APPENDIX TO PART I.
NOTE A. Page 56.
On the Double-sense Theory of Interpretation.
THE following extracts, from
theologians of different ages, countries, and churches, exhibit a powerful
consensus of authorities in opposition to the loose and arbitrary method of
interpretation adopted by many German and English commentators:
' Unam quandam ac certam et
simplicem sententiam ubique quaerendam esse.'- Melanethon.
('One definite and simple meaning of
[Scripture] is in every case to be sought.')
'Absit a nobis ut Deum faciamus
o,.i,glwtton, aut multiplices sensus affingamus ipsius verbo, in quo potius
tanquarn in speculo limpidissimo sui autoris simplicitatem contemplari debemus.
(Ps. xii. 6; xix. B.) Unicus ergo sensus scripturae, nempe
grammaticus, est admittendus, quibuscunque demum terminis, vel propriis
vel tropicis et figuratis exprimatur.' -Maresius.
(Far be it from us to make God speak with
two tongues, or to attach a variety of senses to His Word, in which we ought
rather to behold the simplicity of its divine author reflected as in a clear
mirror (Ps. xii. 6 ; xix. 8.) Only one meaning of Scripture, therefore, is
admissible: that is, the grammatical, in whatever terms, whether proper
or tropical and figurative, it may be expressed.)
'Dr. Owen's remark is full of
good sense-" If the Scripture has more than one meaning, it has no meaning at
all: " and it is just as applicable to the prophecies as to any other portion
of Scripture.'-
Dr. John Brown, Sufferings and Glories of the Messiah, p. 5, note.
The consequences of admitting such a principle
should be well weighed.
What book on earth has a double
sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas ? And even this has but
one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say, "Aio te,
Pyrrhe, Romanos vincere posse; " but can such an equivoque be
admissible into the oracles of the living God ? And if a literal sense,
and an occult sense, can at one and the same time, and by the same words,
be conveyed, who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense is? By
what laws of interpretation is it. to be judged ? By none that belong to human
language; for other books than the Bible have not a double sense -attached to
them.
'For these and
such-like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is
inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation
by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty and casts us on the
boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture without rudder or compass.'-
Stuart on the Hebrews, Excurs. xx.
'First, it may be laid down that
Scripture has one meaning, -the meaning which it had to the mind of the
prophet or evangelist who first uttered or wrote to the hearers or readers who
first received it.'
' Scripture, like other books, has one
meaning, which is to be gathered from itself, without reference to the
adaptations of fathers or divines, and without regard to a priori
notions about its nature and origin.'
' The office of the interpreter is not to
add another [interpretation], but to recover the original one : the meaning,
that is, of the words as they struck on the ears or flashed before the eyes of
those who first heard and read them.' -
Professor Jowett, Essay on the Interpretation of Scripture, § i. 3, 4.
'I hold that the words of
Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object
should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it. I believe that, as
a general rule, the words of Scripture are intended to have, like all other
language, one plain definite meaning, and that to say that words do mean a
thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it, is a most
dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture.'- -Canon Ryle,
Expository Thoughts on St. Luke, vol. i. P. 383.
NOTE B. Page 113.
On the Prophetic Element in the
Gospels.
Let us proceed to the predictions
of the destruction of Jerusalem. These predictions, as is well known, in all the
gospel narratives (which, by the way, are singularly consentaneous, implying
that all the Evangelists drew from one consolidated tradition) are inextricably
mixed up with prophecies of the second coming of Christ and the end of the world
-a confusion which Mr. Hutton fully admits. The portion relating to the
destruction of the city is singularly definite, and corresponds very closely
with the actual event. The other portion, on the contrary, is vague and
grandiloquent, and refers, chiefly to natural phenomena and catastrophes. From
the precision of the one portion, most critics infer that the gospels were
compiled after or during the siege and conquest of Jerusalem. From the confusion
of the two portions Mr. Hutton draws the opposite inference -- namely, that the
prediction existed in the present recorded form before that event. It is in the
greatest degree improbable, he argues, that if Jerusalem had fallen, and the
other signs of Christ's coming showed no indication of following, the writers
should not have recognised and disentangled the confusion, and corrected their
records to bring them into harmony with what it was then beginning to be seen
might be the real meaning of Christ or the actual truth of history.
'But the real perplexity lies
here. The prediction, as we have it, makes Christ distinctly affirm that His
second coming shall follow "immediately," --"in those days," after the
destruction of Jerusalem, and that "this generation" (the generation he
addressed) should not pass away till all "these things are fulfilled." Mr.
Hutton believes that these last words were intended by Christ to apply only to
the destruction of the Holy City. He is entitled to his opinion; and in itself
it is not an improbable solution. But it is, under the circumstances, a somewhat
forced construction, For it must be remembered, first, that it is rendered
necessary only by the assumption which Mr. Hutton is maintaining --namely, that
the prophetic powers of Jesus could not be at fault; secondly, it assumes or
implies that the gospel narratives of the utterances of Jesus are to be relied
upon, even though in these especial predictions he admits them to be essentially
confused and, thirdly (what at we think he ought not to have overlooked), the
sentence he quotes is by no means the only one indicating that Jesus Himself
held the conviction, which He undoubtedly communicated to His followers,
that His Second coming to judge the world would take place at a very early
date. Not only was it to take place "immediately" after the destruction of the
city (Matt. xxiv. 29), but it would be witnessed by many of those who heard Him.
And these predictions are in no way mixed up with
those of the destruction of Jerusalem : " There be some standing here that
shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom "
(Matt. xvi. 28); " Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities
of Israel till the Son of man be come (Matt. x. 23) ; " If I will that he tarry
till I come, what is that to thee 2 (John xxi. 23): and the corresponding
passages in the other Synoptics.
'If, therefore, Jesus did not say
these things, the gospels must be strangely inaccurate. If He did, His prophetic
faculty cannot have been what Mr. Hutton conceives it to have been. That His
disciples all confidently entertained this erroneous expectation, and
entertained it on the supposed authority of their Master, there can he no doubt
whatever. (See 1 Cor. x. 11, xv. 51 ; Phil. iv. 5 ; I Thess. iv. 15 ; James v. 8
; I Peter iv. 7; 1 John ii. 18 ; Rev. i. 13, xxii. 7, 10, 12.) Indeed, Mr.
Hutton recognises this at least as frankly and fully as we have stated it.'- W.
R. Greg, in Contemporary Review, Nov. 1876.
To those who maintain that our
Lord predicted the end of the world before the passing away of that generation,
the objections of the sceptic present a formidable difficulty --insurmountable,
indeed, without resorting to forced and unnatural evasions, or admissions fatal
to the authority and inspiration of the evangelical narratives. We, on the
contrary, fully recognise the common-sense construction put by Mr. Greg upon the
Language of Jesus, and the no less obvious acceptance of that meaning by the
apostles. But we draw a conclusion directly contrary to that of the critic, and
appeal to the prophecy on the Mount of Olives as a signal example and
demonstration of our Lord's supernatural foresight.
Table of Contents
