," which acknowledges the finitude of man's cognitive reason and its inability to grasp its own infinite ground. But in recognizing this situation, man is at the same time aware of the infinite which is present in everything finite, though infinitely transcending it. This presence of the inexhaustible ground in all beings is called by Cusanus the "coincidence of the opposites." In spite of its finitude, reason is aware of its infinite depth. It cannot express it in terms or rational knowledge (ignorance), but the knowledge that this is impossible is real knowledge (learned). Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Three Volumes in One. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967, p. 81.
For Tillich, the infinite only becomes "present in everything finite." It does not become the finite. As a result, the Infinite is always mystical, known ecstatically through the "coincidence of the opposites," the "opposites" being the dichotomies of finite reason. For Barth the Infinite became finite, Jesus Christ, speaking words we can understand with our minds.
28. Athanasius, Against the Arians, Second Oration, sections 18 through 82.
29. Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 35.
30. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, p. 34.
31. Whether or not Jesus Christ was divine was a critical issue that needed to be resolved. If Jesus Christ was not divine, he could not save. Scripture appeared to speak both ways on the matter. Arius used passages such as John 14:28, Hebrews 1:4, I Cor. 1:24, Proverbs 8:22, and Acts 2:36 to prove Jesus Christ was not divine. Athanasius read John 1:1 and 1:14, along with other passages, to counter him. Salvation in Christ depended upon it.
There are, to my mind, biblical passages that appear to contradict each other that are not so critical. Their resolution has historical interest, but in terms of salvation, their resolution is not decisive. For example, the Synoptics and John disagree as to when Jesus was crucified, on or just before the Passover. Both, however, place Jesus' crucifixion in the context of Passover, and both understand in varying ways his crucifixion and resurrection as the decisive saving event. Or, Matthew and Luke present somewhat different versions of the temptations and the beatitudes. The beatitudes were likely repeated on a number of occasions, and both Matthew and Luke probably give summations of the portions that seemed important to them. The temptations were most likely a complex and repeated event as well, though there was quite likely an initial onslaught just before Jesus' began his ministry. Again, each writer rendered it as seemed best.
32. Hooker, Lawes, II, li lvii.
33. Hooker, Lawes, V,lix,2.
34. In chapter one of his Divine Nature and Human Language, (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1989), William P. Alston argues that every metaphorical description entails a literal description. This argument makes sense to me, even as it applies to God. When the Psalmist says, "God is my rock," there is something literal about that description because it is an event of revelation in which the transcendent God becomes objective, concrete, present, speaking his Word as in Incarnation. In that event, God revealed that he was reliable, steady, utterly trustworthy, solid as a rock. For more on this see, Isaiah 6, Barth on Anselm.
354. See my discussion of the ecstatic heresy, Objective and Ecstatic.
36. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III,1,1.
37. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III,2,1.
38. Hooker, Lawes, II,vii,5.
39. Hooker, Lawes, I,xiv,3.
40. Hooker, Lawes, II,v,3.
41. John and Luke give very clear teaching on this. In Luke, the disciples are instructed to wait in Jerusalem until they are given power from on high, and this after the resurrection and ascension. According to John, the Spirit is only given after the resurrection because, according to John 7:39, the Spirit could not be given until Christ has been glorified.
42. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Vol. I, I XII. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966, p. 115.
43. Marcion was the heretic who disavowed the Old Testament on the basis of the fact that its God was a God of wrath and vengeance. The theory of types was one of the ways the Church maintained the Old Testament revelation yet perfected it by the New.
44. The momentous changes that took place in economic thought and practice between the Medieval and Modern Periods are well documented. See, for example, R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1955), as well as Karl Polayni, Origins of our Time, The Great Transformation, (London: Victor Gollancz LTD, 1945).
45. Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, p. 21.
46. See Engaging the Word. The Diocese of New York has advanced a similar heretical approach, The New York Hermeneutic .
47. Hooker, Lawes, III,X,4.
48. See, for example, my essay on Michael Johnston, Engaging the Word. Johnston, in discussing Mark 5:1 20, the story of the Gadarene demoniac, ignores the possibility that the story may be telling us something of the power of God to save, as much now as then. He is not alone in this.
The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
May, 2003
