(Note: you can watch this blog on YouTube)

John 3:34 gives a good example of how easy it is to misunderstand a passage if you forget to look at the larger context.  John writes, “For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit (ἐκ μέτρου)” (NIV, and so most translations).

This is a well-known verse, which actually makes it a little more difficult to see the problem. The NIV is close to a word-for-word translation (although the order of the words must be rearranged to make sense), but in this case word-for-word is misleading. Why?

First of all, the context makes it clear that the “the one who God has sent” is Jesus. However, the way that most translations handle this verse is too broad in scope. The statement “God gives the Spirit without limit” is intended only to refer to Jesus. Again, check the context.

Secondly, do you have the Spirit “without measure”? Of course not, at least not in the way that Jesus had the Spirit. All believers are fully endowed with the Spirit, and no believer has more of the Spirit than another. Thankfully the old charismatic theology that said only those who speak in tongues are fully endowed with the Spirit has long since been discredited.

Let’s have some fun. Today you are on the CBT (Committee on Bible Translation, which controls the NIV). Take a look at Col 1:12 and write your own translation. By the way, it has to make sense and be able to be read in church.

εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ πατρὶ τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί.

Start with a first-year Greek class translation, an awkward word-for-word rendition. “Giving thanks to the Father to the one who made y’all sufficient into the portion of the inheritance of the saints in the light.” Okay, now your teacher knows that you know what the individual words mean. Now let’s make it English.

You’re going to have to decide what “sufficient” (ἱκανόω) means. BDAG glosses it as, “to cause to be adequate, make sufficient, qualify.” However, “qualified” to me sounds like somehow we now deserve it, so I would never go with that option (contra NASB, ESV, NIV, NET). Much better “enabled” (CSB, NRSV, NLT).

Then you have to make a text critical decision, ὑμᾶς (“y’all”) or ἡμᾶς (“us,” NASB, KJV).

Note: You can watch the blog on YouTube

We all know that Greek does not have a specific word for “a,” the indefinite article. But Greek does have several ways to approximate the same meaning. For example, εἷς normally means “one,” but it can mean “one” in the sense of “someone.” An articular participle can also have an indefinite thrust, as in John 3:16 (ὁ πιστεύων).

But normally we use “a” when translating an anarthrous Greek noun, but even then there can be ambiguity. Take John 3:25 for example. “Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew (μετὰ Ἰουδαίου) over purification” (ESV, see also NASB, CSB, NRSV; the KJV follows a plural variant reading, “the Jews”).

So why do several translation says, “a certain Jew” (NIV, NET, NLT)? Because in today’s polite speech we don’t say “a Jew,” just like we don’t say “a ____” about any ethnic group. It feels pejorative to say this. This is not being politically correct; it is being polite. So “certain” softens the affect of the words.

I am going to interrupt my normal Greek blogs to share some thoughts about my dad, funerals, and death.

Dad passed away due to complications from two surgeries, broken hip, shoulder, and elbow, all from falling. He was 97. His obituary is on his blog site, Shout4Joy.net.

It is expected to be reflective in the face of death, and I am no exception.

Note: You can watch this blog on YouTube.

Paul tells slaves that they should “be submissive to your masters with all respect (παντὶ φόβῳ)” (NASB). There are several points that should be made here. The first is the semantic range of φόβος. BDAG lists: Intimidation; Fear; Reverence; Respect.

Most translations go with “respect” (ESV, CSB, NLT). The NRSV has “deference” and the NET has “reverence.” What’s wrong with “reverence”? To my mind, “reverence” has more to do with how we treat God, so if Peter is talking about the human masters then “respect” is better.

However, “reverence” does broaden the scope of the word, which suggests the NET translators think Peter is speaking of something more than human masters.

The KJV reads, “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear.” What is right about this? “Fear” is closer to the core meaning of φόβος (although certainly φόβος does not automatically mean “fear”; that’s the function of context). But what is wrong with this translation? To the reader who is not versed in the Bible and especially Old Testament theology, they are going to think Peter is saying the slaves should fear their human masters, a doubtful meaning indeed. What is good about this translation? To the person who is versed in biblical theology, mention of “fear” would naturally lead them to think of fearing God, of having a reverential awe of him, of being motivated by that divine fear.