by Eugene Higgins
The Power of Words
“How forcible are right words!” (Job 6:25)
Long before the pronunciation of “Shibboleth” and “Sibboleth” was a matter of life or death, accuracy in language was important. The Apostle Paul indicated that even the absence of one letter in God’s promises to Abram (see Gal 3:16) was of monumental importance. Precision in speech is important. Without it, concepts crash and distinctions die. For example, I might be able to happily state, “My wife likes tea more than I.” But if I had to confess, “My wife likes tea more than me,” that would be ego-bruising and sad. Precision is necessary for correct communication. That is why it is annoying, if not distressing, to see the linguistic legerdemain going on just now. This is nothing new. The concept of “justice” has been distorted by adding the word “social” to it. The symbol of the rainbow has been co-opted to mean something God never intended. “Tolerance” now means accepting and agreeing with everyone else’s opinion, regardless of how wrong or contradictory those varied opinions may be. “Bigotry” is to say anyone is wrong or one opinion is more valid than another. And just now, word games are being played in connection with the Wuhan virus. Half-truths and edited quotes are part of the daily diet being fed to the masses. Fatidic announcements of the dire consequences awaiting us are constantly trumpeted. Now we discover that it is apparently beneficial, financially, to list as many people possible as having died of COVID-19, thus increasing (at least in this country) federal aid. So if a person dies from cancer or a heart attack, but also had (or, in some cases, might have had) COVID, then “COVID-19” goes on the death certificate. This inflates the numbers and makes for bold headlines. All sorts of concerned people are trying to put the brakes on this and caution us about “numerators and denominators” and how to accurately arrive at figures. Nevertheless, inflated numbers drive up public panic. Public panic increases our willingness to comply with whatever draconian measure are “required” to “flatten the curve.” And so the lockdowns last – on and on it goes … sigh! Not just for today but for tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day …
The English language is a marvelous monstrosity of a thing. I am very thankful it is my native language because I do not think, had I needed to learn it as a second language, that I have the brain power to even have begun to grasp its intricacies and labyrinthine rules. Even as a first language, trying to use it correctly is like struggling to wrestle a waterbed mattress down a winding staircase. Added to that, there are variations in spelling, pronunciation, and usage that only add to the already-existent levels of complexity. While some question the attribution, we were taught that it was Sir Winston Churchill who famously said that Britain and America were two nations divided by a common language. It is remarkable to see the differences in that “common language.” As far as I know, overseas preachers can come here and blissfully preach away however they wish – lifts, lorries and lollies included. But North American preachers going overseas need to memorize a whole list of words that, though common and ordinary here, would be comical to say over there – and at times embarrassing. Even here in North America, the differences are noticeable on opposite sides of the northern border. Whether your after-meeting announcement is: “Visiting should be done in the foy-ER” (pronouncing the last syllable as though you had a stuttering problem) or “in the foy-YAH” (pronouncing the last syllable like a cheer that the meeting is finally over) can be determined by less than one geographic mile.
Much if not all of these distinctions are due to a devoted Christian named Noah, (Webster, not Ark), who believed that it was fine for loyalists to speak “the King’s English,” but that the colonists, in what would become the United States, should simplify the language – spelling things as they sound. He would probably tell us to reZOOM our meetings as soon as possible. He altered spellings that are in use to this day, such as changing “honour” to “honor”; “musick” to “music”; and “plough” to “plow.” His dictionary definitions are marvelously and unmistakably Biblical and evangelical. For example, here are samples of what children in the US used to grow up reading when they checked a dictionary at school:
- CHRIST, n. THE ANOINTED; an appellation given to the Savior of the World.
- GOSPEL, n. The history of the birth, life, actions, death, resurrection, ascension and doctrines of Jesus Christ; or a revelation of the grace of God to fallen man through a Mediator, including the character, actions, and doctrines of Christ, with the whole scheme of salvation, as revealed by Christ and His apostles.
- JUSTIFICATION, n. In theology, remission of sin and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace by which God pardons the sinner and accepts him as righteous, on account of the atonement of Christ.
- REDEEMER, n. 1. One who redeems or ransoms. 2. The Savior of the world, JESUS CHRIST.
- SAVIOR, n. One that saves or preserves; but properly applied only to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, Who has opened the way to everlasting salvation by His obedience and death, and Who is therefore called the Savior, by way of distinction, the Savior of men, the Savior of the world.
You may disagree with Webster’s spellings but I hope you agree with his definitions. Of course, all these definitions were changed over the years to eliminate much if not all of the Christian overtones.
In the interests of precision in our Christian faith, maybe we could remind ourselves of some important distinctions, as varied and unrelated as these may be, (and please excuse the mental meandering):
- The “Father” never forsook His Son or turned His face away. Actually, the Lord Jesus said that when all others would forsake Him, even then He would not be “alone, because the Father is with Me.” Some may argue that the communion between Christ and God was interrupted at Calvary, but nothing could ever interrupt the relationship between the Father and His Son.
- Atonement involves so much more than just setting me “at-one” with God. The cute definition that atonement is “at-one-ment” seems to me to leave out the God-ward side of what the Lord Jesus accomplished at Calvary. If atonement has resulted in my being reconciled to God, it is only because an enormous price was paid on the cross that enables Him to be both just and the Justifier of the believer.
- Stating that the Lord Jesus “endured my Hell” is imprecise not because it says too much but because it says too little. Because He is infinite, having an infinite capacity to suffer, His sufferings were infinite – therefore beyond anything that a mere human being could ever have endured.
- Referring to the Lord Jesus as the God-man is woefully imprecise and leaves the phrase open to heretical misunderstanding. Reverse it and see how it strikes you – was He a Man-God? That is horrible doctrinally as well as euphoniously. Our blessed Lord was not part God and part Man but was full Deity and perfect humanity in one glorious Person. Since almost all error begins with dishonoring the Son, we should all strive to “honor Him even as [we] honor the Father.”
- Saying “God died on the cross” is a misstatement that can lead not only to confusion but to error. God cannot die. The incarnation and virgin birth made it possible for one Member of the Trinity to willingly sacrifice His life by dying.
- It is beneficial to at least keep in mind, as we preach, that the Lord Jesus was never “dying.” He “died,” but it was not a process to which He inevitably had to succumb due to weakness. Though the Lord Jesus became a Man so that He could die, He never was mortal in the sense that death had power over Him. His humanity simply enabled Him to experience death; it never consigned the Lord Jesus to the fate of dying.
- Telling sinners that Jesus already paid for their sins and just left them one thing to do (believe) can easily confuse a seeking soul. First it could lead someone to imagine he can continue in his sins and have nothing to fear if Jesus already paid for his sins. And more usually this language fixates a sinner on his believing as though it were a work he must and can accomplish in order to be saved. Sticking to the language of scripture – “Christ died for our sins” and “Christ died for the ungodly” will be far more helpful to an anxious sinner. The late Mr. Norman Crawford used to say, “We preach propitiation and we testify to substitution.” Wise counsel for every Gospel herald.
This is not an attempt to “make a man an offender for a word,” but nowhere is precision in language more important or more desirable than when presenting divine truth. And, no matter what side of the border or which side of “the pond” we live on, we can be thankful that whether we write that we have placed our faith, for eternity, in the “Saviour” or the “Savior,” we are equally saved by the sovereign grace of God through the work of that “Savior.”