The Bible has a “moral sense” to it. What is this moral sense of scripture?
When early church fathers pondered how to interpret scripture, some ultimately said that the Bible had three “senses.”
The first sense is called the literal sense. This refers to the sense that the author intended.
For example, when Moses wrote about the Promised Land, he referred to a literal place where the Israelites were to go. This is what he meant.
The second sense was the allegorical sense. This was when they took a literal scripture and figured out its “allegorical” meaning.
The allegorical meaning was the truths about Christ and theology that were somewhat “hidden” in the text.
Paul did this with tons of Old Testament scriptures. He “found” Christ and other theological truths that the text could be used to prove.
Again, concerning the Promised Land— it was not just a literal place the Israelites journeyed to in order to get their rest.
Hebrews 3-4 explain that these Promised Land scriptures reveal a spiritual place of rest for those who enter Christ and the New Covenant.
In other words, these scriptures also had an allegorical meaning. Christ is our Promised Land, so to speak.
The next sense the early church fathers discovered was the moral sense. This refers to using scriptures to prove a lesson, or a “moral,” that modern believers can apply to their lives today.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of “getting to the Promised Land” with the African American community in his day.
He said he had seen it, and although he might not be able to get there with them, they would get there.
He was using those scriptures in a moral sense to apply to his situation.
In this scenario, he was Moses, and the Promised Land was an American culture where little black children could hold hands with little white children.
When Moses wrote about the literal Promised Land, he probably had no idea that he spiritually referred to Christ.
He definitely had no idea that what he was saying could be applied to the Civil Rights movement in America thousands of years later.
But the point is this: The allegorical sense of the Promised Land in Hebrews and King’s moral usage of it are good and true.
Most People Only See the Moral Sense of Scripture
Most believers focus on the moral sense of things in the Bible and their overall faith walk.
They ask, “How does this scripture apply to me and my situation, and what lesson can I learn from it?”
In my opinion, one of the big reasons most churches get money and more congregants is that they focus their message solely on the moral sense.
A typical Sunday message from a big, popular church consists of a couple of scriptures that are used to teach a life lesson about practical living.
For example, there might be a theme of “How to Achieve Your Dream.”
The pastor might present the Promised Land scripture in Hebrews. He’ll then say that some did not believe, so they did not get to their “Promised Land.”
The lesson is that you can have your dreams but must never stop believing in God’s faithfulness.
In the moral sense, the pastor is teaching that the Promised Land is you achieving your dreams. It’s your end goal.
But just as the Israelites did not enter in because of unbelief, you will not “enter in” if you stop believing.
The moral sense is popular because it’s what people want to hear. They want to know that God wants them to have their dreams.
People want to feel like the main hero in a movie, who is on a journey to get to their Promised Land.
But how would the church do if the Promised Land scriptures were simply taught so the congregation could learn what these scriptures mean in their literal sense?
What if the allegorical concept was taught so they could learn the importance of the New Covenant and being in Christ?
I fear that the church would lose growth.
So, there is not just a moral sense to reading the Bible in Christianity. There is a moral sense to the entire concept of Christianity, at least possibly in America.
Let me be clear: There is usually nothing wrong with the moral approach.
I apply a moral sense to scripture in just about every one of my sermons.
For example, Peter’s walk on the water was not just a cool narrative. From that story, we can also learn a moral: Keep your eyes on Jesus, and you won’t sink in life.
So, for all of you Biblical theology geeks, know that the early church fathers used scripture this way, and it is not bad.
Scripture does apply to our lives today in many ways.
Jesus does not have a problem when we read his scriptures and extract a lesson that we can then apply to our lives and become better Christians.
However, the moral sense can be bad in two scenarios.
Two Ways in Which the Moral Sense of Scripture Can Be Bad For You
The moral sense is good in and of itself.
But it could be damaging to your faith in two very possible situations.
1. The moral sense is bad when this is all you receive from scripture
To truly be a complete, effective Christian, you must see other things in scripture and your faith that go beyond a simple life lesson.
Learning scripture's literal and allegorical senses can enhance your relationship with God.
When you see that the Promised Land is scripturally and allegorically a picture of us entering Christ and the New Covenant, something will happen on the inside of you.
You will now have a spiritual reality that says that you are, in fact, in the Promised Land! In essence, you’re not trying to get there. You’re already there!
This could help you in your practical living, as well.
But if you always only approach scripture and your faith with a “what’s-in-it-for-me” mindset, you’re missing the main point of the Bible.
You will not learn as much, and honestly, you will not be as effective in the kingdom of God.
In our churches, we don’t want just to produce friendly Christians who do nice things and learn practical living.
We also want Christians who understand spiritual realities and how they affect their life today. We want to create people who grasp Biblical concepts.
2. The moral sense can be bad when you use it to produce bad interpretations.
Irenaeus, an early church father, said that spiritual interpretations of scripture are fine as long as they don’t do two things:
A moral interpretation should not contradict the Rule of Faith.
In other words, there are fundamental things to the faith that should never be infringed upon.
“Jesus is the Son of God” should never be “unseen” in an interpretation.
Also, moral senses should not go against Biblical doctrine.
When the early church fathers doubted someone’s interpretation of scripture, they would check if “plain” scripture supported it.
It was a good moral application if other plain scriptures supported it and were not contrary to it.
For example, a person might say:
“I’m going to stop going to church for a while because I need to relax and focus on my individual relationship with God and not my collective, “church-family” relationship with God.”
I might respond, “But I think you should keep attending church.”
They might state, “But Christ got away from the crowds now and then and went to a solitary place to pray. I think now and then, we need to do this, so that’s what I’m doing.”
Let me respond to this.
First, we should note that this person uses a moral sense of scripture.
He’s referring to the scriptures (I think there are one or two places) that tell of Jesus withdrawing from people and going somewhere by himself to pray.
He’s applying and reading scripture in a way that extracts a lesson he thinks is there.
Second, we should see if this moral sense passes the “support” test. Do other scriptures support this?
Do any writers plainly use the story of Jesus withdrawing from people to apply to themselves and justify not attending a gathering of believers?
The answer is no, so this view fails the first part of the test.
Third, we should see if this moral sense contradicts other plain passages.
It actually contradicts Hebrews 10, which says not to forsake the assembly of the gathering of the saints.
The Bible implies a collective “body” of believers and stresses the importance of gathering.
So, this “moral sense” is not supported by scripture and, in fact, contradicts scripture.
If a person needs to “relax” and focus on their personal relationship with God, this can be done while we don’t forsake the other thing God wants—for us to gather with others.
I mean, c’mon. We gather with others one or two days out of the week, and we’re supposed to be in our “private time” during the rest of the week.
Most people have far more time to build their personal walk with God than be in church!
The Bible speaks of both personal time and church time. We should do both and never forsake either one of them.
And more than this, we should not use scripture by appealing to a “moral sense” to justify our wrongdoing.
Conclusion
I encourage you to apply all senses of scripture to your life today!
Be mindful of how you interpret scripture to arrive at the best conclusions.
Please help me out by SHARING this article to your social media page by clicking below!
