Chap. 4: The Bible
CHAP. 4: THE BIBLE
AQUINAS HAD A DEEP RESPECT FOR SCRIPTURE and made extensive use of it in his writings. From his youth in the monastery at Monte Cassino, Aquinas was taught the Scriptures. In fact, "at the faculties of theology and at all the schools where theological instruction was given, i.e., in the monasteries and cathedral schools, the Bible was already in the early middle ages the textbook."1 At the monastery "reading was practiced in the liturgical books, and so in the Sacred Scriptures themselves."2 Later, as a member of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans), Aquinas was required not only to study Scripture but to expound it between one and four times a week.3
While a student, "St. Thomas, master in theology, took the text itself of the Old and New Testament as the subject matter of his official course."4 The "first cycle [of Bible courses] extended over the young theologian's first two years of study." After two years of theology, "a second biblical cycle itself was the personal teaching responsibility of the 'master.' In this case, the master applied himself to a minute and prolonged exegesis of the one or the other of the books of Scripture."5 Walz notes that "Thomas, during his professorship, lectured principally on the scriptures, since the Bible was the foundation of all theological teaching."6
Aquinas's principium (inaugural address) at the University of Paris bears in many manuscripts the title of Commendatio Sacra Scriptura (Comments on Sacred Scripture).7 In it the newly installed professor declares that the doctors of Holy Scripture must excel by their excellent conduct in life, to be apt to preach with good success; they must be illuminated, to be able to instruct well; they must be well instructed and able to refute errors in their disputations, in accordance with the words of the Apostle, who says that the ecclesiastical authority must be able to diminish with sane doctrine and to refute adversaries.8
As a professor, "his duty was to 'read' the text of the Bible to his pupils and to explain it in a few words, cursorie, that is, without insisting on special questions, on the basis of the glosses or of the parallel biblical text."9 In the Dominican Order (O.P.) "such a biblicus [as Aquinas was] lectured every day, except on Sundays and church holidays; he had to finish the whole Bible in three years."10 After serving as a baccalareus biblicus (bachelor biblical lecturer) for two years (1252—1254), Aquinas was appointed a baccalareus sententiarum (1254—1256), and then was promoted to magister sacrae theologiae (master of sacred theology).11 The master teacher "did not explain the biblical text cursorie, that is, in a few words. He often entered into its sense and consequences, especially as these offered difficulties."12
Aquinas's extensive study of the biblical text bore permanent fruit in his commentaries, which include Jeremiah and the Lamentations, The Commentary on Psalms, The Commentary on the Book of Job, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew,13 The Commentary on Saint John, The Commentary on the Epistles of Saint Paul, and his famous Catena aurea (Golden Chain) in which "he glossed the four gospels by means of a continuous exposition taken from the sayings of the saints."14 Twenty-two Latin fathers and fifty-seven Greek fathers appear. Even critical scholars of Erasmus's caliber had nothing but praise for it.15
In view of his systematic exposure to and comprehensive use of Scripture, we must agree with Lamb that Aquinas's approach to Scripture is one of the most neglected aspects of Thomistic studies. Even so, during the centuries when his disciples were eagerly commenting on his Summa and his other systematic works, his commentaries on Scripture gradually became enveloped in thick layers of dust. The dust has been vigorously removed during the past few decades, but not all of it has settled.16
The Divine Authority of Scripture
Aquinas emphasizes the study and exposition of Scripture because he believed that the Bible is the revelation of God. It is the prophetic declaration of God's will to humankind. Prophets and biblical writers are the instruments, but God is the ultimate Source of all that is affirmed or implied in his written Word.
God as the Author of Scripture
Aquinas insists that "the author of holy Scripture is God."17 Thus "revelation is the basis of sacred Scripture or doctrine."18 For "holy Scripture looks at things in that they are divinely revealed."19 So it is "in Holy Scripture, through which the divine will is declared to us."20 Citing 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is inspired of God"), Aquinas refers to the Bible as "Divinely inspired Scripture."21 Humankind needs an infallible "divine revelation"; otherwise the truth about God would be apparent to only a few, and only then after a long time and mixed with many mistakes.22
The Relation of the Divine and Human in Scripture
Like the fathers before him, Aquinas sometimes speaks of the human authors of Scripture as the "instruments of divine operation."23 For "in prophetic revelation the prophet's mind is moved by the Holy Spirit as a defective instrument by its principal cause." Aquinas cites 2 Samuel 23:2 in support of his view: David says, "The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me."24 When God moves a human writer, an imperfect instrument can utter a perfect message, even to the very "words."25 This is possible because the perfect Principal or Primary Cause (God) works on the imperfect secondary cause. In popular language, God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.
Unlike some of his predecessors, however, Aquinas does not view the human authors as mere instruments of God's causality. Rather, they are secondary causes under the direct providential action of God, the Primary Cause. Aquinas argues that "the proper disposition is a necessary requirement for the correct use of prophecy since the use of prophecy proceeds from the created power of the prophet. Therefore, a determinate disposition is also required."26 This disposition is provided by the divine Architect of salvation-history. God disposes people and events so that they will communicate his Word precisely.27 In this way the human characteristics of the prophets in no way depreciate the message they convey. Rather, the message "proceeds in harmony with such dispositions."28
Aquinas illustrates the divine-human relation in prophecy by the model of teacher-learner:
Prophecy is a type of knowledge impressed on the prophet's intellect from a divine revelation. This happens after the manner of education. Now the truth of knowledge is the same in both the student and the teacher since the student's knowledge is a likeness of the teacher's knowledge.29
Rejecting the mechanical illustrations used by many of his predecessors (such as, God playing on a musical instrument), Aquinas provides new insight into the process of inspiration. Just as a teacher activates the potential of students for knowledge, so God (the Primary Cause) activates the potential of people (secondary causes) to know what he desires to reveal. Thus, prophets are not puppets or even secretaries but human learners. And, as a good teacher, God activates in prophets only what they have the potentiality to receive in terms of their capacities, culture, language, and literary forms.
The Use of Human Literary Forms
The divine origin of Scripture in no way diminishes its true humanity. Every word was written by human beings in human language reflecting their human culture. All the human traits of Scripture remain intact, including the use of various literary styles. For "Scripture conveys divine things to man in a style that men are wont to use."30 For "whatever images [figures of speech; Latin: dicendum] are used to express the prophesied reality is a matter of indifference to prophecy."31
In the prologue to his commentary on the Psalms, Aquinas enumerates many of the literary forms of the Bible: narration, admonition, commands, exhortations, prayer, praise, proverb, and parable. When revealing himself to the biblical writers, God does so in terms of these human literary forms. So in the final analysis the words of Scripture are both wholly divine and wholly human. They are, to coin a term for Aquinas, theathropic (God-man) words.
The Inerrancy of Scripture
While many in modem times have denied the inerrancy of Scripture, there is no question where Aquinas stands on the issue. In his commentary on Job he declares that "it is heretical to say that any falsehood whatsoever is contained either in the gospels or in any canonical Scripture."32 He insists that "a true prophet is always inspired by the spirit of truth in whom there is no trace of falsehood, and so he never utters untruths."33 Pointedly, he declares that "nothing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture."34 Therefore, "the truth of prophetic proclamations must needs be the same as that of divine knowledge. And falsity . . . cannot creep into prophecy."35 Agreeing with Augustine, Aquinas confesses of the books of Scripture, "I firmly believe that none of their authors have erred in composing them"36 and refers to Scripture as "unfailing truth." The Bible, then, is the infallible and inerrant Word of God.
In his commentary on John, Aquinas claims that "those who wrote the Scriptural canon, such as the Evangelists, Apostles and others like them, so firmly asserted the truth that they left nothing to be doubted. Thus it stresses: 'And we know his testimony is true' and 'If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."37 In short, the Bible is so completely and sufficiently without error that nothing in it is to be doubted.
Contrary to some who believe that only what is essential to faith is without error,38 Aquinas believes that the Bible is not only true in all that it teaches but also in all that it touches. For things "incidentally or secondarily related to the object of faith are all the contents of Scripture handed down by God."39 As examples of things in the Bible not essential to faith, but nevertheless without error, Aquinas cites such things as the fact that Abraham had two sons and that a dead man rose when Elijah's bones touched him.40
The Superiority of the Bible
In a real sense Aquinas agrees with the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is the Word of God, the totally sufficient norm for our faith. "We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles. . . . And we believe the successors of the apostles and the prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings."41
Aquinas asserts that "the truth of faith is contained in sacred Scripture.”42 Hence, "one is held to explicit belief in such matters only when it is clear to him that they are in truth contained in the teaching of faith."43 The context of this statement indicates that "the teaching of faith" refers to the Scriptures.
After insisting that the biblical writers "so firmly asserted the truth that they left nothing to be doubted" and that anyone who rejects it should be "anathema," Aquinas adds that "The reason for this is that only the canonical Scriptures are normative for faith. Whereas others who write about the truth do so in such a way that they do not want to be believed unless what they affirm is true."44
While believing that the Bible alone is God's written revelation,45 Aquinas does not mean to imply that it needs no interpretation,46 but that the Scriptures have no peer. "So, sacred Scripture, which has no superior science over it, disputes the denial of its principles; it argues on the basis of those truths held by revelation."47 The Bible is superior to any other book or person. All else must be subject to its divine authority.
The Role of Christian Teachers
Both in precept and practice, any pronouncement of faith other than the Scriptures must be subject to the Scriptures. Agreeing with Augustine, Aquinas affirms that "only to those books or writings which are called canonical have I learnt to pay such honour that I firmly believe that none of their authors have erred in composing them." Thus, "other authors . . . I read to such effect that, no matter what holiness and learning they display, I do not hold what they say to be true because those were their sentiments."48 The Scriptures are the revelation of God; everything else is an interpretation of them, not a new revelation.
The Place of Creeds
For Aquinas, all the truth of faith is contained in Scripture. A creed "is not added to Scripture, but drawn from Scripture."49 It is a later symbol of God's revelation; "a later symbol does not abolish an earlier one, but elaborates on it."50
Not only is Scripture sufficient apart from the creeds, but it is also perspicuous. "The truth of faith is sufficiently plain in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles." It is only because "wicked men have wrested apostolic teaching and the other Scriptures to their own destruction, [that] declaration of the faith against those impugning it is needed from time to time."51
The need for a creed arises out of the fact that "the truth of faith is contained in sacred Scripture, but diffusely, in divers ways and, sometimes, darkly." Hence, "the result is that to draw out that truth of faith from Scripture requires a prolonged study and a practice not within the capacities of all those who need to know the truth of faith. . . . That is why there was a need to draw succinctly together out of the Scriptural teaching some clear statement to be set before all for their belief."52
The Interpretation of Scripture
Although no comprehensive treatment of Aquinas's hermeneutics can be offered here, several aspects of it are worthy of brief comment. Much has been written about the widespread proof texting and allegorizing of medieval hermeneutics. These charges are widely misapplied to Aquinas. In actual fact, Aquinas was guilty of neither.
Aquinas expended a great deal of effort elaborating and utilizing good principles of interpretation. He possessed the best concordances and dictionaries of the day.53 Although his busy academic career afforded him little time for the study of the original languages, he showed a critical concern to determine the best text available. As for general rules of interpretation, his commentary on Aristotle's hermeneutics, On Interpretation, is a classic. In Against the Error of the Greeks, "he presents far-reaching rules of interpretation that bear the mark of a lofty intellectual honesty as well as a historical sense of the development of dogma and of the great relativism that formulas and words have from one language to another."54 Likewise, in his commentaries on the Gospels and Epistles Aquinas spells out numerous helpful hermeneutical rules.
The Literal Sense of Scripture
Contrary to a popular misconception, Aquinas believed in the literal interpretation of Scripture. As Lamb observes, "none of the Fathers who were to influence medieval exegesis declared the sufficiency of the literal sense; nor did any of the commentators or theologians prior to St. Thomas."55 Most of them believed in a literal sense of Scripture, but they declared it at best only a stepping stone to the "higher" spiritual sense.56 Aquinas, on the other hand, believed so firmly in the literal sense of Scripture that he sometimes refused to comment on anything but that sense.57
For Aquinas the literal sense (sensus literalis) is the basic sense of all Scripture. He declares that "nothing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture."58 Any non-literal sense of Scripture must be based in the literal sense. For example, "the parabolic sense is contained in the literal sense. . . . When the Scripture speaks of the arm of God, the literal sense is not that he has a physical limb, but that he [literally] has what it signifies, namely the power of doing and making." 59 While Aquinas seeks the literal meaning of the text, however, he is not literalistic in translating the text. In fact, he censors word-for-word translations."60
Sensus Unum or Sensus Plenior
Is there only one sense to Scripture or are there many? On this controversial issue Aquinas's view is unique. Like most medieval interpreters, Aquinas held that there are other senses of Scripture besides the literal, but unlike them he insisted that these senses are all contained in and dependent on the literal sense. For the "first meaning whereby the words signify things belongs to the sense first mentioned, namely the historical or literal."61 This, of course, does not mean that there are no other senses of Scripture. In fact, Aquinas delineates four:
(1) The literal or historical sense—the sense intended by the sacred author, the realities signified through the words of Scripture;
(2) The allegorical or typical sense—the realities of the Old Testament signifying those of the New Testament, Christ, and his church;
(3) The moral or tropological sense—the events of Christ's life and those who prefigured him, signifying what Christians should do and how they should live;
(4) The anagogical or eschatological sense—the New Testament realities signifying those of the kingdom that is to come.62
Aquinas notes that the spiritual sense of Scripture is based on and presupposes the literal sense. In Quodlibetum (VII, 15, ad 3) he declares that "the spiritual explanation must always be based on the literal."63 All four senses are not found in all of Scripture. The allegorical sense is brought into play when the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law; the moral sense when the things done in Christ and in those who prefigured him are signs of what we should carry out; and the anagogical sense when the things that lie ahead in eternal glory are signified.64
All other "spiritual" senses of Scripture are based on and included in the literal sense. One of the greatest contributions Aquinas made to hermeneutics was to insist on the sufficiency of the literal meaning. In fact, "the literal is the only sense on which theological arguments can be based."65 As Aquinas puts it, "nothing that is necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not openly conveyed by the literal sense elsewhere."66
When all is said and done, Aquinas believes that there is really only one basic sense to Scripture—the literal sense. He insists that "when Scripture has more than one sense, it cannot be used as a basis of argumentation." What is more, "these senses [of Holy Scripture] are not manifold because one word would have many senses. . . . All the senses are based on one, namely the literal."67
A Literal Understanding of Messianic Prophecy
One of the offshoots of Aquinas's stress on the literal understanding of Scripture is his insistence that some prophetic passages have Christ alone as their literal meaning. He goes so far as to say that to deny passages like Isaiah 7:14 are prophetic ("A virgin will conceive . . .") is heretical.68 More than once Aquinas reproaches Theodore of Mopsuestia for allegedly denying that any Old Testament text could refer literally to Christ.69 If this were the case, Aquinas argues, then the phrase "That it might be fulfilled" would mean "that it might be accommodated."70 Aquinas sees clearly that the New Testament makes an evidential use of Old Testament predictive prophecy, without which Christians would have no apologetic against the Jews.71
Aquinas, unlike previous commentators, does not interpret the Old Testament ceremonial precepts in an allegorical way, as referring to New Testament mysteries. On the contrary, they generally have literal, historical meaning that the Jewish people could understand.72
The Influence of Aristotle
It is well known that Aquinas was profoundly influenced by Aristotle. Less well known is how this pointed him away from the Platonic tendency to allegorize Scripture to a firm commitment to a literal understanding of the Bible. For Aristotle, contrary to Plato, all knowledge begins with sense experience. Because of this, "the world and history take on their own value, they are not just symbolic of a higher realm."73 Thus, "the contrast between St. Augustine [who depended heavily on Plato] and the newly recovered Aristotle . . . was bound to have a disturbing effect on his study of the Creator's special book. Aristotle caused him to see Scripture as freshly as he saw all creation."74
Before Aquinas "there existed a Platonic atmosphere in Christian thinking which disposed commentators to regard the biblical text as merely the necessary shell or veil that had to be pierced in order to get at the inner, nobler, spiritual message."75 But Aquinas's adoption of the Aristotelian doctrine concerning the dependence of the human mind on the imagination threw a new light on the importance of the literal sense of Scripture.76 As long as medieval views of knowing were tied to looking for some inner spiritual meaning behind the mere symbols of words, there was little hope of uncovering the literal meaning of Scripture. Once Aquinas, following Aristotle, stressed that all knowledge begins in sensible images that truly inform us about the real material creation that reflects God, then a truly literal understanding of the words of Scripture was possible. As Smalley observes, "this shift in psychological presuppositions was bound to make itself felt in exegetical principles. Greater stress was placed on the role of the imagination or phantasm [sense images] in prophecy. . . . Another effect was a change in attitude toward the literal sense."77
The Author's Meaning
For Aquinas "the literal sense is that which the author intends, and the author of holy Scripture is God."78 So the literal meaning of Scripture is what God meant by it through the human authors. And while the human authors did not always understand all the implications of their own writings, what they affirmed is what God intended, and what God intended is what they affirmed. Aquinas insists that "we must keep to that which has been written in Scripture. We must add nothing to it, detract nothing, and change nothing by interpreting it badly."79
For Aquinas, the "proper meaning of a word . . . that precious quality through which the word conveys intelligibility (ratio nominis), is either limited, confined, or corrected by usage. Since usage reveals their intended significance, this is a richer source for their being understood than their original meaning can be."80 Aquinas insists that "etymology and meaning are quite different. The etymology of a word indicates something of its origin; the meaning, on the other hand, is supposed to convey the reality which here and now corresponds to it."81
A Text in Context
Aquinas, who would agree that "a text out of context is a pretext," makes a concerted effort to be both critical and analytical about the Scripture he cites in support of his views. He believes firmly that the Bible is its own best interpreter. As Van der Ploeg observes, "the first exegetical rule for St. Thomas was, apparently, to explain the Bible by the Bible, and therefore many passages of his exegetical works, especially the earlier ones, . . . consist more of biblical text than of the text of the author."82 It is from this, no doubt, that Aquinas gained the reputation that he "knew the Bible by heart." It is impossible here to provide an in-depth study of Aquinas's use of Scripture, but some general observations are relevant.83
First, his exegesis of Scripture does not follow the reader's interest but, rather, the very structure of the text as presented by the author. Aquinas follows the "internal order governing the development of the text and the arrangement of its parts."84 In order to do this, Aquinas divides the text first into broad sections, then into smaller pericopes, and finally into sentences. In short, Aquinas undertakes a grammatical analysis of the objective text of Scripture.
Second, Aquinas advocates a closely knit exegesis of the text's words and statements, counter to the paraphrase's facileness. In this way, "he is compelled . . . to stick constantly to the letter, to extract its immediate meaning, in order to arrive at a grasp of the thought."85 In this Aquinas follows Hugh of Saint Victor, according to whom there were the words and their connected consequences (the littera), then the obvious meaning (sensus), and finally the understanding (sententia) provided by the complete exposition (expositio).86
Third, Aquinas's exposition is highly analytic. The thirteenth century was preoccupied with reason. This is manifested in the exposition of Scripture. Aquinas, for example, tends to define words and concepts, and to classify them within categories provided by his extensive knowledge of philosophy. As Chenu notes of Aquinas's exposition of Scripture, if he comes upon the word oblatio, he analyzes the four conditions required for an offering [cf. Matt. 5:23]; the word timor, he recalls to mind the different species of fear [cf. John 15:15]; the particle per, he observes that this preposition denotes indirect causality [cf. John 1:3]; and so on.87
Aquinas presents much of his analysis in terms of the four causes88 (efficient, material, formal, and final) as did Albert the Great and Bonaventure. This has the effect of clarifying issues and opening up new avenues for discovering the true meaning of the text.
Fourth, Aquinas's "quest is for reasons, the reasons for things, for events, for words, for steps taken. Always it is supposed that the evangelist or the prophet had reasons in mind."89 For example, Aquinas's commentary on Job purports to show probable reasons that providence governs human affairs. The short phrase, "and he posits two reasons," is the means by which Aquinas frequently uncovers the logical connections of a narrative (e.g., Matt. 21:12; 24:27). In Romans he identifies syllogisms (cf. 8:5-6) and in other places the propositions of an argument (e.g., John 7:7). All in all, Aquinas's exposition of Scripture is faithful to the scholastic quest to render the credible intelligible.
Finally, Aquinas moves from the exposition to the question. The disputed question was an essential aspect of medieval education. It was often introduced by phrases like, "the question arises here," or "there is here a twofold question." In this way there is a natural movement from exegesis to theology, the queen of the sciences. But theology is to be based on the text and to grow out of it, not to be artificially superimposed on it. Indeed, it is to be based on a literal understanding of the text in its historical-grammatical context. A good example of how Aquinas roots his profound theological insights in the grammar of the text is found in the prologue of his commentary on John's Gospel.
The Use of Scripture in the Summa Theologiae
A direct elaboration of Scripture is manifest in three sections of the Summa theologiae. Genesis is expounded in the treatise on creation.90 The books of the Law are utilized heavily in Aquinas's treatment of ancient law.91 The Gospels are referred to in his treatise on the life of Christ.92 In these contexts the use of Scripture clearly goes beyond mere exegesis. While the scriptural data is organized around doctrinal categories, Aquinas endeavors to draw conclusions that are consistent with the literal meaning of the text, with a great measure of success. In any event, the hundreds of citations of Scripture reveal the thoroughly biblical nature of his theology as well as his vast knowledge of Scripture. In this regard Chenu is correct when he notes that Aquinas's "systematic Summa is implanted and fed with a continuous study of Scripture . . . and that its most perfect rational structures are never an end, but a means to arrive at a better knowledge of the Word of God."93
Like virtually every other area of Aquinas's thought, after seven hundred years there is still much to learn from his use of Scripture. Except for the question of the extent of the canon, Aquinas's basic view of the nature and interpretation of Scripture is as orthodox and "Protestant" as that of any of the Reformers. Indeed, they are largely indebted to him for their view. Aquinas believed in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the very words of Scripture. He held to the orthodox understanding of infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, yet avoided the pitfalls of mechanical dictation. He provided fresh insight into the divine-human relation in the production of Scripture by his appeal to primary-secondary causality. In all of this he gave full weight to the humanness of Scripture, acknowledging the use of human sources and literal forms.
On the matter of interpretation he stood firmly on the side of a literal meaning of Scripture, rooted in the expressed intention (meaning) of the author. Aquinas, like others, occasionally lapsed into an allegorical interpretation. He opposed such in principle, however, and avoided it in practice with surprising consistency. His exegetical method was both objective and grammatical. Yet he did not hesitate to make use of this literal meaning in the construction of his theology. All in all, his understanding and use of Scripture, although far from perfect, were superior for his time and are exemplary for ours.
Pius XII was not far from the mark when he proclaimed:
In the opinion of men of the finest judgment, the commentaries that St. Thomas wrote on the books of the Old and the New Testaments, and especially on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, reflect such authority, such a keen insight and such diligence that they can be counted among his greatest theological works, and are considered in the nature of a biblical complement to these works, one to be held in the highest esteem. And thus if anyone should neglect them, he cannot be said to enjoy a clear and thoroughgoing acquaintance with the knowledge of the Angelic Doctor.94