There is a Right Way and a Wrong Way to do Biblical Word Studies
Written by S. M. Baugh |
Saturday, May 28, 2022
I will try to give you some helpful ideas on proper word study method in this series. But the project is mainly about meanings of words and phrases in the Greek NT that may not be evident in today’s popular translations.
Word studies dominate the resources available for Christians. Some are good and some, well, not so good. With all the word pictures, Strong’s numbers, footnotes in translations, study Bibles and more, you would think that there’s nothing more that can be said about word studies in the Bible. I’m going to put a little oar in this massive lake anyway. The lake will be reduced in size a bit by only considering New Testament (NT) and Greek examples since this is my field.
As introduction to the project, let me qualify that “word” studies is shorthand for the study of the meanings of both individual words and phrases. A “phrase” in this context refers to a series of two or more words that do not have independent meaning but mean something as a whole. Let me illustrate with these English examples. The highlighted phrases in these sentences, have composite meanings that are more than the sum of their parts: “Don’t believe him, he’s out to lunch,” “She gave up the ghost,” “They were sent up the river for their crimes.” Substitution of synonyms in these phrases turns them into nonsense: “out to dinner,” “gave up the ghoul,” or “sent up the waterway.”
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Work is Not a Result of the Fall
In our current cultural moment, many see work as frustrating, unrewarding, and not worth it (that is, as toil). So, in our cultural moment, Christians have an incredible, better vision of work to offer the larger world. We’ve also got a history to tell, of how a vision of human dignity and innovation became a blessing across economic and class lines. Just as in the past, the Christian view can move our imaginations about work beyond drudgery, to a renewed and redeemed way of thinking and living.
As the “Big Quit” happens across America, the Christian vision of work could be more relevant and impactful than ever. Which, as history attests, is saying quite a lot.
Physical labor was devalued in the ancient world. The exception, in classical Greece and the early days of the Roman Republic, was farming, which was considered the proper pursuit of citizens. All other labor was viewed as demeaning. In the later days of the Republic, as plantation agriculture replaced small farms, the work of farming was also seen as demeaning and relegated to slaves.
By the time of the Roman Empire, all physical labor was only thought proper for slaves and lower classes. Though the foundation of the empire’s wealth, the upper classes believed that production was beneath them. Their attention, or so they thought, belonged in the more “refined” areas of life, such as the arts and philosophy.
Of course, the biblical view of work is completely different. Scripture frames work as a good thing, an essential part of what it means to be human. Because God created us to work, at least in part, it’s inherently connected to our worship and dignity.
Put differently, work is not the result of the fall. It was, however, tainted by Adam’s sin. God’s created purposes for humanity, to fill and form His world through work, would now feature pain and frustration. Aspects of human work were twisted from dignity to drudgery. Human efforts to cultivate the earth, designed by God to be part of the joy of imaging Him, became sources of frustration, pain, sweat, and sorrow.
Because of the uniqueness of the Biblical framework, even the early Christians approached work with a very different view than their pagan neighbors did. They thought of work as good but marred by sin. So, for example, in monastic communities, monks were expected to do physical labor, if for no other reason than to grow their food. In his Rule for Monastic Life, St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) insisted that monks should work both to fulfill the biblical mandate that God gave Adam, and to encourage humility in a world that thought of work as demeaning.
Read More -
The Devil Went Up to Iowa
The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith. What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment. That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God.
When I heard of the statute of the Satanic idol being destroyed at the Iowa State Capitol Building, I thought of Charlie Daniels’ famous hit “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.” In this song the Devil challenged the young man Johnny to a fiddle-playing contest. The prize for Johnny was a golden fiddle if he won, and the prize for the Devil was the soul of Johnny if he won. Johnny won. I think a new song might be appropriately written by Charlie now, and as a man who lives in the South, I would call it “The Devil Went Up to Iowa.”
This statute has been demolished by a man from Mississippi. The head has been cut off, and only part of the statute remains on site.
Although I must confess that there was a joyful response in me as I visioned the ram’s head on the floor, yet, as a Reformed Christian I cannot support vandalism. Men, even men like Michael Cassidy, who is a Christian and a former Navy fighter pilot, do not have the right to destroy public property. You know—such an attitude toward the legitimacy of vandalism could lead to vigilante riots and the destruction of millions of dollars of property in cities like Minneapolis where the police are told to stand down while the city burns to the ground. Or it could lead to robbing jewelry stores in San Francisco in broad daylight and the only criminal is the owner of the store. I am glad I live in a country where vandalism and vigilantism are not tolerated.
The real issue on trial here was not the statue of a pagan idol by the name of Baphomet in a public place set up by the organization called the Satan Temple of Iowa with the approval of the Iowa State Legislature. The real issue here is the concept of free speech. Does it violate free speech by restricting objectional material from public display? One Iowan representative, who is a follower of Christ, and also an ordained minister, spoke approvingly of this public display as protecting the right of civil liberties guaranteed in the United States Constitution. It is a matter of the First Amendment, he said.
Reactions in the Reformed world vary, as you might expect. The most common response is simply to grimace and ignore it. “I do not like it, but idolatry in worship at my local church is a much bigger concern than an ugly statute of Satan in a State Capitol.”
So, what about the free-speech argument? If we curtail free speech, are we curtailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution? If we are, then this might lead to worse things. It could even lead to being fired from work if you speak the wrong pronoun preferred by a transgender. It could lead to a world-renown medical scientist being punished for publicly questioning the validity of the covid vaccine. Or, likewise, it could lead to a presidential candidate being cancelled from social media for posting what high-tech corporate leaders call disinformation. Paraphrasing A. J. Liebling, the freedom of the press is only free to those who own one. Another result of restricting the freedom of speech might be stamping out the call by young college students at Harvard University for the genocide of the Jews from the River to the Sea. I hope you see the potential danger of restricting free speech.
Of course, I am being a little facetious in this article. Foolishness needs to be exposed at times. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Prov. 26:5).” When the statute of Robert E. Lee comes down and the statue of Satan goes up, it all seems a little controverted to me.
However, I think the confusion can be cleared up if we consider one thing. The issue in Iowa is not free speech but rather a matter of who sets the limits of free speech. All free speech is limited. Free speech is not absolute. You will get in trouble if you shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.
When America was a Chistian nation, it was assumed that the public display of Satanic symbols was outside the boundaries of free speech. The First Amendment was created to protect the Christian Faith by the disapprobation of a national church in exchange for the approval of existing Christian denominations within the various States.
The First Amendment protected the Christian Faith by guaranteeing the freedom of Christian men to live with a conscience bound only by the Word of God. Yea for the Baptists! Early America chose the Ten Commandments as its foundation for civil laws and for liberty. Apart from the Christian Faith, the United States Constitution becomes a purely secular document, and as such it is now being used to crush the basic tenets of Christian morality in the public square. Old-school Americans cannot seem to get beyond the sacredness of the First Amendment, even when it is being used as a weapon against them.
As America has drifted from a Christian Nation to a Polytheistic Empire (see A Polytheistic Empire – A New Experiment About to Fail?) the limits on free speech have changed. New limits have been created and the old ones have been cast away. That is what makes the conversation about the First Amendment so confusing and contradictory. We highly value it, but for Christians it is no longer working for us.
The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith. What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment. That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God.
Presbyterians are bound by such documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, but what I have found is that we, too, tend to be confused. For example, the Larger Catechism Question #108 asks, “What are the duties in the second commandment?” The answer given, even for those in the special calling of civic leadership, is as follows. The duties are “disapproving, detesting, and opposing all false worship, and according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry.” Of course, this does not legitimize vandalism, but it does command men to act where they legally have a right to do so in accordance with the commandments of God, even in the sphere of civil government. It includes preaching about it too, something the modern church needs to do.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: -
3 Things You Should Know about Jeremiah
Written by Matthew H. Patton |
Thursday, February 29, 2024
The book of Jeremiah, therefore, was given to help Judah navigate this dire and climactic end to their story. Even as their nation was uprooted at every level (king, temple, land, covenant), Jeremiah shows that the Lord had a redemptive purpose. He removed these shadowy gifts to prepare the way for ultimate, eschatological gifts that will never pass away. The real end of Israel’s story will not ultimately be wrath, but grace and glory.Jeremiah is one of the most daunting books of the Bible. In terms of word count, it is the longest in the whole Bible. It flits between poetic images and narratives, often with little warning, and it does not follow a chronological order. Most of its content is about grim judgment and dire sin, with few glimmers of hope. People often feel perplexed when they try to read it.
But God gave us this book for our encouragement (Rom. 15:4). If we keep three things in mind as we read, we will begin to understand God’s genius and love in giving us this challenging book.
1. The book’s theme is judgment unto restoration.
For all its complexity, the whole book of Jeremiah expounds two basic themes: judgment and restoration. The theme verse highlights these two themes: the Lord set Jeremiah “over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (Jer. 1:10). The first four verbs are about judgment (plucking up, breaking down, destroying, and overthrowing). The latter two are about restoration (building and planting).
The judgment texts refer primarily to the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BC. The Lord is keen to establish that this dreadful event was the just consequence for Judah’s awful sin. The many allusions to the covenant curses in Deuteronomy 28 show that the Lord is being faithful to what He said He would do when His people betray Him. Indeed, He has been more than patient.
During Jeremiah’s ministry, Judah’s fall became an inevitable event. No amount of repentance or prayer could avert it. That is why the Lord forbids Jeremiah to pray for the people (Jer. 7:16; 11:14). Thus, the only way forward for Judah was to accept judgment, including exile from the land of promise (Jer. 21:8–10).
But the most amazing part of Jeremiah’s message is that the Lord—the same God who brought severe judgment on them—also intends to reverse the curse (Jer. 31:28) and heal His people (Jer. 30:12–17; cf. Deut. 32:39). He will do more than simply returning Judah to the pre-exile status quo.
Read More
Related Posts: