Expositional Constancy
Symbols can have different meanings in different places.
December, 2021
Expositional constancy is the suggestion that symbols and idioms in the Bible are used consistently—that they represent the same thing whenever they are used. Though some attempt to apply the principle to every mention, in every case, most proponents suggest it only for figurative expressions and parables. For instance, this method would treat all symbolic uses of leaven as references to sin. Or, every symbolic reference to birds as an indication of Satanic forces.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. On one hand, it simplifies and summarizes biblical symbolism, which undoubtedly demonstrates common patterns. On the other hand, when taken as a hard rule, rather than as a guideline, expositional constancy becomes a form of eisegesis, where ideas are "read into" a text instead of being "read out of" the passage. This decontextualized approach turns the Bible into a cypher which isn't read and understood, but merely decoded by transferring one phrase into another.
In short, expositional constancy is more of a gimmick—a shortcut—rather than a meaningful principle to be applied in Scripture. It's well-meaning, in most cases. But its ultimately a means to apply faster, but less-reasonable techniques to biblical interpretation.
Without question, the Bible repeats certain symbols; these are often used with very similar points in mind. This helps a reader understand when a passage is tied to broader ideas. Knowing that a symbol is "often" or "usually" associated with another concept is a useful part of properly understanding a text. What's not helpful is assuming that all such uses must be connected to that other idea. Nor is it wise to miss the intended meaning of a passage by inserting symbolism which was never intended. For example:
Birds are often said to be associated with unbelievers or the work of Satan. Such claims usually point to Matthew 13:4, 19, Revelation 19:21, and Ephesians 2:2. However, not every reference to birds—symbolic or literal—can mean something Satanic. Isaiah 31:5, Isaiah 40:31, and Luke 3:22 all apply bird imagery in a clearly positive way. This means the birds in Jesus' parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13:18–19) are not necessarily mentions of evil people infiltrating the kingdom of God.
White is a color frequently used to represent purity (Mark 9:3; Revelation 3:5). However, it's also the color associated with one of the horsemen of the apocalypse (Revelation 6:2); this figure is typically identified as the Antichrist. While white is often a reference to purity, it can have other meanings—or no particular symbolic meaning at all.
Leaven is repeatedly used as a symbol for sin (Exodus 12:14–20; 1 Corinthians 5:6–8). What's often missed is why this is the case. The reason leaven is used in these passages is to evoke the idea of something which infiltrates, grows, and multiplies once it is introduced. Most references to leaven in the Bible are warnings about complacency towards sin, and its ability to fester. However, in this month's spotlight verse—Matthew 13:33—Jesus cannot be using leaven as a reference to sin. He does not say the kingdom is like flour, into which leaven was mixed: He says the kingdom, itself, is the leaven in that parable.
As these examples show, good Bible interpretation renders expositional constancy either incorrect or unnecessary. Claiming that a particular symbol always ties to only one idea creates conflicts and absurdities in reading Scripture. If it's taken to mean that symbols can be used "differently" in one passage, as compared to others, then expositional consistency is redundant. The idea of interpretation by context isn't enhanced by adding such "rules" on top of each other.
Not every figure of speech in the Bible is a one-to-one representation of something else. Nor is every single element in a parable meant to have a second, metaphorical meaning. Some words are used exactly as written, simply to support a relatively simple point. It's fine to recognize patterns, but dangerous to treat them as absolute rules.
-- Editor
