Biblical Languages and Bible Translations

Submission Is a Honeymoon Word!

2012-01-17T11:54:00.000-07:00

Peter’s discussion of a woman’s relationship to her husbandin 1 Peter 3:1-6 causes consternation on the part of many women who reject a relevantbiblical principle of submission. They perceive it as a negative term, a “putdown” of women. However, a carefulexamination of the rhetorical development in verses 5-6 does not support thisconclusion. In fact, submission is a positive and beautiful aspect of thehusband/wife relationship.

The rhetorical development of the passage is observed first byuse of the correlative adverbs “in this way” (οὗτως) . . . ” justas” (ὡς) as translated in the New AmericanStandard Bible (NASB). Second, Peter’s argument follows a generalto specific pattern—“holy women” and “Sarah.” Third, the holy women of oldadorned themselves inwardly (cf. v. 4) by “being submissive to their ownhusbands.” Submission, the central issue in the passage, is reinserted fromverse 1 but left undefined in the general clause of verse 5. In the more specificclause of verse 6 speaking of Sarah, submission is defined by two things—obedienceand respect.

One Old Testament example of Sarah’s obedience can befound in Genesis 18:6 when she obeyed Abraham’s request to prepare a meal forhis visitors. This correlates with the general Old Testament understanding thatthe husband is the “head of the household” with leadership authority (Genesis3:16). The respect aspect of 1 Peter 3 arises from the word “lord” usedin both the Old and New Testaments (אדון in Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and EnglishLexicon, p. 11; κύριος in Bauer, Danker, Arndt, andGingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed., p. 578).It is a term of respect used by one person speaking to or about an authorityfigure. Genesis 18:12 records Sarah’s use of this word speaking of Abraham.

These Old Testament reflections transfer into the presentsphere of husband/wife relationships by Peter’s conclusion in verse 6, “and youhave become her children if you do what is right without being frightened byany fear” (NASB). Here are two extensions of Sarah’s obedienceand respect responses to Abraham—“doing what is right” and not “beingfrightened by any fear.”

An adjusted NASB translation of “doing what is right,”stemming from one Greek word (ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι), simply means “doing good.” The secondNASB phrase, “without being frightened by any fear,” requires someadjustments as well so as not to misconstrue Peter’s intent.

This Greek phrase literally translated “and not fearing anyfear” (καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν) establishes the second aspect of submission being introducedwith “and” (not included in the NASB translation). The last word in this phrase (πτόησιν) is classified syntactically as a cognate accusative of the inner object (Wallace, Greek GrammarBeyond the Basics, p. 189), simply meaning that it restates and focusesthe intended idea of the verbal to which it relates, in this case theparticiple “fearing” (φοβούμεναι).

The participle root has two distinct meanings: (1) To have respect, so used in verse 2where the wife is told that the husband may be saved as they behold the wife’schaste and respectful behavior towards him, and (2) To have fear, being afraid. In verse 6 Peterdesired the participle to be understood different from the way in which he usedthe root word in verse 2. In other words, so as not to confuse his readers asto the change in meaning he intended at verse 6, Peter inserted a cognate accusative of the inner object usinga term that cannot be confused with respect but can only mean to beafraid. Thus, the wives are told that they are not to live in fear of their husbands. This is the respectaspect of the two-pronged submission idea that can be literally translated “notgiving way to fear.” Translations that add contextually foreign concepts of“terror” or “intimidation” do not take into account Peter’s lexical reason forincluding this unique and unusual term. The negatively constructed phrase, “not givingway to fear,” really does define what genuine respect is for the wife—livingwith her husband fearlessly believing him to be good who would not knowingly doher harm.

A logical diagram of the above observations may help theunderstanding: Submission = Obedience and Respect; Obedience = Doing Good; Respect = Exhibiting No Fear

Submission of the wife to the husband as developed by Peter shinesa light on what brought her to the altar to begin with—to do good for her chosenhusband treating him with respect. To paraphrase the practical import of thepassage, “Submit to your husband; keep the honeymoon current!” Suggesting thatsubmission is a “put down” on women totally misreads Peter’s text and injectsnegativity into what God designed to be positively beautiful!

Not to be accused of one-sidedness, however, the husband toohas a responsibility to “keep the honeymoon current!” Peter deals with thehusband side of the marriage relationship in verse 7 wherein it can beunequivocally shown that his responsibilities are as great if not greater thanthat of his wife. But this will be another blogspot! Keep tuned in!

To See Is to Hear

2011-08-14T12:32:00.000-07:00

One of the undeniable features of biblical literature is its oral nature. Harvey writes (Listening to the Text, 1):

The popular culture of the first century was, technically, a rhetorical culture. In a rhetorical culture, literacy is limited, and reading is vocal. Even the solitary reader reads aloud (Acts 8:30). The normal mode of writing is by dictation, and that which is written down is intended to be read aloud to a group rather than silently by the individual. Such a culture is familiar with writing, but is, in essence, oral. The predominantly oral nature of a rhetorical culture requires speakers to arrange their material in ways that can be followed easily by a listener. Clues to the organization of thought are, of necessity, based on sound rather than on sight.

The pre-first century Jewish culture was no different. The Old Testament was written to be heard as well as seen. Oral patterning, therefore, can be seen throughout the Hebrew Bible and especially in poetry. This incontrovertible fact impacts the interpretation of Psalm 60:4 (Hebrew Bible 60:6, subsequent verse references follow the English Bible). Two interpretations are seen in the following representative translations:

“You have set up a banner for those who fear you, that they may flee to it from the bow” (English Standard Version, ESV).

“You have given a banner to those who fear You, That it may be displayed because of the truth” (New American Standard Bible, NASB).

Three translation variations appear in this verse. The first relates to bow and truth. The Hebrew word in question occurs only here in the Old Testament. Two words develop from three consonants (fvq): “bow” considered to be an Aramaic form of the often-used word for “bow” (fv#q) = tv#q#), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 905), and “truth” (f=v=q) occurring only at Proverbs 22:21 instead of the very frequent Hebrew word for “truth” (tm#a$). This second word is considered rather harsh sounding so that a helping vowel frequently occurs between the last two consonants in these kinds of verbs (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 88 and 93-94). With this helping vowel, the rare word “truth” parallels the rare word “bow” both in form and sound (fv#q)).

The hearer of this verse must (1) choose between the two words with vastly different senses, as the representative translations have done, or (2) understand that a double entendre has been introduced into the text. Tate (Psalms 51-100, 102) writes, “Possibly a pun was intended between tvq (‘bow’) and fvq (‘truth’).” If a double entendre is rejected, however, the interpreter must ask: Why did the author use this rare term when unambiguous words for “bow” or “truth” were readily at hand?

A second translation difference occurs in this verse tied to a word-form found only here in the Old Testament. It could stem from either one of two verbs. The word may (1) stem from only one of these verbs or (2) represent another double entendre requiring the hearer to muse over the dissimilar senses of the word. The word involved (ss@ont=h!) is translated to “flee” (ESV) and to “be displayed” (NASB). The lexical meaning (Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 231 and 240 respectively) is either “to get to safety” (from the root swn) or “to rally around [the banner]” (from the root ssn).

Interestingly, these different meanings resonate with “bow” and “truth.” “Bow” functions as a metonymy for warfare and connects effortlessly with getting to “safety” at the location of the banner. “Truth” represents a rallying cry for God’s people as the banner. In the first instance, the banner is taken literally; in the second, metaphorically. See Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 583, on the two aspects inherent in the word “banner” (sn}).

A third translation difference follows in this verse. The prepositional phrases “from the bow” (ESV) and “because of the truth” (NASB) syntactically and smoothly fit each meaning (Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 62-63). The reader of the English Bible would have no reason to question the translation.

A double entendre interpretation provides a reasonable explanation for the use of these words. But, as in all such cases, the context must validate the analysis. Psalm 60 must convey both ideas if credence can be given to this suggestion.

War is the overriding issue facing the Psalmist and the nation. Clearly the word “bow” represents a military theme; warfare imagery pervades verses 1-5 as well as 9-12 of Psalm 60. However, whereas “bow” focuses the external concern, “truth” embodies the internal stimulus for the petitions of verse 5, provides historical and geographical background to verses 6-8, and explains the intensification of the Psalmist’s confidence of deliverance and victory in verses 9-12.

To David the “truth” representing a standard and rallying point for the beleaguered nation may lie in the promises of God to him through Nathan the Prophet, “I will give you rest from all your enemies. . . . Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever” (NASB, 2 Samuel 7:11, 16). God committed Himself to the preservation of Israel’s kingdom and people. Israel, on the verge of collapse, needed God to act in accordance with His promise. Believing the divine pledge, David petitions for deliverance (verse 5).

The locations mentioned in verses 6-8 support this connection to the divine promises. They encompass the expanse of David’s kingdom north, east, south, and west. God will preserve the nation. The enemies will not destroy the kingdom. David confidently asks for and expects divine deliverance. Verses 9-12 give a decidedly upbeat conclusion to a psalm that began with anguish and confusion.

For one application from Psalm 60 that stems from the two-fold double entendre, when trouble comes flee to the truth of God found in the Word of God as the place of safety and encouragement.

Psalm 60 was written for the “ear” but only those who can “see” the Hebrew text will be able to “hear” what may well be imbedded in the sounds of the words. May this oral dimension to the Word of God encourage more Christians to enthusiastically desire to read the Bible in the original languages.

Christlikeness, Grammatically Speaking!

2011-06-23T10:13:00.001-07:00

Bible scholars sometimes marginalize matters of importance without realizing what they have done. New Testament Greek grammarians occasionally lose their way, and in doing so guide others onto the same detour. Daniel Wallace provides a case in point by consigning the Genitive of Description to a syntactically vague and limited value for New Testament interpretation. He writes:

“This is the ‘catch-all’ Genitive, the ‘drip pan’ Genitive, the ‘black hole’ of Genitive categories that tries to suck many a Genitive into its grasp! . . . . Hence, this use of the Genitive should be a last resort. If one cannot find a narrower category to which a Genitive belongs, this is where he or she should look for solace. . . . The additional categories [of the Genitive] have exegetical value” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 79, and footnote 24, italics his).

Some grammar explanations will clarify the issue. English substantives are nouns or a word or a group of words used as a noun. Substantives relate to the other elements of a sentence by “case.” English has three cases, subjective (subject of the verb), objective (object of the verb) and possessive (denoting possession). The English Possessive Case correlates most closely to what Greek grammarians classify as the Genitive Case.

When the student of Greek encounters a noun in the Genitive Case not preceded by a preposition the standard translation is to translate the substantive with the preposition “of.” This preposition is ambiguous because it can refer to numerous concepts only one of which is possession. Translating a Genitive, therefore, requires the student to interpret the New Testament. Every Genitive, the Genitive of Description included, plays a significant role in interpretation.

Philippians 1:8 undermines the attitude that the Genitive of Description carries little if any interpretive weight. The passage reads in the NASB and Greek text like this:

“For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus”
μάρτυς γὰρ μου ὁ θεὸς ὡς ἐπιποθως πάντας ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ.

The Genitive of Description is found in the phrase “with the affection of Christ Jesus” (ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ) and can be retranslated literally, “with the affection characteristic of Christ Jesus.” (Compare the words in bold font.) This Genitive unites Paul’s affection to a characteristic of Jesus (Wallace, p. 80). His statement can be restructured, “I long for you all with Christ-like affection.”

The word translated “affection” describes deep emotions, genuine feelings. Literally, it refers to one’s viscera, inward parts, entrails; metaphorically, it speaks of the feelings itself, love, affection (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3^rd ed., 938). Hawthorne describes Paul’s use of the phrase in Philippians 1:8 as “striking and powerful,” an “astonishing metaphor,” “in the viscera, entrails of Christ Jesus” (Hawthorne, Philippians, 25).

F.B. Meyer expressed it this way, “The Apostle had got so near the very of heart of his Lord that he could hear its throb, detect its beat; nay, it seemed as though the tender mercies of Jesus to these Philippians were throbbing in his own heart” (Meyer, The Epistle to the Philippians, 22).

A few simple questions will punctuate the point of this discussion, “How could Paul say that what he feels for the Philippian Christians is characteristic of Christ?” How could he know the nature and depth of Jesus’ emotional state? How can he be so bold as to make such a statement calling upon God to witness to its truth—“For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection [characteristic] of Christ Jesus”?

To personalize the issue, again in question format: About whom can a Christian affirm what Paul claimed and call upon God to witness to its truth? A spouse? A child? Practically, how does a believer achieve this level of Christ-like affection?

To “get inside” another person’s heart, to know for sure how he or she feels, requires extensive personal contact. The only way that this level of knowledge of Christ’s feelings can be gained is through the medium of Bible study and prayer, with prayer probably being the more effective of the two activities for getting to the heart of Jesus. Perhaps Paul’s injunction in 1 Thessalonians 5:17, “Pray without ceasing,” provides part of the answer.

The emotion-packed term, “affection,” coupled to “Christ Jesus” by the Genitive of Description places the concept of discipleship on an almost unreachable plane! Perhaps one could classify Paul’s remark in Philippians 1:8 as hyperbole and summarily dismiss it, but that would be dishonest intellectually and exegetically.

This article suggests that the Genitive of Description should not be marginalized as a weak or non-player in the process of Bible interpretation. It demonstrates the exegetical importance of this Genitive category in a manner that makes it an equal partner for interpretation among the other uses of the Greek Genitive Case.

But for the Bible student, grammar serves a nobler purpose than simply making a translation possible. It “creates” theology. Although Christians may be inclined to reduce “over the top” statements like Paul’s to something more “reasonable,” it would not be there if the Holy Spirit had not inspired it. And if the possibility of achieving Christ-like affection exists, it establishes a spiritual and attainable goal. In the case of Philippians 1:8, that goal, grammatically speaking, is to “long for fellow-believers with Christ-like affections.”

Deity and Duty—An “Invisible” Grammatical Observation

2011-04-06T07:29:00.002-07:00

A grammatical pattern in New Testament Greek that has far reaching theological and ministry implications is, unfortunately, invisible to readers of English New Testaments. Not to malign English or English translations, this “invisibility” points out that English and Greek grammar and usage differ significantly and this necessarily degrades the transfer of data from the Greek New Testament to an English translation. The pattern involved can be described as definite article, substantive, conjunction, substantive.

Brooks and Winbery (Syntax of New Testament Greek, 76) provide one formal definition for this pattern that has been labeled the “Granville Sharp Rule”: “If two substantives [nouns or noun substitutes] are connected by καί [“and”] and . . . the first has an article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person or thing as the first.” This rule when applied to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 makes explicit statements about the deity of Jesus Christ. The reader of the following representative English translation (New American Standard Bible, NASB) can arrive at this conclusion (bold font)—but cannot appeal to the grammar to prove it:

Titus 2:13 — “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ"

2 Peter 1:1 — "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus"

The same passages in the Greek text with the grammar highlighted [and described] in bold font follow:

Titus 2:13 — προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ [definite article] μεγάλου θεοῦ [substantive] καὶ [conjunction] σωτῆρος [substantive] ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1 — Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ [definite article] θεοῦ [substantive] ἡμῶν καὶ [conjunction] σωτῆρος [substantive] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

This is very helpful when confronted with liberal commentaries and Jehovah's Witnesses or others who deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

A second application of the same grammatical pattern (definite article, substantive, conjunction, substantive), but not the "Granville Sharp Rule," occurs in Philippians 1:25. This time an important ministry principle emerges, one that the reader of the English Bible cannot see and will miss.

A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 787, explains this second application of the grammatical pattern, “Sometimes groups [or ideas] more or less distinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand, hence use only one article.” This means that the interpreter must (1) see the pattern and (2) determine how the pattern functions in the passage under consideration.

Philippians 1:25 in the representative English translation (NASB) contains the phrase “for your progress and joy in the faith.” Since English and Greek use the definite article differently, the English translation may or may not reflect the Greek article. Therefore, by reading the text with an eye towards the chances of the Greek definite article being present, four possibilities can be listed. Note the definite article given in bold font:

(a) for your the progress and the joy in the faith
(b) for your the progress and joy in the faith
(c) for your progress and the joy in the faith
(d) for your progress and joy in the faith

Each of these are possible but only (b) reflects the underlying Greek text. Note the bold words in the following Greek text. The conjunction is given also in bold letters and standing between the two definite articles.

εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως

The literary pattern (article, substantive, conjunction, substantive) is clearly seen in the rewriting of the (b) translation noting the full pattern: for your the (τὴν) progress (προκοπὴν) and (καὶ) joy (χαρὰν) in the faith. The second article (τῆς) lies outside the purview of this pattern.

Two secondary items need comment. First, the pronoun translated “your” (ὑμῶν) following the first definite article is possessive and encompasses both progress and joy. The translations, therefore, do well by rendering the phrase “your progress and joy.” Second, the specifying article (τῆς) before “faith” refers objectively to the content of the Christian faith (Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary series, 52; Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 820). Most translations reflect this appropriately with “the faith.”

The primary point of discussion in Philippians 1:25 is whether the literary pattern equates progress and joy as one and the same, the Granville Sharp Rule, or ties the differing concepts together to make a point. Without question, the latter case fits the verse since joy is not another designation for progress. Paul groups spiritual progress and joy under the umbrella of the Christian faith. In using this format he desires his readers to keep the two ideas together as parts of one discipling concept.

This has tremendous practical implications for ministry. Christian leaders involved in discipleship must encourage people to make positive spiritual progress, but not at the cost of diminished joy. They must recognize and challenge spiritual lethargy and fading joy to motivate believers to grow spiritually while increasing their joy—admittedly a difficult task but a duty when discipling others. Thus, the literary pattern seen in Philippians 1:25 describes an essential ministry obligation not stated so directly elsewhere in the New Testament.

Definite article, substantive, conjunction, substantive—A grammatical pattern occurring frequently in the Greek New Testament but rarely observable in English. Not recognizing this arrangement of words would be no problem if the interpretation of the Bible were not at stake—but it is. One way forward, however, for those who have little or no facility in Greek may be to consult a work such as Alfred Marshall, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976. The definite articles and conjunctions as well as other parts of speech are readily discoverable in this resource. It is possible to bring the “invisible” into focus for practical use.

Tied Up in “Nots”

2011-03-15T18:12:00.007-07:00

Comprehensive, accurate interpretation must precede Bible translation. This rings true because every translation conveys an interpretation. The translator’s procedures for analysis, therefore, must be thorough. The Principle of Correspondence to validate an interpretation is one of those necessary procedures. Correspondence means that one must account for all data relating to the text in order to establish a valid interpretation and subsequent translation (Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 236).

The Psalms represent Hebrew poetry and the psalmist’s poetic technique is one of these correspondence points in Psalm 121 that translators appear to have overlooked. This surfaces in verses 3 and 4 where two different negatives in biblical Hebrew appear but receive little attention. They are the catalyst for this article, “Tied Up in ‘Nots’.”

In the New International Version (NIV) the “nots” involved are illustrated here by UPPERCASE LETTERS.

3 He will NOT (אל) let your foot slip—
he who watches over you will NOT (אל) slumber;
4 indeed, he who watches over Israel
will NEITHER (לא) slumber NOR (לא) sleep.

The NET Bible shown in similar fashion also illuminates the “nots” but only includes three of the original four. The fourth negative is hidden in the last line behind “or.”

3 May he NOT (אל) allow your foot to slip!
May your protector NOT (אל) sleep!
4 Look! Israel’s protector
does NOT (לא) sleep or slumber!

The general differences between these negatives are summarized by Waltke & O’Connor (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 567), “The construction with אל (al) tends to reflect urgency and that with לא (lo) legislation,” or in other terms (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, GKC, 478-79), the difference is one of “subjective and conditional negation” with al (אל) and “objective, unconditional negation” with lo (לא). These different emphases are usually invisible to the readers of the English Bible.

Furthermore, the negative al (אל) occurs typically with a different verb form (jussive) than that used with lo (לא). Unlike the verb used with lo (לא), the jussive commonly expresses an urgent wish or prayer (Arnold, Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 130). Each of these two negative appears twice in Psalm 121:3-4, and the observant Bible interpreter has to wonder what distinction, if any, the psalmist was making.

The translators of the NIV along with numerous English translations tend to (1) ignore the differences in the negatives used by the psalmist, or (2) decline to express the differences in clear, readable English, or (3) reinterpret the differences in a way that negates the distinctions. The NET Bible presented above straddles a mid-course by reading the jussives as urgent prayers in verse 3 but then changes the interpretation in the following footnote:

The prefixed verbal forms following the negative particle אל appear to be jussives. As noted above, if they are taken as true jussives of prayer, then the speaker in v. 3 would appear to be distinct from both the speaker in vv. 1-2 and the speaker in vv. 4-8. However, according to GKC, 2nd edition, 322 §109.e), the jussives are used rhetorically “[sometimes] to express the conviction that something cannot or should not happen” [added insertion from the GKC reference]. In this case one should probably translate, “he will not allow your foot to slip, your protector will not sleep,” and understand just one speaker in vv. 4-8.

This note raises questions about the editors’ disagreement with their own translation and about the complex nature surrounding the various “speakers.” To put the issue succinctly, can the Psalm in general, and verses 3-4 in particular, be understood in a manner that reflects the different emphases in the negatives and not require multiple speakers?

Delitzsch, in his Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, Volume 5, page 273, gives a grammatically acceptable translation of the jussives in verse 3 not as prayers but as urgent statements. However, he also indicates a rationale for not accepting his translation:

He will, indeed, surely not abandon thy foot to the tottering . . , thy Keeper will surely not slumber; and then confirms the assertion that this shall not come to pass by heightening the expression in accordance with the step-like character of the Psalm (italics added).

As negative prayers the jussives connects better with the poetic technique of step-parallelism than as urgent statements. Following Delitzsch’s idea of “heightening the expression,” the speaker prays that Yahweh’s help will be evident in the everyday affairs of life (verse 3), and then he heightens the expression in verse 4. Consider the following literal interpretation:

May He not allow your foot to slip;
May He not slumber,
He who keeps you.

This prayer for help and protection is followed by an emphatic exclamation of confidence:

Look! He will never slumber!
And He will never fall asleep!
He who keeps Israel.

Verse 3 uses the subjective negative al (אל) as the Psalmist expresses his urgent prayer that Yahweh not slumber. Verse 4 activates the heightened character with the interjection “Look!” pointing dramatically to the following clauses. Then he introduces the objective negative lo (לא) to dramatically punctuate the fact that God will never slumber or fall asleep as He watches over His people.

Allen confirms Delitzsch’s poetic characterization regarding this psalm, “Step-parallelism occurs in all three strophies,” verses 1-2, 3-4, and 7-8 (Psalms 101-150, Word Biblical Commentary series, 153). In his translation of verses 1-2 there is clearly a “heightening,” here represented by italics,

(1) I look to the mountains
to see where my help is to come from.
(2) The source of my help is Yahweh,
maker of heaven and earth.

In verses 7-8 a heightening likewise occurs and translated clearly,

(7) Yahweh will guard you from all danger.
he [sic] will guard your life.
(8) Yahweh will guard
your going and coming
henceforth for evermore.

But Allen’s translation of verses 3-4 strangely seems to diminish rather than heighten its flow of thought,

(3) He will not let your foot stumble;
your guardian will not slumber.
(4) Of course, no slumber
no sleeping
marks Israel’s guardian.

Watson describes step or staircase parallelism: “[It] expands one line of poetry into two, and their functions overlap slightly” (Classical Hebrew Poetry, 208). The overlap is clear in all of the above-mentioned verses. A key but unspecified point in this description, however, is the closeness of the two lines both in form and content (see Ibid, 358).

Since step-parallelism not only heightens the contents but also interrelates the subject matter, the issue of the “speaker” or “speakers” in Psalm 121 may not be as confused as the NET Bible editors suggested in their note. A single speaker may be identified as a member of Israel who addresses himself or a larger group in verse 3 and continues in verse 4 by identifying that group as “Israel” (see Delitzsch, Ibid, 273, who understands the psalmist to be addressing himself in verse 3). Such a correlation with the pronoun “you” is not unique. Psalm 122:6-9 similarly refers to Jerusalem as “you.” Allen writes, “The psalm is spoken by an individual . . . who functions as a member of a larger group . . . and at one point addresses that group” (Allen, Ibid., 156). The main difference in Psalm 121:3-4 is that the Psalmist addresses the group before identifying that group as Israel. According to Watson, however, this “inverted form” is part of the “poetic technique” (Ibid, 356-58). Following verse 4 “you” clearly refers to Israel and is used eight times. No need exists for imagining more than one speaker in the Psalm.

This study began by suggesting that the Bible translator’s method of interpretation must take into account every aspect of the text. The clear poetic technique of “step parallelism” in Psalm 121 suggests a more refined interpretation of the “nots” than that offered by many English translations.

To evaluate, the NET Bible expresses the poetic technique of step parallelism but it does not indicate any difference in the negatives. In fact, by hiding the fourth “not” behind the “or” of the last line, the overall poetic technique is weakened. The NIV, on the other hand, does not represent any clear heightening from verses 3 to 4. Of these two representative translations, the NET Bible, apart from its footnote, is preferred but could have been sharpened.

For those who could use a word of encouragement, the psalmist exclaims:

May He not allow your foot to slip;
May He not slumber,
He who keeps you.

Look! He will never slumber!
And He will never fall asleep!
He who keeps Israel.

Praise Yahweh!

For many readers this study may appear trifling. But for those unreservedly committed to the doctrine of verbal inspiration, no part of the biblical text is trifling, and every aspect of the text contributes to its interpretation, exposes its internal beauty, and should be reflected in its translation.

Truculentus and the Bible Interpreter’s Eyesight

2011-02-28T09:21:00.003-07:00

Plautus’s Latin play of 485 BC, Truculentus, highlights an inescapable maxim for biblical exegesis (Bible interpretation) uttered by Stratophanes, “Of more value is one witness who can see than ten who can only hear; those who can only hear tell the things heard, those who can see know for sure.” The Bible interpreter’s goal of ascertaining the meaning of a text must begin by seeing all the data.

Seeing all the data is the starting point for a sound translation that can lead to an all-encompassing interpretation—not a simple task. Since English and Greek differ in grammatical usage some data in the Greek New Testament is untranslatable and other data is blurred or distorted. Even the most skilled translator can only partially render the substance of the Greek New Testament into English.

The use of the Greek definite article, “the” in English, represents a major problem area for translators. A.T. Robertson notes (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 756), “The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom. . . . Its free use leads to exactness and finesse.” Wallace ties its significance to New Testament interpretation (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 207-08):

One of the greatest gifts bequeathed by the Greeks to Western civilization was the article. European intellectual life was profoundly impacted by this gift of clarity. By the first century CE [Common Era], it had become refined and subtle. Consequently, the article is one of the most fascinating areas of study in NT Greek grammar. It is also one of the most neglected and abused. In spite of the fact that that [sic] the article is used far more frequently than any other word in the Greek NT (almost 20,000 times, or one out of seven words), there is still much mystery about its usage. . . . In the least, we cannot treat it lightly, for its presence or absence is the crucial element to unlocking the meaning of scores of passages in the NT.

In short, there is no more important aspect of Greek grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought and theology of the NT writers.

Not only does the presence of the Greek definite article pose problems for the translator, its absence can be downright confounding! This is amazing—some of the positive data in the Greek New Testament focuses on a part of speech that is not there! Moulton in his Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume I, 83, states, “For exegesis, there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object.”

As crucial as this matter is for interpretation, the English Bible reader can never know if the Greek text has or does not have a definite article. Where English requires it, Greek may not; where Greek requires it, English may not. And perhaps most difficult, when the Greek article is absent to stress the qualitative nature of the noun, English may turn the word into an indefinite noun by inserting the indefinite article “a” or “an” or by adding “the” laying stress on its identity instead of on its quality, nature, or essence.

With this introduction, one of the most startling if not one of the most misdirected passages of the New Testament puts the importance of the presence and absence of the Greek definite article on display. The significant portions of Colossians 2:2-3 in popular English translations along with the Greek text (Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition) are:

New International Version (NIV)—“the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”

New American Standard Bible (NASB)—“God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”

New King James Version (NKJV)—“the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”

Christian Standard Bible (CSB)—“God's mystery—Christ. In Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden”

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)—“the secret of the God and Father, and of the Christ, in whom are all the treasures of the wisdom and the knowledge hid”

Greek New Testament—“τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι”

The definite article occurs with the word “mystery.” An article’s presence predominantly identifies what object is being discussed, and the previous reference function “is the most common use of the article and the easiest usage to identify” (Wallace, Ibid., 209 and 217-18).

In Colossians 2:2, the article ties “the mystery” to its previous mention in 1:26 and 27 where Paul explains that the Church, the Body of Christ, is indwelt by Christ Himself (Colossians 1:18, 24; Ephesians 1:22-23; 3:2-6). Bornkamm, commenting on Colossians 1:27, states that “the content of the μυστήριον [mystery] is stated in the formula Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν [Christ in you]. That is to say, it consists in the indwelling of the exalted Christ in you, the Gentiles” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume IV, 820). Paul takes this one step further by adding that “Christ in you” is “the hope of the glory,” “the self-revelation” of Christ in the world through His spiritual Body, the Church. (For additional materials relating to the interpretation of the glory see http://denniswretlind.blogspot.com/2010/06/glory-be.html) Therefore, in Colossians 2:2, , “the mystery of God” is the “Christ-indwelt Church” referred to by the simple word “Christ” that illuminates the essence of “the mystery.”

Fifteen different variations occur in the text at the end of verse 2 (literally “of the God, of Christ,” τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ)! Clearly this impacts both the above-mentioned English translations and the foregoing interpretation of the mystery. Without detailing the variations and solution, the reader is referred to Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd edition, 236-238 where the passage is discussed in detail. The conclusion of the textual editorial committee reads (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 555):

Among what at first sight seems to be a bewildering variety of variant readings, the one adopted for the text is plainly to be preferred (a) because of strong external testimony . . . and (b) because it alone provides an adequate explanation of the other readings as various scribal attempts to ameliorate the syntactical ambiguity of τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.

The absence of the definite article before “Christ” focuses upon the quality, nature, or essence of the noun. If the article were indeed present, the focus would have been on identifying the Person of Christ. But here and in the immediately preceding references to “Christ” (1:27-28) the emphasis is on the nature or essence of “Christ,” that mystical union between the heavenly Person and His earthly Body. And in this matter, every one of the above-mentioned English translations misses the point:

The NIV identifies the Person of Christ with “in whom.” “Whom” in English refers to an individual.

The NASB likewise states “in whom,” but it also adds “Himself,” a term not in the original text and inserted to punctuate the translators’ preferred interpretation.

The NKJV bases its translation on one of the textual variants, and by paralleling “Christ” with “the Father” it focuses attention on the individual Person of Christ.

The CSB refers the relative pronoun of verse 3 (ᾧ) to “Christ” and stresses personal identity by translating it “Him” where English would use “which” for a non-personal entity such as the Church.

The YLT agrees with the NKJV regarding the text but also adds the definite article to the English translation, “of the God and Father, and of the Christ” (italics added).

But the discussion does not end here. The prepositional phrase beginning verse 3 (ἐν ᾧ) refers to “Christ” as the antecedent of the pronoun. This fact coupled to the rest of verse 3 means that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are “hidden” in the Church! No one disputes the fact that the Person of Christ does have all wisdom and knowledge, but He disseminates these through His earthly Body, the Church. To be “hidden” does not mean being “inaccessible” but accessible in and through the Church. This has enormous theological and practical implications.

Theologically, Colossians 2:2-3 makes a major contribution to the doctrine of the Church because the Church Universal is seen as the earthly repository of Christ’s wisdom and knowledge. Practically, granting the preceding statement as true, individuals who cut themselves off from the Church in its local manifestation quarantine themselves from much of Christ’s wisdom and knowledge and impede their spiritual growth.

So, to apply Stratophanes’ maxim, the value of seeing the textual data cannot be overestimated. Neither can the value of reading the Greek New Testament which is the only place where the Bible translator can see and not see the data needed so that accurate biblical interpretations can rise to the surface!

“Do You Understand What You Are Reading?”

2011-02-08T14:55:00.005-07:00

Hebrew is a delightful language! However, western-oriented students generally get frustrated by some of its characteristics: right-to-left reading, fluctuations of vowels, expansive nature of word meanings, syntax, ancient idioms, and the strangely fluid nature of verbal time (past, present, future). These matters may be difficult for the student but they also challenge scholars who in turn influence Bible translators. To be crystal clear: How the Hebrew text is understood and the English Bible subsequently translated determines its interpretation.

This posting focuses on the issue of verbal time. Scholars do not always agree as to whether a particular verb in a specific context speaks of the past, present or future since time is a secondary matter in Hebrew verbs (Arnold and Choi, A guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 36). This results in different English translations and interpretations. Obadiah 12-15 presents a case in point. Notice the variations in the wording of the bold portions in the New King James Version (NKJV) and the New International Version (NIV) as representative examples of commonly used translations:

NKJV

12 “But you should not have gazed on the day of your brother
In the day of his captivity;
Nor should you have rejoiced over the children of Judah
In the day of their destruction;
Nor should you have spoken proudly
In the day of distress.
13 You should not have entered the gate of My people
In the day of their calamity.
Indeed, you should not have gazed on their affliction
In the day of their calamity,
Nor laid hands on their substance
In the day of their calamity.
14 You should not have stood at the crossroads
To cut off those among them who escaped;
Nor should you have delivered up those among them who remained
In the day of distress.
15 “For the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near;
As you have done, it shall be done to you;
Your reprisal shall return upon your own head.

NIV

12 You should not gloat over your brother
in the day of his misfortune,
nor rejoice over the people of Judah
in the day of their destruction,
nor boast so much
in the day of their trouble.
13 You should not march through the gates of my people
in the day of their disaster,
nor gloat over them in their calamity
in the day of their disaster,
nor seize their wealth
in the day of their disaster.
14 You should not wait at the crossroads
to cut down their fugitives,
nor hand over their survivors
in the day of their trouble.
15 “The day of the LORD is near
for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you;
your deeds will return upon your own head.

The verbs in the NKJV indicate past activity; in the NIV, the immediate future. Do these verses reflect Edom’s sin in the past or Edom’s potential sin in the future?

As discussed by Arnold and Choi, (Ibid, 57), the issue of time relates to whether the verbs are Imperfects, a verb form focusing on progress that can have reference to the past, present, or future, or Jussives, a verb form expressing a desire, wish, or command connecting to the present and future. The NKJV editors considered the verbs Imperfects; the NIV translators, Jussives.

Two issues of Hebrew grammar justify the NIV interpretation: (1) The Imperfect and Jussive verb forms are identical in spelling except for the Hiphil (causative) verb stem where a difference exists. In verses 12 and 14 two clear Jussives appear, “boast” (תָּגְדֵּל) and “hand over” (תַּסְגֵּר). The Imperfect forms of these verbs are תַּגִדִּיל and תַּסִגִּיר. No confusion of verb forms exists. Therefore, in verses 12-14 either all the verbs are Jussives or the writer switched from Imperfects to Jussives arbitrarily—an unlikely scenario. (2) A second aid to resolve this translation variation involves the negative found throughout verses 12-14. This particular negative (“not” אַל) “governs the jussive” (Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 516). Based on these two grammatical observations, the NIV wins the debate.

But then a context complication arises. Verse 15 seems to say that Edom did wrong in the past and will be judged accordingly in the future. But the immediate context of verses 12-14 with the Jussive verb forms encourages a departure from sinful acts in the present and future. These verses appear to be ignored by verse 15b that has a past time reference—or does it?

Baker, writing in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1457, suggests this historical scenario:

When did all of this happen? This probably took place when the Philistines and Arabians attacked Jerusalem in the days of Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son . . . . Since Obadiah told Edom not to do such things (cf. “should not” in Obad. 12-14) again [italics added], he was probably writing about a time before Jerusalem’s total destruction by Nebuchadnezzar.

In other words, Edom did wrong in the past and is being encouraged to change its ways in the future. Though plausible, this scenario creates a contextual disconnect between verses 12-14 that focus on the future and verse 15b that connects either to the past or to the far distant future as suggested by Baker. He continues:

Besides her past humiliation, Edom will be repopulated in the future . . . and with other nations will again come under God's wrath in the forthcoming day of the Lord when Christ returns to establish His reign. God's judgments on Edom corresponded to her crimes. What she . . . had done to Judah would then be done to her.

This future perspective means that verse 15b should be translated, “As you will have done, it will be done to you.” A future perfect English translation connects smoothly with Baker’s historical outline. The first verb of verse 15b (NIV, “you have done” עָשִׂיתָ) can indeed be functioning as a future perfect (Waltke, O’Connor, Ibid, 491). Such a translation leaves open the possibility that Edom had the option to repent and change her ways, and it keeps intact the prophecy of Edom’s eventual demise. In short, a future perfect translation maintains contextual continuity.

As a conclusion, translations that interpret the verbs as Jussives should make a clear connection between verses 12-14 and verse 15. This can be done easily by translating the first verb of verse 15 as an English future perfect, “As you will have done [from this time forward], it will be done to you.” The bracketed insertion could perhaps be footnoted to coordinate with the historical scenario.

How the Hebrew text is understood and the English Bible subsequently translated determines its interpretation. Beekman and Callow (Translating the Word of God, 32) state that an accurate translation “faithfully transmits the message of the original.” Obadiah’s message comes by way of Hebrew grammar and contextual continuity—the domain of Bible scholars. Translators must incorporate their conclusions making it possible for readers to interpret the English Bible accurately.

To redirect a familiar dialogue, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I except someone translate the text accurately!”

“What is Fidelity in Translation?”

2011-01-24T09:06:00.006-07:00

“Fidelity” — “1. strict observance of promises , duties, etc. 4. adherence to fact or detail; 5. accuracy; exactness” (Webster’s College Dictionary). In chapter 2 of Translating the Word of God, Beekman and Callow ask “What is Fidelity in Translation?” They answer with these excerpts (italics added) . . .

It seems axiomatic, therefore, to conclude that a definition of fidelity will focus on the meaning of the original.

The linguistic form of the original was natural and meaningful. It did not represent a grammatical or lexical structure that was impossible or discouragingly difficult to understand but one that was already in use by the people in everyday conversation.

The message [of a faithful translation] is not distorted or changed; it has neither unnecessarily gained nor lost information. . . . On the other hand . . . the writers were not penning abstract theses or obscure philosophies but had a very practical aim in view; they wrote to be understood.

Based on the comments by Beekman and Callow, this article questions the fidelity of the following translations at 1 Peter 1:1-2:

New International Version (2010 and earlier editions), NIV
International Standard Version, ISV
NET Bible, NET
New American Standard Bible, NASB
New King James Version, NKJV
King James Version, KJV
Amplified Bible, AB

The issue in the verses centers on one word and three prepositional phrases. The Greek text and the present author’s literal translation visualizes the problem; notice the placement of the words in bold font. Only the affected portions of the verses are displayed:

ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας, 2 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

. . . to the elect strangers of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in sanctification by the Spirit unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ . . . .

The adjective “elect,” serves either as a noun substitute (called a substantive) or modifies the following word “strangers.” A natural translation of these two words would be “elect strangers,” or as A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, translates, “chosen sojourners.” The above-listed translations displace “elect” from “strangers” and connect it to the prepositional phrases of verse two. This change not only alters the wording but also Peter’s focus in the passage.

Separating “elect” from “strangers” follows two patterns: (1) The NIV places a comma after “elect” and again after Bithynia effectively making the adjective a substantive and connecting it with verse two—“To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,”. Then, (2) apparently to reinforce this interpretation, it inserts an English participle to the beginning of verse two. This addition, either as a substantive, “chosen,” or as a participle, “who have been chosen,” can be seen in the following versions: NIV, ISV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, AB. The NET Bible follows suit, however, it does add a footnote: “Or ‘to the chosen sojourners…’ On this reading the [prepositional] phrases in v. 2 describe their entire existence as sojourners, etc., not just their election.” This note not only identifies the issue facing the translators—to what do the three prepositional phrases connect—but also cracks open the door to a different meaning for the verses.

Bigg’s comment on the passage alludes to the reason for changing the text (St. Peter and St.Jude, 91):

The general and preferable arrangement is to take [the prepositional phrases] with ἐκλεκτοῖς [“elect”]—‘Elect according to foreknowledge,’ etc.; this gives perfectly good sense; the only difficulty is that we should have expected ἐκλεκτοῖς [“elect”] to be placed after Βιθυνίας [Bithynia].

However, the suggested “preferable arrangement” of wording that “gives perfectly good sense” implies that Peter’s original wording does not make “perfectly good sense” and needs to be rearranged. Such a hypothesis must be validated before accepted.

E.D. Hirsch’s significant work, Validity in Interpretation, p. 236, outlines a procedure for validating an interpretation (italics added for the criteria):

To establish a reading [interpretation] as probable it is first necessary to show, with reference to the norms of language, that it is possible. This is the criterion of legitimacy: the reading must be permissible within the public norms of the langue [language possibilities] in which the text was composed. The second criterion is that of correspondence: the reading must account for each linguistic component in the text. Whenever a reading arbitrarily ignores linguistic components or inadequately accounts for them, the reading may be presumed improbable. The third criterion is that of generic appropriateness: if the text follows the conventions of a scientific essay, for example, it is inappropriate to construe the kind of allusive meaning found in casual conversation. When these three preliminary criteria have been satisfied, there remains a fourth criterion which gives significance to all the rest, the criterion of plausibility or coherence. The three preliminary norms usually permit several readings, and this is by definition the case when a text is problematical. Faced with alternatives, the interpreter chooses the reading which best meets the criterion of coherence. Indeed, even when the text is not problematical, coherence remains the decisive criterion, since the meaning is “obvious” only because it “makes sense.”

Classifying the adjective as a substantive, “elect ones,” and rearranging the location of that word in the text, are possible within the norms of the Greek language. Therefore, these changes found in the NIV and other translations meet the criterion of legitimacy even though Peter could have but chose not to write his text in this manner.

The criterion of correspondence, where every detail of the text including word order is taken into account, appears to be disregarded by many translators. The original text places “elect” at the very beginning of the sentence as the indirect object or modifier to the indirect object placing the three prepositional phrases in direct relationship to “strangers,” the “head word” (see Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, 107-08, for this linguistic terminology).

Perhaps Hirsch’s third criterion may be able to establish legitimacy for the translations that altered Peter’s wording. Generic appropriateness means that the text fits the nature of the overall writing. The key terms are theological in nature and they are somewhat identifiable in other parts of 1 Peter. But is 1 Peter a theological treatise centered around these ideas thereby establishing its theological nature? Or does 1 Peter partake of a different nature that supports Peter’s original wording? If it does, proper procedures of interpretation must give Peter’s wording “first priority” unless it can be unequivocally shown to be inadequate and not “making sense.”

Finally, coherence connects directly with the previous criterion. Does Peter’s word arrangements make sense or must they be changed to make sense? Apparently for many translators Peter did not make good sense. However, a competing hypothesis interposes itself: Peter said what he wanted to say in the way he wanted to say it, and he made perfectly good sense in doing so. This, too, needs validation.

(1) Peter’s wording clearly meets the criterion of legitimacy. (2) The criterion of correspondence is validated because no detail of the text is shunted to the side including the all-important detail of word order. (3) Generic appropriateness exists because 1 Peter as a whole represents a pastoral epistle more than a theological treatise. (4) A survey of the book confirms the preceding criterion and clearly demonstrates coherence. The text as written makes sense!

Numerous scholars support the pastoral aspects of 1 Peter. Roger M. Raymer writes (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 837):

First Peter was written to Christians who were experiencing various forms of persecution, men and women whose stand for Jesus Christ made them aliens and strangers in the midst of a pagan society. Peter exhorted these Christians to steadfast endurance and exemplary behavior. The warmth of his expressions combined with his practical instructions make this epistle a unique source of encouragement for all believers who live in conflict with their culture.

Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 791, provides this keen observation (italics added):

The keynote of the letter is hope and Peter wishes to exhort these Christians to live in accordance with the hope they have received through Christ. He gives practical guidance to assist in their human relationships and particularly exhorts them to endure suffering in a joyful manner for Christ's sake. His main purpose is, therefore, hortatory, but not infrequently he introduces theological considerations which press home the ethical injunctions.

Peter’s motivation for writing 1 Peter was primarily pastoral and secondarily theological. This means that the wording of the text should not be “distorted or changed,” to use Beekman and Callow terminology. It also means that the theological term “elect” and the theologically-oriented prepositional phrases have direct bearing on the pastoral concern of the writer and provide the initial encouragement for the suffering believers of Asia Minor.

Peter’s letter sent to “elect strangers” points to the truths . . .

(1) that God not only elected them but did so in the contexts of a specific time and place, “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1:1-2; cp. Acts 17:26).

(2) that their difficult life situations are the arena of their “sanctification by the Spirit” (1:6-7; 1:13-17; 2:11-12; 3:13-16; 4:1-19).

(3) that they have a divinely-appointed purpose as witnesses to those around them, “unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (2:9-11 and 3:15-17).

None of this denies the theological truths imbedded in the passage and expounded by many commentators, but the emphasis by Peter lies in shepherding those caught in difficult life circumstances. He ties theology inseparably to the “struggling saint on the street.” Perhaps one should state that 1 Peter contains both theological and pastoral orientations with the primary emphasis on the pastoral aspects and the secondary focus on the theological. Based on Peter’s wording, this is certainly true in 1:1-2.

One final note about the listed translations at 1 Peter 1:1-2—the well-meaning but unacceptable distortion of Peter’s emphasis preconditions contemporary readers for deep theological discussion when what they really need to hear is that God puts His people where He wants them, uses their circumstances to build them up spiritually, and commissions them to witness for Christ.

“From Whence Cometh My Help?”

2011-01-14T20:15:00.005-07:00

Psalm 54:4 (verse 6 in the Hebrew Old Testament) reads in the New American Standard Bible, NASB):

“Behold, God is my helper;
The Lord is the sustainer of my soul.”

The New International Version (NIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV) among others translate essentially the same.

But Psalm 54:4 in the New King James Version (NKJV) gives this rendition:

“Behold, God is my helper;
The Lord is with those who uphold my life.”

The different translations of line two constitute the burden of this article. Some translations that follow the NKJV are the King James Version, the American Standard Version, and Young’s Literal Translation. The Amplified Bible conflates the NASB and NKJV readings (“the Lord is my upholder and is with them who uphold my life.”) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible places the first reading in the text and footnotes the second. The NET Bible places the second reading in the text (“The Lord is among those who support me.”) and does not acknowledge the first option.

Both translation options are grammatically possible but only one is probable. The following discussion uses the identifications of 1st reading (i.e. NASB) and 2nd reading (i.e., NKJV) to organize the dialogue.

Line two of Psalm 54:4 reads literally in the Hebrew text “the Lord [is] among/with those who sustain my soul/life” (אדני בסמכי נפשׁי). The controversy centers around the terms in bold font consisting of a preposition “among/with” (ב) attached to the plural participle “who sustain” (סמכי). On the surface the 2nd reading appears to follow the Hebrew text closely while the 1st reading seems to ignore the preposition and the plural participle. But this is not the end of the story.

The 1st reading claims validity from Hebrew grammar. In the Word Biblical Commentary, Psalms 51-100, p.45, Tate explains the grammar by acknowledging the plural form of the word “sustainers” but suggests that it is an intensification used for the superlative meaning that the Lord is “the sustainer par excellence.” But what of the attached preposition? Here Tate refers to Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 379, wherein the idea of essence is attributed to the preposition with the sense of ascribing “to [the Lord] a similar character.” Gesenius translates line two “the Lord is one who upholds my soul” Thus, the NASB, NIV, and ESV stand as grammatically valid translations. But, again, the story does not end here.

Logically, the 2nd reading enjoys the benefit of Occam’s Razor, the principle that prefers among competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest assumptions to arrive at its conclusions (Webster's College Dictionary). In our text, the 1st reading assumes that the plural does not refer to plurality and that the preposition “with/among” can be muted by introducing the idea of essence. Surely this is more complicated than simply taking the words at face value as seen in the 2nd reading. Grammatically, no interpretive assumptions are required with the 2nd reading; it can stand unchanged with clear understanding.

From the perspective of Hebrew poetics, the 1st reading represents synonymous parallelism wherein the second line essentially repeats the first line. This makes a nice doublet. The 2nd reading involves synthetic parallelism wherein “one or more poetic lines not only repeat the basic idea of the first line in different words but also stress, intensify, or refine the thought in some way” (Sandy & Giese, Cracking Old Testament Codes, 225). With this definition, God (אלהים) is repeated in the term Lord (אדני), the pronominal phrase my soul is refined by my life (נפשׁי, Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 243), and helper is intensified by the term sustainer. This too provides a pleasant doublet while adding a third group of persons to the equation—the Lord, the Psalmist, and the Psalmist’s supporters.

Viewing the passage from a theological standpoint, the 2nd reading resonates best with the biblical theology of both Old and New Testaments. No dispute exists regarding the truth that God helps His people as line one of Psalm 54:4 proclaims. But He typically gives help through His people as line two states when translated literally. Occasionally one can see God working independently, as in creating a dry path for the Israelites to cross the Sea of Reeds (Exodus 14), or by feeding Elijah by ravens at the brook Cherith (1 Kings 17). But more often He meets the needs of His people with His people. The 2nd reading of the verse, therefore, lays claim to God’s typical pattern for helping His own and overall claims the greater probability for interpretation.

The theological truth in both lines of this verse involves a practical orientation as well. The believer who prays for divine help should look in the direction of God’s people for support. “From Whence Cometh My Help?”—Thank God for His help; thank God for His people!

Jesus Christ and “The Glory”

2010-12-31T13:23:00.008-07:00

James 2:1 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.” The portion in bold font reads the same in the New International Version (NIV) but differently in the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV) where one reads the Lord of glory.

This article interprets the preposition of in connection with glory as seen in the KJV, NKJV and ESV, and evaluates the use of “glorious” in the NIV and NASB translations. Which, if any, satisfies the textual requirements, and how does this issue affect the meaning of the passage?

First, the Greek text of the affected portion reads: τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης. The noun “Lord” (κυρίου) appears only once but the KJV, NKJV and ESV sought to make sense out of the puzzling reading, “our Lord Jesus Christ of the glory,” by introducing “Lord” a second time, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (KJV). This same problem presented itself to the translators of the NIV and NASB, but they chose to change the prepositional phrase “of the glory” into an adjective “glorious” presumably based on their understanding of the function of “glory” as merely descriptive.

The preposition “of” defines the function of the Greek noun within the sentence which is in the genitive case and which carries a general sense of description. However, at least 33 distinct nuances of meaning are embedded in this case (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 72). In James 2:1 the nuance of simple apposition accounts for the relationship between “our Lord Jesus Christ” (τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) and “the glory” (τῆς δόξης). Wallace describes simple apposition in these terms (Greek Grammar, 96, italics added):

It gives a different designation that either clarifies who is the one named or shows a different relation to the rest of the clause than what the first noun by itself could display. Both words thus have the same referent, though they describe it in different terms.

The translation with this simple apposition understanding reads like this, “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the glory.” Such an interpretation of the relationship between “Jesus Christ” and “the glory” would have helped the KJV, NKJV and ESV translators avoid the error of unnecessarily inserting words not in the original text, namely, the Lord. But what can one say of the NIV and NASB change from “the glory” (τῆς δόξης) to the adjective “glorious?” The presence of the definite article in the Greek text (τῆς, “the”) renders this translation unacceptable.

The definite article in Greek and English does not function in the same way. The Greek article has broader uses. Wallace comments (Greek Grammar, 209-210):

In terms of basic force, the article conceptualizes. In terms of predominant function, it is normally used to identify an object. That is to say, it is used predominantly to stress the identity of an individual or class or quality.

However, the absence of the article in Greek can render a noun indefinite, where English would use the indefinite article “a” or “an.” Or, it can give a qualitative aspect to a definite noun. Again, Wallace writes (Greek Grammar, 243-44),

A qualitative noun places the stress on quality, nature, or essence. It does not merely indicate membership in a class of which there are other members (such as an indefinite noun), nor does it stress individual identity (such as a definite noun).

When a definite but qualitative Greek noun is translated into English the definite article is typically used but in so doing the important qualitative nature of the original term is unfortunately hidden from the reader.

Returning to James 2:1, the word “glory” is preceded by the definite article. The noun points to something definite. The “glorious” translation as a descriptor of Jesus Christ could fit nicely with a Greek noun not preceded by the definite article. It does not fit with “the glory.” In other words, James is not attributing the quality of “glory” to Jesus Christ,” hence “glorious,” but he is identifying Him as “the glory.” Therefore, the NIV and the NASB do not accurately communicate the meaning of the original text. This, then, leads to the ultimate question, To what does “the glory” refer? Or, to incorporate the identification aspect of the phrase, How does “the glory” give a different designation to Jesus Christ?

The New Testament meaning of “glory” (δόξα) when used of God or Jesus Christ was discussed in an earlier blogspot to which the reader is referred (http://denniswretlind.blogspot.com/2010_06_06_archive.html), and a conclusion bearing upon the present discussion follows:

The abstract English word “glory” as a reference to God, speaks of His “divine nature,” His self-revelation, those definable, and one might add measurable, characteristics revealed in Scripture. . . . To make definite “the glory of God” means to break away from the abstractness of the word “glory” and to reflect concretely on God’s attributes.

In James 2:1, the writer identifies Jesus Christ as God revealed. This identification gives tremendous theological and interpretive weight to the verse.

Three applications grow out of this study:

• Grammatically, this discussion helps the Bible interpreter realize that “of” is a notoriously weak preposition capable of various nuances of meaning that must not be ignored (see Webster’s College Dictionary and Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Appendix B on “The Usage of the Genitive Case,” pp. 989-1002). Also, one should make a practice of comparing the English text to the Greek original whenever the English definite article (“the”) is encountered. One can never know whether the original text included it or not based on a reading of any English Bible, and both the presence and absence of the article is exceedingly important in the Greek New Testament!

• Theologically, this blogspot posting encourages the Bible reader to augment the mysterious English word “glory” with deeper meaning when referring to Jesus Christ.

• Practically, the present conversation reminds the student that the New Testament is a Greek book and that English provides a good but imperfect means for accessing its truths.

The Heart of Worship

2010-11-16T16:43:00.006-07:00

A present-day expression among evangelical Christians carries both excitement and exasperation—7/11 songs, 7 words repeated 11 times! The younger generation, for the most part, loves the “7/11’s” for the rhythm of the music and the repetition of the worshipful phrases. The older generation longs for the familiarity of the old hymns and the spiritual depth of the lyrics. To accommodate both generations, many churches blend the two musical patterns in the worship service.

Psalm 100, a “Thanksgiving Hymn,” contributes to the musical discussion, not by choosing sides, but by centering on the “heart of worship” that both musical styles can and should do more to elevate in worship.

This traditional Thanksgiving Psalm is technically classified as a Descriptive Psalm of Praise consisting of the following divisions (Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, 131):

• Imperative Call to Praise, 1-4
• Reasons for Praise, 5

Psalm 100 is unique. The Call to Praise has 7 imperatives, the number 7 highlighting completeness, and this 7-fold Call to Praise is arranged chiastically, that is, with introverted correspondence as explained by Bullinger:

This is where there are two series, and the first of the one series of members corresponds with the last of the second; the second of the first corresponds with the penultimate (or the last but one) of the second: and the third of the first corresponds with the antepenultimate of the second. That is to say, if there are six members, the first corresponds with the sixth, the second with the fifth, and the third with the fourth. And so on (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 374, italics his).

A number of details aid in recognizing the chiastic structure that highlights the center of the Psalm and the heart of worship (using the New American Standard Bible, NASB, for English reference):

• The 1st and 7th imperatives are near synonyms in this context (“shout,” הריעו and “bless,” ברכו).
• The 2nd and 6th likewise express synonymity (“serve,”/worship עבדו and “give thanks,” הודו, See Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, II, 639, Tate, Psalms 51-100 in the Word Biblical Commentary series, 536-37).
• The 3rd and 5th imperative verbs are the same (באו) though translated differently as “come” and “enter.”
• The 4th clause stands alone at the center and moves the outward expressions of worship inward, “know God.” Verse 3 provides internal motivation for meaningful worship and is clearly the catalyst in the Call to Praise.

The King James Version (KJV) of verse 3 follows:

Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

The New International Version (NIV) changes “and not we ourselves” to “and we are his.” The NASB agrees with the KJV but puts “His we are” in the margin. The difference centers on a textual problem.

The disputed clause in the text is “and not we ourselves” (literally “and not us,” ולא אנחנו ). The margin of the Hebrew text has ולו instead of ולא. These two readings sound the same and the difference consists of (1) a conjunction “and” (ו) plus the negative “not” (לא), KJV, and (2) a conjunction “and” (ו) and a preposition “belonging to” (ל) attached to the personal pronoun “Him” (ו), NIV, NASB margin. The textual critical data favor the marginal reading as does the immediate context where the following possessives appear, “his people” and “his pasture” (See Tate note 3b, 533-34). Divine creativity and ownership emerge as the central themes of the verse.

The interpretive difference between the two readings is not great but it is significant. The KJV translation contrasting the creator God with God’s people contains three ideas:

• God is the Creator
• God’s people are not creators
• God’s people belong to Him

The marginal reading has two ideas:

• God is the Creator
• God’s people belong to Him.

This latter reading is the more powerful statement, not being encumbered by an idea no one would have considered consciously—people creating themselves. Neither reading affects theological change, but they do affect the point and power of the poem.

The practical application of this Imperative Call to Praise with its central focus on verse 3 is the recognition that the worship of God is only as heartfelt and profound as one’s understanding of God’s character. Reflecting on the Person of God is the heartbeat of dynamic worship. His attributes need to be expressed in all worship music whether that be the “7/11” or traditional music categories.

Verse 5 outlines three reasons for praising God that do find expression in the contemporary worship music scene—Goodness, Lovingkindness, Faithfulness.

The goodness of God comes to the forefront in the chorus “God Is So Good,” repeating the few but comforting words that bounce around in one’s head. Also, the Hymn, “The Lord’s My Shepherd, I’ll Not Want,” revitalizes the soul with its familiar lyrics, “Goodness and mercy all my life Shall surely follow me.”

Lovingkindness as a divine characteristic becomes the focus in the contemporary rendition of “Jesus, Lover of My Soul,” and the traditional Hymn, “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling.” Such musical meditations on God’s love elevate the emotions in praise.

Finally, God’s faithfulness resounds in the contemporary chorus “In That Day” when God fulfills His Word in the life of the believer, and in the ever-popular “Great Is Thy Faithfulness.”

Speaking musically to God and one another in worship by “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Ephesians 4:19) must involve both the mind and the emotions to achieve the “heart of worship.” Rather than complaining about the repetitions in the “7/11’s” or the “antiquities” of the music and lyrics in traditional hymns, worshipers need to focus attention on what the music says about God and revel musically in His attributes. Psalm 100 forcefully and beautifully captures this emphasis by focusing on the majesty of God around which to center the thoughts, clap the hands and tap the feet.

Go Figure!

2010-10-22T19:08:00.003-07:00

Figures of Speech are generally associated with such matters as simile or metaphor—figures that are readily apparent to the reader. Other figures of speech, however, are not so easily seen, and these are better called Figures of Rhetoric (see Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible where both types of figures are discussed at length). If Figures of Speech focus on the meanings of words, Figures of Rhetoric focus on the argumentation of the author, although the two cannot be completely separated.

Philippians 2:1-2 provides a superb example of rhetorical argumentation. Four Figures of Rhetoric follows with their involved verses and conclusions about the interpretive values of these expressions. Supporting data have been purposely left out so as to spotlight the effects without detracting the reader with minutia. The writer encourages the reader to utilize the interpretive processes and evaluate these conclusions. See Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, 64-70, “Word Biblical Commentary” series, for some interpretive direction.

Asyndeton (v. 1) is the absence of connecting conjunctions used here in an explanatory sense wherein the 2nd clause further defines the 1st and the 4th clause further defines the 3rd, thus making the surface level of four-fold “if clauses” (protasis) two-fold. The interpretation reads like this, “Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, that is, if there is any consolation of love; if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, that is, if there is any affection and compassion” (New American Standard Bible, NASB, here and elsewhere, italicized words were added).

Hendiadys (v. 1d) ties the terms affection (tender mercies) and compassion into a single idea by transforming one of the two terms into an adjective, compassionate tender mercies. Both terms are plural in the Greek text.

Chiasmos (vv. 1-2) constitutes a reversal of the order of clauses following an A, B, B', A' pattern wherein the first two “if” clauses of verse 1 (A) are refocused in verse 2b, maintaining the same love (A'), and the second two “if” clauses of verse 1 (B) are revisited in verse 2a, being of the same mind (B'). Bullinger, 374, writes, “This is by far the most stately and dignified presentation of a subject; and is always used in the most solemn and important portions of the Scriptures.”

Symperasma (v. 2c) is a concluding summary. It gathers the author’s thrust in a single term, harmonious ones (NASB, united in spirit, one word in the Greek text, σύμψυχοι). This concluding summary will fulfill Paul’s joy (v. 2a). It is also the exegetical center of the verses leading up to 2:5-11, the famous “kenosis” passage. Verses 3-4 return to the emphases of verses 1-2 with further amplifications that are not taken up in this article.

In conclusion, someone is sure to ask, “Are those figurative expressions really there?” The only way to be sure is to test the hypotheses utilizing the interpretive processes. But one thing is absolute: if they are really there, they affect both the interpretation and the application! “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

“Resurrecting” an Image

2010-08-22T08:29:00.003-07:00

Imagery represents a universal staple in poetry and Hebrew poetry is no exception. To consciously or unconsciously remove or disfigure images of a poem diminishes it. When translating Hebrew poetry errors of this sort sometimes occur because of the overwhelming desire to clarify God’s word, an admirable goal that sometimes leads to a mishandling of the Bible as written. Psalm 17:11 is one such passage. Consider these representative translations:

“They have now compassed us in our steps: they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth” (King James Version, KJV)

“They have now surrounded us in our steps; They set their eyes to cast us down to the ground” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

“They have tracked me down, they now surround me, with eyes alert, to throw me to the ground” (New International Version, NIV)

Of these translations the KJV is the least problematic—

• It uses the antiquated term “compassed” whereas “surrounded,” as in the New King James Version, is better.
• The phrase “in our steps” that begins the clause, an accusative of limitation (see Waltke & O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 173), is ambiguous because of the preposition “in. ” Wording such as “With respect to our steps” focuses the subject well, although the term “steps” could be sharpened to “tracks” as the NIV suggests and the conclusion will demonstrate (see Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 30).
• Finally, the narrow-focused term “ground” may fit the context better than the expansive word “earth” (see Holladay, p. 28).

The NASB takes second place in acceptability—

• The phrase “have now surrounded” translates well. This translation, however, uses the ambiguous “in our steps.”
• The phrase “set their eyes” could be taken as metaphorical especially in light of the following purpose-oriented infinitive “to cast us down.” However the phrase should be translated literally using “directed” or “fixed” (Holladay, p. 368) to eliminate any misunderstanding.
• The verb נטה does not mean “to cast down” but “to incline or bend towards” (Holladay, p. 235-36; Brown, Driver Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, pp. 639-41). Such a translation removes the purpose idea interpreted by the NASB (“to cast down”) and removes the necessity to add “us” to the last clause.
• The preposition “to” (ל) focuses the direction or fixation of the eyes (Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, p. 48).

The NIV places last in this series of translations—

• The paraphrase “they have tracked me down” captures the initial imagery but replaces “our” with “me,” a weak textual solution based on the principles set forth in The Text of the Old Testament, pp. 111-119, by Ernst Würthwein.
• The last clause is the biggest problem with the NIV. The clearly metaphorical translation,“with eyes alert,” instead of the literal, “they have set [fixed] their eyes,” is far too paraphrastic to enable the reader to understand the overall imagery.
• The verb נטה does not mean “throw.”
• The purpose idea, “to throw,” required because of the metaphorical translation “with eyes alert,” and the extra-textual insertion “me” combine to dismantle the biblical image.

A translation that “resurrects” the image follows—

With respect to our tracks, they have now surrounded us; they have fixed their eyes on the ground.

The picture is that of Saul and his forces searching for David and his men in the wilderness intently examining the ground for their tracks and possible location. They were successful according to this verse, and verse 12 both justifies and carries this image further with its stalking lion illustration.

Love and “Conventional Wisdom”

2010-07-19T12:08:00.009-07:00

The verbal interchange between Jesus and Peter found in John 21:15-17 undoubtedly served as a catharsis for Peter’s threefold denial at Jesus’ trial. It also demonstrates Jesus’ characterization of Peter as a “rock.” Unfortunately, however, the English translations of this text either hide or interpret unfavorably Peter’s responses to Jesus’ questions. The issue centers on the word “love” seen in bold font in the following translation from the New International Version (NIV).

15”Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

The NIV translates this famous interchange different from other translations such as the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible by adding “truly” to the text of verses 15 and 16, words that do not exist in the Greek text. Why did the translators choose to add it? What does the addition imply?

To answer the first question, the verbs for “love” in the Greek text vary according to the following threefold scheme:

Jesus — agapao (ἀγαπάω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

Jesus — agapao (ἀγαπάω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

Jesus — phileo (φιλέω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

The NIV translators apparently sought to distinguish between Jesus’ word “love” in the first two exchanges from that of Peter. Therefore “truly” was inserted without endorsement from the Greek text. The legitimacy of this interpretation involves the second question.

To answer to the second question, the addition of “truly” seems to communicate that Simon’s simple response, “I love you,” implies a lesser degree of love, a love that fails to equal Jesus’ word for love. The two words for love appear to be understood by the NIV translators in hierarchical terms wherein Jesus’ word rises higher on the ethical plane than that of Simon. Such an understanding may enjoy the benefit of “conventional wisdom” regarding the words for love, but it falters under close examination.

In the Greek language at least four different words for love existed, all of which are translated “love” in English. Two of these words constitute the primary burden of this article. It is frequently affirmed that agapao (ἀγαπάω) represents the God-kind of love whereas phileo (φιλέω) a human-kind. However, this analysis does not fit passages such as John 5:20 (NIV), “For the Father loves (using phileo, φιλέω) the Son,” or John 16:27 (NIV), “the Father himself loves (using phileo, φιλέω) you.” An understanding of the uses of these words based on relationships instead of on a higher or lower ethical plane resolves this difficulty admirably and is completely consistent with the lexical meanings of the words (see Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition).

The Greek nouns for love based on relationships follows. (Verbs from the same roots mirror the meanings of the nouns.) For the sake of completeness all four Greek words for love are included.

eros (ἔρος) — The relationship between an individual and his/her own need—focused on oneself. This word does not occur in the New Testament.

storge (στόργη) — The relationship between an individual and his/her relatives—focused on family/marital relationships. In the New Testament it occurs only in a compound word (Romans 12:10, philostorgos, φιλόστοργος).

philia (φίλια) — The relationship between an individual and his/her acquaintances—focused on friendship. The verb form is φιλέω (phileo).

agape (ἀγάπη) — The relationship between an individual and any other person regardless of the nature of that relationship—focused on others. The verb form is ἀγαπάω (agapao).

These are not ethical or qualitative differences. Each is perfectly proper and devoid of ethical classification as a higher or lower degree of love. Each can be used properly for the same “love event” depending upon the perceived relationship.

Once this relationship-focused description for the “love words” is applied, notice the major interpretation difference discovered in John 21:15-17.

Under the traditional “ethical paradigm” it has been fashionable to accuse Peter of failing to love Jesus with a divine-kind of love. He settles for a lesser human-kind of love to which Jesus Himself with subtle sarcasm acquiesces in the third interchange. To avoid this conclusion some scholars have claimed that John uses the two verbs for love interchangeably without distinction in sense. Carson writes (Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd edition, 53, italics his), “In any case, my point is that it is rather strange to insist on a semantic distinction between the two words for “to love” in this context, and not on small distinctions between other pairs of words in the same context.” But why would a competent scholar neglect these other “small distinctions”? Carson’s argument evaporates.

Under the “relationship paradigm,” however, Peter steadfastly refuses to accept the possible implication, based on Jesus’ use of agapao (ἀγαπάω), that a broken relationship exists. He stands undeterred in declaring that his love for Jesus continues on a friendly basis. In the third interchange, Jesus agrees and thereby brings closure to problem of Peter’s denials, and Peter lives up to the steadfastness implied by his name, Rock.

The interpretation problem of John 21:15-17 involves minimally three matters: (1) the English language that has difficulty in clearly distinguishing between the different words for “love,” (2) the English Bible translators who introduce interpretations into the passage implying that they exist undisputed in the Greek text, and (3) the Bible interpreters who ignore word variations on the basis of assumed synonymity.

Regarding this third point, a consistent interpretation methodology must give first priority to the biblical author’s word choices and approach the study with the expectation that similar but different words reflect different nuances of meaning unless it can be unequivocally proven otherwise. Moule stated (An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 198), “The safest principle is probably to assume a difference until one is driven to accept identity of meaning.” In the case of John 21:15-17 synonymity has not been proven.

Other passages involving the word phileo (φιλέω) with Jesus or God the Father as the subjects are Matthew 10:37; John 11:36; 20:2; Revelation 3:19. It should be clear that phileo (φιλέω) is not a lesser “human-kind” of love.

To illustrate the agapao (ἀγαπάω) “relationship paradigm” in other portions of the New Testament consider the following: Matthew 5:44 (NIV), “Love your enemies”—agapao (ἀγαπάω) must be the verb of choice where interpersonal antagonism exists. Ephesians 5:28 (NIV), “Husbands ought to love their wives”—Likewise agapao (ἀγαπάω) is invoked in a husband/wife relationship placing the love obligation upon the husband—love cannot be withdrawn when marital tensions arise.

Other love passages in the New Testament could be included but these serve to establish the moral of this posting—“Conventional wisdom” is not always conclusive wisdom!

Hendiadys and Amphibologia—A Hope-Filled Future

2010-06-25T16:38:00.003-07:00

Jeremiah 29:11—“I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an end and expectation” (King James Version, italics mine). The marginal reading of the italicized portion says, “to give you an expected end.” The Revised Standard Version renders the phrase “to give you hope in your latter end,” and puts in the margin “Heb., a latter end and hope.” Figurative language and word order supplies the basis for a proper understanding and translation of this verse.

The figurative language involves the figure of speech called hendiadys meaning literally one idea expressed by two nouns connected by “and.” Bullinger explains Jeremiah 29:11 this way, “‘to give you the end, yes—the end you hope for’: i.e., the end which I have promised and on which I have caused you to hope and depend. All this, and more, is contained in and expressed by the figure Hendiadys” (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 661). The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, p.876, amplifies this passage, “i.e. by hendyadis [sic], the hoped-for future.”

The New International Version (NIV) gives a translation that appears not to recognize or appreciate the language of the original Hebrew text, “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (italics mine). To arrive at this two-issue focus, hope and future, the NIV translators felt the need to reverse the order of words found in the Hebrew text, a situation that should have signaled to them that something was not yet understood.

The New American Standard Bible parallels the NIV by translating a two-issue focus as well, but in this case the order of words does not reverse, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope’” (italics mine). Again, the figurative expression is not recognized or if recognized was not translated. In the hendiadys seen in this text the main idea, future, is modified adjectively (in English) by hope. “To give you a hope-filled future” captures the force of this divine purpose statement.

There is more than hendiadys here, however. There is also amphibologia, where a word has two meanings and both are true (Bullinger, 804). In this case the Hebrew words for hope (תּקוה) and cord (תּקוה) are identical in every way. The scarlet cord was used by Rahab to signal the Israelite warriors to keep her safe when they attacked the city of Jericho (Joshua 2:18, 21). To Rahab the cord represented literally a hope-filled future. Likewise, in Jeremiah 29 the promise of Yahweh denotes a hope-filled future for the chastened people of God—a promise upon which to hang their hope as they endure their 70 years of punishment in Babylon (Jeremiah 29:10).

Hendiadys and Amphibologia—two figurative expressions used in Jeremiah 29:11 giving God’s people something positive to hang on to as they face the future.

Glory Be!

2010-06-07T11:31:00.003-07:00

What constitutes the “the breadth and length and height and depth” of which Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:18? That question concluding the previous posting finds an answer in this article.

The center of Paul’s prayer begins in verse 16 and colors the entire prayer. But the focal point has become clouded to the point of being invisible to the reader of the English Bible. That focal point is the phrase “according to the riches of His glory” (New American Standard Bible, NASB). Four interpretation issues will be examined briefly: (1) the word order, (2) the word “glory” (δόξα), (3) the definite article (“the”) before “glory” in the Greek text, and (4) the force of the preposition “according to” and its object “riches.” The conclusion will trace “the glory of God” throughout the prayer and end with the primary practical application.

(1) Word order constitutes an important aspect of biblical interpretation. Word order helps define emphasis and focus. In Paul’s prayer of Ephesians 3:14-21 the focus begins and ends with the glory of God (verses 16 and 21).

The use of the primary verb in verse 16, correctly translated “grant” in the NASB, completes the verbal idea with its infinitive complement “to be strengthened.” Normally such an infinitive appears in close proximity to the primary verb, but in this instance the prepositional phrase, “according to the riches of His glory,” intervenes. The placing of this phrase at the front of the sentence should cause the reader to reflect on “the riches of His glory” throughout the prayer. Unfortunately readers of the English Bible rarely reflect on the rhetorical importance of word order in the Greek New Testament.

(2) The Greek word “glory” (δόξα) changed its meanings over time, and for the New Testament the significant change occurred with the translation of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint). Note Kittel’s remarks,

When the [Greek] translator of the OT first thought of using δόξα for כּבוֹד [the Hebrew word for “glory”], he initiated a linguistic change of far-reaching significance, giving to the Greek term a distinctiveness of sense which could hardly be surpassed. Taking a word for opinion, which implies all the subjectivity and therefore all the vacillation of human views and conjectures, he made it express something absolutely objective, i.e. the reality of God (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, II, 245, TDNT).

The reality spoken of by Kittel is the “divine nature” revealed in creation and in God’s subsequent actions (TDNT, 244). The Scriptures represent a prime source for that reality and without this self-revelation from God very little about the “divine nature” would be understood.

(3) The abstract English word “glory” as a reference to God, speaks of His “divine nature,” His self-revelation, those definable, and one might add measureable, characteristics revealed in Scripture. This is especially true when the definite article accompanies the term as it does in Ephesians 3:16. Robertson writes, “Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research,756, ATR). To make definite “the glory of God” means to break away from the abstractness of the word “glory” and to reflect concretely on God’s attributes. Perhaps a paraphrase such as “the riches of the revealed attributes of God” could capture the required concreteness and lead readers to think in definitive terms.

(4) God’s self-revelation occurs in a “measureable” context. The preposition “according to” (κάτα) functions as a “rule of measure” (ATR, 608) with its object “the riches of His glory.” The primary term “riches” in the prepositional phrase foreshadows the “measurement” language in verse 18, “the breadth and length and height and depth.”

In summary, Paul prays that the Ephesians might be strengthened to expand their comprehension of the “inexhaustible” dimensions of God’s character. And those divine attributes transcend the bounds of the human mind to fully capture, as the reference in verse 19 to one of those attributes openly declares, “the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge” (NASB).

In conclusion, the “glory of God,” His self-revealed essence, can be observed throughout the prayer. Verses 16 begins the theme and verse 21 ends it with its reference to “[the self-revelation of God] in the Church.” The “divine nature” should be evidenced within the individual as seen in verse 17, “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith,” and in the corporate body of the Church as prayed for in verse 19, “that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.” Note the “measurement” concepts and their relationship to Ephesians 2:22, the Church as “a dwellingplace of God in the Spirit” (NASB).

Finally, the “inexhaustible riches” of God’s self-revelation asserts itself also in verse 20, “Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us . . . ” (NASB). The overriding focus in this prayer is on God’s glory, His self-revealed immensity. Unfortunately this focus recedes into a dimly-lit background in commentaries and sermons.

The primary practical application growing out of this prayer lies in the critical need for the people of God to expand their understanding of God’s greatness through diligent study of the Bible wherein He has revealed Himself. If this rings true, a final application question may be: Why are there so few Christians in Sunday School or adult education classes in evangelical churches where the Scriptures are taught? It would appear that Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian believers needs a fresh emphasis in 21st century American evangelicalism.

What a Difference “And” Makes!

2010-05-26T09:30:00.003-07:00

Word Studies constitutes one of the most popular Bible interpretation processes. By “word studies” one usually means evaluating the historical meaning of words as it changes through time or at a particular juncture in time or both. Obviously the interpreter cannot do this for every word in the text so a choice must be made about which words need in depth study. However, at some level every word needs to be studied. Every word plays a role in the author’s communication. No word can be ignored or interpretive error will arrive unannounced and often unknowingly. Ephesians 3:18-19 illustrates the importance of every word, even the words most commonly neglected for in-depth analysis.

The essential verse portions from the New American Standard Bible and the flow of thought can be outlined accordingly with the conjunction “and” (τέ) inserted appropriately:

“that you, . . . 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and (τέ) to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge . . . .”

that you, . . . may be able
to comprehend [the dimensions of something]
and (τέ)
to know the love of Christ

The presence of “and” creates two parallel but separate infinitive complements for the verb translated “may be able” —parallel in that they both complete the meaning of the verb but separate in that each has a different direct object. The first infinitive, “to comprehend,” has as its object “what is the breadth and length and height and depth;” the second, “to know,” has “the love of Christ” as its object. If “and” were absent, the second infinitive could be understood as epexegetical or appositional, that is, further explaining or restating the first infinitive idea. This occurs in some English translations and popular theology.

Consider the International Standard Version, “you will be able to understand, along with all the saints, what is wide, long, high, and deep — 19 that is, you will know the love of Christ . . . .” By translating the conjunction τέ as an appositional conjunction and rendering it “that is,” verse 19a effectively restates verse 18.

The New International Version reads like this, “that you, . . . 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love . . . .” Without translating “and” as appositional, the NIV openly and periphrastically accomplishes the same transfer of meaning.

Notice the New King James Version, “that you . . . 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge . . . .” Here a different method of creating an English appositional interpretation occurs—by not translating the conjunction at all! As such it departs from the time-honored King James Version that does contain the conjunction “and.”

At this point two interpretation questions need to be asked. First, can τέ function appositionally and be translated “that is” or exhibit some other form of apposition? Second, what contextual data explains the measurement language serving as the object for the first infinitive if the “love of Christ” cannot represent that object?

With regards to the first question, neither Robertson (The Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1179), nor Danker (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, 993) include an appositional function for τέ (“and”). This appositional use, however, does exist for the most frequent Greek conjunction regularly used by Paul and commonly translated “and” (καί, see Robertson, 1181; Danker, 495). Consequently, if no other meaningful rational for the presence of τέ in the text can be established, the appositional use must be viewed as a last resort, and then only with serious reservations.

Concerning the second question, the measurement language of verse 18 may be referring to: (1) the dimensions of love, or (2) the measureable concept or concepts in the earlier portions of Paul’s prayer.

Regarding view (1), “love” occurs before and after the infinitive “to comprehend.” However, the mention of “love” in verse 17 clearly serves to set the spiritual basis for one’s ability “to comprehend” whatever verse 18 references. It does not serve as its object or explain the measureable concept. Also, and most importantly, the presence and use of the conjunction “and” (τέ) at verse 19 effectively separates “the love of Christ” as the sole measureable object of comprehension in verse 18. As Robertson further states, τέ (“and”) introduces “something additional, but in intimate relation with the preceding” (page 1179, italics mine)

This leaves view (2) to be developed. What constitutes “the breadth and length and height and depth” of which Paul speaks? A forthcoming posting will examine this phenomenal aspect of Paul’s prayer. Stay tuned!

What Does “That” Mean?

2010-05-11T16:38:00.003-07:00

Ephesians 3:14-19 records a prayer of Paul for the Ephesian Christians. In translating this prayer the English uses the ambiguous word that for the Greek conjunction ἵνα. This conjunction is ambiguous because it could introduce an object clause, a purpose clause, or a result clause. The interpretation of the overall prayer changes with the function of the conjunction. The issue at hand, therefore, is important.

Clearly the first that clause in verse 16 is an object clause of an implied verb for praying. Less clear the New International Version (NIV) adds the conjunction “and” and a verb of praying at verse 17. It also transposes the conjunction that from the beginning of verse 18 in the Greek text to the middle of verse 17. These changes make the second that clause also an object clause and a second prayer request. The use of that in the NIV at verse 19, however, remains ambiguous.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) maintains the same sequence of clauses as the NIV by adding “and” at verse 17 and transposing that from verse 18 into verse 17. The outcome of both the NIV and NASB translations creates two parallel object clauses and two petitions from verses 16-19a.

The final that clause at verse 19b remains ambiguous in the NIV where the translators inserted a dash, but the NASB appears to introduce a purpose clause at this point. The King James Version (KJV) translates ἵνα simply by that in all three occurrences.

For the knowledgeable Bible student, one indicator that a translator’s interpretation may be suspect is the felt need to supplement the translation by adding words or phrases that are not in the original text. In both the NIV and the NASB this has been the case here. A key interpretation question must be asked: Can the text be understood as is apart from adding words not found in the original text? If so, that translation must be given first interpretive priority.

The text as it stands makes good sense when all three that clauses are seen as object clauses. In addition, the second and third that clauses are not separate requests but can be understood as expansions or clarifications of the initial request of verse 16 by adding details. The asyndeton, that is, the absence of conjunctions in the Greek text such as “and,” supports this interpretation. Bullinger (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 138) calls this “Explanatory, when [clauses] explain each other.” This can also be called epexegesis “where what is added is a working out and developing what has been said” (Bullinger, 398).

An interpretive paraphrase reads like this: “. . . that [God] would grant you to be strengthened with power according to the wealth of His glory . . . ; that is, that you may be able to comprehend . . . [the immensity of God] and to experience the love of Christ . . . ; that is, that you may be filled with the fullness of the divine being.” In this paraphrase the insertions of “that is” reflects one way in which English communicates appositional or explanatory statements. Of the above-mentioned translations, the KJV is preferred in this passage.

To be sure, this interpretation of the sometimes ambiguous that (ἵνα) clauses is only one available option, but it does have the important advantages for the interpreter of (1) acknowledging the principle of authorial clarity—the writer wrote to be understood, (2) coherence—all elements fit together as is without requiring supplementation, and (3) implementation of the logical principle of “Occam’s Razor”—The translation/interpretation that requires the least number of hypotheses for a view to become viable is most likely to be correct. Ephesians 3:14-19 develops Paul’s prayer using three interrelated object clauses, and the driving focus of the prayer is that the Ephesian Christians would be filled “to all the fullness of God.”

Blessed Togetherness!

2010-04-30T09:15:00.004-07:00

Psalm 133 is an ascent psalm to be sung while going up to Jerusalem at the three required yearly festivals designated in the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 16:16-17). Refusal to make the pilgrimage invited national disaster; obedience resulted in national blessing. Verse 1 is vital to a correct interpretation of this Psalm.

“How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” (New International Version, NIV)

Two Hebrew terms in this verse are not translated by the NIV, הנּה and גּם. These words affect the interpretation of the Psalm and its application.

The Hebrew interjection “behold!” (הנּה) makes an important point—it draws the hearers’ attention to the coming statement much like pointing a finger (Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 220, TWOT; The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 243, BDB). The NIV’s exclamation point may be an attempt to reflect the Hebrew term, but it does not exactly parallel it. The English exclamation point focuses the hearer primarily on the emotion tied to the statement whereas the Hebrew word focuses the hearer primarily on the content and secondarily on the emotion. This is an important interpretive element in the text.

The adverb גּם is also critical to the interpretation. Syntactically it represents an addition and is to be translated also or even (BDB, 168-69; Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 61-62). The adverb coupled to the following noun (יחד) focuses the covenant idea of physical togetherness at the required festivals. Individual worship is good but the divine mandate requires community worship. As the pilgrims see the community gathered in obedience to the divine law, they can take courage. The nation is living in obedience to God and, therefore, in a position to experience His covenant blessings (cp. verse 3b).

Finally, the translations would do better to rephrase the term unity as well since the Hebrew word יחד means “together, of community in action, place, or time” (BDB, 402; TWOT, 859; Holladay, Lexicon, 132). The ethical concept of unity so prominent in the English word is not the primary Hebrew idea in יחד if it exists at all. A paraphrase which captures the full force of verses 1 and 6 reads like this:

“Look! How good and how pleasant it is when the nation gathers at the designated place and time in obedience to God’s Covenant requirement.

Because there and then Yahweh has commanded the Covenant blessing.”

The illustrations in verses 2-3a highlight community togetherness and portray promised spiritual and national blessings.

This interpretation of the Psalm contradicts the typical ethical-oriented sermonic application—“Let’s all get along!” As a message for a congregation in conflict Romans 12:18 fits the situation with greater clarity and directness, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (New American Standard Bible, NASB).

The application growing out of this Psalm as interpreted, however, focuses on a different peril—a lack of commitment to the Christian community demonstrated by absenteeism in church. Hebrews 10:24-25a represents a New Testament parallel to Psalm 133, “and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some” (NASB). This divine command cannot be obeyed by absenteeism.

Of the two application directions Psalm 133 can take, ethical unity or togetherness, the latter represents the Hebrew text best and provides a necessary community-oriented activity for accomplishing the former! May there be “Blessed Togetherness!”

Big Ideas in Small Words

2010-04-14T11:25:00.004-07:00

The Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson wrote, “All language was originally pictographic. The picture was first seen and then the effort was made to describe it . . . . Prepositions are essentially words of location employed to help out the meaning of the oblique cases . . . . One cannot afford to slur over the prepositions in the sentence if he wishes to understand the Greek New Testament” (The Minister and His Greek New Testament, page 43).

1 Timothy 1:19 suggests an intriguing picture using a preposition translated in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as in regard to (περί). Grammatically, this preposition used with the objective (accusative) case primarily has spatial reference and is translated around. Although historically it began to take on a more general reference notion (i.e., NASB), in the New Testament period the spatial concept was still the most prominent function with the accusative. See Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, pages 797-98. Since usage determines function the question needs to be asked, “Is a spatial idea possible here?”

The NASB translation of 1 Timothy 1:19 reads, “keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” The interpretation takes a dramatic twist when the spatial concept is applied to the prepositional phrase and translated “around the faith” (περὶ τὴν πίστιν). In this instance the phrase expands the pictorial visualization of the maritime picture imbedded in the verb translated “shipwreck” (ἐναυάγησαν). “Faith” can represent a harbor into which the ship sails, but for safe passage the pilot must navigate around the obstacles that could sink the vessel. In the context of 1 Timothy, rejecting a good conscience is one of those obstacles.

The relative pronoun “which” (ἣν) grammatically identifies the conscience (συνείδησιν) as its antecedent. English translations frequently demonstrate difficulty in clearly defining the referent of pronouns. The New International Version is a case in point as Guthrie points out, “In the next clause, NIV has rejected these, but the Greek relative is singular and refers directly to conscience” (The Pastoral Epistles, 78, bold mine to point out the issue at hand).

Adding further data to strengthen this point, the chiastic development of the verse points to the same conclusion. Lund offers this definition, “Chiasmus (or chiasm) is a term based on the Greek letter chi (χ) which refers to an inverted parallelism or sequence of words or ideas in a phrase, sentence, or any larger literary unit” (Chiasmus in the New Testament, vii). Bullinger quotes Bengel who says that “its employment is never without some use: viz., in perceiving the ornament and in observing the force of the language; in understanding the true and full sense; in making clear the sound interpretation; in demonstrating the true and neat analysis of the sacred text” (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, page 374). In 1 Timothy 1:19 the chiastic arrangement of words are: A = faith, B = conscience, B' = which (conscience), A' = faith. The composition adds emphasis to the central position the conscience plays in regards to the faith.

The pictorial representation in this verse stands out in bold relief when the preposition is given a spatial translation/interpretation. Those who reject a good conscience may founder in the harbor of faith. Guthrie comments again, “Since a nautical image is introduced it is possible that Paul is thinking of conscience as a stabilizing factor which when rejected renders the ship unstable” (Ibid.).

In this instance, the spatial concept not only makes good sense but adds drama to the imagery suggested by Paul’s expressive term “shipwreck.” Not infrequently in the Bible there are “Big Ideas in Small Words.”

“Mirror, Mirror . . . “

2010-04-03T08:05:00.003-07:00

If “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” it is too bad that so many Bible commentators and translators apparently see so little! This state of affairs probably exists because few scholars these days spend time in the original texts of the Bible—Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. Too much time is spent reading and commenting on what people say about the Bible and too little time is given to reading and meditating on the primary source for the Bible.

Proverbs 9 exemplifies some “hidden” beauty. The author crafted this chapter from the standpoint of a “mirror reading” regarding two kinds of women. Verses 1-12 focus on the woman called “wisdom;” verses 13-18 on a “foolish woman” [כְּסִילוּת, Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 161; Armstrong, Busby, Carr, A Reader's Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 539, “stupidity”].

Repetitive verses in each section justify the “mirror” concept: verse 4 is repeated in verse 16; verse 3 replicates verse 14. Beyond simple repetition lie conceptual parallels as well. Wisdom invites the naïve to a meal (verse 5); the foolish woman likewise suggests the naïve eat her meal of stolen water and secretly-eaten bread (verse 17). Wisdom celebrates a long and happy life (verse 11); the foolish woman entertains death (verse 18). Sid S. Buzzell (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 923-25) outlines these parallels nicely. Though not as clear see also Duane A. Garrett in The New American Commentary: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 113-16.

The “transition point” between verses 1-12 and verses 13-18 signals most clearly and beautifully the “mirror reading” for those looking at the Hebrew text. The author has a clear expectation that the reader will compare and contrast the two women. The last word of verse 12 and the first word of verse 13 “leap off the page:” תשׂא/אשׁת. Fold the former word over the top of the latter to see the “mirror reading.” Artistic beauty in poetic composition reveals itself here! What a shame that so few students of the Bible ever see it!

The Bible is a work of art. Artistic achievement and beauty displays itself magnificently, but often only to the pathetically few who read it in the original languages. May Proverbs 9, and תשׂא/אשׁת in particular, be an incentive to search for other elements of beauty scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments. Numerous other “incentives” can be discovered in the preceding postings that began in 2008.

“Why Study Biblical Languages?” Redux!

2010-03-26T18:22:00.002-07:00

A primary goal for studying the biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages is to demonstrate their necessity for understanding and appreciating the Bible in all of its original glory. For some, this will not be needed; for others, definitive proof will be required. These postings, that began on December 4, 2008, prove that a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek enhances one’s ability to “rightly divide the Word of truth.” Logic alone, however, can serve the same purpose. The following quotation is taken from The Expository Times:

“If the Bible is what we profess to believe it to be, it is worth the effort to read it in the original. One who made it his life’s work to interpret French literature, but who could only read it in English translation, would not be taken seriously; yet it is remarkable how many ministers of religion week by week expound a literature that they are unable to read save in translation!”

One essential and often-ignored fact must begin this discussion: The Bible is Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek literature; English is the means whereby the English-speaking world accesses it, and is, thereby, a secondary source for the Bible. Another undeniable truth is that every translation of the Bible is interpretation, and interpretations may be good or bad. Furthermore, it is impossible for any translation to transmit all that the original languages say because languages do not communicate in the same manner. Consequently, in evaluating translations one can only speak of varying degrees of loss, and no translation consistently maintains its degree of loss. Some passages are excellent; others less so.

These postings, at the very least, show how a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek can: (1) reveal truths unrecoverable by any translation, (2) clarify obscure passages of the English Bible, (3) open up new interpretive possibilities for understanding the text beyond those that the English translations offer, and (4) aid in evaluating between competing English translations/interpretations. Welcome again to the educational and exciting world of Biblical Languages and Bible Translations!

“Why Should I Study Hebrew?” Answered!

2010-03-18T16:32:00.004-07:00

The Scenario

Consider one example of why the study of Hebrew can save your image as a Bible teacher and possibly your Bible study group. Imagine yourself leading the home Bible study with members of your church and you ask someone to read Hosea 7:13:

“Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: destruction unto them! because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me” (King James Version, KJV).

All is well until someone else notes that instead of reading though I have redeemed them (KJV), his New International Version (NIV) reads I long to redeem them. Then another member adds to the developing confusion, “Why does my version say ‘I would redeem them’” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)? It becomes instantly clear that you, the study leader, are asked to arbitrate between these different readings since the interpretation of this verse affects (1) the temporal context for the passage, (2) the interpretations attached to the differing times communicated by the versions, and (3) a practical application of the passage to those present.

The Solution

If you have a working grasp of Hebrew grammar and syntax you realize that the first issue involves the grammatical form and the meaning of the imperfect aspect of the word translated “redeem” (אֶפְדֵּם). The English past tense reading of the KJV reflects a Hebrew preterite, the imperfect verb form with the conjunction attached (technically called the waw consecutive) that focuses the time on the past. However, The Hebrew text does not contain this conjunction and therefore a modal aspect expressing the mood of the verb agrees better with the grammar, whether a mood of a desire as seen in the NIV or of a condition as found in the NASB. (For a brief review of the syntax and other options see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd edition, 33-34.)

The interpretation issue flows from the grammar and syntax analysis. The preterite reading of the text (KJV) refers the verse to the past salvation experience of Israel at the Red Sea. On the other hand, a modal translation reflects Israel’s present and future opportunity for God’s deliverance if they meet His requirements (NIV or NASB). In this latter sense, the verb פדה backs away from the soteriological (salvation-oriented) idea of “redeem” to the more general idea of “deliverance” (see Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 289).

Finally, a practical application you could present your group relates to the existing life situations instead of the past. God’s desire and ability to save from distressful circumstances should motivate one to be obedient to His requirements. You thus justify the NIV and NASB in this passage.

Of course, all of this depends upon your ability to read and interpret the Bible from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Without this ability, you and your Bible study members float aimlessly on a sea of speculation and confusion. Unfortunately, you will not be alone!

The Case of the “Hanging Nominative”

2010-03-10T11:30:00.004-07:00

Designation defines the basic function of the nominative case in the Greek New Testament. It is most commonly thought of as the case of the subject. One rarely looks to the nominative to discover some important exegetical point. However, John 1:12 contains one such exegetical nuance discoverable in some translations but hidden in others.

John 1:12 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The relative clause translated “as many as received Him” represents a nominative plural clause that should function as the subject of an independent clause. But another subject “He” is inserted in the following independent clause. The initial nominative clause is left hanging without a connection to the main clause.

The New International Version of this passage says, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” It changes the initial subject nominative to an indirect object dative,” to all who received him.” This has the effect of eliminating the hanging nominative subject of the NASB and the Greek text.

Although it may be advantageous for readers of the English Bible not to encounter a hanging nominative, there are reasons why writers used them. One possible use is for emphasis or focus. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 86, writes

Since the independent nominative [hanging nominative] is in sense, though not in grammar, linked to an element in another clause, this construction quite possibly is used to draw attention to an item in the main clause which would be otherwise overlooked. The independent nominative may also serve as a topic marker or shifter which does not become grammatically entangled in the main construction.

See also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 52.

In John 1:12, the writer emphasizes that, although Jesus’ own people did not receive him, those who did could become children of God. The hanging nominative appears to have the rhetorical effect of focusing the readers on those who did believe. A translation that captures this is, “But as for those who did receive Him . . . .”

The interpreter must be careful when translating not to ignore or distort the emphasis in the original text since emphasis is a powerful medium of communication and interpretation. If it is possible to transfer such emphasis into the English translation, the translator is duty-bound to do so.

Job and His English Interpreters

2010-02-08T10:30:00.004-07:00

Every now and then I come across a Bible verse where translations of English Bibles display remarkable and confusing contradictions. Job 13:15 represents a dramatic example. Notice the following:

“Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope” (Revised Standard Version, RSV)
“Though he slay me, I will hope in him.” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)
“God might kill me, but I cannot wait.” (New Living Translation, NLT)
“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” (New King James Version, NKJV)

Is Job’s statement a declaration of certain death, possible death, no hope, hope, impatience, unbelief? A variety of interpretation issues are involved in unraveling this apparently contradictory and confusing array of translation options. Syntax, word study, textual criticism, and context are necessary elements in deciphering Job’s exclamation.

The first issue to resolve is the textual problem to establish the most likely wording of the verse. The Hebrew text presents two options, one in the text itself and the other in the margin. The different choices create very different translations. The RSV and NLT translate the second clause in negative terms whereas the NASB and NKJV give positive readings. Obviously a textual decision needs to be made.

This textual problem involves similar sounds of the two readings, a common problem in the transmission of ancient manuscripts. The text contains the negative “not” (לא) while the margin substitutes a preposition with an appended personal pronoun (לוֹ). The Jewish editors of the Masoretic text, the preferred Old Testament manuscript used by scholars, placed in the margin what they considered to be the original reading. This reading is also found in the text of numerous other Old Testament manuscripts. The NASB and NKJV followed this ancient textual critical decision. The RSV and NLT chose to stay with the reading in the text. The present discussion accepts the marginal reading as original and the one that appears to accord best with the context.

Syntax refers to the relationships between words in a sentence and includes a variety of meanings for the different parts of speech (see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, for a review). In the above translations the verb in the initial clause communicates either a simple future idea (RSV), a concession (NASB, NKJV), or a possibility (NLT). In the second clause, the verbal idea is viewed as either an ongoing but uncompleted mental activity (RSV, NLT) or a simple future declaration (NASB, NKJV). Each of these interpretations is possible, but each cannot be correct.

The first word study issues involved the initial particle seen in the Hebrew text (הן). This could be a demonstrative interjection, “behold” (RSV), or a conjunction used in combination with a Hebrew verb (יקטל) to communicate a concession or a condition (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 243; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, 221). The NASB and NKJV translators apparently chose this latter option. In contrast Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, p. 497, says that “the meaning see is no doubt preferable” in apparent agreement with the RSV. Again, both possibilities cannot be right.

The second word study matter concerns the Hebrew verb יחל translated as waiting (NLT), hoping (RSV, NASB) and trusting (NKJV). When this verb is followed by the preposition ל, “for,” as in this verse, the resultant meanings are “to wait for” or “to hope for” (see William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 133, and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 403-04). In this instance, since there is a close semantic connection between “waiting” and “hoping,” the choice will depend upon how the context affects the sentence. The “trusting” terminology of the NKJV, though close in meaning to waiting or hoping, has a different perspective. The major dictionaries do not include this sense for the word used (see also Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, I, 373-74).

As in any interpretation, the context of the passage in question plays a determinate role in sifting through various options. Often one enters the realm of probabilities instead of certainties. The interpreter must now examine the context of Job 13:15 as a guide through the maze of syntax and word study differences.

Does the context suggest that Job expects God to kill him? It does not appear so. Job wants an opportunity to present his case before God and is convinced that he will be vindicated (verses 15 and 18). He may lose his case and be killed, but he firmly believes that he will be exonerated. Therefore, the probability appears greater that the NASB and NKJV with their “concession” statements should be given priority in interpretation.

Regarding the second syntax issue, the ongoing mental state of waiting/hoping or a future expectation, the broader context of verse 15 would point to a future idea. Job wants to present his case and wait for the verdict from God. The verdict will follow his defense; therefore, the future idea is more probable and so translated in the NASB and NKJV. (See Hartley, The Book of Job, 221-23, for a different interpretation of the context.)

The difference between “waiting” and “hoping” relates to the above tentative conclusion. If the resolution of Job’s contention with God follows his defense, “waiting” for the condemnation or vindication becomes the point at hand with “hoping” coming in as a weak second. Therefore, the NLT seems to “carry the day” in this matter.

In an attempt to capture all of the interpretive conclusions, the following translation is tentatively offered: "Though He may kill me, I will wait for Him." The English translation that most closely approximates this rendering is the New American Bible, “Slay me though he might, I will wait for him.”

Here is my paraphrased interpretation of the verse: “Although God might find me guilty and kill me after I make my defense, I will wait for His verdict, but I am confident that He will find me not guilty.” Such an interpretation coordinates well with the preceding desire on Job’s part to argue his case before God (verses 3 and 13) and with the following context where he knows that he will be vindicated (verse 18).

Entering into Old Testament Theology

2010-01-18T16:39:00.003-07:00

“For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:26, New American Standard Bible)

This segment of Peter’s sermon carries enormous historical importance. On the surface one could conclude that salvation is a product of right living with belief lurking somewhere in the background. However, from the perspective of early Judaism, Peter was not preaching to unbelievers but to believers, to Jews who live under the Mosaic Covenant and considered the people of God. Belief was assumed. The issue for the Jews was not encouragement to believe but exhortation to obey the divine mandates for righteous living.

For Jews as for Christians turning from one’s wicked ways is not a once-for-all decision but a regularly revisited response to God’s revealed will. The Greek text of Acts 3:26 clearly makes this assertion. The term translated “bless” (εὐλογοῦντα, “providing with benefits”) is a present active participle denoting a continuing activity of grace on the part of God. Also, the word “turning” (ἀποστρέφειν) is a present active infinitive with iterative force, “by periodically turning each of you from your wicked ways.” From the theological standpoint, this verse is a statement of sanctification not of initial salvation.

This interpretation can confuse those with a purely New Testament perspective on spiritual matters. The New Testament presents a highly individualistic theology. The Old Testament, on the other hand, revolves around “corporate solidarity,” the perspective that views corporate Israel largely as a saved entity (see H. Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel for further discussion of this very important perspective). This means that most of the Old Testament speaks in terms consistent with how God deals with His redeemed people. Peter’s theological outlook in his Acts 3 sermon is essentially an Old Testament message and verse 26 is identified more with the Old Testament theology than the New.

From the viewpoint of grammatical/historical exegesis, Peter’s theology in Acts 3 must be interpreted in the clear light of 1st century Judaism before Christian preaching had distanced itself from its Jewish roots. As a practical application, both the Old and New Testament people of God lived and do live under the same mandate to “turn from [our] wicked ways” and live holy lives.

Goat’s Milk and the Christian

2009-12-15T08:28:00.002-07:00

Occasionally I hear someone say that they belong to a “New Testament Church.” The speaker usually means that the New Testament and not the Old Testament is their standard for faith and practice. Such a statement has both true and false implications. True, the New Testament teaches the beginnings, theology and practice of the Church. False, the New Testament does not reject the Old Testament’s applications and meanings for the Church.

Most Christians, including “New Testament Christians,” agree that the Old Testament provides a basis for much theology—creation, original sin, prophecies of Christ, etc. But “New Testament Christians” find little use for the Old Testament law and much of the prophets in their preaching and teaching. This could be because (1) they genuinely dismiss much of the Old Testament as sub-Christian or (2) they simply do not know how to deal with the clearly non-Christian elements found in the Old Testament. This second issue furnishes the focus of this article.

First, a shock treatment—Every part of the Old Testament, in particular the Law, since that is the locus of concern for many, can be taught and preached in the church in a manner that neither violates the historical interpretation of the Old Testament nor imposes sub- or non-Christian beliefs and practices on the Christian.

John Bright (The Authority of the Old Testament, pages 112-14) provides the key for Christians to understand and use the Old Testament personally or in ministry. The key “is to be found in the theological structure of both Testaments in their mutual relationships—that is to say, through the study of biblical theology.” To put the issue on the lower shelf, every law has an underlying reason for its existence; the primary point that transfers across the dispensational boundaries between the Old and New Testaments is the underlying theological reason. The law itself may be historically or culturally determined, and therefore changeable, but the theology remains consistent. For further discussion refer to my book, Shekels, Dollars & Sense, chapter 3, “Two Testaments; One Theology.”

Now to “Goat’s Milk.” “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). How do we interpret and preach this Old Testament text? How can it be used as a text for a Christian sermon with an application that is hermeneutically proper, theologically legitimate and practically useful?

Hermeneutically, every passage of Scripture must be understood in its own contexts. So our question, what historical, cultural, or religious context made this Mosaic injunction so important that it was repeated three times?

Historically, we remain in semi-darkness. Perhaps someday archaeologists will turn over the shovel in the right place and bring into the light the situation in life that precipitated this law. What does appear sure to most scholars, however, is that it had something to do with the religious practices of Israel’s pagan neighbors. This was first suggested by the Jewish scholar Maimonides (1195 AD) and still considered plausible today. Craigie states (Ugarit and the Old Testament, 76), “. . . it remains highly likely that the biblical text prohibits something central to the religion of Canaan and Ugarit.” If true the “something central” would most likely include their celebrated idolatrous worship.

Theologically, the Laws of Moses teach something about God’s Person. Tithing, for instance, concerns itself primarily with the transference of the divine character traits of justice, mercy and faithfulness into the life of God’s people. The 10% requirements are secondary matters. (See my book Shekels, Dollars & Sense)

So how does “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” reflect on God? If such an activity was indeed idolatrous as suggested above, it would have been a pagan custom in honor of a pagan deity. For Israel this would violate the 1st and 2nd commandments, “You shall have no other gods before Me . . . . You shall not worship them or serve them” (Deuteronomy 5:7 and 9). This lies at the heart of the monotheistic faith of Israel and therefore fitting for a three-times-repeated negative command.

Practically, granting for argument’s sake the validity of the cultural and religious function of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, such an act by Israel would represent a violation of its covenant with God and place the nation in jeopardy of experiencing the curses of the Law instead of enjoying its blessings. In such a scenario, the practicality of the command is undeniable; fellowship with God is the vital issue.

But now we must relate this Old Testament command to the New Testament. Taking our lead from John Bright, we focus attention not so much on the details of the command itself that may be historically and culturally defined but on the theological understructure for the command—idolatry. The question then arises, “Was idolatry an issue in the New Testament, and if so, how did it display itself; what were its cultural or religious trappings?”

Numerous New Testament passages speak negatively about idolatry. 1 John 5:21, for example, states unequivocally, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.” Or take the problem of eating meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. Idolatry in the Christian era did not include boiling a kid in its mother’s milk; it took other forms. And since idolatry in any form “replaces” God, the Old Testament edict carries a clear New Testament parallel and must be avoided. As in the Old Testament, spiritual fellowship with God stands in the balance.

Both boiling a kid in its mother’s milk and eating meat offered to idols equate to idolatry. The further question cannot be ignored, “What are today’s idols? Money, sex, power, material possessions? If anything stands between the Christian and God, it must be classified as an idol and John’s command applies as much to the Christian Church of the 21st century as it did in the 1st century, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”

In conclusion, I suppose that someone will comment, “Why bother going through this whole interpretive scenario? Why not just use 1 John 5:21 as the text for the sermon? I could give a number of reasons to justify using the Old Testament, but allow me simply to suggest that a sermon titled “Goat’s Milk and the Christian” with the text being “You must not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” would undoubtedly create interest and alertness in the pews. What a novel idea!

Reading the Bible Can Be a Two-Way Dialogue

2009-12-01T14:18:00.004-07:00

My students frequently ask, “How well do I need to know the original languages?” My answer—study the languages until you can “hear” the text speak and a two-way dialogue is established.

1 Corinthians 6:2 provides one small example of a two-way dialogue.

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ ἅγιοι τὸν κόσμον κρινοῦσιν;
καὶ εἰ ἐν ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος, ἀνάξιοι ἐστε κριτηρίων ἐλαχίστων;

Four verbal clauses carry the thought (bold above): one perfect aspect (know, οἴδατε), one future, (will judge, κρινοῦσιν) and two presents (is judged/are you, κρίνεται/ἐστε). The perfect functions as a present (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 693), the future is predictive; and, in light of this, the first present (is judged, κρίνεται) can only be understood as futuristic, (see below), finally are you forcefully focuses the author’s question.

The first and last clauses speak to the Corinthians’ immediate situation; the two middle clauses use the future reality to reinforce the final question. Temporal chiasmos, “introverted correspondence” wherein the first and last and the two middle clauses interrelate, ties the verse into a powerful and complete package.

The two-way dialogue begins by noting all the textual data, without which two-way communication is next to impossible. Then, effortlessly the present time frame in the first and last clauses focuses the author’s point. Next, the two center clauses coordinate, being semantically locked together and assisted by the conjunction “and” (καί, which the NASB translators decided to leave out!) and the same verb in both clauses. This coordination means that the future will judge (κρινοῦσιν) “bleeds over” into the present is judged (κρίνεται) and is futuristic, an acceptable translation that touches on the future for the second present is “is going to be judged.”

The text itself speaks clearly and unequivocally. Can you “hear” it? How well do you need to know the original language? Asked differently, what will it take for the text to be able to get through to you? And, what is it worth to you to be able to dialogue with the authors of Scripture?

Marriage—an “Unhappy” State?

2009-11-04T15:10:00.007-07:00

“When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken” (King James Version).

“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken” (New American Standard Bible).

“If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married” (New International Version).

“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken” (English Standard Version).

The above translations of Deuteronomy 24:5 may suggest that marriage generates unhappiness for the bride as seen in the bold font. The English Standard Version appears to be an exception. Further clarification appears needed.

Recently the Hebrew verb system has undergone a “revolution” of sorts (Waltke & O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 352-61 and 398-400). The key to this new understanding is the Piel verb stem. Previously the Piel was thought to intensify the verb meaning; now the Piel is understood to emphasize an activity that brings about a state of being. This redefined model of the Piel stem may solve the possible negative implication of Deuteronomy 24:5 and open up a completely different avenue of interpretation for the verse.

According to this recent reinterpretation of the grammar, if the Piel verb (שִׂמַּח) in this verse means that the husband is to put his wife in a rejoicing or happy state, what does that mean? What brings joy to the wife?

The wife’s status in the ancient world derives in part from her ability to have children and form a household. Roland de Vaux writes (Ancient Israel, I, 39), “Within the family, respect for the wife increased on the birth of her first child.” Numerous examples occur in Scripture of barren women and their emotional depression followed by great joy at the birth of their first child. Psalm 113:9 illustrates this point pointedly, “He [God] settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children” (New International Version). The husband of Deuteronomy 24:5 is to stay home for one year to produce a family. The literally translated clause preceding the words in bold confirms this, “He shall be free in the interests of his household . . . .”

The husband is not simply to “stay home.” Rather the word translated above as home (בַּיִת) also refers to a household or family (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 108-110). He is given the right to carry on the family name by producing children before that opportunity is lost for him in warfare, and bringing his new wife into a state of happiness is a by-product of bringing children into the world. Thus, there is no “unhappy” state of marriage implied in Deuteronomy 24:5.

The translation of the English Standard Version in this verse eliminates the possible confusion about marriage as a reason for a negative emotional state of the wife, but it does create another interpretive diversion. The emphasis is placed on the husband’s happiness, on his emotional state instead of hers. Grammatically, the translators took the sign of the definite direct object (אֶת) to be a preposition, possible but highly improbable here (see Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 970), thereby throwing the issue of happiness back on the husband. This distorts the grammar of the text and quite possibly the sociological underpinnings of the verse. In this instance, the better direction for translators of all versions may be to translate the text literally and footnote the interpretive issues rather than simply accepting the possibilities of confusion by the readers or restructuring the grammar or paraphrasing the text.

Word Order—Does It Make Any Difference?

2009-10-07T08:41:00.006-07:00

English Prose usually requires a fairly strict order of words in a sentence to communicate clearly. Greek can rearrange the words without confusing the meaning because the word forms and not their location dictate word functions. A Greek sentence communicates its emphasis and/or focus by word order, something that English prose can only do occasionally without sounding unnatural.

Typically the initial part of a Greek sentence will carry the greatest emphasis, next comes the last part of the sentence, and even the middle can carry the emphasis especially if it involves a contrast. Speakers indicate emphasis by vocal stress. In written English stress must be indicated by varying the presentation (underlining, italics, bold, etc.). Consequently English translations of the Bible frequently lose this emphasis or focus data. There is no such loss in the Greek New Testament. Written Greek sentences reveal stress by means of its word order, and without controversy what is stressed or brought into dramatic focus has great significance for the interpretation of the New Testament.

1 Peter 2:18 provides one of those opportunities in English where word order variation communicates well. It is also an example of a word order textual variation in the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. For many people a “minor” textual variation such as changing the word order bears little importance; for adequately trained Bible interpreters, however, any and all textual data is important and must not be overlooked.

The word order variation in 1 Peter 2:18 affects the interpretation of a larger literary segment of the epistle. The following two alternative readings are adapted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB). The first is the NASB text as written; the second is the alternative reading based on the variant manuscript evidence. For reference the Greek is supplied. Note the italicized words that highlight the difference in word order.

Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect
οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις

Servants, with all respect be submissive to your masters
οἱ οἰκέται ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ ὑποτασσόμενοι τοῖς δεσπόταις

The textual issue, and consequently the interpretation, concerns the location of the prepositional phrase with all respect (ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ). The first reading puts the primary emphasis on the forward-positioned participle “be submissive” (ὑποτασσόμενοι). It points the reader back to the command in 2:13 (“Submit yourselves,” ὑποτάγητε) and strongly suggests a similar imperative function for the participle. The phrase with all respect (ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ) that comes later focuses attention secondarily on the manner of submission to one’s master. Thus, the paragraph beginning at 2:18 emphasizes primarily what to do and secondarily how to do it. Such a focus or emphasis affects the interpretation of the text and should be reflected in preaching and teaching.

Fortunately the major translations selected the first option supplied above based on a clear and consistent evaluation of the manuscript evidence. However, not ignoring this “minor” textual problem helps the interpreter see an element of Peter’s style. The participles in 2:18, 3:1 and 3:7 (submit, submit, and live together respectively in the NASB) represent the author’s literary outline, each placed in the forward position and showing dependence on the command of verse 2:13. The latter two verses reinforce this focus by inserting the adverb in the same way (ὁμοίως) that has prior reference points.

It is possible, of course, to discover this “outline” without knowing about or studying this textual issue. However, working out this textual problem focuses attention on what would not normally be a question in the interpreter’s mind, namely, “What difference would the alternate reading make?” In this instance the difference points to the priority of submission in Peter’s mind, and oh yes, there is a right way to do it!

Is word order an important issue in Bible interpretation? A second question should answer the first, “Is the stress placed upon words in speech important in understanding a speaker’s message?” Without contradiction, for both questions the answer is a resounding “Yes!” Word Order—It Does Make A Difference! And it provides another excellent reason to learn to read the Bible in the original languages where the stress can be “heard”!

"Do You Take This Woman . . . ?"

2009-09-28T12:22:00.009-07:00

Genesis 2:23 contains the first known song in history—a love song celebrating the union between Adam and Eve. This wonderful example of Hebrew poetry is next to impossible for any English Bible version to fully duplicate in translation because the poem revolves around the Hebrew sounds and word order, the latter which is lost in English translation.

The dictionary defines anemic as a lack of vitality and vitality as lively and animated in character. The key to the vitality in Genesis 2:23 is discovered in the sound repetition of the root words for bone (עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי), flesh (בָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי), and woman and man (אִיש/אִשָּׁה). Here English accommodates the Hebrew idiom well but with a weakened sound parallel between woman and man. But the most visible indicator of vitality is found in the three-fold repetition of the demonstrative pronoun typically translated “this” (זאת) which begins the song and begins and ends the second line of the song and seen in the bold Hebrew font.

זאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי
לְזאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה־זאת

Note the bold words in the New American Standard Bible that reflect the Hebrew original:

“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

As a demonstrative pronoun, Adam points to and enthusiastically celebrates his newly discovered companion. In rather stiff English consider this attempt to translate the Hebrew original with a focus on emotions:

This one, this time is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh;
Regarding this one she shall be called woman because from man she was taken, this one.

It is easy to envision Adam’s ecstatic response upon discovering Eve when he awoke. It is unfortunate that the English versions temper this enthusiasm by their understandably anemic renderings of a primary indicator of Adam’s emotions, the three-fold presence and positions of the demonstrative pronoun.

All may not lost, however, for the preacher or teacher who can and determines to investigate the text in the Hebrew original prior to preaching or teaching can bring out these emphases for the appreciation and delight of the hearers. For those who cannot or will not utilize the original text, keep reading these blog postings and commentaries that work with the original texts and feel free to share the nearly indescribable beauty of the Hebrew and Greek Bible with others.

The Lost Emphasis in Salvation

2009-09-21T16:04:00.003-07:00

“Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:14, All translations are from the New American Standard Bible).

[Note: It is recognized that this posting contains difficult and perhaps unfamiliar language for those to whom the Greek of the New Testament is indeed “Greek to them!” However, every effort has been made to clarify and simplify the grammatical concepts, and the conclusions and application should be clear to everyone.]

The verb redeem (λυτρόω) used in Titus 2:14 clearly represents the middle voice. To explain and review (see David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek To Me, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 93-96):

 The active voice has the subject doing the action of the verb, “The man caught the fish.”

 The passive voice represents the subject being acted upon, “The fish was caught by the man.”

 The middle voice may be (1) an intensive middle, the subject acting alone or in his own interest, “The man, and he alone, caught the fish,” or “The man caught the fish for himself,” (2) a direct middle, “The man caught himself,” or (3) a reciprocal middle, with a plural subject, “The men caught one another.”

The translation and interpretation question in Titus 2:14 focuses on whether or not redeem (λυτρώσηται) can or should be given an English translation consistent with the force of the middle voice, and if so, what nuance should it have.

First, New Testament Greek frequently uses the middle voice even though it was in the process historically of being phased out in favor of using intensive and reflexive pronouns. Since this voice has definite and often important interpretive significance it should not be ignored. Except for the direct application of the middle voice in the New Testament, the English translations treat them as active voices, losing the middle nuance and occasionally hiding some theological truths in the translation. Such appears to be the case in Titus 2:14.

Second, eliminating the reciprocal middle since the subject is singular, and eliminating the direct middle because Christ did not redeem himself, this leaves a translation of the intensive middle as viable in Titus 2:14. Should we translate “He might redeem for Himself” or “He alone might redeem”?

Third, three “middle ideas” occur in this verse (bold font), “Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.” “Gave Himself” represents a direct middle idea using an active verb and a reflexive pronoun. “Purify for Himself” parallels an intensive middle idea using an active verb and a pronoun expressing personal self-interest (Dative of Advantage, Black, p. 53). This leaves redeem for the translator/interpreter to formulate adequate wording.

Did Jesus “and no other” redeem us, or did Jesus redeem us “in His own self-interest,” or both? The first suggestion is clearly true—Jesus alone is our Redeemer. Does the second translation have any validity? Was there any self-interest on Jesus’ part involved in our redemption? It would appear that at least three affirmatives could be given to justify this second translation—the glory of God, the wisdom of God, and the moral integrity of the earthly Body of Christ.

Regarding God’s glory, Jesus did all things including redemption to please and bring glory to His Father (John 8:29, “I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” and 17:4, “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.”

Regarding God’s wisdom, Ephesians 3:10-11 states clearly, “that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Regarding the Body of Christ, “Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

It would appear that not only is Jesus Christ alone the Redeemer but that He, for Himself, or in His own interest, redeemed us. Thus, the middle voice can and should be communicated in English. Perhaps such a doubly-nuanced paraphrase of the middle voice could read “that He alone might redeem us thus fulfilling His own interests.” It may not sound good, but it does fit the theological implications of the middle voice.

Perhaps not without good reason, Christians apply salvation almost exclusively to mankind as its singular object. But if this middle voice is included in the discussion, the salvation of mankind is also done in God’s own interest. He has an agenda to which mankind’s salvation contributes. Christians would do well to break the bond of self-centeredness and become interested also in what God receives in salvation, benefits that are represented by this use of the middle voice.

Does God Care about Rover?

2009-09-15T11:44:00.004-07:00

“A righteous person maintains continual regard for the life of his animal, but the compassions of the wicked are cruel.” (Personal Translation)

Wisdom literature is to be understood at least partially in the context of the Mosaic Covenant. The Jews were obligated to obey all covenant stipulations, and even the animals benefited from this arrangement.

Proverbs 12:10 contrasts one difference between a righteous person and a wicked one. The righteous lives in accordance with God’s covenant standards; the wicked disregard God’s rules. In this proverb, the recognition point for classification as righteous or wicked is the treatment of one’s animals.

The animals involved here are of the domesticated variety. This is clear from both the term used for “animal” and in the attached possessive pronoun “his”(בְּהֶמְתּוֹ). Although unstated, one point of covenant faithfulness perhaps underlying this proverb is Deuteronomy 25:4, “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.” If the ox provides service to its owner, then it is wrong to fail to provide for its physical needs. The righteous person will take proper care of his animal and feed it; the wicked will act cruelly and starve it. Also, in accordance with the proverbial genre, this cruelty is two-edged: if the servicing animal is mistreated its service to its owner will diminish, and the cruel person only hurts himself.

If God’s people are to reflect the character of God, then this seemingly minor animal proverb takes on spiritual importance. God does not mistreat His creation; God’s people should not do so.

This proverb can be applied in at least two ways: (1) how we treat animals, pets included and maybe especially so in our urban society, reflects something of how godly we are living. (2) The treatment of animals is used in the New Testament as a paradigm for how we behave towards fellow believers who serve God as pastors and Christian leaders (1 Timothy 5:17-18). In this 1 Timothy passage Paul uses the Jewish argument from the lesser to the greater to focus attention on how God’s servants are to be treated.

Does God care about Rover? Yes, I think He does!

Intercessory Prayer—A Matter of Life or Death!

2009-09-09T17:29:00.004-07:00

Exodus 17:8-13 portrays the critical nature of intercessory prayer. The well-known story of Moses on the mountaintop lifting his hands towards God while Joshua and the Armies of Israel fight the Amalekites below may be applied in various ways, but the “Intercessory Prayer” application is a valid and enduring one.

2 Corinthians 1:8-11 parallels this event in the New Testament. Paul and his associates are on the battlefield as missionaries and they are losing (verses 8-9, New American Standard Bible, NASB).

8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life;
9 indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; . . .

The pressures were greater than they were able to endure (“we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength”, καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἐβαρήθημεν) and they expected to die. In verse 10, however, Paul writes of their deliverance from death and of his confidence that God will continue doing so in the present and future.

who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us, . . .

This deliverance possibility is expanded upon in verse 11 by means of a genitive absolute grammatical construction. The grammar of the text provides a striking parallel to the Old Testament story of Exodus 17.

A genitive absolute consists of a participle (verbal adjective) and a substantive (noun or noun substitute), both in the genitive case. The entire construction is grammatically disconnected from the main clause but is logically essential to that clause. Note the following NASB translation of verse 11 with the absolute clause in bold typeface (English does not distinguish the genitive case, but the clause is absolute being grammatically disconnected from the main clause.):

He shall continue to deliver [me] while you regularly help also on my behalf by prayer.

The Greek term for helping (συνυπουργούντων) answers the contextually-burning question of how Paul and his associates survived a burden too great for them to bear (verse 8). Consisting of a verb meaning to render service or work (ὑπουργέω), derived from a noun meaning work (ἔργον), and prefixed with two prepositions meaning underneath (ὑπό) and together with (σύν), this composite word paints the picture of the Corinthian believers sliding underneath the burden alongside the desperate missionaries helping to hold up its weight so that the apostles do not get crushed. In this context intercessory prayer is depicted as a life or death issue.

The disconnected nature of the genitive absolute construction parallels Moses on the mountaintop. As victory was assured for Israel on the mountain and not on the field of battle, so victory will be assured for Christians in the same distant arena—intercessory prayer.

Finally, because of the visual and audible nature of the Greek case system, the genitive absolute practically leaps off of the page as one translates the text. In English without visual and audible indicators it is easy to overlook the absolute construction and consequently miss the rhetorical and illustrative force of the underlying Greek text. Oh the beauty of the New Testament in all of its original glory!

The Battle between the Sexes!

2009-08-22T15:07:00.003-07:00

The battle between men and women constitutes one of the enduring conflicts of the ages. When did it begin? “With Adam and Eve,” say some Bible interpreters focusing on Genesis 3:16, “To the woman [God] said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” (New International Version, NIV) The last two clauses bear the brunt of this interpretation, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The focal points for this “conflict” interpretation are the word desire and the English future tenses. Ron and Beverly Allen (Liberated Traditionalism, page 124) state that “the desire spoken of here is a desire to usurp [the husband’s] leadership. That is, in addition to pain in childbearing, the curse on the woman produces conflict between herself and her husband.” The future tenses suggest that the conflict will continue through time. In this view she wants to rule but he has the leadership role.

This interpretation, however, is not a foregone conclusion. The usurping of leadership idea attached to the word desire has to be transported into the text. The word simply refers to an urge, craving, impulse, longing (William L. Holladay, Editor, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon). The context must determine the reason for such feelings, and Genesis 3:16 speaks clearly about childbearing not leadership.

Furthermore, neither of the other two uses in the Old Testament (Genesis 4:7; Song of Solomon 7:10, English) states or implies a leadership conflict in their respective contexts. This is eminently clear in the Song of Solomon, “I belong to my lover, And his desire is for me” (NIV). The crouching animal in the imagery of Genesis 4:7 also has no innate aspirations for leadership but does have an inborn desire to satisfy hunger. To read a leadership conflict into this verse distorts the literary imagery. As in Genesis 3:16, the immediate contextual issue is the satisfying of a biological need.

Also, the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb to rule can but need not have simple future reference. The Imperfect of Obligation (Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline) is very possible here as it is in 4:7 where the same verb is so translated in the NIV, “you must master [have dominion over] it.” Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 are remarkably similar (3:16, וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּךְ׃ and 4:7, וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתו וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בּו׃—I had to remove two holem vowels because the program won’t display them accurately!) and the probabilities are high that the syntax of both verses is the same, the first reference setting the pattern for the second unless some textual clue makes a differentiation which is not the case in Genesis 4:7. The most natural idea that fits both passages equally well is that of obligation. The Genesis 3:16 clauses would then read, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he must have dominion over you.”

The broader context of Genesis 3:16 is Eve’s unintentional reversal of authority outlined by the order of creation as stated by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:13-14:

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

(For an exegetical discussion of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 email me [dewretlind@gmail.com] for a Word formatted copy of my paper “How Childbearing Saves Women.”)

Genesis 3:16 provided the solution for the woman’s transgression. The woman by biological nature is the subordinate partner in the conception of children. Her innate need for children, the immediate context of the last two clauses of Genesis 3:16, moves her to sexually desire her husband, the dominant partner. This natural relationship should remind her of her subordinate role in the family structure.

An interpretive paraphrase of Genesis 3:16 may read like this: The woman’s inborn need for children means that she will desire her husband sexually who is the dominant partner and without whose cooperation children cannot be conceived. A “battle of the sexes” there may be, but Genesis 3:16 is not its source.

The Present and Future—Out of the Past

2009-08-17T06:35:00.004-07:00

Abraham deVries, “Ignorant Preachers,” Christianity Today, 1970—Every preacher and aspiring preacher, or for that matter, anyone passionate about knowing the Word of God, could benefit by reading or rereading this entire article. Here are just a few quotes introduced in bold font as to their themes.

Opening theme statement—“Seminarians of the current and coming generations may well become the most ‘ignorant’ generation of preachers in the later history of the Church.”

Criticism of seminaries—“Making this language study optional implies, of course, that it is of only secondary importance in the training of the minister. Given that implication, the seminarian is understandably reluctant to subject himself to such rigorous courses.”

Justifications for diminishing the study of the biblical languages in the seminaries—“One line of reasoning given for making language study optional begins with the complexities of modern civilization and begrudges time devoted to study of Greek and Hebrew; this time might better be spent, it is said, in the study of sociological disciplines. Another line of reasoning is based on the ready availability of many translations and exegetical studies. Both these arguments rest . . . upon fallacies. The first fallacy is that extensive knowledge of man in his world is adequate for effective ministry. The second is that translations and exegetical studies are adequate for “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Regarding the first fallacy—“Making man the locus of theology greatly diminishes the need for study of the Scriptures . . . . The Bible, then, is no longer ‘the only rule for faith and practice,’ . . . but simply another sourcebook for man’s quest of knowledge about himself. As a consequence, knowledge of the original languages, sufficient to enable one to interpret ‘lexically, syntactically, contextually, historically, and according to the analogy of Scripture’ . . . is no longer important.”

Regarding the second fallacy— “The assumption that the multiplicity of available translations gives one all the tools he needs for ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’ is fallacious also. Translators suffer from the same vagaries of thought, the same occasional spiritual sloth, the same variations of belief and conviction that are the lot of us all. They take the Word, subject it to their own abilities and belief, and translate it into words and phrases adequate for them— but perhaps woefully insufficient for others.”

Dependence upon translations—“How can a preacher really know what the Scriptures say to the world today if he must always depend upon a translator?”

The Bible in the biblical languages, the original glory—“If we believe that God, who inspired the writing of his Word, will also illumine it to our hearts and souls and life, then obviously the first requirement for rightly dividing the word of truth is simply to know that Word, in all its original glory.”

Biblical languages and intellectual integrity—“The Church, the world, and the Kingdom will always be poorer for lack of able exegetes. Intellectual integrity should not allow men to preach, daring to be spokesmen for God, while willingly lacking first-hand knowledge of his Word.”

Rigors of study—“Coming face to face with eternal truth, in such first-hand experience, changes us. And when it has changed us and spoken to our hearts, we are ready to say, ‘Thus saith the Lord!’ We can then lead a congregation to feed on his Word. Then the immense value of those long hours of agonizing work with conjugations, declensions, and vocabulary drills becomes clear.”

Conclusion—“A potential preacher will not deliberately choose ignorance if he wants to become, as the Today’s English Version of Second Timothy 2:15 has it, a ‘worker who is not ashamed of his work, one who correctly teaches the message of God’s truth.’”

“Seminarians of the current and coming generations may well become the most ‘ignorant’ generation of preachers in the later history of the Church.”

When issues of concern don’t change for the better they usually get worse.

What was “prophesied” 40 years ago . . . .

Parallel Passages--Be Careful!

2009-08-12T19:18:00.002-07:00

Parallel passages are very helpful to the Bible interpreter for (1) assessing the background of a text, (2) providing fuller treatment of an event or discussion, and (3) clarifying difficult passages.

In the Synoptic Gospels parallel passages are misused when the interpreter fails to search out the individual author’s purposes. For instance, when all data on a given event are collapsed into one account, the individuality of the Gospels becomes invisible. Mark 1:38 and Luke 4:43 provide an excellent illustration of the individuality of the Synoptic Gospels and of the potential interpretation pitfall parallel passages can become when used indiscriminately.

Mark’s purpose in 1:21-45 is to show how Jesus’ ministry priorities were circumvented by the people around Him (see Wretlind, “Jesus’ Philosophy of Ministry,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, 4 1977). In brief, Jesus validated His messianic preaching by healing a demoniac and others. Being astonished with and excited about the good fortune of having such a Healer in their midst, the people of Capernaum sought to keep Him in town. The disciples were likewise enthralled about the prospects of “instant ministry success.” Jesus addressed the problem of priorities by “escaping” town in the middle of the night so that He could continue His primary ministry of preaching and His secondary ministry of healing, the latter validating the former. Verse 38 contains a play on the word translated in the New American Standard Bible “I came for” (ἐξῆλθον) which occurred initially in His “escape” at verse 35, there translated “left” (ἐξῆλθεν). Verse 39 clearly outlines the priorities Jesus sought and found: the participles “preaching” (κηρύσσων) and “casting out” (ἐκβάλλων) are strategically placed in the first and second positions in the predicate. In the original text, this is clearer and more dramatic.

Luke 4:43, however, does not relate this “escape” scenario played out by Mark. Luke’s purpose is more theological. In place of the Mark’s “I came for” (ἐξῆλθον) regarding Jesus’ departure from Capernaum, Luke pens the theological term “I was sent” (ἀπεστάλην) to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The scene in Luke focuses on God’s purpose for sending Jesus; the scene in Mark focuses on Jesus’ need to keep His ministry priorities aligned.

To collapse all data into one scene effectively distorts the purposes of both Mark and Luke. The careful interpreter will appreciate the uniqueness of each Gospel and seek to discover the different purposes the various authors sought to communicate. A useful tool for this process is a harmony of the Gospels such as Kurt Aland’s “Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum,” 3rd edition revised, for the Greek version and “Synopsis of the Four Gospels, English Edition.” Both of these and others are available from the American Bible Society website.

Let’s Play Obadiah’s Way!

2009-08-04T09:41:00.003-07:00

The Old Testament writers loved to play with words, and it was easy to do. Instead of expanding their vocabulary by varying the sounds and spellings of words, the Hebrews often extended the range of vocabulary meanings by using words with the same sound and spelling. This is not completely foreign to English—Produce means “to make something;” produce means something to eat! In the Hebrew Bible this translates into numerous opportunities for double entendre, double reference, in various and sometimes unexpected places. Obadiah 1 illustrates the point but not with a double but a possible triple entendre!

The New American Standard Bible translation of the significant clause of verse 1 reads, “And an envoy has been sent among the nations.” Here the sound and spelling of the word envoy (צִיר) is the same as the word for a hinge/pivot as on a door (צִיר)and the word for pang/pain (צִיר). Each of these ideas reflects the contents of the book regarding Edom.

The first word, envoy, needs little explanation. The divine message about Edom arrives among the various nations by divinely-appointed couriers. It is a message of doom. Edom is to be attacked and sacked.

The second word, hinge/pivot, reflects a change in the status quo for Edom. The squeaking of the door on its hinges is the sound of enemies at the gates. Verses 5-8 expand on Edom’s changing national fortunes:

5 “If thieves came to you,
If robbers by night—
O how you will be ruined!—
Would they not steal only until they had enough?
If grape gatherers came to you,
Would they not leave some gleanings?
6 “O how Esau will be ransacked,
And his hidden treasures searched out!
7 “All the men allied with you
Will send you forth to the border,
And the men at peace with you
Will deceive you and overpower you.
They who eat your bread
Will set an ambush for you.
(There is no understanding in him.)
8 “Will I not on that day,” declares the Lord,
“Destroy wise men from Edom
And understanding from the mountain of Esau?

The third word, pang/pain, highlights the end result of the war proclaimed by the envoy—national annihilation. Verses 16-18 describe the impending doom:

16 “Because just as you drank on My holy mountain,
All the nations will drink continually.
They will drink and swallow
And become as if they had never existed.
17 “But on Mount Zion there will be those who escape,
And it will be holy.
And the house of Jacob will possess their possessions.
18 “Then the house of Jacob will be a fire
And the house of Joseph a flame;
But the house of Esau will be as stubble.
And they will set them on fire and consume them,
So that there will be no survivor of the house of Esau,”
For the LORD has spoken.

Double entendre, triple entendre—Hebrew words can pack a lot of baggage leading to frequent insights for the Bible student who is sensitive to the vocabulary of the Hebrew text. For those destined or determined to remain dependent upon English translations—stay tuned to this blogspot for more insights from the Bible in the original languages!

Antecedent Assumptions

2009-07-24T09:14:00.003-07:00

A pronoun is a word used in place of a noun and that noun is called an antecedent. In Greek, a pronoun generally agrees with its antecedent in gender and number. That is, either masculine, feminine, or neuter in gender and either singular or plural in number. The italicized pronoun that/this in each of the following translations of Philippians 1:28 confirms the need to verify a pronoun’s antecedent instead of assuming it.

KJV
And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.

NIV
without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God.

NRSV
and are in no way intimidated by your opponents. For them this is evidence of their destruction, but of your salvation. And this is God’s doing.

NASB
in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too from God.

Each of the above translations is somewhat ambiguous and could lead to the conclusion that salvation is the antecedent for that/this. The demonstrative pronoun in this example is τοῦτο, neuter, singular. The expected antecedent, therefore, would be neuter and singular. It cannot be salvation, a feminine noun, or the term destruction, also a feminine noun. To further complicate the matter, there is no neuter singular noun in the context to serve as the lone antecedent.

The answer to this antecedent question can be found in A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pages 704 and 729—the antecedent consists in the general ideas of the preceding contrasting clauses. In this case, two concepts are involved: destruction of the adversaries and salvation of the Philippians. Thus theologically, God acts both in destruction and salvation.

Failing to sufficiently analyze a pronoun as to its gender, number and antecedent, limits one’s grasp of the full meaning and theology of the text. A careful Bible interpreter must never make antecedent assumptions without checking all the relevant details. And to press the point of the value of knowing the biblical languages, many of the needed details are “invisible” in the English Bible.

The Case of the Missing Nun (נ)

2009-07-18T16:32:00.009-07:00

Not all variations in Bible translations invite theological debate. Using different synonyms for certain words, for instance, are certainly acceptable providing the English usages adequately reflect legitimate meanings inherent in the original words. Other translation differences, however, are more striking and demand explanations even if the theology poses no difficulties. Psalm 145:13 illustrates this type of translation variation.

At the present time the New International Version (NIV) Bible is prominent among evangelical Christians. One can count on its presence in church and Bible studies. Also one can count on the appearance of the missing nun (נ), which may cause some consternation.

In the New American Standard Bible (NASB),and many other translations, Psalm 145:13 reads, “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Thy dominion endures throughout all generations.” The NIV reads, “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures through all generations. The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made.” One can easily see that the NIV in this verse is twice as long as the NASB.

The footnote found in the NIV reads, “This psalm is an acrostic poem, the verses of which (including verse 13b) begin with the successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet.” Of the 22 Hebrew letters, in this Psalm only 21 are represented in the Hebrew Bible. The question naturally arises, “Has the transmission of the text accidentally or intentionally omitted the verse beginning with the letter nun?”

The textual apparatus of the Hebrew Bible gives the absent nun text as well as the manuscript support for reinserting it into the text: insert the nun strophe to agree with one Hebrew manuscript, the Septuagint, and the Syriac manuscripts. Compare verse 17 (my translation of the apparatus note). Upon comparing verses 13 and 17 it is easy to see that only the first word differs. Verse 17 begins with the tsade (צ) letter of the Hebrew alphabet (צַדִּיק, “righteous”), and the disputed text (13b) begins with the word “faithful” (נֶאֱמַן), producing a verse beginning with the letter nun ((נ)). After the first word in these two verses the texts are exactly the same.

What happened in the manuscript transmission of Psalm 145:13 is unknown. The Psalmist may not have included a nun verse; or the copyists may have inadvertently dropped the nun text out; or the copyists may have intentionally dropped out the nun text, although this is highly unlikely since there is no apparent reason why the text would be considered unsuitable.

But, evaluation must be done since the English Bibles differ on this verse and people will want some answer for this very-visible difference. First, the fact that the poem is intentionally acrostic favors an inadvertent omission. Although it is not unique to discover a missing letter in an acrostic poem (cp. Psalm 25, et al), the intent of the author surely began with the idea of representing each of the 22 Hebrew letters. Second, repetition is a common poetic feature so that the similarities between verses 13 and 17 are not unique. Third, the contents of the debated portion fits admirably both with verse 13b and 17, The LORD is
[ faithful/righteous] to all his promises and loving toward all he has made.

Based tentatively on the above evaluation, the longer reading of verse 13 should be granted legitimacy. The only theological addition to the poem is an emphasis on God’s faithfulness. Surely no one can find fault with this inclusion!

A Wonderful Anachronism

2009-05-18T20:03:00.003-07:00

Without question the language of the King James Version is outdated. In one linguistic situation, however, this is unfortunate for it avoided a communication problem of modern English. Even the New King James Version fails in its communication no doubt based on its desire to bring the Bible into modern English.

Modern English does not distinguish between the 2nd person singular “you” and the 2nd person plural “you.” You refers to both without distinction. The antiquated King James Version uses thee/thou for the singular and ye for the plural, thus recording the distinction that is clear in the original text of the New Testament.

To point out this difference some modern English translations insert a distinguishing term as in the New American Standard Bible rendition of John 4:48, “So Jesus said to him, ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.’” People defines you as plural. Of course, the word “people” is not in the original text but this procedure works well as long as the translators are consistent. Unfortunately this is not always the case. These translators encountered the same problem at John 3:7 and 11 but failed to identify the variance in number:

“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”

“Truly, truly I say to you, we speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and you do not receive our witness.”

The King James Version translators maintained consistency and thereby represented a clearer and more accurate translation at these points:

“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.”

O the wonderful anachronism of the antiquated King James Version!

Why Is This Promise from God a Failure?

2009-04-30T14:01:00.003-07:00

“Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” (New International Version, NIV), Proverbs 16:3

John was a sincere Christian who believed the word of God, every word. What a joy to discover Proverbs 16:3! This “blank check” would revolutionize his ministry for the Lord with the guarantee of success—not a Warrantee, “we’ll fix it when it breaks,” but a Guarantee, “it can’t fail because God cannot lie!” Encouraged by this promise and with big plans for changing the world, John committed to the Lord his burden for establishing a retreat center for embattled pastors. He worked out all of the plans and waited for God to fulfill His promise. He is still waiting. Has God lied? Is this promise simply biblical “pie in the sky?” Where is the success? Or, must he reinterpret success by saying that God is just “putting it off” until a more favorable time—a reinterpretation that in reality is a way of saying “It doesn’t work!” without impugning God directly.

John’s problem, although he is unaware of it, centers on his belief in the Word of God, in this case the NIV translation. What he needs to ask, instead of the above questions, is whether the NIV has presented the reader with the only interpretive option. If he asks the right people that question, people capable of evaluating translations based on the original languages, the answer will be “No, there is no divine promise in this proverb as suggested by the NIV translation.”

The problem with the NIV in this verse appears to be two-fold. (1) The verse has two clauses, an independent imperative clause, “Commit to the LORD whatever you do,” and a probable dependent clause of result. The NIV presents two independent clauses. (2) The connotation of the English word “success” has only a questionable counterpart in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word כּוּן (in the Niphal stem) means “to be directed rightly” when used in moral contexts such as this one. Also, the translation of “plans” in the NIV is a derivative concept developed from the basic sense of “thoughts” (מַחֲשָׁבָה). The primary senses of these words make perfect sense.

The original Hebrew text focuses primary attention on independent imperative clause. The result clause plays a secondary role and does not represent a promise-like idea as suggested by the NIV translation. An acceptable translation of this proverb reads, Commit your works to Yahweh so that your thought processes may be directed rightly.

The point of the proverb is for the believer to demonstrate dependence upon God by inviting Him into the intended activity allowing Him to direct one’s thought processes. In other words, it is an invitation for a divine/human work operating within one’s mind. Once done, the believer must trust in those thoughts leaving the success outcome up to the sovereign God. James 1:5-7 (New American Standard Bible) represents a New Testament counterpart to this Old Testament proverb:

5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,
8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

A “Perfect” Perusal

2009-04-16T18:19:00.002-07:00

Although a portrait of Jesus Christ does not exist, most of the writers of the New Testament did know what He looked and sounded like. The shape of His face, the resonant quality of His voice—all were known to them. The use of the perfect aspect [traditionally called tense] in 1 John 1:1 confirms this statement.

Recalling a scene from the movie “Sleepless in Seattle,” the youngster tells his dad that he is beginning to forget what his deceased mother looked like. He closes his eyes in concentration, yet he still cannot fully outline her face. Time takes its toll. Were it not for photographs, eventually the young boy would be unable to picture his mother in his mind’s eye.

But this is exactly what is not happening in 1 John 1:1. John says that he and his fellow apostles have heard and can still “hear” [ἀκηκόαμεν] the timber of His voice. They have seen and can still picture [ἑωράκαμεν] His image in their mind’s eye. Time had not yet dimmed the image and the sounds of Jesus’ life on earth.

Ronald Ward attempts to catch the force of the perfect aspect in 1 John 1:1, “That which was from the beginning which still rings in our ears, the vision of which is still before our eyes . . . .” (Hidden Meaning in the New Testament, 50, italics mine). The Greek grammarian, A. T. Robertson, notes that “Some instances of the perfect [aspect] clamor for notice” (The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 100). He illustrates on page 101, “Once more in I Cor. 15:4 Paul employs a present perfect indicative [emphasizing the existing state] of the Resurrection of Jesus in the midst of a long list of aorist indicatives. . . . Paul undoubtedly means to emphasize the fact that Jesus is still risen by the present perfect. He is the Risen Lord, as is shown by the very [aspect] that is employed.”

Christians today, of course, cannot say what John said in 1 John 1:1. No one has seen and heard Christ directly. None can picture Him or create the sound of His voice in one’s mind. But this is only a temporal deficiency. When Jesus returns all believers can join John and speak in the perfect aspect forevermore! Today, however, Christians can still proclaim the risen Christ with confidence. The Apostle Paul has eternally validated this truth through his use of the perfect aspect, “Christ is risen!”

Appearances Can Be Deceiving

2009-04-11T13:12:00.003-07:00

Sometimes things are not as they seem. Exodus 32:18 may seem unimportant on the surface, but appearances can be deceiving. Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments while Joshua was waiting part way up the mountain. The Israelites were at the mountain’s base having what appears to be a party. The poem of verse 18 (New American Standard Bible) is designed to produce an emotional response:

“It is not the sound of the cry [עֲנוֹת] of triumph;
Nor is it the sound of the cry [עֲנוֹת] of defeat;
But the sound of singing [עַנּוֹת] I hear.”

The emotion in this poem is communicated through sound and sense rather than images. The repetition of similar sounds, the Hebrew words in brackets, draws attention strongly to the last line demanding further contemplation of the word for “singing.” Singing reflects an emotional response, and in this case it is a musical response to something very bad. Sometimes things are not as they seem.

The ironic sense of the poem relates primarily to the word singing. Word-play is involved as evidenced by noting once again the Hebrew italicized terms in the above translation. The third word (עַנּוֹת) differs from the preceding two words by the presence of a dagesh (sound-hardening point). This same spelling, dagesh included, reflects two different words: singing and affliction (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 776-777). Here is the irony: The people are singing enthusiastically in a fog of spiritual affliction. Having made a “god” to lead them back to Egypt, they rejoiced thinking that a problem had been resolved. In reality they had entered the spiritual darkness of idolatry. Moses’ response can be paraphrased thus:

“This is not a sound in response to victory in war;
And this is not a sound in response to defeat in war;
This is a sound of enthusiastic singing by a spiritually afflicted people that I am hearing.”

But again, sometimes things are not as they seem. In the context of Israel, the irony clearly applies. They sang while sinning. They experienced an illusion of spiritual victory. In the context of Christianity, the irony may also apply. Have we ever sung, “All to Jesus I Surrender,” without having the slightest intention of doing so? How much of our worship is illusion? We must constantly evaluate our spiritual lives so that when it comes to worship things really are as they seem.

A “Misdirected” Translation

2009-04-01T16:04:00.004-07:00

“But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38, New International Version and similar in the New American Standard Bible, NASB and many other English translations, bold mine)

Based on the English translations, the question arises as to the lexical difference between the English words “know” and “understand.” Webster says that to know is “to perceive or understand as fact or truth; apprehend clearly and with certainty” and to understand is “to grasp the meaning of.” Though overlap occurs between these English terms, the translations imply a difference in the depth of meaning, even if slight; and the interpretive focus of the verse ties to this difference.

Based on the Greek text, the question centers on the lexical differences between the words translated “know” (γνῶτε) and “understand” (γινώσκητε). Surprise! There is no difference. The terms have the same root and the same range of meanings. The only variation is in the aspect (formerly called “tense”) of the verbs. The first word (γνῶτε) is an aorist subjunctive whereas the second (γινώσκητε) is a present subjunctive. The difference is not lexical but syntactical. The translations have misdirected the meaning of the text, its interpretation and application.

This problem has existed since the early days of the transmission of the New Testament. Recognizing that the words translated know and understand have the same lexical meaning, the copyists of many New Testament manuscripts exhibited a variety of alternative readings—various changes to the grammatical form of the second word, replacing “know” with “believe,” and even omitting the latter word entirely. Clearly a perceived tautology, a redundancy, appeared to exist in the text by these copyists (see Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 198). However, tautology would in fact exist if the two words in question represented the same grammatical form, but they do not. There is a difference in the syntax of the verbal aspects that can account for an understandable duplication of the lexical meaning and lead to a clearer translation and interpretation of the verse as written.

The syntactical differences reflect the different functions of the aorist and present aspects. The aorist is ingressive meaning an entrance into a state of knowing; the present is progressive meaning a continuing to know. Here is a translation option that captures the essence of the meaning, “in order that you may come to know and continue knowing,” or as Abbott suggests (referenced in A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 850), “John employs the two forms with great deliberateness of ‘knowing’ and the development of it.” The difference is between “beginning and continuing to know” and not on “knowing and understanding” implying greater depth of knowledge.

The problem with the translation cited is that it causes one to raise the wrong question about the meaning of the text—“What is the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding?’” And asking the wrong question may lead to a wrong interpretation—“The listeners need to think deeper.” And the wrong interpretation may lead to a faulty application—“There is a deeper level of meaning in the text.”

In this passage Jesus invites his antagonistic Jewish listeners to “continue travelling with Him,” so to speak, in confirming the fact that “. . . the Father is in Me and I in the Father (NASB),” a statement of deity stemming from John 10:30. Sadly, their response to this invitation was to try to seize and destroy Him.

A contextually proper and contemporary application for this passage would be for skeptics of Jesus’ self-proclaimed deity to continue reading the Gospel with an open mind, adding to their existing knowledge, and evaluating the weight of all the accumulating evidences regarding Jesus’ statement of deity, “. . . the Father is in Me and I in the Father.”

A Mosaic Ambiguity and A Translator’s Decision

2009-03-25T18:13:00.007-07:00

Different understandings of passages in English Bibles are often based on different interpretations of the grammar of the text. Consider Deuteronomy 30:20 (italics mine):

“. . . by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life . . . .” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

“. . . and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, . . .” (New International Version, NIV)

Pronouns stand “in place of nouns.” Consequently, a regular need for interpreters is to determine a pronoun’s antecedent, the noun it replaces. The NASB locates the antecedent for the Hebrew pronoun translated this (הוּא) in the preceding ideas of loving, obeying, and holding fast. The NIV traces the antecedent for the pronoun back to the word “LORD” and, therefore, replaces the pronoun in question with that word. Which interpretation is the more probable?

First, a Hebrew pronoun can legitimately have preceding ideas as antecedents. But the feminine pronoun is typically used (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, paragraph 135p). The pronoun in Deuteronomy 30:20 is masculine.

Second, a Hebrew pronoun generally agrees with its antecedent in gender and number (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, paragraph 145). Furthermore, for communicative clarity, a pronoun normally agrees with the nearest antecedent. Again, the pronoun in Deuteronomy 30:20 is masculine singular, and the nearest preceding antecedent is “him,” then “his,” and finally the noun “LORD.”

In this instance it appears that the NIV has the best reading based on the grammar. But is it the best interpretation in the context?

The context of the NASB translation is clearly on covenant obedience to God. Moses lays out the lifestyle that will insure national blessing. Verses 18-19 contain covenant language and support this view satisfactorily. On the other hand the NIV focuses on a personal relationship to God, the author of life and death and the blessings and curses imbedded in the covenant. Again, the contextual evidence is strong. Since both interpretations have contextual justification, the reading that also conforms closest to the grammar of the language must enjoy interpretive priority—in this instance the NIV.

By way of application, Moses draws primary attention to a spiritual connection with God, the Source of life and blessings, and secondarily to obedience to His covenant. To further the thought, it is possible to obey God’s rules without genuine spirituality. Isaiah 29:13 says as much and is quoted by Jesus speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, “You hypocrites!, Well did Isaiah prophecy about you saying, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Matthew 15:7). It would appear that a biblical principle exists: Genuine spirituality results in obedience to God’s will whereas mere obedience can exist apart from genuine spirituality.

"Tense" Tensions

2009-03-15T15:37:00.003-07:00

The New Testament is a Greek book written in the Greek language. The English New Testament is a translation from the Greek New Testament and therefore a secondary source for the New Testament. The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that the Greek and English languages do not communicate in the same manner. The different communication patterns come to the forefront when English tries to translate the Greek verbs. A. T. Robertson explains (The Minister and His Greek New Testament, pp.90-91).

The difficulty that modern men have with these [Greek] tenses is that they come to them from the standpoint of the translation into English . . . . Unfortunately the Greek tenses do not run parallel with our modern tenses. They correspond much more nearly to the tenses in the Sanskrit than to the Latin tenses, but they have their own genius and history. One must leave translation alone when he approaches Greek tense and understand it as Greek before he undertakes to translate it.

1 John 3:9 provides an example of the situation indicated by Robertson. It reads in three popular translations:

King James Version (KJV) - “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin. . . . he cannot sin.”
New American Standard Bible (NASB) - “No one who is born of God practices sin. . . . and he cannot sin.”
New International Version (NIV) - “No one who is born of God will continue to sin. . . . he cannot go on sinning.”

The problem here involves both language and theology. The doctrine of sinless perfection is spawned by the language of the KJV and the NASB in the bold font. The American Holiness Movement, for example, rigorously defends perfectionism (Dayton, “Perfectionism,” The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church). This theological aberration is countered in part by the broad tenor of Scripture and by specific passages that speak against the perfectionism doctrine, but ultimately the language issue must be addressed.

The language concern focuses on the Greek present aspect. (Instead of using the traditional label “tense” the term “aspect” is used for the Greek verb function.) Unlike English where the primary force of verb tense is time, the Greek verb primarily emphasizes the kind of action involved and time becomes a secondary matter. The Greek aspects are three: progressive, undefined and perfective. The present aspect found in 1 John 3:9 emphasizes the ongoing nature regarding sin. Therefore, the translations that best focus the progressive kind of action are the clearer and preferred translations.

To evaluate the above examples, the KJV does not emphasize progress in either of the two present aspect verbs (doth not commit sin. . . . he cannot sin); the NASB focuses the continuing nature of the first present aspect verb (practices sin) but not of the second (he cannot sin); the NIV happily reflects continuance in both instances of the present aspect verb (will continue to sin. . . . he cannot go on sinning).

Smalley (1, 2, 3 John, p. 171) explains the aspectual difference this way, “John concludes this section by reminding his readers that the true child of God is . . . opposed to sin . . . the spiritually reborn believer, being a member of God’s family, cannot as a settled policy act lawlessly” (italics mine).

In most sentences, the verbs highlight meaning and direction of thought. Therefore, supreme attention must be given to their interpretation and translation, and in that order. First, the interpretation of the Greek verb must be made. Then, and only then, can a translation into English be attempted.

To reemphasize, the New Testament is not English literature; it is Greek literature, and the conscientious Bible interpreter and expositor must not do his interpretive work apart from examining the Greek New Testament if for no other reason than to validate the translation of the English text under consideration. If he cannot read Greek, there are numerous helps available in the marketplace so that there is really no excuse for ignoring this vital interpretive issue.

“σπούδασον σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ, ἐργάτην ἀνεπαίσχυντον, ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας.”

“Be conscientious to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed worker, rightly teaching the word of truth” (my translation).

A Proverb with an Invisible “Punch” Line

2009-03-03T08:35:00.004-07:00

Amphibologia refers to a figure of speech wherein one word has two meanings and where both are recognized and used in a passage (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 804). This occurs in Proverbs 14:34. If, however, this figurative expression is not seen, the passage is truncated and the proverb remains negative. But if it is seen and understood, it leads to positive joy and praise! The verse is a three-line not a two-line proverb.

In the New American Standard Bible the words translated sin (חַטָּאת)and disgrace (חֶסֶד) each have two meanings (whether these meanings are based on the same or different Hebrew roots is immaterial since the spellings are the same). The first word means both (a) sin, the primary sense, and (b) sin-offering, the secondary sense. The second word means both (a) lovingkindness, the primary sense, and (b) disgrace, the secondary sense. Given these lexical facts the verse can be translated in four different ways, beginning with (1) the primary meanings, (2) the secondary meanings, and alternating between the primary and secondary meanings for (3) and (4).

1 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is lovingkindness for people.
2 Righteousness exalts a nation, but the sin-offering is a disgrace for people.
3 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace for people.
4 Righteousness exalts a nation, but the sin-offering is lovingkindness for people.

Of these four possible readings, only 3 and 4 make sense.

The problem with this verse is that the reader of the English Bible does not know that the words have these different meanings and that full interpretation depends upon these variations. A reader familiar with the Hebrew vocabulary and reading from the Hebrew text, however, initially reads the verse as seen in translation (1) using the primary meanings. Then, when this makes no sense he may try translation (2) using the secondary meanings with the same result. Finally, varying the primary and secondary meanings, he uncovers translation (3), the primary followed by the secondary meaning, and (4), the secondary followed by the primary meaning, both of which do make sense. However, since translation (3) leaves the passage as a negative proverb—who cannot but sin and hence only experience varying degrees of disgrace—he retranslates the passage as seen in translation (4) and discovers a startling truth. Although mankind sins, God has provided expiation, a sin-offering, whereby people can restore their relationship to God and experience the exaltation mentioned in the first clause!

The full three-line proverb reads:

Righteousness exalts a nation,
and sin is a disgrace for people,
but the sin-offering is lovingkindness for people.

What a marvelous Old Testament proverb with its “invisible” punch line! The grace of God exhibited in His lovingkindness by providing the sin-offering so that people might be rightly related to Him should and no doubt did issue forth in praise and joy. But this Old Testament verse also prefigured the New Testament exhibition of the grace of God centered in the coming of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice as God’s Sin-Offering (Romans 8:3) making it possible for people everywhere to become rightly related to God and possess the indescribably gracious blessing of eternal life! And there is nothing invisible about this truth!

Tracking Down the Antecedent

2009-02-16T11:29:00.003-07:00

10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. 12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. 13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:11-13, New American Standard Bible [NASB])

Recall that universally applicable dictum “The devil is in the details,” and revise it to read “Accurate interpretation and application are in the details.” It appears to be fashionable these days to diminish the exhausting nature of biblical interpretation as though certain exegetical processes are unnecessary. The end result of an emasculated methodology is a failure to see all of the details of the text under scrutiny, details that point to accurate interpretation. The only real solution for avoiding this blindness is an interpretive methodology that passionately refuses to ignore any process that looks for data in the text, no matter how “pedantic” the process may seem to the weary interpreter. Philippians 4:10-13 hammers this truth into stone!

A standard rule of Greek grammar is that a pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender and number. Sometimes this “standard rule” does not seem to work out. Philippians 4:11 is a case in point where the prepositional phrase “in whatever circumstances” (ἐν οἷς) includes a neuter plural pronoun that has no clear antecedent in the context.

The pronoun in this apparent grammatical incongruity “connects w[ith] the situation described in what precedes under which circumstances = under these circumstances” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [BAGD], 727). In short, the antecedent is not a word but a situation.

The situation preceding Paul’s relative clause is want (literally, need, lack, poverty, ὑστέρησιν, BAGD, 1044). Therefore, the prepositional phrase literally means, “because of the circumstances of poverty . . . .”

The discovery of poverty as the antecedent for the pronoun helps explain other issues needing explanation in verses 12-13. First, the initial two clauses of verse 12, I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity (οἶδα καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι, οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν), repeats a conjunction usually translated as “and,” and does so in the above translation once while ignoring the first occurrence. This conjunction is placed second in its clause instead of its normal placement at the beginning of its clause affecting the understanding of the passage (note the bold words in the Greek text). Second, verse 12 consists of three repeated contrasts between poverty and excess with two summary phrases in the middle (in any and every circumstance, more literally in any and in all circumstances). Third, verse 13 necessarily connects with the preceding economic context but the NASB translation (and most others) seem to remove it to the periphery. This connection establishes itself strongly with the first word in the verse, a focus word, “all things” (πάντα, fully paraphrased “with respect to all the preceding economic matters”). The NASB translation “I can do all things” does not connect readily with verses 10-12 because “doing” is not a contextual concern for Paul.

Issue #1—Paul limited himself by the pronoun whatever circumstances (οἷς) to matters relating to poverty when actually he wanted to discuss a more extensive topic, all financial circumstances. The use of the “strangely placed” conjunction “and” (καὶ) carefully balances out the clauses (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 1181), “We may indeed have καὶ [“and”] in both parts of the comparison, a studied balancing of the two members of the sentence” (italics mine). One can envision Paul laying down his pen and musing about how he would restructure his words, since erasing a papyri page was not an option!

Issues #2 and 3—The preceding conclusions open up the text further. Verse 11 contains three items that are expanded in verses 12 and 13. (1) Poverty circumstances are expanded to include “all economic circumstances.” (2) Learned is reiterated in verse 12 with a mystery religion term literally translated “I have learned the secret” regarding money matters (μεμύημαι, perfect aspect, “I have learned the secret and am living in the light of it”). (3) The favorite Stoic term “self-sufficiency/content” (αὐτάρκης, see posting titled “Money Matters”) is expanded in verse 13 by ἰσχύω, translated “I can do” in the NASB, but contextually it is intransitive, not requiring a direct object, and means to be strong (BDAG, 484).

Finally, these conclusions are confirmed by the presence of the introductory “not that” (οὐχ ὅτι) at verse 11 and the omission of the expected balancing term “but” (ἀλλὰ, see verse 17 for the full format). When Paul penned in whatever circumstances (ἐν οἷς) a number of internal changes were needed, and these changes resulted in the omission of the “but” clause. When understood, the above-mentioned grammatical and lexical changes illumine the text in a dramatic way and lead to far-reaching applications! To repeat, “Accurate interpretation and application are in the details,” and seeing all of the details requires an exhaustive methodology.

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB).

Ouch!

2009-02-03T08:48:00.002-07:00

”And Jabez was more honorable than his brethren: and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, ‘Because I bore him with sorrow.’ And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, ‘Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that Thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me!’ And God granted him that which he requested. (1 Chronicles 4:9-10 King James Version)

“. . . and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain!, And God granted him that which he requested.” (1 Chronicles 4:9-10 New King James Version)

The two bold translation portions above reflect different interpretations of the Hebrew grammar (the infinitive verb form with a pronominal suffix). The suffix, a 1st person singular personal pronoun, translates both as “me” and “I” in the above readings. The pronoun can be interpreted as the KJV translates it (the object of the verb form, “me”) and as the NKJV translates it (the subject of the verb form, “I”). The infinitive verb form can be justly translated “hurt,” “pain,” “grieve,” so this is not an issue in what follows.

In evaluating these translations, the KJV has the advantage of translating the verb actively in keeping with the sense of the Hebrew verb stem (Qal). The NKJV, however, translates the verb with causation that would normally be identified with a different verb stem (Hiphil). By using the text’s verb stem (Qal), however, the NKJV could still have kept the subject use of the pronoun, but it would have had to insert a direct object for the verb, such as, “that I may not pain [others]!” It appears that the NKJV translators conveniently used the causation idea to avoid inserting a word not in the Hebrew text.

A third interpretation possibility is that the author was being intentionally ambiguous so that both the object and subject ideas can be understood in the reading of the text. As in all such cases, the context becomes the deciding factor in selecting the preferred interpretation.

One reason why Jabez was highlighted by the chronicler was the fact that his life defied the “painful” implication underlying his name, “and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, ‘Because I bore him with sorrow [ literally, pain].’” He became exceptionally honorable despite the public humiliation and reputation his name provided. Jabez did not want to experience pain (KJV, object) or pain others (NKJV, subject). These two ideas necessarily interrelate. Jabez knew that the acquisition of land belonging to a less-fortunate family (see Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Vol. 1, pp. 166-167) could hurt others and consequently bring about the very thing he sought to avoid—living up to the negative reputation imbedded in his name and suffering the pain of societal rejection.

Given the possibility that the two interpretations of the Hebrew text interrelate, one could supplement the English translation to bring out the fuller meaning. Consider this alternative: “and that You would keep me from evil, so that I neither experience pain nor hurt others.” In that “God granted him that which he requested,” Jabez presumably lived a happy and respected life on his newly acquired property.

Money Matters

2009-01-28T13:50:00.007-07:00

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency [footnote, or contentment] in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work (2 Corinthians 9:8, English Standard Version)

With this posting, I knowingly enter into what could be classified as “a lion’s den!”

“If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” This old adage applies to 2 Corinthians 9:8. In materialistic terms this verse appears to mean: (1) God can give grace which translates into money, (2) the money is enough to supply all my needs, and (3) I will have extra money to give towards the advancement of God’s kingdom. This sounds like a great plan. Why doesn’t it work? At least two reasons can be given.

First, God is able to give “financial grace” but for some reason He usually chooses not to do so. He alone, therefore, must bear the responsibility for the economic shortfall of His kingdom. This, of course, is too harsh to accept!

Second, this materialistic understanding of the verse that seems to leap out of the various translations, though possible, may be faulty. Does “sufficiency” refer to money or material possessions? This is the central question, but there is an alternative, suggested by the ESV footnote, to the apparent foregone conclusion of many translators.

The word “sufficiency” (αὐτάρκεια), a favorite word of the Stoics and Cynics and not alien to the Apostle Paul, refers to an internal state of contentment in one’s circumstances. This virtue is not dependent upon “having enough of everything,” but upon “being content with what one has,” whether much or little. In this light, perhaps a slight paraphrase can capture the essence.

“And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that [because you] have all [contentment] in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.”

Psychologically, a foreboding sense of personal need coupled to financial insecurity limits one’s emotional freedom to give. This holds true for both rich and poor. Conversely, freedom from anxiety about one’s economic status by maintaining faith in God’s providential care, coupled with contentment about one’s God-given material bounty, can open the heart and pocketbook. This God-supplied “sufficiency” can enable God’s people to give like the Macedonian church about whom Paul writes:

We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, 2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, 4 begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— 5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Corinthians 8:1-5, ESV)

This illustration epitomizes the meaning of “sufficiency” in our passage. The Macedonians didn’t have much but they were emotionally free to give out of what little they did have. Furthermore, they exhibited the ideal spiritual state for givers found in 2 Corinthians 9:7, “Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (ESV)

While a materialistic dimension does exist in the broader context of this passage providing the possibility that the translations are on target, the probabilities are aligned against them in 2 Corinthians 9:8. On the negative side, the “accusation” mentioned in view #1 above is hard if not impossible to erase. On the positive side, “inward contentment” appears to be a prerequisite both psychologically and biblically for cheerful and abundant giving.

What 2 Corinthians 9:8 promises is not all the material possessions we may need and more, but the freedom to give out of what we have without fearful preoccupation about our present and future economic well-being. Understood in this light, the translations could reflect this sense as seen in the ESV footnote, and surely sermons must not seek to create an unrealistic and unbiblical faith in something God never promised and rarely provides!

The Biblical Interpreter & Occasional Queasiness

2009-01-25T08:02:00.010-07:00

Exegesis (Bible interpretation) is the application of proper hermeneutics to the original text of Scripture for the purpose of declaring its intended meaning. All of the interpretation steps involved are designed to accomplish this goal. However, sometimes when all is done, the interpreter still scratches his or her head wondering why the conclusions arrived at seem less than final. Has all that there is to know about the text been discovered? This leads to the interpretation principle called “exegetical questioning.” If one can discover by questioning the text the particular area of uncertainty, he or she can potentially resolve the queasiness. Exodus 7:19 (New American Standard Bible) illustrates this process.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.’”

This passage seems straightforward, yet there is a vague something lurking in the background. Is this uncertainty related to the syntax? No, each term seems properly related to its context. Word meanings? Yes, and in particular the words translated “reservoirs of water” that appear to repeat what has just been said (tautology?), “their pools.”

A feminine form of the Hebrew word for “reservoir,” spelled מִקְוָה, occurs in the Old Testament only in Isaiah 22:11. It is not used in the Exodus passage. The masculine form of the word appears. Why? Being familiar with Hebrew vocabulary, the exact same spelling exists with another word meaning “hope” or “security,” something that would not have been true with the feminine word. Was this a purposeful word selection or merely a coincidence? To follow through on this further question: Is there any reason why the 1st plague upon the waters of Egypt should be an attack upon the Egyptians’ hope or security? This now becomes a historical question.

C.E. DeVries, writing in the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, “Nile,” states:

It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the river for Egypt. The Nile touched nearly every facet of Egypt[ian] life and gave to Egypt[ian] culture many of its characteristic features. In ancient times the recognition of dependence on the river led to the deification of the stream under the figure of the god Hapi, represented as a well-fed man with pendulous breasts, bearing offerings of the products of the river.

Would the ruination of the waters of the Nile that fed most other fresh water sources cause the Egyptians to lose their sense of security and hope? Indeed yes! A survey of the numerous commentators shows that the conflict between Moses and Pharoah at heart is a conflict between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt. It would not be overreaching to conclude that Moses used the word מקוה (lit. “confluence [of waters”] and “hope/security”) to indicate both ideas, an Amphibologia (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 804), a statement with two meanings both of which are true. This would then be an exceptionally powerful statement occurring as it does at the first plague.

Questions, questions, questions, leading to more questions! This is the nature of biblical interpretation! I am reminded of Sidney Greidanus’ pointed remarks (The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1988, p. 17):

Of course, interpreters understand texts only by asking questions and receiving answers. Asking the right questions is of crucial importance, for asking the wrong questions will undoubtedly result in receiving wrong answers. One of the weighty issues in hermeneutics is, therefore, how to ask the right questions.

Competent biblical interpreters must ever pursue truth, and often this means asking key questions and searching out the answers to those questions.

Paul’s “Strange Attitude”

2009-01-20T18:43:00.004-07:00

A portion of Acts 16:17 reads as follows in three popular translations:

“. . . which shew unto us the way of salvation” (King James Version)
“. . . who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation” (New American Standard Bible)
“. . .who are telling you the way to be saved” (New International Version)

These translations agree on the meaning of the words, “the way of salvation” even though the New International Version modifies the words. One wonders, however, why Paul became so agitated. A seemingly helpful slave girl follows Paul and his associates crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God who are declaring to you the way of salvation.” Rather than seeing this as a problem, why not praise God for the “free advertisement?” As an evangelist Paul does appear to have a strange attitude!

The Greek text, however, allows an interpretation not permitted by the above translations. The key phrase, “way of salvation” (ὁδὸν σωτηρίας), consists of two nouns and no definite article (“the”). There are two ways this phrase can be understood. (1) It can be definite emphasizing quality, that is, focusing on the various characteristics of the words in question. The best that English translations can do here is to use the definite article that in English points to identity without emphasizing quality inherent in the Greek non-article usage. (2) It can be indefinite where English would insert the indefinite article “a” before the phrase and translate, “a way of salvation.”

Exegetically, the second option is the only one that meets the interpretive criteria of sense and history. The citizens of Philippi would not have understood “the way of salvation” as the only way of salvation preached by Paul. Historically there were many “ways of salvation” in Roman and Greek societies. The populace would naturally position Paul and his associates as another group of philosophers roaming the world peddling a brand of “salvation” unique to them, and one that merely provided another “salvation option" for people. In light of this, the indefinite article translation provides the better interpretive probability. As an indefinite phrase one can readily understand why Paul was so upset. To him there is only one way of salvation, and to be classified as “just another philosopher” proclaiming “just another philosophy” would hinder the progress of the true Gospel.

In this instance, some of the major translations should be reevaluated; but without looking at the Greek text, few would realize that another interpretive option exists. Such was not the case for the translators of the International Standard Version on this verse that correctly reads, “a way of salvation.”

On a practical level, Bible studies or sermons based on this verse could conceivably waste time needlessly trying to rationalize the strange attitude of Paul in Philippi, and probably coming up short of the truth. In our day, postmodern thinking has captured the minds of unbelievers and, not unlike the demon-possessed servant girl following Paul around, marginalized the absolute claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is not “one alternative to salvation” but the only way of salvation. Paul’s attitude, it would seem, was not strange after all!

Pray with Integrity!

2009-01-13T09:49:00.004-07:00

Poetic texts are often self-interpreting and about 50% of the Old Testament was written in poetry! The problem, however, is that readers of the English Old Testament are not always attuned to the poetic elements imbedded in the Hebrew text, elements which the editors may not translate or elements that cannot be translated. Micah 3:4 is one example. The New American Standard Bible and other common versions adequately represent the words of the original Hebrew with one possible exception. The New American Standard Bible reads :

“Then they will cry out to the LORD,
But He will not answer them.
Instead, He will hide His face from them at that time,
Because they have practiced evil deeds.”

The verse has four lines which are developed in a chiastic (X) pattern around the subject of the verbs—(A) They, (B) God, (B') God, (A') They. According to Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 374, Chiasmos is “used in the most solemn and important portions of the Scriptures.” In this verse, the corresponding lines interpret one another. In other words, “will not answer” in line 2 is explained by “will hide His face” in line 3. Lines 1 and 4 also interconnect logically.

Understood chiastically, then, it is better to adjust the translation of the verb in line 4 to connect with the thought of line 1 and read, “because they have practiced and keep on practicing evil deeds.” (An example of the Hebrew “perfect tense with ‘have’ denoting action completed in the past but continuing in its effects into the present,” Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, An Outline, p. 29; Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, p. 311). The Lord answers the prayers of sinners when there is genuine repentance, but not when there is no repentance. One is driven to the conclusion that their praying for divine deliverance from distress occurs while they persist in their evil ways. This is the reason ("because," line 4) for God’s turning away from them in lines 2 and 3.

The poetic element in this verse expands both the meaning and the application. As the verse reads in the English text, one cannot help but wonder why God turns away from His people when they ask for His help. He will not turn a “deaf ear” if there is genuine repentance but He will turn away if there is religiosity without integrity. This Old Testament message is echoed in the New Testament, “You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures,” James 4:2b-3.

God’s people must . . . Pray with Integrity!

Syntax or “Sin Tax”?

2009-01-07T18:12:00.004-07:00

The high taxes on cigarettes has been dubbed by some as a “sin tax.” If sin is popularly defined as doing something wrong, the sin tax becomes part of the cost for wrongdoing. Depending on how much sin is involved, the tax could be large!

Syntax, on the other hand, comes from the preposition meaning together with (σύν) attached to a noun meaning arrangement (τάξις) giving the combined meaning of arranged together with. Grammatically syntax is defined as the relationship between a word and its immediate context.

Syntax and “sin tax” sound the same and they should have no connection with one another. But, alas, when syntax evaluation in the texts of the New and Old Testaments is not done or is done wrongly (“sin”), a tax is levied—a possible misunderstanding of the text of the Bible and without the interpreter's awareness. Such cost of exegetical failure is always too high!

Avoidance of the exegetical “sin tax” must begin with a philosophical conviction. The exegete must know how every term in the text relates to its context. Syntax analysis of no term can be ignored.

It has been fashionable in recent years to limit syntax evaluation to “significant” terms. Logically, however, determining significance cannot be done apart from intentional focus on every term in the text. Furthermore, often the “significant” terms in the text are precisely those that are overlooked in such a “significance-oriented” scenario, terms such as conjunctives, articles, and particles. Competent exegesis is exhaustive, painstaking work, but for accurately knowing the word of God it is worthwhile work. Shortcuts invite the “sin tax.”

Good Try!

2009-01-05T13:21:00.003-07:00

That well-know quip, “You cannot please everyone all the time,” apparently was untrue for the Apostle Paul, if we can believe the New American Standard Bible (NASB) at 1 Corinthians 10:33, “. . .just as I also please all men in all things.” It would be phenomenal if we could discover how he did it—if he did do it.

The correspondence of the Apostle clearly indicates that he had his detractors—

Romans 16:17-20; 1 Corinthians 4:2-21; 2 Corinthians 10-12; Galatians 3:1-6; Philippians 1:15-17; 3:2-4; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:14-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 4:1-5; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:16-26; 4:14-16; Titus 1:10-16.

How can we explain the apparent contradiction between the statement of Paul as seen in the NASB and his contrary testimony elsewhere?

Perhaps Paul was exaggerating the truth or using hyperbole for emphasis. But the context of the verse does not readily permit this conclusion. Or, perhaps the NASB translation can be “blamed” for this apparent Pauline contradiction.

The New International Version (NIV) interpretation of this verse suggests this last possibility, “. . . even as I try to please everybody in every way.” Clearly, trying to please all is very different from actually pleasing everyone. The key difference is in the word trying.” Can it be justified?

The present aspect of the verb in question, to please, can be understood as a tendential present that refers to an act or event contemplated, proposed, or attempted but not actually accomplished (Brooks & Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 86). In this light, the NIV translation is both justified and probable. It correlates well with the context here and with Paul’s statements elsewhere.

Did Paul please everyone all the time? No! The Greek text justifies this conclusion even when a popular English translation misses the mark.

Divine Anguish

2009-01-03T16:08:00.011-07:00

When English translations all agree, is there reason to look at the Hebrew text? Genesis 3:9 reads:

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, “Where art thou?” (KJV)
And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, “Where art thou?” (RSV)
Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” NASB)
But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” (NIV)

The story is familiar. Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree. Upon hearing the sound of Yahweh in the garden, they hid among the trees out of fear knowing that they had disobeyed. Yahweh called out to them asking where they were, and they responded with the excuse that they hid because they were naked.

Although a number of theological questions could be asked about this event, the present question is whether or not anything can be gained by looking at the Hebrew text which reads:

וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָה אֱלהִים אֶל־הָאָדָם וַיאמֶר לו אַיֶּכָּה׃

On an initial reading there is little to get excited about. But a closer examination of the final word opens up a profound truth. When seen this passage can never again be read unemotionally.

The original writing was without vowel points and the last word in the unpointed text of this verse contains a clear double reference. The word in the pointed text stands for the interrogative particle "where?" (אי) plus a somewhat rare form of the 2nd masculine singular pronoun "you" (כה). However, another word consists of the same consonants איכה and that word has various meanings: the interrogative adverb of manner, "in what manner?"; the interrogative adverb of place, "where?"; and the exclamation, "how!". As an exclamation איכה is the title and theme of the book of Lamentations!

Not only did God confront Adam and Eve in the garden making them face the consequences of their sin—alienation from Him. He also experienced the pain of separation. The word translated “where?” is also an exclamatory cry of anguish, “how!”, a cry reflected in the incomplete sentence of Genesis 3:22 “And now lest he sends forth his hand and takes also from the tree of life and eats and lives forever. . . .” It is as if God is unable to verbalize the judgment implied. This divine anguish continues to Calvary and only finds relief in Revelation 22 when the people of God enjoy God’s presence forever as they partake of the tree of life in the midst of the garden.

The story of original sin is as much a story of God’s pain as it is of mankind’s disobedience. Maybe when we reflect upon this aspect of Genesis 3 we will be able to appreciate the heinous nature of our own sins. And, yes, there is reason to consult the Hebrew text even when the English versions agree.

“Spring Up, 0 Well!”

2008-12-30T09:36:00.013-07:00

My previous post (Sermons in Sounds) emphasized the sounds of the Greek language in the New Testament that, when observed, speak volumes about the writers’ emotions, and emotions are a definite part of the interpretation of the text. In this post I focus on the sounds of the Hebrew language in the Old Testament. Given the nature of Hebrew, about which I won’t expand upon now, sound issues become much more pervasive in the Old Testament. Hopefully this post will reveal some of the fascinating aspects and interpretive benefits of hearing the Hebrew text.

Most English translations of Numbers 21:17-18 separate the final line of the poem as transcribed in the Hebrew Bible and simply make it a part of the continuing wanderings narrative. Without this last line, however, the poem is rendered nearly meaningless. With the last line the poem carries significant theological weight. Note the Hebrew text followed by the English Standard Version translation:

עֲלִי בְאֵר עֱנוּ־לָהּ׃ [Line 1]
בְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִים כָּרוּהָ נְדִיבֵי הָעָם בִּמְחקֵק בְּמִשְׁעֲנתָם [Line 2]
וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה׃ [Line 3]

“Spring up, O well!—Sing to it!— (Line 1 of the Hebrew text)

the well that the princes dug,
that the nobles of the people delved,
with the scepter and with their staffs.” (Line 2 of the Hebrew text)

And from the wilderness they went on to Mattanah (Line 3 of the Hebrew text but not part of the poem in the ESV. The italics are mine and are absent in the original text.)

One key to the function of the poem is found in the sound correlation between the preceding statement of verse 16 “that I may give them water” and the name of the place Mattanah. Mattanah is a derivative of the verb meaning to give (nathan /נתן) and draws a significant sound parallel (mattanah מַתָּנָה/ettanah אֶתְּנָה).

A second key to the poem’s meaning is found in the fact that the place name Mattanah is also a noun meaning gift,no difference in spelling (מַתָּנָה), and again, a derivative of the verb meaning to give (nathan /נתן).

A final key is the fact that although Mattanah is in the desert the last line says that from the wilderness, utilizing a preposition of separation, they went to Mattanah. The continuing itinerary shows, however, that they never left the wilderness (cp. verse 23).

This poem was meant to encourage the wilderness wanderers and point them to Yahweh’s continuous provision for their need and the fulfillment of His promised gift of the promised land. Finding water while wandering in the desert was a great comfort for the thirsty Israelites. Leaving water to continue the wilderness trek could be fearful. It is significant that the very next place on the itinerary is a place that points both to the present gift of water, and to the upcoming gift of the promised land after they finish their journey. As such, the poem focuses on Yahweh’s providential care for His people both in the present as well as in the future. They can continue their journey with confidence in the present with an encouraged eye of faith for the future.

When the last line of the poem is unrecognized in the English translations, the poem perhaps becomes simply an exuberant reflection of finding water in the desert, in itself not an insignificant theme. When the last line is recognized, however, the poem is a powerful theological statement of God’s provision for His people and His faithfulness to His promises.

This post is not meant to cast fault on the English translations or translators. It is virtually impossible for any English translation to capture the nuances imbedded in the sounds of the Hebrew text. Hopefully, what it does is to emphasize the importance of being able to see and hear the Old Testament in all of its original glory and beauty! Another New Year’s goal—take a course in biblical Hebrew!

Sermons in Sounds

2008-12-26T14:35:00.006-07:00

Some data in the Bible is unobservable to the English Bible reader. There are sermons in the sounds of the Greek language.

The first example is Philippians 3:2. Here are the similar sounding words, given first in Greek and followed by the New American Standard Bible translation:

Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας, βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν.

“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision.”

The English translation of this text cannot duplicate the audible exclamation points produced by the repeated sounds of each consecutive word. Note the initial letters in bold typeface β, τ, κ. The best that it can do is to repeat the initial word. In doing so the English translation put the emphasis on the exhortation beware! but it obscures the fact that Paul’s emotional focus is on the false teachers. This is as close as Paul is going to come to actual swearing, if we can picture such an outburst from so eminent an Apostle!

The second example comes from Peter. In 1 Peter 1:4 the Apostle becomes enthralled with the idea of the heavenly inheritance. This can be seen somewhat in the New American Standard Bible rendition, “to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away.” As in the previous example, however, the audible exclamation points are not as all as dramatic as the original text. Notice what Peter wrote in Greek:

εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον

The three adjectives have the same sounds both at the beginning and at the end of the words as seen in the bold typeface. This is literary skill at work. This is beauty. This is the text expressing an emotion that the English text is hard-pressed to duplicate. In his sermon, Peter would be shouting out each word and pounding the pulpit in excitement!

The point at hand is basic. The New Testament is a Greek book, and its full beauty as well as its meaning cannot be completely observed in any translation. This is not said to diminish the English Bible but to elevate the original text.

We have arrived at the end of 2008 and 2009 is just beginning. Maybe a good “resolution” or “goal” for the New Year would be to learn how to read the New Testament in all of its original glory!

The Dark Side of Christmas

2008-12-15T09:35:00.007-07:00

“Chestnuts roasting on an open fire,” “Joy to the World,” “Jingle Bells.” Couple these ubiquitous songs with the ringing of the Salvation Army bells, the gleeful shouts of excited children browsing toy stores with their harried parents, the chatter of cash registers, and the ever-present bustling crowds and you have—Christmas. Christmas is to be a time of joy and celebration, a time of family gatherings and sharing lives. Perish the thought that there could be a “dark side” to this holiday season.

But a dark side there really is. Frank knows about this dark side. As he drives by the houses decked with lights he remembers how it used to be—the family outing to cut the perfect tree, the making of “lists” of hoped-for presents, the subterfuge of playing Santa on Christmas Eve, the Christmas Day feasting and gentle table-banterings. That was last year. This year there will be no tree-cutting adventure, perhaps there will be no tree at all. There may be some vague hope for a gift or two, expectations are at an all-time low. Santa suits are out. The Christmas feast will be a Denny’s “special,” and afterwards, perhaps, there will be the visit across town to give some presents to Millie and Matt who live with their mother and step-dad. Yes, Frank knows about this dark side of Christmas. Christmas is not the “happiest time of the year” but the worst time of the year.

This dark side of Christmas has a biblical referent which is usually left out of the Christmas pagent. We see the children role-playing wise men, shepherds, Herod, Joseph and Mary, and, of course, the Christ child. We do not usually revisit Bethlehem one to two years after the Christmas event to witness the slaughter of the innocent children. Why inject pain into such a gloriously joyful season? But this is exactly what Matthew does in 2:16-18, and in doing so he focuses the real meaning of Christmas in dramatic fashion.

After the wise men returned to their own land another way to escape King Herod (2:12), Matthew records the migration of the holy family to and from Egypt and ties it to the words of the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” Since the events narrated in 2:13-15 could be coupled very nicely with 2:19-23 and the return of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Nazareth without including verses 16-18, the question must be asked, “Why did Matthew insert this dark and painful event into the Christmas story?”

The reason for Matthew 2:16-18 lies in one fact and in the answer to one question. The fact—Matthew was writing his gospel in large measure for the benefit of the Jewish people. Given this Jewish context, the quotations from the Old Testament are designed to draw connecting links between previous prophecy and present events so as to focus the Jews on the Person of Christ, the Fulfiller of the ancient Messianic promises. Clearly this connection is seen in 1:23; 2:6-7; and 2:15; as well as in 2:23, even though the exact Old Testament referent for this last passage is obscure. The question—How does Jeremiah 31:15, the quotation in 2:17-18, fit into Matthew’s development of the Christ-child story?

Jeremiah 31 is a major Old Testament touchstone for the future of the nation of Israel. The high point of the chapter is the description of the New Covenant in verses 31-34 that begins thus:

Behold, days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant, unlike the covenant I made with their fathers in the day I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, even though I was their husband,” declares Yahweh.

This certain future, however, proceeds from the immediate context of national defeat, humiliation and imminent exile. Verse 15 is the centerpiece of this travail:

Thus says Yahweh, “A voice in Ramah is heard—lamentation, weeping marked by extreme bitterness; Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are not.”

The village of Ramah, located about five miles north of Jerusalem on the Water-parting Road, the north-south highway, was an assembly point for the deportation to Babylon in 586 B.C. (Jeremiah 40:1). Here Ramah is a symbol for that soon-to-be national tragedy. Rachel also is used in this passage as a national symbol. Keil (The Prophecies of Jeremiah, vol. 2, p. 25) explains:

Just as the people are often included under the notion of the “daughter of Zion,” as their ideal representative, so the great ancestress of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh is here named as the representative of the maternal love shown by Israel in the pain felt when the people are lost.

The lamentation and weeping without even desiring to be comforted dramatizes the enormity of the events associated with the forthcoming Babylonian Captivity. Yet this painful prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15 is surrounded with glorious promises of future blessing. In fact, the very next verses appear emotionally incongruous, even cruel, in their exhortation:

Restrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for there will be a reward for your work,” declares Yahweh, “And they shall return from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for your future,” declares Yahweh, “And children shall return to their own border."

Thus we have in the center of Jeremiah 31 both the greatest national tragedy and the greatest national blessing existing side-by-side!

Matthew’s quotation in 2:18 is stated as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15. Since Ramah and Rachel are symbols in the Jeremiah text, the nature of that fulfillment cannot be related to the specific town or person mentioned. Instead the fulfillment must connect with the symbolism—Israel and the exile. Matthew’s use of this symbolism in verse 18 stems from the equating of Jesus with Israel in verse 15 by quoting Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called My son.” In other words, Jesus is the embodiment of the nation and the “exiled” son who returns to His own land. The “Slaughter of the Innocents” event with its quotation from Jeremiah becomes a pointer for the Jewish readers to the national pain that their forefathers and they experienced through disobedience as well as an indicator that the child Jesus is the locus for the fulfillment of the promised blessings. The Herodian outrage at Bethlehem, then, was not itself the antitype of the prophecy Matthew cites but the occasion for citing the prophecy concerning Israel’s future. The readers surely identified with the grief over the Bethlehem event as their forefathers did over the deportation in 586 B.C., but they were forced also to relate Jesus’ return out of Egypt to the promise of eventual blessings for the nation. Jesus becomes the key figure for that eschatological event, and this is what is meant by the fulfillment motif. In Hagner’s words (Matthew 1-13, p. 38),

Again, in Matthew’s perspective, Jesus is understood as summarizing the whole experience of Israel as well as bringing it to fulfillment. Every strand of hope and trial in the OT is woven together in the eschatological appearance of the Promised One.

Carson (“Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 95) speaks to the hope aspect:

Jeremiah 31:15 occurs in a setting of hope. Despite the tears, God says, the exiles will return; and now Matthew, referring to Jeremiah 31:15, likewise says that, despite the tears of the Bethlehem mothers, there is hope because Messiah has escaped Herod and will ultimately reign.

He continues:

The tears of the Exile are now being “fulfilled”—i.e., the tears begun in Jeremiah’s day are climaxed and ended by the tears of the mothers of Bethlehem. The heir to David’s throne has come, the Exile is over, the true Son of God has arrived, and he will introduce the new covenant (26:28) promised by Jeremiah.

In this sense, Matthew’s insertion of the tragic Bethlehem slaughter dramatically punctuates the meaning of Christmas. There is both pain and promise necessarily associated with this yearly celebration.

If pain and promise both are part of the Christmas story as presented by Matthew to his Jewish audience—disobedience with its terrible consequences and salvation by God’s grace—pain and promise is also part of the Church’s theology of Christmas. Paul reflects in Galatians 3:13-14:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law when he became a curse for us—for it stands written, “Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree”—in order that the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

With a broader brush Paul continues in 4:4-5:

But when the fulness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son who was born of a woman and who was born under law, in order that He might redeem those under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Christ was born to be crucified, to experience our pain, so that we might have life. The essential but often neglected symbol of Christmas is the cross. That Christ came to die points to the pain; that Christ came to save points to the promise. Christmas is a pain and promise event.

The pain and promise of Christmas has a Jewish connection through Matthew and Jeremiah and a Church connection through Paul. But there is also a contemporary connection—Frank. The pain associated with Christmas arrives every year, but along with the arrival of pain is the promise of life—not only the promise of eternal life, as blessed as that is, but also the promise of an abundant life. “I [Christ] have come”—the Christmas event—“that they might experience life, and might experience abundant [life]” (John 10:10b). What Frank needs to realize is that Christmas brings not only pain but also promise, and the promise exists for him. Perhaps he needs a pointer, as did Matthew’s Jewish readers, to the locus of the promise, Jesus Christ. Once he sees Him maybe then will he be able to focus on the positive instead of the negative aspects of this “happiest time of the year.”

Tithing Is Not About Money!

2008-12-12T08:21:00.007-07:00

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglected the others." (Matthew 23:23, NASB)

What connection did Jesus see between tithing and justice, mercy and faithfulness? F. F. Bruce provides the following suggestion (The Expositor's Greek Testament, I, 282, slightly altered):

“The idea seems to be: [the Pharisees] made a great show of zeal in doing what was easy, and shirked the serious and more arduous requirements of duty.—[the justice, τὴν κρίσιν], righteous judgment, implying the love of righteousness, a passion for justice—[the mercy, τὸ ἔλεος], sadly neglected by Pharisees, much insisted on by Jesus.—[the faithfulness, τὴν πίστιν], in the sense of fidelity, trueheartedness. . . .”

This commentator apparently sees a peripheral connection between tithing and justice, mercy, and faithfulness. However, the historical basis for tithing would reject this in favor of a direct connection between these issues.

The Old Testament mentions three different tithes: one for the Levites as their inheritance instead of land, one for the poor as a social program of financial aid, and one for the people to finance a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for one of the three required annual feasts. These three tithes equate to Jesus' terms justice, mercy, and faithfulness respectively.

This historical understanding of the background of Matthew 23:23 is reflected by the Greek definite articles, the, used in the Greek text of Matthew 23:23 but not included in the English translation. The articles ask the reader to think in particular terms rather than general ones. Thus, justice is specifically tied to the first tithe, it is unjust to rob Levi of his inheritance; mercy, to the second tithe, the people of God are to be merciful to the poor in their midst; and faithfulness, to the third tithe, attendance at the annual feasts was required under the covenant and an issue of covenant faithfulness.

The conclusion of this study is that the connection between the tithes and the definite concepts mentioned by Jesus are hidden to the English Bible reader because the translations do not include the definite articles which could have been done, though awkwardly, in English—the justice (focus of tithe 1), the mercy (focus of tithe 2), the faithfulness (focus of tithe 3).

The conclusion of this investigation is that there is a very real connection between financial stewardship and justice, mercy, and faithfulness. The rest of the New Testament confirms this connection. In a significant way financial stewardship is really not about the money but about spirituality.

You can study this topic further by consulting: Wretlind, Dennis O. Shekels, Dollars & Sense, Victoria BC, Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2006. It is available at Trafford.com and Amazon.com.

What! Another Translation?

2008-12-10T08:39:00.005-07:00

To some people another translation of the Bible is just another translation too many. "Surely," the argument runs, "biblical scholarship has approached its zenith so that we can stop multiplying translations and confusing people." There is definitely some truth in this statement. If the reason for the translation is purely economic or just to have one's name attached to a translation, it is one translation too many. But there are at least three acceptable reasons for more English versions.

One reason is the English language itself. To the degree that existing translations fail to reflect modern usage another translation is in order. In this regard perhaps a new translation for the general populous every 20 years or so would be fitting. An illustration of this type of problem is the revised NASB (1997) rendering of Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me." The previous edition completed in 1971 reads "Blessed are you when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely on account of Me." The word revile is a bit anachronistic today.

Another reason for a new translation is the status of the biblical text, the manuscripts from which translations are made. As scholars better understand the science of textual criticism and the biblical manuscripts they suggest changes in textual readings. When a significant number of broadly validated suggestions exist a new translation is in order. The present state of textual-critical theory and practice and manuscript evaluation, however, practically eliminates the need for new translations for this reason in the foreseeable future.

Third, a new translation is legitimate when new interpretations of a formidable number of passages gain scholarly consensus. Achieving such unanimity of interpretation is not easy which means, therefore, that the need for a new translation on this ground is rare. It is better to footnote these changes in subsequent editions until the volume of necessary adjustments becomes unacceptable. Galatians 1:13 and 23 in the NASB, NIV, NLT, and NKJV differ from the venerable KJV in their recognition of the tendential nature of the verb "to destroy" (ἐπόρθουν) and translating "trying to destroy" instead of the obviously inadequate "destroyed." Here scholarly consensus has apparently been achieved.

New translations are occasionally necessary and good. But before another one is made the reasons for it must justify the effort. Otherwise another translation is just another unnecessary and potentially confusing product.

Saving the Apostle Paul

2008-12-08T16:37:00.016-07:00

Paul’s clearly affirms his need for salvation in Philippians 1:19, “I know that this shall turn out to my salvation,” he writes. But, what did he mean and how did he used the word salvation (σωτηρίαν) here?

Neither the Greek New Testaments by Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Societies indicates that Paul is quoting from the Old Testament here. However, the margins of both texts tie the words to the Septuagint reading of Job 13:16. The wording is exact. The exegetical question, then, is how, if at all, Paul’s Old Testament allusion, conscious or unconscious, affects the meaning of his stated need for salvation?

Interpreting quotations and allusions involves minimally (a) the source of the reference, (b) the interpretation of the reference within its own context, (c) the manner of the citation by the writer, and (d) the purpose for the inclusion. In Philippians 1:19 the source of the allusion is clearly Job 13:16. The meaning of Job 13:16 within its own context may be summarized thus: In response to an accusation of being guilty of sin before God by Zophar, Job argues that he is innocent and that if he could argue his case legally before God he would be acquitted. In the Job context, this shall turn out to my salvation (τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν) , is a statement of acquittal. The Septuagint (LXX, Greek translation of the Old Testament) term salvation (σωτηρίαν) represents the Hebrew word salvation (ישׁוּעָה) meaning victory and, in this legal context, victory is acquittal.

The manner of the citation is a direct quote from the LXX which is itself a good representation of the Hebrew precursor. Finally, the purpose for the allusion connects to the observation that Job’s and Paul’s experiences are somewhat parallel. Job was accused of sin by his “friend;” Paul is being attacked by “brothers.” Both Job and Paul claim victory.

Salvation in this context, then, is Paul’s statement of faith that his life now and in the future will exhibit genuine Christian character and never give way to sin and shame. Salvation here is the salvation of a victorious Christian life both in the present and when he stands before the Judge of all the earth.

Bible Translation--An exercise in "Failure"!

2008-12-08T09:53:00.001-07:00

One of the most difficult questions I am asked as a minister and professor with competence in the biblical languages is this, “Which English translation is the best?” or “Which English translation should I buy?” The questioner, whether that a church member or a student, assumes that the answer should be relatively easy for one who can read the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, and thereby be able to assess the merits of each English version. As in most serious questions, however, the answer is not easy. In this instance some of the difficulty lies in the fact that the questioner lacks, first, some understanding about the nature of the translation process and, second, how to assess the relative merits of any English translation.

Translation by its very nature is an exercise in failure. To be sure that failure is more pronounced in some translations than in others, but they are all failures. The failure most basically is tied to the fact that different languages are just that—different. That is, the communication pattern of the biblical languages is different from that of English and some of the data of these texts cannot pass over into the English translation. For example, Greek varies the order of words in a sentence according to the emphasis given to each word whereas English requires a regular order of words in a sentence, leaving the emphasis for spoken communication. Thus, in an English translation one cannot see the emphasis of the original text that is a major element of communication in every language. For another example, Hebrew often uses similar sounding words to communicate depth of meaning. English necessarily changes the sounds and removes the ability to see the full meaning of the original text. These and other kinds of problems exist in trying to translate biblical language texts into English. In short, no translation can transfer all of the data of one language into another language. Every translation, therefore, is an exercise in failure.

But there are degrees of failure, and the process of determining the “better” translation is related to this question, “Which translation transfers the greater amount of data from the original without adding to or detracting from the data of the original?” There are two elements in this question. The first, the degree of success in transferring data, requires an ability to read the original and compare the translation. The “best” translation will be the one that transfers the greater amount of the transferable data. The second part of the question, whether or not
extra-textual data is brought into the translation, also requires the ability to read the original and compare translations. Data which is “extra-textual” can consist of making the translation more explicit or less explicit in meaning than the original, adding words not found in the original without indicating that they are added by the translator, rewording the sentences to bring emphasis to an element not emphasized in the original, changing singulars to plurals and visa versa, using gender-inclusive terms where the original has gender-specific terms, etc. Translation philosophy strongly comes into play here as well. A formal equivalence or word-for-word translation philosophy generally tends to have high success in transferring the transferable data and low inclinations towards adding extra-textual data. A dynamic equivalent translation philosophy generally tends to have only moderate success in transferring the transferable data and a high tendency towards adding extra-textual data. In short, the “better” translation would be the one that follows a word-for-word philosophy. But all of this is complicated by the fact that any one translation may be classified as “best” in one passage and somewhat less successful in another.

Perhaps it can be understood now why the question of which translation is best is exceedingly difficult to answer. There is no one easy solution to this complicated problem. What the questioner wants to hear is an answer such as “NASB,” or “NIV,” or “KJV,” etc. What the questioner gets is an education. To persons without the ability to investigate the original languages for themselves I recommend that they use various translations in their studies enabling them to compare the English versions and to observe where significant differences lie. At least one of these Bibles ought to follow the word-for-word philosophy of translation such as the KJV, NKJV, or NASB. Beyond this the questioner can consult commentaries to determine which translation is “best” in a given passage.

Where Is the Professor When You Need Him?

2008-12-06T09:18:00.002-07:00

Your Bible study group is really enjoying your brilliant expositions of the Psalms. You, of course, cannot tell the group how many laborious hours you spend pouring over your Hebrew Bible to assure them that you really do know what you are talking about. This week has been a tough one, however. Your family required extra time, your job moved into “extra innings,” your professors refuse to delay the mid-term exam. You have no choice; you will have to “wing it” on Psalm 56. Hopefully there will not be any “land mines” in the way of another successful evening of fascinating your Bible study group!

Then came verse 1 (English text) . . .

(NIV)”Be merciful to me, 0 God, for men hotly pursue me all day long they press their attack.”

(NKJV)”Be merciful to me, 0 God, for man would swallow me up; Fighting all day he oppresses me.”

(NASB) ”Be gracious to me, 0 God, for man has trampled upon me; Fighting all day long he oppresses me.”

SUE: "My Bible says 'men hotly pursue me;' Tom’s says 'man would swallow me up;' yours says 'man has trampled upon me.' How can it mean all of these things. Don’t they imply different things?"

TOM: "Right. Also, the NIV places the event in the present; the
NKJV, as a possible future event; and the NASB, a past event.
When did this happen? Is there a single best translation? Is there a single meaning?"

YOU: “Be merciful to me, 0 God!”

Why Study Biblical Languages?

2008-12-04T17:12:00.001-07:00

One of the goals of Hebrew and Greek grammar is to demonstrate the significance of studying these biblical languages. To some, no explanations will be needed; to others, definitive proof will be required. These blogs will prove, it is hoped, that a working knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is imperative for anyone desiring to "rightly divide the Word of truth." Logic alone, however, can serve the same purpose. The following quotation is taken from The Expository Times:

"If the Bible is what we profess to believe it to be, it is worth the effort to read it in the original. One who made it his life's work to interpret French literature, but who could only read it in English translation, would not be taken seriously; yet it is remarkable how many ministers of religion week by week expound a literature that they are unable to read save in translation!"

The first fact that needs to be understood clearly is this: The Bible is Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek literature; English is merely the means whereby the English speaking world accesses it. The second truth that must not only be grasped but accepted is that every translation of the Bible is necessarily an interpretation. That interpretation may be good or bad, but interpretation it truly is. Furthermore, it is impossible for any translation to transmit all that the original languages communicate because languages do not communicate in the same manner. In evaluating translations, therefore, one can only speak of varying degrees of loss, and no translation consistently maintains its degree of loss. Some passage are excellent; others less so.

These blogs, at the very least, will show how a knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek can: (1) reveal truths unrecoverable by any translation, (2) clarify obscure passages of the English Bible, (3) open up new interpretive possibilities for understanding the text beyond those which the English translations offer, and (4) aid us in evaluating between competing English translations/interpretations. Welcome to the wonderful world of the Bible Blogger!