I was not a fan of Bill Clinton, nor of his sexual indiscretion. But of all the things to criticize him for, this quote is not one of them.

Bill Clinton is among the most intelligent presidents of all time, with common estimates of his IQ  ranging from the high 140s to the high 150s, often just a few points shy of “genius.” That’s quite impressive for a politician. It would not surprise me if he was the most intelligent of all the U.S. Presidents in my lifetime.

The quote above is commonly used to mock Clinton and to portray him as an idiot. But, the joke was always on the critics. The quote actually does a good job revealing his strong language ability, as if his verbal ability to appeal to both the left and the right wasn’t proof enough.

Now, let’s look at what happens when people are not as careful as Bill Clinton:

In English, the word “is” (or, more properly, “to be”) is commonly part of the class of verbs known by linguists as the copula. Most languages have a copula. In some languages, like biblical Greek and modern English, the copula plays a broadly significant role in the language. The copular verb “to be” has a very wide semantic range, involving many different literal and figurative denotations and connotations, including a variety of non-copular uses. The idea that…

“Is” means “Is”

…is, frankly, a laughably simplistic tautology.

Let’s look at the American dictionary-of-record.

These are all the definitions where the word functions as a copula (a linking verb). These are, definitionally, slightly different from the use of the word to indicate existence:^[1]

For that we have to look at another category of definitions beyond the (strictly) copular use as a linking verb:^[2]

Existence is just one of a number of possible (strictly non-copular) meanings.

But we don’t have to stop there. The word also has other linguistic uses:

If you are a native English speaker, you can probably trivially understand and distinguish between fifteen of the sixteen different uses of the verb “to be” without even a conscious awareness that you are doing so. A great many English speakers are completely unaware that “is” (in its various forms) can be used in so many different ways, and they’d be hard pressed to identify all of the different ways they use the word without even trying.

Now, the Bible is even more interesting. The Greek verb eimi is used 2,479 times in the New Testament. It is the most common verb in the New Testament, making up almost 1.4% of the total words. Moreover, four of the top five verbs in the NT have copular or semi-copular uses or otherwise correspond to the English word “to be.”

In the KJV version of Matthew alone, eimi is translated in the following ways:

• are, am, is, was, were, (will, might) be
• being
• came about, comes
• had
• remain, remained

The NASB translates it in these ways in the New Testament:

And if you thought the English definition was long and complex, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon gives six different major categories, twenty-six different definitional uses, and a whopping seventy-six different specific definitional forms. And, as if that were not enough, there are twelve related Greek words that function linguistically in a similar fashion.

What might really eat you up is that the verb “to be” can be explicitly elided (missing) from a sentence, yet be implied by the grammatical and linguistic context! For example, in English:

[Are] you hungry?

Yes [I am].

This pattern of verb elision is found in many languages, not just English.

The English dictionary contains only the denotations of the word “to be.” It does not include all of the numerous different connotations, nor does it exhaust all the semantic nuance achievable through the use of different tenses or figures of speech. To wit:

Thayer’s Lexicon’s 76 unique uses of just one of Greek’s copular verbs gives us a small taste of the linguistic depth encapsulated in the deceptively simple verb “to be.”

Now, imagine trying to translate a hundred different uses of a dozen ancient Greek words (which may only be implied by the text!) accurately with the correct denotations and connotations into modern English. That’s quite the challenge. And it’s far, far from:

“Is” means “Is”

Bill Clinton was asked a fairly mundane loaded question, and he responded as an intelligent man should respond:

Like ancient Greek, the verb “to be” is highly ambiguous^[3] and contextual in English. Thus, when one is accused of (or, in the case of Clinton, guilty of) wrongdoing, language precision is very important. The same is true in matters of theology.

Footnotes

^[1] While only some meanings of the Greek and English verb “to be” are strictly copular—linking verbs— in linguistic terms, all of them are ontological, pertaining to the metaphysics of being. The various definitions of “to be” (whether copula, semi-copula, or non-copula) refer collectively to aspects of being, existence, and reality. Thus, while linguists differentiate between the copula and existence, this is a somewhat arbitrary categorization based on external philosophy and other conventions.

For example, we can say…

“He is blue.”

…and…

“He is [in existence].”

…while intuitively viewing the copula (the first sentence) and existence (the second sentence) as merely slightly different variations on the same ontological theme. Both are answers to the question “What is he?”

Different languages may (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, English, Russian, Arabic, Chinese) or may not (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Irish, Japanese) combine the idea of existence and the linguistic function of the copula in a common word. Doing so is optional, but nevertheless quite natural for those that choose to do so.

Similarly, some languages, like Spanish, divide the copula itself into more than one word, each with its own distinct sense (e.g. ‘ser’ and ‘estar’), such as dividing between (permanent) essence and (temporary) state. Just as grouping or splitting existence and copular function is arbitrary, so too is grouping or splitting linking verbs arbitrary.

Regardless of which different approach a language ultimately chooses, this does not change the inherent ontological compatibility of the copula and verb of existence. Linguistic convention and philosophy are, essentially, orthogonal concerns.

^[2] The quote is technically incorrect. Strictly speaking, the verb ‘to be’ in the phrase “this is my body” acts grammatically as a copula—a linking verb—not a verb of existence.

^[3] Despite its inherent ambiguity, people not only freely choose to use the verb, but it is the most common verb in many languages. It is often selected by speakers and writers even when a more precise verb exists!