Reading Scripture with the Early Church

In many Protestant traditions, after the Scriptures have been read for the worship service, it is not unusual to hear the words, "The Word of God for the people of God." Often one hears the response, "Thanks be to God!" In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, one can expect to hear words such as, "Wisdom, let us attend," prior to or following the reading of the Bible. In some churches, when the particular reading is from the Gospels, the congregation is asked to stand. In yet others, an open Bible is carried aloft as part of the procession that opens worship while the congregation stands. In still others, the reader, the congregation, or both give some physical sign of respect at the conclusion of the scriptural reading. All of these actions, whether words recited or physical enactment, are signs we use to demonstrate our respect for the most holy of Christian texts—the Bible. While the precise way in which we show our respect and the exact nature of the language we use to state our commitment varies, the Christian Scriptures universally occupy a unique and special place across the Christian faith.

Christians have tried in various ways to capture the uniqueness of the Scriptures in doctrinal statements. For example, terms such as inerrant or infallible have been used to emphasize the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. In some cases, these terms have been applied broadly to anything that might be addressed in the Bible, whether directly or tangentially related to the life of faith. Others have been more carefully nuanced, applying the terms only to matters specifically related to human salvation and restoration of right relationship to God. Still others within the broader Christian tradition have found that these particular terms have become too charged and have opted instead for terms like authoritative. Some have tried to focus on the role of the Scriptures in defining what constitutes the faithful life by saying things like, "The Scriptures are normative for all things related to Christian conversion and discipleship." While allowing different strands of the faith to express their allegiance to the Scriptures in the way they feel best, the common point is the same: the Christian Bible holds a unique place for us as followers of Jesus. Throughout the centuries, when it comes to discerning what God would have God's people do, there is nothing to which appeal has been more often made than to the collection of writings Christians call the Scriptures.

The Beginnings of Scripture

Unfortunately, most of us are only familiar with the ways in which the Scriptures have been understood over the last hundred or so years. Early church writings have much to enrich our grasp of them, or perhaps better, to enrich their grasp on us. For example, unless one has taken the time to study the first centuries of church history, one is unlikely to know how the collection of writings we call the Christian Bible even came into existence. Sometimes, we seem almost to operate on the idea that they dropped from heaven with God's name on a signature line. Of course, it was not so. Hans van Campenhausen, in what is still considered by many to be the most significant book on the subject, The Formation of the Christian Bible, notes that it was A.D. 200 or later before the books of either the Old Testament or the New Testament were reasonably settled. The final determination came even later.

It is impossible to separate the Scriptures from the early church's work, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by which they were identified. I recall a student once asking me to work with him on an independent study. His stated goal was to "get behind the early church fathers, so one could hear the words of Scripture alone." My response was that I did not see how we could do that. How do you get behind the work of the early church when it was the early church that identified what constitutes the Christian Scriptures? Further, it would seem quite strange to affirm that God had guided the early church to correctly identify the books (which we affirm when we speak of the Bible as God's Word), but not to affirm that God equally guided their judgments about what the Bible meant. To recognize this should in no way undermine our confidence in the Scriptures. Rather, it should elevate our appreciation for the early church and God's work in guiding it. Were the Scriptures inspired by God? Absolutely, they were inspired to be authoritative regarding the life of faith. Perhaps, though, we would do well to imitate the early church, which affirmed the unique place of the Scriptures as God's inspired revelation without feeling it necessary to say definitively how they were inspired.

The first time that the twenty-seven books currently taken to constitute the New Testament show up, all together in an authoritative statement, is in the Festal Letter of Athanasius in the year A.D. 367. Many are surprised to hear that the Christian church had been functioning for nearly four centuries before the final form of the New Testament was settled. Here is how Athanasius put it (just before this quotation, he had listed the Old Testament books):

Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the Scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles—namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy, one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John.

Regarding the role of these Scriptures, along with those of the Old Testament, Athanasius leaves no doubt:

These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them.

He does not stop with this list of texts, but goes on to recognize the importance of certain other writings to salvation and the life of faith:

But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and [wish] to be instructed in the doctrine of piety....

Already we see an important number of points. First, it is fascinating to reflect on how God, through the Holy Spirit, was guiding the growth of the church at the same time as God was directing the canonical process whereby the church's authoritative writings were identified. Second, we find in Athanasius in particular and the early church more generally a very winsome connection between the Scriptures and human salvation. Metaphors such as used here ("springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself") are frequent. People, to use Matthew's words, "are hungry and thirsty for righteousness," and it is in the Scriptures that they are fed and their thirst is sated. Third, while the canonical books are afforded a special place amongst Christian writings, Athanasius is but one of the early fathers who remind us of other books appointed by the church to serve in the deepening life of faith and discipleship. The strong distinction between the Scriptures and other holy writings would be the product of a much later age.

Ways of Reading Scripture

Perhaps one of the most prolific theologians and biblical scholars of the early church was Origen. His work On First Principles was one of the earliest to develop a more formal biblical hermeneutic. As John McGuckin notes, "Origen is not the originator of the idea of a biblical canon, but he certainly gives the philosophical and literary-interpretative underpinnings for the whole notion." Origen was born around 184/5, probably in Alexandria to Christian parents. His father, Leonides, provided his education. He made sure Origen had access to the standard educational fare of the day, but in addition, saw to it that Origen was trained in the Scriptures. As with Basil the Great (whom we meet later), Origen's father was martyred for his faith during a period of Christian persecution under Septimius Severus in 202. Origen's passions were stirred at the death of his father so that he desired to join him in martyrdom. In an interesting twist, Origen's mother saved him for us by hiding his clothes so that he could not leave. While the family fell into poverty at the death of Leonides, Origen was able to survive by a life of extreme asceticism and, initially, the income generated by the sale of his library. He went on to become an exceptional scholar of the Christian faith. The bulk of his teaching career was spent in Alexandria.

As we move into Origen's writings on the Scriptures, let us begin with his idea that they must be read in a "threefold" way. Consider this quotation from Book IV of First Principles:

The right way, therefore, as it appears to us, of approaching the scriptures and gathering their meaning, is the following, which is extracted from the writings themselves. We find some such rule as this laid down by Solomon in the Proverbs concerning the divine doctrines written therein: "do thou portray them threefold in counsel and knowledge, that thou mayest answer words of truth to those who question thee."

One must therefore portray the meaning of the sacred writings in a threefold way upon one's own soul, so that the simple man may be edified by what we may call the flesh of scripture, this name being given to the obvious interpretation; while the man who has made some progress may be edified by its soul, as it were, and the man who is perfect and like those mentioned by the apostle: "we speak wisdom among the perfect; yet a wisdom not of this world, [nor] of the rulers of this world, which are coming to nought; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory"—this man may be edified by the spiritual law, which has "a shadow of the good things to come." For just as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so in the same way does the scripture, which has been prepared by God to be given for man's salvation.

In short, then, Origen's idea is that the Scriptures have a "bodily" meaning, a "soulish" meaning, and a "spiritual" meaning, each of which is intended to be understood by Christians as they grow deeper in their faith. But how do these three levels of meaning help us better understand the Scriptures and be formed by our interaction with them?

Interpreters of Origen have generally taken the three senses of the Scriptures as follows. First, the "bodily" meaning is just what the text appears to say—its "literal" meaning, if you will. When we are told that Jesus was born in Nazareth, the meaning of the text is clear. Or, when we are told that Jesus was tried before Pilate, the "bodily" or "literal" sense is immediately clear. Second, the "soulish" sense of the Scriptures relates to its moral truths or the application of their moral teachings. However, this second, or "soulish," meaning receives relatively little direct attention in Origen. More frequently, the second and third (or "spiritual") meanings get combined into a broader distinction in Origen, the distinction between the "letter" and the "spirit" of the biblical writings. The "spiritual" meaning relates to the deeper truths. Often, these point to Christ, as when he notes Paul's statement that the rock Moses struck to obtain water for the Israelites referred to Christ. Sometimes, the spiritual meaning, when properly grasped, reveals the truths of church doctrine—such as the trinitarian doctrine or the doctrines related to Jesus' nature. As we noted, though, the "soulish" and "spiritual" meanings are often joined together over against the "bodily" meaning. The resulting distinction is, then, between the literal/bodily meanings and those that are more hidden, nonliteral meanings.

Notably, Origen did not feel constrained to defend a literal interpretation of every biblical passage, a tendency that we more frequently find much later. Origen noted that some passages were not intended to be read literally at all:

But since there are certain passages of scripture, as we shall show in what follows, [that] have no bodily sense at all, there are occasions when we must seek only for the soul and the spirit, as it were, of the passage.

Starting in the next chapter of his work, Origen outlines several passages that he believes do not have a bodily sense. How do we recognize these passages that are not to be taken literally? Origen says that they are the ones that are impossible or unreasonable or somehow convey something unworthy of God—something that would call the character of God into question:

But someone may suppose that the former statement refers to all the Scriptures, and may suspect us of saying that because some of the history did not happen, [then] none of it happened; and because a certain law is irrational or impossible when taken literally, therefore no laws ought to be kept to the letter; or that the records of the Savior's life are not true in the physical sense; or that no law or commandment of his ought to be obeyed. We must assert, therefore, that in regard to some things we are clearly aware that the historical fact is true.

In fact, he goes on to say:

For the passages which are historically true are far more numerous than those which are composed with purely spiritual meanings.

So, broadly speaking, though Origen affirmed that the Scriptures had a threefold meaning—the bodily, the soulish, and the spiritual—one can think of his work as identifying two overarching categories. The first of these is the literal sense of the Scriptures—the meaning that one gets from the meanings of the words themselves. Sometimes this is called the "letter" of the biblical writings. The second is the nonliteral meaning—the meaning that one gets when one looks past the surface, "literal" meaning and probes deeper. Not all of the Scriptures have a literal/bodily meaning, though all of the Scriptures have a spiritual meaning. When there is a literal meaning (and Origen affirms this is most frequently the case), that meaning is edifying and instructive for the person of faith. As we grow in faith, Origen believed, we become able to grasp the deeper meaning, which is appropriately edifying for those at that stage of Christian growth.

Wrestling with Scripture

It might be appropriate to ask the role of the Scriptures in the life of faith, at least as far as Origen saw it. It is fair to say that he did not combine "conversion of life" and "salvation" as if they were one and the same thing. In other words, Origen would have argued that the goal of the Scriptures is to form us into the people of God, into a people who live out with integrity the life of faith. To that end, he believed that the Scriptures say what God intended them to say. However, consistent with his understanding of their goal of the conversion of life, he recognized the importance of our "wrestling" with the Scriptures, having to dig deep to get all the meaning. It is precisely in that struggle that they do their formative work on us. They lead not just to our faith in the sense of rightly believing, but also to our faith in the sense of rightly living—that is, nothing short of the full conversion of life.