Language most certainly shapes the way we think. Therefore, this website blog: built mainly for those in transition, can also be about building framework for understanding moral growth, spiritual development, and the relationship between inner conviction and outward conduct.
It’s not uncommon that throughout history, every generation has its unique language spoken within its own peculiar understanding. Every culture too, carries their own specific set of customs and values, setting them apart from all others as well.
The beliefs of a people generally do not change from one generation to the next. However, interpretations shaped by thought and conduct can gradually fade as terms and definitions are updated, which is how generational language becomes understood, or deciphered over time.
Testaments (2) in the Bible, also have a language that speaks to the culture and custom of their respective day. How to rightly divide (2 Tim. 2:15) the two testaments in the Bible starts with an understanding that one covenant doesn’t replace the other. Mistakes or mismatching can be attributed to language lessons. The better we can understand and decipher the language of either testament, the better we can apply their distinct mission values.
Each covenant carried its specific establishment and ratification through the shedding of blood. Many similarities reside with each testament – but so did many dissimilarities. Let’s look at a brief recap of what God was doing in the midst of history in order to fulfill the promise made to Abraham and the stars of the sky – to be as numerous as his descendants. (Gen. 15:5)
Alexander the Great was the son of Philip II, king of Macedon, who in his day, established dominance over much of Greece. When Philip commanded, his troops responded swiftly, yet he did not complete the conquest he envisioned. After Philip’s death, Alexander succeeded him and assumed leadership of both Macedon and the Greek forces allied under his rule. At the beginning of his campaigns, however, his authority was not received much beyond Macedon, as only his own troops understood his command.
None of the troops from other regions moved, and he became quite angry and disrespected in his authority until he realized the problem. In Greece, the variations of the Greek language were many and the mix of regional dialect was the issue. His thought to teach a “common” or Koine version that would allow all involved to follow command. So now when he commanded, all troops moved for the conquering of the then known world. You see, this language would be the “going out” language to take territory.
The Hebrew language was designed to be a “coming in” language. Anyone that desired to be of the camp or people of Israel, needed to first be circumcised, and then receive the language, the culture and customs of the Hebrew people.
Most certainly Jesus was Jewish and spoke Hebrew, as well as Aramaic. So did He know of the Greek language? One thing we know for certain is that the establishing of city-states for the Roman occupied world, all came from Alexander’s dominance. His “going out purpose” was for the installation of Greek culture and custom worldwide. This demand was often met agreeably before his conquering impact would have to be felt by the impending armies, by a surrendering outright prior to his arrival.
New Testament language (Koine) was a going out language. All the then known world spoke the Koine (Gal. 4:4). As part of the great commission (Matt 28:16-18) God had already established a world-wide language everyone would understand – but the type of “surrender” to this language and custom of the Gospel, was only a surrender of the Spirit; not something to be imposed by force. The circumcision here is of spiritual nature, not physical. It was the cutting off of the flesh spiritually – its removal of defilement of the soul.
Rightly dividing truth (2 Tim. 2:15) must include an ambitious respect for where language comes from, whether in religious, relational, or political settings. What often divides us is misunderstanding; not on how we feel about generations, culture, or testament ends. Truth isn’t a matter of perspective; it is surrendering to what is absolute.
The Church, in all of its purity, should be inclusive of everyone with a going out into the “whole world” type of speech. But when we hold ourselves as being an exclusive social club, or excluding others who think or believe not like us, the ability to get outside of our own circle of self (a going-out) is incapacitated. We conquer no new territory, and nobody moves forth on our command when we speak.
