On Patristic Interpretation

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Fathers of the Church is their grounding of the fundamental tools of Christian exegesis. Exegesis comes from Greek and means to draw out the meaning of a passage, therefore the means by which the deeper meanings of a particular passage are explained.

In ancient times, the interpretation of Scripture was heavily influenced by the philosophy of the day, which saw the literal or historical sense of a passage as the lowest possible sense of meaning. There was a two-fold reason behind this. First, physical things (and thus literal descriptions of history) were viewed as being far more base or corrupt than spiritual things. The second and related reason for this was the Greek influence. Greek mythology is replete with stories that even the Greeks found somewhat embarrassing. They had developed extremely sophisticated philosophies and overall learning, yet had these narratives of gods acting capriciously, ridiculously and governed by base passions.

In order to explain that, the Greeks interpreted their mythology to explain a deeper spiritual meaning through analogy. This practice was used and expanded upon by the Fathers, who sought to discern the deeper meanings of scripture. For example, in his homilies on Genesis, St John Chrysostom explains the story of Noah’s drunkenness from Gen 9. 18-26 by pointing out that while the moral sense was not to shame our fellow Christians for their sins and faults, but rather to privately exhort them to repent and return to righteousness, in the way that Shem and Japheth cloaked Noah without looking at him, in contrast with Ham.

Over time, there came to be an understanding that every passage had at least three or four possible levels of interpretation. The literal interpretation described the historical sense of the passage and the events it was depicting. The allegorical sense gave the deeper spiritual meaning, that informed us of the nature of God. The Tropological or moral sense described the way in which the passage provides us with instruction on how we, as Christians, are to live our lives. Finally, the Anagogical sense speaks in particular to what our life in the Kingdom of Heaven will look like when we are reunited with Christ. Ss. John Cassian, Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory the Great were all Fathers who supported this four-fold interpretation.

To discover these different levels of meanings, the Fathers employed a number of different exegetical techniques. There are no uniformly accepted names for different techniques and different Fathers and Biblical scholars have called the same techniques by different names or used the same word to refer to different techniques. The terms used here may therefore not always line up with the way they are used by other authors.

There were a number of general techniques used that could be applied to most any level of Scripture. These techniques might be used to better understand the literal meaning, the allegorical interpretation, the moral interpretation or anagogical interpretation, and sometimes more than one sense of scripture might be discussed using the same exegetical technique.

The technique of redaction criticism was used to explore the context in which a passage occurs, be it the historical context in which the passage was written or the literary context in which the passage appears within a particular chapter or verse. Analysis of the skopos of a passage was used by many of the fathers in their exegetical homilies. Skopos is Greek for the goal or aim, and the analysis could either be widely or narrowly drawn, focused on the goal of a passage within a verse or chapter, or the skopos of the entire book might be examined to provide that context for the particular passage being examined. These forms of contextual interpretation were among the most widely used and important for setting the tone of interpretation whether it be the literal and historical meaning of the passage or the moral or spiritual sense.

Another of the types of analysis that was applied at multiple levels was a literary analysis. Diction would be examined. Grammar, the use of hyperbole or metaphors would be reviewed. Rhetoric and other elements of style would be used to explore an allegorical interpretation or reinforce the understanding of the context for the literal meaning. Similar to this was the technique of akoloutheia which explored the sequence of arguments in a passage, along with the structure of those arguments, to uncover its meaning.

Another technique used was to use more clearly understandable passages to interpret more obscure or dense passages. Dependent upon the idea that the Holy Scriptures are an inspired, unified and consistent whole, this technique would be used to show how passages can and must be interpreted in the context of all of Scripture together. Similar to this technique was the use of word association in which the Father would look for the use of a particular word in other parts of Scripture and build a link between the passages. In this sense, the Father is not doing a word study where the use of a word is explored in multiple contexts, but rather the specific word is used to build a linked meaning between the two passages in which it is used.

As mentioned, the use of allegory (allegoria) was one of the most popular forms of Scriptural exegesis because it provided a deeper and spiritual meaning. The problem with allegory, however, is that there was no need to justify or link the allegorical interpretation with the original passage. This left allegory wide open to eisegesis, the process of reading in an interpretation to a passage which was not intended. Origen was a champion of this method, and as he would become the head of the School of Alexandria, it would become associated with the allegorical method. In contrast to this, the School of Antioch would promote the use of theoria, a method of allegorical interpretation in which the allegory was more closely linked to the literal meaning of the passage being interpreted.

A number of different subsets of allegorical interpretation existed, that provided for allegorical interpretations hinging on particular points. A prominent form of this was typology (typos) which  would create an analogy showing how a particular Old Testament person or event had prefigured Christ in some way. In number symbolism, numbers mentioned in the Bible are used to provide a mystical or allegorical meaning. Similarly, the Fathers might use philogoy or the etymology of a word as the starting point and basis for an allegorical interpretation of a passage. This was especially used for the names of people and places, perhaps most notably in Origen’s analysis of the place names in the Book of Numbers.

An example of this can be found in St John Chrysostom’s homilies on Genesis 22. In the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, Chrysostom explores the history behind what actually happened, and then to provide one level of spiritual interpretation he uses typology, describing how in this passage Abraham is a type of God the Father, while his only son Isaac is a type, prefiguring, Christ. Abraham is willing to sacrifice his only son, and Isaac realises that he is to be sacrificed, and goes willingly.

These types of interpretive techniques helped to open the Scriptures to people around the world, as well as forming the basis of continued exegetical interpretation to this day.

On the Fathers

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last week discussed the Saints. Among the Saints are a particular group of Christians known as the Fathers of the Church. Father has many uses among Christianity. Most prominently, Christ identified God as the father. In Holy Scripture, however, it was also associated with teachers. St Paul says of himself, “though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” (I Cor 4. 15).

There are other examples in Holy Scripture of the use of the term father, including a seemingly contradictory message often cited by those who oppose the title of Father for priests, St Matthew 23. 9, where Christ says, “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Given that from the earliest periods of Christianity, the term father remained associated with teachers, the question becomes what did Christ mean there? It does not seem his intention was to have Christians cease from referring to their biological fathers as father, but rather Christ made the statement in the context of chastising the hypocritical Pharisees of his day who afforded themselves grandiose titles. This contrasts with St Paul’s writings where he identifies his authority. He became a Father and teacher through Christ’s gospel. He is not claiming authority, but was given it by God.

The question of authority is essential in understanding the role of Church Fathers. Throughout the early years of Christianity, many challenges to doctrine arose. The Canon of Scripture had not yet been fixed. While the books of what would become the Old Testament were generally understood and fixed because they were simply the Jewish Scriptures, the books of what would become the New Testament were not fully set. Each book was prepared separately and there was not yet a collection of all of the books bound together. Different books which do not form a part of the canon were promoted. Some of these books were entirely orthodox in their Christianity, while others were not. In some cases, challenges to doctrine came even during the apostolic age and were later recorded in the Scriptures when the books of the Bible were actually writen. The Judaisers are an example of this. While accepting, or seeming to accept, some of the truths of Christian teaching, they sought to maintain adherence to the Jewish Law in contradiction of core principles of Christian teaching that Christ had fulfilled the Law and brought freedom from the Law.

After the Apostolic Age, new heresies and challenges crept up. Gnosticism, Marcionism, Arianism and others plagued the early church as much, if not more, than the physical persecution which was occasionally brought about by the Romans. In the mid-2nd century. Marcion of Sinope taught that the Hebrew Scriptures were to be rejected, as he could not reconcile Christ’s teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven and God the Father with the depictions of God in the Jewish Scriptures. His views on Christ himself were also heretical in that he did not view Christ as both fully god and fully man. His teachings were denounced by the Church Father Tertullian. In the same way, in the late 3rd and early 4th century, the bishop Arius proclaimed the inferiority of the Son to the Father, sparking a great controversy within the Christian world. Many different prominent Christians wrote against his views. St Athanasius the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Augustine of Hippo, St Ambrose of Milan; all writing in the 4th and 5th centuries against Arianism and its heresy.

These great saints and teachers did not claim the title Church Father for themselves, but rather the Fathers of the Church we later so-named because their combined teachings formed, and today still form, the foundation of Christian understanding and interpretation of the faith.

Much like how St Paul often uses his epistles to address particular controversies that had arisen in the churches he was writing to, the Fathers would write letters to colleagues or other churches, as many of the Fathers served as bishops. As bishops, one of their primary duties was teaching through Sunday preaching, and many of their writings, rather than being purely theological treatises or even letters, are recordings of homilies they delivered. These homilies may expound on the Scriptures, address issues of the day and explain what our Christian response ought to be. In many ways, the writings of these homilies are no different than the transcripts of homilies you can today find online from current weekly homilies.

The real difference stems from the fact that the Fathers were pioneers. Often the first to reveal particular understandings of Scripture, or make the connection between various Christian doctrines and their practical applications to the daily lives of their congregations. In essence, they went from nothing to forming the theological framework and basis by which we continue today to understand the orthodox interpretation and application of Holy Scripture and Christian doctrine.

When orthodox Christians wanted to understand some matter of Christian theology, they would turn to the writings of the Fathers. When a Christian theologian expounded some new interpretation of Christianity, it would be tested against the writings of the Fathers to determine whether or not it was acceptable.

While many of the Fathers were quite prominent during their day, particularly St John Chrysostom in the East and St Ambrose of Milan in the West, they were not viewed as Fathers in their own day. Just as their canonization as saints took place after their deaths, their status as Fathers of the Church was similarly solidified later. Just as Saints are not sinless in their lives, though the Fathers are viewed as extremely learned, wise and discerning theologians, they do not always agree. Tertullian and Origen are viewed as Church Fathers, but neither were canonized due to certain heresies they promoted. Despite that, Origen in particular was extremely influential and widely read due to the number of books he published in his day. St Augustine of Hippo changed his own views several times over the course of his life, later writing certain treaties to explain where his views had changed from earlier works and why.

In Anglicanism, the Fathers play a traditionally important role in the understanding of theology. In as much as the English Reformation sought to remove superstitious medieval additions to the faith, the Fathers were the standard of authority by which the Reformation sought to return to a traditional and orthodox understanding of Christianity. They provided a standard by which the faith could be measured during that turbulent time, as they do today.

When Anglicans do theology, we test against Scripture, reason embodied in the writings of the Fathers, and tradition, embodied in the Anglican formularies. If you want to test a theological statement, you first test it against Scripture and see if it contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture. Then, you test it against human reason embodied in the writings of the Fathers. Then you test it against the injunctions of the 39 Articles and Book of Common Prayer.

The Fathers were not infallible, nor were they apostolically inspired as the writers of the Bible were, but they certainly were inspired by God in their writings. Their thoughts and understanding continue to prove and inspiration to theologians today, and make their writing an invaluable tool and resource for all Christians.

On Theology

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT O Lord, we beseech thee, that the course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by thy governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all godly quietness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The issue of Anglicanism and Same-Sex Marriage is once again front and centre. The US Supreme Court, in a civil ruling affecting the civil laws on marriage in the United States, and at the same time The Episcopal Church, the primary Anglican church in the United States had its triennial General Convention, which included a debate over the authorization of a revised rite for same-sex marriage. All of this has spilled over into Canada and elsewhere, including it must be noted non-Anglican traditions who have been compelled to respond to the development.

Metropolitan Tikhon of the Orthodox Church in America has perhaps had the best and most succinct response, in which he affirmed that the OCA has made, “issued a number of statements outlining, detailing and clarifying the teaching of our Holy Faith on this matter in light of challenges from our American society,” over the years, and:

The ruling does not change the teaching of the Church, but it does remind us of the need to be Christ-like in our dealings with everyone. The state has the responsibility to enact laws that protect the rights of each individual.  The Church, while it does not bless “same-sex marriages” or view them as sacramental, does see the image of Christ in every individual, and his or her worth in the eyes of the Lord Who died upon the Cross for our salvation.

This shows two important points. First, the statement reiterates the point that Church doctrine is not, and ought not to be, based on civil laws, such that this ruling (or the passage of the Marriage Act in 2004 in Canada) does not demand that the Church similarly make a change to its understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The second point is that while it does not mean doctrines or theologies of the Church must change, it may require that those same doctrines and theologies be applied in new ways that are adapted to the new realities of the society in which the Church exists.

This statement could well have been written by Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay a few decades ago, but is contrasted heavily with more recent responses. Retired TEC bishop Gene Robinson suggested that, “all religions will be under more pressure now to get in lockstep with society.”

The idea that the Church must, at least in part, base its theology and doctrines on civil developments is completely alien to traditional Anglicanism and the Anglican way of “doing” theology.

The three-legged stool is one way Anglicans have traditionally viewed as the model by which we do theology. First, Holy Scripture, then reason, embodied in the writings of the Fathers and saints throughout the ages, and finally tradition, embodied in the Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. For Canadian Anglicans, the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which clergy subscribe to prior to ordination, explicitly requires that they submit to the formularies and Holy Scripture, so it is a canonical requirement in addition to simply being part of the Anglican tradition used by Anglicans everywhere.

In the Articles themselves, we are reminded of the primacy of Scripture. Article VI states, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” They are the inspired word of God, and there is no better or more reliable source of information for us to turn to when seeking to establish or modify our theology or doctrines. For Anglicans, unlike Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, nothing can be taught as a requirement of the faith that cannot be proved by Holy Scripture.

Not all Scripture can be plainly interpreted, however. That is where the faculty of reason comes into play. Throughout the centuries, countless Christians have written and handed down homilies on the Scriptures and great works on theology. These works help us to understand the meaning behind Scripture as it has been understood by the Church throughout the centuries, and similarly how different doctrines of the church have been understood.

When we test a doctrine against Scripture, it can sometimes be simple enough to pick a few verses and claim they support the doctrine we are proposing, by virtue of presenting a skewed interpretation of Scripture. When we test against Scripture and then the view of the Church Fathers, this type of skewed interpretation is no longer possible, because we do not simply test it against the plain words of Holy Scripture itself, but also the accepted orthodox interpretations of Holy Scripture held throughout the centuries.

Finally, there is the tradition of the Church. The reality of Christianity is that there are many practices and views which have been held only in particular times and in particular places. When Anglicans do theology, therefore, it is essential that doctrines also be tested against the Anglican formularies. One might be able to find an understanding of the Eucharist that does not contradict Holy Scripture, and may even find support with one or more of the Church Fathers, or at least does not conflict with their writing, but if it remains in conflict with the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal or Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion then it remains outside the parameters of acceptable Anglican Doctrine.

An example of this might be the doctrine of transubstantiation as held by the Roman Catholic Church. One can argue in favour of it from Scripture, and a number of saints throughout history have held to doctrines consistent with transubstantiation, but Article XXVIII argues that, “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith,” and that transubstantiation, “hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

As we face increasing pressure for the Church to modernise her doctrines, to try to get in lockstep with society, as Bishop Gene Robinson put it, it is an important reminder that Church doctrine is based on God’s will and God’s law, not on the rules of society.

The Wisdom of Saints: St John Chrysostom

The Feast of John Chrysostom, Doctor, Bishop of Constantinople, 407

O GOD, who by thy Holy Spirit hast given unto one man a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, and to another the gift of tongues: We praise thy Name for the gifts of grace manifested in thy servant John, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St John Chrysostom is one of the most well-known of the early Church fathers and is considered one of the eight Great Fathers of the Church. Chrysostom is actually not his family name, but rather an epithet derived from Greek meaning Golden-mouthed or Golden-tongued. Chrysostom was well-known for his public speaking, but is also important in modern times because unlike some of the Church Fathers, he wrote prolifically and his writings survive to this day. Dozens of his homilies on the books of the Bible survive and continue to be analysed and referenced in modern times, along with his other treatises on Christianity and letters to other Christians.

St John Chrysostom was born to Christian parents in the city of Antioch in 344, then under the control of the Roman Empire, and one of the chief centres of the early Christian Church. His father, an officer in the Syrian army, died when Chrysostom was still young and Chrysostom and his elder sister were ultimately raised by his mother who was still only twenty years old at the time of her husband’s death. Chrysostom was tutored by Libanius, one of the most famous orators of his age, and a staunch Roman pagan. He was given a classical Greek education, though his mother instilled in him Christian piety.

In 367, when Chrysostom was in his early twenties, he met Bishop Meletius of Antioch, whose personal charm and charisma focused Chrysostom towards a life of piety. He became a lector for the Church in Antioch where he spent time in prayer and studying the Scriptures and in manual labour. His earliest surviving writing that survive are from this period. In 374, he was drawn to the ascetic life of the monastics living in the mountains outside of Antioch. There he lived a life of solitude, fasting over-zealously to the point that his health was ruined and he was forced to return to Antioch where he resumed his life as a lector.

In 381, just a few years before his death, Bishop Meletius ordained Chrysostom as a deacon. He fulfilled his priestly duties and a few years later was ordained a priest by Meletius’s successor, Bishop Flavian. It was during this period that he wrote one of his most famous works, On the Priesthood. In 398, he was made Bishop of Constantinople, in an era when there was considerable political turmoil in the Empire, much of it related to Christianity.

Chrysostom had numerous supporters and was by this point becoming relatively well-known, particularly as Bishop of Constantinople. His chief political opponent, however, was the Empress Eudoxia, consort of Emperor Arcadius. Her hatred of Chrysostom and her husband’s weak rule allowed her to force Chrysostom into exile at multiple points in his later history. He ultimately died in exile in 407.

As a Doctor of the Church, St John Chrysostom is well-respected as a theologian in both Eastern and Western Christianity. Perhaps even more influential is his liturgy. A revision of the liturgies of the church used in those days which is today known as the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and is the standard liturgy used by the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite.

In his Treatise on the Priesthood, St John Chrysostom laid out over six books both the history of his early life leading up to his own ordination, and then in the later books his own thoughts on the priesthood itself.

St John Chrysostom’s treatise speaks at lengths to the responsibilities of the priesthood, both for shepherding the flock and the teaching of right doctrine—issues of paramount importance in Chrysostom’s day giving the continuing conflicts over the Arian controversy—and the administration of the sacraments.

In Book 3 of his treatise, he makes a number of observations that highlight both the beauty of his prose, and his deep and significant understanding of Christian faith:

Picture Elijah and the vast multitude standing around him, and the sacrifice laid upon the altar of stones, and all the rest of the people hushed into a deep silence while the prophet alone offers up prayer: then the sudden rush of fire from Heaven upon the sacrifice: -- these are marvellous things, charged with terror. Now then pass from this scene to the rites which are celebrated in the present day; they are not only marvellous to behold, but transcendent in terror. There stands the priest, not bringing down fire from Heaven, but the Holy Spirit: and he makes prolonged supplication, not that some flame sent down from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace descending on the sacrifice may thereby enlighten the souls of all, and render them more refulgent than silver purified by fire.

In this eloquent passage, Chrysostom draws parallels and distinctions between familiar stories and images of the Old Testament—which Jewish raised Christians would have been familiar with and which all Christians would have some passing familiarity with as well—and the modern role of the Christian priest.

After referencing the Gospels of St Matthew and St John, he speaks to the inherent dignity of the priesthood, owed on account of the authority bestowed on priests by God, saying:

if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?

In this section, Chrysostom synthesizes the Gospel writings on the priesthood and their authority and speaks to a Catholic understanding of the sacraments, and in particular that of Holy Baptism and the Supper of our Lord as they relate to salvation.

The awesome dignity Chrysostom ascribes to the priesthood is commensurate in his mind with their sacramental importance. They have been charged with an authority, and thus responsibility, of immense weight in relation to the salvation of mankind, and that authority, charged by God through the Holy Spirit, should be recognized and respected. The priesthood to Chrysostom is no small thing.

Even in his early books, he could not help but justify his thoughts by Scripture. It is perhaps his eloquence which brought him to fame, and the sheer breadth of his writings that maintained it, particularly among Eastern Christians, but as Anglicans who view Christianity not through the lens of the ancient Eastern Patriarchs or the See of Rome, but through the Holy Scriptures, could how could Chrysostom not become a revered saint and teacher? With so many of his writings surviving to this day and translated into English, we all have much to learn from the golden-tongued saint!