If there were possibly more than one meaning for a given passage of Scripture, then the various interpretations must be considered legitimate on a merely superficial basis. This defies logic, however, since most often interpretations conflict with each other. With the emerging church on the rise, and worse, the subjective emergent hermeneutic and postmodern theology, a dialogue (couldn’t resist the word choice) on the rule of “single meaning” is pertinent. If God is not of confusion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33) and God is perfect, then His Word cannot have error. That also means that various interpretations of that Word cannot conflict. That would also be an error. Thus there can only be one correct interpretation.
The idea of the law of non-contradiction will help in explaining philosophically the number of interpretations there are in a given passage. Norman Geisler explains the law of non-contradiction as “either A or non-A.” He goes on to illustrate this concept by saying “Without the law of noncontradiction we could not say that God is not non-God (G is not non-G). Thus, God could be the devil or whatever is anti-God.”[1] In the area of interpretation, if there exists interpretation “a” for Galatians 6:16 and a contradictory interpretation “b” for the same passage, then the logical conclusion would follow: interpretation “a” is wrong and interpretation “b” is correct, interpretation “a” is correct and interpretation “b” is wrong, or both interpretations “a” and “b” are both wrong. They cannot both be correct if they contradict each other. Therefore, it is logical to assume that there is only 1 correct interpretation for each passage of Scripture. While this philosophical idea seems to be strong on its own, an even stronger support for the “single meaning” rule is found in Scripture itself.
In Genesis 41, Pharaoh dreamed two dreams which were prophetical. They gave insight into a future famine. That kind of revelation can only come from God. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that the dreams that Pharaoh experienced in Genesis 41 were direct, supernatural revelation from God (revelation being defined as God unveiling His truth). No one from Pharaoh’s cohorts could interpret the dream (vs. 8) probably because they were not spiritually discerned (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14). Joseph, who gained the interpretation from God, gave the correct interpretation and was rewarded. Was there room for another interpretation in this situation?
This happened to Daniel as well. In the story of Daniel and the feast of Belshazzar (Dan. 5), the hedonistic party was disturbed by a hand appearing and writing an inscription upon the wall. Again, this should be taken as direct, supernatural revelation from God. This revelation is seen to have only one interpretation. The singular use of the word “interpretation” is used in every case. Therefore it makes sense that all of Scripture has one interpretation – the one the writer intended to convey, the one the readers would understand, and the one that God ultimately intended.
Daniel 2 is probably the most convincing passage about God’s revelation having a single interpretation. King Nebuchadnezzar had a peculiar dream. It was so peculiar in fact that he wanted someone to interpret the dream as well as tell him the content of the dream. This would authenticate the interpreter and the interpretation. Daniel was the only one endowed by God to deliver on such a task. Daniel describes the dream as prophetical revelation from God in 2:28. In verse 36, he clearly understands that God’s revelation has but only 1 interpretation – the one God intended and allowed Daniel to understand. Again we see the singular form of “interpretation.” Daniel ends the interpretation by declaring in the singular again that there is only 1 trustworthy interpretation (vs. 45).
It seems like basic logic that there would only be one interpretation from God’s revelation. But this logic is verified in the Scripturally attested practice of using the hermeneutical rule of “single meaning” to gain the interpretation of God’s revelation. Thus it is NOT the goal of the Bible student to figure out, “what does this mean to me?” Who cares what it means to you? The goal of the reader is to figure out, “what does this mean?” The pursuit of that answer is the lifetime journey of study and exegesis. But this journey must begin with the understanding that God has only one intended meaning in each passage of Scripture.[*]
Timothy L. Decker
-------------------------
[1] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pg. 81.
[*] For more information on the issue, including a thorough defense as well as examining the various systems of contemporary evangelical scholars who are avoiding this basic hermeneutical rule, check out Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, chapter 6, “The Principle of Single Meaning.”
The Basis of the Hermeneutical Rule of “Single Meaning”
Biblical Preaching (2)
In typical Pauline style, the apostle explains how to fulfill this command to “preach the Word.” The following imperatives in 2 Tim. 4:2 give the ingredients to Biblical preaching.
First of all, Biblical preaching should involve readiness. The translation “in season and out of season” doesn’t quite do the phrase justice. The literal rendering would be “be ready in good time or bad time.” In other words, there is always a need for Biblical preaching. In good times or bad times, the people need to have the man of God “preach the Word.” Whenever, wherever, and whyever, simply preach the Word!
Every sermon preached Biblically should involve reproving and rebuking. That means you might have to step on some toes. You might have to say what is not popular. You might have to call out sin. You might have to give the truth no matter whose feelings you are going to hurt. This should be done as long as it is what the Word of God is communicating. Biblical preaching should not be ashamed to denounce sin, call for repentance, and seek out righteousness. Paul’s list begins with the sin issue first.
The next step, exhortation, is often what most liberal preachers jump right into doing. All they seek out to do is smile big and make the audience leave in the same way – with a smile. There is no conviction of sin (and often the word “sin” is neglected). The idea behind exhortation is probably to give a “how to” sermon. I can think off of the top of my head of 1 Peter 1:13 answering the question of how to be holy on the inside – 1) gird up the loins of your mind, 2) be sober, and 3) hope to the end. All points are from the text and exhorting the people on how to live a holy life for God. These sermons are in the text. You just have to “preach the Word.”
Another key component to Biblical preaching found in verse 2 is the teaching that takes place. If the content of your sermon is the text of Scripture, then there will be much to explain. A good preacher will establish the interpretation of the text he is expounding before moving on to the application. Thus each sermon should have some instruction of the text being preached on. The depth of explanation will vary from audience to audience,[1] but the common factor should always be to instruct or teach.
Verses 3-4 are fundamental for all Biblical preaching. When the command to “preach the Word” is fulfilled, sound doctrine will be accompanied in the message. Some like to avoid doctrine. But you can’t “preach the Word” without preaching Scriptural truths. Yes doctrine divides, but it was intended to be divisive! Truth always divides itself from what is false. Light always separates the darkness. Truth needs to be proclaimed no matter what the listeners want to hear. If sound doctrine is proclaimed and your audience shrinks as is predicted in verse 4, then don’t change. It is still the duty of the preacher to “preach the Word” no matter what the outcome.
Oh, what an effect it would have on our morally declining nation if more pastors of churches began to obey the Bible and started to “preach the Word.” Since that is the only thing guaranteed to change lives, why wouldn’t more churches tap into that resource of ministry and focus on the life-changing power of the Word of God. How different things might be.
Timothy L. Decker
------------------------
[1] For instance, I wouldn’t just explain to my congregation that “the word in question is a perfect passive participle in the Greek.” I might explain that the emphasis of this word is a completed action from an outside agent. And even then my terms would be less academic. But if I were preaching to a seminary or Bible college audience, I would have no qualms about spouting off grammatical parsings if I thought it were relevant to the understanding of the text and common knowledge to the audience.