Theological Studies 68 (2007) IMAGES OF GOD AND THE IMITATION OF GOD: PROBLEMS WITH ATONEMENT ROBERT J. DALY, S.J.
Overly logical applications of some of Paul's metaphors have led to widely accepted atonement theories that, because they project human
legalistic and transactional thinking onto the image of God, have been egregiously contradictory to an authentic trinitarian and incarnational view of sacrifice and atonement The Eastern emphasis
on apophatic theology and theosis coupled with the Western development of and confidence in historical critical analysis suggest ways in which theologians can come to a better understanding of these issues. BAD THEOLOGY LEADS το BAD MORALITY. This statement was the title and the thesis of the first version of this article.1 It was inspired by the pregnant statement of Thomas Aquinas in Contra gentiles: "Error circa creaturas redundant in falsam de Deo scientiam [mistakes about creatures lead to mistaken knowledge about God]."2 Obviously, if this is true, so too is its converse: mistaken knowledge of God leads to errors concerning creatures, or, in the context of the traditional Christian understanding of the imitation of the divine, leads to bad morality. Residues of this thesis will be found throughout the present article, but my focus is now more on ROBERT J. DALY, S.J., emeritus professor of theology at Boston College, received his Dr. theol. from the Julius Maximilians University in Würzburg, Germany. His recent publications include: "Robert Bellarmine and Post-Tridentine Eucharistie Theology" (2000), "Sacrifice Unveiled or Sacrifice Revisited: Trinitarian and Liturgical
Perspectives" (2003), and "Eucharistie Origins: From the New Testament to the Liturgies of the Golden Age" (2005), all in Theological Studies. A forthcoming
volume, Sacrifice Unveiled, will draw together some 40 years of reflection on an authentically trinitarian view of Christian sacrifice over against common false ideas of it. 1 Delivered at the Colloquium on Violence and Religion, July 6-10, 2005, at Schönstatt near Koblenz, Germany. The conference theme was "Mimetic Theory and the Imitation of the Divine." A further development of it under the present title, "Images of God..." was presented to the Boston Theological Society on December 8, 2005. 2 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles 2, chap. 3. The title of this chapter reads: "Quod cognitio creaturarum valet ad destructionem errorum qui sunt circa Deum (That knowledge of creatures helps in the refutation of errors made about God)." 36
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 37
a specification of the first part of that thesis agenda, namely, bad theology, and specifically, bad theology of the atonement. This article also builds on remarks I made at a June 2000 meeting of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion, namely that the widespread popular traditional Christian concept of a God who readily condemns many to the ultimate violence, eternity in hell, helps account for the fact that Christians down through the ages have been so ready to accept and inflict violence as a relatively unchallenged part of their practical Christian lives. If God, whose perfection Christians are supposed to imitate—see Matthew 5:48: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (teleiosy—is violent, can we expect Christians to be nonviolent?3 Tragically, I am not referring only to Christians in the past. Many contemporary
Christians, quite possibly even a majority of them, take violence for granted as an integral part of their specifically Christian worldview. For example, although the great majority of people in the United States profess to be Christian, many of the 50 states practice capital punishment. Throughout the so-called Christian West, support for war, even far beyond what is allowed by the just war theory, is widespread and considered to be quite consistent with Christianity. Indeed, many selectively interpret biblical
teaching in such a narrow and radically literal way that they imagine— indeed even long for—the Second Coming of Christ when the select few "will be swept upward in rapture, while Catholics and the rest of the unbelievers are sent the other way."4 For many, the "wrath of God" is not a metaphor; it is a reality that is not merely to be dreaded by sinners, but a reality that the just hope and pray will descend upon those who are not. It would be economical to argue against such views with the syllogistic major: "All Christians believe violence is wrong." But that is unfortunately not true. Even to approximate the truth, one must say something like: "All Christians believe that unnecessary violence is wrong." That, of course, leaves individuals and groups free to define what is necessary as opposed to unnecessary violence. We are back with the presupposition behind the title of this article: behind all justifications that Christians can offer either for violence or for nonviolence lies, at least implicitly, an image of the divine that is, correspondingly, violent or nonviolent. In other words, behind the caesaropapism of the post-Constantinian church, behind the Crusades, behind the Inquisition and the witch-burnings, behind all the wars of religion, behind the great World Wars of 3 See Robert J. Daly, S.J., "Violence and Institution in Christianity," Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 9 (2002) 4-33, at 29-30. 4 Quoted from Paul Wilkes's review of Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, in America 192.17 (May 16,2005) 17. The more than 50 million sales of books in the "Left Behind" series now rival translations of the Bible as America's best-selling books.
38 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
the 20th century (waged largely by nominally Christian nations), behind much of the economic, military, and cultural imperialism that characterizes the current pax Americana, to say nothing of the warring factions of the Middle East—behind these and countless other massive deviations from good morality, and inseparably connected with these deviations, lie false and mistaken ideas about God. Serendipitously, while this article was taking shape, I had the privilege of reading in manuscript Mark Heim's recently published Saved from Sacrifice:
A Theology of the Cross.5 I share with Heim the awareness that much of what Christians have traditionally thought of as Christian sacrifice or as atonement theology is, in fact, inauthentically Christian. In that sense, many Christians do indeed need to be "saved from sacrifice." As this article will point out, "sacrifice" and "atonement," while not synonymous, are actually so closely interrelated that problems with atonement generally also end up being problems with sacrifice and vice versa. This article could easily be called: "Saved from Atonement." If one were to divide Christians into those who accept violence or take it for granted as an integral part of authentic Christian life, and those who do not, or into those who locate some violence even in God and in their image of God, and those who do not, I, along with Mark Heim and Stephen Finían (from whom I take the subtitle of this article),6 clearly identify with those who do not. We are not constructing a straw horse, for there are serious and highly respected theologians on the other side of this issue. Hans Boersma, for example, may be one of them.7 As Miroslav Volf has put it: "Those who tend instinctively to reject any notion of violence as unworthy of God better take Boersma's arguments seriously."8 However, Boersma's position is highly nuanced; it may not be fair, as the following quotation suggests, to place him, without qualification, among "those who do": Underlying much of this study has been the appeal to paradox: all acts of hospitality in history share in the limited and conditional character of creation and require, as such, some degree of violence. I have argued that this violence can be redemptive and does not need to detract from the hospitable character of these acts. I have made the case that God's hospitality on the cross implies such redemptive violence, and that human hospitality requires a certain degree of violence as well. I have also maintained that it is only in the eschatological resurrection of Christ, completed on 5 S. Mark Heim, Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006). 6 Stephen Finían, Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2005). 7 Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement
Tradition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004). 8 From the dust jacket of Boersma's book.
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 39
the last day, that this violence comes to an end and God ushers in his unconditional or absolute hospitality. Only the telos of this resurrection is sufficient justification for all good violence, whether divine or human. If it is true, however, that all human practices of hospitality are in a paradoxical relationship with violence, precisely ultimately to overcome violence, what does this do to our humanity in the eschaton? Will the boundaries of time and space no longer hold at that point? Would that not mean that we cease to be human? And would it not imply that the telos of the resurrection amounts to a negation of the very structures of God's good creation?9 Boersma is laudably ecumenical and nonpolemical in his approach. But it also seems to me that his (not uncritical) fidelity to the Reformed tradition
is the main reason for his apparent inclusion of violence in the divine redemptive process, just as my fidelity to my moderately progressive Roman
Catholic theological tradition may be the main reason for my desire to exclude violence from that process. But if that is so, to what tradition is the Prostestant Heim being faithful? This apparent anomaly suggests that we should try to prescind from where we are coming from and try to argue the issue on its theological merits. So far, this has been the easy part of this article—supporting with rhetorical
affirmation the thesis that bad theology leads to bad morality. The greater challenge is to critically demonstrate that the thesis cannot be easily cancelled out by opposing rhetoric. Some of the traditional Christian understandings—
or, perhaps more accurately, misunderstandings—of the atonement provide rich lodes to support my thesis. For central to common understandings of Christianity is that Christians are called to be followers of Christ and imitators of God. Regardless of whether or not one is a follower of Girardian mimetic theory, we can all see that Christian existence
is mimetic existence. But who/what is the God Christians are to imitate? If God is seen primarily as a "Sacrifice Demander," and Jesus primarily as a "punishment-bearer,"10 this seems, with inevitable logic, to lead to a worldview in which violence is taken for granted. The logical implications of some of the classical Christian atonement theories have Christians imitating a violent God whom they perceive as arbitrary, or impotent, or deceitful: arbitrary, because God chooses to inflict violence and does so in ways that seem unfair, or arbitrary, or make no sense to us; 9 Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross 257 (from his "Epilogue: The End of Violence: Eschatology and Deification"). 10 Phrases taken from Finían, Problems with Atonement 120.1 am dependent on Finían not so much for the substance, with which I was already largely in agreement,
but for much of the content and big-picture overview of Christian atonement theories presented in this article. I will indicate this dependence in appropriate places via parenthetical documentation, e.g., (Finían 120).
40 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES impotent, because God sees the violence but cannot prevent it; deceitful, because God claims to put mercy above justice but does not do so. Thus, the "problems" with atonement, and especially the consequences of these problems, are serious and real. They coincide extensively with "problems with sacrifice." This particular take on the issue has been receiving
increasing attention lately, for example, in Heim's Saved from Sacrifice. Aspects of the traditional Christian atonement theories constantly intertwine
and overlap. Similar intertwining and overlapping will inevitably be part of my own exposition. I will, nevertheless, attempt to keep to the following order: (1) the relationship between the Incarnation and atonement
theories; (2) the sometimes stunning differences between the implications
of the metaphors of atonement and authentic Christian teaching about atonement and salvation; (3) the problem of divine violence; (4) sacrifice and cult; (5) the pervasiveness of the legal and the judicial, especially
in the West. INCARNATION AND ATONEMENT THEORIES The Incarnation of Jesus Christ is a central Christian doctrine. It embodies
the hinge event and the essential idea of what is specifically Christian
in revelation. Take away the Incarnation and there is, at least for mainline or trinitarian Christianity, no Christianity left. In contrast, the atonement is not central. It is derivative of the Incarnation.11 Furthermore, since many aspects of atonement theory, specifically as developed in the Western Christian tradition, are flatly incompatible with an authentic Christian understanding of God, it is profoundly mistaken to identify atonement, as commonly understood—see below—as central to Christian doctrine (Finían 120). This insistence that the Incarnation, but not the atonement, is a central Christian doctrine can be further supported by the obvious simple thought experiment of asking what we would have if one or the other doctrine were removed. If one takes away the Incarnation in the broad sense, meaning at least the existence of Jesus, one can hardly explain the existence of Christianity
in any of its forms. And should one take away the Incarnation in the strict sense—God taking on human form in the person of Jesus Christ— 11 "It is incorrect to identify 'Christianity' with atonement, without remainder. Atonement is not an essential doctrine of Christianity but is in fact derivative. The more central doctrine is the Incarnation (see chapter 5) [esp. section 5.1, "The Incarnation Interpreted through Secondary Doctrines"]. The Incarnation need not issue in the mythology of substitutionary atonement. God's participation in human life and God's indwelling of Jesus of Nazareth in particular did not make the Crucifixion inevitable or necessary" (Finían 104).
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 41
one can hardly explain the existence of Christianity in its main trinitarian forms. But if one takes away the atonement, meaning the atonement theories
developed in the Christian West, one still has the vibrant Christianity of the East that, although founded on the same biblical and patristic origins as that of the West, based its theology of salvation, fully trinitarian and fully incarnational, much more on theologies of theosis/divinization rather than on Western-type atonement theories. Stated oversimply and in its most blatant stereotypical form, traditional Western atonement theory includes or is ultimately reducible to: (1) God's honor was damaged by human sin; (2) God demanded a bloody victim— innocent or guilty—to pay for human sin; (3) God was persuaded to alter the divine verdict against humanity when the Son of God offered to endure humanity's punishment; (4) the death of the Son thus functioned as a payoff; salvation was purchased (Finían 1). If this, or this kind of, atonement theory is central to our idea of God and of salvation, we are in deep trouble. In effect, this notion turns God into some combination of a great and fearsome judge, or offended lord, or temperamental spirit. It calls into question God's free will, or justice, or sanity (Finían 97-98). It is incompatible with the central biblical idea of a loving and compassionate God.12 How, then, could such a notion come to be regarded as Christian? Much of the explanation—not necessarily the blame but at least the beginning of an explanation—can be found in the Pauline corpus. For Paul, Christ is simultaneously the final scapegoat, the price of redemption,
the long-promised Messiah, the reason for God's fostering of Abraham's descendants, and the leader who teaches the children to live by God's Spirit (Finían 50). When we ask what is achieved for us through this Christ-Messiah, the answer is: justification, reconciliation, adoption. When we ask further about the processes of achieving these, the answers are, respectively, judicial relief (justification), diplomatic repair (reconciliation),
and familial positioning (adoption). These processes, almost immediately
seen by following generations as transactions (susceptible, as subsequent
developments show, to the residual overlay of archaic magical ideas) are expressed in a rich congeries, even wild range, of metaphors. But they all build upon Paul's cultic, commercial, judicial, social, diplomatic, and familial metaphors. As we proceed, we have to keep reminding ourselves that Paul was not a systematic theologian, at least not in any modern sense of that term. And 12 This is a clear instance of the inevitable circularity or "bias" of my own argument.
For although I can begin to demonstrate that the authentic biblical image of God is that God is loving and compassionate, the reason why this is the position I would choose to demonstrate goes back to my autobiographical faith position.
42 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES we must also try to keep in mind not only the great range of metaphors with which Paul was groping to express something of the mystery of salvation,
but also that he was quite possibly the first to try to do so in this way.13 We must pursue the implications of the way in which he combined, conflated, and rapidly switched between these metaphors. This switching suggests his apparent awareness that no one metaphor or no narrow selection
of them is normative. Pursuing this line of analysis makes us sensitive
to the extent of the deformation that took place when theologians began to select just some of these metaphors and push them to their "theological"
conclusions. For some of these conclusions are at odds not only with each other but also with the central biblical revelation of a loving and merciful God eager to save, rescue, and forgive far beyond what the human mind and imagination often thinks is right and proper—and, significantly, at odds with what Paul himself was groping to express (Finían 34, 62). One can see this deformation already beginning to take place as early as the Pastoral Epistles and the Deuteropauline Letters where fidelity to right doctrine was increasingly seen as the sign of a true Christian (Finían 63-66). Increasingly, an interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion, seen more and more as a transaction, indeed as a cultic, juridical, and even quasi-magical transaction,
became the core message, while the actual teachings of Jesus, which had little, if anything, to do with such an interpretation, "became a secondary
body of information" (Finían 57). It was a devolution, a reduction of atonement theory down to the idea that God deliberately intended Jesus' violent death (Finían 101, agreeing with Walter Wink). Accompanying this devolution was a change in how one would talk about God the Father. Jesus would talk about God not only as "my Father" but also as your Father—as all four Gospels attest.14 But as time went on, that locution shifted increasingly to talking about God as Jesus' Father (Finían 112). There was also a shift away from how Jesus used to speak and teach— which, in his mouth, seemed to be quite remarkably uncultic—and more toward a way of speaking about Jesus as a cultic sacrificial victim, and about his death as a cultic transaction (Finían 113-15). In Christian teaching,
at first in the common patristic tradition, and then increasingly, espe-13 "I find that Paul uses many metaphors as well as the martyr motif and even uses one metaphor to interpret another. The metaphors interpenetrate, yet they can be discerned as discrete building blocks that are differently combined in different passages. Paul has not invested everything in any one metaphor but he has invested everything in the range of metaphors, explaining the death of Christ as a saving event that accomplishes cleansing or freedom-purchase or establishment of a family-
like community" (Finían 55). 14 Finían refers to this way of speaking as "virtually the identifying mark of the dominical tradition" (Finían 112).
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 43 cially in its Western developments, atonement developed into the primary "vehicle for conveying information about salvation and the Incarnation" (Finían 120). However, knowledge and information about the Incarnation does not need to be transmitted solely through the atonement doctrine with its narrow focus on violent crucifixion as the central transactional moment. Put positively, the Incarnation, Jesus' human life—that by which we are in fact saved—was not merely a lengthy prologue to the crucifixion (Finían 123). METAPHOR AND DOCTRINE As already pointed out, many of Paul's metaphors have unacceptable "theo-logical" implications. Does God's favor or forgiveness have to be bought! Does God's anger have to be assuaged by sacrifice! Is God a retribution-seeking, restitution-seeking judge! Is God a dishonored lord whose honor needs to be restored? Atonement theories generally pick and choose among the metaphors, overlook both their range and complexity, and overlook the implications of how Paul would rapidly shift between them. Focusing on some of the implications of these metaphors, atonement theorists would turn them into doctrines. In doing so they would generally neglect Paul's actual teaching of a merciful God. For example, the metaphors
sometimes imply a selfless Messiah over against a God who must be paid off. The metaphors sometimes imply an implacable Father over against a compassionate Son (Finían 39-62). These were the implications of some of Paul's metaphors, rather than what he directly taught or was groping to communicate in those places where, apparently giving up on attempted "theo-logical" exposition, he would break into song (see especially
Rom 11:33-36 and Phil 2:6-11). Excursus: Trinitarian Theology The "over-against" implications of the atonement metaphors, when they are turned into doctrine, logically introduce a tension into the Trinity that is at odds with what was (later, of course) achieved in a mature trinitarian theology. Such inner-trinitarian tension fails to appropriate the insight that, in sending the Son, the Father is actually sending himself. Despite the rhetoric, some of which is embedded in Scripture itself (e.g., Rom 8:32: "He who did not withhold ["spare"—ouk epheisato] his own Son, but gave him up for all of us"), the Father was not doing something to the Son; the Father was giving/offering himself.15 The seeds of many of the theologically 15 See Robert J. Daly, S.J., "Sacrifice Unveiled or Sacrifice Revisited: Trinitarian and Liturgical Perspectives," Theological Studies 64 (2003) 24-42, at 28.
44 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES unacceptable implications of atonement theory were planted relatively early in the patristic age, before the full maturation of trinitarian theology. Some of these unacceptable implications were already being superseded in the theology of the late fourth-century Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great. For example, it was not until the post-fourth-century maturation of patristic
theology that it became even possible to articulate a trinitarian theology
of Christian sacrifice such as the following: First of all, Christian sacrifice is not some thing that we do or give up. It is above all a mutually self-giving and profoundly interpersonal event. It begins not with us but with the self-offering of God the Father in the gift of the Son. It continues in the self-offering "response" of the Son, in his humanity and in the power of the Holy Spirit, to the Father and for us. And it continues further, and only then does it begin to become Christian sacrifice, when we, in the power of the same Spirit that was in Jesus, begin to be part of that mutually self-giving, mutually self-communicating Father-Son relationship. This, in a nutshell, is the whole story. Everything else is just dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s. But, of course, it is only in these details, in the concrete experiences
of life, that the love of God is revealed and becomes real for us. As we now begin to break open these details, we have two challenges: not just to remain faithful to the theology of the Trinity (that took the early Church centuries to unpack), but, equally important, to remain connected to the flesh and blood of our human lives and experiences.16 In other words, Jesus in his teaching seems to have a quite different instinct regarding God and access to God's mercy than does Paul—at least in contrast with the implications of some of Paul's metaphors. A sharply worded paragraph from Finían highlights this striking contrast: Can we account for Paul's pessimism by saying that he is sensitive to the ever-present danger of human pride and sin? Is Paul, perhaps more savvy to human deceptiveness than is Jesus, and never speaks of open and free access to God by the pure in heart because most people will dishonestly convince themselves that they are pure? Undoubtedly, Paul is perceptive on this point, but one can hardly say that he is more perceptive than Jesus, who could sniff out any scent of hypocrisy, or that Jesus' Gospel is the result of naivety. We are dealing with two entirely different instincts about God and access to God. Jesus, with fully adult know-how and lack of illusions, is able to say that a sincere and childlike faith opens the portals of heaven. There really are some truth-hungering, merciful, and "utterly sincere" people, who "will be filled... will receive mercy... will see God" (Matt 5:6-8).17 16 Adapted from my unpublished paper, "Sacrificial Preaching," presented at the August 2005 meeting of the Societas Liturgica in Dresden, Germany. I owe the substance of what is expressed herein to Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1998). 17 Finían 61. "Utterly sincere" is from Matt 5:8 in J. B. Phillips, The Gospels Translated into Modern English (New York: Macmillan, 1961) 8.
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 45 However, to do Paul justice, if we take away the metaphors and look only at Paul's direct teaching and exhortation, we do not see that strong tension between "implacable Father and compassionate Son" (Finían 71). Further, when we attend to all that Paul is attempting to communicate, attend to his teaching and to the implications of his hymns as well as to the implications of all of his metaphors and models, we see that he is expressing not merely transactional ideas in metaphors that are cultic, economic, and legal; he is also expressing spiritually transformative ideas. Notably—to jump ahead a millennium—it is especially the latter, the transformative ideas and implications, that Abelard (due perhaps to his heightened literary
and imaginative sensitivity?) picks up and develops with his emphasis on moral influence (Finían 74-75). Anselm, by contrast (more sensitive to at least some aspects of the "theo-logic"?) focused more on the transactional
aspects of the cultic, economic, and legal metaphors. DIVINE VIOLENCE Anselm of Canterbury's Cur Deus Homo (1098) has been called "a master text of divine violence."18 Even those who disagree with it recognize
it as perhaps the single most famous and influential postbiblical text on the atonement. Significantly, by the time atonement doctrine has developed
(or devolved) to this point, it is no longer, as many patristic authors had thought, the devil who is the source of violence against humanity, but God the Father (Finían 72). What is laid out, even taken for granted here and in so many of the traditional atonement theories of the Western Church, is an inner-divine "scenario of divine violence restrained by divine mercy, but a mercy that had to be mediated through violence" (Finían 75). Hence the angry, punishing God of Calvin, or the always severe Father and always compassionate Son of Luther, or the schooling of devout Catholics to make reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. What all this does, whether
consciously or subconsciously (and at odds with a mature trinitarian theology as I indicated above) is to locate violence and the negotiation of violence within the divine. Present in this whole line of development is the belief, going back at least to Augustine, that all humanity faces damnation. Some of the theories developed the idea that, to save humanity from condemnation, "God preplanned
the killing of the Son from the beginning of time" (Finían 76). Facilitating this development was the fact that, in contrast to much of the East, the idea of apocatastasis (universal salvation) was generally not even discussed in the West. More commonly taken for granted in the West was 18 Anthony W. Bartlett, Cross Purposes: The Violent Grammar of Christian Atonement (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2001) 76.
46 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
the idea that God freely chose to save only some, and perhaps only the fortunate few, from damnation (ibid.). And if one did not have the good fortune to hear the gospel and be baptized, one had no chance at all. Nor was it only the churches of the Reformation that subsequently emphasized so strongly the absolute depravity, the universal guilt of humankind. Jansenism, primarily a Roman Catholic phenomenon, was just as earnest in this regard. Saving humankind meant the transfer of divine wrath to the Son. "Faced with such monstrous teachings" (Finían 78), theologians have desperately tried to make sense of it all. But as long as they remained bound within the framework of atonement theories that locate violence within the divine, they could not break out of a pernicious taking-for-granted of violence on all levels of existence, divine and human. Bad theology
led to bad—that is, violent—morality. René Girard, especially in his central major works, challenged the hegemony
of this way of thinking, basically by exposing the violent mechanisms
of sacrificial scapegoating, and by rejecting these mechanisms and the traditional (destruction-of-the-victim) idea of sacrifice as essential to Christianity. However, the theological appropriation of Girard's insights, that is, developing an authentically Christian (i.e., essentially nonviolent) concept of God and atonement) remains a work in progress. Major contributions
in this direction have come from the recently deceased Raymund Schwager, S.J. (d. 2004), especially in his Jesus in the Drama of Salvation19 and Banished from Eden.20 In these works, especially the latter, Schwager not only develops the concept of violence as the primordial sin, that is, seeing original sin as the common human tendency to reach for violent solutions, but also points out the "natural" support for, and indeed the "natural" origin of, this concept in the findings of contemporary bio-sciences.21 19 Raymund Schwager, Jesus im Heilsdrama: Entwurf einer biblischen Erlösungslehre,
Innsbrucker theologische Studien 29 (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1990); ET: Jesus in the Drama of Salvation: Toward a Biblical Doctrine of Redemption, trans. James G. Williams and Paul Haddon (New York: Crossroad, 1999). 20 Raymund Schwager, Banished from Eden: Original Sin and Evolutionary Theory in the Drama of Salvation, trans. James G. Williams (London: Gracewing, 2005 = ET of Erbsünde und Heilsdrama: Im Kontext von Evolution, Gentechnologie
und Apokalyptik (Münster: LIT, 1997). See the account of a panel discussion of this book, "Celebrating Raymund Schwager: At the AAR Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, November 2004" in The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion 26 (April 2005) 5-7. 21 Schwager arrives at this insight not by beginning with a traditional theology of original sin, and then asking how contemporary science relates to that theology. Rather, as far as possible, he begins with science itself. For example, he begins specifically with the finding that organisms at all levels, including the human psychic organism, have "memories." What the human organism has in its bio-psychic
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 47
Among the problems still needing adequate theological explanation is that of the residue of magical transactional thinking (see Finían 98) in Christian atonement doctrine (as well as in some popular understandings of the sacraments). Related to this is, for example, the persistence of seeing the crucifixion as a kind of transaction that, ultimately or implicitly, calls into question the free will, or the justice, or the sanity, or the power of a benevolent God.22 Similar to this transactional kind of thinking is the theological inconsistency of making the scapegoating of Jesus (an act of violence) a part of God's eternal plan (Finían 101). Similar also is the readiness to imagine magical power solutions (Hello, Harry Potter!). Is that far from the readiness to believe in miracles? All this seems to connect with the readiness to think of a violent God, or at least of the existence of some violence in God. It contributes both to the widespread human tendency
to look for scapegoats (Finían 116), and to the widespread tendency to take violence for granted in human affairs. Connected with all this seems to be what can be called the absolutization of suffering. The popularity of Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ is only a more recent example. In the suffering of Christ there is, undeniably, a transcendent sacredness. But there is no unconditioned absoluteness there in the suffering of Christ. For Christ did not have to suffer. There is no absolute divine necessity there; but there is—viewed from what I would insist is an authentic Christian point of view—absolute divine necessity in the love with which Christ suffered. For ultimately, it is not suffering but love that saves. In other words, as Cynthia Crysdale has observed, suffering and the violence that causes it is a consequence of union with God, not the means to it.23 SACRIFICE AND CULT As Finían points out early in his book, atonement, although not synonymous
with sacrifice, overlaps with it. Problems with atonement generally memory, from that critical evolutionary "moment" that we call hominization, is the memory, encoded in our beings, that, when faced with the choice of spiritual self-transcendence, human beings generally chose to react in the (indeed tried-and-true) basically violent and instinctual ways that characterized the existence of their prehuman forebears. Influenced as he is by Guardian mimetic theory, Schwager suggests that this is a good way for us to begin to understand peccatum originale originatum—the original sin that continues to exist in us. 22 It is a common pastoral strategy, when faced with the need to "explain" evil and suffering, to point to the passion of Christ. That, however, does not solve the problem; it merely transposes it. 23 See Finlan's develoment of this theme on pp. 104-6. He acknowledges his dependence on Cynthia S. W. Crysdale, Embracing Travail: Retrieving the Cross Today (New York: Continuum, 1999) passim, but esp. 100.
48 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES also end up being problems with sacrifice (Finían 3). In the end, sacrifice, along with atonement, is commonly perceived as an instance of divine violence. Emphasis on the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ can indeed spare Protestants from the problem their Catholic counterparts have in explaining
how the Sacrifice of the Mass can be, as defined at the Council of Trent, a "true and proper sacrifice."24 But the problem still remains, whether located in a once-for-all past, or also in a continuing liturgical celebration, that the sacrifice of Christ ends up being an act of divine violence that God planned from all eternity. In writing about atonement Paul assumed the existence of, and familiarity
with, already existing cultic patterns. He used several cultic metaphors
and assumed that salvation came from a cultic act (Finían 44, 51). But it is what happened after Paul that causes most of the problems I am attempting to deal with in this article. For, as Christian reflection developed,
the increasing emphasis on and blending together of ideas of penal substitution and the idea of death-as-payment caused sacrifice to become, for many, the dominant image of atonement. This is obvious in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Subsequent patristic theologians then glued together Paul's atonement metaphors into the notion of a sacrificial and redeeming transaction (Finían 65-66). This attachment filled the perceived need. For despite the inroads that the spiritualization of sacrifice had already made and was continuing to make in Greek religious philosophy, in late biblical Judaism, and in early Christianity, Christian antiquity was still a time when sacrifice in the traditional history-of-religions sense of that word, that is, an external cultic act involving the destruction of a victim,25 was generally taken for granted as an essential part of religion. It was still a time when almost everyone assumed that a sacrificial death was required for a mediator
or reconciler to appease God with a unique sacrifice (Finían 70-71). We have to remind ourselves that this necessity for a sacrificial and redeeming
transaction was perceived to be a necessity in God, or a necessity outside of God to which God was bound. Part of the problem is, of course, the apparent scriptural warrant for this necessity (e.g., Lk 24:26: "Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer ... ?"). This assumption of the necessity of Christ's suffering resulted in and/or went along with false ideas about God. Such false ideas about God and a consequent false morality are 24 "Verum et proprium sacrificium" (Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum, et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, ed. Henricus Denzinger and Adolfus Schön-metzer [Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder, 1967] no. 1751); see also nos. 1743 and 1753: "sacrificium vere propitiatorium [truly an atonement sacrifice]." 25 For a detailed exposition of how damaging this destruction-of-a-victim idea of sacrifice can be when applied to Christian sacrifice, see Robert J. Daly, S.J., "Robert
Bellarmine and Post-Tridentine Eucharistie Theology," Theological Studies 61 (2000) 239-60.
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 49 inevitable if the scapegoating death of Jesus is a necessary, divinely planned, transactional sacrificial event that God brings about like a puppet master manipulating human events. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL THINKING From the outset, judicial metaphors were among the metaphors used to explain the atonement. In the post-Pauline developments, the blending of penal substitution ideas with those of death-as-payment resulted in presenting
redemption as sacrifice-dominant. Then, the summing up of Paul's atonement metaphors into the notion of a sacrificial and redeeming transaction,
and the concomitant increasing emphasis on the logic underlying that atonement transaction, made recourse to legal thinking all the more necessary (Finían 65-66, 98-99). As a result, by the time of Augustine, ransom theory (with its subthemes of rescue, deception, mousetrap, etc.) was being increasingly trumped by legal theory (Finían 70). Then Gregory the Great, in his blending of legal and sacrificial motifs, and in his stressing of the need for a proportionate remedy, locked legal-logical thinking into the core of Western atonement thinking. Characteristic of Western theological
thinking, generally, and even to this day, has been the fundamental importance of law, even on the divine level. The significance of the adjective "Western" in the previous paragraph is central to what I am trying to understand. Here, precisely here, may be the most significant fork in the road where the West went one way, understanding
the Christian mystery of salvation after the model of a legal transaction,
and the East went another way, understanding the Christian mystery
of salvation as theosis, divinization. These characteristically Western developments help explain why Anselm's theory was so powerful and influential. It was a social theory based on the feudal structure of his time. It involved a structural form of vengeance/reparation, all of which had to be governed by "law" (see Finían 70-71). This emphasis on law was consistent with the fundamental psychology
of atonement that I have already mentioned, namely, that it is based on a belief that nothing is free, and on the intuition that ritual establishes order (Finían 80). "Law and order" may not be synonymous, but they are inseparable. As Girard has pointed out, Jesus exposes and repudiates the victimization
mechanism by which atonement has been thought to work. Nevertheless,
the need of human societies for social and other appropriate mechanisms
remains as strong as ever. Take away the legal and the juridical, and one takes away human culture as we know it. We cannot prescind from the legal and juridical ways of thinking by which we live. But to project our human and thus inevitably flawed (at least inevitably finite) juridical
50 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
thinking—or any kind of human-experience-based thinking—onto God, and then to take the resulting image of God as a model both for understanding
God's actions and for us humans to imitate, is simply bad theology;
it leads to bad, and sometimes to very bad, morality. CONCLUSION So, what can we do? Who, or what, can free us from this vicious circle?26 Few indeed are the mystically graced who, like Julian of Norwich, can see through the limitations in the theology of an Anselm and begin to speak with real knowledge and experiential wisdom about her all-loving, all-merciful God.27 The rest of us can only humbly—or at least with attempted humility, since humility is hard to maintain when one is indulging in the Schadenfreude of pointing out how so much previous theology has been wrong—attend to developments in the tradition that seem to point to a more authentically Christian understanding of atonement. The first two such developments that come to mind derive more from the East than from the West: apophatic theology and theosis. Apophatic theology reminds us that all our projections onto God are just that, faulty human projections, and that developing a theology from the implications of such projections can be devastatingly mistaken. Theosis reminds us that our salvation does not come about by any transaction
that can be adequately explained or imagined in human terms; salvation comes about by beginning to become one with the ineffable God. Good theology can proclaim that this "divinization" is what is actually happening to us, but it is at a loss to explain how divinization comes about. On this point, however, we can at least be grateful for a highly significant ecumenical theological convergence among recent Christian writers. Both the atonement critic Stephen Finían and the atonement redefiner Hans Boersma have, apparently quite independently of each other, concluded their books by pointing to iAeas/s/deification as probably the best possible solution to our Christian "problems with atonement." The final chapter subheading of Finlan's book is "5.2 Theosis"; the final section of Boersma's book is "Epilogue: The End of Violence: Eschatology and Deification."
28 But then two more thoughts come to mind, and these are gifts that the West can bring to the table. The first is the Western intellectual conviction 26 Notice the similarity to the aporetic cries of Paul: "What then should we say ... Who will rescue me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:7, 24). 27 See Joan M. Nuth, "Two Medieval Soteriologies: Anselm of Canterbury and Julian of Norwich," Theological Studies 53 (1992) 611-^5; Nuth, Wisdom's Daughter:
The Theology of Julian of Norwich (New York: Crossroad, 1991). 28 Finían 120-24; Boersma 257-61.
IMAGES AND IMITATION OF GOD 51
that humans are capable of true knowledge and right thinking. We must not, however, exaggerate this capability. It is in fact related to apophasis on the negative side, because it primarily serves to identify and eliminate what is bad theology. On the positive side, we can cautiously hope that our capacity for right thinking can also begin to point us in the right direction.29 The second gift that the West can bring is its modern development of critical biblical and historical studies. All the faulty theories of atonement that have developed in the Christian tradition have roots in this or that part or aspect of biblical revelation, but not in the whole of it. Modern biblical studies afford access to that whole; they provide an ability, not possible to earlier ages, to contextualize the different parts of that whole. In addition, all of the faulty theories of atonement that have developed subsequent to the Bible can also be contextualized, and thus deabsolutized, by locating them in their historical, intellectual, and cultural situations of origin. To sum up: (1) I have tried to show what bad theology of the atonement is. (2) I have claimed, but largely left it to the imagination of my readers to conclude, how bad theology of the atonement leads to bad morality. (3) And, I humbly admit, I have left largely undeveloped, at least in this article, what good theology of the atonement might be. Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy! Lord have mercy! 29 In an epoch we call "postmodern," it is countercultural to insist on our ability to attain true knowledge of things, to have assurance that some of the "great stories" can be truer than others, or that we have the ability to cull out at least some truth from a variety of "great stories."
^s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Review of: Joh, W Anne. Heart of the cross by GERARD HALL, S.M.
HEART OF THE CROSS: A POSTCOLONIAL CHRISTOLOGY. By W. Anne Joh. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Pp. 192. $24.95.
Theological Studies 68 no 3 S 2007, p 704-705. ISSN: 0040-5639. Related Record Number: ATLA0001599828
Review of: Joh, W Anne. Heart of the cross. 192 p. Louisville, Ky : Westminster John Knox, 2006.
While this study, through the use of postcolonial theory, poststructuralist psychoanalysis, and political-liberationist-feminist hermeneutics, provides insight into the theology of the cross, it achieves its distinctiveness as a narrative theology by its appeal to Asian/Korean American experience. Using Korean notions of jeong (agape, eros, filial love, compassion, empathy,
solidarity, relationality) and han (ruptured heart, original wound, world sorrow, personal and collective experience of alienation), Joh establishes
categories (and stories) with which she engages in a debate with traditional and contemporary theologies of the cross. Following Moltmann, J. wants to reclaim the cross as a "signifier of redemptive agency" (118), a claim she finds wanting in the writings of feminist scholars (100). At the same time, she stands with the feminist critique of "traditional interpretations of the cross" (118), a critique from
BOOK REVIEWS 705 which Moltmann's "hierarchical" trinitarian Christology is not immune (81). A new theology of the cross beckons. J. interprets the cross as performing a double-gesture: it pays homage to patriarchal concepts of power and obedience while it simultaneously subverts
these very same powers (76). Postcolonial theories—focusing on the politics of identity and difference, along with notions of "hybridity," "mimicry,"
and "interstitial third space,"—provide contours for presenting this double-gesture of the cross, an action that is profoundly subversive. Especially
productive in this discussion is Julia Kristeva's notion of the "abject" (Powers of Horror [1982]) for analyzing the dynamics of oppression. J. argues that "abjection on the cross has been haunting the edges of doctrinal theology" (92). For Kristeva, abjection and love belong together just as, for J., han and jeong are "two different sides of the same heart" (111). The subversive power of the cross is then found not in the obliteration of the abject (as in traditional theology), but in its return, mimicking and symbolizing
"the confrontation between the logic of love and the logic of violence" (114). If readers are left wondering where the redemptive power of the cross resides, J.'s final chapter seeks to answer this in terms of a Christology of jeong that is both personal and political. Jesus' own praxis of jeong is outlined with reference to the Buddhist concept of the no-self; indeed, "Jesus is awakened to no-self through jeong" (123). There is here, no doubt, a basis for developing a genuinely Asian Christology that juxtaposes rather than opposes han and love, or the cross and resurrection. This creative scholarship provides a Christology especially relevant to a world in which oppressed and oppressor, love and hate, self and other, are interpreted in oppositional categories that privilege patriarchal dominance in its various forms. As J. informs us, "jeong never collapses the space between the I and the other" (127). It retrieves the cross as a subversive power through which our modes of solidarity and relationality can be critiqued and even transformed. Although privileging the subversive power of the cross, J. also wishes to establish its postcolonial redemptive potential. To this end, conversation with contemporary theologians writing on the cross and redemption—such as René Girard, James Alison, Stephen Fin-Ian, and S. Mark Heim—would provide deeper grounding for her tantalizing,
if somewhat technical, thesis. Australian Catholic University, Brisbane GERARD HALL, S.M.
Theological Studies 68 no 3 S 2007, p 704-705. ISSN: 0040-5639. Related Record Number: ATLA0001599828
Review of: Joh, W Anne. Heart of the cross. 192 p. Louisville, Ky : Westminster John Knox, 2006.
While this study, through the use of postcolonial theory, poststructuralist psychoanalysis, and political-liberationist-feminist hermeneutics, provides insight into the theology of the cross, it achieves its distinctiveness as a narrative theology by its appeal to Asian/Korean American experience. Using Korean notions of jeong (agape, eros, filial love, compassion, empathy,
solidarity, relationality) and han (ruptured heart, original wound, world sorrow, personal and collective experience of alienation), Joh establishes
categories (and stories) with which she engages in a debate with traditional and contemporary theologies of the cross. Following Moltmann, J. wants to reclaim the cross as a "signifier of redemptive agency" (118), a claim she finds wanting in the writings of feminist scholars (100). At the same time, she stands with the feminist critique of "traditional interpretations of the cross" (118), a critique from
BOOK REVIEWS 705 which Moltmann's "hierarchical" trinitarian Christology is not immune (81). A new theology of the cross beckons. J. interprets the cross as performing a double-gesture: it pays homage to patriarchal concepts of power and obedience while it simultaneously subverts
these very same powers (76). Postcolonial theories—focusing on the politics of identity and difference, along with notions of "hybridity," "mimicry,"
and "interstitial third space,"—provide contours for presenting this double-gesture of the cross, an action that is profoundly subversive. Especially
productive in this discussion is Julia Kristeva's notion of the "abject" (Powers of Horror [1982]) for analyzing the dynamics of oppression. J. argues that "abjection on the cross has been haunting the edges of doctrinal theology" (92). For Kristeva, abjection and love belong together just as, for J., han and jeong are "two different sides of the same heart" (111). The subversive power of the cross is then found not in the obliteration of the abject (as in traditional theology), but in its return, mimicking and symbolizing
"the confrontation between the logic of love and the logic of violence" (114). If readers are left wondering where the redemptive power of the cross resides, J.'s final chapter seeks to answer this in terms of a Christology of jeong that is both personal and political. Jesus' own praxis of jeong is outlined with reference to the Buddhist concept of the no-self; indeed, "Jesus is awakened to no-self through jeong" (123). There is here, no doubt, a basis for developing a genuinely Asian Christology that juxtaposes rather than opposes han and love, or the cross and resurrection. This creative scholarship provides a Christology especially relevant to a world in which oppressed and oppressor, love and hate, self and other, are interpreted in oppositional categories that privilege patriarchal dominance in its various forms. As J. informs us, "jeong never collapses the space between the I and the other" (127). It retrieves the cross as a subversive power through which our modes of solidarity and relationality can be critiqued and even transformed. Although privileging the subversive power of the cross, J. also wishes to establish its postcolonial redemptive potential. To this end, conversation with contemporary theologians writing on the cross and redemption—such as René Girard, James Alison, Stephen Fin-Ian, and S. Mark Heim—would provide deeper grounding for her tantalizing,
if somewhat technical, thesis. Australian Catholic University, Brisbane GERARD HALL, S.M.
Jesus for You: A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology Lisa E. Dahill
Jesus for You: A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology Lisa E. Dahill
Trinity Lutheran Seminary
Currents in Theology and Mission 34 no. 4 (August 2007 ) p250 - 259
In a previously published essay I outlined how I see Dietrich Bonhoeffer's spirituality
related to his upbringing as a dominating, aggressive self and how naive reading of his work can prove disastrous when uncritically applied to people in very different
social locations, such as women in abuse.1 In the present essay I move on to explore how Bonhoeffer's strong Christology
in particular speaks to women in abuse and others with degraded self-conceptions. This essay derives from several overarching
questions having to do with Bonhoeffer's
own spiritual experience of Jesus Christ, his articulation of this experience in formal Christology. and the conversation arising when this Christology encounters people living in power relations different from those that shaped Bonhoeffer. So: What is the transformation Bonhoeffer
experienced in his encounter with Jesus Christ? What are the contours of redemption women trapped in the shadows of reality need? And how—both with and against the grain of his legacy—can Bonhoeffer's
Christology provide an authentically
Lutheran spirituality of transformation for people in social locations very different from his own? I attempt here to bring together into one conversation Bonhoeffer's Christology
and the psychological and spiritual needs of women in abuse. Such a specification
in no way limits the relevance of this inquiry to victims or survivors of abuse. But women in abuse represent an extreme instance of the selfhood that characterizes many women to some degree, as well as those men who have internalized familial or social rejection into the self-silencing, self-attacking submission characteristic of soluble selves. Thus, the essay may prove germane to central aspects of the experience
of a wide audience. We see revealed the recurring biblical motif of the paradoxical
and surprising centrality of precisely those persons regarded (by their oppressors,
by society, and even by themselves) as marginal, failed, invisible, or worthless. That the experience of battered women could shed new light on the teachings of the great Bonhoeffer in ways that prove illuminating
for many beyond themselves may seem improbable. Yet. were he alive today.
Bonhoeffer might be among the first to acknowledge the Christian mystery at work here: that attention to these bruised and bleeding bodies and spirits, despised and rejected by the powerful, both radically
contextualizes (or even subverts) the best wisdom of the wise, and in fact reveals 1. "Reading from the Underside of Selfhood:
Bonhoeffer and Spiritual Formation."' in Minding the Spirit- The Study of Christian Spirituality, ed. Elizabeth A. Dreyer and Mark S. Burrows (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2004). 249-66. Currents in Ttteology and Mission 3^ 4 (August 200 )
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 251 the very heart of God for the world.21 begin with an overarching critique of Bonhoeffer's
notions of the relation between self and other; this will make possible a more nuanced exploration of his Christology. Self and other Various scholars have commented on the striking other-orientation in Bonhoeffer, finding it a salutary Christian alternative to the self-indulgent pieties of American con-2. It is no coincidence that Bonhoeffer's love and grasp of this mystery deepens precisely as he himself moves into the place of the marginalized, the captive, the tortured—as he too learns the revelatory power of the "view from below" ("After Ten Years." Letters and Paper s from Prison [hereafter LPP]. enlarged edition, ed. Eberhard Bethge. trans. Reginald Fuller et al. [New York: Macmillan, 1971]. 17). Perhaps sensing his own imminent relegation to this position, but clearly growing in his sense of its central hermeneutical significance for Christians. Bonhoeffer wrote in this essay, shortly before his imprisonment, "We have to learn that personal suffering is a more effective key. a more [fruitful] principle for exploring the world in thought and action than personal good fortune." 3. See, e.g.. Wayne Whitson Floyd Jr.. Theology and the Dialectics of Otherness. On Reading Bonhoeffer and Adorno (Lanham. MD: University Press of America. 1988): Lori Brandt Hale, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Question of the Other," paper presented to the International Dietrich Bonhoeffer Society. Berlin, August 2000: Tierno Rainer Peters. "Der andere ist unendlich wichtig. Impulse aus Bonhoeffers Ekklesiologie fur die Gegenwart." in Die Präsenz des verdrängten Gottes: Glaube, Religionslosigkeit und Weltx er antwortung
nach Dietrich Bonhoeffer. ed. Christian Gremmels and Ilse Tödt (Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag. 1987). 166-84: Elias Bongmba. "The Priority of the Other: Ethics in Africa: Perspectives from Bonhoeffer and Lévinas." in Bonhoeffer for a New Day. ed. John de Gruchy (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerd-mans, 1997), 175-89: and David F. Ford, Self sumerism and privilege, and locating him within a developing tradition of philosophical
alterity manifest also in such thinkers as Adorno and Lévinas3 as well as in subsequent
liberation theology.4 From the beginning
of his writings Bonhoeffer identifies the "other" (whether divine or human) as the experienced locus of transcendence, drawing a person's attention away from one's own self as "totally claimless," sterile,
and isolated to find authentic life and and Salvation: Being Transformed (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999). which draws together themes of self and other from Lévinas, Jùngel, and Ricoeur: see especially the chapter ''Polyphonic Living: Dietrich Bonhoeffer.*' 241-65. An interesting subject to explore would be the shifts in usage between the (predominantly male) postmodern and/or Christian language of the newly "de-centered" self: feminist and other attempts to reclaim notions of "self-centering" for those who have traditionally struggled with all too fragmented selves: and Bonhoeffer's own key notion of "Christ the Center." developed most fully in his Christology lectures (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke [DBWq 12. ed. Carsten Nicolaisen and Ernst-Albert Scharffe-north (Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag. 1997). 279-348). A recent overview of these motifs especially in feminist writings, making prominent use of the image of the "center." is Lucinda A. Stark Huffaker. Creative Dwelling:
Empathy and Clarity in God and Self AAR Academy Series, ed. Barbara A. Hold-rege, no. 98 (Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1998). 4. On Bonhoeffer's importance for subsequently emerging liberation theology, see Gustavo Gutierrez. "Theology from the Underside of History," in The Power of the Poor in History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. 1983), 169-221: G. Clarke Chapman Jr.. "Bonhoeffer and Liberation Theology." in Ethical Responsibility: Bonhoeffer's Legacy to the Churches, ed. John D. Godsey and Geffrey B. Kelly (New York and Toronto: Edwin Mellen. 1981). 147-95: and Julio de Santa Ana. "The Influence of Bonhoeffer on the Theology of Liberation." The Ecumenical Review 28 (1976): 188-97.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology Ws hat for Bonhoeffer was the liberating experience
of surrender, joy, and solidarity with others
is for these women a grinding day-to-day suffocation. reality in surrender to the "absolute demands"
of the other.5 From the philosophical
categories of Sanctorum Communio. through the powerfully enacted surrender to Christ in Disciple ship and to the human other in confession and service in community
(Life Together), he continued to develop
this motif of the priority of the other over the self for Christian maturity. And at the end of his life, even as he was beginning to notice problems with this "unconditional surrender** of self to other, nevertheless the dominant tone of his writings in this regard is still that of the sheer joy and freedom he experiences in radical self-surrender, a process
simultaneously sacrificial and redemptive.
That is. in one's own becoming a "person for others** one participates in the very being and mystery of Jesus Christ himself, the consummate person for others. Thus for him a transformation of all human life is given in the fact that "Jesus is there only for others." His "being there for others" is the experience of transcendence. It is onh this "being there for others." maintained until death, that is the ground of his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
Faith is participation in this being of Jesus (incarnation, cross, and resurrection). Our relation
to God is not a "religious" relationship to the highest, most powerful, and best Being imaginable—
that is not authentic transcendence—but our relation to God is a new life in "existence for others." through participation in the being of Jesus.6 This statement from August 1944 could stand as a summary of his lifelong reflection
on and practice of the transcendence of the other and the transparency to Jesus Christ thereby disclosed. We find similarly moving reflections in these late writings on the relative place of the self as well, showing again how for Bonhoeffer this focus away from the self and toward the needs of others draws him into the heart of the paschal mystery itself: It is not the religious act that makes the Christian, but participation in the sufferings of God in the secular life. That is metanoia: not in the first place thinking about one ' s own needs, problems, sins, and fears, but allow ing oneself to be caught up into the w ay of Jesus Christ, into the messianic
event (Isaiah 53).. . living unreservedh in life's duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God. taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world—watching w ith 5. Bonhoeffer. Sanctorum Communio. ed. Clifford Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English (hereafter DBWE). vol. 1 (Minneapolis:
Fortress. 1998). 54. In language typical of the studies of Bonhoeffer and alterity. for instance. Hale writes. "Bonhoeffer . .. embraces the recognition that both divine and human otherness . .. genuinely transcend the subject, the "I"" ("Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Question of the Other." 4). Also, the Editor's Introduction to Sanctorum Communio asserts: "The other transcends the self in ethical encounter—indeed, the human You is a form and analog} of the divine You in precisely this present otherness. This personal-ethical model of transcendence ... is found throughout
Bonhoeffer's theology" (p. 5f.). 6. LPP 381.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 253 Christ in Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith: that is metanoia: and that is how one becomes a human being and a Christian (cf. Jeremiah 45 ! )." Clearly this is the way of life for him: and to turn away from it. in self-protective repudiation of the other, would mean a denial of Jesus Christ himself and thus of one's own authentic existence. For him, to the end, the overall shape of sin ultimately remained the same: the selfish denial of the transcendent claims of the other. Yet, as difficult as it is to dispute the Christian truth of these assertions, these faith statements emerge not from some universally valid human reality but from a specific psychosocial stance: that of the separative self, the traditionally socialized male. In contrast, Carol Gilligan*s studies at Harvard have revealed a very different configuration of human selfhood and reality.
In longitudinal studies of girls growing into adolescence, she and her colleagues noted pervasive problems having more to do with a silencing of oneself, and over-orientation to others* judgments, than with the ignoring of others that Bonhoeffer so feared in himself.8 As psychoanalyst Jessica
Benjamin asserts. The complement to the male refusal to recognize the other is the woman's own acceptance of her lack of subjectivity, her willingness to offer recognition without expecting it in return.. .. The female difficulty in differentiation can be described almost as the mirror image of the male's: not the denial of the other, but the denial of the self.9 Thus, while many Christian women throughout the past half-century have found powerful resonance with Bonhoeffer's prison writings, being drawn into participation
in the very being of Jesus through attention to the sufferings of God in others, even these lovely writings assume a stance all too familiar to women in abuse. For them, "being there for others** manifestly fails to redeem. It is not a window opening into the experience of transcendence. Instead,
this focus on others and their needs, desires, and demands to the exclusion of oneself is the shape of an excruciating life, indeed the pattern of sin.10 What for Bonhoeffer
was the liberating experience of surrender, joy, and solidarity with others is for these women a grinding day-to-day suffocation.11 Not taking one's own sufferings
seriously is for them the hallmark of 7. LPP 361f. (July 18. 1944) and 370 (July 21. 1944). 8 Cf. Lyn Mikel Brown and Carol Gilligan, Meeting at the Crossroads. Women s Psychology and Girls Development (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992). See also Gilligan et al.. Making Connections (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1990): Gilligan et al.. Women. Girls, and Psychotherapy:
Refraining Resistance (Binghamton. NY: Haworth. 1991): and Jill McLean Taylor. Gilligan. and Amy M. Sullivan. Between Voice and Silence: Women and Girls. Race and Relationship (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1995). 9. Jessica Benjamin. The Bonds of Love. Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination (New York: Pantheon. 1988). 78: emphasis added. 10 For an overview of contemporary Christian feminist thinking on the subject of sin. especially as to its characteristically female manifestations, see Mary Elise Lowe. "Woman Oriented Hamartiologies: A Survey of the Shift from Pow erlessness to Right Relationship." Dialog: A Journal of Theology 39/2 (Summer 2000): 119-39: and Brita Gill-Austern, "Love Understood as Self-Sacrifice and Self-Denial: What Does It Do to Women?" in Through the Eyes of Women: Insights for Pastoral Care. ed. Jeanne Stevenson Moessner (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1996), 304-21. 11. Bernice Martin. "Whose Soul Is It Anyway? Domestic Tyranny and the Suffocated Soul," in On Losing the Soul · Essays in the Social Psychology of Religion. ed. Richard K. Fenn and Donald Capps
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology ¿D-i daily life. It is what makes continued submission possible, but it is in no way a path to freedom and life in Jesus Christ. Quite the opposite: What feels liberating and lifegiving to Bonhoeffer merely seals the prison doors for his abused sisters in Christ. For them, what is revolutionary, breathtaking, and truly illuminative of reality
would be a spirituality that in equally compelling terms invites them to "be there for themselves*" and asserts that such unheard-
of presence to themselves is precisely
their means of participation in Jesus who is there for them. And what opens those prison doors for Christian women in abuse is the obverse of Bonhoeffer's. namely, to learn at last, perhaps for the first time in their lives, to cease denying themselves,
to take with ultimate seriousness the sufferings of God in their own flesh and hearts, and to tune out the overwhelming clamoring needs and demands of the abuser. I earlier suggested that Bonhoeffer. writing from the perspective of the separative
self, knew well the lonely emptiness and rages of the dominating ego manifested
in its extreme form in abusers. I suggested that this is the voice that needs to be "turned down" for both abusers and victims: for abusers or others in positions of privilege or dominance in learning to look away from their own egos and attend to others (here Bonhoeffer can be helpful to them), and for victims in learning similarly to look away from the abuser * s demands, to see and attend to themselves.12 In both cases, all attention is initially focused on the abuser's face and voice: in both cases, both parties learn to turn away from this and attend for the first time also to the victim—here, the woman as primordial "other**13—and find God there. The question underlying this shift is, therefore. What happens when the "other." the "non-self." is oneself? When soluble selves read Bonhoeffer. I suggest, they do not find their position reflected in that of the "self" he assumes but in the "other." Thus they must often learn to substitute "self" for "other"* and "other" for "self" in his writings in order to make the redemptive
move analogous to his—that is. in their case from focus on the abuser/other to focus on oneself.14 For women taught their entire lives that their goodness and survival depend on their focus on others and service to them. (Albany: SUNY Press. 1995). 69-96. Janet Jacobs explores the "endangered" self w ith particular attention to women suffering violence in "The Endangered Female Self and the Search for Identity." in The Endangered Self ed. Richard K. Fenn and Donald Capps (Princeton. NJ: Center for Religion. Self, and Society. 1992). 37-^6. 12 Cf. Dahill. "Reading from the Underside." To use the language of Sanctorum
Communio (65-80). the abuser needs to grow in the direction of the "openness" of the self toward others, while the abuse victim needs to learn to recognize and protect her own "closedness." 13 Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex (New York: Knopf. 1952). 14. For instance, in a 1932 essay Bonhoeffer writes (in English—the "man" language is his own): "Man "in" and 'after* the fall refer[s] everything to himself, puts himself in the center of the w orld. does violence to reality, makes himself God. and God and the other man his creatures" (DBW 10:425). A person reading Bonhoeffer against the grain, substituting "other" for his use of "self" categories
and vice versa, reads of the paradigmatic
sin of submission: "Woman "in" and "after' the fall refer[s] everything to the other. puts the other in the center of the world, does violence to reality, makes the other God. and God and oneself the other's creatures." The fact that such a sentence reads as an obvious overgenerahzation (how can one possibly speak of ""woman" as a single category?) highlights again the even greater magnitude of Bonhoeffer's original generalization intending to speak for all people (as ""man").
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 255 this shift in attention toward the self feels terrifying and impossible, if not downright un-Christian. We see how important, then, the development of a powerfully Christian alternative to spiritualities of self-renunciation
is, as well as the capacity for mature discernment of the sufferings and life of God courting our attention in any given context, even if those sufferings are one's own and not only those of others. For many women in abuse, "watching with Christ in Geibsemane" might turn out to have a great deal to do with learning not to turn away from oneself toward others but, contra Bonhoeffer,
to begin to take seriously their own sufferings, perhaps for the first time. I am suggesting that, for them, precisely that "is faith; that is metanoia: and that is how one becomes a human being and a Christian.'* The work of Christ As is well known, Bonhoeffer's spirituality is highly christocentric. A crucial element of any Christology is of course its conception
of Jesus* redemptive work.15 which Bonhoeffer treats under the heading of Stellvertretung, or "vicarious representative
action/" This term describes for him both Jesus* role and how Christians are to imitate him. Just as Jesus was the "person for others," so the Christian is to be a person for others, and "the church is the church only when it exists for others/'16 Christians are to be Christ's Stellvertreter (representatives) in similarly self-sacrificial
devotion to others: for Bonhoeffer, this is a central means of participation in Jesus* own cruciform life in the world. In a context where, by 1940, even the Confessing
Church was struggling for its own survival
rather than speaking out on behalf of the Jews and other Nazi victims, Bonhoeffer
considered such ecclesial focus on self-preservation a sign of badly skewed vision, a striking failure to discern and participate in the form of Christ in the world. It is precisely
this shape of Jesus* own life poured out for the world that underlies Christians' Stellvertretung and Bonhoeffer's risky move in solidarity with victims of Nazi evil into the conspiracy opposing Hitler. In his Ethics he writes, Jesus—life, our life—the Son of God who became
human, lived as our vicarious representative
[Stellvertreter]. Through him. therefore, all human life is in its essence vicarious representation.
.. . His entire living, acting, and suffering was vicarious representative action [Stellvertretung].
All that human beings were supposed to live, do, and suffer was fulfilled in him. In this real vicarious representative action, in which his human existence consists, he is the responsible human being par excellence. Since he is life, all of life through him is destined to be vicarious representative action.1" 15. The other primary heading of traditional Christology is the person of Christ. Although I do not develop this topic here, it is crucial as w ell for feminist appropriation of Bonhoeffer's spirituality. See my dissertation. "Reading from the Underside of Selfhood: Bonhoeffer and Spiritual Formation" (Princeton Theological Monograph Series [Pickwick Publications/Wipf & Stock], in press), chap. 5. section C.l. On Bonhoeffer's Christology generally see Hans-Jurgen Abromeit, Das Geheimnis Christi: Dietrich Bonhoeffers erfahrungsbezogene Ch'istologie. Neukirch-ner Beitrage zur systematischen Theologie, vol. 8 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991): Andreas Pangritz. "'Who Is Jesus Christ for Us Today?'" in The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. ed. John W. deGruchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999), 134-53: Harry Aveling. "Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Christology." Colloquium 16/1 (October 1983): 23-3θΓ^ John A. Phillips. Christ for Us in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: Harper & Row. 1967). 16. LPP 382. 17 Bonhoeffer. Ethics, ed. Clifford J. Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss et al.. DBWE vol. 6 (Minneapolis: Fortress. 2005). 258f.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffers Christology 256 Thus Bonhoeffer sees the primary significance
of the outpouring of Jesus" life in being a model for our lives of similarly devoted love toward others and action on their behalf. This allows him to restate at the end of his life themes first sounded in Sanctorum Communio. For he goes on immediately to \\ rite. "Vicarious representative
action and therefore responsibility is possible only in completely devoting one*s own life to another person. Only those who are selfless live responsibly, which means that only selfless people truly live."lb All we know about the very different context of women in abuse indicates that this Christology is not adequate for them. Selflessness and surrender. Christlike martyrdoms
in imitation of Jesus* suffering for and with others, only reinforce the cycle of abuse and are far from redemptive. The new translation of Stellvertretung may well use the term "vicarious representative action.**
but in regard to Jesus* work very little emphasis for Bonhoeffer falls on its truly vicarious nature. His interest is in developing the implications for Christians of their own vocation to Christlike action in the world. This is obviously in no way unbiblical: yet by his great emphasis on Jesus as essentially "for others," making us "persons for others** as well, he tends to overlook Jesus as. crucially, for me. The pro me-'ily of Lutheran christological spirituality
is not entirely absent from Bonhoeffer's
thinking, but it clearly takes a back seat. He seems to speak from a place already among the inner circle and is interested
then in how he, with Jesus, should relate to others. Again, this is to my mind an instance of Bonhoeffer's gendered tendency to locate
himself and his presumed audience as selves, rather than others. For those who have been forced into the "other** location, however, the description of Jesus as the person for others could read differently. That is. it could mean that he is fundamentally
"for me as an * other. * ** When Bonhoeffer
is read against the grain, when Jesus* focus on others turns out to include oneself. the significance of this other-centeredness of Jesus is not first that it requires one's own ongoing other-focus like his. Rather, for those who are "others'* it points out Jesus" great love of oneself, his embrace of one's own alienated or suppressed self through every dimension of his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus* unceasing devotion makes a person no longer merely "other** but a holy center able by grace to receive him and the outpoured life he offers. For women in abuse, then, a liberating christological spirituality of Stellvertretung must include the truly vicarious aspect of Jesus* life and death. Prior to any statements
about enacted responsibility toward others. Jesus is simply gift, "for me.** The full pro me-ilx of Jesus* attention enacts spiritually what the patient-focus of truly healing therapeutic relationships does psychologically:
both create the attentive and unwavering focus of transformative "holding
space.*'19 First and foremost, contra Bonhoeffer here, the life and death of Jesus are not merely a model to follow on behalf of others, keeping women (or anyone) continually
crucified and focused on their oppressors"
needs. Jesus* death is once and 18 Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259. The earlier translation used the language of complete "surrender" of one's self to another. The German
term here is Hingabe, or "giving oneself over" [to another person or reality]: dictionary definitions include also "dedication." "de\ o-tion." "sacrifice." or "self-abandon/ment." 19 On the image of "holding space." see. e.g.. D. W. Winnicott. "The Capachy to Be Alone." in The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment (New York: International Universities Press. 1965).
Dahill Jesus for } ou A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer s Christolog\ -O for all, completely vicarious in its redemptive
power. This death ends death and bursts forth into resurrection. These wounds heal wounds and do not inflict them. This One for others is. always, for me, and the blood and water flowing from his body, his heart, are meant to birth and nourish, not to justify continuing hemorrhage. Marginalized
and rejected. Jesus himself becomes "other** in solidarity with all "others,** in order to redeem each one for holy new self-centering. for conformation to one's own authentic being in him. for selfhood that is able to love in freedom and abundance. This is very far from the complete surrender of oneself that Bonhoeffer names as the heart of Christian Stellvertretung, the radical selflessness long associated with his courage and martyrdom and taught widely in his name. Yet. interestingly, in the very next paragraph of the Ethics, after Bonhoeffer states that Stellvertretung consists
of "completely devoting one's own life to another person.** he makes a striking assertion. For the first time in his published writings he posits two ways the relation between self and other can go awry: one may "absolutize either my own self or the other person."20 The first of these, of course, is the problem Bonhoeffer has deplored in himself for years, against which so many of his writings inveigh. But the second is new here and quite revolutionary. He is asserting
the equal dangers that can result from the absolutizing of another person—the very problem that befalls soluble selves. He goes on to assert that in this case the welfare of the other person for w horn I am responsible is made absolute w hile ignoring all other responsibilities. This leads to an arbitrariness
in my action which makes a mockery of my responsibility before God, who in Jesus Christ is the God of all people/1 Bonhoeffer is beginning to name the possibility that complete surrender to other people may actually not be such a good idea in all circumstances. That is. he suggests
that even "responsibility** can be taken too far if a single commitment or relationship
throws out of balance a person's obligations
to the full scope of his or her responsibilities, including (one might suggest)
one's own health, vocation, desires, conscience, and worth. This echoes the Harvard researchers* findings that just such an imbalance characterizes the lives of contemporary
U.S. adolescent girls, who learn to overvalue relationships (especially the romantic type) at the cost of connection to their own bodies, selves, and voices.22 20. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259: emphasis added. 21. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259. This sentence follow s his description of the evil that results from an absolutizing of one's own ego. which "leads to violation and tyranny" against others. The w ord translated "violation"
here is the German Vergewaltigung. which literally means "rape." Inm\ earlier essay I traced this use of the language of rape in Bonhoeffer to describe the sins of domination
he considers paradigmatic. 22. Cited in note 8. See also Lori Stern. "Disa\owing the Self in Female Adolescence." Women andTherapy 11/3-4 (1990): 105-17.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 258 Such an imbalance in favor of one overblown responsibility signals for Bonhoeffer
the neglect of one's ultimate responsibility
to God. who is the God of oneself as well as of the other person. Over-responsibility toward a particular person or situation therefore is a form of idolatry, attempting to set up an absolute principle (i.e.. an abstraction) and denying the ever-shifting concreteness of well-discerned vocation in every new situation. He goes on to say that, whether a person absolutizes one's own ego or another person, "the origin, essence, and goal of responsible life is denied in both cases, and responsibility [itself] has become a self-made, abstract idol."23 This is an important distinction to be heard among those for whom responsibility
has indeed become an idol, those whose devotion to an abusive other blinds them to the profound costs for themselves and others
of such overresponsibility and distracts them from the fearsome yet liberating necessity
of discerning God's call to them and their true responsibilities. In other places, Bonhoeffer's ethics of responsibility can sound like an echo of the self-abnegating focus on others that often marks women's lives, especially in situations of abuse. These words, therefore, come as an important
caveat that one's ultimate responsibility,
always, is to the living God. to whose call even the most central responsibilities must yield. And they make possible an embrace of responsibility that takes seriously
all the interwoven obligations and relations of a human life, learning to weigh them against one another in an ongoing process of balance and discernment according
to the ultimate responsibility of faithfulness to God. I have hypothesized that it was Bonhoeffer's
own movement out of safety and privilege that made possible his increasing awareness of the needs of the self toward the end of his life, along with the dangers of some of the more one-sided formulations of his earlier career. We see this in the passage above, where the responsible life of Stellvertretung comes into clearer focus late in his life within this new. broader awareness of abuses against both others and oneself. The same tentatively emerging
awareness appears in regard to the vicarious nature of Jesus" own suffering. In Bonhoeffer's last writing preserved before
his arrest, an unfinished circular letter to the scattered Finkenw aide community, he seems to perceive for the first time the danger of seeing Stellvertretung solely as a Christ-shaped model for our own parallel action: . .. we must guard ourselves against confusing ourselves with Christ. Christ endured all suffering
and all human guilt himself in full measure— indeed, this was what made him Christ, that he and he alone bore it all. But Christ w as able to suffer along with others because he w as simultaneous!}
able to redeem from suffering. Out of his love and pow er to redeem people came his power to suffer with them. We are not called to take upon ourselves the suffering of all the world: by ourselves we are fundamentally not able to suffer w ith others at all. because we are not able to redeem. . .. We are called only to gaze full of joy at the One who in reality suffered with us and became the Redeemer. Full of jo\. w e are enabled to believe that there was and is One to whom no human suffering or sin is foreign and who in deepest love accomplished our redemption. Only in such joy in Christ the Redeemer shall w e be preserved from hardening ourselves w here human suffering encounters us. and from becoming resigned under the experience
of suffering. Only to the extent w e believe in Christ, to the extent w e ... to Christ/-23. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259. 24. Conspiracy and Imprisonment. 1940-1945. DBWE 16. ed. Mark S. Brocker. trans. Lisa E. Dahill (Minneapolis: Fortress. 2006). 378. The letter breaks off at this point.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 259 A great myth that keeps people in abusive relationships is that the suffering endured is somehow holy, even redemptive,
in its Christlikeness. Bonhoeffer's reflections here are important in helping people release that misconception: Only Jesus is God, not I. For those struggling to love an abuser, these words can release them from the temptation to be the Messiah trying to redeem the beloved's agony by suffering it with or even somehow for him or her. Instead, Bonhoeffer gives permission
to let Jesus be the one to go deep into the abuser's heart and pain, for he is the only one whose mitleiden (compassionate shared suffering) can ever, however slowly and mysteriously, prove redemptive. This frees the partner to let go. to release the impossible responsibility of the other's salvation,
and to turn for salvation to this same com/passionate One. There a woman in abuse can meet at last the One who is truly present for her: and there she can begin, in time, to discern the deeper contours of her own authentic responsibility to herself, to others, and to God. I have argued that Bonhoeffer's implicit view of human selfhood and its characteristic
forms of sin, and thus his view of Jesus* redemptive work, emerge from a social location of privilege. He writes for those who, like himself, are in positions of dominance and whose sins are those of domination; for them. Jesus liberates from the tyranny of violation and frees them to take notice of others, to be ''persons for others** in sacrificial and transforming ways. Such configurations of self, sin, and redemption
are hardly universal. To preach them as such, even (or especially) in the name of Bonhoeffer, does incalculable damage
in obscuring the ways the Spirit might be desiring to move in persons whose selves and needs are very different. Because Bonhoeffer
is such an important Lutheran conversation
partner, I am committed to a more careful retrieval of his life and legacy. Using his own insistence on discernment anew in every new situation. I find him an incarnational Lutheran pray-er committed to resisting evil and helpful as a resource even against his own blind spots and those of the tradition. Bonhoeffer really is a treasure of our heritage. A reading that takes account of his biases, even as it appreciates
his gifts, will let his legacy shine with the liberating presence of Jesus Christ for our time as well. The term translated "suffer with" here is mitleiden, the verbal form of the German word for compassion. Mitleid. Bonhoeffer is creating a juxtaposition between leiden and mitleiden that is beautiful and crucial to his meaning. I originally translated mitleiden with "have compassion." This carries the implied connection to Af/f/e/d-as-compassion and also echoes the use oí Leiden (suffering) in Jesus" own Passion: so. "passion/compassion" for leiden!mitleiden. But this translation does not encompass the other primary, and more literal, meaning of mitleiden, nameh, "to suffer with." This carries Bonhoeffer's meaning better, that Jesus is the only one who can truly "suffer with" others because he is the only one who can redeem them. Our compassion, he asserts, while essential, is not able to reach the level of shared suffering that alone is redemptive.
^s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.
Trinity Lutheran Seminary
Currents in Theology and Mission 34 no. 4 (August 2007 ) p250 - 259
In a previously published essay I outlined how I see Dietrich Bonhoeffer's spirituality
related to his upbringing as a dominating, aggressive self and how naive reading of his work can prove disastrous when uncritically applied to people in very different
social locations, such as women in abuse.1 In the present essay I move on to explore how Bonhoeffer's strong Christology
in particular speaks to women in abuse and others with degraded self-conceptions. This essay derives from several overarching
questions having to do with Bonhoeffer's
own spiritual experience of Jesus Christ, his articulation of this experience in formal Christology. and the conversation arising when this Christology encounters people living in power relations different from those that shaped Bonhoeffer. So: What is the transformation Bonhoeffer
experienced in his encounter with Jesus Christ? What are the contours of redemption women trapped in the shadows of reality need? And how—both with and against the grain of his legacy—can Bonhoeffer's
Christology provide an authentically
Lutheran spirituality of transformation for people in social locations very different from his own? I attempt here to bring together into one conversation Bonhoeffer's Christology
and the psychological and spiritual needs of women in abuse. Such a specification
in no way limits the relevance of this inquiry to victims or survivors of abuse. But women in abuse represent an extreme instance of the selfhood that characterizes many women to some degree, as well as those men who have internalized familial or social rejection into the self-silencing, self-attacking submission characteristic of soluble selves. Thus, the essay may prove germane to central aspects of the experience
of a wide audience. We see revealed the recurring biblical motif of the paradoxical
and surprising centrality of precisely those persons regarded (by their oppressors,
by society, and even by themselves) as marginal, failed, invisible, or worthless. That the experience of battered women could shed new light on the teachings of the great Bonhoeffer in ways that prove illuminating
for many beyond themselves may seem improbable. Yet. were he alive today.
Bonhoeffer might be among the first to acknowledge the Christian mystery at work here: that attention to these bruised and bleeding bodies and spirits, despised and rejected by the powerful, both radically
contextualizes (or even subverts) the best wisdom of the wise, and in fact reveals 1. "Reading from the Underside of Selfhood:
Bonhoeffer and Spiritual Formation."' in Minding the Spirit- The Study of Christian Spirituality, ed. Elizabeth A. Dreyer and Mark S. Burrows (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2004). 249-66. Currents in Ttteology and Mission 3^ 4 (August 200 )
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 251 the very heart of God for the world.21 begin with an overarching critique of Bonhoeffer's
notions of the relation between self and other; this will make possible a more nuanced exploration of his Christology. Self and other Various scholars have commented on the striking other-orientation in Bonhoeffer, finding it a salutary Christian alternative to the self-indulgent pieties of American con-2. It is no coincidence that Bonhoeffer's love and grasp of this mystery deepens precisely as he himself moves into the place of the marginalized, the captive, the tortured—as he too learns the revelatory power of the "view from below" ("After Ten Years." Letters and Paper s from Prison [hereafter LPP]. enlarged edition, ed. Eberhard Bethge. trans. Reginald Fuller et al. [New York: Macmillan, 1971]. 17). Perhaps sensing his own imminent relegation to this position, but clearly growing in his sense of its central hermeneutical significance for Christians. Bonhoeffer wrote in this essay, shortly before his imprisonment, "We have to learn that personal suffering is a more effective key. a more [fruitful] principle for exploring the world in thought and action than personal good fortune." 3. See, e.g.. Wayne Whitson Floyd Jr.. Theology and the Dialectics of Otherness. On Reading Bonhoeffer and Adorno (Lanham. MD: University Press of America. 1988): Lori Brandt Hale, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Question of the Other," paper presented to the International Dietrich Bonhoeffer Society. Berlin, August 2000: Tierno Rainer Peters. "Der andere ist unendlich wichtig. Impulse aus Bonhoeffers Ekklesiologie fur die Gegenwart." in Die Präsenz des verdrängten Gottes: Glaube, Religionslosigkeit und Weltx er antwortung
nach Dietrich Bonhoeffer. ed. Christian Gremmels and Ilse Tödt (Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag. 1987). 166-84: Elias Bongmba. "The Priority of the Other: Ethics in Africa: Perspectives from Bonhoeffer and Lévinas." in Bonhoeffer for a New Day. ed. John de Gruchy (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerd-mans, 1997), 175-89: and David F. Ford, Self sumerism and privilege, and locating him within a developing tradition of philosophical
alterity manifest also in such thinkers as Adorno and Lévinas3 as well as in subsequent
liberation theology.4 From the beginning
of his writings Bonhoeffer identifies the "other" (whether divine or human) as the experienced locus of transcendence, drawing a person's attention away from one's own self as "totally claimless," sterile,
and isolated to find authentic life and and Salvation: Being Transformed (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999). which draws together themes of self and other from Lévinas, Jùngel, and Ricoeur: see especially the chapter ''Polyphonic Living: Dietrich Bonhoeffer.*' 241-65. An interesting subject to explore would be the shifts in usage between the (predominantly male) postmodern and/or Christian language of the newly "de-centered" self: feminist and other attempts to reclaim notions of "self-centering" for those who have traditionally struggled with all too fragmented selves: and Bonhoeffer's own key notion of "Christ the Center." developed most fully in his Christology lectures (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke [DBWq 12. ed. Carsten Nicolaisen and Ernst-Albert Scharffe-north (Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag. 1997). 279-348). A recent overview of these motifs especially in feminist writings, making prominent use of the image of the "center." is Lucinda A. Stark Huffaker. Creative Dwelling:
Empathy and Clarity in God and Self AAR Academy Series, ed. Barbara A. Hold-rege, no. 98 (Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1998). 4. On Bonhoeffer's importance for subsequently emerging liberation theology, see Gustavo Gutierrez. "Theology from the Underside of History," in The Power of the Poor in History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. 1983), 169-221: G. Clarke Chapman Jr.. "Bonhoeffer and Liberation Theology." in Ethical Responsibility: Bonhoeffer's Legacy to the Churches, ed. John D. Godsey and Geffrey B. Kelly (New York and Toronto: Edwin Mellen. 1981). 147-95: and Julio de Santa Ana. "The Influence of Bonhoeffer on the Theology of Liberation." The Ecumenical Review 28 (1976): 188-97.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology Ws hat for Bonhoeffer was the liberating experience
of surrender, joy, and solidarity with others
is for these women a grinding day-to-day suffocation. reality in surrender to the "absolute demands"
of the other.5 From the philosophical
categories of Sanctorum Communio. through the powerfully enacted surrender to Christ in Disciple ship and to the human other in confession and service in community
(Life Together), he continued to develop
this motif of the priority of the other over the self for Christian maturity. And at the end of his life, even as he was beginning to notice problems with this "unconditional surrender** of self to other, nevertheless the dominant tone of his writings in this regard is still that of the sheer joy and freedom he experiences in radical self-surrender, a process
simultaneously sacrificial and redemptive.
That is. in one's own becoming a "person for others** one participates in the very being and mystery of Jesus Christ himself, the consummate person for others. Thus for him a transformation of all human life is given in the fact that "Jesus is there only for others." His "being there for others" is the experience of transcendence. It is onh this "being there for others." maintained until death, that is the ground of his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
Faith is participation in this being of Jesus (incarnation, cross, and resurrection). Our relation
to God is not a "religious" relationship to the highest, most powerful, and best Being imaginable—
that is not authentic transcendence—but our relation to God is a new life in "existence for others." through participation in the being of Jesus.6 This statement from August 1944 could stand as a summary of his lifelong reflection
on and practice of the transcendence of the other and the transparency to Jesus Christ thereby disclosed. We find similarly moving reflections in these late writings on the relative place of the self as well, showing again how for Bonhoeffer this focus away from the self and toward the needs of others draws him into the heart of the paschal mystery itself: It is not the religious act that makes the Christian, but participation in the sufferings of God in the secular life. That is metanoia: not in the first place thinking about one ' s own needs, problems, sins, and fears, but allow ing oneself to be caught up into the w ay of Jesus Christ, into the messianic
event (Isaiah 53).. . living unreservedh in life's duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God. taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world—watching w ith 5. Bonhoeffer. Sanctorum Communio. ed. Clifford Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English (hereafter DBWE). vol. 1 (Minneapolis:
Fortress. 1998). 54. In language typical of the studies of Bonhoeffer and alterity. for instance. Hale writes. "Bonhoeffer . .. embraces the recognition that both divine and human otherness . .. genuinely transcend the subject, the "I"" ("Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Question of the Other." 4). Also, the Editor's Introduction to Sanctorum Communio asserts: "The other transcends the self in ethical encounter—indeed, the human You is a form and analog} of the divine You in precisely this present otherness. This personal-ethical model of transcendence ... is found throughout
Bonhoeffer's theology" (p. 5f.). 6. LPP 381.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 253 Christ in Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith: that is metanoia: and that is how one becomes a human being and a Christian (cf. Jeremiah 45 ! )." Clearly this is the way of life for him: and to turn away from it. in self-protective repudiation of the other, would mean a denial of Jesus Christ himself and thus of one's own authentic existence. For him, to the end, the overall shape of sin ultimately remained the same: the selfish denial of the transcendent claims of the other. Yet, as difficult as it is to dispute the Christian truth of these assertions, these faith statements emerge not from some universally valid human reality but from a specific psychosocial stance: that of the separative self, the traditionally socialized male. In contrast, Carol Gilligan*s studies at Harvard have revealed a very different configuration of human selfhood and reality.
In longitudinal studies of girls growing into adolescence, she and her colleagues noted pervasive problems having more to do with a silencing of oneself, and over-orientation to others* judgments, than with the ignoring of others that Bonhoeffer so feared in himself.8 As psychoanalyst Jessica
Benjamin asserts. The complement to the male refusal to recognize the other is the woman's own acceptance of her lack of subjectivity, her willingness to offer recognition without expecting it in return.. .. The female difficulty in differentiation can be described almost as the mirror image of the male's: not the denial of the other, but the denial of the self.9 Thus, while many Christian women throughout the past half-century have found powerful resonance with Bonhoeffer's prison writings, being drawn into participation
in the very being of Jesus through attention to the sufferings of God in others, even these lovely writings assume a stance all too familiar to women in abuse. For them, "being there for others** manifestly fails to redeem. It is not a window opening into the experience of transcendence. Instead,
this focus on others and their needs, desires, and demands to the exclusion of oneself is the shape of an excruciating life, indeed the pattern of sin.10 What for Bonhoeffer
was the liberating experience of surrender, joy, and solidarity with others is for these women a grinding day-to-day suffocation.11 Not taking one's own sufferings
seriously is for them the hallmark of 7. LPP 361f. (July 18. 1944) and 370 (July 21. 1944). 8 Cf. Lyn Mikel Brown and Carol Gilligan, Meeting at the Crossroads. Women s Psychology and Girls Development (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992). See also Gilligan et al.. Making Connections (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1990): Gilligan et al.. Women. Girls, and Psychotherapy:
Refraining Resistance (Binghamton. NY: Haworth. 1991): and Jill McLean Taylor. Gilligan. and Amy M. Sullivan. Between Voice and Silence: Women and Girls. Race and Relationship (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1995). 9. Jessica Benjamin. The Bonds of Love. Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination (New York: Pantheon. 1988). 78: emphasis added. 10 For an overview of contemporary Christian feminist thinking on the subject of sin. especially as to its characteristically female manifestations, see Mary Elise Lowe. "Woman Oriented Hamartiologies: A Survey of the Shift from Pow erlessness to Right Relationship." Dialog: A Journal of Theology 39/2 (Summer 2000): 119-39: and Brita Gill-Austern, "Love Understood as Self-Sacrifice and Self-Denial: What Does It Do to Women?" in Through the Eyes of Women: Insights for Pastoral Care. ed. Jeanne Stevenson Moessner (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1996), 304-21. 11. Bernice Martin. "Whose Soul Is It Anyway? Domestic Tyranny and the Suffocated Soul," in On Losing the Soul · Essays in the Social Psychology of Religion. ed. Richard K. Fenn and Donald Capps
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology ¿D-i daily life. It is what makes continued submission possible, but it is in no way a path to freedom and life in Jesus Christ. Quite the opposite: What feels liberating and lifegiving to Bonhoeffer merely seals the prison doors for his abused sisters in Christ. For them, what is revolutionary, breathtaking, and truly illuminative of reality
would be a spirituality that in equally compelling terms invites them to "be there for themselves*" and asserts that such unheard-
of presence to themselves is precisely
their means of participation in Jesus who is there for them. And what opens those prison doors for Christian women in abuse is the obverse of Bonhoeffer's. namely, to learn at last, perhaps for the first time in their lives, to cease denying themselves,
to take with ultimate seriousness the sufferings of God in their own flesh and hearts, and to tune out the overwhelming clamoring needs and demands of the abuser. I earlier suggested that Bonhoeffer. writing from the perspective of the separative
self, knew well the lonely emptiness and rages of the dominating ego manifested
in its extreme form in abusers. I suggested that this is the voice that needs to be "turned down" for both abusers and victims: for abusers or others in positions of privilege or dominance in learning to look away from their own egos and attend to others (here Bonhoeffer can be helpful to them), and for victims in learning similarly to look away from the abuser * s demands, to see and attend to themselves.12 In both cases, all attention is initially focused on the abuser's face and voice: in both cases, both parties learn to turn away from this and attend for the first time also to the victim—here, the woman as primordial "other**13—and find God there. The question underlying this shift is, therefore. What happens when the "other." the "non-self." is oneself? When soluble selves read Bonhoeffer. I suggest, they do not find their position reflected in that of the "self" he assumes but in the "other." Thus they must often learn to substitute "self" for "other"* and "other" for "self" in his writings in order to make the redemptive
move analogous to his—that is. in their case from focus on the abuser/other to focus on oneself.14 For women taught their entire lives that their goodness and survival depend on their focus on others and service to them. (Albany: SUNY Press. 1995). 69-96. Janet Jacobs explores the "endangered" self w ith particular attention to women suffering violence in "The Endangered Female Self and the Search for Identity." in The Endangered Self ed. Richard K. Fenn and Donald Capps (Princeton. NJ: Center for Religion. Self, and Society. 1992). 37-^6. 12 Cf. Dahill. "Reading from the Underside." To use the language of Sanctorum
Communio (65-80). the abuser needs to grow in the direction of the "openness" of the self toward others, while the abuse victim needs to learn to recognize and protect her own "closedness." 13 Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex (New York: Knopf. 1952). 14. For instance, in a 1932 essay Bonhoeffer writes (in English—the "man" language is his own): "Man "in" and 'after* the fall refer[s] everything to himself, puts himself in the center of the w orld. does violence to reality, makes himself God. and God and the other man his creatures" (DBW 10:425). A person reading Bonhoeffer against the grain, substituting "other" for his use of "self" categories
and vice versa, reads of the paradigmatic
sin of submission: "Woman "in" and "after' the fall refer[s] everything to the other. puts the other in the center of the world, does violence to reality, makes the other God. and God and oneself the other's creatures." The fact that such a sentence reads as an obvious overgenerahzation (how can one possibly speak of ""woman" as a single category?) highlights again the even greater magnitude of Bonhoeffer's original generalization intending to speak for all people (as ""man").
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 255 this shift in attention toward the self feels terrifying and impossible, if not downright un-Christian. We see how important, then, the development of a powerfully Christian alternative to spiritualities of self-renunciation
is, as well as the capacity for mature discernment of the sufferings and life of God courting our attention in any given context, even if those sufferings are one's own and not only those of others. For many women in abuse, "watching with Christ in Geibsemane" might turn out to have a great deal to do with learning not to turn away from oneself toward others but, contra Bonhoeffer,
to begin to take seriously their own sufferings, perhaps for the first time. I am suggesting that, for them, precisely that "is faith; that is metanoia: and that is how one becomes a human being and a Christian.'* The work of Christ As is well known, Bonhoeffer's spirituality is highly christocentric. A crucial element of any Christology is of course its conception
of Jesus* redemptive work.15 which Bonhoeffer treats under the heading of Stellvertretung, or "vicarious representative
action/" This term describes for him both Jesus* role and how Christians are to imitate him. Just as Jesus was the "person for others," so the Christian is to be a person for others, and "the church is the church only when it exists for others/'16 Christians are to be Christ's Stellvertreter (representatives) in similarly self-sacrificial
devotion to others: for Bonhoeffer, this is a central means of participation in Jesus* own cruciform life in the world. In a context where, by 1940, even the Confessing
Church was struggling for its own survival
rather than speaking out on behalf of the Jews and other Nazi victims, Bonhoeffer
considered such ecclesial focus on self-preservation a sign of badly skewed vision, a striking failure to discern and participate in the form of Christ in the world. It is precisely
this shape of Jesus* own life poured out for the world that underlies Christians' Stellvertretung and Bonhoeffer's risky move in solidarity with victims of Nazi evil into the conspiracy opposing Hitler. In his Ethics he writes, Jesus—life, our life—the Son of God who became
human, lived as our vicarious representative
[Stellvertreter]. Through him. therefore, all human life is in its essence vicarious representation.
.. . His entire living, acting, and suffering was vicarious representative action [Stellvertretung].
All that human beings were supposed to live, do, and suffer was fulfilled in him. In this real vicarious representative action, in which his human existence consists, he is the responsible human being par excellence. Since he is life, all of life through him is destined to be vicarious representative action.1" 15. The other primary heading of traditional Christology is the person of Christ. Although I do not develop this topic here, it is crucial as w ell for feminist appropriation of Bonhoeffer's spirituality. See my dissertation. "Reading from the Underside of Selfhood: Bonhoeffer and Spiritual Formation" (Princeton Theological Monograph Series [Pickwick Publications/Wipf & Stock], in press), chap. 5. section C.l. On Bonhoeffer's Christology generally see Hans-Jurgen Abromeit, Das Geheimnis Christi: Dietrich Bonhoeffers erfahrungsbezogene Ch'istologie. Neukirch-ner Beitrage zur systematischen Theologie, vol. 8 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991): Andreas Pangritz. "'Who Is Jesus Christ for Us Today?'" in The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. ed. John W. deGruchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999), 134-53: Harry Aveling. "Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Christology." Colloquium 16/1 (October 1983): 23-3θΓ^ John A. Phillips. Christ for Us in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: Harper & Row. 1967). 16. LPP 382. 17 Bonhoeffer. Ethics, ed. Clifford J. Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss et al.. DBWE vol. 6 (Minneapolis: Fortress. 2005). 258f.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffers Christology 256 Thus Bonhoeffer sees the primary significance
of the outpouring of Jesus" life in being a model for our lives of similarly devoted love toward others and action on their behalf. This allows him to restate at the end of his life themes first sounded in Sanctorum Communio. For he goes on immediately to \\ rite. "Vicarious representative
action and therefore responsibility is possible only in completely devoting one*s own life to another person. Only those who are selfless live responsibly, which means that only selfless people truly live."lb All we know about the very different context of women in abuse indicates that this Christology is not adequate for them. Selflessness and surrender. Christlike martyrdoms
in imitation of Jesus* suffering for and with others, only reinforce the cycle of abuse and are far from redemptive. The new translation of Stellvertretung may well use the term "vicarious representative action.**
but in regard to Jesus* work very little emphasis for Bonhoeffer falls on its truly vicarious nature. His interest is in developing the implications for Christians of their own vocation to Christlike action in the world. This is obviously in no way unbiblical: yet by his great emphasis on Jesus as essentially "for others," making us "persons for others** as well, he tends to overlook Jesus as. crucially, for me. The pro me-'ily of Lutheran christological spirituality
is not entirely absent from Bonhoeffer's
thinking, but it clearly takes a back seat. He seems to speak from a place already among the inner circle and is interested
then in how he, with Jesus, should relate to others. Again, this is to my mind an instance of Bonhoeffer's gendered tendency to locate
himself and his presumed audience as selves, rather than others. For those who have been forced into the "other** location, however, the description of Jesus as the person for others could read differently. That is. it could mean that he is fundamentally
"for me as an * other. * ** When Bonhoeffer
is read against the grain, when Jesus* focus on others turns out to include oneself. the significance of this other-centeredness of Jesus is not first that it requires one's own ongoing other-focus like his. Rather, for those who are "others'* it points out Jesus" great love of oneself, his embrace of one's own alienated or suppressed self through every dimension of his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus* unceasing devotion makes a person no longer merely "other** but a holy center able by grace to receive him and the outpoured life he offers. For women in abuse, then, a liberating christological spirituality of Stellvertretung must include the truly vicarious aspect of Jesus* life and death. Prior to any statements
about enacted responsibility toward others. Jesus is simply gift, "for me.** The full pro me-ilx of Jesus* attention enacts spiritually what the patient-focus of truly healing therapeutic relationships does psychologically:
both create the attentive and unwavering focus of transformative "holding
space.*'19 First and foremost, contra Bonhoeffer here, the life and death of Jesus are not merely a model to follow on behalf of others, keeping women (or anyone) continually
crucified and focused on their oppressors"
needs. Jesus* death is once and 18 Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259. The earlier translation used the language of complete "surrender" of one's self to another. The German
term here is Hingabe, or "giving oneself over" [to another person or reality]: dictionary definitions include also "dedication." "de\ o-tion." "sacrifice." or "self-abandon/ment." 19 On the image of "holding space." see. e.g.. D. W. Winnicott. "The Capachy to Be Alone." in The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment (New York: International Universities Press. 1965).
Dahill Jesus for } ou A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer s Christolog\ -O for all, completely vicarious in its redemptive
power. This death ends death and bursts forth into resurrection. These wounds heal wounds and do not inflict them. This One for others is. always, for me, and the blood and water flowing from his body, his heart, are meant to birth and nourish, not to justify continuing hemorrhage. Marginalized
and rejected. Jesus himself becomes "other** in solidarity with all "others,** in order to redeem each one for holy new self-centering. for conformation to one's own authentic being in him. for selfhood that is able to love in freedom and abundance. This is very far from the complete surrender of oneself that Bonhoeffer names as the heart of Christian Stellvertretung, the radical selflessness long associated with his courage and martyrdom and taught widely in his name. Yet. interestingly, in the very next paragraph of the Ethics, after Bonhoeffer states that Stellvertretung consists
of "completely devoting one's own life to another person.** he makes a striking assertion. For the first time in his published writings he posits two ways the relation between self and other can go awry: one may "absolutize either my own self or the other person."20 The first of these, of course, is the problem Bonhoeffer has deplored in himself for years, against which so many of his writings inveigh. But the second is new here and quite revolutionary. He is asserting
the equal dangers that can result from the absolutizing of another person—the very problem that befalls soluble selves. He goes on to assert that in this case the welfare of the other person for w horn I am responsible is made absolute w hile ignoring all other responsibilities. This leads to an arbitrariness
in my action which makes a mockery of my responsibility before God, who in Jesus Christ is the God of all people/1 Bonhoeffer is beginning to name the possibility that complete surrender to other people may actually not be such a good idea in all circumstances. That is. he suggests
that even "responsibility** can be taken too far if a single commitment or relationship
throws out of balance a person's obligations
to the full scope of his or her responsibilities, including (one might suggest)
one's own health, vocation, desires, conscience, and worth. This echoes the Harvard researchers* findings that just such an imbalance characterizes the lives of contemporary
U.S. adolescent girls, who learn to overvalue relationships (especially the romantic type) at the cost of connection to their own bodies, selves, and voices.22 20. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259: emphasis added. 21. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259. This sentence follow s his description of the evil that results from an absolutizing of one's own ego. which "leads to violation and tyranny" against others. The w ord translated "violation"
here is the German Vergewaltigung. which literally means "rape." Inm\ earlier essay I traced this use of the language of rape in Bonhoeffer to describe the sins of domination
he considers paradigmatic. 22. Cited in note 8. See also Lori Stern. "Disa\owing the Self in Female Adolescence." Women andTherapy 11/3-4 (1990): 105-17.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 258 Such an imbalance in favor of one overblown responsibility signals for Bonhoeffer
the neglect of one's ultimate responsibility
to God. who is the God of oneself as well as of the other person. Over-responsibility toward a particular person or situation therefore is a form of idolatry, attempting to set up an absolute principle (i.e.. an abstraction) and denying the ever-shifting concreteness of well-discerned vocation in every new situation. He goes on to say that, whether a person absolutizes one's own ego or another person, "the origin, essence, and goal of responsible life is denied in both cases, and responsibility [itself] has become a self-made, abstract idol."23 This is an important distinction to be heard among those for whom responsibility
has indeed become an idol, those whose devotion to an abusive other blinds them to the profound costs for themselves and others
of such overresponsibility and distracts them from the fearsome yet liberating necessity
of discerning God's call to them and their true responsibilities. In other places, Bonhoeffer's ethics of responsibility can sound like an echo of the self-abnegating focus on others that often marks women's lives, especially in situations of abuse. These words, therefore, come as an important
caveat that one's ultimate responsibility,
always, is to the living God. to whose call even the most central responsibilities must yield. And they make possible an embrace of responsibility that takes seriously
all the interwoven obligations and relations of a human life, learning to weigh them against one another in an ongoing process of balance and discernment according
to the ultimate responsibility of faithfulness to God. I have hypothesized that it was Bonhoeffer's
own movement out of safety and privilege that made possible his increasing awareness of the needs of the self toward the end of his life, along with the dangers of some of the more one-sided formulations of his earlier career. We see this in the passage above, where the responsible life of Stellvertretung comes into clearer focus late in his life within this new. broader awareness of abuses against both others and oneself. The same tentatively emerging
awareness appears in regard to the vicarious nature of Jesus" own suffering. In Bonhoeffer's last writing preserved before
his arrest, an unfinished circular letter to the scattered Finkenw aide community, he seems to perceive for the first time the danger of seeing Stellvertretung solely as a Christ-shaped model for our own parallel action: . .. we must guard ourselves against confusing ourselves with Christ. Christ endured all suffering
and all human guilt himself in full measure— indeed, this was what made him Christ, that he and he alone bore it all. But Christ w as able to suffer along with others because he w as simultaneous!}
able to redeem from suffering. Out of his love and pow er to redeem people came his power to suffer with them. We are not called to take upon ourselves the suffering of all the world: by ourselves we are fundamentally not able to suffer w ith others at all. because we are not able to redeem. . .. We are called only to gaze full of joy at the One who in reality suffered with us and became the Redeemer. Full of jo\. w e are enabled to believe that there was and is One to whom no human suffering or sin is foreign and who in deepest love accomplished our redemption. Only in such joy in Christ the Redeemer shall w e be preserved from hardening ourselves w here human suffering encounters us. and from becoming resigned under the experience
of suffering. Only to the extent w e believe in Christ, to the extent w e ... to Christ/-23. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. 259. 24. Conspiracy and Imprisonment. 1940-1945. DBWE 16. ed. Mark S. Brocker. trans. Lisa E. Dahill (Minneapolis: Fortress. 2006). 378. The letter breaks off at this point.
Dahill Jesus for You A Feminist Reading of Bonhoeffer's Christology 259 A great myth that keeps people in abusive relationships is that the suffering endured is somehow holy, even redemptive,
in its Christlikeness. Bonhoeffer's reflections here are important in helping people release that misconception: Only Jesus is God, not I. For those struggling to love an abuser, these words can release them from the temptation to be the Messiah trying to redeem the beloved's agony by suffering it with or even somehow for him or her. Instead, Bonhoeffer gives permission
to let Jesus be the one to go deep into the abuser's heart and pain, for he is the only one whose mitleiden (compassionate shared suffering) can ever, however slowly and mysteriously, prove redemptive. This frees the partner to let go. to release the impossible responsibility of the other's salvation,
and to turn for salvation to this same com/passionate One. There a woman in abuse can meet at last the One who is truly present for her: and there she can begin, in time, to discern the deeper contours of her own authentic responsibility to herself, to others, and to God. I have argued that Bonhoeffer's implicit view of human selfhood and its characteristic
forms of sin, and thus his view of Jesus* redemptive work, emerge from a social location of privilege. He writes for those who, like himself, are in positions of dominance and whose sins are those of domination; for them. Jesus liberates from the tyranny of violation and frees them to take notice of others, to be ''persons for others** in sacrificial and transforming ways. Such configurations of self, sin, and redemption
are hardly universal. To preach them as such, even (or especially) in the name of Bonhoeffer, does incalculable damage
in obscuring the ways the Spirit might be desiring to move in persons whose selves and needs are very different. Because Bonhoeffer
is such an important Lutheran conversation
partner, I am committed to a more careful retrieval of his life and legacy. Using his own insistence on discernment anew in every new situation. I find him an incarnational Lutheran pray-er committed to resisting evil and helpful as a resource even against his own blind spots and those of the tradition. Bonhoeffer really is a treasure of our heritage. A reading that takes account of his biases, even as it appreciates
his gifts, will let his legacy shine with the liberating presence of Jesus Christ for our time as well. The term translated "suffer with" here is mitleiden, the verbal form of the German word for compassion. Mitleid. Bonhoeffer is creating a juxtaposition between leiden and mitleiden that is beautiful and crucial to his meaning. I originally translated mitleiden with "have compassion." This carries the implied connection to Af/f/e/d-as-compassion and also echoes the use oí Leiden (suffering) in Jesus" own Passion: so. "passion/compassion" for leiden!mitleiden. But this translation does not encompass the other primary, and more literal, meaning of mitleiden, nameh, "to suffer with." This carries Bonhoeffer's meaning better, that Jesus is the only one who can truly "suffer with" others because he is the only one who can redeem them. Our compassion, he asserts, while essential, is not able to reach the level of shared suffering that alone is redemptive.
^s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Alexandrian school
Paona 3, 1724
Tuesday, Jun 10th, 2008
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex/I-Intro/chapter3.html
Church Web Site:
http://saintmark.com
E-mail:
General Information
Fr. Abraam Sleman
Fr. Markos Ayoub
Fr. Daniel Abdelmaseih
Postal Address:
427 West Side Ave
Jersey City, NJ 07304
U.S.A.
THE
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE SCRIPTURES
Allegorism was well established in Alexandrian Judaism, especially by Philo, who made a systematic use of it to bridge the chasm between the Old Testament revelation and the Platonic philosophy. Philo compares the literal sense of Scripture to the shadow which the body casts, finding its authentic, profounder truth in the spiritual meaning which it symbolizes. He does not want to depreciate or abolish the literal or the historical meaning, but looks to it as man’s body which merits the fullest respect.
The School of Alexandria adopted the allegorical interpretation of the Holy Scripture, believing that it hides the truth and at the same time reveals it. It hides the truth from the ignorant, whose eyes are blinded by sin and pride, hence they are prevented from the knowledge of the truth. At the same time it always reveals what is new to the renewed eyes of believers. St. Clement of Alexandria is considered the first Christian theologian (writer) who uses allegorical interpretation, giving a cause of using it in a practical way. He says that the Bible has hidden meanings to incite us to search and discover the words of salvation, which are hidden from those who despise them. The truth is in the pearls which must not be offered to the swines. His disciple, Origen, adds other justifications of using allegorical interpretation to the Scriptures.
Nevertheless a vigorous reaction against the Alexandrian allegorism made itself manifest in the fourth and fifth centuries. Its center was Antioch, which concentrated on the literal sense of the holy Scriptures.
As Kelly says, "It has been fashionable to distinguish different schools of patristic exegesis, notably the Alexandrian with its bias towards allegory, and the Antiochene with its passion for literalism."
ALLEGORY
The word "allegory," is derived from the Greek "alla," meaning "other," and "agoreuo," meaning "proclaim." It originally referred to a figure of speech that Cicero defined as a "continuous stream of metaphors." According to St. Augustine, allegory is a mode of speech in which one thing is understood by another. Allegory differs from the parable in its more systematic presentation of the different features of the idea which it illustrates, as well as in its contents which are concerned with the exposition of theoretical truths rather than practical exhortation.
ALLEGORY AND TYPOLOGY
The holy Scriptures use at least three kinds of allegory: figurative allegory, narrative allegory and typological allegory. St. Paul’s Ode to Charity (Corinthians 13) is figurative allegory. So is Wisdom, as she is presented in Proverbs 8. In some parables - those for instance of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 30-35) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) - the allegory is narrative. The most characteristic biblical form is the typological allegory, a New Testament exegetic method which treats events and figures of the Old Testament as combining historical reality with prophetic meaning in terms of the Gospels and the Christian Dispensation.
Modern distinction between allegory and typology stems from Antiochene criticism of Alexandrian allegory. For example, Jean Daniélou states, "It would be an entire abuse of language to include moral allegory with typology under the one heading of spiritual sense, as opposed to the literal sense: typology is a legitimate extension of literal sense, while moral allegory is something entirely alien: the former is in truth exegesis, the latter is not. Origen was the first to bring together these two interpretations in a forceful synthesis. But they are in reality two distinct approaches, artificially put side by side."
Some scholars distinguish "allegory," defined as a method in which earthly realities are interpreted symbolically to refer to heavenly realities, from "typology," in which historical reality is interpreted as foreshadowing another, especially the person and work of Christ.
The word "type," tupoi in Greek has its basic meaning, ‘something struck out; a print, impression of a seal.’ The seal is the New Testament event, which has struck out a prophetic impression of itself in the pages of the Old Testament.
J.N.D. Kelly gives a base for the distinction between allegory and typology, saying,
... the word (allegory) led to confusion even in the patristic age, and its accepted meaning to day denotes a somewhat different type of exegesis from typology. Since the fathers employed both typology and allegory (in its modern sense), the distinction between the two methods needs to be clearly brought out...
In allegorical exegesis the sacred text is treated as a mere symbol, or allegory, of spiritual truths. The literal, historical sense, if it is regarded at all, plays a relatively minor role, and the aim of the exegete is to elicit the moral, theological or mystical meaning which each passage, indeed each verse and even each word, is presumed to contain...
Typological exegesis works along very different lines. Essentially it is a technique for bringing out the correspondence between the two Testaments: a technique where the Old reflects the New, i.e. prefigures and anticipates the events and personages of the New. The typologist takes history seriously; it is the scene of the progressive unfolding of God’s consistent redemptive purpose...
Jean Daniélou also says, "The typology of the Fathers is based on the continuity which exists between the Old and New Testaments.
Allegory and the Jewish exegesis
According to Philo, the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures was practiced in Palestinian Rabbinical schools.
In Palestinian Jewish exegesis, allegory provides material for haggadah, the interpretation of non-legal passages of Scripture. An example of this Jewish allegorical exegesis is Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai's (ca. A.D 70) explanation that a robber receives a lighter punishment than a thief because the thief, by acting secretly, has contempt for God's oversight. Also the interpretation that unclean animals, such as the hare and the pig, refer to Greece and Rome.
Although Palestinian allegory is generally more restrained than Hellenistic Jewish allegory and careful in particular to maintain legal validity, Rabbi Akiba (ca. AD. 50-132) could interpret the Song of Solomon allegorically to refer to the love between Israel and God.
The Alexandrian Jew Philo, as we mentioned above, uses two kinds of interpretation, literal and allegorical, which he links to the Platonic concept of a dual world - one of which is spiritual and immaterial like God, an archetype and model, and the other world being visible and corporeal. In Philo's opinion the literal sense, the written word, is concerned with appearance, while the allegorical sense expresses only what can be seized by intelligence and leads directly to the truth.
John Dillon in the preface of the book "Philo of Alexandria" says, "Philo did contribute enormously, through the Christian thinkers of the Alexandrian School, to the tradition of spirituality both in the Western Europe and in the Eastern Orthodox world, and the magnificent intellectual tour-de-force constituted by his Platonizing allegory of the Pentateuch deserves recognition and honor."
Jean Daniélou, in his speech of the effect of Philo on the Alexandrian Didascalia, assures that the Alexandrian Fathers who adopted Philo’s method of interpretation, christianized it, giving it a Christological and more spiritual understanding. He says,
In his treatise on Paradise, Ambrose, who was much influenced by Philo, writes as follows: "Philo confined his attention to the moral sense, because his Judaic outlook prevented him from a more spiritual understanding." Spiritualia here denotes the Christological or typological sense, while moralia implies philosophical allegory...
This allegorizing of Philo will be adopted by that succession of Alexandrian Didascalia which will transform it into a Christian theology. Not that this will be, as with Philo, the only interpretation; but whereas, until then, typology was the only Christian interpretation, afterwards Origen, St. Ambrose and the Middle Ages will make use of allegory also...
A whole stream of Patristic tradition shows us the union of the Pauline typological "mystery" with the Philonian allegorical "mystery." While borrowing from Philo his principle, quite unexceptionable in itself, of a hidden meaning in the whole Bible, the Christian exegesis of Alexandria will give to these themes a meaning which is quite beyond the allegorizing of Philo. It will endow them with the whole mystery of Christ, who is truly the "fullness of grace."
Allegory and TYPOLOGY IN the New Testament
The term "allegory" is used by St. Paul in Gal. 4:24, "which things contain an allegory." Some scholars believe that he introduces the allegorical interpretation of the Law by the question "Is it for the oxen that God cares, or says He altogether for our sake?" (1 Cor. 9:10) does not necessarily mean that Paul, besides abolishing this particular law with his advocacy of the abrogation of the Law as a whole, also denies that this law was ever meant to be taken literally.
The New Testament uses allegory and typology. Here are some examples.
* The Gospels present our Lord Jesus using allegory as a rhetorical device in his own parables (cf. Matt. 13:18-35; Mark 4:12-20, 33-34; Luke 8:11-15), and the two witnesses whose testimony is true (Deut. 19:15; John 8:17-18). The majority of the New Testament parables are examples of prophetic and situational allegory, not involving typology.
* Our Lord interprets allegorically the brazen serpent (Num. 21:9; John 3:14) as a type of salvation by His Cross.
* The words of our Lord in Matt. 12:42 concerning the queen of the south reveals that our Lord uses allegory to speak of the Song of Solomon in terms of the mutual love of Christ and the Church. Solomon is a type of Christ, the Queen of Sheba represents the Church, as well as the New Testament authority for the interpretation is to be found in Matthew 12:42.
* In Matt. 12:40-42 we acknowledge Jonah in the whale’s belly as an allegory of the Descent into Hell and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus during Good Friday and Bright Saturday.
* St. Paul sees the relationship between the Church and the Synagogue prefigured in the story of Isaac and Ishmael. He applies allegory to the two mountains, Sinai and Zion, in Galatians 4:22-29. Hagar, Paul says, is a type of Mount Sinai, where Moses later received the Old Law, and so of the Jerusalem of his own day, the site of the Jewish Temple, and the center of the Jewish people and religion. Sarah is a type of the Heavenly Jerusalem of the Christian Church. The miraculous birth of Isaac typifies the virgin birth of Christ, as is further illustrated by the messianic quotation from Isaiah 54:I.
* Allegory is also applied to cleaning out the old leaven at the Passover to indicate the Christian community's purity (1 Cor. 5:6-8).
* Hebrews 8-10 interprets the Levitical sanctuary and sacrificial system as a temporary earthly manifestation of a heavenly reality revealed in Christ.
* In I Corinthians 10:6-13, St. Paul teaches that events mentioned in Exodus and Numbers, while the people of Israel wandered in the wilderness (Exod. 13:21-22; 14:22-29; 16:4,35), prefigure Christian sacraments. He further claims that such happenings are intended "typically" to forewarn Christians about the coming of Christ and the consequences of His ministry.
* In Romans 5:14 St. Paul suggests that Adam was a "type" of the Christ who was to come.
* The main Old Testament personages who typify aspects of the New Testament - ‘so great a cloud of witnesses’ - are listed in Hebrews 11. They are Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the Prophets. In this list we have a stage in the development of a new point of view, In the full Christian form, this sees history, not as sequence, but as process, directed from Creation and the Fall of Man towards the Incarnation and Redemption, and finally to Judgment Day. The ultimately significant events are concentrated into the few years of the earthly life of Jesus, the carpenter’s son from Nazareth. All history becomes a typology, whose meaning is to be assessed in terms of a single humble life which had apparently ended in ignominy.
Such explanations illuminate the New Testament idea that all incidents during the old dispensation predicted the major events of the career of Jesus Christ and of the early church, which relived them in a Christian sense. Most obvious analogies concern the flood and the ark, the liberation of the people of Israel from Egypt (the Exodus), the wandering in the wilderness, the crossing of the River Jordan, the later return from exile, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Actual historical episodes are seen to foreshadow later events not in a literal but in a spiritual sense; thus, the liberation from Egypt is paralleled in Christ’s freeing us from our sins. These types are perpetuated and enormously increased in the writings of the ancient Christian Fathers. Indeed, the Bible is ransacked to extract types regarded as fulfilled in the Christian dispensation, some of them absurd and farfetched...
The use of types in this manner may be said to have entered deeply into Christian prayer, worship, hymnology, and piety generally.
According to St. Augustine, the allegories which New Testament writers find in the Old Testament are not mere rhetorical figures but historical facts ("non in verbis sed in facto"); God, the true author of Scripture, foreordained certain facts recorded in the Bible in such a manner as to be, apart from historical reality, also a prophetic announcement of future events.
All the work of the prophets, which is of cardinal importance in the Old Testament, rests on a twofold movement; it recalls the great works of God in the past, but it recalls them only as a foundation for a faith in great works to come. The past is only recalled as a foundation for future hope. As God had set man in Paradise so must Israel wait to be brought into a New Paradise. This is precisely the essence of typology, which is to show how past events are a figure of events to come.
In the New Testament, we have four kinds of non-literal interpretations of Old Testament texts:
1. Interpretations dealing with predictions of the first coming of Christ.
2. Interpretations dealing with predictions of the second coming of Christ.
3. Interpretations dealing with the pre-existence of Christ.
4. Interpretations dealing with legal or moral matters.
We refer to these four kinds of non-literal interpretations as adventual, eschatological, pre-existential, and moral, respectively. All these non-literal interpretations are of the rabbinical midrashic kind; none of them is of the Philonic philosophical kind, except perhaps the pre-existential, which may reflect indirectly some philosophic view. Still, several instances of adventual, non-literal interpretation is explicitly described by the Philonic terms of allegory, type, shadow, and parable; undoubtedly it is only by mere accident that these terms are not used in connection with other instances of adventual interpretation, and also in connection with eschatological, pre-existential, and moral, non-literal interpretations. Thus, according to St. Paul, for a non-literal interpretation of a text of Scripture to be described by the Philonic term allegorical it is not necessary that it be philosophical. It is with these four kinds of non-literal interpretations found in the New Testament - adventual, eschatological, pre-existential, and moral - of which only some instances of the first kind are described by the term allegory or by the terms type, shadow, and parable, that the Fathers started on their discussion of the allegorical method.
Finally, it is worthy to note that even the Old Testament uses allegory. A whole book (Song of Songs) cannot be interpreted literally but allegorically. Also it is used in the Prophets, such as in Ezek. 27-32. Tyre is presented as a magnificent merchant ship, wrecked at sea, "The rowers have brought you into great waters; the east wind has broken you in the midst of the seas" Ezek. 28:26. The east wind is Nebuchadnezzar, who captured Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The Egyptian Pharaoh is the Nile crocodile, hooked and thrown out to rot on the desert. Also in the New Testament, there is the Book of Revelation, a connected series of visions, which cannot be interpreted except allegorically.
Allegory and TYPOLOGY IN the early church
Early Fathers such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian continued to use this method of interpretation which is found in the Epistle of Barnabas. Chapter 9 of the latter contends that in the dietary laws Moses expounded moral principles in a spiritual manner, but the Jews, being carnal, misunderstood them to refer literally to foods. Moses forbade eating pork in order to discourage associations with swinish people; that is, people who remember the Lord only when they are in need, are just like the pig which does not pay attention to its master while it is greedily feeding at the trough but squeals incessantly when it is hungry.
J. Daniélou states that primitive Christian tradition recognized two senses of Scripture, namely the literal and the typological. The latter is in reality a "Charistic," or "Christological" sense, having Christ in His totality as its object. He also states that there was at least five kinds of typological sense in early Christian literature:
1. Typology that aims at discovering the circumstances of Christ's earthly life in the Old Testament. This type of exegesis serves to characterize the Western tradition.
2. Typology, common to all the Fathers, which does not therefore bear distinctive marks of any particular current, scrutinizes the Old Testament with a view to discovering Christ there, not in the exterior circumstances of His earthly life, but in the mysteries which He came to accomplish.
3. Typology that concentrates on those features of the Old Testament which are figures of the Church's sacramental life; it is found in the sacramental catches and is particularly dear to the School of Antioch.
4. Typology which looks in the Old Testament for figures of the role that Christ plays in the souls of believers; it is in Alexandria that this typology is cultivated with special predilection. For this reason some scholars call the School of Alexandria, "the School of the Souls." This does not mean that the Alexandrian school ignored the sanctification of the body, but it concentrates on the ascent of the souls by the Holy Spirit to heavenly life while the believer still lives in this world, through the study of the Bible and worshipping God in his daily life.
5. Eschatological typology aims at discovering the traits of the Old Testament which are vestiges of Christ's glorious manifestation at the end of time. Daniélou notes that writers of Jewish apocalyptic literature favor this form of interpretation, without giving to it a Christological signification. Origen quotes many of them.
Although Marcion rejected allegory along with the Old Testament, allegory played a role in much of the biblical interpretations found in Gnosticism, which extended its use to the New Testament. Valentinus, for example, interpreted the woman in the parable of the leaven (Matt. 13:33-34; Luke 13:20-21) as the fallen aeon, Sophia; the three batches of meal as the three classes of human beings, material, psychic, and spiritual; and the leaven itself as the Savior. Valentinus' follower Heracleon interpreted the Gospel of John allegorically, presenting, for example, the "royal officer" of John 4:46-53 as the inferior Creator of the material world.
St. Clement of Alexandria believes that the Bible looks like St. Mary the Virgin who brought forth Jesus Christ and her virginity was preserved. Thus we discover spiritual meanings of the Bible, but its meaning is still virgin, as it has many hidden spiritual meanings. However, one must be careful not to exaggerate St. Clement's proneness to allegorism, for he tries not to abandon the historical sense of Scripture, as has often been done by some allegorical interpreters. St. Clement says once and again that the Scriptures do have a literal historical sense.
St. Clement of Alexandria distinguishes between literal, mystical, moral, and prophetic interpretations. C. Mondésert states that meditating on the text of the Scripture, St. Clement discovers at least five senses:
an historical sense;
a doctrinal sense;
a prophetic signification;
a philosophical sense;
and a mystical sense.
Allegory is developed and carried to excess by Origen. He believes that the Logos, the heavenly Groom, is present under the accidents of the Scriptures as Food, Educator and Groom for the soul. "I will endeavor to show," he says, "what the accepted methods of interpretation are, and therefore I will follow the rule which has always been used in Jesus Christ’s heavenly Church since the time of the apostles. According to him, the words of the Scriptures should be printed in the soul in one of three ways:
1- The simple people or the uneducated should be edified by the letter itself, which we call the obvious meaning or the straightforward historical sense. Origen himself is the foremost biblical scholar of antiquity and by no means ignores the literal meaning or the importance of history, when he thinks that one existed, he considers it inferior to the spiritual. Nearly all would have agreed with the fourth-century Didymus the Blind, who was influenced by Origen, that "in fact it is impossible to understand the spiritual or elevated thought without the shadow, which is the letter, or without the preliminary propaedeutic sciences." Origen interprets the past in terms of present faith in Christ, and he shares a tradition which is concerned with spirit rather than letter. The inner spiritual mysteries are concerned with the present: hodie, etiam hodie. The spiritual meaning of the law is found only in the mystery of the Cross and of the Church. The Gospels are chiefly concerned with present spiritual realities and point to the eternal gospel, to the time of the parousia when those who have lived according to the spirit on earth, 'will live in the kingdom of heaven according to the laws of the eternal gospel'. History remains the starting point for our ascent to the mystery, because it shows God's condescension, economy, providence and instruction. Law and prophets come together in Christ. The spiritual realities to which both testaments point are the Cross, the resurrection, and the kingdom of heaven; they are not Platonic forms or Gnostic aeons.
Literalism did not mean a blind acceptance of whatever was written in the Bible but the acceptance of the Law as meaningful in everyday life. To prove his point, De Lange also offers five examples of Origen’s indebtedness to Rabbinical sources.
Origen prefaces the Homilies on Leviticus with an example of how foolish following the literal meaning would be. If taken literally, the entire book of Leviticus would require Christians "to sacrifice calves and lambs and to offer fine wheat flour with incense and oil." In the same passage he calls those who insist on a literal meaning "wicked presbyters." He is quick to mention those passages which present particular difficulties. In replying to critics of his allegorical method of interpretation, Origen claims that the letter of the gospel kills. In addition literal teaching also can hinder the work of the Church.
Jean Daniélou gives an example of Origen’s interest in the literal and historical meaning, saying,
The second Homily on Genesis is a basic text for our purpose. We shall see how Origen both echoes tradition as he knew it and develops the historical outline in which he discusses difficulties raised against the veracity of the story of the Flood, in particular the very limited size of the ark to contain so many species of animals. Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, ironically remarked that it could hardly hold four elephants. Origen sets out to answer this difficulty. This is an important point, for we see that he does not dream of contesting the historicity of the event but falls back on a symbolic interpretation. He lays down first the literal meaning of the text with the help of all the sources at his command. Then only does he pass on to the allegorical meaning. The story of the ark is not, then, just symbolical . There was a real ark which did once float on the waters, typifying the Church of the future, escaping from the flames of the great conflagration to come. Origen is here more literal than many of the literal exegetes of our own day, a point which Pére de Lubac has made clear in his introduction to the Homilies sur la Genese.
Sometimes Origen denies the literal meaning. For example he says, "Could any man of sound judgment suppose that the first, second and third days (of creation) had an evening and a morning, when there were as yet no sun or moon or stars? Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head? When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are only fictions, stories of things that never actually happened, and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries." It is the same with the New Testament text which says that Satan took Jesus up a high mountain from which he could see all the kingdoms on earth. So much for the impossible and its symbolical interpretation.
2- People at the higher level should find edification for their souls through the moral meaning, or the lessons of the texts for the will. Jean Daniélou says "it might be said that Origen took from Philo the idea of looking to Scripture for allegories applying to the moral life. This is particularly evident at the beginning of the homilies on Genesis, where the whole of creation is regarded as an allegory of the soul, as the macrocosm of the microcosm. Man and woman are the two parts of the soul. If they are in harmony they have children, i.e., good impulses. The fish, birds, and beasts over which man reigns are the acts proceeding from the heart and soul (the birds) and the desires of the body and movements of the flesh (the fish and the beasts). All this is based on Philo."
In the Homilies on Leviticus, there are several instances of where this moral meaning is emphasized. The moral sense of Scripture speaks to the reason of a person. Reason is the ability to distinguish between good and evil. By offering holy doctrine from God’s word, the priest appeals to the moral sense of his hearers and thus cleanses their consciences.
According to De Lange’s conclusion, commenting on the wider body of Origen’s writing, that "the "moral" sense is not clearly undistinguished from the third [the spiritual]," is undoubtedly correct. Therefore, the second and third levels of meaning in Scripture are closely related in Origen’s understanding.
3- The perfect should be edified by the mystical or spiritual sense in relation to Christ, or the spiritual Law, as it contains the shadow of the blessings to come. Origen's real interest is the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture. "The priest," Origen said explaining Leviticus 1:6 (which mentions skinning the carcass of a sacrificial animal)."is the one who removes the veil of the letter from God's word and bares the members within , which are the elements of a spiritual understanding." For Origen the allegorical meaning is not hard, as he says, "The spiritual interpretation, however, is not so difficult and hard to come by. For the Bride of the Word, the soul who abides in His royal house - that is, in the Church - is taught by the Word of God, who is her Bridegroom, whatsoever things are stored and hidden within the royal court and in the King's chamber."
He recognizes that, as man is composed of body, soul and spirit, in the same way the structure of the Scripture has been planned by God for man's salvation, i.e., the literal, moral, and spiritual senses.
For example, Origen finds in the ark of Noah a materialization to his theory, as it was built of three stages. "In thus ascending by the various stages of accommodation, we arrive at Noah himself, whose name means ‘rest’ and ‘righteous,’ which is Jesus Christ."
a. The bottom serves as the foundation which refers to the literal or the historical explanation of Scripture.
b. The higher is the spiritual or the mystical. In his homilies on the Genesis, he says, "Those who live according to the dictates of the knowledge of the Spirit, and are capable not only of governing themselves, but of instructing others, because they are few in number, are typified by the small number of those saved with Noah, as Jesus Christ, the true Noah, has few who are close to him in relation and intimacy to share in his word and understand wisdom.
c. The middle represents the moral one.
The Scriptures must be interpreted spiritually because they are the work of the Spirit, who unites them in one book, and inspires both writer and reader.
According to Origen the understanding of the Scripture is "the art of arts," and "the science." The words of the Scripture are its body, or the visible element, that hides its spirit, or the invisible element. The spirit is the treasure hidden in a field: hidden behind every word, every letter but even behind every iota used in the written word of God. Thus "every thing in the Scripture is mystery."
This spiritual understanding of the Scripture is a grace given to the perfect believers by Christ. For only those who have the Spirit of Jesus can understand their spiritual meaning, i.e., to enter this chamber of eternal marriage between Christ and the soul.
We obtain this grace through praying, as we must weep and beg the Lord to open our inner eyes like the blind man sitting by the roadside at Jericho (Mat. 20:30). Origen says that we must pray for we are often beside the wells of running water-God's Scripture-and we yet fail to recognize them by ourselves.
Every time Moses is read to us, We should pray to the Father of the Word that the words of psalm: "open my eyes: and I will consider the wondrous things of Your law" (Ps. 118:8) may apply in our case too. Unless he opens our eyes himself, how can we see what great mysteries were wrought in the patriarchs, mysteries variously signified by the images of night, marriage and birth?
The Alexandrian theologians who followed him, from St. Dionysius to St. Cyril, are all to a greater or lesser extent infected with the predilection for allegory; and the same can be said of the Palestinian (Epiphanius was a notable exception) and Cappadocian Fathers.
The School of Antioch came on the scene comparatively late. It had a vigorous reaction against allegorism. Though not completely rejecting allegorical interpretation, used it very sparingly preferring the historical sense.
Through the influence of the Alexandrian theologians the tradition of allegory passed to the West, and is visible in the expository writings, for example, of St. Hillary and St. Ambrose. The greatest of Latin exegetes, St. Jerome, though in his later days he became suspicious of allegorism, accepted Origen’s three senses of Scripture, deeming that recourse to the spiritual meaning was made necessary by the anthropomorphism’s inconsistencies and incongruities with which the Bible abounded. St. Augustine employs allegory with the greatest freedom, delighting particularly in the mystical significance of names and numbers. St. John Cassian, following St. Clement of Alexandria, establishes the division which re-distinguishes four senses, viz. the literal, the allegorical (applying passages to Christ and the Church Militant), the typological or moral (understanding of the soul and its virtues), and the analogical (applying passages to heavenly realities).
THE ALEXANDRIANS' JUSTIFICATIONS OF ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
As we have already said, St. Clement believes that allegory incites believers to discover the hidden meanings of the Scripture. Alexander Kerrgan says,
Much agreement reigns among the older Alexandrians in regard to the raison d'etre of the spiritual sense. Clement, who was primarily a moralist and an educator, is inclined to emphasize its pedagogical value: the symbols which intimate it pique curiosity and stimulate the mind to discover the words of salvation.
Other scholars state that the biblical authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, used allegory to keep simple Christians from doctrines they are not mature enough to handle and piques the curiosity of the more intelligent and spiritually advanced. Finding the deeper meaning is thus the process by which God gradually leads those to whom He would reveal himself from the sensible to the intelligible world. In this way the genuine gnostic, pondering the obscurer passages of the Bible, takes flight from this world to the other and becomes like God.
Origen discusses two problems which the early Church faced, concerning the Old Testament:
1. The Jews, who stick to the letter of the prophecies of the Old Testament, were expecting that the Messiah would fulfill them literally, such as He must be their King who reigns over the whole world. Therefore, they refused Jesus as the true Messiah, because He does not literally promise the release of captives (Isa. 61:1, rebuild what they take to be the true "City of God," destroy the chariots of Ephraim and the horses of Jerusalem (Zach. 9:10) or eat milk and honey (Isa. 7:22). They could not acknowledge Him as Lord, for they did not see the wolf and the lamb feed together (Isa. 65:25), leopard be at ease with kid, or calf, lion and sheep led together to pasture (Isa. 11:7). Nicolas De Lange states, "It is no exaggeration to say that, for Origen, the whole of the debate between the Church and the Synagogue can be reduced to the one question of an interpretation of the Scriptures. ‘Jesus is the Son of God who gave the law and the prophets,’ and ‘the religion of Moses and the prophetic writings form the introduction to the faith of Christians;’ Christianity is thoroughly rooted in the Jewish Bible. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is that the Christians perceive the mysteries which are only hinted at in the Bible, whereas the Jews are only capable of strictly literal reading of the text."
"Both Jews and Christians," Origen says, "believe that the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit, but we disagree about the interpretation of what is contained in it. Nor do we live like the Jews, since we consider that it is not the literal interpretation of the law which contains the spirit of the legislation."
Elsewhere he says, "We in the Church do not overlook the fact that Jesus is the Son of God who gave the law and the prophets, but while we have avoided the mythologies of the Jews we derive practical wisdom and education from the mystical contemplation of the law and the prophets." Origen often speaks of "Jewish Mythology," a phrase borrowed from Titus 1:14, and he describes the Jewish mythology as "useless" and "fetid." There is no doubt that he means by "Jewish myths" the literal interpretations of the law, indeed "Jewish" can be used simply as a synonym for "literal," but this is an exaggerated and one sided characterization of the Jewish attitude, which is presented as a contrast to Origen’s own, richer interpretation. Indeed, its use is not confined to Jews; he can even apply it to Christians who adopt what is to him a narrow view of the meaning of Scripture.
Origen says, "If therefore both the Lord and God are "Spirit," we ought to hear spiritually those things which the Spirit says."
2. The Gnostics rejected the Old Testament, for they were scandalized by some passages which refer to God as being angry, or that He regretted or changed His mind. They were scandalized because they interpreted them literally and not spiritually. Origen suggests that allusions to anthropomorphism, such as God's anger, are not to be understood literally. "If you hear of God's anger and wrath, do not think of wrath and anger as emotions experienced by God." God is simply accommodating human language to serve the purpose of correcting human faults, as a human father corrects a child. "We too put on a severe face for correcting children, not because that is our true feeling but because we are accommodating ourselves to their level. If we let our kindly feelings show in our face ... we spoil the child." But God is not really wrathful or angry, yet we experience the effects of wrath when we find ourselves in trouble on account of our wickedness, which is the discipline of the "so-called wrath of God."
In Jos. hom 9:8 Origen expresses his position with regard to the Old Testament quite admirably. It represents a system which is done away with. Yet the Church, unlike the Gnostics, does not reject it; she preserves it, simply because it contains the type of Christ. But carnal man, the slave of the letter, is incapable by himself of deciphering this type of Christ. Christ Himself must grant that spiritual understanding by bestowing His own Spirit. This is the reason why a spiritual exegesis is so closely linked with the ideal of a spiritual perfection. "Jesus it is who reads the Law, when he reveals the secrets of the Law. We, who belong to the Catholic Church, do not reject the Law of Moses, but receive it if and when it is Jesus who reads it to us. For it is only if Jesus reads the Law in such wise that through his reading we grasp its spiritual significance, that we correctly understand the Law. Do not think they have grasped the meaning who could say: Was not our heart burning within us when he opened to us the Scriptures, and, beginning at Moses and the Prophets and expounding them all showed that they wrote of him." By linking Joshua’s reading of the Law with Jesus’ reading to the disciples of Emmaus, Origen gives us an exegesis of the Matthew type, which is not usual with him, yet which emphasizes the profound continuity of the Old Testament, the Gospel and the interior Christ who instructs each Christian.
Origen sees that these two groups of people (the Jews and the Gnostics) misinterpreted the Scripture as they held the literal sense exclusively. For this reason he set his theory that there are three various meanings in the Scriptures, the literal, the moral and spiritual meanings.
Alexander Kerrgan writes,
Both he and Origen allude to a reason that is invoked by profane exegetes in justification of the allegorical interpretation of the Homeric poems: the purpose of the higher sense is to explain and transmit Scripture in a manner that is worthy of God.
Origen dwells at length on a third reason: the spiritual sense is justifiable on the grounds that the institutions of the Old Testament prefigured Christ. "In what is written in the law," he writes, "everything is either a figure or an enigma of Christ." The spiritual sense, accordingly, is the expression of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New; it aims at discovering the connections that exist between them. This principle is known to Clement but he invokes it rarely. (As we shall see presently) it is a cardinal principle of St. Cyril’s exegetical method. (We have already noted that) St. Cyril regards the spiritual sense as a hinge on which his theory of the identity of both Testaments hangs. He expresses his views on this point for the first time during a discussion in which he endeavors to harmonize the implications of texts like Mt. 5,17 f. and Phil. 3, 7-9 (which imply that the Mosaic law is still in force) with those of John. 4, 21-24, Gal. 5, 4 f., Heb. 7,18f., 8, 7-10 and 13 (which imply that the law is abolished).
In dealing with St. Cyril's views, Kerrgan further writes,
Three conclusions are reached which, though formulated negatively, are quite positive in their contents:
1. It is a mistake to hold that the law has been abolished to the extent that none of its prescriptions have any force.
2. It is likewise a mistake to think that it is altogether useless; (ta anayxaia), if they are explained, they are still useful.
3. Finally, it is erroneous to claim that the law cannot be used as a proof of the truth.
Three reasons are adduced in support of these conclusions:
1. "the law is a type, shadow, or form of religion that brings forth in childbirth, as it were, the beauty of the truth which is hidden inside."
2. "The law is a teacher that leads beautifully to the mystery concerning Christ."
3. "The law contains the first elements of God's words."
Kerrgan also writes,
On these biblical foundations the Patriarch of Alexandria (St. Cyril) builds his theory of the higher sense of Scripture. We must not lose sight of the fact that this higher sense is primarily a mode of utterance existing in the Scriptures themselves. A few quotations will illustrate this point. "The law brings forth spiritual things in its depths, as it were, and contains the meaning of more subtle ideas in delicate shadows." With regard to the prophecy of Aggeus, Cyril writes: "His discourse is mixed. And the mystical (Sophia) befitting spiritual things is buried in the deeds and utterances of history." "Great spiritual wealth," our author remarks elsewhere, "was pounded into the Mosaic oracles."
Of course, in order that these riches be unearthed, the literal sense must necessarily be superseded. On this subject St. Cyril, apparently, can never say too much." The law is perfect and imperfect at one and the same time. It is perfect, if it is understood spiritually (since it speaks to us of Christ's mystery). But it is imperfect, if the mind of those who are being instructed does not go beyond the letter. The crudity of the letter is only half-knowledge." In another place the Patriarch states that the law, considered precisely as a system of types and shadows, did not constitute food which could be eaten; to become food, it needed to be transformed into an evangelical Sophia and then deflected towards Christ's mystery. Quoting Lev. 19, 23f he endeavors to give a somewhat more artistic finish to these ideas. "...The writings of Moses, since they yield a variegated growth of oracles and are adorned with trees (namely laws concerning each single thing) seem to us to be like most fertile gardens. But you must purify the impurity of each tree, that is to say, you must cut off the worthlessness of history and remove the woodiness of the letter. Then you may reach the heart of the plant, you may investigate the interior fruit of the oracle and make food of it."
Ideas like these St. Cyril hears again and again. The saying of St. Paul "the letter kills but the spirit vivifies" 2 Cor. 3:6 is frequently invoked and made a universal norm. Just one quotation more: "For the letter kills, that is to say, the letter of the law as the wise Paul says. Of itself the shadow is useless. But in regard to us , who understand, the shadow has become most useful, since it enables us to grasp the things of Christ. It has become, as it were, a kind of spiritual rain which irrigates the earth in a certain fashion. If it is true that the ancient law was bitter and unbearable for the ancients, it has become for us a Paidagogos to Christ's mystery, so that we can bring forth fruit in him, by peeling off the thickness of the shadow."
THE ANTIOCHENE REACTION
There was a reaction against allegorism in Antioch, the ecclesiastical metropolis of Syria, where a tradition of Bible study, with meticulous attention to the text, had been fostered since the days of Lucian of Antioch (martyred A.D 312).
The beginnings of the school of Antioch seem to have been very modest; it never could boast a head like Origen. It was not a regular institution with a continuous secession of teachers, like the Catechetical School of Alexandria, but a theological tendency, more particularly a peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis.
The Antiochene Fathers used few typological elements in their writings, since their exegesis reduced this element to a minimum. We noticed that the Alexandrians faced the Hellenic culture, and were obliged to use even their terms to defend the Christian faith and to attract the well-educated pagans and Jews to Christianity. The Antiochenes were strongly influenced by the Jewish literalist tradition of Antioch. They were convinced that the primary level of the interpretation was the historical level. They gave attention to the revisions of the text, a close adherence to the plain, natural meaning according to the use of language and the condition of the writer, and justice to the human factor. In other words, its exegesis is grammatical and historical, in distinction from the allegorical method of the Alexandrian School. Yet, as regards to textual criticism, Lucian followed the steps of Origen. Besides the Antiochenes did have regard for the spiritual sense, and the divine element in the Scriptures.
With regard to prophecies and psalms that were generally understood to be Messianic, the Antiochenes allowed for a fuller sense alongside the historical sense. Thus, they understood passages to refer to Christ, the Church and the spreading of the gospel; but they did this only in certain clearly defined circumstances.
J. Quasten states that the scholars in the two different schools were convinced of a deep-seated discord, a fundamental contradiction, in their respective approaches. At Antioch, the object was to find in Holy Writ its most obvious meaning; at Caesarea or Alexandria the search was for the figures of Christ. The one site accused allegory of destroying the value of the Bible as a record of the past, of travestying it into mythological fable; the other dubbed ‘carnal’ all who clung to the letter. Still between the two there was no absolute opposition; there was even broad agreement on entire traditional exegesis; but special emphasis fell on distinct points of view. For Origen discovers types not just in certain episodes, but in every detail of the inspired word. Each line is filled with mystery. On the other hand, Antioch made it a fundamental principle to see figures of Christ just occasionally, not always, in the Old Testament. Where the resemblance was marked and the analogy clear, only there would it admit a foreshadowing of the Savior. Types were the exception, not the rule; the Incarnation was everywhere prepared, but not everywhere prefigured.
Lucian of Antioch: The Arians and Nestorians claimed descent from, or affinity with, Lucian and his school. J. Quasten states "Its (the school of Antioch) rationalistic tendency led to its becoming the womb of heresy; Lucian, its founder, was the teacher of Arius. He was not a prolific writer. St. Jerome refers to his ‘small treatise on faith’ without indication of its contents. He was a Hebrew scholar and corrected the Greek version of the Old Testament from the original. This revision of the Septuagint was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor from Antioch to Byzantium, and was highly esteemed. Large fragments of it are extant in the writings of St. John Chrysostom and Theodoret. Lucian extended his textual criticism to the New Testament also, but limited it most probably to the four Gospels.
Theodoret quotes the following passage from the letter of St. Alexander of Alexandria, ten years after Lucian’s death, which was sent to all the bishops of Egypt, Syria, Asia and Cappadocia.
You yourselves have been instructed by God; you are not unaware that this teaching, which is setting itself up again against the faith of the Church, is the doctrine of Ebion and Artemas; it is the perverse theology of Paul of Samosata, who was expelled from the Church at Antioch by a councilor sentence of bishops from all place; his successor Lucian remained for a long time excommunicated under three bishops; the dregs of the impiety of those heretics have been absorbed by these men who have risen from nothing....., Arius, Achillas, and the whole band of their companions in malice
In fact, Arius and the future upholders of his heresy were educated by Lucian at Antioch. Arius himself boasted of being a pupil of his, called himself a ‘Lucianist,’ and addressed Lucian’s successor, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, as ‘Collucianist.’ All this indicates that Lucian is the father of Arianism. Thus this heresy has its roots not in Alexandria, where it was first taught, but at Antioch.
The chief theologians concerned with this were Diodore of Tarsus (c.330-c.390). The Exegetical School of Antioch produced one of its greatest scholars and teachers in Diodore of Tarsus. Highly esteemed as a pillar of orthodoxy during his lifetime, he was accused of heresy and condemned as the originator of Nestorianism a century after his death.
Eusebius twice mentions him and his glorious martyrdom, but is silent about his theological opinions. St. Alexander of Alexandria, in an encyclical of 321, associates him with Paul of Samosata and makes him responsible for the Arian heresy; he also says that he was excommunicated or kept aloof from the church during the episcopate of Domnus, Timaeus, and Curillus; intimating that his schismatic condition ceased before his death. The charge brought against him and his followers is that he denied the eternity of the Logos, and the human soul of Christ (the Logos taking the place of the rational soul). Arius and the Arians speak of him as their teacher.
In his exegesis, Diodore follows firmly the historical and grammatical method and strenuously opposes the allegorical interpretation peculiar to the Alexandrian School. He does not look for a hidden meaning in the text, but for the sense intended by the inspired writer.
His best work is his Commentary on the Psalms, which gives a good idea of how Antiochene exegesis is both historical and Christological. David is held to be the author of the Psalms, but, by the gift of prophecy, some of the Psalms refer historically to the times of later kings and prophets, the exile, and even the Maccabean period. His treatment of Psalms 2 and 22 show the two extremes of the Antiochene exegesis. Psalm 2 is about the Lord Jesus Christ, and tells how the Jews handed Him over to Herod and Pilate, how He will save those who believe in Him, and how He will crush those who do not believe. Against this thoroughly Christological interpretation of Psalm 2, Diodore firmly rejects the idea that Psalm 22 has anything to do with Christ in spite of the use of the words of Jesus when He was on the Cross in the opening lines of the Psalm.
In Diodore’s formula ‘We do not forbid the higher interpretation and theoria, for the historical narrative does not exclude it, but is on the contrary the basis and substructure of loftier insights... We must, however, be on our guard against letting the theoria do away with the historical basis, for the result would then be, not theoria, but allegory.’
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428): Diodore’s pupil, Theodore, was like his teacher born at Antioch. He studied rhetoric and literature under the famous sophist Libanius, in whose school he began his lifelong friendship with St. John Chrysostom. Highly esteemed by his contemporaries but condemned as a heretic 125 years after his death, he shared the fate of his master Diodore of Tarsus. He is the most typical representative of the Antiochene school of exegesis and by far its most famous author. His works show that he was much more restrained in using the Christological interpretation of the Old Testament.
Photius seems acquainted only with an interpretation of Genesis. He states in his very biased report:
Read the work of Theodore of Antioch entitled Commentary on Genesis, the first book which contains seven volumes. The style is neither brilliant nor very clear. The author avoids the use of allegory as much as possible, being only concerned with the interpretation of history. He frequently repeats himself, and produces a disagreeable impression upon the reader. Although he lived before Nestorius, he vomits up his doctrines by anticipation. This is that Theodore of Mopsuestia, from whom on several occasions John Philoponus demanded a serious explanation of his method of interpretation in his own work on the Creation.
Theodore is the first interpreter to insist that the Psalms must be read against a historical background. He recognizes the Davidic authorship of all the Psalms but at the same time is convinced that the context and setting of many of the Psalms are altogether unsuitable to David. His solution to this problem is that those Psalms which reflect another period were written by David, but as a prophet revealing the future state of Israel. Thus he classifies the Psalms chronologically from David to the Maccabees. He maintains that the prophetic horizon of David did not reach further than the Maccabees, and that there is consequently no direct Messianic message in the Psalms. He justifies the Messianic use in the New Testament as an accommodation. But he recognizes four exceptions: Ps. 2; 8; 44; 109. Though he does not regard even these as properly Messianic in the sense of referring to the future prepared for the chosen people, he explains the Messianic interpretations proposed by the allegorical school of Alexandria which violate his sound principle that each Psalm must be treated as a literary whole and that a verse cannot be divorced from its context.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-c.460): His exegetical works deal with a large number of the Old Testament books. These works shows the Antiochene attitude in the method of interpretation.
The practical illustrations of the Antiochene method are to be found in the sermons of the other great representative of this School St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407), who is furthermore deeply rooted in the common tradition and furnishes a large number of typical interpretations.
The sermons of St. John Chrysostom give evidence of his strict and intelligent training in the tenets of that School. Always anxious to ascertain the literal sense and opposed to allegory, he combines great facility in discerning the spiritual meaning of the Scriptural text with an equal ability for immediate, practical application to the guidance of those committed to his care. The depth of his thought and the soundness of his masterful exposition are unique and attract even modern readers. He is equally at home in the books of the Old and the New Testaments and has the skill to use even the former for the conditions of the present and the problems of daily life.
He combines the historical interpretation of his predecessors with doctrinal and didactic gifts.
St. John Chrysostom brings out the same point when he divides Scriptural statements into:
a. those which allow a ‘theoretical’ in addition to the literal sense,
b. those which are to be understood solely in the literal sense, and
c. those which admit only of a meaning other than the literal, i.e. allegorical statements.
Valid though this contrast is, it should not be pressed to the extent of overlooking the underlying unity, at the deeper level of typology, of the fathers ’approach to the Scriptural revelation. There is general agreement about cardinal issues, such as that Adam, or again Moses the law-giver, in a real sense, foreshadowed Christ; the flood points to baptism, and also to the judgment; all the sacrifices of the old law, but in a pre-eminent way the sacrifice of Isaac, are anticipations of that of Calvary; the crossing of the Red sea and the eating of manna looks forward to baptism and the Eucharist; the fall of Jericho prefigured the end of the world. The list of correspondences could be expanded almost indefinitely, for the fathers were never weary of searching them out and dwelling on them. They unanimously believe that what Origen calls the Jewish mystery (or dispensation) in its entirety’ was, as it were, a rehearsal of the Christian mystery. Alexandria, famous in the late second and third centuries for its Matt school, became the home of allegorical exegesis, with the great Biblical scholar, Origen, as its leading exponent.
Despite differences of emphasis among the Antiochene Fathers, the whole believed that allegory was an unreliable, indeed illegitimate, instrument for interpreting Scripture. The true key to its deeper spiritual message where this was not already fully explicit, as in genuine prophecy, was what they called ‘insight.’ By this they meant the power of perceiving, in addition to the historical facts set out in the text, a spiritual reality to which they applied themselves to indicate. Thus they accepted typology proper indeed, the classic definition of a type as ‘a prophecy expressed in terms of things’ was framed by Chrysostom but tried to rescue it from being exploited arbitrarily. For theoria to operate they considered it necessary
a. that the literal sense of the sacred narrative should not be abolished,
b. that there should be a real correspondence between the historical fact and the further spiritual object discerned, and
c. that these two objects should be apprehended together, though of course in different ways.
V V V
EXAMPLES OF
THE ALEXANDRIAN
ALLEGORY AND TYPOLOGY
The following is an attempt to give a clear picture of Alexandrian allegory and typology through some examples. Although it is extremely hard task to do; it is considered worthwhile.
THE NUMBERS
The mystical significance of numbers was developed especially at Alexandria, beginning with Philo and developed by Origen. Jean Daniélou gives signs of Origin’s dependence on Philo, saying,
The third sign... is to be seen in the way he treats symbolism in certain cases. One thing, however, needs pointing out in this connection, and that is that there is a certain amount of numerical symbolism in the Bible itself, where it often constitutes the literal meaning of the text. The use of the number seven is a case in point. It is clear that there is a feeling for symbolism in the Bible; it is discernible, for instance, in the story of creation. Hence, when Origen says that the "number six seems to denote effort and labor and the number seven to signify rest," he is proceeding on the same lines as Scripture itself. But when referring to the number fifty, Pentecost and the number one hundred, which he takes to denote fullness, he says, "The people who were refreshed by (= resting in, ) the food that Jesus gave them had to be in groups of a hundred - which is a sacred number, dedicated to God because of the monad in it - or in groups of fifty, a number signifying remission, as you can see from Pentecost and the mystery of the Jubilee, which took place every fifty years," he is combining the legitimate symbolism of the Bible with pagan symbolism. It is true that fifty is a symbol of forgiveness in the Old Testament, both in the case of the Jubilee and in the case of the annual celebration of Pentecost. And Origen may very likely be right when he claims to find the same thing in the New Testament. But when he takes a hundred as a symbol of perfection, he is inserting into this genuine symbolism a kind of symbolism which is based on external considerations and foreign to the text. The idea that a hundred is the holy number par excellence is in fact embedded deep in Hellenistic tradition...
St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, Caesarius of Arles and others borrowed their numerical symbolism from Origen.
* Number 2 = The two Testaments
Concerning the sacrifice of peace, the priest eats the meat through two days (Lev. 7:17). Origen comments, "To the best of my understanding, I think in these two days the two Testaments can be understood." In other words, through the two Testaments we can participate in the spiritual sacrifice of peace, joy and thanksgiving. The holy Scripture reveals God’s pleasure in believers, and the believers’ joy with their God.
For St. Augustine number two refers to love. He says,
The precepts of love, given to us by the Lord, are two: "You shall love the Lord Your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind;" and, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40). With good reason did the widow cast " two mites;" all her substance, into the offerings of God. With good reason did the host take "two" pieces of money for the poor man who was wounded by the robbers. Jesus spent two days with the Samaritans, to establish them in love.
* Number 3 = The Holy Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, the three kinds of sin, and the three elements of man.
Abraham knew that he prefigured the type of things to come, he knew Christ would be born of his seed, to be offered as a true victim for the whole world and the resurrection of the dead... He arrived at the place to which the Lord had directed him on the third day (Gen. 22:4). The third day is always a fit one for mysteries. When the people went forth from Egypt they offered sacrifice to God on the third day (Exod. 3:18), and the Lord’s Resurrection is on the third day.
Origen sees in these three days which precede the Passover the Paschal "triduum" of the Lord.
Pharaoh did not allow the children of Israel to go forward to the place of signs, and wished to prevent them advancing till they could enjoy the mysteries of the third day. Hear what says the Prophet: "The Lord will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."
The first day is for us the Lord’s passion;
the second that of the descent into hell, and
the third that of the Resurrection.
That is why, on this third day, God will go before them, by day a pillar of cloud, and by night a pillar of fire. If, according to what we said above, the Apostle rightly teaches us that these words enshrine the mystery of baptism, then it will follow that "those who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized into his death and buried together with him" (Rom 6:3), and rise with him on the third day. When you have made your own the mystery of the third day, God will begin to lead you and himself to show you the way of salvation.
By the "Mystery" of the three days Origen is able to harmonize the crossing of the Red Sea with the general theology of Baptism as a sharing in the death and Resurrection of Christ. Later he sees in the pursuit of the Egyptians a stereotype of the devils straining to keep the soul from Baptism.
Through the trip of the wilderness, the camp of the people was divided into four divisions, each one consisted of three tribes (Num. 2). According to Origen, it was a symbol of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He States that the inhabitants of the four corners of the world are censured by the Holy Trinity alone, those who call God and sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the Heaven (Matt. 8:11).
Number 3 refers also to the three kinds of sin.
Man’s way of sinning is three fold: sin is committed in deed, or in word or in thought.
What is the "journey of three days" which we are to go, that going out from Egypt we can arrive at the place in which we ought to sacrifice? I understand "way" to refer to him who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."(John 14.6.) We are to go this way for three days. For he who "has confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believed in his heart that God raised him from the dead" on the third day, "will be saved" (Cf. Rom 10:9). This, therefore, is "the way of three days" by which one arrives at the place in which the "sacrifice of praise"(Cf. Ps. 49.14.) is sacrificed and offered to the Lord. What we have said pertains to the mystical meaning.
But if we also require a place for the moral meaning which is very useful for us, we travel a "journey of three days" from Egypt if we thus preserve ourselves from all filth of soul, body, and spirit, that, as the Apostle said, "our spirit and soul and body may be kept whole in the day of Jesus Christ"(1 Thess 5:23). We travel a "journey of three days" from Egypt if, ceasing from worldly things we turn our rational, natural, moral wisdom to the divine laws. We travel a "journey of three days" from Egypt if, purifying our words, deeds, or thoughts - for these are the three things by which men can sin - we would be made "pure in heart" so that we could "see God" (Cf. Matt. 5:8).
* Numbers 5, 50, 250, and 500
And the number five hundred, or two hundred and fifty, either contains the mystery of the five senses perfected a hundred-fold in Him; or else, as being the pardonable number, fifty multiplied five times, it signifies the remission of sins that is bestowed through Him.
St. Augustine like Origen believes that number five refers to the five senses. However he gives another explanation to number fifty, as he says,
The number of fifty is made up by multiplying 7 by 7, with the addition to 1, for 7 times 7 makes 49. (Number 7 refers to perfection, for on the seventh day God rested after the creation) And the 1 is added to show that there is one who is expressed by seven on account of His sevenfold operation; and we know that it was on the fiftieth day after our Lord’s resurrection that the Holy Spirit was sent, for whom the disciples were commanded to wait according to the promise (Acts 4; 2:2-4).
* Number 10
Now the number ten is a sacred one, not a few mysteries being indicated by it.
* Numbers 22, 273 and 1000
According to Origen, the Levites were counted (Num. 3). The count of all the males a month old and upwards. They were 22,000. The numeral 22 coincides with the number of the Hebrew Alphabet, the numeral 1000 is a symbol of heaven. As if their work was to register the names of all the people in a heavenly language so that everyone may share in the heavenly glory.
The number of the firstborns from all the people of Israel was 22,273. The 273 souls were left uncompensated for. For the redemption of each one of them, 5 golden shekels were to be presented to Aaron and his sons. The numeral 273 is a symbol of our redemption through baptism or spiritual birth. The physical birth requires the fetus to remain two hundred and seventy days in his mother's womb (9 X 30 = 270), and this spiritual birth is accomplished by 3 immersions. As for the five shekels they symbolize the sanctification of the five senses, so that we may resemble the five wise virgins (Matt. 25).
Number 25
Origen states that the Levites start their work at age 25, spending five years for attaining their experience (Num. 4). Number 25 denotes the perfect sanctification of the five senses (both spiritual and physical: (5 X 5 = 25).
* Number 300
With regard to these foxes (Judges 15:3-5) that differ from and disagree with one another, however, the number three hundred itself signifies that there are three kinds of sins. For every sin is committed either in deed, or in word, or by the consent of the mind.
Jean Daniélou says,
The length (of the ark of Noah) of 300 cubits unites 100 and 3.
The number 100 indicated fullness and "contains the mystery of the totality of the Spiritual creation, as we read in the Gospel, when it is said that a man having a hundred sheep and losing one of them left the ninety-nine others and went to seek the lost one.... This ‘hundredth,’ the fullness of Spiritual creation, does not subsist of itself, but proceeds from the Trinity and receives from the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit, the length of life, that is the grace of immortality; it is because of this multiplied by three, so that having fallen from the ‘hundred’ through ignorance, it is restored in the three hundred by the knowledge of the Trinity."
The breadth has fifty cubits, "because that number is consecrated to redemption and remission." It is the interpretation already given by Clement and comes from Philo.
The number thirty contains the same "mystery" as 300. Finally, the top of the building leads to the number one because ‘one God is Father and Lord ; there is one faith of the Church and one baptism" and "all things hasten to the one end of divine perfection." Origen has worked out his own theology in these mysteries of the ark as Clement has previously worked out his.
V V V
THE NAMES
Ronald E. Heine says, "Etymological exegesis of names is one of the techniques of Origen's allegorical interpretation of Scripture. This is his attempt to draw spiritual significance from the meaning of the names of various persons and places in the Scriptural narrative by relating the names to words from which they are derived or, what is often the case, which they resemble."
* Aaron and his sons = Christ and His apostles
Origen states that our Lord Jesus Christ is "Aaron," and His apostles are the sons of Aaron. According to Lev. 10:9, they do not drink wine or strong drink when they go into the Tent of Witness or when they approach the Altar. In other words they cannot rejoice while we are in iniquity, and are in need of Christ’s redeeming work and the apostles’ ministry.
According to the authority of the Apostle Paul, our Lord and Savior is called "the High-priest of the good things to come" Heb. 9:11. Thus, this one is "Aaron," but "his sons" are His apostles to whom He Himself was saying, "My little children.." John 13:33...
Let us now see how our Savior drinks no wine "until He drinks it" with the saints "anew in the kingdom of God" (Matt. 26:29).
My Savior even now laments my sins. My Savior cannot rejoice while I continue in iniquity. Why not? Because He is "an Advocate for our sins before the Father," as John, his fellow priest, proclaims, saying that "if anyone should sin, we have an Advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:1-2)....
As long as we do not act so that we may ascend to the kingdom, He cannot drink alone the wine which He promised to drink with us. Therefore, He is in sorrow as long as we persist in error.
* Agar and Sara
For Origen the opposition of Agar and Sara is not the opposition of two historical peoples. It is rather a stereotype of the interior conflict which goes on in each individual Christian. The historical conflict becomes that of Jew and Christian which each of us bears in himself. Thus the history of nations becomes the history of the individual soul, a transposition along the lines of authentic typology.
* Balaamý
From the symbolic aspect, Origen believes that the angel who appeared to Balaam, depicts the Angel of God who was leading His people (Exod. 23:43), while Balaam represents the non-believers, his name denotes "vain people." As for the donkey it refers to the simple Church that serves non-believers. The Church that reveals to them what they cannot perceive.
* Bethabara
They say that Bethabara is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there. The etymology of the name, too, corresponds with the baptism of him who made ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him; for it yields the meaning "House of preparation," while Bethany means "House of obedience."
* Etham (Exod. 13:21) = signs for them
Etham, they say, is translated in our language as "signs for them," and rightly so, for here you will hear it said: "God was preceding them by day in a column of cloud and by night in a column of fire" (Exod. 13:21). You do not find this done at Ramesse nor at Socoth, which is called the second encampment for those departing. It is the third encampment in which divine signs occur. Recollect what was read above when Moses said to Pharaoh, "We will go a journey of three days in the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God" (Exod. 5:3). This was the three days to which Moses was hastening and Pharaoh was opposing, for he said, "You shall not go far"(Exod. 8:28 [LXX 8:24]). Pharaoh would not permit the children of Israel to reach the place of signs; he would not permit them to advance so that they could enjoy fully the mysteries of the third day. Hear what the prophet says: "God will revive us after two days, and on the third day we will arise and live in his sight" (Hos. 6:2). The first day is the passion of the Savior for us. The second is the day on which he descended into hell. The third day is the day of resurrection (Cf. Matt. 16.21). Therefore, on the third day "God went before them, by day in a column of cloud, by night in a column of fire" (Cf. Exod. 13:21).
* Jacob and Esau
Since Jacob now stands for the Church, Esau, the older brother, will represent the Jews. Origen comments on Genesis 25:23: "How the one people (the Church) has overcome the other (the Synagogue), and how the elder is the servant of the younger, is known even to the Jews, although they do not believe it." The implication of the last words is that the argument is familiar to the Jews, but that they do not realize that it works against themselves. Again, read Jacob as a symbol for the Church, Origen finds new meaning for the sheep won from Laban.
* Jesus and Joshua
Origen notes that this name appears for the first time in Exod. 17:9, when Moses sends Joshua to fight against Amalek:
We meet the name of Jesus for the first time when we see him as head of the army. From this first acquaintance with the name of Jesus I learn the mystery of its symbolism (sacramentum mysterii): Jesus is the leader of the army."
* Moses = The Law
This Church, therefore, coming from the Gentiles finds Moses in the marsh lying cast off by his own people and exposed, and gives him out to be reared. He is reared by his own family and spends his childhood there. When, however, "he has grown stronger" (Exod. 2:10), he is brought to her and adopted as a son. We have already frequently argued in many places that the Law is referred to as Moses.
The Church, therefore, coming to the waters of baptism, also took up the Law.
The Law, however, had been enclosed in "a basket" and smeared with pitch and "bitumen" (Cf. Exod. 2:3). The "basket" is a kind of covering woven together from twigs or papyrus or even formed from the bark of trees.
The infant placed within this basket was seen exposed. The Law, therefore, was lying helpless enclosed in coverings of this kind, besmeared with pitch and bitumen. It was dirty and enclosed in cheap and offensive meanings of the Jews until the Church should come from the Gentiles and take it up from the muddy and marshy places and appropriate it to itself within courts of wisdom and royal houses.
This Law, however, spends its childhood with its own people. With those who are not able to understand it spiritually. It is little, an infant, and has milk as its food. But when Moses comes to the Church, when he enters the house of the Church, he grows stronger and more robust. For when the veil of the letter is removed "perfect and solid food" (Cf. Heb 5:12-14) is discovered in its text.
But let us also take up the Law of God to ourselves when we come to the waters even if we had Pharaoh as father, even if "the prince of the world" (John 16:11) begot us in evil works.
Let not its cheap and obscure cover of the letter be despised by us. Let us give up what is small and milky. Let us take up what is perfect and robust and let us set these up within the royal dwellings of our heart.
Let us have Moses large and strong. Let us think nothing small, nothing lowly about him, but let him be totally magnificent, totally distinguished, totally elegant. For whatever is spiritual, whatever of elevated understanding is great in every respect. And let us pray our Lord Jesus Christ that he himself might reveal and show us in what manner Moses is great and elevated (Cf. Exod. 11:3). For he himself "reveals" it to whom he wishes "by the Holy Spirit" (Cf. 1 Cor 2:10). "To him belong glory and sovereignty forever and ever. Amen."(Cf. 1 Pet. 4:11).
* Og
Victory over Ogý (crookedness), the king of Bashan "Shame." So we destroy every distorted thought that will deter us from preoccupying ourselves with heavenly matters, and every disgrace is removed, consequently we enter into the inner divine glory.
* Sara = princess (royal virtue)
I think that Sara which is interpreted "princess" or having the sovereignty is the type of virtue, because virtue is in the mind. That is true virtue which lives with a wise and faithful husband. That is why God said to Abraham, ‘In all that Sara has said to you, hearken to her voice’: words which do not fit a merely carnal marriage.
* Sephora and Phua
The king of Egypt called Sephora and Phua, the midwives and asked them to kill the Hebrew males and preserve the males; but they disobeyed him for they feared God. According to Origen "Sephora" means a "sparrow," and "Phua" means either "blushing" or "modest." The two midwives also refer to the Two testaments.
For one midwife is like a sparrow who teaches lofty things and calls forth souls to fly to the heights on rational wings of instruction. The other, who is blushing or modest, is moral. She regulates morals, teaches modesty, and institutes integrity.
It seems to me, however, since Scripture says of these women, "Because they feared God, they did not carry out the command of the king of Egypt" (Exod. 1:17), that the two midwives serve as a figure of the two Testaments. "Sephora," which is translated as sparrow, can be applied to the Law which "is spiritual" (Cf. Rom 7 ;14). But "Phua," who is blushing or modest, indicates the Gospels which are red with the blood of Christ and glow reddish through the whole world by the blood of His passion. The souls, therefore, which are born in the Church are attended by these Testaments as if by midwives, because the entire antidote of instruction is conferred on them from the reading of the Scriptures.
But let us apply these words also to ourselves. If you too fear God, you do not carry out the command of the king of Egypt. For he commands you to live in pleasure, to love the present world, to desire present things (Cf. 1 John 2:15-16). If you fear God and perform the office of midwife for your own soul, if you desire to confer salvation on it, you do not do these things. You keep alive the male which is in you. You attend and assist your inner man(Cf. 2 Cor 4:16) and seek eternal life for him by good actions and understandings.
* Sihon
According to Origen, Sihon (Num. 21:12-30) means "haughty" and "barren." He refers to the devil, the king of the Amorites "bitterness." He is the king of the evil world (John 14:30; 12:31), who grants sinners a kind of bitterness. He resists God's peace, so he ends up being defeated. As for the battle field it was called Jahaz "the fulfillment of the commandment," where we are triumphant (Jer. 6:16), by the blade of the Spirit which is God's word (Eph. 6:17). Hence we occupy all his land from Arnon to Jabbok (i.e. from the curses up to the struggles, we enter into the land of curses, and we struggle until it is superseded by blessings), and we occupy Heshbon , meaning "reckoning or thought" moreover we recover our ideology after it had been under the proud enemy's control.
V V V
THE EVENTS
* Adam
Just as through having Adam as the first example, the head, of our natural mode of birth, we are all said to have in this respect one body, even so do we register Christ as our head through the divine regeneration of his death and resurrection which has become a pattern for us.
* The coat of skin
Origen states that the Fall has caused man to put on the garments of mortality and of frailty. These are the "coats of skin" (Gen. 3:21) made by God for Adam and Eve when they were being expelled from Paradise. Following Philo and the Gnostics, who had interpreted the coats of skin as bodies, Origen sees the Fall not simply as a moral but as a metaphysical event. The Fall means that man enters a world which is separate from God, and takes on a dual nature of spirit and of flesh because he is now clothed in a physical body.
* Ark of Noah
Jean Daniélou says,
We noted (previously) that Noah is considered explicitly as a type of Christ... Origen cites Gen. 5:29: "he shall comfort us concerning our work and toil." But he adds that this cannot apply to Noah. "How can it be true that Noah will give rest to Lamech or to the people then on earth, or how was there in the time of Noah an end to the sadness, or how was the crude upon the earth lifted (Gen 5:29), seeing that the divine anger was revealed as very great.....But if you consider our Lord Jesus Christ of whom it is said: ‘Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world’ and ‘Come to me, all you that labor, and I will refresh you’, you will find that it is he who has truly given rest to the world and freed man from that curse"...
Origen next deals with the building of the ark: "It is to this spiritual Noah who has given rest to man and taken away the sin of the world that the order was given to build the ark with square columns." These square columns indicate firmness according to an idea which comes from Philo, and which we have found in Clement of Alexandria. Origen sees in this a type of the Doctors of the Church who fight against the assaults of the heretics. This idea is always present in the "Gnostic" point of view.
* Drawing water from a well = depth of knowledge
Rebecca came with the other women to draw water from the well and because she came every day to the well, it was possible for her to be found by Abraham’s servant and married to Isaac. You think that these are myths, and that the Holy Spirit only records history in the Scriptures. Here is an instruction for the soul and spiritual teaching which instructs you to come daily to the wells of the Scriptures... All that has been written, points to mysteries: Christ wishes to wed you, too, and for that reason sends his servant to you. This servant is the word of the prophets. You cannot be wed to Christ, if you have not at first received him.
Origen borrows from Philo this symbolism of the wells as the "depths of knowledge," and gives it quite a different significance.
* The souls who descended into Egypt with Jacob (Exod. 1:5) = The spiritual birth in Jesus Christ through the Gospel.
Those are the souls which Jacob begot. I do not think that any man can beget a soul unless, perhaps, he be someone like that man who said, "For although you have many thousand teachers in Christ, you have not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus I begot you through the Gospel."(1 Cor. 4.15.) Such are those men who beget and give birth to souls, as he says elsewhere, "My little children, with whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you."(Gal. 4.19.) For others either do not wish to have the trouble of this kind of begetting or are not able. In short, what did Adam himself say at the beginning? "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."(Gen. 2.23.) He does not add, however, "and soul of my soul."
© 1998-2005 CopticChurch.net. All rights reserved.
Designed and Maintained by St. Mark Coptic Church, Jersey City, NJ
Tuesday, Jun 10th, 2008
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex/I-Intro/chapter3.html
Church Web Site:
http://saintmark.com
E-mail:
General Information
Fr. Abraam Sleman
Fr. Markos Ayoub
Fr. Daniel Abdelmaseih
Postal Address:
427 West Side Ave
Jersey City, NJ 07304
U.S.A.
THE
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE SCRIPTURES
Allegorism was well established in Alexandrian Judaism, especially by Philo, who made a systematic use of it to bridge the chasm between the Old Testament revelation and the Platonic philosophy. Philo compares the literal sense of Scripture to the shadow which the body casts, finding its authentic, profounder truth in the spiritual meaning which it symbolizes. He does not want to depreciate or abolish the literal or the historical meaning, but looks to it as man’s body which merits the fullest respect.
The School of Alexandria adopted the allegorical interpretation of the Holy Scripture, believing that it hides the truth and at the same time reveals it. It hides the truth from the ignorant, whose eyes are blinded by sin and pride, hence they are prevented from the knowledge of the truth. At the same time it always reveals what is new to the renewed eyes of believers. St. Clement of Alexandria is considered the first Christian theologian (writer) who uses allegorical interpretation, giving a cause of using it in a practical way. He says that the Bible has hidden meanings to incite us to search and discover the words of salvation, which are hidden from those who despise them. The truth is in the pearls which must not be offered to the swines. His disciple, Origen, adds other justifications of using allegorical interpretation to the Scriptures.
Nevertheless a vigorous reaction against the Alexandrian allegorism made itself manifest in the fourth and fifth centuries. Its center was Antioch, which concentrated on the literal sense of the holy Scriptures.
As Kelly says, "It has been fashionable to distinguish different schools of patristic exegesis, notably the Alexandrian with its bias towards allegory, and the Antiochene with its passion for literalism."
ALLEGORY
The word "allegory," is derived from the Greek "alla," meaning "other," and "agoreuo," meaning "proclaim." It originally referred to a figure of speech that Cicero defined as a "continuous stream of metaphors." According to St. Augustine, allegory is a mode of speech in which one thing is understood by another. Allegory differs from the parable in its more systematic presentation of the different features of the idea which it illustrates, as well as in its contents which are concerned with the exposition of theoretical truths rather than practical exhortation.
ALLEGORY AND TYPOLOGY
The holy Scriptures use at least three kinds of allegory: figurative allegory, narrative allegory and typological allegory. St. Paul’s Ode to Charity (Corinthians 13) is figurative allegory. So is Wisdom, as she is presented in Proverbs 8. In some parables - those for instance of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 30-35) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) - the allegory is narrative. The most characteristic biblical form is the typological allegory, a New Testament exegetic method which treats events and figures of the Old Testament as combining historical reality with prophetic meaning in terms of the Gospels and the Christian Dispensation.
Modern distinction between allegory and typology stems from Antiochene criticism of Alexandrian allegory. For example, Jean Daniélou states, "It would be an entire abuse of language to include moral allegory with typology under the one heading of spiritual sense, as opposed to the literal sense: typology is a legitimate extension of literal sense, while moral allegory is something entirely alien: the former is in truth exegesis, the latter is not. Origen was the first to bring together these two interpretations in a forceful synthesis. But they are in reality two distinct approaches, artificially put side by side."
Some scholars distinguish "allegory," defined as a method in which earthly realities are interpreted symbolically to refer to heavenly realities, from "typology," in which historical reality is interpreted as foreshadowing another, especially the person and work of Christ.
The word "type," tupoi in Greek has its basic meaning, ‘something struck out; a print, impression of a seal.’ The seal is the New Testament event, which has struck out a prophetic impression of itself in the pages of the Old Testament.
J.N.D. Kelly gives a base for the distinction between allegory and typology, saying,
... the word (allegory) led to confusion even in the patristic age, and its accepted meaning to day denotes a somewhat different type of exegesis from typology. Since the fathers employed both typology and allegory (in its modern sense), the distinction between the two methods needs to be clearly brought out...
In allegorical exegesis the sacred text is treated as a mere symbol, or allegory, of spiritual truths. The literal, historical sense, if it is regarded at all, plays a relatively minor role, and the aim of the exegete is to elicit the moral, theological or mystical meaning which each passage, indeed each verse and even each word, is presumed to contain...
Typological exegesis works along very different lines. Essentially it is a technique for bringing out the correspondence between the two Testaments: a technique where the Old reflects the New, i.e. prefigures and anticipates the events and personages of the New. The typologist takes history seriously; it is the scene of the progressive unfolding of God’s consistent redemptive purpose...
Jean Daniélou also says, "The typology of the Fathers is based on the continuity which exists between the Old and New Testaments.
Allegory and the Jewish exegesis
According to Philo, the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures was practiced in Palestinian Rabbinical schools.
In Palestinian Jewish exegesis, allegory provides material for haggadah, the interpretation of non-legal passages of Scripture. An example of this Jewish allegorical exegesis is Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai's (ca. A.D 70) explanation that a robber receives a lighter punishment than a thief because the thief, by acting secretly, has contempt for God's oversight. Also the interpretation that unclean animals, such as the hare and the pig, refer to Greece and Rome.
Although Palestinian allegory is generally more restrained than Hellenistic Jewish allegory and careful in particular to maintain legal validity, Rabbi Akiba (ca. AD. 50-132) could interpret the Song of Solomon allegorically to refer to the love between Israel and God.
The Alexandrian Jew Philo, as we mentioned above, uses two kinds of interpretation, literal and allegorical, which he links to the Platonic concept of a dual world - one of which is spiritual and immaterial like God, an archetype and model, and the other world being visible and corporeal. In Philo's opinion the literal sense, the written word, is concerned with appearance, while the allegorical sense expresses only what can be seized by intelligence and leads directly to the truth.
John Dillon in the preface of the book "Philo of Alexandria" says, "Philo did contribute enormously, through the Christian thinkers of the Alexandrian School, to the tradition of spirituality both in the Western Europe and in the Eastern Orthodox world, and the magnificent intellectual tour-de-force constituted by his Platonizing allegory of the Pentateuch deserves recognition and honor."
Jean Daniélou, in his speech of the effect of Philo on the Alexandrian Didascalia, assures that the Alexandrian Fathers who adopted Philo’s method of interpretation, christianized it, giving it a Christological and more spiritual understanding. He says,
In his treatise on Paradise, Ambrose, who was much influenced by Philo, writes as follows: "Philo confined his attention to the moral sense, because his Judaic outlook prevented him from a more spiritual understanding." Spiritualia here denotes the Christological or typological sense, while moralia implies philosophical allegory...
This allegorizing of Philo will be adopted by that succession of Alexandrian Didascalia which will transform it into a Christian theology. Not that this will be, as with Philo, the only interpretation; but whereas, until then, typology was the only Christian interpretation, afterwards Origen, St. Ambrose and the Middle Ages will make use of allegory also...
A whole stream of Patristic tradition shows us the union of the Pauline typological "mystery" with the Philonian allegorical "mystery." While borrowing from Philo his principle, quite unexceptionable in itself, of a hidden meaning in the whole Bible, the Christian exegesis of Alexandria will give to these themes a meaning which is quite beyond the allegorizing of Philo. It will endow them with the whole mystery of Christ, who is truly the "fullness of grace."
Allegory and TYPOLOGY IN the New Testament
The term "allegory" is used by St. Paul in Gal. 4:24, "which things contain an allegory." Some scholars believe that he introduces the allegorical interpretation of the Law by the question "Is it for the oxen that God cares, or says He altogether for our sake?" (1 Cor. 9:10) does not necessarily mean that Paul, besides abolishing this particular law with his advocacy of the abrogation of the Law as a whole, also denies that this law was ever meant to be taken literally.
The New Testament uses allegory and typology. Here are some examples.
* The Gospels present our Lord Jesus using allegory as a rhetorical device in his own parables (cf. Matt. 13:18-35; Mark 4:12-20, 33-34; Luke 8:11-15), and the two witnesses whose testimony is true (Deut. 19:15; John 8:17-18). The majority of the New Testament parables are examples of prophetic and situational allegory, not involving typology.
* Our Lord interprets allegorically the brazen serpent (Num. 21:9; John 3:14) as a type of salvation by His Cross.
* The words of our Lord in Matt. 12:42 concerning the queen of the south reveals that our Lord uses allegory to speak of the Song of Solomon in terms of the mutual love of Christ and the Church. Solomon is a type of Christ, the Queen of Sheba represents the Church, as well as the New Testament authority for the interpretation is to be found in Matthew 12:42.
* In Matt. 12:40-42 we acknowledge Jonah in the whale’s belly as an allegory of the Descent into Hell and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus during Good Friday and Bright Saturday.
* St. Paul sees the relationship between the Church and the Synagogue prefigured in the story of Isaac and Ishmael. He applies allegory to the two mountains, Sinai and Zion, in Galatians 4:22-29. Hagar, Paul says, is a type of Mount Sinai, where Moses later received the Old Law, and so of the Jerusalem of his own day, the site of the Jewish Temple, and the center of the Jewish people and religion. Sarah is a type of the Heavenly Jerusalem of the Christian Church. The miraculous birth of Isaac typifies the virgin birth of Christ, as is further illustrated by the messianic quotation from Isaiah 54:I.
* Allegory is also applied to cleaning out the old leaven at the Passover to indicate the Christian community's purity (1 Cor. 5:6-8).
* Hebrews 8-10 interprets the Levitical sanctuary and sacrificial system as a temporary earthly manifestation of a heavenly reality revealed in Christ.
* In I Corinthians 10:6-13, St. Paul teaches that events mentioned in Exodus and Numbers, while the people of Israel wandered in the wilderness (Exod. 13:21-22; 14:22-29; 16:4,35), prefigure Christian sacraments. He further claims that such happenings are intended "typically" to forewarn Christians about the coming of Christ and the consequences of His ministry.
* In Romans 5:14 St. Paul suggests that Adam was a "type" of the Christ who was to come.
* The main Old Testament personages who typify aspects of the New Testament - ‘so great a cloud of witnesses’ - are listed in Hebrews 11. They are Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the Prophets. In this list we have a stage in the development of a new point of view, In the full Christian form, this sees history, not as sequence, but as process, directed from Creation and the Fall of Man towards the Incarnation and Redemption, and finally to Judgment Day. The ultimately significant events are concentrated into the few years of the earthly life of Jesus, the carpenter’s son from Nazareth. All history becomes a typology, whose meaning is to be assessed in terms of a single humble life which had apparently ended in ignominy.
Such explanations illuminate the New Testament idea that all incidents during the old dispensation predicted the major events of the career of Jesus Christ and of the early church, which relived them in a Christian sense. Most obvious analogies concern the flood and the ark, the liberation of the people of Israel from Egypt (the Exodus), the wandering in the wilderness, the crossing of the River Jordan, the later return from exile, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Actual historical episodes are seen to foreshadow later events not in a literal but in a spiritual sense; thus, the liberation from Egypt is paralleled in Christ’s freeing us from our sins. These types are perpetuated and enormously increased in the writings of the ancient Christian Fathers. Indeed, the Bible is ransacked to extract types regarded as fulfilled in the Christian dispensation, some of them absurd and farfetched...
The use of types in this manner may be said to have entered deeply into Christian prayer, worship, hymnology, and piety generally.
According to St. Augustine, the allegories which New Testament writers find in the Old Testament are not mere rhetorical figures but historical facts ("non in verbis sed in facto"); God, the true author of Scripture, foreordained certain facts recorded in the Bible in such a manner as to be, apart from historical reality, also a prophetic announcement of future events.
All the work of the prophets, which is of cardinal importance in the Old Testament, rests on a twofold movement; it recalls the great works of God in the past, but it recalls them only as a foundation for a faith in great works to come. The past is only recalled as a foundation for future hope. As God had set man in Paradise so must Israel wait to be brought into a New Paradise. This is precisely the essence of typology, which is to show how past events are a figure of events to come.
In the New Testament, we have four kinds of non-literal interpretations of Old Testament texts:
1. Interpretations dealing with predictions of the first coming of Christ.
2. Interpretations dealing with predictions of the second coming of Christ.
3. Interpretations dealing with the pre-existence of Christ.
4. Interpretations dealing with legal or moral matters.
We refer to these four kinds of non-literal interpretations as adventual, eschatological, pre-existential, and moral, respectively. All these non-literal interpretations are of the rabbinical midrashic kind; none of them is of the Philonic philosophical kind, except perhaps the pre-existential, which may reflect indirectly some philosophic view. Still, several instances of adventual, non-literal interpretation is explicitly described by the Philonic terms of allegory, type, shadow, and parable; undoubtedly it is only by mere accident that these terms are not used in connection with other instances of adventual interpretation, and also in connection with eschatological, pre-existential, and moral, non-literal interpretations. Thus, according to St. Paul, for a non-literal interpretation of a text of Scripture to be described by the Philonic term allegorical it is not necessary that it be philosophical. It is with these four kinds of non-literal interpretations found in the New Testament - adventual, eschatological, pre-existential, and moral - of which only some instances of the first kind are described by the term allegory or by the terms type, shadow, and parable, that the Fathers started on their discussion of the allegorical method.
Finally, it is worthy to note that even the Old Testament uses allegory. A whole book (Song of Songs) cannot be interpreted literally but allegorically. Also it is used in the Prophets, such as in Ezek. 27-32. Tyre is presented as a magnificent merchant ship, wrecked at sea, "The rowers have brought you into great waters; the east wind has broken you in the midst of the seas" Ezek. 28:26. The east wind is Nebuchadnezzar, who captured Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The Egyptian Pharaoh is the Nile crocodile, hooked and thrown out to rot on the desert. Also in the New Testament, there is the Book of Revelation, a connected series of visions, which cannot be interpreted except allegorically.
Allegory and TYPOLOGY IN the early church
Early Fathers such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian continued to use this method of interpretation which is found in the Epistle of Barnabas. Chapter 9 of the latter contends that in the dietary laws Moses expounded moral principles in a spiritual manner, but the Jews, being carnal, misunderstood them to refer literally to foods. Moses forbade eating pork in order to discourage associations with swinish people; that is, people who remember the Lord only when they are in need, are just like the pig which does not pay attention to its master while it is greedily feeding at the trough but squeals incessantly when it is hungry.
J. Daniélou states that primitive Christian tradition recognized two senses of Scripture, namely the literal and the typological. The latter is in reality a "Charistic," or "Christological" sense, having Christ in His totality as its object. He also states that there was at least five kinds of typological sense in early Christian literature:
1. Typology that aims at discovering the circumstances of Christ's earthly life in the Old Testament. This type of exegesis serves to characterize the Western tradition.
2. Typology, common to all the Fathers, which does not therefore bear distinctive marks of any particular current, scrutinizes the Old Testament with a view to discovering Christ there, not in the exterior circumstances of His earthly life, but in the mysteries which He came to accomplish.
3. Typology that concentrates on those features of the Old Testament which are figures of the Church's sacramental life; it is found in the sacramental catches and is particularly dear to the School of Antioch.
4. Typology which looks in the Old Testament for figures of the role that Christ plays in the souls of believers; it is in Alexandria that this typology is cultivated with special predilection. For this reason some scholars call the School of Alexandria, "the School of the Souls." This does not mean that the Alexandrian school ignored the sanctification of the body, but it concentrates on the ascent of the souls by the Holy Spirit to heavenly life while the believer still lives in this world, through the study of the Bible and worshipping God in his daily life.
5. Eschatological typology aims at discovering the traits of the Old Testament which are vestiges of Christ's glorious manifestation at the end of time. Daniélou notes that writers of Jewish apocalyptic literature favor this form of interpretation, without giving to it a Christological signification. Origen quotes many of them.
Although Marcion rejected allegory along with the Old Testament, allegory played a role in much of the biblical interpretations found in Gnosticism, which extended its use to the New Testament. Valentinus, for example, interpreted the woman in the parable of the leaven (Matt. 13:33-34; Luke 13:20-21) as the fallen aeon, Sophia; the three batches of meal as the three classes of human beings, material, psychic, and spiritual; and the leaven itself as the Savior. Valentinus' follower Heracleon interpreted the Gospel of John allegorically, presenting, for example, the "royal officer" of John 4:46-53 as the inferior Creator of the material world.
St. Clement of Alexandria believes that the Bible looks like St. Mary the Virgin who brought forth Jesus Christ and her virginity was preserved. Thus we discover spiritual meanings of the Bible, but its meaning is still virgin, as it has many hidden spiritual meanings. However, one must be careful not to exaggerate St. Clement's proneness to allegorism, for he tries not to abandon the historical sense of Scripture, as has often been done by some allegorical interpreters. St. Clement says once and again that the Scriptures do have a literal historical sense.
St. Clement of Alexandria distinguishes between literal, mystical, moral, and prophetic interpretations. C. Mondésert states that meditating on the text of the Scripture, St. Clement discovers at least five senses:
an historical sense;
a doctrinal sense;
a prophetic signification;
a philosophical sense;
and a mystical sense.
Allegory is developed and carried to excess by Origen. He believes that the Logos, the heavenly Groom, is present under the accidents of the Scriptures as Food, Educator and Groom for the soul. "I will endeavor to show," he says, "what the accepted methods of interpretation are, and therefore I will follow the rule which has always been used in Jesus Christ’s heavenly Church since the time of the apostles. According to him, the words of the Scriptures should be printed in the soul in one of three ways:
1- The simple people or the uneducated should be edified by the letter itself, which we call the obvious meaning or the straightforward historical sense. Origen himself is the foremost biblical scholar of antiquity and by no means ignores the literal meaning or the importance of history, when he thinks that one existed, he considers it inferior to the spiritual. Nearly all would have agreed with the fourth-century Didymus the Blind, who was influenced by Origen, that "in fact it is impossible to understand the spiritual or elevated thought without the shadow, which is the letter, or without the preliminary propaedeutic sciences." Origen interprets the past in terms of present faith in Christ, and he shares a tradition which is concerned with spirit rather than letter. The inner spiritual mysteries are concerned with the present: hodie, etiam hodie. The spiritual meaning of the law is found only in the mystery of the Cross and of the Church. The Gospels are chiefly concerned with present spiritual realities and point to the eternal gospel, to the time of the parousia when those who have lived according to the spirit on earth, 'will live in the kingdom of heaven according to the laws of the eternal gospel'. History remains the starting point for our ascent to the mystery, because it shows God's condescension, economy, providence and instruction. Law and prophets come together in Christ. The spiritual realities to which both testaments point are the Cross, the resurrection, and the kingdom of heaven; they are not Platonic forms or Gnostic aeons.
Literalism did not mean a blind acceptance of whatever was written in the Bible but the acceptance of the Law as meaningful in everyday life. To prove his point, De Lange also offers five examples of Origen’s indebtedness to Rabbinical sources.
Origen prefaces the Homilies on Leviticus with an example of how foolish following the literal meaning would be. If taken literally, the entire book of Leviticus would require Christians "to sacrifice calves and lambs and to offer fine wheat flour with incense and oil." In the same passage he calls those who insist on a literal meaning "wicked presbyters." He is quick to mention those passages which present particular difficulties. In replying to critics of his allegorical method of interpretation, Origen claims that the letter of the gospel kills. In addition literal teaching also can hinder the work of the Church.
Jean Daniélou gives an example of Origen’s interest in the literal and historical meaning, saying,
The second Homily on Genesis is a basic text for our purpose. We shall see how Origen both echoes tradition as he knew it and develops the historical outline in which he discusses difficulties raised against the veracity of the story of the Flood, in particular the very limited size of the ark to contain so many species of animals. Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, ironically remarked that it could hardly hold four elephants. Origen sets out to answer this difficulty. This is an important point, for we see that he does not dream of contesting the historicity of the event but falls back on a symbolic interpretation. He lays down first the literal meaning of the text with the help of all the sources at his command. Then only does he pass on to the allegorical meaning. The story of the ark is not, then, just symbolical . There was a real ark which did once float on the waters, typifying the Church of the future, escaping from the flames of the great conflagration to come. Origen is here more literal than many of the literal exegetes of our own day, a point which Pére de Lubac has made clear in his introduction to the Homilies sur la Genese.
Sometimes Origen denies the literal meaning. For example he says, "Could any man of sound judgment suppose that the first, second and third days (of creation) had an evening and a morning, when there were as yet no sun or moon or stars? Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head? When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are only fictions, stories of things that never actually happened, and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries." It is the same with the New Testament text which says that Satan took Jesus up a high mountain from which he could see all the kingdoms on earth. So much for the impossible and its symbolical interpretation.
2- People at the higher level should find edification for their souls through the moral meaning, or the lessons of the texts for the will. Jean Daniélou says "it might be said that Origen took from Philo the idea of looking to Scripture for allegories applying to the moral life. This is particularly evident at the beginning of the homilies on Genesis, where the whole of creation is regarded as an allegory of the soul, as the macrocosm of the microcosm. Man and woman are the two parts of the soul. If they are in harmony they have children, i.e., good impulses. The fish, birds, and beasts over which man reigns are the acts proceeding from the heart and soul (the birds) and the desires of the body and movements of the flesh (the fish and the beasts). All this is based on Philo."
In the Homilies on Leviticus, there are several instances of where this moral meaning is emphasized. The moral sense of Scripture speaks to the reason of a person. Reason is the ability to distinguish between good and evil. By offering holy doctrine from God’s word, the priest appeals to the moral sense of his hearers and thus cleanses their consciences.
According to De Lange’s conclusion, commenting on the wider body of Origen’s writing, that "the "moral" sense is not clearly undistinguished from the third [the spiritual]," is undoubtedly correct. Therefore, the second and third levels of meaning in Scripture are closely related in Origen’s understanding.
3- The perfect should be edified by the mystical or spiritual sense in relation to Christ, or the spiritual Law, as it contains the shadow of the blessings to come. Origen's real interest is the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture. "The priest," Origen said explaining Leviticus 1:6 (which mentions skinning the carcass of a sacrificial animal)."is the one who removes the veil of the letter from God's word and bares the members within , which are the elements of a spiritual understanding." For Origen the allegorical meaning is not hard, as he says, "The spiritual interpretation, however, is not so difficult and hard to come by. For the Bride of the Word, the soul who abides in His royal house - that is, in the Church - is taught by the Word of God, who is her Bridegroom, whatsoever things are stored and hidden within the royal court and in the King's chamber."
He recognizes that, as man is composed of body, soul and spirit, in the same way the structure of the Scripture has been planned by God for man's salvation, i.e., the literal, moral, and spiritual senses.
For example, Origen finds in the ark of Noah a materialization to his theory, as it was built of three stages. "In thus ascending by the various stages of accommodation, we arrive at Noah himself, whose name means ‘rest’ and ‘righteous,’ which is Jesus Christ."
a. The bottom serves as the foundation which refers to the literal or the historical explanation of Scripture.
b. The higher is the spiritual or the mystical. In his homilies on the Genesis, he says, "Those who live according to the dictates of the knowledge of the Spirit, and are capable not only of governing themselves, but of instructing others, because they are few in number, are typified by the small number of those saved with Noah, as Jesus Christ, the true Noah, has few who are close to him in relation and intimacy to share in his word and understand wisdom.
c. The middle represents the moral one.
The Scriptures must be interpreted spiritually because they are the work of the Spirit, who unites them in one book, and inspires both writer and reader.
According to Origen the understanding of the Scripture is "the art of arts," and "the science." The words of the Scripture are its body, or the visible element, that hides its spirit, or the invisible element. The spirit is the treasure hidden in a field: hidden behind every word, every letter but even behind every iota used in the written word of God. Thus "every thing in the Scripture is mystery."
This spiritual understanding of the Scripture is a grace given to the perfect believers by Christ. For only those who have the Spirit of Jesus can understand their spiritual meaning, i.e., to enter this chamber of eternal marriage between Christ and the soul.
We obtain this grace through praying, as we must weep and beg the Lord to open our inner eyes like the blind man sitting by the roadside at Jericho (Mat. 20:30). Origen says that we must pray for we are often beside the wells of running water-God's Scripture-and we yet fail to recognize them by ourselves.
Every time Moses is read to us, We should pray to the Father of the Word that the words of psalm: "open my eyes: and I will consider the wondrous things of Your law" (Ps. 118:8) may apply in our case too. Unless he opens our eyes himself, how can we see what great mysteries were wrought in the patriarchs, mysteries variously signified by the images of night, marriage and birth?
The Alexandrian theologians who followed him, from St. Dionysius to St. Cyril, are all to a greater or lesser extent infected with the predilection for allegory; and the same can be said of the Palestinian (Epiphanius was a notable exception) and Cappadocian Fathers.
The School of Antioch came on the scene comparatively late. It had a vigorous reaction against allegorism. Though not completely rejecting allegorical interpretation, used it very sparingly preferring the historical sense.
Through the influence of the Alexandrian theologians the tradition of allegory passed to the West, and is visible in the expository writings, for example, of St. Hillary and St. Ambrose. The greatest of Latin exegetes, St. Jerome, though in his later days he became suspicious of allegorism, accepted Origen’s three senses of Scripture, deeming that recourse to the spiritual meaning was made necessary by the anthropomorphism’s inconsistencies and incongruities with which the Bible abounded. St. Augustine employs allegory with the greatest freedom, delighting particularly in the mystical significance of names and numbers. St. John Cassian, following St. Clement of Alexandria, establishes the division which re-distinguishes four senses, viz. the literal, the allegorical (applying passages to Christ and the Church Militant), the typological or moral (understanding of the soul and its virtues), and the analogical (applying passages to heavenly realities).
THE ALEXANDRIANS' JUSTIFICATIONS OF ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
As we have already said, St. Clement believes that allegory incites believers to discover the hidden meanings of the Scripture. Alexander Kerrgan says,
Much agreement reigns among the older Alexandrians in regard to the raison d'etre of the spiritual sense. Clement, who was primarily a moralist and an educator, is inclined to emphasize its pedagogical value: the symbols which intimate it pique curiosity and stimulate the mind to discover the words of salvation.
Other scholars state that the biblical authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, used allegory to keep simple Christians from doctrines they are not mature enough to handle and piques the curiosity of the more intelligent and spiritually advanced. Finding the deeper meaning is thus the process by which God gradually leads those to whom He would reveal himself from the sensible to the intelligible world. In this way the genuine gnostic, pondering the obscurer passages of the Bible, takes flight from this world to the other and becomes like God.
Origen discusses two problems which the early Church faced, concerning the Old Testament:
1. The Jews, who stick to the letter of the prophecies of the Old Testament, were expecting that the Messiah would fulfill them literally, such as He must be their King who reigns over the whole world. Therefore, they refused Jesus as the true Messiah, because He does not literally promise the release of captives (Isa. 61:1, rebuild what they take to be the true "City of God," destroy the chariots of Ephraim and the horses of Jerusalem (Zach. 9:10) or eat milk and honey (Isa. 7:22). They could not acknowledge Him as Lord, for they did not see the wolf and the lamb feed together (Isa. 65:25), leopard be at ease with kid, or calf, lion and sheep led together to pasture (Isa. 11:7). Nicolas De Lange states, "It is no exaggeration to say that, for Origen, the whole of the debate between the Church and the Synagogue can be reduced to the one question of an interpretation of the Scriptures. ‘Jesus is the Son of God who gave the law and the prophets,’ and ‘the religion of Moses and the prophetic writings form the introduction to the faith of Christians;’ Christianity is thoroughly rooted in the Jewish Bible. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is that the Christians perceive the mysteries which are only hinted at in the Bible, whereas the Jews are only capable of strictly literal reading of the text."
"Both Jews and Christians," Origen says, "believe that the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit, but we disagree about the interpretation of what is contained in it. Nor do we live like the Jews, since we consider that it is not the literal interpretation of the law which contains the spirit of the legislation."
Elsewhere he says, "We in the Church do not overlook the fact that Jesus is the Son of God who gave the law and the prophets, but while we have avoided the mythologies of the Jews we derive practical wisdom and education from the mystical contemplation of the law and the prophets." Origen often speaks of "Jewish Mythology," a phrase borrowed from Titus 1:14, and he describes the Jewish mythology as "useless" and "fetid." There is no doubt that he means by "Jewish myths" the literal interpretations of the law, indeed "Jewish" can be used simply as a synonym for "literal," but this is an exaggerated and one sided characterization of the Jewish attitude, which is presented as a contrast to Origen’s own, richer interpretation. Indeed, its use is not confined to Jews; he can even apply it to Christians who adopt what is to him a narrow view of the meaning of Scripture.
Origen says, "If therefore both the Lord and God are "Spirit," we ought to hear spiritually those things which the Spirit says."
2. The Gnostics rejected the Old Testament, for they were scandalized by some passages which refer to God as being angry, or that He regretted or changed His mind. They were scandalized because they interpreted them literally and not spiritually. Origen suggests that allusions to anthropomorphism, such as God's anger, are not to be understood literally. "If you hear of God's anger and wrath, do not think of wrath and anger as emotions experienced by God." God is simply accommodating human language to serve the purpose of correcting human faults, as a human father corrects a child. "We too put on a severe face for correcting children, not because that is our true feeling but because we are accommodating ourselves to their level. If we let our kindly feelings show in our face ... we spoil the child." But God is not really wrathful or angry, yet we experience the effects of wrath when we find ourselves in trouble on account of our wickedness, which is the discipline of the "so-called wrath of God."
In Jos. hom 9:8 Origen expresses his position with regard to the Old Testament quite admirably. It represents a system which is done away with. Yet the Church, unlike the Gnostics, does not reject it; she preserves it, simply because it contains the type of Christ. But carnal man, the slave of the letter, is incapable by himself of deciphering this type of Christ. Christ Himself must grant that spiritual understanding by bestowing His own Spirit. This is the reason why a spiritual exegesis is so closely linked with the ideal of a spiritual perfection. "Jesus it is who reads the Law, when he reveals the secrets of the Law. We, who belong to the Catholic Church, do not reject the Law of Moses, but receive it if and when it is Jesus who reads it to us. For it is only if Jesus reads the Law in such wise that through his reading we grasp its spiritual significance, that we correctly understand the Law. Do not think they have grasped the meaning who could say: Was not our heart burning within us when he opened to us the Scriptures, and, beginning at Moses and the Prophets and expounding them all showed that they wrote of him." By linking Joshua’s reading of the Law with Jesus’ reading to the disciples of Emmaus, Origen gives us an exegesis of the Matthew type, which is not usual with him, yet which emphasizes the profound continuity of the Old Testament, the Gospel and the interior Christ who instructs each Christian.
Origen sees that these two groups of people (the Jews and the Gnostics) misinterpreted the Scripture as they held the literal sense exclusively. For this reason he set his theory that there are three various meanings in the Scriptures, the literal, the moral and spiritual meanings.
Alexander Kerrgan writes,
Both he and Origen allude to a reason that is invoked by profane exegetes in justification of the allegorical interpretation of the Homeric poems: the purpose of the higher sense is to explain and transmit Scripture in a manner that is worthy of God.
Origen dwells at length on a third reason: the spiritual sense is justifiable on the grounds that the institutions of the Old Testament prefigured Christ. "In what is written in the law," he writes, "everything is either a figure or an enigma of Christ." The spiritual sense, accordingly, is the expression of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New; it aims at discovering the connections that exist between them. This principle is known to Clement but he invokes it rarely. (As we shall see presently) it is a cardinal principle of St. Cyril’s exegetical method. (We have already noted that) St. Cyril regards the spiritual sense as a hinge on which his theory of the identity of both Testaments hangs. He expresses his views on this point for the first time during a discussion in which he endeavors to harmonize the implications of texts like Mt. 5,17 f. and Phil. 3, 7-9 (which imply that the Mosaic law is still in force) with those of John. 4, 21-24, Gal. 5, 4 f., Heb. 7,18f., 8, 7-10 and 13 (which imply that the law is abolished).
In dealing with St. Cyril's views, Kerrgan further writes,
Three conclusions are reached which, though formulated negatively, are quite positive in their contents:
1. It is a mistake to hold that the law has been abolished to the extent that none of its prescriptions have any force.
2. It is likewise a mistake to think that it is altogether useless; (ta anayxaia), if they are explained, they are still useful.
3. Finally, it is erroneous to claim that the law cannot be used as a proof of the truth.
Three reasons are adduced in support of these conclusions:
1. "the law is a type, shadow, or form of religion that brings forth in childbirth, as it were, the beauty of the truth which is hidden inside."
2. "The law is a teacher that leads beautifully to the mystery concerning Christ."
3. "The law contains the first elements of God's words."
Kerrgan also writes,
On these biblical foundations the Patriarch of Alexandria (St. Cyril) builds his theory of the higher sense of Scripture. We must not lose sight of the fact that this higher sense is primarily a mode of utterance existing in the Scriptures themselves. A few quotations will illustrate this point. "The law brings forth spiritual things in its depths, as it were, and contains the meaning of more subtle ideas in delicate shadows." With regard to the prophecy of Aggeus, Cyril writes: "His discourse is mixed. And the mystical (Sophia) befitting spiritual things is buried in the deeds and utterances of history." "Great spiritual wealth," our author remarks elsewhere, "was pounded into the Mosaic oracles."
Of course, in order that these riches be unearthed, the literal sense must necessarily be superseded. On this subject St. Cyril, apparently, can never say too much." The law is perfect and imperfect at one and the same time. It is perfect, if it is understood spiritually (since it speaks to us of Christ's mystery). But it is imperfect, if the mind of those who are being instructed does not go beyond the letter. The crudity of the letter is only half-knowledge." In another place the Patriarch states that the law, considered precisely as a system of types and shadows, did not constitute food which could be eaten; to become food, it needed to be transformed into an evangelical Sophia and then deflected towards Christ's mystery. Quoting Lev. 19, 23f he endeavors to give a somewhat more artistic finish to these ideas. "...The writings of Moses, since they yield a variegated growth of oracles and are adorned with trees (namely laws concerning each single thing) seem to us to be like most fertile gardens. But you must purify the impurity of each tree, that is to say, you must cut off the worthlessness of history and remove the woodiness of the letter. Then you may reach the heart of the plant, you may investigate the interior fruit of the oracle and make food of it."
Ideas like these St. Cyril hears again and again. The saying of St. Paul "the letter kills but the spirit vivifies" 2 Cor. 3:6 is frequently invoked and made a universal norm. Just one quotation more: "For the letter kills, that is to say, the letter of the law as the wise Paul says. Of itself the shadow is useless. But in regard to us , who understand, the shadow has become most useful, since it enables us to grasp the things of Christ. It has become, as it were, a kind of spiritual rain which irrigates the earth in a certain fashion. If it is true that the ancient law was bitter and unbearable for the ancients, it has become for us a Paidagogos to Christ's mystery, so that we can bring forth fruit in him, by peeling off the thickness of the shadow."
THE ANTIOCHENE REACTION
There was a reaction against allegorism in Antioch, the ecclesiastical metropolis of Syria, where a tradition of Bible study, with meticulous attention to the text, had been fostered since the days of Lucian of Antioch (martyred A.D 312).
The beginnings of the school of Antioch seem to have been very modest; it never could boast a head like Origen. It was not a regular institution with a continuous secession of teachers, like the Catechetical School of Alexandria, but a theological tendency, more particularly a peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis.
The Antiochene Fathers used few typological elements in their writings, since their exegesis reduced this element to a minimum. We noticed that the Alexandrians faced the Hellenic culture, and were obliged to use even their terms to defend the Christian faith and to attract the well-educated pagans and Jews to Christianity. The Antiochenes were strongly influenced by the Jewish literalist tradition of Antioch. They were convinced that the primary level of the interpretation was the historical level. They gave attention to the revisions of the text, a close adherence to the plain, natural meaning according to the use of language and the condition of the writer, and justice to the human factor. In other words, its exegesis is grammatical and historical, in distinction from the allegorical method of the Alexandrian School. Yet, as regards to textual criticism, Lucian followed the steps of Origen. Besides the Antiochenes did have regard for the spiritual sense, and the divine element in the Scriptures.
With regard to prophecies and psalms that were generally understood to be Messianic, the Antiochenes allowed for a fuller sense alongside the historical sense. Thus, they understood passages to refer to Christ, the Church and the spreading of the gospel; but they did this only in certain clearly defined circumstances.
J. Quasten states that the scholars in the two different schools were convinced of a deep-seated discord, a fundamental contradiction, in their respective approaches. At Antioch, the object was to find in Holy Writ its most obvious meaning; at Caesarea or Alexandria the search was for the figures of Christ. The one site accused allegory of destroying the value of the Bible as a record of the past, of travestying it into mythological fable; the other dubbed ‘carnal’ all who clung to the letter. Still between the two there was no absolute opposition; there was even broad agreement on entire traditional exegesis; but special emphasis fell on distinct points of view. For Origen discovers types not just in certain episodes, but in every detail of the inspired word. Each line is filled with mystery. On the other hand, Antioch made it a fundamental principle to see figures of Christ just occasionally, not always, in the Old Testament. Where the resemblance was marked and the analogy clear, only there would it admit a foreshadowing of the Savior. Types were the exception, not the rule; the Incarnation was everywhere prepared, but not everywhere prefigured.
Lucian of Antioch: The Arians and Nestorians claimed descent from, or affinity with, Lucian and his school. J. Quasten states "Its (the school of Antioch) rationalistic tendency led to its becoming the womb of heresy; Lucian, its founder, was the teacher of Arius. He was not a prolific writer. St. Jerome refers to his ‘small treatise on faith’ without indication of its contents. He was a Hebrew scholar and corrected the Greek version of the Old Testament from the original. This revision of the Septuagint was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor from Antioch to Byzantium, and was highly esteemed. Large fragments of it are extant in the writings of St. John Chrysostom and Theodoret. Lucian extended his textual criticism to the New Testament also, but limited it most probably to the four Gospels.
Theodoret quotes the following passage from the letter of St. Alexander of Alexandria, ten years after Lucian’s death, which was sent to all the bishops of Egypt, Syria, Asia and Cappadocia.
You yourselves have been instructed by God; you are not unaware that this teaching, which is setting itself up again against the faith of the Church, is the doctrine of Ebion and Artemas; it is the perverse theology of Paul of Samosata, who was expelled from the Church at Antioch by a councilor sentence of bishops from all place; his successor Lucian remained for a long time excommunicated under three bishops; the dregs of the impiety of those heretics have been absorbed by these men who have risen from nothing....., Arius, Achillas, and the whole band of their companions in malice
In fact, Arius and the future upholders of his heresy were educated by Lucian at Antioch. Arius himself boasted of being a pupil of his, called himself a ‘Lucianist,’ and addressed Lucian’s successor, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, as ‘Collucianist.’ All this indicates that Lucian is the father of Arianism. Thus this heresy has its roots not in Alexandria, where it was first taught, but at Antioch.
The chief theologians concerned with this were Diodore of Tarsus (c.330-c.390). The Exegetical School of Antioch produced one of its greatest scholars and teachers in Diodore of Tarsus. Highly esteemed as a pillar of orthodoxy during his lifetime, he was accused of heresy and condemned as the originator of Nestorianism a century after his death.
Eusebius twice mentions him and his glorious martyrdom, but is silent about his theological opinions. St. Alexander of Alexandria, in an encyclical of 321, associates him with Paul of Samosata and makes him responsible for the Arian heresy; he also says that he was excommunicated or kept aloof from the church during the episcopate of Domnus, Timaeus, and Curillus; intimating that his schismatic condition ceased before his death. The charge brought against him and his followers is that he denied the eternity of the Logos, and the human soul of Christ (the Logos taking the place of the rational soul). Arius and the Arians speak of him as their teacher.
In his exegesis, Diodore follows firmly the historical and grammatical method and strenuously opposes the allegorical interpretation peculiar to the Alexandrian School. He does not look for a hidden meaning in the text, but for the sense intended by the inspired writer.
His best work is his Commentary on the Psalms, which gives a good idea of how Antiochene exegesis is both historical and Christological. David is held to be the author of the Psalms, but, by the gift of prophecy, some of the Psalms refer historically to the times of later kings and prophets, the exile, and even the Maccabean period. His treatment of Psalms 2 and 22 show the two extremes of the Antiochene exegesis. Psalm 2 is about the Lord Jesus Christ, and tells how the Jews handed Him over to Herod and Pilate, how He will save those who believe in Him, and how He will crush those who do not believe. Against this thoroughly Christological interpretation of Psalm 2, Diodore firmly rejects the idea that Psalm 22 has anything to do with Christ in spite of the use of the words of Jesus when He was on the Cross in the opening lines of the Psalm.
In Diodore’s formula ‘We do not forbid the higher interpretation and theoria, for the historical narrative does not exclude it, but is on the contrary the basis and substructure of loftier insights... We must, however, be on our guard against letting the theoria do away with the historical basis, for the result would then be, not theoria, but allegory.’
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428): Diodore’s pupil, Theodore, was like his teacher born at Antioch. He studied rhetoric and literature under the famous sophist Libanius, in whose school he began his lifelong friendship with St. John Chrysostom. Highly esteemed by his contemporaries but condemned as a heretic 125 years after his death, he shared the fate of his master Diodore of Tarsus. He is the most typical representative of the Antiochene school of exegesis and by far its most famous author. His works show that he was much more restrained in using the Christological interpretation of the Old Testament.
Photius seems acquainted only with an interpretation of Genesis. He states in his very biased report:
Read the work of Theodore of Antioch entitled Commentary on Genesis, the first book which contains seven volumes. The style is neither brilliant nor very clear. The author avoids the use of allegory as much as possible, being only concerned with the interpretation of history. He frequently repeats himself, and produces a disagreeable impression upon the reader. Although he lived before Nestorius, he vomits up his doctrines by anticipation. This is that Theodore of Mopsuestia, from whom on several occasions John Philoponus demanded a serious explanation of his method of interpretation in his own work on the Creation.
Theodore is the first interpreter to insist that the Psalms must be read against a historical background. He recognizes the Davidic authorship of all the Psalms but at the same time is convinced that the context and setting of many of the Psalms are altogether unsuitable to David. His solution to this problem is that those Psalms which reflect another period were written by David, but as a prophet revealing the future state of Israel. Thus he classifies the Psalms chronologically from David to the Maccabees. He maintains that the prophetic horizon of David did not reach further than the Maccabees, and that there is consequently no direct Messianic message in the Psalms. He justifies the Messianic use in the New Testament as an accommodation. But he recognizes four exceptions: Ps. 2; 8; 44; 109. Though he does not regard even these as properly Messianic in the sense of referring to the future prepared for the chosen people, he explains the Messianic interpretations proposed by the allegorical school of Alexandria which violate his sound principle that each Psalm must be treated as a literary whole and that a verse cannot be divorced from its context.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-c.460): His exegetical works deal with a large number of the Old Testament books. These works shows the Antiochene attitude in the method of interpretation.
The practical illustrations of the Antiochene method are to be found in the sermons of the other great representative of this School St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407), who is furthermore deeply rooted in the common tradition and furnishes a large number of typical interpretations.
The sermons of St. John Chrysostom give evidence of his strict and intelligent training in the tenets of that School. Always anxious to ascertain the literal sense and opposed to allegory, he combines great facility in discerning the spiritual meaning of the Scriptural text with an equal ability for immediate, practical application to the guidance of those committed to his care. The depth of his thought and the soundness of his masterful exposition are unique and attract even modern readers. He is equally at home in the books of the Old and the New Testaments and has the skill to use even the former for the conditions of the present and the problems of daily life.
He combines the historical interpretation of his predecessors with doctrinal and didactic gifts.
St. John Chrysostom brings out the same point when he divides Scriptural statements into:
a. those which allow a ‘theoretical’ in addition to the literal sense,
b. those which are to be understood solely in the literal sense, and
c. those which admit only of a meaning other than the literal, i.e. allegorical statements.
Valid though this contrast is, it should not be pressed to the extent of overlooking the underlying unity, at the deeper level of typology, of the fathers ’approach to the Scriptural revelation. There is general agreement about cardinal issues, such as that Adam, or again Moses the law-giver, in a real sense, foreshadowed Christ; the flood points to baptism, and also to the judgment; all the sacrifices of the old law, but in a pre-eminent way the sacrifice of Isaac, are anticipations of that of Calvary; the crossing of the Red sea and the eating of manna looks forward to baptism and the Eucharist; the fall of Jericho prefigured the end of the world. The list of correspondences could be expanded almost indefinitely, for the fathers were never weary of searching them out and dwelling on them. They unanimously believe that what Origen calls the Jewish mystery (or dispensation) in its entirety’ was, as it were, a rehearsal of the Christian mystery. Alexandria, famous in the late second and third centuries for its Matt school, became the home of allegorical exegesis, with the great Biblical scholar, Origen, as its leading exponent.
Despite differences of emphasis among the Antiochene Fathers, the whole believed that allegory was an unreliable, indeed illegitimate, instrument for interpreting Scripture. The true key to its deeper spiritual message where this was not already fully explicit, as in genuine prophecy, was what they called ‘insight.’ By this they meant the power of perceiving, in addition to the historical facts set out in the text, a spiritual reality to which they applied themselves to indicate. Thus they accepted typology proper indeed, the classic definition of a type as ‘a prophecy expressed in terms of things’ was framed by Chrysostom but tried to rescue it from being exploited arbitrarily. For theoria to operate they considered it necessary
a. that the literal sense of the sacred narrative should not be abolished,
b. that there should be a real correspondence between the historical fact and the further spiritual object discerned, and
c. that these two objects should be apprehended together, though of course in different ways.
V V V
EXAMPLES OF
THE ALEXANDRIAN
ALLEGORY AND TYPOLOGY
The following is an attempt to give a clear picture of Alexandrian allegory and typology through some examples. Although it is extremely hard task to do; it is considered worthwhile.
THE NUMBERS
The mystical significance of numbers was developed especially at Alexandria, beginning with Philo and developed by Origen. Jean Daniélou gives signs of Origin’s dependence on Philo, saying,
The third sign... is to be seen in the way he treats symbolism in certain cases. One thing, however, needs pointing out in this connection, and that is that there is a certain amount of numerical symbolism in the Bible itself, where it often constitutes the literal meaning of the text. The use of the number seven is a case in point. It is clear that there is a feeling for symbolism in the Bible; it is discernible, for instance, in the story of creation. Hence, when Origen says that the "number six seems to denote effort and labor and the number seven to signify rest," he is proceeding on the same lines as Scripture itself. But when referring to the number fifty, Pentecost and the number one hundred, which he takes to denote fullness, he says, "The people who were refreshed by (= resting in, ) the food that Jesus gave them had to be in groups of a hundred - which is a sacred number, dedicated to God because of the monad in it - or in groups of fifty, a number signifying remission, as you can see from Pentecost and the mystery of the Jubilee, which took place every fifty years," he is combining the legitimate symbolism of the Bible with pagan symbolism. It is true that fifty is a symbol of forgiveness in the Old Testament, both in the case of the Jubilee and in the case of the annual celebration of Pentecost. And Origen may very likely be right when he claims to find the same thing in the New Testament. But when he takes a hundred as a symbol of perfection, he is inserting into this genuine symbolism a kind of symbolism which is based on external considerations and foreign to the text. The idea that a hundred is the holy number par excellence is in fact embedded deep in Hellenistic tradition...
St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, Caesarius of Arles and others borrowed their numerical symbolism from Origen.
* Number 2 = The two Testaments
Concerning the sacrifice of peace, the priest eats the meat through two days (Lev. 7:17). Origen comments, "To the best of my understanding, I think in these two days the two Testaments can be understood." In other words, through the two Testaments we can participate in the spiritual sacrifice of peace, joy and thanksgiving. The holy Scripture reveals God’s pleasure in believers, and the believers’ joy with their God.
For St. Augustine number two refers to love. He says,
The precepts of love, given to us by the Lord, are two: "You shall love the Lord Your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind;" and, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40). With good reason did the widow cast " two mites;" all her substance, into the offerings of God. With good reason did the host take "two" pieces of money for the poor man who was wounded by the robbers. Jesus spent two days with the Samaritans, to establish them in love.
* Number 3 = The Holy Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, the three kinds of sin, and the three elements of man.
Abraham knew that he prefigured the type of things to come, he knew Christ would be born of his seed, to be offered as a true victim for the whole world and the resurrection of the dead... He arrived at the place to which the Lord had directed him on the third day (Gen. 22:4). The third day is always a fit one for mysteries. When the people went forth from Egypt they offered sacrifice to God on the third day (Exod. 3:18), and the Lord’s Resurrection is on the third day.
Origen sees in these three days which precede the Passover the Paschal "triduum" of the Lord.
Pharaoh did not allow the children of Israel to go forward to the place of signs, and wished to prevent them advancing till they could enjoy the mysteries of the third day. Hear what says the Prophet: "The Lord will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."
The first day is for us the Lord’s passion;
the second that of the descent into hell, and
the third that of the Resurrection.
That is why, on this third day, God will go before them, by day a pillar of cloud, and by night a pillar of fire. If, according to what we said above, the Apostle rightly teaches us that these words enshrine the mystery of baptism, then it will follow that "those who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized into his death and buried together with him" (Rom 6:3), and rise with him on the third day. When you have made your own the mystery of the third day, God will begin to lead you and himself to show you the way of salvation.
By the "Mystery" of the three days Origen is able to harmonize the crossing of the Red Sea with the general theology of Baptism as a sharing in the death and Resurrection of Christ. Later he sees in the pursuit of the Egyptians a stereotype of the devils straining to keep the soul from Baptism.
Through the trip of the wilderness, the camp of the people was divided into four divisions, each one consisted of three tribes (Num. 2). According to Origen, it was a symbol of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He States that the inhabitants of the four corners of the world are censured by the Holy Trinity alone, those who call God and sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the Heaven (Matt. 8:11).
Number 3 refers also to the three kinds of sin.
Man’s way of sinning is three fold: sin is committed in deed, or in word or in thought.
What is the "journey of three days" which we are to go, that going out from Egypt we can arrive at the place in which we ought to sacrifice? I understand "way" to refer to him who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."(John 14.6.) We are to go this way for three days. For he who "has confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believed in his heart that God raised him from the dead" on the third day, "will be saved" (Cf. Rom 10:9). This, therefore, is "the way of three days" by which one arrives at the place in which the "sacrifice of praise"(Cf. Ps. 49.14.) is sacrificed and offered to the Lord. What we have said pertains to the mystical meaning.
But if we also require a place for the moral meaning which is very useful for us, we travel a "journey of three days" from Egypt if we thus preserve ourselves from all filth of soul, body, and spirit, that, as the Apostle said, "our spirit and soul and body may be kept whole in the day of Jesus Christ"(1 Thess 5:23). We travel a "journey of three days" from Egypt if, ceasing from worldly things we turn our rational, natural, moral wisdom to the divine laws. We travel a "journey of three days" from Egypt if, purifying our words, deeds, or thoughts - for these are the three things by which men can sin - we would be made "pure in heart" so that we could "see God" (Cf. Matt. 5:8).
* Numbers 5, 50, 250, and 500
And the number five hundred, or two hundred and fifty, either contains the mystery of the five senses perfected a hundred-fold in Him; or else, as being the pardonable number, fifty multiplied five times, it signifies the remission of sins that is bestowed through Him.
St. Augustine like Origen believes that number five refers to the five senses. However he gives another explanation to number fifty, as he says,
The number of fifty is made up by multiplying 7 by 7, with the addition to 1, for 7 times 7 makes 49. (Number 7 refers to perfection, for on the seventh day God rested after the creation) And the 1 is added to show that there is one who is expressed by seven on account of His sevenfold operation; and we know that it was on the fiftieth day after our Lord’s resurrection that the Holy Spirit was sent, for whom the disciples were commanded to wait according to the promise (Acts 4; 2:2-4).
* Number 10
Now the number ten is a sacred one, not a few mysteries being indicated by it.
* Numbers 22, 273 and 1000
According to Origen, the Levites were counted (Num. 3). The count of all the males a month old and upwards. They were 22,000. The numeral 22 coincides with the number of the Hebrew Alphabet, the numeral 1000 is a symbol of heaven. As if their work was to register the names of all the people in a heavenly language so that everyone may share in the heavenly glory.
The number of the firstborns from all the people of Israel was 22,273. The 273 souls were left uncompensated for. For the redemption of each one of them, 5 golden shekels were to be presented to Aaron and his sons. The numeral 273 is a symbol of our redemption through baptism or spiritual birth. The physical birth requires the fetus to remain two hundred and seventy days in his mother's womb (9 X 30 = 270), and this spiritual birth is accomplished by 3 immersions. As for the five shekels they symbolize the sanctification of the five senses, so that we may resemble the five wise virgins (Matt. 25).
Number 25
Origen states that the Levites start their work at age 25, spending five years for attaining their experience (Num. 4). Number 25 denotes the perfect sanctification of the five senses (both spiritual and physical: (5 X 5 = 25).
* Number 300
With regard to these foxes (Judges 15:3-5) that differ from and disagree with one another, however, the number three hundred itself signifies that there are three kinds of sins. For every sin is committed either in deed, or in word, or by the consent of the mind.
Jean Daniélou says,
The length (of the ark of Noah) of 300 cubits unites 100 and 3.
The number 100 indicated fullness and "contains the mystery of the totality of the Spiritual creation, as we read in the Gospel, when it is said that a man having a hundred sheep and losing one of them left the ninety-nine others and went to seek the lost one.... This ‘hundredth,’ the fullness of Spiritual creation, does not subsist of itself, but proceeds from the Trinity and receives from the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit, the length of life, that is the grace of immortality; it is because of this multiplied by three, so that having fallen from the ‘hundred’ through ignorance, it is restored in the three hundred by the knowledge of the Trinity."
The breadth has fifty cubits, "because that number is consecrated to redemption and remission." It is the interpretation already given by Clement and comes from Philo.
The number thirty contains the same "mystery" as 300. Finally, the top of the building leads to the number one because ‘one God is Father and Lord ; there is one faith of the Church and one baptism" and "all things hasten to the one end of divine perfection." Origen has worked out his own theology in these mysteries of the ark as Clement has previously worked out his.
V V V
THE NAMES
Ronald E. Heine says, "Etymological exegesis of names is one of the techniques of Origen's allegorical interpretation of Scripture. This is his attempt to draw spiritual significance from the meaning of the names of various persons and places in the Scriptural narrative by relating the names to words from which they are derived or, what is often the case, which they resemble."
* Aaron and his sons = Christ and His apostles
Origen states that our Lord Jesus Christ is "Aaron," and His apostles are the sons of Aaron. According to Lev. 10:9, they do not drink wine or strong drink when they go into the Tent of Witness or when they approach the Altar. In other words they cannot rejoice while we are in iniquity, and are in need of Christ’s redeeming work and the apostles’ ministry.
According to the authority of the Apostle Paul, our Lord and Savior is called "the High-priest of the good things to come" Heb. 9:11. Thus, this one is "Aaron," but "his sons" are His apostles to whom He Himself was saying, "My little children.." John 13:33...
Let us now see how our Savior drinks no wine "until He drinks it" with the saints "anew in the kingdom of God" (Matt. 26:29).
My Savior even now laments my sins. My Savior cannot rejoice while I continue in iniquity. Why not? Because He is "an Advocate for our sins before the Father," as John, his fellow priest, proclaims, saying that "if anyone should sin, we have an Advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:1-2)....
As long as we do not act so that we may ascend to the kingdom, He cannot drink alone the wine which He promised to drink with us. Therefore, He is in sorrow as long as we persist in error.
* Agar and Sara
For Origen the opposition of Agar and Sara is not the opposition of two historical peoples. It is rather a stereotype of the interior conflict which goes on in each individual Christian. The historical conflict becomes that of Jew and Christian which each of us bears in himself. Thus the history of nations becomes the history of the individual soul, a transposition along the lines of authentic typology.
* Balaamý
From the symbolic aspect, Origen believes that the angel who appeared to Balaam, depicts the Angel of God who was leading His people (Exod. 23:43), while Balaam represents the non-believers, his name denotes "vain people." As for the donkey it refers to the simple Church that serves non-believers. The Church that reveals to them what they cannot perceive.
* Bethabara
They say that Bethabara is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptized there. The etymology of the name, too, corresponds with the baptism of him who made ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him; for it yields the meaning "House of preparation," while Bethany means "House of obedience."
* Etham (Exod. 13:21) = signs for them
Etham, they say, is translated in our language as "signs for them," and rightly so, for here you will hear it said: "God was preceding them by day in a column of cloud and by night in a column of fire" (Exod. 13:21). You do not find this done at Ramesse nor at Socoth, which is called the second encampment for those departing. It is the third encampment in which divine signs occur. Recollect what was read above when Moses said to Pharaoh, "We will go a journey of three days in the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God" (Exod. 5:3). This was the three days to which Moses was hastening and Pharaoh was opposing, for he said, "You shall not go far"(Exod. 8:28 [LXX 8:24]). Pharaoh would not permit the children of Israel to reach the place of signs; he would not permit them to advance so that they could enjoy fully the mysteries of the third day. Hear what the prophet says: "God will revive us after two days, and on the third day we will arise and live in his sight" (Hos. 6:2). The first day is the passion of the Savior for us. The second is the day on which he descended into hell. The third day is the day of resurrection (Cf. Matt. 16.21). Therefore, on the third day "God went before them, by day in a column of cloud, by night in a column of fire" (Cf. Exod. 13:21).
* Jacob and Esau
Since Jacob now stands for the Church, Esau, the older brother, will represent the Jews. Origen comments on Genesis 25:23: "How the one people (the Church) has overcome the other (the Synagogue), and how the elder is the servant of the younger, is known even to the Jews, although they do not believe it." The implication of the last words is that the argument is familiar to the Jews, but that they do not realize that it works against themselves. Again, read Jacob as a symbol for the Church, Origen finds new meaning for the sheep won from Laban.
* Jesus and Joshua
Origen notes that this name appears for the first time in Exod. 17:9, when Moses sends Joshua to fight against Amalek:
We meet the name of Jesus for the first time when we see him as head of the army. From this first acquaintance with the name of Jesus I learn the mystery of its symbolism (sacramentum mysterii): Jesus is the leader of the army."
* Moses = The Law
This Church, therefore, coming from the Gentiles finds Moses in the marsh lying cast off by his own people and exposed, and gives him out to be reared. He is reared by his own family and spends his childhood there. When, however, "he has grown stronger" (Exod. 2:10), he is brought to her and adopted as a son. We have already frequently argued in many places that the Law is referred to as Moses.
The Church, therefore, coming to the waters of baptism, also took up the Law.
The Law, however, had been enclosed in "a basket" and smeared with pitch and "bitumen" (Cf. Exod. 2:3). The "basket" is a kind of covering woven together from twigs or papyrus or even formed from the bark of trees.
The infant placed within this basket was seen exposed. The Law, therefore, was lying helpless enclosed in coverings of this kind, besmeared with pitch and bitumen. It was dirty and enclosed in cheap and offensive meanings of the Jews until the Church should come from the Gentiles and take it up from the muddy and marshy places and appropriate it to itself within courts of wisdom and royal houses.
This Law, however, spends its childhood with its own people. With those who are not able to understand it spiritually. It is little, an infant, and has milk as its food. But when Moses comes to the Church, when he enters the house of the Church, he grows stronger and more robust. For when the veil of the letter is removed "perfect and solid food" (Cf. Heb 5:12-14) is discovered in its text.
But let us also take up the Law of God to ourselves when we come to the waters even if we had Pharaoh as father, even if "the prince of the world" (John 16:11) begot us in evil works.
Let not its cheap and obscure cover of the letter be despised by us. Let us give up what is small and milky. Let us take up what is perfect and robust and let us set these up within the royal dwellings of our heart.
Let us have Moses large and strong. Let us think nothing small, nothing lowly about him, but let him be totally magnificent, totally distinguished, totally elegant. For whatever is spiritual, whatever of elevated understanding is great in every respect. And let us pray our Lord Jesus Christ that he himself might reveal and show us in what manner Moses is great and elevated (Cf. Exod. 11:3). For he himself "reveals" it to whom he wishes "by the Holy Spirit" (Cf. 1 Cor 2:10). "To him belong glory and sovereignty forever and ever. Amen."(Cf. 1 Pet. 4:11).
* Og
Victory over Ogý (crookedness), the king of Bashan "Shame." So we destroy every distorted thought that will deter us from preoccupying ourselves with heavenly matters, and every disgrace is removed, consequently we enter into the inner divine glory.
* Sara = princess (royal virtue)
I think that Sara which is interpreted "princess" or having the sovereignty is the type of virtue, because virtue is in the mind. That is true virtue which lives with a wise and faithful husband. That is why God said to Abraham, ‘In all that Sara has said to you, hearken to her voice’: words which do not fit a merely carnal marriage.
* Sephora and Phua
The king of Egypt called Sephora and Phua, the midwives and asked them to kill the Hebrew males and preserve the males; but they disobeyed him for they feared God. According to Origen "Sephora" means a "sparrow," and "Phua" means either "blushing" or "modest." The two midwives also refer to the Two testaments.
For one midwife is like a sparrow who teaches lofty things and calls forth souls to fly to the heights on rational wings of instruction. The other, who is blushing or modest, is moral. She regulates morals, teaches modesty, and institutes integrity.
It seems to me, however, since Scripture says of these women, "Because they feared God, they did not carry out the command of the king of Egypt" (Exod. 1:17), that the two midwives serve as a figure of the two Testaments. "Sephora," which is translated as sparrow, can be applied to the Law which "is spiritual" (Cf. Rom 7 ;14). But "Phua," who is blushing or modest, indicates the Gospels which are red with the blood of Christ and glow reddish through the whole world by the blood of His passion. The souls, therefore, which are born in the Church are attended by these Testaments as if by midwives, because the entire antidote of instruction is conferred on them from the reading of the Scriptures.
But let us apply these words also to ourselves. If you too fear God, you do not carry out the command of the king of Egypt. For he commands you to live in pleasure, to love the present world, to desire present things (Cf. 1 John 2:15-16). If you fear God and perform the office of midwife for your own soul, if you desire to confer salvation on it, you do not do these things. You keep alive the male which is in you. You attend and assist your inner man(Cf. 2 Cor 4:16) and seek eternal life for him by good actions and understandings.
* Sihon
According to Origen, Sihon (Num. 21:12-30) means "haughty" and "barren." He refers to the devil, the king of the Amorites "bitterness." He is the king of the evil world (John 14:30; 12:31), who grants sinners a kind of bitterness. He resists God's peace, so he ends up being defeated. As for the battle field it was called Jahaz "the fulfillment of the commandment," where we are triumphant (Jer. 6:16), by the blade of the Spirit which is God's word (Eph. 6:17). Hence we occupy all his land from Arnon to Jabbok (i.e. from the curses up to the struggles, we enter into the land of curses, and we struggle until it is superseded by blessings), and we occupy Heshbon , meaning "reckoning or thought" moreover we recover our ideology after it had been under the proud enemy's control.
V V V
THE EVENTS
* Adam
Just as through having Adam as the first example, the head, of our natural mode of birth, we are all said to have in this respect one body, even so do we register Christ as our head through the divine regeneration of his death and resurrection which has become a pattern for us.
* The coat of skin
Origen states that the Fall has caused man to put on the garments of mortality and of frailty. These are the "coats of skin" (Gen. 3:21) made by God for Adam and Eve when they were being expelled from Paradise. Following Philo and the Gnostics, who had interpreted the coats of skin as bodies, Origen sees the Fall not simply as a moral but as a metaphysical event. The Fall means that man enters a world which is separate from God, and takes on a dual nature of spirit and of flesh because he is now clothed in a physical body.
* Ark of Noah
Jean Daniélou says,
We noted (previously) that Noah is considered explicitly as a type of Christ... Origen cites Gen. 5:29: "he shall comfort us concerning our work and toil." But he adds that this cannot apply to Noah. "How can it be true that Noah will give rest to Lamech or to the people then on earth, or how was there in the time of Noah an end to the sadness, or how was the crude upon the earth lifted (Gen 5:29), seeing that the divine anger was revealed as very great.....But if you consider our Lord Jesus Christ of whom it is said: ‘Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world’ and ‘Come to me, all you that labor, and I will refresh you’, you will find that it is he who has truly given rest to the world and freed man from that curse"...
Origen next deals with the building of the ark: "It is to this spiritual Noah who has given rest to man and taken away the sin of the world that the order was given to build the ark with square columns." These square columns indicate firmness according to an idea which comes from Philo, and which we have found in Clement of Alexandria. Origen sees in this a type of the Doctors of the Church who fight against the assaults of the heretics. This idea is always present in the "Gnostic" point of view.
* Drawing water from a well = depth of knowledge
Rebecca came with the other women to draw water from the well and because she came every day to the well, it was possible for her to be found by Abraham’s servant and married to Isaac. You think that these are myths, and that the Holy Spirit only records history in the Scriptures. Here is an instruction for the soul and spiritual teaching which instructs you to come daily to the wells of the Scriptures... All that has been written, points to mysteries: Christ wishes to wed you, too, and for that reason sends his servant to you. This servant is the word of the prophets. You cannot be wed to Christ, if you have not at first received him.
Origen borrows from Philo this symbolism of the wells as the "depths of knowledge," and gives it quite a different significance.
* The souls who descended into Egypt with Jacob (Exod. 1:5) = The spiritual birth in Jesus Christ through the Gospel.
Those are the souls which Jacob begot. I do not think that any man can beget a soul unless, perhaps, he be someone like that man who said, "For although you have many thousand teachers in Christ, you have not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus I begot you through the Gospel."(1 Cor. 4.15.) Such are those men who beget and give birth to souls, as he says elsewhere, "My little children, with whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you."(Gal. 4.19.) For others either do not wish to have the trouble of this kind of begetting or are not able. In short, what did Adam himself say at the beginning? "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."(Gen. 2.23.) He does not add, however, "and soul of my soul."
© 1998-2005 CopticChurch.net. All rights reserved.
Designed and Maintained by St. Mark Coptic Church, Jersey City, NJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")