USING AND ABUSING LANGUAGE
This topic covers the evaluation of arguments. In regards to the problems that arise when Bible students seek to figure out the meaning of the Bible and to defend their interpretation. Since many exegetical arguments are based on appeals to Greek and Hebrew, special attention has to be given to the proper use of the biblical languages.
Don’t Minimize the Importance of the Original Languages
For some, hearing references to Greek and Hebrew can prove quite intimidating. Some believe the KJV is inspired and is therefore all one needs. What did English speakers do before the KJV? Does God inspire individual translations into each modern language? Others have argued that Jesus Christ is the only mediator (1st Timothy 2:5... “For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus...(NASB)) and depending on a specialist in languages would compromise this truth?
Part of the answer to this concern is to affirm without hesitation that the English translations available to us are adequate. But, we must never forget, that whenever we read an English translation, we are in fact recognizing, though indirectly, our dependence on scholarship. Someone had to learn the languages. Scholars should not impose their views on the church, but the church must not forget how much it has benefited from their work through the centuries. It is a great mistake to deny the importance of paying attention to the original languages.
Example: ministers argued from “BE ANGRY, AND {yet} DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger...” (Ephesians 4:26...NASB) that anger is always wrong for the Christian.
Argued that the negative not applied to both verbs. Actually there is no ambiguity in Greek where the negative follows the verb for “be angry” and precedes (and therefore negates) the verb “sin.”
Example: A scholar has argued that the essence of being is a dynamic “letting-be.”
There is nothing in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:3 that corresponds precisely to the English word “let.” Hebrew (as well as other languages) has a specific form for the third person imperative; English does not. “Let” does not have usual sense of “allow,” but functions merely as a helping verb to express the imperative. More often than not some knowledge of the biblical languages proves its value in a negative way, that is, by helping us avoid invalid interpretations. Heretical views are often based on a misuse of the text. Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to the fact that in John 1:3c, “And the Word was God,” the Greek term for God, theos, does not have the definite article, and so, they argue, it means either “a god” or “divine.” One of the ways Greek distinguishes between the subject and the predicate adjective is that the subject has the definite article and the adjective does not.
Many features of biblical languages also have a positive value for interpretation. Exodus 16:15... “When the sons of Israel saw {it,} they said to one another, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, "It is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat.” (NASB) The phrase may be translated literally, “for you for food.” It is not a common expression, and it has been suggested that it may be a subtle allusion to Genesis 1:29 where the same phrase is found.
In the New Testament, no book uses allusions of this sort more frequently than The Gospel of John. John 19:30 describes Jesus’ death with the expression “and gave up his spirit.” Some have suggested in the light of numerous references to his giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples, that this is the time at which that was done. More likely, John is reminding his readers of the fact that the dreadful event of the crucifixion is not a sign of failure. Care should be taken with all such interpretations unless they can be confirmed by context. The conclusion to be drawn is not that every Christian must attend a seminary and become an expert in Greek and Hebrew. Should keep in mind, however, that English versions by themselves cannot be the basis for formulating doctrine. In particular, we should be careful not to adopt new ideas if they have not been checked against the Greek or Hebrew text. When there is a difference of opinion among Bible students, and attempt should be made to find out whether the Greek or Hebrew sheds light on the debate. Those who teach their congregations week after week cannot afford to neglect such an important tool in their service to their congregations.
Part of the answer to this concern is to affirm without hesitation that the English translations available to us are adequate. But, we must never forget, that whenever we read an English translation, we are in fact recognizing, though indirectly, our dependence on scholarship. Someone had to learn the languages. Scholars should not impose their views on the church, but the church must not forget how much it has benefited from their work through the centuries. It is a great mistake to deny the importance of paying attention to the original languages.
Example: ministers argued from “BE ANGRY, AND {yet} DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger...” (Ephesians 4:26...NASB) that anger is always wrong for the Christian.
Argued that the negative not applied to both verbs. Actually there is no ambiguity in Greek where the negative follows the verb for “be angry” and precedes (and therefore negates) the verb “sin.”
Example: A scholar has argued that the essence of being is a dynamic “letting-be.”
There is nothing in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:3 that corresponds precisely to the English word “let.” Hebrew (as well as other languages) has a specific form for the third person imperative; English does not. “Let” does not have usual sense of “allow,” but functions merely as a helping verb to express the imperative. More often than not some knowledge of the biblical languages proves its value in a negative way, that is, by helping us avoid invalid interpretations. Heretical views are often based on a misuse of the text. Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to the fact that in John 1:3c, “And the Word was God,” the Greek term for God, theos, does not have the definite article, and so, they argue, it means either “a god” or “divine.” One of the ways Greek distinguishes between the subject and the predicate adjective is that the subject has the definite article and the adjective does not.
Many features of biblical languages also have a positive value for interpretation. Exodus 16:15... “When the sons of Israel saw {it,} they said to one another, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, "It is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat.” (NASB) The phrase may be translated literally, “for you for food.” It is not a common expression, and it has been suggested that it may be a subtle allusion to Genesis 1:29 where the same phrase is found.
In the New Testament, no book uses allusions of this sort more frequently than The Gospel of John. John 19:30 describes Jesus’ death with the expression “and gave up his spirit.” Some have suggested in the light of numerous references to his giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples, that this is the time at which that was done. More likely, John is reminding his readers of the fact that the dreadful event of the crucifixion is not a sign of failure. Care should be taken with all such interpretations unless they can be confirmed by context. The conclusion to be drawn is not that every Christian must attend a seminary and become an expert in Greek and Hebrew. Should keep in mind, however, that English versions by themselves cannot be the basis for formulating doctrine. In particular, we should be careful not to adopt new ideas if they have not been checked against the Greek or Hebrew text. When there is a difference of opinion among Bible students, and attempt should be made to find out whether the Greek or Hebrew sheds light on the debate. Those who teach their congregations week after week cannot afford to neglect such an important tool in their service to their congregations.
Don’t Exaggerate the Importance of the Biblical Languages
Seminary students have been known to give the impression that anyone unacquainted with the original languages must be a second-class Christian. One common way of overemphasizing the biblical languages is by romanticizing them, by giving the impression that Greek and Hebrew have a unique (and almost divine?) status. In an attempt to show the beauty of Hebrew some writers have looked for peculiarities in the grammar the may support the contention. Charles Briggs of Greek: “Later, when God chose Greek to convey the message of the gospel, this language was “employed by the Spirit of God, and transformed and transfigured, yes, glorified, with a light and sacredness that the classic literature never possessed.” Actually the form of Greek used by the New Testament writers is simpler than that used by the great writers of the classical period and approximates the language used commonly by the people in their daily conversation. Some of the fallacies we will look at have arisen because of the exaggerated importance attached to human linguistic systems (Hebrew and especially Greek).
Biblical authors did not write in a mysterious or coded language; under inspiration, they used their daily language in a normal way.
Biblical authors did not write in a mysterious or coded language; under inspiration, they used their daily language in a normal way.
Don’t Equate the Meaning of a Word with Its History
One of most common errors involving language is the tendency to misuse the study of etymology, the origin and development of words.
Example: The association of sincere with two Latin words sine cera, “without wax.”
The transference from the physical (literal wax) to the figurative may have been accidental or trivial. The Bible was not written in Latin, and so the association with statues could not have been part of the meaning the New Testment authors had in mind. A brief check of etymological dictionaries of English quickly reveals that there is no certainty whatever that English sincere comes from Latin sine cera. In commentaries one comes across etymological comments that usually shed no real light on the meaning of the text.
Example: Hebrew word translated “glory,” kabod, means “weight, heaviness.”
The notion of“weight” and be related to “importance” and then to a more specific meaning when used with reference to God. While this historical development of the word is accurate and interesting, does it genuinely enhance our understanding of the word or concept? Probably not unless there is good contextual reason to think that the biblical author himself was associating this word with the concept of weight. The verb hypomeno “be patient” is made up of “under” and “remain.” Preachers often explain that the word means to “stay under” and then often describe carrying a heavy burden for a prolonged period. The figurative etymology of the word is often irrelevant to modern speakers, since what they mean can be made perfectly clear without a knowledge of the word’s origins. On the other hand, we must always keep open the possibility that a biblical writer has deliberately exploited the history (or other associations) of a word. Such a literary technique is more frequently found in poetry than it is in prose. But the only way to determine whether the author has done so is to pay close attention to the context. About the only evidence available to us is the context, the thrust of a passage (or the book) as a whole. With very few exceptions, we will find that the context support the common usage of a word rather than unfamiliar senses.
Example: The association of sincere with two Latin words sine cera, “without wax.”
The transference from the physical (literal wax) to the figurative may have been accidental or trivial. The Bible was not written in Latin, and so the association with statues could not have been part of the meaning the New Testment authors had in mind. A brief check of etymological dictionaries of English quickly reveals that there is no certainty whatever that English sincere comes from Latin sine cera. In commentaries one comes across etymological comments that usually shed no real light on the meaning of the text.
Example: Hebrew word translated “glory,” kabod, means “weight, heaviness.”
The notion of“weight” and be related to “importance” and then to a more specific meaning when used with reference to God. While this historical development of the word is accurate and interesting, does it genuinely enhance our understanding of the word or concept? Probably not unless there is good contextual reason to think that the biblical author himself was associating this word with the concept of weight. The verb hypomeno “be patient” is made up of “under” and “remain.” Preachers often explain that the word means to “stay under” and then often describe carrying a heavy burden for a prolonged period. The figurative etymology of the word is often irrelevant to modern speakers, since what they mean can be made perfectly clear without a knowledge of the word’s origins. On the other hand, we must always keep open the possibility that a biblical writer has deliberately exploited the history (or other associations) of a word. Such a literary technique is more frequently found in poetry than it is in prose. But the only way to determine whether the author has done so is to pay close attention to the context. About the only evidence available to us is the context, the thrust of a passage (or the book) as a whole. With very few exceptions, we will find that the context support the common usage of a word rather than unfamiliar senses.
Don’t
Read the Various Meanings of a Word into a Specific Use
Even those who have not learned the biblical languages can use certain concordances (as well as other tools) that are keyed to the Greek and Hebrew terms. Such a method helps us to determine the “semantic range” of the word in question. If we are aware of the possible uses of a word, we are in a better position to decide which specific use occurs in the passage or passages that we are studying. What often happens, however, is that the whole complex of meanings is injected into one passage, often by noting that the word in question is used in a variety of ways in the New Testament.
Example: Preacher preaching on Hebrews 12 focused on one specific word in the chapter that had four meanings.
He ended up with a four-point outline that led to four sermonettes with four different texts, even though ostensibly he intended to expound on Hebrews 12.
Example: Entry on “acute” in an English dictionary; a non-English speaker would only need the last usage.
A related problem arises when appealing to grammatical facts.
Example: 1st Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach.”
Author cites a grammar that the first-person present of the verb can be used to indicate temporary restriction. In the example paragraph, the first part is irrelevant to the author’s point. Sometimes discussions of biblical texts that appeal to the original languages perhaps only to make an impression; readers need to be discerning regarding whether something substantive is being argued. But the second half of the paragraph, which does contain a substantive argument on the basis of Greek grammar. The logic of the above author is to look for the various attested uses or meanings of the present tense, then choose one that fits the author’s understanding of the passage. The interpreter’s decision (it would seem) was merely based on a range of uses and was not controlled by the context. At best, we must say that the interpreter did not offer a contextual reason for choosing the temporally restricted function of the Greek present tense.
Example: Preacher preaching on Hebrews 12 focused on one specific word in the chapter that had four meanings.
He ended up with a four-point outline that led to four sermonettes with four different texts, even though ostensibly he intended to expound on Hebrews 12.
Example: Entry on “acute” in an English dictionary; a non-English speaker would only need the last usage.
A related problem arises when appealing to grammatical facts.
Example: 1st Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach.”
Author cites a grammar that the first-person present of the verb can be used to indicate temporary restriction. In the example paragraph, the first part is irrelevant to the author’s point. Sometimes discussions of biblical texts that appeal to the original languages perhaps only to make an impression; readers need to be discerning regarding whether something substantive is being argued. But the second half of the paragraph, which does contain a substantive argument on the basis of Greek grammar. The logic of the above author is to look for the various attested uses or meanings of the present tense, then choose one that fits the author’s understanding of the passage. The interpreter’s decision (it would seem) was merely based on a range of uses and was not controlled by the context. At best, we must say that the interpreter did not offer a contextual reason for choosing the temporally restricted function of the Greek present tense.
Don’t Overemphasize Subtle Points of Grammar and Vocabulary
Very common is the tendency to look for differences among synonyms as a key to the interpretation of passages. We can never forget, however, that writers often use a diverse vocabulary for simple reasons of style, such as a desire to avoid repetition. In these cases differences among the words are “neutralized” by the context. Even when an author makes a lexical choice for semantic (rather than stylistic) reasons, it does not follow that our interpretation stands or falls on our ability to determine precisely why one word was chosen rather than another. Important as words are, what really matters is how those words have been combined by the speaker. Since the focus of meaning is the sentence (or even the paragraph), the specific force of any one word depends to a large extent on the broader context. The word makes a contribution to the meaning of the whole sentence, but the sentence also contributes to the specific meaning of the word. Important as words are, what really matters is how those words have been combined by the speaker. Since the focus of meaning is the sentence (or even the paragraph), the specific force of any one word depends to a large extent on the broader context. The word makes a contribution to the meaning of the whole sentence, but the sentence also contributes to the specific meaning of the word. If that is the way language works, we should infer that subtle lexical distinctions play only a secondary role in interpretation.
Example: agapao and phileo in John 21:15 – 17... “So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, "Simon, {son} of John, do you love Me more than these?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He *said to him, "Tend My lambs.” He *said to him again a second time, "Simon, {son} of John, do you love Me?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He *said to him, "Shepherd My sheep.” He *said to him the third time, "Simon, {son} of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep.” (NASB)
The NIV translators distinguish “truly love” from “love”.
A solid interpretation should be built on much broader evidence than that. Generally speaking, the greater the weight placed on distinctions among synonyms, the more likely it is that such distinctions are being overstated. If there is a danger in overstating lexical distinctions, what can be said about grammatical ones? When was the last time you could not decide why a speaker or writer chose a simple present tense (“How do you feel?”) rather than a progressive tense (“How are you feeling?”)? When it comes to the Greek New Testament, however, students spend a great deal of effort trying to interpret grammatical subtleties.
Example: Hebrews 1:2 literally “in son.”
The presence of the definite article does not alter the meaning of the clause.
The most common misuse of grammatical subtlety has to do with the Greek tenses. Part of the reason is that Greek includes a tense form that has been labeled aorist. Since the term is not used when describing English, it conveys a quasi-esoteric feeling and encourages over interpretation. Another reason is the fact that the Greek verbs exploit “aspectual” distinctions more frequently than English verbs do. The distinction between the English simple past tense (“I ate”) and the imperfect ("I was eating”) is an aspectual one and corresponds more or less to a similar distinction in Greek. The aorist tense (or better, aspect) was given its name by ancient Greek grammarians who recognized that there was something indefinite about it (the Greek word aristos means “undefined”). Curiously, many New Testament interpreters view it as special in some sense and greatly exaggerate its significance. In certain cases the choice of aspect (or some other grammatical detail) by a Greek author perhaps contributes somewhat to a meaning that is otherwise clearly expressed in the context. If so, the grammar is at best a secondary support to the interpretation of the passage. However, if a proposed meaning cannot be established apart from an appeal to a grammatical subtlety, chances are that the argument is worthless.
The biblical writers were clear and explicit and did not expect their readers to have to decipher complicated linguistic riddles.
Example: agapao and phileo in John 21:15 – 17... “So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, "Simon, {son} of John, do you love Me more than these?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He *said to him, "Tend My lambs.” He *said to him again a second time, "Simon, {son} of John, do you love Me?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He *said to him, "Shepherd My sheep.” He *said to him the third time, "Simon, {son} of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep.” (NASB)
The NIV translators distinguish “truly love” from “love”.
A solid interpretation should be built on much broader evidence than that. Generally speaking, the greater the weight placed on distinctions among synonyms, the more likely it is that such distinctions are being overstated. If there is a danger in overstating lexical distinctions, what can be said about grammatical ones? When was the last time you could not decide why a speaker or writer chose a simple present tense (“How do you feel?”) rather than a progressive tense (“How are you feeling?”)? When it comes to the Greek New Testament, however, students spend a great deal of effort trying to interpret grammatical subtleties.
Example: Hebrews 1:2 literally “in son.”
The presence of the definite article does not alter the meaning of the clause.
The most common misuse of grammatical subtlety has to do with the Greek tenses. Part of the reason is that Greek includes a tense form that has been labeled aorist. Since the term is not used when describing English, it conveys a quasi-esoteric feeling and encourages over interpretation. Another reason is the fact that the Greek verbs exploit “aspectual” distinctions more frequently than English verbs do. The distinction between the English simple past tense (“I ate”) and the imperfect ("I was eating”) is an aspectual one and corresponds more or less to a similar distinction in Greek. The aorist tense (or better, aspect) was given its name by ancient Greek grammarians who recognized that there was something indefinite about it (the Greek word aristos means “undefined”). Curiously, many New Testament interpreters view it as special in some sense and greatly exaggerate its significance. In certain cases the choice of aspect (or some other grammatical detail) by a Greek author perhaps contributes somewhat to a meaning that is otherwise clearly expressed in the context. If so, the grammar is at best a secondary support to the interpretation of the passage. However, if a proposed meaning cannot be established apart from an appeal to a grammatical subtlety, chances are that the argument is worthless.
The biblical writers were clear and explicit and did not expect their readers to have to decipher complicated linguistic riddles.
Summary
Do recognize the significance of the biblical languages for proper interpretation. (Beware of reading into the Bible ideas that can be supported only from the English translation.)
Do keep in mind that English translations are reliable for most purposes. (It is important to remember that the teaching of Scripture as a whole is readily accessible to all believers.)
Do place priority on the attested and contemporary usage of words. (Normally, proposed meanings are valid only if they can be confirmed by references contemporaneous with the text.)
Do focus on specific uses in context. (Remember that (aside from puns and other types of rare allusions) meanings other than the one specified by the context do not normally occur to the speaker and the audience.)
Do emphasize the context. (The reason we do not have to be slavishly dependent on scholars is that the broad context of Scripture can be understood without a knowledge of technical details. Before tackling a specific problem in one verse, we ought to read and reread the whole chapter—indeed the whole book of which it is a part. Surely, constant reading of the Scriptures in their totality is the best prescription for handling the Word aright.)
Do keep in mind that English translations are reliable for most purposes. (It is important to remember that the teaching of Scripture as a whole is readily accessible to all believers.)
Do place priority on the attested and contemporary usage of words. (Normally, proposed meanings are valid only if they can be confirmed by references contemporaneous with the text.)
Do focus on specific uses in context. (Remember that (aside from puns and other types of rare allusions) meanings other than the one specified by the context do not normally occur to the speaker and the audience.)
Do emphasize the context. (The reason we do not have to be slavishly dependent on scholars is that the broad context of Scripture can be understood without a knowledge of technical details. Before tackling a specific problem in one verse, we ought to read and reread the whole chapter—indeed the whole book of which it is a part. Surely, constant reading of the Scriptures in their totality is the best prescription for handling the Word aright.)