# The Quadriga



## christianyouth

I've heard that the hermaneutic we use now days is a relatively new invention. A friend of mine, mentioned something about the _quadriga_, a four-fold method of interpreting Scripture. When he explained it, it sounded VERY silly. It made me wonder, for all those years did they really study the Bible using this method? And if they did, can we find any benefit from reading the Church Father's view on Scripture? 

Any thoughts on this, or articles would be great.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

The Quadriga is literally a four horse chariot. In hermeneutics, the Quadriga was a method of interpretation that developed in the early church and survived up to medieval times. The "Quadriga" was based on Greek philosophy such as Plato's allegories and Origen used this method of interpretation on the Scripture. Origen taught that each passage simultaneously has a four-fold method of interpretation (hence the name Quadriga). 
In this view the text had four layers of meaning: the literal, the moral, the allegorical and the anagogical. The literal is the plain obvious meaning. The moral was what it meant for human behavior. The allegorical meaning is what it means for our faith, beliefs or doctrines. The anagogical meaning is what it tells us about the future (heaven).

For example take a reference to the city of Jerusalem. In the literal sense this meant the physical
city of Jerusalem. Morally it could represent the human soul. Allegorically it could be used to
represent the Church of Christ. Finally, anagogically, it could be referring the new heavenly Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, this method led to many wild speculations about the meaning of certain passages. Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation changed that. Now we focus on the literal interpretation - the Historical-Grammatical Method.

Along a different line, there is also the _Wesleyan Quadrilateral_:

John Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. These sources were first referred to as the _Wesleyan Quadrilateral _in 1964 by theologian/scholar Albert C. Outler in a collection of Wesley's works edited by Outler entitled simply John Wesley. The four sources are: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. 

The problems come when the Quadrilateral is seen as "equilateral," and all four "sources" for authority and decision-making are seen as equally weighted. 

Ref. Wesleyan Quadrilateral - Theopedia


----------



## christianyouth

Thanks Jim, this helps so much! 

Giving that the grammatical, historical hermaneutic came into fashion with the Reformers, can we take anything the Church Fathers said seriously? I mean, that sounds like a pretty whacked out way of understanding the Bible.


----------



## Archlute

The Quadriga has often born the brunt of caricature in Evangelical circles, and many in Reformed churches have only received their understanding through secondary, and often highly polemical, writings. Dispensationalists are particularly eager to jump on the bandwagon here, since a purely "historical-grammatical/literal" hermeneutic is much more suited to supporting the claims of their system (it eliminates typology). 

There were abuses of the practice, especially in some of the more speculative writings of the Middle ages, but when certain things are understood, it is a sound and necessary interpretive method, which is in fact practiced my most ministers in their sermon and teaching prep, whether they realize it or not.

The first thing that must be understood is that the four fold sense should not be seen as four separate meanings, but as meaning with three kinds of application. What is known as the _sensus literalis_, the first of the fourfold senses, is what we understand by the historical-grammatical "meaning". It must be readily acknowledged that every interpreter of Scripture before the advent of Modernism took the Scriptures as the very Word of God. Even those who engaged in allegorical exegesis began from the baseline of the literal sense, and understood Scripture from the position of inerrancy.

From there the other three, although often posited as three additional meanings, are better understood as three kinds of application that may be drawn from the _sensus literalis_. Any time a minster is preaching doctrine from a text, he is preaching the allegorical sense. Any time a minister is preaching eschatological implications, he is preaching the anagogical sense of a text. Any time a minister is preaching on Christian ethics from a passage, he is preaching the tropological sense of a text. These three senses come out all of the time in the application of our preaching, and we could not do without them.

For example, last week I was preaching from Mark 6:1-6a on the rejection of Christ by his people. I was able to discuss the reactions of the people to Christ as he became the fulfillment of the office of the prophet of Israel (from Deut. 18) as having been foreshadowed by the sufferings and rejections of all of the prophets of the theocracy, who were pointing toward the ultimate rejection of the ultimate prophet by God's people as seen in Christ. That was using (in quadrigatic terminology) the allegorical sense, although we would understand it, along with Paul's use of allegory in Galatians 4, as typological. As well, the sermon showed how their recognition of the divinity of Christ was ultimately demolished by their unbelief, as they couldn't get over the stumbling block of his unattractive humanity foretold in Is. 53 (there is a clear shift seen between vv.2-3). That branched into the anagogical/eschatalogical sense as I spoke of the implications of Christ's ascension and fully glorified humanity, and how the Church militant remains as his humble "body" on earth; a weak and pilgrim people who are despised and rejected by the world as was Christ in his humility. From there the tropological/ethical exhortation focused upon a warning to the New Covenant church, that we, unlike the Old Covenant people of God, would not fail to see the power of Christ's Spirit in the working of what is often a weak and easily despised church, but would in faith embrace the Gospel and its often hidden power in the work of the Church. Just as there were those in OC Israel who could not get past the weakness of Christ's humanity in seeing the work of God, so too there are those who despise the weakness of the NC Israel, and who cannot see past her humanity to the divine work that the Spirit does through the Word, sacraments, and prayer. These are applications of the literal sense, and are not separate meanings, but they are important to grasp (unless you have something other than an amil eschatology, in which case you really would not like the applications of this sermon ).

An essay of note on this subject, although written primarily as a refutation of the higher-critical hermeneutic, is David Steinmetz's essay _The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis_. Steinmetz is mainline, and I am not recommending all of his thought, but this particular essay is really one that should be read by every preaching minister, in my opinion. 

There are also some great insights in Dennis Johnson's work entitled _Him We Proclaim_, which has been mentioned here before, and which also incorporates a more robust hermeneutical approach to sermon preparation. He actually connects elements of Enlightenment higher-critical thought with the strict/exclusive historical-grammatical approach taken by many in evangelical and dispensational circles.

As Bengt Hagglund notes in his _History of Christian Theology_, while evaluating both the sound and the speculative in Origen's use of the fourfold sense, "these ways of interpreting Scripture have been employed to some extent throughout the Christian tradition". There is good reason to keep this hermeneutic, and I believe that much modern preaching has been impoverished to the extent that it has focused upon the "literal meaning" at the expense of those other areas mentioned, which are vital elements in the understanding of the life of the Church and in gaining a greater understanding of Christ's person and work.


----------



## Civbert

Gomarus said:


> In this view the text had four layers of meaning: the literal, the moral, the allegorical and the anagogical. The literal is the plain obvious meaning. The moral was what it meant for human behavior. The allegorical meaning is what it means for our faith, beliefs or doctrines. The anagogical meaning is what it tells us about the future (heaven).



This is ancient?! It sounds a lot like some teaching I hear today! The idea of layered meanings really rings a bell. Thank goodness for the historical-grammatical method.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 1:



> 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.a
> 
> a. Acts 15:15; 2 Pet 1:20-21.



William Perkins, _The Art of Prophesying_:



> Interpretation
> 
> Interpretation is the opening up of the words and statements of Scripture in order to bring out its single, full and natural sense.
> 
> By contrast with this approach, the Church of Rome believes that passages of Scripture have four senses: the literal, the allegorical, the tropological and the anagogical. An illustration of this can be found in the way the figure of Melchizedek is understood. He offered bread and wine to Abraham (Gen. 14:18). The literal sense is that the king of Salem, with the food that he brought, refreshed the soldiers of Abraham, who were tired after their travel. The allegorical sense is that the priest offers up Christ in the mass. The tropological sense is that we are to give to the poor. The anagogical sense is that Christ who is in heaven shall be the bread of life to the faithful.
> 
> This pattern of the fourfold meaning of Scripture must be rejected and destroyed. Scripture has only one sense, the literal one. An allegory is only a different way of expressing the same meaning. The anagogy and tropology are ways of applying the sense of the passage.
> 
> The principal interpreter of Scripture is the Holy Spirit. The one who makes the law is the best and the highest interpreter of it. The supreme and absolute means for the interpretation is the Scripture itself: 'So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading' (Neh. 8:8).
> 
> There are, however, three subordinate means to help us to interpret a passage of Scripture: the analogy of faith, the circumstances of the particular passage, and comparison with other passages.



Discovering the True Sense of Holy Scripture
"The Puritan Use of Imagination" by Eifion Evans


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Archlute said:


> The first thing that must be understood is that the four fold sense should not be seen as four separate meanings, but as meaning with three kinds of application. What is known as the _sensus literalis_, the first of the fourfold senses, is what we understand by the historical-grammatical "meaning".



Most agree with the concept of one interpretation (meaning) --> many applications. The point is that the Quadriga method argued for mutiple (often hidden) "meanings" not merely applications based on the one interpretation.


----------



## Archlute

Yeah, I get that. What I am saying is that the practice is the same, although the semantics differ, and that the quadriga should not be as caricatured as it tends to be by those who do not understand this. 

One could (and should) go further with this in regards to typology, and argue that typology is more than mere application; that it is the more important, true and final meaning of the text. This seems to be bore out by apostolic interpretation of the OT, especially in Hebrews, 1 Cor. 10, etc. Saying that the "real meaning" of an OT passage may be summed up by an archaeological/historical explanation in the historical-grammatical mold doesn't go far enough in light of the apostolic approach.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Thanks Adam. I agree that there is still value in the church fathers who may have used the Quadriga approach, however we must read them with some discernment in this regard. 

I also agree that there is a place for typology that goes beyond mere application. However, I am reluctant to use the NT writers' typological interpretations of the OT as a model that gives us free rein to establish our own types and ante-types. After all, the NT writers were inspired in a way we are not. But typology is an interesting subject nonetheless. Peace.


----------



## Archlute

If that is the case, then you may very well enjoy reading Dr. Dennis Johnson's work, mentioned near the end of my first post, as he posits that we should indeed feel free to take up the apostolic method (which he lays out in particulars), but in which he also seeks to be sympathetic to concerns such as those that you may hold. It is an enjoyable read, as it is a well documented and pastorally written work. No bare assertions or beating one over the head upon disagreement (I was always at ease in his classroom!).


----------



## christianyouth

In one of RC Sproul's book, he points out how each passage has only one meaning, but many different applications. Is this basically what the _quadriga_ is doing? Saying there is one, literal meaning, but we can apply it in different ways? That certainly isn't my impression. It sounds like it is actually saying there are multiple meanings, or dimensions to a certain text. Am I right in my impression? 

Archlute, do you believe a passage can have multiple meanings?


----------

