The sense of any Scripture is one (though sometimes it is a composite one).
Scripture is necessary, authoritative, sufficient and clear. Scripture's chief purpose is soteriological (showing sinners the way of salvation). Scripture's focus is the Person and Work of Christ.
In demonstrating the Christ-focused nature of Scripture, many Bible students (especially those of us who have self-consciously benefited from the Reformed tradition) have been re-visiting older patterns of scriptural interpretation: specifically, the use of typology (seeing the Old Testament Scriptures as presenting patterns in history, modes of worship, and even specific persons as types which find their antitype in Christ)
In thinking through a typological reading of Scripture, many find biblical teaching from the Puritans and Particular Baptists especially helpful.
It is noteworthy that even as the Puritans and Particular Baptists affirmed the presence of typological meanings in Scripture, they also confessed that we should only seek one sense for any particular scriptural passage, and it is from this one sense that the meaning of the passage must be understood. Consider section 1:9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) [the text of these confessions is the same at this point]:
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." [Emphasis added.]
How can those in the Reformed tradition have seen the Old Testament as often presenting types, needing to be interpreted to the Church in light of their antitypes, while also affirming "the true and full sense of any scripture" is "one"? Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms is helpful in considering this, as Muller gives consideration to the Protestant reaction to the medieval quadriga (the practice of finding four senses in each Scripture. Muller writes:
"From the Protestant orthodox perspective, the claim of multiple senses in the text of Scripture was linked to the claim of the priority of the church and tradition over the
text: the unity of the literal sense and resulting perspicuity of the
text supported argument for the prior authority of Scripture.
Nonetheless the orthodox exegetes and theologians recognized throughout
Scripture figurative language, movement from promise to fulfillment, and
doctrinal, moral, and eschatological meanings. One approach to the
resolution of this issue was to recognize that the literal and
figurative senses of a text do not necessarily stand in contrast or
opposition: in some texts the figurative meaning may be the basic sense
of the text. The work of the exegete ought to uncover the basic sense—in
explicit agreement with Aquinas—the sense intended by the divine
author, which in many cases is figurative. Another approach was to
insist on a single genuine sense of the text while also allowing that
this single sense could be either a simple, historical sense or a
composite sense (sensus compositus). When a text bears a purely simple sense, it presents on meaning or implication and one only: whether a doctrine, a precept, or a point of history. A text bears a composite sense when it contains a prophecy or figure: specifically, a type the full meaning of which is recognized only when the type is shown in relation to the antitype. The distinction between the medieval quadriga, other patterns of medieval exegesis, and Reformation or Protestant orthodox exegesis must therefore not be exaggerated. All of these approaches belong to the non-historical-critical mode of exegesis that is sometimes identified as 'precritical.' There is, moreover, a significant difference between the literal and historical sense as understood in Reformation and Protestant orthodox exegesis and the modern critical exegesis, which restricts the meaning to the dead letter of the text and attempts to reconstruct the history under the narrative line of the text."
This idea of a "unity of the literal sense", along with acknowledgement that this sense may be "composite" is intriguing, and may be key to giving an exegesis of the text that is both controlled by authorial intent, while rich in pointing the Church to Christ (and life in Him) from each text. In this regard, I also recommend my friend Daniel Scheiderer's recent blogpost on "the literal interpretation of Scripture", as this concept was understood by the Reformers. Daniel's blogpost quotes from Francis Turretin, who also write of "one sense to Scripture, or a particular text" which sense may be "compound/composite/complex".
In studying these issues, our goal should be to gain an ever greater knowledge of God's self-revelation: both in its clarity and in its fullness.
In demonstrating the Christ-focused nature of Scripture, many Bible students (especially those of us who have self-consciously benefited from the Reformed tradition) have been re-visiting older patterns of scriptural interpretation: specifically, the use of typology (seeing the Old Testament Scriptures as presenting patterns in history, modes of worship, and even specific persons as types which find their antitype in Christ)
In thinking through a typological reading of Scripture, many find biblical teaching from the Puritans and Particular Baptists especially helpful.
It is noteworthy that even as the Puritans and Particular Baptists affirmed the presence of typological meanings in Scripture, they also confessed that we should only seek one sense for any particular scriptural passage, and it is from this one sense that the meaning of the passage must be understood. Consider section 1:9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) [the text of these confessions is the same at this point]:
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." [Emphasis added.]
How can those in the Reformed tradition have seen the Old Testament as often presenting types, needing to be interpreted to the Church in light of their antitypes, while also affirming "the true and full sense of any scripture" is "one"? Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms is helpful in considering this, as Muller gives consideration to the Protestant reaction to the medieval quadriga (the practice of finding four senses in each Scripture. Muller writes:
"From the Protestant orthodox perspective, the claim of multiple senses in the text of Scripture was linked to the claim of the priority of the church and tradition over the
text: the unity of the literal sense and resulting perspicuity of the
text supported argument for the prior authority of Scripture.
Nonetheless the orthodox exegetes and theologians recognized throughout
Scripture figurative language, movement from promise to fulfillment, and
doctrinal, moral, and eschatological meanings. One approach to the
resolution of this issue was to recognize that the literal and
figurative senses of a text do not necessarily stand in contrast or
opposition: in some texts the figurative meaning may be the basic sense
of the text. The work of the exegete ought to uncover the basic sense—in
explicit agreement with Aquinas—the sense intended by the divine
author, which in many cases is figurative. Another approach was to
insist on a single genuine sense of the text while also allowing that
this single sense could be either a simple, historical sense or a
composite sense (sensus compositus). When a text bears a purely simple sense, it presents on meaning or implication and one only: whether a doctrine, a precept, or a point of history. A text bears a composite sense when it contains a prophecy or figure: specifically, a type the full meaning of which is recognized only when the type is shown in relation to the antitype. The distinction between the medieval quadriga, other patterns of medieval exegesis, and Reformation or Protestant orthodox exegesis must therefore not be exaggerated. All of these approaches belong to the non-historical-critical mode of exegesis that is sometimes identified as 'precritical.' There is, moreover, a significant difference between the literal and historical sense as understood in Reformation and Protestant orthodox exegesis and the modern critical exegesis, which restricts the meaning to the dead letter of the text and attempts to reconstruct the history under the narrative line of the text."This idea of a "unity of the literal sense", along with acknowledgement that this sense may be "composite" is intriguing, and may be key to giving an exegesis of the text that is both controlled by authorial intent, while rich in pointing the Church to Christ (and life in Him) from each text. In this regard, I also recommend my friend Daniel Scheiderer's recent blogpost on "the literal interpretation of Scripture", as this concept was understood by the Reformers. Daniel's blogpost quotes from Francis Turretin, who also write of "one sense to Scripture, or a particular text" which sense may be "compound/composite/complex".
In studying these issues, our goal should be to gain an ever greater knowledge of God's self-revelation: both in its clarity and in its fullness.
Labels: Bible study, Reformation Theology
posted by Andrew Lindsey | 4:57 PM
|
0 comments
