Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

The Exegesis of the Church Fathers and Principles of Exegesis for Today

Submitted to Dr. Ken Cleaver, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the completion of the course

CHHI 942-397

Patristic Exegesis

by

Floyd Schneider

October 31, 2014

 Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................3

The Exegesis of the Church Fathers ........................................................4

Principles of Exegesis ...............................................................................20

Reading ................................................................................................21

Contexts ...............................................................................................21

Language..............................................................................................23

Theology ...............................................................................................25

Application...........................................................................................26

Bibliography .............................................................................................28

ii
 Introduction

Patristic exegesis progressed through centuries of change. The farther away

historians stand from the historical hermeneutics practiced by the Church Fathers, the less

detail they retain and the more general and vague the descriptions of the hermeneutical

methods practiced by the Church Fathers. A serious understanding of Patristic exegesis

requires a closer familiarity with the contexts of the various Church Fathers, as well as

their varied systems of interpretation. This familiarity will reveal that no one method was

clearly superior over other methods, nor able to drive all other methods off the table.

The allegorical method was used by the majority of theologians throughout the

ages, and this method was somewhat predominant for a thousand years after Pentecost,

but this method was never used in isolation of other methods. Few today would present

this method as the best way to arrive at the meaning of a text, but it has nonetheless never

died out completely.

The starting point for analyzing the hermeneutical systems of the Fathers points

backwards to their presuppositions that influenced the resulting interpretations any given

Father wanted to reach in the first place. The presuppositions overshadowed the use of a

method in the final resultant meaning of the text. As an example, if the interpreter

rejected the inspiration of Scripture, he avoided the use of any hermeneutical principles

that connected with the spiritual world. If the interpreter, however, sought to completely

avoid the human element within inspiration, he would most likely focus exclusively on

the spiritual world and reject those principles that apply to interpreting all kinds of

literature.

3
 In addition to the presuppositions and methods, the Church Fathers own personal

historical settings and circumstances heavily influenced the outcome of his

interpretations. For example, Irenaeus of Lyon was battling a different heresy than

Augustine. Irenaeus challenged the Gnosticism of his day that taught that a lower deity

had created the physical universe, and therefore, there existed a dichotomy of good and

evil being manifested through the good spiritual world and the evil material world. The

battle was not about the believers godliness, but a degrading of Gods creation. This

heresy led to the teaching that human beings were evil by default of creation and that

Jesus had only appeared to be human. Irenaeus countered this heresy with the Scriptures,

stating that everything, including the entire physical universe that God had created was

good, and therefore, humanity is good, and Jesus was really a human being.

Augustine, on the other hand, faced Pelagius, who also believed that humanity

was good, but the issue was not the ontology of Gods creation, but the meaning of

salvation, such as the effect of sin upon the will's ability to choose the good.1 Augustine

would have agreed with Irenaeus about the goodness of Gods creation, including the

goodness of humanity in the original creation, but Augustine had to deal with humanity

after the Fall, which was a different issue altogether.

The Exegesis of the Church Fathers

These three factors make it very difficult to place presuppositions (inspiration),

methods (literal versus allegorization) and circumstances (current heresy of the day) into

1
Christopher A. Hall. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers (Kindle Locations 1566-1570).
Kindle Edition.

4
neat, separate categories. Sometimes a Church Fathers correct presuppositions and

proper methods, as viewed by this author, could be overshadowed by that Fathers

circumstances. The opposite, however, might control the exegetical outcome. The

confrontation with a given heresy might force a theologian to arrive at orthodox

conclusions in spite of wrong presuppositions and incorrect methods. Herbert T. Mayer

illustrates this situation in the life of St. Clement of Rome.2 Clements letter to the church

in Corinth in A. D. 96 was eventually translated into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic, indicating

that it had been read throughout the Middle East. Mayer states that we are dealing with a

very significant and influential document that probably helped shape the theology and

perhaps even exegetical practices in some parts of the church.3 The letter is a letter, not a

lesson plan on how to exegete a passage. Therefore, the three factors affecting his

interpretation (presuppositions, method, and circumstances) cannot be placed in separate

categories for independent study. Like an emulsion, they interact and influence one

another. It might be possible, however, to find distinctive traits of each from a closer look

at the letter.

His method begins with the literal text but moves quickly to moral examples that

would counter the disunity that existed in the church in Corinth. He quotes the Old

Testament 166 times and according to Robert M. Grant, Clement probably used a number

of different collections of Old Testament passages.4 Grant references 1 Clement 14:4f.,

2
Herbert T. Mayer. Clement of Rome and His Use of Scripture. Concordia Theological
Monthly 42, no 8 (S 1971): 536-540.
3
Ibid., 537.
4
See Robert M. Grant and Holt H. Graham. First and Second Clement: Volume 2 [The Apostolic
Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary]. First Edition. (Grand Rapids: Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1965).

5
which is a combination of Bible verses from Proverbs 2:1, Psalm 36: 9, 38, and 36:35-37.

These verses all refer to a meek and gentle spirit. In 15:2-6 Clement places together Isa.

29:13, Psalm 61:5; 77:36f.; and 30:19 and 11:3. These verses teach about false and true

religious devotion. In attempting to correct the problems of disunity in Corinth, Clement

was simply teaching on unity by pulling in numerous verses that provided a solution to

that problem. Modern day exegetes and pastors practice this method of hermeneutics all

the time.

Clements main presupposition is that the advent of Jesus Christ, the Mediator, is

the high point of revelation and of the new offer of salvation.5 Clement speaks numerous

times of Christs blood having been poured out for our salvation. Although Clement

makes no mention of the forgiveness of sins, Mayer slides into speculation claiming that

Clement differed with Paul on this point of the work of Christ, and that Clements

soteriology embraced a works-oriented salvation. Clement certainly used the Scriptures

as a source book of moral examples of men who have been obedient to the will of

God,6 but this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that Clement viewed the

practice of faith and hospitality as having earned Gods favor.7 Clement was writing

to professing believers about a godly lifestyle, not about receiving Gods righteousness

for personal justification. Disunity still existed in the Corinthian church from the time

before Paul wrote his first epistle to the church. Clement was stressing the importance of

unity and order among the believers. Clement is the first Church Father to write enough

5
Mayer, 538.

6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.

6
material that has allowed future theologians to analyze the three factors that affect

exegesis. The schools of Alexandria and Antioch developed as more Church Fathers

grappled with those three factors.

Ignatius of Antioch (35-110) wrote seven letters during his march toward his

martyrdom. His concerns in those letters were his martyrdom, the unity of the Church,

and fighting the heresies of his day. His circumstances often overshadowed his

presuppositions and method of exegesis. He viewed his martyrdom as becoming a true

Christian. One cannot fault him for his emotions overriding a clearer expression of the

sanctification of the believer. His solution for the unity of the Church was for the

believers to abide by the authority of the episcopate, which had already developed into a

hierarchy beyond the development of leadership of the local church found in the New

Testament, from Apostles in Acts 2 to plural elders in Acts 20. He fought a Jewish heresy

(Philad. 6:1; Mag., chs. 8 & 9) with the deity of Christ (Smyr. 10:1, Christ God), and

he rejected the Docetic heresy by stressing the reality of the incarnation (Smyr., Ch. 3;

Eph. 10:3; Mag. 13:2) and pointing out the Docetic invention of a sham Christ (a Christ

who only seems to be). He said that the Docetics prove themselves to be a sham, and

they will end up by becoming apparitions! (Trall., ch. 10; Smyr., ch. 2).

Ignatius produced little speculation. He expressed his basic convictions in short

creedal statements. The Eucharist is the medicine of immortality (Eph. 20:2);

Christians are full of God (Mag., ch. 14). For Ignatius, Gods essential character was

that of silence, which was broken only at the incarnation, and even then with reserve and

modesty (Eph., ch. 19).

7
 As stated earlier in this paper, Irenaeus of Lyons (?-202) opposed the gnostics by

using the scriptural teaching that Gods creation of humanity was good, and therefore,

Jesus humanity was real. Irenaeus saw both testaments as revealing the incarnation. The

scriptures summed up all things by connecting Adam in the Garden of Eden to Jesus as

the second Adam. He applied allusion to the passages in the Old Testament to arrive at

this conclusion.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) and Origen (185-254) both believed in the

inspiration of the Scriptures. They can be centrally placed within the Alexandrians

school. In summary, these scholars wanted to defend the faith against the attacks of the

pagans and to evangelize the Greeks by using the Greek method of allegorization to show

that everything in the Old Testament referred to the Messiah in the New Testament.

Tertullian (160-225), on the other hand, had little use or respect for Greek

philosophy, since he saw nothing but error coming from this source. He used the

Scriptures to refute various heresies of his day. He was a practical theologian and does

not seem to have used much allegory in refuting error or in challenging those who

persecuted believers. He could possibly be viewed as a forerunner of the Antiochiene

School, although he was a western Latin Father.

Hippolytus of Rome (170-235) used lots of typology but little allegory in his

commentaries on Daniel and the Song of Solomon. He wrote commentaries on most of

the books in the Bible, and his literal hermeneutics permeated all of those commentaries.

Cyprian of Carthage (?-258) dealt with persecution, the return of the lapsed, and

groups that wanted to break away from Rome and form their own Church. Cyprian

preached thematically and drew applications that did not come directly from the text, but

8
from his presupposition that the Church of God was defined as the visible Kingdom of

God on earth, and therefore, there could not be more than one such Church in existence.

Athanasius of Alexandria (294-373) used little allegory in his defense of the deity

of Christ against the Arians. He used direct quotes and clear logic to refute the Arians

demigod by asking how they could worship Jesus if Jesus was not the same type of deity

as the Father. Even though he took over for Alexander in Alexandria, Athanasius moved

away for Origens allegorization.

Hilary of Poitiers (330-368) did not deal with the text directly. He focused on the

various worldviews described by the text.8 He was not concerned about philosophy in the

text. He strove to dig out and present what was actually being described by the text: the

events, characters, etc. T. F. Torrance noted this as well in his book, Divine Meaning:

Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics.9 Andrew M. Bain also notes that Nowhere in the

segment of his work under examination does Hilary make theological statements from

grammatical features of the text, and only once does he argue from a word study.10

Hilary sought the theological significance of the text instead of the philosophy in the text.

He does not put his own theology on the text. He allows the text to give him the themes it

raises. He believed that meaning was imbedded in the text itself. Hilarys approach

contrasted with Cyprians, who put his own agenda into whichever text best suited his

needs to keep control of the Mother Church. Hilary avoids deviating from the text and

8
Cf. J. Driscoll, The Transformation in Hilary of Poitiers Commentary on Matthew.
Augustinianum 24, (1984): 395-420.
9
T. F. Torrance. Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark
1995), 392-97.
10
Andrew M. Bain. Re-reading Scripture with the Latin Fathers. Reformed Theological Review
69, no 1 (Ap 2010): 48-59, quoting from Hilary, Sur Matthieu, 33.2 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1979), on
Barrabas in Matt 27:16-17.

9
follows the guidance of the text. He never gives a word more than one meaning in a given

context, and he never even assumes that a word could have an alternative meaning than

the one he has chosen. He does not seek numerous possibilities in text that might point to

relevant issues. He simply focuses on the theological story, which the text describes. Bain

notes in a footnote that Ambrose and Jerome lie somewhere between the extremes

occupied by Augustine and Hilary, sometimes displaying an awareness of alternative

interpretations to their preferred meaning, but not normally going beyond this to posit

more than one valid option.11

Basil the Great (330-379; brother of G. Nyssa, 335-394, and friend of G.

Nazianzus, 329-390) began with the literal text, but accepted Origens allegorical method

to some extent. Basil believed that stopping at the literal sense was equivalent to having

the heart covered by a veil of Jewish literalism. He used the illustration of uselessly using

a lamp when the son is shining.

Ambrose of Milan (337-397) loved to study the events, personalities and

conversations behind the text, rather than the text itself, although not to the extent of

Hilary. He also had no interest in the philosophy in the text, and he never allowed any

philosophical points to direct his interpretation or preaching. Bain notes that

In spite of his fluency in Greek, he makes little use of the Greek text; in spite of
his educational background, he never discusses the grammatical construction of
the Latin verses before him. Instead, he displays a strong preference for basing
whatever it is he might be saying, whether it be practical exhortation, doctrinal
discussion, or particularly allegorical speculation, upon the realities described by
the text.12

11
Ibid., 58.

12
Bain, 53, quoting Ambrose in Lucam, X, 136, 139, 151.

10
Ambrose did not fall prey to the Alexandrian Schools allegorizations. He realizes that

the authors intention is the starting point, and this motivated him to ask the question of

literary criticism, why did that author of that Gospel choose to organize the text in that

way? Bain notes that Ambrose is keen to defend the veracity of the accounts. However, .

. . he moves beyond establishing solutions for such problems and towards an

understanding of what each evangelist was trying to achieve by writing in his own

distinctive manner.13 Instead of attempting to explain away the differences between the

Gospels, Ambrose accepts the text as it is, and simply asks why this text by this author.

John Chrysostom (347-407) was firmly in the Antiochene School. He used some

allegory, but he rejected allegorization. He wrote that everywhere in scripture there is

this law, that when it allegorizes, it also gives the explanation of the allegory.14 He

interpreted the text verse by verse, and followed his interpretation with prolific

applications to everyday life.

Jerome of Stridonium (347-420) favored allegory early in life, and his first

commentary was pure allegorization. When he moved to Antioch he was heavily

influenced by Apollinaris of Laodicea who taught the literal method. Jerome began as a

supporter of Origen, but the study of individual words in the text began to override and

contradict the supposed philosophical features in the text. He began to revise the Latin

Vulgate by basing it on the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and then he

brought out a new translation of the Old Testament based on the Hebrew text. His word

studies based on the original languages led him away from allegorization into a more

13
Ibid.
14
Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity
(Leiden: Brill, 2004), 783-787, and John Chrysostom, Isa. 5, Migne PG 56, 60.

11
literal hermeneutical approach. He eventually rejected Origens allegorization. After that

shift he even rejected Gregory of Nazianzus (the great Origenist) allegorical writings.

The spiritual meaning of any text has to be based on the literal interpretation of the words

in context. However, the philosophical aspects of the text continued to influence his

interpretations. Jerome did not ground his interpretation in the theological aspect of the

text, but points away from it towards the future nature of the Gentile Church.15

Bain gives an example from Jeromes use of Matthew 27:39 as he creates linkages

of passages of scripture to other passages of scripture. Bain notes that Jeromes ability to

seamlessly pick up on a string of successive, similar words and phrases from all over

Scripture is testimony to how he is driven along by philosophical features rather than the

actual events those features serve to describe in the narrative.16 Bain also demonstrates

Jeromes use of the same hermeneutic in a word-play on the light of the sun that was

blocked out when Jesus died on the cross. And it seems to me that this darkness should

have made the light of the world [lumen mundi] all the more clear, since he, and not the

sun, is the greater light . . . and that you should not hide in the darkness, impiously

cursing your light.17 Jerome uses this connection to refer to belief and unbelief based on

John 1:4 and 3:19.18

Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428), who wrote Concerning Allegory and History

Against Origen19, was one of the most energetic proponents of the literal method. He was

15
Bain, 51, quoting Jerome in Math., IV, 1655-65.
16
Bain, 49.
17
Bain, 49, quoting Jerome in Commentariorum in Matheum, IV, 1656-80 (CCSL 77; turnhout:
Brepols, 1969).

18
Ibid., IV, 1939-44 & 1961-64.

12
heavily influenced by a number of previous interpreters. Theophilus of Antioch (d. 183)20

wrote a commentary on Genesis, and his hermeneutics seems to be the earliest use of the

literal method in written history. Dorotheus21 was head of the school in Antioch.

Dorotheus did not allegorize the scriptures. Diodorus of Tarsus wrote a book entitled

What is the Difference Between Theory and Allegory22 that defined the word theory as

the true literal meaning of the text.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) wrote prolifically, but he never clearly defined his

focus on the text or what the text described. He theoretically agreed with Ambrose and

Hilary as Bain points out in De Trinitate, that where the apostle calls something

allegory, he finds it in the fact and not in the words.23 Bain also notes Augustines

view of figurative pointers in De Doctrina Christiana , these Augustine regards as

resting on a connection between the thing usually meant by the chosen word (rather than

merely the word itself), and that which is being referred to figuratively.24 As with

Hilary, Augustine argues in De Doctrina Christiana that we should not consider signs

for what they are but for their value in signifying something else.25

19
Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity
(Leiden: Brill, 2004), 799-824.
20
Ibid., 472.
21
Robert M. Grant and David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (New York:
Fortress Press and Macmillan Publishing Co., 1973), 63.
22
Kannengiesser, 780-81.
23
Bain, 55.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid., 50, quoting Augustine in De doctrina christiana. De vera religion (CCSL 32; Turnhout:
Brepols, 1962, 2.1.1.

13
 Augustine did not always believe in the actual events of parables in the text.

When he interpreted the parable in Matthew 13:47-49, he stated that the parable was not

based on a real fishing event. On the other hand, when he interpreted the fishing event

after the resurrection in John 21:3-14, he believed that the Lord was using an actual event

of fishing and providing breakfast to prophesy how the Church will exist near the end of

time.26 Augustine believed that the Lords meaning was based on the historical event.

These points illustrate that Augustine believed that the Bible might indicate meaning

based just on the words. Bain points out, however, that Augustines interpretation of John

in his commentary, Iohannis, places his interest in commenting upon the realities behind

the text rather than the text itself, or the intentions of its authors.27

Augustine differs from Hilary, however, in that Augustine studies the text with a

view to bringing forth all kinds of theological and practical insights which will be of

benefit to his congregation.28 Bain notes that Hilary wanted to find the overarching

theme of the text, but Augustine moves in the opposite direction, almost appearing to

aim at finding as much diversity of beneficial truth as he possibly can within the one

passage. His mind is what we might call intuitive in manner, ever-ready to grasp hold of

an unlikely tangent to make what he believes is a worthwhile point.29 Augustine seems

to use ideas in the text and other cross-references to promote as many of his preconceived

ideas as possible.30

26
Augustine, Iohannis, 122.7.
27
Bain, 56.
28
Ibid., 57.
29
Ibid.
30
Augustine, Iohannis, 11.3, 115.4, 117.5, 119.3 and 122.9.

14
 Over-emphasizing Augustines writing and exegesis would be difficult. Although

he believed that the text held a meaning in itself, he also allegorized texts. His exegesis of

the number of fish (153) in John 21:11 included two allegorical interpretations.31

Although he does allow multiple definitions of words (121.1, 124.1), he still bases the

interpretation on the literal meaning instead of the spiritual one.32 For his time Augustine

had a unique ability to ask unusual questions that others never thought to ask, such as

how it might be true that the whole world would not have room for the books that could

be written about the finite number of things done by Christ (John 21:25),33 or why

Christ loved John more than Peter as well as why Peter loved Christ more than John (all

the while assuming the truth of both statements!)34 Augustine was categorically different

in his ability to see exegetical options that others did not see.

It is very tempting to place each Church Father into one of the two categories

developed over the ages in order to simplify the topic for future generations. The

argument goes that when the Alexandrians defended their allegorical method by referring

to Pauls interpretation of Galatians, the Antiochenes claimed that Paul did not use

allegory in the same way as the Alexandrians. Paul accepted the literal and historical

basis of the Genesis text. Paul did not discard the historicity of the text, and he did not

insert a hidden meaning into the text. The Antiochians believed that Adam and Eve were

31
Ibid., 122.8
32
Some commentators believe that Augustine was driving by a preference for allegorisation. E.g.
C. Jacob, D., The Reception of the Origenist Tradition in Latin Exegesis, 682-700 in Saebo (ed.), Hebrew
Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation 9Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech, 1996), vol.
1, 698.
33
Bain, 57.
34
Ibid.

15
Adam and Eve. They were not an allergorical symbol of some hidden reality. Theodore

could not understand how an allegorical Adam could have brought sin into the world, and

if the entrance of sin into the world was unclear, then what meaning does our salvation

have?35 Theodores literal interpretation advanced the argument that Pauls reference to

Adams disobedience in Romans 5:18f and the serpents deception with Eve in 2

Corinthians 11:3 were both understood as historical realities.

Ishodads Introduction to the Psalms based its exegesis on Theodores works:

People ask what the difference is between allegorical exegesis and historical
exegesis. We replied that it is great and not small; just as the first leads to impiety,
blasphemy and falsehood, so the other is conformed to truth and faith. It was the
impious Origen of Alexandria who invented this art of allegory. Just as poets and
geometricians, when they wish to raise their disciples from material and visible
things to things hidden and invisible, erring in regard to the eternity of incorporeal
matter and to indivisible atoms, say: Just as it is not these visible signs which are
signs for reading, but their hidden meanings, so from created natures one must
rise by the image of thought to their internal nature; just so, Origen taught . . ..
The psalms and the prophets who spoke of the captivity of the return of the
people, he explained as teaching the captivity of the soul far from truth and its
return to the faith . . .. They do not interpret paradise as it is, or Adam, or Eve, or
any existing thing.36

Ischodad lacked theological politeness toward the Alexandrians by calling them stupid

people. He then attempted to disprove their exegesis by referencing the apostles use of

the Old Testament in numerous ways: for fulfillment, for exhortation and correction, or to

confirm the true teaching, even though according to the historical circumstances these

words were set forth for other purposes.37

35
Grant and Tracy, 64.
36
Grant and Tracy, 64-5, quoting J. M. Vost, Loeuvre exgtique de Thodore de Mopsueste
au ii concile de Constantinople, Revue biblique 38 (1929): 554 ff.
37
Ibid., 65.

16
 The Alexandrians favored Plato, whereas the Antiochians promoted Aristotle. The

Alexandrians defined theory as allegorization, whereas the Antiochians used this word

to refer to a meaning deeper than the literal or historical one without abandoning the

literal meaning. The Antiochians adamantly rejected the authority of the initiated who

claimed to be the only ones who had access to the gnostic meaning hidden behind the

literal text. John Chrysostom wrote that everywhere in scripture there is this law, that

when it allegorizes, it also gives the explanation of the allegory.38

The dividing line between these two schools was not clear-cut, however. There

existed a variety of degrees among the Antiochians exegetes. Both Chrysostom and

Theodore had been taught the literal method by Diodorus of Tarsus, but Theodore was

the more rigid literalist, whereas Chrysostom did not exclude allegory, but limited it to

typology.

Hieromonk Patapios revisited this topic of comparing and contrasting these two

schools of hermeneutics.39 He quotes Jacques Guillet as believing that both schools

concur in seeing the history of the Hebrew people as a preparation for the

Incarnation.40 Although the Alexandrian school embellishes the text with allegory, both

find types of Jesus in the Old Testament. Joseph is a type of Christ, the stones on the

breastplate of the High Priest represent the Apostles, and the Law contains the shadow

38
Kannengiesser, 783-787, and John Chrysostom, Isa. 5, Migne PG 56, 60.
39
This section includes portions of a paper already written for this topic, since the topics of the
two papers overlap. This author realizes that these papers should be written in the third person, but this
author is not clear on how to quote something he has already written in another paper for this seminar or
any other seminar previously completed. Since those papers have not been published, it seems odd to be
including something that has already been written but not published.

Hieromonk Patapios, The Alexandrian and the Antiochene Methods of Exegesis: Towards a
40

Reconsideration. The Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 44, Nos. 1-4 (1999): 187.

17
of all the realities of the Gospel.41 The major difference, as summed up by Guillet, is

that Antioch retains the prophetic aspect of the typology of the Old Testament, while

Alexandria retains its symbolic aspect and spiritual content.42

Patapios then uses Theodore to represent the radicalism of the Antiochene School,

but states that Theodoret adopts a middle course, avoiding the radicalism of Theodore of

Mopsuestia and his excessive literalness and allowing an allegorical and typological

explanation, whenever this appears preferable.43 In a footnote, Patapios notes that

Theodoret accepts the Song of Songs as canonical, whereas Theodore did not, and gives

an allergorical explanation of the book. He rejects Theodores letterism that the book is

no more than Solomons answer to those who opposed his marriage to the Egyptian

princess, and that the story is not even worthy of being repeated by crazy women.44

Patapios sees Cyril as being influenced by the Alexandrian school, but not agreeing with

Origens insistence on forcing every detail of the Old Testament to produce a spiritual

point. Patapios views the typology in the book of Jonah through the lens of these three

scholars (Theodore, Theodoret and Cyril) to determine whether the gulf that is

commonly held to exist between the Antiochene and Alexandrian approaches is quite as

wide as some would have us believe. He states that a different text than Jonah would not

have provided as many similarities, and he could not have demonstrated the same valid

use of typology by all three authors. He shows that Cyril and Theodore do not define

41
Ibid., 188.
42
Ibid., 188 quoting Les Exgses d Alexandria et d Antioche: Conflit ou Malentendu?
Recherches de Science Religieuse 34 (1947), PP. 272-274.
43
Patrology, vol. III (Westminister, MD: Christian Classics, 1992), 539.
44
Patapios, footnote 197.

18
typology in quite the same terms, but they both expect there to be some appropriate

degree of resemblance between the type and the antitype.45 Theodore does emphasize

the external aspect of the events, while Cyril the attributes inherent in the comparisons.

Theodoret, in the middle, says little about any presuppositions in typology, but stresses

the need for similarity between the antitype and type. Patapios states that Cyril is more

faithful to the historical sense of the texts than we would expect, given his Alexandrian

background.46

Patapios concludes his study with a quote that, there is evidence of a drawing

together of the two schools in the matter of exegesis in the fifth century.47 Alexander

Kerrigan believes that the schools approach is closer to one another than most believe.

In St. Cyrils instance the convergence of both currents is still more marked. Living in a

period in which the methods peculiar to these seats of learning were still being perfected

and evolved, St. Cyril himself adds his contribution to the final phases of development of

the Alexandrian current. His outlook is characterized by leanings with that of Antioch.48

This author concludes that the schools were not distinct from each other, and a spectrum

existed from one extreme to another. The extreme interpreters reacted to the extremes of

the other. Over the centuries, theologians seem to have focused more on the extreme

differences than on the spectrum.

45
Ibid., 195.
46
Ibid., 196.
47
Ibid., 196, quoting Theodoret of Cyrrhus as Exegete of the Old Testament (Grahamstown, S.A.:
Rhodes University, 1972), p. 55.
48
Alexander Kerrigan, St. Cyril of Alexander: Interpreter of the Old Testament (Analecta Biblica
2. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1952), 371.

19
 Although there was much overlap between the two schools in the actual exegesis

of the Fathers, the schools were still considered to exist as separate entities, and the

Antiochian method fell into disrepute when the works of Theodore were ordered to be

burned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. The school of Antioch did not

die out, however. Adrian produced an Introduction to the Divine Scriptures around 425,

in which he promoted this method by stating that the exegete must base his interpretation

on the literal meaning, but move on to the deeper meaning of the text.49 And Junilius

Africanus Regulative Institutes of the Divine Law, composed around 550, indicated that

the Nestorian school of Edessa in Syria had preserved the teaching of Theodore.50 Thus

the Antiochian school returned to the West from the East, strongly influenced the

Carolingian renaissance, later Jewish exegesis, Thomas Aquinas, the Reformation, and

eventually became the main exegetical method of the Protestant world. The rest of this

paper is a continuation of the Protestant development of the Antiochene School of

Exegesis.

Proposed Principles

This author has taught undergraduate hermeneutics for a number of years, and has

used and consulted numerous textbooks in those classes. Most of those books have been

included in the bibliography at the end of this paper. Based on those years of teaching

this subject, the proposed principles have come from a reading and study of all of these

49
Grant and Tracy, 69-70, quoting F. Goessling, Adrians
(Berlin, 1887), 13.
50
Grant and Tracy, 70, and Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in
Ancient Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1326.

20
books, in some form or another, and therefore, few actual quotes are used in this part of

this paper. No textbook has been included in the bibliography that his author has not read,

partially or in whole. Books that have been consulted have not been included in the

bibliography, nor have most of the books used previously by this author that are more

than thirty years old (except for the Patristics themselves).

Reading

When students study literature, the first thing required of them is to read the texts

of those writers they are studying. Critical Analysis of the text follows a good

understanding of what the text actually says. Even if the experts believe that the text is

unreliable or not genuine in some way or contains some hidden meaning, the text has to

be read and studied and understood as it stands, before any doubt can be assessed about

its quality or any hidden meaning postulated. Therefore, the first principle proposed for

interpreting the text of the Bible is reading and re-reading the text, in its original language

if possible, until a firm grasp is achieved of what the text actually says. Before continuing

on to the second principle, the question should be asked and answered properly: Has the

text been read enough to quote it without further reading?

Contexts

An enormous amount of reading will usually lead into the second principle of

exegeting the passage in its proper contexts. The language and dating of the text will

21
usually indicate the general context and setting of the material. Within the general context

the historical setting should be examined, which will include determining the author and

his audience, along with the political, economic, and social situations surrounding the

recipients. This might be termed the historical-cultural context, but this author believes

that those two words are not sufficient to describe the breadth of contexts that should be

considered and studied. The political setting could include nations far distant from the

text, but which influence the audience in the text. The economic situation should receive

the same diligence, as illustrated by the influence of the famine in the Middle East during

the time of Jacob and Joseph in Genesis. The social context can include the principles of

sociology and customs, anthropology (and its many fields of study), physiology, and

psychology of the people of that time period (if such study if feasible). A serious student

should also include the anthropology of the clothing or transportation or type of housing,

among other numerous other pertinent factors.

The writers purpose fits in the context category. The author of Alice in

Wonderland left us with no stated purpose, thus forcing future readers to research every

possible context that could lead to an answer to that question. Numerous authors of

numerous books in the Bible, however, do contain purpose statements,51 and these allow

the exegete to discover the meaning of the authors intent of the text with less effort.

Included in this aspect of exegesis is the authors selectivity of the text, i.e., what he

emphasized and what he left out. This sub-principle applies especially to the Gospels and

51
1 John contains the statement, These things have been written . . . five times. The Gospel of
Johns purpose statement in John 20:30-31 is well-known. Pauls first letter to Timothy clear states its
purpose in 1 Tim. 3:14-15.

22
Acts as historical records of that time period.52 It also applies to Genesis, which

apparently includes numerous gaps.53

Although the attitude of the audience is important in any text, it is often

overlooked because it does not seem to affect the exegesis of most literature. This is not

the case with the Scripture. The spiritual attitude of the audience makes a huge difference

in understanding the authors intention and approach to his audience. Jesus comment to

Nicodemus in John 3:10, Youre a teacher of Israel and you dont know this?! does not

reveal a couple of friends having a friendly difference of opinion about something.

Whereas in John four, Jesus never accuses the Samaritan woman of anything negative.

The difference in attitude between the crowd and the disciples in John six produces a

completely different response to the Lords challenge to follow Him.

The student should now consider the immediate context of a passage, and not be

swayed by the Bibles chapter and verse divisions, since these divisions are not part of

the original text. Overlooking this aspect often results in the ripping of a verse out of its

context, and interpreting it in line with the cross-references that support54 the theological

presuppositions of the interpreter.

Language

52
Not just historical events, but also genealogies.
53
For instance, the time period between the eight people alive on the earth at the end of Gen. 9 and
the table of nations at the beginning of Gen. 10.
54
These support verses are sometimes not exegeted within their own context properly.

23
 If the student has read and re-read the text many, many times, and researched the

numerous contexts, the next principle will arise automatically. The reading alone will

raise questions about the grammar and syntax of the text. The questions will include what

the text says, i.e., the grammar, and how the text says it, i.e., the syntax.

Study of the grammar will begin with word definitions. A word can only have a

meaning in a specific context. Even the root meaning of a word exists within the context

of the first time that word occurred in the language. And because words change meanings

over time, the student needs to define the word in the historical context in which that

word occurs. The English word vulgar used to mean common in a good sense. Today

the word has a culturally negative meaning. The study of the syntax in the original

language, i.e., the structure of the original language, will lead the student to determine the

emphasis of the text. The location of phrases in a sentence can modify the emphasis and

maybe even the meaning of the text.

The grammar and syntax together will reveal two major categories of

interpretation. First, the student must determine what type of speech is being presented,

which include factual statements, metaphors, similes, figures of speech, sarcasm, etc. The

second category focuses on the intent of the text, such as statements that are descriptive,

imperative, normative, or universal. The descriptive simply describes the facts of the text.

The imperative gives a command or a strong suggestion. The difference between these

two intents is vital for a present-day application. Do the descriptions found in the book of

Acts prescribe applications for today, or is the exegete free to simply accept them as

historical statements and not be required to receive them as commands? Are the

commands intended to be applicable to the Church today? Are the descriptions and

24
imperatives normative for the Church in the first century, but should be modified for

today? Should the descriptive elements of the text be considered as universal statements

for present-day application?

This aspect of hermeneutics also raises the question of who has the right to give

the final meaning of the text, the author or the reader? Does the writer determine the

purpose of his writing, or does the reader determine this? Researchers who believe that

the reader has the right to tell the author what he meant usually write books about their

viewpoint. They seem to overlook the fact that they want their readers to practice the

author-intent approach to understanding their view that the author-intent approach is

wrong.

The study of genre will immediately follow the study of the grammar and syntax.

If the student has read and re-read the text, the student will automatically recognize the

difference between the genre of a newspaper and that of a poem. An understanding of the

different genres will avoid an overemphasis on the syntax of a text. The same words in a

narrative and a poem will probably have different shades of meanings. A literal meaning

of a word in a narrative in First Samuel will usually not have the same meaning in a

passage of Isaiahs poetry. Genres to be studied include: proverbs, parables, allegories,

prophecy, apocalyptic literature, and types.

Theology

IF the student has done due diligence and arrived at the best possible meaning of

the text, then the student is prepared to bring in cross-references that have also been duly

25
exegeted, and use these passages to begin to build a Biblical and Systematic Theology.

The danger exists that the exegete will proceed too quickly to present these two subjects

long before all the proper exegesis has been completed on all relevant passages. The

obvious shortcut would be to simply consult the latest biblical or systematic theology

book, without even asking if that book was based on proper exegesis in every subject

presented.

Application

The entire process, properly conducted, is intended to develop relevant

applications for the various modern-day cultures. As simple as this sounds, determining

the principles of application is difficult. Should the student attempt to directly apply the

meaning of the text, or should he principalize it? Henry A. Virkler asks the proverbial

questions: How do we apply the normative commands of Scripture? Do we transfer

them wholesale into our time and culture, regardless of how archaic or peculiar they

might seem to us? Or should we transform them? What guidelines do we follow to

answer these questions?55 He rejects allegorism because it imports meaning into the

text.56 He promotes the concept of principlizing the text and describes this process by

saying that, What is needed, then, is an expository method that identifies the relevance

55
Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of
Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 193.
56
Ibid., 194.

26
of the narrative portions of Scripture or contemporary believers without making the text

say something the original author did not intend.57

Virkler illustrates principlizing by expounding and applying Genesis 3:1-6. He

follows his illustration with five general guidelines.58 He then narrows his focus to

principles for differentiating culture-bound from transcultural principles and

commands.59 Specifically for commands, he lists another five steps. As useful as these

steps are, the process is still difficult. For instance, the first step is to discern as

accurately as possible the principle behind the given behavioral command.60 The

problem, of course, is how one discerns such a principle. His fourth step states that If

the behavioral expression of a principle61 should be changed, suggest a cultural

equivalent that would adequately express the God-given principle behind the original

command.62 This seems to be a good point, but on what basis does one suggest and

choose a cultural equivalent, and what criteria should one use to define what will

adequately express the principle behind the command?

Although the exegete is left with some uncertainties, applying Second Timothy

2:15, to diligently study the text in the presence of God and for His approval, and with

lots of continuous prayer, this author believes that God will guide and lead the exegete

through the maze of principles to an appropriate application for the intended audience.

And even if the exegete is unaware of the spiritual needs of his audience, the Holy Spirit

57
Ibid.
58
Ibid., 200.
59
Ibid., 206.
60
Ibid., 207.
61
Which we hope we have properly identified.
62
Ibid., 208.

27
will still continue to convict the unsaved of their sins (John 16:8), and will still, by

application to present-day believers, guide believers in all the truth (John 16:13).

Bibliography

Dockery, David S., Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics
in Light of the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Grant, Robert McQueen and David Tracy. A Short History of the Interpretation of the
Bible. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Hartill, J. Edwin. Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Jasper, David. A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics. Philadelphia: Westminster John

Knox Press, 2004.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. and Moiss Silva. Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The
Search for Meaning. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient

Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Porter, Stanley E., Jr. and Beth M. Stovell, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views.
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2012.

Simonetti, Manlio. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical

Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002.

Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the
Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Virkler, Henry A. and Karelynne Ayayo. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of

Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Williams, D. H., ed. Tradition, Scripture and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.

28