I never cease to be amazed at the literary quality of the NIV. Yes, I know, I am on the committee, but I am thinking about verses that I find periodically that were written before I came on.

In class last week I came across a couple. Paul is talking about divisions in the church and warns the Corinthians about the seriousness of their divisiveness. The ESV reads, “Do you not know that you* (ἐστε) are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you (ἐν ὑμῖν)?” The footnote on “you” indicates it and the other pronouns are plural.

One of the great conundrums in the Synoptics is the issue of whether Jesus told his disciples to take a staff, not take a staff, or don't take an extra staff. I don't have a complete answer, but in my reading part of the answer occurred to me and it illustrates the need for common sense in exegesis.

In Mark 6:8–9 Jesus says, "Take nothing for the journey except a staff (εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον)—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt (ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια, καὶ μὴ ἐνδύσησθε δύο χιτῶνας)."

In Luke 9:3 he told them, “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt (Μηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, μήτε ῥάβδον μήτε πήραν μήτε ἄρτον μήτε ἀργύριον μήτε [ἀνὰ] δύο χιτῶνας ἔχειν)."

One of the benefits of working with Joni and Friends is that I have developed some sensitivities to the disability community. What I once dismissed as political correctness is now an important shift in thinking.

Take the NASB translation of Matt 9:32. “a mute, demon-possessed man.” What is wrong with that? It is certainly better than the KJV, “dumb man.” Just because the person has a disability does not mean he is “dumb.” Of course, back then “dumb” meant “mute,” but the KJV today is using a word whose meaning is no longer correct.

There is no question that "they" is becoming the pronoun of choice to refer back to either a singular or plural antecedent. Like it or not, I've seen the statistics and it is where the language is going.

For many people, "he" and "man" is still generic, referring back to men and women. But for an increasing majority of English speakers around the world, "he" and "man" can only refer back to males. Like it or not, this is the way the language is going.

I hear "they" used this way all the time in spoken English. I fact, I have heard it so many times that I doesn't register quite like it used to. But here are the problems. 

I know. καί and pain in the same title. Strange bedfellows.

I still remember a few years back when my family was going through a time of deep pain and sadness. A good friend asked me, “Bill, why are you hanging on to the edge of the pool? Just let go and sink.” A strange idea in the midst of pain, but it has stuck with me, and it was some of the best advice I have ever received. Here’s the exegesis behind it.

Paul is telling the Philippians that no matter what he had been able to (humanly) achieve, he gladly lost all of it for the sake of knowing Christ.

ξύλον is an extremely difficult word to translate, although from its entry in BDAG you wouldn’t think so. It gives three basic meanings:

1. Wood
2. Something made of wood, such as a pole, club, stocks, cross
3. Tree

Gal 3:13 in the NIV reads, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.’” The use of “pole” is, shall we say, unexpected since we know the shape of the cross. Since there are always reasons for a translation, you have to ask yourself why the NIV did this. How could Jesus have been hung on a pole when the wounds in his hands require a cross?

The third angel cries, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and (καί) receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath ... and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and (καί) whoever receives the mark of its name” (Rev 14:9-11).

I was asked if there are one or two groups of people who will be punished: those who worshipped the beast; those who received the mark. What raised the question was the differences in translations.

This is actually a great example of how to deal with a word’s etymology and meaning.

When the disciples could not exorcize the demon, Jesus responded, “O unbelieving (ἄπιστος) and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you?” (Matt 17:17).

After the exorcism, the disciples asked him why they could not perform the exorcism. Jesus replied, “Because of the poverty of your faith (διὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν). I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed (ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως), you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you” (17:20).

It’s good to be back. I have had a great vacation, time to rest, and time to clear my head. Hope you have been enjoying the archived blogs.

Before starting, I do want to ask for your prayers this week. We are video recording Bruce Waltke teaching on Proverbs. This is for BiblicalTraining.org and we are trying an experiment of recording in our home. If this works, it will save BiblicalTraining potentially a lot of money. Hopefully, the class will be on the site in a few months.

I was reminded the other day about how important word choice is. I am not talking about getting the right word; I am talking about getting just the right word. So much can lost in translation despite the best efforts of the translators.

I will be taking a break from blogging until the beginning of September. I need to focus on finishing my next book. See you in the Fall. —Bill

In Acts 8:27 (NIV), Luke writes that Philip “started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (Κανδάκης) (which means “queen of the Ethiopians” [βασιλίσσης Αἰθιόπων]).

“Kandake” is a lot harder to translate than first meets the eye. First of all, what does it mean? The NASB and ESV read, “a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians” (similar is the HCSB and NET). What does “Candace” sound like to you? Sounds like a personal name to me. If the qualifying “queen of the Ethiopians” were not there, it might sound like a place, but with the qualifying “queen of the Ethiopians” it can’t be a place.

Every once in a while I come across a verse that is simply impossible to translate. No matter what you do, you over- or under-translate, or worst mistranslate. 2 John 1:12 is one of those verses.

“Although I have many other things to write (γράφειν) to you, I do not want to use (οὐκ ἐβουλήθην) paper and ink (διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος); instead, I hope to be with you and speak face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”

The meaning is obvious. John did write; there were some things he needed to communicate with paper and ink. But the bulk of what he wanted to say needed to be said face to face. So far so good, except that is not what he says. It is what he means, but it is not what he says.

I heard a Father’s Day sermon yesterday in which the preacher said Ephesians 6:4 applies to mothers and well as fathers, specifically that πατήρ can mean “mother.”

Paul writes, “And fathers (οἱ πατέρες), do not provoke your children to anger, but raise them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord.” To his credit, he asked me afterwards if he was right, so here is my answer.

Omitted words. We all do it. I am from Minnesota, and we love to end sentences in prepositions. “Do you want to go with?” From context, you know to supply the final “me.”

It happens especially in parallel constructions. “I went to the store, but he didn’t.” Didn’t what? He didn’t “go the store.” It is natural in our own language to know what words need to be supplied.

But not so easy in others. Jesus tells his parents, “Why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I would have to be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49). But note the Greek. οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με; What does τοῖς modify? Luke doesn’t say, and leaves it up to our Greek informed imagination.

Today’s blog has nothing to do with Greek. I can’t even find the Greek word for “options.” But I have been thinking about the topic a lot and thought I would share it.

My oldest son was married on May 10th. Tyler and Rachel had been dating on and off for over three years, and much to our delight finally got married. I was in a reflective mood and was thinking about the ramifications of their choice. It occurred to me that because of their choice, it would be Rachel and not some other girl attending my funeral (whenever that happens). Tyler didn’t date that many girls, but of the ones he did date it is Rachel who will comfort my wife at my death (of course, I am making a couple assumptions in that last statement).

Terry asked me about this verse, wondering why the NIV 1984 was changed and made more confusing.

First of all, let me emphasize an unfortunately little known fact: the NIV has always been in a constant state of revision. It is part of the original charter of the CBT that we keep the NIV up-to-date. So we meet every summer for a week, going through suggested changes. Periodically, those revisions are published. (And before you ask, no, I do not know when the next revision will be published. Not for quite a while I would guess.)

ὁ has got to be one of the most flexible words in Greek. When I first saw the 85 pages Wallace commits to the article, I remembered being shocked there was that much to say. But of course there is that much to say, and Matt 28:17 is a good example.

The disciples see the risen Christ and Matthew remarks, “And when they saw him, they worshiped him, but some hesitated (οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν).”

Steve asked me about the NIV’s use of “ransom” in Heb 9:15. He wrote, “I've always been confused by the ransom concept, because it leads to thinking God paid a ransom to Satan or some such craziness, which is obviously wrong.”

As far as the ransom of Satan theory, it is obviously wrong; check out Wayne Grudem’s discussion in his theology. The price paid was paid to God. But here is the NIV: “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom (θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν) to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

In this most central passage on discipleship, Jesus says, “If anyone resolves to come after me, he must deny himself and take up  his cross and follow me.  For whoever resolves to save his life will lose (ἀπολέσει) it; but whoever loses (ἀπολέσῃ) his life for my sake will find it (vv 24-25).” In the list of the Bible’s most solemn verses, this passage surely is near the top.

So we come to v 26. “For what advantage will there be for a person if he gains the whole world yet forfeits (ζημιωθῇ) his life? Or what will a person give in exchange for  his life?” I am told that the word “forfeit” is not understandable by the younger generation and instead we should use “lose.”

There are several problems with this.

In speaking of Judas, Peter quotes Ps 69:25. “‘For,’ said Peter, ‘it is written in the Book of Psalms: “May his place (ἔπαυλις) be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,” and, “May another take his place of leadership (ἐπισκοπήν).”’” (NIV).

A couple interesting problems with this verse.

1. ἔπαυλις is not as generic a word as “place” suggests. BDAG defines it as, “property that serves as a dwelling place whether personally owned or by contract, farm, homestead, residence.” I am not sure why such a generic word as “place” was chosen. ἔπαυλις is more personal in meaning, describing where you live.

Let’s have a little fun in the LXX. I have been especially interested lately in what it means to wait on the Lord. Sometimes I call out to him, “Show me where I am going.” His answer is always, “Do you know where to take the next step?” “Yes,“ I respond. “Good, then that is all you need to know,” he answers.

Waiting is not passive. It is a very active experience, often harder than “doing” something. It involves work and trust.

Psalm 27:14 reads, ὑπόμεινον τὸν κύριον· ἀνδρίζου, καὶ κραταιούσθω ἡ καρδία σου, καὶ ὑπόμεινον τὸν κύριον.

I had a great question from a friend last week. Chris asked about the translation of Acts 6:2. The Jewish widows were being given preferential treatment over the Hellenistic widows, and the Apostles say, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables” (NIV). Notice how the NIV keeps “ministry” with “the word of God” and not with “wait on tables,” giving the distinct impression that waiting on tables is not a ministry, or one of lesser value.

Just a couple tidbits for you today.

I taught New Testament Survey up in Tacoma at Faith Seminary last week, and we concluded with Revelation. I don’t think that Revelation is necessarily sequential; I think it is more circular and so passages like Revelation 12 are important.

Rev 11:15-19 sounds like the Final Judgment in the second cycle of the trumpets. Rev 12:1-6 then goes back in time to the birth of the Messiah and Satan’s pursuit. The woman flees to the wilderness where God keeps her safe for 1,260 days (3.5 years). But look at v 7. The NIV translates it as, “Then (καί) war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.”

One of the debates in translation work is whether there is meaning in the form of a sentence. If one word is an infinitive, for example, and the next is a participle, does it matter?

Those in the dynamic camp (NIV, NLT) tend towards answering, “No.” The question is how do I express the same meaning regardless of how I say it. So if the meaning of the Greek infinitive is best expressed with an English finite verb, so be it.

Those in the formal camp (NASB, ESV, HCSB, NRSV [setting aside the gender issues]) tend to answer ,“Yes.” If the writer uses a subordinate construction, so should we, as long as it makes sense in English.

This is one of the basic points we try to make in first year Greek, but in the rush to simplify the language sufficiently for a first year student, sometimes the subtly of this point is missed.

Just to be clear, I still believe the augment indicates past time. I haven’t gone over to the other camp on this point. And yet the aorist is so much more than “past time,” and in fact time is significantly secondary to the real gist of the tense. Students need to be reminded of this periodically.

I like Con Campbell’s word picture of the aorist. You are in a helicopter over the parade, looking at the parade as a whole. Buist Fanning talks about seeing the action from the outside as a whole rather than from inside the action (i.e., being part of the parade).

Colossians 2:8 is often misunderstood to say that all philosophy is bad and Christians should not engage in the discipline. It is a little thing in translation, but one word can carry a lot of meaning. The Greek is a tad difficult, so let me start with a slightly more wooden translation.

“See to it that no one takes you captive by means of philosophy (διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας) and empty deceit (καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης), according to the tradition of men (κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων), according to the elemental spirits of the world (κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου), and not according to Christ (καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν).“

I received a somewhat distressing Facebook post the other day. On the one hand, you don’t know what a person’s motivations are. I hardly know my own. And you don’t know how a person uses words. But based on the words used, it was distressing to me.

The person wrote, “1 John 3:3 in the NIV 84 and 2011 are very different. The NIV 2011 seems to indicate SANCTIFICATION is a solo event and not a ongoing process. Please correct this.”

Let me deal with the exegesis, and then secondly with how the post effected me.

As we know, Greek sentences can go on and on and on and …. Today’s English requires the sentences to be shorter, and so periodically translators put a period where there is none in Greek (so to speak), and supply a subject for the second part of the sentence.

The problem comes when the two English sentences separate what the Greek apparently wants to keep together. I am thinking of Eph 3:17.

(I need to qualify myself up front. There are several interpretation issues in this passage, but the point I want to make has more to do with the problems of dividing sentences. See the discussions by Hoehner and Arnold for slightly different understandings of this passage.)

Paul begins by saying that he bows before God (v 14), and follows by asking for two things.

One of the problems of memorizing word glosses in first year Greek is that it is possible to miss the richness of a word’s meaning, especially its breadth of meaning (“semantic range”).

For example, in BBG I give the definition of καί as, “and, even, also, namely.” In retrospect, I wish I had listed it as, “and; even, also; namely.” That would have done a better job emphasizing that καί has at least three basic semantic ranges. But if you go through life thinking that καί basically means “and,” not only would you be wrong but you are going to find many verses that are deeply puzzling, even troubling.

I was looking through the LXX of Psalm 1, mulling over the NIV translation. Psalm 1:1 reads, “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take (ἐν ὁδῷ ἁμαρτωλῶν οὐκ ἔστη) or sit in the company of mockers.”

For anyone familiar with this verse, “stand in the way that sinners take ” is difficult to hear. We are so used so something like, “stands in the way of sinners” (ESV). Translators are very careful with well-known verses, so if you see this significant of a change in a familiar verse, please don’t get frustrated. There must be something forcing the change.