Friday, 16 March 2012
-
Athanasius on Interpreting Scripture
By Nic Don at TheopoliticalAthanasius ends his commentary “On The Incarnation” by saying,
“But for the searching of the Scriptures and true knowledge of them, an honorable life is needed, and a pure virtue, and that virtue which is according to Christ; so that the intellect guiding its path by it, may be able to attain what it desires, and to comprehend it, in so far as it is accessible to human nature to learn concerning the Word of God. For without a pure mind and a modelling of the life after the saints, a man could not possibly comprehend the words of the saints. For just as, if a man wished to see the light of the sun, he would at any rate wipe and brighten his eye, purifying himself in some sort like what he desires, so that the eye, thus becoming light, may see the light of the sun; or as, if a man would see a city or country, he at any rate comes to the place to see it—thus he that would comprehend the mind of those who speak of God must needs begin by washing and cleansing his soul, by his manner of living, and approach the saints themselves by imitating their works; so that, associated with them in the conduct of a common life, he may understand also what has been revealed to them by God, and thenceforth, as closely knit to them, may escape the peril of the sinners and their fire at the day of judgment, and receive what is laid up for the saints in the kingdom of heaven.”
I would argue that Augustine is making the same point, albeit implicitly, in the Confessions. Many readers wonder why the Confessions, which in many ways was the first autobiography and the first novel with a character, ends with an extended sermon on Genesis 1. For many readers it just feels tacked on. But I think the whole point of Confessions is that you have to examine yourself the way Augustine does before you can begin to interpret the scriptures. It is precisely as Athanasius says.
In one sense, this is comfortable terrain for Evangelicals, who are likely to believe and teach that the Bible is not primarily a book full of information, but a book about total life transformation, and that a person reading it strictly to gain information will necessarily miss something.
But in another sense, Athanasius moves in a direction deeply uncomfortable to most Evangelicals: “approach the saints themselves by imitating their works; so that, associated with them in the conduct of a common life, he may understand also what has been revealed to them by God.” Now, Athanasius doesn’t necessarily mean canonized saints, but those examples who show us by their example what a community capable of reading scripture rightly looks like. As Stanley Hauerwas is so fond of saying, only a pacifist church can accurately understand the sermon on the mount.
What do you think? Is there an objective way for all people to read scripture in common, or do our communities, traditions and lifestyles necessarily impact how we read what we read?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: theopolitical
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 65 Views: 0 53742 Comments: 0 894 View all posts by theopolitical
Comments (69)
Since most of us are sinners and have no idea what Scripture truly says, we must rely on the Church which Jesus founded upon his Apostles.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they are a saint and that's why we have 1000s of Christian sects each interpreting the Bible their own way.
Who has the pride to judge themselves saint enough to interpret Scripture?
That is the elephant in the room and the reason to interpret the writings of the saints as cautionary tales on the dark side of human nature
Such a great little book by Athanasius. Our nurturing and context absolutely affect how we approach and interpret scripture. Thank God we have the Holy Spirit and each other (including those witnesses who have passed into sleep) to help guide us.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Well, I am Baptist, so I believe in the Priesthood of All Believers, that we all, as Christians, have the Holy Spirit to help us understand and discern scripture, both for public teaching, speaking, preaching; and also for our own personal lives and reflection.
Are you Catholic? I only ask because I know they have a completely different view, which is why the whole Protestant Reformation happened in the first place, among other reasons of course. If I just believed what preachers said, I would still believe Women should not be in Ministry and that they should "submit" to men. Now, after thoroughly reading, researching, studying, and interpreting scripture (for) myself, especially seeing Jesus interactions with women; I find women should be allowed (and encouraged) to teach and preach and are equal to men (and men equal to women) in the Kingdom of God (Gal. 3:26-29), who all use their gifts and talents and abilities to share the gospel, in word and deed.
I am a protestant evangelical, and 'On the Incarnation' is one of my favorite books of all time. It beautifully explains the poetic, awesome, artistic action of Christ's becoming flesh to redeem mankind, body and soul. I underlined and dogeared the heck out of my copy, and often give it away for others to read.
The Spirit is the one who makes scripture understandable to a believer. The Bible is, primarily, spiritual--and through the inspiration of the spirit alone can we glean the overarching meaning and depth of God's heart. The Bible is, afterall, the Word of God. And only through knowing him, in what it means to know him through his Son, can we interpret scripture through its original intent.
@Doubledb@xanga - Of course you do. But the belief you have didn't come from the Apostles who were trained by Jesus.
Your belief came from a man who thought he knew better than Jesus or his Apostles. That's why there are so many Christian sects.
Jesus preached unity, not division. So every sect that breaks off from the Church that was founded by Jesus is acting against what he taught.
If what the Bible really says really meant more than man-made dogma there would still only be one unified, universal Church.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - One of the reasons Protestants broke off from the Catholic church is because it began incorporating doctrines that were extra-biblical (such as prayer to saints, prayer to Mary, buying indulgences to earn "salvation" even though it all went to line the pockets of the Catholic leaders, addition of un-inspired books to the completed Canon, and the belief that partaking in the physical communion could earn someone salvation, among many other discrepencies with true doctrine, none of which have founding in original scripture).
..But that is not to say I don't learn a lot from my Catholic brothers and sisters. Mother Teresa, Blaise Pascal, and Peter Kreeft are among my favorite spiritual inspirations. Some of the older Catholic docrines, however, distort the message of grace through faith, through the work of Jesus Christ.
"Extra-biblical" is a Protestant term. Jesus himself was determined by men to be "extra-biblical" and that's why he was nailed to the Cross.
Nowhere in the Bible is there mention of the Bible being the rule of faith. Sola scriptura as it is called, is a man-made invention.
@Jenny_wren@xanga You cited the extra biblical rationale for the Protestant Reformation. That brings up a couple of issues. Firstly, where did holy scripture say that it was self actuated? Who decided what was included in the bible? Under what authority did some books become apocryphal or certain verses get excised? Who decided which books were uninspired. Well, there is no self actuation clause in scripture. The books were decided in Catholic Ecumenical Councils.
Many non-liturgical Christians have "issues" with praying to saints or praying to the Mother of God. That's not quite how it goes as the spirits of saints are mentioned to be intermediaries to God. That may not be within your tradition or comfortable for you. But do you pray for people? Same thing. Unless you are like Seventh Day Adventists who hold the the Christian dead are "sleeping" until the Parousia and then reaping the reward of the New Earth, then the same principle is being invoked when we keep someone in our prayers.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - true, although technically the Roman Catholic Church isn't the first (Universal) church, that would have been the one/s in the first-century, whether Jewish or the Gentiles in Antioch; so that argument doesn't exactly fly with me. And yes, I do know the Pope is supposed to be passed down from Peter but I think that was originally a political move around the time of Constantine to get the State to accept the Church's authority, along with his own.
With all of that said. I have no problem with Catholicism, as I no problem with other Denominations; but I do have a problem when I am told I cannot interpret scripture nor can I encourage others to do so because the church and the power structure and hierarchy tells everyone how it is to be interpreted. Sure, there will be people who are wrong or crazy, but there is a great wealth of life and community in the Church (meaning all Catholics and Protestants), and that ideally is how scriptures are interpreted and integrated into life; individually then communally. In the end, if the community does not agree, then the person will just be considered crazy (or in older times a heretic, except now they are not executed).
@Doubledb@xanga - There is no technically about it. Roman Catholic popes can be traced from the present all the way back to Saint Peter.
And attacking the legitimacy of what is clearly written in the Bible visa viz Jesus creating an Apostolic Church and preaching the need for unity, does not solve the problem of the doctrine of sola scriptura not being in the Bible.
Attacking the Catholic Church is not a solution to the gaping holes in the doctrine of sola scriptura. If one is to have faith then that faith must stand on its own merits.
"Virtue which is according to Christ" is supposedly something he understood but Athanasius went on describing what it takes to do a good job of interpreting scripture? It sounded like he might be the kind of person who felt deserving had lots to do with receiving forgiveness.
There is no need or mandate to read scripture in common. Who would make the rules?
Isaiah 29:13
@FullTruthSeeker@xanga - Catholic doctrine does not hold that one must deserve or merit salvation. That salvation can somehow be earned, in fact, is a heresy which the Church fought against for centuries.
That heresy even has a name: Pelagianism. LINK
Only Jesus can save. The Church holds that salvation is a gift, an act of divine mercy, totally undeserved by men.
We interpret the Bible based on whether it goes along with what we want to do--with rare exceptions.
I have been reading the NT lately and reviewing its example of house-churches and the notion that all believers are to actively participate in the service--Paul writes that each one has a gift to actively use during the meeting. "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a
revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building
up." If we want to interpret the Bible to go along with what we want to do, we say that this means that the laity participates by sitting in their pews, participating in the communal readings, reciting creeds, singing hymns, and listening to sermons. However, if we allow a controversial and original interpretation, this means that each person will take turns leading the service based on what God has given to him or her to share with the church. Of course, common sense tells us that practical considerations limit the number of people who can actively participate, so it seems that only small groups are practical.
Furthermore, if we seek to imitate the early saints, then we note that they generally met for the weekly breaking of the bread in the upper room of homes, following the example of Christ and the Last Supper. We find the apostles talking about "the church in your house" or "the church in his house." They talk about the "household of the faith," which points to the family relationship of Christians rather than to any institutional character. From examining Acts, it seems that early Christians met in homes for the weekly meeting, broke bread, had a service, and had a meal together. So, Christians, by doing these things, were living as an extended family. Of course, a lot of them were slaves, so they weren't free to do these things every day.
So where did the notion of holding weekly meetings in temples come from? Apparently, when Constantine made Christianity the official religion, pagan temples were used as places to worship and the Christian practice of meeting in homes and living like a family once a week waned.
Our practices get in the way of our interpretation.
If we start with the notion that our practices need to change, then interpretation gets a lot easier.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - ""Extra-biblical" is a Protestant term." No, it's a concept that goes back to the Council of Jamnia and to various church councils which addressed the issue of canonicity.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - "There is no technically about it. Roman Catholic popes can be traced from the present all the way back to Saint Peter."
And Protestant ministers can be traced from the present all the way back to Saint Peter. Big deal.
You are just supporting the notion of disunity. If you want unity, you must ONLY hold to the apostles. All kinds of people contributed to disunity, including Arius, Pelagius, Constantine, and various non-apostolic hierophantic leaders through history. Only the apostles provide a basis for unity.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - In the Bible we see Saint Paul laying hands on his successor Timothy and instructing him to do the same with people he has chosen to be in ministry.
It isn't enough to want to be in ministry. It is also necessary to be chosen by the Church.All Protestant ministers are self-appointed. That means they're ministerial lineage begins and ends with themselves.
On the other hand, a Catholic priest is literally a spiritual descendant of the Apostles since they were chosen by Church.
Here is a list of the popes going all the way back to Saint Peter: LINK
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Extra-biblical is a term used by Protestants as a criticism of Catholic doctrine. If you read the comments by the Protestants here you will see that they claim the Church to be in error because many of its doctrines are not found in the Bible.
My counter argument is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Church doctrine must be found in the Bible.Since that claim is true, it means that Protestant doctrine is extra-biblical and thus breaks the very rule it holds to be the ultimate test of orthodoxy.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - You obviously have no understanding about how Protestant ministers are ordained--it's all done by laying on hands, just like Catholics, and protestant ministers can trace the hand-laying all the way back to the apostles, just like Catholics. Martin Luther was an ordained Catholic priest and ordained many ministers. There are other Catholic priests who became protestant ministers as well and ordained ministers. Your laying on of hands argument doesn't help your argument that Catholic priests have some special authority.
What hurts the authority of Catholic priests is that those of us who read the Bible can see that the priests have diverged from the teaching of the apostles. Lots of early heretics were ordained priests. Many of the Catholic priests are just following novel heresies.
You wrote: "Nowhere in the Bible is there mention of the Bible being the rule of faith."
Scriptures about the Bible being the complete truth about God and faith:
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." John 17:17
"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures
forever." Psalm 119,160
Scriptures about the Scripture being the rule of faith
"To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this
word, it is because they have no dawn." Isaiah 8:20
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword,
piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and
discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" Heb. 4:12
If you want to know the truth, you will be able to understand these passages and see how they apply to your argument.
Extra-biblical has been applied by protestants to all kinds of things, including Catholic doctrine, but it pre-dates protestants. Where protestant doctrine diverges from scripture, it is extra-biblical, of course. Where it does not diverge, it is biblical. The same is true of Catholic doctrine.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Any non-Catholic Christian can go to school to become a minister. It's like going to college and getting a degree.
In the Catholic Church one must be chosen first after a rigorous background check, psychological examinations and a long series of interviews. And once chosen the aspirant begins rigorous academic and theological training during which he continues to be under rigorous scrutiny. And during which he can be drummed out of the seminary at anytime.There is no comparison between the rigor of the Catholic and Protestant programs for choosing ministers. Down here in the South, you don't even need any schooling at all. You just need a gift for preaching which draws in people who donate money.
read scripture in common, or do our communities, traditions and lifestyles
necessarily impact how we read what we read?"Yes, if [when] people are interpreting scripture, as led by the
Holy Spirit. Most denominational discord has been caused by traditions and words
of men getting mixed in with scripture, as if equal to scripture.
The fact of the matter is that God closed the books of the bible with the last
book which is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, God himself who said know one is
to add a word or take away a word from the bible, Revelation 22:18-19. This
means no men's words after this are to be counted equal to the words in the
bible. For all truth we look to the bible. For all scriptural interpretations
are proven by other scriptural interpretations. Some say this was only for the
book of Revelation. But to say that, is saying, "God was not aware that the books would eventually be combined into one
book." This IMHO is [believing in] a weak God, an absent God, an uninvolved God
and at best an unloving God. God planned the bible and God's fingerprints are
all over it. GOd' fingerprints are also all over history. Accepting these basic
truths one can only conclude, the bible is the only way to evaluate truth, not
some man's words, not a Pope or a protege of one of the original disciples, not
some protestant Preacher or Pastor's words and certainly not the Pope. So the
only objective way to evaluate scripture is objectively first, symbolically
second all in a historical cultural context.Scripture even records Paul scolding Peter because Peter's definition of
the gospel at times could not be trusted. In fact most of the first Apostles
seem to have supported the Judaiser movement which apposed the free grace gospel
Paul preached which all church dogma of what truth is should come from. Yet Paul
clearly defined truth comes by Holy Spirit and not some Bishop. For the church
dogma came by Revelation to Paul and not by men's words, or church institution.
For if we look at all church institution there is one thing God reveals thru
these man made institutions; that they are always wrong and not right.The fact of the matter is this. If we all seen Christ walk by today, Christ
in our generation, all the Bishops, denominations, Popes, Preachers and
Ministers would all mostly be out of a job. Then and only then would all these
differences fall by the wayside. I think all these things we think are major are
not major at all in God's eyes according to scripture. I think at this time it is appropriate
to consider this; Why did God give mankind the bible in the first place? Did God
give us the bible so we would have a bunch of pretty poems? No. We have the
Koran for that. Did God give us the bible for all the wise sayings in it so we
may open it at will to get wisdom? No. Although there are wise sayings in the
bible the libraries of the world are filled with wise sayings by people like
Gandhi and Pluto or Aristotle. Did God breath through the prophets His words perfectly, uncorrupted for
all to be able to read? Yes. God's purpose to mankind was to bring the word to
men because men could never be trusted with God's words. We see this early in
the Garden of Eden in Genesis when the fall of all creation was because of Eve
adding words to God's words spoken to Adam, Genesis 2:16-17 compared to Genesis
3:3. when we compare these two we see Adam either didn't teach Eve the gospel or
Eve changed God's words by adding and taking away from them which was in
violation of Christ's future teaching to mankind, Revelation 22:18-19.
Once again we see a similar problem in which God was not honored properly
when Moses spoke to Israel, Numbers 20:9-12. we see time and time again that
when God's followers speak they lead mankind astray. This issue men have when in
the pulpit, when speaking and leading spiritually that men's words can never be
trusted. These issues of distrust in spiritual leaders pop up over and over in
scripture. It wasn't just the Jews but we also see it with the gentles. We see
it with the first King Saul and later with David and Bathsheba, holy men that
corrupt and go astray. Every time scripture records a new Godly person that
arrives on the scene they go astray by adding and subtracting from the gospel.
Can men, any man be trusted to not add words to God's words in their sermons?
No, no one not even one. Even the eleven disciples were adding words and mosaic
law to the gospel perverting God's words and intention becoming a stumbling
block to all the gentiles in what was called the foreign gospel by the Apostle
Paul, also known as the Judaisers. They believed in the mixing of mosaic law
and grace and that in order for a non-Jew Gentile to get saved all the Gentiles
had to first study and learn the entire 613 laws of the mosaic code and then,
and only then, could they get saved. Paul said this was taking a step backwards;
that we are saved by grace and grace alone. He went onto say in his
many epistles that if we follow one law for righteousness sake we place
ourselves under the law and will be judged according to if we have followed the
rest of the law. In other words we cannot follow one law or we are guilty of
because we make God out to be a liar. If we do this we are saying salvation is
possible by following the law and that there was no need for Jesus Christ and
call God a liar.
So let us not follow traditions, nor Bishops or Pastors. Rather let us be
led by Holy Spirit and God's Holy Words recorded and infalluably breathed
through the prophets in the bible. If we do this God will bring us together even against the
wishes of all the denomenational leaders.
God Bless,
Brother RobertLeeRE
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Sola Scriptura is a man-made term to explain the teachings of the Bible. The new testament authors, under authority of eye-witnesses as well as fellow Apostles, laid the foundation for belief in Jesus Christ, how that belief should be played out in everyday life, and how it should be manifest in the church locally, as well as universally. Any addition to or twisting of their standards is unbiblical, if you prefer that to "extra-biblical".
In the Apostles words: "do not go beyond what is written" (2 Corinthians 4:6) and John, in closing the last words of the Bible, states: "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life..." (Rev. 22:18-19).
I also found this excerpt from an article in Desiring God to be helpful. This is written by John Piper:
"In the 2nd century, a consensus for what writings were authoritative was still being established—finalizing the New Testament canon would continue for another couple of centuries. A growing number of documents were circulating claiming authority. What was becoming increasingly important was whether or not it could be shown that what was being taught by a leader was faithful to the apostles’ teaching. 2nd century church leaders were recognizing the dangers inherent in bestowing on an office of bishop the authority to declare doctrinal truth by virtue of claiming some kind of apostolic succession. It was the doctrines of the apostles, not a title bestowed on a leader, that mattered most.
By the 16th century, the NT canon had been established for well over a 1,000 years. And the subsequent doctrinal distortion and corruption of church leaders resulting from claims of apostolic succession and tradition so horrible that the Reformers were compelled to declare Sola Scriptura, because Scripture was the only clear, objective record of apostolic teaching that existed. They did that because of their conviction that it was the doctrines of the apostles, not a title bestowed on a leader, that mattered most."
The New Testament is measured by the actual commands and words of Christ, and Christ through the original Apostles and eye-witnesses. That is the measure of Scripture. Any addition is fallacious and destructive to the message of the Gospel. The Gospel is by grace, through faith--it is a gift of God. We cannot earn it. We cannot make any claims to our own work. Only the work of Christ. Anything that takes this message away is unbiblical to the highest degree.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Please read the last verse of John. It's meaning categorically debunks sola scriptura. And if God thought all his teachings could be contained in a book there would have been no need for human prophets or Jesus to have been born.
The scriptures would have been enough.
In fact, the doctrine of sola scriptura is a repudiation of God's way of working with man. God never taught man from a book. He always used other human beings.
The purpose of books is to pass down knowledge and history from generation to generation. The purpose of the Church is to train authoritative human beings in the true meaning of the Gospel so that can teach its meaning to others.
Without authoritative teachings that come from the Church, the Bible could mean all things to all people. And in fact, it does. That's why there are so many Christian sects and that's why atheists use the Bible to debunk God and his teachings.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga -
that is the best explanation of Sola-Scriptura I ever heard.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
Actually the last verses in Revelation are in support of Sola Scriptura meaning no man can add to the teachings in the bible or take away. Thus all scripture interprets scripture. Last verse of John, I will read, but I believe your taking that out of context.
The church is not a building or institution. Christ said "Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst." This is the Holy Spirit which gathers where there are two or more gathered in Christ's name. This is church at its essence.
If there is one thing history has taught is this: Religous authorities are wrong more often than right. The bible has been given to mankind to hold religous authorities accountable to what God stated clearly in scripture. There is no higher authority then scripture, not a Pastor nor Bishop, not an televangelist not even the Pope. we know this by the history and corruption of the Popes down through the centuries, although the recent Popes seem to have been very Godly. We are to look to no man for truth but the bible and Holy Spirit is the only test we should consider.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - I think an argument could be made that finalizing the cannon occurred all the
way till Luther with the removal of certain books the Catholics were using to
support their teachings on Purgatory, the selling of indulgences and paying for
the salvation of the already dead.