And with that you HAVE answered my question! One sentence can indeed be interpreted correctly in various manners - it could be emphatic, object complement or direct/indirect object depending upon the interpretation. You do allow the possibility of an object complement, where "himself" would be the direct object and "a lamb" would rename (or be a property of) the direct object, do you not?

Interestingly enough, I'm in discussion with Mr. Kinney (your second link) about this very subject!

Let me try to rephrase my original question. Can a sentence correctly have two or more structures (S-V-Io-Do, S-V-Do-OC, etc.) depending upon interpretation?

John will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.

Seems like this sentence cannot have an Object complement and must either be emphatic or indirect object/direct object. John is not a lamb.

John himself will provide a lamb.
John will provide [for] himself a lamb.
John is NOT a lamb. Object complement is not possible.

However, as you noted by putting God (Bible) into the discussion we now have three possibilities (if I understood your reply correctly).

God himself will provide a lamb.
God will provide [for] himself a lamb.
God is the lamb. Object complement.

If I have misunderstood something please correct me, otherwise, I'm extremely grateful for your time and patience. You have been a GREAT help!!! Thank you!

In other words does the grammar force the interpretation or does the interpretation reveal the grammar?

God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.

Without changing the word order - the grammar structure is?
S-V-IO-DO-Prep-object of Prep.

or

S-V-DO-OC-Prep-Object of Prep.

OC - Object complement.