Doctrine of Scripture

Thomas Aquinas – Doctrine of Scripture III

~ Chad Chambers ~ 2 Comments

For me, the doctrine of Scripture (what one believes about the nature of scripture) is the most fascinating topic in Christian theology. I enjoy reading contemporary works on the subject but I find that I most identify with ‘older’ works where the debate does not center on defining, qualifying, accepting, rejecting inerrancy and/or infallibility. Therefore, over a series of posts I am going to examine doctrines of Scripture found in various ‘older’ writings.

Up first: Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (Book 1, Question 1, Articles 1-10). The first two post looks at his view of the divine nature of Scripture, the connection of reason and faith, and metaphors. This third and final post examines his thoughts on plurality in Scripture.

A third aspect of Aquinas’ methodology influenced by his doctrine of Scripture is that since all parts of Scripture work together to fulfill God’s designed purpose they are unified, but not univocal.  Aquinas’ concept of unity draws upon his complex understanding of the literal sense of Scripture.  At first glance, his understanding of the literal sense seems to fall in line with the Augustinian tradition.  For example, he writes, “Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses[1] are founded on one – the literal – from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended to allegory” (1.1.10).  Yet, one must be careful to clarify what he means by the term literal sense.  For Aquinas, the literal sense of Scripture is related to the intention of the author.  On the one hand, the human author may have intended the words to refer to a historical fact or a material reality.  On the other hand, since God is the ultimate author of Scripture it can have several senses or meanings.  He states, “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…if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses” (1.1.10).  Consequently, the literal sense of Scripture, for Aquinas, can entail all four aspects of the medieval four-fold sense of Scripture depending on the intended purpose of the author, who is ultimately God.

In effect, it is precisely because Scripture “derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge” (1.1.5) that Aquinas finds it inevitably multi-vocal.  God, whom is beyond human capacity to understand, cannot be defined plainly and as a result, Aquinas anticipates a passage will have a multitude of meanings, even on a literal level.  Thus, his understanding of Scripture as unified in purpose does not mean that Scripture is singular in meaning or that each word, verse or passage has one true meaning.  Instead, Scripture’s unity is found in that it has many meanings and through the power and purposes of God, they do “not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity” (1.1.10).

[1] The Medieval period had a fourfold sense of Scripture.  The literal sense was simply the meaning of the word or its historical sense.  The spiritual sense of Scripture was subdivided into three categories: typological or allegorical sense, the tropological or moral sense, and the anagogical or eschatological sense.

Thomas Aquinas – Doctrine of Scripture II

~ Chad Chambers ~ 1 Comment

For me, the doctrine of Scripture (what one believes about the nature of scripture) is the most fascinating topic in Christian theology. I enjoy reading contemporary works on the subject but I find that I most identify with ‘older’ works where the debate does not center on defining, qualifying, accepting, rejecting inerrancy and/or infallibility. Therefore, over a series of posts I am going to examine doctrines of Scripture found in various ‘older’ writings.

Up first: Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (Book 1, Question 1, Articles 1-10). The first post (here) looked at his view of the divine nature of Scripture and the connection of reason and faith. This post considers Aquinas’ thoughts on metaphors and the next one will look at his view on plurality in Scripture.

A second aspect of Aquinas’ methodology influenced by his doctrine of Scripture is his interpretation of scriptural metaphors as God’s deliberate means to communicate truth.  Scripture is God’s self-revelation and Aquinas states, “Sacred science is established on principles revealed by God” (1.1.2).  He is alluding to the fact that Scripture is based on premises self-evident only to God and the blessed[1] (1.1.2).  Nevertheless, God designed Scripture to reveal himself to humanity.  In other words, the very purpose of Scripture is to teach the truths necessary for salvation to humanity so it must be understandable to mankind if it is to be effective; it must act in accord with God’s designed purpose.

In order for Scripture to accomplish its central purpose, Aquinas believes God must accommodate himself in Scripture to humanity’s level of understanding, or as Aquinas writes, “according to the capacity of our nature” (1.1.9).  Therefore, since humankind naturally learns through external senses (1.1.9) Aquinas determines “it is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things” (1.1.9).  Thus, Scripture’s use of metaphors is not unbecoming of its intent rather it is fitting with its purpose of revealing God.  Aquinas asserts, however, metaphorical readings must be governed so that one can judge between acceptable and unacceptable meanings.  In this regard, he says that everything Scripture teaches metaphorically is elsewhere in Scripture taught more openly (1.1.9).[2]  Here again, Aquinas’ doctrine of Scripture, as divinely authored with a purpose, influences his methods of interpreting Scripture and accordingly, he treats metaphors not as barriers to truth but as a fitting channel through which God communicates His truth to mankind.

[1] “The blessed” are those who have seen God face to face.  Thus, knowledge of God is no longer veiled but fully discovered.

[2] This alludes to another aspect of Thomas’ methodology for interpreting Scripture, namely that Scripture interprets Scripture.  Even though he does not stress this in certain terms within his Summa Theologica it becomes self evident when one studies his exegetical works.

Thomas Aquinas – Doctrine of Scripture I

~ Chad Chambers ~ 2 Comments

For me, the doctrine of Scripture (what one believes about the nature of scripture) is the most fascinating topic in Christian theology. I enjoy reading contemporary works on the subject but I find that I most identify with ‘older’ works where the debate does not center on defining, qualifying, accepting, rejecting inerrancy and/or infallibility. Therefore, over a series of posts I am going to examine doctrines of Scripture found in various ‘older’ writings.

Up first: Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (Book 1, Question 1, Articles 1-10). This post looks at his view of the divine nature of Scripture and the connection of reason and faith. Following posts will consider Aquinas’ thoughts on metaphors and plurality in Scripture.

For Aquinas the very work of theology – articulating the truths of God – was grounded in properly interpreting Scripture. But, before considering Aquinas’ doctrine of Scripture, it is necessary to understand a basic principle of his thought, namely that humanity is directed towards God and that eternal union with God is the end, or purpose, of human existence (1.1.1).  According to Aquinas, however, God is unknowable within the bounds of human reason and so humankind is unable to attain union with God in and of themselves.  Consequently, he writes, “In order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation” (1.1.1).  In Aquinas’ thought, Scripture is the divine revelation that teaches divine truths and Scripture contains the wisdom necessary for salvation (1.1.1).  Thus, his basic doctrine of Scripture is that Scripture is the divinely authored self-revelation of God designed to reveal himself to humanity.  Based on this understanding of Aquinas’ doctrine of Scripture, one can appreciate his methodology for interpreting Scripture.

Reason Ministers to Faith

              A crucial aspect for understanding Thomas Aquinas’ methodology for interpreting Scripture is to realize the relationship of faith and reason.  He writes, “Although those things which are beyond man’s knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God they must be accepted by faith” (1.1.1).  This is to say that since Scripture is God’s self-revelation of things beyond humanity’s ability to understand, comprehension must begin with faith and one is to believe what God tells her through Scripture even if she cannot rationally explain it.  Nonetheless, since God is both the author of Scripture and the creator of the world, the knowledge of God gained through His revelation is not something contrary to the knowledge attained through reason.  Rather, Aquinas believes that “since grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith” (1.1.8).  Hence, he judges that reason can be used to clarify the meaning of Scripture, although not to prove faith (1.1.8).

Aquinas’ notion of the relationship between faith and reason leads one to acknowledge how Aquinas uses the lesser sciences, such as philosophy, when interpreting Scripture.  He states, “This science [the study of Scripture] can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order to make its teaching clearer” (1.1.5).  Additionally, Aquinas respects the interpretative tradition of the church and considers it helpful in illuminating the meaning of Scripture.  Yet, all other sources are only tools, “the handmaidens” of holy teaching (1.1.5), to help elucidate Scripture they are not the final authority.  In fact, he often uses Scripture to correct what he considers heretical within philosophical and interpretative traditions (1.1.8).  Ultimately, for Aquinas, God’s self-revelation is the infallible truth on which faith rests (1.1.8) and, therefore, he concludes that the study of Scripture is the one true science (1.1.5).  Thus, Aquinas’ doctrine of Scripture, as divinely authored self-revelation, allows him to make use of lesser sciences, such as philosophy or church tradition, when interpreting Scripture.  Yet, it places them under the authority of Scripture.

Doctrine and Interpretation

~ Chad Chambers ~ 2 Comments

Matthew Emerson over at Secundum Scripturas posted quotes by Scott Swain and Kevin Giles on the relationship between doctrine and interpretation. I thought I would add this quote by Robert C. Morgan I read this morning to the discussion:

Interpretation of Scripture is not simply a matter of exegesis, clarifying what the texts say. It has always been a matter of saying what (for Christians) they mean, and this meaning is shaped by an ecclesial context in which their Christian theological subject matter is presupposed. How that subject matter is understood is itself dependent on Scripture, and the ecclesial context is semper reformanda in the light of Scripture. Protestants and Catholics have accorded different weight to tradition, and taken different attitudes to a magisterium, but there has always been some kind of dialectic between the letter of Scripture and believers’ sense what Christianity or the gospel essentially is. The relationship between them is required by Christianity’s locating the revelation of God in that Christ witnessed to in Scripture…

Robert C. Morgan in The Future of Biblical Interpretation

 

 

 

 

Aquinas and Metaphor Revisited

~ Chad Chambers ~ Leave a comment

In February, I wrote a series on the Western Theory of Metaphor and included this on Aquinas…

One final thing to discuss before leaving Thomas, is his understanding of metaphors in scripture. While it seems he would have preferred that God left metaphors out of scripture, he recognizes that since they are present they must be useful. As Thomas interprets them in scripture, he operates basically within an Aristotelian model of metaphor – he discusses metaphors at the level of words, he recognizes that some kind of similarity exists between the words, and he believes it takes insight, effort (Aristotle’s genius) to interpret the meaning of their connection. Thomas, however, goes further than Aristotle to tie the meaning to the historical or literal sense. In what in many ways was a response to the tortured use of the Four-Fold Sense of Scripture, Thomas insists that the literal sense have primacy over all other senses. Thus, as stated above, Thomas saw metaphor as useful for interpretation, but only in a limited or subordinate role.

As I revisited Aquinas, I have expanded on this statement and wanted to add it to the blog:

Aquinas interpreted scriptural metaphors as God’s deliberate means to communicate truth. Scripture is God’s self-revelation and Aquinas states, “Sacred science is established on principles revealed by God” (1.1.2). He is alluding to the fact that scripture is based on premises self-evident only to God and the blessed[1] (1.1.2). Nevertheless, God designed scripture to reveal himself to humanity. In other words, the very purpose of scripture is to teach the truths necessary for salvation to humanity so it must be understandable to mankind if it is to be effective; it must act in accord with God’s designed purpose.

In order for scripture to accomplish its central purpose, Aquinas believes God must accommodate himself in scripture to humanity’s level of understanding, or as Aquinas writes, “according to the capacity of our nature” (1.1.9). Therefore, since humankind naturally learns through external senses (1.1.9) Aquinas determines “it is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things” (1.1.9). Thus, scripture’s use of metaphors is not unbecoming of its intent rather it is fitting for the purpose of revealing God. Aquinas asserts, however, metaphorical readings must be governed so that one can judge between acceptable and unacceptable meanings.  In this regard, he says that everything scripture teaches metaphorically is elsewhere in scripture taught more openly (1.1.9).[2]  Here again, Aquinas’ doctrine of scripture, as divinely authored with a purpose, influences his methods of interpreting scripture and accordingly, he treats metaphors not as barriers to truth but as a fitting channel through which God communicates His truth to mankind.

[1] “The blessed” are those who have seen God face to face.  Thus, knowledge of God is no longer veiled but fully discovered.

[2] This alludes to another aspect of Thomas’ methodology for interpreting Scripture, namely that scripture interprets scripture.  Even though he does not stress this in certain terms within his Summa Theologica it becomes self evident when one studies his exegetical works.