by Richard Barcellos | Apr 29, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
Antioch: Silva says, “We would not be exaggerating greatly if we described the progress of biblical exegesis as the gradual abandonment of allegorical interpretation.”[1] The Antiochene school arose as “a fairly systematic program aimed at debunking the more objectionable features of Origen’s approach.”[2] It is obvious from subsequent history that it failed at this task.
A school at Antioch was established toward the end of the third century by Lucian (circa A.D. 240-312). It became the rival school to Alexandria. Antioch’s most respected pupils were Theodore of Mopsuestia (circa A.D. 350-428) and John Chrysostom (circa A.D. 354-407). As noted above, the Antiochene school utilized aspects of literalism, typology, and allegory, though certainly not like the Alexandrians. Where did the Antiochenes get their brand of literalism from? Dockery suggests, “It is likely that wherever the synagogue’s influence was felt, the church’s interpretation of Scripture had a tendency toward literalism. Certainly this was the case at Antioch.”[3] Granting Dockery’s claim, we see once again how contemporary factors contribute to hermeneutical practice.
Antioch’s unique contribution to the history of Christian hermeneutics is stated clearly and succinctly by Dockery, when he says, “the distinctive feature in the Antiochene hermeneutical method was theoria.”[4] Theoria was a complex method of interpretation. It is, therefore, simplistic to label Antioch as the literal school. As we are learning, things aren’t always as simple and clear-cut as we might think. Theoria involved aspects of what we would call literalism, a modified form of allegory, and typology.[5] Also, between individual authors there were various expressions of these hermeneutical methods.
If we asked the question: What is the Antiochene school’s over-arching hermeneutical contribution to the history of Christian interpretation? The expanded answer would be the further development of a typological interpretation of the Old Testament in the light of the first advent of Christ and the New Testament Scriptures. Dockery says, “Perhaps, as Rowan A. Greer has suggested, it is better to think of typological exegesis as the normative method of Antiochene exegesis.”[6] Dockery continues:
Typology, rightly conceived, asserts that since Christ is the culmination of the line of Abraham and of David and is the fulfillment of the hope of Israel, the Old Testament description of Israel’s history, institutions, worship, and prophetic message often anticipate the life and work of Christ. Chrysostom and the Antiochene school distinguished allegorical interpretation from typological interpretation in two primary ways. Typological interpretation attempted to seek out patterns in the Old Testament to which Christ corresponded, while allegorical exegesis depended on accidental similarity of language between two passages. Second, typological interpretation depended on a historical interpretation of the text. The passage, according to the Antiochenes, had only one meaning, the literal (extended by theoria[7]), and not two as suggested by the allegorists. In the typological approach, the things narrated by the text had to be placed in relationship to things which were not in the text, but which were still to come.[8]
The Antiochene theory of typology was fueled by their view of the fulfillment which took place at the first advent of Christ and how Christ and the Apostles interpreted the Old Testament.
The major difference between Alexandria and Antioch, in terms of exegetical conclusions, occurred while interpreting the Old Testament. Their understandings of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament was very similar. Once again, the major issue was the interpretation of the Old Testament and its relation to the New. Alexandria utilized allegory of the Neoplatonic variety; Antioch utilized typology of the New Testament variety.
Finally, as with the Alexandrians, the Antiochenes adhered to the rule of faith which kept them within orthodox bounds on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
[1] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.
[2] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.
[3] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 105. Dockery references Rowan A. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (London: Faith, 1961), 86-88.
[4] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 107.
[5] See the discussion in Hall, Reading Scripture, 160-63.
[6] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 110.
[7] We will be confronted with this concept – literal-extended meaning – in subsequent discussion.
[8] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 118-19.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Apr 27, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
Alexandria: Clement of Alexandria and, especially, Origen (circa A.D. 185-254) are the most well-known and influential Alexandrians. As noted above, with Clement of Alexandria we come into contact with the Christian allegorical method. He believed that truth was conveyed “in enigmas and symbols, in allegories and metaphor, and in similar figures.”[1] But this does not mean that Clement and the Alexandrians did not “recognize the literal sense of the Bible…”[2] Dockery says that Origen attempted “to defend the literal interpretation [of Scripture] in De Principiis (On First Principles).[3] They believed that since inspiration meant “utterance in a state of ecstatic possession,”[4] though distancing themselves from the irrationalism, some sort of mystical[5] interpretation was appropriate.
“…Clement and Origen turned to Platonic philosophy and allegorical hermeneutics to handle the pressing objections to…the Bible.”[6] These pressing objections included the claim that the Old Testament’s God was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Gnostic heretics), the Old Testament is Jewish Scripture (the Jews and Marcionism), and that the Old Testament did not comport with Neoplatonism, the ruling philosophy of the day and, thus, had little or no apologetic value in defending the faith. To combat these objections, the Alexandrians utilized allegory to argue away any “undignified” things predicated of God (anthropomorphisms [ascribing human parts to God] and anthropopathisms [ascribing human passions to God]) and to show the fundamental continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Neoplatonism was assumed and applied as a working presupposition. Remember, Neoplatonism is the view that what the physical senses perceive on earth below is but an imperfect reflection of the true and perfect reality of heaven above.[7] Allegory was a hermeneutical tool that gave expression to Neoplatonism. Dockery says:
Clement contended that Platonism was given to the Greeks as preparation for the coming of Christ and the calling of the Christian community, just as the Mosaic law was given to the Jews for the same purpose. The knowledge of truth gained by the philosophers was incomplete and partial.[8]
Thus, Christianity was both the fulfillment of the Old Testament and the purest form of Platonism.
Origen was born in Egypt. He was educated in the classic Greek curriculum (i.e., reading, writing, arithmetic, music theory, astronomy, geometry, literature, philosophy) and later studied under Clement. He was, by all accounts, “the prince of Christian allegorical interpreters, its most extensive practitioner and its most adequate exponent.”[9] Nassif says, “Other early Christian thinkers reflected seriously on the Scriptures but did not write biblical commentaries, formulate a developed theory of hermeneutics or do extensive work on the text of the Bible.”[10] Seventy-five percent of Origen’s 800 writings are devoted to the exposition of Scripture.
Origen’s allegorical method did not keep him from taking the words of Christ literally in Matthew 9:12, however. He castrated himself as a result. Dockery claims that he did this “probably so that he could instruct his female students without fear of scandal.”[11] He also studied under one of the leading neoplatonists of the day. Thousands came to hear him and his lectures were written down by secretaries and published.[12] According to Dockery, “his mastery of the whole realm of contemporary learning was unsurpassed.”[13] He advocated the divine inspiration of every word of Scripture. This view of Scripture contributed to Origen’s interest in and practice of textual criticism.
Dockery describes Origen’s hermeneutical approach as threefold.
He thought that Scripture had three different, yet complementary, meanings; (1) a literal or physical sense, (2) a moral or psychical sense, and (3) an allegorical or intellectual sense. The threefold sense was based upon his belief in a corresponding threefold division of mankind” (1) the physical, (2) the emotional or psychical, and (3) the spiritual or intellectual.[14]
Origen’s hermeneutic was derived, in part, from his view of the trichotomist nature of man. Nassif says:
Just as human beings consist of body, soul and spirit, so also do the Scriptures. The bodily sense of a text was either the historical or literal meaning. The soulish meaning of a text contained a figurative exhortation to avoid vice and grow in virtue. It was the moral or ethical teaching. The third level was the spiritual meaning of Scripture. It contained the allegorical sense which was the most profound level appropriate to God and humanity. It reveals God’s plan of salvation through Christ’s incarnation. But it is known only to a mature group of elite believers…[15]
Dockery, referencing Justo L. Gonzalez, enumerates the foundations behind Origen’s hermeneutical procedure.
First, every text is pregnant with profound mysteries and should be discovered through allegory. Second, nothing should be said of God which is unworthy of him. Third, each text was to be interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture. Finally, nothing contrary to the rule of faith was to be affirmed.[16]
Origen believed in the organic unity of the Bible and its Christo-telic trajectory. Nassiff says, “Origen compares the harmonious nature of Scripture to “one perfect and attuned instrument of God, producing from its various notes a single sound of salvation for those who are willing to learn” (Origen Commentary on Matthew, homily 2).”[17] The Old Testament was fulfilled in the first advent of Christ and the complex of redemptive-historical events surrounding it “and must be interpreted christologically…”[18] Nassif continues:
All of Origen’s commentaries and homilies on the Old Testament endeavor to find Christ in the law and the prophets. The divine Logos is everywhere present, if not literally then at least in a concealed manner, that is, metaphorically, typologically or allegorically. The New Testament fulfills the foreshadowings of the Old but also is seen as a prefiguration of the kingdom that is to come. This kingdom Origen refers to as the “eternal gospel” … Consequently the Old Testament is a shadow that points to the New Testament and even reaches beyond it to the eternal state.[19]
Origen was committed to the principle of the rule of faith, which kept his exegetical conclusions within the general contours of doctrinal formulations received from the early church. This kept him within orthodox boundaries on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
Though we can sketch a hermeneutical methodological approach in Origen, he did not apply it equally in all texts. He sets the stage for interaction and disagreement by others, which is where the school of Antioch comes in. However, despite the protests of the Antiochene school, Origen’s allegorical method held dominance, though with modifications, through the Middle Ages.
[1] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.4.1-2; cf. 5.5-8, as referenced in Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 99, n. 93.
[2] Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Twenty-second printing, April 1990), 20.
[3] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 82. Cf. Bradley Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 789, where he calls Origen’s On First Principles “the first systematic exposition on Christian hermeneutical theory.”
[4] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 75.
[5] The word mystical is used in the literature on the subject. I am pretty confident it means not only literal. I say this because the Alexandrians did not deny all literal interpretation of the Bible.
[6] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 81.
[7] Evans, Ancient Texts, 168.
[8] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 84.
[9] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 87.
[10] Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 787.
[11] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 87.
[12] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 87.
[13] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 87.
[14] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 88.
[15] Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 794.
[16] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 89.
[17] Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 792.
[18] Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 792.
[19] Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 792-93.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Apr 25, 2011 | Church Planting, Current Events, Ecclesiology, Historical Theology, Practical Theology, Sacraments
This is take from John Jefferson Davis, Worship and the Reality of God: An Evangelical Theology of Real Presence, 166-67.
The early church historian Robert Louis Wilken, in an interview in Christian History, stated forcefully that this sense of distinctiveness from the surrounding culture, exemplified and celebrated in the Eucharist [Davis just argued that “Unbelievers were welcome during the liturgy of the word, but dismissed at the time of the Eucharist.”], was in fact one secret of its spiritual strength. Rather than having as its primary focus impact on the culture, the early church, he said, “was itself a culture and created a new Christian culture.” In answer to the question, “Did the early church strive to be ‘user-friendly’?” Wilken responded as follows:
Not at all – in fact, just the opposite. One thing that made early Christian community strong was its stress on ritual. There was something unique about Christian liturgy, especially the Eucharist….Pagans entered a wholly different world than they were used to. Furthermore, it was difficult to join the early church….I think seeker-sensitive churches use a completely wrong strategy. A person who comes into a Christian church for the first time should feel out of place. He should feel this community engages in practices so important they take time to learn. The best thing we can do for “seekers” is to create an environment where newcomers feel they are missing something vital, that one has to be included into this….Few people grasp this today. But the early church grasped it very well.
Some readers may think that Wilken has overstated his case, but nonetheless concede that his point is well taken, that is, that the church must be truly distinctive to have a lasting spiritual impact on the world.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Apr 25, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
Introduction: Our study of the Patristics has set the stage for a brief discussion on the schools of Alexandria and Antioch. In one sense, they are a natural development of things already in place. In fact, Bradley Nassif claims, “Origen did not invent his interpretive techniques but borrowed them from a complex hermeneutical environment [Christian and non-Christian] that was already present in his day.”[1] Both Christian allegory and Christian typology pre-date these schools of thought. These two schools have sometimes been pitted against each other. Silva says:
This description, however, leaves out a series of interesting and suggestive bits of information. It is simplictic, for example, to view Origen and the Antiochenes as representing two opposite approaches more or less exclusive of each other. As we shall see, Origen used and defended literal interpretation on a number of occasions. Moreover, certain exegetical features that we would quickly dismiss as in some sense “allegorical” were consciously adopted as legitimate by the Antiochene exegetes.[2]
Silva goes on to give two examples of allegory by Antiochenes – Chrysostom and Theodoret. Chrysostom interprets Jesus’ making wine from water as “changing wills that are weak and inconsistent.” Theodoret takes the dew from heaven and the fatness of the earth of Genesis 27:39 this way: “…according to the higher interpretation they depict the divinity of the Lord Christ by means of the expression dew; and by the fatness of the earth, his humanity received from us.”[3]
More recent studies have uncovered less discontinuity in their hermeneutical methods. What used to be seen as an antithetical pendulum is now seen as a sort of mini-pendulum with more continuity than previously thought. Whereas the Alexandrians were seen as primarily allegorists and the Antiochians were seen as primarily literalists further study has shown that the two schools, though certainly not one and the same, have more in common than a first glance approach might conclude. Both schools developed in similar historical, theological, and philosophical contexts and were, as are we, affected by those contexts. As stated above, both Christian allegory (Alexandria) and Christian typology (Antioch) had the same goal – the Christian use of the Old Testament.
[1] Bradley Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 793.
[2] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.Cf. Christopher A. Hall, Reading the Scripture with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 157.
[3] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
