Book Three: On the Interpretation of the Word of God

Chapter Two: The Objections of the Adversaries are Solved

They take the first objection from the words of Deuteronomy ch.30, “The command that I give you today is not above you, nor is it located far away, nor sited in the heaven, nor across the sea etc.” In these verses a certain supreme facility in the Scriptures is shown, “so that there should be no need,” says Brentius, “to conquer mountains and go to Rome for interpretation of the Scriptures.”

I reply that this place is wont to be understood in a double way. Many of the ancients understand this place, not about facility in understanding the Scriptures, but about facility in fulfilling the commands of the Decalogue, when the help of grace is present (which is contrary to all the Lutherans who teach that the commands of God are impossible). So Tertullian expounds in bk.4 Against Marcion, and Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom and others on Romans ch.10, and Augustine in his book on the Perfection of Justice, penultimate response.

Others on this place, however, among whom is Abulensis, understand these words of facility in knowing, not indeed the holy Scriptures, none of which at that time perhaps existed, but only the commands of the Decalogue, which, since they are natural, are very easily understood, and those Jews in particular could easily know them, who had heard Moses explaining them and had confessed that they grasped them all and had promised that they would observe them. For this reason there is added, “the word is near in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, in your heart who have now understood what should be done, and in your mouth, because you have now confessed that you have understood them. Nor in conflict with this explanation is what David above cited confesses, that the law of the Lord was difficult to understand. For David understands by the law, not those ten precepts only, but all the divine Scriptures. Which meaning is also used by the Lord in the Gospel when he says, John ch.15, “So as to fulfill what is written in their law, that they hated me without a cause.”

The second argument is from Psalm 18, “The precept of the Lord is clear, illuming the eyes,” and Psalm 118, “Your word is a lamp to my feet,” and, “The declaration of your words etc.”, and Proverbs ch.6, “The command is a lamp, and the law is light.”

I reply first that the question here is not about the whole Scripture but only about the Lord’s precepts that are called clear, a lamp, and light. Not that they are easily understood, although this is also true – for what is easier than “Love your neighbor as yourself?” – but that what is understood and known directs man in acting. Second, it can be said that the question is indeed about the whole Scripture but that the Scriptures are said to be clear, nay a light and lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because, when they have been understood, they illumine the mind. For the Prophet in Psalm 18 had spoken of the knowledge of the philosophers, although they had obtained it from creatures, when he says, “The heavens tell the glory of God, etc.” Afterwards, to show that they did not reach the light which those reach whom God deigns to instruct and to whom he gave his written law, he subjoins, “The law of the lord is pure, converting the soul, etc.” Likewise in Psalm 118 he wanted to show that the knowledge had from the revealed word of God is greater than that had from creatures; and for this reason he compared the word of God to a lamp, which is much more useful to us in scattering the darkness of night than the light of all the stars.

The third argument is Matthew ch.5, “You are the light of the world.” But if the Apostles are the light of the world, how are the preaching and Scriptures of the Apostles not most clear?

I reply that the Lord is speaking of the light of examples of probity and of morals; for he wanted the Apostles to be a sort of example of sanctity proposed to all men to imitate. Wherefore he immediately adds, “Let your light so shine before men that they see your good works.” In addition, if the Lord were speaking of the light of doctrine, the sense would not be that the Scriptures of the Apostles are very easy to understand, but that when it is understood it illumines the mind and instructs about the highest things and puts the darkness of all errors to flight. For he who speaks or writes clearly does not as much illumine as he who, whether he speaks or writes clearly or obscurely, kindles the light of truth in the mind and expels the darkness of errors.

The fourth argument is II Peter ch.1, “We have a firmer prophetic speech, to which you do well to attend, as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”

I reply that in this place too the words of the Prophets are called a lamp, not because they are easily understood, but because when understood they illumine and show the way to Christ, who is the true Sun of justice.

The fifth argument is II Corinthians ch.4, “Because if our Gospel is concealed, it is concealed in those who perish, in whom the God of this world has blinded the eyes of the unfaithful, so that the light of the glory of Christ shines not on them.” Therefore to all the faithful Scripture is open and easy.

I reply that the Apostle is not speaking of the understanding of the Scriptures, but of the knowledge and faith of Christ, which the Apostles were preaching. For he had said in the previous chapter that this is the distinction between the Old Testament and the New, that in the Old men did not see the mysteries of Christ, the incarnation, the passion, etc. save through a veil of figures and shadows. This is what the veil signified by which Moses covered his face when he spoke to the people; but in the New Testament, with all the figures fulfilled, the face revealed, we see the glory of the Lord, and there is not an old woman, not a child, who does not know that God was incarnate, suffered, etc.

Since therefore someone could ask why, if thus it is, so many after the preaching of the Gospel still do not believe and see nothing, especially the Jews, save shadows and figures, therefore does the Apostle subjoin that the Gospel is concealed to some because their internal eyes are blinded by corrupt affections, about whom the Lord said in John ch.5, “How can you believe, who receive glory from each other?” Further the God of this world is not understood to be any God creator of corporeal things, distinct from the true God, as the Marcionists and Manichees interpreted, as Chrysostom relates at this point, but either the ‘of this world’ is not to be joined with ‘God’ but with ‘of the unfaithful’, as Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others on this place maintain, and Augustine Against Faustus bk.21 ch.2, or certainly the Devil is called the God of this world, not because he is God absolutely, but because he is God of the unfaithful, as is said Psalm 95, “The Gods of the Gentiles are demons.” Thus Augustine Against Faustus bk.21 ch.9, and Cyril in Oecumenius.

The sixth argument is from Augustine Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.6, who speaks thus, “Wonderfully and wholesomely has the Holy Spirit so moderated the Scriptures that in the more open places he satisfies hunger, but in the more obscure he clears away disgust, for almost nothing does he dig up from those obscurities that is not found said very plainly elsewhere.”

I reply that not in vain did Augustine add the ‘almost’; for certain very obscure things are found that are never explained in the whole of Scripture, as a great part of the Apocalypse, the beginning and end of Ezekiel etc. Next, this itself is very difficult, namely to find where it is that what is in one place very obscurely said is openly said; otherwise how would the same Augustine in epist.119 ch.21 say that he was ignorant of more things in the sacred letters than he knew? What about the fact that even the place which seems very open will sometimes seem obscure to someone else? Scripture alone, then, does not suffice to take away controversies.

Certainly the words of Matthew ch.26, “This is my body,” seem to us so clear that the Evangelist could have said nothing clearer; but to the Zwinglians they seem obscure and figurative. But those words in the same place, “Drink of this all of you,” seem very clear both to us and the Lutherans, and yet they are very diversely explained. For when we read Mark ch.14, “And they all drank of it,” which is understood of the twelve disciples, we, interpreting Scripture by Scripture, say that the Lord said to the twelve disciples, “Drink of this all of you.” But Brentius in his prolegomena says very clearly that this command was given not only to the Apostles but also to everyone else, that they should drink from the chalice. And when we ask whether Turks too and Jews and infants should drink, they then add the gloss “all”, that is, “all faithful adults.”

The seventh argument is that the sum of the whole of Scripture, which consists in the precepts of the Decalogue, the Creed, the Lord’s prayer, and the sacraments, has very open testimonies in the Scriptures, therefore the whole Scripture is most open.

I reply that the consequence and the antecedent are denied. The consequence indeed because, although everything can in some way be reduced to these things, yet they themselves are in themselves very obscure, as is plain about the foretellings of the Prophets, the Song of Songs, Romans, Apocalypse, etc. But that the antecedent is false is more certain than certain. For if such clear testimonies existed about all the articles of the Creed, all the sacraments, then all controversies would have ended, although, however, there are very serious controversies even about the individual sacraments, not only about the matters Catholics disagree with heretics on, but also those heretics disagree among themselves on.

The eighth argument is that John Chrysostom Homil.3 on Lazarus, where he shows that the Philosophers speak obscurely, subjoins as follows, “But the Apostles and Prophets on the contrary made everything manifest, and they expounded, as common doctors of the world, the clear things that were of advantage, so that each one could for himself learn from reading what was said.” Again Homil.3 on II Thessalonians he says, “Why is there need of an orator? Everything is clear and plain from the divine Scriptures; but because you are rather delicate hearers, hunting for delight in your listening, for that reason you seek out orators.”

I respond that Chrysostom used those exaggerations to shake off the torpor from the many who could if they wished read the Scriptures with great fruit. For elsewhere he affirms in the same places that the Scriptures are difficult. In Homil.3 on Lazarus, before the words cited, he says, “What then if we do not understand the things that are contained in the books? Indeed, especially if you do not understand what is hidden there, yet from the very reading much sanctity is born.” And later he testifies that when he says the Scriptures are easy, he is speaking only of the histories and the like things; and not even these are clear and easy to all. “Take the book,” he says, “into your hands, read every history, and retain in your memory what is known and frequently go through what is obscure and not very manifest.

But if you cannot by repeated reading discover what is said, go to someone wiser, go to a doctor.” And in Homil.3 on II Thessalonians, after the words cited, he adds, “What is this obscurity? Say, I ask, are they not histories? You know what is clear, what do you ask about the obscure? There are a thousand histories in the Scriptures, tell me one of them. But you will not say. They are a pretext, and empty words.” Again Homil.10 on John he advises hearers that before they come to the homily they read the reading, and note what is obscure, so they may receive an explanation from the speaker. Finally in Homil.44 on John he very clearly teaches that the Scriptures are obscure, as was said above.

The ninth argument. There is this difference between the Old and New Testaments, that in the Old the Scripture was a sealed book, as is said in Isaiah ch.9, but in the New it is an open book, as is said in Apocalypse ch.5, for the Lamb that was slain opened the book. In proof of which thing the veil of the temple at the death of the Lord was torn in two, Matthew ch.27, and this is confirmed from Jerome on Ezekiel ch.44 where he expounds these places of Scripture about the difficulty and facility of Scripture.

I reply that the difference between the Old and New Testaments consists in this, that then not only the sentences of the Scriptures but also the mysteries of Christ were not understood, because everything was covered in figures. And for this reason in Isaiah ch.29 it is called a sealed book both for those who know letters and for those who do not. But in the case of the New Testament, because Christ has fulfilled the figures and prophecies, even rustics and women, although many of them do not understand the sentences of the Scriptures, understand nevertheless the mysteries of redemption themselves. But that neither the Scriptures nor Jerome are speaking of the sentences of Scripture is plain, first, from Origen in Homil.12 on Exodus, where he says that there is still need now that the Lamb of the tribe of Judah should open for us the sealed books; second, it is plain from Jerome himself, who in his epistle to Paulinus about the education of a monk says that still today the veil remains, not only over the face of Moses, but also over the face of the Evangelists and the Apostles, if we consider the difficulty of the Scriptures, and for that reason we must pray with the Prophet, “Uncover my eyes, and I will consider marvels from your law.”

The tenth argument is proper to Luther: the Fathers prove their opinions from Scripture; but one should not prove the more known from the less known; therefore the Scriptures are clearer than the commentaries of the Fathers.

I reply that it is remarkable why Luther, who so often censures the sophists, does not now fear to act the sophist. For when the Philosophers say that one should not prove the less known from the more known, they are not speaking of the knowledge of words, which consist in the clearness of the sentences, in the way we say that a literal sentence is more known, that is, easier and clearer than a figurative one; but they are speaking of the knowledge of the truth of the thing that is contained therein, so that one may understand that what is said is true. Let life and motion be taken for example. For if you look at the words, this sentence ‘Man lives’ is as equally easily understood as this other ‘Man moves’. And yet as far as concerns the truth of the thing, it is more known that man moves than that he lives. So then the Fathers confirm their opinions from the testimonies of the Scriptures, because it is more known that what is contained in the Scriptures is true than that what is contained in the Fathers is; and yet the same Fathers illustrate the Scriptures in their commentaries, because the words of Scripture are more obscure than the words of the Fathers.

The eleventh argument. The Fathers of the first Church read the Scriptures without commentaries; and all the other ancients afterwards did the same; for what purpose, then, do we enter on this new path of commentaries?

I reply that the contrary is true, and that Luther brings forward no example while we can adduce innumerable. I say, then, that the first Fathers, who were immediately after the Apostles, did not read commentaries because there were none; but yet there were living commentaries present, that is, the Apostles and their disciples, and they did not want to understand the Scriptures by their own genius.

So does Papias witness about himself in Eusebius Hist. bk.3 last chapter, and Clement of Alexandria Stromateis bk.1 where he enumerates his preceptors, the disciples of the Apostles, and among them especially Panthenus. Next Justin and Irenaeus and others began to write commentaries on the divine letters, as Jerome testifies in his book on Illustrious Men on John, and likewise those who came later began to unroll the commentaries of the ancients, as Ruffinus Hist. bk.11 ch.9 writes about Basil and Gregory, and as Jerome writes about himself in the preface to his commentary on Ephesians. And the same could be shown about all the others, were there need.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME