The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Single meaning of a text but many (endless?) number of applications

What baffles me for quite a long time now is the enormous variety of interpretations or applications that are attached by different preachers to a specific text in Scripture. I experienced it more than once that in many cases sermons on the same text might have completely differing applications; I mean really 180 degrees away from each other. Of course, these sermons were from different pastors.

Recently I came across an article by Robert L Thomas on "The principle of single meaning" in which (for me) he argues convincingly that each text in Scripture has only one meaning. The problem I have is that if the text has only one meaning, how is it possible that there can really be such a variety of valid applications? My "feeling" is that since a text have a single meaning, the application, even for us today, must be closely linked to the meaning and that therefore there simply can't be a multitude of valid applications.

Does the variety of applications/interpretations mean that preachers don't get to the real meaning of the text?

Would like to hear your views on this.

Johan

Right off the top of my head I can think of one example. Daniel's prophecy about "the abomination of desolation" was literally fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes hundreds of years before Christ applied it to an event future to the occasion in which He cited it in Matthew 24:15.

There must be at least more than one interpretation of that prophecy, right?

I agree that there is but ONE meaning to any given text in Scripture. I firmly reject any and all views to the contrary, e.g., John Frame's "Multi-Perspectivalism".

However, there may be more than one application that can be derived from a passage. It would be most helpful if you could provide an example of what you consider to be an abuse of making many applications from a text.

I believe we are not far off in our views.

Do you think that the redemptive historical hermeneutic adds to the popular subjective approach to scriptural interpretation? From the little reading I've done on the subject, it seems problematic to superimpose a single narrative on all of scripture. Of course, there are many other narratives that are imposed on scripture, too.

Greetings!
I have been absent from the board for about 5 years, but I found that I could log in, so I hope it's OK just to jump straight in.
I'd like to put an alternative point of view. Consider Deut. 25:4. 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.' Well that's pretty clear. I'm sure I've never muzzled an ox, and I certainly hope no one here has! But in 1 Cor. 9:9, Paul applies the text to the support of Gospel ministers, and adds, 'Is it Oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt.......'

So it appears that support of ministers is not merely an application, but the primary purpose of the verse, and that it always has been.

Hey, welcome back, Grace2U! Delighted to see you here.

-Robin

Pilgrim asked for an example. I have to admit that I don't have many examples since one sort of start to see what's going on as time goes by.

But I have one that might illustrate my "problem".

A while ago a professor in Theology had a sermon in our church and he read from Philippians 2:19-30. His "focus verse" was verse 25. The sermon sort of started with the question of why would God have verses like this be taken up in Scripture. He said that there was nothing dogmatic in this verse. The answer he gave, with a lot of confidence, is that the Lord had these verses being part of Scripture to show us the human aspect as well as how faith becomes practical. With this perspective I think one can easily see what the application was - unfortunately I don't remember all of the sermon.

I talked to another pastor about this mainly because the professor supports the ordination of women as pastors and elders and it was quite a contradiction that he is absolutely convinced why Phil. 2:25 was taken up in Scripture but when it comes to, eg. 1 Tim. 2 we are not so sure anymore. Any case, the answer of this pastor was that verse 25 has a very specific meaning. He pointed to "companion in labour" (KJV), "fellow soldier", "messenger" as indicating to an official office in the sense that God has to call you and that not everyone is necessarily called. In this way then he sees that there is something dogmatic in this verse.

The two theologians had completely different interpretations and therefore different applications from one and the same text. I realize that this is perhaps not the best example since it might rather be a difference in interpretation but a difference in interpretation implies different applications. I hope it more or less illustrates what I had in mind with my question.

But I think it does sort of illustrates the problem of identifying the real meaning of the text and then the appropriate application (which I still think cannot be too far removed from the real meaning of the text). Personally for me I sometimes find it hard to concentrate on a sermon if it is unclear what the real meaning of the text is and further if some kind of thumb suck application is then put forward.


Johan

Thinking of this issue, I am reminded of how egalitarians use Galatians chapter three (particularly verse 28) to try to prove their position. While most agree that the context is talking about salvation; they give it an egalitarian slant.

Tom

The problem there is not with a wrong "application" but rather, as you are surely aware, a totally fallacious interpretation. Everytime I meet someone who tries to use that text for supporting women in office I have to laugh. But to show them just how ridiculous it is, I insist that they be consistent and embrace the view of a completely genderless Christian church:

"There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus."

No male and female, Paul wrote but notice he made no mention whatsoever of restricting it to the pulpit ministry, eldership or deaconate. His statement is universal in nature in regard to those who are Christ's. In fact, Paul says all who are in Christ are to be deemed a "man".

that is funny. I will have to remember that one.
Tom