"RULE OF FAITH" AND PATRISTIC BIBLICAL EXEGESIS, THE

Trinity Journal, Spring 2007 by Hartog, Paul

This essay will seek to demonstrate that Christians in the current setting have much to learn from their patristic forebears. They developed a community-oriented, theological hermeneutic coupled with an eye to spiritual formation that retains importance for our approach to the Bible today.

I. DEFINING "RULE OF FAITH"

Under various titles, early church leaders frequently referred to the phenomenon of the "Rule of Faith" or regula fidei.1 Eric Osborn laments, "The rule of faith, like many theological simplicities, is surrounded by an historical jungle which obscures its exact place and by a liturgical jungle which obscures its exact use."2 Nevertheless, although the extant renditions exhibit a certain flexibility and elastic variation, they clearly serve as minimum statements of the common faith.3 Everett Ferguson describes the Rule of Faith as the "summary of the main points of Christian teaching," "the form of preaching that served as the norm of Christian faith," "the essential message . . . fixed by the gospel and the structure of Christian belief in one God, reception of salvation in Christ, and experience of the Holy Spirit."4 The regula fidei was a concise statement of early Christian public preaching and communal belief, a normative compendium of the kerygma.5

In the early church, the Rule of Faith provided a "road map" for the proper interpretation of Scripture.6 According to Irenaeus, the interpreter who has abandoned the regula fidei "would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected the very method of discovery."7 Mary Ann Donovan explains that the Rule of Faith, in a circular (or dialogical) arrangement, "governs right exegesis, and the Scriptures (the object of the exegesis) explain the Rule of Faith."8 The two entities mutually "breathe life into one another, developing a rich and evocative exegesis."9

The Rule of Faith was not a competitor with Scripture. Irenaeus claimed that the essential doctrines (as those in the Rule) "are such as fall under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures."10 Daniel Williams surmises, "The Rule was distinct, but not separate from or in addition to the Bible."11 He terms this a "symbiotic relationship" of "co-inherence" or "coincidence."12 Prosper Grech adds that the Rule "was there to safeguard Scripture, not to replace it."13

Various patristic authors had assorted ways of stating or elaborating the Rule.14 There was a certain stability to the apostolic tradition, but also a certain adaptability in its formulation in new contexts.15 William Countryman describes this phenomenon as a "stability of outline with a variability of phrasing," since the Rule was a "composition in performance."16

Only the general outline and content of the epic remain the same from one performance to another; the precise words, the embellishments, and much of the descriptive material are produced anew from one performance to the next.

Daniel Williams declares, "It seems that the Rule was never fixed in a single or master version, but variable in its form and adaptable to the given didactic or polemical circumstances at hand."18 Yet "the variations in accent" among renditions of the Rule, in Paul Blowers's judgment, "give the impression of a viable harmony, not a cacophony."19

Two writers who discussed the Rule of Faith early on were Irenaeus and Tertullian.20 Irenaeus identified the Rule of Faith with the hypothesis (the governing sense, overarching argument, or plot of the subject matter or story) of Scripture.21 He spoke of the Rule as the principle or logic of Scripture itself.22 Tertullian called this central message the ratio (reason or order) of Scripture.23 Other third-century writers who appealed to a "Rule of Faith" or a "Rule of Truth" included Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Novatian, Dionysius of Alexandria, and the Didascalia apostolorum.24 Later authors still referred to the Rule in an analogous fashion as "the hermeneutic of the church's 'faith.'"25 Athanasius portrayed the Rule as Scripture's skopos (goal or orientation).26 And Augustine repeatedly mentioned the regula in his handbook of biblical interpretation, On Christian Doctrine.27

In this paper I wish to draw attention to seven facets concerning the Patristic use of the Rule of Faith in biblical exegesis that retain value for understanding Scripture today.

II. BEYOND MERE METHOD

First, the use of the Rule of Faith stressed a disposition or orientation more than a method. Certainly hermeneutical methods were employed, and there were debates between the adherents of differing methods. But what was decisive was an attitude.28 The Christian interpreter does not approach Scripture with a tabula rasa.29 We believe in one God the Father Almighty, in one Christ Jesus, and in the Holy Spirit. If one approaches Scripture with the regula fidei in hand, then one approaches with faith in the heart.30 According to Irenaeus, the gnostics with their corrosive curiosity recited, "seek and you will find." But the faithful knew that on a foundational level "the search has ended."31 Although the Hebrew Scriptures are a "treasure, hid indeed in a field," they have been "brought to light" and "explained" by the cross.32 Confession of Jesus as the Christ was the result of the kerygma and the presupposition of biblical interpretation.33 Irenaeus cautioned, "If you do not have faith, you will not understand."34 Moreover, Scripture mattered because belief in God mattered. Robert Sanders reminds that "every way of interpreting Scripture entails a doctrine of God, and every doctrine of God leads to a particular way of interpreting Scripture."35 False views of God lead to false interpretations as surely as false interpretations lead to false views of God.