Book Two
Discerning and Discovering The Meaning of Holy Scripture
Part 1
Discerning the Meaning of Scripture
The word ‘meaning’, when we understand it generally (which is our goal for this section), is defined as “that which is either signified or intended to be understood by a speech that is delivered orally or in writing.” For the representation and character of things that are grasped by the mind is speech, either delivered by mouth or written down.
This way Aristotle writes (On Interpretation, ch. 1), “The things in speech are symbols of the experiences in the soul, and the things written down are symbols of the things in speech.” In turn, that which is signified by speech (whether delivered or written) or that which is represented by the mind of someone speaking, is called the meaning of the utterance, speech or writing.
The Greeks call the meaning dianoia, though this has different meanings in other places. This way Plutarch, writes (The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men, 151b), “The letter had this dianoia,” i.e. ‘meaning’ or ‘intent’.
In the same way, Basil writes (Ep. 19), “for the words were few, but heavy-laden with meaning.”
We therefore define the meaning of Holy Scripture to be that which God himself, the author of the Scriptures, tells us in the Scriptures (by Scriptures I understand both the words and the contents), and by means of the Scriptures as the clearest possible representation of the divine mind, that we need to learn and understand.
Concerning this meaning of Scripture, our treatment will consist of two parts: (1) A general treatise, which will first recount our true and honest opinion, and then weigh in the scales of truth the opinions of Pontifical writers and of others who disagree with us. (2) A specific treatise, which will discuss the meaning of Scripture, first the literal, and then the mystical, the latter in a little more detail, and only as briefly as is possible. May Jesus Christ guide and confirm us in his truth!
Treatise 1
The Meaning of Scripture in General
Section 1
Let the following thesis suffice to explain our opinion concerning the meaning of Holy Scripture in general:
The meaning of Holy Scripture is twofold: the literal meaning and the spiritual or mystical meaning.
Pontifical writers similarly admit this twofold meaning of Scripture, but we will consider below (in Section 2) what their opinion requires and how it differs from our own. Most Calvinists only admit one simple and uniform meaning of Holy Scripture, which is the literal meaning, and they consider the mysical meaning to be a different accommodation of that one meaning. Since this opinion has many supporters, even among the orthodox, we think that we should by no means condemn it without proper consideration, just as we ought not to subscribe to it without reservation, as the following reasons will show.
We are not, however, about to claim in this thesis that the twofold meaning is to be found and accepted in every scriptural text everywhere and in every single passage. Some Pontifical writers think this way, citing the passage of I Cor 10:11, “All [these] things happened to them as examples,” but Bellarmine himself refutes them in De Verbo Dei (book 3, ch. 3), as does Azorius in his Moral Institutions (book 8, ch. 2). But we are talking about Holy Scripture in general, and the fact that, not everywhere, but only in certain passages and texts, which Holy Scripture itself points to as if with an outsretched finger, it is not supposed to be interpreted only literally, but it also permits a mystical meaning apart from the literal meaning that we get from the words. That is, in such a text, after we have understood and exposited it literally, the Holy Spirit himself points to some kind of mystery and spiritual subject and reveals that we should find it there.
Petrus Cunaeus, in his treatise De Republica Hebraeorum (1.3 ch. 8) has this to say about the matter: “To those things that are contained in the holy books, there is a twofold significance. One is the bare meaning, which is rightly called, in Hebrew, ‘simple’. The other is obscure and hidden, which in Hebrew we may call ‘message’ or ‘sermon’, because we have to dig it out and search for it.”
In the same place he cites the saying of the Rabbis: “Scripture is never without the simple meaning, but it has both. Just as it has the mystical meaning, so it also has the simple. It cannot be without these two.”
In fact, a little earlier he calls the hidden meaning ‘Cabbala’, saying: “True Cabbala is what I call the mystical understanding of those things that are hidden in the holy books. This understanding, though it had previously belonged to the prophets but was not to be revealed to the generations of mortal men, at last was permitted, as a gift from God, to the Apostles and writers of the Gospels, so that what had lain hidden for a long time might by their public preaching be put forth for all men. When I explain Cabbala, therefore, I do not call it something people passed on as a tradition, but as something holy men received from heaven. For it is a receiving,” etc.
From what was just stated, therefore, we may without any difficulty arrive at a definition of each meaning. Here we will touch on the subject with a light brushstroke, as it were, but below in its own place we will explain it more accurately.
The literal meaning is what is signified most closely and directly through the words themselves, be they understood properly or figuratively. So for “Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights” (Jonah 2:1), here the literal meaning is what is most closely drawn from the words themselves. By ‘Jonah’ we understand the prophet himself, who described his own history. By ‘fish’ we understand the whale that God made swallow Jonah, etc.
The mystical meaning is not what is signified most closely by the words themselves, but by what those words signify. So the mystical meaning in the text we just mentioned is this, that Christ would for three days and three nights be in the tomb, in his death. For Christ himself shows in Matthew 12:39-40 that in that literally understood history, the Holy Spirit intended this mystical and typological meaning.
This is the explanation of the thesis. But we claim that it is proven:
1. By the definition. The meaning of Scripture is, as I stated above, that which God, the author of the Scriptures, tells us in the Scriptures and by means of the Scriptures that we need to learn and understand. But already in many texts of Scripture, God shows that we should learn and understand not only what we immediately gather from the words, but also something higher and mystical, as is self evident from examples in Scripture. Apart from the literal meaning, therefore, which we gather from the words, we cannot reasonably deny that a mystical meaning is also given, which is drawn from the things themselves.
In short, whatever the Holy Spirit himself intends and understands in the texts of Scripture is undoubtedly the meaning of those texts. But apart from the letter or the history itself, the Holy Spirit often intends and understands a mystery in the texts of Scripture. Therefore it is necessary that the meaning of Scripture be not only the history, but also the mystery that is woven into that history.
2. By examples in Scripture, of which I will choose one at this time. Consider the bronze serpent lifted up by Moses in the desert at God’s command to combat the snake bites in Numbers 21:8-9. This is true according to its historic and literal meaning, as we come to know it by the very words of Scripture. Now we ask whether God with this law, or the Holy Spirit with the writing of this history took thought for anything other than our historical inquiry into the words placed in the text.
The case is clear, of course, and the express affirmation of the Savior in John 3:14-15 makes us certain that the Holy Spirit in that history understood and took thought at the same time for this, that the Messiah ought to be lifted up on the cross, so that through him men might live. If someone were to say that Christ only adapted that history for himself, I admit in reply that he adapted it. The question, however, is whether he is also doing so apart from the intention of the Holy Spirit himself, in the written history of Numbers 21. Certainly that cannot be said. It follows, therefore, that Christ applied it to himself in such a way that he effectively explains the mystical meaning that the Holy Spirit intended in that history, and at the same time interprets that very Scripture passage mystically. The reasoning is the same for other passages, about which more will be said, God willing, in the discussion pertaining to the mystical meaning in particular. From what we have said, however, another argument presents itself in favor of our opinion.
3. From the absurd. If that which in the Old Testament is mystical and typical is not the meaning of the Old Testament Scripture itself, it follows that everything that is brought out of the old shadows into the New Testament and, as a body of shadows, is applied to Christ is cited and applied apart from the intention of the Old Testament speaker. But this conclusion is absurd, and therefore so is its basis. The actual consequence is perfectly clear, and what we deduce from that is no less evident. For why do the holy writers in the New Testament cite the words of Moses and the prophets from the Old Testament? Certainly it was for this reason: in order to give surety to their writings. But what surety will they give, if in bad faith they take the authors’ words out of context, or if they distort or – worse still – overturn the intention or meaning of the words? Add the fact that they acknowledge for the most part that they are citing them as witnesses and that what they had prophesied came true.
I will give another example, which will be as good as all the others. Melchizedec was a type of Christ, and indeed preeminent above other types. The Apostle mentions and explains him as a type, and applies the type to Christ in Hebrews 7. The Apostle, however, either applied it beyond and apart from the intention of the Old Testament Scripture or, what is the same, apart from the intention of the Holy Spirit who speaks in it and through it, or he did not. The former cannot be asserted, since in Hebrews 7:3 Melchizedec is called, in Greek, “Made like unto the Son of God” or “Assimilated to the Son of God”, that is, a type of Christ. This was certainly preached not only at that time when the Epistle to the Hebrews was being written, but also long before, when he himself was alive, and it pertained to Melchizedec in Genesis 14 when Moses was composing the history about him. The latter, therefore, must be the case, namely, that the Apostle’s application is in agreement both with Scripture when it speaks about Melchizedec and the intention of the Holy Spirit. From this, we evidently arrive at that conclusion which I set out to prove.
4. By the reason for interpreting Scripture. This consists of two parts: (1) telling the true meaning; (2) applying it for some use. The former is the process by which we unearth and point out the proposal or goal of the Scripture passage to be explained, together with the theme that it treats, and the arguments that it preaches or affirms. The latter is when we offer an application of the Scripture passage that has already been explained, and there are five kinds: (i) For doctrine. (ii) For reproof. (iii) For correction. (iv) For education. (v) For consolation. Paul points to these ends or uses of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4.
If a certain text of Scripture, therefore, such as the history of Jonah, must be interpreted as a type, then bringing out the type pertains absolutely not to the application and use, but to the first part, to the telling of the true meaning. For even before we dig deep in that history for the hidden doctrines, reproofs, lessons and consolations, what is the Prophetic text getting at? Is it to be understood only literally about Jonah, or at the same time also mystically about Christ? When we compare it to Matthew 12:39-40 then the choice is easy and we are free to move on to the second part of interpretation.