But... I digress.
What caught my attention was a comment thread that stated, "I don't believe there can be multiple meanings in a passage. There can be only ONE REAL meaning." To this commenter's credit, they at least acknowledged that their understanding of what that meaning was could very well be incorrect.
Nevertheless, even in the face of some pseudo-humility, such a statement stunned me a little. I guess I've been travelling in my Lutheran pastoral circles a little too long and participated in that clerical act of intense naval-gazing, leading me to at times forget that narrowing scripture down to clear black and white distinctions is still a popular method of Biblical interpretation in our world today.
Whether right or wrong, I do disagree with that individual's statement. Why?
Because as Christians we make certain claims about the Word of God. First, we claim that the Word of God is NOT scripture itself. (Yes, this comes as a surprise to many "Bible-believing" folk) It is perhaps a semantic distinction, but still an important one nonetheless. God's Word is Jesus Christ. God's instruction made flesh. Scripture is merely the delivery method of that Word. No different, really, than a human prophet who utters and proclaims the Word of God (aka one who utters and proclaims Jesus Christ). In fact, it was prophets, or at least their scribes, who tended to write down those utterances which gave us scripture. But no one mistakes the prophet for God Himself. (Or rather, one SHOULD not mistake the prophet for God, though that distinction can and has been muddled at times) Likewise, one should not mistake the Bible as being God. The Bible merely contains and delivers unto us God's will, word, and intention for our lives - that will and intention being revealed through the person of Jesus Christ. Thus it is through its recordings that we are able to hear, read and experience God's Word being delivered to us, handed down to us through generations of other faithful witnesses.
From that point forward, humans then undergo the task of asking the question, "God's Word has been delivered to me... so what does that mean?" We call that part "interpretation."
Second, we believe God's Word is a living and active Word, not a static Word. That means while the words on the page may stay the same, how those words function in our lives, how it works on us, how it affects us, how it is heard - is actively changing. That it is speaking into our lives in different ways at different times. God's Word in Christ is actively doing something to us - creating faith, condemning, forgiving, releasing, saving... just to name a few.
Thus, to try and pin individual scripture passages to having only one REAL meaning doesn't seem to allow for the Living Word of God to act upon us as it sees fit. Now, to say that the REAL and primary meaning of scripture as a whole is to deliver Jesus Christ - that would be correct. That is its primary function and purpose. But for the intentions of this particular blog post, I'm speaking in terms of individual passages and pericopes with the given understanding that first and foremost, the passage in some manner delivers to us the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Most passages, however, also have some kind of other point and/or lesson.
A seminary professor of mine once put it like this - "we are like light shining onto scripture, and scripture is like a prism that produces a rainbow of meaning." To try and grab hold of just one color of the rainbow and declare that color to be the only color of the rainbow would be absurd. Because just like a rainbow displays a myriad of colors, scripture also operates at multiple levels: literal, symbolic, metaphorical, etc. Not to mention that it is comprised of so many different types of literature forms (narrative, poetry, letters, history, apocalypses, etc.) that how each piece is read is dependent upon the intention of the literary style. For instance, you're not going to read the Divine Comedy the same way in which you read the sports page. One is a blow-blow account of how a game went down (though some commentary and interpretation at times is present even then), while the other is a narrative that utilizes symbolic imagery and poetic prose in order to convey its meaning, though one typically does not attempt to ascribe historical accuracy and events to the narrative because it is meant to convey a deeper commentary on the human condition and divine relationship that is not necessarily rooted in historical events. In short, you don't expect to glean the same kind of information out of one that you do from the other.
Scripture operates much the same way. How one reads the Psalms versus how one reads Paul's letters should be very different. One is essentially a hymn book of poetic prose. The others are rather straight-forward letters from one man to several different congregations that were asking questions and struggling with issues. The point and purpose are very different. One is not less true than the other - it is merely that poetic and parabolic truths at time have far deeper significance in our lives than historical truth ever can.
To illustrate further, Jesus is called "the Light of the World." Great! So what exactly does that mean? Light has the ability to illuminate, to reveal that which was once in shadowy darkness. Light also has the ability to blind. Ever walked out of a dark movie theater and into the bright sunshine? You're temporarily blinded for a moments as you wait for your eyes to adjust. So - which interpretation is the "correct" interpretation regarding what it means for Jesus to be the Light of the World? Does Jesus shed light on our dark world, and illuminate not only God's truth, but the truth about our lives, our sin, etc.?*
Yes.
Does the truth of Jesus sometimes blind people? Scripture states that "he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." Paul was literally made blind by Christ in order to help him truly see.
So, again, yes.
Jesus also has a "blinding" effect (which in and of itself then has more than one meaning and interpretation of what the purpose and point of being blinded means). Must we choose between the two and pick just one of these meanings as the "real" meaning behind Jesus claiming to be "the light of the world"? Or, are we able to say scripture can mean both things at the same time?
Not to mention that scripture was written in the Greek language - not English. The Greek has words that a) we simply have no words for in English, and b) has words that many times mean many different things. For example: in John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be "born again." That same word in Greek also means "born from above." Now which is it? Born again... or born from above? Or, could Jesus have purposely chosen this particular word precisely because of its double meaning? Did he mean born from above or born again?
Yes.
Both are necessary elements to being born of "water and spirit." A second, spiritual birth that comes from "above" (aka God).
To be clear, this is not to say that any willy-nilly interpretation is necessarily correct. I am not suggesting proof-text methods of ripping scripture out of its context and applying meaning to it that completely veers off-kilter from the surrounding texts and overall intention and message of scripture as a whole - such methods of applying "meaning" are not what I'm talking about. Let's face it, you torture scripture long enough, you can get it to say and mean whatever you want. No, rather I'm talking about the faithful endeavor of looking at scripture from many viewpoints, perspectives, and understanding. From both the original context, as well as our current context. What did it mean to the original hearers - what does it now mean to us?
Thus it would seem, that to try and narrow any given part of scripture down to only one particular meaning is to rob scripture of its immense beauty and depth. We are recipients of an extensive work of faith written by faithful people and communities across thousands of years that delivers to us the very heart and nature of God. To imagine that we would try and reduce its meaning to one singular point and purpose and not allow for any additional insight seems like an attempt to limit what God has to say to us.
*(if you're interested in more intensive study on the symbolic nature of John's Gospel, I highly recommend Craig Koester's "Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community")
