What’s In a Word?

I wish I could remember the name of the movie, but I cannot.; I have googled it, but to no avail. I do, however, recall the basic plot. A Mexican farmer living on the U.S. border gets into a dispute with the local sheriff over his property line. A misunderstanding ensues, brought on by the collision caused by the nuance in languages. The Mexican man does not fully understand the words used by the American law officer, and the officer, in like manner, does not understand why the man who lives south of the border will not comply with his demands.

A standoff begins, a posse is recruited, and the Mexican man thinks he is being forced to defend his family and his property against the Americans. He dies in that valiant pursuit.

And it was all over the misunderstanding of a word. A life snuffed out because of a language barrier. It was so sad to watch. You could see the collision coming, and you wanted to jump into the TV set, stand between the two warring parties, and . . . translate.

What’s in a word?

Sometimes very little. But sometimes EVERYTHING.

Biblical translators are not flawless, of course. And they are controlled by a variety of forces: knowledge, theological bias, and tradition (to name but a few). That’s why committees of translators are created; this is to create an atmosphere of collaboration. The importance of precision and accuracy in translating Scripture is inestimable; a single word can make all the difference in understanding a passage or a concept.

One example of this type of misunderstanding, I think, is what has happens when many Christians read Matthew’s account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matthew 14:13-21), and they erroneously conclude that the number fed that day far exceeded the 5,000 persons mentioned because Matthew said:

“The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.”

Matthew 14:21 NIV

The operative word here, of course, is the word χωρις (translated “besides” in the NIV, RSV, ASV, NASV, CSB, KJV, NKJV, Barclays, and “in addition to” in the NLT). The implication, of course, is that 5,000 “men” were fed (the word for males is used to differentiate from females), but that there were also women and children present. Clearly there was at least one “boy” present (strictly speaking, John 6:9 παιδαριον can be a young boy or girl) because Andrew gets the fish and the bread from him to feed the crowd.

A comparison of this story between the four gospel accounts is enlightening: Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15. Mark, Luke, and John do not mention women and children at all; rather they employ only the word for males (ανδρες). Matthew uses this word, too, but he alone adds to this expression the phrase that mentions women and children.

However, the word translated “besides” by numerous translations is a bit misleading here. It’s primary definition is “separate from” or “without” or “apart” as in the following selected examples:

• Matthew 13:34 ” . . . he did not say anything to them WITHOUT using a parable.”
• Luke 6:49 ” . . . like a man who built a house on the ground WITHOUT a foundation.”
• John 1:3 “WITHOUT him nothing was made that has been made.”
• John 15:5 “APART from me you can do nothing.”
• John 20:7 “The cloth was folded up by itself, SEPARATE from the linen.”
• Romans 3:21 “But now a righteousness from God, APART from law, has been made known.”
• 1 Corinthians 11:11 “In the Lord, however, woman is not INDEPENDENT of man.”
• Ephesians 2:12 ” . . . at that time you were SEPARATE from Christ, excluded . . . .”

There are many more examples, of course. Suffice it to say that the main intent of this word is not to imply the existence of additional things not being disclosed; rather, the exclusion of additional things. This is supported by the fact that women and children are excluded from Mark, Luke, and John’s telling of the story. Linguistically, Matthew’s inclusion of the phrase does not infer that women and children should be included. On the contrary, it makes it explicit they were not there.

The historical background referenced in John 6:15 enlightens the reader even more.

“Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him a king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.”

John 6:15 NIV

It would be useful in a future blog entry to discuss the political and religious atmosphere current at the time this miracle occurred. But in brief it can be said that many of the disciples of Jesus were looking for him to help them overthrow their oppressor, Rome, and establish the kingdom of David once again as had been prophesied. This idea even persists, oddly enough, after Jesus’s resurrection, as can be seen in the question of his disciples:

“Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Acts 1:6 NIV

This seditious bent is also what Jesus is trying to prevent when he discourages his followers (even vehemently at times; see Matthew 16:16-23) not to refer to him as “Christ” (Messiah); a term so inflammatory that Jesus avoids it by referring to himself as “Son of Man.”

So . . . the Feeding of the Five Thousand (males) story is really about a large group of men who are planning a military and political coup. When one reads Matthew’s account of this story he/she would do well not to misconstrue the words that have often been translated in such a way as to imply a teeming, hungry crowd of men, women, and their children. There were just men there. Probably armed to the teeth.