To study words we must understand their characteristics. First, words are usu- ally
arbitrary sians. 48Simple stated, a word is the smallest combination of letters that is meaninfil by itself in a language. A more precise definition is that a word is a semantic sign-a combination of symbols or sounds that represents an idea.49 Spoken
#M. Silva puts it this way, “Little genuine progress can be made in language study unless we recognize that, as a rule, the association of a particular word with a particular meaning is largely a matter of convention” (Biblical Words and h&Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19831, 1034; emphasis his). We say that words are usually arbitrary signs because in some instances where words sound like sounds (a dog’s bark, “woof, woof’), the association be- tween word and meaning is not simply arbitrary.
4me reader who wishes more detailed help into the intricacies of the modem study of words, especially in light of linguistic studies, should consult: P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Bibli- cal Interpretation (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1989); Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning; J. P.
Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); J. F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defning Hebrew Words For Salvation (London: SCM, 1972); and E.
A. Nida and J. P. Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992). -
184 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
words are a combination of sounds that stand for a specific idea; written words combine letters representing those sounds to symbolize a concept. The idea desig- nated by any given word can be communicated either orally or visually. But why a word means what it does is mostly a matter of convention. That’s just the way it is!
How do words become signs indicating a specific idea? Suppose someone were to ask the question, “How is your ‘kebof’?” Probably all English speakers would be puzzled. “What on earth is my ‘kebof’? ” they would ask. Why? Is there something wrong with the word “kebof”? It sounds like a perfectly good word. It combines consonants and vowels in proper syllables. It is even pronounceable. It has all the attributes of a good word, except for one -it conveys no meaning, at least not in English! On the other hand, another five letter word, “maple,” immediately brings to mind a type of tree. While several English-speaking people may envision different shapes of trees, depending upon their experience with maples, if any, they all acknowledge that “maple” refers to a type of tree, or to the wood that comes from a maple tree.50 What makes “maple” different fiorn “kebof”? By common practice English speakers associate “maple ” with a certain meaning. Throughout the development of a language, users of that language arbitrarily assign meanings to the words they use. When English speakers hear the word “maple,” their minds automatically iden- tie one member of the kind of plants commonly known as trees. But since English speakers have not assigned a meaning to “kebof,” it represents nothing and thus calls nothing to mind.
This illustrates the most foundational fact about words: each word comes to represent a given idea (or ideas) only by its repeated use within a common language group. Thus, if two people wish to communicate, they both must use words in a similar way. From the standpoint of hermeneutics, accurate interpretation requires that we understand a word in the same way the writer used it. To illustrate, Ameri- can English makes only a minor distinction between “pants” and “trousers.” How- ever, in British English these two words refer to two entirely different garments.
Trousers indicate their American counterpart while pants denote “underpants.“51 To secure a “two-legged outer garment that extends from waist to ankle” in Aber- deen, Scotland, a wise American purchaser would ask the clerk for trousers, not pants. Understanding and using words the way other speakers of the language use them is critical for effective communication.
Needless to say, this complicates the task for Bible students. Since the original writers wrote in ancient languages that are foreign to us, we do not know intrinsi- cally the meanings of the terms they used. We need translators to render the mean- ing of the biblical texts into English. Fortunately, scholars carefully study the biblical languages and do their best to convey the precise meaning of the biblical words in English. A hermeneutical point clearly emerges fkom this information. Interpreters must deliberately pursue what the original words of a passage meant at the time they
50For the sake of simplicity we will avoid other senses of “maple ” such as someone’s last name or a flavor of syrup or ice cream.
“British friends tell us this distinction is now breaking down due to the pervasive influence ot television and American tourists.
General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose 185 were written in the context in which thy occur. The meaning of the original words, not what ideas may occur to us when we read the passage, is the objective for word studies. We must always remember that the biblical writer selected certain words to express specific thoughts. Our aim is to recover the ideas that the writer sought to communicate by means of those words.
Words Have a Range of Meanings
To tither complicate matters, a word may have more than one meaning. In fact, most words have a range of meanings. 52 The very same word, spelled identi- cally, may have several totally different meanings.53 Take for example the English word “hand.” The “hand” that is a part of the human body is not at all like the
“hand” on a clock, the “hand” held by a card player, a unit of measurement for horses, a worker as in “All ‘hands’ on deck,” or the idea expressed by the request to
“Give them a ‘hand’!“” In each case the word remains the same, but the meaning changes. These different meanings constitute at least part of the range of meanings of the word “hand.” Normally such multiple meanings of a word do not cause any confusion or misunderstanding. Aided by the context, native speakers usually pick the right meaning without any trouble. The ideas expressed in the larger message of the literary context almost always clarify the intended meaning.
These facts also hold true for the ancient biblical languages. Both the Hebrew word sMm and the Greek eiri%& translated upeace” in English, have several mean- ings. For the Hebrew sb&m the range includes uabsence of strife” in the sense of prosperity, completeness, wholeness, harmony, and fulfillment. So it denotes a sense of well-being where relationships are unimpaired. In addition, it means the state of fulfillment that results horn God’s presence and righteousness; its source is God and comes as his gifi. Finally, shddm can mean the eschatological state of eternal peace.55 The range of meaning for the Greek eirifnif includes an external absence of hostility, an internal tranquility, and the first Hebrew sense of well-being.56 To under- stand what a biblical authoi means by “peace” in a specific text in a given testament, one must determine which of these potential meanings best fits the context.
52we saw that the range of meaning of “pants” is broader in American English (able to denote trousers and underpants) than in British English (only denotes underpants). Consider English words like “run” or “ball” to get a feel for how wide a range some words can have. Some dictionaries have dozens of meanings for “run.”
53Recall our previous example of the word “trunk.”
%terestingly, note how even this sentence is ambiguous. It could mean “Give them applause”
or “Help them.” Also, in using “hand” we introduce only instances where it functions as a noun.
“Hand” also occurs as a verb (“Hand me a book.“).
55See 7WOT, 2:931 and G. von Rad, “sbdl6m in the OT,” X!3m 2:402-406.
%While these three meaning categories are not all listed as such in any one of the major Greek lexicons, a comparison of W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d English edition (Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago, 1979), 226-7, with J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Bused on Semantic Domains, 2 ~01s. (New York, et al.: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1:
22.42, 25.248, suggests this range of meanings.
186 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
Several times during the “Upper Room Discourse” (Jn 13-17), Jesus prom- ised “peace” to the apostles. Certainly Jesus did not mean “absence of hostility.”
He was not promising them trouble-free lives, for he ended this discourse with the statement, “I have told you these things, so that in me you have peace. In the world you will have trouble. But take heart.! I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). In fact, though they would encounter considerable hostility, Jesus’ command to “take heart” makes it clear that he was promising the apostles inward tranquility or an ultimate sense of their own well-beinig. So, the fact that many words have a range ot meaning complicates language communication. To know the message intended by a speaker or writer, interpreters must discern which meaning makes the best sense’
in its context.
Word Meanings Overlap
The third factor to know about the nature of words is that each meaning
of a
word forms part of a distinct semantic field OY domain.57 One meaning of “hand ,”
we will call it “hand, * resides in the domain of “parts of the human body.” AIF other meaning, “han&” fits in the d.omain of “ways to show appreciation in a pu h lit setting” (along with uapplause,n ucheers,n “clapping,” and uovation”). Put simply, a number of words in the same language include meanings similar to 01’
closely related to other words. Often we call these words synonyms. Clearly, “hand,”
is closer in meaning to uovation” than it is to “hand,.”
Words are synonyms when, out of their total range of meaning, at least one ot their meanings overlaps with each other. “Run” is synonymous with “unravel” in the sentence, uThese stockings are guaranteed not to , n but not (usually) in
“ S h e i s r e a d y t o the race.“58 Note, only one meaning of “hand” overla;><
with “ovation. ” They are synonyms in only a portion of their ranges of meanin&:.
Consider these two sentences: “The audience gave her a hand,” and “The audi ence gave her an ovation. ” Though the two words are synonymous in these USC’\, they do not convey exactly the same meaning. 59 “Hand n is probably less form~ll than “ovation. ” The comedian gets a rousing hand fro: the audience while tllc.
soprano merits a standing ovation. Most English speakers probably use “ovation”
less frequently and usually only with “standing. n They reserve it for specific oc‘c“l sions. By seeing which part of a semantic field a specific word occupies, one is ably to define the meaning of each term used within that field more precisely. This hcl~~s
57Silva, Biblical Words,has a brief treatment of the basic concepts (161-63). For more tt-chlllc’.ll introductions see J. Lyons, Semantics, 2 ~01s. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19771, 1 :Li()tt : and W. W. Klein, “A Semantic Analysis of Paul’s Election Vocabulary” (Ph. D. dissertation, Universit!’ 0’
Aberdeen, 19771, 127-147. In Klein’s words, “A language divides up the total conceptual sphere .I[ .’
given synchronous state into . . fields, as a kind of mosaic. Within each field, each word has 1nt’.111 ing in terms of its relationships with the other words in that field” (129).
Wwe say usually here, because one could always envision a setting when even an “odd” \\‘Ird could be made to fit. We are discussing normal usage.
5”We will take up this element of connotation later.
General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose 11 the interpreter to recognize the specific nuances of a word that distinguish it fro other terms.
In studying the Greek word for “peace” (ez%ti), Louw and Nida say that belongs to two different semantic fields: first, domain 22 containing words us4 to express trouble, hardship, relief, or favorable circumstances;“O and second, dl main 25 listing terms for attitudes and emotions.61 These two fields of meanir differ greatly. In the first category “peace” is one of six words in the subdoma indicating “favorable circumstances or state” (22:42-22:47), whereas the 0th uses of the word belong to the subdomain including “worry, anxiety, distre>
peace” (25:223-25:250). The same word may refer to external circumstances frc from hostility or to a psychological state of inward tranquility. Knowing this di tinction enables the interpreter to watch for clues in the context to decide bf tween the two.62
Word
Meanings Change Over Time
Word meanirtgs do not remain fixed: they change over time. New meanin!
develop through usage, and old ones become obsolete.63 The KJv readily illustrate this phenomenon. Revered for numerous qualities, including its poetic beauty an its familiarity, the venerable translation fi-equently shows how English words n
longer mean what they did in 1611. In some places the wording merely cause confusion; in others, the present meaning differs drastically fkom that of the orig
nal Elizabethan English. Look at the KJV’S uses of the word “conversation” (2 Cc
1:12; Gal 1:13; Eph 2:3; 4:22; Phil 1:27). These texts have little to do with whz we think of when we use the word uconversation”; so modern versions use ucon duct” or “way of life” to convey the texts’ original intent.
Or consider the passage promising the rapture of saints to meet Christ at hi second coming. The KJV renders 1 Thes 4: 15, “We who are alive and remain unt the coming of the Lord will not prevent those who have fallen asleep.” In 161
“prevent” more closely followed its Latin derivation and conveyed the idea “to g(
before. ” Today it means “to stop” or “to hinder.” Because the meaning of the En glish word has changed, what served as a good translation in the seventeenth ten hu-y no longer communicates Paul’s original meaning. Hence, most modern version substitute the word “precede” for the KJV’S “prevent.”
The same principle holds true for the biblical languages. Words have changec their meanings over the centuries. The original meaning of a word or the meanin{
derived from a word’s etymology or root may be of no more than historical interes
““LOUW and Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1~242-248.
%XIW and Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1:288-320.
“‘Interestingly, the student who only used the Bauer lexicon would not be aware of the use o ei*n@ meaning freedom from worry and anxiety, because this meaning is not listed.
‘9. Weiner and J. Simpson, eds., OX@XI English Dictionary, 2d ed. 20 ~01s. (Oxford: Oxforc University Press, 1990) is the standard and monumental tool for tracing the changes of the meaning o
! English words over time. _
i I.
188 Intioduction to Biblical Interpretation
to the interpreter. 6( Past meanings may be interesting and even colorful, but we must always resist the temptation to believe that past meanings exert some residual influence on current usage. One may not simply discover a meaning for a word that existed in classical Greek, for example, and assume that meaning could occur at the time of the NT.65 Many would argue that Classical Greek made a distinction be- tween two words for knowing: oida and &%&6..w The first denoted an acquired knowledge of facts or people; it had a kind of certainty about it. The second re- ferred to the procurement of knowledge, an experiential knowledge ofien with the sense of “come to know.” However, in the Hellenistic period during which the NT came into existence, Greek speakers did not always comply with the classical dis- tinctions. Indeed, in their lexicon, Moulton and Milligan confidently assert: “The distinction between oida, “to know” absolutely, arid&%k6, “come to know” can- not be pressed in Hellenistic Greek. “67 Burdick believes that Paul normally followed the classical distinctions, though not always. But, he wisely observes, “Each occur- rence must be evaluated on its own merits.“68 Silva’s analysis is considerably more linguistically nuanced. 69 He rightly concludes that Paul’s uses of these verbs may be heavily influenced by stylistic, not only semantic, factors.
That is, not only were the meaning distinctions from the classical period in the process of breaking down, but certain constructions sounded or worked better than others. For example, the phrase “standing ovation” works better in English than “standing hand.” If we want to indicate that an audience demonstrated its approval while standing on its feet, we are virtually locked into. using “ovation”
rather than “hand,” semantic considerations aside. In the same way Bible students must determine the range of meanings that was in common use at the time a book was written. Interpreters err in attempting to retain the distinctions of classical Greek as if the NT writers were obligated to observe them. They must scrupulously avoid both archaic meanings of an earlier phase of the language and anachronistic meanings of later periods. The fallacy of anachronism occurs when we read later meanings into 6”This point has been repeated in recent years by an array of scholars. The earliest voice was probably J. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 107, 109.
6yThis would be as inappropriate as for a modern male to call a woman a “hussy” with the defense that its original meaning was positive-a diminutive for “housewife.” Today it conveys a lewd and derogatory message. Original meanings may have no significance for current usage. The same applies to biblical studies.
“See H. Seesemann, “oidu,” 7Zlm5: 116-19; and R. Bultrnann, “gindskd et al.” TDNT 1: 689- 719, especially 689-92. The former, oidu, had more the sense of: to have experienced, learned to know. On the second, Bultmann stresses that in Greek usage the sense was the intelligent comprehen- sion of an object or matter: to experience,‘to perceive (689). This sense of the act of comprehension may fade into the background so the sense is merely: to know or understand. Both authors recognize that these distinctions were not hard and fast, and that often the words appear to be used synony- mously.
“‘J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, 7&e Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1930) 439. See the careful, sober analysis in D. W. Burdick, “Oidu and Ginosk6 in the Pauline Epistles,” in New Directions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 344-56.
‘*Burdick, “Oida,” 354.
““Silva, Biblical Words, 164-69.
General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose 189
an earlier use of a word. A serious example of this abuse occurs when a preacher defines the first century Greek word for power, dynamic, using a commodity in- vented in the nineteenth century, namely dynamite, simply because the words look and sound similar and because the English word derived fi-om the Greek!70
Words Have Connotative and Denotative Meanings
A fifth characteristic of words is that they may convey a significance in addition to their explicit denotative reference. 71 This may include a connotative or a figurative meaning. While the word “dog” denotes a four-legged, hairy animal, when used of a person in the statement, “You dog!” it communicates an emotive sense of disapproval.
In this specific use, “dog” figuratively stands for a person and it has a connotation it
does not have in the use, “Harley is our family dog.” When Paul warns the Christians at Philippi, “Watch out for those doJs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh” (Phil 3:2), the word carries a noticeable derogatory force. First-century Jews considered dogs despicable creatures. Thus they expressed their dislike of the Gen- tiles by calling them “dogs.” Paul criticizes certain Jewish troublemakers by throw- ing back at them their own contemptuous use of the term “dog.” This connotation is not necessarily present in other uses of “dog” in the NT. A good example occurs in Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman in which “dog” has its more common and neutral meaning (Mt 15:21-28; Mk 7:24-30). Interpreters, there- fore, must study words carefully to discern not only their denotative meaning but also any connotative subtlety that the original recipients would have sensed.