Scripture has only one meaning

[coreyhambrick]

I need some help thinking through a response. I have a family member who has asked a question I am not sure how to answer related to interpreting scripture and the idea that scripture has only one meaning.

In a discussion, I brought up the idea that I had recently heard from a principles of Biblical Interpretation class on Ligonier Connect that Scripture has only one meaning but many applications.

This family member brought up this issue and some questions. We see in the new testament that Paul indicates that the law was to show us our need for Christ in Romans and it was to act as our tutor(Gal 3). So if scripture only has one meaning, did the Israelites interpret it wrong in the Old Testament when they received the law? In relation to Christ speaking to the men on the road to Emmeus, he said the OT pointed to him. Did Abraham get it wrong because he did not know about Christ?

I have not answered him back in this discussion yet but I do have some thoughts and would appreciate any more that you could give me. When you look at Heb 11, Abraham and many of those spoken of in Hebrews 11 were aware of a promise and looked to that Promise. We know the Promise is Christ. But how do I answer this family member's question wisely. He is searching.

The other thought I had was that the OT is largely historical narrative. We can clearly see Christ in many examples or archtype stories of the OT, but the OT is telling stories for us to learn from. You cannot read a story about David murdering Uriah and then interpret that murder is okay. It is a story that is being told and you see the beauty as well as the depravity of men in these stories. These narratives are to be approached through the understanding of Christ I believe.

Again, any other thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated. I have read this board some and the answers I see from others are clear and well thought out and i would appreciate your input on this.

Thank you,

Corey Hambrick

 

[jwithnell]

These are great questions, not only for answering another but also for your own approach to scripture.

First, it is helpful to be oriented to where the passage is located in redemptive history. Abraham was not "wrong" about Christ -- he lived long before God had revealed a vast majority of the scriptures to man. He witnessed one of the earliest representations of the covenant of grace with no knowledge of what was to come as the covenant was further revealed via Moses, worked through the history of the nation of Israel and found its fullest revelation and institution in Christ Himself. He did act in obedience and faith to what had been revealed to date and it was credited to him as righteousness.

In the New Testament, it is helpful to continue this line of thought -- what people knew and understand at the time of John the Baptist was closer to the time of the OT prophets and not as fully revealed as what Paul and the older John and Peter encountered. (Without getting too far off track, I should emphasize that this differs from modern intellectual snobbery which tends to look at thought as evolving through time. Abraham was primitive, NT more advanced and we are at the pinnacle of human developing and understanding. No, this perspective recognizes God chose to reveal Himself over time and that His revelation was recorded in a closed canon.) It is also critical to see that when later writers quote earlier passages they are doing so under divine revelation -- their interpretation is divine. No modern exegete can make this same claim, but can glean some information regarding sound principles for interpreting scripture with scripture.

Rather than saying that you have one interpretation with several applications, it may be more useful to say a passage has one interpretation but that the scriptures are multi-faceted. These facets can be teased-out by the various contexts in which a passage stands -- place in redemptive history? Place in the surrounding text? Place as far as interpretation by later Biblical writers? Place in the type of literature? Place in geopolitical history? And always start with trying to understand what a text actually says before trying to make application of that text. Any sermon or commentary will make some choices as to which facets to emphasize and how to apply the text.

 

[sgemmen9]

The above post has great info, but I thought I would add my comments to the discussion. When approaching a text, we realize that general principles and specific applications are derived in light of the context of a given passage. Although there are specific ethical and moral implications from Scripture to each situation, sometimes things take some thinking. Perspecuity of Scripture as the Reformers talked about it advocated for a plain understanding of the text, but that does not mean that it is necessarily always easy in its application.. The above post does well at flushing out "Progressive revelation." Asking where a given passage falls in redemptive history is key to understanding the meaning of the text. We always weigh on the side of Scripture since it tells us too and it does so itself, along with all of its authors, including Jesus. To that end, we would not say "Abraham wrong," rather we might need to do some digging before the answer is clear to us.

 

[coreyhambrick]

Very helpful responses

Thank you both for your posts. They are helpful. This is a topic I would love to explore more. I am new to this depth of thinking on scripture and would love to understand what you are talking about more. Can you recommend any articles, books or other sources that might shed more light and clarity on this?

So many in our churches today, which I will admit I am guilty of, do not ponder scripture deeply. I think there are a number of things that contribute to this but it is my desire to handle the word of truth rightly (2 Tim 1:15) and to have sound doctrine as it talks about in Titus 1 and 2.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Is it true that “Abraham . . . did not know about Christ”?

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56), said Jesus. What exactly this pertains to we may not know exactly, but Abraham knew the Promised One (he spoke with Him, covenanted with Him, was His friend).

The saying, “Scripture has only one meaning” is said by theologians and exegetes of the entire Biblical revelation, OT and New. The Old Testament saints were ignorant of many things we understand and take for granted. Peter, speaking of our salvation in Christ, put it like this,

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into (1 Pet 1:12-14).​

Remember Augustine’s saying, “The New Testament lies concealed in the Old, the Old lies revealed in the New”?

The Old Testament saints did not comprehend all God’s uses of the Law. And who is to say that the Law may not prophesy (“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” Matt 11:13), and also be a tutor (KJV “schoolmaster”) to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:22-24), etc?

To say “Scripture has only one meaning” is different than saying there are many aspects to things the Scripture reveals, things of complexity and great depth. The Messiah, for example; one Scripture says one thing, and another says another, adding depth and breadth to our understanding. The same with regard to the Mosaic Law. Both are vast topics, and cannot be limited to “things of only one meaning”.

I think the saying you give is that a particular Scripture cannot have a literal meaning, and then an allegorical, such as some have tried to do with parts of Genesis, saying of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that the literal tree stood for something else, something esoteric and mystical.

Or that Balaam’s donkey had an allegorical meaning, which would be false. Though other and differing examples may also be given.

You could get into difficulty on the subject of prophecy, that it cannot have more than one fulfillment, even though “types” are not exactly prophecy, though they may be prophetic, and be repeated. It is a difficult topic, and differing terms may not fully explain it.

 

[jwithnell]

Corey, I hope I'm not being overly-simplistic here; a good starting place would be the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1, especially 1:1 and 1:9. A good study Bible, such as the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible should give you the resources that help you to study the context of a particular book as a whole; then you can use the cross references to examine particular verses. The running notes at the bottom of the page will explain difficult terms or bring out the differences that respected commentators have expressed.

A good grasp of covenant theology would also be helpful in seeing events and passages within their place in redemptive history. Others here might prefer a more recent treatment of the topic, but I think O Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenant is an excellent starting point. Getting that overall grasp of the movement of God's work through history can help place the text as you study the scriptures.

Most of all, depend on the Holy Spirit's illumination and prayerfully seek his assistance -- He delights in teaching his own as you hear the word faithfully preached, and as you struggle through a text on your own.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I see some sections of scripture with more than one meaning.

Most Psalms are 'dual use'

One use is to help us in our feeling and thinking in some area
Other use is to paint a picture of Christ

example?
Psalm 1 blessed is the man who delights in the law
"the man" is truer of Jesus than anyone in this case
Any man is blessed who delights in the word

 

[whirlingmerc]

Some prophesy have multiple uses... and may have several of the following

An immediate fulfillment
A fulfillment in Israel
A fulfillment in Christ
A fulfillment in the church

Some examples?

Isaiah 49:6 for example
An immediate fulfillment
A fulfillment in Israel <--- yes
A fulfillment in Christ <--- yes
A fulfillment in the church <--- yes(see Acts on using this scripture as a command 'to us")


Another example, "A virgin shall be with child"
An immediate fulfillment <--- yes
A fulfillment in Israel <--- yes
A fulfillment in Christ <--- yes
A fulfillment in the church

 

[JonathanHunt]

A book you might find useful:
Not Like Any Other Book: Peter Masters: 9781870855433: Amazon.com: Books

 

[MW]

Another example, "A virgin shall be with child"
An immediate fulfillment <--- yes
A fulfillment in Israel <--- yes
A fulfillment in Christ <--- yes
A fulfillment in the church

You obviously don't mean that four virgins have been with child. Perhaps you are thinking that some elements of the prophecy related to the immediate time, some to Israel in general, that the part relative to the virgin was fulfilled in Christ, and that there are applications for the church. The idea of multiple fulfilments would create multiple Messiahs. This is not possible for those who hold there is only one. It is true that there are types of the Messiah, but these only had a partial fulfilment, and types differ from prophecy in the technical sense of the term.