“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.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Word Order—Does It Make Any Difference?
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.
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”!
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”!
Monday, September 28, 2009
"Do You Take This Woman . . . ?"
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.
Note the bold words in the New American Standard Bible that reflect the Hebrew original:
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:
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 be 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 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 be 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.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Lost Emphasis in Salvation
“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.
[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.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Does God Care about Rover?
“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!
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!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Intercessory Prayer—A Matter of Life or Death!
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).
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.
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.):
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!
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!
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Present and Future—Out of the Past
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” decades ago . . . .
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” decades ago . . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)