|
|
|
|
Hermeneutics Part 2 Grammatical Interpretation Meaning of The Separate Words Since the Bible was written in human language, it must, first of all, be interpreted grammatically. When the interpreter begins to study a text of scripture he may begin in one of two ways. He may begin with the sentence, with the expression of the writers thought as a unity, and then proceed to the particulars, to the discovering of interpretation of individual words and concepts; or he may begin with the latter and, gradually, ascend to the consideration of the former. Logic gives preference to the first method, but for practical reasons it is generally advisable to begin the interpretation of foreign literature with a study of the separate words. The Etymology of The Words The etymological (the study of the development and origin of a word) meaning of the words deserves attention first because it logically precedes all other meanings. As a rule, it is not advisable that the interpreter should indulge very much in etymological investigations. This type of work is extremely difficult, and should, ordinarily, be left to the specialists. Also, the etymological meaning of a word does not always shed light on its current signification. At the same time, it is advisable that the expositor of Scripture take notice of the established etymology of a word, since it may help to determine its real meaning, and may illumine it in a surprising manner. Think of the Hebrew words: kopher, kippurim, and kapporeth, which are translated respectively “ransom,’ ‘redemptions” or “atonements,” and “Mercy-seat.” They are all derived from the root kaphar, which means “to cover, and contains the idea of a redemption or atonement brought about by a certain covering. Or take the New Testament word ,ekklesia, derived from ek and kalein. It is a designation of the Church, both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, and points to the fact that this consists of a people that is ”called out,” i.e., out of the world in special devotion to God. The Current Use of The Words The current signification of a word is of far greater importance for the interpreter than its etymological meaning. In order to interpret the Bible correctly, the hermeneutist must be acquainted with the significations which the word acquired in the course of time, and with the sense in which the Biblical authors use them. This is the important point to be settled. It is often thought that this is easily done by consulting some good Lexicon, which generally gives both the original and the derivative meanings of the words, and generally designates in what sense they are employed in particular passages. And, in most cases, this is true enough, but, at the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Lexicons are not absolutely reliable, and that they are least reliable when they get into particulars. If the interpreter has any reason to doubt the meaning of a word, as given by the Lexicon, he will have to investigate for himself. Such labors are undoubtedly very fruitful, but they are also extremely difficult.
The Synonymous Use of The Words Synonymous words are those that have the same meaning, or agree in one or more of their meanings, though they may differ in others. They often agree in their fundamental signification, but give expression to different shades of it. The use of synonyms ministers to the beauty of the language because it allows an author to vary his expressions. The importance of determining the exact meaning of synonymous words may be illustrated in the following examples. In Isaiah 53:2, three words are used to express the absence of external glory in the life of the Servant of the Lord. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. The first word (tho’ar) means “form,” with the added idea of beauty, and therefore refers to a beautiful bodily form. Compare this with 1 Samuel 16:18. The second word (hadar) designates an ornament, and, as applied to God, is descriptive of majesty. It refers to the way in which the Lord appeared among men rather than to his physical form. He manifested himself in a state of humiliation. The third (mar’eh from ra’ah) “to see,” sometimes refers to an external appearance which is the expression of and therefore in harmony with an inner essential being. The meaning of the prophet seems to be that the external appearance of the Lord was not what the Jews expected of the Messiah. The New Testament furnishes a beautiful example in John 21:15-17. When the Lord inquired into the love of fallen Peter, he employed two words: agapao and phileo. The distinction between the two is given by Trench in the following words: The first expresses a more reasoning attachment of choice and selection, from a seeing in the object upon which is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or the like; while the second, without being necessarily an unreasoning attachment, does yet give less account of itself to itself; is more instinctive, is more of the feelings or natural affections, implies more passton. Agapao, based upon admiration and respect, is a love that is controlled by the will and is of an enduring character; while phileo, based on affection, is love that is more impulsive and apt to lose its fervor. When Jesus first put the question to Peter,“lovest thou me?” he used agapao. But Peter did not dare answer in the affirmative to the question, whether he loved the Lord with a permanent love that achieves its greatest triumphs in moments of temptation. So, in answering, he employs the word phileo. The Lord repeats the question, and Peter responds in the same manner as before. The Jesus descends to Peters level, and, in his third question, uses the second word phileo, as if he doubted even the philein of Peter. No wonder that the latter became sorrowful, and made an appeal to the omniscience of Jesus. But let the student beware. Just because this study is so fascinating, it may also become dangerous. Synonymous words always have a general, as well as a special, distinctive signification; and the expositor should not proceed on the principle that, whenever such words are employed, their distinctive meaning should always be emphasized, for, if he does, he is liable to find himself entangled in all kinds of weird and erroneous interpretations. The context in which a word is used, the predicates ascribed to it, and the adjuncts added to it, must determine whether a word is to be understood in a general or in a special sense. If two or more synonymous words or expressions are found in the same passage, it is generally safe to assume that their special signification requires consideration. The Meaning of The Words in Their Connection The most important question in the study of individual words is not that of their etymology, nor even that of the various significations which they gradually acquired. The essential point is that of their particular sense in the connection in which they occur. The interpreter must determine whether the words are used in their general signification or in one of their special significations, and whether they are employed in a literal or in a figurative sense. In the study of the words in their connection, the interpreter should proceed on the following principles: 1. The language of Scripture should be interpreted according to its grammatical import; and the sense of any expression, proposition, or declaration, is to be determined by the words employed
2. A word can have only one fixed meaning in the connection in which it occurs
3. Cases in which several meanings of a word are united in such a manner that they are resolved into a higher unity do not conflict with the preceding canon
When Isaiah says in 53:4; Surely, he hath borne our griefs (literally: sicknesses), he certainly refers to the spiritual diseases of which the Servant of the Lord delivers his people. But in Matthew 8:17; we are told that this word was fulfilled in the Savior’s ministry of healing. The word of Isaiah is, therefore, taken to mean not only that the Servant of the Lord delivered his people from spiritual ills, i.e., from sin, but also from the resulting physical ailments.
This is done especially in the synecdoche, when a part is put for the whole. When the Savior teaches his disciples to pray: “Give us this day our daily bread,” the word “bread” undoubtedly stands for the necessities of life in general. 4. If a word is used in the same connection more than once, the natural assumption is that it has the same meaning
|
|
|
