Bill and Bob's Blog

Grant Repentance (2 Tim 2:25)

Bill Mounce — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:30:40 -0600

Paul tells Timothy that he must stay away from senseless controversies, not be quarrelsome but rather kind, patiently enduring evil. Paul is thinking specifically of how Timothy should deal with the false teachers at Ephesus, men that I have argued in my commentary are the Ephesian church leadership.

Paul follows up with this statement. “God may perhaps grant (δώῃ) them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:25-26). Paul had already warned him that church leadership must be above reproach else they might fall into the power of Satan (1 Tim 3:6-7). It would appear that this had in fact happened in the Ephesian church, and that the wolves among the flock predicted in Acts 20:29-30 were in fact within the current leadership.

The phrase “granted them repentance” always struck me as a somewhat strange expression. Don’t we repent when we come under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, see our error, and repent? Perhaps, some of the time; but it appears that the Ephesian church leadership had gone considerably beyond this point. The only repentance they were going to experience was if God gave it to them. What does this mean?

What's an Anacoluthon?

Bill Mounce — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:00:17 -0600

I went in to see the doctor a while back and he said that I had, well, I didn’t know the word he used. It was too long and Latin based. I asked him what that meant, and he said, a cold (I think it was).

“If it is just a cold,” I asked, “then why not call it a cold?”

“Because we can’t charge you a lot of money to diagnose a cold,” he responded.

“No, really, why use a long complicated term when a short one would do?”

My doctor is a long-term personal friend, so we have lots of fun conversations. Honestly, part of the answer is to sound esoteric he said, but part of it is to be medically specific. “Cold” is a pretty large category, and I had a specific form.

But before we start blaming the medical profession for something, we should look at our own discipline and ask if we do the same thing. I snicker sometimes when I use the word “lexicon” to describe a dictionary. Why do we call it a “lexicon”? Perhaps there is an historically specific reason, but perhaps we like to sound especially learned.

What is Necessary (δει) for Church leadership? (1 Tim 3:2)

Bill Mounce — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:15:58 -0600

I was reminded the other day how meaning is conveyed not only by individual words but also by the larger context of those words. It is easy to hang on to a particular word and forget to check the overall context, but it is equally easy to miss the meaning of a particular word by not looking at its context.

1 Tim 3:2 says that “an overseer must be (δει) above reproach.” δει is a strong word; it leaves no wiggle room. This is supported by its use throughout the Pastorals, throughout Paul, and throughout the NT (see my commentary, pp 169f). If a person is to be in a position of church leadership, then they must meet the overall standard of being “above reproach.”

I remember a discussion with a former elder when we were working on a elder position paper (available under the Publications tab near the bottom of the page). The goal was to define what we understood to be the biblical instructions for recognizing official church leadership. When we were done he commented that he thought the whole process was unnecessary, and all we needed to do was elect good men who could make decisions. Wow. Such a blatant willingness to ignore the clear and unequivocal teaching of Scripture, and to replace the Word of God with the word of a man. (And he claimed to be an inerrantist. Ah, the intersection of belief and practice.)

To Metaphor, or not to Metaphor?

Bill Mounce — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:35:08 -0600

That is the question of Galatians 3:24. I was reminded of this question this morning as I listen to my nephew preach a good sermon on Galatians 3.

Dave preaches from the NIV, so in v 24 he read, “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.” “Put in charge” is a colorless phrase that conveys a very basic meaning of authority, but it does convey meaning to almost any reader.

The NASB (also NKJV and ASV) has “become our tutor,” which defines a little more closely what the NIV means by “charge.” It is probably meant to reflect the KJV “schoolteacher.” The problem is that the Greek term παιδαγωγος evidently does not contain the sense of “teacher.” BDAG defines the word as, “the man, usu. a slave … whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth … to and from school and to superintend his conduct.” They offer the gloss “one who has responsibility for someone who needs guidance, guardian, leader, guide” and specifically states that the word does not include the nuance of “teacher.”

Are We God’s Poem (Eph 2:10)?

admin — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:41:46 -0600

Paul tells the Ephesians that “we are his workmanship (ποιημα), created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV). ποιημα (related to the verb ποιεω) means “that which is made,” hence work, creation” (BDAG).

It is etymologically connected to poème (Middle French), poema (Latin), and ποιημα (Greek).

Because of this, you often hear the idea of the English “poem” creeping back through the centuries and used to define the nuance of ποιημα. And so we hear assertions such as:

“Poiema emphasizes God as the master Designer, the universe as His creation” (Rom 1:20).

“As the artist seeks to express himself in his work, so God expresses Himself in us.”

“You are His work, you are His poem. A poem is a thing of grace. A thing of beauty, God wants your life to be a thing of grace and of beauty and as God works in your life it will become a thing of grace and of beauty; you are His poem.”

“But the beauty of God’s workmanship is not displayed in posing. That beauty can only he displayed when we are put to work fulfilling His purpose in us.”

These kinds of statement make picturesque sermon illustrations, but unfortunately have no basis in truth.

Grace and the Church

Bill Mounce — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:48:55 -0600

I was going to write a Greek blog in ποιημα, but I saw an interview on TV a couple days ago and I can’t stop thinking about it, and I need your input to help me understand.

It was an interview on the Mike Huckabee Report. He interviewed Gayle Haggard, the wife of pastor Ted Haggard and author of Why I Stayed: The Choices I Made in My Darkest Hour. Her husband was the founder of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs and was president of the National Association of Evangelicals. If you don’t already know, he admitted to an incident with a male prostitute.

Huckabee was talking to her mostly about forgiveness. He asked what was the most painful thing that happened. Her answer was fascinating. Certainly learning of the event was painful. Her children’s loss of dignity was hurtful. She said that she had received many kind and encouraging emails from homosexual men and Christians, and many cruel and hateful emails from homosexual men and Christians. Her conclusion: people are people.

But the event that hurt the most was their forced separation from the church and the people that they had loved for 22 years.

Preaching and Toastmasters

admin — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:15:10 -0600

When we moved to Washougal a few months ago, my wife and I had to start the somewhat painful experience of making new friends. We were committed to having friends outside of a local church so that all of our friends are not Christians. That task is easier said than done.

Robin, my wife, is a good speaker and enjoys conferences with other women; so she wondered if she should take the new time she has and develop those gifts. Toastmasters, here she comes.

Toastmasters is an interesting organization (www.toastmasters.org). It is designed to help people, especially people in business, learn to verbally communicate, a skill that all people in business require. The different groups gather weekly, and the different members give speeches and are encouraged and critiqued.

I have found my wife’s experience with Toastmasters a more positive and encouraging experience than anything I have ever witnessed in a church, and I find myself wondering if every preaching pastor should not aggressively make Toastmaster part of his or her weekly experience. They would learn a lot about preaching, and they would foster positive relationships with non-believers. Where is the problem in this picture?

What Comes First, the Chicken or the Egg?

Bob Mounce — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:26:23 -0600

Have you ever thought about exegesis and theology in terms of the old chicken and egg conundrum? Following the inductive approach, exegesis insists on the prior role holding that theology is merely the organization of theological insights gained from the work of the exegete. But the theologian recognizes the need of the larger picture which in fact leads the exegete to a proper understanding of the individual verse.

The identification of the “seven spirits” in Revelation 1:4 presents such a problem. The theological oriented interpreter reasons deductively that in a passage that speaks of God (“him who is and who was and who is to come”) and “Jesus Christ” (v. 5), certainly the Holy Spirit is the one intended by “the seven spirits.” The doctrine of a triune God almost demands it. At this point the theologian then searches for support. The immediate reference is Isa 11:2 which lists three couplets of of two virtues each. But wait, Isn’t that six rather than seven? Well, Yes, in the MT but go to the LXX and you will find an additional virtue added (eusebeias) which adds up to seven.

The argument— that it would be improper to bracket anyone less than deity with the Father and the Son—loses weight in view of such verses as Luke 9:26 (the Son returns “in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” and 1 Tim 5:21 where Paul calls for obedience “in the presence of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels.”

Sabbath(s) and Sunday

admin — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:33:32 -0600

Acts 20:7 reads, “On the first day of the week (μια των σαββατων), when we were gathered together to break bread ….” (ESV).

There is an obvious question for the Greek newbie as to why μια is translated as “first” when we learned it as “one,“ and why σαββατων is translated as “week” when we learned it as “sabbaths”? Why “first day of the week” and not “one of the sabbaths”?

Part of the key is in the nature of the word σαββατον. It is not as straight forward as one might expect. A quick perusal of BDAG show these options.

1. “the seventh day of the week,” hence, the “Sabbath.” It can be used in the singular but also the plural, and here is the interesting part; in the plural it can refer to multiple days but it can also refer to a single day. Why, you say, would they do that? I have no idea. The attestation given in BDAG is significant and the point can’t really be debated. There is evidently something idiomatic in how the word is used such that a plural can refer to a single day.

2. “Week.” Again, it can be both singular (Lk 18:12; Mk 16:9; 1 Cor 16:2) and plural.

The Name of Jesus (Phil 2:10)

admin — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:35:07 -0600

I find it interesting how things can often occupy Christians’ minds. Sometimes our preoccupations are healthy, when they are the very things that preoccupy Jesus. But other times we become so preoccupied with secondary things that, in essence, they become idols.

This doesn’t mean our preoccupations are necessarily wrong; many times the things that consume our thinking are good things, theological things, things of God. Just like the Pharisees. They were consumed with the minutia of the Law, but that consumption was a barrier that allowed them to neglect the heart of God. And that is the point.

In dealing with the adiaphora (“secondary things”), in working with “strong” and “weak” Christians (Romans 14), the difficult question is determining whether our particular theological or social preoccupation is of central significance, something all Christians must agree to, or whether our preoccupation belongs to the adiaphora, secondary things about which we can agree to disagree.

One of the topics that often surfaces in this context is the name of God. When the Bible says “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil 2:10, ESV), is the power in the actual name “Jesus” (or more likely “Lord,” see later in the verse)? When Peter says that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), do we all have to get the “name” right, and that means pronouncing it properly?

Dangerous Compassion (off topic)

admin — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:51:30 -0600

I had a great experience this Christmas and wanted to share it with you. It doesn’t have much to do with Greek, so I wouldn’t even try to make some sort of artificial connection.

With our move to Washougal, Washington, most of our Christmas traditions had to change since in the past they involved family. And with two of my three kids in college, the new traditions were even more important to them than to me. My wife and I have discovered that it is the stability of family traditions that help our kids go out and conquer the world; no matter what happens, they can always come home again to what is familiar and safe.

So we told each kid that they could establish one new tradition, so we went bowling and played games. But Tyler wanted to to serve a Christmas meal at a homeless shelter. We have never done this as a family, so my wife Robin made some calls and we headed to The Lord’s Gym the night of the 23rd. This is a food bank that operates in conjunction with an inner-city church in Vancouver.

There we stood, five tall very white people holding serving spoons and staring at life situations decidedly different from our own. First lesson: you don’t have to go overseas to serve in short terms missions. The same type of diversity exists in our back yards. I remember thinking that as a church we shouldn’t allow anyone go on an overseas mission until they had worked at a local mission. Probably a good idea.

Emphatic First and Second Person Pronouns

admin — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:26:29 -0600

Last week I talked about the emphatic use of αυτος in the Beatitudes, and a related question came in this week about the use of the emphatic form of εμου in Matt 10:18. The question specifically had to do with the word order and whether “on account of me” is emphatic because of its unusual word order.

Unfortunately, I do not have access right now to the commentators listed in the question so perhaps some of you out there could check this out.

The verse reads, “and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake (ενεκεν εμου), to bear witness before them and the Gentiles” (ESV).

There are really two issues here. The first is word order, which is, roughly, “before governors and kings you will be dragged for my sake.” This does not especially strike me as unusual word order, the prepositional phrase following the verb it modifies.

Emphatic Pronouns and Salvation (Matt 5:3)

admin — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:30:27 -0600

Coming to a clear and accurate understanding of the emphatic use of pronouns can be a little tricky. It is a matter of nuance and often difficult (if not impossible) to translate. The oblique cases of the first and second pronouns have distinct forms, but what about the third person personal pronoun, αυτος?

Since the verb contains the reference to its object, αυτος ακουει and ακουει have the same basic meaning, “he hears.” And so the reasoning goes, αυτος is unnecessary and its presence is making a point.

That point is most often seen in contrasts. John the Baptist says, “I (εγω) baptize you with water... He (αυτος) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt 3:11).

But one of the most theological powerful and provocative uses of the emphatic third person pronoun is in the beatitudes. All have the same construction. “Blessed are the … for they (αυτοι) will ….” The nuance of αυτος is that they they alone will receive the blessing.

Glosses and Context (οτι)

admin — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:58:23 -0600

Someone asked the other day about the translation of οτι in 1 Timothy 1:12. “I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because (οτι) he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service” (ESV). He wondered about the difference between “that” (NIV) and “because” as a translation of οτι.

This is actually a good chance to talk about how to read BDAG, our main Greek lexicon.

BDAG gives this basic set of meanings. Be sure to read their entire entry.

The Joys of Idioms (ει μη)

admin — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:24:02 -0600

Idioms can really be a pain, can’t they? Idioms are phrases in which the individual words don’t bear their normal meaning, but together they have a special meaning. The trick is to learn which words form idioms.

Take for example Mark 6:8. “He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts” (ει μη ραβδον μονον, μη αρτον, μη πηραν, μη εις την ζωνην χαλκον). I received a question the other day that wondered why μη ραβδον was not translated “no staff” like the rest of the terms in the list.

The key is the ει, which when combined with μη, forms an idiom translated “except.” So the first four words are properly translated as “except a staff.” NASB explicitly translates μονον as “except a mere staff.”

So how are you supposed to know that ει μη is an idiom? There are several clues. One is, how would you translate the ει if it were not an idiom? “If” does not make sense here. As a general rule, when the gloss you know for a word does not fit into a context, you should check a lexicon to see if there is another meaning that does fit.

ETS Paper on ESV/TNIV

admin — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:02:25 -0600

This is a bit off-topic, but thought I would share about my paper at ETS on the ESV/TNIV. Basically I think it went well, and hopefully set the tone for further debate.

My paper was entitled, “Can the ESV and TNIV Co-Exist in the Same Universe?” (It was a response paper to Mark Strauss.) I jokingly answered, “In light of current developments, evidently not” and opened the floor for questions.

My real answer was, “Yes, in fact, they must co-exist” (thinking of the NIV2011). I do not believe that one size fits all. Children no longer learn to read by reading the Bible, and we live in a post-Christian culture that is attempting to expunge any hint of biblical language/metaphor.

When I was a full-time pastor, I preached from the ESV, but for VBS we used the TNIV. We had hundreds of unchurched kids from the neighborhood, and I had no idea of their church background and how their mom felt about “man” and “he.” After all, the goal of translation is communication, so I used the translation that helped me communicate the best in both contexts.

So if they must exist together, the question becomes how. My suggestion was that we all learn to “Play Fair,” and I suggested seven principles of how to play fair.

Words, and Words of God (γαρ)

Bill Mounce — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:05:42 -0600

I want to continue the conversation from last week when I was talking about verbal, plenary inspiration but this time from the formal side. The question is whether functional translations betray a lower view of Scripture since they don’t translate every Greek word.

Let’s take a passage from the NIV that has long been an issue of debate, and that is the “absence” of translating all the occurrences of γαρ. Here are the relevant parts of Rom 1:9-19 (NIV’s paragraphing). Paul begins by expressing his thankfulness for them and then says:

Words, and Word of God (γαρ)

Bill Mounce — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:52:49 -0600

One of the interesting issues that comes up in discussions of translation theory is what I would call the mixing of the idea of a “word” and the “Word of God.” Some say that because Scripture is the Word of God, then we are required to translate word for word.

I believe in verbal plenary inspiration. This means that God’s inspiration extends to all (“plenary”) the words (“verbal”) of Scripture. But I do not think that this mandates the type of translation theory.

A charge from the formal against the functional camp is that the latter cannot believe in verbal plenary inspiration since they “leave out” words. Take, for example, the translation of και, especially in John.

και can one of the more difficult words to translate. It indicates a slight continuation (“and”). And in keeping with Hebrew, the Gospel of John begins many of his verses with και, words often omitted in more functional translations. Why? Because starting verse after verse with “and” is poor English grammar, and by using poor English grammar you are saying something about the Greek that is not true.

Concordance in 2 Cor 3:5-6

admin — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:40:25 -0600

Having touched on the topic of concordance last week, it is interesting to be asked about the ESV’s lack of concordance in 2 Cor 3:5-6.

Not that we are sufficient (ικανοι) in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency (ικανοτης) is from God, who has made us competent (ικανωσεν) to be ministers of a new covenant,

The TNIV maintains the concordance of the three cognates using “competent, competence.”

This is a great example of why concordance is so important in the same context. We may not be able to translate the same Greek word with the same English word wherever it occurs in the Bible, but certainly in the same immediate context concordance is a good idea, again, as long as the same English word carries the meaning and nuances necessary in that context.

Conflicting Translation Procedures (Rom 2:27, 29)

Bill Mounce — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:46:44 -0500

I was asked the other day about the translation of γραμμα in Romans 2:27. “In verse 27, the ESV went with ‘written code’ but it verse 29 they went with ‘letter.’ ‘Written code’ is what the NIV has and is more functional, where ‘letter’ is more formal. Can I ask why the difference there? Thanks so much!”

Good question (and nicely asked). Here is the text of the ESV.

Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code (γαμματος) and circumcision but break the law.… But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter (γραμματι). His praise is not from man but from God.”

I don’t remember this actual discussion, but I suspect the answer is in the footnote to “written code” in v 27. It says, “Or the letter.” In other words, the ESV did not miss the concordance; we saw that the same Greek word was used in both verses. And one of our policies was to try and use the same English word for the same Greek word in the same context. Some people ridicule this policy, accusing the ESV of not understanding the nature of language, and that one word can change its meaning from context to context. When I started on the ESV, I held this position (but without the ridicule and questioning of a person’s competence). Semantic range and all that stuff.

ψαλλω and Musical Instruments

Bill Mounce — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:29:55 -0500

Someone asked me the other day about the precise meaning of the Greek word ψαλλω and any relationships it has, if any, to the ancient debate of musical instruments in worship.

I hesitate to blog on this because I am sure there has been much discussion in the Worship Wars literature about this and I am not aware of the pitfalls lying in wait for me. (Can pitfalls "lie in wait" or am I mixing my metaphors? Oh well, you understand.) My books on worship are at school and I can't get to them. So much for disclaimers.

But the person mentioned that some lexicons support one position, and others lexicons support the other. Let's see.

The latest version of BDAG gives this meaning to ψαλλω: "to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment." The suggested glosses are "sing, sing praise." The cognate noun ψαλμος is defined as "song of praise, psalm and is used in the NT as a reference to the Psalms or more generally to a hymn of praise."

Personal Note: NIV 2011

Bill Mounce — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:33:43 -0500

I would like to take quick break from the normal function of this blog to share something on a personal nature with you. Integrity demands it, since it comes as a form of disclosure. But I am also concerned to stem any misunderstanding.

Many of you know that I was the New Testament chair of the ESV translation. This project has consumed thousands of hours, most of them enjoyable. I am happy with the ESV. As a formal equivalent translation done in the translation stream of the KJV / ASV / RSV, it has proven itself. And while the committee will be constantly looking at issues and questions submitted by people like you, my work on the ESV was largely done.

But a few weeks ago I received a most amazing email from my friend Mark Strauss (who I have been picking on lately in this blog). What was amazing was that just the night before I was sharing with Robin (my wife) how much I missed translation work. I learned so much on the ESV, things I have never taught in any Greek class at any level. I told her, “Wouldn’t it be amazing to be in the NIV committee? I would love it if I were asked to be on it.”

Mark’s letter was precisely that. Followed up by a formal letter from Doug Moo, the Chairman, I have been asked to be part of the CBT. And a few days ago I said yes.

Double-Tongued Deacons (2 Tim 3:8)

Bill Mounce — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:42:17 -0500

As I continue down the list in Mark Strauss’ paper, I am finding it easier and easier to find more with which I disagree, and I am being reminded how fundamentally different formal and functional translations are. The ESV is a good example of one, and the TNIV of the other, but never the two shall meet I suspect.

1 Tim 3:8 says that a deacon must be self-controlled in speech (“not double-tongued” ESV), in drink (“not addicted to much wine”), and in one’s desire for wealth (“not greedy for dishonest gain”). Mark comments that the the ESV “sounds like a mock ‘Indian-speak’ (with forked-tongue) or some strange alien creature” and adds that the word means “‘insincere,’ ‘lacking integrity,’ ‘hypocritical,’ or even ‘two-faced.’”

Before jumping in, let me say something about humor in academic circles. Mark is a funny guy (remember, we are friends). And yet it seems that in academic circles we think that if it is said with humor, we can say anything we like. Mark’s presentation elicited more laughter than I have ever heard at an ETS paper. But did the humor in truth hide the lack of academic discussion and debate we had all hoped to hear in the room? By using humor as a tool of debate, haven’t we in essence gone outside of academic debate. Ridiculing a position can sway the masses, but it should have no effect on us.

For the life of me, I cannot remember the discussion of this word in the ESV committee, and I noticed that my own translation in my commentary is “gossips.” But I am pretty sure of why we went with “double-tongued.” We simply do not know what the word truly means.

Are Ants People? (Proverbs 30:26)

Bill Mounce — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:10:12 -0500

Poetry can be exceptionally difficult to translate. It often conveys meaning more with pictures than with individual words, the words working together to create images more powerful than words.

Metaphors are only slightly easier, but here there is even less context and so the meaning of the metaphor is easily loss.

Case in point: Proverbs 30:26. Mark Strauss lists this in his “Oops” category. The ESV translates the passage from vv 24-28:

Four things on earth are small, but they are exceedingly wise:

the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer;
the rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs;
the locusts have no king, yet all of them march in rank;
the lizard you can take in your hands, yet it is in kings’ palaces.

Is κυριος Nominative or Vocative?

admin — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:05:08 -0500

Someone pointed out the other day that the only time Jesus is directly addressed in the nominative κυριος as opposed to the vocative κυριε is in Thomas’ declaration, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28, ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου). Is there any significance?

On the one hand, the nominative can be used to function as the vocative, so there is no necessary significance. And yet it is interesting that this is the only example of κυριος being used this way of Jesus. In every other case (as far as I can tell) it is κυριε.

I wouldn’t have thought much about this distinction except that it is such an important passage. It is one of clearest statements of the divinity of Christ, and although our Christology does not depend on explicit statements, it is nonetheless important (see the discussion in Carson’s commentary).