45
164
Part 3: Discourse
Unified Meaning
It is natural in many ways to assume that we will find a unified meaning. Consider
again my statement to my wife, “I am going to the store to get more bananas.”
周at has a definite meaning that I expect my wife to grasp. But sometimes I
may be sloppy. I say “bananas,” but maybe I am looking for plantains, and don’t
realize that there is a different word to designate them. I say, “I am going,” but
maybe I don’t go right out the door; I leave only five hours later. Maybe I am
going to an open-air market rather than a conventional store. And maybe I
already have in mind that I might make more fruit purchases, and not just stop
with bananas. So my purpose in going to the store is broader than just “to get
more bananas.”
With published writing we expect more, because we know that more care goes
into published work, and people check and recheck the product. 周e author has
organized his thoughts, and we keep working with his text in order to see the
meaning of any one piece in harmony with the rest. Yes, that makes sense up to
a point. But there are complexities.
For one thing, some authors may not be as organized as we could wish. Maybe
they hold views on various subjects that in fact contradict one another, but they
are unaware of the contradiction. Maybe the problem is not outright contradic-
tion but a lesser tension in an author’s text. Nevertheless, the interpreter keeps
working toward harmony for a long while, in order to make sure that he has not
missed something. In the end, he may sometimes conclude that there is tension
or contradiction.
Good authors do be瑴er. But even here we must reckon with the effects of
the fall. Human beings contaminated by sin are never in perfect harmony with
themselves. On the one hand, they are made in the image of God, with the built-in
impulse to be in fellowship with God and to worship God. On the other hand,
they are in rebellion. 周ey are not only in rebellion against God but in a sense
in rebellion against themselves, against what they were created to be. 周e result
is double-mindedness. At a deep level, they are not of one mind. And so they
cannot have one, perfectly unified intention in producing a text.
We may illustrate with the example from Acts 17:28, “In him we live and move
and have our being.” 周e apostle Paul here quotes from a Greek poet, probably
Epimenides of Crete. 周ere is some uncertainty about the poet’s views, but he
probably meant the sentence in a pantheistic sense. 周at is, he meant that we are
a part of god or identical with god. 周is view misrepresents our relation to God.
But it also distorts a more original knowledge of God that we cannot escape.
On the one hand, in opposition to the true knowledge of God, the poet affirms
pantheism. On the other hand, in harmony with true knowledge of God, he af-
firms the presence of God and his dependence on God. 周e poet is in conflict
between two possible meanings of God’s immanence, namely, a Christian and
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 164
5/14/09 4:46:25 PM
46
165
Chapter 20: Speaking and Writing
a non-Christian view.
2
周is instance is only one possible way in which a person
may be in conflict with himself.
When a person comes to faith in Christ, he is renewed and transformed. He
has a renewed mind: “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the
old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed
in knowledge a晴er the image of its creator” (Col. 3:9–10; see 1 Cor. 2:16). But
the renewal is progressive (Rom. 12:1–2). Consequently, insofar as the believer
is not yet perfected in his mind, he too is double-minded. As a result, no text of
merely human origin represents fully unified meaning.
周e same is true even of a simple u瑴erance like “I am going to the store to get
more bananas.” My purpose is not completely unified, but at a deep level includes
double-mindedness. I am going to the store partly to serve my wife and my family.
But, in addition, I am going partly in order to appear to be good and helpful, and
selfishly to get the benefit of the appearance. Neither the good nor the bad inten-
tion gets directly expressed. One of my intentions in the u瑴erance is not only to
give my wife information but to reinforce our personal relationship by keeping
her informed. And that contains within it the possibility of a double intention,
one side of which is godly and the other side of which is not. In many cases I am
not conscious of being double-minded. I seem to be sane, and to have a coherent
idea about what I am going to do. But my intentions are still divided.
周e difficulties occur with readers as well. 周e same double-mindedness pre-
sents itself when a reader reads a text. He may read it with love for the author,
genuinely wanting to understand. At the same time, he may read with imperfect
love, and in selfishness may also want to twist the text for his own benefit. He
obtains a result that is a mixture of good and bad.
We once again confront the importance of redemption and of receiving wisdom
from God. 周e same observations that we made earlier concerning the work of
Christ apply in the sphere of language as well as every other area of life.
3
God’s Meanings
God himself is holy, pure, and unified in his own mind. 周ere is complete har-
mony. And so he produces harmonious communication. When Christ became
incarnate as man, he spoke with complete truthfulness, and with harmony not
only with respect to his divine nature but with respect to his human nature. But
there is disharmony in the confrontation between God’s holiness and the human
2. See the discussion of Christian and non-Christian views of immanence in John M. Frame,
周e Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987), 13–15;
and appendix C.
3. See Vern S. Poythress, “Christ the Only Savior of Interpretation,” Westminster 周eological
Journal 50/2 (Fall 1988): 161–173.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 165
5/14/09 4:46:25 PM
43
166
Part 3: Discourse
unholiness of sin. Christ had severe words to say concerning the seriousness of
sin. 周ese words, as well as the Bible as a whole, present not only the unity of the
divine mind but also instruction and divine power to renew us, to pull us out of
the mire of sin, and to give us unity of mind.
But we should note one other truth. 周e unity of the mind of God is a unity
of one God, with one plan. It is also the unity of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, in the diversity of persons. Unity of meaning within God himself is
not unitarian, but Trinitarian. Each person in the Trinity knows all truth and all
meaning in knowing the other persons.
Among the persons of the Trinity, each person’s knowledge is unique to that
person, as well as in total harmony with the knowledge of the other persons. God’s
unity is the model or archetype for the unity in diversity that is to be achieved by
many cultures and many peoples coming together in the body of Christ.
But this analogy is limited. God is infinite, and we are finite. And as long as
we are in this life, our minds are not entirely free from sin. So within the church
we have to sort good from bad. Scripture, by contrast, is perfectly pure (Ps. 12:6;
Prov. 30:5).
Diversity within Unity
We can look at several instances of diversity within unity. Consider first what
happens with inspired speech in the Bible. A person who speaks in the power of
the Holy Spirit is speaking not just his own mind but also the mind of the Spirit.
周e Spirit as well as the human person speaks. 周e Spirit knows his meaning
perfectly. 周e speech through the human author has perfect purity, because he
is guided by the Spirit. 周e human being agrees with the Spirit, and so there
is unity of meaning. But the human author remains finite and does not plumb
all the depths of the implications of what he says. And so his understanding is
not exactly the same as the understanding by the Holy Spirit. 周is is a diversity
in understanding. And so there is both unity and diversity in meaning when a
human being speaks by the power of the Spirit. 周is is true for the writings of Old
Testament prophets and New Testament apostles and other divinely authorized
spokesmen for God.
4
Now consider noninspired speech by human beings. In such cases the human
beings are fallible. But they may sometimes speak the truth. 周e Bible says, “Let
the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in
all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in
your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16) Christians can be filled with the Spirit, and the
4. See Vern S. Poythress, “Divine Meaning of Scripture,” Westminster 周eological Journal 48
(1986): 241–279; and appendix J.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 166
5/14/09 4:46:25 PM
42
167
Chapter 20: Speaking and Writing
Spirit can use what they say, even though it is not infallible or absolutely pure.
So the Holy Spirit has his intentions even in this kind of case. In this case also
there is a unity between the Spirit’s meaning and the human speaker’s meaning.
But there is also diversity, because the Holy Spirit understands more, and under-
stands more deeply, than the human speaker. And what the Holy Spirit means is
completely pure, while what the human speaker intends may be contaminated
by his remaining sinfulness.
周e goal of human communication, the goal that will be climactically fulfilled
in the new heaven and the new earth, is not autonomous, independent speech on
the part of human beings, but speaking out of a mind in deep fellowship with God
and empowered by the Spirit of God. Such speech has both unity and diversity
in meaning. It is not human speech in isolation from God, but speech that makes
manifest the wisdom of God and the power of God, speech that surpasses the
capacity of “independent” humanity. We aim for harmony in fellowship with
God. We aim to express God’s meanings along with our own.
Meaning Under Control
Let us continue to reflect on some of the limitations in noninspired speech. Even
if an author could enjoy full unity as an individual, he would still experience
limitations in his expression. For example, I may not know that there is a word
for “plantain,” and so I say, “banana,” which is the nearest word I can find. I show
my limited mastery of English vocabulary.
Because authors are made in the image of God, they do have powers of speech.
周ey have dominion and control. But they are not God, and so their control
is not exhaustive. As illustrated in fig. 20.1, they do not completely master the
language they use; they do not exhaustively control the meanings of its words or
its constructions; they do not know their own thoughts perfectly; they do not
plan completely what they write; when writing a longer work they do not remain
completely the same over the time during which they are writing; they are not
conscious of all the implications that they may want readers to draw from what
they write. When the content of the communication is simple, these limitations
may not make much difference. But with more complex communication they
have their effects.
We can see some of these limitations more clearly when we consider a small
child learning language, or an adult learning a second language. Neither is master
of the language. So when does a child become master? At ten years of age, or
fi晴een, or twenty, or fi晴y? In fact, through conversation and reading and practice
in writing, or through formal instruction, people can always develop greater skill
in writing. No one is a perfect master.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 167
5/14/09 4:46:25 PM
49
168
Part 3: Discourse
Moreover, because of the presence of variation in meanings and in words and
in sentences and in authors’ contexts, meaning is not fixed with infinite precision.
周ere are different varieties of banana. 周e word “banana” does not distinguish
among them. 周ere are different kinds of store. 周e word “store” does not dis-
tinguish among them.
Authors do not have the God-like control to a瑴ain infinite precision. 周ey
have only partial control, both in their thoughts and in their previous mastery
of language and in their expressive products. 周ey may express things about
themselves that they hoped to conceal; they may fail to express some aspects
of what they wanted to express. My tone of voice may tell my wife that I re-
sent having to go to the store, even though I didn’t want that information to
be shown.
Moreover, even in their own minds authors do not define with perfect
precision what they intend. I say that I am going to get more bananas. But
I may not have decided one way or the other whether I intend to shop for
more kinds of fruit as well. 周e statement that I am going to get bananas may
nevertheless tend to imply that I will limit my goal to the bananas. 周us the
ideal of perfectly precise authorial intention is indeed an ideal, and a danger-
ous ideal as well, since it could appear to give to man the kind of control that
only God possesses.
Reader Limitations
Similar limitations affect readers. Readers do not perfectly master their language;
they do not exhaustively control the meanings of words and sentences that they
Partial Mastery of Language
F
igure
20:1
relation
to God
motives
thoughts
planning
stability
of self
reader
effects
allusions
constructions
into larger
language pieces
word
meanings
language
resources
author
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 168
5/14/09 4:46:26 PM
35
169
Chapter 20: Speaking and Writing
receive; they do not know their own thoughts perfectly as they go through
the experience of reading; they do not remain completely the same as they go
through the process of reading; they do not plumb all the implications of what
they read. A reader who grasps an author’s meaning does “control” it in some
sense. But for human beings the grasp of meaning is partial, and the control is
partial. Each reader is different from each author and from every other reader,
and even subtle differences are instances of variation that affect understanding
in subtle ways.
Effective Communication
We have been focusing on limitations. But many times communication still suc-
ceeds. We rightly pay a瑴ention to speakers and authors because we assume that
they have something to say and that they are capable of saying it. We assume that
they give us a stable intended meaning because in many easy cases we can discern
what their intention is, and we can re-express their meaning in paraphrases. We
have real understanding, understanding that is sufficient and effective for practi-
cal goals. For example, when the photographer says, “Stand roughly there,” you
know what to do, even though the communication is not as precise as it could
be.
5
So with communication in general. 周e presence of imprecision, and the
presence of the possibility of variation, does not destroy all stability.
6
Stability
is still there, and we express that stability when we give paraphrases. We rightly
talk about two expressions having the same meaning or two speakers meaning
the same thing.
5. I owe this example to John Frame.
6. Stability is the focus of contrastive-identificational features, which express the unity of
meaning. Stability is enhanced, rather than destroyed, by recognition that the meaning of a par-
ticular u瑴erance depends also on distributional context. See the previous chapter for discussion
of contrastive-identification features, variation, and distribution.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 169
5/14/09 4:46:26 PM
36
170
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
21
-
Analysis and Verbal Interpretation
It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out.
—Proverbs 25:2
H
uman action includes instances where human beings undertake me-
thodical analysis of human action. Human beings study themselves,
and that shows our ability to stand back and “transcend” the immediacy of our
situation.
1
Analysis as Human Action
In the West, especially, we have developed a complex tradition of “scientific”
analysis that includes not only natural sciences but social sciences as well. 周e
social sciences in one sense have an advantage over the natural sciences, in that the
subject of study is always close at hand. We are studying ourselves, human beings,
or at least some aspect of human beings. But the advantage is also a disadvantage,
because our own preconceptions about ourselves and others threaten to have an
influential role in the actual work. 周e problem is the problem of transcendence.
How do we obtain a grasp of a whole of which we ourselves are a part?
In fact, as one aspect of being made in the image of God, human beings can
“stand back” from their involvement in some sense. 周is standing back can take
place with great self-conscious a瑴ention to establishing and maintaining meth-
odological controls, o晴en in imitation of the natural sciences. Some investigators
1. On backlooping and human imitation of God’s transcendence, see chapters 11–12.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 170
5/14/09 4:46:26 PM
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
