Quadriga / 4 Senses of the Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed_Rob

Guest
This is a thread that I’ve been wanting to start for a while. It’s something I want to know more about, and I don’t mean to say it’s uniquely Catholic, but it’s clear that this is how the Church Fathers viewed Scripture, and they are Catholic.

From reading and doing cross-referencing in Scripture (Study Bibles help a lot in that) I am intrigued to find some credibility to Christological interpretations of OT verses in the NT. I’ll perhaps give some examples in the future. But for now, I was hoping some people could perhaps share insight on this potential depth of Scripture, and give some examples of the Biblical basis for understanding Scripture in the senses that the Church Fathers gave to it.

In the CCC, you will find this discussed in paragraphs 115-119, namely the Literal and Spiritual (allegorical, moral, and anagogical).

In the Westminster Confession of Faith, you will see this countered in Chapter 1 (Holy Scripture) Art. 9
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” cited II Peter 1:20,21 and Acts 15:15,16
 
to reformed bob: i been doing a bible study by scott hahn.is called from genesis to jesus: a journey through the scriptures. iam still in the beginner part. i been doing this for a month but because the only time i can do it is on weekdays in the morning when my son is in school. so far i have accomplish to do three out of six now iam in num. 4. but yes you are right there is a lot of parallels between the ot and the nt. at least this is the way scott hahn does it. been my first bible study i find it very good the only thing is that sometimes i have question. in the past someone was helping me but i haven’t heard from that person in a while. so i guess i will have to write the questions as i go along in the study an hopefully that person will contact me again. but yes i find the way the ot and the nt interract really fascinating. bless you all
 
**Objection 1.**It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that “the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory.” Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.

Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): “Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery.”

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Heb. 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) “the New Law itself is a figure of future glory.” Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.
 
Reply to Objection 1. The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one–the literal–from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.

Reply to Objection 2. These three–history, etiology, analogy–are grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives–namely, on account of the hardness of men’s hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only–the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological. Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God’s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.
 
The quadriga was a major factor in my conversion to Roman Catholicism. Not because I wanted Scripture to justify any fancy I had, as my former reformed pastor (Reformed Rob’s pastor) claimed, but because its the very method of hermeneutics that the Apostles use in the New Testament. The strict grammatico-historical method must grapple with the fact that its not the apostles’ method. A reformed Baptist friend of mine responded to this point by saying the apostles were inspired in their method, but we are not, therefore the multiple senses cannot be a present day approach. My response is that if we arent going to use the apostles approach, who’s will we use? Its also a matter of fact that the strict grammatico-historical method is the chief method of the liberal higher critics who doubt Scripture in virtually every part. So, either one chooses between the apostles and the Fathers method, or one goes with the liberal higher critics method. For one who believes Scripture, the only reasonable choice should be obvious.

Jay
 
I haven’t gotten to read the Thomas quotes yet, but I plan to in the next couple days.

Here’s one example that has caught my attention:

Matthew 12:38-40

Some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign’ and yet no sigh shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for just as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth.” Quoting Jonah 1:17

Maybe that’s grasping for straws, but when I read that last time, I was like “hey, looks like a spiritual interpretation, and it’s based on the literal.”

Now, no discussion of typology or the Quadriga would be complete without mentioning, and probably even dwelling on Galatians 4:21-31. Anyways, I’ll mention it and not dwell on it.

Jay, I must say that I’ve often thought “where in Scripture are we told how to interpret Scripture?” Well, we are told in
I Corinthians 2:13 “which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.”
And Acts 15:15 “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written…”

Well, I see that both those passages involve oral teaching!! Anyways… The I Corinthians one comes to mind.
 
I think the example of Christ and Jonah is an excellent example. I argued about that one with Paul McDade a long time ago. Just look at how the New Testament quotes the Old: Its almost always a reference to either Christ or the Church.

Jay
 
And, because St. Mary is the Mother of the Church, by obvious extension, any of the quotes referring to the Church are also about St. Mary: she is the preeminent image of the Church. This is how St. Bonavernture can go through the Psalms and attribute much of it (ie, the Zion and Israel references) to St. Mary.

Jay
 
Ok, I read the Thomas quotses. Also, I printed that article from This Rock about the 4 senses.

You know, it makes sense. I’m glad I’ve seen it in Scripture before getting too into it.

I must say, that it seems like the Sacred Liturgy is full of symbolism, much akin to the “liturgy” of the OT, during the Tabernacle and Temple time. Pope Pius X spoke of that some in “Mediator Deus.”

In fact, so much of Catholicism is “symbolic.” I’m about to watch Scott Hahn’s tapes on the Sacraments. But from what I’ve read, the “Sacramental System” or “Analogy of Being” if you will, is all about showing how God gives us visual and physical aids as a “point of reference” to His power in our lives. Even to the extreme that you say that grace is actually conferred through the administering of those physical sacraments.

That’s perhaps off the topic. Anyways, would someone else please give another example of the NT writers quoting the OT in a way that may be surprising to a Protestant? Please explain though why I might think it odd, I may not get it at first.

Rob
 
The analogy of being is not equated with the sacraments. According to St. Thomas and medievals, because God’s essence is transcendent, and we cannot know Him in His essence before the beatific vision, we can only know him through created forms, and what He is not. This is the same as the via negativa, or calling God what He is not. Hence, He is infinite. No one knows what Infinite is, since we are all finite, so we can only know infinite by what it is not: it is not finite.

Another good example, which I am sure you are aware of, is 1 Cor. 9, where St. Paul says God is not concerned with oxen. He wrote the Deuteronomic text for us (the Church).

Ill look for some more in a bit…

Jay
 
I suggest that it is mistaken to pit the quadrigia as a Protestant / Catholic debate. While it is true that the CCC does codify this interpretive method, in practice only a tiny minority of Catholics accept it, as Scott Hahn has observed. Indeed, that is one reason that led Scott to try and start a “neo-patristic” movement. The decline in typology and related interpetive methods really springs more from a modernity impulse that has influenced both Catholics and Protestants. For an article on this, see:

The Superiority of Pre-critical Exegesis by Steinmetz
home.zonnet.nl/chotki/superiority_of_pre.htm

Ignore the one or two liberal comments, and the article is very good and helpful.

Prior to the mid 19th century Protestants have typically used typology and related interpretive methods, even though many denied the quadrigia (such as Luther) and many others have been reluctant to emrace it or methods like it. Still, you find it, even in your reformed tradition. Reformers generally taught exclusive psalmody and based this in part on the typological application of the psalms to Christ. William Plummer, for example, taught that the psalms should be viewed with one eye fixed on David and another fixed on Christ.

Some Protestants do a great job with typology. One example is Warren Gage from Knox Theological Seminary (who is in your Reformed tradition). See, for example, his discussion of Joshua as a type of Jesus:
knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/FacultyForum/JohnRevelationProject/Part1.html

This is great and should be compatible with Protestant and Catholic views of Joshua and Jesus.

T. More
 
I must say, that it seems like the Sacred Liturgy is full of symbolism, much akin to the “liturgy” of the OT, during the Tabernacle and Temple time.
Click to expand...
Some Protestant liturgies have this symbolism too. In spit of Luther’s sometimes vehement opposition to the quadrigia, he did apply typology. Consider, for example, his baptismal prayer:
Almighty eternal God, who according to your righteous judgment did condemn the unbelieving world through the flood and in your great mercy did preserve believing Noah and his family, and who did drown hardhearted Pharaoh with all his host in the Red Sea and did lead your people Israel through the same sea on dry ground, thereby prefiguring this bath of holy baptism, and who through the baptism of your dear Child, our Lord Jesus Christ, have consecrated and set apart the Jordan and all water as a salutary flood and a rich and full washing away of sins: We pray through your same unbounded mercy that you will graciously behold _____ _____ and bless him with true faith in the Spirit so that by means of this saving flood all that has been born in him from Adam and which he himself has added thereto may be drowned in him and engulfed, and that he may be sundered from the number of the unbelieving, preserved dry and secure in the holy ark of your Church, serve your Name at all times fervent in spirit and joyful in hope, so that with all believers he may attain eternal life according to your promise; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Click to expand...
 
Relating to books on the quadrigia or typological methods, someone metioned Mark Shea’s book. Has anyone read this? It is awful, whatever one’s perspective on the matter is. His comments on evolution were silly. Shea is not really qualified to comment on hermeneutics.

For a great Catholic book on the subject, see Henri De Lubac’s Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture. This is an outstanding book (2 volumes) and the leading authority in the field. Of course, it is much more scholarly and I would not recommend it for everyone. Another outstanding Catholic book is Jean Danielou’s From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers. Again, more scholarly and not for everyone.

The classic Protestant work on the matter is by a 19th century reformed Scottish Presbyterian, Patrick Fairbairn, in his Typology of Scripture. This should fit in with Reformed Rob’s theological tradition.

BTW, sorry for all the messages - you hit on an interest of mine! I am a Reformed Protestant too.
 
T. More,

Thanks for the comments there. Hey, the amount of comments didn’t bother me a bit. It’s an interest of mine as well. Though, I’m not going to read books and books on it, 2 or 3 would be plenty, and I’d rather not be accused of reading just Catholic books, you know?

Maybe you can help myself and others. I’m aware of some Catholic books like “Reading Scripture from the heart of the Church” and I read the link to the Jimmy Akin article. I’ve got “On Christian Doctrine” by Augustine, and I understand there’s lots in there on reading Scripture. And now, I may actually check out one of those de Lubac books. I’ve heard plenty good about him lately. Yeah, he’s pretty academic I expect.

But, are there any similar books that might cover Reformed hermeunics. OK, I’m on Amazon and looking at Fairbarin’s books and others. I see several, like Grant Osborne “A Hermeneutical Spiral” and some like that.

Is there one or 2 that you would recommend?
 
I helped myself:

James Jordan “Through New Eyes” recommended by a friend

Kaiser and Silva “Intro. to Biblical Hermeneutics”

Milton S. Terry “Biblical Hermeneutics” Meth. Epis. guy

L. Berkhof “Princ. of Biblical Interp.” looks like good short book

D. A. Carson “Exegetical Fallacies” short book

R. H. Stein “A Basic Guide to Interp. the Bible” good reviews

My pastor has Patrick Fairbairns “Typology of Scripture” book, I don’t think he’s read it though. It’s really big!!

How can we know how to correctly utilize the “Apostle’s method of Interpretation”? Like, that seems like a common Protestant critique. A friend posed it to me, saying that we know that the NT uses this typology from the OT, and so we can use it to the extent that the NT uses it, but we don’t have the right to make up our own. I know, the Deposit of the Faith, but go further than that please…

Rob
 
I don’t have any good recommendations for hermeneutics generally. Most of the stuff I see today (Protestant or Catholic) is a bit too modernist for me. I would read the Warren Gage articles I referred you to. He has a good general explanation of typology in addition to the specific applications he makes.

Through New Eyes by James Jordan (recommended above) is available free online BTW. See www.freebooks.com and search by his last name.

These are not books and don’t deal with hermeneutics generally, but these are good short online resources regarding typology that will interest you:

[1] Images of the Cross in the Old Testament (Eastern Orthodox)
monachos.net/liturgics/cross_in_ot.shtml

[2] Pastor’s Letter of Baptism (Lutheran):
telcz.org/TL_Letters/TL_2002_10.htm

T. More
 
BTW, you asked for specific examples of typology. Matthew, among other things, presents Jesus as the antitype of Israel. This is express in Matt. 2:15, which takes a historical statement about Israel from Hosea and applies it to Jesus as a fulfilment: “So [Joseph] got up, took the child [Jesus] and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son .’” Go to Hosea 11 and look at the context. It is not a prophecy in the ordinary sense of the word. It is a statement of history. This is only one piece of a larger connection made by matthew. Consider these other points:

· Israel experienced the loss of her infant children due the order of wicked Pharaoh that male infants be executed. Trying to kill Jesus, Herod ordered the death of all male infants.

· Israel crossed the Red Sea. Ex. 14. Jesus is baptized. Mat. 3:1ff. (see also 1 Cor. 10:1-2,which expressly connects the crossing of the Red Sea with baptism).

· After crossing the Red Sea, Israel enters the wilderness for 40 years of temptation. After his baptism, Jesus immediately retreats to the wilderness for 40 days and is tempted by Satan.

· Israel’s first temptation involves Israel grumbling against God for food. Exodus 16. Jesus’ first temptation involves Satan’s challenge to have the fasting Jesus change stones into bread to satisfy His hunger. Jesus quotes Deut. 8:3, an Old Testament passage involving Israel’s first temptation: “Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” Deut. 8:2-3.

· Israel’s second temptation involves Israel putting the Lord to the test during their wilderness journey, at Massah, where Israel grumbled for water which God later gave them out of a stone. Exodus 17. Jesus quotes Deut. 6:16, which involves Israel’s temptation at Massah: “Do not test the Lord your God as you did at Massah.”

· Israel’s third temptation involves idolatry, the golden calf. Exodus 32. Jesus’ third temptation involves idolatry: worship of Satan. Jesus quotes an Old Testament passage referencing Israel’s wilderness temptations.

· Israel fails every test. As a consequence God’s curse fell on Israel: “. . . God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.” 1 Cor.10:5. Jesus succeeded at every test. As a consequence, God blessed Him and angels came and ministered to Him. Matt. 4:11.
 
Rob:

On Reformed books, there are some on typology. A few of the more recent ones are:
  • Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses
  • Tremper Longman, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship
  • The Ancient Love Song: Finding Christ in the Old Testament
  • James Jordan, Judges: A Practical and Theological Commentary (typology of Judges)
  • Peter Leithart, A Son to Me (typological reading of 1 and 2 Samuel)
  • Peter Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
If you are new to typology, I would recommend the last book (A House for My Name). It is written for high school level, but is a good, non-academic introduction and any adult benefits as well. You can take a peek on Amazon:
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885767692/qid=1098135672/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-2057183-3301656?v=glance&s=books

T. More
 
T. More

Thanks for the advice,

I’m checking out the Knox College John/Revelation link too.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top