Imagine the balls it takes to write a book on Scripture interpretation, then to basically say that there comes a point when you don’t need the Bible any more…

I’ve been re-read the work of that rank revisionist—Augustine of Hippo—who says just that at the end of Book 1 of On Christian Teaching. It’s a passage that gives me pause every time I read it, and I’ve thought about it quite a bit (off and on) over the last few years. Here’s the text:

 43. And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. So that in their case, I think, the saying is already fulfilled: Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away [1 Corinthians 13:8]. Yet by means of these instruments (as they may be called), so great an edifice of faith and love has been built up in them, that, holding to what is perfect, they do not seek for what is only in part perfect— of course, I mean, so far as is possible in this life; for, in comparison with the future life, the life of no just and holy man is perfect here. Therefore the apostle says: Now abides faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity: [1 Corinthians 13:13] because, when a man shall have reached the eternal world, while the other two graces will fail, love will remain greater and more assured. De Doc. Chr. I.39.43

Now, for Augustine a full and intimate association with Scripture is necessary as these three virtues are being developed. Indeed, I don’t think he can conceive of a person learning them correctly without lots of time and effort spent with Scripture. Despite that, I find this fascinating. This is full and complete possession of the Mind of Christ—when the virtues are strong enough that a person’s instincts and inclinations will be on point whether they’re referring to the book or not.

Broadly, I think he’s tapping into a Pauline spirit here. Paul gives rules and lists but is always at his strongest when he’s talking virtue. As such, I always give more credence to a virtue-based argument coming out of Paul than a rule-based argument…