Is it Possible for a Scripture to Have Multiple Meanings?

Is it possible for a passage of scripture to have multiple meanings? How does this affect our understanding of doctrine and theology?

The short answer is yes

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hermeneutics-principles-of-biblical-interpretation

Is it possible for a passage of scripture to have multiple meanings?

Absolutely; for example -
…”I will also sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and to carefully observe My ordinances.…(Ezekiel 36:25-27). This prophesy was given to the nation of Israel, but it also refers to the born again experience. At the new birth, our sins are forgiven and cleansed, we are in Christ, a new creation, and the Holy Spirit is now dwelling in the believer.

One of the marvelous things about the Word is that the Holy Spirit will give you more light on a scripture that you have read 100 times.

Travis,
The living word will invariably be considered and related to based on the subjective disposition of the reader/hearer. While this wouldn’t change the objective value of the scriptures, it does appear to affect the subjective rendering of the word in that the more we steep ourselves in the word, the more that’s imparted into us, with hereto before opaque and placid passages of scripture are quickened and become alive in us as it were, relating to even the most nuanced experiences of the believers. It (the word of God) can be as hard as iron and as soft as silk offering both boundary as well as comfort.
(for me) The Lord has opened or given light to passages that had previously been hidden or obscured, with each time an opportunity is afforded to grow in the word as the word takes root and grows in us <

The implications are equally profound and perhaps that’s one reason why there are many admonitions to handle the word considerately, skillfully even. Many times in our zeal, we lack the discipline necessary to handle the word properly and as such actually injure our fellow members faith, rather than serving to build it up.

Something that had occurred to me fairly early on is that the word of God has quantative value in that (like the many facets of a diamond) no matter how you approach it, it’s inherent internal value is present even when we don’t have the understanding to appreciate it. Which is to say that the very passage of scripture that in one season may be convicting and restrictive, in another season may be found to be protective and life giving 🙏🏻

I believe one reason this is so, is due to the word being forever settled in heaven and as such isn’t limited to our understanding, rather our understanding is limited by the extent we accept and agree with what God has said. This is one aspect of the scriptures that (for me) never gets old… as anytime I get hung up on a passage, I simply ask for Him to open it and give understanding, believing that He will and He always does sooner or later. That seems to be directly related to my internal disposition, whether I’m willing to see it as He does. What’s deeply concerning is that we can also, as many throughout history have, use the word unrighteously and deceive ourselves and others 😳 just as the serpent used the word to tempt, deceive and beguile Gods children from the beginning by amputating passages from their original context and reforming them in ways that are abominable. Kinda like the current phenomenon of gender reassignment. We can sometimes lie to ourselves and mishandle the word, tho even here the word, in its proper form, also provides the remedy as a way of escaping the darkness of deception.

1 Cor 13 in many ways acts as a litmus test for whether we are "right” with God in that it tests the quality of the fruit we are producing…. at the end of the day is it a godly love… if so it is life giving if not it is the clanging of a gong or the creaking of a rusty gate -

Maybe slightly rephrasing the question might help, or maybe leaving it as open ended as it is would be best to see what everyone says. But I think I will say this to clarify the question.

There are prophecies in the old testament that have a bit of a double meaning. For example the Ezekiel reference. These are pretty well known examples and I believe we could point to any one of them and say, "That is one of the double meaning prophecies." In that respect, each of those passages only has one meaning, that being the immediate and prophetic double meaning of that passage. But we would never say that these passages also applied to the United States Presidential election in 2024 and at the same time apply to what my church is going to do in the next year, for example. Their meaning is limited to, well, their meaning.

So what about, let's say, New Testament passages? Does proper exigesis allow a particular verse or passage to have multiple interpretations and meanings, or is there only one truly correct interpretation? That is more what I am getting at.

I’m not sure if scripture can be read that way- ie so strictly. Paul said scripture is living and active. A verse may sting me today and provide solace next month. No one can tell me that I was wrong to be solaced because the scripture’s true meaning was to sting or vice versa.

I guess that sounds like scripture can be subjective which doesn’t sound exactly right but how else can you explain how some scripture affects people differently?

ADD: For example when Jesus said "it is finished” on the cross. One person reading that may be crushed with sorrow and another might run around the room with joy. Who is to say which response is correct?

Brother I think there is still shadows and typology within the New testament which would mean that there's one literal interpretation and then other applications that the holy spirit will apply and draw out of the text in a type of spiritual typological manner and there could be more than one application to a text.

A good example that the holy spirit has clearly revealed to many people would be Jesus making water into wine at the end of the feast and that he saved his best to last.

Speaks about the latter outpouring of the holy spirit that he saved to the end of this age that would become a great harvest and the fulfillment of the first fruits harvest of the first century and the first outpouring of the spirit.

People would set that harvest at different time frames but I would say that it began around the time of the moravian outpouring in the outpouring of the First awakening and it will continue and as the bride matures towards the end of the age because Christ is coming for a mature bride not an immature dirty harlot.

This looks to be a good example of a another clear application that David Wilkinson is using which could clearly have a literal fulfillment either in the future in a millennial kingdom after Christ comes back if that is the view you subscribed to

DRAWING WATER FROM THE RIVER OF LIFE by David Wilkerson\tReply To This Post |
Why are some believers full of peace and joy, radiating the glow of spiritual life and health to all they meet? Is it because they don’t have my problems? No! The truth is, they may have more than you””in fact, more than most people!

But these saints learned the secret of having roots in God’s river. If you are rooted in the river, you don’t need a revival; you don’t need showers of blessings; you don’t need a special outpouring; you don’t need a flood of sudden victory. And because you enjoy a constant hour-by-hour flow of life-giving water, you are not constantly moving from dry spell to blessing, from lows to highs, from revival to coldness. Spiritual famine doesn’t touch you; the scorching heat of apostasy doesn’t faze you because you are drawing water from the river of life!

If I had to choose between revival and roots, I’d take roots any day. For long after revival is gone, I would still thrive because of my roots, which would supply me daily with all I need. Ezekiel saw a river of life issuing from the sanctuary. "By the river upon the bank thereof . . . shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit . . . because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine” (Ezekiel 47:12).

God showed this prophet a river coming out of His holy temple. As time went by, it swelled from a trickle to a river in which he could swim. Ezekiel saw a man measuring the growing stream of life, until it became "a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in” (Ezekiel 47:5). You see, the early Church experienced water that reached the ankles; the Reformation had water reaching the loins. And in this day and age, the water has risen so much that we now have water to swim in!

On the bank of this river are many trees, all green and bearing fruit. And who are these trees? All those with roots of trust in Him. "And it shall come to pass, that everything that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and everything shall live whither the river cometh” (Ezekiel 47:9).

Travis that verse in ezk, is mentioned in Revelations as well so is also a New Testament reality that most would put in the future, wile David Wilkinson applied it to the past present, and future.

I really appreciate this line of questioning Travis, and have had similar questions myself through the years.

Where I am at today is that the writers (authors) of the Scriptures wrote from their personal experience, led by the Spirit, with their specific meaning and intent at that time. Each word intensely personal and written through intimate relationship with God the Father for those B.C., and Christ Jesus himself A.D., but all in the Spirit.

Fast forward to anyone in history who read the scriptures (even the early church who was reading the letters written specifically to their church in the various cities, before they were deemed "scripture"), and it seems apparent that interpretation and application can be as widely varied as the number of people that have read them!

But just because the interpretation and application of scriptures can vary, and even have widespread agreement among some people (i.e. denominations, creeds, etc.), that does not mean those people or groups are correct. It just means they agree.

What is often puzzling to me is how (seemingly) sincere Spirit-filled, Bible believing saints can often have such seemingly diametrically opposed interpretations of the same scripture.

I am often left groping with the following possible realities:

1. I am completely wrong and regardless if I think I have heard from the Spirit on a text, I have only heard in part, or not at all yet. I know this has often been true in my journey, because over the course of time as I get to know Christ better, the Scriptures come alive with new revelation, similar to what brother Fletcher shared.
2. People who have a different perspective, regardless if they think they have heard from the Spirit on a text, they have not, and they are wrong.
3. None of us have actually heard from the Spirit on the meaning of the text yet, and we are all wrong.
4. There are actually multiple true interpretations/meanings of a text, and somehow the Spirit is able to hold each of them in tension, with both (or however many) people all being right at the same time, with just difference facets of the truth. (I picture this possibility as if we are all looking at the same diamond, just a different facet of it)

I doubt this answers the question at hand really, but my aim is not to further muddy the discussion, just join with you all in seeking the Truth.

I really appreciate how you write, brother Travis. I sense a lot of humility in your posts, and that you are extremely careful in your choice of words. I thank the Lord for your example in that!

You wrote- "So what about, let's say, New Testament passages? Does proper exigesis allow a particular verse or passage to have multiple interpretations and meanings, or is there only one truly correct interpretation? That is more what I am getting at.”

Thanks for dialing it in a bit-
(For me) again it’s both 🤷🏽”â™‚️
Anyone who speaks truthfully has an intention to be taken in a specific manner so as to impart the truth they are hoping to express clearly.
So yes to only one true interpretation.

Yet are we not all members of the same body….Would we not take the imparted truth in such a way to suit our situation?
Much like how the liver, heart, kidneys, etc… use blood in different ways to produce different results but it’s the same blood and they are all at the behest of the head.

Even the gospels themselves represent an example of this as they are individually experienced and expressed, (not always exactly agreeing) yet they are all holy.

Now having said this, there are multiple warnings throughout the new covenant that we should take heed to and watch ourselves closely least at any moment we slip. But again that "slip” is gonna be different for everyone based on where they are in their walk/faith… we have to choose it, to go with Him- over and over and over….

When I first repented, was converted, baptized and saved, I didn’t know very much about God as a person. Tho I was raised in the church and had biblical knowledge, I didn’t know Him personally and as such the scriptures were obscured to a large extent. It was after more than a decade that I chose to really study out the scriptures and had some success. Tho at the end of the day, it’s the Holy Spirit that can give life to His word and reveal to us the intention of God for us from His word. Hence spiritual bread or heavenly mana, and as long as we feed on it it will produce fruit in our lives that brings glory to the Lord Jesus💯

Hi Travis,

That's a very good question! It's something that I (and probably many others) have thought about. I think that everyone agrees that we can gain something "new" or personal from Scripture in different ways.

One passage that I've thought about often in terms of eschatology is the "abomination that causes desolation." This is first referenced by Daniel in Daniel chapters 9 and 11.

Abomination #1: For many Bible scholars, this is a prophecy that directly addresses Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 171 B.C. (when the Greek king desecrated the Temple by sacrificing a pig there to Zeus).

Abomination #2: Yet, Jesus also referenced this passage in roughly 30 A.D. in a manner that referred to something that would happen AFTER that time. Many scholars connect the predicted destruction of the Temple with this "abomination" (Matthew 24:15).

Abomination #3: Others suggest that, despite the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., this refers to the "beast" described in the Book of Revelation who will be thrown "alive" (together with the False Prophet) into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 19:20).

While there are often debates about whether this refers to any ONE of these incidents alone, there is an argument to be made that this same prophecy refers to two or even all three of these possible "abominations" as prophecies.

In fact, there is a debate over which "holy place" is being referenced too. Is it the Second Temple (from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah)? Herod's Temple (repaired in late first century B.C.)? Does it refer to some other "holy place" (such as Jerusalem, Moriah or Zion itself) or the "holy ground" designation -- such as Mt. Sinai (Exodus 3:5) or the area near Jericho where the Captain of the Host of the LORD met with Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15)?

It's possible that this isn't a "multiple meaning" but a singular meaning found within multiple examples. So, there could be one overarching "abomination" that is seen manifest in multiple instances (such as Antiochus Epiphanes, Titus AND the beast of Revelation). After all, John mentioned that there have been "many antichrists" (I John 2:18) because it is a "spirit of antichrist" (I John 4:3) that influences those individuals.

Remember that "Babylon the Great" is the "mother of harlots" (plural) and of the "abominations" (also plural) of the earth (Revelation 17:5). Thus, the personification of such abomination could be a consequence of empirical power -- such as a statue with at four or five parts (i.e., gold, silver, bronze, iron and partly iron/partly clay) that represent ALL of the empires that conquered and subjugated the Promised Land.

In regard to your question, I think that this is a very distinct possibility. A singular "abomination" spoken of by Daniel that is manifest in this world as a figure within empires who comes out "conquering, and to conquer" (Revelation 6:2).

Moreover, I do think about the time that Elijah went to Mt. Sinai after having watched the LORD answer by fire on Mt. Carmel and watching it rain when he prayed during a drought. Elijah was afraid of Jezebel's fury and fled to Horeb. There, God spoke to him (twice) asking this question: "What are you doing here, Elijah" (I Kings 19:9-13).

You could look at this question several ways by emphasizing a different word:

WHAT are you doing here, Elijah?
What are YOU doing here, Elijah?
What are you DOING here, Elijah?
What are you doing HERE, Elijah?

Do you see how that can mean different things due to each specific word emphasis? In truth, this question could have four separate meanings within the same set of words.

One emphasized word ("WHAT") could focus on Elijah's purpose for fleeing. Another can be focused on Elijah ("YOU") himself. Another could focus on the rationalized action ("DOING") of Elijah. And, of course, the final could focus on the place ("HERE") since God had already chosen Jerusalem (and no longer Horeb -- since God did not ask Elijah to remove his shoes) to place his Name (Deuteronomy chapters 12, 14, 16, etc.). Of course, this same question could simultaneously and truly refer to all four emphasized words spoken to Elijah.

Amen! Well said and that is an excellent example 🙏🏻

A good example that the holy spirit has clearly revealed to many people would be Jesus making water into wine at the end of the feast and that he saved his best to last.

Speaks about the latter outpouring of the holy spirit that he saved to the end of this age that would become a great harvest and the fulfillment of the first fruits harvest of the first century and the first outpouring of the spirit.

I think what you said here is perhaps the crux of my question. I want to ask some questions to be considered here.

Does the Bible indeed say (clearly and in context) that turning the water into wine is a type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit?

Several people said the Holy Spirit revealed this to them. How would we test to know if the spirit who revealed this was the Holy Spirit, a false spirit, or their own human mind (spirit)?

What happens if the Holy Spirit reveals to several different people a different typological meaning for the description of this event? Are they all equally correct?

Why would the Holy Spirit reveal different meanings for these verses to different people?

I am asking these questions for serious consideration. The reason is this. There are a lot of different doctrines going around out there. We see from the writings of Paul and the warnings of Jesus that false doctrines, false Christs, and false prophets would deceive people in the last days. Our pattern for this deception begins with Adam and Eve in the garden and Satan's twisting of what God said.

How do we know what God means?

Chris: Agreed, there are many passages in scripture (I am speaking specifically of the Eschatological passages) that are still beyond our ability to agree upon. In that sense, I think, we simply don't have the full picture yet. Perhaps we are all wrong in some way or another. But the future events will, sooner than later I believe, show all of us to what degree our own ideas agreed or disagreed with the actual meaning. But that presuposes, in my mind, that there is one actual meaning, and a lot of surmizing that is not accurate.

And in asking the original question, I was not referring merely to emphasis. We might emphasise different words in a sentence, but it does not change the meaning of the sentence. It merely shifts our focus as we consider what, you, doing, here, or elijah. But I think we all agree that God was making a point to Elajah and that verses 10-13 make that point clear to us.

My last reply to Gary, I hope, gets at the heart of my question.

Brother I think when it comes to drawing a spiritual principle from a text while being led by the holy spirit doesn't take away the literal teaching of the text nor does it add any new doctrine to the historical church but what it does is it emphasizes biblical doctrine.

Of the water turning into wine this is just emphasizing a teaching that many like Carter conlon , David Wilkinson and hundreds of teachers Methodist,holiness Pentecostal charismatics, all believed in a great harvest at the end of the age and the outpouring of the spirit coming into its fullness this has its roots within the scriptures from Old testament prophecy, and also typology and New testament scripture.

Just the scripture of Joel that was repeated by Peter alone is used as a prophecy that teaches that there will be a great outpouring upon all flesh, there are different views to the extent of this outpouring but that this outpouring will be a fulfillment of the first fruits harvest that we saw in the first century and sporadically throughout the church history.

This isTaught by the church through men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield John Wesley and many others believed in a time of outpouring and they used bulk scriptures from the Old testament to prove this and so it's an historical church teaching to believe in a end time harvest.

Even the typology of the Old testament feasts indicate that there will be a future harvests that will be greater than the first fruits offering that began on the day of Pentecost.

When we come into the feast of tabernacles this will include a cleansing of the bride of Christ getting herself ready for the coming of the lord and then an in gathering which is represented by the feast of booths.

I'm not going to go through all the scriptures that one would gather and use to teach on the end time harvest but the apostle Paul clearly taught that there would be a great in gathering amongst the Jews.

Brother have you got any examples of what you were talking about so that we can understand exactly what you're talking about and where you're coming from I picked the first example that came to my mind about a spiritual meaning that comes from that first miracle that Jesus performed in Cana at the wedding.

I Also heard other people talk about the wine representing the blood of Christ people draw other spiritual truths out of some of the things that took place in the life of Jesus.

Bro Gary et.al.:

Drawing a spiritual principle or lesson from a particular passage is something we all do, or at least I hope we all do. It is possible to draw a principle from a passage that has nothing whatsoever to do with the passage. But a passage can teach us several different lessons. What happened to Daniel, for example, when he refused to stop praying and wound up in the den with the lions. We could draw out a principle that we ought to obey God rather than men. We could draw out a principle that we can trust God to protect us. We could draw out multiple principles or lessons, but that is not at all my question. My question goes to the actual meaning of a passage of scripture. No one would say that Daniel is a type of all of us and the lions are an allegory for the mean people in our lives. The account is a historical narrative.

I think the example you gave is a good example to illustrate what I mean by the question. You cited Joel's prophecy. Is Joel talking about the day of pentacost, or is Joel talking about a great, end-time outpouring and revival? We have actual scripture to tell us exactly what Joel meant. Peter said, "This is that which was prophesied by Joel." So Joel's prophecy has one meaning.

Or...can we claim multiple meanings for Joel's prophecy. Who determines those additional meanings? How do we know these multiple meanings hold any Biblical or spiritual water?

Can a passage of scripture mean more than one thing, or does it mean what it says, in the context it is written, agreeing with the context of scripture overall?

Another example I might give. Jesus told Peter, and later the entire group of disciples, that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. There are several different meanings for this passage being applied in the church at large today. I am not asking the question to get off in the weeds debating this particular verse. That is not the point. The point is, can all of these different meanings be equally valid? Or, is one of them right and the others wrong? Or, are they all wrong?

Can a passage of scripture have more than one meaning, more than one correct interpretation? Can a particular passage teach more than one doctrine? Not more than one lesson or principle drawn from it. That is entirely possible. That is more like Chris' comment about which word gets emphasis. I mean, are several different doctrines established by the same passage?

I hope that helps clarify the question. If three different teachers say, "The galatians 3 passages teach this or that", and if all three of those teachers say it teaches something entirely different, can they all be right?

It is a critically vital question because it is the very heart, in my opinion, of the issue of false teaching and false doctrine that we are warned about in these last days.

Is it impingent upon us to study diligently, pray, and discuss scripture for the sake of getting it right, and then being willing to change our personal beliefs to align ourselves with scripture?

Travis did you read David Wilkinson's message that I posted it shows that he is comparing a prophecy that many put in the New Jerusalem after his come down from heaven and applying it to the reformation.

So that would be an example of somebody doing it

God showed this prophet a river coming out of His holy temple. As time went by, it swelled from a trickle to a river in which he could swim. Ezekiel saw a man measuring the growing stream of life, until it became "a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in” (Ezekiel 47:5). You see, the early Church experienced water that reached the ankles; the Reformation had water reaching the loins. And in this day and age, the water has risen so much that we now have water to swim in!

David Wilkinson

Rev 2 1Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Re:\tReply To This Post |
Travis did you read David Wilkinson's message that I posted it shows that he is comparing a prophecy that many put in the New Jerusalem after his come down from heaven and applying it to the reformation.

So that would be an example of somebody doing it

God showed this prophet a river coming out of His holy temple. As time went by, it swelled from a trickle to a river in which he could swim. Ezekiel saw a man measuring the growing stream of life, until it became "a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in” (Ezekiel 47:5). You see, the early Church experienced water that reached the ankles; the Reformation had water reaching the loins. And in this day and age, the water has risen so much that we now have water to swim in!

David Wilkinson

Rev 2 1Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Both John and Ezekiel had similar visions. John is not quoting Ezekiel, and there are some marked differences between the two. And the fact that David Wilkerson used the Ezekiel vision in this way does not mean that this is what the Ezekiel vision means. It is David Wilkerson's opinion, and it only proves that David Wilkerson has an opinion.

I am totally in the dark about what, "an example of someone doing it" is referring to. Do you mean an example of someone arbitrarily assigning multiple meanings to a passage?

The question is, was David Wilkerson RIGHT? And if another pastor besides David Wilkerson says this passage refers to something else, who is right? Can they both be right? That is the question I am asking.

Again, my purpose is not to debate the meaning of the Ezekiel passage. It is to consider the question, can a passage such as the Ezekiel passage, have multiple meanings?

We use words to convey meaning. Mean is a word that can convey many different meanings. It can imply normal or average, not necessarily excelling in anything, as in, "He is no mean man." It can imply being unkind as in, "My sister was mean to me." It can imply the average of a set of numbers. Or it can imply the intended purpose of communication as in, "What did you mean when you said that?" The meaning of the word mean is determined by its context. If I am talking about people's treatment of others and use the word mean, you would never think I am referring to the average of a set of numbers.

In like manner, scripture is meant to communicate something to us. What happens if a passage of scripture can have multiple meanings? What does that do to our ability to understand and follow truth?

Is truth objective or subjective?

These are the questions we have to answer first if we are to ever walk in truth and avoid error and false teaching.

quote ..I am totally in the dark about what, "an example of someone doing it" is referring to. Do you mean an example of someone arbitrarily assigning multiple meanings to a passage?

yes, thats what I'm saying.

How do you know your right or how do you Davids right.

Brother you will never perfect understanding about that

the best thing you can do is study what many holy men in the past said about a certain passage and never get a pompous belief that we our selves will always no better than them.

Always consider other's views and never judge others dogmatically when it comes to certaint verses.

And make up your own mind with all that in consideration, and always be prepared to change your view if convinced from hearing different interpretations.

We see through a Glass darkly .

I don't believe John was quoting from Ezekial

you said In like manner, scripture is meant to communicate something to us. What happens if a passage of scripture can have multiple meanings? What does that do to our ability to understand and follow truth?

What do you have in mind, I don't believe there is two literal interpretations to any passage.

Show me what you mean brother .

the best thing you can do is study what many holy men in the past said about a certain passage and never get a pompous belief that we our selves will always no better than them.

Always consider other's views and never judge others dogmatically when it comes to certaint verses.

And make up your own mind with all that in consideration, and always be prepared to change your view if convinced from hearing different interpretations.

We see through a Glass darkly .

So let me paraphrase and see if I understand the thinking behind the statement. We study what others say about the word and draw our own conclusion from it. But, we can never dogmatically say, "This passage means this or this passage means that." If we say that we are probably in pride and need to be open to changing our mind as we hear different interpretations. Did I understand correctly?

It is true that there are some passages that are open to different interpretations. Eschatological teachings are one prime example. There are things we know for sure and there are things we don't know, and we need to admit that and not be too dogmatic. Edgar Whisenant learned that lesson the hard way.

It is true that we sometimes disagree about the exact nature of God's dealings with mankind, and we can honestly see scripture differently in those cases. One such example would be the nature of predestination. The Bible is clear that predestination is a thing. The argument is over the exact nature of that predestination. The two poles would be a Calvanist perspective and an Arminianist perspective. I would bet that most people actually fall somewhere in between. Although we debate back and forth on this topic, in the end we all agree that God does indeed predestine to some degree and that only a small subset of humanity will ultimately be saved.

But this is very different from what we see happening in the church today. Men and women are assigning entirely different meanings to scripture than what we find by a contextual reading. They are actually assigning an esoteric meaning that turns the passage on its head and rips it out of context. Usually they say, "But the Holy Spirit revealed this to me about that passage." We hear a lot about "New Revelation". Mike Bickle went so far as to say that the Holy Spirit revealed to him that God was about to change the entire expression of what Christianity looked like in a generation. Very scary stuff. Making up our own mind is not really a good idea. Scripture means what it means. Wrestling with scripture and listening to others is a good idea insomuch as it ultimately leads us to the correct understanding of scripture, to knowing what it really means. (Again, there are some areas where we will probably never fully understand, but in MOST areas, the Bible is abundantly clear.)

Let me go back to the passages I referenced from Matthew. Jesus told Peter that whatever he (Peter) would bind on Earth would be bound in Heaven and whatever he loosed on Earth would be loosed in Heaven. A bit later, Jesus reiterated this to the entire group of Apostles. The Word of Faith and NAR crowd teach, very strongly, that this means that we have the power to bind and loose principalities and power over people's lives, regions of the country, etc.. They say we can bind sickness, poverty, etc. over people's lives as well. They teach that we can loose the Holy Spirit and loose angels to do things in these arenas.

Catholicism uses this to justify the papacy.

But what does this passage really mean? Jesus is speaking to the Apostles, His representatives, who are about to be given special authority and power by God to literally establish the church and the doctrines of the New Covenant in the world at large. They are to confront error and establish truth. Binding and loosing is a very well known Jewish idiom that was used of Rabbis. It meant to declare lawful and to declare unlawful, to permit or allow, or to not permit. To the Jews it had to do with the proper interpretation and application of the law. To the apostles it is going to have to do with declaring what is of God and what is not of God, what does the doctrine of the New Covenant say, and what does it not say.

So here we have THREE VERY different interpretations of a passage. Which is correct? ALL of them CANNOT be correct. The proper interpretation has MASSIVE implications in the spiritual lives of huge groups of believers. It matters GREATLY what we believe about this passage.

My point here is NOT to debate these passages from Matthew. My point here is that how we interpret scripture MATTERS, and that there is such a thing as right interpretation and wrong interpretation.

The Bible is not annotated by God. There are no inspired footnotes.

What is written is written. We can either dissect every syllable or read it and pray for enlightenment by the HS. Scripture is living and active. It did not die on the page when written thousands of years ago.

You can take just about any passage of scripture and check three or four commentaries and get three or four different interpretations.

You can let that bug you or you can read the passage and trust that the HS is guiding you correctly. If we can’t trust HS to do that we are indeed in trouble.

"My point here is NOT to debate these passages from Matthew. My point here is that how we interpret scripture MATTERS, and that there is such a thing as right interpretation and wrong interpretation."

Amen! And what man has the right interpretation?

It would do us well to rely on the Holy Spirit, the teacher of the Church to teach us, leading and guiding us into all the truth.

And what is the truth? Jesus said "I am the truth.”

Many Christians today have a head knowledge of the Bible, they know doctrine and teaching, but what they don’t have is what the Holy Spirit is wanting to teach us, which is the experiential knowledge of the Son of God.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)

Travis what you've done there is you applied an absolute statement to eschatological teachings but now somehow that you are not going to apply that mindset to other verses in the Bible that that may be just as unclear or people who are genuine Christians may have completely different views on those text.

Great honest and sincere men and women of God disagree on more than just eschatology, this is why there's so many denominations now.

I understand your desire for wanting to be 100% correct in as much as possible.

But if you get overly dogmatic with your interpretation when other great men of God and genuine Christians disagree with you if we don't keep Unity and accept one another for different interpretations including eschatology and including the Calvinist in the arminian in issue and other issues we are going to have division and this is the problem with Christianity is we divide over doctrines that are not essential.

I'm glad you made it clear some of the things you're disagreeing with because your first post was a bit cryptic and hard to understand .

So let me just say with the teaching of binding and loosing you obviously believe that you have the correct interpretation in the Catholic church and the charismatics have it wrong and you're going to take Jewish thought and apply that and that's fine but what you have to accept is other people do not view that like that and people in deliverance ministry actually use binding and loosing and it's actually practiced so they thoroughly believe that that verse can be applied and used in deliverance ministry you just have to accept that and these are people that are not on the extreme hyper charismatic side.

The Binding of a demon in deliverance ministry is actually to declare what they're doing unlawful and to take that power theres many other ways that people can do it but it's it's just an application of a verse that works quite well for many people.

The point is Travis is not how we interpret scripture that matters it's that we do interpret scripture differently and that is Christianity and we also apply scripture definitely and we're not going to do it just like you want it done that seems to be what you're trying to propose that if it doesn't line up with your theology then it's a problem.

The problem with that is whatever denomination you're in you're always going to find someone or another group who you feel are heretics and wrong you are probably be classed as a heretic if you're a charismatic or a classic Pentecostal with the beliefs that you believe from say the independent fundamental baptists.

Your interpretation would be extremely wrong to John MacArthur and he would probably put you in the camp of nar anyway or hypercarismatic.

Many hardline Calvinists absolutely believe our ariminians and charismatics and Pentecostal are heretics and are they right?

Unity in the body of Christ is not found around conforming to your or my interpretation but found around the essential doctrines of the gospel, repentance the new birth,baptism of the spirit filled with the spirit Faith justification substitutionary atonement resurrection Ascension the coming of Jesus Christ these are all the basics and the fruit of the spirit these are the things that we have to be unified on but when it comes to these other things that you're bringing up you have to have Grace and allow people to think differently and still love your brother in Christ.

What you'll find is we just become denominational in our hearts and sectarian in our own spirits and we expose ourselves to sin in our desire and pursuit to be 99% correct

And we fail to keep the two greatest commandments and to pursue peace with all men and holiness us we get so carried away with trying to have our doctrine perfect and we start to see people as being wrong enough to not love and while we're doing all that we neglecting the love of God and prayer and things that are really important,charity.

I'm not sure how old you are Travis brother but after about 15- 20 years of this type of pursuit one can find themselves in a very awkward place where the holy spirit's is quenched and one can open themselves up to a religious spirit.

You're paraphrase brother at the beginning of your last message was pretty close to what I meant.

As we're growing in Christ say in the first 20 years of our faith and learning it's really good to consider men of God and great men of the past that have walked before us like Wesley whitefield Edwards and many others and consider what they say even when we thoroughly disagree with what they say and think they're extremely wrong we should always have it in the back of our mind that they could be right and we could be wrong and allow for us to come into more understanding as we get into the 25 and 30 years of studying and even then agree to disagree and not break fellowship.

The Bible is not annotated by God. There are no inspired footnotes.

What is written is written. We can either dissect every syllable or read it and pray for enlightenment by the HS. Scripture is living and active. It did not die on the page when written thousands of years ago.

You can take just about any passage of scripture and check three or four commentaries and get three or four different interpretations.

You can let that bug you or you can read the passage and trust that the HS is guiding you correctly. If we can’t trust HS to do that we are indeed in trouble.

Amen! And what man has the right interpretation?

It would do us well to rely on the Holy Spirit, the teacher of the Church to teach us, leading and guiding us into all the truth.

And what is the truth? Jesus said "I am the truth.”

Many Christians today have a head knowledge of the Bible, they know doctrine and teaching, but what they don’t have is what the Holy Spirit is wanting to teach us, which is the experiential knowledge of the Son of God.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)

I am not implying in any way, shape, or form that we do not or that we should not trust the Holy Spirit to help us interpret scripture. I have never even implied such a thought. I have, in fact, stated plainly that we study scripture with prayer, trusting God to help us get it right.

But herein lies a problem, and it has to do with the a general approach to scripture and our tendency to polarize around our particular denominational view. There are those who take a very intellectual approach to scripture. They interpret it very woodenly, very rigidly, and would think that God does not speak to us specifically, but rather only through the word of God. This is an extreme. On the other extreme are those who think that the word being spirit and life means that it can be viewed esoterically, with the Holy Spirit telling us what a passage means, regardless of what it really says. Again, this is the extreme.

I am not on either extreme. I am a pentacostal. I believe in the active working of the Holy Spirit through believers in supernatural ways. I believe in God speaking to me by His Spirit.

My point is simply this. If you claim to have heard the Holy Spirit give you an interpretation of scripture, and if I claim the same thing, and if your interpretations are opposing one another, or if they are totally different, somebody is not hearing from the Holy Spirit, all claims to the contrary.

My hope in asking the question is to highlight the need to be diligent in what the word really says. When we read that the word is quick and powerful (living and working), it does not mean that it is an ever-changing document that means different things to different people. It does not mean that the revelation is ever evolving. Sentences and paragraphs still have specific meanings, in context. That message, in context, is from God and carries with it God's ability. None of His words will return void, but will accomplish that for which they were given. The Holy Spirit helps us to read and understand what God was saying.

Are there mysteries in the word. YES! Are there types and shadows? YES. And BEAUTIFUL ones. The richness of what happened when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, what God showed Abraham, and what that means for me today is mind blowing.

If passages from the word of God can have multiple meanings, then they really have no meaning at all. That is my point. Will we always agree on everything we interpret? No, I would never expect that due to our fallen human nature. Did God mean something specific when He wrote, through men, His word for us? I say yes. So we might not always get the specifics right, but I am afraid many in the body have played fast and loose with the word and are running big parts of the body off into the weeds and doing great damage to the body.

Travis what you've done there is you applied an absolute statement to eschatological teachings but now somehow that you are not going to apply that mindset to other verses in the Bible that that may be just as unclear or people who are genuine Christians may have completely different views on those text.

Great honest and sincere men and women of God disagree on more than just eschatology, this is why there's so many denominations now.

I understand your desire for wanting to be 100% correct in as much as possible.

But if you get overly dogmatic with your interpretation when other great men of God and genuine Christians disagree with you if we don't keep Unity and accept one another for different interpretations including eschatology and including the Calvinist in the arminian in issue and other issues we are going to have division and this is the problem with Christianity is we divide over doctrines that are not essential.

Where on EARTH did you ever get this out of what I have said? I never said anything that even approaches what you have written here.

The point is Travis is not how we interpret scripture that matters it's that we do interpret scripture differently and that is Christianity and we also apply scripture definitely and we're not going to do it just like you want it done that seems to be what you're trying to propose that if it doesn't line up with your theology then it's a problem.

Brother, It does not matter how we interpret scripture? And why the presumption about my motive? I'm sorry. I brought up a topic for the purpose of thinking through how we approach scripture. You are quickly trying to psychoanalyze me and my motives as I try to answer what I honestly believed at first to be your attempt to properly understand what I was saying.

No offense toward you brother, but I am done with my discussion with you.

I'm not sure how old you are Travis brother but after about 15- 20 years of this type of pursuit one can find themselves in a very awkward place where the holy spirit's is quenched and one can open themselves up to a religious spirit.

I just read this line. You honestly have to be kidding me. This is how a discussion with you goes? Your post is quite offensive, and I am not one that would usually say something like that.

TwayneB,

Take heart dear brother - you are not alone in your understandings, as you surely know. Their are many and deep ironies in trying to discuss with both Gary and Mike, and perseverance will hopefully pay off - as only the Holy Spirit can shine light into obvious darkness.

I thank God you are here on the forum brother, and I hope you stick around.

Travis I'm sorry if I offended you with what I said that was not my intention I'm just trying to be honest with you 🙏✝️😊.

I'm being open and I believe that with all my heart.

Because my own experience of being like that led me down a path of grieving the holy spirit, it's a very painful experience and I wouldn't want any Christian to go through that.

BrotherGary: I get it. Thank you for your reply. I am not offended at you. It's just that your experience is not my experience. We come from very different back stories. Its very true that our experiences help to guide and shape our beliefs. Part of my point in the OP was to highlight that this is a hurdle to be overcome in approaching scripture. That proper interpretation is clouded by other things and pretty soon we are reading our own heart and our own experience into the word.

Thank you for your reply. Do t give it a second thought.

Travis .. love you brother , even if we disagree , thanks for your reply

We will disagree. I had a brother and his wife to dinner Saturday evening. We agree on most of scripture, but there are areas where we disagree. In our discussion something interesting happened that gave me an insight into our discussion.

I was raised in a very conservative pentacostal group. Parham had been called by Seymour to California to help him deal with some crazy fleshly manifestations that began to occur there. Parham was so deeply affected by what he saw that he became very much against any kind of fleshly demonstration. As a result, we were taught against raising our hands, clapping, and those kind of things. (Yes, it was taken way too far.) Our pentacostal services were VERY ordered and calm. The most crazy thing I ever saw a preacher or evangelist do was to raise his voice a bit when he was passionate about something. Actually the extreme opposite of what most people think when the think of Pentacostal.

My friend was raised in a pentacostal church. He saw preachers try to whip the congregation up into a frenzy. Stomping, snorting, and yelling were the norm. At his church they danced and ran the aisles. Bobby pins were shooting out of hair buns all over the room if you get the picture.

We discussed how these two different upbringings caused us to view things we saw later in life. I thought my group was dead and lifeless. (I found out later that it wasn't.) I began a search for the power and miracles I read about with Wigglesworth and others.

My wife and I spent time in the WOF movement. I have been to the Copeland meetings and the Benny Hinn services. I have been to the ICBM conferences. The power of God I sought was not there.

My wife and I spent time at IHOP KC. We were there when it was still in a doublewide trailer, talk about the early days. We saw them grow to what they are now. The power of God I sought was not there.

My wife and I were at Smithton many times, and later at World Revival Church. Smithton was a direct child of Brownsville, Pensacola. The power of God was not there either.

Then we fellowshipped with a bunch of NAR folk. The power of God was definitely not there. Just a bunch of unBiblical nonsense to be honest.

But my point is that my upbringing made me accept anything, almost, that seemed to have the power of God, because I thought the group I grew up in was spiritually dead.

My friend had experienced the nonsense before. So, he wanted stability without the fleshly display. He was much more critical in his approach to new things (I mean critical as in testing and holding at a distance until he was sure. Not critical as in criticizing.) What I innocently ran into, he held back from and analyzed.

So I think our backgrounds have a lot to do with how we approach things.

Just so you know me better, I am in my 50's. I have been walking with God since I was 8 years old, and have spent my life seeking God and digging into scripture. I have a passion to see the genuine workings of the Holy Spirit in the church. But, as a teacher, I have a balancing passion to see that the church is set on a solid Biblical foundation so she does not run after every wind of doctrine like I did in my younger days. I have learned a lot over the years, and I have seen a lot. I always wondered how my grandfather, when he was 80, could read people and circumstances so accurately. I am only just beginning to understand this. It comes from experience after experience.

Bless you brother. I enjoy discussing the Word of God. Hope to have more opportunity. But my passion is to know truth. I honestly don't care if I am right, or if I have to change what I believe so that I can be right. I just want to understand and live the word of God as it is written.

I believe that God had A message to get across in His word. I don't believe there are multiple interpretations of scripture. God invented language with the purpose of clearly communicating, and I believe He has clearly communicated in His word.

I believe we apply scripture in many ways. We can draw various lessons from scripture. But where sound doctrine is concerned, context is everything and when we step outside of that we get really wonky.

Hence the purpose of the original post.

Bless you brother Gary.

Hey Travis,

I found your sharing interesting and even a bit perplexing, given your many experiences with God and in operating in the gifts of the Spirit.

What do you have in mind when you say "the power of God"? What does it look like? And by what criteria do you judge whether a church community is "dead" or "alive"?

Surely you would consider your many experiences with God as a manifestation of His power in your life as well.

I found your sharing interesting and even a bit perplexing, given your many experiences with God and in operating in the gifts of the Spirit.

What do you have in mind when you say "the power of God"? What does it look like? And by what criteria do you judge whether a church community is "dead" or "alive"?

Surely you would consider your many experiences with God as a manifestation of His power in your life as well.

Hence the weakness of a forum rather than walking together in a church setting. As a man in his early 20's, I would read the accounts of Wigglesworth, Lake, and Parham. The group I grew up on was founded by Parham. My great aunt is still the editor of the Apostolic Faith Report, Parham's original newsletter. I read these accounts and asked, "Why am I not seeing these things happening in this group now?" What I saw seemed so formal and "dead" compared to what I was reading.

I wanted to find this level of manifestations of the Spirit in healings and etc.. In all the places I looked, I found people who talked a lot about it, but I never saw it there either. I think it is important for you to understand that I did not go into these places "seeking signs and wonders." In fact, I believe God led me into these places, usually by total accident. I never said, "Hmmm, I wonder if this power is at IHOP." Instead, I just found myself there one day because someone said, "Hey, I heard about this place. Let's visit it."

In the process of all of this, I have learned how vitally important it is to know the word of God and to test the spirits. I have seen it all, I think, and have realized that the group I grew up in was not lacking in anything really.

So what is the power of God. What does it look like? That is a pretty broad question, really. Paul said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God to all those that believe." So obviously the power of God is that supernatural work in the life of a person to bring them into right relationship with God.

But, it is more than that. The Holy Spirit manifests His power through the gifts of the Spirit found in 1 Cor. 12. I have seen them all in operation at one point or another, and God has used me in one or two of them from time to time. It is marvelous when God does these things.

I was just thinking this morning as a drove that God has supernaturally supplied all of my needs over the past two years. He has worked things for my good.

So I guess the power of God is the all-encompassing, supernatural operation of God in the life of a believer, whatever that looks like.

If you wonder about my perspective on signs, wonders, and miracles, well, we serve that kind of a God. But I see many people who have taken their eyes off of God and set them on the signs, wonders, and miracles, and it has caused them to miss God.

I don't know if that properly answers your question. He has manifested His power in my life in spades.

When I came to the Lord I'd never been to a church in my life I had been reading the bible for about four months and had a born again experience which transformed my life and had a second experience of being filled with the spirit that I believe now was being baptized in the spirit there was a powerful sanctifying experience where it broke off addictions extreme anger that I had.

It turned me into a new person my first experience with church was a traditional oneness Pentecostal.

And compared to what I believe the mainstream liberal denominations were I thought this church seemed very biblical and real and I'm sure there was the presence of the holy spirit.

There's also some strange things going on there and the pastor was in the middle of a court case and I realized the oneness doctrine that they were promoting wasn't what I believed in and so eventually left.

Went in the other direction and spent time at a brethren church and aligned more with Baptist theology with a very anti Catholic anti mainstream liberal anti crazy charismatic and basically anti Pentecostal stance.

And so I aligned more with men like John piper who were baptists and yet partial charismatics, Tozer and Paul washer.

After about 15 or so years I realised that what I believed in regarding the presence of the Lord from my experiencing in the beginning and the signs that followed my new birth and healing and things of that nature I never saw any of that.

I believe this scripture when it said we should cast out demons and heal the sick I didn't see any of that and my family was sick at the time and I just knew that something's not right here because the Bible says those that believe will cast out demons they will heal the sick etc and I felt my original child like faith that I had from when I was born again and transformed me and turned me from an angry criminal to a gentle child, that seemed to be slowly dwindling.

Was brought under the conviction of the spirit that I had been judging and not loving a wide portion of the body of Christ because I had calvinistic tendencies I judged people that I didn't know and assumed that they didn't have fruit in their life and so therefore assumed that they weren't Christians but I knew nothing about any of these people personally and I realized that I was just making wild assumptions and when I moved back away from calvinism which was a hard task and I moved back into my original belief which was probably aligned with an armininism in view that one can lose this salvation etc I realised that a lot of these crazy holy rollers that have their roots at azusa and in the Pentecostal in the holyness movements and in the charismatic movements they probably were Christians and I repented of judging them as being heretics and false Christians in

And the holy spirit eventually came back into my life through that repentance and brought me into a state where I experienced the power in the presence of God again with healing and manifestations of joy on speakable and a peace that passes will understanding.

And so I started to learn about healing originally from the internet me being in a small town of low population in Australia we didn't actually have a lot of great teachers and preachers.

So I learned a lot from Curry Blake regarding faith and healing and then glean from some of the people that I wouldn't considered as Christian in the past because of their associations and found out people like Michael koulianos, of Jesus image was pretty solid devoted Christians as were many in the charismatic Pentecostal movement.

Travis you could say I had the very opposite journey.

For me I found the presence and the freedom and the sanctifying power of the spirit in the charismatic Pentecostal third wave movement and some of the most devoted men that I know like Mark hemans from Australia, who was an Anglican minister who was charismatic moved in exceptional Power and the presence of the holy spirit was all over the meetings that I went to.

Tens of thousands of people received deliverance and healing experienced baptism of the spirit and in a revival atmosphere with his ministry and he's Bible teaching was solid and conservative.

My passion is also to know the truth and I appreciate my journey through the cessationist camp and learning exactly what they believe and the different the different theological positions that born again evangelical Christians take.
I also believe in only one interpretation when it comes to a literal the historical biblical interpretation but I believe we see the apostles and some of the finest men in the past like Jonathan Edwards and many others drawing applications whilst being LED from this spirit from verses that have literal interpretation.

Think we're a lot of confusion lies is that many people are actually drawing a spiritual application from a verse making an exhortation, some are assuming that these people are preaching the literal interpretation and therefore are way off the mark.

It would probably help that when people do that and use that application principle they should probably say that that's what they're doing.

People also use everyday experiences and draw from those experiences to create an exhortation convey a message led by the spirit ,that has spiritual meaning it's really similar that respect.

Awesome! Your testimony helps me see where you come from. Interesting you spent time in a oneness church. The guy I had for dinner used to call Bro. Tenny (Tommy's dad) when he needed wisdom and advice. The UPC specifically was started out of Parham's ministry in the Houston area, although Parham was absolutely not oneness. It is interesting how groups form and intermingle.

I also believe in only one interpretation when it comes to a literal the historical biblical interpretation but I believe we see the apostles and some of the finest men in the past like Jonathan Edwards and many others drawing applications whilst being LED from this spirit from verses that have literal interpretation.

This is an interesting statement to me. I have not issue with that as long as it does not imply that the passage means something different from or more than it actually means. Let me say it this way. I am good with this approach. Pastor Jones says, "I have been studying this passage. This is what it teaches. We can apply that to our lives in this way." The "this way" might vary based upon the minister, but all of the "this ways" are consistent with the actual meaning and with the remainder of scripture.

What I am talking about, and what I believe to be dangerous and a growing trend in the charismatic church especially is this. "Although a passage of scripture has only one contextual meaning, the Holy Spirit will assign many other meanings to it based upon who is reading and studying it. My revelation is this. I have this revelation because I had a epiphany in prayer and an angel appeared to me to give me this new revelation of the passage."

Maybe that helps.

I believe if you receive a revelation in prayer or after an extended fast or from an Angel, and this revelation is in opposition to and is blatantly unbiblical, clearly contradicting the doctrines of Christ and the fundamentals, then it is a demon that has spoken.

I believe if you receive a revelation in prayer or after an extended fast or from an Angel, and this revelation is in opposition to and is blatantly unbiblical, clearly contradicting the doctrines of Christ and the fundamentals, then it is a demon that has spoken.

Totally and wholeheartedly agreed.

My take on this issue:

While it is possible for a particular verse to have multiple meanings (examples: multiple fulfillment of prophecies; verses such as Joshua 1:9 being applied to a Christian's circumstance), there is still a limit to the number of admissible interpretations.

That's perhaps not the most satisfying answer... In general, I think it's difficult to come up with definitive rule-of-thumbs for hermeneutics.

@twayneb ”“ this thread sort of went off the rails for a bit... I think it'd be great if we could have a conversation over e-mail (especially with the SermonIndex forums closing soon).

If you're cool with that, I can ask Greg to pass you my e-mail address.

I had not heard that the forums were closing. That is a sad thing. Do you know the reason for it?

SermonIndex's announcement:

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=66633&forum=16&order=0