An Oldie but a Goodie

On this day, in 1611, the first King James Version of the Bible was sold. Since then, it has been the best selling book in history with more than 1 billion having been published worldwide. It has become a cornerstone of English culture and language. There are even those who argue that the KJV is the ONLY inspired, English translation of the Bible – but that's a discussion for another post.

92% of American Households have at least one Bible with the average household having at least 3 copies of the Bible. I've read that if you stacked all the KJV Bibles sitting in American homes now, you would have a tower rising 29 million feet!

The KJV has stood the test of time well. There are a lot of other Bible translations and some are better than others. The KJV, however, has become the standard to which all other translations are compared.

Happy 400^th Birthday, KJV!!

Exodus 21:22-23: Does the Bible Consider the Unborn a Baby?

It's typical of liberal Christians or even liberal non-Christians to attempt to use the Bible to support their liberal views. Ordinarily, they wouldn't concern themselves with the word of God but when they can find a passage they believe supports their cause, they champion it like – well, like it's Scripture. They do this because they know conservative Christians seriously regard the Bible and if the liberal can convince the conservative that the Bible is on the liberal's side, it should settle the matter.

One such argument used by liberals concerns abortion. Conservative Christians, of course, recognize correctly that the unborn are still created in the image of God and deserve protection as much as any other person. Liberals justify their position on abortion by claiming the unborn child isn't really a person. The Bible certainly doesn't support their extreme view but I've heard a few liberals cite Exodus 21:22-23:

If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

By citing this verse, they argue that even the Bible recognizes a difference between the unborn child and the life of the woman. In this passage, if a man strikes a woman and she “miscarries”, he has to pay a fine. But if she dies, it becomes a capital offense and his own life is forfeit. At first glance, their argument seems to have merit. However, as is always the case, it's a good idea to look up a passage for yourself before trusting a liberal's cite.

I'm not a Bible scholar or anything but when I first heard this argument, I had to search a while before finding the translation being used. The above passage is from the Douay-Rheims Bible. Now, tell me the truth, have you ever heard of the Douay-Rheims Bible? It is an English translation from the Latin Vulgate (as opposed to a translation from the original language into English). The fact that it is a translation of a translation presents more than a few problems and I honestly can't recommend it as an acceptable translation.

When we read the same passage in more mainstream translations, the liberal argument loses all credibility:

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely
but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.
(New International Version ©2011)

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.
(New American Standard Bible)

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(King James Version)

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life.
(English Standard Version)

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(American Standard Version)

We can see in these more familiar translations that this passage is more in line with the conservative position. If a man strikes a pregnant woman, and she delivers her child prematurely, he must pay a fine. However, if the woman or the child dies, he must give a life for a life.

It's rather pathetic that liberal theologians, who hold little regard for the Bible anyway, attempt to use the Bible to support a position so contrary to God's will. And to use such an obscure translation is not simply intellectual laziness but outright dishonesty. They had to hunt out this passage while intentionally overlooking the rendering in more trusted versions.

What is almost equally as sad is that too many Christians fall victim to this tactic. When I've seen this con employed online, the simple rebuttal is to point out the same passage in a more mainstream translation. Instead, I've seen Christians falling all over themselves trying to spin a pro-life position in this flawed translation. I suspect they never stopped to look in the Bible for themselves.

The Bible is very clear in its position on the unborn. God is pro-life! His clear word is not undone by the bad translation of a single verse.

James 2:14: Can Faith Save?

Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;

James 2:14

I am indebted to Dr. Wallace for his chapter on the use of the Greek article in his book, “Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics.” That single chapter is worth the price of the book alone. It has opened my eyes and helped me move past the mundane “definite/indefinite” view of Greek nouns. This much debated verse from James has been cast in a whole new light for me.

The KJV translates this verse as: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” The controversy lies in the the second half of the verse (14b). At first hearing, it sounds as though James is saying that faith alone cannot save anyone. As much as I enjoy the majesty of language in the KJV, I must admit it often is somewhat lacking as a translation. In this case, I object to the KJV's treatment of the article in v.14b.

You will notice in 14a, the word πίστις (pistis, “faith”) is anarthrous (that is, it lacks an article). In 14b, the word now has an article (“the faith”). It is my opinion that this is an “anaphoric” use of the article which refers the reader back to the same word in 14a. Thus, 14a refers to “faith” and 14b refers back to the same “faith.” Let me offer a paraphrase:

“What is the profit, my brothers, if someone should claim to have 'faith' but does not have works? This kind of 'faith' is not able to save him, is it?”

Other translations do a better job of capturing this meaning:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (NIV)

What use is it my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (NASB)

What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? (NLT)

What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? (ASV)

Considering the context of the entire chapter, we can in see that James is not referring to a genuine, saving faith. Beginning in 14a, we see instead that he is referring to a particular kind of faith – a psuedo-faith which some claim to have so that they might earn the respect of others (James 2:1). The shallowness of their faith is demonstrated by their works. They love to associate with the wealthy members of the congregation but they despise the poor.

John talked about this same attitude in his letter 1 John 3:17-18. “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” Also in 1 John 4:20, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

The message of James is not at odds with any other part of the Bible. We are saved by faith and James affirms this. Saving faith is evidenced by our works. James condemns those people who claim to have faith but are betrayed by their works. Theirs is a faith of social expedience. James correctly asks, “can this kind of faith save”?

John 3:7: Who are You?

When I first began studying Greek, it didn't take long before I realized that learning a new language was more than just learning its vocabulary. Every language has its own rules of grammar which must also be learned. Yet more than that, every language has its own particular set of idioms which can confound non-native speakers.

Even though I strive to better understand Greek grammar, I still occasionally get tripped up on certain idioms. Even now, I occasionally project my English understanding onto a Greek text. One such instance came to my realization just recently concerning the 2nd person pronoun, "you." As a native English speaker, I have a very good understanding of what someone means when he says, "you." I know, for example, that if someone walked up to me on the street and asked, "How do you get to 1st Street?," I know that he's not really asking how "I" get to 1st Street. Instead, he wants to know how "he" can get to 1st Street. He's using "you" in an indefinite sense to mean, "anyone". He's asking, "How does someone get to 1st Street?" or more likely, he asking, “How do I get to 1st Street?”

The indefinite sense of "you" is an English idiom. It didn't really occur to me that other languages (in this case, Greek) don't use "you" in that same sense. As we read the Bible, every use of "you" means someone in particular.

For the sake of application, let's look at John 3:7:

μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπον σοι· δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.

"Do not marvel because I said to you, 'You must be born again."

First, many English readers are unaware that the second "you" in this verse is plural; that subtle point is lost in translation because there is not a plural "you" in English. I think the translators of the KJV were onto something by using "Ye" to denote a plural pronoun. But besides that, who did Jesus specifically mean when He said, "you (2p, pl) must be born again"? In English, this seems like a candidate for an indefinite pronoun:

Question: "How do you get saved?"

Answer: "You must be born again."

However, we must remember that there is not an indefinite use of "you" in Greek so Jesus meant someone in particular. Exactly who Jesus meant is not really the point of this post. The point of this post is simply to help us become more aware that we need to ask the question. However, since I raised the point I will answer it; I believe that, in John 3:7, Jesus was talking specifically about the Pharisees, of which Nicodemus was one. Thus, John 3:7 might be paraphrased as:

"Do not marvel that I said to you, Nicodemus, that you Pharisees must be born again."

Of course, in John 3:3, Jesus used the indefinite pronoun "τις" to communicate that it is necessary for “someone” to be born again to enter heaven. But as we read the Bible, whenever we read the word "you", we need to stop and consider exactly who is being discussed.

Luke 2:14: Glory to God in the Highest and on Earth Peace, Good Will Toward Men.

Unfortunately, we no longer possess the original autographs set to paper by the writers of the NT. What we do have is an abundance of manuscripts – far more than exists for any other book of antiquity. While it’s true there are variations among these manuscripts, because of their sheer abundance of them, we can have a good confidence what the original texts must have said.

Certainly none of the variations significantly impact any fundamental doctrine; however, occasionally variations result in a more than trivial difference in translations. One such variation occurs in Luke 2:14

The NA²⁷ – which most modern translations use – reads:

δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

The Textus Receptus – which was the text used in the KJV translation – reads:

δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια

The difference between these two texts is only a single letter – the final sigma in ευδοκια. This single letter, however, changes the case of the word from the nominative case (ευδοκια) to the genitive case (εὐδοκίας).

The nominative case means εὐδοκία (along with εἰρήνη) is the subject of the clause εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια. This is a rather simple translation: “Good will toward men.” This is the KJV translation.

If the word is a genitive, then εἰρήνη is necessarily the subject of the clause εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας since it is in the nominative case. Translating this is somewhat more tricky (at least for me). It would mean something like: “peace toward men of good will.” More likely it means, “peace toward men of His [God’s] good pleasure.” The NASB reads, “peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

Theologically speaking, there is a slight difference between the two translations. “Good will toward men” suggests a universal peace from God toward all people. “[P]eace among men with whom He is pleased,” suggests God’s peace is reserved only for those who please God, namely those people who trust in His Son.

What a wonderful message the shepherds heard that night. This Christmas, I pray that everyone’s response would be the same as the shepherds’: “Let us now go… and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.”

John 20:17: Touch Me Not

λέγει αὐτῇ Ἰησοῦς· μή μου ἅπτου, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα·

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:” (John 20:17 KJV)

My blog today isn’t really so much of a revelation as it is an explanation since many translations have this verse correct. But because the King James Version (and a few others) renders this verse as “touch me not,” this passage has led to a lot of speculation about what Jesus meant.

According to Scofield, one possible interpretation of this is, “That Jesus speaks to Mary as the High Priest fulfilling the day of atonement (Leviticus 16). Having accomplished the sacrifice, He was on His way to present the sacred blood in heaven…” In other words, Jesus was going to the Father to present His own blood as the payment for our sins. He did not want Mary to touch Him lest some of His blood would cling to her. That’s an awful lot of speculation crammed into three words. It’s also counterintuitive when you consider the amount of blood that was surely spilled during the act of the Crucifixion (as in John 19:34).

Another explanation I’ve heard goes thusly: “… He appeared to Mary Magdalene the next morning, the day after the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread, when the priests presented the wavesheaf offering. He did not permit her to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Just as the High Priest had to wave the sheaf of grain before the spring harvest began, so our Savior had to ascend to the Father that day to be accepted before Him. Once this happened, He allowed His disciples to touch Him.”

These speculations, and many others, all hinge on the misunderstanding that Jesus did not allow Mary to touch Him. A reading of the verse in Greek, however, might dispel such speculation about Jesus’ true meaning. ἅπτου is in the imperative mood and is modified by the negative particle μή. When μή is used to modify a verb in the imperative mood it generally means to stop an action that is already in process. In this case, Mary was already touching Him! So Jesus did not forbid Mary to touch Him; rather, He was telling her STOP touching Him because He was to ascend to the Father.

We see this conclusively in Matthew 28:9:

"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him."

This passage makes clear that the women held Him by His feet.

Consider these other, popular translations:

“Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.” (NIV)
“Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father;” (NASB)
“Jesus saith to her, `Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father;” (Young’s Literal)
.

Don’t waste too much time pondering why Jesus wouldn't let Mary touch Him. A casual reading in the Greek shows prohibition was not necessarily even implied.

Acts 2:4, Speaking in Tongues

The event at Pentecost has been much discussed and much argued. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon believers marked the beginning of the New Testament Church and was the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that He would not leave us alone but would send the παράκλητος, the “called beside” One Who would be our Advocate, Helper, and Comforter. (John 14:16-18). The most notable sign associated with the event is the disciples speaking in tongues.

καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς.

and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, according as the Spirit was giving them to declare. (Acts 2:4, Young’s Literal)

The word “tongues” is this verse is the Greek word γλῶσσα, which can mean the organ in the mouth or a language. γλῶσσα is modified by the adjective ἕτερος which is commonly understood to mean, “another of a different kind.” It was not simply “another” language – as in ἄλλος.

The verb ἐδίδου is in the imperfect tense. The imperfect, of course, suggests a continuous act. It further suggests that they spoke only as long it was being given to them. Thus, they kept on speaking while the Holy Spirit was continuously giving to them.

But what did the language sound like?

καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθημεν;

and how do we hear, each in our proper dialect, in which we were born? (Acts 2:8)

Some translations, such as the KJV, have the word “tongues” here again. We can see though that it is the word, διάλεκτος from which we derive the English word, “dialect.” The men hearing the disciples were “from every nation of those which were under heaven” (ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν), yet they heard the disciples not only in their own language (γλῶσσα) but even their own dialect (διάλεκτος). To the men who heard them, the disciples (who were all Galileans) were heard in the language of the hearer. And they not only knew the language, the disciples sounded like natives of all these other countries!

Obviously this was a miraculous language. But I suggest that the tongues spoken at Pentecost were heard as an ordinary language and did not sound like the "babbling" we sometimes hear modern speakers of tongues speaking today.

Running on Empty

As I’ve studied Koine Greek, I’ve found it interesting to see how a particular word might be translated in different passages. This gives me a much broader understanding of the meaning of the word, which perhaps leads to a better understanding of a particular passage. One of the first “aha!” moments I had was with the verb, ὑστερέω (hustereō).

Romans 3:23 says,

πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (KJV)

“Come short of” in this verse is the translation of the word ὑστερέω. In English, the phrase, “come short of,” suggests that something was very close but just not completely where it should be. If I had a goal of losing 30 pounds and lost only 28 pounds, I might say, “I came just short of my goal.” So in English, the phrase “come short of the glory of God,” suggests we have some glory, just not as much as God’s glory.

However, the same word is used in John 2:3,

καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου λέγει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν· οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν.

“And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.” John 2 describes the wedding in Cana where Jesus performed His first miracle of turning water into wine. In this verse, the word hustereō is translated as “when they wanted…”

The word ὑστερέω means to become exhausted or depleted; basically, “to run out of something.” At the wedding in Cana, they had run out of wine. So if we look back at Romans 3:23, we see that we’re not “just short of” glory – we have none. Because of our sin, we have depleted our glory; and not just a little bit, we’re completely empty.

Most of us like to think of ourselves as nice people. Each of us will admit we’ve made a mistake or two, but overall, we’re not that bad, are we? As much as we hate to admit it, in the eyes of God we’re all sinners and there’s nothing good about us. Fortunately, it’s not my good works that matter for anything. Jesus is the only One who did not sin and I am justified by His righteousness.

Romans 3:23 is not the end of the story, it’s the beginning. Read the passage in context (Romans 3:23-26):

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Wow! I guess that’s why they call it, “the Good News.”