Chapter One--Basic Concepts #1

Lesson One BASIC CONCEPTS (1)

The basic thesis in this series of lessons is that the New Testament is the last and final message God has given to man through the Holy Spirit, that its purpose is to reveal the mind of the Spirit to the mind of man, and that the means of conveying this divinely inspired message is through words. The importance of these words is expressed in such passages as 1 Timothy 6:3-4; 2 Timothy 1:13. Cf. Acts 11:13-14; 1 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:9.

However, as the reader is certainly aware, the words used by the inspired writers of the New Testament were not English words, not the words used for communication in the English-speaking world. For example, no inspired writer used such words as church, repentance , cross, forgiveness, worship, elder, bishop, preach, doctrine, sin, God , Holy Spirit, faith, belief, justification, heaven, hell, devil, etc. These are simply the words that translators of the English versions of the New Testament have used to convey to English-speaking people the sense of the words originally used in the writing of the New Testament.

In the main, the books of the New Testament were originally written in the ancient Greek language. Virtually all the New Testament manuscripts now extant are written in Greek, not in classical Greek, nor even in the literary Greek of the New Testament period, but in the Greek vernacular known as the Koine, meaning "common," the language of everyday life. It became the international language of the Roman Empire during apostolic times. It was in such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors had the decrees translated into it and scattered over the empire. Is it not entirely fitting that the New Testament, the message of the greatest moment for all people, should be originally written in the language most familiar to the people who first received it, in the language that would best convey to their minds the mind of the Spirit?

There are those, however, who have held to the idea that the New Testament was originally written in a special, ecclesiastical Greek. In opposing this idea, George Milligan, late professor of Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University, wrote, "So far from the Greek of the New Testament being a language of itself, or even, as one German scholar called it, 'a language of the Holy Ghost,' its main feature was that it was the ordinary vernacular Greek of the period, not the language of contemporary literature, which was often influenced by an attempt to imitate the great authors of classical times, but the language of everyday life, as it was spoken and written by the ordinary men and women of the day, or, as it is often described, the Koine or common Greek of the great Graeco-Roman world."

The study made by scholars of the Greek papyri found in Egypt, written in the Koine, casts light on the nature of the Greek used in the New Testament. These papyri deal with a wide variety of subjects, representing communication between people in all walks of life. They contain things like census and tax returns, marriage and trade contracts, petitions to the government, notices of birth and death, school exercises, accounts of judicial proceedings, and so forth, along with a number of private letters touching upon all sides of family and everyday life. Written in essentially the same language as the New Testament, they testify once and for all to the common, everyday Greek used to convey the mind of the Spirit to the mind of man.

In order for God to communicate His thoughts to us, it is necessary that the New Testament be translated into the English language. And since the New Testament was originally written in the language in general use among the people of apostolic times, so it is entirely reasonable that it be translated for English-speaking people in the vernacular with which they are generally familiar. Every language constantly undergoes change , and English is no exception to the rule. Words are not static. They are subject to change and modification in their meanings with the passing of the years. Many words used in the Authorized Version of the New Testament no longer possess in current English the meanings they had in 1611. For example, in 1611 the word "conversation," used in such passages of the Authorized Version as 1 Timothy 4:12, meant "manner of life," but today it generally means "oral and, usually, informal or friendly interchange of views, sentiments, etc., talk or a talk." In 1611 the word "prevent," used in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 of the Authorized Version , meant "to precede or go before," but today it generally means "to forestall; frustrate; circumvent; keep from happening; hinder."

Yet in spite of the changes made in the English language since 1611 and the reasonableness of having God's words conveyed to us in the vernacular we generally use, there are those who consider any suggestion of using a translation other than the Authorized Version as an attack on the divine words itself, as a sacrilege. They virtually believe that the language of the Authorized Version is Holy Ghost English, that this translation authorized by an English king over 300 years ago and executed by a company of bishops of the Church of England is divinely ordained, the only English translation which God approves. This writer recalls hearing a prominent preacher publicly affirm, "Like the old-time religion, take the Authorized Version."

If the New Testament truly serves the purpose for which it was written , to convey to us the Lord's will through the Holy Spirit's inspiration, it will do so only as we understand the meaning of its words. A basic principle of semantics we need to consider in light of the foregoing conclusion is that words are not actual things but only their symbols. For example, you cannot eat the word "pork" or sleep on the word "bed." You cannot ride the word "automobile" or be entertained by the word "television." These words, as well as all others, are only representatives or symbols of the things for which they stand. They are useful only as they convey to our understanding the things they represent. In the preface to his dictionary, written in 1755, Samuel Johnson said, "Words are the daughters of earth and things are sons of heaven." Mr. Justice Miller , in 1878, told a friend that he favored the kind of education which sought "the knowledge of things instead of the knowledge of words." Mr. Justice Holmes, in 1899, said, "We must think things instead of words, or at least we must constantly translate our words into the things for which they stand." It is certainly true that unless we translate the words of the New Testament into the things for which they stand, to gain not just a knowledge of words but of things, we will fail to see the mind of the Spirit. Any word is but an empty sound when it is divorced from its meaning. Instead of becoming a vehicle of thought it becomes a substitute for it. "Words," said Thomas Hobbes, "are wise men's counters, but they are the money of fools. . . . The wise man has need to remember what every name he uses stands for, and to place it accordingly, or else he will find himself entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twigs; the more he struggles , the more belimed. . . . The Light of humane minds is Perspicuous Words , but first snuffed and purged from ambiguity." It is evident that the person who does not know the valid meaning attached to the words of the New Testament cannot possibly profit by them. If he glibly boasts of his scriptural vocabulary, but does not know the meaning of the words he uses, then his words are really a cover up for ignorance rather than an expression of understanding.

An irrational preoccupation with words is quite widespread in the church. And "irrational" is the correct word here, for it is never sane to get excited over verbal machinery as such. Yet many church members do indeed get excited over words; consequently, they have incorporated into their system of doctrinal soundness what they consider to be a proper vocabulary, which they seriously believe to be apostolic terminology , seemingly unaware that the writers of the New Testament did not write in the English language. They glibly avow that they "call Bible things by Bible names," but in the very slogan itself they contradict their claim by using the word "Bible," which was never used by any inspired writer to designate the book which begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation. It is a basic thesis in this series of lessons that a word or term is scriptural only as it symbolizes a scriptural thing, conveying a scriptural concept or idea, whether or not it is used in a particular translation of the scriptures. "Sound speech, that cannot be condemned" (Titus 2:8) is only the kind of speech that conveys scriptural concepts or ideas. "Sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Timothy 6:3) are only words that are guides to and conveyances of the things of Christ. Accordingly, the word "Bible" is a scriptural term, even though it is not found in any translation of the scriptures, because it designates a scriptural thing: the Book of books, the holy word of God.

It is absurd, then, to condemn any word or expression as being unscriptural on the sole basis that it cannot be found in any translation of God's word; for example, the expression "my church." Is it an unscriptural expression as such? Not at all. Of course, if it were used to designate the concept of ownership, then it would be unsound speech. Obviously, only Deity can be scripturally designated as the owner of the church. See Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 1:2. But what intelligent member of the Lord's church would be so presumptuous as to claim ownership of the church in using the term "my church"? If a person uses the term to designate his membership in a particular congregation , the local group of Christians with which he works and worships, and so conveys this idea to others, then his use of the term is entirely scriptural. Those who insist that it could never possibly convey this idea are requested to compare the expressions "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16) and "churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33). Does Paul contradict himself in these expressions, which are of the same grammatical construction, the genitive case? Would any reasonable, intelligent person accuse the apostle of being unsound in speech, of affirming that the saints own the churches? Surely not. It is plainly evident that in one passage Paul speaks of the membership of the churches, saints, and in the other passage he speaks of the ownership of the churches, Christ. Cf. "gospel of Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:12) and "our gospel" (1 Thessalonians 1:5). Those who decry the designation of a Bible thing by any word or expression that is not found in a particular version of the Bible are hardly consistent. If they would carefully examine their religious vocabulary , they will find numerous such words and expressions; for example, plan of salvation, scheme of redemption, Bible class, golden rule, great commission, worship service, vacation Bible school, church building, pulpit , sermon, Beatitudes, Christian graces, etc. Is anyone willing to affirm that these expressions or terms are unscriptural as such just because they are not found in any translation of the scriptures?

Those who insist that each scriptural thing has an exclusively scriptural term to designate it find themselves in the predicament of determining which English version is the version that must be used to please God. For , after all, the various English versions do not in every case render a particular Greek word by the same English word. Notice, for example "seditions" (Authorized , the various renderings of the Greek dichostasia: Version), "divisions" (American Standard Version), "dissensions" (Goodspeed), "a factional spirit" (Verkuyl), "factious" (Moffatt). Who is to infallibly determine which of these terms is the scriptural terms? The irrational preoccupation with words which is so widely extant in the church is the basis for bibliolatry, or worship of the Bible. When members of the church become possessed by verbomania and give to words found in a particular translation of the Bible a sanctity and significance separate and apart from the things they stand for, then they are guilty of word worship, of virtually ascribing deity to words. The undue regard they give to so-called scriptural words makes them allow such words to acts as barriers between them and scriptural reality. What Francis Bacon perceived and decried in the secular realm is an effective portrayal of the bibliolater. Among the indictments he brought against the medieval schoolmen was their preoccupation with words as against the observation of things; that preoccupation, he charged, was one of the three "distempers of learning." He railed effectively against what he described as "delicate learning" whereby "words usurp the place of substance, and polished phrases are accepted for real weight of meaning." "Of this vanity," he said, "Pygmalion's frenzy is a good emblem; for words are but the images of matter, and except they have life of reason and invention, to fall in love with them is all one as to fall in love with a picture."

The failure of members of the church to properly use words as guides to truth and to the edification of their fellow Christians is undeniably of invaluable assistance to the devil in hindering the cause of Christ. Too often the trouble caused the church by the wrangling and disputing of certain members, especially in the religious periodicals, is not so much over scriptural principles as it is over words, due to the failure of those involved to use their words as the means of communication rather than as barriers to communication. The Holy Spirit prepared the church for this problem in 1 Timothy 6:4-5; 2 Timothy 2:14.

So many of the words used in the agitation, quarreling, and wrangling that keep the church in turmoil are not idea carriers but merely emotional transmitters. They point to little or nothing in the extensional world , the world of reality, but merely express the emotional state of those who use them. Such words can and do distract the brethren from the reality of truth into a false world of bogus verbal entities--all words and no substance. The brethren so misled thus become the dupes or slaves of words and lose contact with reality. Beveridge and other historians have concluded that the American Civil War might not have been fought if the poisoned-word distillers had not arrested thinking by selling their wares, if over-powering, monstrous words such as states' rights, abolition , secession, rebellion had not taken possession of men's minds. And how much trouble would have been spared the church of God if such loaded unsound, institutionalism, digression , emotionally supercharged words as , Bollism, Sommerism, etc. had not taken an irrational possession of Christians' minds!

This writer remembers with sorrow the agitation over premillenialism that was so prominent in the church some years ago. He personally knew many who blatantly let it be known that they were against the error of premillenialism, who castigated the premillenialists, but who did not really understand the doctrine they were fighting against. Some of them could not even correctly pronounce or spell the word "premillenialism ," but they were "agin it," tooth and toenail, whatever it meant! Although this writer does not believe in premillenialism, the doctrine that the second coming of Christ precedes the millenium mentioned in the twentieth chapter of Revelation, he keenly feels that untold harm was done the cause of Christ by those in the church who used the words "premillenialism" and "premillenialist" to give vent to a sectarian, unloving spirit. Another example of a loaded, emotionally supercharged word used in the church is "modernist." Instead of being used to describe what it generally means among intelligent, informed people; namely, one who denies certain claims made concerning Christ in the New Testament , such as His virgin birth, miracles, bodily resurrection, etc., it is used by many in the church to cast reflection on anyone who deviates from their subjective ideas of orthodoxy. (This writer recalls being labelled a modernist by a certain woman in the church because of his use of the American Standard Version!). And so it is that by being branded with this one loaded term, brethren who firmly believe in the fundamentals of the gospel are placed in the same category as those who deny the inspiration of the Bible and the deity of Christ.

Questions 1. Discuss the use of the Koine in the writing of the New Testament.

2. Why is it reasonable that the New Testament should be translated into the language which we generally use?

3. What basic principle of semantics must we keep before us in this series of lessons?

4. Which of the following terms are unscriptural, if any: Christian living , Christian principles, Christian character, Christian church, Christian college? Be careful and consistent in your answer.

5. What is it that makes a word or expression scriptural?

6. Discuss the irrational preoccupation with words found in the church.

7. Give and discuss some examples of loaded, emotionally supercharged words used in the church.