[BBC List] THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGLE MEANING

[Mike Abendroth]

THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGLE MEANING

  _____  

by
Robert L. Thomas 

  _____  

From:  <http://www.tms.edu> The Master's Seminary Journal Vol. 12, No. 1,
Spring 2001 

  _____  

TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) 33-47 

THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGLE MEANING

Robert L. Thomas
Professor of New Testament

          That a single passage has one meaning and one meaning only has
been a long-established principle of biblical interpretation. Among
evangelicals, recent violations of that principle have multiplied.
Violations have included those by Clark Pinnock with his insistence on
adding "future" meanings to historical meanings of a text, Mikel Neumann and
his expansion of the role of contextualization, Greg Beale and Grant Osborne
and their views about certain features of Revelation 11, recent works on
hermeneutics and their advocacy of multiple meanings for a single passage,
Kenneth Gentry and his preterist views on Revelation, and Progressive
Dispensationalism with its promotion of "complementary" hermeneutics. The
single-meaning principle is of foundational importance in understanding
God's communication with mankind, just as it has been since the creation of
the human race. The entrance of sin in Genesis 3 brought a confusion in this
area that has continued ever since.

          Many years ago Milton S. Terry laid down a basic herrneneutical
principle that contemporary evangelicals have difficulty observing. That is
the principle of single meaning: 

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.1 

          Not quite as many years ago, Bernard Ramm advocated the same
principle in different words: "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

  _____  

1Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
n.d.) 205. Milton Spenser Terry (1840-1914) was a nineteenth-century
Methodist Episcopalian. He was a graduate of Yale Divinity School and
professor of Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis and theology at Garrett
Biblical Institute. He was the author of Biblical Apocalyptics and numerous
commentaries on Old Testament books, but is most often remembered for his
book Biblical Hermeneutics, which was viewed as the standard work on
biblical hermeneutics for most of the twentieth century.

33

  _____  

34      The Master's Seminary Journal

of Scripture which is determined by careful study."2 Summit II of the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy concurred with this principle:
"We affirm that the meaning expressed in. each biblical text is single,
definite and fixed. We deny that the recognition of this single meaning
eliminates the variety of its application."3

Current Status of the Single-Meaning Principle

          Almost anywhere one turns these days, he finds violations of this
principle, however. As a consequence, evangelicals have drifted out "upon a
sea of uncertainty and conjecture," as Terry predicted about a hundred years
ago.4 The following discussion will cite several examples to illustrate this
sea of uncertainty and conjecture, and will then elaborate on the importance
and background of the principle.

(1) Clark Pinnock
          In November of 1998 I was asked to respond to a paper by Clark
Pinnock in the Hermeneutics Study Group that met prior to the Annual Meeting
of the Evangelical Theological Society. The title of his paper was "Biblical
Texts-Past and Future Meanings," a paper that has since appeared in print.5
In his paper and his article he offered an alternative to Antiquarian
hermeneutics-as he called them6-otherwise known as grammatical-historical
hermeneutics. I studied his alternative carefully and came to the conclusion
that his approach was extremely close to Aquarianism. In responding to my
response, he denied any leanings toward New Age teaching, but the
similarities are undeniable.
          As the title of his paper suggests, he proposed the combining of
future meanings with past meanings in interpreting Scripture. I addressed
this proposal in one section of my response: 

          Professor Pinnock is apparently unwilling to sever connections
with past methods of 

  _____  

2Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook on
Hermeneutics, 3rd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970) 113. Ramm's work
served as a standard textbook on hermeneutics in many evangelical
institutions through the middle decades of the twentieth century.

3Article VII, "Articles of Affirmation and Denial," adopted by the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, November 10-13, 1982.

4'Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., noted this same trend among evangelicals over
twenty years ago when lie said that the assigning of multiple meanings was
part of the slippage of evangelical scholarship into "easygoing
subjectivism" ("The Single Intent of Scripture," in Evangelical Roots: A
Tribute to Wilbur Smith, ed. Kenneth Kantzer [Nashville: Nelson, 1978] 123).
He urged evangelicals "to begin a new 'hermeneutical reformation' to correct
this type of growing malpractice" in exegetical practice (ibid., 138). His
warning has gone unheeded by many.

5CIark Pinnock, "Biblical Texts-Past and Future Meanings," Wesleyan
Theological Journal 34/2 (Fall 1999):136-51.

6Ibid., 137,138.

  _____  

The Principle of Single Meaning       35

hermeneutics as evidenced in these words: 

"While making use of literary and historical scholarship, we are not the
prisoners of the textual past, but are privileged for the opportunity and
accountable for listening for the Word of the Lord and watching for the
fulfillment of God's promises which are still outstanding."7 But he wants to
combine the "traditional" method with the method that will yield the "new"
and "fresh" meanings.
          He seems unaware, however, that the moment he does that he has
junked the traditional method. Traditional grammatical-historical
hermeneutics place tight restrictions on what the text can yield by way of
interpretation. Proposals such as Professor Pinnock's violate those
restrictions so that his approach cannot fall into the category of "literary
and historical scholarship."
          One of the restrictions he violates is that which limits the
meaning of the text to what it meant in its original setting. He exceeds
that limitation in his statement, "Witnesses to the gospel cannot be content
with past meanings in an antiquarian way."8 That statement is contrary to
the principle that according to traditional guidelines the past meanings are
the substance of biblical interpretation.
          He writes elsewhere, "The meaning of the Bible is not static and
locked up in the past but is something living and active."9 On the contrary,
meaning is static and locked up in the past insofar as traditional
hermeneutics are concerned.
          He adds to this: "It [i.e., cruciality] means that we ask not only
whether a given interpretation is true to the original meaning, but also
whether it is pertinent to the present situation or an evasion of what
matters now."10 From these words it would appear that a given interpretation
could be true to the original meaning and also an evasion of what matters
now. In the latter case, presumably a traditional interpretation could be at
odds with a new interpretation pertinent to the present situation. That too
goes against the principles of traditional interpretation.
          He evidences that he allows for truthfulness of conflicting
interpretations of the same passage when he states, "Interpretation is an
unfinished task and even the possibility that there may not be a single
right answer for all Christians everywhere cannot be ruled out."11 In such
an instance the right brain has clearly gained the upper hand and the
rationality of traditional interpretation crumbles into ashes.
          Traditional hermeneutics limit each passage to one interpretation
and one only. From that one interpretation may stem many applications that
are "crucial" to contemporary situations, but to call those applications
interpretations is a serious 

  _____  

7Ibid., 138. My response took wording from Pinnock's original paper. His
wordings cited here have been revised slightly to match those in the
published article.

8Ibid.

9Ibid., 140. In speaking about "the event of Jesus Christ," the centerpiece
of Scripture, Pinnock writes, "To read it properly, we have to go beyond the
historical descriptions and consider the extension of the story into the
present and future" (ibid., 139). "Going beyond" the historical descriptions
necessitates assigning additional meanings to that event and to Scripture.

10Ibid., 137.

11Apparently Pinnock expunged this comment-found on p. 8 of his paper-before
submitting his essay for publication, but he still maintains the viewpoint
represented in the cited statement. In his published piece he writes,
"Different answers are given in the Bible to similar sorts of issues because
the text itself has been contextualized in different ways. This leaves,
roomfor us to decide about future meanings and applications" (ibid., 143
[emphasis added]). 

  _____  

36      The Master's Seminary Journal

misnomer. The practice Of assigning ,future,' meanings to the text cannot be
combined with traditional hermeneutics without destroying the latter. 

          My response apparently fell on deaf ears, because the version that
appeared in print in 1999 did not differ substantially from what Pinnock
read to the Hermeneutics Study Group in 199. He appears to be completely
oblivious to the single-meaning principle. Hence the sea of uncertainty. 

(2) Mikel Neumann
           At that same meeting in November of 1998 I responded to a paper
by missiologist Mikel Neumann of Western Baptist Theological Seminary,
Portland, Oregon. He entitled his paper "Contextualization: Application or
Interpretation?" In his paper he made statements such as the following:
"Contextualization might be seen as an umbrella which covers interpretation
and application" (8);12 "Context is not merely an addendum called
application" (4); again, "Contextualization begins with the interpreter's
personality as a function of his or her culture and encompasses the process
of interpretation and application" (3).
          His point was that contextualization overshadows interpretation of
the biblical text. In defense of that theory he said the following:
"However, a hermeneutical approach that ignores either the culture of the
interpreter of Scripture or the culture of the person to whom he or she
desires to communicate, is an inadequate approach" (3-4). My response to
that position ran as follows: 

Neither the culture of the interpreter nor the culture of the person to whom
the interpreter communicates has anything in the world to do with the
meaning of the biblical text. The meaning of the biblical text is fixed and
unchanging. This is not to say that the exegetical task is finished. It must
ever be open to new insights as to a more refined understanding of what the
Spirit meant when He inspired the writers to pen Scripture, but that refined
understanding must come through a closer utilization of the rules of grammar
and the facts of history surrounding the text in its original setting. It is
not open to a redefined understanding stemming from a reading back into the
text of some consideration either from the interpreter's culture or from
that of the one to whom the interpreter communicates. 

          Through his insistence on making the cultural situation of the
interpreter and that of the people to whom he communicates the message of
the text an integral part of interpretation, Professor Neumann-unwittingly I
believe-introduced meanings additional to the one meaning of the text as
determined by its grammar and historical setting. More paddling around in
the sea of uncertainty. 

(3) Greg Beale and Grant Osborne
          In November of 1999 the chairman of the Hermeneutics Study Group

  _____  

12Numbers in parenthesis are page numbers in Neumann's unpublished paper. 

  _____  

The Principle of Single Meaning       37

invited me back to respond to Greg Beale and Grant Osborne and their
handling of apocalyptic genre in the book of Revelation. Both men described
their hermeneutical approaches to the book as eclectic. Osborne's
eclecticism combined futurist, preterist and idealist principles.13 Beale's
combination was idealist and futurist.14 It is beside the point for the
present discussion, but worth noticing that an eclectic system of
hermeneutics allows an interpreter to choose whatever meaning suits his
preunderstood theological system in any given passage.
          Of relevance to this essay, however, is Osborne's interpretation
of "the great city" in Revelation 11: 8. He assigns the designation at least
two and possibly three meanings: Jerusalem and Rome and secondarily all
cities that oppose God. Beale does essentially the same: Babylon = Rome =
the ungodly world-city. Perhaps Osborne's identification of the two
witnesses of Revelation 11 is a more flagrant violation of the
single-meaning principle. He sees them both as two individuals of the future
and as a corporate picture of the church. - Yet the rapture of these two
witnesses pictures only the rapture of the church, he says. One would ask,
What happened to the two individuals?15 More waves from the sea of
uncertainty.

(4) Grant Osborne
          In the panel discussion following papers and responses at this
November 1999 meeting, Osborne challenged my statement that a passage can
have only a single meaning. Therefore I went to his volume The Hermeneutical
Spiral to refresh my memory on his view of this principle and found that he
differs from the time-honored grammatical-historical standard. In his
hermeneutical volume he advocates double meanings in cases of single words.
He speaks of "deliberate ambiguity" on the part of authors of Scripture. He
cites "the famous word-play on wind/spirit in Genesis 1:2" as "a fairly
simple example" of this.16 He also cites the Gospel of John as famous "for
its widespread use of double meaning."17 His examples include anothen
gennethenai, "born from above/again" in John 3:3, 7; hydor son,
"living/flowing water" in 4:10-11; and hypsotho, "lifted up (to the
cross/the Father)"

13Grant Osborne, "My interpretive Approach" (paper presented to the
Hermeneutics Study Group, November 1999) 1. Osborne's commentary on
Revelation is forthcoming from Baker Book House.

14G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 48-49.

15By following grammatical-historical principles, the writer of this essay
has identified "the great city" as Jerusalem and the two witnesses as two
individuals-probably Moses and Elijah-who will testify in Jerusalem during
the future seventieth week of Daniel (Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An
Exegetical Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1995] 87-89,93-94).

16Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction
to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1991) 88-89.

17Ibid., 89.

  _____  

38      The Master's Seminary Journal

in 12:32.18
          Such hermeneutical advice as this creates further turbulence on
the sea of uncertainty.

(5) Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard
          Among recent books on hermeneutics, Osborne's volume is not alone
in fostering uncertainty. The work Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
by Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard offers the same advice as Osborne. In their
chapter on "The Goals of Interpretation," they entitle one section "An
author may intend a text to convey multiple meanings or levels of
meaning."19 They cite Isa 7:14 as an example of intended double meaning, as
being fulfilled in the immediate future (Isa 8:1-10) and in the distant
future (Matt 1:23).20 They also cite John 3:3 and Jesus' use of anothen with
its double entendre "again" and "from above" followed in its context by the
use of pneuma with its double entendre of "wind" and "spirit."21
          Examples of double meaning cited by Osborne and by Klein,
Blomberg, and Hubbard are at best highly questionable and at worst outright
error. Nothing in either context cited justifies the conclusion that the
authors or Jesus, the speaker, intended a double meaning in these passages.
In isolated instances elsewhere, however, when a text has a double meaning,
the context will always make that clear. One case that comes to mind is John
11:50 where Caiaphas the high priest said, "You do not realize that it is
better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation
perish," as he addressed the Sanhedrin. In 11:51-52 John takes the words in
a sense different from the way Caiaphas intended them. Caiaphas meant them
to speak of Jesus' death being necessary to keep peace with the Romans, but
John understood them to refer to Jesus' sacrificial death for the Jewish
nation and for all people everywhere.
          The context of John 11I makes the double entendre quite
conspicuous. Wherever biblical authors use such a double entendre, it will
always be clear. But it is a violation of grammatical-historical principles
to find double meanings in a context where no such indicators occur. No such
signposts occur with the two witnesses in Revelation 11, Isaiah's prophecy
of the virgin birth of the Messiah, Moses use of "spirit' in Genesis 1,
John's reference to the new birth and his use of pneuma (John 3), living
water (John 4), and Christ's being lifted up (John 12).

(6) Gordon Fee
          The confusion of application with interpretation also causes
violation of the principle of one interpretation. The incorporation of
application-or as some call

  _____  

18Ibid.

19William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction
to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993) 122 [emphasis in the
original].

20Ibid.

21Ibid., 123 n. 19.

  _____  

The Principle of Single Meaning        39

it "contextualization"-into the hermeneutical process leads inevitably to
multiple meanings for a single passage. Almost every recent work on
hermeneutics advocates merging the two disciplines of interpretation and
application which were formerly kept quite distinct.22 With that policy
advocated, the transformation of some of the many applications into multiple
interpretations is inescapable. This is a feature that distinguishes an
egalitarian explanation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 from a complementarian approach.
For example, Fee writes, 

My point is a simple one. It is hard to deny that this text prohibits women
teaching men in the Ephesian church; but is the unique text in the NT, and
as we have seen, its reason for being is not to correct the rest of the New
Testament, but to correct a very ad hoc problem in Ephesus.23 

In applying 1 Tim 2:11-15 to modern situations, Fee has in essence given the
text a new meaning that is an exact opposite of what, by his own admission,
is Paul's meaning. As a result, the text has two meanings, one for the kind
of conditions that existed at Ephesus and another for the conditions that
existed elsewhere and exist today.
          Fee's definition of hermeneutics coincides with his conclusion
about multiple meanings, however. In a book he co-authored with Stuart, he
says that the term "hermeneutics" includes the whole field of
interpretation, including exegesis, but chooses to confirm it to a "narrower
sense of seeking the contemporary relevance of ancient texts."24 In other
words, for him hermeneutics is simply present-day application of a biblical
text.
          No wonder Fee and Stuart in their book on hermeneutics include
nothing about limiting interpretation to a single meaning, and no wonder the
stormy waves on the sea of uncertainty are getting higher and higher.

(7) DeYoung and Hurty
          DeYoung and Hurty strongly advocate seeking a meaning beyond the
grammatical-historical meaning of the text.25 Since the NT writers found
such a "deeper" meaning in their use of the OT, they reason, we should,
follow their example of exegetical methodology.26 They call the meaning
derived from 

  _____  

22Cf. Brian A. Shealy, "Redrawing the Line Between Hermeneutics and
Application," The Master's Seminary Journal 8/1 (Spring 1997):89-91.

23Gordon D. Fee, "Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics, Part III: The Great
Watershed-Intentionality & Particularity/Etemality: I Timothy 2:8-15 as a
Test Case," Crux 26 (December 1990):36 [emphasis in the original].

24G. D.Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd ed.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 25.

25James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty, Beyond the Obvious: Discover the Deeper
Meaning of Scripture (Gresham, Ore.: Vision House, 1995) 67-80.

26Ibid., 33-48, 225.

  _____  

40      The Master's Seminary Journal

grammatical-historical interpretation the existential meaning of a passage,
and the deeper meaning they call the essential meaning. They allow that a
single passage may have a number of essential meanings because the essential
meaning of a word may differ from that of a sentence and its passage and its
whole story.27
          How do they limit the possible essential meanings? They apply a
paradigm of reality that they call "the Kingdom center."28 They call this
the central theme and worldview of the Bible. Yet that control seems to have
no significant impact on their finding whatever deeper meaning they choose.
It does not restrain them from presenting an egalitarian view of women's
role in the church.29 In this case their "deeper meaning" overrides the
grammatical-historical meaning of the text.

(8) McCartney and Clayton; Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard
          The work by McCartney and Clayton and that by Klein, Blomberg, and
Hubbard suggest another route for placing some, kind of control on these
extra meanings that "go beyond" the grammatical-historical ones. Klein and
company advocate a controlled reader-response approach to the text. The
limit they place on the meanings beyond the historical meaning of a text is
the consensus of the believing community.30 McCartney and Clayton resemble
Klein when they speak of typology or sensus plenior. They reason this way:
"Since the NT writers do not cover everything in the OT, we may expect large
areas where the typology or sensus plenior has not been stated explicitly in
the NT."31 How do they propose to place a limit on these additional meanings
of the OT? Their solution involves ultimately observing how "the Holy
Spirit's [is] directing of the church."32
          That type of limitation essentially leaves the meaning of
Scripture "up for grabs." The evangelical believing community or the church
currently uses the Bible to support all sorts of teachings, everything from
covenant theology to dispensationalism or somewhere between the two, from
complementarianism to egalitarianism, from homosexuality to heterosexuality,
from the openness of God to the narrowness of God, from conditional
immortality to unconditional eternal punishment for the lost. Ultimately all
these differences stem from someone allowing a given passage to have more
than its grammatical-historical sense. The believing Christian community has
no consensus that enables an interpreter to place a limit on the meanings
beyond the grammatical-historical one. The absence of a consensus leaves him
free to follow his own whims.

  _____  

27Ibid., 230-3 1.

28Ibid., 83-98.

29Ibid., 280-87.

30"Klein et al, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation 139, 145.

31Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to
Interpreting and Applying the Bible (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1994) 157.

32Ibid., 164.

  _____  

The Principle of Single Meaning       41

          McCartney and Clayton go so far as to call the practice of
limiting a passage to a single meaning "ridiculous from a general
hermeneutical point of view" and "perverse from a theological one."33 They
are obviously disciples of neither Milton Terry nor Bernard Ramm nor
grammatical-historical principles. They make such statements in connection
with their practice of reading NT meanings back into the OT as additions to
the grammatical-historical meaning of the OT. That, 'of course, is the basis
for the system of covenant theology when it allegorizes large portions of
the OT.

(9) Kenneth Gentry
          The writings of theonomist Kenneth Gentry also illustrate the
contemporary practice of finding multiple meanings in a single passage. When
discussing the 144,000 of Revelation 7, he expresses the possibility that
they may represent the church as a whole, including both Jews and
Gentiles.34 Yet just ten pages later he sees them definitely representing
Christians of Jewish extraction.35 He makes the latter identification
because he needs something to tie the prophecy's fulfillment to the land of
Judea as his theological system requires. The double meaning assigned to the
same group apparently does not phase him.
          He goes further in connection with the theme verse of Revelation.
He identifies the "cloud coming"-as he calls it-of Christ of Revelation 1:7
with the Roman invasion of Judea in A.D. 67-70.36 On the next page he says
Christ's cloud coming was the Roman persecution of the church in A.D. 64-68.
So for him, the cloud coming mentioned in the Revelation's theme verse
refers to two comings of Christ in the A.D. 60s. In other words the verse
has two meanings.
          The waves of uncertainty are about to capsize the ship.

(10) Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, and Marvin Pate
          Another recent example of finding multiple meanings in a single
passage comes in the methodology of Progressive Dispensationalism. That
system allows for complementary additions in meaning which of necessity
alter the original sense conveyed by a passage.37 These later alterations
are in view when Blaising and Bock write, "There also is such a thing as
complementary aspects of meaning, where an additional angle on the text
reveals an additional element of its message or a

  _____  

33Ibid., 161.

34Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of
Revelation (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian EconoTnics, 1989) 223-24.

35Ibid., 233.

36Ibid., 143.

37Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, "Dispensationalism, Israel and the
Church: Assessment and Dialogue," Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church:
The Search for Definition, ed. by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 392-93.

  _____  

42      The Master's Seminary Journal

fresh way of relating the parts of a text's message."38 Bock admits at least
in part that this amounts to a change of meaning: 

Does the expansion of meaning entail a change of meaning? . . . This is an
important question for those concerned about consistency within
interpretation. The answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, to add to
the revelation of a promise is to introduce "change" to it through
addition.39 

He goes on with an attempt to justify the "no" part of his answer by calling
the change "revelatory progress."'O Revelatory progress, however, has to do
with later additional revelation on the same general subject through another
writing, not-as he holds-addifional meanings being affixed to a single
earlier passage.
          Blaising and Bock illustrate their "multi-layered" approach to
hermeneutics by identifying Babylon in Revelation 17-18 in three different
ways: as Rome, a rebuilt Babylon, and other cities in "the sweep of
history."41 Progressive dispensationalist Pate further illustrates the
multi-meaning approach of that system when he joins with preterists in
adding Jerusalem of the past to the meanings assigned to Babylon.42 His
approach to Revelation utilizes an eclectic hermeneutic, combining elements
of preterism and idealism with futurism.43 In other words, he can agree with
preterists, idealists, and futurists regarding the meaning of almost any
passage in the book. His eclecticism leads him to ridiculous interpretations
such as having the second, third, and fifth seals predictive of wars
occurring long before Revelation was written.44
          Bock goes so far as to accuse this essay's writer of holding to "a
similar multiple setting view for some prophetic texts in a way that
parallels" what he means by typology.45 He then quotes a lengthy paragraph
from my chapter in

  _____  

38Craig A. Bl.aising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism
(Wheaton: Victor, 1993) 68.

39Darrell L. Bock, "Current Messianic Activity and OT Davidic Promise:
Dispensationalismn, Hermeneutics, and NT Fulfillment," Trinity Journal 15NS
(I 994):71.

40Ibid.

41Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism 93-96. The "layered"
approach approximates that of amillennialist Poythress who proposes four
levels of communication in the symbolism of Revelation (Vem S. Poythress,
"Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6," JETS 36 [1993]:41-43).

42C. Marvin Pate, "A Progressive Dispensational View of Revelation," in Four
Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) 160-61,
168-69. Pate actually allows for dating the book both early in the sixties
and late in the nineties.

43Ibid., 145-46.

44Ibid., 151-57. Even with Pate's highly improbable early dating of the
Revelation in the sixties, the predicted events preceded the prophecy that
predicted them, which sequence is of course absurd. 45Darrell L. Bock,
"Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism," in Three Central Issues In
Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive
Views, ed. by Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999) 107.

  _____  

The Principle of Single Meaning       43

Israel: The Land and the People to prove his point.46 In that paragraph I
point out how Paul in Acts 13:47 applies a portion of one of Isaiah's
Servant Songs (Isa 42:6) to himself and his ministry. Acknowledging my
recognition that this is an additional meaning not gleaned from a
grammatical-historical analysis of Isa 42:6, he cites my further statement:
"The new meaning of the Old Testament prophecies applied to the church
introduced by New Testament writers did not cancel out the original meaning
and their promises to Israel. God will yet restore the nation of Abraham's
physical descendants as He promised He would."47 Then he immediately adds,
"This final statement is precisely what Progressives say about how
complementary meaning works."48
          In order to cast me in a "complementary hermeneutical" role,
however, Bock had to skip a paragraph between the lengthy paragraph he
quoted and my summary statement about God's continuing purpose to fulfil
Isaiah's prophecy to Israel. In the intervening paragraph that he chose to
omit, I made several points that complementary hermeneutics would not
tolerate. In the first sentence I stated, "That [i.e., Paul's use of Isa
42:6] was not a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. . . ."49 Complementary
hermeneutics would say that it was a fulfillment. I also stated, "It [i.e.,
Paul's use of Isa 42:6] was an additional meaning furnished through the
apostle to the Gentiles during the period of Israel's rejection."50 In the
same paragraph I made this point: "Any [OT texts] that they [NT writers]
used relating to the new program and new people of God, the church, of
necessity took on a different nature simply because OT prophecy did not
foresee the NT church."51 No progressive dispensationalist advocating
complementary hermeneutics would speak of the church being a new program and
a new people in the sense that it was unforeseen in the OT.
          I cannot say whether or not Professor Bock's omission of that
paragraph was intentional, but the fact is he hopped right over the
intervening paragraph so as to portray me in a certain way. His omission
could have resulted from another characteristic of progressive
dispensational hermeneutics, one that I have elsewhere called "hermeneutical
hopscotch."52 A player in hopscotch chooses the squares he wants to hop into
and avoids stepping in others that would lose the game for him. That
parallels PD's selective use of passages to support their system of
complementary

  _____  

46Ibid., 107-8.

47Ibid., 108.

48Ibid.

49Robert L. Thomas, "The Mission of Israel and the Messiah in the Plan of
God," Israel: The Land and the People, ed. by H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 1998) 272.

50Ibid.

51Ibid

. 52Robert L. Thomas, "A Critique of Progressive Dispensational
Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds, ed. by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy
(Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1995) 423.

  _____  

44       The Master's Seminary Journal

hermeneutics. Perhaps that accounts for the exclusion of the paragraph from
my work that explicitly opposed complementary hermeneutics.

The herrneneutical principles which we have now set forth necessarily
exclude the doctrine that the prophecies of Scripture contain an occult or
double sense . . . . We may readily admit that the Scriptures are capable of
manifold practical applications; otherwise they would not be so useful for
doctrine, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. iii, 16). But
the moment we admit the principle that portions of Scripture contain an
occult or double sense we introduce an element of uncertainty in the sacred
volume, and unsettle all scientific interpretation. "If the Scripture has
more than one meaning," says Dr. Owen, "it has no meaning at all." "I hold,"
says Ryle, "that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite
sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and
adhere rigidly to it. . . . To say that words do mean a thing merely because
they can be tortured into meaning it is a most dishonourable and dangerous
way of handling Scripture."53 

          Terry adds, 

We have already seen that the Bible has its riddles, enigmas, and dark
sayings, but whenever they are given the context clearly advises us of the
fact. To assume, in the absence of any hint, that we have an enigma, and in
the face of explicit statements to the contrary, that any specific prophecy
has a double sense, a primary and a secondary meaning, a near and a remote
fulfilment, must necessarily introduce an element of uncertainty and
confusion into biblical interpretation.54 

          Though Terry's use of his own principles in eschatology are at
times suspect, his basic principles of hermeneutics make the most sense.
That is what grammatical-historical interpretation consists of. Interpret
each statement in light of the principles of grammar and the facts of
history. Take each statement in its plain sense if it matches common sense,
and do not look for another sense.

Initial Departure from the Standard
          That is the way God has communicated with humans from the
beginning. His first words to man in Gen 1:27-30 were, 

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
male and 

  _____  

53 Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics 493.

54Ibid., 495.

  _____  

The Principle of Single Meaning        45

female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, "be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the
fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing
that moves on the earth." Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every
plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree
which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast
of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on
the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it
was so [NASB]. 

Scripture does not detail man's response to God's instructions, but
apparently he understood them clearly, responded properly, and the human
race was off to a great start.

          But then God added to His communication with man. In Gen 2:16b- 1
7 He said, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat from it you shall surely die" [NASB]. How did Adam understand
this statement? Apparently as God intended it, according to the grammar of
His command and the historical situation of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil in the Garden of Eden. In fact, he communicated it to Eve so
well that Eve in Gen 3:2b-3 was able to repeat it to the serpent quite
accurately: "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from
the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said,
'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die'" [NASB]. That was her
answer to the serpent when he asked about God's prohibition against eating
from trees in the Garden of Eden. So far Eve's hermeneutics were in great
shape as was God's communicative effectiveness with mankind. She worded her
repetition of God's command slightly differently, but God probably repeated
His original command to Adam in several different ways. Genesis has not
preserved a record of every word He spoke to Adam.
          When did confusion enter the picture? When the serpent suggested
to Eve that God's plain statement had another meaning. He said, "You surely
shall not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will
be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 4b-5,
NASB). The serpent was probably not calling God a liar-he knew better than
to suggest that in the perfect environment of the Garden of Eden-but simply
suggesting to Eve that she had misinterpreted God's statement, or that by
limiting her understanding to the plain sense of God's words, she had missed
a second meaning intended by God's command. That she had missed God's
double-entendre or sensus-plenior was the serpent's implication. The
serpent's message to Eve was, "This is just God's way of telling you how to
gain a knowledge of good and evil." The first human experience on the "sea
of uncertainty" resulted when Eve and then Adam bought into the serpent's
suggestion that God's statement was not limited to a single meaning. Such
was how hermeneutical difficulties in understanding God's Word began.

Danger of Even a Slight Departure from the Standard
          Zuck chooses the principle of single meaning, but treads on
dangerous

  _____  

46      The Master's Seminary Journal

ground when, in following Elliott Johnson, he adds related implications or
"related submeanings."55 To speak of a single meaning on one hand and of
related submeanings on the other is contradictory. A passage either has one
meaning or it has more than one. No middle ground exists between those two
options.
           Zuck uses Psalm 78:2 to illustrate related implications or
related submeanings. The psalmist Asaph writes, "I will open my mouth in a
parable." Zuck limits the passage to one meaning, but says the passage has
two referents, Asaph and Jesus who applied the words to Himself in Matthew
13:35.56 Instead of saying the psalm has two referents, which in essence
assigns two meanings to it, to say that the psalm's lone referent is Asaph,
thereby limiting the psalm to one meaning, is preferable. Either Psalm 78:2
refers to Asaph or it refers to Jesus. It cannot refer to both. It is proper
to say that Psalm 78:2 refers to Asaph, and Matthew 13:35 refers to Jesus.
By itself, Psalm 78:2 cannot carry the weight of the latter referent.
          In defending his double-referent view, Zuck apparently makes this
same distinction, though he does not repudiate the double-referent
terminology. He discusses Psalms 8, 16, and 22, noting that David wrote them
about his own experiences, but that the NT applies them to Christ in a sense
significantly different from how David used them.57 His conclusions about
these psalms and the NT use of them is accurate, but the psalms themselves
cannot have more than one referent, hermeneutically speaking. Such would
assign them more than one meaning. Neither the human author David nor the
original readers of the psalms could have used the principles of grammar and
the facts of history to come up with the additional referent or meaning that
the NT assigns to the psalms. The source and authority for that additional
meaning is the NT, not the OT.
          A discussion of how this single-meaning principle works out in the
broader discussion of the NT use of the OT must await a future article on
the subject.

The Contemporary Dilemma

          Evangelicals today are drifting on the sea of uncertainty and
conjecture because of their neglect of foundational principles of the
grammatical-historical method of interpretation. They have become
sophisticated in analyzing hermeneutical theory, but in that process have
seemingly forgotten simple principles that exegetical giants of the past
have taught. They are currently reaping the harvest of confusion that
neglect of the past has brought upon them.
          Daniel Wallace has provided a recent grammatical work entitled
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament,
a work

  _____  

55Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1991) 274;
cf Elliott E. Johnson, Expository-Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 34.

56Ibid.

57Ibid., 275-77.

  _____  

The Principle of Single Meaning       47

that has a number of helpful features. In seeking to advance beyond the
basics, however, Wallace has fallen into the same pit as so many others by
his neglect of the basics of hermeneutics. One of his glaring errors
violates the principle of single meaning about which the discussion above
has spoken. In his consideration of a category he calls the "Plenary
Genitive," he labors the point that a particular passage's construction may
be at the same time both objective genitive and subjective genitive. In
defense of his position he writes, 

One of the reasons that most NT grammarians have been reticent to accept
this category [i.e., "Plenary Genitive"] is simply that most NT grammarians
are Protestants. And the Protestant tradition of a singular meaning for a
text (which, historically, was a reaction to the fourfold meaning employed
in the Middle Ages) has been fundamental in their thinking. However, current
biblical research recognizes that a given author may, at times, be
intentionally ambiguous. The instances of double entendre, sensus plenior
(conservatively defined), puns, and word-plays in the NT all contribute to
this view. Significantly, two of the finest commentaries on the Gospel of
John are by Roman Catholic scholars (Raymond Brown and Rudolf
Schnackenburg): John's Gospel, more than any other book in the NT, involves
double entendre. Tradition has to some degree prevented Protestants from
seeing this.58 

Instead of following traditional grammatical-historical interpretation and
its insistence on limiting a passage to one meaning, Wallace consciously
rejects the wisdom of past authorities so that he can keep in step with
"current biblical research" and Roman Catholic scholars advocating multiple
meanings for the same passage. His volume could have been very helpful, but
this is a feature that makes it extremely dangerous.
          Someone needs to sound the alarm about recent evangelical leaders
who are misleading the body of Christ. A mass evangelical exodus from this
time-honored principle of interpreting Scripture is jeopardizing the
church's access to the truths that are taught therein. Whether interpreters
have forsaken the principle intentionally or have subconsciously ignored it,
the damage is the same. The only hope of escape from the pit into which so
many have fallen is to reaffirm the principle of single meaning along with
the other hermeneutical principles that have served the believing community
so well through the centuries. 

  _____  

58Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996) 120 n. 134 [emphasis in the original].

END OF DOCUMENT 

  _____  

ARTICLE FROM:  <http://www.tms.edu> The Master's Seminary Journal, Vol. 12,
No. 1, Spring 2001, pp. 33-47 

Questions or comments about the article can be addressed to:
The Master's Seminary
13248 Roscoe Boulevard
Sun Valley, California
91352

E-mail for the author, Professor Robert L. Thomas, can be directed to:
rthomas at tms.edu 

 

 

Thanks.

 

Charis,

 

Mike Abendroth

 

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

 

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

 

"The typical modern Christian breastplate is a little paper bib.  Absolutely
useless!  It's made up of a system, or a method, or a program... 10 to 12
sessions with a counselor.  That's not what you need.  What you need is
about 10 or 12 hours in the presence of God until you sort out the unholy
characteristics in your life and get right with Him." John MacArthur, The
Believer's Armor, Study Notes. Eph. 6:10-24, pg. 33.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20070216/d8d1a010/attachment.htm