Word Studies in the Bible

By E. M. Zerr

EXPOUND - TRANSLATE

[Page 7]

     Both terms of this heading are words of the Bible, and both are frequently used in the speech and writings of people in general. However, the second one is used far more frequently than the first, but it is often used when the first would be more proper. It is true that some principles are common to both, yet there is a specific distinction between them that is overlooked many times. As a result there is a considerable amount of agitation among the teachers that is not only unnecessary, but is disturbing to many disciples not well informed. As a further result, if the agitation continues it is calculated to unsettle the confidence of disciples in the inspiration of the word of God.

     The first term is from three Greek originals. The primary definitions of Strong and Thayer agree, but I will cite those of Strong only since they are briefer and thus save space. One is DIERMENENO and defined "to explain thoroughly." Another is EKTITHEMI which is defined "to expose; figuratively to declare." And the other is EPILUO which is defined as follows: "To solve further, i e. (figuratively) to explain, decide." From these definitions it is evident that the word now being considered has virtually the same meaning as "commentary." Hence it is evident that the term gives a speaker more latitude of expression than would be proper under the second part of our heading. Since we are dealing with an English word, it will be proper to quote Webster's definition as follows: "2. To lay open the meaning of; interpret; as, to expound a text."

     Thus a speaker who is working within the framework of this word, would be justified in using any information that would help to explain a subject, whether critical, historical or data in general. He would be at liberty to resort to illustration, or to passages in other literature that would be considered similar in thought. So we have the passage in Luke 24:27 where Christ "expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." He referred to the various passages that pertained to himself, and showed how they pertained to Him. This is the privilege of an expositor, but not of a translator.

[Page 8]

     The second part of our heading is from three Greek originals and I shall state them with Thayer's definitions. METHISTEMI is defined "to transpose, transfer, remove from one place to another." METATHESIS, defined "a transfer; change." And the third original is METASCHEMATIZO which is defined as follows: "To change the figure of, to transform." It should be clear to the reader that our word does not permit the liberties that are taken in many "versions" of the scriptures. If considered mechanically or literally, it means only to remove an object from one place to another. But it does not mean to put some other object in a place than the one that was in the other place. If the subject of language is being considered, then it means to remove a word of one language into one of the other that has the same meaning. To remove a block of wood from one place does not allow the substitution of a brick in the place of the block, even though the brick might be considered as more serviceable than the wooden block.

     There have been several translations of the Bible into the English language. The King lames Version is not the oldest one, for there were others before it. In the opening paragraph of the King Tames is the following staternent: "Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised." Hence we see that what has long (over three centuries) been held as the Bible is really a "revised version." It was not the first nor is it the last; neither do we yet have the last one. Men will continue to seek more accuracy in rendering the original into our language. That is proper and not to be frowned upon. But when an author or speaker pretends to be offering a translation of the original, yet instead gives us an expounding of its meaning, he can justly be charged with misleading his hearers.

     The King James Version has many errors of translation (as do the later ones), yet it has such a large place in the confidence of the public, that no change should be made in the wording that is not necessary. I have sat in an audience and heard some young preacher quote or read from "the revised," in which a different wording was used that had no advantage over the common version. The nearest to the literal translation that is possible should be the aim. Then if the writer or speaker wishes to explain it, let him do so as such, and not state that it is a translation, when it is in reality an expounding or interpretation of the original.