On lexical distinctions

[S]ubtle lexical distinctions play only a secondary role in interpretation. How many writers are likely to throw all their eggs into one basket and hope that the readers catch the one small distinction that determines the meaning of the whole sentence? One cannot deny, for example, that there are some distinctions between the two Greek verbs for love, agapao and phileo. It is less clear, however, whether those distinctions are reflected, say, in the interchange between Jesus and Peter recorded in John 21:15 –17. The NIV translators must have thought so, since they translate the former verb (found in Jesus’ question) with the words “truly love,” while the latter (used by Peter in his response) is translated simply “love.” Such a distinction is highly debatable. To mention only one problem, the latter verb is used of the Father’s love for the Son in 5:20. But even if the distinction could be sustained, is it reasonable to think that the proper understanding of the passage hangs on our ability to discover such a faint contrast? A solid interpretation should be built on much broader evidence than that.

Generally speaking, the greater the weight placed on distinctions among synonyms, the more likely it is that such distinctions are being overstated.

~Walter Kaiser and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning

Letting-be...

 

One rather distinguished writer, who happens to be a proponent of so-called existentialist theology, has argued that the essence of being is a dynamic “letting-be.”At a later point in his argument, he remarks: “It is significant that the Bible does not begin by merely affirming God’s existence but with his act of creation, which is the conferring of existence. His first utterance is: ‘Let there be light!’and so begins the history of his letting-be.”

What the author of these words fails to tell the reader is that there is nothing in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:3 that corresponds precisely to the English verb let. While Hebrew (as well as many other languages) has a specific verbal form for the third person imperative, English lacks such a form. English does have a second person imperative, such as “Come!” To express the imperative idea in the third person, however, we have to use other means, such as “John must come!” or “Let John come!” In the second example, the verb let does not have its usual meaning of “allow,”nor does it have any supposed dynamic sense; rather, it functions merely as a helping verb to express the imperatival idea. In short, this theologian’s appeal to the English rendering of Genesis 1:3 in support of his proposal has very little to commend it.

~Walter Kaiser and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning