The other day I was involved in a conversation about what is the best way to interpret Scripture. There are several theories, not all of which were discussed, but the main question was are the Scriptures meant to be taken literally or metaphorically? The answers usually vary, with the “fundamentalists” saying that Scripture should always be taken literally, and the “liberals” saying it should be taken as metaphor. In actuality most people fall somewhere in the middle of these two ideals.
This started me thinking - I’m full of opinions on this subject, as are most folks. But what does this mean for me personally when I read Scripture? Do I have to study ancient near eastern literature to better understand the form of the Old Testament? Do I have to be a Rabbinical scholar, or at least be familiar with how the Jews traditionally understood the Old Testament? What about the New? Do I need to spend some time figuring out textural criticism, so I can best decide which of the dozens of translations is the best? Does it matter that not every word is the same in the different texts? Did God give us a record that only the few can truly understand? I don’t think so. Although I see great value in all those areas I mentioned, and I’m glad that there are people out there doing all those things, so I can read their work and make some decisions for myself, but ultimately I think that the ancient church had the right idea. Assume that what is read is literal (at least in some sense), but that’s not all there is to it, there is a richer, deeper meaning there as well.
The ancient church Fathers referred to this as the different senses of Scripture. We can see a pretty good summary of their thoughts in the catechism (I am only including a very small section to discuss here, there is more before and after this section that I recommend looking at).
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
- The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
They suggested that all Scripture has all four of these dimensions. It’s not always a question of which is it, physical or metaphorical, but what does God want me to learn through this account. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and. I’m not suggesting that this answers all questions, nothing ever does.
All of this was in my mind during Mass on Sunday when the Gospel was read. If you’re not familiar with John chapter 9, then go on and read it! It’s about the man being born blind who was healed by Jesus. Pastors must love it when this reading comes around. Talk about a rich passage. You could preach a hundred sermons on this story and not repeat yourself once, there’s that many lessons in this one story!
But this is what jumped out at me about the reading: it’s the perfect illustration of the two types of interp - literal and metaphorical. I don’t even have to think about it because both senses are pointed out for us by Jesus himself in the story! So, now nobody can accuse me of overthinking the passage, right? Here’s how it plays out: Jesus physically and literally gives a blind man his sight. But Jesus uses the healing to point out how spiritually blind the Pharisees are. The blind man is given both kinds of sight - literal and metaphorical. He can literally see Jesus standing in front of him, but he can also “see” who Jesus really is - the Son of God. He has been given physical and spiritual sight. Both senses of Scripture right there in print for us. Not one interpretation or another, it’s both at the same time!
I honestly believe that this is how we should look at most Scriptures. They are not a riddle to be unlocked, they are not merely a literal rendition of history, they are not a metaphorical idea book. Scripture, the written word of God, is the revelation of Jesus, the living Word of God. We can see this on several levels, all of which are valid, and all of which depend on each other. It’s not a question of literal OR metaphorical, but literal AND metaphorical.
