Editorial
From the Newsletter of Revesby Presbyterian Church
September 2009
Rev Dr Peter Barnes
In his Lectures to My Students, Charles Spurgeon cites the early Church Father, Ambrose of Milan as saying: ‘I adore the infinity of Scripture.’ This is a splendid saying. In dealing with the love of the Spirit in Romans 15:30 Robert Haldane noted that grammatically it could refer to the love which the Spirit has for Christ’s people or to the love which God’s people have for one another which the Spirit has brought about. He then adds, rather too severely: ‘Some unite both opinions, which is the most mischievous of all methods of interpretation, as it tends to encourage us in slothfulness with respect to the meaning of Scripture, and to a prostitution of Scripture as implying a sense which it does not truly bear. No passage unites two different senses at once.’ John Brown says something similar in his discussion of 1 Peter 5:5, as to whether ‘elders’ refer to office-bearers or to older men. He then cites what he calls ‘the wise saying’ of John Owen: ‘If Scripture has more meanings than one, it has no meaning at all.’
One can understand the warnings of Haldane, Brown, and Owen, but in the end, they seem a little heavy-handed. It is difficult to believe that the biblical writers were not at times deliberately ambiguous. In John 1:5 John says that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness either has not overcome it (ESV, NRSV) or has not understood it (KJV, NIV). Both interpretations make sense, as John would have known. Similarly, when Jesus tells Nicodemus about being born ‘again’, the translation could also refer to being born ‘from above’ (John 3:3). Nicodemus understands it in the former sense (John 3:4), and Jesus interacts with him on that level, but the latter meaning fits in perfectly well with the rest of Scripture. Again, it seems that a certain ambiguity was intended.
Scripture is capable of richer meanings than a simple straight-forward reading of the text. Psalm 8, for example, is about man in general – he was made a little lower than the angels yet he has dominion over the works of God’s hands. This is fulfilled here in some way for all people, whether Christians or not. Nevertheless, it is completely fulfilled in the believer through Christ. Hence the New Testament applies this Psalm first to Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:27 and Hebrews 2:6-8. In that way the One fulfils the conditions on behalf of the many.
Scripture often has more than one application. As Israel prepared to enter the Promised Land, God told Joshua that just as He was with Moses, so He would be with him: ‘I will not leave you or forsake you’ (Josh.1:5). Through Moses, God had conveyed to Israel the same message (Deut.31:6). Nearly five hundred years later, David spoke to Solomon about being strong and courageous, for the Lord would not leave him or forsake him (2 Chron.28:20). All those contexts have to do with showing courage, but in Hebrews 13:5 the same text is cited as a reason for being content and not being covetous.
When, in 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul argues for the right of the evangelist to receive a stipend, he quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 (‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain’). It may be, as Allan Harman says, that it was always meant to be a proverbial saying, or it may be that Paul is saying that what is good for the ox is good for the pastor. This is less than flattering for the pastor, but would be classified as an argument from the lesser to the greater. If this latter way is the way to read it, it is another case of multiple truths to be found in the one text.
The most powerful example of this is surely found when the unbelieving Sadducees tried to take on Jesus on the subject of the resurrection. After rebuking them for not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God, Jesus directs their attention to one particular Old Testament text, Exodus 3:6 where God speaks from the burning bush to Moses (Matt 22:31-32). Jesus says that this was spoken ‘to you’, not just to Moses, but to the Sadducees, and to us too. God is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and He is not the God of the dead but of the living. Why quote this verse? Surely there are better texts in the Old Testament to prove the resurrection of the dead (e.g. Job 19:25-26; Psalm 73:23-26; Isa.26:19; Dan.12:2). Why bypass them, and quote Exodus 3:6?
The answer is surely that the Sadducees put the Pentateuch above the rest of the Old Testament. Jesus Himself accepted all of the Old Testament (Luke 24:44). But Jesus does what is often done in the Bible – sinners are hoist with their own petard. Everything hinges on the present tense. God told Moses ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’. It is not ‘I was their God, but they died.’ Rather it is ‘Even though they are dead, I am still their God.’ In other words, they are still living. Those whom God elects to faith are His forever.
So Scripture contains suitable ambiguities, and multiple meanings and applications. In Psalm 2:7 the Lord said to His Messiah: ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’ This is used to demonstrate the resurrection of the Messiah (Acts 13:33), the fact that the Messiah is the Son of God and not simply an angel (Heb.1:5), and the fact that He did not appoint Himself high priest but was appointed by God (Heb.5:5). There is good reason to adore the infinity of Scripture, as it reflects the infinite nature of God Himself.
With warmest regards in Christ,
Peter Barnes