Much of the focus of this blog will be about religious topics in one way or another, I feel like it is best that I explain how I choose to understand and interpret scripture. There are many ways in which people try to understand the scriptures, and I am not terribly interested in pitting one against another, just explaining how I attempt to do this, so that as you read you have the context of my thinking.
General Guidelines
Before getting into the nuts and bolts of the quadriga, or any other interpretive method, there are a few general guidelines to keep in mind. First, and in my estimation most importantly, is that interpreting scripture should not be done as a solitary process. It is the hard work of the church to do this in community with those who have come before and those who are still here. This is not a solitary endeavor when done correctly. When I examine a part of scripture I consult my peers, commentaries, the writings of the early fathers, and the interpretive history of the church catholic.
The second thing to consider is the interpretive tradition of both the church catholic, and of your denomination within it. This does not mean that everything that the church has ever taught is correct, but it does mean that if you arrive at a different conclusion, the burden of proof to disagree with what the church has always taught should be high.
The third thing to consider is that scripture was not originally written verse by verse, but rather section by section. When looking to a section of scripture, as we will do in this piece, the entire section needs to be examined as a whole rather than seeking significant meaning from any individual verse. While there may be significant meaning in an individual verse, that must always be weighed against the rest of the section you are examining.
The final thing is that the whole council of scripture must be considered when examining any specific passage. While the Bible is a unique collection of writings to be sure, and as such requires a unique approach to understanding it, the whole council of scripture must be taken into consideration for understanding.
The Quadriga
This particular method of interpretation was developed in the early church (around the second century) and became widely popular in the Middle Ages. This method of interpretation is what Saint Thomas Aquinas based much of his work on as well. Like most things I tend to endorse, this is not at all a new way to look at scripture, but a very old way of doing so. Interpreting scripture in this manner helps me connect with the church fathers and keeps me in tune with what John Wesley called primitive Christianity.
The quadriga is a reference to the Roman chariot that was pulled by four horses working in tandem. Like the chariot, the four interpretive tools of the quadriga are not meant to be in competition with each other, but rather to work in tandem to give a full understanding of the scriptures. Each section of scripture needs to be examined in the light of the whole council of scripture as well. This is an allegorical method of interpretation that assumes that there are various levels of meaning in the scriptures, and that a full understanding requires all those levels to be examined in conjunction with each other. The four senses, or layers, of interpretation are the literal, the moral, the allegorical, and the analogical. We will explore them in some detail.
The Literal
Let me begin by saying what the literal meaning of scripture is not. It is NOT the rather modern notion that the scriptures mean what the words say in modern parlance absent any type of context or historical understanding. What the literal sense, called “plain meaning” by Luther, is the straightforward historical meaning of the text in its historical context. This means that elements of speech, such as hyperbole for example, whether or not it is prose or poetry, what is the style, are there colloquialisms in the text, and more are taken into account in this plain meaning. As an example, Let’s look at Matthew 19:13-22.
In this illustration, Jesus encounters a rich young man who is inquiring how to gain eternal life. For the sake of simplicity, consider verses 23 and 24:
“
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
The camel through the eye of a needle passage has been interpreted numerous different ways, but considering there is no evidence of a ‘Needle Gate’ as some commentators have suggested, it is likely hyperbole based upon an ancient Persian saying about an elephant fitting through the eye of a needle. The phrase is used to describe something that is impossible. Taken literally, on its own, this would leave us with the idea that it is impossible for “the rich” to enter into heaven. If we look to verses 25 and 26 however, we see this is not so.
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
So, in this passage we are left with the idea that a rich man can not enter the Kingdom of God on his own, but it is possible with God. This would be the plain meaning, or literal interpretation, of the selected text according to the quadriga.
The Moral
The moral sense of scripture is how we, in the light of Christian tradition, understand the guidance in how we are supposed to live. Put simply, this is the moral of the story and the guide to how we should act now. The book of Proverbs is an easy example of what the moral sense of scripture looks like. The book if full of guidance. For a good example of the moral sense, we can look to verses 16-22:
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
It is fairly clear to see here that the moral sense is to follow the commandments of God, and to give up your wealth to the poor.
The Allegorical
This is where we do all that we can to connect the Old Testament and the New Testament, especially the events of Christ’s life. The Old Testament and the New Testament are not contrary to each other, but work in tandem with each other. This is how we connect them. In the passage we have been looking at, it is easy to see the connection to Jesus’ life and teachings as it is about an interaction that he had. We also can see connections to the Old Testament with allusions to the ten commandments, the inclusion of love of neighbor which has its roots in the Old Testaments and, as one of the two great commandments of the New Testament, connects the passage to the law and the prophets.
The Anagogic
This is where we use scripture to look to the hope of the future. This includes Christ’s return, the final judgement, eternal life in the presence of God, and pretty much anything having to do with eschatology. In the passage we have been looking at, the original question posed in verse 16 is eschatological in nature.
“16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
The rich young man, like many, and maybe most, of us, is concerned with the reality of his immortality and more specifically where he is going to spend that eternity. His concern and focus is on what he has to do, which again is what many of us focus upon. Jesus gives him task to be perfect, sell all he has to provide for the poor and then follow Him, and the rich young man leaves saddened because he is very wealthy.
The second eschatological question is posed by the disciples in verse 25, and answered by Jesus in verse 26.
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The initial question was from the rich young man and once Jesus had spoken to him, the disciples became concerned because the task seemed impossible (the literal or plain meaning of the text at play). Jesus confirms to them that with man it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. That is to say that man can not do anything to gain eternal life, but that God can provide it.
The third eschatological question is posed by Peter, on behalf of all the disciples, in verse 27, then answered by Jesus in verse 28 where this particular story ends.
27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[c] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Wrapping Up
There is certainly a lot more to explore in this passage than the few isolated examples that I have tried to go through briefly here. Trying to understand a text is often difficult, but worthwhile, hard work. When you apply this method consistently throughout the entire passage, remembering of course that no one sense is superior or in competition with the others, you can arrive at a conclusion.
My conclusion is that while this story starts out with a question of eschatological nature, the focus quickly is shifted to how we are living now. For me, being a Wesleyan, that means am I following the commands (laws) which are called moral? Do the 10 commandments live in my heart? Am I loving my neighbor in the way that God would have me? Am I relying solely upon God, through Christ, for my salvation and my eternal destiny?
The question of wealth is raised however. We know the young man is rich, but what does that actually mean? How much is too much? I come to the conclusion that it is not an amount of money that is the sticking point, but rather what we do with it. We all have wealth to some degree, the question is not how much wealth, but what we do with it. I do believe that an over abundance of wealth has unique problems. That is the warning in Timothy about the love of money being the root of all manner of evil after all.
There is also a larger lesson to be had I believe. The rich young man was saddened because he had great wealth and was instructed to give it away. It is worth considered what we would be saddened to give up if we were called upon to do so. We do not know what the young man ultimately did of course, but we do know that it was difficult for him to do so.
There is more to examine here, and I would love to hear your insights as well, but the purpose of this was more to show how I arrive where I do and give enough of an example, that when you read something I have considered, what the process looks like as I examine it.
A married middle aged Christian in the Wesleyan tradition trying to make sense of it all.