LIVING FOR JESUS IN TRUMP'S AMERICA

I haven't posted anything for quite a while.  After the election in November, I posted three angry rants for which I make no apology.  My feelings have not changed much since then except to go from anger to befuddlement.
 

I'm befuddled at the thinking of some persons I know, for whom I had had great respect - even some who had quite an influence on me in my life as a Christian.  And there were some others whom I had thought that I had influenced.  I've seen their posts and shares on social media and have wondered where they are coming from - an alternative universe?  They praise our new president Donald Trump as God's man for America.  They praise the "testimonies" of Trump's minions; they seem to see a new and brighter day for America - and apparently for the church.

Yet whenever I turn on the television news I see and hear a ranting, lying, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic bully, a man whose speech and behavior is completely opposed to every-thing a follower of Christ would stand for.  And his minions support him in  this.  We're told that the lies he used last week were actually the fault of the "news media" or someone else.  And, of course, we have this great new phrase, "Alternative facts."

I could go on and on about the bizarre looniness that our new president and his minions spout.  I could go on and on about my fears regarding his actions in the next few weeks and years, but all anyone has to do is turn on the news to hear and see this circus.  I am afraid for my country.

But America is not my greatest concern.  Our nation has gone off in the wrong direction many times in the past and so far we as a nation have survived.  And even if we don't, I realize God is sovereign.  And I realize that my hope is not in America.  It may be that we who follow Jesus will have to stand alone -  even in America!

My greatest concern is for the Church of Jesus Christ and my relationship to it.  I'm speaking of the total visible church - what Paul calls "the body of Christ" and to which I belong.  I cannot understand the fact that so many who claim to be followers of Christ are infatuated with a hateful, narcissistic playground bully.

I hope that the reader will understand - this post is not simply a rant against our president or a complaint about America.  It is an expression of the dilemma I - and many of my fellow American Christians face:  how do we live for Jesus in opposition to our ungodly national leaders and not find ourselves in opposition to the Church of which a great share are infatuated with these leaders - of which church we are a part?

There are some, I fear, who feel they should separate themselves from that Church.  But we can't if we belong to Jesus Christ.  We may separate from a particular organized group (and I have done that in the past) only to find the same situation in another group.  Do we isolate ourselves from others totally? We cannot do that.

I love the Church; I love the local group of which I am a member.  I have many Christian friends in this city and others all over the world with whom I communicate.  How am I to react when our conversation turns to their love affair with Trump?  Or when it turns to their hatred for our former President?  When I find it easier to talk with my unbelieving friends than with my brothers and sisters in Christ?

I know I am not alone, that there are many who have not drunk the Kool-Aid, who have  the same dilemma I have: following Jesus demands of us that we refuse to compromise truth and yet demands that we act in love.

GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS

I believe it's important for us - whatever group we claim allegiance to - to occasionally take a look at ourselves through the eyes of others, no matter how negative their views may be.  So when I came across the book The Great Derangement by Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi, I was intrigued.  In reading the book, I never quite felt sure where Taibbi was headed and though it was an entertaining read, I still felt a bit baffled when I concluded.  His purpose seemed to me to be to demonstrate that America is full of crazies and is headed down the tubes.

To pursue his thesis Taibbi places himself with different degrees of feigned sincerity into four different "subcultures" - the military, a newsman in Congress, the 9/11 Truthers movement and a mega-church.  It is his experiences in the church that occupy the largest portion of the book, as well as my interest.

Though Taibbi comes across as a cynical atheist, in his dealings with the church, his descriptions of his experiences, though saddening, are fascinating and entertaining.  I found it hard to put the book down.  I have no idea why he chose the church that he did - John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas.  Perhaps because its pastor comes across even to us non-cynics as clownish, both in his preaching style and his TV appearance.

[Note:  I have no sympathy for Mr. Hagee.  I believe that his "Christian Zionism" is a politicization of a false theology.  His unquestioning endorsement of the nation of Israel has led him to a "two-Messiah" heresy which denies that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews.]

Taibbi describes his experiences in the church, beginning with a 3-day weekend retreat.  He goes through a "conversion," baptism and even speaking in tongues (which he accomplishes by reciting Russian poetry).  He prays aloud and sings praises, all the while holding a contemptuous and unsympathetic attitude toward his deluded fellow-worshippers.  But what struck me was an unexpected lengthy confession he makes in the middle of his narration of all his hypocritical play-acting on his 3-day retreat.

"After two days of nearly constant religious instruction, songs, worship, and praise - ... an unending regimen of forced and fake responses - a funny thing started to happen to my head.  There is a transformational quality in these external demonstrations of faith and belief.  The more you shout out praising the Lord, singing along ..., telling people how blessed you feel, and so on, the more a sort of mechanical Christian skin starts to grow all over your real self.  Even if you're a degenerate Rolling Stone reporter inwardly chuckling and busting on the whole scene ... outwardly you're swaying to the gospel and singing and praising and acting the part, and those outward ministrations assume a kind of sincerity in themselves.  ... that 'inner you' begins to get tired of the whole spectacle and sometimes forgets to protest ... while the outer me did the 'work' of singing and praising.  ... which one is the real you?"

"You may think you know the answer, but by my third day I began to notice how effortlessly my soft-spoken Matt-mannequin was going through his robotic motions of praise, and I was shocked.  For a brief, fleeting moment I could see how under different circumstances it would be easy enough to bury your 'sinful' self far under the skin of your outer Christian and to just travel through life this way.  ... so long as you are going through all the motions, never breaking the facade, who are you really?  ... it was the very first time I worried that the experience of entering this world might prove to be anything more than an unusually tiring assignment.  I feared for my normal."

Taibbi's confession took an entire page, I had to go back and re-read it; and then I did so again.  I read it aloud to Uni.  Here in the midst of Taibbi's cynical criticisms of his fellow-"worshippers" was a page full of un-cynical honesty!  What to make of it?

It raised questions in my own mind.  Could - should - I make a similar confession?  Have I, at least at times worn "a sort of mechanical Christian skin"?  Have I been guilty of "checking out into ... daydreams" in the middle of worship?  Have I simply gone through "robotic motions of praise"?

I'm afraid that there are many times I'd have to answer "Yes" to all of these questions.  While Taibbi was afraid of his experience affecting his "normal" - his cynical atheism, I am afraid for my "normal" - the reality of my Christian life.

Yes, we'd have a biblical/theological explanation for this phenomenon.  We'd say that this is worship "in the flesh."  But somehow having a phrase for this isn't comforting.  Worshipping in the flesh with our mind disengaged and with the Spirit disengaged, is easy to do.  Do I fit the description Jesus gave when He said, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me?"  (Matthew 15:8, quoting Isaiah 29:13)

The Sunday after I read this, I was very self-conscious in our Church worship service.  As I found myself going through the motions of worship my mind wandered - not to daydreams but to self-examination.  Is this real?  I glanced around at those worshipping around me, singing, clapping, and raising their hands, amening.  Is this real for them?

I am not questioning the validity of my faith, or that of my fellow worshippers.  But I am saying that our external Christian behavior can be unreal.  I often have thoughts - disconnected and irrelevant thoughts - running through my mind during worship at church or even prayer at home.  At times the very words used in worship can suggest other directions for our minds to follow.  I'm not speaking here of evil or greedy or lustful thoughts, however, just thoughts of any kind that distract from the reality of worship.  And of the ability to keep up the motions of worship while those thoughts are going on.

Lord, I do confess that my worship has often been carried on in the flesh.  Cleanse me from that sin and give me the grace to worship you with my mind and in Your Spirit.

MAN UP!

I was sitting in my recliner reading a newsmagazine with the pages folded over, when Uni started snickering.  She was reading the headline on the opposite page:  "How to Tell Time Like a Man."  I flipped my magazine over and read the fine print aloud to her.  It was a full-page 81/2"x11" ad for a wristwatch.

"Your watch ..." it claimed (and I'm not making this up), "should look and feel like a power tool and not a piece of bling.  Wearing it shouldn't make you think twice about swinging a hammer or changing a tire.  A real man's timepiece needs to be ready for anything."

Urrrgh!  Shades of Tim the Tool Man!

But that's not all!  After some info about the price the ad continues:  "Call me old-fashioned, but I want my boots to be leather, my tires to be deep-tread monsters, and my steak thick and rare.  Inspiration for a man's watch should come from things like fast cars, firefighters and power tools."

The rest of the page has details about the watch and its bargain pricing and it features an actual photo of the watch, about double actual size (I'd hope - otherwise one would have to wear it around his neck).

Now while the watch I wear was purchased for much less - seems like it was around $10 at Wal*Mart - I can understand that men in some trades would require a heavier-duty watch.  I do wear leather boots - "manly footwear," as Merle's song goes (see picture above).  And I do have a few power tools.  Alas, my 14-year-old PT Cruiser doesn't qualify; it's not fast and doesn't have monster tires.

But is my masculinity to be measured by the appurtenances of manhood mentioned in the ad?  If I lack any of these am I less of a man?  That seems to be the implicit message I'm being given.  So if I'm a real man I should call the number given on the page immediately so that I can add this watch to my power tools, leather boots, etc.

I do suspect, however, that this type of appeal gets more response from those who are unsure of their masculinity than from those who are confident in theirs.

Well then, how should I measure my manhood?  What are the signs of manhood if they're not the external macho trappings mentioned?  How do I "man up"?

Once - and only once - is there an expression given in the New Testament telling us to "man up."  Paul uses the Greek verb andrizomai in 1 Corinthians 16:13.  The word is usually translated "be men" or "act like men."  It is related to the noun aner which is simply the word for "man" as male.  [This word is not to be confused with anthropos, which though translated "man" in older translations, basically means "human" or "person" and can include those of both genders.]

Andrizomai was, however, used about 20 times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (ca. 200 BC) usually in pep talks to troops before sending them off to war.  Moses to the Israelite armies before sending them across the Jordan to conquer the Canaanites:  "Be men (andrizomai) and be strong!  Don't be afraid or cowardly or fearful in their presence ..." (Deuteronomy 31:6).  He repeats the same to his successor Joshua in the next verse.  Then after crossing the Jordan, Joshua is found giving the same command to his troops (Joshua 1:6-7, 9; 10:25).  The word is still used in modern Greek, though more in the sense of "be strong."

But when Paul exhorts his (male?) readers to be men, he is not sending them forth to physical combat.  Neither is he telling them of those external features or accessories that are supposed to be the marks of a "real man."  In his concluding remarks to his First Letter to the Corinthians he says these words:

"Stay awake, stand firm in the faith, be men (or man up) be strong!  Let everything you do be done in love!"  (1 Corinthians 16:13, 14)

There are five imperatives in these two verses, all in the present tense, which gives the sense of continual action.  These are to be the characteristics of Paul's readers, including us - our continual behavior.  And the third command is the one that I believe sums up the others.  Or to put it another way, the other four commands tell us what it means to man up.

·       "Stay awake!"  This word is often translated "watch."  It's what Jesus commanded His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane, just before He was betrayed.  Real men are spiritually alert.  They understand what's going on around them.

·       "Stand firm!"  The idea is of standing firm, confident in our faith in Christ and in our freedom in Him.  (Galatians 5:1; Philippians 1:27; 4:1, etc.)

·       "Be strong!"  The word is used of both John the Baptist and of Jesus as children.  (Luke 1:80; 2:40).  The idea seems to be of a continual growth in strength.  But I don't believe that Paul is commanded physical training here.

·        "Let everything you do be done in love!"  Love is an active word - that which seeks what is best in its object.  It is to characterize every action of the real man.

So how is our - my - manhood measured?  Apparently not by the standards enumerated in the magazine ad, nor by other standards urged upon us by American culture.

Our manliness is a goal we are to strive for - our likeness to Jesus Christ.  Or as Paul says elsewhere, we are to continue our growth "... until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man (aner), to the measure of the stature of Christ's fullness" (Ephesians 4:13).

DOES COMING OUT MATTER?

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, recently publicly admitted he is gay, according to an article in The Week Magazine (11/14/2014, page 18).  In a Bloomberg Businessweek essay, he said, "While I have never denied my sexuality I haven't publicly acknowledged it either ...  Let it be clear:  I'm proud to be gay, and I consider being gay one of the greatest gifts God has given me."

The comments were varied:

·       "Cook send an important signal to young gay Americans still living in fear and demonstrated how far our country has traveled on gay rights in recent years."

·       His announcement "was blissfully mundane."

·       "No one cares ... liberals act as if its 1950 and the townsfolk are ready to grab their pitchforks and torches."

·       "If anything, the Apple CEO should have spoken earlier, rather than stay in the closet until He'd made his millions."

·       "Don't expect more Fortune 500 CEOs to follow suit."

·       "Coming out in ... Silicon Valley is one thing ... Corporate America is still dominated by long standing stereotypes of gay men being weak, passive or inferior."

·       And so on - there were many more.

Sports stars, movie stars, celebs of every sort, newsmen, even politicians, have been coming out as gay for quite a while.  Each time they are met with similar reactions.  And, of course, there are other reactions - often more negative - that don't get published.  They can be heard in any office, bar, coffee shop or even church parlor.

As I read these various comments, the question that came to mind was, what if Cook had "come out" as a follower of Christ?  What would be the comments be?  So I re-read the article aloud to Uni, substituting the word "Christian" or some appropriately related word wherever "gay" was used.  We had a few chuckles.

I suppose the reactions would be quite similar, some negative and some positive and some ho-hum.  In some locations in America, the coming out would be expected; isn't everybody a Christian?  Elsewhere in America, he would be the object of mockery and derision.  If he were in some other profession his position would be threatened.

Of course, in some nations of the world, coming out as gay or Christian would invite the death penalty.

Gays want acceptance and in many ways and places they are accepted, though they're not there yet.  They merely want what they feel various ethnic groups have found.  Isn't that what Christians want for ourselves?  And we have it, though there appears to be a rising resentment of us here in America.

Why are Christians accepted in America?  Well, for one thing, Christianity dominates our culture.  Most Americans still consider themselves Christians, so it's no big deal, is it?

But there are many who would object to any public figure who openly professed Christianity.  To many, "Christian" has become a dirty word.  It is equated with ignorance, superstition, bigotry, right wing politics, etc.  So we're either bland - who cares? - or we're hypocrites.

Shouldn't our profession of being a follower of Christ make a radical difference?  We're told in Acts 11:26 that "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."  Note that they "were called Christians."  It doesn't say that they called themselves Christians.  Apparently it was outsiders who gave them this label.

And it was the ”disciples" who were labeled thus.  There's no reason to think that Luke changed his definition of disciple from that found in his gospel (see:  Luke 14:26, 27, 33).  Being a Christian does not mean being part of an ethnic or cultural group or a philosophical school or a religious sect.  Being a Christian means being a disciple - a radically committed person who has placed his loyalty to Christ above all else.  It means being a person who actively loves every one of his or her fellow human beings.

What would happen to the public figure who would come out of the closet as one of those people?

Of course, it's possible that if a person was truly living such a radical lifestyle, he wouldn't have to come out of the closet.  Everyone would already know what he was.

"Let your light so shine before men

that they'd see your good works

 and glorify your Father who is in the Heavens."

(Matthew 5:16)

IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME!

When I teach or preach from the New Testament, I usually read and translate directly from my Greek text.  I don't do this to show off or to impress people; most who hear me don't even realize I'm doing so, other than those who ask the occasional question as to what translation I use.  (I usually tell them I use the BLT.  If that doesn't satisfy I explain that BLT stands for Bill's Literal Translation).  Of course some actually notice and make the comment mentioned above.

I have been reading and studying my Greek Testament regularly for nearly 40 years.  One requirement for my Master's Degree in New Testament, besides grammatical and exegetical studies was to read through the entire Greek New Testament at least once (though most of it was read more than that).  I was hooked and since then I have read it through at least once a year.  I actually feel more at home in it than in my English New Testament.  I have also read and continue to read in my Hebrew Old Testament (with difficulty) as well as in the Septuagint.  I have never formally taught Greek other than a one hour credit class at the College of Biblical Studies - Houston, entitled:  "The Greek New Testament for English Readers."  I have occasionally tutored or mentored a few persons in the study as well.

So when a friend posted an article on facebook entitled "3 Ways Not To Use Greek in Bible Study" it got my attention.

Though the author of the article concedes that "there is nothing wrong with wanting to know some things about the language that God gave us for the New Testament," he warns us that "there are also dangers involved."  While after my first reading I found myself in essential agreement with the article and even hit "like" on the post, I felt a bit uncomfortable and felt that even though the author asserts that he is "not trying to discourage anyone from studying Greek," he was doing just that.  I also felt that it could become an excuse for those who are teachers and preachers, for neglecting the original languages.

I agree with most of what the article states.  I feel along with this writer that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and I agree with his three points - to a point.  I'd like to add my thoughts to the points made there which I see as actually two.

Point 1:  "Usage Trumps Etymology:  Avoiding the Root Fallacy" and Point 3:  "Context is King:  Avoiding the Overload Fallacy" seem to be saying much the same thing. "... a word's meaning is not determined by its etymology, but by its usage."  "Most words don't have a 'literal meaning' at all - rather, they have a range of possible meanings (the technical term is 'semantic range.'"  "Context usually narrows the possible meanings to one (an exception would be ... puns)."

Point 2:  "Scholars are Necessary:  Avoiding the Cult of the Amateur" seems clear except that it is used simply to reinforce Points 1 and 3.

The article appears to assume that word study is a major aspect in doing Greek exegesis.  Actually the sort of studies described requires little knowledge of the original languages, just some skill in the use of a concordance, which is available to the English reader.

One does not have to be skilled in the original languages to be a gifted Bible teacher.  I myself studied and taught the Bible with a reasonable amount of proficiency for many years before my formal education.  Many of those from whom I learned had no proficiency in the languages; some didn't even have that good a command of our native English!

But I contend that a familiarity with the language in which our Bible was originally written is an asset which the use of helps can only partially provide.  I write this at the desk in my study with volumes of helps - concordances, lexicons and commentaries on the shelves behind me.

As far as the use of words, I agree that usage trumps etymology and that context is king.  But knowledge of the "original" or "root" meanings of words brings a color to the book that simple context definitions cannot.  As in any language, words have many meanings, even in the same context.  Much of language is metaphorical and the careful reader or listener understands that words do have more than one meaning and that though a word may have a single specific meaning in a particular context, it often carries with it its other meanings.  Puns, double entendres, sarcasm and subtle nuances are much more common than a literalistic reader might suppose.

Some examples:

·       Jesus is in the garden of Gethsemane with His disciples on the night before His betrayal.  He is burdened down and leaves them to go off alone to pray.  He tells them:  meinate hode kai gregoreite (Mark 14:34).  Most translations, even modern ones translate this something like "stay here and watch," which is probably what was meant.  But gregoreo has the "original" meaning of "stay awake."  To translate it simply as "watch" would be accurate, but the reader would miss the irony of the fact that they fell asleep.

·       Paul exhorts his readers many times, peripateite (Ephesians 4:1, 17; 5:1, 15, etc.).  Some modern versions (though not all) translate this word simply as "live," referring to Christian behavior or conduct.  But the "root" meaning of pateo is "walk" and the prefix peri has the meaning of "around."  The Christian is not exhorted to passively "live" but to have an active life - a life in motion.

And while word meanings do change over time, some retain their meanings over centuries, even millennia.  When Paul tells his readers that the Holy Spirit is our arrabon (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13, 14), he is using a word that already in his day was 2,000 years old; it was actually an ancient Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) word.  Its first biblical usage is in the Hebrew Old Testament, Genesis 38:17, 18, 20 in the spicy story of Tamar and Judah.  Judah contracts for sex with his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar who has disguised herself as a prostitute.  He promises her "a kid from the flock" for her favors (the going rate?) and gives her his seal, cord and staff as an arrabon.  The word in Paul is translated variously as "earnest," "pledge," "down payment," but I suspect that his astute readers may have recalled the earlier context.  (The word is still found today in modern Greek and is used of an engagement ring.)

And then there are synonyms.  No two words have precisely the same meaning.  While synonyms have an overlap in meaning and in many contexts seem to be used simply for variety, there are many instances where their differences in meaning are quite clear.

·       The words allos and heteros can simply be translated interchangeably in many contexts as "other" or "another."  In 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, Paul uses allos six times and heteros twice with no clear difference.  Most English translations translate both words consistently as "another."  But in his letter to the Galatians, while he uses both words in one context, their subtle differences in meaning are clear.  "I am amazed that so quickly you have moved away from the One who called you in the grace of Christ to another (heteros) gospel - which is not another (allos) ..."  Most modern translations translate heteros here as "a different ..." (Galatians 1:6, 7) bringing out the difference in meaning.

·       The author of the article states, "Turns out that agape and philos (I believe that he meant to say philia) aren't really different kinds of love after all ..."  Apparently this is something that he learned from "scholars" in his "first couple of weeks of class."  However, while the words are synonyms and in many instances may simply be translated as "love," a careful study of all the New Testament usages will demonstrate that there are clear differences.  See:  I LOVE YOU LORD and WHAT IS LOVE?

And of course, language studies are much more than studies of word meanings.  Grammar is an important part.  Greek verb tenses differ from our English tenses.  For instance, while in English we have a simple past tense, Greek has two,  the aorist and the imperfect, which give much more color to the action.  To oversimplify (always dangerous) the aorist presents a snapshot:  "he ran," while the imperfect presents a motion picture:  "he was running."  English often has to use "helper words" to get the same color.

One example:  in John 11:35 we read edakrusen ho lesous.  Normally this is translated "Jesus wept."  But the verb dakruo here is not the normal word for weeping but is related to the word dakruon, "tear."  It is also in the aorist tense.  This, the shortest verse in the Bible, is thus packed with meaning.  It could be translated "Jesus burst into tears!"  The Greek reader could catch this.  Also see:  GRAMMAR AND THE GREAT COMMISSION.

I agree with Point 2  on the value of scholarship.  However, scholars quite often disagree with one another.  If we simply compare Bible translations we will frequently find conflicts.  We all - scholars or lay persons or those in between - fail to distinguish degrees of certainty and can be dogmatic where we have little or no right to be.  This is where some knowledge of the original languages can be of great help - not to arrive at new interpretations but to check on existing ones.  In regard to the experts, we should "trust but verify!"

So, while I would encourage the English reader that we have some excellent translations and excellent commentaries that can be trusted, I would also encourage the student - especially if you teach - to dig a little deeper using a good concordance and lexicon.  Get the feel for the Bible. Remember it's a lifetime process.

And do watch out.  A little learning can be a dangerous thing!

GRAMMAR AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

"All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me.  So go, disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all things that I've commanded you, and see,
I am with you always until the end of the age!"
Matthew 28:19, 20

This familiar passage, given by Jesus to His disciples at some time in between His resurrection and His ascension, is known to most of His followers as "The Great Commission."  It is repeated in a number of different forms in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts.  It is recognized by most as the imperative for the Christian mission and seems to be recognized as having a sense of urgency, even though it's been nagging us for nearly 2,000 years.

 

Every so often, however, we hear its urgent tone softened by the translation of the word "Go" as "As you go" or as "Going."  While those who claim these to be accurate translations of the Greek text may mean well, I fear it can bring a relief to our slowness to obey. We can easily understand the new rendering as "When you get around to it,"  so it fits well with our 21st century Christianity, but I cannot find this wording in any English translations; it is merely something that some teachers and/or preachers say, sometimes off the cuff and occasionally with apparent authority.

 

So then, what exactly was Jesus' command?  While Jesus undoubtedly spoke in Aramaic, a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, our New Testament texts are written in Greek.  So we are obligated to seek out as precisely as possible, the meaning of the Greek text.

 

There are four verb forms:  "Go," "disciple," "baptizing" and "teaching."

 

The main verb, usually translated "disciple" or "make disciples of" is matheteuo; the form given in the text is the aorist imperative plural, matheteusate.  It is an imperative, i.e., a command, and the aorist tense gives it immediacy:  "just do it"  or "start to do it."  This is the only finite verb form.  The other three are participles.

 

"Baptizing" (baptizontes) and "teaching" (didaskontes) are both present participles and speak of continuing action.  They describe the means to be used or the manner in making disciples.

 

The word we are especially concerned with is the word "Go."  Can it, or should it, be translated by "As you go"?  While it is usually best to be cautious in matters of grammar and syntax, I'll be dogmatic here and give a definite NO!

 

The word "go" translates the Greek verb form poreuthentes.  This is the aorist masculine plural participle form of the word poreuomai.  Unlike the words "baptizing" and "teaching," it precedes the main verb.

 

The word is used as a participle of attendant circumstance.  It is in the same tense (aorist) as the main verb and so picks up the mood of the verb and is thus to be understood as itself an imperative.  (See:  Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Dan Wallace, pages 640-645.)  It is not to be understood as the other two participles and used adjectivally.  It actually lends even more urgency to the command.

 

If we look at its other uses in the Gospels this becomes obvious.

 

Matthew 2:8:  Herod tells the Magi, "Go (poreuthentes) and search diligently (exetasate - aorist imperative) for the Child."

 

Matthew 9:13:  "Go and learn what this means ... "

 

Matthew 11:4:  "Jesus said to them, 'Go and report to John ...'"

 

Matthew 17:27:  "Go (poreutheis - aorist masculine singular participle) to the lake and cast in your hook ...'

 

Matthew 28:7:  "Quickly, go (poreutheisai - aorist feminine plural participle) and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead ..."

 

See also:  Mark 16:15; Luke 7:22; 13:32; 14:10; 17:14; 22:8.

 

The only place I can find "as you go" or "going" with an imperative is Matthew 10:6, 7, but there both the participle and the verb are in the present tense.  "Go (poreuesthe, present plural imperative) rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and as you go (poreuomenoi, present masculine participle)  preach (kerussete, present plural imperative) ... "

 

In all of the commands cited, the "go" in the aorist participle form adds urgency or haste to the command.  There is no sense of "whenever."  As Dan Wallace says in his Grammar cited above, "To turn poreuthentes into an adverbial participle is to turn the Great Commission into the Great Suggestion!"  (page 645)

 

Unfortunately, whether or not we do this with our grammar we may be guilty of doing it with our behavior.

 

Or to quote (out of context) the great American philosopher, Larry the Cable Guy, we need to just, "Git er done!"

See also:  "Is the Great Commission For Us?"

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

“Translations are like wives; the more beautiful they are, the less apt they are to be faithful; the more faithful they are, the less apt they are to be beautiful.”

Attributed to Edward Fitzgerald, translator of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.

I know the above quote sounds sexist to our 21^st century ears, but I believe it gets the point across.  (Of course, my wife Uni is an exception, both beautiful and faithful.)

Uni became a believer at an early age, and at the age of 11 she began reading through her Bible once a year and has ever since. When I came to faith in Christ at 18, she purchased me a Bible. It was a King James Version with all the “thees” and “thous.” I began reading it immediately and finished in about 3 months. I’ve been at it ever since and wore out that first Bible and a few more since.

I now have many Bibles (in Greek, Hebrew and English) which I read and study. My favorite is my Greek New Testament. It’s a large print Nestle-Aland critical text. The margins are marked with cross references and notes. The words have been colored by pencils according to a code known only to me. The edges are dirty. Some pages are torn and taped. The original cover is gone and replaced with a simple glued on piece of leather. It has tire tracks on a few pages. (I had left it on top of my car one morning after having coffee with a friend. I had just pulled on to the highway and got up to speed when I heard a thump, looked in the mirror and saw my New Testament being run over by a pickup truck following. I retrieved it still in mostly one piece.)
 

I love this book, as well as my other Bibles. They are my friends. Through the years I believe the Bible has been the major factor in my growth as a Christian. (I’m not there yet!) Though I have read many books that have added to my knowledge and growth, this is the one by which all others are judged.

I have received many questions regarding Bible translations, so I feel I need to give a few thoughts on the topic.

The Bible which we Christians believe is the Word of God was originally written in three languages.  The part we refer to as the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the language of ancient Israel.  Modern Hebrew is spoken and read today by Israelis and many other Jews.  Some small portions of the Old Testament were also written in Aramaic, a related language.  Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus and His disciples.  By His day it had become the common language of the Middle East.  It is still spoken today by a small number of people.

The portion we refer to as the New Testament was written in Greek, the language of the eastern Mediterranean world of its day, the language of the eastern half of the Roman Empire.  New Testament Greek is often referred to as koine (common) Greek.  It was the language spoken and written by Paul, Luke and most of those in the early church as it spread westward.  It is probable that Jesus himself knew and occasionally spoke Greek ( for instance, his conversation with Pontius Pilate).

It seems that nowadays we are flooded with a plethora of new Bible translations, as well as updated older ones.  Add to these the specialty Bibles – Bibles with notes which relate to a particular theological or social or occupational perspective.  And no Bible teacher or preacher who is of any worth can get along without publishing a “study” Bible with his or her notes to guide the reader.  And, of course, each of these specialty Bibles is published in a number of translations.

It’s confusing and, I fear, discouraging to many readers.  So what do we do?  Where do we begin?  How do we know which translations are best?  Which ones can we trust?  And what about my dear old KJV?

The Septuagint

Well, first of all, we should note that translation is not a new phenomenon.  The Bible was being translated even before it was completed.

To my knowledge, the earliest translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is the one known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX).  This was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek.  There are different theories and accounts of its origin, but we do know that it was completed by the second century B.C.  That’s 200 years earlier than the events of the New Testament and its writing.  The LXX is important to us for a number of reasons.

n  We have manuscripts of the LXX that, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in 1947, were hundreds of years older than any existing Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament (known as the Masoretic Text or MT).

n  The LXX sometimes agrees with, sometimes disagrees with the MT.  In some of those areas of disagreement it agrees with the DSS.

n  The LXX was frequently the text quoted by the writers of the New Testament which was written in Greek, although they occasionally translated or paraphrased the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

n  The theological terms, even the names of God, used in the New Testament, are the terms and names used in the LXX.

n  While we cannot claim that the text of the LXX is inspired, I believe that its use by the writers of the New Testament gives legitimacy to the use of translations.

The King James Version 

As far as our dear old KJV, this is the Bible I first read.  I read it at least a dozen times and have quite a few portions of it committed to memory.  But I no longer use it except for occasional reference (I have a copy of the original 1611 edition on my desk) for the following reasons.

n  It is one among many translations and was so even in its own day.  Though many refer to it as “the Authorized Version,” it was authorized by an English King, not directly by God.

n  The language, though it may sound majestic, is simply archaic.  The Bible was originally written in the language of the people who could read it at that time.  The New Testament especially, was written in koine or common Greek, the language that ordinary people spoke.  And the KJV was written in the language spoken by the English speaking people of its day.

n  It was translated from later Hebrew and Greek texts, the texts that were available in its day.  Since then many older manuscripts have been discovered.  These are the texts from which most of our modern translations are made.

n  The KJV translators, while scholars of ancient Greek, had little knowledge of koine.  Since their time, thousands of papyri and potsherds have been discovered, throwing much light on the language.

n  Many of our English word meanings have changed since 1611.

Modern Translations and Paraphrases

Even though I do most of my study in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, I also use English translations.  The one I use now is the English Standard Version (ESV). For years my favorite was the New American Standard Bible (NASB) which I first met over forty-five years ago.  I still believe it is one of the most accurate translations available.  It is getting a bit old and has been updated, though many still find it stiff.  It was the Bible used in the Bible Study Method classes I taught at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, because of its accuracy and because we wanted every student to be reading from the same text.

I also use the Jewish Publication Society’s edition of the Tanakh.  My knowledge of Hebrew is not that good, so I use a double column edition - Hebrew/English.

I believe that much of the frustration felt by many is the question, “Which translation(s) can I believe?”  If I can be a voice of hope, I can confidently say that when it comes to the basic truths of the Gospel, no translation will lead us astray.  There are, as far as I know, no “conspiracies” to deceive us as some die-hard King Jamesers would have us worry about.

One of the most important considerations to note is that translations could be placed along a continuum from the extremely accurate to the extremely paraphrastic.  For purposes of study, I believe that we should look to the more literal translations, even though they may not be easy reading.

Use the paraphrases for rapid reading as well as for clarification.  Many read like novels.  I would cautiously recommend them for first-time readers.  Paraphrases often attempt to replace ancient Hebrew or Greek idioms with the idioms that are more easily understood by the modern English reader, and we should remember that while this may aid in our understanding of obscure ideas, it can also introduce ideas that are foreign to the context.  We should be careful not to quote paraphrases as authoritative.  (I have occasionally been frustrated by students who insist, "My Bible says ..." when quoting a paraphrase.)

Here are a few of the translations I am familiar with, from the most literal to the most paraphrastic.

• The English Standard Version (ESV).  This is the English Bible Uni and I now use the most often in our daily Bible reading and study.  It is a word-for-word translation following more in the tradition of the RSV and is more readable than the NASB.
• The New American Standard Bible (NASB).  This is the English Bible most familiar to me.  It is still, I believe, one of the most accurate, though it’s growing old and weary.  One of its best features is that it attempts to consistently translate each Greek or Hebrew word by the same English word.  It was updated in 1995.
• The Holman Christian Standard Bible (CSB).  I have not read all of this one, but my wife Uni has.  We have had many discussions on its merits and it seems in most areas to be as accurate as the NASB and ESV, but with a bit more updated language.
• The Revised Standard Version.  The RSV never received acceptance with evangelicals, because of a perceived “liberal bias” though it is quite accurate.  However it too is dated, though the New RSV (NRSV) has brought it up to date.
• The New King James Version (NKJV).  This one has its own unique problems. Though a quite accurate translation, it uses the same texts that the original KJV was translated from, and sometimes sacrifices readability simply to keep the “feel” of the KJV.
• The New International Version.  The NIV is extremely popular, reads well and is reasonably literal, though its smoothing out of rough texts can cause some misunderstandings.  It has been recently revised to make it more "gender inclusive,"  which, while often contributing to its accuracy, also causes confusion.  For example its substitution of the plural pronouns "they, them, their" for the masculine pronoun "he, him, his" actually changes the very personal meanings of many passages.
• The Tanakh.  This is the accepted Jewish version, issued by the Jewish Publication Society.  It reads quite smoothly and I'd compare it to the NIV.  It of course only contains the scriptures accepted in Judaism - our Old Testament. The Christian reader should not be surprised to find differences of interpretation in some areas.
• The Contemporary English Version (CEV) is a translation designed for those with limited reading skills, especially for reading aloud.  Though usually quite literal it uses a limited vocabulary and simpler sentence structure.
• The New Living Translation (NLT) seems to be an attempt at bridging the gap between a paraphrase and a translation.  It is easy reading though and has clarified a few matters for me.
• The Good News Bible (GNB) also known as Today's English Version (TEV) was popular back in the 70’s, but seems to have disappeared.  It was translated using the concept of “Dynamic Equivalence,” the use of modern English idioms for ancient Greek or Hebrew ones, sometimes with humorous results.  I love it.
• The Living Bible is a one man paraphrase and, as far as I know, makes no claims at being a translation.
• The Message is a popular paraphrase and is easy reading, but the reader should beware and compare it with more literal translations.  One complaint:  In every other English translation of the Old Testament, the Hebrew name YHWH is translated LORD (all caps).  For some reason the Message translates it GOD (all caps).  This can cause great confusion especially when reading aloud.
• The NET Bible - New English Translation - is in a class by itself and does not fit neatly into the above continuum. Though available in paper it was originally designed as an electronic translation for use on the internet.  It is quite literal, but its striking feature is the extensive notes on translation - well over 1/2 of every printed page.  It is an excellent study Bible and can be used as one would use a commentary.  I use it occasionally to check on my own exegesis.

The above comments are not meant to be scholarly, but come from my own experience reading, translating and comparing, as well as attempting to be of help to those who read.  I believe I have a fair knowledge of both the Hebrew and Greek texts and have been reading and studying the Word for well over 60 years.

latest revision; 8/2/2018