Modern Inerrancy ≠ Patristic Inerrancy
Restoring the Apostolic View of the Scriptures
Textual Inerrancy vs. Anagogical Inerrancy
Recently within this era, some Christians have desperately attempted to defend their faith by creating false promises for the Bible, and so, they have claimed that not only is the Bible infallible in terms of theology and ethical practice, but also the human author’s opinions on science, history, and even geography. Such claims are appealing at first glance, but such notions are very deceptive in nature. It is an appealing notion to the naive and infantile believer, which in return, deprives them of exegetical honesty, theological self-improvement, and spiritual maturity. This post is not intended to offend any of these individuals, but to disclose a strong deception that believers have mistakenly embraced out of insecurity, constant indoctrination, and out of diverse sophism.
The biggest issue with Fundamentalists is their insistence on scriptural inerrancy. They attempt to use the Church Fathers to argue for the belief in biblical (textual) inerrancy like citing Augustine, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, etc. Although, it’s true that they held to some form of inerrancy, yet it was never an attempt for them to suggest that the biblical context and the human authors as being infallible or without contradiction to others. The patristic view of inerrancy did not regard a plenary, verbal, infallible form of inspiration (e.g. word-for-word), and it acknowledges that the context of the Old Testament was not always inspired, yet only occasionally. The patristic form of inerrancy would regard the Scriptures as always being inspired in symbolic and typological fashion. The patristic view acknowledges that the thoughts of God could be revealed by a typological reading, instead of using a contextual-grammatical reading. When the context of Scripture presents a theological or exegetical contradiction, exemplifies an immoral practice, has similarities to Christian doctrine, and/or appears as an ambiguously, lost grammatical reading, this is where the mystical interpretation is applied.
Keep in mind, people confuse the Church Fathers’ use of allegory as being contextual or grammatical, but this is not what the Fathers mean by “allegory”. It is interpretive allegory or allegoresis, which is an ancient literary device used to disclose a philosophic truth and to disclose a deeper form of inspiration. Religious and philosophical traditions used this kind of literary method, which modern audiences have neglected for a quarter of two millennias.
The Epistle of Clement of Rome
There are popular apologists who have attempted to distort the teachings of the Fathers to suggest that they were inerrantists of the grammatical reading. I will be commenting on the quotes that each Christian apologist has made, which inaccurately portrays the Fathers. There’s a famous apologist by the name of Alisa Childers who has a plethora of wrong teachings that she assumes is orthodoxy; unfortunately, like the many of her stream, they aren’t individual thinkers but she succumbs to the majority opinion of her day. She cites Clement of Rome in teaching contextual inerrancy, but I will demonstrate as to what she is missing:
Here’s what he said about the Bible:
Let us act accordingly to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom)….Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.(2)
Clement equated the words of Scripture with the very words of God.
Alissa’s quotation of Clement is a bit distorted, in which she quotes a passage from Chapter 13, then she quotes a phrase from Chapter 45 to present the Scriptures as some unquestionable and infallible source, but this is not Clement’s understanding of the Scriptures. Though Clement quotes from Jeremiah, he is not saying that we can’t challenge the Old Testament scriptures, but he demonstrates in context of this quote, “[let us therefore, brethren]…being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you…” (1st Clement XIII). Clement quotes from Jeremiah to demonstrate that we should be in humble submission to the teachings of Jesus. Clement presents himself as a Christocentricist from what it seems. Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of Clement and a direct disciple of the apostles, was also a Christocentricist (i.e. the belief that the Old Testament must be read in primacy of Christ, rather than in equal degrees of authority). He said: “For I heard some men saying, “If I find it not in the [magisterial/ἀρχείοις] records, I do not believe in the Gospel,” and when I said to them that it is in the Scripture, they answered me, “That is exactly the question.” But to me, Jesus Christ has become the [magisterial/ ἀρχεῖά] record: the inviolable charter is His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is through Him…But the Gospel has its own preeminence: the appearance of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion, and the resurrection, because the beloved prophets proclaimed into Him, but the fulfillment of the Gospel has become incorruptible” (Ign. Philadelphians 8:2–9.2). The theme of Christ’s revelation as being superior than the Old Testament is a constant affirmation in his epistle to the Philadelphians. In this same epistle, he argues with those who don’t see the Gospel in “the archives” (τοῖς ἀρχειοῖς) or in the Hebraic scriptures presumably, which they affirm these archives as authoritative or magisterial, yet Ignatius explains that Christ is in the Hebraic scriptures, though he does not mean in a grammatical or contextual sense. Furthermore, Ignatius disagrees with their interpretive premise by saying: “But to me the charter (ἀρχεῖα/archeia) are Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter is his cross, and death, and resurrection…” (Phil. 8.2). Ignatius argues that Christ is the magisterial record, or the “charters” as translated in the J. B. Lightfoot translation. Ignatius suggests that between the old priesthood and the new priesthood, Christ is the superior priesthood that was entrusted as the door to the Father in revealing the secret things of God, and he makes a subtle typological appeal to Christ when he first mentioned the priests while symbolizing Christ as the high priest from the Old Testament. And then, Ignatius states that the Gospel has its own preeminence or superiority (ἐξαίρετον/exaireton), and he specifies that these would be Christ’s appearance, passion, and resurrection. Ignatius affirms that the beloved prophets foreshadowed or prefigured Christ, presumably by typology instead of authorial context, and that the Gospel is the incorruptible fulfillment. So far, Ignatius seems to imply heavily that Christ in the Gospels retain a higher authority (in an ethical and theological sense) than the Hebraic scriptures, just as Clement might be implying.
The second phrase that she quoted is from Chapter 45 where Clement seemingly says that the Scriptures are the oracles of God, but this claim by Clement can be easily misunderstood. The Greek manuscript in this chapter doesn’t use the term for “word” or “utterances” but it can be simply understood as “Carefully examine into the Holy Scriptures, which are true, because of the Holy Spirit” (ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰς ἱερὰς γραφάς, τὰς ἀληθεῖς, τὰς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου). Clement demonstrates that the Holy Scriptures are inspired with truth, but he also regards his own epistles as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. We read this in Chapter 63, “For you will give us joy and gladness; if you are obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, and root out the wicked passion of your jealousy according to the entreaty for peace and concord which we have made in this letter.” The claim to Holy Spirit inspiration doesn’t necessarily imply infallibility unless Alisa wishes to say Clement’s epistle is infallible.
The problem I often see with fundamentalists is their tendency to quote a passage out of context, and use it to prove something that isn’t really there. This is often what I see with their treatment of the Bible and now the patristic literature. To understand Clement’s view of inspiration, we must understand how he uses the Old Testament and what he derives from it. Clement quotes the Hebrew Scriptures by giving it a moral reading, which is characteristic of the anagogical principle of interpretation. “You understand, beloved, you understand well the sacred Scriptures, and you have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance. When Moses went up into the mount, and abode there, with fasting and humiliation, forty days and forty nights, the Lord said to him, Moses, Moses, get you down quickly from hence; for your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have committed iniquity. They have speedily departed from the way in which I commanded them to walk, and have made to themselves molten images. And the Lord said to him, I have spoken to you once and again, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: let me destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make you a great and wonderful nation, and one much more numerous than this. But Moses said, Far be it from You, Lord: pardon the sin of this people; else blot me also out of the book of the living. Exodus 32:32 O marvellous love! O insuperable perfection! The servant speaks freely to his Lord, and asks forgiveness for the people, or begs that he himself might perish along with them. Who then among you is noble-minded? Who compassionate? Who full of love?” (1st Clement 53–54). Clement quotes the narrative of Moses to inspire his audience of his moral example, but some fundamentalists might take this as a historical embrace from Clement; however, in Chapter 55, Clement mentions the moral example of Judith, which many Christians consider as historical fiction and non-canonical. The purpose of his quotations is to give a moral reading of the Scriptures, not a historical embrace and grammatical reading of the Scriptures.
When Clement says “the oracles [logia can also translate as thoughts/expressions] of God,” he means the anagogical, conceptual inspiration of God and not a plenary form of verbal inspiration. Clement also mentions Rahab where he demonstrates an anagogical reading of the Scriptures; hence, he says, “Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. You see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman” (Chapter 12). The events of Rahab become a prophetic foreshadowing of Christ’s blood, which is not normative for a contextual understanding of the Bible. Alisa needs to be cautious in making assumptions and she needs to read these passages in context with the overall patristic tradition. Because I have demonstrated the interpretive methods and applications of Clement, there is no reason to assume that he held a fundamentalist or grammatical view of inerrancy. I shall concede that this may not seem convincing at first glace, but this is why we need to address other examples. In the writings of Origen of Alexandria, he believes that the textual surface of the Mosaic law does not reveal the divine will, but only by turning to the revelation of Christ in the spirit of mystical allegory, does the divine will become exposed. He says: “[We] would say that we both agree that the books were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents;…we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain, that “when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart,” because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who have not welcomed the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for “the Lord is that Spirit”), the veil being taken away, “he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord” in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term “face” being used figuratively for the “understanding,” as one would call it without a figure, in which is the face of the “inner man,” filled with light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law” (Contra Celsum V.60). Or in Origen’s letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus, “And, focusing on the divine reading, earnestly seek, with unwavering faith towards God, the hidden meaning of the divine writings among the multitude” (Philocalia Book 2, Chapter 13, Sec. 4). And likewise in the words of Hilary of Poitiers, he says, “Likewise, Manichaeus and Marcion despise the law because the letter kills, and the prince of the world is the devil. All scriptures speak without the sense of scripture and feign faith without faith. Scriptures are not in reading but in understanding, nor are they in prevarication but in charity” (Ad Constantium 9.2). Hilary notes that Marcion and Manichaeus deny the law, because of the Pauline arguments from 2nd Corinthians 3:6 and 4:4, but Hilary responds to such arguments by saying that all the scriptures are without the mystical sense if read according to its text. He says that scripture becomes its true self if read in spiritual contemplation. Here’s a conceptual translation of Hilary: “[The] Scriptures are not [found] in reading [according to text], but in [mystical] understanding.”
The Work of Irenaeus of Lyons
Alisa Childers makes another attempt to argue for inerrancy through the work of Irenaeus, “The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God [Christ] and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries” (Against Heresies 2.28.2). The term ‘perfect’ used in Against Heresies doesn’t mean “without error” in Latin. This term in Latin is ‘perfectae’, which conveys completion, wholeness, or it implies a state of sufficiency, but a state of completion and sufficiency doesn’t imply infallibility in the slightest.
A Quote from Justin Martyr
But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired men themselves but by the divine Word who moves them. (First Apology, XXXVI).
Alisa, like the rest of the apologists, misinterpret this quote to be an affirmation of their view of inerrancy, which the quote does not seem to teach; in fact, Justin seems to distinguish two forms of inspiration: the authorial intent and the divine intention. Justin seems to be affirming two forms of inspiration embedded in the Scriptures, but the divine intent (i.e. the anagogical reading) being superior over the authorial intent (e.g. contextual reading), or else, why would he need to say that these prophetic men were inspired but also moved by the Divine Word which already captures this idea? What’s interesting about Justin is his belief that the Jewish people enjoined sacrifices as God accommodated their practices, instead of legislating such things to them. This is a view that Alisa herself would disagree with since she always agrees with the letter of the Scriptures. Justin wrote in his dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XIX, “Therefore, God harmonized with the people, and they commanded offerings as to bear His name (Ὅθεν ὁ θεὸς ἁρμοσάμενος πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ἐκεῖνον καὶ θυσίας φέρειν ὡς πρὸς ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐνετείλατο).” There’s an official translation by Phillip Schaff that somewhat concedes to the idea that God accommodated the Jews and their offerings, instead of prescription. “Wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name,” which by the phrase “as if” implies that their offerings honored God in appearance (or from their perspective), but not from God’s perspective (or in reality).
Even Saint Athanasius acknowledges the narrative of Moses enjoining the law of sacrifice as a divine instrument, yet also believing in the prophets denying such a narrative, but Athanasius of Alexandria resolves this dispute by saying, “Now it appears to me — may God grant, by your prayers, that the remarks I presume to make may not be far from the truth — that not at first were the commandment and the law concerning sacrifices, neither did the mind of God, Who gave the law, regard whole burnt-offerings, but those things which were pointed out and prefigured by them. ‘For the law contained a shadow of good things to come.’ And, ‘Those things were appointed until the time of reformation. Therefore, the whole law did not treat of sacrifices, though there was in the law a commandment concerning sacrifices, that by means of them it might begin to instruct men and might withdraw them from idols, and bring them near to God, teaching them for that present time. Therefore neither at the beginning, when God brought the people out of Egypt, did He command them concerning sacrifices or whole burnt-offerings, nor even when they came to mount Sinai” (Letter 19, Sections 3–4). Athanasius knows he’s denying the grammatical reading of the Torah, so he requests a prayer from his audience since he is worried that they disagree with his anagogical exposition since the immature of the faith, according to Origen and Gregory, merely interpreted the Scriptures as to the letter (First Principles, IV.8–9; Homilies on the Song of Songs, Preface). However, he explains that God did not prescribe the command of offering, but allowed them to use their offerings to prevent them from idolatry and reoriented their customs to symbolize Christ (i.e. hidden form of inspiration). Even the Didascalia, an early Christian document that represents most of the Early Church, states the following: “Wherefore He does not say, ‘Make for me’ but, ‘If thou shalt make an altar’. He did not impose this as a necessity, but showed what was about to be. For God had no need of sacrifices; as neither of old was it commanded Cain and Abel, but they of their own accord presented offerings: and their offering achieved a brother’s murder” (Didascalia 26). So my interpretation of Justin’s understanding of the command of sacrifice aligns well with the teachings of the Didascalia and saint Athanasius of Alexandria. And so, if Justin denies some portion from the contextual reading of the Old Testament as did Athanasius, then it is clear that both of them weren’t believers in textual/authorial inerrancy.
The Book of Hebrews (Apostolic Scripture) & Conclusion
The Book of Hebrews is more explicit in revealing the fallibility of the old covenant. The author of Hebrews uses spiritual allegory in reinterpreting the Old Testament passages like Jeremiah, the Psalms, and even the Levitical priesthood (cf. Hebrews 10:1). The author demonstrates the fallible nature of the old covenant, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second” (Hebrews 8:7). But some Christians attempt to argue that the author meant the covenant observance of the Jews, but this reading is absent in verse 7 and is more feasible in verse 8, so the argument of a fallible covenant still remains. Here is another passage from Hebrews: “Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services, 7 but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offers for himself, and for the errors of the people. 8 The Holy Spirit is indicating this, that the way into the Holy Place wasn’t yet revealed while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is a symbol of the present age, where gifts and sacrifices are offered that are incapable, concerning the conscience, of making the worshiper perfect, 10 being only (with meats and drinks and various washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation” (9:6–10). The author of Hebrews is utilizing spiritual allegory based on phrases like “the Holy Spirit is indicating” and “this is a symbol of the present age,” and most importantly, he mentions such carnal ordinances were imposed until a time of reformation. There can’t be a reformation without there being errors in the system (nor is it a mere improvement), so God awaited for Mosaic Judaism to be rectified by the advent of Christ.
Conclusion
Therefore, every Christian apologist who adheres to the fundamentalist stream does not understand the notion of patristic inerrancy, but conflate it as their own doctrine of inerrancy. And to demonstrate that I am not the only person who distinguishes patristic inerrancy from modern inerrancy, in one of Kyle R. Hugh’s blog, he cites a source, saying: “But the Fathers had an entirely different view. As patristics scholar D. H. Williams summarizes, ‘As a generalization about the patristic mind, it is fair to say that the fathers affirmed an infallible Bible, although it was not an infallibility of the text so much as it was an infallibility of the divine intention behind the text’ (Evangelicals and Tradition, 91)”. And he also cites: “Similarly, Frederick Norris observes that “The Fathers’ sense of the trustworthy character of Scripture can have them speak about its lack of errors, but they never protect the Bible with the doctrine of inerrancy that was developed in seventeenth-century Protestantism.”
Extra: My Review of Kyle’s Piece
In Kyle’s blog, I comment the following: “This article beautifully conveys what Christianity of antiquity really stands for, rather than those fundamentalist or biblicist Christians who don’t realize that the letter or context of the old often lead to senseless, anti-Christian, or detrimental readings. They [church fathers] obviously didn’t believe the OT as being always inspired by the letter/context, but the symbolic/spiritual reading. It’s probably accurate to say they affirmed mystical/anagogical inerrancy but not textual/human-authorial inerrancy.”
