圣经研究3——他赐给我们圣经: 解释圣经的基础 HGB——第五课 含义复杂性
目录
一、介绍
二、文字含义
多重含义
唯一含义
三、完全价值
原本含义
圣经详述
合理应用
四、结论
一、介绍
在谈论解释《圣经》时，一个古老说法经常会出现。大概是这样说的，「只有一个含义，但是对此含义有着许多不同的应用。」例如，《圣经》给我们一个简单直截了当的命令，「爱人如己。」（译者注：英文《圣经》大多数把「人」翻译为「邻舍」）但是，在我们面对各种情境中不同的邻舍时，我们必须用不同方式在我们的人生里应用这个命令。
虽然这个古老的领悟有助于我们，在我们解释《圣经》时，我们必须承认每一段《圣经》经文是一个复杂或多面的。为此，与其说，「只有一个含义，但是对此含义有着许多不同的应用。」，一个更有帮助的说法应该是，「只有一个含义，但是对此含义有着许多不完整的总结。当然，就会有着更多不同的应用。」每段《圣经》经文的这个唯一含义是如此复杂，以至于我们需要学习用不同的方式来归纳总结，还要有效的应用在我们的人生中。
这是《他赐给我们圣经：释经的基础》这个系列的第五课，我们给这一课定的标题是「含义复杂性」因为我们要探索历世历代的基督徒，是怎样把不同种类和数目的含义赋予《圣经》的经文。
我们要分两部分来讨论《圣经》中的含义复杂性。首先我们要看解释《圣经》的人经常说的《圣经》的文字含义。第二，我们要聚焦一段经文的完全价值，这完全价值是以不同的方式超越了文字含义。让我们首先来看《圣经》的文字含义。
对「文字含义」这个术语，人有时用sensus literalis这个拉丁文的说法表达，在今天，它经常与「字面解释」这个说法混淆在一起。「字面解释」指的是刻板、机械式理解《圣经》的方法。但在历史上，「文字含义」这个术语总是指与现代福音派所说的经文「原本含义」，或「文法历史含义」更接近得多的事情。
文字含义是按照作者意图和《圣经》起初受众所处的历史背景来理解《圣经》的字词。它关注《圣经》不同的文学体裁，承认《圣经》存在修辞的说法，只举几样，比如明喻、暗喻、类比和夸张。它把历史当作历史，诗歌当作诗歌，箴言当作箴言来看待，如此类推。
《圣经》的书卷有不同的类别，我们必须了解那些类别之间的不同，为的是能适当的理解并解释其内容。因为不同类别的书有其各自的表达和写作目的；因此注意《圣经》每个书卷的类型，会关联到我们要如何解释那些书卷。——布然敦•考威博士当我们看到《圣经》经文的字面意思所包含的内容，要比书页上的文字所表达的还要多时，我们就会开始明白所谓《圣经》经文的字面意思会是何等复杂。作者要表达的意思是多层面的，不同类型的文体考虑会增加经文意思的复杂性，例如比喻的用法就带入许多的考量。这些不同因素显示出每段《圣经》经文其原本含义是那样地错综复杂。这些原本含义的复杂性使得许多善意的基督徒开始采用不同的方式来解读《圣经》的含义。
贯穿历史，基督徒几乎是一致确认，需要找到《圣经》经文的文字含义或原本含义。但也有其他声音论证说，《圣经》的含义如此复杂，以致不能用文字含义这个说法充分加以概括。所以，我们在本课的这部分要来探索「文字含义」这个术语的历史，为的是认识到正确理解的文字含义，能怎样帮助我们查验和描述《圣经》复杂的含义。
我们要看把《圣经》含义复杂性与《圣经》文字含义联系起来的两种主要方式。第一，我们要看一些跟从基督的人所说的，文字含义只是《圣经》多重含义的其中一种。第二，我们要聚焦来看这种观念，就是文字含义是《圣经》的唯一含义。
让我们首先来看那种认为文字含义只是《圣经》多重含义其中一种的观点。
早期教会时期，人们认为《圣经》有多重含义，这主要是因为人采用寓意释经法所导致。寓意释经法就是在解释《圣经》描写的历史人物、地点、事情和事件时，把它们看作是属灵真理的象征或比喻。树可能代表国，战争可能代表在人里面与罪争战，等等。按照寓意解经法，《圣经》描写的物质现实经常被人刻意降低，甚至被当作不重要或不真实的不予理会。而这些物质现实代表的属灵含义，往往被看作是《圣经》里更重要的事。
基督徒采用的寓意释经法，有时可以追溯到生活在主前20年左右到主后大约50年年间，住在亚历山大的犹太学者斐洛。斐洛把希伯来文《圣经》看作是启示更高属灵真理的寓言，这样就为基督徒的寓意释经法奠定了基础。
在斐洛之后，教会早期几个世纪之内，主要的基督徒学者采用类似的方法解释旧约和新约《圣经》。亚历山大的教理学校尤其如此，这所学校向神学生教导神学和解经。
教理学校其中一位更出名的老师就是俄利根，他生活的年代是从主后185年到大约主后254年。俄利根把《圣经》的含义分成两类：文字含义和属灵含义。俄利根根据保罗在哥林多后书3章6节作的律法字句和精义的区分，认为《圣经》每一节经文都有两种含义：经文的字句和经文的精义。俄利根认为的字句，是指字词在它们文法上下文中清楚的含义。至于经文的精义，他指比喻的含义——超越字词本身清楚含义之外的含义。俄利根倾向把经文的字句和它的文字含义等同起来，并且捍卫文字含义的权威性。但除此以外，俄利根论证说，成熟、属灵的信徒应当让眼光超越文字的含义，去寻找《圣经》属灵的含义。
例如俄利根在他写的《论首要原则》（De principiis）卷4，1章，16段论证说，创世记1和2章的创造故事有违常理，所以基督徒应当忽视它们的文字含义，去寻找更深的属灵含义。俄利根的寓意法在历史上多次受人批评，这并不令人感到惊奇。但是，他的方法对早期基督教释经学的方向的确发挥了重要影响。
古代的解经学家，例如约翰•屈索多模，对于叙述性文体的经卷，例如使徒行传，有相当出色的见解，他是试着以字面的意思来解读。也就是阅读叙述性文体时，试着要听叙述者到底要表达什么，并且从叙述当中找出其中所含的教训。另一方面，我们也有像俄利根这样的解经学家，他惯于把经文寓意化，就是把那些字句化成一连串象征符号。这种读经方式的危险性是，所解释的并非是《圣经》所要表达的意思，或是要我们那么来理解。这样的读经方式是来自希腊哲学家，他们尝试着以此来解释古代神话故事，那些古老神话里让我们觉得尴尬不解的事情，也因此他们也以这样的方法来读《圣经》。他们不是要听到底那些字句要说什么，而是想让那些经文显得更生动感人。不过与此同时，俄利根倒是也有一些很好的见解。——柯瑞格•凯纳博士俄利根以属灵或是寓意方式来解释《圣经》，显示出早期教会深受新柏拉图主义的影响。那观点就是，《圣经》既是来自 上帝，而 上帝是圣洁的灵体；也因此《圣经》并不是真的要教导关乎物质世界的事情。物质就其本质而言，是邪恶的。因此，若是《圣经》提到那些真发生于历史的事情，他们其实是要表现属天的事物，是借着寓意方式来让人觉察其属灵的真理。按着这个方式读经，《圣经》的真实意思，乃是更崇高伟大的属灵真理，也因此分辩这些真理乃是解释《圣经》的最高目的。
让人难过的是，许多基督教神学家接受了这些观念。他们这样做的时候，就在解释《圣经》对物质世界的叙述时遇上了严重问题。旧约《圣经》关注这样的事：宇宙的创造， 上帝百姓生活在这地球上的福气，以色列身体得救脱离埃及的奴役，以及在应许之地建立 上帝百姓的地上国度。新约《圣经》关注耶稣生平和使徒生活在这地上的事件。对于受到新柏拉图主义影响的基督徒来说，这些历史中的物质层面是有问题的，因为它们把物质世界描绘成 上帝的美好创造。所以，他们诉诸于寓意释经学派，以此把《圣经》和新柏拉图主义哲学调和起来。他们的释经法不重视《圣经》记载的物质现实，而是鼓励基督徒寻找它们要教导的更加深刻的属灵真理。
人用不同方法探索《圣经》的属灵含义，加以分类。一种有影响力的方法被称为四重含义法，Quadriga（/kʷaːˈdriː.ɡa/）——这是一个拉丁文说法，指的是由四匹马拉的罗马战车。这四匹马拉战车的画面被应用在《圣经》上，表明经文是在四种不同含义的约束之下。
生活在主后360年到435年的约翰•卡西安，在他写的《会谈录》的会谈14第8章里比较详细描写了这种方法。卡西安跟从俄利根所作的文字和属灵含义之间的基本区分，但他更进一步，指出有三种属灵含义：寓意含义，就是一段经文教义方面的教导；预表含义，就是一段经文道德方面的教导；以及神秘含义，就是一段经文对天堂和末世拯救的教导。
例如按照四重含义法，一段经文提到「耶路撒冷」的时候，人可以用四种方法理解所指的。按文字含义，它是以色列的古都。按寓意含义，它指基督教对教会的教义。按预表含义，耶路撒冷可以是指一位忠心的信徒，或人心的道德品质。按神秘含义，它可以是启示录描写的那天城。
很重要的是要指出，在好几个世纪的时间里，解经家们一直在讨论一段经文的属灵含义应该多紧密与它的文字含义联系在一起。一些人论证说，所有的含义都是紧密与文字含义联系在一起，但其他人说，经文的每一种含义都是彼此独立的，并且他们诉诸于跟文字含义毫无关系的隐藏的属灵含义。
再举一例，生活在主后1090到1153年间，富有影响力的法国神学家，克勒窝的伯尔纳，推崇一些极端富想像力的《圣经》解释，把它的属灵含义和文字含义分隔开来。例如，他对雅歌的解释是与经文的文字含义完全无关。
请听雅歌1章17节是怎样说的：
以香柏树为房屋的栋梁，以松树为椽子。（雅歌1章17节）我们按这节经文的历史背景来读的时候，不难看出它是描写所罗门实际的宫殿。它让人注意到这位君王王宫的奇妙，以此尊崇这位君王。
但是，克勒窝的伯尔纳不容许这节经文的文字、文法历史含义来规范他的解释。按照他的观点，这节经文实际象征了属灵的现实。房屋本身代表 上帝的百姓，房屋的栋梁和椽子对应是指教会领袖。他继续指出，这节经文也教导教会和国家如何并肩运作。伯尔纳认为他在这节经文发现的属灵含义，并不是出于它的文字含义，甚至与文字含义不协调。
马丁路德在他关于创世记的讲章里提到寓意式的解经法，就这个解经法，我的意思是，那些寓意并非经文作者原先要表达的，而是解释《圣经》的人拿出一段经文，将那些字句寓意化，说出作者没有要表达的意思。路德说他年轻时也很擅于此道，而且常能得到众人的喝彩，但那其实并非忠于经文的原意。加尔文也说过，寓意式解经，好像解经者随着自己的意思去扭转经文，而不是忠于原作者的意思。不过我个人认为阅读古代教父们的著作，还是有其价值；而且路德即使批判他们，他还是去阅读他们所写的作品。虽然，他们不是按规矩的截取真义，而且将那些意思强加在经文上，并非经文原本的意思，我们还是知道他们尝试要做的，就是试着解释旧约，好让那些经文对基督徒产生关连性。即使他们经常走偏，我们还是可以学习到他们是怎么解释《圣经》的。此外，在教会历史里，还是有很多以信实的方式解释《圣经》的例子，是我们可以学习的。——罗伯德•普拉莫博士《圣经》有多重含义的这种观念，也在当代世界得到人们广泛接受，不过，接受的原因很不一样。许多现代解经家不是论证 上帝要《圣经》在多个层面上向人传递信息，而是相信《圣经》的多重含义出自于语言本身内在的多功能性。他们论证说，语言是如此笼统，它绝不可能有单一精确的含义。为此缘故，我们充其量能做到的，就是为《圣经》经文含义界定一些模糊的界限或边界。但以此观点，《圣经》的这些多重含义是无法确定，这就意味着我们必须只能接受各持己见的不同解释，公说公有理，婆说婆有理。
我们已经看到，许多基督徒相信《圣经》的文字含义不过是它多重含义的其中一种，现在让我们来思考文字含义是《圣经》唯一含义的这种观点。
生活在大约1225年到1274年间的著名神学家，托马斯•阿奎那，倡导一种更负责任的四重含义解经法。和他的前人及同代人不同，他坚持认为《圣经》的文字含义对于它的所有其他含义来说是根基性的。例如在他写的《神学大全》（Compendium theologiae ad fratrem Reginaldum socium suum carissimum）第1部分，问题1的第10条中，他强调任何正当的灵意解释，都是扎根在一段经文的文字含义上。他也教导说，对信仰来说至关重要的事情，没有一样在传递它属灵含义的时候，是《圣经》其他地方没有用文字含义加以教导的。不是所有学者都认为，阿奎那在解释《圣经》时，总是遵循这些原则。虽然如此，他在原则上强调一段经文的每一种含义，必须要与它的文字含义联系在一起。
虽然阿奎那努力要把属灵含义扎根在《圣经》文字含义上的做法，在我们今天大多数人看来是合乎常理，但并不是每一个人都采纳他的观点。人使用与经文文字含义脱节的灵意解释来支持中世纪教会的许多教训。教会当局断言，他们有 上帝特别赋予的洞察力，可以看到与《圣经》文字含义没有联系的属灵含义。
但是，始于14到17世纪的欧洲文艺复兴运动为《圣经》解释的戏剧性改变铺设了舞台。简单来讲，文艺复兴时期的学者开始按照原文来研究古典文学、哲学和信仰文本。他们研究的时候，摆脱了教会的权威，通过突出这些文本文字和历史的含义，来解释这些文本。不久这种方法也被用在《圣经》上。这种解释方法把文字含义和我们称之为经文的原本含义等同起来，并且强调这种文字、原本含义的中心地位和权威性。
在中古世纪时，多数信徒认为 上帝在《圣经》里的全然旨意是透过四重方式为人所知晓：经文的字义之后还跟着伦理，隐意，和寓意。而十六世纪的改教家们，或是我们所谓的更正教徒反对这样的解经方式，因为从这方式衍生出的教导传统有时会滥用经文，曲解经文原本含义，或是作者的本意，以讨好教会的权威人士。——雅各•史密斯博士四重解经法在基督教会里，有着长远的历史。在改教的时期，改革宗的教父们受到天主教的同行所驱策，因为改革宗的领袖们坚持《圣经》只有一个基本意思，但一些回应者，例如威廉•惠特克认为我们无需拒绝这个四重解经法，即四种解释《圣经》的方法，我们却不能接受的是《圣经》有四个意思，其实《圣经》只有一个意思，就是历史性的，字义和文法所要表达的那个意思而已。而其他的三个，则是我们今天所认为的经文应用，乃是根植于最初的那个意思。我们仍然可以按着经文原本含义来思想，看那些经文在现今该如何应用。也因此这不是全然拒绝四重解经法，而是加以归正，更新它们，在对于信望爱的《圣经》经文的原本含义上，附加了另外三个应用。——布鲁斯•鲍格斯博士更正教在文艺复兴时期继续发展阿奎那倡导的这些观念。但是，他们不是论证说，所有属灵含义只是扎根在《圣经》的文字含义之上，他们而是说，《圣经》作者要他原本读者领受一处经文的所有属灵方面，实际上就是它文字含义的不同方面。他们相信《圣经》的文字含义，或原本含义，既是唯一也是复杂的。我们可以说，文艺复兴时期的更正教人士扩展了「文字」这个术语的概念，在其中包括了《圣经》作者要用《圣经》的「文学」传递的一切事情。结果就是，像胡尔德莱斯•慈运理、马丁•路德和约翰•加尔文这样的主要人物，都认为文字或原本的含义是包括了每一处《圣经》经文要表明的一切。他们看文字含义是复杂的含义，包括了历史、教义、道德和末世论的方面。
把更正教关于《圣经》文字含义的概念，比作是一颗切割的宝石，这可能对我们的理解会有帮助。切割的宝石有多重「切面」，正如有许多更小的含义组成《圣经》的文字含义。《圣经》作者要《圣经》每一节经文都传递一些关于历史事实、教义、道德责任、拯救、末世论，等等的内容。
而且，一块宝石的每一个切面，都是一个与众不同的表面，为整体的美好作出贡献，没有单一的切面能宣称自己是整块宝石。类似地，《圣经》经文有与众不同的方面，为文字含义作出贡献，这些更小的方面，没有一样能宣称自己是全部的文字含义。
简单来讲，《圣经》的含义是多面的。每一段经文的含义都有许多更小的部分或方面，它们组织起来，成为那我们称为文字含义的唯一、统一的含义。
《圣经》是一本含意丰富而深厚的书，它的内容来自 上帝的心思，而 上帝的心思何等宽广，祂所表达的意念也是如此，让人可以从许多的角度去探索。因此要解释经文，最简单的方法就是问自己：从这个角度来读这段经文，合适吗？你也可以从各种可能的角度去思索，以开放的心态查询经文可能的意思，如此的过程可能是很复杂，但至终使得经文的解释变的更丰富，因为这么做，可能不只是自己对经文最初的理解，还能学习到其他人对经文的看法和解释。——达雷尔•博克博士篇幅较大的每一段《圣经》经文，在很大程度上都影响着基督教神学和基督徒人生的许多不同方面。所以，这就不难理解，为什么贯穿整个教会的历史，有许多人都认为《圣经》经文具有多重含义。然而，对于《圣经》丰富的特性最负责任的解释进路，就是要保证我们对每一段《圣经》经文所作的一切解释，都是来源于古代世界历史情形中的语言文法使用。如果我们按照这种方式来看《圣经》，我们就能更加预备好发现 上帝和他默示的人类作者刻意向《圣经》原本听众沟通的复杂含义。
目前为止，在我们对《圣经》含义复杂性的讨论中，我们已经看到为什么更正教强烈坚持《圣经》文字含义的重要性和其范围。所以到了这里，我们就预备好来看我们说的，《圣经》经文完全价值的问题。
福音派学者时不时地会提到sensus plenior，即经文的「完全价值」这个观念。这个名词的意思是，我们固然强调《圣经》经文的字面含义或原本含义的重要性，但我们也要理解《圣经》后面的内容常会引用前面的叙述，而那样的引申并不只是重复经文的原本含义而已。特别是新约《圣经》作者们指出基督是如何成就了旧约《圣经》的应许。新约作者这样解释旧约《圣经》是正确的。他们所说的，没有抵触旧约《圣经》的经文意思，但是他们也没有拘限于旧约《圣经》的原本含义而已，而是领会到旧约《圣经》经文里更丰富完整的意思，sensus plenior。因此，按着这个思路，我们谈论所谓的每段《圣经》经文的「完全价值」或「完全含义」。
我们在这一系列课程里，要把《圣经》经文的完全价值定义为：
一处经文全部的意义，包括它的原本含义，它一切的《圣经》详述，以及它一切的合理应用。原本含义是指《圣经》文字的含义，是经文最基本的方面。《圣经》详述是《圣经》一部分直接或间接评论另外一部分的地方。合理应用是《圣经》对读者生命带来的影响。
按照对《圣经》完全价值这个定义，我们的讨论要分成三部分。第一，我们要聚焦来看原本含义这个概念。第二，我们要讨论《圣经》详述。第三，我们要探讨《圣经》对我们生命的合理应用。让我们从原本含义开始。
在前面一课，我们对原本含义的定义是
上帝和人类作者联合赋予一份文本，要向它原本受众传递的观念、行为和情感。正如我们已经说过的，经文原本含义等同于它文字的含义，正如这个定义表明的那样，原本含义是多面的。 上帝要《圣经》在多层面上冲击它起初的受众。它传递观念，就是原本受众应该能够在经文中看出来的观念。它传递行为，就是经文中指出要做或不做的活动。它也传递情感，经文传递或表达的态度和感受。
让我们举一个例子，看一节经文怎样传递观念，行为和情感。我们来看出埃及记20章13节：
不可杀人。（出埃及记20章13节）让我们从原本含义的定义这个角度来思想这节经文。 上帝和人类作者联合起来，要通过不可杀人这条诫命，向它的起初受众传递什么观念、行为和情感？至于观念，这节经文明确传递了禁止错误夺人性命这个观念。言外之意，它传递了人的生命对 上帝来说是宝贵这个信息。它以诫命的形式出现，意味着 上帝对人类拥有主权。
至于行为，这条诫命是对 上帝在历史中作为记载的一部分—— 上帝亲自参与了向摩西传达这条诫命的行为，而摩西又把这条诫命传给 上帝的百姓。这表明 上帝要摩西带领经过旷野去到应许之地的百姓，就是出埃及记这卷书起初的受众，不要参与到杀人这行为当中。至于情感，这节经文教导我们， 上帝恨恶杀人，他决心捍卫公义。
禁止杀人这条诫命原本含义是多面的，为的是把 上帝和摩西明确的观念、行为和情感传递给它起初的受众，也是为了教导他们， 上帝对他们自己的观念、行为和情感有什么要求。每一段《圣经》经文都类似。
结果就是，如果我们要获得经文完全的价值，我们就需要认识到原本含义的复杂性。如果我们忽略了这些复杂性，就会错过《圣经》要教导我们的大量内容。
改教者们发展出两个解释经文的方法：文法与历史的解经法。一方面，他们自问：就字句上这段经文在说什么？另一方面，在它原本的场景上，它到底要说什么？这两个问题的回答提供了经文的基本架构，以此为范围，而得出合理正确的经文解释；而同时在这个范围里，我们也需要谦卑的说经文可以从不同的方式来理解。如果一个意思无法从文法的角度来解释，或是无法从历史场景的角度来解释，我们就必须放弃那样的意思；但在这两个范围里，还是可能衍生出一些经文的解释，那么我们就要谦卑的加以探寻。——约翰•奥斯沃特博士《圣经》是可以用不同的方式来研读，但这并不表示可以随心所欲的解释。有些事情是很明显的，好比说信经里的主要原则对我们就很有帮助。信条的原则保守我们对《圣经》不至于有错误的解读。同时，如果我们以傲慢，教条主义的心态来与另一个《圣经》解释者对话，我们从基本的态度上就是错了。——凯里•温赞特博士我们看了原本含义怎样对《圣经》的完全价值作出贡献之后，就让我们把注意力转向《圣经》详述。
《圣经》详述，就是
《圣经》的一部分直接或间接评论《圣经》另外一处经文含义的某个方面的地方。因为全部《圣经》都是 上帝的默示、无误无缪，这些详述总是与原本含义一致，证实原本含义。有时候，一个详述表现为对原本含义一个方面的重复。其他时候，一个《圣经》详述可以表现为对不完全清楚，或没有十分明白之事的澄清。还有其他时候，《圣经》详述可以是对一处特定经文含义的扩充。例如，《圣经》在许多地方对不可杀人的诫命作出详述。这条诫命首先是记载在出埃及记20章13节，它说：
不可杀人。（出埃及记20章13节）我们要提的对这节经文的第一处《圣经》详述，主要是在申命记5章完全重复这句话，当时摩西提醒以色列民十诫的内容。《圣经》在申命记5章17节再次说道：
不可杀人。（申命记5章17节）这重复证实了这条诫命，提醒 上帝的百姓他立约的条件。当然，即使是在详述以重复形式出现时，它也绝不是仅仅重复之前说过的话——详述的上下文总是给它的含义加增一些内容。即使如此，看到一些详述是以重复形式出现，这对我们也会有所帮助。
我们列举的第二种类型的详述是澄清，我们在民数记35章发现有对不可杀人这条诫命的澄清。摩西在这一章对谋杀和过失杀人作了区分。请听摩西在民数记35章20到25节是怎样讲的：
人若因怨恨把人推倒，或是埋伏往人身上扔物，以致于死；或是因仇恨用手打人，以致于死；那打人的，必被治死。他是故杀人的……倘若人没有仇恨，忽然将人推倒；或是没有埋伏，把物扔在人身上；或是没有看见的时候，用可以打死人的石头，扔在人身上，以致于死……会众要救这误杀人的。（民数记35章20-25节）这澄清为理解禁止杀人这条诫命提供了至关重要的信息。它讲得很清楚，不是每一种不按律法杀人的例子都是谋杀，过失杀人不应像谋杀一样受惩罚。当杀人是出于「怨恨」，就是当杀人是故意的，由恶意驱动，这条诫命就要求对此严惩。但是当杀人是过失杀人，这条诫命实际上就是禁止谋杀那过失杀人的人。我们列举的第三种类型《圣经》详述，就是扩充，在当中《圣经》对经文或经文所指的题目提供了额外信息。我们在马太福音5章看到有对禁止杀人这条诫命的扩充，在那里耶稣批评他那时候的拉比错误限制了这条诫命的范围。请听耶稣在马太福音5章21和22节，对不可杀人这条诫命的教导：
你们听见有吩咐古人的话，说：「不可杀人，」又说：「凡杀人的，难免受审判。」只是我告诉你们：凡向弟兄动怒的，难免受审判。（马太福音5章21-22节）耶稣在这里扩充了不可杀人的诫命，把它的应用扩展到非法夺取人身体生命的范围之外。按照耶稣的详述，不义的愤怒和杀人都是违反了同样原则。发怒不像杀人一样糟糕，但它冒犯了 上帝品格的同一个方面。
耶稣在登山宝训里引用了许多诫命，其中一个是：你们听见有吩咐说，不可杀人；然后他接着说：只是我告诉你们，那不是关乎杀人，而是仇恨！也因此我认为研读耶稣在登山宝训所说的，对我们而言相当的重要，因为可以帮助我们了解诫命的真正意思，那正是耶稣所做的，他是直捣经文的核心。耶稣在此所显示的是，虽然诫命讲的是谋杀，但是真正关键不在于我没有杀人，所以我就是个好人，我已经守住诫命了！耶稣要表达的是：这诫命是关乎我们心思的意愿，而引发杀人的动机乃是心里的仇恨。——布赖恩•维克斯博士耶稣要我们回到出埃及记那些诫命所蕴藏的基本准则，也就是说：不犯罪还不够，而是不应该想要犯罪。耶稣所在意的不只是行为，还有我们的性情，不只是我们做什么，更在意我们是什么样的人。因此他说；「你们听见，不要杀人」，但耶稣的意思是：你们根本就不该想要杀人。他要查询的是律法的核心，其中的基本原则，而那原则是超越文化，让我们渴望 上帝所要的。唯有当我们的心思被 上帝的恩典改变，在 上帝国度的大能里运作时，才可能如此。——柯瑞格•凯纳博士当耶稣和其他教师指着《圣经》说的时候，他们通常的说法是经上「记着」。但是在马太福音5章21和22节，耶稣讲的是「说」，而不是「经上记着」。这是用来指犹太人教师对《圣经》记载有什么话要说的一种常用说法。耶稣根本不是在挑战旧约《圣经》，而是在驳斥那些偏离了《圣经》原本含义、人们对旧约《圣经》常见的解释。
这种详述是对这条诫命原本含义的一种扩充，因为它超过了澄清。它不仅仅是解释了这条诫命本身说法的含义，还从其他经文带出额外的信息，用在这条诫命上，按照 上帝启示更广阔的范围，启示出这条诫命原本的意图。以此为背景，耶稣指出禁止杀人的诫命，总是为了显明 上帝对人类的关怀，它原本的意义远超仅仅防止谋杀。
出埃及记里， 上帝当然是禁止杀人的，而耶稣在登山宝训引申这诫命时，他进一步的说那诫命还包含仇恨与愤怒，也就是我们所谓的内心的罪。对于此，有不同的解释观点。到底耶稣是怎么处理原本的诫命？有人认为他是把原来的诫命摆在一旁，而引入新的。有人认为出埃及记里的诫命只讲到外在行为，而耶稣顺着这点，加入全新的，出埃及记的诫命所没有包含或是预见的；他是引申律法的本质。我认为最好的解说是，耶稣并不是在说一个全新的诫命，只是引述出诫命本身所具有的意思，那是很明显的。例如你看第十个诫命，你不可贪恋，那诫命就是关乎内心和内心的罪，这是了解这个诫命的关键。这个诫命不只是在谈外在的行为，也谈到行为背后我们内心的态度，意愿，筹算等。而耶稣在登山宝训所做的，只是在恢复并且引述律法的完整意思，他这么做，是扫除整个历史里出现的败坏，就是 上帝的百姓在生活里对这些诫命的解读。所以耶稣是给予我们律法的真正用意，并且显示律法的完全价值。——盖伊•沃特斯博士我们越多研究《圣经》，就越发现《圣经》是在不断地进行自我的详细阐述。先知和诗人经常回往指向摩西律法。耶稣不断回头引证旧约《圣经》。新约《圣经》作者们同样反复这样做。有些时候，我们会难以理解《圣经》作者们是如何得出他们的结论。但是，在每一种情形里，《圣经》详述都通过对原本含义的重复、澄清、甚至扩充，确认和证明着《圣经》的其他部分。他们所做的一切都是在圣灵默示和掌管之下。为此缘故，当我们探讨《圣经》含义时，我们就必须认识到这一点，把我们自己顺服在所有《圣经》对其自我进行详述的每一地方。
我们在讨论《圣经》完全的价值，到目前为止，我们已经看了其中的原本含义和《圣经》详述。因此，我们现在预备好了来关注，从一处经文能得出的合理应用。
我们要把合理应用定义为：
一处经文原本含义和《圣经》详述，应该给受众带来的在观念、行为和情感方面的冲击。原本含义和《圣经》详述是 上帝默示的，面对历世历代所有信徒都具有完全的权柄。这就是所有对《圣经》的合理应用都必须要出于《圣经》的原本含义和详述，并与之一致的原因。但是，我们的应用不是 上帝默示的。我们会犯错误，我们的应用总是需要修正和改进。即使如此，只要我们的应用忠实于《圣经》，它们就是 上帝计划对《圣经》使用的一部分，因此，成为《圣经》完全价值的一部分。
1689年伦敦浸信会公认信条，一份著名的更正教对《圣经》教义的总结，在第1章第10条表明了这观点：
要判断一切宗教的争论，审查一切教会会议的决议、古时作者的意见、人的教训和个人的经历，我们所当依据的最高裁决者，除由圣灵默示的《圣经》以外，别无其它。《圣经》是我们信仰的最终仲裁。更正教教会几乎一致承认，人对《圣经》的解释和应用会有误。所以，虽然人类权威具有其合法性，却绝不能作真理的最高裁决者。虽然把《圣经》应用在我们生活中，这是必不可少，我们却绝不可把我们的应用当作《圣经》一样，以为它们是无缪误的。
我们讲道的时候，除了释经，即解释，同时还有应用的部份。 上帝的话语应该只有一个意思，也就是说，经文应该只有一个解释，而且历世历代以来应该都是如此。但是后来，当我们读经文的上下文时，可能因着时代变迁，在应用上就有不同，这不是标准改变，而是在应用上有所不同。——米格尔•努涅斯博士《圣经》的经文应该只有一个解释，但从这个解释可以衍生出许多应用，但每个应用都必须忠于经文的解释。我们必须认真研读，并解释 上帝的话语，找出每段经文，每个字句 上帝原本的意思，否则我们就会穿凿附会的，把自己的意思或者看法强加在经文里，从那里又衍生出不正确的应用，以致在传讲 上帝的话语时，危害到听的人。因此，我们要注意，经文的解释要与应用一致相关，而应用也要与解释一致相关。——塞德•詹姆斯牧师记住合理应用是《圣经》完全价值的一部分，就让我们来看《海德堡教理问答》表达的另一个更正教传统，是怎样应用不可杀人这条诫命。这份要理问答写于十六世纪的欧洲，目的在于帮助人认识《圣经》教导的概貌，但它仍是可能有谬的。《海德堡要理问答》问题105是这样问的：
上帝在第六条诫命里命令什么？要理问答是这样回答的：
我不可在心思、言语，或外表上，更不可在行为上，任凭自己亲自或假手于人作出诽谤、仇恨、侮辱或杀害我邻舍的事；反要弃绝一切报仇的心。再者，我不可伤害自己，也不可自陷于危险中。此要理问答在许多《圣经》详述的光照下解释了不可杀人这条诫命，这些详述包括耶稣在马太福音5章的详述，保罗在罗马书12章的对报仇的教导。
正如我们可以看到的，「不可杀人」这条简单命令的完全价值，可以是极其复杂和多面。海德堡要理问答的作者跟从耶稣和保罗的教导，不仅把这条诫命合理应用到不公义夺人性命，也应用到在性质上与杀人相同，但程度不及的事情上，比如恨人、侮辱人。像这些的应用是建立在禁止杀人原本含义和它的《圣经》详述之上，并且切合我们当代的处境。出于这些原因，它们是不可杀人这条诫命完全价值的一部分。
如果你问：关于不可杀人，这个诫命的合法应用是什么？很显然的，那就是你不可以杀人，然而若说这个诫命只是这样的意思，显然也是不足够的。登山宝训里，耶稣说，如果你对你的弟兄发怒，你就是在犯杀人罪了。他要我们深入去看，如果我们对某个人发怒，不高兴，那就是犯了这个诫命了。因此，就现今的应用而言，我们需要帮助人们看到，十诫仍然与我们的生活息息相关，因为这些诫命显示得罪 上帝的严重性，也让我们体会到，我们一些微小的行为，就我们感受到的，不管是贪恋，愤怒，或是其他的各种情绪，如果 上帝不是从心思层面来对付的话，它们就有可能继续滋生而形成严重问题。因此，对于经文的应用，我们需要帮助人们看到，并且处理那些可能严重化的小问题，就耶稣在登山宝训所说的，那些问题，即使是在萌芽阶段，都需要严肃对付。——西门•沃伯特博士在登山宝训里，耶稣给予我们关乎律法的权柄性教导，其中一件事就是把诫命深入到心思的层面。因此当他说道：「你们听见有吩咐说，不可杀人」，那诫命仍然有效，但耶稣接着深入指出律法的真正用意。他指出，我们不但不可以杀人，连凶狠的，仇恨的，带着杀气的话也不能说；例如，「骂人是笨蛋」，或是憎恨弟兄等等的言行都不该有。换句话说，耶稣告诉我们，出埃及记的十诫不只是不能做那些事情，他也要我们读的时候，了解那些律法中更深的用意。因此要了解这些律法，不单只是一个警戒，也是一个正面性的命令。那些条例不只是说，「不可杀人」，另一方面的意思则是「要尊重生命」。因此，耶稣把旧约的重要部份加以分解成两件事：要全心爱 上帝，也要爱邻舍如同自己。这个关乎爱的正面诫命，乃是律法的真正用意。——布然敦•考威博士在现代世界，基督徒要对各种各样与《圣经》禁止杀人诫命相关的问题作出判断。我们要处理堕胎、安乐死、自杀、战争、极端贫穷，还有许多威胁到人类的生命与尊严的问题。在每一种情形里，不可杀人的诫命都把各样责任放在我们身上。我们这些解释《圣经》的人，其中一样任务就是找出这些责任是什么。我们这样做的时候，就更完全地揭示出这条诫命的真实含义。
在关于含义复杂性的这一课，我们讨论了把《圣经》文字含义看作是它唯一、文法-历史含义的历史，我们从一处《圣经》经文原本含义、《圣经》详述和合理应用的角度，讨论了它的完全价值。
正如我们在本课学到的，每段《圣经》经文都有着一个复杂的原本含义。此含义如此复杂，以许多不同的方式冲击着原本听众的观念、行为和情感。但是，除此之外，有许多不完整的总结构成了这个唯一复杂的原本含义。原本含义为我们提供了一个无缪的架构，成为我们理解《圣经》的基础。不过，为了获得对《圣经》完全价值的理解，我们也要在《圣经》详述中得到指引，同时还要在我们当今的世界中做出许多合宜的应用。
He Gave Us Scripture: The Complexity of Meaning
INTRODUCTION
There's an old adage that comes up frequently in discussions of biblical hermeneutics. It goes something like this, "There is one meaning, but there are many applications of that meaning." For example, the Bible gives us a simple, straightforward instruction like, "Love your neighbor." But we must apply this instruction to our lives in many different ways as we deal with different neighbors in different circumstances.
Now, as helpful as this insight may be, when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures, we need to acknowledge that the meaning of every biblical passage is complex or multifaceted. So, rather than saying, "There's one meaning but many applications," it's much more helpful to say something like this, "There is one meaning, but, there are many partial summaries of that one meaning. And there are many more applications." The one meaning of every biblical passage is so complex that we should learn how to summarize it in many different ways, and then apply it to our lives.
This is the fifth lesson in our series He Gave Us Scripture: Foundations of Interpretation. We've entitled this lesson "The Complexity of Meaning" because we'll be exploring the ways in which Christians throughout the ages have attributed different types and numbers of meaning to biblical passages.
Our discussion of the complexity of meaning in the Bible will divide into two parts. First, we'll look at what interpreters have often called the "literal sense" of Scripture. And second, we'll focus on the full value of a text, which extends beyond the literal sense in a variety of ways. Let's turn first to the literal sense of Scripture.
LITERAL SENSE
The term "literal sense," sometimes called by the Latin expression sensus literalis, is often confused in our day with the term "literal interpretation." "Literal interpretation" refers to wooden or mechanical approaches to understanding the Bible. But historically, the term "literal sense" has always meant something much more akin to what modern evangelicals have called the "original meaning" or the "grammatico-historical meaning" of a passage.
The literal sense takes the words and phrases of Scripture according to the intentions of the author and the historical contexts of their original audiences.
It pays attention to the different genres in Scripture. It acknowledges figures of speech like metaphors, similes, analogies, and hyperbole — to name just a few. It takes history as history, poetry as poetry, proverbs as proverbs, and so on.
There are a number of different genres of biblical books, and it's important to understand the differences in those genres in order that we can understand them and interpret them appropriately. We don't understand all genres to be doing quite the same thing in quite the same way. And so by understanding and paying attention to the genre of the biblical books, we allow the books themselves to set the agenda for how we are to interpret those books. [Dr. Brandon Crowe]
When we see that the literal sense of a biblical passage includes much more than the mere words written on the page, we begin to become aware of how complicated the sensus literalis of every passage can be. The intentions of authors are multifaceted. Genre considerations complicate the meaning of a passage. Figures of speech and the like also introduce a host of considerations. These factors reveal the manifold intricacies of the original meaning of every biblical passage. And these complexities have led many well-meaning Christians to approach the meaning of Scripture in different ways.
Throughout history, Christians have nearly unanimously affirmed the need to find the literal sense or original meaning of biblical texts. But there have also been other voices arguing that Scripture's meaning is so complex that it can't be sufficiently summarized under the heading of the literal sense. So, in this part of our lesson, we'll explore the history of the term "literal sense," in order to see how the literal sense, properly understood, can help us investigate and describe Scripture's complex meaning.
We'll look at two major ways the complexity of meaning in Scripture has been associated with its literal sense. First, we'll see that some followers of Christ have said that the literal sense is only one of Scripture's multiple meanings. And second, we'll focus on the idea that the literal sense is the singular meaning of the Bible. Let's look first at the belief that the literal sense is only one of Scripture's multiple meanings.
Multiple Meanings
In the early church, the idea that Scripture has multiple meanings largely resulted from allegorical approaches to hermeneutics. An allegorical approach is one that interprets the historical people, places, things and events described in Scripture as if they were symbols or metaphors for spiritual truths. A tree might represent a kingdom, a war might represent an internal struggle with sin, and so on. In allegorical interpretations, the physical realities described in the Bible are often downplayed, and can even be dismissed as unimportant or untrue. And the spiritual ideas represented by these physical realities tend to be treated as the more important matters of Scripture.
Christian allegorical approaches are sometimes traced to the Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who lived from around 20 B.C. to perhaps A.D. 50. Philo laid the foundation for Christian allegorical methods by viewing the Hebrew Scriptures as allegories that revealed higher spiritual truths.
After Philo, during the early centuries of the church, leading Christian scholars took a similar approach to interpreting both the Old and the New Testament of the Bible. This was especially true in Alexandria's Catechetical School, which taught theology and interpretation of the Bible to theological students.
One of the more famous teachers at the Catechetical School was Origen, who lived from A.D. 185 to approximately A.D. 254. Origen divided the meaning of Scripture into two categories: the literal sense and the spiritual sense. Drawing from Paul's distinction between the letter and the Spirit of the Law in 2 Corinthians 3:6, Origen said that every passage of Scripture has two main types of meaning: the letter of the text and spirit of the text. By "letter," Origen meant the plain meaning of the words in their grammatical context. And by the "spirit" of a text, he meant the figurative senses — meanings that went beyond the plain sense of the words themselves. Origen tended to equate the letter of the text with its literal meaning, and he defended the authority of the literal meaning. But in addition to this, Origen argued that mature, spiritual believers should look beyond the literal meaning to find the spiritual sense of Scripture.
For example, in his work On First Principles, book 4, chapter 1, section 16, Origen argued that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 were contrary to reason, and therefore that Christians should ignore their literal sense and look for deeper spiritual meanings. Not surprisingly, Origen's allegorical methods have been criticized many times throughout history. But his approach still had significant influence on the direction of early Christian hermeneutics.
Some ancient interpreters like John Chrysostom had some brilliant insights on biblical narratives like the book of Acts, and he tended to read them more literally. The way we normally read narratives, we try to hear what the narrative is saying and we try to draw lessons or morals from the narrative. You have other interpreters like Origen who tended to allegorize, turn them into a series of symbols, and the danger of that methodology is it's not really the way the Bible was written for us to grasp it that way. You have that method actually being derived from Greek philosophers who were trying to explain away the old myths, the embarrassing things in the old myths, and sometimes the approach to the Bible in that method borders on that. They're no longer trying to hear what the text itself said. They're trying to make it more inspired, in a sense, by reading something else into it. At the same time, even Origen sometimes has some really good insights. [Dr. Craig S. Keener]
Origen's propensity toward spiritual or allegorical approaches to the Bible reflected the influence of Neo-Platonism on the early church. In this view, the Scriptures came from God who was pure celestial spirit. And as a result, it was assumed that the Scriptures didn't actually teach about the material world. Matter was, by its very nature, evil. So, when the Scriptures referred to physical things that took place in history, they actually pointed to heavenly, spiritual truths that could be discerned by allegory. The true meaning of Scripture, in this view, was in these greater spiritual truths, and discerning these truths was the highest goal of biblical interpretation.
Sadly, many Christian theologians embraced these notions. And as they did, they encountered serious problems with the Bible's accounts of the material world. The Old Testament focuses on things like: the creation of the universe, earthly blessings in the lives of God's people, Israel's physical deliverance from slavery in Egypt, and the establishing of an earthly kingdom for God's people in the Promised Land. And the New Testament focuses on physical events in Jesus' life and the lives of the apostles. For Christians influenced by Neo-Platonism, the physical aspects of these histories were problematic because they portrayed the material world as God's good creation. So, they appealed to the schools of allegorical interpretation as a means to reconcile the Bible and Neo-Platonic philosophy. Their hermeneutical approaches downplayed the physical realities recorded in the Bible, and encouraged Christians to look for the deeper spiritual truths they were intended to teach.
The spiritual sense of Scripture was explored and categorized in a number of different ways. One influential approach was known as the Quadriga — a Latin term for a Roman chariot drawn by four-horses. The image of a quadriga was applied to Scripture to indicate that the Scriptures were harnessed to four distinct meanings.
John Cassian, who lived from approximately A.D. 360 to 435, described this approach in some detail in his work Conferences, conference 14, chapter 8. Cassian followed Origen's basic distinction between the literal and spiritual senses. But he went beyond this by identifying three kinds of spiritual meanings: the allegorical sense, which was the doctrinal teaching of a passage; the tropological sense, which was the moral teaching of a passage; and the anagogical sense, which was the passage's teaching about heaven and eschatological salvation.
For example, according to the Quadriga, when a biblical passage mentions "Jerusalem," the reference may be understood in four ways. In its literal sense it's the ancient capital of Israel. In its allegorical sense, it refers to the Christian doctrine of the church. In its tropological sense, Jerusalem might be either a faithful believer or the moral qualities of the human soul. And in its anagogical sense, it could be the heavenly city described in the book of Revelation.
Now, it's important to note that throughout the centuries biblical interpreters debated just how closely the spiritual meanings of a biblical passage should be tied to its literal meaning. Some argued that all meanings were vitally connected to the literal meaning, but others said that each sense of the text was independent of the others. And they appealed to hidden spiritual meanings that had nothing to do with the literal sense.
As just one example, the influential French theologian Bernard of Clairvaux, who lived from 1090 to 1153, promoted some extremely imaginative interpretations of Scripture that divorced its spiritual senses from its literal sense. For instance, his interpretation of the Song of Solomon was completely unrelated to the literal sense of the text. Listen to these words from the Song of Solomon 1:17:
The beams of our house are cedars; our rafters are firs (Song of Solomon 1:17).
When we read this passage in its historical context, it isn't difficult to see that it was a description of Solomon's actual palace. It exalted the king by calling attention to the wonder of his royal dwelling.
But Bernard of Clairvaux didn't allow the literal, grammatico-historical sense of this verse to govern his interpretation. From his point of view, this passage actually symbolized spiritual realities. The house itself represented the people of God. And the beams and rafters of the house corresponded to church authorities. He went on to say that this verse taught how the church and state were to operate alongside each other as well. The spiritual meanings Bernard thought he found in this passage didn't emerge from, or even coordinate with, its literal sense.
Martin Luther, in his lectures on Genesis, he talks about this allegorical style of interpretation — and by allegorical I mean not the author's intended allegory but taking a text and allegorizing it in a way that the author did not intend. And he says that in his youth, in his younger years, Luther says I was pretty good at this, too, and I received a lot of applause for it. But this is not faithful to the Scripture. Calvin also speaks of this allegorization and says it's like putting a wax nose on Scripture and you can just turn it whichever way the interpreter wants rather than being faithful to the author … However, I do think there is value in reading the church fathers, and Luther obviously read them, too, even as he criticized them. We learn from them, even as they often illegitimately took true doctrines and put them on texts that weren't saying that, we understand what they were trying to do. They were trying to understand how to interpret the Old Testament and make it relevant for Christians, even as they, we would say, I think often sometimes went astray in that. So we can learn about how they interpreted Scripture. And there are also many faithful examples of interpretation throughout church history that we can learn from. [Dr. Robert L. Plummer]
The idea that Scripture has multiple meanings has gained wide acceptance in the contemporary world too but mostly for different reasons. Instead of arguing that God designed Scripture to communicate on multiple levels, many modern interpreters believe that the Bible's multiple meanings result from the inherent ambiguities of language itself. They argue that language is so ambiguous that it can never have a single precise meaning. And because of this, the best we can do is to determine some vague limits or boundaries of a biblical passage's meaning. But in this view, these multiple meanings of the Bible cannot be verified and they must simply be accepted as one person decides it means this and another person decides it means that.
Now that we've seen that many Christians have believed the literal sense of Scripture to be just one of its multiple meanings, let's consider the idea that the literal sense is the singular meaning of Scripture.
Singular Meaning
The famous theologian Thomas Aquinas, who lived from around 1225 to 1274, championed a much more responsible approach to the Quadriga. Unlike many of his predecessors and contemporaries, he insisted that the literal sense of Scripture was foundational to all its other senses. For instance, in his Summa Theologica, part 1, question 1, article 10, he insisted that every legitimate spiritual interpretation was rooted in the literal sense of a passage. He also taught that nothing necessary to faith was communicated as a spiritual meaning without being taught elsewhere in Scripture in the literal sense. Not all scholars would agree that Aquinas always followed these principles as he interpreted the Scriptures. But nevertheless, he insisted in principle that every sense of a passage of Scripture must be tied to its literal meaning.
Although Aquinas' efforts to anchor spiritual meanings in the literal meaning of the Bible may seem like common sense to most of us, his point of view wasn't adopted by everyone. Spiritual interpretations that were disconnected from the literal meaning of passages had been used to support many doctrines of the medieval church. And church authorities asserted that they had special God-given insights into spiritual meanings that had no connection to the literal meaning of the Bible.
But the Renaissance in Europe during the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries set the stage for a dramatic shift in the interpretation of Scripture. In brief, Renaissance scholars began to study classical literary, philosophical, and religious texts in their original languages. As they did, they also interpreted these texts apart from the authority of the church by highlighting the literal, historical sense of these texts. And it wasn't long before this approach was also applied to the Scriptures. This strategy of interpretation equated the literal sense with what we've called the original meaning of biblical passages. And it emphasized the centrality and authority of this literal, original meaning.
Well, in the medieval church, most believers affirmed that God's full intent in Scripture was known through a fourfold approach: The moral following the literal, the anagogical, and the allegorical. So the Reformers of the sixteenth century — called Protestants by most of us — objected to this, part in theory but especially because of what came out of that, which was a tradition of teaching that they felt was, in some cases, a corruption of Scripture, or it obscured the original intent or authorial intent of Scripture, in favor of church authority. [Dr. James D. Smith III]
The Quadriga, or the fourfold sense of Scripture, has a long and ancient history and tradition within the Christian church … So, and the Reformed fathers were pushed on this by some of their Catholic counterparts during the time of the Reformation, because the Reformers were insisting that there's only one sense or meaning to Scripture. But in response, people like William Whittaker, for example, said we don't reject the Quadriga, the sense that there's four senses to Scripture; we do reject the idea that there's four meanings or senses to Scripture. There's just one, and it's the historical, the literal, the grammatical. But the other three are collections or what we might today think of as applications, something along those lines. The idea is that they're grounded in that one sense, but they are the proper sorts of lines to think about how that one sense applies to us as readers of the Bible today. And so, it wasn't a complete rejection of the Quadriga so much as a reformation of it, a reworking of it, so that there's the one sense now with these various three lines of application along the lines of faith, hope and love. [Dr. Bruce Baugus]
During the Renaissance, Protestants continued to develop the ideas that had been championed by Aquinas. But they didn't argue that all spiritual meanings are merely grounded in the literal meaning of Scripture. Instead, they said that all the spiritual aspects of a text that were intended by the author for his original audience are actually aspects of its literal sense. They believed that Scripture's literal sense, or original meaning, is both singular and complex. We might say that Renaissance Protestants broadened the concept of the term "literal" so that it included everything the author intended the "literature" of Scripture to convey. As a result, leading figures like Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther and John Calvin thought of the literal or original meaning as including everything that each biblical passage means. They saw the literal sense as a complex meaning that included historical, doctrinal, moral and eschatological aspects.
It can be helpful to illustrate the Protestant conception of the literal sense of Scripture by comparing it to a cut gemstone. Cut gemstones have multiple "facets" or "faces," just as there are many smaller senses that contribute to the literal sense of Scripture. Each passage of Scripture was intended by its author to communicate something about historical facts, doctrines, moral obligations, salvation and eschatology, and so on.
Moreover, each facet of a gemstone is a distinct surface that contributes to the beauty of the whole, and no single facet can claim to be the entire stone. In a similar way, biblical passages have distinct aspects that contribute to the meaning of the literal sense, and none of these smaller aspects can claim to be the whole literal sense.
Put simply, the meaning of Scripture is multifaceted. Each passage's meaning has many smaller parts or aspects that contribute to the singular, unified meaning we've called its literal sense.
The Bible is a rich book. It's a deep book. It comes from the mind of God, and I would dare say the mind of God is pretty vast, and the ideas that are expressed are vast and they have many angles … And so evaluating interpretations is simply a matter of sitting down and asking yourself, is this angle an appropriate way to read the text? … And so you just have to think through the options in terms of the potential for multiplicity and the appropriateness in the context of looking at things from a variety of angles in that way, and then be open to the possibility that meaning in fact is and can be complex. As a result, it actually enriches your interpretation because a passage can be doing more than perhaps the initial understanding, the initial impression I may have, and I can learn from someone else's reading of the text as a result. [Dr. Darrell L. Bock]
Every passage of Scripture of significant size has implications for many different aspects of theology and Christian living. So, it's easy to understand why many people throughout the history of the church have thought that biblical passages have multiple meanings. But the most responsible approach to the richness of the Scriptures is to ensure that everything we say about a biblical passage is tied to its grammar set within the historical context of the ancient world. And if we approach the Bible in this way, we'll be better prepared to discover the complex meaning that God and his inspired human authors intended to communicate to the original audiences of Scripture.
So far in our discussion of the complexity of meaning in Scripture, we've seen why Protestants strongly affirm the importance and scope of the Bible's literal sense. So at this point, we're ready to turn our attention to what we'll call the full value of scriptural passages.
FULL VALUE
From time to time, evangelicals use the expression sensus plenior, meaning the "full sense" of Scripture. While we affirm the importance of the literal sense or the original meaning of a biblical passage, we also realize that later portions of the Bible often refer to earlier portions of Scriptures in ways that do not simply repeat the literal or original sense. This is especially true when New Testament authors point out how the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ. New Testament authors interpreted Old Testament passages correctly. They never contradicted their original meaning. But they did not simply confine themselves to the original meaning. Instead, they discerned a fuller sense, a sensus plenior, for these Old Testament passages. And so, along these lines, we will speak of the "full sense" or the "full value" of every biblical passage.
In this series, we'll define the full value of a biblical text as:
The total significance of a text, consisting of its original meaning, all its biblical elaborations, and all its legitimate applications.
The original meaning is the literal sense of Scripture, which is the most fundamental aspect of the text. Biblical elaborations are places where one part of Scripture comments directly or indirectly on another part of Scripture. And legitimate applications are the implications that Scripture has for the lives of its readers.
In accordance with this definition of the Bible's full value, our discussion will divide into three parts. First, we'll focus on the concept of original meaning. Second, we'll discuss biblical elaborations. And third, we'll explore the legitimate applications of Scripture to our lives. Let's begin with original meaning.
Original Meaning
In a previous lesson, we defined original meaning as:
The concepts, behaviors, and emotions that the divine and human writers jointly intended the document to communicate to its first audience.
As we've said, the original meaning of a passage is equivalent to its literal sense. And as this definition shows, the original meaning is multifaceted. Scripture was supposed to communicate to its first audience on many levels. It communicates concepts, which are ideas the original audience should have been able to recognize in the text. It communicates behaviors, which are activities that were either performed or not performed in the text. And it communicates emotions, the attitudes and feelings that are either conveyed by or expressed in the text.
Let's illustrate how a text can communicate concepts, behaviors, and emotions by looking at Exodus 20:13, which states:
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13).
Let's think about this passage in terms of our definition of original meaning. What concepts, behaviors, and emotions did the divine and human writers jointly intend the commandment against murder to communicate to its first audience? Well, with regard to concepts, this verse explicitly communicates the idea that the wrongful taking of human life is forbidden. By implication, it communicates that human life is valuable to God. And the fact that it takes the form of a command implies that God is sovereign over human beings.
With regard to behaviors, this commandment is part of the record of God's historical actions — God himself engaged in the behavior of delivering this commandment to Moses, and Moses presented it to God's people. And this indicated that God wanted the people whom Moses led through the wilderness to the Promised Land — the original audience of the book of Exodus — not to engage in the behavior of murder.
And with regard to emotions, this passage teaches us that God hates murder, and that he is determined to uphold justice.
The original meaning of the commandment against murder was multifaceted, intended to communicate the explicit concepts, behaviors and emotions of God and Moses to its original audience, and also to teach them what God required of them regarding their own concepts, behaviors, and emotions. And something similar is true of every biblical passage.
As a result, if we want to gain the full value of the text, we have to appreciate the complexities of original meaning. If we ignore these complexities, we'll miss a great deal of what Scripture has to teach us.
The Reformers developed two methods for interpreting the text: the grammatical and the historical. One the one hand, they ask what does the text say grammatically speaking? On the other hand, what did it say in its first setting? Those two answers to those questions provide parameters, as it were. Within those fences, a variety of interpretations are valid and legitimate, and that means that within those parameters we need to exercise humility as we say yes, it could be understood a different way. Now, if one of those interpretations is in fact grammatically impossible, we say no, that's wrong. Or if one is historically impossible — they couldn't have meant that in that setting — that is to be dismissed. But within those two parameters, a variety of interpretations is possible, and as I say, we need to exercise humility in regard to our own understanding. [Dr. John Oswalt]
Scripture can fairly be read in more than one way. Now, this doesn't mean that anything goes. Some things are clearly right out. And this is once again where the, for example, the major themes that are set forth in the creeds are so helpful. The rule of faith safeguards us against errant readings of Scripture … There's something fundamentally wrong when we engage in dialogue with another biblical interpreter and we do it with an arrogant, doctrinaire spirit. [Dr. Carey Vinzant]
Now that we've seen how original meaning contributes to the full value of Scripture, let's turn our attention to biblical elaborations.
Biblical Elaborations
Biblical elaborations are:
Places where one part of Scripture directly or indirectly comments on an aspect of the meaning of another passage in Scripture.
Because all Scripture is inspired and infallible, these elaborations always accord with and confirm original meaning. Sometimes, an elaboration is stated as a repetition of a facet of the original meaning. At other times, a biblical elaboration may be stated as a clarification of things that weren't entirely apparent or well understood. And at still other times, a biblical elaboration can be an expansion of the meaning of a particular passage.
For example, the Bible elaborates on the commandment against murder in many places. The commandment is first recorded in Exodus 20:13, which says:
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13).
The first biblical elaboration of this passage we'll mention is primarily a repetition of these exact words in Deuteronomy 5, where Moses reminded the nation of Israel of the content of the Ten Commandments. In Deuteronomy 5:17, Scripture again says:
You shall not murder (Deuteronomy 5:17).
This repetition confirmed the commandment and reminded God's people of the terms of his covenant. Of course, even when an elaboration is stated in the form of a repetition, it never merely repeats what was said before — the context of the elaboration always adds something to its meaning. Even so, it's helpful to recognize that some elaborations are repetitions in form.
The second type of elaboration we listed was clarification, and we find a clarification of the commandment against murder in Numbers 35. In that chapter, Moses distinguished between murder and accidental manslaughter. Listen to what Moses wrote in Numbers 35:20-25:
If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer... But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then … the assembly must protect the one accused of murder (Numbers 35:20-25).
This clarification provides information that was crucial to understanding the commandment against murder. It makes it clear that not every unlawful instance of killing a human being is also an instance of murder and that accidents shouldn't be punished in the same way that murder is punished. When a killing includes "malice aforethought," that is, when the killing is intentional and motivated by wickedness, the commandment requires a harsh penalty. But when the killing is accidental manslaughter, the commandment actually forbids the murder of the one who committed the act.
The third type of biblical elaboration we listed was expansion, in which Scripture provides additional information about the passage or topic it references. We find an expansion of the commandment against murder in Matthew 5, where Jesus criticized the rabbis of his day for wrongly limiting the commandment's scope. Listen to what Jesus taught about the commandment against murder in Matthew 5:21-22:
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment (Matthew 5:21-22).
Here, Jesus expanded the commandment against murder by applying it beyond the physical act of unlawfully taking a human life. According to Jesus' elaboration, unrighteous anger violates the same principle that murder does. Anger isn't as bad as murder, but it offends the same aspect of God's character.
Jesus, of course, in the Sermon on the Mount, he quotes many commands, one of them being, "You've heard it said you should not commit murder." And then he says, "But I tell you this, it's not about murdering, it's about hatred. That's the issue." And so I think reading Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is incredibly important for us to understand the true meaning of the commandments, because I think that's what Jesus is doing … Jesus is getting to the heart of the issue. What Jesus is showing us — and I think we have to just apply what Jesus is saying — is that the command of murder, it's not an issue of I'm a good person because I've never committed murder; I've kept the command. What Jesus is saying is this: … it's about the intent in the heart that murder arises from, and that is hatred. [Dr. Brian J. Vickers]
Jesus invites us to go back to the principles behind Exodus that it's not just enough not to commit the sin, but you shouldn't want to commit the sin. That is, Jesus is interested not only in our behavior but in our character, not just in what we do but in who we are. So he says, "You have heard it said you shall not kill." Jesus says you shall not want to kill … So he looks for the heart of the Law. He looks for the principle, and that principle is transcultural and invites us to want what God wants, and we can do that only when our hearts are transformed by God's grace, by the power of his kingdom at work in us. [Dr. Craig S. Keener]
When Jesus and other teachers referred to Scripture, they normally talked about what was "written." But in Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus talked about what was "said," not what was "written." This was a common way of referring to what the Jewish teachers had said about what was written. Far from challenging the Old Testament, Jesus was refuting the popular interpretations of the Old Testament that had strayed from the Old Testament's original meaning.
This elaboration was an expansion of the original meaning of the commandment because it went beyond clarification. It didn't just explain the meaning of the words of the commandment itself. Instead, it brought additional information from other passages to bear on the commandment in ways that revealed the original intention of the commandment within the broader context of God's revelation. Seen against this backdrop, Jesus pointed out that the commandment against murder had always been intended to reveal God's care for humanity, and that its original implications went far beyond the mere prevention of murder.
Well, God certainly does forbid murder in Exodus, and when Jesus addresses that command in the Sermon on the Mount, he proceeds to say that it embraces hatred and anger, what we would call "heart sins." Now there have been a number of ways of explaining what's going there. What is Jesus doing with that original command? Some have said he's setting it aside and he's introducing something new. Others have said that while the command given in Exodus was simply something external, and now Jesus is coming along and he's adding something entirely new, something unforeseen and uncontained in that Exodus command, and he's internalizing the law. I think the best approach is to say that Jesus is not saying something brand new, but he's simply drawing out what's in the command already. I think that's evident, for instance, when you look at the Decalogue, the tenth commandment, "Though shalt not covet." That is a command that addresses the heart and heart sins. And that, I think, is intended as a key to the whole Decalogue, that we shouldn't understand the commands of the Decalogue to be addressing merely external behaviors but also addressing heart actions, heart sins, heart attitudes underlying those behaviors. And so what Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount is he is restoring and he is drawing out the Law in its full intent, even as he is sweeping away the corruptions that have come alongside in the course of history, the history of reading those commands in the life of God's people. So Jesus is standing, giving us the true intent of the Law and showing us the Law in its fullness. [Dr. Guy Waters]
The more we study the Scriptures, the more we see that the Bible elaborates on itself over and over. The prophets and psalmists regularly refer back to Moses' Law. Jesus continually referred back to the Old Testament. And New Testament writers did much the same time and again. At times, we may have difficulty understanding how biblical authors came to their conclusions. But in each case, biblical elaborations confirm other parts of the Bible by repeating them, by clarifying them and even by expanding on their original meaning. And they did all of this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And for this reason, as we explore the meaning of Scriptures, we must acknowledge and submit ourselves to all the places where the Scriptures elaborate on themselves.
So far in our discussion of the full value of Scripture, we've looked at original meaning and biblical elaborations. So, now we're ready to focus on the legitimate applications we can draw from a biblical text
Legitimate Applications
We'll define legitimate applications as:
The conceptual, behavioral and emotional impacts that the original meaning and biblical elaborations of a passage should have on their audiences.
Original meaning and biblical elaborations are inspired, and hold full authority over all believers in every age. That's why all legitimate applications of Scripture must be derived from and consistent with the Bible's original meaning and elaborations. But our applications are not inspired by God. We make mistakes, and our applications are always subject to modification and improvement. Even so, to the extent that our applications are true to Scripture, they're part of God's intended use for the Bible, and therefore part of the Bible's full value.
The London Baptist Confession of Faith from 1689, a famous Protestant summary of biblical doctrine, expresses this idea in its chapter 1, section 10:
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit.
Protestant churches almost universally acknowledge that human interpretation and application of the Bible are fallible. So, while human authorities are legitimate, they can never be the ultimate judges of truth. And while the application of Scripture to our lives is necessary, we should never treat our applications as if they were infallible like the Bible.
When we preach, there is an exposition — an explanation — and an application. The meaning of God's Word should be one, the meaning of the text should be one, and it should be the same throughout the centuries. But later, when it comes to seeing the text in context, it could have different applications for yesterday and today; it isn't a variation of the standard. It's a simple difference of application. [Dr. Miguel Nunez, translation]
There can only be one interpretation of Scripture. We can get multiple applications off of that one interpretation, but the application must stay true to the interpretation. We must seek to always exegete God's Word, bring out God's intended meaning of that particular passage or that particular verse, or we end up with eisegesis, which is where we bring in or put in our own opinions and our own interpretations, our own thoughts into what they may mean. From that you can get very faulty applications, which can lead to harm to the people that you may be teaching or preaching to … And so the interpretation has to be true to the application; the application has to be true to the interpretation. [Rev. Thad James, Jr.]
.Keeping in mind that legitimate applications are part of the full value of Scripture, let's see how another Protestant tradition, represented by the Heidelberg Catechism, applied the commandment against murder. This catechism was written in sixteenth-century Europe in order to provide a helpful yet fallible summary of the teaching of Scripture. Question number 105 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks:
What is God's will for you in the sixth commandment?
And the Catechism answers:
I am not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor, not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds, and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge. I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself either.
The Catechism interprets the commandment against murder in light of many biblical elaborations, including Jesus' elaborations in Matthew 5 as well as Paul's teaching about revenge in Romans 12.
As we can see, the full value of the simple command "do not murder" can be extremely complex and multifaceted. Following Jesus and Paul, the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism legitimately applied this commandment not only to the unjust taking of human life, but also to all that is similar to murder in kind if not in degree, such as hatred and insults. Applications like these are based on the original meaning of the prohibition against murder, as well as on its biblical elaborations, and they're appropriate in our contemporary situations. For these reasons, they're part of the full value of the commandment against murder.
Well, if you ask the question, "What are the legitimate ways to apply the commandment 'You shall not commit murder?'" quite obviously it means that we shouldn't kill people. But it would be insufficient to infer that that is all that commandment is saying. Jesus himself said in the Sermon on the Mount that if you are angry with your brother, then you have committed murder. And he would then encourage us to see that our anger and our displeasure of the people is breaking that particular commandment. So in terms of applying it to today, I think that it is important that we help people see that the Ten Commandments still are deeply relevant because they understand the severity of offense against God, and they also make us appreciate that even our smaller actions, as we perceive them, whether they be lust, or anger, or other emotions and passions, actually have the potential of going so much further if God doesn't deal with them at the heart-level issue. So application of that biblical text should help people see how they, as it were, nip in the bud problems that could become much worse. And actually the problems even at the level of bud-level, Jesus tells in the Sermon on the Mount, are still serious. [Dr. Simon Vibert]
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is giving us his authoritative teaching on the Law, and one of the things he does is take commands and push them down to a deeper heart level as it were. And so when he says, "You have heard it said 'do not murder,'" that remains true. But Jesus goes beyond that and shows us the true intent of the law. He tells us that not only are we not to murder, but we're not even to say murderous words, words that might be hateful, words that would be equivalent to saying, "You fool." Or, we're not to hate our brother. And he's showing us, in other words, that the Law in Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, is not simply about not doing something. He's showing us there's a deeper intent that we should understand when we read these laws. And so the way to understand these laws is not simply a bare prohibition but is a positive command as well. It's not simply "don't murder," but "do promote life." … And so as Jesus breaks down the important parts of the Old Testament, he actually boils it down to two things: Loving God with all of our heart and loving our neighbor as our self. It's a positive command to love that is the true intent of the Law. [Dr. Brandon Crowe]
In the modern world, Christians have to make judgments about all sorts of issues related to the Bible's prohibition of murder. We have to deal with abortion, euthanasia, suicide, war, abject poverty and many other threats to human life and dignity. In each case, the commandment against murder places responsibilities on us. And one of our tasks as interpreters of Scripture is to figure out what those responsibilities are. As we do, we reveal more fully what the meaning of the commandment really is.
CONCLUSION
In this lesson on the complexity of meaning, we've discussed the history of viewing the literal sense of Scripture as its singular, grammatico-historical meaning, and we've described the full value of a biblical text in terms of its original meaning, biblical elaborations, and legitimate applications.
As we've seen in this lesson, there is one complex original meaning for every biblical passage. And it's so complex that it touches the concepts, behaviors and emotions of the original audience in many different ways. But beyond this, there are many partial summaries to be made of this complex original meaning. The original meaning provides an infallible framework, a foundation for our understanding. But to gain an awareness of Scripture's full value, we also have to find guidance in biblical elaborations and we also have to make many legitimate applications to our world today.