Double or multiple interpretations - OK?

[salamacum]

What do people think of double or multiple interpretation of certain passages?

Is accepting this just a cop-out of the problem of perfectly reasonable alternative readings?

I first became aware of this when a preacher expounded to us from old and NT that we were God's people / family / children and used various texts from the OT.
I said but what about Jewish people who only saw those texts as referring to Israel and those messianic Christian Jews or dispensationalists who would not accept those verses as referring to the church.

He just smiled rather patronisingly as if that wasn't a road he was going to go down, nor should I, and said "Oh well, a double interpretation is OK"

Well, is it? Did God DELIBERATELY create a scripture that legitimately could mean 3 things to different people?

Other passages - Matthew 25 - who are "My Brothers"? Israel, the Church or the poor?

The parables in Matthew 13:
birds, leaven - bad things or good?
Is the parable of the mustard seed about a grwoing, protective, healthy church or a church infested by heresy, compromise and apostasy?
the pearl of great price - Israel, the Church, the Kingdom, the Torah or the gospel?
the merchant - the believer, God or Jesus?
The treasure - Israel, the Church, the Kingdom, the gospel or the Torah?

Do we all just take our pick?

 

[cyberlizard]

the simple meaning should be the preferred choice..... but that said, everyone will draw out different meaning for themselves.... this is the good thing about drash.


Steve

 

[salamacum]

Anyone prepared to take the simple meaning interpretation of the passages I quoted?
What would it be?

 

[wayseer]

What do people think of double or multiple interpretation of certain passages?

Is accepting this just a cop-out of the problem of perfectly reasonable alternative readings?

No. I have found the Word of God changes as I change. It's not so much what I might have read as a young man is no longer relevant - it's more about the meaning has become more profound as I mature in the Word.

Did God DELIBERATELY create a scripture that legitimately could mean 3 things to different people?

... and you sound surprised. God speaks to us all at the point of our need.

 

[marktheblake]

What do people think of double or multiple interpretation of certain passages?

I have no problem with this - as I am not sure that any passages with multiple meanings actually contradict anything.

Various passages have a literal meaning - an actual event, and a typology - prophecy of future event.

Also many obviously have a different meaning to an ancient hebrew than would mean to a modern westerner.

This is why study of ancient Hebrew writing and culture is exciting - well not for me, i dont have the patience, but I enjoy listening to those that do. So much more revelation to be had.

 

[salamacum]

Would anyone like to have a go at those parables, please?
If they can have a double or triple application, can you explain how that could have been in God's mind?

 

[cyberlizard]

in response to the parables you mention, I would recommend (a book which I think you may have read) called 'the Parables: by Brad Young.


Steve

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If they can have a double or triple application, can you explain how that could have been in God's mind?

If we could fully understand God's word in one reading I'm sure that our heads would explode. Recall that there is the 'milk' and the 'strong meat' of the word. When we are ready for meat God will reveal the deeper meanings.

owg

 

[Bobinator]

Salamacum-

The answer to the question you posed to your pastor is quite simple. We are spiritual Jews. Since God is the same yesterday, today and forever, we can rest assure that his love for us is no different than the Jews. After all, God is spirit. So why would flesh and blood matter in any quantum? God made a covenant with the Israelites, but he gave all of us an even better covenant paid for in blood and is far greater.

Romans 2:29- "But he is aJew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

1Corin.12:13- "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we beJews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

 

[salamacum]

Bobinator,

So you go for a single interpretation?

What would that be for the Mattew 13 parables?

 

[Bobinator]

For the most part, scriptures have a single interpretation. But you can get a lot out of a scripture and draw parallels along the interpretation.

The important thing about interpreting scripture is to know the context in which it is spoken. One can easily pull a single verse and twist it to serve his/her argument, especially the epistles that Paul and the other apostles wrote.

 

[salamacum]

< < For the most part, scriptures have a single interpretation. > >

Where did this very subtle hermeneutical rule come from? Is it self-evident? I suppose the use of the OT by the NT writers to develop theology that would have been novel or unknown to the original writers is I suppose some kind of proof. (The suffering servant passages in the Pslams and Isaiah)
Was it in the mind of God as he planned for His prophets to write scripture that they would write meaning one thing, then for another layer or a different idea, to be revealed later?
Did God intend that the treasure in the field or the pearl of great price should at the same time be Israel, the Torah, Salvation by Faith, the Kingdom of God, the Church etc etc.

Does that not strike you as the sort of desperate eclecticism that we would criticise the ecumenical movement for?

 

[marktheblake]

The important thing about interpreting scripture is to know the context in which it is spoken

For most part the correct context is easily understood if you are a first century Hebrew. If not one has some homework to do.

Salamacum: I suggest you read some of Matthew Henry's commentaries. You can find them by looking up www.blueletterbible.org, go to the verse, click the icon for Commentaries, and off you go,

 

[rob64]

What do people think of double or multiple interpretation of certain passages?

Is accepting this just a cop-out of the problem of perfectly reasonable alternative readings?

I first became aware of this when a preacher expounded to us from old and NT that we were God's people / family / children and used various texts from the OT.
I said but what about Jewish people who only saw those texts as referring to Israel and those messianic Christian Jews or dispensationalists who would not accept those verses as referring to the church.

He just smiled rather patronisingly as if that wasn't a road he was going to go down, nor should I, and said "Oh well, a double interpretation is OK"

Well, is it? Did God DELIBERATELY create a scripture that legitimately could mean 3 things to different people?

Other passages - Matthew 25 - who are "My Brothers"? Israel, the Church or the poor?

The parables in Matthew 13:
birds, leaven - bad things or good?
Is the parable of the mustard seed about a grwoing, protective, healthy church or a church infested by heresy, compromise and apostasy?
the pearl of great price - Israel, the Church, the Kingdom, the Torah or the gospel?
the merchant - the believer, God or Jesus?
The treasure - Israel, the Church, the Kingdom, the gospel or the Torah?

Do we all just take our pick?

This is my personal experience with this subject:
As a "babe", I didn't have a clue about anything other than Jesus dying for my sins. The circumstances surrounding my getting saved, enabled me to be taught the "true, unadulterated Word of God". I was at a street ministry called "Teen Challenge". It was a drug rehab, in the name of Christ. It was by far, no simenary. But it was a year long program, based on the Bible. A "crash course", if you will. There were no proffesors, just good old fashioned, normal, down to earth, honest men of God, who were ON FIRE for Him. We learned the basics first. (you have to learn how to crawl, before you learn how to walk) And advanced to more and more deeper things. The entire time, we were pummeled with warnings about wolves in sheeps clothing, false doctrine, false teachers, false prophets. And The most valuable thing I learned was that there is truth, and there is error. If you have God's spirit, it's His job to lead you and guide you into all truth. Once that happens, and you know the truth, anything other than the truth is most obvious. And it didnt take a professor at some seminary to learn that. The Bible, in it's unadulterated truth, is very, very very, easy to understand, if you are in total submission to God, and are humble.
Most people do not seek the truth out of the scriptures. They instead seek some proof of their own agenda. And when they cant find it, the only thing left for them to do, is start twisting and turning, and taking out of context.
Context is the key ingredient to interpretation.
I also believe that scripture means only one thing. And people are confused, mislead, and possibly chasing "every wind of doctrine" when they claim that there is more than one interpretation. People who say that simply dont understand the truth.
It says in the Word, God chose the foolish things of this world, to confound the wise. And, some people have scales over their eyes, which God put there, because of their hearts being hard.

 

[salamacum]

If it's truly easy to understand (and I have sympathy with the basic message about Jesus and his work being understandable) then YES

But why are there 32000 different protestant denominations and why have I seen these multiple interpretations from repectable Christian professors and teachers?

Is God a God of confusion?

 

[rob64]

If it's truly easy to understand (and I have sympathy with the basic message about Jesus and his work being understandable) then YES

But why are there 32000 different protestant denominations and why have I seen these multiple interpretations from repectable Christian professors and teachers?

Is God a God of confusion?

I am only speaking from my own experience here, I dont know about the 32000 different protestant denominations. I'm sorry, I'm not protestant. In fact I dont considder myself to be anything other than what the Bible refers to me as. [child of God, christian, believer, etc...]

Since "God is not the author of confusion", than that means there are only two other potential authors; satan, or man

I happen to believe EVERY WORD of the Bible. And I find that understanding it is a fairly easy task. The Word is a mystery to unbelievers. It becomes a revelation, as well as reality only after one has God's Spirit in them. It says in the Bible that a "carnal man cant understand the things of God because they are spiritually discerned". That is (in my opinion) why there are so many interpretations.

Most people have a concept of who they want God to be for them.
They have painted a picture in their mind, and they wont settle for anything other than that picture. God does not opperate like that. We must search out God for who He is, not who we want Him to be

I hope this gives some kind of explanation

 

[Polycarp1]

Let me offer to you a case where Scripture itself gives two clear meanings for the same passages.

Isaiah 7 and 9, the "Emmanuel" passages, speak, literally, of the predicted birth of a son to a maiden in the royal court of Judah, who is to be named Emmanuel ("God is with us"), Before that child is old enough to know right from wrong, Isaiah tells the fearful king, the two kings whose threats have got you messing your pants will be pushing up daisies. And we know historically that that did come to pass -- not that there was a child given that name, of course, but that the two other menacing kings died within a few years. [I think it's obvious, but worth saying anyway, that the significance of the baby boy is in the meaning of his name, divine providence resting on Judah, that the mother, unmarried maiden at the moment of prophecy, would marry and become pregnant in the normal way for young newlyweds, and the significance is that Judah will be saved by God's hand before her baby boy can tell right from wrong.)

And, of course, Matthew references this story, and the "song at the birth of a prince" ("For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given..."), as being prophetic of the birth of Jesus.

Same passage. Literal meaning, to give hope to a fearful king around 700 BC. Typological meaning: to predict Jesus, in whom Emmanu-el, "God is with us," in a unique way.

 

[iamjcs]

If you check-out NASB with Strong's @ www.crosswalk.com you will see that part of the problem is
translating into 1 English word
a Hebrew or Greek word that has several meanings.