One contemporary neo-Marcionite, Eric Seibert, author of Disturbing Divine Behavior, alleges that the ancient Church responded to Marcion in a way that is consistent with his own rejection of the accuracy of allegedly evil depictions of God. Marcion accepted that the Old Testament’s narratives were intended to be taken as historical reporting of what God had done and said and that it was a true revelation of the character of the God of Israel. Since he found many things the Old Testament said about God to be immoral, he rejected the authority of these Scriptures for what he considered to be true Christianity. The God therein described is not the true God. Seibert’s description of the Church’s response to Marcion is as follows. The ancient Church’s use of allegory and typology “helped the Church avoid some of the unpleasant conclusions about God’s character they might otherwise have drawn from the Old Testament,” which ensured “its place among other important Christian writings, such as the Gospels and the Pauline epistles.” (pp. 60, 61) If what Seibert says is correct, namely, that the Church used allegory and typology to disarm the arguments of Marcion, then Seibert’s own project, emblematic of neo-Marcionism as a whole, may be viable. However, we will see that Seibert presents a one-sided account that doesn’t adequately acknowledge the fact that the literal sense continued to be esteemed by the Church, despite the acceptance of allegory and typology and the fact that some figures did reject the accuracy or authority of the literal sense of some (relatively few, compared to Seibert) passages of Scripture.
Origen is paradigmatic for what Seibert claims about the Church’s use of typology and allegory as it relates to supposedly problematic passages of Scripture. But no matter how many instances he can sight from Origen or others, such as the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, were Christian writers of this time interpreted Old Testament narratives that “contain some disturbing behavior” in an allegorical manner, (p. 60) he cannot show that, by in large, they did so over and against a literal reading. It is one thing to say that Joshua primarily “represents for us the mysteries of Jesus”, as Origen does. (p. 61) It is another thing to say that Origen rejected divinely instituted warfare en toto.
Claiming that Origen “thoroughly allegorized [the Old Testament’s] wars” (p. 61) is not enough to say that “the allegorical method was the key . . . [that] allowed him to counter the charges of Marcion” by denying that Scripture intended such accounts to be taken as accurate reports of what God said and did in the first place. (p. 63) Origen thoroughly allegorized Scripture without thereby rejecting the literal sense. In Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Manlo Simonett observes: “He [Origen] emphasizes that the literal sense is defective in only a few cases (De Princ. IV 3:4).” (p. 46) John Woodbridge indicates one implication of this fact, writing: “Origen was also capable of doing fastidious harmonization work regarding ‘historical’ texts. While falling back on allegorical interpretations in Contra Celsum, the Alexandrian more generally argued point by point with Celsus who had evidently scorned the historical reliability of many biblical accounts.” (Biblical Authority, p. 35)
We do not even need to deny that sometimes Christian writers of this era would agree with some Marcionite claims about (the literal sense of) Scripture, namely, that they were unworthy of God. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, rejected the historical sense of the plague on the firstborn of Egypt. (Life of Moses, Book II, 91,92) However, our point is that Seibert would be wrong to suggest that this sort of attitude is representative of the Church generally – for who else followed Gregory in this erroneous conclusion? – or that this or other evidence furnishes any grounds for saying that the Church used allegory or typology to refute Marcion or his followers, that is, that they discarded the literal sense in favor of typology or allegory in order to avoid concluding that the God of Israel is evil. This will be seen if we consider what those who responded to Marcion or his followers said.
Consider, for instance, what Tetrullian says in Against Marcion (Book ii, Chapter 14). There he plain says that God inflicts penal evils (i.e., suffering, deprivation) upon the wicked. “It is He who smites, but also heals; who kills, but also makes alive; who humbles, and yet exalts; who creates evil, but also makes peace.” Tetrullian there declares that “the operations of justice passing penal sentence against the evils of sin” is not evil. Only if one denies this obvious truth can one conclude that God’s deluging of the world, destruction of Sodom and Gomorroh, and plagues upon Egypt would be evil. Against Marcion Tetrullian also affirms, “Against young lads, too, did He send forth bears, for their irreverence to the prophet.” Tetrullian did not need to resort to allegory to refute Marcion. On the contrary he directly criticizes Marcion’s – and we would add by implication, Seibert’s – critique of the Scriptures.
Likewise, Augustine, who severely criticizes the sort of arguments of the Marcionites in his Answer to an Enemy of the Law and the Prophets, does not resort to allegory, with which he was very much familiar, to refute Marcion’s claims. Augustine plainly affirms that: “It is he [Christ] and not some other god who, without looking for grounds for vengeance, as this fellow claims, sees that some cases should be avenged at the time he knows.” “He showed that we should fear the wrath of God even in the gospel. For he is also the God of the prophets who used the term ‘wrath’ or ‘indignation’ to name, not his mental upset, but his just and severe punishment. He was not opposed to anyone being harmed by another in any way, but to anyone being harmed unjustly. For he is the God of the prophets who – whether by men or by holy angels – punished or frightened to their benefit those whom he wanted to, even by the temporal death of their bodies.” “For he is also the God of the prophets who commanded that a man who gathered wood on the Sabbath should be stoned. This man was not then distinguishing the times of the two Testaments, but was despising the law of God in his proud and wicked mind. By his bodily death, which we all know will soon be the lot of every man, God taught through fear the obedience that would profit the rest of us.” “He is also the God of the prophets who not only mercifully heals, but also justly brings about the same defects.” (Book II, 37)
And we find the same acceptance of the literal sense of “problematic passages” by Chrysostom, too, who said, “What is done in accordance with God’s will is the best of all things even if it seems to be bad. What is done contrary to God’s will and decree is the worst and most unlawful of things, even if men judge that it is very good. Suppose someone slays another in accordance with God's will. This slaying is better than any loving-kindness. Let someone spare another and show him great love and kindness against God's decree.” (Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Discourse IV, Section 1, Paragraph 6) To establish this point he proceeds to cite Scripture “so that you may learn that this is true.” In particular he references 1 Kings 20:35-43, where a man who refused to strike a prophet is killed by lions and king Ahab is rebuked for having spared the king of Syria. (Section 2, Paragraph 1) This does not indicate a frame of mind that would allegorize away the Scriptural sense.
Though I could go on quoting from the writings of the Fathers who evince a robust acceptance of the literal sense of Scripture even in so-called problematic passages, I think this is not necessary in light of the foregoing. I think I have shown that the Church did not utilize the allegorical or typological sense to refute Marcion’s arguments. By and large, the Fathers accepted the literal accounts of even problematic passages of Scripture and nowhere approached the sort of position espoused by neo-Marcionities like Eric Seibert. If such writers as Seibert dealt more fairly with the evidence they would not present the views of the early Church as a basis to commend their own faulty positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment