Orthodox Exegesis

Introduction

The following paper is a critical review of John Behr’s The Mystery of Christ: Life and Death and an identification and evaluation of the hermeneutic method employed by John Breck, found in his book, The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church, After this review, I will include a critique of my historical-critical method which was applied to my “Son of Man” mid-term paper which I have deemed: missed the confessional and spiritual aspect of the theology presented in the texts. I will briefly comment on Georgy Florovsky's work, from his Second Volume entitled, Revelation and Interpretation. I will conclude with a brief comment about Orthodox hermeneutics.

John Behr

On page 15 of John Behr’s book, The Mystery of Christ: Life and Death he suggests, that we should rethink our theology, we should “rethink its vocabulary and manner in which we read scripture”. Arguing from the perspective of Kierkegaard’s observation that we, “understand backward, yet fail to take adequate account of this fact” (15), Behr says, we need to look at life in light of the cross of Christ. Therefore, for Behr, to speak of anything, “e.g. the incarnation, one is making a confession about the crucified and risen Lord”. Anything for Behr, in light of the passion becomes a confession (16). This failure leads to the confessional nature of theological assertions, from a modern perspective, “a character that only can be described as an odd mixture of metaphysics and mythology” (16). For Behr, it is the fact that the

Disciples did not simply come to understand Christ in light of the Passion. Rather, only when turned again (or were turned by the risen Christ) to the scriptures meaning what we now call the “Old Testament” did they begin to see there all sorts of references to Christ, and specifically to the necessity that he should suffer before entering his glory (17).

The point is that the scriptures were not just stories of the past, but rather “a treasury of imagery, for entering into the mystery of Christ, the starting point for which is the historical event of the Passion” (17). Hence, New Testament scripture for Behr, is a theological interpretation of what happened in the first century.

He goes on to argue that the historical critical method of interpretation begins with a story of creation, ending with the second coming of Christ (figure 1, pg. 175) and that this interpretation causes the second person of the trinity to simply be a,

“temporal being, who did various things as the pre-incarnate Logos before becoming incarnate as Jesus Christ; his existence as Jesus Christ is but an episode in a longer biography” (175).

Behr, much prefers an Orthodox perspective that understands the importance of Kierkegaard’s observation, “that while we understand retrospectively, we nevertheless live into the future. As we leave behind modernity’s fascination with the past, it is possible that we are once again in a position to recognize the eschatological Lord” (17-18). He strengthens his argument, by insisting, that the disciples only came to know Christ when the Old Testament scriptures were open to them after the Passion. He offers,

The passion, understood in accordance with the scripture, is the catalysis for reading scripture, and the whole of human existence and history, in a new manner, making everything new… the crucified and exalted Lord, known in this way is thus the starting point for reading scripture (177).

This approach is outlined on page 175 in a chart-form that shows clearly the starting point of history, for Behr. We simply are to see all of life in light of the cross. We are to start with the cross and retell history from its perspective. This is the confessional aspect of Christian theology which is a:

witness to the transforming power of God revealed in the Passion of Christ”, which answers the question ‘is this not Josephs son?’ But in the light of the Passion, they could now proclaim that, in accordance with the scripture, he is indeed the Son of God born of the virgin, a nativity which is, as we have seen, is described in terms of the Passion (179). In this case salvation history is not about reading “Genesis onward” and seeing things as “neutral, objective account as they really were. Rather, it is a way of seeing the scriptures and their description of the world and its history in the light of Christ-it is a confession” (178).

Ultimately for Behr, the New Testament scriptures are a theological matter that has nothing to do with finding an:

original meaning of the text or the mind of the author, ideas which are distinctively modern…As it is only when Christ himself opens the scriptures, to show how they all speak of him and his passion, that the inspired meaning of the scriptures is brought to light, the inspiration of the scriptures cannot be separated from the opening of the sealed book by the slain Lamb.

Behr offers for us a new understanding of the Orthodox voice, which calls us to confess our loyalty to King Jesus in a different way than Orthodox leaders before him, whom often have focused on the spiritual matters of the Church fathers. It is this latter thought we now turn to.

John Breck

The spiritual sense or the “sensus plenior” of the scripture text is at the heart of the argument John Breck puts forth in his book, The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church. This notion is taken from the Church (Greek) Fathers and in hence has become the hermeneutic method employed by Breck. This “theoria” is the spiritual vision of the Fathers and has a two-fold understanding. 1) “Refers to a typological association of the two figures related to one another in terms of promise and fulfillment and 2) discerns the existential significance of that typological relationship” (103). For Breck it is not really a method, but a “spiritual perception or divination inspired by the Spirit which discerns the existence of a typological relationship between two persons, objects, institutions or events” (103). The type (typos) then, is defined as a “prophetic image (person, place, object or event) that points forward to and is fulfilled by a corresponding future reality (the antitype)” (55). This becomes important for Breck as it enables the Christian to discern the “soteriological meaning of an event and to participate in it and in the communion with the church as a whole” (104). Furthermore, Breck argues that an exegete must “submit herself to the guidance of the Spirit of Truth” so that this “vision of divine truth can be communicated to the whole church” (110). Breck argues that “theoria” compliments historical-critical method by “supplying a theology of spiritual dimensions that would be otherwise lacking”(95). Breck, asserts that the historical-criticism method holds too closely to the literal event and thus scripture becomes about “man’s word about God rather than God’s word addressed to the church through human agents” (98). However, he does state that theoria: understands the historical event to be an essential vehicle of truth, an eastern vessel that contains an eternal treasure. Yet, unlike allegory, it insists that the event is indispensable as the means by which that eternal truth comes to expression. From the point of view of theoria exegesis does indeed investigate the facts of history…but it does so with the express aim of uncovering and laying bare the meaning of those events for the spiritual life of the believing community. Stated another way, an authentic theoria conceives the aim of biblical interpretation to be the spiritual enlightenment of God’s people. The ultimate purpose then of exegesis is soteriological rather than scientific; and the exegete is properly a theologian rather than a historian (99).When one approaches scripture it is by means of theoria. Conversely, it is important to note that theoria is a two-stage process as it does indeed take the literal historical fact into account, whereas Behr rejects this. For Breck, argues that the exegete must determine the literal sense of the passage (the sense the author himself understood and intended to communicate), the exegete moves to the question of the spiritual sense which the passage reveals for the present life of the community of faith” (111-112)…because both the literal and the spiritual sense derive from divine activity within history (112). Therefore, theoria has no

meaning apart from historical revelation. But like the apostolic witness to that revelation, theoria knows that divine reality (aletheia), which discloses itself within the historical event, is not confined to that event but speaks as well to each succeeding generation.

Finally, it is important to take note that in the receiving of interpretation one must have “an attitude of contemplation which is an essential condition for receiving that vision” (113). For the “interpretation of truth [only] occurs through synergism or cooperation between man and God” (112). This is the “theandric energy that Paul Evdokimov calls, ‘the human act within the divine act’…applied to biblical hermeneutics, this means that scientific research stands in perfect harmony with theoria …so long as the exegete does in fact submit [herself] to the grace and purpose of God (110).

In the end, Breck is arguing that in terms of exegesis and interpretation of Holy Scripture; “theoria is the work of the “Holy Spirit acting within the church, to reveal the full sense of Biblical revelation: its original literal and spiritual meaning in a given historical context” (112).

“Son of Man”

In my midterm paper, I argued that “Son of Man” is a Christological title, applied to Jesus, the Christ within a New Testament theological paradigm and there is evidence that it can be traced back to the “tradition” of Jesus of Nazareth, as well. It is this author’s opinion that the title “Son of Man” is in contrast to that of the title “Son of God”, which leads to a direct understanding of the divine/human nature of Jesus of Nazareth. In light of reading Behr and Breck I would like to append this. First, beginning with Behr’s theory of “confession”, I would agree that this aspect was missing from my paper. Since, having read Behr, I have asked myself what confessional quality is there to declaring that the “Son of Man” has come and is found in Jesus of Nazareth? Clearly, I have looked forward rather than backward as Behr suggests. In looking forward I was using the OT scriptures as a story that happened in the past. Whereas, Behr would argue that we need to look backward in light of the passion event, to see Jesus as the one the OT speaks of.

However, I would also argue that this was a part of my paper in the aspect of “fulfillment”, of those OT passages. I also did not see the “Son of Man” passages as theological interpretations of what happened in the first century, as Behr would. I saw them as actual events to be studied, to determine their original context. This I now see does lose the confessional aspect as it may distort the eternal workings of the Trinity, for it reduces the second member to a temporal being.

In terms of the spiritual aspect of Breck’s work, I can see that there is no spiritual aspect to my paper either. Indeed, I argued against it, as I was trying to make the point that Jesus of Nazareth is and was truly human, not some spiritual being without a bodily resurrection or a bodily, human life and title. It is Breck’s work that I find more difficult to apply. Perhaps, the problem lies in the definition of “spiritual”, or the spiritual vision of the fathers. How do I know they were correct? Perhaps, this can be answered when we consider how the Orthodox see faith.

An essential (Kerygma) text for the Orthodox is Acts 2:32, where we have three facts 1) Jesus is raised, 2) There are Witnesses and 3) the Holy Spirit arrives. This notion is based on the fact that the Christian proclamation utterly depends on words, it does not depend on an experience of history. The faith then comes from words (written historical text) about the historical fact. We then have a faith in the text. Therefore, the Orthodox has a hermeneutical circle of “text and church” which leads to a canon of truth, and the aim for reading it is theology; the essential truth about Jesus (class notes September 25, 2007). This understanding leads to the idea that the canon is not a set of books, but the very idea that Jesus is Lord, the “canon in the flesh”.

Yes, I would agree with Breck that there is a “theoria” in that we need to pay attention to the literal interpretation, with a spirit open, to the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I also see his point that the historical-criticism method holds too closely to the literal event and thus scripture becomes about “man’s word about God rather than God’s word addressed to the church through human agents” (98). This can be seen in my paper with my firm assertions of just who I think Jesus of Nazareth is. Perhaps, Westerners have forgotten that the Kerygmatic statement is a theological faith statement that the Orthodox build from Romans 9-11, “all are saved” (class notes October 9, 2007).

In conclusion, I would agree that the Orthodox may indeed have a richer understanding of the New Testament texts than the Western view, with their historical- critical method. The Orthodox have a strong sense of Kerygma (Jesus as the canon himself, class notes October 30th), seeing the world in light of the cross, and they posses a deeper confessional and spiritual nature. The use of typology (finding Jesus as the revealed Word of God), paradox, icons and allegory seem to bring the texts much more alive. One thing the Orthodox do extremely well (and my Baptist heritage often ignores entirely) is the use of the church Fathers. Florovsky for example says,

The Bible, as a book, has been composed in the community and was meant primarily for its edification. The book and the Church cannot be separated. The book and the Covenant belong together, and Covenant implies people. It was the People of the Covenant to whom the Word of God had been entrusted under the old dispensation (Rom. 3:2), and it is the Church of the Word Incarnate that keeps the message of the Kingdom... but the book stands by the testimony of the Church. The canon of the Bible is obviously established and authorized by the Church (18).

Ultimately, the question for Westerners is, “does our faith stand on a chair dropping incident (class notes September 18, 2007)?” Or do we allow the testimony of Kerygma to direct our faith? Can we see the “great plan of God in and through this New Testament theological narrative (class notes October 30, 2007)? The argument proposed by Breck, Behr and Florovsky overwhelming says yes. Perhaps, the West could learn from the Orthodox when they say theosis, “Us in Christ” rather than our arrogant “Christ in Us” (class notes September 18, 2007)?

Works Cited

Behr, J. The Mystery of Christ: Life and Death Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press: New York, 2006.

Breck, J. The Power of the Word: In the Worshiping Church Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press: New York, 1986.

Florovsky, G. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Nordland Publishing: Massachusetts, 1972.