Thomas Aquinas

Below, is the short paper I wrote for my Critical Theory class on the theologian Thomas Aquinas and his work, Summa Theologica. I haven't posted anything in a while but I'm still writing! :)

In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas responds to the perpetuated school of thought that invalidates the use and necessity of metaphorical scripture in biblical texts. Aquinas supports the use of metaphorical language and argues that it is not only beneficial, but essential for readers of the bible to understand the metaphors to be properly equipped to grasp a bigger picture. Referring to Aristotle, Aquinas argues that metaphorical and symbolic representation is innate to human beings. It is because of understanding this natural state that Holy Writ makes use of metaphors. He says, “Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful,” (244). He also argues that such representations do not rob scripture of any glory nor does it humble it from its lofty position in the eyes of theologians. So long as godly-minded individuals are not focused on the metaphor itself, the admiration and appreciation of any revealed truths are given to God and serve only to further proper instruction to other students. He says, “…and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through those to whom the revelation has been made others also may receive instruction in these matters,” (244). Aquinas makes his case for the validity of a metaphorical understanding of scripture. This, however, needs to be put into perspective with the rest of Holy Scripture, most of which is not written in symbols, similitudes, or metaphors, but rather in a literal tone. Though we’ve now come to an understanding that Aquinas wishes theologians not throw the metaphorical baby out with its bath water, (and he would probably be equipped with such metaphors), we need to come to understand what exactly it is that he treasures about the use of the figurative language and what he treasures about the literal. It is the weight of the literal that give rise to the need of the simplicity of the figurative.

As a theologian, Aquinas is committed to the study of biblical passages with hermeneutical intentions. When dedicated to the interpretation of an ancient text thought to be the written word of the creator of the universe, there has to be great discernment when coming across apparently allegorical or metaphorical passages. Aquinas presents his fourfold exegesis for the purpose of interpreting and explaining biblical texts. He considers that there are four categories by which all passages in the bible can be classified under. These four types are literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical, all which he names as types of “senses.” And these four senses can be further classified into two. These two divisions are the “literal” and the “spiritual.” The allegorical, moral, and anagogical all fall under the classification of “spiritual.” In describing how to distinguish which passages fall into which category, Aquinas states that, “…so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ,…there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense,” (245). He states something very interesting that puts everything into perspective and helps the reader understand that these last three senses classified as the “spiritual,” is really only for the benefit of the fallen human being, incapable of achieving an understanding nearly as lofty as God. He says, “Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says, if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses,” (245). The need to simplify the complexities of the capabilities and intentions of God is conceived only because, independent of these simplifications, we cannot understand God. All four of these categories are all one to God; and all are his intellect. Aquinas argues that God has no need to separate and organize his intentions to better understand them. He gave us the tools of logic and reason to do this for ourselves, because we do need it. And, being bound by imperfections and sins, when there is a question of whether to classify something as literal or spiritual, God provides similar passages throughout scripture to either support or discourage how we categorize it. Arguing that no truth can be lost because of the misclassification bound to happen of human error, Aquinas says, “Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense,” (246).