"Tense" Tensions

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

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

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!

”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.

The Biblical Interpreter & Occasional Queasiness

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.

Good Try!

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

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.