In recent years, evangelicals have shown renewed interest in the hermeneutics of the Church Fathers. Current scholarship has devoted considerable attention to premodern approaches to reading Scripture, but fewer works describe the method behind their practice. This is surprising because, despite the diversity, the fourfold sense provided the dominant framework through which many interpreted Scripture. The four senses have historically been described as the literal, allegorical (Christological), tropological (moral), and anagogical (eschatological) senses.
Yet the fourfold sense remains misunderstood. As one author observed, many modern readers assume that allegorical interpretation has already been “tried, convicted, sentenced, and hanged.” For many evangelicals, the very mention of allegory raises concerns about subjective readings untethered from the biblical text.
To be sure, some interpreters employed allegorical readings in unhelpful ways. But the best practitioners of the fourfold sense were far more disciplined than modern caricatures suggest. Despite growing interest in premodern exegesis, let’s consider several misconceptions that continue to cloud our understanding of how early interpreters employed the fourfold sense.
The Four Senses Reject the Grammatical-Historical Sense
The best iterations of the four senses in no way rejects the grammatical-historical sense; it affirms it. The literal senserefers to the most natural sense of the words in their grammatical and historical context, which will be discovered by sound exegesis. A proper understanding of the fourfold sense views the literal sense as the key to interpretation. The grammatical-historical sense is not only the foundation and bedrock for the rest of the senses, but all the other senses are found in the literal sense. Therefore, the literal sense is primary. The best of the premodern tradition affirmed this, including the Reformers.
The best iterations of the four senses in no way rejects the grammatical-historical sense; it affirms it.
This means that one can only read spiritually if they read literally first. If someone neglects the literal sense and simply adheres to a spiritual reading, they allegorize the text. If they go straight to the tropological sense, they moralize the text. And if they bee line to the anagogical sense, they futurize the text. All these mistakes occur in interpretation and preaching quite frequently, but the four senses begin with affirming the grammatical-historical sense.
The Four Senses Are Four Meanings
Many also assume the fourfold sense teaches that every text has four separate meanings, as if interpreters can simply choose whichever meaning they prefer. However, historically, the best advocates of the four senses argued that the spiritual senses must be rigorously tied to the literal sense and shouldn’t be overused.
The four senses assert there is one meaning but multiple dimensions of significance as redemptive history unfolds. In this way, the four senses are a theology of history stating that God is acting in time and unfolding the significance of each text through progressive revelation. In this way, the four senses do not lead to subjectivism or an affirmation of multiple meanings. The spiritual senses extend rather than efface the literal sense; they eschatologize rather than erasethe literal sense.
The Four Senses Were Condemned by the Reformers
Many argue the Reformers condemned the four senses, but this is historically overstated. The Reformers strongly criticized uncontrolled allegory, particularly when spiritual interpretations eclipsed the literal sense. Yet many Reformers continued to employ Christological, moral, and eschatological readings. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Peter Vermigli, and others frequently moved beyond a narrowly historical reading. What changed was not the conviction that Scripture speaks of Christ, forms believers, and points toward the future kingdom. What changed was the insistence that such readings be tethered more carefully to the literal sense.
There is therefore far more continuity than has been acknowledged between patristic and medieval interpreters and the Reformers.
There is therefore far more continuity than has been acknowledged between patristic and medieval interpreters and the Reformers. When contemporary interpreters attest to a Reformer emphasizing the literal sense, they must be careful not to project the modern historical-grammatical method back into Reformation hermeneutics. That is anachronistic, but scholars continually make this mistake. The objection that the four senses is not a “Reformation” way of reading simply does not hold up against the weight of evidence. They certainly chastised certain forms of allegorizing, but they also employed it in their own readings.
The Four Senses Are Arbitrary
Probably the biggest hang up with the four senses is the term “allegory” and its arbitrariness. Many modern readers hear “allegory” and think of fanciful interpretations disconnected from the text. Certainly, some ancient and medieval interpreters engaged in speculative readings. But the strongest practitioners were attempting to read Scripture according to its place in the unified economy of salvation. For example, seeing the Passover lamb as pointing to Christ is not arbitrary; it is a connection already made within the New Testament itself.
Classical allegory has been equated with reading texts for meaning “other” than what the text says. However, allegory has meant a variety of things throughout history and there was no standardization of the term in Paul’s day. To reject allegory wholesale is to reject Paul’s labeling of his own interpretive practices (Gal. 4:24). There are good and bad forms of spiritual readings. We need to carefully distinguish what is warranted and what is not. Not all allegory is bad, nor are all forms of allegory good. We certainly need categories to distinguish the two.
Conclusion
Many misconceptions still exist surrounding the four senses of Scripture. This is not an attempt to idolize ancient hermeneutics nor assume there was a “golden age” of reading in church history. Early interpreters made many mistakes, just like we make mistakes. But as C. S. Lewis reminds us, they generally didn’t make the same mistakes as us since they inhabit a different time. This means we can certainly learn things from how they interpreted the Scripture while also rejecting others.
