The Senses of Scripture

Fairly early on in the life of our Bible Study Group in San Diego, we took some time to read through the section of the Catechism beginning in paragraph #101 which addresses the subject of Sacred Scripture. We did this because when I first read that portion of the Catechism I was delighted to discover some truly wonderful guidance for understanding more fully the depth of God’s word.

In this post I would like to take some time to discuss the material outlined in the section of the Catechism entitled “The Senses of Scripture” (CCC #115). In five short paragraphs, it explains that there are two primary senses of Scripture: “Literal” and “Spiritual”, with the latter sense being subdivided into three additional subcategories: “Allegorical”, “Moral” and “Anagogical”.

Senses

Let’s look at each of these senses in turn…

Primary Sense #1: Literally starting at the beginning

Every Scripture passage has a “literal sense”. This is the meaning which the author intended to communicate to the reader.

We come to understand the literal meaning of a passage through careful exegesis. Identifying the genre of the document is very important here. Knowing whether the book I’m reading is history, poetry or parable will greatly affect how I understand it. Likewise, it is important to understand the idioms, phrases and allusions found in the text and how these would have been understood by readers at the time of authorship. For example, the Song of Songs might have been pretty fancy stuff in the ancient world, but I can assure you that if I told a girl that her hair looked like a “flock of goats” (Song of Songs 6:5), I would probably get slapped!

It is important to distinguish this understanding of Scripture from “literalism”. The two are not the same. For example, if I wrote “It’s raining cats and dogs outside!”, a literalist understanding of the text (devoid of idiomatic nuance) would lead the reader to conclude that household pets were falling from the sky, possibly due to some unexpected zoo air freight tragedy! A literal reading, however, would recognize that this is a colloquial expression used in present-day English which is meant to indicate a particularly heavy downpour of rain.

It’s now nearly time to examine to the spiritual senses of Scripture. However, before we do so, it must be emphasized that, when reading Scripture, we always begin with the literal sense. Before examining a passage of Scripture for possible spiritual senses, we must first have established the literal sense as our foundation:

“[The interpreter’s] foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called the literal” – Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu

With that said, let’s now look at the spiritual senses, as identified in the Catechism.

Primary Sense #2: Let’s get spiritual

All human literature has a literal sense, but because Sacred Scripture additionally has God as its author (in partnership with the human authors), sometimes there are also spiritual senses to the text. It is worth noting that not all passages will have a spiritual sense and some of these spiritual meanings will be clearer and more substantial than others.

Since God is the master storyteller, “realities and events…can be signs”. Since nothing in Scripture is an accident, events can be pregnant with deeper meaning. In the same way that men write books, God writes history. He uses the things of this world as visible signs to point to spiritual truths and communicate eternal realities.

This way of understanding Scripture isn’t something we invented in the 21st Century. This approach is found in Jesus’ ministry, as well as in the writings of St. Paul. It continued in the early centuries of the Church, with Fathers such as Justin, Athanasius, Ambrose and Augustine making great use of spiritual senses of Scripture:

“And the offering of fine flour…which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified with leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed” – St. Justin Matyr, Dialogue with Trypho (2nd Century)

Before we look at the different categories of spiritual sense, it is worth pointing out the danger which is present with this kind of reading of Scripture. In looking for spiritual senses, we may end up over-spiritualizing the text, so much so that we end up divorcing it from its literal context. This is a mistake which must be avoided. Just because the text has a spiritual meaning doesn’t mean that it does not also affirm a historical reality. For example, the Gospels contain many spiritual meanings, but the Second Vatican Council strongly affirms that the Gospels also tell us what Jesus “really did and taught” (Dei Verbum). As noted in the previous section, the spiritual senses are built upon the literal sense. To quote Scott Hahn, What the soul is to the body, the spiritual sense is to the literal. You can distinguish the two; but if you try to separate them, death follows” (Scripture Matters).

Subsenses

Over the years, there have been a number of different ways to categorize the spiritual senses of Scripture, but the Catechism gives us three groupings:

1. Allegorical Sense
This sense has to do with foreshadowing and fulfillment. In order to find the allegorical sense of a passage, we need to ask the question: “How does this relate to Jesus?”. In asking this question we can begin to discover the way in which the Holy Spirit used the words and events of the Old Testament to point to the good things which would come with Christ and the New Covenant. The Allegorical Sense isn’t restricted to the Old Testament though, as seen in St. Augustine’s treatment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Example: In the Old Testament the Israelites left the slavery of Egypt and passed through the Red Sea to the Promised Land. This is an allegory for Christian salvation, whereby we leave the slavery of sin, passing through the waters of Baptism into freedom. 

2. Moral Sense (aka Tropological Sense)
This sense concerns moral truth. In order to discern the moral sense we need to ask the question: “In light of this passage, how should we live?”. As we ask this question, we take the passage and examine what it has to teach us about right living.

Example: Returning to the events of the Exodus, in 1 Corinthians 10:2 St. Paul says that those events were “for our instruction”. Christians have something to learn from the stubbornness of God’s people in the Exodus. Although they passed through the Red Sea and were fed with heavenly bread, the Children of Israel grumbled against God, questioning His goodness and doubting His saving power. That generation perished in the desert. From this, we are to learn that we should not doubt God’s care or providence.

3. Anagogical Sense (aka Eschatological Sense)
This sense considers events in light of their eternal significance. The question we need to ask in order to discover this sense is “How does this passage point to the Final Judgement, Heaven and Hell etc. ?”.

Example: If we return once more to our example of the Exodus, we may understand Israel’s forty years of wandering in the desert as pointing to our own pilgrimage towards our true home, Heaven.

You may have noticed that each example listed above is drawn from the Exodus. It is quite possible for a passage to have a literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical sense. However, this is not always the case.

As noted above, although the Spiritual senses of Scripture are fascinating, we must not neglect the literal sense because, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal”. No spiritual interpretation should exclude the literal sense because, detached from the literal meaning, spiritual interpretations can get pretty crazy. The Catechism tells us that “The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church”

Now what?

I do not wish this post to be purely academic. The different senses of Scripture are not simply the business of scholars. It is my belief that knowledge of the different senses can benefit every Christian in his study of Scripture. When we think we have exhausted the meaning of a text, knowledge of these different senses can open up new avenues of discussion and meditation, allowing the reader to plumb the depths of God’s revelation and to drink its rich goodness.

So, I would invite you, the next time you’re reading the Bible or hearing the Word proclaimed in the Liturgy, see if you can find different senses of Scripture present in the text. Treasure is there waiting to be discovered…

BibleRosary

13 comments

  • I’m still working my way through the article, but I can’t resist mentioning that at the beginning of “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis” Augustine says that it is obvious to Christians that we must begin with the figurative sense of Scripture based on first Corinthians 10.6, which he renders as “all these things were written as figures for us.”

    • Here’s again where I’d make the distinction between literal and literalist – what did the author intend to communicate?

      • Based on my reading of the first few pages, I’d say Augustine’s idea of literal was a LOT wider than ours. He suggests that the waters above in Genesis 1 being angels in heaven is a literal reading, not a figurative one. He does state the importance of the literal meaning, but again his literal would be called figurative by us in many cases. I’m not trying to be pugnacious. Reading that book–well, part of that book–was pretty weird for me. It didn’t fit any of my thoughts, either. But there it is. He really wrote that.

        • Sure, I get that. I’m not with Augustine on some of the stuff he says there, however, if we define the “literal” sense of a document to be the meaning intended by the author, then the literal sense can purposefully include figures.

          • “If we define the literal sense of a document to be the meaning intended by the author …”

            That’s helpful. I had not thought through it that way. Great explanation.

  • Okay, from me rather than Augustine. One example of figurative application of the Law I find fascinating–and an example for interpreting the rest of the Law–is in 1 Cor. 9 where Paul says that not muzzling an ox equates to supporting our leaders/teachers. God doesn’t care about oxen. He cares about us, says Paul, and he appeals to that figurative interpretation as somewhat authoritative: “Does not the Law also say this?”

    • …and you could extend this to many aspects of the ceremonial law. Is God *really* that pleased with the blood of goats and bulls? Or did God, as the Sacred Author, set these up as figures to point us towards a more perfect sacrifice which would one day be offered?

      • I think it is Psalm 50 that says that God that owns the cattle on thousand hills. The reason he points that out is to say that he has no need of goats and bulls.

        • Yup, here it is:

          8 I do not reprove you for your sacrifices;
          your burnt offerings are continually before me.
          9 I will accept no bull from your house,
          nor he-goat from your folds.
          10 For every beast of the forest is mine,
          the cattle on a thousand hills.

          11 I know all the birds of the air,
          and all that moves in the field is mine.
          12 “If I were hungry, I would not tell you;
          for the world and all that is in it is mine.
          13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls,
          or drink the blood of goats?

          14 Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
          and pay your vows to the Most High;
          15 and call upon me in the day of trouble;
          I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.”

    • Also, interestingly did you know that when Paul makes the same point in 1 Timothy 5:17–18, did you know that he’s quoting from Luke’s Gospel? “The laborer deserves his wages” (Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ) isn’t found in the Old Testament, but in Luke 10:7.

      • I used to know. Forgot. He quotes Jesus from some unknown source as well in Acts 20 when he says it is more blessed to give than to receive. That is obviously a principle from Jesus, but not a quote.

        • That is obviously a principle from Jesus, but not a quote.

          What makes you say this? Couldn’t this simply be a saying of Jesus that was part of the oral tradition which just happens to not to make it into a Gospel?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.