The Process of Interpretation: Literal and Spiritual Senses

Fundamental to the process of biblical interpretation is the distinction between the literal and the spiritual
sense of the text. This distinction is common among the Fathers, and was articulated by St. Augustine on
the basis of a comprehensive philosophy of signs and things. St. Augustine argued that reality could
be divided into signsrealities that had signification, pointing beyond themselves to something else
and things, realities that had no signification. The words of Scripture were signs that pointed to
things beyond themselves, usually to historical realities. For example, the word David is sign that
refers to a historical thing, the founder of the royal dynasty of Israel. When one fully understands all the
things (realities) to which the signs (words of Scripture) refer, one has attained the literal sense of
Scripture.

However, St. Augustine recognized that the things to which the words of Scripture referred could
themselves be signs of yet other things. Therefore, David himself could be a sign and symbol of one
who was yet to come, a greater Son of David, who would be a righteous, suffering king, yet without
Davids sins. The spiritual sense of the text is the identification of the deeper realities to which the
things of Scripture point.

Here it is useful to introduce the concept of typology. Typology is the study or use of types. Types are
things with symbolic value, things that are also signs and point beyond themselves to subsequent
or deeper realities. For example, in the Churchs tradition, Adam is understood as a type of Christ.

The spiritual sense of Scripture went by different names in the writings of various fathers and doctors,
such as the figurative sense or the mystical sense. By the medieval period, it became customary to
divide the spiritual sense into three subsenses according to their object. The allegorical sense was a
typological sense oriented to the whole Christ; any typological relationship involving Christ, his apostles,
his bride the Church, or any other element of the New Covenant economy, is considered allegorical. The
moral or tropological sense is a symbolic sense which provides guidance for the behavior of the believer.
It often involves an implicit typology in which a character in the biblical narrative is understood as a type
of everyman or every believer, and lessons are drawn for the moral behavior of the believer based on
the experiences of the character in the biblical narrative. Finally, the anagogical sense generally involves
a typological relationship involving the last things: a symbolism is perceived in the text which points
(usually) to heaven, but perhaps also death, judgment, and hell.

The three senses relate to the three theological virtues: the allegorical sense pertains to matters of faith,
that is, things we believe in; the moral sense pertains to love, that is, how we behave; the anagogical
sense pertains to that for which we hope: heaven, the beatific vision.

It is possible to speak of either the two senses or the four senses of Scripture. The two senses
refers to the literal and spiritual sense, but when the phrase four senses are used, the spiritual sense is
being divided into its three subsenses, giving the quartet literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical.

Obviously, the whole logic of the spiritual sense is premised on a robust notion of divine Providence, a
belief that God has written history as men write books. God in fact intended that the historical figure
David was a sign and symbol of a greater king who was to come. Therefore, when the interpreter sees
such a relationship in Scripture, it is a perception of reality, and not the imposition of meaning by the
interpreter.

It goes without saying that, with the rise of secularism in the wake of the Enlightenment, a robust sense of
Divine providence, or indeed any sense of divine Providence, has been lost. As a result, typology and the
spiritual sense have been marginalized, beginning with the Protestant Reformers and increasingly so
among modern interpreters. In contemporary academic study of the bible, the spiritual sense is has no
place, and typology is regarded as a fanciful imposition of Christian meaning to ancient Israelite texts.
But this is only to recognize that modern academic study of the Bible is pursued according to secular
assumptions, not Christian ones. The Church herself continues to recognize the legitimacy of typology.

The Interpretation of the Literal Sense

The Church has always emphasized the priority of the literal sense, which she understands as the
foundation on which the spiritual sense rests. The literal sense is defined as the meaning conveyed by
the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation, and Saint
Thomas of Aquinas states, all the senses of sacred Scripture are based on the literal sense.

Let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and
define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by
comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search
out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into
service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly
clear.

Interpretation of the literal sense begins with a knowledge of the grammar and syntax of the language in
which the biblical text was composed. After establishing the plain sense of the words (not to be
confused with the literal sense per se), the interpreter looks for the use of literary and rhetorical devices,
structural patterns of composition, and other artistic, higher-order uses of language, based on a knowledge
of literature generally, especially the literature(s) of the biblical authors society. A solid knowledge of the
history and culture from which the text arose is also necessary to understand the meaning and
significances of the actions, characters, places, events, customs, and other realia to which the text refers.

Not all aspects of the historical critical method can be applied to every text, however. Some texts, for
example, do not use any sources, or at least, their sources cannot be reconstructed with confidence in our
present state of knowledge. In applying methods of historical analysis, no criteria should be adopted
which would rule out in advance Gods self-disclosure in human history.

Every text of Scripture has a literal sense, even if the use of language in the text is non-literal. For
example, Psalm 18:8 states:

Smoke went up from his nostrils,

and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.

The sacred author does not mean to affirm that God is like a fire-breathing dragon; such would be a
literalistic interpretation, not the literal sense. The literal sense of this non-literal text would be
something like the following: God demonstrated his awesome power. The literal sense is the
unadorned statement of the meaning intended by the author of Scripture. However, one must keep in
mind that the primary author is God.

The Interpretation of the Spiritual Sense

Once the literal sense is established by the means described above, the interpreter should consider
possible spiritual senses of the text:

Wherefore the exegete, just as he must search out and expound the literal meaning of the words, intended
and expressed by the sacred writer, so also must he do likewise for the spiritual sense, provided it is
clearly intended by God.
The spiritual sense(s) becomes apparent by contemplating the literal sense in light of the whole economy
of salvation.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less
serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the
sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into
account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith.

First of all, it is only by having a knowledge of the contents of Scripture and the themes, motifs, and
concepts that unify the Scriptural texts that the interpreter is able to recognize the interconnections,
analogies, and similarities by which typological relationships between the Old and New Testament are
established.

For what was said and done in the Old Testament was ordained and disposed by God with such
consummate wisdom, that things past prefigured in a spiritual way those that were to come under the new
dispensation of grace.

Secondly, the long meditation on Scripture that has taken place over the generations among the fathers,
doctors, and saints, has built up a common body of accepted spiritual interpretations of the Scriptures.

Thirdly, the term analogy of faith is generally used to describe the harmony which exists between the
elements of the faith. The interpretation of Scripture should complement, not conflict with, the other
aspects of theology: moral, dogmatic, and historical. Dogmas are, in essence, nothing other than
authoritative interpretations of revelation. Dogmas are an aid, not a hindrance, to the proper interpretation
of Scripture. For example, the Chalcedonian definition of the two natures but one person of Christ is
intended to provide a formula robust enough to accommodate the truth of all the Scriptural statements on
the nature of Christ. Two natures, one person, provides an explanation for how it may be asserted, on
the one hand, that I and the Father are one, (John 10:30) and yet on the other, The Father is greater
than I (John 14:28). In a similar way, all the dogmas of the Church are intended to guide the proper
reading of Scripture.