# The Single-meaning Principle Scripture



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 10, 2015)

Do we still hold to the single-meaning principle in interpreting Scripture? I assume that the purpose of hermeneutics and exegesis is to determine the "singular" meaning of a text, which of course may have multiple applications. Here are some relevant quotes:

Bernard Ramm has stated the following: “But here we must remember the old adage: ‘Interpretation is one, application is many.’ This means that there is only one meaning to a passage of Scripture which is determined by careful study.” Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Baker, 1970) p. 113.

Prior to Ramm, Milton S. Terry expressed the same principle, "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture." Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Zondervan, n.d.)

My point is this principle seems to have gotten progressively ignored or ejected in evangelical circles over the last 20-25 years. I refer to the following as an example: "An author may intend a text to convey multiple meanings or levels of meaning." Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993.

What say ye?


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 1, 2015)

This is my understanding also. I do however find that when I express it, while not contradicted per se, I am reminded that there are multiple applications and may be several fulfillments. So in effect the distinctions are lost and I feel contradicted.

I feel this most keenly when looking at the NT use of the OT. OT texts must (in my opinion) support the NT use in the original context.


----------



## Phil D. (Apr 1, 2015)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> Do we still hold to the single-meaning principle in interpreting Scripture?



If one is confessional, yes - ("...the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one)...") [WCF, LBC, 1.9]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 2, 2015)

The single-meaning we want is the intent of the author. Single meaning does not "rule-out" a _*thick*_ intention, which can include the author's choice of a term having inherently rich nuances, double-entendre, self-conscious shadow-application at intervals short of eschatological maximum fulfillment. Any single-meaning interpretation that is incapable of some ultimate reference to Christ (the center) is inordinately shallow.

And it is also the case that Holy Spirit's _authorial intent_ is fundamental. Scripture even tells us the prophets sometimes had to study their own works to plumb their depths. Jesus taught that the OT was all about him. Expectation of what Messiah should be was written all through the OT, not just in scattered texts.

The Reformers were reacting (properly so) against the abuses of the _quadriga_, a typical practice of hermeneutics in the Middle Ages (inherited from the patristic era) that more-or-less abandoned the literal sense (at the "low end"), and ended in allegory, largely the product of the interpreter's fancy.

What the last 400yrs have shown is that it is possible to also abuse the "literal" sense. Reductionism is also an interpretive failing. We aren't revising the Confessions with this admission; we are seeking coherence.

The best teacher of biblical interpretation is the Bible itself. The prophets were both deliverers of new revelation, and interpreters of Moses and other previous men. Jesus and the NT writers interpret the OT, and teach the NT exegete and the ordinary believer how to read it. The proposal that Jesus and his apostles had an "inspired" hermeneutic, unique to them and the age of NT documents, is deeply unsatisfying.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 2, 2015)

Well said Pastor Buchanan.

Psalm 16:10 is a good case in point. David said:

_For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; 
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.​_'

This statement bears an immediate relation to David and his confidence in the resurrection as well as an ultimate relation to Christ and his resurrection from the dead as stated by the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:24-27:

_Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. [SUP]25[/SUP] For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: [SUP]26[/SUP] Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: [SUP]27[/SUP] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption._​
Therefore the single meaning of Psalm 16:10 must take into account its meaning within the larger context of the whole of divine revelation.


----------

