How Words Work: They're smaller than you think
Brock wasn't happy.
His language arts teacher had given his class an assignment: write a dictionary definition for "trunk." He understood that there were multiple possible meanings. So far, he had come up with this:
Brock did a terrible job with his definition. Why?
He didn't mix the meanings together. But he did confuse the meanings with the contexts where they occurred.
Words have meaning in themselves. That's part of what it means to be a word: a word is the smallest piece of a language that can mean something on its own.
However, meaning is also created by the relationships between words. We get into trouble when we take the meaning created by relationships between words and add it into one of the words' definition.
For example, I was surprised to read this definition for "reconciliation" (Greek: katallage) in a book recently:
Is that really what the word "reconciliation" means? No.
The definition above in red is a combination of the meanings of some contexts in which "reconciliation" shows up in the Bible, but the meanings created by those contexts are not the meaning of that word.
I'm not saying the paragraph in red is wrong. What it says about God and us may be completely accurate. It's just not a definition of a word.
When you try to read 2 Cor. 5:16-21, squeezing that definition in every time "reconciliation" shows up, you'll see what the problem is. The red paragraph boils down some of what's in 2 Cor. 5:16-21, but it calls that a definition, and that's not what it is. It's a summary.
For some reason, it seems to be really attractive for people writing about the Bible or theology to make this mistake, wrapping up all (or some) of the contexts in which a word is used into the definition of the word itself.
One of my professors, Dr. Philip Brown, likes to picture words as flatbed train cars. Each word (train car) is supposed to have one thing strapped to it: the definition of the word. But sometimes people wrap up contexts and strap them alongside or on top of the word's meaning, loading the car down with more than it was designed to carry.
One more example.
1 Thess. 4:3 says, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication."
What is the meaning of "sanctification"?
If you know the classic definition, the "sanctification" train car in your head probably has a bunch of stuff strapped to it--things like "second definite," "cleansed from all corruption," and "perfect love." For a lot of us, that one word has a whole doctrinal library strapped to it. That can make it hard to hear the word as the Bible's authors intended to use it.
To be clear: I do not mean the definition I just quoted from is illegitimate. I only mean that when the Bible's authors used the word "sanctification," that definition had not been written. The definition may start rattling off in your head automatically before you hear the last syllable of the word, but Paul never heard that definition.
I'm not saying the classic definition of "sanctification" is wrong. I'm saying that we need to be careful not to let it keep us from hearing what Paul meant to say.
I'm not going to define "sanctification" in this post. My point is just that we are in danger of mounding a bunch of stuff up around the word and not hearing it the way Paul heard it. We are in danger of packing a lot of context-meanings into the word-meaning.
These are dangers than can be avoided, at least to some extent, and we should avoid them to the greatest extent possible.
1 Geoffrey Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 40-41.
His language arts teacher had given his class an assignment: write a dictionary definition for "trunk." He understood that there were multiple possible meanings. So far, he had come up with this:
- An elephant's nose
- A sturdy box
- The center part of a tree
- The enclosed part of a car where you put big stuff
- The part of your body that is not arms, legs, or head
It seemed too simple. Surely his teacher meant for him to turn in more than 35 words. It wasn't that he wanted more work to do, but he wanted a good grade for this class.
Brock sighed and flipped open the novel he was reading, Warriors: Jungle March. (It was the elephant-based spinoff of the dog-based spinoff of the popular cat-based fantasy series.)
He was at the part where the hero, Olliparulus, leaves his loving family to fulfill the prophecy or die trying. Olliparulus stands on the last mountain on the horizon, silhouetted against the dying sun, and raises his trunk in a final, heroic farewell.
Hmm, thought Brock. I can add that to my definition: elephants can use their trunks to communicate.
He worked late into the night to produce this marvel:
Trunk
- An elephant's nose. It is frequently used as a means of communication among elephants, and thus it contributes to this meaning of "trunk" a sense of community and culture. It is also used by elephants as an aid to eating and drinking, so "trunk" also carries a sense of warmth, sustenance, and even humanity.
- A sturdy box. In the days of railroad travel, trunks were used to transport one's possessions in a safe container. Therefore, this meaning of "trunk" carries a sense of safety and certain defense.
- The center part of a tree. This part of a tree is the part that the branches are both fed and supported by, so it carries a sense of solidity, safety, and almost motherly sustenance.
- The enclosed part of a car where you put big stuff. This part of a car is sheltered and typically locks; this could contribute to this meaning a sense of safety, but possibly also of restriction and irritation.
- The part of your body that is not arms, legs, or head. The body's limbs would be useless without the trunk, so this meaning of "trunk" has a sense of essential-ness or even of the comfort of home.
---
Brock did a terrible job with his definition. Why?
He didn't mix the meanings together. But he did confuse the meanings with the contexts where they occurred.
Words have meaning in themselves. That's part of what it means to be a word: a word is the smallest piece of a language that can mean something on its own.
However, meaning is also created by the relationships between words. We get into trouble when we take the meaning created by relationships between words and add it into one of the words' definition.
For example, I was surprised to read this definition for "reconciliation" (Greek: katallage) in a book recently:
The state between God and us and therewith of our own state, for by it we become new creatures, no longer ungodly or sinners, but justified, with God's love shed abroad in our hearts. God has not changed; the change is in our relation to him and consequently in our whole lives. Reconciliation is through the death of Jesus. He was made sin for us and we are made God's righteousness in him.1
Is that really what the word "reconciliation" means? No.
The definition above in red is a combination of the meanings of some contexts in which "reconciliation" shows up in the Bible, but the meanings created by those contexts are not the meaning of that word.
I'm not saying the paragraph in red is wrong. What it says about God and us may be completely accurate. It's just not a definition of a word.
When you try to read 2 Cor. 5:16-21, squeezing that definition in every time "reconciliation" shows up, you'll see what the problem is. The red paragraph boils down some of what's in 2 Cor. 5:16-21, but it calls that a definition, and that's not what it is. It's a summary.
For some reason, it seems to be really attractive for people writing about the Bible or theology to make this mistake, wrapping up all (or some) of the contexts in which a word is used into the definition of the word itself.
One more example.
1 Thess. 4:3 says, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication."
What is the meaning of "sanctification"?
If you know the classic definition, the "sanctification" train car in your head probably has a bunch of stuff strapped to it--things like "second definite," "cleansed from all corruption," and "perfect love." For a lot of us, that one word has a whole doctrinal library strapped to it. That can make it hard to hear the word as the Bible's authors intended to use it.
To be clear: I do not mean the definition I just quoted from is illegitimate. I only mean that when the Bible's authors used the word "sanctification," that definition had not been written. The definition may start rattling off in your head automatically before you hear the last syllable of the word, but Paul never heard that definition.
I'm not saying the classic definition of "sanctification" is wrong. I'm saying that we need to be careful not to let it keep us from hearing what Paul meant to say.
I'm not going to define "sanctification" in this post. My point is just that we are in danger of mounding a bunch of stuff up around the word and not hearing it the way Paul heard it. We are in danger of packing a lot of context-meanings into the word-meaning.
These are dangers than can be avoided, at least to some extent, and we should avoid them to the greatest extent possible.
1 Geoffrey Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 40-41.
Comments
Post a Comment