Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Bible Study Method

  • The Story in Scripture

    One of the ways I believe we frequently misunderstand scripture is by trying to take elements of it outside of the story in which they are set. My view of interpretation places the story above, or perhaps better around the propositional statements. I do not intend this approach to settle disputes about propositional statements in scripture and whether they are true and reliable, as I am not denying that there are numerous propositional statements. God must have wanted them there.

    The problem is that it’s terribly easy to miss the story, and to take particular propositions from scripture apart from the means by which God communicated those propositions and the way it which that was done. The most typical, and probably most extreme example of this problem comes in the interpretation of Job. Often the speeches of Job’s three friends are cited as support for theological propositions, even though God later declares these to be “words without knowledge” (Job 38:1). God’s declaration can certainly be applied to the speeches of the friends, who are later instructed to ask for Job’s intercession (Job 42:7-8). It can probably also be applied to Job’s, even though we are told that Job didn’t sin with his lips (Job 2:10). Nonetheless Job’s words in the depths of despair should receive careful consideration before they are used in support of a theological proposition.

    Job provides a good example of the different ways in which a proposition can be set in various stories. First we can ask when Job was written and what the general purpose was for writing it. That is, in itself, a story. There was a need to answer questions about the way God deals with people. Do just people always get rewarded? Is suffering always the result of sins? Second, each proposition falls into a place in the story of the book. This latter one is easy to discover, as the speeches are identified. By reading the whole story, you can guess that the speeches written by the guys who are told to offer sacrifices (Job 42:7-8) are less likely to be true than the ones uttered by God out of the whirlwind!

    Currently I’m continuing my study of Isaiah. Now I’ve been through this book a number of times, but during the past year I’ve been working through it multiple times. I’m continue to study through 2nd Isaiah (chapters 40-55) in connection with Brevard Childs’ commentary. One of Childs’ major contributions in Biblical studies was in canonical criticism, looking at Biblical passages in their canonical context. This goes well beyond what I’ve just described about Job in several ways.

    Let me quote Childs:

    In my commentary, in contrast to those who would fragment the chapter [referring to chapter 30-HN] I have argued that the different layers of the present text are to be seen as reflecting the accumulated experience of a faithful community with God through the lenses provided by Israel’s sacred scriptures. In the later levels of compositional growth the message of divine judgment and salvation are organically linked in a way that was at first, on the primary level of the tradition, unclear. However, increasingly the prophetic message gained in clarity as the anticipated eschatological salvation was painted with colors enriched by later apocalyptic imagery to form an organic whole. Hermeneutically speaking, it is crucial to understand how the major force in the shaping of the prophetic corpus derived from the experience by Israel of an ongoing encounter with God mediated through scripture rather than through the direct influence of allegedly independent events of world affairs. It is precisely this filtering process of scriptural reflection on the ways of God that gave a coherent meaning to the changing life of Israel in the world of human affairs. — Childs, Isaiah, pp. 228-229

    Now I quote that full paragraph to tie in the history of composition into the story of scripture. Just as I noted in my recent book that the Bible was written by people who “heard voices,” so also the Bible was written by people who perceived God as active in history, and who interpreted both their experiences and their existing texts in the light of that understanding. God did not simply speak by speaking; God spoke (and speaks) by acting.

    I believe I tend to be slightly more optimistic about the value of such methods as form and redaction criticism than Childs is. Nonetheless I am very grateful to him for his influence on Biblical studies in general, because he was able to bend the use of those methodologies toward a use in understanding the text that we have and setting it in a context of revelation, and away from fragmentation. He was also able to wean many away from looking for the earliest form of the tradition in order to discover the “true meaning.”

    The scriptures came into existence as God acted in and communicated with a community, and their understanding grew and clarified as they went along. They learned new things about God’s actions in history. They took literary forms and altered them to teach new lessons. This is yet another story in which we need to set scriptural propositions–the story of how those propositions got where they are now. I believe this is the continuing value of much critical methodology. It can suggest to us, and on a few occasions establish for us, the history of a piece of text so that we can see how that would grow in the community for which it was intended.

    Ultimately I believe that we would understand the use of the Old Testament in the New much better if we saw this interaction of action and revelation in continuous play. The early Christians have a number of motifs with which they are familiar from Hebrew scriptures. At the same time they have the experience of Jesus. Rather than sitting back and studying the Hebrew scriptures to determine whether they predict Jesus and the events of his life as they are read in historical context, they read them with the view that Jesus must be the ultimate divine revelation (Hebrews 1:1-3), and they also know that the scriptures they have are the result of divine action.

    Thus they start reading those scriptures through a new lens, and incorporating those motifs into their theologies, their lives, and and their communities in a new light. While some of the results may be startling, they are not so radical in method. They simply continue the process of God’s revelation and the way in which those on and through whom God acts work to understand that action.

    I add to the challenge of finding the immediate story in a Biblical book the challenge of asking how the elements of the book came together into a whole, if that was the process, and of asking what role it played in the broader story of salvation narrated and illustrated in scripture.

  • How to Change Your Mind – Again

    Joe Carter has reposted his entry from last November, titled How to Change Your Mind. I liked it then and I still like it now, so I’m going to link to it again.

    I use some similar methods from time to time. My mother taught me reading 12 times, which was often part of memorization. I’ve found it hard to get people to do put this into practice. But if you do, you will be blessed.

  • New Bible Format

    The IBS is producing a new Bible, available in August, 2007, which will reorganize the books of the Bible, removing verse and chapter numbers. This is intended to provide a new and more original feel in reading the Bible.

    I suspect that such a format will annoy some people, but I’ll say bluntly they should chill. We live with the constant tension between the Bible as a unity (a book) and the Bible as diversity (a collection). While verses facilitate conversations about the Bible and references to specific passages in other documents, they tend to first treat the Bible as a unity, and then chop it up into potentially unrelated pieces. They certainly distract from simply hearing the message.

    At the same time the book order, which is in many cases arbitrary, keeps modern readers from getting their bearings in the historical context. While there are bound to be disputes over where various elements fit, the structure of this new Bible is a good start to starting to balance Bible study in the other direction–more toward hearing the message in its literary, cultural, and historical context.

    I strongly commend the IBS on this effort, and look forward to having a physical copy in my hands as soon as it is released. In the meantime, check out their web site for this project, complete with sample books of the Bible, and a blog. Currently the staff there is blogging about why they would carry out such a project.

    For those who use my participatory study method, this Bible will be particularly valuable in the overview reading portion of your study. It removes distractions and some of the elements of Bible reading that tend to make one feel that one has read more than one has. The TNIV is also simple enough in language to make it easy to read large amounts of text.

    HT: radical renovation via TNIV Truth.

  • Ephesians 5:21-33: A Short Lesson in Focus

    It often amazes me to notice the difference in what I get from the scriptures when I approach a book or a passage simply asking what message God has for me in that passage as opposed to when I search out various passages of scripture in order to answer a particular theological question.

    That second procedure is not always a bad one; there are questions that can be answered by going to scripture and studying a particular topic. Getting a variety of scriptures that bear on a particular topic can help you keep your balance. Paul addresses the law in both Galatians and Romans (amongst others). You’ll get a more complete understanding if you read both.

    Very frequently, however, we view the topical study of scripture as the shortcut method. It’s easier to know topics than it is to know the Bible. But that is the danger. Quickly surveying a topic is a good way to fall into proof-texting, and that is dangerous ground.

    What brought this to my mind today in particular was my pastor’s Father’s Day sermon this morning. He used Ephesians 5:21-33, and he pointed to many of the balancing features of the entire passage.

    Let me suggest that you read the passage over, and then answer the following two questions:

    1. What is the primary focus of this passage?
    2. What from that passage have you heard quoted the most?

    My suspicion is that if you read the passage carefully, you’ll see it talking about the relationship been husbands and wives, and its focus is on the love that husbands are to have for their wives. This love is to be like the love Jesus Christ had for the church–self-sacrificing love.

    Now while I might debate issues of just what submission means and how this applies today. But that’s not my point. Whatever you believe about the structure of the home and authority there, Paul talks only a little bit about authority, secondary to his main point about the way a person in authority is to love, following the example of Jesus.

    Now what about the second question? Though I’ve heard quite a number of balanced sermons from this passage in conversations I’ve heard largely verses 21 and 22 quoted. Jesus is really, truly, and absolutely the head of the church (v. 23), and that’s the way the husband is the head of his wife (v. 22). While that fits the words of those two verses, if you add the remainder of the passage, starting with mutual submission (v. 21), and going on to note that the characteristic of Christ’s headship that husbands are asked is self-sacrificing love.

    The focus makes a great deal of difference. Now I’m not suggesting that the details of a passage don’t matter. What I am suggesting is that it’s important to see the overall focus–what it was that Paul was most interested in communicating in this case–before applying the details.

  • The Difficult Message of Hebrews

    Hebrews 5:11-14 describes the message of the book as difficult, chides the readers/listeners for not being ready for a meaty message, and then goes on to the more difficult message nonetheless. So what is basic, what is difficult, and what is it that makes the difficult message difficult? (OK, I take the 1,000 point deduction for using the word “difficult” too many times in one sentence.)

    Since I believe that the first 14 verses of Hebrews 6 are the heart of the message of the book. Once a person has been enlightened and set off on the Christian journey, can they turn back? Once they have turned back, can they repent yet again? This is a complex way of stating the more basic point: Endurance is required for the walk of faith. (For some previous thoughts on this topic, see Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?.)

    The author outlines these basic foundation items in 6:1–repentance, faith, baptism, laying on hands, resurrection, and eternal judgment. All of these elements are, of course, in the early stages of the proclamation of the good news. I’ve been reviewing material in the gospel of Mark, and one can find all of these elements, though the very specific “laying on of hands” is only fully developed in the early church. Nonetheless Jesus identifies people, empowers them and sends them out (Mark 6:6-13). These basic elements identify the key points of coming to repentance believing in Jesus and in turn going out to make disciples.

    To many of us in the church today, I’m sure this sounds like it’s not so basic. One of the biggest struggles I encounter in churches is getting members past the point of just being there and on to the point of making disciples. I wonder if the audience didn’t have a similar reaction to this letter when they first heard it.

    I can hear the chatter out in the congregation now. “What does he mean, ‘basic.’ That’s a serious message he’s preaching there. What more do you need if you’ve gone from repentance to being sent out again.”

    But again my study of Mark reminded me of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-9). It’s interesting that the author of Hebrews brings in plants as well (verses 7-8), though in a somewhat different context. I don’t want to suggest interpreting Hebrews 6 according to the parable of the sower, but there are some similar points. I do, however, think that the seed metaphor can be used to help understand the point in the Christian experience described by Hebrews 6. It’s not just the seeds that never sprout at all that fail in the parable. Out of the four categories of seed, three sprout. Only one fails completely (the birds eat the seed), while one succeeds completely (grows and produces fruit). The other two raise some of the same questions we have here. Can you fail after you receive the word? If you do fail, can you return? The parable of the sower makes no attempt to answer the second one.

    Two categories of seed start to grow but don’t finish, and both fail because of the hardships of the journey. It seems to me that this illustrates that the advanced material has to do with advancing on the Christian walk. The entire book of Hebrews bristles with the challenge not to give up, turn back, go off track, or fail to enter God’s rest. Most of us have experienced this sort of thing. We hear the gospel message and are excited, but we then encounter the actual church, warts and all and we become a little less enthusiastic. All too often, the cares of this world, or even the cares of Christian ministry choke us off, and there is no fruit.

    This is a hard saying. We can get into some terrible debates over the perseverance of the saints, or the perseverance of Christ on behalf of the saints. I discussed this once with a Calvinist student. We were discussing a person who had left the church after having been an enthusiastic Christian. I was interested in our vocabulary. We both agreed that this person had once publicly confessed Jesus Christ as savior. We both agreed he had set out on the path of discipleship. We both agreed that his love had grown cold and that he had forcefully rejected the life that he once knew. Where we differed was on vocabulary. I used the vocabulary of accepting Christ (being saved) and falling away. He stated that the man had apparently accepted Christ, but as it turned out it must not have been for real, as demonstrated by his falling away.

    It seems to me that those two positions are separated by vocabulary and not by practical reality. What apparently happens is the same. How we describe it is different. The author of Hebrews seems to me to describe this much more as a present danger to every believer. “Keep on going toward maturity (or perfection),” he says. “Don’t fall back!”

    Good advice, but advanced advice. It’s much easier to start a race than to finish it. The author of Hebrews knew that, and thus challenged Christians to run the race to completion (Hebrews 12:1-3).

    [This post deals with the answer to question #6, Lesson 7, Page 41 of my study guide to Hebrews]

  • Interesting Bible Study – Listening to Scripture

    A friend e-mailed me a link to Listening to Scripture, and though I live nowhere near the church involved, it looks like some fascinating material and a very useful Bible study class. The principles listed in the blog are all worth consideration and application.

    I plan to follow these folks “afar off” as they work through this study and as their leader blogs about it.

  • Martyn on Historical Methods (Galatians)

    I’m doing a run through J. Louis Martyn’s commentary on Galatians (Anchor Bible)Galatians (Anchor Bible), and enjoying it a great deal. He has a paragraph on historical methodology to which I want to call your attention:

    Convincing attempts to present a chronology of Paul’s travels and labors are based on a simple rule: Our first and decisive attempt to discern the chronology of Paul’s work is to be made on the basis of the letters alone. As a second and separable step, we may turn to Acts. Even in that second step, however, one accepts from Acts only points of confirmation and supportive elucidation. . . . — p. 17

    This is a key dividing point in Biblical studies generally between those who accept Biblical inerrancy, particularly in his stronger forms, and those who do not. If one believes the Bible is in all cases historically inerrant, one will tend to accept all Biblical sources equally, though with due consideration to perspective. One might even tend more readily to accept Acts as the better historical source, seeing as it was ostensibly written with the intent of presenting a historical account. (In fact, Acts was more written with an apologetic intent, but that is another issue.)

    If we look at Biblical texts from a historian’s point of view, we will take a different approach. In that case, a document written by one of the primary characters is a primary source of information, while a history written by someone else, based on such sources, even though he presumably had access to witnesses and to better documentation that we have today, is still a secondary source. Your first and best option is what you can learn from the primary sources.

    In taking such a historical view, however, one needn’t be quite as pessimistic about the historicity of Acts as Martyn appears to be, by accepting only “points of confirmation and supportive elucidation.” Acts must be itself evaluated as an historical source, and it appears to me that Martyn himself gives it a fairly substantial role in areas other than chronology in the rest of his commentary.

    Whichever side of this divide you are in terms of approach to studying the Bible as history, you need to be aware of the divide, because it will color debates, especially in online forums and the blogosphere where a large number of different viewpoints clash quickly. Understanding the methodology behind such choices is important. If two people are not in agreement on the weight to be given the various sources, they are unlikely to come to the same conclusions about any particular historical event.

    An interesting example of a later connection between the story in Acts and that in the Pauline letters comes in relation to Acts 15 and the Jerusalem conference. It is interesting to note that Paul’s accusation against the teachers, that they were “troubling” (Galatians 1:7) uses the same Greek word as does Acts 15:24 in describing what certain people had been doing in the gentile churches. Is it possible that Paul is specifically referring to the decree of that conference? A combination of texts from Galatians could be used to gather a more precise idea of the nature of that Jerusalem meeting. (Note that while the connection is mentioned, Martyn does not bring up the issue of historicity in connection with these two verses.)

  • Similarities and Differences

    I am continuing to study through Isaiah with Brevard Childs Isaiah from the Old Testament Library, and I found another quote I want to share with a very brief comment. In discussing the literary connections between chapter 34 and 2nd/3rd Isaiah, he says:

    . . . For example, are the vocabulary affinities between chapter 34 and 40-66 to be given precedence over the large number of words in chapter 34 that are not found in chapters 40-66? Or again, what role does one assign to apparent similarities of syntax and style? — p. 253

    Now this quote seems very simple, but it embodies an important principle in Bible study, in areas ranging from comparing one scripture to another all the way to serious application of various critical methodologies. The principle is this: Differences and similarities must both be considered in any comparison.

    One of the best illustrations of this idea comes from the history of comparing the Babylonian creation story to Genesis 1. At first, there was a mass acceptance of the idea that Genesis was essentially copied from the Babylonian story. There are, indeed, many points of contact between the two. Then there was a reaction indicating that Genesis was almost totally different. There are also, it is true, substantial differences. After a time, most scholars came to the conclusion that there was a relationship, but that it was not a direct literary relationship. They concluded that both likely went back to an earlier source which each had used in its own way. (This is a very generalized history, and much of the conflict still goes on, especially in Christian apologetics.)

    I’d recommend getting a copy of each and enumerating key points and then lining them up together. What is the same? What appears to be related but is not identical? What is completely different? (Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement is a good source and is probably available at any good college or university library.) Then compare your own lists. I do this with the creation of man in each story when I’m teaching either on Genesis or the ancient near east in general, and I find the results are always interesting.

    The same principle, however, applies to comparing any two sets of material. For comparing scripture, make sure to understand both texts in their context, then look at what is similar between them but also at what is different. Just listing one or the other presents an unbalanced picture.

  • Biblical Studies Carnival XVI

    . . . has been posted.

  • From Word to Study

    (Continuing my series on word studies.)

    From time to time in conversation with my wife I’ll jump topics. My brain does that to me, as one thing suggests another thing, often related only in the most distant way. Suddenly she’ll stop me and say, “I need a context for that.” I’ve said something that she can’t understand clearly because she doesn’t know what it relates to. It might be “What are we going to do about that meeting?” If she doesn’t know what meeting I’m talking about, when it is, or why we need to do something about it, she has no basis on which to react.

    Similarly in Bible study, we always have to have a context. I know that I hammer this point repeatedly, but I do so because it is so often neglected. Much too much use of Bible texts in Christian teaching, preaching, and conversation results from looking for a set of words that fits whatever the person wanted to say. There are a lot of phrases in the Bible, a lot of clauses, a lot of sentences. If you ignore context, you can find one that is useful for you.

    We’ve already discussed one of the primary dangers of word studies, that a person looks for a series of definitions, and then plugs in the one that suits his theology without regard for the immediate context. Now I’m going to talk about some practical ideas for studies you can do with words that can improve your understanding.

    All of these are based on a single principle: A word study should start from a usage in context, and end with a usage in context.

    If that is a bit unclear, think of it this way: The word study doesn’t provide you with a meaning that can be dropped into place like a puzzle piece. Rather, it provides you with options. In order to get at those options, you have to understand each usage of a word in its particular context, and then compare carefully. Differences in the context may imply differences in meaning. Someone who knows the source languages is protected to some extent by use of lexicons, knowledge of various forms of the word that provide natural categories of usage, and the fact that he has just the source language word’s semantic range to deal with. When working in English, or any other non-source language for the Bible, you need to be doubly careful to understand each particular context.

    I’m going to do a brief application of this idea using the word “propitiation” because it has become a key word in the ESV Bible debates. I’m going to use my Logos Bible Software solely to look up words in the ESV, and display ESV text, but I’m going to use Goodrick and Kohlenberger’s NIV concordance (hereafter GK), keyed to the Greek and Hebrew words to track ideas further. This means I’m working today with two English versions, the NIV and the ESV.

    Let’s say my study starts from Hebrews 2:17:

    17 Therefore he had nto be made like his brothers in every respect, oso that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest pin the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [1] — Hebrews 2:17 (ESV)

    What I want to discover in this study is what it might mean to “make propitiation.” One thing I’m not going to do here to save space, but that I would recommend doing normally, is to compare this text in many English translations. This will help give you a better idea of what the semantic range of the Greek word behind this is. Another critical step is to find out just what the book of Hebrews says Jesus did about the sins of the people. I’m going to leave that aside for the moment. Right now we want to get a better idea of this one word. But remember, if you are studying through Hebrews, that before you settle on a definition for “propitiation” in this verse, you need to understand how this verse relates to the rest of the book.

    In order to work with GK I need to find the text in the NIV. There I find that my key phrase is “make atonement for.” Now depending on my theological background, I may already be more comfortable than I am with propitiation, but if I look in an English dictionary I will generally find that “propitiation” is a narrower and more precise word than “atonement.” (Your results may differ, depending on your dictionary. For example Merriam-Webster says “reconciliation” is obsolete, but that meaning is still used in theological writing, I believe.) Another approach in GK is to simply look up “propitiation” and find the reference at that point to “atonement.”

    Again in order to keep this study limited, I’m going to stick with the New Testament. First, that keeps all my source words in one language. There is value in comparing words as used in the Old Testament with those in the New Testament, especially when studying a book that quotes the OT as much as Hebrews does, but it is more complicated. I find that “atonement” is listed in GK only 3 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, and Hebrews 9:5. Add to this 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 which use “atoning.” So we have a rather manageable list there.

    The source language words are numbers 2661, 2662, and 2663. Now here’s where you can get into serious trouble, and if you don’t know Greek well, you should be very tentative with your conclusions and spend even more time on context. (Did I say that before?) In this case, however, the proximity of the three words indicates that they are cognates in Greek, etymologically related. Words that are etymologically related generally developed from similar roots. It’s easy, however, to make what’s called the “etymological fallacy” here, and assume that their meanings must be either the same or very similar. Words can be closely related etymologically, but very differet semantically.

    Nonetheless, since the NIV translators have provided us with similar English translations, let’s hope we can find at least some relationship. Word 2661 is hilaskomai, and occurs twice (all according to GK) translated once as “make atonement for” and once as “mercy on.” Word 2662, hilasmos (see the similarity?) occurs twice and is translated as “atoning sacrifice” both times. Word 2663 is hilasterion and occurs twice translated once as “atonement cover” and once as “sacrifice of atonement.”

    Where are these? Well, you can find them in GK because the lexicon doesn’t provide definitions, but rather lists of how each word is translated in the NIV. Thus you can look up the words in translation in turn, and find out where and how they are used. Of course, all those definitions using “atonement” or “atoning” should already be on our list. Using this method, let me list the uses of these words:

    • 2661
      Hebrews 2:17 (our primary text) and Luke 18:13 (Aha! Fresh meat!). Note that I located the second verse by looking up the word “mercy” and scanning for the number 2661.
    • 2662
      1 John 2:2 and 4:10. We know these are all the cases, because it lists two occurences, both with the same translation.
    • 2663
      Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5, which we already had located.

    Now let’s go back and use our ESV for a moment. Since I’ve already looked at Hebrews 2:17 (that’s my starting point), let’s look at the only use of precisely the same word in the New Testament. Luke 18:13 reads:

    But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” [1] (ESV)

    Knowing Greek, I can say that there is a difference of form, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. We have here two possible meanings: “make an atoning sacrifice for” and “have mercy on.” Use of an English dictionary will expand the list, but I’ll leave that to you, especially as you consider what “atoning” means in connection with “sacrifice. You can try dropping these two defnitions into Hebrews 2:17 and see what the results are in context. When you do that, however, I suggest you look very clearly at what the author of Hebrews believes is involved in atonement. Does he believe God simply “has mercy on” or does he believe there must be a sacrifice?

    Similarly try dropping these definitions into 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. Consider both verses before you make your selection, and realize that this is a different Greek word, even though it is related to the word used in Hebrews 2:17.

    Finally, word 2663, hilasterion also occurs twice. In Romans 3:25 the ESV uses “propitiation” saying that God put Jesus forward as a “propitiation” (atoning sacrifice?) for our sins. The NIV goes right to my parenthetical suggestion and uses “sacrifice of atonement.” But Hebrews 9:5 is a bit different. Here we read “mercy seat” in the ESV and “atonement cover” in the NIV. The covering of the ark, which is the item in consideration, is often called the mercy seat, and was the place where God manifested his presence in the tabernacle. Interesting that Merriam-Webster (Tenth Edition) suggests that “reconciliation” is an obsolete meaning of “atonement” because it appears that Bible translators may still be using that meaning partially.

    Given these various options, it would now be time to go back and study your text in context, and keep your mind open to the possibilities. Is it possible that when the author of Hebrews uses related words in 2:17 and 9:5 he may intend to connect the sacrifice of atonement and the place of atonement and God’s presence? Those are possibilities for further study.

    Let me make one more comment on the etymological fallacy. This is terribly pervasive. I even found just such a fallacy in my devotional reading as an author used the Greek “dunamis” to connect to cognate “dynamite” and from there to read “explosive” back into a text. At the same time, I think the quite proper emphasis on fighting that fallacy can result in a sort of “anti-etymological fallacy,” the notion that etymology doesn’t contribute to discovering meaning. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it’s all we have. With the three related Greek words involved in our study today, we have so few instances in the New Testament that we may be required to use etymology as seed for ideas. The key is to start from a word in context and end with a word in context.

    An excellent route for those who have access to the appropriate tools is to carry this study beyond the New Testament. How was the word used in the Septuagint, for example, and what Hebrew words/concepts did it translate. Again, particularly in Hebrews, we have an author who quotes extensively from the Old Testament, and many of his quotations are taken from the Septuagint. Thus that provides an interesting background. We can also look into the broader Greek world and literature to get additional ideas. But all of that is beyond the scope of this post.

    *****

    [1] The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.