Herbert W Armstrong: Semanitics Is Everything
If we Google the term semantics, we learn that this word conveys “the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.” And, while we all recognize the importance of being clear about the meaning and scope of what is being communicated, most of us have also experienced those obnoxious individuals who love to split hairs so that they can be right (and, more importantly, everyone else can be shown to be wrong). Unfortunately, in the religious realm, Herbert W Armstrong was one of those individuals who obsessed over semantics.
For Armstrong, most of Christianity had completely missed the proper meaning of what constituted the “gospel” or good news message which Christ taught to his disciples. Armstrong believed that the Christ-centric message of Traditional Christianity completely ignored or suppressed the message about a future and literal world government headed by Christ. And, as has been pointed out in this forum and other places, Armstrong both ignored the Great Commission of Matthew 28 and the clear indications in Paul’s epistles that his message was focused on Jesus Christ and his salvific work. It is unfortunate that Mr. Armstrong seemed incapable of allowing that a message about Christ could accommodate a message about his kingdom. For Armstrong, it was an either/or proposition – clarity demanded one explanation or the other (making one wrong and the other right).
It seemed to be incomprehensible to Mr. Armstrong that words can have multiple meanings. Indeed, his writings suggest that he rejected the notion that words, phrases, sentences or texts might be subject to different interpretations. Armstrong had discovered “THE TRUTH.” If there were other possible meanings/interpretations, they must be disregarded because God or the Holy Spirit had revealed to him the “TRUE” meaning/interpretation.
For Herbert Armstrong, traditional understandings of terms like religion, Christian, paganism, grace and truth were said to be wrong. Indeed, in almost any area of Christian doctrine/dogma which we could name, Armstrong claimed that the traditional understanding was the diametric opposite of the truth.
However, Armstrong’s preoccupation with semantics was probably no where more apparent than in the realm of prophecy. It was how Armstrong defined terms like Israel, Babylon, Assyria, Zerubbabel, one crying out in the wilderness, place of safety and Great Whore which colored his unique interpretations of Biblical prophecy. For Herbert Armstrong, it wasn’t just the meaning of these terms either – it was the timing and chronology which he insisted were implied by those understandings. In short, Armstrong’s semantics demanded that the “end times” were upon us and insisted that his followers even more fully embrace his understandings of Biblical semantics.
There are a few scriptures that come to mind when dealing with the power of words, and how they can positively or negatively impact us. Here are a few of them: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits” (Proverbs 18:21), “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Proverbs 12:18), “Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble “ (Proverbs 21:23), “Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin” (Proverbs 13:3), “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36), “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12) and “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.” (James 1:26) One has to wonder what Mr. Armstrong thought these verses meant.
Miller Jones/Lonnie Hendrix
18 comments:
Present-day ACOG leaders spend a lot of energy worrying about figures like the "end-time Zerubbabel." Why don't they take it further and spin elaborate scenarios including the end-time Shimei and the end-time Meshullam?
Frankly, both HWA and GTA should have been more aware of their personal "SEMEN- ANTICS" !
A semantics quiz!
Ex 12:18: "...14th....at even....eat unleavened bread...until 21st.....at even."
UCG: ..beginning of 14th ...to end of 21st. UCG true or false?
Anonymous 2/17 @ 10:09,
Exactly! Who's the end time Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar?
Tonto,
Yes, HWA and GTA were very indiscriminate with their "seed"
Anonymous 2/17 @ 12:08,
The answer to your quiz is Colossians 2:16-17!
Semanticists have pointed out that we do not receive meaning from words but, rather, we impart meaning to words. We draw upon our store of knowledge to define words for ourselves when we hear or read them. Usually it will be a consensus meaning but it may not be. We are all different - exposed to different sources of education. So what a collection of signals means, say a sentence, is subjective. I think we have all experienced learning that we have been misusing some word for years.
This becomes crucial if error in doctrine pivots on an unintentionally private meaning of a word. At one time, I kept Pentecost on Monday because of the way a word, a preposition, was defined in someone's mind. The fact is, few of us speak Hebrew. And for that small number that do speak Hebrew, it is not the Hebrew that was used during those times when the various pieces of the Bible were written.
That is why the Waterhousean principle of "you don't need to interpret it, just read it, it says it right there" doesn't fly. This ignores the translational history of the Bible and the layers of meaning present in any word of any text. It is the degree of freedom provided by licit semantic variation that makes the Midrashic approach to the Bible not only feasible but ineluctable. Everything you believe the Bible says has someone's "Midrash" behind it.
The serious concern is how does one avoid, in establishing doctrine, tendentious meanings? I would suggest that the way not to address this issue is to have one man make all the decisions about what the Bible means, even if he has a Ph.D. in theology from Princeton. In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom. Also, it does not do to have a collection of experts speak and then have one man select his desired meaning. This is only a varnish of objectivity.
Yet. Some Bible translations are really poor. In some cases this is because its group of like-minded translators embedded their pre-conceived doctrinal ideas into the translation product. So even resort to a committee approach may not work to produce fidelity to the original ancient Hebrew texts. This could become a treatise on the politics of Bible translation.
I don't know the solution. I do know that anything where people must determine semantic meaning is fraught with possibilities for misunderstanding, error and politics. I use a bunch of online resources when I suspect that something needs clarification. Like trying to figure out what the Greek word "metanoia" actually means.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Some interesting points in this post, but I could further point out that the semantics in the adoption of the official title "Church of God" wasn't even correct since the word church is neither a translation nor a transliteration of the word ekklesia, but instead a substitution, since it comes from a completely different Greek word.
To quote from a book I've been reading on the history of the English translation of the Bible,
"In Greek, the word ekklesia signified "'a properly constituted assembly,'" for which Tyndale's choice of "'congregation'" was apt. This is how it had been used in the Septuagint and congregatio in the Latin translation by Erasmus conveyed the same sense. The Church, however, had come to apply the word to an "'organized body of the clergy'"(as well as to a place of worship) even though the Greek word of church (kuriakon) that conveyed either is not found in the New Testament and did not come into use until the third century A.D."
from Wide as the Waters, by Benson Bobrick, pg.114
Though some ministers pay lip service to the notion that the "church" is made up of a body of all believers, truth be told, in practical application the word continues to be used in much the same way among the COG groups as the Church of Tyndale's time used it. It is used to promote the teachings, ideas, and rule of those who consider themselves the ecclesiastical authority within a given corporate organization rather than being used to convey the idea of a spiritual body of believers which transcends and is not contained by any human "Church" organization.
When confronted with the knowledge that the word church is an inaccurate translation of ekklesia, we tend to dismiss it as inconsequential and interestingly enough a matter of mere semantics. But the continued use of the word in reference to ecclesiastical authorities, as in the "church" teaches xyz, meaning Mr. So and So, who started the PDQ COG teaches xyz, or obedience to the "church" (ministry) being equated with the "government of God," etc. gives us away. And our continued insistence of the term "Church of God" as the only correct and "Biblical" term which should be used in naming our various corporate splinter groups displays our own hypocrisy.
Concerned Sister
If you want a good laugh, look up "1975 in prophecy" by ole HWA himself. Some of the nonsense shoveled out by HWA is pure gold. He didn't let facts get in the way with some of the claims he made. It looks like Flurry and Pack were taught well. HWA would never have gotten too far if he came under very much scrutiny in a world with the internet or programs such as "American Greed. Even 60 Minutes when they less politically biased back in the day pretty much tore HWA and Rader to pieces.
ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ
The phrase above is from Acts 20 and means "church of god" or transliterated "ekklēsian tou Theou." This is from the BibleHub interlinear and I am not sure about any declensions or grammatical cases that may be applied.
Ekklesia was the governmental assembly in Greek City-States. Male Citizens could join when
they qualified to be citizens. It does not mean what we call "church". It does not imply anything religious, either pagan or Christian. it was used in Greece well before Christianity.
Theos is the Greek name for god - in particular one of the Olympian gods. (Oxford Classical Dictionary). My view is that since this an ancient term that predates Christianity it is clearly a pagan reference.
The phrase "church of god" is not a denominational name. It is a descriptive phrase. Rod Meredith in an article he wrote inaptly compared this descriptive phrase to denominational names such as Presbyterian or Lutheran.
Jesus prayed in John 17: "Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me"
I do not know the theological implications of this statement but I do know that this refers to something much deeper than a denominational moniker or something suitable for the White Pages in the phone directory. If it were supposed to be a special sacred tag why would it be through the name "Theos" as we see elsewhere in the NT. Would it not be through the name Yahweh? In fact, that would be a real difficulty because we do not know how YHWH was pronounced.
As much as Splinterists place great credence in arcane pagan connections, why would they not look at the history of the term "Theos" and reject it because of its pagan origins - like they reject Christmas. Maybe Jacob O. Meyer is right - the real name of the true church is the Assembly of Yahweh - and Splinterdom is not comprised of congregations of the true church.
******* Click on icon for Disclaimer
Communication is a complex exercise, and we know that both the sender and the receiver bring different perspectives/filters to it. Likewise, the act of translating something from one language to another is NOT a simple exercise.
How many of us have played the whisper game in school? We start with a phrase on one side of the room, and by the time it makes it to the last person on the other side of the room it doesn't even resemble the original message!
Two people read the same book and get something completely different from the experience. A song means one thing to the songwriter and a million other things to his/her fans. Think about the deep discussions which Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken" have provoked over the years since he wrote it. How many of us have written a post or delivered a sermon and has been surprised by someone else's commentary - how different it was from what we intended?
Do you think God is aware of the way that human communication works? Do you think that God was aware of the problems inherent to this process when the Judeo-Christian Scriptures were written/composed? Is it possible that God anticipated or even intended multiple interpretations/meanings? And what about the principle outlined in the fourteenth chapter of Paul's epistle to the saints at Rome - that individual perception and conviction about things matter?
Bottom line, it was/is extremely arrogant for someone to claim that their particular perspective is the only correct one - that their perspective is synonymous with the Divine perspective! Moreover, the notion that a God who cannot be contained - that the mind of the Master Mathematician/Physicist/Creator - can be condensed into a single volume is frankly ludicrous! I believe God has/can/does speak to us, but we should never presume that God has shared everything with us, or that we even have a clear understanding of what "He" has/is said/saying!
But God is not double minded either MJ.
Miller Jones
The bible is written so that many verses have layers of depth, and every depth can be viewed from many different angles. Which is why constant bible study results in new perspectives and never becomes stale.
God is not an author of confusion.
It is people that play word games (usually to gain something).
God may not be double minded, but we humans often exhibit that kind of thinking! And, yes, I too believe that layers of depth and meaning were intended for Scripture. Neither of these points negate my critique of fundamentalism.
Herbert W Armstrong was one of those individuals who obsessed over semantics.
Back in his radio days, I heard GTA say "semantics" in a demeaning tone, as if to challenge the above statement. Ironically a church member then used the word condescendingly but sounding like he didn't know much about it.
Well stated CS and Neo,
Ministers even during/since the ucg/cogwa split claimed that other churches that are not title a "church of god" are false. Without that title you could simply not be a legitimate church. This is obviously one of the sillier and frankly "stupider" doctrines of the COGs.
Because the COGs claim they have "The Truth", it would seem this ridiculous teaching would be a good place for people to begin seeing the false teachings of the cogs and begin recognizing that what the Cogs teach is not "The Truth".
The New Testament contains multiple names and descriptions applied to the early followers of Jesus Christ.
For instance in Acts they were referred to as followers of "the Way," which was regarded to be a sect or faction. See Acts 9:1-2; Acts 19:9; Acts 24:14
They were referred to as the "assembly" or "congregation of the firstborn" See Hebrews 12:23
They were referred to as Christians. Acts 11:26
Paul referred to them as "churches of Christ" Romans 16:16
If you look at the interlinear for the above verse in Romans as well as Acts 20:28, which I am assuming is the one NEO was referencing, when you come to the word ἐκκλησίαν or ekklēsiai the English counterpart is indeed listed as church or churches. But if you click on the Strong's number link above the word, which is 1577, you get a better picture.
ekklésia: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Original Word: ἐκκλησία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ekklésia
Phonetic Spelling: (ek-klay-see'-ah)
Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Usage: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
HELPS Word-studies
1577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
[The English word "church" comes from the Greek word kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord" (kyrios). 1577 /ekklēsía ("church") is the root of the terms "ecclesiology" and "ecclesiastical."]
As seen above, even the information in Strong's tells us that the English word "church" comes from a different Greek word, but tries to explain this away by saying the "outcome" of being called out is the "church."
From etymonline.com
church (n.)
Old English cirice, circe "place of assemblage set aside for Christian worship; the body of Christian believers, Christians collectively; ecclesiastical authority or power," from Proto-Germanic *kirika (source also of Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Old Frisian zerke, Middle Dutch kerke, Dutch kerk, Old High German kirihha, German Kirche).
This is probably [see extensive note in OED] borrowed via an unrecorded Gothic word from Greek kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma "the Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord," from PIE root *keue- "to swell" ("swollen," hence "strong, powerful").
Greek kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c. 300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia or basilike. An example of the direct Greek-to-Germanic transmission of many Christian words, via the Goths; probably it was used by West Germanic people in their pre-Christian period.
If you look up the word "circe" on the above site (taken from the Old English as listed above), the top entry is this,
Circe (n.)
beautiful enchantress of the isle of Aea who transformed into swine those who drank from her cup ("Odyssey"), late 14c., from Latin Circe, from Greek Kirke. Related: Circean "fascinating but depraving" (1640s).
Considering the myriad of issues we could and have discussed that takes place within churches, some might argue that the above description might not be too far off.
Finally, the ISBE(www.internationalstandardbible.com/C/church.html)has this to say,
"The word "church," which is derived from kuriakos, "of or belonging to the Lord," represents in the English Versions of the Bible of the New Testament the Greek word ekklesia; Latin, ecclesia..."
Concerned Sister
Evidence ?
Commonly known by those attending services
Post a Comment