Part 2: Christendom and Biblical Interpretation

B. Christendom and Biblical Interpretation

The Christendom system and the mindset that went with it have deeply impacted the way European Christians interpreted the Bible through the centuries. Having accepted the support of the political authorities, and having interpreted this support as divinely providential, the church under Christendom quite naturally began to adjust the way it interpreted the Bible to reflect the new status quo. The Bible tended, therefore, to be interpreted in ways that would maintain and legitimise the existing social order that benefited both church and state, not in ways that might offer a prophetic challenge to this system. Furthermore, the dominant and central position of the church within society significantly affected the presuppositions with which it approached the Bible. The view from the centre is very different from the view from the margins. The story may be the same, but it is understood very differently.

For three-quarters of its history, as we have seen, the European church has operated within Christendom, a system challenged until recently only by various persecuted dissident movements. Those who dared to challenge the Christendom mindset usually did so because they had begun to interpret the Bible in different and (to their opponents) socially dangerous ways. This was how dissident movements typically developed:

• Their protest might start because they refused to accept the traditional interpretation of the Bible on some issue.
  
  
• As they read further, they began to ask whether it was the Christendom system itself that was the root of the problem, rather than a particular issue.
  
  
• And once they reached the decision that the Christendom system was suspect, they became deeply suspicious that the Bible was being misinterpreted to legitimate this system. It was as if they were now looking at the Bible through a different lens from the Christendom churches.
  
  
• This led to them thinking deeply about how to read and apply the Bible and to all kinds of interpretations and applications that threatened the Christendom system still further.
  
  
• These things reinforced each other. Their different approach to the Bible energised their protest against Christendom, and their protest against Christendom energised their different approach to the Bible.

So there were alternatives to the official line on biblical interpretation. But these were minority voices that were quickly and often brutally silenced. Mainstream European Christianity was dominated by the Christendom mindset and this mindset dominated biblical interpretation.

From early in the Christendom era, it had become clear that the Bible would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the new realities. After all, the teaching of Jesus and of the New Testament seemed to be designed for communities of disciples, not for a whole society that was coerced or induced to be "Christian." It was soon recognised that it was impractical to require the whole population to accept New Testament ethics, so on all kinds of issues Old Testament norms were adopted for all except the clergy and the monastic orders.

Church leaders also realised that the New Testament provided no useful guidelines for organising the kind of sacral society or hierarchical church that was emerging in the fourth century. Apparently, the triumph of Christianity had not been envisaged and no guidelines were provided for running a state religion. But again they found many helpful structures in the Old Testament. The nation of Israel seemed analogous to the christianised Roman Empire: both had borders to defend, armies to run, economic policies to determine, social institutions to maintain and a cultural heritage to value. Both recognised the ultimate government of God, exercised through his chosen and anointed leaders. The Old Testament seemed to provide patterns and models on issues where the New Testament, and Jesus, was silent.

Consequently, the authority of the Old Testament grew and much New Testament teaching tended to be regarded as applicable only in the religious orders, in the eschatological kingdom, or as unreachable ideals. The resultant changes in biblical interpretation became established as orthodox and provided constant reinforcement of the system. Not surprisingly, therefore, the model of church that operated within Christendom seemed to its critics in the dissident movements to be an Old Testament model. Their persistent calls for a restoration of New Testament models of church and discipleship expressed both their dissatisfaction with the way in which this model operated and their disagreement as to its basic legitimacy.

In particular, the increasing distance between Jesus' lifestyle and that of many church leaders necessitated a marginalisation of the humanity and teaching of Jesus. It was no longer acceptable to see him as the example that Christians should imitate, at least in terms of their responsibilities as citizens. Furthermore, some of his teaching was very difficult to apply in this new situation: how did a Christian emperor love his enemies? How could a Christian politician "take no thought for tomorrow"? The Sermon on the Mount especially presented problems: perhaps it should be interpreted as relevant only for inter-personal relationships rather than public life, or regarded as a wonderful but unattainable ideal in this age? In time, such teachings were regarded as "counsels of perfection", applicable to monks rather than guidelines for normal discipleship. A two-tier system (similar to the clergy/laity distinction) was emerging.

The problem went deeper still. For state Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, who not only taught radical discipleship rather than patriotic citizenship but who was executed by the state, was difficult to assimilate. Fundamentally embarrassing for Christendom was the fact that Jesus had been crucified by the order of the Roman Empire, acting through Pilate, its representative. The cross that Constantine put on the shields of his soldiers did not make a good symbol for a state religion. The dangerous memory of what Jesus said and did, his dealings with political and religious authorities, his championing of the poor and criticism of injustice: these elements were not helpful in a situation where church leaders were becoming politicians and supporters of the status quo. Somehow, the connection between the radical Jesus and fourth century Christianity had to be loosened. Consequently, in the fourth century, Jesus was recast as a celestial figure, his divinity was emphasised and the dangerous memory of the Nazarene was allowed to fade.

This change in the way Jesus was understood and the Bible was interpreted is evident from an analysis of fourth century creeds, hymns, church calendars and catechisms. In the hymns the churches sung, in the sermons preached, in the teaching given to catechumens, as well as in theological treatises, Jesus and his teaching are given less and less attention.

• The catechetical instructions of Ambrose, for example, are based on Old Testament morality (see Ambrose, De Mysteriis, 1.1); whereas catechumens used to be taught to apply Jesus' teachings (see Justin, Apology, 1:14-16; or the Didache, Ch. 1-6).
  
  
• Fourth century sermons and writings demonstrate the same reinterpretation of what the Bible taught: the life of Christ was now used devotionally rather than ethically.
  
  
• These same sermons demonstrate the impact on biblical interpretation of the disappearance of the distinction between church and world. Major New Testament themes such as the kingdom of God no longer seemed significant. The Great Commission seemed to have been fulfilled. The context of the early Christians seemed so removed from Christendom that it was difficult to understand New Testament teaching on many issues. The blurring of the distinction between church and world resulted in New Testament passages such as Romans 13 being interpreted in ways that reflected the requirements of Christendom.
  
  
• This marginalising of Jesus is most evident in the creeds. During the fourth and fifth centuries, attempts were made to summarise what Christians believed about the fundamental matters of faith. These creeds have had tremendous influence on the way in which Christians have thought about God, Jesus, the church and many other matters. But they were developed in the formative years of Christendom, when Jesus was being marginalised, and this shows through.

Exercise

Consider the Nicene Creed, the origins of which were in a conference at Nicaea in 325, chaired by the emperor Constantine, whose main concern was not theology but having a united church in his empire. The creed says quite a bit about Jesus, but what it does not say is just as important.

THE NICENE CREED

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds: God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; and was made man.

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered; and was buried. And the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven; and sits on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.

And I believe in one catholic and apostolic church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

The creed affirms that he is both divine and human but manages to ignore everything important about his human life, moving straight from his birth to his death. Where are his miracles, his relationships, his example, his teachings, his lifestyle? As in so many other fourth century documents, where is Jesus?

The Christocentrism of the New Testament writers and the early churches is replaced by a theological system in which the life of Jesus seems to be of marginal importance. Of course, he was still honoured as Saviour and risen Lord, but the human Jesus (his example, lifestyle, teachings and relationships) was quietly ignored. He just did not fit the new arrangement, he was too awkward, too challenging, too threatening.

Christendom could cope with the divine Jesus and with a belief that Jesus was also human, but it could not cope with the reality of that human life. Though the creeds insist on his humanity, this seems little more than an abstract philosophical principle, unconnected to his way of life, relationships, teaching and miracles. The Jesus whom the churches expressed their faith in as they repeated the creeds was an exalted figure, a heavenly counterpart of the Christian emperor, remote and powerful, but no longer disturbing the status quo. And this has left a lasting legacy in European Christianity and in the way the Bible is interpreted.

Next - Reformation and Biblical Interpretation >>