Words form sentences and that is where the meaning is. And word studies tend to take on a life of their own.
This is a proper and reasonable critique of word-study exegesis. Nevertheless, it is fair to argue that there is a need for exegetes to study the
words that make up the sentences. And sloppy or hasty treatment of those words moves the careful exegete away from the
precision of the biblical text.
The words matter.
Case in point. Recent arguments/defenses of paedo-communion. In some defenses I have read and heard, weight is given to a particular read of Ex.12 and the institution of Passover. v47 is singled out here for its language "All the
congregation of Israel shall keep it."
Note the
bold term. This sentence is,
by certain PC advocates, assumed to mean that ever-after the entirety of the nation--great & small, old & young (as small as can eat meat), male & female ought to eat; and the operative term in the sentence for this understanding is "congregation." As if that term had self-evident meaning.
This is the fourth use of this term in this chapter, all which is without question contextually relevant. ALL THREE previous uses of this term call for a distinct, nuanced meaning in its own sentence context. The import is: each previous use narrowly considered has nuance not proper to the other two.
The correct use of word-study is exactly what is needed in such cases, because a definition that is 1) broad enough to encompass every use of the term, or to use Barr's trenchant critique, one that is
2) an instance of "illegitimate totality transfer": that is the imputation of every possible nuance of the word's meaning to any particular case of its use--either one flattens the value of the term. Meaning is taken away, or definitions are vacuumed up indiscriminately; and no good use can be made of the jumble.
Therefore, when one comes to v47, it is simply false to say that the meaning of the term "congregation" is self-evident from the sentence. Does it mean exactly what it meant in ANY of the previous 3 uses, which nuances are all distinct? Or is it even a FOURTH nuance, and distinct from the previous 3?
Paedo-communionist defenders flee from such a challenge; their arguments and defenses are simplistic. (In rationalist fashion they frequently resort to an alleged "cumulative case" stance; making it necessary to painstakingly crush each PC postulate, in order to prove the house of cards that it is.)
Word-studies properly done force the exegete to grapple with the full semantic range of a term, and argue for one (or possibly double-entendre) intentional use in the text under immediate consideration; as well as how a term found in a given passage may be intentionally taken up and reused by a later author (or how a later author took the previous term), in order to stretch its benefit or its application.
Either way can shed light on the original or later/earlier text. It just cannot add or take away the fundamental communication-purpose for the use of the word in a given context.
Final note: Barr's insight shouldn't be allowed to overrule the Holy Spirit's purpose for his words in a given text. In ordinary human prose or poetry, considered as art, even an author may return to his own text-creation and acknowledge additional layers which he may attribute to his own subconscious (or his "muse"). How much more, then, may we with due respect (and not by a surrender to postmodern anti-rubrics) regard the language of the Inspiring Author.
Words matter.
