Thoughts on Language Complacency

I recently reread 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 from the King James Version and was struck by the aptness and perfection of the word “charity” in the passage, in distinction to the word “love” used in all of the modern versions of the bible, such as the NIV. This led to a few further thoughts on our use and understanding of language and of its utmost importance and primacy. It occurred to me that we take too much at face value; our ability to communicate has been getting shallower and shallower. As we transition into a post-industrial, post-literate society, we are loosing the ability for deep communication. All our popular communication is now conducted in sound-bites, thanks to the influence of visual and auditory media. Our ability, as well as our desire, to probe the nuance and shading of word meaning is drying up. When was the last time you used a thesaurus when writing? Let me give a couple of examples to demonstrate. We might as well continue with a comparison of the words love and charity.

The word most often used by Christians to describe the sublime relationship between the triune God and His chosen ones is love. But this is the same word we use to describe various forms of sinful pleasure as well. The word love can be traced to the Latin libere, “to please” and from which word we get our word libertine, used to describe someone who puts his own hedonistic pleasure before all else, making it his god. Yet Christians don’t seem to have a need to use any other word but “love” when they are speaking about a state in which our relationship with God is in view. They use the same word for spiritual affection as they do for worldly, carnal pleasure.

Words take on the greatest weight of meaning through the context in which they are found. But that is really my point. The historical context of the word “love” is, on balance, more worldly than spiritual. Now, this is not wrong in itself. No one in his right mind would say to the wife he dearly loved “My Dear, I feel charitable towards you.” So in itself, love is a fine word, just not for every occasion, simply because the word love is associated with various confusing contexts, many of which have decidedly nothing to do with the spiritual and godly. For instance, according to the Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus (http://www.eat.rl.ac.uk/) out a total of forty-nine associations listed, the ten most common words associated with the word love are: hate, sex, girl, life, marriage, war, affection, all, another, and bird in that order of frequency. The top ten word associations for charity, on the other hand, are: home, money, sweet, walk, appeal, love, help, hope, week, and ball out of thirty-nine associations. To be sure, this is not definitive. But these are nevertheless the tabulated results of empirical testing of a random sample of people over time. We can see that the associations with the word love tend toward being worldly and self-centered while associations with the word charity yield a greater proportion of words reflecting a wider, other-centered reality. One is self-centered, the other, other-centered.

Traced to the underlying Latin, the noun charity stems from caritas, Christian love, and carus, that which is dear. In this it would seem to me to be a word that more directly corresponds to the biblical Greek agape. It is a word that we usually associate with altruistic motives, personal sacrifice, untiring effort as well as impersonal and unselfish deeds for the uplifting and betterment of those in need. And because of the greater freight of positive and edifying meaning it has accumulated over time, it may be more suited to describe our spiritual affection for God as well as one another. It is a word that is not sullied with carnal implications. Let me give two examples from two Bible translations of words used carelessly or which reflect the intellectual and moral tone of their respective times, and which are able to affect our understanding and therefore our beliefs and faith.

In the King James Version, Job 42:10 reads: “And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.” The same verse is rendered in the New International Version as, “After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.” The difference is obvious. The NIV leads one to conclude that job was being rewarded financially for his faithfulness, as expressed by his prayer for his three friends, and that his prosperity was what was most important. The KJV makes it clear that Job was being released from his captivity to Satan. Does this difference matter to you? I believe it should.

Returning to the KJV we find in Luke 18:42, “And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.” The New American Standard Bible by comparison, reads “And Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.’ ” This in spite of the fact that the word translated as “well” in the NASB is actually the Greek word sozo which does not merely mean restoring one’s physical wellness but includes the more important idea of salvation from destruction and is the word used by the apostles to denote salvation in Christ, the avoidance of eternal destruction. The difference in world views expressed by these simple word choices is enormous. Nor are these isolated examples. Literally dozens of examples can easily be found.

Am I advocating the exclusive use of the KJV over all other versions? Not exactly, although I believe that doing so is thoroughly reliable. (I regularly use both the KJV and the NASB) No, rather, I’m advocating first and foremost that Christians spend time carefully and sensitively reading Scripture. Let a strong and clear faith influence your reading. I’m advocating that we stop being complacent about our use and understanding of words and their associations and meanings. Let us not take our language for granted for it is the vehicle created by God for the revelation of Himself to His creature, Man. Every word in the Bible is important in its own context (verbal plenary inspiration). Let us not be content with a “fast food” approach to our language but let us savour our words as if they were a veritable banquet of the most delicate and an exquisite delight, for that is surely what they are.

In their choice of the word “charity” rather than the word “love” in 1 Corinthians 13 and their recognition of the subtle yet profound differences between ideas associated with words such as “captivity” and “prosperity” or of “salvation” and “wellness”, the translators of the King James Version showed not only their own enormous erudition and depth of knowledge but also the sensitivity and wisdom that should be the hallmarks of any translator of God’s precious Word. But these should also be the hallmarks of those who now read the Bible as well. The fact that our own generation is uncomfortable with the word charity, and prefers to use instead the generic—and almost maudlin— “love” only goes to demonstrate our lack of sensitivity to language. We have simplified scripture and have dumbed it down to the point where enormous meaning has been lost. We have made it more relevant to those who wish only to put on the clothing rather than the armour of the Christian saint. This is just one more example of the superficiality and blandness that characterizes our society and is as true for the believer as it is for the unbeliever.