On Christian Doctrine 3.2–3.17

When literal words make Scripture ambiguous, we must first see that we have not punctuated or pronounced wrongly. When, then, careful attention has shown that it is uncertain how something should be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith, which he has gathered from the plainer passages of the Scriptures and from the authority of the Church; we dealt with it sufficiently when we spoke of things in the first book. But if both parts, or even all of them if there are several, give an ambiguity consistent with the faith, the context of the passage itself remains to be consulted, from the preceding and following parts which enclose that ambiguity, so that we may see which of the several meanings that present themselves it supports and allows to be woven into itself.

Now consider examples. That heretical punctuation, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was,” so that the next sentence reads, “This Word was in the beginning with God,” refuses to confess that the Word is God. But this is to be refuted by the rule of faith, by which the equality of the Trinity is prescribed to us, so that we say, “and the Word was God,” and then add, “This was in the beginning with God.” But the following ambiguity of punctuation is contrary to the faith in neither way, and so must be decided from the context itself, where the Apostle says: “And what I shall choose I do not know; but I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, for that is far better; to remain in the flesh is necessary for your sake.” For it is uncertain whether we should read “having a desire for the two,” or “I am hard pressed between the two,” so as to add, “having a desire to depart and to be with Christ.” But since there follows, “for that is far better,” it appears that he says he has a desire for that which is better, so that, while he is hard pressed between the two, he has a desire for one and a necessity for the other: a desire, namely, to be with Christ, and a necessity to remain in the flesh. This ambiguity is decided by one following word, which is put there: “for.” Translators who have removed this particle were led rather by the view that he seemed not only to be hard pressed between the two but also to have a desire for the two. So it must be punctuated thus: “And what I shall choose I do not know; but I am hard pressed between the two”; and this punctuation is followed by “having a desire to depart and to be with Christ.” And as if it were asked why he has a desire for this rather, he says, “for that is far better.” Why, then, is he hard pressed between the two? Because there is a necessity to remain, which he adds thus: “to remain in the flesh is necessary for your sake.”

But where the ambiguity can be explained neither by the prescription of faith nor by the context of the passage itself, nothing prevents punctuating according to any of the meanings that present themselves. Such is that passage to the Corinthians: “Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Receive us. We have wronged no one.” For it is doubtful whether we should read, “let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit,” in accordance with the saying, “that she may be holy both in body and in spirit,” or, “let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh,” so that the other sense is, “and, perfecting holiness of spirit in the fear of God, receive us.” Such ambiguities of punctuation, then, are in the reader's discretion.

Whatever we have said about ambiguous punctuation must also be observed in ambiguous pronunciation. For these too, unless they are spoiled by the reader's excessive carelessness, are corrected either by the rules of faith or by the context of what precedes or follows; or if neither of these can be applied to correct them, they will remain doubtful nonetheless, so that, however the reader pronounces them, he is not at fault. For unless faith recalls us, by which we believe that God will not accuse his elect and that Christ will not condemn his elect, the passage could be pronounced thus: “Who will bring a charge against the elect of God?” so that, as if in answer to this question, there follows, “God who justifies.” And again the question, “Who is he that condemns?” with the answer, “Christ Jesus who died.” Since it is utter madness to believe this, it will be pronounced so that an inquiry comes first and a question follows. The ancients said that the difference between an inquiry and a question is this: to an inquiry many answers can be given, but to a question only “No” or “Yes.” It will be pronounced, then, so that after the inquiry in which we say, “Who will bring a charge against the elect of God?” what follows is uttered in the tone of a questioner, “God who justifies?” so that the silent answer is “No.” And again we inquire, “Who is he that condemns?” and again we ask, “Christ Jesus who died, yes, rather, who rose again, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us?” so that each time the silent answer is “No.” But in that place where he says, “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained righteousness,” unless the answer “That the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained righteousness” is added after the inquiry “What then shall we say?”, the following context will not hang together. But in whatever tone what Nathanael said is pronounced, “Can anything good come from Nazareth,” whether as an affirmation, so that only “From Nazareth?” belongs to the question, or the whole with the doubt of a questioner, I do not see how it can be decided; and neither sense hinders the faith.

There is also ambiguity in the doubtful sound of syllables, and this certainly belongs to pronunciation. For in what is written, “My os is not hidden from you, which you made in secret,” it is not clear to the reader whether he should pronounce os with a short or a long vowel. For if he shortens it, it is understood as the singular of ossa (“bones”); if he lengthens it, as the singular of ora (“mouths”). But such things are decided by examining the original language; for in the Greek not στόμα but ὀστέον is put. Hence the vulgar custom of speech is often more useful for signifying things than literary correctness. For I would rather it be said with a barbarism, “My ossum is not hidden from you,” than that it be less clear because it is more Latin. But sometimes the doubtful sound of a syllable is decided also by a neighboring word belonging to the same sentence, as in that saying of the Apostle: “Of which I tell you beforehand (praedico), as I have told you before (praedixi), that those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of God.” If he had said only, “Of which I praedico to you,” and had not added, “as I have told you before,” we would have to go back to a manuscript of the original language to know whether, in the word praedico, the middle syllable should be lengthened or shortened; but as it is, it is plain that it should be lengthened; for he does not say “as I have preached” (praedicavi), but “as I have told you before” (praedixi).

Not only these, but also those ambiguities which do not belong to punctuation or pronunciation must be considered in the same way, such as that in the letter to the Thessalonians: “Therefore we were comforted, brothers, in you.” For it is doubtful whether it means “O brothers” or “these brothers” (the Latin fratres can be either); neither of these is against the faith; but the Greek language does not have these cases alike, and so, when it is examined, the case is reported to be vocative, that is, “O brothers.” If the translator had chosen to say, “Therefore we have had comfort, brothers, in you,” the words would have been served less, but the meaning would have been less in doubt; or certainly, if “our” were added, hardly anyone would doubt that it was the vocative case, on hearing, “Therefore we were comforted, our brothers, in you.” But this is now a more dangerous liberty to allow. This was done in that passage to the Corinthians, where the Apostle says: “I die daily, by your glory, brothers, which I have in Christ Jesus.” For one translator says, “I die daily, I swear by your glory,” because in the Greek the word of swearing (νή) is plain, without ambiguous sound. Very rarely, then, and with great difficulty can an ambiguity be found in literal words, as far as the books of the divine Scriptures are concerned, which is not resolved either by the circumstances of the passage itself, by which the writers' intention is known, or by comparison of translators, or by examining the original language.

But the ambiguities of figurative words, which we must speak of next, require no ordinary care and diligence. For in the first place one must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For to this belongs what the Apostle says: “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, one understands carnally. Nor is anything more fittingly called the death of the soul than when what in it surpasses the beasts, that is, the understanding, is subjected to the flesh by following the letter. For one who follows the letter takes figurative words as literal, and does not refer what is signified by the literal word to another signification; but if he hears “Sabbath,” for example, he understands only one day out of the seven that recur in continuous succession; and when he hears “sacrifice,” his thought does not go beyond what is usually done with victims from the flocks and the fruits of the earth. It is a wretched slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above bodily creation to drink in the eternal light.

Yet this slavery in the Jewish people was far removed from the custom of the other nations, since they were so subjected to temporal things that the one God was commended to them in all things. And although they observed the signs of spiritual things in place of the things themselves, not knowing to what they referred, still they had this ingrained in them, that by such slavery they pleased the one God of all, whom they did not see. The Apostle writes that this custody was like that of little children under a tutor. And so those who clung obstinately to such signs could not bear the Lord when he disregarded them, once the time for their revelation had come; and hence their leaders contrived slanders that he healed on the Sabbath, and the people, bound to those signs as if to things, did not believe that one was God, or had come from God, who would not attend to them as they were observed by the Jews. But those who believed, of whom the first church at Jerusalem was made, showed well enough how great an advantage it had been to be kept under a tutor in such a way that the signs imposed for a time on those who served bound the minds of those who observed them to the worship of the one God who made heaven and earth. For because they were close to spiritual things (for in those very temporal and carnal offerings and signs, although they did not know how they were to be understood spiritually, they had nevertheless learned to venerate the one eternal God), they proved so capable of receiving the Holy Spirit that they sold all their possessions and laid the price at the apostles' feet to be distributed to the needy, and dedicated themselves wholly to God as a new temple, whose earthly image, that is, the old temple, they had served. For it is not written that any churches of the Gentiles did this, because those who had handmade images for gods were not found so close.

And if ever some of them tried to interpret those things as signs, they referred them to worshiping and venerating the creature. For what does it profit me, for example, that the image of Neptune is not to be held as itself a god, but that by it the whole sea is signified, or even all the other waters that gush from springs? As one of their poets describes him, if I remember rightly, saying:

You, father Neptune, whose hoary temples resound, girt with the crashing sea; from whose beard the great ocean flows forever, and in whose hair the rivers wander.

This husk shakes rattling pebbles inside a sweet shell; but it is food not for men but for pigs. Whoever knows the Gospel knows what I mean. What, then, does it profit me that the image of Neptune is referred to that signification, unless perhaps that I worship neither? For any statue is no more God to me than the whole sea. I confess, however, that those who think the works of men are gods have sunk deeper than those who think the works of God are gods; but we are commanded to love and worship the one God, who made all these things whose images they venerate, either as gods or as signs and images of gods. If, then, to follow a usefully instituted sign instead of the thing it was instituted to signify is a carnal slavery, how much more is it to take signs instituted for useless things in place of the things? And even if you refer them to the very things signified by them, and bind your mind to worshiping these, you will nonetheless not be free of a servile and carnal burden and veil.

Therefore Christian liberty freed those whom it found under useful signs, as being found close, by interpreting the signs to which they were subject and raising them to the things of which those are signs; of these were made the churches of the holy Israelites. But those whom it found under useless signs it freed not only from servile practice under such signs, but even made void and removed the signs themselves, so that the Gentiles might be converted from the corruption of a multitude of feigned gods, which Scripture often and properly calls fornication, to the worship of the one God; and no longer to serve even under useful signs, but rather to exercise the mind in understanding them spiritually.

For one serves under a sign who performs or venerates some thing that signifies without knowing what it signifies; but one who performs or venerates a useful sign instituted by God, whose force and signification he understands, does not venerate what is seen and passes away, but rather that to which all such things are to be referred. Such a man is spiritual and free even in the time of slavery, when those signs, under whose yoke carnal minds are to be tamed, must not yet be revealed to them. Such spiritual men were the patriarchs and prophets, and all those in the people of Israel through whom the Holy Spirit ministered to us the very helps and comforts of the Scriptures. But in this time, after the clearest sign of our liberty has shone forth in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not burdened with the heavy performance even of those signs which we now understand; but the Lord himself and the apostolic teaching have handed down a few in place of many, and these very easy to perform, most august in meaning, and most pure in observance, such as the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. When anyone receives these, he is instructed and knows to what they refer, so that he venerates them not in carnal slavery but rather in spiritual freedom. But as following the letter and taking signs for the things signified by them belongs to a servile weakness, so interpreting signs uselessly belongs to a wandering error. One who does not understand what a sign signifies, yet understands that it is a sign, is not himself weighed down by slavery. But it is better to be weighed down by unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them uselessly, to thrust one's neck, freed from the yoke of slavery, into the snares of error.

To this rule, by which we beware of following a figurative expression, that is, a metaphorical one, as if it were literal, must be added also this one: that we should not wish to take a literal expression as if it were figurative. First, then, the way of finding out whether an expression is literal or figurative must be shown. And the way is entirely this: whatever in the divine word cannot be referred literally either to good conduct or to the truth of faith, you should know is figurative. Good conduct pertains to loving God and neighbor, the truth of faith to knowing God and neighbor. And each person's hope lies in his own conscience, according as he feels himself making progress in the love and knowledge of God and neighbor. All these things were spoken of in the first book.

But since the human race is inclined to judge sins not by the weight of the lust itself but rather by its own custom, it often happens that each person thinks only those things blameworthy which the people of his own region and time are accustomed to censure and condemn, and only those things approvable and praiseworthy which the custom of those he lives with admits. And so it comes about that if Scripture has either commanded something that is foreign to the custom of the hearers, or blamed something that is not foreign to it, if the authority of the word has already bound their mind, they think it is a figurative expression. But Scripture commands nothing but love, and blames nothing but desire, and in this way shapes human conduct. Likewise, if the opinion of some error has taken possession of someone's mind, whatever Scripture asserts otherwise, people think figurative. But it asserts nothing but the catholic faith, in things past, future, and present. It is a narration of the past, a foretelling of the future, a demonstration of the present; but all these serve to nourish and strengthen that same love, and to overcome and extinguish desire.

I call love the motion of the soul toward enjoying God for his own sake, and oneself and one's neighbor for God's sake; and desire the motion of the soul toward enjoying oneself and one's neighbor and any body not for God's sake. What untamed desire does to corrupt one's own soul and body is called vice; what it does to harm another is called crime. These are the two kinds of all sins; but vices come first. When these have emptied the soul and brought it to a kind of want, it leaps into crimes, by which the hindrances to its vices may be removed or helps sought. Likewise, what love does to benefit itself is called usefulness; what it does to benefit one's neighbor is called beneficence. And here usefulness comes first, because no one can benefit another from what he does not have. And the more the reign of desire is destroyed, the more that of love is increased.

Whatever, then, is read in the holy Scriptures as harsh and almost cruel in deed or word, spoken in the person of God or of his saints, serves to destroy the reign of desire. And if it sounds plainly, it is not to be referred to anything else as if said figuratively. Such is that saying of the Apostle: “You are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to each according to his works: to those who by patience in good work seek glory, honor, and incorruption, eternal life; but to those who are contentious and do not obey the truth but obey iniquity, wrath and indignation. Tribulation and distress upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek.” But this is addressed to those with whom desire itself is overthrown, who were unwilling to overcome it. But when the reign of desire is overturned in a person over whom it ruled, there is this plain expression: “But those who belong to Jesus Christ have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.” Except that here too some words are used figuratively, such as “the wrath of God” and “have crucified”; but they are not so many, or so placed, as to veil the sense and make an allegory or enigma, which is what I properly call a figurative expression. But what is said to Jeremiah, “Behold, I have set you today over nations and kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to scatter,” is no doubt figurative throughout, to be referred to the end we have mentioned.

But those things which seem shameful to the unskilled, whether only said or also done, either in the person of God or of men whose holiness is commended to us, are all figurative; and their secrets are to be drawn out as food for love. Whoever uses passing things more restrictedly than the conduct of those he lives with allows is either temperate or superstitious; but whoever uses them so as to exceed the bounds of the custom of the good among whom he lives either signifies something or is shameful. For in all such things it is not the use of the things but the lust of the user that is at fault. Nor would any sober person in any way believe that the Lord's feet were anointed with precious ointment by the woman in the way that is usual with luxurious and wicked men, whose banquets of that kind we abhor. For the good odor is a good reputation; and whoever has it by the works of a good life, while following the footsteps of Christ, as it were anoints his feet with the most precious odor. So what in other persons is usually a shameful act is, in a divine or prophetic person, a sign of some great thing. For union with a prostitute is one thing in depraved conduct and another in the prophecy of the prophet Hosea; nor, if it is shameful that bodies are stripped at the banquets of drunken and lewd people, is it therefore shameful to be naked in the baths.

We must therefore attend carefully to what befits places, times, and persons, lest we rashly condemn things as shameful. For it can happen that a wise man uses the most costly food without any fault of daintiness or greed, while a fool burns for the cheapest with a most disgusting flame of gluttony. And any sane person would rather eat fish, as the Lord did, than lentils, as Esau the grandson of Abraham did, or barley, as beasts of burden do. For most beasts are not more continent than we because they feed on cheaper food. For in all things of this kind, what we do is to be approved or disapproved not from the nature of the things we use, but from the reason for using them and the manner of desiring them.

The righteous of old pictured and foretold the heavenly kingdom by an earthly kingdom. For the sake of providing offspring there was the blameless custom of one man's having several wives; and so it was not honorable for one woman to have several husbands; for a woman is not more fruitful in that way, but it is rather a prostitute's baseness to seek either gain or children promiscuously. In customs of this kind, whatever the saints of those times did without lust, although they did things that in this time cannot be done except through lust, Scripture does not blame. And whatever of the kind is narrated there is to be interpreted, taken not only historically and literally but also figuratively and prophetically, toward that end of love, whether of God, or of neighbor, or of both. For just as among the ancient Romans it was shameful to wear ankle-length tunics with sleeves, but now it is shameful for the well-born not to wear them when they are dressed in tunics: so we must take note that in the rest of the use of things too, lust must be absent; which not only wickedly abuses the very custom of those among whom one lives, but also often, going beyond its bounds, reveals its foulness, which lay hidden within the barriers of established custom, in a most shameful outbreak.

But whatever conforms to the custom of those among whom this life must be spent, whether it is imposed by necessity or undertaken from duty, is to be referred by good and great men to usefulness and beneficence, either literally, as we too ought, or also figuratively, as the prophets are permitted.

When people unlearned in another custom come upon such deeds in their reading, unless they are restrained by authority, they think them shameful; nor can they notice that their whole way of life, in marriages, banquets, dress, and the rest of human living and adornment, would seem shameful to other nations and other times. Moved by this variety of innumerable customs, certain people who were half asleep, so to speak, who were neither sunk in the deep sleep of folly nor able to wake up into the light of wisdom, thought that there is no justice in itself, but that to each nation its own custom seems just; and since this differs among all nations, while justice ought to remain unchangeable, it becomes plain that there is no justice anywhere. They did not understand, to mention no more, that “What you do not want done to you, do not do to another” can in no way be altered by any diversity among nations. When this principle is referred to the love of God, all vices die; when to the love of neighbor, all crimes. For no one wants his own dwelling to be corrupted; so he ought not to corrupt the dwelling of God, namely himself. And no one wants to be harmed by anyone; so he should not harm anyone himself.

So, when the tyranny of desire has been overthrown, love reigns by the most just laws of the love of God for God's sake, and of oneself and one's neighbor for God's sake. In figurative expressions, then, a rule of this kind will be kept: that what is read should be turned over with careful consideration until the interpretation is brought to the reign of love. But if it already sounds so literally, let it not be thought a figurative expression.

If a preceptive expression forbids a vice or a crime, or commands usefulness or beneficence, it is not figurative. But if it seems to command a vice or a crime, or to forbid usefulness or beneficence, it is figurative. “Unless you eat,” he says, “the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.” It seems to command a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, commanding us to share in the Lord's passion and to store up sweetly and usefully in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Scripture says: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink.” Here no one doubts that it commands beneficence; but in what follows, “For in doing this you will heap coals of fire on his head,” you might think a crime of malevolence is commanded. Do not doubt, then, that it is said figuratively; and since it can be interpreted in two ways, one toward harming, the other toward helping, let love call you back rather to beneficence, so that you understand the coals of fire to be the burning groans of repentance, by which the pride of the one is healed who grieves that he has been the enemy of a man by whom his misery is relieved. Likewise, when the Lord says, “He who loves his life will lose it,” he is not to be thought to forbid the usefulness by which each person ought to preserve his life; but it is said figuratively, “let him lose his life,” that is, let him destroy and give up the use of it that he now has, a perverse and preposterous use, by which he is inclined to temporal things so as not to seek eternal ones. It is written: “Give to the merciful, and do not receive the sinner.” The latter part of this sentence seems to forbid beneficence, for it says, “Do not receive the sinner”; understand, then, that “the sinner” is put figuratively for sin, so that you do not receive his sin.

It often happens that whoever is, or thinks he is, at a higher stage of the spiritual life thinks that what is commanded to the lower stages is said figuratively: so that, for example, if he has embraced the celibate life and made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, he contends that whatever the holy books command about loving and governing a wife must be taken not literally but figuratively; and if someone has resolved to keep his virgin daughter unmarried, he tries to interpret as a figurative expression what is said: “Give your daughter in marriage, and you will have done a great work.” This, then, will also be among the rules for understanding the Scriptures: that we should know that some things are commanded to all in common, others to particular kinds of persons, so that the medicine applies not only to the general state of health but also to the particular weakness of each member. For what cannot be raised to a better kind must be cared for in its own kind.