Chapter Two--Basic Concepts #2

Lesson Two BASIC CONCEPTS (2)

In endeavoring to establish proper communication in the church the responsibility of Christ's followers is twofold, that of the word user and that of the word hearer.

The responsibility of the word user is plainly set forth in the scriptures. Whenever he speaks he must give heed to such injunctions as the following: "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear" (Ephesians 4:29); "Let your speech be always with grace , seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one" (Colossians 4:6); "If any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God . . . that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ , whose is the glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (1 Peter 4:11). In obeying these commands the word user will always endeavor to communicate ideas or things in the words he uses, and not just the words alone. In so doing he will exercise care and consideration in his selection of words to communicate his thoughts. He will give due consideration to the level of understanding of his hearers, using only those words to which they will most likely attach essentially the same meaning as he. He will utter only those words which are in keeping with his hatred for error and sin, with his love for truth and righteousness, and with his love for Christ and men. He will eschew all words which are calculated to degrade and injure others rather than to edify them. He will indeed so speak as to "give grace to them that hear."

The responsibility of the word hearer is expressed in principle in the Lord's command, "Take heed therefore how ye hear" (Luke 8:18). The spirit of Christian charity demands that he sincerely and honestly endeavor to understand what meaning the other person really intends to convey by the words he uses. It is unfair and unchristian to force upon a person any meaning to his words that he obviously does not intend, and then to club him over the head with his words, accusing him of intellectual dishonesty or of not standing for the truth. Such a practice at its best is stupid; at its worst it is downright vicious. How very unchristian it is , for instance, for some unloving, boorish, ignorant person to lift out of its context a particular statement made by a preacher or Bible teacher, subsequently to accuse him of expressing an idea that he did not remotely have in mind. Or such a person will hear one of his fellow church members use the expression "my church," obviously referring to the local congregation of which he is a member, and then accuse him of using the language of Ashdod and of claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs only to Christ. There are, of course, cases of the abuse of words, but we must be certain that the facts substantiating them are incontrovertible before we accuse any of such a practice.

After the Lord's disciples have exercised all the care and consideration possible in their speaking and hearing, they must recognize that they are fallible human beings who can never be perfect words users and hearers. They must be realistic in recognizing that no word means exactly the same thing to one person as it does to another and that therefore no matter how hard they try to use the proper words and to understand the words of others, perfect communication of their thoughts is impossible. Once they recognize this, they will not be so ready to feud and fuss and to disfellowship each other over every point of disagreement. And the very recognition of their imperfect ability in communication will create a relaxed atmosphere of mutual tolerance that is so necessary in making possible a better understanding of the ideas they endeavor to communicate to each other.

We have done great injury to the cause of Christ through the years by failing to recognize that since words do not mean exactly the same thing to one person as to another, it is therefore impossible for our finite minds to see the Bible exactly alike. In insisting otherwise, we have confused the ideal with reality. Surely, it is God's will that we see every word in the Bible alike as it reveals the perfect mind of the Spirit. We are indeed commanded, "Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). But by the same token we are commanded, "Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48); "Be ye therefore imitators of God , as beloved children" (Ephesians 5:1). Cf. 1 Peter 2:21. Being like God, to fully imitate Him, is the perfect standard or ideal for which all Christians are to strive. But how many perfect Christians do you know , who are like the heavenly Father in every respect, absolutely devoid of sin? And how many Christians do you know with whom you are one hundred per cent in agreement as to what the Bible teaches, in perfect agreement concerning the interpretation of every word in the Bible? The answers to these questions are obvious. To be sure, we are to strive for the perfect goal of speaking the same thing, of being perfected together in the same mind and judgment, of seeing the Bible alike. But if we are to maintain any semblance of fellowship in the church, we will have to accept each other somewhat short of the ideal.

If we would keep the door open in the church for the honorable exchange of ideas as to what the Bible teaches so that we can draw more closely to the divine standard of perfect unity in 'our understanding of God's word, we must manifest Christian charity, patience, and forebearance in our relationship with each other. It is certainly to be hoped that this New Testament word study will make some contribution, however small, to harmony and unity among brethren in Christ concerning their understanding of the truths of the sacred scriptures.

Since the words of the English New Testament are translated from the original Greek, it is obvious that if we know the meaning of their Greek equivalents we can truly understand the ideas and concepts contained in the mind of the Spirit. it is surely evident that any meaning we might give to a word in the English New Testament that conflicts with the meaning of its Greek equivalent is definitely wrong. Those who ridicule the study of the Greek New Testament would tacitly put a premium on ignorance. But those who are pre-eminently interested in knowing the truth in their study of the New Testament are willing to use every available means to reach their goal, and they will find that nothing is more basic to this than the study of the language in which the New Testament was originally written.

A primary reason for the study of the Greek New Testament is that the translation from one language to another can be extremely difficult. Williams Barclay observed, "It is always possible to translate words with accuracy when they refer to things. A chair is a chair in any language. But it is a different matter when it is a question of ideas. In that case some words need, not another to translate them, but a phrase , or a sentence, or even a paragraph. Further, words have associations. They have associations with people, with history, with ideas, with other words, and these associations give words certain flavour which cannot be rendered in translation, but which affects their meaning in the most important way."

Those who insist upon a literal translation of the Greek New Testament into English in every respect are unaware that many Greek words would be meaningless to most readers if they were rendered literally; for example, splagchnizomai, generally translated into English as "compassion," but literally meaning "to have the bowels yearning" or "to be moved as to one's bowels."

Since this series of lessons is meant principally to deal with the Greek equivalents of the words we shall select from the English New Testament , the reader is referred to the following books which contain invaluable source material in the study of the language originally used in the writing of the New Testament: W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th Edition; J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources; H. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, A New Edition; A. Deismann, Light From the Ancient East; E. K. Simpson Words Worth Weighing in the Greek New Testament; , W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New 'Testament Words; R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament.

The basic available source of information for a direct study of the words themselves in the English New Testament is a standard dictionary of the English language, such as Webster's Collegiate Dictionary or Webster's New International Dictionary. It is a mistake, however, to conclude that dictionary definitions are infallibly authoritative, that they wolves" is the obvious meaning of the word in Matthew 8:20, but not in Luke 13:32.

We must recognize that merely quoting a dictionary definition does not necessarily mean genuine understanding. One may glibly quote the dictionary definition of a particular word without remotely comprehend. ing the thing or idea it stands for. The dictionary must be used to obtain understanding rather than to cover up one's ignorance. H. R. Huse said, "Dictionary definitions frequently offer verbal substitutes for an unknown term which only conceal a lack of real understanding. Thus a person might look up a foreign word and be quite satisfied with the meaning 'bullfinch' without the slightest ability to identify or describe this bird. Understanding does not come through dealing with words alone, but rather with the things for which they stand. Dictionary definitions permit us to hide from ourselves and others the extent of our ignorance."

Highly recommended as valuable sources of information concerning the meaning of words in the Bible are Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. They represent the cream of Biblical scholarship and belong in the library of every person who sincerely desires to grow in his understanding of God's word. They are especially informative in describing and defining persons, plants, animals, towns, regions, objects used in daily life, customs , and words which designate major doctrines and concepts. Consider, for example, part of the definition of the word "synagogue" in Smith's Bible Dictionary: "The word synagogue (sunagoge), which means 'a congregation,' is used in the New Testament to signify a recognized place of worship. They appear to have arisen during the exile, in the abeyance of temple worship, and to have received their full development on the return of the Jews from captivity, etc."

Also highly recommended for the use of the serious Bible student are modern speech versions of the New Testament. They have virtually eliminated archaic words and expressions found in the older versions , being written in the vernacular of our present day and thus couched in the terminology with which we are most familiar. They make for easy , smooth, interesting reading and clarify the meaning of many passages that have hitherto been obscure to those who have limited their study to the older versions. Among the more familiar modern speech versions are those translated by Edgar A. Goodspeed, Ronald A. Knox, James Moffatt , Gerrit Verkuyl, Richard F. Weymouth, and Charles B. Williams.

Gregory of Nyassa said, "What benefit can we reap from this munificence, if we have not the meaning of these words explained to us?" (Sermons on the Beatitudes). Indeed, what benefit does anyone receive who sees the words of the Bible but fails to see their meaning, who thus fails to understand the mind of the Spirit? Although the word study before us can only deal with a few of the words found in the New Testament, the writer sincerely hopes that it will intensify the reader's efforts dropped down from heaven like manna, that they are divinely sanctioned. Yet it is almost universally believed that every word has a "correct meaning" and that the dictionary is the supreme authority in determining the meaning. Indeed, any person who has the audacity to declare that the dictionary can be wrong is looked down on with pity or amusement as being just a bit "off his rocker." Dr. Philip B. Gove said, "There's no divine sanction in language. It's an instrument of the people who use it. If dictionaries did not follow the language you'd end up with a literary language quite separate from the spoken language." Exactly! The writer of a dictionary is not a law-giver but a historian, or as expressed by R. C. Trench, "He is a historian of the language, not a critic." All he can do to the best of his ability is to record how various words have been used in general in the distant or immediate past. He cannot tell, unless he has the gift of prophecy, how any word will be used in the future. He cannot tell how any particular word will be used by any particular person at any particular time. General historical usage is the criteria of his definitions, not divine inspiration.

Consider, for example, the word "baptism." Webster does not purport to tell us how this word is used in the New Testament, where it is a transliteration of the Greek baptisma, meaning "immersion, a dipping." He only tells us what meaning has been attached to it in general usage. Note his definition: "The application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible church. This is usually performed by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, the manner of performing the act varying with the tenets of various churches." Since all Webster intends to tell us is how the word "baptism" has been generally used, it is absurd to argue that his partial definition of baptism as sprinkling or pouring is wrong because it does not agree with the use of the word in the New Testament.

Since a particular word does not necessarily mean the same thing every time it is used, any dictionary definition that ignores its contextual usage is futile. In the final analysis, the valid meaning of a word is determined by how it is used in a particular setting. Since words do not have a single "correct meaning" as such, we must see them as applying to groups of similar situations, which we can designate as areas of meaning. A dictionary, then, can be an invaluable guide to definition as it gives us these areas of meaning. In each use of a word we examine the context to find out the point intended within the particular area of meaning. Realizing that a dictionary is a historical work, we should thus understand the dictionary to say, "The word 'mother' has most frequently been used in the English-speaking world as meaning 'a female parent,' and that is probably what it means in the sentence I am now trying to understand." Cf. Luke 2:51. Of course, we must always re-examine the context to be sure that the definition fits. For example, the most frequent usage of the word "fox" as "any certain carnivorous mammals, smaller than to see the meaning in all the words he deals with in his study of the sacred scriptures.

Questions I. Discuss the responsibility of both the word user and word hearer in establishing proper communication in the church.

2. Why can we not see the Bible exactly alike? How can we draw more closely to the divine standard of perfect unity in our understanding of the Bible?

3. Discuss the importance of the study of the Greek New Testament.

4. What is the valid use of a standard dictionary of the English language in our study of the words of the New Testament?

5. How do Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias and modern speech versions help us in our study of the New Testament?

6. What benefit does one receive from his reading of the sacred scriptures if he sees words but not their meaning?