How the Church reads the Bible matters. But in asking how the Church should read the Bible today we cannot exclude how the Church has read the Bible in the past; to do so would be to impoverish the conversation and limit the fruitfulness of any discussion.
God's people have been reading and interpreting God's word from the beginning. David, we are told, wrote Psalm 16 in response to God's word to him concerning his descendants:
[David] knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay… (Acts 2:30-31)
According to this description Psalm 16 is King David's inspired exegesis of God's covenantal promises! The New Testament, also, is full of examples of the Apostles reading and interpreting God's word. Hebrews 3:7 – 4:11 is an extended exegesis of Psalm 95:7-11, and there are countless other examples we could give. God's people have always been reading and interpreting God's word.
The modern Church, however, finds herself in a somewhat peculiar position. She adheres to the scripture as God's word yet her way of reading that word often differs radically from the way God's people have read God's word from biblical times onwards. The way the Church has read the Bible in the past (pre-Reformation) may be of historical interest but adds little to today's conversation on how we should read the Bible. This article calls us to reconsider and include the Church Fathers as conversation partners. They are our brothers from whom we can learn much in our endeavour to faithfully read God's word as God's people.
I want to take one passage from Ambrose, Bishop of Milan in the late fourth century AD, and learn some of the ways in which we should read the Bible as one book given to us from God. The example comes to us from his Expositions on the Christian Faith Book 3 Chapter 10. He began the chapter with an exposition of John 1:30 in the context of contemporary debates over the deity of Christ and then continues his argument with an exposition of John 1:27:
Again, St. John Baptist also taught in less weighty language what ideas they were he had combined, saying: “After me comes a Man, Whose sandals I am not worthy to bear,” setting forth at least the more excellent dignity [of Christ], though not the eternity of His Divine Generation. Now these words are so fully intended of the Incarnation, that Scripture has given us, in an earlier book, a human counterpart of the mystic sandal. For, by the Law, when a man died, the marriage bond with his wife was passed on to his brother, or other man next of kin, in order that the seed of the brother or next of kin might renew the life of the house, and thus it was that Ruth, though she was foreign-born, but yet had possessed a husband of the Jewish people, who had left a kinsman of near relation, being seen and loved of Boaz while gleaning and maintaining herself and her mother-in-law with that she gleaned, was yet not taken of Boaz to wife, until she had first loosed the sandal from [the foot of] him whose wife she ought, by the Law, to have become.
The story is a simple one, but deep are its hidden meanings, for that which was done was the outward betokening of somewhat further… [I]t was the foreshadowing of One Who was to arise from Jewry— whence Christ was, after the flesh— Who should, with the seed of heavenly teaching, revive the seed of his dead kinsman, that is to say, the people, and to Whom the precepts of the Law, in their spiritual significance, assigned the sandal of marriage, for the espousals of the Church.
Moses was not the Bridegroom, for to him comes the word, “Loose your sandal from off your foot,” (Exodus 3:5) that he might give place to his Lord. Nor was Joshua, the son of Nun, the Bridegroom, for to him also it was told, saying, “Loose your sandal from off your foot,” (Joshua 5:16) lest, by reason of the likeness of his name, he should be thought the spouse of the Church. None other is the Bridegroom but Christ alone, of Whom St. John said: “He Who has the bride is the Bridegroom.” (John 3:29) They, therefore, loose their sandals, but His sandal cannot be loosed, even as St. John said: “I am not worthy to loose the latchet of His sandal.” (John 1:27)
Christ alone, then, is the Bridegroom to Whom the Church, His bride, comes from the nations, and gives herself in wedlock; aforetime poor and starving, but now rich with Christ's harvest; gathering in the hidden bosom of her mind handfuls of the rich crop and gleanings of the Word, that so she may nourish with fresh food her who is worn out, bereaved by the death of her son, and starving, even the mother of the dead people—leaving not the widow and destitute, while she seeks new children.
There is so much going on here, much of which may initially sound strange in our modern ears. We need to start near the end in order to see the way Ambrose is reading John's gospel and how he links all these passages together:
None other is the Bridegroom but Christ alone, of Whom St. John said: “He Who has the bride is the Bridegroom.” (John 3:29) They, therefore, loose their sandals, but His sandal cannot be loosed, even as St. John said: “I am not worthy to loose the latchet of His sandal.” (John 1:27)
Ambrose appears to base his exegesis on two seemingly disparate sayings of John the Baptist. How can he link John 3:29 with 1:27? Well, we need to look at both verses in context.
In ch.3 an individual approaches John and says,
Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.”(v.26 emphasis added)
It is important to note that this statement explicitly refers to John's earlier witness. Which witness is that? Well, the only earlier witness we have is found in John chapter 1. As readers we need to note this and make sure we go back and read the passage to which the biblical text refers. However, before we do that we need to see how John respond to this statement?
27 John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him.’ 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. (emphasis added)
In responding to the information concerning Jesus baptising more that him John also explicitly refers back to his earlier testimony, “You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ…’” This whole conversation, then, refers back to the earlier discussion recorded for us in chapter 1, and therefore, we now need to go back to ch.1 and read it carefully in light of ch.3.
John 1:19-20 records for us John's testimony about Christ:
19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ 20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’
After giving this answer John is then questioned further as to who he is and he confirms that he is the not the Christ but His forerunner. John then states clearly that he is not worthy to untie the sandals of the one who comes after him. (John 1:23-27)
We should see that the answer John gives in ch.3 refers back to the answer he gave in ch.1. In ch.3 John describes himself as ‘the friend of the Bridegroom’ and so rejoices in the Bridegrooms prominence. In ch.1 John describes himself as one unable to untie Jesus' sandals. By referring us back to this incident we have to read them together. This second answer, therefore, should be seen as an extension or interpretation of the first.
Ambrose reads ch.3 of John's gospel in light of what has already happened and pays close attention to the words there. Once the two passages are found to be related he reads the details of ch.3 back into ch.1. Note, however, he leaves mentioning ch.3, which is the key to his whole exegesis, to the end of his interpretation. We will return to this point later.
Having understood John 1:27 and John's inability to remove Jesus' sandals in relation to John 3:29 where Jesus is declared the bridegroom, Ambrose proceeds to Ruth chapter 4 where we find marriage, bridegrooms and sandal removal all together in one place. The man with no name (Ruth 4:1) has his sandal removed because he is unwilling to be the kinsman redeemer (4:7). Boaz then becomes the kinsman redeemer of Ruth and therefore his sandals remain firmly on his feet. For Ambrose the point of this story goes beyond the marriage of Ruth and Boaz and points to Christ:
The story is a simple one, but deep are its hidden meanings, for that which was done was the outward betokening of somewhat further… [I]t was the foreshadowing of One Who was to arise from Jewry…
What on the surface is a ‘simple’ story becomes in the light of John's gospel a story with ‘hidden meanings’ one that ‘foreshadows’ Christ. ‘Hidden’ for Amrbose does not mean some mystical meaning that comes through some secret gnostic experience, rather it is meaning that is revealed by the coming of Christ and so has become clear. In other words John the Baptist's statements in John's gospel provide the key for understanding the book of Ruth and what initially appears to be the happy ending of a love story that contains some strange archaic ceremony involving sandals and thighs.
Ambrose, however, does not stop there. He is aware of other sandal removing incidents in the Biblical text. Both Moses and Aaron where required to remove their sandals:
Moses was not the Bridegroom, for to him comes the word, “Loose your shoe from off your foot,” (Exodus 3:5) that he might give place to his Lord. Nor was Joshua, the son of Nun, the Bridegroom, for to him also it was told, saying, “Loose your shoe from off your foot,” (Joshua 5:16) lest, by reason of the likeness of his name, he should be thought the spouse of the Church.
This for many appears a step too far! Surely Ambrose is reading too much into the text. In both passages there is a reason why they were to take their shoes off. They were standing on ‘holy ground’. Surely if the point of their sandal removing was to do with them not being the bridegroom the text would have said it. Ambrose, it seems, is not exegeting the text he is using it for his own eisegetical purposes.
A number of things need to said in response to such a position. Firstly, Ambrose is not denying the biblical reason given in both Exodus and Joshua for the sandal removal. Just as with Ruth he happily accepts what the text states, yet is convinced that there is more in any one biblical text than most modern readers of the Bible allow. He has already called these ‘hidden meanings’, ‘outward betokening’ or ‘foreshadowing’. In other words, Ambrose knows from reading scripture as a whole that there is more than one scriptual reason for removing one's sandals. Once John's gospel makes the link with Christ as bridegroom and him not removing his sandals the possibility of deeper meanings in the earlier texts is uncovered. We are all happy with Jesus being a Greater Moses and a Greater Joshua. These are all points that that the New Testament makes (see Hebrews chs. 3 and 4). We are all comfortable with Christ being our heavenly bridegroom, again a point made explicetly in the NT. Ambrose is aware of all this and sees the same points being made in Exodus 3 and Joshua 5. Moses was not the long-awaited heavenly bridegroom and neither was Joshua, but they foreshadowed Him, they point to Someone beyond themselves.
Ambrose then sums up his whole point in a theologicaly rich typological summary of the book of Ruth and how it points to Christ:
Christ alone, then, is the Bridegroom to Whom the Church, His bride, comes from the nations, and gives herself in wedlock; aforetime poor and starving, but now rich with Christ's harvest; gathering in the hidden bosom of her mind handfuls of the rich crop and gleanings of the Word, that so she may nourish with fresh food her who is worn out, bereaved by the death of her son, and starving, even the mother of the dead people—leaving not the widow and destitute, while she seeks new children.
If Boaz is a type of Christ then Ruth is a type of the Church. Before being redeemed by Christ she was gentile, poor and starving, but now she is nourished by His rich teaching. This in turn will be a blessing to her Jewish mother-in-law. When Ambrose talks about the ‘rich crop and gleanings of the word’ it is in the context of those being ‘Christ's harvest’. In other words, when Christ came there was a harvest of exegesis that makes us rich! Ruth left the threshing floor (3:15-16) wighed down with grain. She who beforehand only knew poverty now is rich through Christ. Ambrose's exegesis of Exodus, Joshua, Ruth and John is an example of the riches of Christ's harvest!
It would be helpful at this point to summarise the key points of Ambrose's reading of scripture and see what can we learn from this specific example.
1. Ambrose reads and follows the text very closely.
One of the most common criticicisms of pre-critical exegesis is that of eisegesis. The Church Fathers (and Rabbis for that matter) plundered the biblical text for proofs upon which they could hang their theological ideas. In other words they imposed their theology onto the text rather than let the text drive their theology. This criticism reveals more abouth the presuppositions of those criticising than it does about Patristic exegesis. Ambrose clearly knows the scriptures very well and has clearly read the text very, very closely. The whole thread of his exegesis stems from his close reading of John 1 and 3. Many modern readers have forgotten what John 1:27 says by the time they have got to ch 3:29 and so miss the import of what is being said.
2. Ambrose reads the scripture as though it were one book written by one author.
No Christian disagrees with this as a description of the scriptures, yet the modern emphasis on (human) authorial intent and the grammatical-historical reading of scripture has meant that this description plays very little practical importance in the real job of exegesis. Ambrose would never deny the human agency in divine scripture but he would also never allow that human agency to trump the divine purpose that inspired that human agency in the first place. Ambrose would accept the historical realities that human agency brings to the text, but would never allow those realities to limit the eternal realities to which the text witness. Ambrose, in his exegesis, brings the whole of God's revelation to bear on the smallest of its parts, as opposed to some modern exegesis that 'defrauds us of the whole by her anxiety about the parts'.1
3. Ambrose sees Christ as both the point of scripture and the key to understanding scripture.
The incarnation of Christ is, for Ambrose, of dramatic significance in the task of interpreting scripture. Firstly, Christ is the one to whom all scripture looks forward to (here he follows Luke 24:44). He uses the language of ‘outward’ and ‘foreshadowing’ to portray the relationship between the Old Testament texts and the New Testament. This is not only true for prophecies contained in the Old Testament, but for all texts. The obscure ceremony in Ruth 4 involving sandal removal also foreshadows the coming of Christ. Christ is the point and if we do not preach Christ from such a text we have missed the point entirely.
Note, however, that Christ's incarnation is the key that unlocks those texts. His coming, to use another of Ambrose's metaphors, signals harvest time for exegetes of the Biblical text! The exegete who reads Ruth 4 without seeing Christ is akin to a labourer in the field at harvest time weeding the ground and watering the crop instead of picking the fruit! If we were to stick to this analogy, scripture before the incarnation was like a field sown with good seed that is growing. Christ's coming is both the fruit and the signal that it is time to reap the abundant harvest.
Ruth came to the threshing floor empty handed and left with an abundance of grain. How often do we leave the biblical text with such an abundance! For Ambrose it is harvest time! A time to rejoice! A time for celebration and a time of abundance!
4. Ambrose allows for each text to have more than one meaning.
The analogy of planting and harvest makes this point clearly. No one expects one seed to produce one seed! Origen (2nd century AD) also used the field analogy in his commentary on the book of Exodus, likening each scriptural text to ‘a seed whose nature is to multiply diffusely’. To suggest that a scriptural text may have one meaning is like saying a grain of wheat that has been planted will only produce one grain of wheat! To suggest that a scriptural text narrating the history of Old Testament Israel is only about Old Testament Israel is like a farmer at harvest time getting excited (again) about the quality of the seed he planted whilst ignoring the abundant seed it produced that is waiting to be picked!
5. The form of Ambrose's exegesis mirrors the form of his hermeneutic.
We mentioned earlier that the key to understanding Ambrose's exegesis in this passage did not appear until after he has completed his tour of sandal removing ceremonies:
None other is the Bridegroom but Christ alone, of Whom St. John said: “He Who has the bride is the Bridegroom.” (John 3:29) They, therefore, loose their shoes, but His shoe cannot be loosed, even as St. John said: “I am not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoe.” (John 1:27)
His exegesis, a bit like his understanding of scripture, is revealed at the end. Just as Christ is the key to unlock how all scripture fits together, so Ambrose leaves his listeners waiting whilst he takes a tour of sandal removing ceremonies, and then at the end all becomes clear. Rhetorically this is very powerful. As we read through this passage questions arise in almost every point, yet he waits until the end to reveal the key that unlocked the exegetical door.
Conclusions
The need to read the Biblical Text closely, the affirmation that scripture is one book written by numerous authors but inspired by One ultimate author and the christological focus of the Bible are all points that evangelicals agree with, yet appear reluctant to allow to impact how they read the text. Ambrose has given us an insight into the exegetical world of the Church Fathers and in doing so he has provided us an example of how to apply the prinicples that we all hold when we seek to understand the Biblical text that God has given us. We would be richer if we followed in his footsteps.
