Same Vocabulary, Different Dictionary

I've visited many cultures and countries around the world in the past twenty years. One of the things I learned early on in my interaction with people in other places is that words have different meanings in different cultural contexts. I've committed a faux pas more than a few times when I've spoken in other countries by saying a word that meant something very different to my listeners than it did to people in my country. I'd give a few examples now but can't because, though the words wouldn't mean anything bad in the United States, people in other places would most surely be offended. (I've even made a blunder in Canada!) So it's possible to use the same vocabulary but our understanding be very different from each other because we're not united on which definition of the word we are choosing from the dictionary.

This challenge doesn't just exist with international travel. One place it has had a huge effect on people is in studying the Bible. We read our Bibles and draw our conclusion about what what we have read based on what we understand the words there to mean. It may seem that if we just "believe what the Bible plainly says," we will have a unified understanding of the Scripture. The problem comes because of this matter of how we understand words. What the Bible "plainly says" to one person is understood in a different way by somebody else. The issue is more than what the Bible says. Each of us must interpret what it says by coming to a conclusion about what we have read means. The Bible was written in two languages originally. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, referring to the common Greek language (as opposed to a literary style Greek) of the people then. Just like in any other language, the Greek words used in the New Testament can be understood in more than one way. Sometimes the way we understand the word can make a monumental difference in our theological viewpoint.

Take for instance the biblical truth that Jesus died for all. There are numerous verses that make that claim. One might think there is very little room for differences on something as "plain" as the assertion that Jesus died for all people. But one would be wrong.

The word "all" is the Greek word pas. Paul wrote in Romans 8:32 that God "did not spare His own son, but delivered Him over for us all." Does that sound clear to you? Don't assume that everybody else understands the meaning of that verse the way you do.

Based on that verse (and others like it), some would contend that Jesus died for every person, excluding none. To them, it's clear: "All" means all. None are left out.

To others, though, the matter is not so clear cut. Their view is that Christ didn't die for every single individual but only for the elect ones chosen from the foundation of the world. They would contend that the word "all" doesn't mean every person but instead some of all types of people. In other words, He died for some for every people group in the world, but not every single individual.

If one holds the latter definition, that he died for all types of people but not every person individually, their understanding of salvation will probably best fit with those who often identify themselves as "Calvinists." (John Calvin popularized this viewpoint, although those who hold this position will quickly remind others that their view comes from the Bible, not a man named Calvin.)

Those who argue that the word "all" means everybody, without exception, will likely find themselves identifying with other non-Calvinist groups such as Arminians, Trinitarians or even Universalists.

Which is the correct use of the word? What is the definition of "all?" Everybody or some of all types? The answer is both. Here's a link to the Greek Lexicon where you can see the Greek word and its meaning: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pas.html

Which group believes what the Bible says? Both do! The point of tension isn't what the Bible says, but what it means. Sincere Bible students with equal hunger for the truth can come to very different conclusions that are both based on the Bible.

There are many examples of words used in the Bible where more than one definition is possible. There is an academic discipline taught in seminaries that addresses how to study the Bible. It's called "hermeneutics" and focuses on how to interpret Scripture. One of the main principles of hermeneutics is context. It suggests that the meaning of a word should be understood in light of its context within the biblical text. Of course, the problem with that is that even trying to consider context, serious Bible students still come to different conclusions. Two opposing viewpoints can both make claim to have considered context in defining the meaning of a word and interpreting the meaning of a statement.

Over the past years my own theological views have changed in significant ways as I have reexamined various biblical texts. For much of my life my views were the fruit of an underlying perspective I held about God. My view of His nature was that He is a loving God but that His love is simply one of His characteristics to be seen among others of equal importance. That viewpoint informed my understanding about what certain things in the Bible mean.

Almost six years ago I began to realize that the love of God isn't simply one aspect of his character. It defines Him. Love is who God is, or to put it in biblical expression, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Love is the DNA of our Triune God. Since God is pure love, everything that flows from Him must be an expression of that love. If something other than pure love were to come from God, then none could argue that He is pure love. Pure Love can do nothing but love. To do otherwise is a violation of His own nature and not possible.

This viewpoint of God as love has done much to affect how I understand the Bible. Passages that used to sound to me like they described a side of God that wasn't loving have risen to the surface so that I've had to go back and reexamine them again. I approach the Bible now with an understanding that unless I come to Love as a stopping place in my interpretation of a text, I haven't gone far enough in my study.

The result is that I now see various biblical passages and various subjects very differently than I have in the past. There are many resources available today to those who want to seriously study the Bible. However, there is a foundation upon which our understanding of the Bible will hinge. The way you see God will determine the way you understand the Bible. That fact cannot be overstated. Don't kid yourself by thinking that you or anybody else comes to the Bible from a place of absolute neutrality. We don't. We come to our Bibles with preexisting, underlying assumptions that have been forged in us by a variety of influences. Those assumptions have everything to do with how we understand what we read in the Bible.

I have come to a place where I've decided that my hermeneutic of Scripture will always stand on the premise that God is love. That is the underlying current that carries me through any and all interpretation of what the Bible means. Approaching the Scripture from that starting place has reversed some things I used to believe. It has enhanced other things. It has also introduced new things to me from the Bible.

In blogs to follow and as time permits, I intend to present various topics and truths that I see differently now than I used to understand them. The example I have given in this blog illustrates the kind of shift in my thinking that has happened to me. I used to believe the word "all" in various texts about the death of Jesus referred to some of every type. Then I began to ask how that definition lined up with a God whose DNA is love and I concluded it doesn't. So I changed my mind (repented) and began to see the matter differently. If love isn't one aspect of who God is, but if it is indeed His very essence He wouldn't die for some and leave others to have no hope. Christ died for every person. He "taste(d) death for everyone" (Hebrews 2:9).

Yes, I know there are verses that seem, on the surface, to suggest that God can be angry with man and even hate people at times. I've read the verses that seem to suggest that there are qualities He possesses that stand in contrast to love, but I've come to peace with those verses. Some of them I have come to understand to my own satisfaction. Others I haven't. But I'm not going to let what I don't understand nullify what I do understand - and what I do understand is that, "God is love."

So when we read our Bibles it's important to navigate through Scripture with the love of God as our GPS. Words often are ambiguous but one thing is not ambiguous and that is the love of the Father expressed through the Son in the power of the Spirit.

More to come . . .