The Principle that Scripture has a Single Meaning?Posted: January 20, 2009
Question: Dewalt can you please defend the principle that Scripture has a single meaning? How do you go about trying to draw out that single meaning? Illustrate in the case of Genesis 22. Can you have a single meaning here and still bring in Christ?
Scripture has one single meaning? Yes! To the dispensationalist, the die on that hill (which I love) but only understand it to mean original writer to original reader. However, the church today can see the one-single-meaning of the text (original writer to original reader) but more so, see how it fits into all of the Scriptures. What was said to Moses or Abraham, writer to reader is our first and foremost meaning of Scripture, but seeing how that is played out in all of Scripture and our biblical theology progresses in time with promises in covenants are where dispensationalist fall. Let me give an example:
Dispensationalism – One meaning- Meaning 1. A is to the reader then as it is today. (One-fold)
Reformed/Covenantism – One meaning- Meaning 1.A is to the reader then as it is today, 1.B is to the reader sees the OT in the NT, 1.C is to the reader as we see today through out all of Scriptures. (Multi-fold)
How I draw this out and you ask for Gen.22 so I’ll try to do that, however other passages would be easier.
Gen. 22 The Sacrifice of Isaac
1.A is that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, and God provided redemption else where.
1.B is that in the New Testament and today’s church we can see some similarities that lie in this event that seem to be a shadow and a type of example of which God did with his Son, Jesus Christ in dying at the cross.
Now, have we in the reformed camp change the one meaning no, but do we seem systematically in how Scripture has one progression in to show its goal of redemption throughout all of the cannon, yes.