Hermeneutics and Homiletics: The Early Church (1st-5th Centuries), Part 2

As I mentioned in the last post in this series, Origen of Alexandria exercised an extraordinary influence over western exegesis by developing and promoting a Christianized version of the allegorical method of interpretation. While his erudition and production of materials is laudable, his philosophy was and is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, as he grew in influence, a counter-movement arose in Syrian Antioch (north of Jerusalem near the Mediterranean coast) to defend the gospel that it might continue to be proclaimed throughout the earth.

About one century before Origen rose to prominence, Theophilus of Antioch developed a Christianized approach to hermeneutics that would pave the way for a sound response to him. This approach was more influenced by Jewish exegesis, and to a lesser extent Aristotle, than by Philo, Plato, and Hellenistic allegorization.

On the basis of that approach, Diodore of Antioch issued a penetrating critique of, and alternative to, the allegorical method in a key work entitled, What is the Difference Between Contemplation [theoria] and Allegory? In this work, Diodore rejects the excesses of Alexandria but not everything that came out of Alexandria. That is, his work was more corrective than divisive. Then, for example, in his introduction to the Psalms, he distinguished between historia (the historical background), lexis (the literal sense), theoria (the fuller sense that is discerned through careful exegesis, understanding of the lexis, and contemplation), and allegory. He rejected allegory as a valid method of interpretation because in actual practice the proponents thereof tended to divorce the allegorical sense from the literal sense and thus do violence to the text. He did, however, retain the spiritual sense (theoria) because, in agreement with the broad consensus of the church, he argued that there is indeed more to the Scripture than the plain meaning of the words. But this “more” is always inseparably united with the literal sense so that one may build upon the literal but one may not go beyond the literal.

One convenient way of summarizing the difference between these two schools of thought is this: whereas Alexandria looked at Scripture and saw two meanings, Antioch looked at Scripture and saw a double-meaning (Goldsworthy, 98). The former often tends toward flights of fancy, while the latter preserves the vital relationship between type and antitype without making mincemeat of the literal sense (see Bray, 105-107; Dockery, 103-128; Hall, 156-176).

Unfortunately, there were some at Antioch who pushed the literal sense too far and also made mincemeat of the Scripture and Christian theology. Most important among these is perhaps Nestorius whose Christology was rightly rejected as heresy, and whose shadow largely spoiled what otherwise would have been the lasting legacy of Antioch. But God is faithful, and he caused leading lights such as Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine to rise up and correct the excesses of Alexandria as well. Augustine in particular, though he did not go as far as I would have liked in rejecting allegorization, popularized a modified approach to hermeneutics and homiletics that would guide the church for centuries to come.

Following the lead of John Cassian (Dockery, 158), Augustine argued for four senses of Scripture: the literal, the allegorical, the tropological (moral), and the anagogical (eschatological). For him, this meant that there is a fourfold meaning to every text that, on the foundation of the literal, expresses faith, love, and hope. He insisted on the importance of the literal, and though he sometimes strayed from his own principles and sadly misinterpreted this or that text, he was eminently more faithful to the text than Origen. His approach dominated the world of hermeneutics and homiletics throughout the middle ages, so much so that the entire era seems to be a series of footnotes on Augustine.

Reflecting on the era of the early church as a whole, Hall helpfully articulates four lessons we should learn from them: on the whole, (1) they read the Bible holistically as one book in two testaments, (2) they read the Bible Christologically as a singular message rooted in the person of Jesus, (3) they read the Bible in community, and (4) they read the Bible within the context of a life of prayer, worship, and spiritual formation (Hall, 191-200). We would indeed do well to humbly learn of them and follow their lead in these several ways.