Tag Archives: context

Biblical Meaning in Context

Posted on by

As I was reading through a LOGOS newspaper of the homepage, I came to a paragraph about the importance of the word “form” when talking about Philippians 2:16 “[Jesus] being found in the form of God did not consider it equality with God a thing to be grasped.” There have been a lot of debate about various meanings of the word “form.” What denomination, or creed do you follow? What do you believe about Jesus, seems to hinge on this one word! Was he fully God, or fully man, or more one or the other? However, In seminary I learned from Dr. David Palmer “Meaning does not exist at the word level, but at the clause level.” This means that if you want to know what Paul meant when he used that word, you have to follow the flow of thought to better use the context to situate the meaning of the text.

But it means more than that. Paul wrote brilliant letters, but he wrote them to simple people in the vernacular, vulgar tongue. These are letters! Read them like a letter from a leader to fellow workers. Don’t get hung up on implications of various possibilities that could mean something. Enjoy the friendship of Jesus being shared between two people whom you’ve never met before, and discover the power of Christ to transform your life too.

This is the stance I have learned to take when approaching the Scripture. The Scripture attests to a God who relates with his people in community. The meaning of what is written is not as crazy as the debates make it. At least not in Paul’s letters. This is also why learning to read in the original languages helps you see that the Word of God is not just what He says, but how He says it. And the “How” is like a web strung between two “who” people sharing understanding, for meaning of “what” to be kept/carried. We can try to understand “why” Paul used the words He used, but the answer isn’t buried in the word. It’s deeper, more powerful, and more concrete, more real, day-in-day-out than that.

Now, where does the reverence due the text come in to play? Not in word-worship, or word-wars, but in getting to know the person whom the Word reveals. “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the person of Jesus Christ” ~Colossians 2:3. He is even more the context that gives meaning to every Scriptural text.

Example: “Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus.” If instead of guarding against heresy, we are able to know Him with a theology informed as the Scripture reveals Him. Instead of going out of the house to make sure you know where your boundaries are, why not go to the owner of the house, and discover everything important about this property in Him who lives there. A preacher named T. Austin-Sparks said that whenever Christianity crystalizes against something, we forget who we are and become useless. Christianity isn’t a system of thought, but a living breathing revelation of Jesus in every day life by the Holy Spirit’s power to sanctify a believer and glorify the Son to the glory of God.

Isn’t this anti-credism? No! It’s putting creeds out of the thumbs of those who wear them thin (Josiah Gilbert Holland Reference “God Give Us Men”), and back in connection to the One who is being crede. Organize the church after the person of Christ, read the Scripture in relation of Him. Seek to know Him. Know the current of power and meaning flowing in the fellowship of Paul and the New Testament believers recorded. Surrender to that power, as the Spirit enters into your broken humanity and makes you a part of the body of Christ that continues to bleed for the world. That is the real good news of Scripture.

Maybe this is the case, but how do we guard against heresy? I posit this as a question: Could “Biblical Theology” be enough to establish the church as a unified whole? Why do we still need “Systematic Theology”? And how can we tell if someone is really preaching, or revealing Christ rightly?

Paul’s criteria: “I will not test their words, but their power.” ~1 Corinthians 4:19

Any thoughts?

Bible: The Mystique of Reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew– Part 3

Posted on by

– – Here comes the point I am making: No translation is clear cut. Not even the English word “No” is an adequate translation for the three Hebrew words for “No” or “Not” or the three Greek words. For example, the First of the Ten Commandments as they have been numbered in the Protestant Western tradition is “No other God’s before me.” But what kind of “No” is this? Or in Romans when Paul said, “Shall we continue in Sin that Grace may increase?” What was the emphasis conveyed in his words, “No.” English is a beautiful language with a substantial collection of words to choose from, and yet none of them mean “exactly” what the words in another language mean. And when people dig deep into the dictionaries of Noah Webster and Oxford, they are digging wells of deeper understanding that tap into underground rivers not flowing with the same intensity or even direction as the authors ever intended.

– – This is why, as my hermeneutics professor taught from Moses Sylva’s book Biblical Words and Their Meaning “Meaning is at the clause level” not the word level. In other words, “Context is king.” Words and context in language are like teammates in a team. The team is the sum of what each individual contributes, and and the individual is defined by his role in the team. So context helps fit the right meaning to the words, and the words make up the context. So, then, if one reads in English the verse “No other God’s before me.” and does not see the Hebrew expression, “No other God’s before my face.” then he lacks a deeper nuance which actually clarifies whether “before” in that verse means “ahead of me” or “in my presence.”

– – So many passages in various English versions are difficult when trying to juggle English nuances with a Hebrew or Greek flow of thought, especially if it is in archaic English which we don’t even use anymore. I mean, what does Lovingkindness *really mean anyway? It escapes me how people can hold so strongly to an English translation with outdated English, perhaps they enjoy the taste of “sweeter water” in their own English language. While I can sympathize with this enjoyment, achieving insight into the original meanings of the Word of God in Old English is limited at best. Why trade the perfectly valid nuances of modern English for outdated ones in search of richer meaning when both are utilizing an emotional and relational communicative manner completely separate from the original author?

(Continued in Part 4)