Support Ministry

The saying, “Like father like son,“ was certainly not true of Josiah and Jehoiakim, two kings of Judah. While Josiah, the father, was a godly king who ruled the land with justice, Jehoiakim, the son, served primarily himself, building a magnificent palace at a time when the kingdom was impoverished by war and in debt to Egypt.

The prophet Jeremiah reminded Jehoiakim that “a beautiful palace does not make a great king” (Jer 22:15 NLT) and that the reason his father Josiah had reigned so long (over 30 years) was because “he defended the cause of the poor and needy” (vs. 16 TNIV). Through Jeremiah the Lord asks, “Isn’t that what it means to know me? (vs. 16)”

Many devout and serious believers have expressed their desire to know God better. The picture is often one of a mystic somewhat cut off from others and spending long periods of time in spiritual contemplation. I am sure that some are called to live that way but I seriously question the assumption that that is what it means to know God. Josiah was “just and right in all his dealings” and God clearly indicates that that is what it means to know him. Authentic Christianity is doing not feeling.

Christian virtues such as love, kindness, gentleness do not exist apart from their actual expression in real acts in the real world. To know God is less a mystical experience as it is living a life centered on the welfare of others. It is by living as God lives that we come to know who he really is. Want to know him better? Be a Josiah not a Jehoiakim

"Bob Mounce"

I learned quite some time ago from John 17 that the key to evangelical outreach is the unity and love of local body of believers (see verses 21 and 23). Reading in the Old Testament last evening I came upon a passage that reflects the same truth.

In Ezekiel 36 the prophet foretells the return of God’s people from exile. God will bring his people back to the land, not because they deserve it (vs. 22) but in order to protect his holy name which by their actions they have dishonored. In verse 23 he says, “And when I reveal my holiness through you before their very eyes . . . then the nations will know that I am the Lord.”

Note that God intends to reveal his holiness “through [his people]” Believers are to undergo an inner transformation that allows God to reveal himself through them. In verse 26 they are to be given a “new heart” with “new and right desires,” as well as a “new spirit.” As the popular song of the 40s has it,”There’ll be some changes made.” They had polluted the land with murder and idolatry (vs. 18) but because of the coming transformation they will so manifest the holiness of God that the nations will be forced to acknowledge that Israel’s God is the one sovereign Lord of all.

I heard Edwin McManus speak at the National Pastors Convention (2008). He was talking about the lack of grace in society. In what first appeared to be a side comment, in describing a situation of gracelessness, he commented: “Outside of the church, I haven’t seen this kind of gracelessness in years.” Of course, what at first felt like a side comment was really the main point.

Today in my reading I came across the story of Jarius and the woman who was healed of her bleeding. Jesus can feel that healing power had gone out of him and asked who touched him. His graceless disciples respond, “‘You see the people crowding against you,’ his disciples answered, ‘and yet you can ask, ”Who touched my clothes?”’”

Let’s put this comment in perspective. They were the students; he was the rabbi. They had already witnessed countless healings and exorcisms. He had healed leprosy, the paralyzed man let down through the ceiling by his four friends, restored a withered hand, exercised sovereign control over the wind and the sea, and just recently exorcized a legion of demons from a man whom no one could control. Pretty impressive you would think.

The NIV translates Matt 7:13-14 as follows. “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” The switching from the “narrow” gate in v 13 to the “small” gate in v 14 is also reflected in the NASB, TNIV, and KJV.

The problem is that Jesus uses the same word for the gate in both verses. It is a stenos gate, a “narrow” gate. So why introduce the confusion of switching English words within the context of two verses?

This is the issue of “concordance,” using the same English word for the same Greek word. The ESV and NLT keep the concordance.

Good translation is not merely the ability to apply all the appropriate rules of grammar to a passage but the ability to go behind the words and learn from the context what the writer actually means by what he says. If the sign says, “Do not throw lighted objects from a moving vehicle” it simply will not do to stop the car and throw your cigarette out the window. Nor will it do to keep moving and drop it rather than throw it. We recognize this is normal situations but often forget it in Biblical passages. Perhaps Matthew 1:19 can serve as an example.

The Greek text transliterates literally as, “Jesus but the man of her, righteous being and not wishing her to disgrace wanted secretly to divorce her.” It is apparent that changes need to be made to turn this into a readable sentence in English.

Some changes are easy. The de (but) often carries little weight; it could be “and” or even dropped from the translation. Likewise, “the man of her” becomes “her man,” or in this situation, “her fiance.” But wait, where did “fiance” come from? The Greek aner (man) takes its meaning from the context -- he was in fact her fiance. The legal engagement had taken place.

Part of the human side of the inspiration process is the author’s use of metaphors, figures of speech, and all the other tools for making the language robust and descriptive. The authors of Scripture could have written in plain, third grade level, boring Greek. But they didn’t.

Unfortunately, often translations tend to flatten the language. Take for example Romans 6:4. In the ESV we wrote, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (also in the KJV and NASB). “Walk” is a well-known metaphor to describe how we live. It paints a picture that communicates both the words used and the meaning intended.

It is somewhat surprising, then, to find the metaphor interpreted in other translations as “live a new life” (TNIV, cf. NLT). Even the NET Bible follows the pattern, although the metaphor is explained in the footnote.

One of the subtle clues Greek gives to its readers is how it views a series of words. For example, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman at the well, that "an hour is coming and now is when true worshipers will worship the father in spirit and truth." One of the exegetical debates of this verse surrounds the identity of the series of two words, "spirit" and "truth."

But here is where the Greek holds a hint that cannot be easily conveyed in English. There is only one preposition, "in" (en). This is Greek's way of telling the reader that the two objects of the preposition, "spirit" and "truth," are to be viewed as a unit, not two separate entities.

But how close a unit? Again we are reminded that Greek grammar does not often settle an exegetical issue, but rather shows us the range of possible meaning. What settles the issue is, as always, context. "Context is king."

I grew up in a culture that seemed to separate faith and reason. Faith was the requirement for a religious experience while reason was the more advanced and scientific approach to understanding the nature of reality. No one specifically taught me this but I gathered the comparison both from the classroom and the Sunday School class.

Obviously, I thought, science deals with reality and religion with that other realm of existence. We could measure reality but we had to experience spirituality. Matter could be empirically tested; we could weigh it, analyze it chemically, put it into safe categories. Spirituality was subjective; it did not have to prove itself by conforming to the laws of logic.
I was of the impression that the really bright people in this world had opted for science while the, shall I say intellectually challenged, found it easier to feel the truth than to understand it.

Now I understand how deceptive is this general attitude toward faith and reason. While it is true that “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” (read “spiritual insight” and “secular understanding” — 1 Corinthians 1:27), it does not follow that spirituality defies logic and that the two realms must forever be kept apart for a rational understanding.

As we know, there were not any punctuation marks in the original text, and yet modern convention requires some and in so doing raises some interesting questions.

Take John 3:16 for example. If a person's talking requires several paragraphs, modern conventions is to put a quotation mark at the beginning of each paragraph, but only one quotation mark is included, and that at the end of the last paragraph. In other words, all of the paragraphs except for the last one do not close with a quotation mark.

There is a subtle change from the NIV to the TNIV (simply as an illustration, not as a comment on the translations). The NIV does not include a closing quotation mark on John 3:15, and includes a starting quotation mark with John 3:16. In other words, Jesus is still talking. The TNIV, however, reverses this. It includes a closing quotation mark on John 3:15 and does not include a beginning quotation mark with John 3:16. In other words, Jesus is no longer speaking.

John 2 ends on this note: "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man"(ESV).

When John 3 starts, it is common to read a "now": "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews." The word is translating de, a word that can mean both "and" and "but." So which is it here, and what is the significance?

The significance is whether Nicodemus is one of the "people" of chapter 2, or whether he is in contrast to them. Was he antagonistic or sympathetic toward Jesus? Specifically, how do you read v 4. "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Is that a serious or mocking response?