With the topic of “heresy” another issue resurfaced (one of my “pet” issues, perhaps). And that is the insistence that there are “secular” and “biblical” meanings of English words with the application that Christians should use the “biblical” rather than the “secular” definitions.
I believe this mentality is problematic for a few reasons.
It contributes to eisegesis:
It reads theology into Scripture and misunderstands the process of interpretation/ translation. We should not take English words and assign to them new meanings to fit the target language. Instead we choose the best English word to represent the thought that the target language is communicating. Studying means that we look past the English word and to the text of Scripture to understand how the passage would have been understood to the original audience and in context to the overall message being communicated.
For Example: Propitiation is the act of appeasing a god, spirit, or person. But I have been told that the “biblical meaning” of propitiation is “punishment to appease the wrath of God”.
I use this example because reading into Scripture and “double-speak” is, I believe, obvious regardless of validity of the doctrine at hand.
It is subjective:
Using a “secular” vs “biblical” definition is a form of “double-speak”. Many Christians and probably all outside of the church will use the real meaning of English words. But using a “special” or “biblical” definition contributes to people talking past one another.
The “biblical” definition is subjective towards one’s own theology. The “secular” or “dictionary” definition is objective and typically offers various legitimate meanings and usages of the real word. In other words, words have meaning. When we use “biblical meanings” we are saying that we do not like the meaning of the word and are changing it to suit what we would like the meaning to be.
For Example: The word “heresy” refers to a doctrine that is in opposition to accepted or “orthodox” doctrine of a group. It has been argued, however, that the “biblical meaning” is different. Here it is assumed that this “biblical” meaning should replace the meaning when the intended usage is the “dictionary” or “secular” meaning.
It gives precedence to definition over context:
By redefining a word to incorporate the usage of a word we risk ignoring application and usage as a literary tool or devise. In other words, it shortcuts the legitimate process of study and exegesis.
For Example: World means world. It can be used in different ways. However it is sometimes presented that the word itself means a certain population of the world.
I believe this reflects a weakness in churches today and shows the need for Christians to learn how to study the Bible. There is a tendency, I think, for people to gravitate to sort of CliffsNotes.
It creates a “smorgasbord” mentality:
We now have so many word studies and language tools that people get lost in root words when they should be asking how the word is used in the context of the passage and the overall context of the book or epistle in general. Instead I have seen a “smorgasbord” type of “interpretation” (the word can mean this, I want the word to mean this, so the word means this).
For Example: “For” or “in one’s behalf” has been changed to “instead of” because it was argued that “instead of” could be in the range of meanings for the word. This is despite the usage of the word elsewhere not meaning “instead of”. The only reason for using “instead of” was held theology. We need to be very careful not to employ this type of error.
I believe this mentality is problematic for a few reasons.
It contributes to eisegesis:
It reads theology into Scripture and misunderstands the process of interpretation/ translation. We should not take English words and assign to them new meanings to fit the target language. Instead we choose the best English word to represent the thought that the target language is communicating. Studying means that we look past the English word and to the text of Scripture to understand how the passage would have been understood to the original audience and in context to the overall message being communicated.
For Example: Propitiation is the act of appeasing a god, spirit, or person. But I have been told that the “biblical meaning” of propitiation is “punishment to appease the wrath of God”.
I use this example because reading into Scripture and “double-speak” is, I believe, obvious regardless of validity of the doctrine at hand.
It is subjective:
Using a “secular” vs “biblical” definition is a form of “double-speak”. Many Christians and probably all outside of the church will use the real meaning of English words. But using a “special” or “biblical” definition contributes to people talking past one another.
The “biblical” definition is subjective towards one’s own theology. The “secular” or “dictionary” definition is objective and typically offers various legitimate meanings and usages of the real word. In other words, words have meaning. When we use “biblical meanings” we are saying that we do not like the meaning of the word and are changing it to suit what we would like the meaning to be.
For Example: The word “heresy” refers to a doctrine that is in opposition to accepted or “orthodox” doctrine of a group. It has been argued, however, that the “biblical meaning” is different. Here it is assumed that this “biblical” meaning should replace the meaning when the intended usage is the “dictionary” or “secular” meaning.
It gives precedence to definition over context:
By redefining a word to incorporate the usage of a word we risk ignoring application and usage as a literary tool or devise. In other words, it shortcuts the legitimate process of study and exegesis.
For Example: World means world. It can be used in different ways. However it is sometimes presented that the word itself means a certain population of the world.
I believe this reflects a weakness in churches today and shows the need for Christians to learn how to study the Bible. There is a tendency, I think, for people to gravitate to sort of CliffsNotes.
It creates a “smorgasbord” mentality:
We now have so many word studies and language tools that people get lost in root words when they should be asking how the word is used in the context of the passage and the overall context of the book or epistle in general. Instead I have seen a “smorgasbord” type of “interpretation” (the word can mean this, I want the word to mean this, so the word means this).
For Example: “For” or “in one’s behalf” has been changed to “instead of” because it was argued that “instead of” could be in the range of meanings for the word. This is despite the usage of the word elsewhere not meaning “instead of”. The only reason for using “instead of” was held theology. We need to be very careful not to employ this type of error.
