Control and Openness in the Theology of Gregory of Nyssa
Jason G. Andersen
I. Historical Background
“One of the glories of history is that sometimes the wisdom of the past becomes a vitalizing fact for the future.”[1] Gregory of Nyssa was not only one of the great Church fathers of his time, for he was called “the Father of Fathers” by a later church council, but his life and work can help us to work through the divisiveness within the church and theology right now. Gregory was born around 335 A.D. to Godly parents, grandparents and siblings. Two of the greatest influences in his life were his brother Basil and his sister Macrina the Younger. Basil, the father of the Monastic movement in the east, was educated classically in
Gregory exemplifies a positive attitude to the material creation as such, and not merely to pagan philosophy. The mistrust of pagan knowledge, art and culture, of beauty and pleasure, which characterized certain aspects of the early Latin tradition are not seen here. It is a fact that the better values in pagan culture were more freely appreciated and faithfully conserved by Gregory than they were by contemporary pagans, who under the influence of Neoplatonism and Manicheeism despised the aesthetic values of this world.[3]
II. Methodology
A. Theological Method and Presuppositions
Gregory’s basis for his theology is an understanding that “all scripture [is] inspired by God, all must be useful and must contain truth – even if that truth is hard to access.”[5] He continues his description of the truth of scripture by rejecting the truth if it is a “theological impropriety, a physical or logical impossibility, [or] useless or immoral” and says that “these impossibilities point towards a spiritual meaning of scripture.”[6] Gregory was drawn to use allegory to help interpret difficult passages. He inherited this understanding of a deeper meaning from Origen.
Another aspect of Gregory’s method is his understanding of what theology is. To speak of Gregory’s theology would be to speak in a manner which was foreign to Gregory. One of Gregory’s fundamental presuppositions was that there can only be “one theology, common for us all, expressed in the divine words (theological statements: θεολογίαι) of the Hoy Scripture, set out for us by the persons inspired by the Holy Spirit.”[8] Theology is built on “many words but only one ‘speaking body’ of several members” based on the word of God.[9] Thus, acccording to Gregory, there is no specific theology of Basil or Gregory Nazianzus, but there is one theology based in scripture and communicated through a community in various forms. A certain man’s theology would simply be the work of man and not of God. Ari Ojell explains Gregory’s theology even further and says concerning Gregory, “Any identification of himself as a theologian, and claim ‘according to my theology’ with a reference to his personal speculations concerning God, would be the same as admitting that he is a heretic having his own private god, an idol that he has made up of his own theory.”[10] Gregory is making a point in his semantic game: we are not called to be theologians, but servants of the mysteries of God in line with Paul or Moses. According to Gregory, the utmost Christian perfection would not be a theologian but a servant of God whom the lord calls friend.[11]
Another theme that Gregory focuses on is that of akolouthia. For Gregory, akolouthia is the idea that there is a logical sequence and coherence throughout all of scripture at both the level of the text, the level of the underlying spiritual meaning of the text, and throughout all of creation.[12] The akolouthia or sequence is a distinction between the creation and the Creator, but akolouthia is also part of the mark of God in creation.[13] Gregory focuses on the creation and the eschatos because they are the beginnning and end of the sequence built into God’s creation.[14] Akolouthia does not, however, imply that Gregory belived in some sort of Deism. The akolouthia of Gregory may be something that is built into creation, but God is still in control “upholding the universe by the word of his power.”
Within this system, Gregory believed that man was created in the image of God, and the primary attributes that God gave to man were human freedom, reason, the mind, gift of words, and royalty.[15] “Man is crowned with power to rule over the animals; man is crowned with understanding to marvel at the universe; man is crowned with an inquisitive, adventurous spirit to seek knowledge.”[16]
Even though Gregory proposes a logical framework for the world, he does not put forward the idea that logic is able to answer every question. He realizes that there are unknowable things, such as the essence of God. Gregorios describes Gregory’s view this way, “Reason, in its speculative thrust, is free to go wherever it wants, whereas for the Christian, reason has to be controlled by the category of the Intent of Scripture. Gregory says that the pagan thinker can use reason to affirm what he wishes, while for Christians, ‘We make the Holy Scriptures the standard and rule of all teaching; we are bound, therefore, to have in view that and only that which is in harmony with the intention of Scripture.’”[17] For Gregory, “pagan philosophy can either be the handmaid of Christian teaching, or the occasion for idolatry in the
Gregory also emphasized that created beings were unable to know God’s complete essence or nature.[20] “The eternity of God, as uncreated Being who does not, by consequence, give any support to our thought, makes him inaccessible to rational knowledge.”[21] Archbishop Basil Krivochine also says in the same vein that God’s wisdom and his will are one and the same. “What he wills is wise, and by the very act of God’s knowing and willing, everything recieves being.”[22]
In divine nature, power is concurrent with will, and the measure of the power of God is the will. But the will is wisdom. And the property of wisdom is not to be ignorant of how every single thing came to be. With the knowledge also springs up the power to achieve. So whatever is known also immediately has come to be, the power to work out beings being concurrent; to be known leads to being effected, nothing intervening between known and coming into existence, but immediately, without any interval the work becomes accomplished simultaneously with the will. Thus the will is effective power so that whenever beings are willed they also come into being; those which are concieved have the possibility and occasion for their existence in being willed. From God’s side all things in creation are to be understood together—the will, the wisdom, the effective power and the essence of existing beings.[23]
B. Gregory’s Interpretive Method
Gregory follows after Origen in his methodology for interpreting the Scripture. A primary difference between Origen’s allegorical interpretation and Gregory’s, however, is the manner in which they employ allegory. For Origen, the meaning of a difficult text is defined by other connected passages in scripture. In other words, Origen does not see each passage in its context, but he sees it in a systematic manner where he looks for other relevant passages without considering the specific akolouthia of the text. Gregory, on the other hand, begins looking at difficult passages first by looking at the shape of the text by exploring the akolouthia, or overarching theme, of the text.[24] After Gregory understands the akolouthia of the text, he is free to interpret the text in light of the akolouthia.[25] Much of the time Gregory perceives that the akolouthia of the text reveals a jouney of the soul, which is most often, to Gregory, somewhat explicit in the text itself.[26]
IV. Example of Gregory’s Method: On the Life of Moses
On the Life of Moses is one of Gregory’s allegorical works which exemplifies much of his theological underpinnings.[27] In his later life, Gregory was asked by a young friend to write a work about a virtuous life, and he thought that the life of Moses would be a beneficial example. Gregory chooses the story of Moses because he believes that all Scripture is useful for teaching. Gregory begins by telling the historical story of Moses. For Gregory, the sequence of events of Moses’ life represent an upright Christian life. At the end of his explanation of Moses’ historical life Gregory says, “We must adapt the life which we have called to mind [Moses] to the aim which we have proposed for our study [the virtuous life] so that we might gain some benefit for the virtuous life from the things mentioned.”[28] Heine says that Gregory “reimagine[s] the life of Moses to show its usefulness for the Christian life in his own time.”[29]
In Gregory’s reimagining of Moses’ life, he begins his interpretation by pointing out that it is impossible for anyone to imitate Moses’ life.[30] In Gregory’s method, this impossibility points to a spiritual meaning because of the non-existent simple meaning. He then follows his method by examining the shape of the text and by looking at the sequence or akolouthia of Moses’ life. Gregory finds through Moses’ life that the goal of a virtuous life is to be “called a servant of God.”[31] Moses’ life is not understood simply as a perfect life; he did not cross over into the promised land. For Gregory, this illustrates the point that life does not end at death, but it continues forever. “Moses reached his goal and yet he will never quite be there [in this life].”[32]
V. Critique of Gregory’s Method
Akolouthia is one of the primary theological underpinnings of Gregory’s method. Gregory’s understanding that there is a sequence and order in all creation and in scripture is one of the best aspects of his method which we can glean for our own method today. If we fail to see the overarching themes throughout scripture, our interpretation will be lacking. I was speaking with one of my professors, and he was making a similar point about how we should understand Galatians. He said that we should not base our contextualization of the text outside of the text either in its
A problem arises for protestants when we come to Gregory’s allegorical method. It is an interesting balance between openness and control, which is foreign to our western, mostly Latin-derived interpretations. However much allegory is derided by the majority of those who were born under protestantism, there is a distinction between what we call allegory and what Gregory called allegory, and this needs to be noted before condemning Gregory’s interpretation. Typically, protestants fear allegorical interpretation because it seems like any wind of doctrine could be formulated from it. Gregory, however, came to the text with some constraints that helped to provide at least some structure from which allegory, literal interpretation, or typological interpretations could be hung. In regard to allegorical interpretation, we should think about what it is that God is saying by the text. Is the historically-driven sensus plenior the only valid interpretation, or can we take the intent of the text to go beyond its sensus plenior as Paul did in Galatians? Can God speak through allegory insofar as it is a part of the akolouthia of the text? Gregory defends his use by alluding to Paul’s allegory in Galatians. This issue remains unresolved and poorly discussed among traditional protestants today because of the rightly perceived danger of allegory. Ronald Heine suggests that the allegorical interpretation of Gregory which was constrained by akolouthia is the same task that a preacher faces weekly. “The preacher. . . must not only understand the Biblical text and be faithful to it but also reimagine it in the contemporary world.”[33]
V. Final Notes on Gregory
Gregory did much work in his day to defend orthodoxy. He fought against pagan philosophies by using them but not accommodating to them. He developed an understanding of Scripture which is a central tenant in keeping the Bible relevant to our our day in his akolouthia. He called men of God to be humble and realize that there is only one theology, and that theology is based on the Bible and nothing else. Gregory of Nyssa developed a system of thought, which we today might be able to utilize in our interpretation of scripture that may help us to hold on to the reins of orthodoxy in an age where the Bible is no longer center.
Bibliography
Attrep, Abe. “From the Old to the New: Some of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Teachings and the Modern Era.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997): 287-298.
Gregorios, Paulos Mar. Cosmic Man: The Divine Presence.
Heine, Ronald E. Reading the Old Testament with the
Krivochine, Archbishop Basil. “Simplicity of the Divine Nature and the Distinctions in God, According to Gregory of Nyssa.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 21 (1977): 76- 104.
Ojell, Ari. “Service or Mastery? ‘Theology’ in Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Eunomium.” In Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium II: An English Version with Supporting Studies Proceedings of the 10th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa, edited by Lenka Karfíková, Scot Douglass and Johannes Zachhuber. 473-484.
[1] Abe Attrep, “From the Old to the New: Some of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Teachings and the Modern Era,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42 (1997): 287.
[2] Paulos Mar Gregorios, Cosmic Man: The Divine Presence, (New York: Pargon House, 1980), xxv.
[3] Ibid., 5.
[4] Origen believed in a type of universal salvation and the pre-existence of souls; See also Georges Barrois, “The Alleged Origenism of St. Gregory of Nyssa,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 30 (1986): 7-16.
[5] Morwenna Ludlow, “Theology and Allegory: Origen and Gregory of Nyssa on the Unity and Diversity of Scripture,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4 (2002): 53.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ari Ojell, “Service or Mastery? ‘Theology’ in Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Eunomium,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium II: An English Version with Supporting Studies Proceedings of the 10th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa, ed Lenka Karfíková, Scot Douglass and Johannes Zachhuber (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 474.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 475
[12]
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 54
[15] Attrep, 290.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Gregorios, 3.
[18] Ibid., 23.
[19] Ibid., 26, 27.
[20] Archbishop Basil Krivochine, “Simplicity of the Divine Nature and the Distinctions in God, According to Gregory of Nyssa,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 21 (1977): 76.
[21] Ibid., 77.
[22] Ibid., 51
[23] Ibid., 50, 51.
[24]
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] This basic overview of On the Life of Moses is found in Ronald E. Heine, Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 88ff, and a theological overview is best explained in Ludlow, 55, 56.
[28] Heine, 89.
[29] Ibid.
[30]
[31] Ibid., 56.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Heine, 94.
No comments:
Post a Comment