CONCORDANT STUDIES
CHALLENGES TO GOD’S DEITY
A WORD needs to be said concerning both definitive usage and etymology. “Etymology,” or the study of a word’s origin, is not central but strictly peripheral in determining word meaning. Even the meaning of a word’s elements is not determinative of the word’s own meaning. Definitive context alone determines meaning. We have a definitive context not when a certain idea can fit but when it alone can fit.
Many
passages simply are not definitive, even if they are otherwise very important passages. It
is impossible for a word actually to have two or more meanings, however varied its usages
may be. Communication would be impossible were we consistently to adapt the policy that
words may have more than one meaning, or, to say the same thing, that they have primary
meaning, secondary meaning, tertiary meaning, and so forth. Meaning, or essence, is a
singular concept. The existence of a plurality of lexical definitions, even as of
homonymical forms, does not change this fact.
Through
the passage of time, in the case of any certain word, many specialized usages may well
develop, whether figurative or literal. These are the “definitions” found in our
dictionaries. Of course most may not realize that these usages, both literal and
figurative ones, all stem from a common basic meaning. We have called some of these
“faded figures,” since, through the passage of time, the original essential meaning
of such terms may no longer be widely recognized.
Because
in certain passages a particular idea may seem more plausible to us than that which the
definitive evidence appearing elsewhere reveals a word’s true meaning to be, we must
not imagine that such a word actually has an entirely different meaning in one passage
than in another. This is true at all times, whether we are simply reading in our own
language or are making a translation from one language to another. “False” never
means “true”; “good” never means “bad”; “happy”
never means “sad”; “black” never means “white,” and so
forth.
Due to
idiomatic differences between the original and the receptor language (especially scope of
usage or idiomatic range), in translation it is often necessary to use a number of
synonyms to translate a single word in the original. These synonyms may be quite different
from each other in certain obvious respects, but, being synonyms, they share a common
central idea. It is this common underlying concept which they share that allows them to
serve well in the translation of a single word in the original. The fact that in a
translation good diction often requires the use of synonyms is certainly no proof that any
particular word in the original text has a plurality of meanings.
In
certain indefinitive passages a term in question in the Original may seem to be more
correctly represented in English by some other expression than that which appears in the
Concordant Version, even by a word that is of a radically different significance. This,
however, does not make such suggested renderings correct, regardless of the zeal and
persuasiveness of those advocating such revisions. Such suggestions can only be correct if
they accord with the definitive evidence found elsewhere in definitive passages.
ESSENTIAL MEANING DOES NOT CHANGE
No doubt
the Concordant Version will always stand in need of improvement, but mere change is not
often progress. Over the years many true improvements have been made. Humble and
constructive suggestions for improvement continue to be welcome. Most proposed revisions,
however, are simply incorrect, and evince a lack of understanding of basic principles of
translation. Others, while offering some advantages, in fact, introduce new problems, ones
that outweigh their advantages and reveal their overall impracticality.
The
question of grammatical form as it relates to the issue of essential word meaning should
also be mentioned. Part of speech has no bearing whatever on the question of word meaning.
If a term only appears definitively as, for example, a verb or an adjective, we can be
just as certain nonetheless of its significance as an adverb or noun as we would be were
we to have an adverbial or nounal definitive usage of it as well.
Since
most are more than hazy concerning what is meant by a word’s “definition,”
and fail to discriminate between meaning and usage, between actual, root words and mere
homonyms, and between literal and figurative, what ought to be a straightforward subject
has become a matter of great confusion.
Words
are generally classified into eight parts of speech: nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs,
adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections (or exclamations). Part of
speech is determined by usage. Each part, or “word-class,” is determined (and
originally named) according to the purpose it serves. Due to their nature, and subordinate
functions, a consideration of pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections is
not relevant to our question concerning the essential meaning of grammatical derivatives.
We are, however, interested in the significance of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
A noun names; a verb shows physical action or serves to link sentence parts (substantive
verbs, e.g., “is,” and mental action verbs); an adjective limits a noun or makes
it more exact; an adverb describes a verb or an adjective (or even another adverb).
Consider
the following examples: “My term paper is due this week” (noun).
“This is my weekly theme” (adjective). “My teacher assigns themes weekly”
(ad-verb). “I ran the printing press” (verb). “The press run
is now completed” (noun). “I live in America [noun], and am glad to be an American
[adjective] citizen.” Regardless of usage or part of speech, the essential idea of
all of the forms remains the same in all cases.
LAMB AND LAMBKIN
Our
standard for arnion is LAMBkin. This standard was assigned, not to
reflect its grammatically diminutive ending—much less to indicate a small
lamb!—but in order to distinguish arnion from an entirely separate word, amnos,
LAMB (that is, a young sheep). Morphological diminution (smallness of form)
may be employed simply as a matter of idiom, due to custom, or as a synonymical variant.
The presence of this form, in itself, is not indicative of such thoughts as
endearment or preciousness, much less of literal reduction in size.
Daimonion
(TEACH-diminutive) surely does not mean “little demon” (or
“demonette”) in contrast with daimon which some, therefore, might suppose
to mean “big demon”!
Literally,
arnion (“lambkin”) in the Concordant Version is used in reference to a
lamb of sufficient maturity to have already formed horns (Rev.13:11). The word simply
means a lamb, by no means necessarily an especially young (or small) one.
Amnos
is a young sheep; arnion is simply a lamb, whatever its age or size. If
idiom would bear the rendering “young sheep” in each place that amnos
appears (including its references to Christ), then we could translate arnion simply
as “lamb.” In itself, this would be ideal. Yet since idiom will not permit us to
say, “Lo! the Young Sheep of God Which is taking away the sin of the world!”
(John 1:29), and requires us to call Him “the Lamb of God,” in order to
distinguish amnos from arnion in the Version, the rendering
“lambkin” was chosen to represent the latter word.
Since
the primary English definition of this word is “a little lamb”
(even though this is not the meaning of arnion), the rendering is not ideal, even
if it seems to be the best solution overall. The word has no reference whatever to any
smallness in size. its grammatically diminutive ending is irrelevant to any such
consideration and is entirely beside the point.
The
reader is not to base the meaning of the Greek words in the Original text upon the
ordinary dictionary definitions for the words which appear in any version, including the
Concordant Version. Instead, where necessary, the English words in the Version are to be attuned
by the reader in such a way that they are brought into accord with the Greek. Therefore,
where “lamb” appears in the Version, we should think of a “young
sheep”; where “lambkin” appears, we should mentally substitute merely the
word “lamb.”
Figuratively,
arnion (LAMBkin, the word which simply means “lamb”) is used in reference
to the Lord’s own, His chosen ones. He instructed Peter, saying, “Graze My
lambkins [i.e., My lambs]!” (John 21:15). These are termed “lambs”
(or, in the Version, “lambkins”) to point us to their helplessness. This
idea is expressed through the apt likeness of the disciples to such creatures, for they,
like ourselves, were mere flesh, and, “the flesh is not benefiting anything”
(John 6:63). The grammatical diminution inherent in the Greek form arnion is beside
the point.
The
remainder of the usages of this word are also figurative, and only appear in the book of
Revelation. They are all in reference to Christ with a view toward His harmlessness
and innocence when, as the great Sacrificial Offering, He was given up unto death.
John the baptist, however, called Him “the Amnos [LAMB, or
“Young Sheep”] of God Which is taking away the sin of the world!” (John
1:29,36).
The word
for “scroll,” biblion, its diminutive ending notwithstanding, simply does
not mean “little scroll.” Let us recall, as we mentioned before, that it is used
of the entire scroll of Isaiah, which is by no means a “little scroll” (Luke
4:17,20). Indeed, the other form, biblos is also used in reference to the
scroll of Isaiah (Luke 3:4).
Biblion
(the diminutive form), as well, is used in reference to the extensive written
account of John (John 20:30), and even of the vast number of “written scrolls”
which would have been necessary—so many that the world itself would not contain
them—were all the things to have been recorded which Jesus did (John 21:24,25).
Word
meaning can only be discovered through definitive usage, not mere form. In the case
under consideration, concerning the word biblion, the evidence (as found in the
definitive passages in Luke) is entirely against the idea that this word signifies
a “little scroll,” and, certainly, against the supposition that the other form, biblos
(which appears less frequently), must, by way of contrast, mean a “great, large
scroll.”
It is
true that our Concordant translation (not our concordance) does not make a
distinction when it comes to the word “scroll” as it does with the word
“lamb.” But this is only because, concerning the various “lamb” and
“lambkin” renderings, the Version seeks to inform the reader of the presence of
two distinct words, the former in reference to a young sheep, the latter in reference to a
lamb.
In the
case of the two forms for “scroll,” however, since the definitive evidence in
Luke made it clear that the diminutive form does not convey a special meaning
distinct from the non-diminutive form, there was no reason to represent one form in a
different way than the other in our Version. Yet the KEYWORD CONCORDANCE,
for the sake of the student, lists all the entries for each of these forms under their own
respective headings, thus making this information readily accessible to all who desire it.
Our
English standard for biblion, however, SCROLLet (which only appears
in the Concordance), might be confusing. While the sense is the same, for consistency, it
should be SCROLL-diminutive, as is the case with the parallel standard for
“demon, “TEACH-diminutive.
Our
rendering “Lambkin” has certainly been misunderstood and misused by some who
hold opposing views. While it is not ideal, we have not found a better solution. An
idiomatic version is bound to have its limitations. Yet certain of its renderings should
not be summarily condemned, and other of its renderings used against it by those who have
merely made unwarranted assumptions about what they suppose to be true with regard to
morphology and concordancy while alleging that our “discordant” renderings are a
clear index of our bias and unbelief.
The
Concordant Version rendering “lambkin” simply does not refer to a little
or very young lamb in contrast to other larger or older lambs who
will soon become sheep! Nonetheless, from this very notion, similar inferences have been
made about “scrollets” and then joined together with a large measure of
confidence in the flesh in order to conclude that only a relative few unusually
uncooperative rebels will ever enter the second death, most having saved themselves from
such a fate through the judicious use of their free wills.
REJOICING IN GOD’S GRACE
It is
important to realize that “new light” may not truly be new light. Many are not
sympathetic to our work. Before others, they freely criticize a wide variety of things,
often doing so in the presence of those who are easily swayed by their persuasiveness.
Those who would not be misled must not be moved by mere assertive claims. Instead, they
must seek to get the facts, even as to be impartial. It is important to be friendly and
attentive even to those who stand for established teaching, not merely to the critics and
detractors of such ones. As Paul declares, “Little children mine, with whom I am
travailing again until Christ may be formed in you!” (Gal.4:19).
Let us
rejoice even in the midst of these many winds of teaching and attendant confusion. However
distressing, such challenges to God’s deity all have their place; all are for
good—both for our good and for that of those who are misled by them. It is not as if
self-reliance and pride was not already the order of the day, and stood in need of aid
from these special doctrines. If grace were already recognized and appreciated, these
sundry notions would never find a receptive audience. Such opposing views are actually
useful to the cause of truth, and, at least in some cases, are not so readily accepted as
we might fear.
“Let
love be unfeigned. Abhorring that which is wicked, clinging to good, let us have fond
affection for one another with brotherly fondness, in honor deeming one another
first” (Rom.12: 9,10). Let us be friendly and gracious toward all, certainly toward
those who may have actually instructed us faithfully, even though we may not have realized
this or fully understood their teaching. It may be that ones less esteemed in our eyes are
actually more correct than those whom we favor. “Do not come to pass for prudent with
yourselves” (Rom. 12:16).
“Let
each one be fully assured in his own mind” (cp Rom.14: 5b). Yet let each one
do so while recognizing (not merely nominally acknowledging) his own personal need to
become qualified as to the faith, “an unashamed worker, correctly
cutting the word of truth” (2 Tim.2:15; cp 2 Tim.2:2).
By His
grace, let us become “kind,” even “tenderly compassionate” (Eph.4:32),
toward those very ones to whom, in ourselves, we may be least inclined to be so disposed.
“Yet now are remaining faith, expectation, love-these three. Yet the greatest of
these is love. Be pursuing love” (1 Cor.13:13; 14:1a).
We have
obtained God’s spirit—and we cannot boast in this any more than in anything else
(1 Cor.4:7)—“that we may be perceiving that which is being graciously given to
us by God, which we are speaking also, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with
those taught by the spirit, matching spiritual blessings with spiritual words” (1
Cor.2:12,13). “Now may it not be mine to be boasting, except in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (Gal.6:14).
May we
be mindful that the entire ecclesia is growing in “the growth of God”
(Col.2:19). This is so, even if it is not always the growth which, in itself, we may
delight to perceive. God is working all together for our good (Rom.8:28). In our
efforts to serve others, we are bound to be misunderstood and unappreciated. So above all,
let us be walking in love and humility. These attributes are appreciated by all, and are
as vital to faithful service as truth itself.
James Coram
