Levels of Meaning

I

^Does

^the Text Have One Filed Meaning or

Several

Levels

of

Meaning?

t

Does a text have only one possible meaning, several meanings, or an infinite number of meanings? Some scholars insist that the only correct meaning of a

text is

that meaning (or set of meanings) the original author intended it to have. A vigor- ous defender of meaning as a function of authorial intention is E. D. Hirsch, Jr.4 As we noted briefly above, others argue that meaning is a function of readers not au- thors, and any text’s meaning depends upon the readers’ perception of it. Repre- sentatives of those who defend such “reader-response” approaches to meaning include Roland Barthes and Stanley Fish.5 In their approach meaning does not re- side within a text because the author put it there, rather, readers bring meaning to a text. Thus, a specific author does not predetermine meaning, for readers may deci- pher a variety of possible meanings from a written text. Most of these critics would not argue that readers can make a text say anything they please, but rather that a text may have many possible meanings. Such interpreters reject any concept of a single or normative meaning of a biblical text.

But is a text capable of more than one meaning? Morgan rightly argues that interpretation needs the checks provided by history, exegesis, and other rational.

controls to keep it from becoming arbitrary. Yet he espouses a potentially danger- ous view when he argues that “without the possibility of finding new meaning in a text, an authoritative scripture stifles development.“6 In other words, to encourage hermeneutical creativity he posits the need to continually find new meanings in the texts. For Morgan, to deny the possibility of finding new meaning increases the likelihood that “theologically motivated scholars are likely to become either biblicist conservatives opposed to any development or ultra-liberals who have little use in their own theologies for what they learn fi-om the Bible.“’

Though we repudiate the stance of the ultra-liberals, we doubt that biblicist conservatives constitute an equally abhorrent alternative. Indeed, that is precisely

‘See especially E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Zntetpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967). We should note here that even Hirsch vacillated between seeking meaning in what the author intended versus what the text meant. We opt for the latter. Our goal is the text’s meaning because that is all that we may recover. At the same time we hope that textual meaning provides a fair approxima- tion of the author/editor’s intention. That is a better goal than the alternatives, as we shall see.

5We have more to say about this methodology below. For examples see R. Barthes, s/Z, trans.

R. Miller (London: Jonathan Cape, 1975); and S. Fish, Is 7bere a Text in this Class? 7%e Authority of

Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1980).

6R. Morgan and J. Barton, Btbltcal Zntetpretation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 182.

‘Morgan and Barton, Biblical Zntetpretation, 182. We doubt that “development,” to use Morgan’s term is a desirable item on the interpreters’ agenda. Where the goal is to understand Gods revela- tion:as it is for us-development smacks of adding to Scripture, an enterprise that for the last book of the Bible, at least, was specifically condemned (Rev 22:1g-19). If development means to enlarge our understanding of the text’s meaning and its various significances, we can accept its validity.

where we position ourselves. We seek to be conservative in retaining what the bib- lical texts actually mean, rather than imposing modern (and perhaps alien) mean- ings upon them. Then we seek imagination and relevance in finding szpzificance and application for biblical principles. Morgan seeks to retain “theological flexibil- ity,” and this requires what he calls “hermeneutical creativity.” But at what price come such flexibility and creativity? Does the Bible present normative truth? Is meaning constant or is it only in the eyes of the beholder? Where are the checks and balances?

Let us focus the question further. Suppose someone read a text fkom a given author and then presented the author with a meaning that the reader had “discov- ered” in the text. The author might admit that the “discovered” meaning was not intended even though it is apparent in the text. The text means more than the au- thor intended. Does this episode imply that when language leaves the mind of an author, it is in the public domain and capable of meaning a number of different things depending upon who reads it? Does the meaning of a text rest solely in what the author consciously intended to convey, or does meaning somehow result from the interaction between the text (language) and the reader?

The biblical authors or the creeds of the church may well claim inspiration and authority for the Scriptures, but modern interpreters still decide how they will handle those claims. Will we base theology and Christian practice upon what the biblical texts communicate or upon the current objectives, concerns, and agendas of the modern community that interprets them? We may insist too glibly upon the former when the history of interpretation clearly demonstrates how often the latter has been the case. Indeed, some argue it should be the case. How we define the task of hermeneutics depends, therefore, on determining our goal.

Where does meaning reside? Is it in the meaning of the biblical text or in the reader’s acumen?

Before we can determine whether our goal in interpretation is the meaning resident in the original text or something else, we must consider the possibility of multiple meanings within a biblical text. We may suspect multiple meanings exist in a text when we see how a NT writer employs an OT text. When Matthew says that Jesus’ protection from Herod’s murderous designs fulfills* the prophecy, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Mt 2:15; cf. Hos 1 l:l), did Hosea’s words themselves have more than one meaning? In the book of Hosea the writer referred to a past event: God’s rescue of Israel from Pharaoh. But is his reference to God’s son also a prediction about a circumstance in the Messiah’s life? Did Matthew think that Hosea was speaking of Christ or did he just make up a new meaning he wanted to find in Hosea’s text? Did Matthew convey or perhaps uncover a meaning the Holy Spirit intended even though Hosea was not aware of this meaning? How did Matthew arrive at his interpretation? It seems we have several options to consider.

1. An author intends only one meaning for a text; so this original, historical meaning is the legitimate object of exegesis. In this case, Hosea’s intent focused on

ZThe verb “fulfill” also occurs in verses 17 and 23 in this chapter. It occurs five times in chapters l-2. All present problems for understanding Matthew’s use of the OT.

God’s rescue of Israel. If so, that raises a question: Can a NT writer discover more meaning in an OT text than what the original writer intended? Walter Kaiser ar- dently insists that no NT writer ever finds more, or a different, meaning in an OT text than was originally intended by that OT writer.9 Kaiser does not object to say- ing that a NT writer might variously apply or develop implications of the OT text that the original OT writer did not intend. That is on the level of significance. Kai- ser rejects the idea that a NT author finds additional or different meaning.10

However much some may laud this stance, major questions surface. Moo in- quires whether God as the divine author may intend meaning beyond what the

human writer wrote?” Perhaps more troublesome are the data themselves: can we demonstrate that all NT uses of the OT disclose what the original OT author actu- ally intended? Though Kaiser has done an admirable job of defending his case in several problematic texts, we doubt that he has succeeded in each instance, or that it is possible to demonstrate that the OT writers did in fact intend all the meaning that NT writers later found. l2 We suggest there are instances where NT authors found meaning in an OT text that the OT author did not intend.

Note, for example, how the writer of Hebrews speaks as if Psa 45:6-7 was specifically written about Jesus:

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, 0 God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteous- ness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy” (Heb l&9).

Some argue that Psa 45 might be messianic, l3 but what about, more astonishingly, Deut 32:43 (as found in the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls!): “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him”’

(Heb 1:6)? For a different example, Peter employs Psa 69:25 and 109:8 as in some sense predicting what Judas did and the apostles’ need to replace him in their com- pany: “‘For,’ said Peter, ‘it is written in the book of Psalms, “May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,” and, “May another take his place of leadership”“’ (Acts 1:20). Did these OT writers intend these references as “deeper”

gFor Kaiser’s defense and explanation see, esp., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chi- c:~go: Moody, 1985).

loHere Kaiser depends heavily on the work of E. D. Hirsch. Hirsch said, “Meaning is that which 1s represented by a text; it is what the author meant by his use of a particular sign sequence; it is what the signs represent. Sign#cance, on the other hand, names a relationship between that meaning and a person, or a conception, or a situation, or indeed anything imaginable” (Validity in Interpretation, 8).

f k argues that the meaning of a text remains the same while its significance may change a great deal, even to the author.

IID. Moo, “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, eds. D.A.

(::irson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19861, 199.

lZMoo confronts Kaiser in “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” especially on pp. 198-201. Another Vrltic is P. B. Payne, “The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Human Author’s Intention,” JETS 20 ( 1977): 24352, though it is not accurate to say that Kaiser always commits this fallacy.

%ee M. J. Harris, “The Translation of Elobim in Psalm 45:7-8,” TpB 35 (1984): 65-89.

ILL lntroauctaon to nSwcaL lnterpretataon

< meanings to their words? We have no means to affirm that they did.

We doubt that in such examples the NT writers discovered the original mean- ings of the texts they interpreted. To return to our initial example, we still must account for what Matthew does with the text. Though we may generally concur that an author intends a single meaning (sense), at least in a given text, what do we make of instances where it appears a later biblical writer finds a sense beyond the surface historical sense? What other options do we have?

2. An author may intend a text to convey multiple meanings or levels of mean-

&-for instance, a literal level and a spiritual level .14 Possible examples of multiple meanings occur in apocalyptic literature and predictive prophecy. In both Daniel and Revelation, mythical beasts convey meanings about nations and leaders. Also, Isaiah’s prophecy of an upcoming birth (Isa 7: 14) was fulfilled on two levels: in the immediate future (Isa 8:1-10) and in the distant fLture (Mt 1:23). Are these ex- amples of authors who intended multiple meanings? -

In fact, when a later writer finds additional significance in an earlier prophecy (as Matthew did with Isa 7:14), we are hard-pressed to prove that the original text contained that meaning as an additional level. In other words, methodologically we struggle to devise ways to uncover multiple levels apart fi-om explicit statements in the text. That is, if the author did intend multiple levels of meaning, he or she alone can identify intended meanings beyond the historical-grammatical meaning that exegetical methods uncover from the written text.15 So this solution, too, provides little help for the process of exegesis.

But some may object, “Can’t a text be applied to a wide variety of situations?”

The answer is, yes, if the question is application, but, not necessarily, if the issue is multiple meanings. When we try to make the Bible relevant today, we are not saying that the Bible can have multiple meanings-the original that the author intended and the ones we find pertinent for ourselves. Ideally, a given text bears the meaning its author intended it to have. Though in isolation a text may conceivably have a variety of possible meanings, were the author present to adjudicate, the “correct”

meaning of a text would be that which the author intended for it. However, that same meaning can have a variety of valid significances for different readers who read it in their own time and place. An example will help explain this.

Jesus told many parables during his ministry. Subsequently, the evangelists incorporated various ones in their Gospels to serve their purposes for their readers.

Throughout the history of the Church countless interpreters have employed these same parables, as we do today in our study and teaching. Does the meaning that Jesus intended when he spoke a specific parable change throughout its history? No, we argue, but that meaning impacts different situations in distinct ways. For ex- ample, the parable of the workers in the field (Mt 20:1-16) is truly puzzling. How outrageous to pay the same wage to laborers who worked one hour and to those who had slaved the entire day! True, one denarius for a day’s work was fair, but

14Recall our discussion about some of the church fathers like Origen.

150f course, a writer might agree to a “meaning” that a later reader found in the author’s work, as we noted above.

‘l’hc C;oal or lnterpretatlon ^IL3

don’t those who worked more deserve to be paid more? What was Jesus’ point?

What meaning did he intend? It could well be to show that salvation is undeserved;

God gives his grace to those who don’t deserve it.16

In the context of Mt 19-20, though, the author juxtaposes this parable with the disciples’ faithfulness in serving Christ. Peter had said, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” (19:27). The frames at both ends of this parable make essentially the same point: the first will be last and the last will be first. The meaning for Matthew may be that disciples ought to assess their motives in serving Christ. Or perhaps the issue for Matthew’s community was the increasing priority and quantity of Gentiles as compared to Jews in the emerging Church. What were the Christians to make of this development? The meaning is single-God gives rewards at his discre- tion-but it has several possible significances. Ryken notes, “In the kingdom of God where generosity is the foundational premise, ordinary human stan- dards have been abolished.“17 The single meaning is capable of several possible significances through history.18

Our point should now be clear. Though a text may find a wide variety of significances-both in the original context and forever after-we cannot confuse significance with meaning. In other words, unless we can demonstrate that the au- thors intended multiple meanings for a text, we can never assume they did. The possibility and presence of multiple applications or significances must be distin- guished from what authors or speakers intend to communicate. Apart from clear clues in the context or the genre employed, we must expect that authors intend single meanings.l9 What other options should be considered?

3. A later reader could simply invent or read into a biblical text a meaning not intended by the original author. In other words, in the process of reading a text interpreters may introduce some sense or meaning that suits their purposes.

Returning to Matthew’s use of Hosea, the difference from the previous option lies in the purported connection to Hosea. Here, Hosea’s text exists only as a jumping-off point for Matthew to devise the later (and perhaps minimally con- nected) meaning.

‘% Jesus’ context the first persons hired probably represented the Pharisees and scribes who assumed they were working for God all along, while the last persons hired represented the tax collec- tors and sinners.

“L. Ryken, Words of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 70. Ryken suggests other possible significances that may apply across the centuries from the first to now. He submits, “Jesus here antici- pates what would become one of the great issues in the early church: the Gentiles could be saved without the encumbrances of the ceremonial laws that the Jews had performed for centuries. Was this fair?” Or again, “In any religious group, the disparity of commitment and spiritual exertion among members is immense. Do the slackers deserve salvation.7” (All these quotes occur on page 70.)

lROf course, the meaning of parables may involve several points, all of which may find a variety of applications. We discuss later both how to interpret and how to apply parables. For further help see C. L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1330).

19An example of a double meaning indicated in the context occurs in Jn 33 in Jesus’ use of andthen with its double entendre “again” and “from above.” The Greek word pneuma “wind” and

“spirit” continues the scheme. Clearly these are intentional. See D. A. Carson, 7%e Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19’91) ad lot.

124 lntroductzon to Bzblrcal lnterpretatzon

< Some interpreters believe this is the only way to understand how people actu- ally read texts.2o Once texts exist in writing, readers do with them what they please.

Understanding involves text plus reader, and each reader produces a different read- ing. Note what W. G. Jeanrond says:

The reading of a text is, rather, a dynamic process which remains in principle open-ended because every reader can only disclose the sense of a text in a pro- cess and as an individual. This signifies in its turn that reading is in each case more than the deciphering of the signs printed on paper. Reading is always also a projection of a new image of reality, as this is co-initiated by the text and achieved by the reader in the relationship with the text in the act of reading.21 In this view, given the conventions of the interpretive community of which he was a member (Jewish-Christian), Matthew had the prerogative to read Hosea in ways that were appropriate for his concerns.22 That is, through these Christian and Christological glasses, he could read Hosea and “see” Christ as the Son whom God also protected in Egypt. Interpreters today enjoy the same privileges, such reader- response critics insist. One may put on Marxist, liberationist, or feminist glasses to discover different, equally legitimate readings of a text.23

In violent reaction to this approach to interpretation, Steinmetz shows what he thinks of the modem tendency to make texts mean anything readers want when he says,

Indeed, contemporary debunking of the author and the author’s explicit inten- tions has proceeded at such a pace that it seems at times as if literary criticism has become a jolly game of ripping out an author’s shirt-tail and setting fire to it.24 He makes a legitimate point that it simply will not do to ignore the author or the historical meaning of the ancient text. Yet we cannot scorn the modern reader’s role either, for it is only in the process of reading that meaning occurs. As we saw earlier, Thiselton employs a useful image in entitling his book on hermeneutics “The Two Horizons.“25 Understanding occurs when the horizon of the text fuses with

20Such an approach is one of several, often termed “reader-response” criticism, which we men- tioned above. See W. Iser, 7&e Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978); U. Eco, me Role of the Reader (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1979); S.

Croatto, Biblical Hermeneutics: Toward a 7I1eo y of Reading as the Production of Meaning (Maryknoll:

Orbis, 1987); and two works by E. V. McKnight, me Bible and the Reader (Philadelphia: Fortress, 19851, and Post-Modern Use of the Bible: 7%e Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1988). See more on pp. 438-40 below.

21W. G. Jeanrond, Text and Interpretation as Categories of neological 73inking (New York:

Crossroad, 19881, 104.

22S. Fish defends this perspective: “It is interpretive communities, rather than either the text or the reader, that produce meanings and are responsible for the emergence of formal features” (Is nme a Text?, 14).

2?Some pointed examples include L. M. Russell, ed., Fernin& Znterpretation of the Bible (Phila- delphia: Westminster, 1985), and L. D. Richesin and B. Mahan, eds., ne Challenge of Liberation ‘Iheol- 0~: A First-World Response (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1981). See more careful assessment to follow in the Appendix.

“‘D Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” 7beology Today 37 (1980): 38.

“A: C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).

-l-he Goal ot lnterpretatlon lL3

the horizon of the modern interpreter, but only after some “distantiation” occurs- unlike the “no holds barred” approach that occurs with many reader-response crit- ics. It is worth quoting Carson at length where he makes this point.

Whenever we try to understand the thought of a text . . ., if we are to under- stand it critically . . . we must first of all grasp the nature and degree of the differences that separate our understanding from the understanding of the text.

Only then can we profitably fuse our horizon of understanding with the horizon of understanding of the text-that is, only then can we begin to shape our thoughts by the thoughts of the text, so that we truly understand them. Failure to go through the distantiation before the fusion usually means there has been no real fusion: the interpreter thinks he knows what the text means, but all too often he or she has simply imposed his own thoughts onto the text.26

The historical meaning of the text must~play a controlling role. S. D. Moore makes the crucial point that “if our texts do not contain such [i.e., invariant] prop- erties, what prevents interpretive anarchy in the academy (or in general)?n27 We cannot simply dispense with the historical sense and do what we please with texts.

We doubt that Matthew simply engaged in some arbitrary reader-response reading of Hosea. Then what did he do? Is it possible in any way to replicate his methods?

Before we respond to these questions we have further options to consider.

4. Along with the literal sense intended by the human author, the Holy Spirit may encode a hidden meaning not known or devised at all by the human author. Thus, in the process of inspiration God could make Matthew aware of a meaning previ- ously intended by the Holy Spirit even though Hosea had no idea his words had that meaning. Matthew recognized a “fuller” sense, sometimes called the sensus plenior. In J. R. McQuilkin’s thinking, “the second (hidden or less apparent) m e a n i n g . . . might have been only in the mind of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the author. n28 The question, then, is whether OT texts possess a surface intentional meaning (intended by both human and divine authors) and an additional underly- ing meaning or meanings-a sensusplenioeintended by the Holy Spirit. Further, expanding the question beyond certain OT texts later cited in the NT: Can Scrip- ture more generally be said to have this “deeper level” of meaning? Is there a “fuller sense” intended by the divine author beyond what the human author intended that a modern interpreter of the Bible might discover?

Almost by definition, a fuller sense cannot be detected or understood by the traditional historical, grammatical, and critical methods of exegesis. That is, such meth- ods can only distinguish the meaning of the text, not some secret sense embedded in the text that even its author did not intend. If this is true, on what basis might the existence of such a sense even be defended? Do all texts have a deeper meaning?

And, if all texts do not have this sensusplenior, how do we know which ones do?

“D A Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 19841, 21-22.

27S ’. . D’ Moore Litera y Criticism and the Gospels: The Xhzoretical Challenge (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 19891, 68.

“J. R. McQuilkin, Understanding and Applying the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 19831, 29.