Bridging The
Grammatical Gap
by Roy B.
Zuck
A hallmark of the Reformation was a return to the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture. This was in direct opposition to the approach to the Bible that had been in vogue for hundreds of years the view that ignored the normal meaning of words in their grammatical sense and let words and sentences mean whatever the readers wanted them to mean.
In the Middle Ages words, phrases, and
sentences in the Bible had taken on multiple meanings, losing all sense of
objectivity. How, then, the Reformers
asked, could the Bible be a clear revelation from God?
They responded that God has conveyed
His truth in written form, using words and sentences that are to be understood
by man in their normal, plain sense. Therefore the better we understand the
grammar of Scripture and the historical setting in which those sentences were
first communicated, the better we can understand the truths God intended to
convey to us.
The Reformers were seeking to return people to the way the Bible had been treated by the early church fathers, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, and the leaders in the Antiochene School, including Lucian, Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret.
Why
Is Grammatical Interpretation Important?
Several factors point to the importance
of giving attention to the grammar of Scripture (the meanings of words and
sentences and the way they are put together).
If we believe the Bible is verbally
inspired, as discussed in chapter 1, we believe every word of Scripture is
important. Some words and sentences may not hold the same degree of importance
other words or sentences have in the Bible, but all words and sentences in the
Bible serve a purpose. Otherwise why
would God have included them?
Only grammatical interpretation fully honors the verbal inspiration of Scripture. If a person does not believe the Bible is verbally inspired, then it is inconsistent or at least strange for him to give much attention to the words of Scripture.
The aim of biblical exegesis is to determine what the text of Scripture itself says and means, and not to read something into it. As John Calvin stated, "It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say."
Thoughts are expressed through words, and words are the building blocks of sentences. Therefore to determine God's thoughts we need to study His words and how they are associated in sentences. If we neglect the meanings of words and how they are used, we have no way of knowing whose interpretations are correct. The assertion, "You can make the Bible mean anything you want it to mean," is true only if grammatical interpretation is ignored.
Someone has noted that the average person in America speaks 30,000 words a day in ordinary conversation. That is a lot of talk! The more a person speaks the greater the possibility of his being misunderstood. A speaker or writer can be misunderstood if his hearers or readers do not know exactly what he meant by some word or words. Sometimes in conversation, a person will say to another, "Oh, I thought you meant such and such." Further words given by the speaker help communicate his meaning.
Our task in Bible study is to discover
as precisely as possible what God meant by each of the words and sentences He
included in the Scriptures. This problem is compounded for many readers because
the Bible is written in other languages. How then can we know exactly what the
Scriptures mean unless we know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
Suppose you picked up a German Bible
and noticed these words: "Denn also hat Gott die Welt geliebt, dass er
seinen eingebornen Sohn gab, auf dass alle, die an ihn glauben, nicht verloren
werden, sondern das ewige Leben haben." If you do not know German and you want to know what these words
say, you have two choices. One choice is to learn German. The other is to ask someone who knows German
to translate these words for you.
Either choice will lead you to know that they are John 3:16.
The same holds true for the study of
the Bible. We want to get as close to
the original as possible in our understanding of the Scriptures. This means, therefore, that we should learn
the original languages, or if that is not possible, then we need to rely on
others who do know the languages. Bible students, commentators, teachers, and
preachers who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek can be useful sources of
information in helping us know the meaning of the scriptures in their original
languages.
This is not to suggest that a person
cannot know, appreciate, and teach the Bible without knowing those
languages. Many capable Bible
expositors who have not known Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek have been greatly used
of God in preaching and teaching the Bible.
And many people have been greatly blessed in their spiritual lives by
studying a translation of the Bible in their own native language without
knowing the Bible's original languages.
The point, however, is that greater precision is available as one learns
the biblical languages. This was the
burden of the Reformers: to seek to understand as precisely and accurately as
possible what God is communicating to man in His written revelation. For that reason, attention to the principles
of grammatical interpretation is extremely important.
When we speak of interpreting the Bible
grammatically, we are referring to the process of seeking to determine its
meaning by ascertaining four things: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b)
the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech),
and (d) the relationships of words (syntax).
In the meaning of words (lexicology),
we are concerned with (a) etymology how words are derived and developed, (b)
usage how words are used by the same and other authors, (c) synonyms and
antonyms how similar and opposite words are used, and (d) context how words
are used in various contexts.
In discussing the form of words
(morphology) we are looking at how words are structured and how that affects
their meaning. For example the word eat
means something different from ate, though the same letters are
used. The word part changes
meaning when the letter s is added to it to make the word parts. The function of words (parts of speech)
considers what the various forms do.
These include attention to subjects, verbs, objects, nouns, and others,
as will be discussed later. The
relationships of words (syntax) are the way words are related or put together
to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.
How Do We Determine the Meaning of Words?
Four factors influence the meaning of a
given word: etymology, usage, synonyms and antonyms, and context.
Etymology refers to the root derivation and development of words. In etymology the aims are (a) to get back to the root meaning of the word and (b) to see how the word developed.
Sometimes the component parts of a
compound word help reveal its meaning. This can be seen in the English word
"hippopotamus," which is derived from two Greek words hippos for
horse and potamos for river and thus this animal is a kind of river
horse. The Greek word ekklēsia, usually
translated "church," comes from ek ("out of") and kalein
("to call or summon").
Thus it came to refer in the New Testament to those who are called out
from the unsaved to form a group of believers.
Originally ekklēsia
referred to an assembly of
citizens in a Greek community who were summoned by a town crier for transacting
public business.
The Greek word makrothymia, translated
"patience" or "long-suffering," consists of two Greek
words; macros, which means "long," and thymia, which
means "feeling." In putting
the two words together the letter s was dropped and the word means
long-feeling, that is, having control of one's feelings for a long period of
time. "Patience" is a
suitable translation.
In the 18th century Johann Ernesti
(1707-1781) warned against following etymology as a reliable guide. He wrote:
The fluctuating use of words, which
prevails in every language, gives rise to frequent changes in their meaning.
There are but few words in any language which always retained [their] primary
meaning. Great care therefore is necessary in the interpreter, to guard against
rash etymological exegesis; which is often very fallacious.[1]
Sometimes a word in its development
takes on an entirely different meaning from what it originally meant. The root derivation of a word is often an
unreliable guide for the meaning of a word, because meanings change. For example the word enthusiasm in
its etymology means "to be possessed by a god." Obviously the derived meaning today differs
significantly from its root meaning, in which the two words in and god
were put together. Also the English
good-bye is a derivation of "God be with you," and yet few
people think of its original meaning when they tell someone
"good-bye."
The English word regard was derived
from "guard," but obviously regard and guard differ
substantially in their meaning.[2] The English word nice from the Latin
nescius originally meant "simple" or "ignorant,"
hardly related to its present-day meaning!
As Cotterell and Turner have written, in the 13th century the word nice
added the meaning of "foolish" or "stupid," in the 14th
century, "wanton," and in the 15th, "coy" or
"shy." But each of these is
now obsolete. Even the 16th-century
idea of nice as "subtle, precise, minutely accurate" is only
occasionally seen today, as in the phrase "a nice distinction."[3] After Christopher Wren completed St. Paul's
Cathedral in London, Queen Anne saw it and said, "It is awful, amusing,
and artificial." Those words today
hardly sound complimentary. But in 17th-century England, her words meant the
cathedral was full of awe ("awful"), delightful
("amusing"), and artistic ("artificial"). Over time the meanings of those words have changed
extensively.
The Greek word eirēenē
originally meant peace from
war, then it came to mean peace of mind or tranquility, then well-being, and in
the New Testament it is often used to refer to a right relationship with God.
Obviously then, "the etymology of the word is not a statement about its
meaning but about its history.[4]
Sometimes a word means something
entirely different from its component parts. The word broadcast means
something different from its original meaning, which was to sow seed by
"casting it abroad." When a person pulls dandelions from his yard, he
most likely does not have in mind lion's teeth. And yet that is the original
meaning of the French words dent de lion, from which we have
"dandelion" in English. A butterfly has little relevance to the words
butter and fly, and a pineapple only vaguely resembles a pine and
an apple.
A biblical word should not be explained
on the basis of its English etymology.
This is to read back into Scripture what is not there. For example the
biblical word holy is not derived from the English word healthy. Etymologically
the Hebrew and Greek words for holy do not mean being spiritually healthy. Nor
does the Greek word dynamis ("power") mean dynamite. To say that Paul had in mind dynamite when
he wrote Romans 1:16, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is
the dynamite of God for the salvation for everyone who believes," is
to be guilty of "reverse etymology."[5] Dynamite seems inappropriate for what Paul
had in mind because "dynamite blows things up, tears things down, rips out
rock, gouges holes, destroys things."[6] Instead dynamis means a dynamic,
active, living, spiritual force.
Sometimes Bible interpreters note the
meaning of a Greek word in classical Greek and then suggest that the same
meaning carries over into the New Testament.
That procedure, however, can sometimes lead to inaccurate meanings. For
example euangelion was used in classical Greek in the sense of
"reward for good news" given to a messenger. Also the classical writers Socrates and
Xenophon used the word to refer to a "sacrifice for a good message,"
and still later the word came to suggest "the good message." Then in the New Testament it took on the
special sense of "the good news of salvation" in Jesus Christ.[7]
As already stated, often the etymology
of a word does not help determine its meaning.
Therefore we need to determine its current established usage by the
writer. This practice is called usus loquendi
(literally, the use by the one speaking).
In other words, what was the customary meaning of the word when the
writer used it? How he used the word in
its context often helps determine its meaning.
This is especially important because a
word carries different meanings depending on how it is used. For example the
word left takes on different meanings in these four sentences: "He
left," "He left these," "He went left," "He is
left." The verb run can
refer to many things that move or operate.
We say our feet run, noses run, rivers run, machines run, a sore runs,
time runs (or runs out or down), a watch runs, a manager runs a business, a
woman's hosiery may run, colors run, and papers run stories. A person may run a fever, run into trouble,
run up bills, run out of money or patience, run for office, or run over a
stick. Each usage connotes a slightly
different idea. The word board is
also used in a variety of ways. As
Terry wrote, board can refer to a piece of timber, a table on which food
is served, food itself (as in paying for room and board), a board of directors
(men who gather around a table to transact business), and the deck of a boat
(hence the words "on board" or "overboard").[8] Think of the numerous ways the word break
can be used.
In the New Testament the word called
is used at least two ways. In the Synoptic Gospels, God's "call"
means His invitation, whereas when Paul used the word to refer to God's call,
he meant God's act of giving him a title and a commission ("called to
be an apostle," Rom. 1: 1 ), or God's work in giving believers
salvation (8:28, 30), or God's inviting believers with a strong urging ("called
as to a holy life," 2 Tim. 1: 9).
The Greek word pneuma ("spirit")
is derived from pneō ("to
breathe"), but in the Bible the word pneuma only occasionally means
breath. It also means wind, attitude,
emotions, spiritual nature, inner being (in contrast to the physical body),
immaterial beings such as angels or demons, and the Holy Spirit. A study of the word sarx ("flesh")
reveals that it too has a variety of meanings including humanity (Rom. 3:20,
NASB), the human body (2 Cor. 12:7), muscles of the human body (Luke 24:39), or
man's sinful nature or disposition (Rom. 8:6-7, 13; Eph. 2:3).
As will be discussed later, the
immediate context often, though not always, helps determine the meaning of a
word. It is important to note several kinds of usage.
First, note the usage of a word by the
same writer in the same book. If the
immediate context does not make clear the meaning of a word, it is sometimes
helpful to ask, how did the writer use this elsewhere in this same book? In Ephesians 2:20 does the word prophets refer
to Old Testament prophets or New Testament prophets? As one examines the other ways Paul used prophets in
Ephesians in 3:5 and 4:11 it becomes clear that in those verses he was
referring to New Testament prophets.
Therefore it is likely that he meant the same thing in 2:20.
Second, note the usage by the same
writer in his other books. In studying John's use of light and darkness
in 1 John, it is helpful to note how he uses those words in his Gospel and
in the Book of Revelation.
Third, note the usage by other writers
in the Bible. Sometimes a writer's use of the word in the immediate context may
not reveal its precise meaning, and he may not even use the word elsewhere in
the same book or other writings. Therefore it is helpful to examine how the
word is used in other Bible books. In
seeking to determine the meaning of the Hebrew word almβh (whether it
means "young woman" or "virgin") in Isaiah 7:14, it is
helpful to study the eight other occurrences of that word in the Old Testament
(Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; 1 Chron. 15:20; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8;
and in the title to Ps. 46).
This is not to suggest, however, that
the meaning of a word is the same in all its occurrences. In 2 Peter 3:10 stoicheia
means elements, that is, basic components of the universe. In Hebrews 5:12,
however, stoicheia means elementary or basic truths, hardly basic
components of the physical universe. The same word may take on again a slightly
different meaning in Galatians 4:3, 9 and Colossians 2:8, 20.
Fourth, note how the word is used by
writers outside the Bible. In the Hebrew Old Testament approximately 1,300
words occur only one time.[9]
They are called hapax legomena, meaning, literally, "once
spoken." And about 500 words in
the Old Testament occur only twice.
Therefore the meaning of these words cannot be determined by comparing
them with usage elsewhere in the Bible. The way these words are used in other
writings outside the Bible can sometimes help us ascertain their meaning. In Proverbs 26:23 the Hebrew word sprg, a
hapax legomenon, is rendered "silver dross" in the NASB. Based on the use of the same word in
Ugaritic, a language closely related to Hebrew, the NIV translated the word
"glaze," which seems to make more sense in the verse. Bible scholars
have also found that Arabic and Aramaic usages of words corresponding to Hebrew
Old Testament words have sometimes helped us understand their meaning.
The use of words in koinē (common)
Greek outside the New Testament sometimes is helpful in ascertaining a New
Testament word meaning. For example the
word ataktos is translated "disorderly in 2 Thessalonians
3:6, 11 in the KJV. This is probably
because of the influence of this word in classical Greek, where it is used of
soldiers who broke rank, and who were thus considered disorderly. However, in the papyri, which are more current
with the writing of the New Testament, the word ataktos is used of a boy
playing hooky from school. Therefore in
the verses cited above the word more likely means "idle," not
"disorderly."
Discover the Meanings of Similar Words
(Synonyms) and Opposite Words
(Antonyms)
Seeing how a word differs from its
synonyms can help narrow down the meaning of that word. It is important not to read back into a
given word the meaning of its synonyms, but rather to seek to find how the
words carry varying shades of meaning. Sometimes these will not always be
clear, for synonyms sometimes become almost identical in meaning. However, in Romans 14:13 Paul referred to
both a "stumbling block" and an "obstacle." The stumbling block (skandalon in
Greek) means a serious kind of offense, something causing another person to
fall. An "obstacle" (proskomma), on the other hand, means a
slight offense, something that disturbs another. Paul obviously was stating that he did not want to disturb
another believer in either a serious or a minor way.
In Colossians 2:22 commands suggests
laws to be obeyed and teachings (i.e., doctrines) imply truths to be
believed.
Seeing how a word differs from its
exact or near opposite can assist in determining its meaning. In Romans 8:4-9
does "flesh" (KJV) mean the physical body (in contrast to the
human spirit) or does it mean the sinful nature (in contrast to the Holy
Spirit)? The answer is found by noting
how "flesh" contrasts with the word "spirit." Verses 6, 9, and 11 suggest that "spirit"
means the Holy Spirit rather than the human spirit. Therefore "flesh" in verses 4-9 probably means
the sinful nature.
In 6:23 "death" means spiritual death, not physical death because it is contrasted to eternal life. g
To
be continued in our next journal.
Taken from Basic Bible Interpretation,
by Roy B. Zuck, Victor Books, 1991.
Used with permission. Further
reproduction prohibited without written permission from the publisher.
[1] Johann August Ernesti, Elements of
Interpretation, 3d ed., ed. and trans.
Moses Stuart (Andover: N.p., 1837), pg. 50.
[2] Stepen Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction
to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Blackwell, 1964), pg. 97.
[3] Peter Cotterall and Max Turner, Linguistics
and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL.: Intervarsity Press, 1989),
pg. 131.
[4] James
Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1961), pg. 109. Also see Darrell
L. Bock, New Testament Word Analysis, in Introducing New Testament
Interpretation, ed. Scot I. McKnight (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1989), pgs. 97113.
[5] D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), pg. 33.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics,
2d. ed. (1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), pg
123.
[8] Ibid., 91.
[9] Encyclopedia
Judaica, 7:1318.