Scripture and Tradition: Revisiting Henri de Lubac as a Resource for Protestants
The relationship between Scripture and tradition (also the “Great Tradition” or “Sacred tradition”) in Christianity is one of complexity and frequent misunderstanding. An oversimplification nevertheless embedded with partial truth would be that Protestants accuse Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers of emphasizing tradition at the expense of Scripture. By contrast, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers would allege that Protestants esteem Scripture at the expense of participating in the collective wisdom available through tradition. (For a nuanced take on this issue from a Roman Catholic perspective see Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, 1981.) The operative question thus becomes: Precisely how, if at all, should Scripture and tradition interact? Henri de Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition (L’Écriture dans la tradition; translated by Luke O’Neill, 2000) makes a meaningful contribution to the exploration of this question, thereby making it a vital dialogue partner in present and future discussions. De Lubac (1896–1991), a French Jesuit priest, approaches this inquiry in the general context of the Roman Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) as one of its leading experts. The most significant document from the Council apropos of the relationship between Scripture and tradition is Dei Verbum (“Word of God”), which says the following:
[Scripture and tradition], flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence (Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 1965, italics mine).
For de Lubac and Rome, then, Scripture and tradition do not constitute two distinct sources of revelation siloed from one another; rather, Christ himself is the ultimate source of revelation, “who in turn norms both the written Scriptures and the Church’s teaching tradition” (De Lubac, Scripture in the Tradition, xvii [from Casarella’s introduction]).
This christological calibration, however, does not necessitate the dismissal of insights from historical-critical exegesis, for the Word “tabernacled among us” (John 1:14) on the canvas of human history. It also does not require a blind allegiance to the traditions of premodern exegesis, for historical progression includes genuine enhancements with regard to the study of Scripture. Thus, by saying “Scripture in the tradition,” de Lubac ultimately “describes an outlook on the past that can shape the future without jettisoning every new advance made by modern biblical criticism” (Scripture in the Tradition, xviii [from Casarella’s introduction]). More colloquially, modern exegetes must be exceptionally careful not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” when they criticize the interpretations of patristic and medieval authors, invariably bearing in mind the value of their sapiential exegesis and its concomitant orientation to the wisdom of Christ. What de Lubac does in Scripture in the Tradition is demonstrate, through an anthology of three essays, that there is much wisdom (though not uncritical agreement or imitation) to be gleaned from combing through the spiritual exegesis and insights of premodern thinkers. The rest of this article will offer a critical review of the three essays that constitute the body of this important work: “Spiritual Understanding,” “The Dual Testaments,” and “The Christian Newness.”
Spiritual Understanding
In “Spiritual Understanding,” de Lubac does not see exegetical wisdom in formulaic reproduction of the procedures employed by Origen, Augustine, and others. He includes both critique and commendation in his assessment of these crucial intellectual figures, going so far as to say that Origen and Augustine give “short shrift” to historical data (Scripture in the Tradition, 3). Yet these early interpreters, especially on account of the relative newness of the Christian faith on the world’s stage, could not afford to consider the Bible like disinterested historians. Christ had instantiated something new and yet, in a certain sense, continuous with what was “old” in the economy of salvation history. He thereby invited profound contemplation on the intimate relationship between the OT and what would eventually become the NT.
These meditations were part and parcel of what de Lubac calls “spiritual meaning,” the foundation of which he traces back to Paul, especially in 2 Corinthians 3. In the end, de Lubac finds it preferable to speak primarily of “spiritual meaning” or “interior meaning” (since it must be interiorized and lived) over against terms like “allegory” and “typology” (Scripture in the Tradition, 20). To be sure, he does not entirely rule out the use of these terms, but his penetrating work in the primary sources leads him to conclude that the dogmatic or doctrinal (spiritual) meaning in the early centuries was always the “mystical,” “figurative,” or even “allegorical” meaning (Scripture in the Tradition, 12, 16–17, 20, 49, 220). A significant advantage to this linguistic decision for de Lubac is that the Holy Spirit is always uniquely involved in giving the spiritual meaning intended by his inspiration and engendering spiritual understanding through converting people to Christ. The modern historical methods of biblical interpretation are thus in some sense insufficient for understanding or interiorizing Scripture. Spiritual interpretation, while historical in orientation, must not be collapsed into historical criticism or religious history.
One major difficulty included in de Lubac’s ruminations on the distinction between spiritual and historical interpretation is his depiction of Paul’s view of the Jewish Scriptures. Here Paul “pits one testament against the other” and “argues against Jewish Law” (Scripture in the Tradition, 29). These statements sound like they predate E. P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) because they do! In fairness, de Lubac clarifies that Paul did not scorn the Old Covenant per se but rather “the Old Covenant become aged” (Scripture in the Tradition, 30). However, it is still challenging at times to work through his many statements of this character.
What ushers in the age of spiritual understanding and spiritual meaning for de Lubac is the NT itself. Its newness in light of the Christ event establishes the foundation for spiritual exegesis. Moreover, spiritual understanding, which comes uniquely through the Holy Spirit as the gift of the New Covenant, depends on a radical orientation to the person and work of Christ. The NT, with all its benefits, however, does not supersede the OT. Instead, the “messianic awareness of Jesus” produces the convergence of the canon (Scripture in the Tradition, 40). That is to say, the OT anticipates the NT, whereas the NT interprets the OT in light of the newness instantiated by Jesus the Messiah in the gospel events.
The spiritual meaning traceable to readings of the OT performed especially by Paul and the author of Hebrews is perpetuated by patristic and medieval exegetes (Scripture in the Tradition, 44). The early church fathers read allegorically/mystically (i.e., spiritually/doctrinally and morally), and only later, especially in Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), did the popular depiction of the fourfold sense arise (Scripture in the Tradition, 53). Put differently, it would be anachronistic to say, for instance, that Origen read anagogically rather than morally or tropologically, for in his day the spiritual/allegorical reading included both anagogy and tropology without such clear-cut distinctions.
De Lubac concludes his essay on spiritual understanding by focusing on the attitudes and activities of present-day interpreters. It is imperative to read for spiritual meaning. The vivid newness of Christ has precipitated an age of spiritual understanding that both transcends and includes the considerations of a mere linear (as opposed to participatory) history. But these readings of Scripture should never become slavish imitations of the procedures used by the tradition of patristic and medieval exegetes. They lived in “a springtime, an adolescence,” but believers today “must successfully represent the age of maturity” (De Lubac, Scripture in the Tradition, 67).
The Dual Testaments
De Lubac’s second essay underscores the distinction between the literal and spiritual meanings of Scripture. These two meanings correspond to the OT and the NT respectively. The literal reading should not be understood pejoratively. It is good because its meaning is still given by the Holy Spirit and since it leads instrumentally to the spiritual meaning. In other words, the OT/literal meaning prepares for the realization or fulfillment of the NT/spiritual meaning. Here de Lubac talks just as easily about the OT being the “shadow” as opposed to the “substance/reality” of the NT as he does regarding preparation-fulfillment language (Scripture in the Tradition, 98). He sees no contradiction or incompatibility between these understandings and even subsumes them under the general letter/spirit dichotomy. In this sense, he diverges from Brevard S. Childs, who conceives of these schemata as often being in conflict (Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible, 2011, 81).
The only basis for the transition from the letter of the OT to the spirit of the NT is the intervention of Christ through his incarnation. De Lubac states poignantly, “[Christ] is Master both of the first Testament and of the second. He made them for one another. He separates them, and he also unites them in himself. If, then, a passage can be effected from one to the other, it is because it is a passage to Christ” (Scripture in the Tradition, 103). Even more, Christ shows biblical interpreters the reality of himself through Scripture as both its exegete and its exegesis (cf. Luke 24:44). And as if these sentiments were insufficient, Christ also sanctifies the “bread” of Scripture like he consecrates the eucharistic bread, so that Scripture would become “life-giving food” for its readers and hearers (Scripture in the Tradition, 112). Finally, with an aesthetic quality unavailable in most Protestant works, de Lubac reflects on the harmony between the OT and the NT through his attention to an array of premodern commentators.
In sum, De Lubac scours the writings of the early church fathers and medieval theologians in this essay, displaying an impressive and comprehensive command of the primary literature in a fashion that parallels the efforts of medieval scholastics. In so doing, he presents numerous majestic christological statements that stretch the reader’s imaginative capacity and invite further reflection on the continuities and discontinuities between the Testaments and Scripture’s relationship to the person of Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The Christian Newness
No survey of Scripture in the tradition is complete without considering the newness of the Christian faith. Christian newness, for de Lubac, is characterized by five primary elements: the “Fact of Christ,” the Christian dialectic, “the abridged Word,” the NT, and the unity of the quadruple meaning. I will explain each of these below.
By the “Fact of Christ,” de Lubac refers to the Christ event (Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension) that “dominates history” and that had impacted “the consciousness of those who first perceived [the Fact of Christ] and interpreted the Bible consistently with it” (Scripture in the Tradition, 164, 168). The “Fact of Christ” drastically transformed the early church fathers and thereby caused their interpretive efforts to be less about ancient methods and more about their orientation to Christ through the mind of the Spirit (cf. Rom 8; 1 Cor 2). De Lubac even postulates later that this Great Fact “is the basis of all ancient [Christian] exegesis” (Scripture in the Tradition, 216).
Associated with the Fact of Christ is the Christian dialectic, which pertains to the relationship between the Testaments. In other words, the Fact of Christ is demonstrated through attention to the dialectic between the OT and the NT. The key to comprehending this dialectic and to spiritual exegesis more generally is Augustine’s axiom that the NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is made manifest in the NT.
Also essential to understanding this dialectic relationship is the concept of Christ as “the abridged Word.” Christ abridges, summarizes, concludes, and recapitulates the OT in himself. In Jesus and the kerygmatic message about him, “we find again, melted down and purified, the ore of the Old Testament, and this entirely Christological orientation is not imposed, somehow or other, on this Old Testament, but is intrinsic to it and penetrates it in all its parts” (Scripture in the Tradition, 193). This christological summary does not mean that one must look for Jesus under every proverbial rock in the OT—a rudimentary and shallow reading of premodern exegesis—but rather that the OT as a whole leads to and is condensed in him. Put differently, Christ, the abridged Word, is the substance of the Bible, just as the eucharistic bread is Christ’s body in substance. If one were to look at this issue in terms of biblical theology, Christ is the ultimate unification of the Testaments in all their diversity and multiplicity. At the end of the day, then, “Christianity is not ‘the biblical religion’: it is the religion of Jesus Christ” (Scripture in the Tradition, 194).
The fourth element of de Lubac’s view of Christian newness is the NT. Here the New Testament means primarily “the New economy in Christ” rather than the writings of the NT (Scripture in the Tradition, 206). The NT is “the allegory” and “the spirit” of the OT, that is, its definitive and eternal spiritual meaning in Christ (Scripture in the Tradition, 198). While latent elements in the OT point to fuller spiritual meaning in Jesus, the concealed features in the NT cannot lead to anything beyond him, as if the NT writings were somehow able to signify something better than the Christ they disclose. It is essential to explain the letter or history of the NT texts, but the Christian newness instantiated by the Christ event necessitates that one investigate spiritual/allegorical meaning–“the Mystery of Christ” (Scripture in the Tradition, 216). Thus the literal/historical and spiritual/allegorical meanings might come together in Christ to constitute the full truth of history. This kind of reading is widely available in the tradition, such as when Jesus’s historical approach to the gate of Nain (Luke 7:12) signifies that the Incarnate Word brings gentiles to the heavenly Jerusalem through the gate of faith.
Modern biblical scholars would generally find this approach problematic. However, it is crucial to remember the broader commitments of earlier exegetes that de Lubac so generously brings forth in this volume. Particularly significant is the assumption that the Bible is Christ in its substance/res, so historical details must transition to a meaning more directly related to Christ and the church. Thus, any criticism of this historical-to-allegorical maneuver in the tradition espoused by de Lubac must transcend methodological factors and address the question of the Bible’s ontological and theological character.
The last element of Christian newness in this essay is the unity of the quadruple meaning. In short, the fourfold sense of Scripture that eventually develops in the tradition (literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical) “finds its unity in traditional eschatology” (Scripture in the Tradition, 217). De Lubac means by this claim that every meaning “stirs up in us the desire for eternity” (Scripture in the Tradition, 217). Christian newness is thus characterized by a satisfactory answer to the human longing for meaning and significance. In Christ, history and allegory, letter and spirit, fact and value, Historie and Geschichte, come together in an ineffable union. De Lubac ultimately calls modern readers, especially Roman Catholics, to contemplate these matters in the spirit and sophistication of the Christian tradition.
A Brief Response
I wish to highlight three matters in response to Scripture in the Tradition. First, there is an overwhelming quality of beauty to the work often absent in Protestant works on Scripture and tradition. De Lubac reminds readers, mainly believers, of the unity shared between what is true and what is beautiful. Second, he persuasively demonstrates that biblical theologians must in some sense have a christological orientation to Scripture, even if it does not involve all the assertions and arguments of Scripture in the Tradition. Third, and relatedly, exegetes and biblical theologians must continue to parse the relationship between the biblical word and Christ the Incarnate Word. How fitting (or not) is it to conceive of these subjects as direct analogues? It is tempting to bypass these kinds of considerations by claiming to be exegetes rather than philosophers or theologians, but the precise substance of what is being exegeted matters immensely to the task. Biblical scholars sell themselves short (and potentially undermine their very work) when they disregard these issues.
In Scripture in the Tradition, de Lubac imbues the invariably complicated question in Christianity about the relationship between Scripture and tradition with a sense of grandeur, beauty, and sophistication. He seeks to unify the issues around this relationship in the person and work of Christ. In “Spiritual Understanding,” it is Christ and his ongoing influence on the readers of Scripture that make spiritual meaning even possible. In “The Dual Testaments,” it is Christ who unites the OT and the NT in himself. And in “The Christian Newness,” it is the Christ event, the “Fact of Christ,” that impacts the whole interpretive tradition of Christianity and thereby precipitates its spiritual readings of Scripture. Believers will continue to ask how Scripture and tradition interact, and many will not be satisfied by de Lubac’s answers (whether by labeling them too indebted to Roman Catholicism or otherwise). However, the path to gratifying and convincing answers must go through Scripture in the Tradition.
Benjamin J. Aich is an ordained elder in the Global Methodist Church and a Ph.D. student in Biblical Studies (NT) at Asbury Theological Seminary.