(You can watch this blog on YouTube)

Changes in tenses are important to note. Even if it is subtle, there is always a reason. Take the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (or as I liked to say when teaching at Azusa Pacific University, the “Good Biola Student”).

The lawyer’s question is, “Who is (ἐστίν) my neighbor”? (Luke 10:29). It was a limiting question, designed to restrict his responsibility to a smaller group. I would guess the lawyer was thinking in ethnic and geographical terms. “For whom do I have to be responsible?” (Correct grammar can sound so odd at times, can’t it?)

Jesus tells the parable and concludes, “Which of these three do you think was (γεγονέναι) a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” (10:36, NIV, also NLT). The problem with this translation is that γεγονέναι is a perfect, not an aorist. Why use a perfect?

Thanks for everyone who responded to my poll last week about how to properly translate John 3:16. I am still working through all the comments, but here are the basic results of the poll. It appears you like the γάρ translated (somehow), and you like clarity even at the expense of readability.

Thanks.

I have started my Thursday edition of Monday with Mounce (and yes, I need a different name for the blog). Today's blog is on Philippians 3:12 and what to do when a Greek transitive verb does not have a direct object.

Thursday blogs are targeted especially to people using the Bible Study Greek approach, which uses my textbook Greek for the Rest of Us, to learn enough Greek to go deeper in their Bible study but doesn't require massive amounts of memorization and repetition.

I haven't decided whether to send out the blog and run the risk of plugging up your inbox. But if you subscribe to my YouTube channel, then you will be notified when a new episode is available. The episode is here: https://youtu.be/ZEg24OrUu_0

(You can watch the blog on YouTube)

I could really use your help on this. I am trying to come up with a translation of John 3:16 that accurately translates οὕτως but yet sounds enough like the traditional translation that it wouldn’t be too difficult for people to memorize.

The problem, if you are unaware, is that when the KJV says “For God so loved the world,” everyone I have ever asked what “so” meant responded “so much.” If you check BDAG, you will see that this is a rare and not possible meaning of οὕτως in this context. But you'd better be careful if you change people’s favorite Bible verse.

Here are BDAG’s first three definitions of οὕτως.

1. “referring to what precedes, in this manner, thus, so.”

2. “pert. to what follows in discourse material, in this way, as follows” (which is where BDAG places John 3:16)

3. “marker of a relatively high degree, so, before adj. and adv.” At first glance this seems to support the KJV, except that in v 16 οὕτως is not followed by an adjective or adverb (οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον). BDAG lists these as illustrations of this meaning.

(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.