BIBLE INTERPRETATION: WORD MEANINGS (PART 1)

Word Meanings: General Principles

Even if you took the time to learn Hebrew and Greek, you would still be dependent on scholars to a great extent in understanding the meanings of the various words in the Bible. So how do you get around this problem. Let's consult the linguistics expert Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass:

“There's glory for you!” said Humpty Dumpty. “I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'” “But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'” Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” That leads to our first point:

1. Let the author define his words by the context in which they are used. One familiar example is the supposed contradiction between Paul, who says we are saved by faith (Galatians 2:16) and James who says we are saved by works (James 2:24). To make it worse, they both use Abraham as their example to prove their points. But if you read each passage separately, you can actually deduce what each author means by the way he defines his words:

“Faith”

James – mere intellectual assent to a fact (2:19) without any change in behavior (2:17).

Paul (Galatians) – faith in Christ, which justifies us (2:16), enables us to live (2:20), and demonstrates 

itself in love (5:6).

“Works”

James – showing compassion to the needy (2:14-17); totally trusting in God for salvation (2:21, 25)

Paul (Galatians) – of the law (2:16) that men try to rely on for salvation (5:4)

“Law”

James – a general principle of liberty (1:25) and love (2:8)

Paul (Galatians) – Old Testament commandments (3:10) and ceremonial customs (4:10)

2. Compare Translations

Since most of us have to rely on English translations for the meaning of words, recognize that there are several different approaches used by translators:

    Formal Equivalence (word-for-word): KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV

    Moderate Dynamic Equivalence: NIV, Holman's, NAB

    Paraphrase (idea-for-idea): Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, TEV, The Message, Living Bible

For serious Bible studies I would suggest avoiding the out-and-out paraphrases. And in group studies make sure that there is at least one reasonably “literal” translation in the group for comparison with NIV, etc.

Why is KJV so different from most other translations?

    a. Translators did not realize that the NT was written in common koine vs. classical Greek. 

    b. There have been many changes in the English language in the last 400 years since it was written.

    c. Many older and more accurate manuscripts that we now have were not available at the time of the KJV (Greek and Dead Sea Scrolls).

Different Translations: I Corinthians 4:4a

    Literal: For nothing against myself I know

    KJV: For I know nothing by myself

    RSV: I am not aware of anything against myself

    NIV, Good News, Living Bible: My conscience is clear

    Jerusalem Bible: My conscience does not reproach me at all.

You can be misled if you attempt a word study on “conscience” since that word doesn't even appear in the Greek original.

And if you wish to easily go a little deeper, use an Interlinear Bible that shows the original text alongside its literal translation. In addition, for New Testament studies, if you just learn the Greek alphabet enough to be able to sound out words, it will help you in using study aids such as word study books or an exhaustive concordance.

3. Be aware of possible translation problems in a text

Sometimes a word appears completely differently in various translations. This is especially true with technical terms in the Bible that may appear only once or twice. Look at Exodus 25:3-5 in various translations. This passage lists the various materials used to furnish the tabernacle. The next to last in the list of items in KJV is badger's skins. But NIV says hides of sea-cows. Other translations include: fine leather, specially treated goatskins, dolphin skins, porpoise skins, etc.

I attended a Sunday school class years ago where the teacher went through each of the materials in the tabernacle and tried to explain the symbolic significance of each one. Of course this is an absurd approach when we may not even know what the literal terms mean to start with. Other problems: a symbolic meaning may not have been intended, and thirdly, even if it is, there is no control on what that symbolic meaning might be. In other words, what is the particular property of gold which it symbolizes? Some commentators say it is a symbol of God and purity. But maybe it stands for something else. Gold is rare, malleable, glitters, indestructible, etc.

Hapax legomena is the technical term for words that only appear once. How are they translated? Translators can get a rough idea from the immediate context, can look at how early translators treated the word, or use cognates (similarly pronounced words) from related languages. Poetic parallelism helps in poetic sections of the Bible, and that is discussed in another post. But then for other words, we are so much in the dark that translators don't even try to translate them.

Examples: selah, urim and thummin

Selah appears in several poetic passages in the Old Testament so we assume it is some sort of musical instruction. One common “guess” is that it indicates a pause in the music, but it could just as well mean that horns are to blast out at this point or that the next part of the psalm is to be sung by the tenors only. We simply don't know.

The Mormons love to see obscure portions of the Bible because they can use them as justification for their unique practices and doctrines. Baptism on behalf of the dead is one example, and another is their explanation of the urim and thummin. They explain that these were magic spectacles given to Joseph Smith by an angel to allow him to translate the gold tablets written in reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics (whatever that is) into flawless English, which for some reason just happens to be identical to the sort of early English found in the King James Bible.

We may not know exactly what the urim and thummin looked like, but from the context of its appearances in the OT we know that it was two objects carried on the high priest's breastplate capable of conveying God's answer to yes or no questions or refusing to answer questions, as when God's spirit left King Saul. So most scholars deduce that it was probably two flat objects where heads and tails could be distinguished. Two heads might mean yes, two tails would mean no, and one head and one tail would indicate that God did not choose to answer the question.

Then there other cases where the individual words have standard meanings by themselves, but don't make sense as a combined phrase:

In I Corinthians 13:1, those without love are like “a sounding brass” or clanging cymbal. The phrase in quotes only appears here in the Bible and until recently it wasn't found in any secular Greek literature. Then an ancient book on architecture was uncovered in which this same phrase appeared, referring to large brass jars or plates placed on the stage of Roman theaters that act as sounding boards or echo chambers to enhance the acoustics. So it appears not to mean any sort of musical instrument at all. That puts a slightly different slant on the verse. By the way, this same book on architecture mentions that the Roman theater had just acquired a set of sounding brasses from Corinth!

So how do you recognize when there might be a translation problem in a given verse besides comparing several translations? Look for appropriate footnotes in your study Bibles. And if your Bible doesn't have them, get one that does. The notes I am talking about are of two types:

    1. Translation Variations: These are cases in which we know what the original Hebrew or Greek words are, but there is some uncertainty in the exact way to translate them. These type of notes may look something like this: 

        “or …..”

        “Meaning of Hebrew is uncertain / obscure.”

        “prob. rdg.” (probable reading)

    2. Textual Variations: These notes indicate that we are not even sure which Hebrew or Greek word was in the original text. For the NT, this is usually because the many early handwritten manuscripts we have differ from one another in minor details. Those notes will look something like this:

        “Some witnesses / ancient authorities / manuscripts (mss) read …..”

In the case of the OT, the variations are more likely due to the fact that the standard Hebrew text preserved through the ages may differ somewhat from early Greek or Aramaic translations or from the Dead Sea scrolls.

        “Gk / Septuagint / LXX reads …..” (early Greek translation)

        “Syr / Aram: Heb reads ….”. (early Aramaic translation)

        “Q mss” (Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran)

4. Etymology (word origin) should be used cautiously

Preachers love to use these, but the problem is that word meanings change with time. We can't always use the original meaning of a word as a sure guide to how it was understood and used at a later date. For example, the English word “enthusiasm” meant to be possessed by a god all the way up to about 1800. But realize that sometimes an earlier word meaning may have been in the back of the author's mind, and so we can perhaps use it to gain a better understanding of nuances.

In Acts 17:18, Athenian philosophers listen to Paul preach in the marketplace and comment, “What does this babbler want to say?” The original word meant literally a seed-picker; then later it became a nickname for a particular bird, and then was sarcastically applied to itinerant philosophers who picked up scraps of ideas from others, and finally took on the general meaning of a babbler.

Look at Jesus' temptation in the wilderness by the devil (diabolos) in Matthew 4. The original meaning of the word was “false accuser or slanderer,” and it is translated that way in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 3:3, and Titus 2:3). Therefore some scholars appeal to this original meaning and propose that the word refers to Christ's inner human nature that he is struggling with. However, the three passages mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles are the only places in the NT where the word appears in the plural and in each case is used to describe members of a congregation. Then there is one passage (John 6:70) where the word appears in the singular but is missing the definite article “the” in front of it so that verse may be rightly translated: “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you (Judas) is a devil.” All other 34 appearances of the word are in the singular using the phrase “ho diabolos” (the Devil). From basic grammatical considerations, that means that each of these references probably refers to the same entity. Nine of these occasions appear in the story of Christ's temptation.

Working against the assumption that the word applies here to Christ's inner nature are (1) the various action verbs indicating that it refers to an external force, (2) the difficulty in understanding how Christ's inner nature could first “come” to him and then “depart” from him, (3) the theological problem of “the accuser/slanderer” being used as a definition of Christ's human nature, (4) the strange picture of Christ's inner nature asking Christ to bow down and worship it, and (5) the possible logical inference that all other references to the devil in the NT must also refer to Christ's inner nature.

Finally, at the end of Matthew's account of the Temptation (4:10), Jesus calls the devil "Satan". And Mark's parallel account specifically says (1:13) that Christ was tempted by Satan. Of course, The word Satan appears throughout the Bible from the OT to Revelation as the description of an angelic being who was originally part of God's heavenly court. All that seems to fit the definition of the entity we call the Devil or Satan much better than a definition of Christ's inner nature.

If you are going to use etymologies to try to understand the meaning of a word, you really need a resource like The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (or OT equivalent) which will explain how these word meanings changed with time. A CD-ROM version is also available.

Since we used “devil” as an example of etymology being misused, let's go to the opposite extreme “angel.” The Greek word aggelos is usually translated as “angel” in the Bible. A past member of our church once told his Sunday school class, which was studying the Book of Hebrews that this is a poor translation since the original meaning of the word is simply “messenger,” such as one of God's human messengers, the prophets. We can look at all the appearances of this word in Hebrews 1-2 and try to determine from the contexts which meaning makes the most sense in each case. Is it a supernatural being or a human messenger from God such as a prophet?

Two general considerations: (1) If it is a human messenger he is talking about, he has already used a perfectly good word for that in 1:1 (prophet) and (2) the meaning in each case must almost certainly be the same throughout these two chapters since they constitute one long continuous argument. Some of the appearances of “angel” in Hebrews could be ambiguous, but at least these three verses clearly refer to what we would call angels:

    1. “Are not all angels spirits in the divine service...?” (Hebrews 1:14) Spirits as beings are always contrasted with flesh and blood creatures. 

    2. “What are human beings that you are mindful of them?...You have made them for a little while lower than the angels.” (Hebrews 2:6-7) The meaning “prophets” makes no sense here. 

    3. “For it is clear that he (Jesus) did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham.” (2:16) Whether “descendants of Abraham” means the Jewish people or the community of faith, “prophets” again makes no sense here. 

There is only one usage in which “prophets” seems to make more sense. “For if the message declared through angels was valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty...” (Hebrews 2:2)  But that verse is explained by looking at some parallels elsewhere in the Bible. Stephen says to the Jewish crowd, “You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels...” (Acts 7:53) “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions...and it was ordained through angels by a mediator.” (Galatians 3:19) This idea arose in NT times from the LXX version of the description of the law being given on Mt. Sinai. “The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon us; he shown forth from Mount Paran. With him were myriads of holy ones (“angels” in LXX); at his right, a host of his own.” (Deuteronomy 33:2)