Problem Stated: Lack of Comprehension of Biblical Language Syntax & Grammar: The bible was not originally written in English. Indeed some English words used today do not always accurately represent the exact idea the original author had in mind. For example, the term marriage today, which is a common word choice for gamos from the Bible, conveys a licensed system where people are authorized by the state to join together. But the biblical term simply meant to covenant together, to join together in unison, and it was never attached to any government licensure system in the biblical times. This can be discovered when we realize and examine the biblical terms in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek context. As we translate and interpret we should interpret the texts with the proper rules of grammar. Some people naturally struggle with seeing how grammatical constructions fit together. Yet the ability to dig into the language is often a key to discovering the original meaning of a given text. Dr. Walter Kaiser, in his most excellent and thorough work, "Toward An Exegetical Theology," reveals how both (1) syntactical analysis and (2) verbal analysis provides a very important component towards a proper interpretation of biblical texts. In syntactical analysis of a text we seek to see how the words flow together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences. By a careful and serious examination of the original words we can often discover a set of words or a specific phrase that illuminates the writer's meaning. Also, when trying to examine the syntactical element of the Word of God it is also very helpful to view the original text in its own literary setting. The text may be prose, poetry, narrative, wisdom, and apocalyptic. In regard to our verbal analysis we mean by this that we are to discover the exact grammatical function and meaning of each word in its own context. Dr. Kaiser reminds us to discover the proper grammar form of word we must discover the following about each word or phrase: (1) how was the term or terms most commonly used and if it used in an uncommon way what contextual clue shows that, (2) how does the particular writer of that term use that term or define that term in his own writings, (3) how is that word used in any immediate attaching phrases or expressions that give further explanation to the word and its function, (4) how is the word formed in regard to its grammatical construction, i.e. is it used a verb, noun, or some other word form, (5) is the word or phrase of words that have an antithesis set of words or phrase that shows a comparison or contrast in ideas, (6) identification of parallelisms in close proximity, and (7) through examination of those words or phrases in distant yet parallel or similar portions of Scripture. In these ways the history, syntax, and grammar of particular words, phrases, clauses, and sentences can point the interpreter to the solitary, single, and fixed meaning of Scripture.
Solution? Not everyone will go to seminary or a Bible College to be trained in the original languages. More will not be skilled in this than those who will. Does that mean someone not skilled in this area is hopelessly lost and totally at the mercy of English translations? No, it does not. Granted, you will want to use some scholarly resources or scholars around you and not ignore them, which only a fool would do (see Proverbs 1:22)! But to that end with the right resources around you can see, and even learn much from those resources to discern and see the original meaning of words in their context. A person who is serious about Bible study ought to find some solid teachers he or she can trust as well as purchase various Bible study dictionaries, some Hebrew and Greek to English dictionaries, and even an Interlinear Bible with a lexicon. With those few basic tools one can with the aid of those who are skilled arrive at very healthy conclusions about the original intent of a particular text. For example, let us look at a verse that is often even mistranslated in the English translations. In Matthew 5:32 the Bible says, "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground or sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery." This word adultery as translated in this text is incorrect and has led many interpreters to the erroneous conclusion that if a woman is divorced, even unjustly divorced, then she is living in adultery and is in adultery is she ever joins another man. Some less than kind expositors have even taken that so far to mean that the woman can never be truly free and released from a man under any circumstances. But if you examine a Greek Interlinear you can see the function of that verb which is not in the active voice but instead is in the passive voice. Thus, to translate it as active voice (she commits adultery) is incorrect. We must, if faithful to the original grammar as the Word was inspired, translate this verb in a passive way, something like "she experiences adultery against her," or something of the like. As for another example, let us look at the Hebrew phrase with David when he is confronted by Nathan the prophet for his adultery. In 2 Samuel 12 the prophet confronts David on his stealing of another man's woman, Bathsheba. The syntax and structure of the sentence shows us something very interesting here. The style of the sentence in verse 7 reveals Nathan is calling David out for sin. Yet the language in verse 8 shows us that Nathan shares with David how he could have gained another woman righteously. Even furthermore, beyond that stylistic clue we see the verb in verse 8 for "gave" is a Waw Consecutive in the Qal Imperfect tense. The Imperfect tense lets us know that this word indicates that God had given to David all of those things mentioned in that text, which included multiple women. It is not passive, as if God just allowed David to take them, but rather instead God actively gave those ladies to him. Had the verb been passive it would read something like this: "And I allowed you to have your master's house, and your master's women into your arms. . . ." Thus, by the syntax of the sentence and the actual verb usage here we have a case where we know that union by David to his ladies before Bathsheba could not have been sinful lest God himself be implicated in the charge as he was the one who orchestrated the unions. Furthermore, the style of the sentence shows us that God was actually showing David that had he wanted more ladies in his family he could have asked and been given more. God was telling him he did not need to steal another man's lady when he could have simply asked him for more. These two examples show us the importance of examining Scripture in its original language. By doing this we can arrive at more stable conclusions and not miss key doctrines or distort key doctrines in Scripture.
Solution? Not everyone will go to seminary or a Bible College to be trained in the original languages. More will not be skilled in this than those who will. Does that mean someone not skilled in this area is hopelessly lost and totally at the mercy of English translations? No, it does not. Granted, you will want to use some scholarly resources or scholars around you and not ignore them, which only a fool would do (see Proverbs 1:22)! But to that end with the right resources around you can see, and even learn much from those resources to discern and see the original meaning of words in their context. A person who is serious about Bible study ought to find some solid teachers he or she can trust as well as purchase various Bible study dictionaries, some Hebrew and Greek to English dictionaries, and even an Interlinear Bible with a lexicon. With those few basic tools one can with the aid of those who are skilled arrive at very healthy conclusions about the original intent of a particular text. For example, let us look at a verse that is often even mistranslated in the English translations. In Matthew 5:32 the Bible says, "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground or sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery." This word adultery as translated in this text is incorrect and has led many interpreters to the erroneous conclusion that if a woman is divorced, even unjustly divorced, then she is living in adultery and is in adultery is she ever joins another man. Some less than kind expositors have even taken that so far to mean that the woman can never be truly free and released from a man under any circumstances. But if you examine a Greek Interlinear you can see the function of that verb which is not in the active voice but instead is in the passive voice. Thus, to translate it as active voice (she commits adultery) is incorrect. We must, if faithful to the original grammar as the Word was inspired, translate this verb in a passive way, something like "she experiences adultery against her," or something of the like. As for another example, let us look at the Hebrew phrase with David when he is confronted by Nathan the prophet for his adultery. In 2 Samuel 12 the prophet confronts David on his stealing of another man's woman, Bathsheba. The syntax and structure of the sentence shows us something very interesting here. The style of the sentence in verse 7 reveals Nathan is calling David out for sin. Yet the language in verse 8 shows us that Nathan shares with David how he could have gained another woman righteously. Even furthermore, beyond that stylistic clue we see the verb in verse 8 for "gave" is a Waw Consecutive in the Qal Imperfect tense. The Imperfect tense lets us know that this word indicates that God had given to David all of those things mentioned in that text, which included multiple women. It is not passive, as if God just allowed David to take them, but rather instead God actively gave those ladies to him. Had the verb been passive it would read something like this: "And I allowed you to have your master's house, and your master's women into your arms. . . ." Thus, by the syntax of the sentence and the actual verb usage here we have a case where we know that union by David to his ladies before Bathsheba could not have been sinful lest God himself be implicated in the charge as he was the one who orchestrated the unions. Furthermore, the style of the sentence shows us that God was actually showing David that had he wanted more ladies in his family he could have asked and been given more. God was telling him he did not need to steal another man's lady when he could have simply asked him for more. These two examples show us the importance of examining Scripture in its original language. By doing this we can arrive at more stable conclusions and not miss key doctrines or distort key doctrines in Scripture.