De Moor II:37: The Sense of Scripture, Simple or Composite (Part 1)

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

So that the Reading of the Scripture might be useful, the Understanding of the Sense ought to attend.

The Sense (which in Greek is able to be called διάνοια/intention, and νοῦς/mind/meaning, which latter word especially in that signification, which occurs here for us, occurs in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 2:16:[1]  consult GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram,[2] book II, tractate II, section I, article I, page 166) is the Meaning signified by the mind of the Spirit in the words and phrases of Sacred Scripture.

Concerning the Sense of Scripture in this §, our AUTHOR observes:

1.   That commonly said by us to be only One:

              But, α.  sometimes Simple, called Literal, when by the Literal Sense is understood that which is most closely and immediately signified by the very letters, or the words composed of the letters.  Again, the Literal Sense is used sometimes more strictly, sometimes more broadly:  that more strictly Literal Sense is what I have just declared; and thus it is distinguished from the Mystical Sense, which is not so much signified by the words, as by the things indicated by the words.  The more broadly Literal Sense comprehends in itself the entire complex of the Sense intended by the Holy Spirit, whether in a type, or in the antitype, and thus also contains under it the Mystical Sense; and it is distinguished only by the multiple spiritual Uses, which the Sense intended by the Spirit additionally furnishes.

The Literal Sense occurs here in the stricter signification; which also is otherwise called the Grammatical, because it is in τοῖς γράμμασιν, tois grammasin, the letters, and because by the help of Grammar, as well as of Rhetoric and Logic, is elicited that simple and genuine Sense.  It is likewise called Historical, namely, that which relates a matter done or said.

Our AUTHOR adds, Whether it be expressed in the proper words or in Improper speech, since the Fathers sometimes distinguish the Literal Sense from the figurative or tropical;[3] but which is wont to be comprehended under the Literal, as it is opposed to the Mystical:  and it is indeed the Literal Sense, as Salmeron, opera, tome I, tractate VII, page 73b, holds, even “what the Holy Spirit as author of the Scripture first intended to signify by the Words, whether according to the proper signification cohering with the Grammar, or through tropes and figures:”  see GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, tractate II, section I, articles I, II, pages 166-169.

Again, whether it be in the text κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν, according to the express terms, or κατὰ συνακολούθησιν, according to the consequences; since legitimate Consequences are comprehended under the explicit words of Scripture, and ought to be said implicitly and materially to be contained in them and to lie under them; the appropriate use of which we gave as confirmed in Chapter I, § 29, 30.

And this Simple Sense obtains in the precepts, dogmas, histories, or prophecies set forth simply, for example, in Isaiah 7:14, where no composite Sense obtains from the typical and antitypical, but birth from a Virgin is promised to Messiah alone; consult Chapter XVIII, § 10; in Psalm 16:10, which passage also has regard to Christ alone, and is not able to be referred to David as a type, according to Acts 2:24-32.

β.  But sometimes the Sense of Scripture is Composite, made up of the Literal already declared, signified through Words, and of the Mystical or Spiritual, signified by the typical or parabolic Matter.  That is, that is the Mystical Sense that is not indicated immediately by the Words themselves, but by the Matter signified by those words, whether proper or figurative:  indeed, it is referred to something other than that which the Words immediately signify.  Now, it is called Mystical, inasmuch as it indicates something more abstruse and sublime than the Words manifest:  and Spiritual, inasmuch as it represents a Spiritual matter.

1.  For the illustration of this Composite Sense, the word of Jonathan to the boy concerning the seeking of his arrows, 1 Samuel 20:21, 22, is wont to be adduced, for the words of Jonathan’s command had a simple and literal sense with respect to the boy; but at the same time they were symbolic and had a latent signification with respect to David.  2.  For the confirmation of the same Sense Compounded from the Literal and the Mystical, Parables are effective, in which through the Literal and Grammatical Sense, which the letters make manifest, some other spiritual thing, which the Spirit especially intends, is represented to the intellect; in such a way that the thing, first signified by the letter, is a sign and figure of the thing intended by the Spirit:  whence then the Sense emerges, not as twofold, but as one composite, so to speak; and in no way would one be able to be said to follow the mind of the Spirit, that wills to adhere to the external σχέσει/habit of the Parable:  but through the literal representation of a corporeal matter we are introduced to an acquaintance with the more secret mind of the divine Author:  concerning Parable and establishing the correct interpretation of them consult GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section V, pages 217-226; and SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book IV, Exercitation V, pages 691-703.  Also especially substantiating this are the many examples of Typical Predictions, in which are to be considered two parts, as it were, of one and the same Sense intended by the Holy Spirit, who under the letter had regard to a mystery, so that the full Sense is not able to be had, unless the truth of the antitype is joined with the truth of the type:  for example, in Exodus 12:46, the law concerning not breaking the bones of the paschal Lamb pertains both to the paschal Lamb in a figure, and to Christ in a mystery; which John taught in John 19:36; if this typical relationship of the unbroken bones of the Lamb to Christ be conjoined with the external observance of the law concerning the Lamb, only then is the sense fully exhausted.  The promise made to David, 2 Samuel 7:12-14, had regard both to Solomon and to Christ, comparing Acts 2:29, 30; Hebrews 1:5.  Therefore, it has a Composite Sense, which would be fulfilled by degrees, partly and less perfectly in the type, more fully and perfectly in the antitype, in which manner in the end the one Sense, intended by the Spirit, determines every complement:  which against others, who here consider the Messiah alone, our AUTHOR defends, Exercitationibus Textualibus VII, Part VI.  Add Hosea 11:1, on which passage our AUTHOR is to be seen, both in his Commentario ad Prophetas minors, and especially in his Exercitationibus Textualibus, Part I, Exercitation XX, § 3, in which our AUTHOR distinctly teaches that the latter words of this verse, וּמִמִּצְרַ֖יִם קָרָ֥אתִי לִבְנִֽי׃, and out of Egypt I called my son, are not able to be torn from what things precede and the remaining context in such a way that they might be referred directly to Christ, as if they were spoken of Him alone:  but that they literally have regard undoubtedly to the Israelite people and their past deliverance out of Egypt.  But, when Matthew in Matthew 2:15, narrating the lodging of the Infant Christ with His parents in Egypt until the death of Herod, adds, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, λέγοντος, Ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son:  from this formula of citation our AUTHOR at the same time concludes that Israel, who on account of distinguishing love was called the Son of God, by special divine love having been preserved for a time from death in Egypt, and afterwards summoned from there by divine calling, while yet undeveloped and weak; in these things in the writing of Hosea it is to be observed that he exhibits a type of the Messiah, the only begotten and most beloved Son of the Father, who from the sword of Herod was to be hidden in Egypt, and from there to be recalled into Canaan, while yet a boy, but loved above all others.  And so he observes that, what was already of old fulfilled literally in Israel as a type, in a mystery its true and full fulfillment followed through the recalling of Christ out of Egypt; in such a way that its entire fulfillment according to the intention of God was not previously obtained.  While the remaining things, which follow in Hosea and involve notable imperfection, as our AUTHOR observes, ought on the other hand to be applied to the type alone, not to the antitype, because the people of Israel did not represent the person of Christ in all things, whom Matthew teaches by his citation to have been portrayed in this calling out by analogy.  But, that the speech is concerning Messiah alone in Hosea 11:1, in the words נַעַר/child and בְּנִי, my son, with an addressed at the same time directed to the Jewish people, GERHARD TEN CATE[4] judges, translating the text, While He was a child, O Israel! then I loved Him, and out of Egypt have I called my Son.  Now, he believes that God the Father thus speaks of Messiah with respect to the last words of Hosea 10, in the morning time the King of Israel in perishing perished, in which, that Christ was to be cut off from the Jews, as the most wicked wickedness to be committed by them,[5] he thought to be predicted, with the context painstakingly drawn there from Hosea 10:9; when he maintains that Hosea 11:1 is subjoined to what was immediately preceding, so that the crime of the Jews, repudiating and murdering the true Messiah, might be magnified, by the opposite love and care of God the Father toward Him in His infantile state according to His humanity for the good of His people, and from the divine excellence of this child, inasmuch as He was also the proper Son of God.  If these things flow in a clear stream, the Composite Sense of Hosea 11:1 should not be admitted:  but indeed there is not time now to undertake an examination of this exegesis:  let the Reader compare with those passages of our AUTHOR cited above GERHARD TEN CATE’S Epistolam de Rebus Jesu Christi ex Prophetis ad Leonardum Offerhaus,[6] after Offerhaus’ Spicilegiorum historico-chronologicorum, pages 697-740.

For the confirmation of the Composite Sense appeal is especially to be made to the language of ἀλληγορουμένων, speaking allegorically, used by Paul himself, Galatians 4:24.  Ἀλληγορία/allegory, of course, is λέξις ἑτερόν τι λέγουσα, ἑτέρου ἔννοιαν παριστῶσα, καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον, a word/phrase expressing something else, presenting a conception of the other, according to likeness for the most part, as it is in FAVORINUS; HESYCHIUS has similar things, Ἀλληγορία·  ἀλλό τι παρὰ τὸ ἀκουόμενον ὑποδεικνύουσα, Allegory, intimating something other than what was heard.  That which is also observed in the Allegorical Sense of Scripture, which Sense we say obtains when words or deeds beyond the literal Sense are related to signify a spiritual thing concerning Christ as head of the Church, and concerning the Church itself as His body.  But learned Men observe that the word ἀλληγορεῖν, to allegorize, signifies either αἰνίττεσθαι,[7] τροπολογεῖν,[8] to signify something else under the covering of the words; or to interpret the sense which lies under the covering of the words.  Hence the saying of Paul, ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are allegorized; either they are interpreted in such a way that those things narrated in the Law and out of the Law he wishes to be spoken allegorically, so that by the historical deeds and words something else more sublime is signified:  or in such way that those things are said to be, either understood and expounded, or obliged to be understood and expounded, allegorically.  Indeed, this understanding, this allegorical exposition of the Mosaic History here cited concerning Sarah, Hagar, and their sons, some consider as possible, others as necessary; so that Paul might say, either these things are able to be expounded unto another Sense, or these things we ought to interpret in another Sense, which two far differ.  For, if Paul asserts that these things which he sets forth are spoken allegorically in the Law, and therefore are to be expounded allegorically necessarily, the Composite Sense is manifestly established from this.  But if, on the other hand, he only asserts that these external events in the house of Abraham are able to be expounded in such a way that they might be applied to something spiritual by Accommodation; the force of the demonstration from this discourse of Paul, that allegorical histories are found in the Old Testament, is altogether destroyed.  Nevertheless, thus Men not unworthy think, that Paul produces this argument, not so much for the sake of confirmation, as for the sake of illustration; just as he adduces the similitude of seed, when he discusses the Resurrection of the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:36-38.  And that Paul in Galatians 4 is able to appeal to a hearing of the Law, verses 21 and 22, although he does not so much explain the Sense of the History recounted in the Law, as by an allegorical Use accommodate this to a spiritual matter:  likewise that the Apostle appeals to the Law, when he draws from it a tropological Use, 1 Corinthians 9:8-10.  Or they believe that Paul thus argues ad hominem against men given to allegorical study, by indicating that this allegory is far more suitable than many that they were wont to weave; of which sort of argument he makes use in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

It is not absurdly said that, while Paul here cites a History illustrious in comparison with others, which has regard to Abraham, the common father of believers, and to the first constitution of his family, very admirable in its circumstances; to which an allusion not obscurely appears in Isaiah 54, a prophecy of which is also cited here in verse 27:  the Apostle in these words, ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are allegorized, signifies that God willed that in the first constitution of the house of Abraham and the external events of it there be some emblem, a figure and exemplar, representing to the eye the diverse genius and diverse lot, which with respect to spiritual state would befall the twofold posterity descending from Abraham:  which emblematic representation, obtaining in this history above others, God took care to have explained elegantly to us by Paul.  From the established comparison of which the Legalists, desiring to comply with the Law, ought to have been driven to shame, when they realize that they refer Hagar and her seed to a servile capacity; and hence they hear from Paul that they, no less than Hagar and her son, are to be handled as slaves in ejection, not in taking possession of an inheritance.  At the same time, it is right to observe that this is the only passage in which mention is made of ἀλληγορουμένων, speaking allegorically, and that these things that Paul mentions are affirmed by him of the unique History of the Old Testament.  Consult on this text our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales L, Part V; WESSELIUS’ Dissertationes Leidenses XI, § 7, 8, especially pages 383-385, in which he teaches that Paul in this discourse is not setting forth Sarah and Hagar as Prophetic Types from this hypothesis, that all the more notable and more lengthy Histories of the Old Testament were Typical; but that according to BEZA, PAREUS, and SEBASTIAN SCHMIDT,[9] this is proven by the Apostle from the Prophetic testimony cited in verse 27; now, according to RIVET this exposition was immediately inspired in Paul by the Spirit.

Only in words do they differ, who in the place of this sort of One Composite Sense acknowledge in such places a Twofold Sense, Literal and Mystical, or Allegorical, clearly to be conjoined:  consult RUMPÆUS’ Commentationem criticam ad Novi Testamenti Libros, § XXIV, pages 54-56; GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate I, section I, pages 159, 160.  With respect to this Literal and Mystical Sense, the Jews distinguish between the Sense מַשְׁמָע/heard, or פָּשׁוּט or פְּשַׁט/naked/ simple, in which manner they refer to the Literal Sense of Scripture; and מֶדְרַשׁ/midrash/inquiry, from דָּרַשׁ, which to them is Allegorical or Mystical interpretation:  whence Elias Levita has,קראו מדרש פרוש שאין על דרך פרוש, all interpretation that does not follow its own Literal Sense is called Midrash.

2.  Our AUTHOR notes the method of operation of the Papists, who concerning the manifold Sense of Scripture speak with a perverse Goal, namely, that they might assert the Obscurity of Scripture, and the Ecclesiastical right of Interpretation, with Bellarmine, book III, de Verbo Dei, chapter III, columns 169-171, where in setting down a certain question concerning the Judge of Controversies he says, and first concerning the Senses of Scripture, in the plural.  And then he asserts that it is proper to Scripture, since it has God as its author, on many occasions to contain two Senses, the Literal and the Mystical.  He says that the Spiritual or Mystical Sense is again divided three ways by more recent Theologians, Allegorical, Tropological, and Anagogical.  He acknowledges that this distinction of the Spiritual Senses, in the plural, was not always observed by the Ancients, who generally made use of those terms in a broader sense and promiscuously.  He goes on, Of these Senses a Literal is found in every sentence of the Old and New Testaments; neither is it implausible that sometimes multiple Literal Senses are found in the same sentence.  But every Spiritual Sense is indeed found in each Testament, yet a Spiritual Sense is not found in every sentence of Scripture, etc.

They call the Sense Allegorical, according to Bellarmine, book III, de Verbo Dei, chapter III, columns 169-171, when the words of Scripture besides the literal Sense signify something in the New Testament that pertains to Christ or the Church, as it is in Galatians 4:24.  They call it Tropological, when the words or deeds are referred to the signification of something that pertains to morals.  Just as what is said in Deuteronomy 25:4 concerning not muzzling a threshing ox, and literally is said of true oxen, spiritually, says he, signifies that preachers ought not to be prohibited from receiving sustenance from the people, as the Apostle explains in 1 Corinthians 9.  They call it Anagogical, Bellarmine proceeds, when the words or deeds are referred to the signification of eternal life.  Just as that in Psalm 94 (Psalm 95 according to the Hebrew text), to whom I swore in my wrath, if they will enter into my rest, which literally is understood of the promised land, is also referred spiritually to eternal life, as the Apostle explains in Hebrews 4.

The Papists are wont to summarize their Fourfold Sense of Scripture in this couplet:

The letter relates what was done, Allegory what you should believe,                                                                                                 

The Moral what you should do, Anagoge whither you should direct your course.[10]

They vindicate the Literal Sense by Jerome, the Allegorical by Ambrose, the Anagogical by Augustine, and the Tropological by Gregory the Great:  see GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate I, section II, article I, pages 160-163; SPANHEIM’S Collegium Theologicum Heidelbergæ de Principio Theologiæ, part IV, § 13-16, opera, tome 3, column 1194, “First, the Unity of the Sense of Sacred Scripture is to be regarded, so that the Sense of each passage is singular, intended by the Holy Spirit, called in the Schools literal, or historical, or grammatical, subdivided into proper and figurative.  Nevertheless, in such a way that what is formally one, might sometimes be objectively and materially composite, insofar as it is referred to diverse subjects, and acquires a twofold complement in type and antitype:  so that unto one subject the narration is inadequate and incomplete, unto the other complete and adequate.  This obtains in the typical oracles, which are called complex and composite, and are sometimes fulfilled literally in the type, figuratively in the antitype; sometimes either literally or figuratively in either, of which there are obvious examples in the Scriptures.  Not thereby is introduced a multiplicity of the Sense of Scripture with the Papists.  1.  Those err extensively, when they attach multiple senses to each passage.  2.  In alleging a multiplication, when they invent a fourfold sense, literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical.  3.  In alleging a division, when they oppose as members ἀντιδιῃρημένα, separated one from another, what things coincide, neither is tropology diverse from allegory.  4.  In confounding heterogeneous things, the sense and the application of that sense, for various uses theoretical and practical.  5.  With the worst possible end also, that they might evince that the Scripture is ambiguous, obscure and not its own interpreter.”

[1] 1 Corinthians 2:16:  “For who hath known the mind (νοῦν) of the Lord, that he may instruct him?  But we have the mind (νοῦν) of Christ.”

[2] Solomon Glassius (1593-1656) was a German Lutheran divine and critic.  He was Professor of Divinity at the University of Jena.  His Philologia Sacra was a groundbreaking work in Biblical Hebrew.

[3] That is, involving a trope or figure of speech.

[4] Gerhard Ten Cate (1699-1749).

[5] Hosea 10:15:  “So shall Bethel do unto you because of your great wickedness (מִפְּנֵ֖י רָעַ֣ת רָֽעַתְכֶ֑ם):  in a morning shall the king of Israel utterly be cut off (בַּשַּׁ֕חַר נִדְמֹ֥ה נִדְמָ֖ה מֶ֥לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃).”

[6] Leonard Offerhaus (1699-1779) was a German historian.  He was a professor of history at Groningen, beginning in 1725.

[7] That is, to speak darkly.

[8] That is, to speak figuratively.

[9] Sebastian Schmidt (1617-1696) was a German Lutheran Theologian and Hebraist.  He studied under Buxtorf the Younger, and his efforts to interpret Scripture with philological accuracy influenced Philipp Jakob Spener.  He commented on much of the Scripture.

[10] Latin:  Littera gesta docet, quid credas Allegoria, Moralia qui agas, quo tendas Anagogia.