Many turn to Strong’s Concordance for Bible study, but is it the best tool for understanding Scripture? Despite its widespread use, Strong’s has significant limitations that can lead to misunderstandings. Below, we explore why relying solely on Strong’s may hinder rather than help your Bible study.
The Perils of Using Strong’s Concordance Alone
Strong’s Concordance, while an impressive reference work for its time, is outdated and limited in scope. Compiled in 1890, it reflects the biblical scholarship of that era, which has since evolved significantly. Because it is out of copyright and has wide recognition it is a profitable product for publishers to keep printing. But here are key issues to consider:
1. Outdated Lexical Understanding The meanings of words and our understanding of ancient languages have advanced since Strong’s day. For example, Strong’s might provide a simplistic translation of a Hebrew or Greek word without capturing the nuance discovered by later scholars. Frequently a good modern version study Bible with footnotes should be more than enough. However if you understand the inherent dangers of word studies then modern lexicons offer more accurate and detailed definitions, reflecting the latest in linguistic and archaeological research.
2. Lack of Contextual Insight Strong’s focuses on individual word definitions, often missing the broader context of the individual word. Understanding a word within its scriptural, cultural, and historical context is crucial. Strongs cannot provide insight into the interplay of the individual word in the context of the sentence.
3. Limited Grammatical Information Strong’s Concordance does not provide extensive grammatical details. For instance, Greek verbs carry significant meaning through their tense, voice, and mood, nuances often glossed over in Strong’s. Modern tools like the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament give a more comprehensive view, aiding in more accurate interpretations.
4. Ignoring Semantic Range Words in any language have a range of meanings, which can change based on context. Strong’s often presents a word with a single, fixed meaning, which can mislead readers. Newer resources like the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis offer comprehensive discussions on the semantic range of words.
5. Simplistic definitions Strong’s often provides definitions that are too brief to capture the depth of the original languages. For some entries a range of brief meanings can be provoded letting users choose according to their preconceptions. Contemporary lexicons delve deeper into these complexities, enhancing our comprehension and providing more insight.
6. Incomplete and Inaccurate Data Errors and omissions are present in Strong’s. Since its publication, numerous ancient manuscripts have been discovered, providing better textual data. Strong’s cannot account for these, potentially leading to less accurate readings.
7 Textual variance and manuscript issues Strong’s Concordance is based on the Textus Receptus for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. Modern scholarship has access to more ancient manuscripts and a better understanding of textual variants, which can significantly impact meaning in a (modest) number of passages. A reliance on Strongs (or possible any Lexicon alone) can mean missing the bigger picture.
Examples of SOME OF THESE LIMITATIONS
1. Agape The Greek word “agape” (Strong’s #G26) is often simplified as “love.” While this is not incorrect, it fails to encompass the depth of “agape,” which in its biblical context signifies a selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love. This is distinct from other Greek words for love like “eros” (romantic love) or “philia” (brotherly love). The nuances of “agape” are crucial, especially in passages such as 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul describes the nature of true Christian love. Relying solely on Strong’s might lead one to miss the profound and sacrificial aspect of “agape.”
2. Chesed The Hebrew word “chesed” (Strong’s #H2617) is typically translated as “mercy” or “loving-kindness.” However, “chesed” encompasses a broader concept, including steadfast love, loyalty, and faithfulness. This term is often used to describe God’s covenantal faithfulness to Israel. In Psalm 136, “chesed” is repeated in every verse, emphasizing God’s enduring love and loyalty. Strong’s definition does not fully convey this rich, covenantal dimension.
3. Nepesh The Hebrew word “nephesh” (Strong’s #H5315) is defined as “soul” or “life.” However, its meaning varies significantly depending on its context. Sometimes “nephesh” refers to a living being, sometimes to emotions, and other times to life force or breath. For instance, in Genesis 2:7, “nephesh” refers to the “breath of life” breathed into Adam, whereas in Psalm 42:1, it represents the psalmist’s deep emotional longing. Strong’s simplistic definition can lead to misunderstandings of these different contexts.
4. Logos The Greek word “logos” (Strong’s #G3056) is often translated as “word.” However, in different contexts, “logos” can mean reason, discourse, or principle. In John 1:1, “logos” is used to describe Jesus as the divine Word, a concept deeply rooted in both Greek philosophy and Jewish theology. Strong’s definition does not capture the theological depth and philosophical background of “logos” in this passage.
5. Monogenes “In Strongs this Greek word is defined as “only begotten,” which has been traditionally used in passages like John 3:16 to describe Jesus as the “only begotten Son.” Recent linguistic studies suggest that “monogenes” more accurately means “unique” or “one of a kind.” This understanding shifts the emphasis from the idea of begetting to the uniqueness and singularity of Jesus’ relationship with the Father. The term now reflects the special and unparalleled nature of Jesus rather than focusing on the process of begetting.
5. Pistis is defined by Strongs as “faith.” While “faith” is a correct translation, “pistis” in its first-century context also carries connotations of “faithfulness,” “trust,” and “loyalty.” This broader understanding reflects a relational and covenantal dimension, emphasizing not just belief but ongoing trust and allegiance to God or Christ.
6. Inadequate handling of synonyms The Hebrew language, like Greek, often has multiple words for concepts that English might simplify. For example, the word “sin” in Hebrew can be “chattat” (Strong’s #H2403), “peshah” (Strong’s #H6588), or “avon” (Strong’s #H5771), each with its nuances— “chattat” generally means a missing of the mark, “peshah” implies rebellion, and “avon” suggests iniquity or guilt. Strong’s may list these words but does not explain the significant differences in their connotations and usages, leading to a flattened understanding of sin’s multifaceted nature in the Hebrew Bible.
Modern Alternatives and Advancements
For those seeking deeper, more accurate biblical study, several modern resources outshine Strong’s:
1. HALOT and BDAG The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) and A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) are comprehensive lexicons reflecting the latest scholarly consensus and linguistic research.
2. Interlinear Bibles and Analytical Lexicons These tools provide direct access to the original languages, complete with grammatical parsing and more precise definitions, helping readers understand the Bible’s text in its original context.
3. Modern Bible Dictionaries A modern dictionary will provide definitions of words, characters and themes enabling greater insight. Some options are the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary or the Lexham Bible Dictionary.
4. Bible Software Programs Programs like Logos and Accordance offer vast libraries of modern biblical scholarship, including commentaries, lexicons, and language tools, enabling users to engage with Scripture in a more informed and nuanced manner.
Conclusion
Strong’s Concordance, while historically significant, is not the definitive tool for Bible study it once was considered. Its limitations in lexical accuracy, contextual insight, and grammatical detail mean that relying on it alone can lead to misunderstandings. Embracing modern tools and scholarship allows for a more profound and accurate engagement with the Biblical text. As we seek to grow in our understanding and faith, it’s essential to use the best resources available to illuminate the Scriptures truly.
by Daniel Edgecombe – albeit aided and abetted by chatGBT as an experiment (conclusion – the robots aren’t coming for us yet!)
Living Faith 