Koinonia

A Good Work among You—Philippians 1:6 (Monday with Mounce 14) by Bill Mounce

Philippians 1:6

Paul begins his letter to the Philippians with praise for them, and then says this now famous verse. "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (ESV).

It is not that difficult of a verse to translate. The only really question is the translation of en hymin. The "you" is plural, a fact obscured by the English language. This is partly why some translations prefer "among" instead of "in" since it helps clarify that Paul’s confidence is in God’s work within all the people of the Philippian church.

But these types of constructions can be confusing. Can this verse be used, as it often is, to reassure a single believer that God will bring his work to completion in an individual, or is this only a promise to the larger group of the church? The plural "you" alerts us to the fact that it cannot only be a promise to an individual but that it is primarily for the group. But is that the end of the discussion?

And what specifically is the "good work"?

My trip to Nepal and India (Monday with Mounce 13) by Bill Mounce

This is an off-topic blog, but I wanted to share some of my recent experiences with you. I spoke at two pastor conferences, one in Nepal and the other in India. It was a fascinating experience that caused me to rethink some of my beliefs and assumptions. Perhaps my reflections will encourage your reflection as well. There is a second blog that is posted on SupportMinistry.com.

To say I am overwhelmed is to say the least. I find that many of the stereotypical thoughts and even pictures that I have heard and seen from missionaries are the same as my thoughts and pictures (see some at the end of the blog). The poverty is overwhelming. The culture is oppressive. The resources are so few. Sounds like the only hope is God!

Translating the Imperfect (Monday with Mounce 11) by Bob Mounce

For the next 2 weeks, we’re pleased to have Bob Mounce guide us through biblical Greek and translation! The author of numerous well-known resources, including his Revelation commentary in the NICNT series, Bob was involved in the translation of the NIV, NLT, NIrV, and especially the ESV.—Jesse

When I was first introduced to the Greek language some fifty years ago, my textbook told me that “the tense which denotes continued action in past time is called the imperfect.” It was all simple and clear. When you came across a verb that matched a certain form in the chart you declared it an imperfect and translated it accordingly. Matthew 8:24 records that when a furious storm arose on the lake Jesus was sleeping— imperfect, “continued action in past time.” No problem.

But as time passed I began to notice that the imperfect was not simply “continued action in past time.” Various nuances called for new designations. For example, something might begin to take place in the past so this was called an ingressive imperfect. If the imperfect in Matt 8:24 were in this category the clause would mean that Jesus “was starting to fall asleep.” However, if it was an iterative imperfect then we would understand that Jesus “kept going to sleep.”

But wait, there are more. If it’s a customary imperfect, then Jesus “was asleep as usual” (perhaps the motion of the boat and the fresh wind always put him to sleep). If the imperfect was conative it could be something he desired (he “wanted to go to sleep”), attempted (he was “trying to go to sleep”), or almost happening (he was “about to go to sleep.”)

Are you a bit confused? I hope not. Grammar has gotten a bad name because it seems so legalistic with all its “rules.” But here is another way to look at it.

Pastors and Teachers—Ephesians 4:11 (Monday with Mounce 10) by Bill Mounce

Ephesians 4:11

This passage has long engendered debate, and I doubt I will forever close that debate in this blog. But it is a good example of how Greek grammar clarifies the issues and gives us an acceptable range of meaning, after which sensitivity to the language and context make the final decisions.

Wouldn’t it be great if a knowledge of Greek solved all the mysteries of the universe, or at least answered all the questions of the New Testament? It doesn’t, and opinions to the contrary border on cult mentality.

Paul is discussing the gifts that God gives. In v 11 he says, word for word, “And he gave men the apostles de the prophets de the evangelists de the pastors and teachers. The men … de is the correlative construction “both … and … and” that often does not make it into translations because while it is gentle and smooth in Greek our correlatives are a bit rougher and more intrusive.

The question is whether “pastors and teachers” designate one spiritual gift or two.

Etymologies—a first look (Monday with Mounce 9) by Bill Mounce

Passage: 1 Timothy 1:3

This is the first time in the blog I have dealt with the issue of etymology, so perhaps a few introductory comments are in order.

The etymology of a word is the meaning of its parts. In English we might talk about a “goalpost.” This is a goal that is formed by two vertical posts. In other words, in the creation of the word for where you kick the ball in soccer — excuse me, football — somebody took the word “goal” and the word “post” and created a term. When you look at the etymology of “goalpost,” you can see its two parts and those two parts tell you the meaning of the new term, “goalpost.”

Etymologies can be fun to play with. I just found the Online Etymology Dictionary. I don’t know how reliable it is, but it is fun.

The problem in Bible Studies is that in previous years too much weight was placed on etymologies. You would find a word in a certain context, and in determining its meaning people would look at the meaning of its parts and assume that was the meaning of the current word under investigation. No effort was put into determining the word’s meaning within its current context. This led to some pretty poor exegesis and unfortunately many inaccurate sermon illustrations.

One of the most basic things you will learn in your hermeneutics class is the “Etymology fallacy.” An example like “butterfly” will be used to expose the error of placing too much weight on the meaning of its parts. Is a butterfly really a dairy product that flies? (Of course, that is a bit of an unfair description. It was believed that insects used to drink butter, or else the yellow color of the butter was similar to the color of a butterfly, so in actuality the etymology is still somewhat conveyed by the word “butterfly.”)

Any this is precisely the point. It seems to me that we have gone too far and it is time to bring the pendulum back to midpoint. You cannot assume that the meaning of the part of a word still describes the meaning of the full word. And yet sometimes they can.

One such example occurs in 1 Timothy 1:3.

Can you not sin? (Monday with Mounce 8) by Bill Mounce

Passage: 1 John 3:6

What is the difference between saying, “I studied” and, “I was studying”? Both are in the past time, but there is another difference. You may not be able to describe it, but if you are a native English speaker you can feel it.

The difference is what we call “aspect.” “I studied” is indefinite. It does not tell you anything about the nature of your studying. It doesn’t specify if you were studying over a period of time. It doesn’t specify if you studied regularly or repeatedly. It simply states a fact. “I studied.”

On the contrary, what does “I was studying” tell you? It describes the action as continuous, as an ongoing action (in past time). It tells the hearer or reader what you were involved in doing.

Some of the Greek tenses are quite specific. If you want to describe an action that occurs in the past and you do not want to say anything about its aspect, you use the aorist tense. But if you want to describe a past action and want to be explicit that it was a process (“I was studying” rather than “I studied”), then you use the imperfect aspect. This distinction takes some of the guesswork out of the translation process.

However, if you want to describe an action that happens in the present, there are not two Greek tenses. Only one. In other words, if you were to say manthano, it could be translated as either “I study” or “I am studying.” The translator has to make a decision with present tense verbs. Because English distinguishes between an undefined and a continuous action in the present tense, you have to use one or the other in translating a Greek present tense verb. Which one will it be?

For example, what about the possibility of sin?

You Do Not Receive Our Testimony (Monday with Mounce 7) by Bill Mounce

Passage: John 3:11
Keyword: second person

I have always had a bit of a soft spot in my heart for Nicodemus.

Jesus is the new kid on the block, the new radical. He is already stirring up problems for the religious establishment, and Nicodemus takes a pretty big risk. He comes at night, during his normal study time but also under the cloak of darkness, and wants to talk with Jesus face to face. (How many personal and organizational conflicts would be settled if we would follow Nicodemus’ example and actually talk with the other person rather than attack and gossip?)

What apparently drove Nicodemus was that while Jesus seemed to be radical—cleansing the temple was not an act of compliance with the status quo—Nicodemus cannot avoid the obvious fact of Jesus’ miracles and the implication that Jesus must therefore be from God. He’s pretty bold if you stop and think about it.

Jesus of course gets right to the point, and Nicodemus struggles to keep up, falling further and further behind with every verse. Eventually Jesus is monologuing and Nicodemus seems not to exist.

But there is more to the story than that, and it is seen in the alternating between singular and plural, a grammatical nicety that comes into English only with difficulty.

I can do all things. (Monday with Mounce 6) by Bill Mounce

Passage: Philippians 4:13
Keyword: antecedent, adjectives

One of the joys of knowing Greek is to be able to follow all the internal links that an inflected language gives us. Because of attributes such as case, number, and gender, Greek often gives clues to meaning that cannot be brought into English, unless your translation philosophy is very dynamic.

Philippians 4:13 is a good example. Paul has been encouraging the Philippians towards joy, reasonableness, lack of anxiety and God’s peace, to focus on that which is true. He thanks them for their financial gift — prisoners in Rome were responsible for their own expenses. Because Paul’s culture was so quid pro quo — I give you a gift so that at the right time I can require one back from you — he quickly follows with a disclaimer that he was okay without the gift; he has learned to be content in all situations.

Within that context Paul says, “I can do all things (panta) through him who strengthens me.” “All things”? Run faster than a speeding bullet? Leap over tall buildings?

Who is God’s Temple? (Monday with Mounce 5) by Bill Mounce

Key Passage: 1 Cor 3:16-17

It is always interesting to compare languages. There are some things so basic to one language that it feels strange to find that other languages cannot make the same distinctions.

For example, English indicates time in its verbal system. We use different forms of a verb to show that the action was in the past, is in the present, or will be in the future. So when we go to Hebrew and find that there is no time significance in the forms of their verbal system (i.e., there is no future tense, no past tense), at first glance many students think it quite odd.

But the same goes for the proverbial Greek speaker who is introduced to English (assuming some kind of time warp). Let’s call him “Alexander.”

Alexander comes to his first ESL class and finds, much to his astonishment, that “you” in English can refer to one person or to more than one person. It can be singular or plural. “Strange,” he thinks. “I have one word for you singular (su) and another word for you plural (hymeis). Isn’t it confusing to not be able to differentiate between one and more than one?”

So before we call other languages strange, we should look at our own language and the nature of languages in general.

Case in point in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17.

Monday with Mounce 4: Semicolons and Translation by Bill Mounce

Passage: Romans 9:4

In a world of dwindling sentence length and complex sentence structures, the semi-colon has fallen on hard times. It is too bad. It has the ability to stop the reader ever so slightly, and indicate that while there is some sequence of thought (much like a comma), there is also a stop (but of less strength than a period).

Case in point is Romans 9:4. Paul is expressing his deep desire for the salvation of the Jewish nation. In reciting their privileges he says, "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises" (ESV). It reads as a sequence, a series of privileges given to the Jewish nation.

But note the TNIV translation and the effect of a semi-colon. "the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises." The semi-colon marks the national "adoption" as a primary privilege, and extending from that adoption they receive glory, covenants, etc. Whether you agree with the interpretation or not, you can see the value of punctuation in translation, albeit a nuanced value in this case.

Someone might say that this is being overly interpretive. Perhaps, but look what happens if you undertranslate it. If you think that "adoption" is the head term and the others extend out from it, and if you simply use commas, you are misleading the reader. Sequence in English doesn't allow for the first in the sequence to be the head term.

Let's look at another example perhaps closer to home. Paul tells Timothy that an elder must be above reproach (anepilempton), the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, etc. (1 Tim 3:2). What is the relationship of these qualities? Are they all equal? If so, what does "above reproach" mean?