Lectionary Greek

Mark 1:40-45

2012-02-07T12:35:00.000-08:00

Summary: Last week was all about the power of Jesus. I think this story actually shows the gentleness of Jesus. What will it take to heal this man? Power? Certainly. But also a compassionate touch.

Word pairs:
δυναμαι and καθαριζω (1:40) The first word here means "able" and can be translated simply, "can." It is worth noting its root is the same as "dynamite" and the word has the connotation of power: "If you wish, you have the power to cleanse me." The second word comes into English as "catharize." We use this word in Christian contexts with sin: "He catharizes us from sin" (Lutheran confessional rite and 1 John 1). Here it is used with cleansing of his disease. While the cleansing of disease is an interesting topic in itself, I'd like us to consider the connection between power and "deep cleaning." We buy powerful chemicals with "deep cleaning" abilities to get our floor clean. We have powerful machines and medicines that cleanse our heart valves. Are these gifts from God? Furthermore, what kind of power does it take to cleanse our hearts from their sins? This very issue will come up in chapter 2, the next story, when Jesus is asked on what authority he declares sins forgiven.

σπλαγνιζομαι and απτω (1:41) The word for "compassion" (σπλαγνιζομαι) is a great one in the New Testament. In Greek this word comes from intestines, the idea being that when Jesus sees the man he is filled with compassion. His reaction is to touch (απτω) the person. This is not a violent siezing, but a touching. Sometimes what is needed when confronting the sin in the world is not simply a thunder bolt, but a touch compassionate touch.

μαρτυριον and κηρυσσω (1:44/45) Our leper becomes the first witness (μαρτυριον; think martyr) and proclaimer (κηρυσσω). This is not simply ironic because he had been on the outside of society, but Jesus asked him not to do so.
Point one, not for a sermon, but my eternal axe against Lutheran Orthodoxy: Taken alone, we might think that for Mark proclamation is simply a declaration of what God has done. However, the disciples proclaim for the purpose of repentance (6.12); Jesus initial proclamation contains the command to repent (1.14). Furtherore, Jesus says that whereever (14.19) the Gospel is proclaimed, people will recall the annointing of Jesus. In short, we cannot simply say that proclamation involves only the "Gospel" in the sense of Jesus activities for us. It involves also an ethical imperative on the listener and the broader story and context of the Gospel.
Point two, for a sermon: To tell others about Jesus requires nothing less than experiencing Jesus' compassion. This person prayed, had their prayers answered and then told the world. What stops us?

Mark 1:29-39

2012-02-01T08:51:00.000-08:00

Summary: Wow. What an amazing passage. When I first learned about Saint Anthony and the monastic movement, I thought it involved leaving this world for our own spiritual gain. Then I read that actually Saint Anthony was going into the wilderness to purge it from evil, not to get away from it. In the same way, I wonder if Jesus' prayer is about purging the wilderness from the demons. Everything else in this passage, even proclamation, is portrayed in the light of spiritual conflict.

To put it in a more catchy way: When you go to proclaim, do you expect to see the minions of the devil fleeing and fighting?

Struggle against evil:
κρατεω ("hold"; 1.31) The word here for hold is "krate-oo" which is not hold hand in a sentimental way. This is the word for power, as in democracy. This is the word for sieze. This is what Herod will do to John the Baptist (arrest) and what the Chief Priests want to do to Jesus. Jesus in Mark 1 is wrestling the demons, not smiling for the home video cameras.
ερημος ("wilderness"; 1:35) and εκβαλλω ("cast out"; 1:35-1:39): Jesus had been cast out into the wilderness (herehmos). Now after he casts out demons, he goes there to pray. Often times we think of monasticism as a wimpy and academic escape from the world, but for Jesus it means cleansing out the forces of evil.

Nature and purpose of the church:
διακονεω ("serve"; 1 31) Peter's mother in law has been freed to serve others, suggesting that our freedom comes with an opportunity to serve others too. It comes into English (and the ELCA) as Deaconness, Diaconal ministers and deacons.
επισυναγω ("gather"; 1 33) In this passage begins with Jesus leaving the synagogue. Now the people are gathering around him (syn-ago-ing!) Where is church? Where Jesus is...duh...anyone 2nd grader who has read AC VII knows that. Where Jesus is meeting humans in need.
κηρυξω ("proclaim"; 1:38) Proclaim is a great Lutheran word. But in this case it is not connected with the forgiveness of sins, but the expulsion of demons. I would offer that three key elements of the church: prayer, proclamation and service, all involve the conflict against evil rather than simply an academic escape or comfort and safety!
θεραπευω ("heal"; 1:34) Jesus' therapy session is on! Again here even healing is seen within the context of a struggle against evil.

Foreshadowing of Resurrection:
ηγειρεν ("raise up"; 1.31) and αναστας ("resurrect"; 1.35): These verbs both mean to raise up or resurrect.
λιαν πρωι (1.35; these words together mean early morning): They don't come back into Mark until chapter 16 when we get to the resurrection
θυρα ("gate"; 1.33) The word for "door" here is also gate, as in Jesus is the gate from John's Gospel. Or as in, there was a stone at the gate of the tomb (see Mark 15 and 16!).

Mark 1:21-28

2012-01-24T12:40:00.000-08:00

Summary: The Greek highlights Mark's excellent dramatic skills. He uses tight language and subtle details to present the conflict of Jesus against the mysterious and powerful forces of evil. Evil is quite powerful here: It has invaded the synagogue; it knows more than the crowd; it is vulgar and disobedient to Jesus; its number if unknown. Yet Jesus will vanquish it and affirm the claim of the crowd, that he is one with authority. As Staupitz declared to Luther in the movie: "You are too hard on yourself; the devil has been around for thousands of years. Cling to Christ and his mercy."

How Mark employs Greek to add drama to the story:
1:21 and 1:22 All of the verbs in this sentence have verbs in the present or imperfect, suggesting a lot
of movement and continuous action. The story continues the whirlwind pace of Mark 1.

1:23 Mark puts the word "unclean" last in this clause, so it reads "there was in the syn. a man in spirit unclean." A bit of suspense because as a reader it would not be entirely surprising to find a spirit in a synagogue. It is worth noting that the unclean spirit is not found outside the house of God, but inside the house of God!

1:23 The first aorist verb is ανεκραξεν ("cry out") suggesting an abrupt change in the action after all the other present/imperfect verbs.

1.24 The phrase here in Greek that the unclean spirit uses is "What to you and to me." This is essentially what Jesus to his mother at Cana: "What to me and to you." In other words, this is not a very kind way to talk! A sort of "What the hell do you want?"

1.24 The spirit switches back and forth between the singular and the plural, presenting an uncomfortable ambiguity: How many are there?

1.26 Interesting that even though the unclean Spirit obeys Jesus, it still gives off a μεγαλη (large) scream. This is the first use of mega in Mark. Furthermore, Jesus had commanded the spirit to be silenced; this shows its disobedience!

All of this drama and even highlighting of evil's power is designed to affirm the original claim of the people, namely, that Jesus is one with εξουσια (1:22), that is power!

Also, a side note, 1:23/26 the word for unclean is "ακαθαρτος" as in the man needs a cathartic experience...

Mark 1:14-20

2012-01-17T11:55:00.000-08:00

Summary:
I am struck this time by the word repent. What does this word really mean? As Lutherans we often combine this word with forgiveness and dream of our lenten sacrifices. Yet the word in Greek literally means "new way of thinking." While I would not want to make repentance into simply a "head" thing, I am wondering what about my worldview, my thinking, is different because I am a Christian? Am I more hopeful? What about my own perspective needs repenting? What makes me hold onto the nets instead of jumping into the water?

Key words:
ευθυς ("immediately"; 1.18,20) The word "immediately" is used 11 times first chapter alone! You can actually mark the tempo of Mark's Gospel by this word alone, used 40 times throughout the whole book! It drops off quite noticeably after chapter 6, is almost non-existent in chapters 10-13 and then drops back in for the passion narrative! As one of my profs put it: the first eight chapters cover three years; the last eight three months, with chapter 14, 15 and 16 covering the last week!

κηρυσσω ("proclaim"; 1:14) Mark loves this word, using it more than any other author. This makes sense -- for Mark the disciples are a bunch of sinners who don't do much right, so at least they should proclaim what Christ has done! this also builds off of the perfect tenses used with the verbs "arrived" and "fulfilled." We are simply announcing what God has done.

ευαγγελιον ("good news"; 1:14) This word is rather difficult to interpret (always, right!) in the Gospel of Mark. It is never really defined, but Jesus refers to its importance in connection with death (8:35) and salvation (16:15). The Gospel opens by declaring that the whole book is about the Gospel, but it is worth us considering, especially as we head into a year of preaching from Mark's Gospel, what we consider to be our own and Mark's understanding of the Gospel. I wrote above that in Mark's Gospels, the disciples don't do a lot right. But yet in our story this week they drop everything they have to follow Jesus. God's Word, however hard human hearts may be, still achieves its purpose.

μετανοεω ("repent"; 1:14) This word sort of drops out of Mark, almost suggesting that it drops out of Jesus' own ministry as he discovers the limitations of the disciples. Another way to think about this is to consider the Greek meaning of the word, which literally means "new mind." Stories later in the Gospel -- Bartimaues or the woman anointing Jesus -- show someone whose life is transformed by Jesus. So it may not be explicit, but the repentance continues. In Lidell-Scott's ancient (and secular) Greek lexicon, repent means to change one's mind or purpose. We often put repentance together with sin, a fine thing, but perhaps we need to consider that repentance means often more than simply a struggle against temptation, but a paradigm shift, a transformation of our whole outlook, if not way of life and even being. Jesus is one whose power and even charisma compel us to switch our worldview, our words and finally our actions.

παραδιδημι ("betray"; 1:14) This verb will come back into Mark's Gospel when Jesus is betrayed by Judas. We say this word each week in our communion liturgy. This verb serves a double purpose: It lets us know why Jesus got into ministry in the FIRST place...and the FINAL place, the real FIRST place anyway.

Grammar review: Thesis number 1: When our Lord and master Jesus Christ commanded us to repent, he willed that the whole life should be one of repentance.

Luther read the Bible in Greek and therefore discovered that Jesus' command to repent is in the present tense, suggesting an on-going nature to his command. We are to continually repent is what Jesus said and what Luther captured in his 95 thesis. The Latin translation did not capture this on-going nature to Jesus command and had been transformed into "do penance." Who says Greek exegesis cannot change the world?

John 1:43-51

2012-01-10T12:24:00.000-08:00

Summary: This is a great passage, as are all passages from John's Gospel. I want to play around with the OT imagery found in John and go out on a limb, a fig limb that is. The first time we hear of figs is in the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve adorn themselves, out of shame, with fig leaves. The fig tree reminds us of human shame but also God's abundance. It is fitting that Jesus finds a new disciple underneath a fig tree because this is where we find ourselves. At the crossroads of sin and mercy. It also reminds us of Jesus' purpose as the gardener: To usher us into a new garden brought about by the cross of sin and mercy.

Key words:
ακολουθει ("follow"; vs. 43) This means follow. Jesus here puts his invitation so gently. Most times "follow me" texts are associated with the cross and temptation. Here we simply have a friendly "come and stop by my house if you get a chance" kind of invitation!

ερχομαι & οραω (1:39; 1:46; 4:29; 11:34, 19:33; 20:8 "Come and see"). These two verbs come together a number of times in John's Gospel. A quite impressive list actually:
A) When Jesus begins his ministry
B) When the woman at the well returns to her hometown to invite others (different cognate for "come");
C) When they bring Jesus to Lazarus' tomb
D) When they find Jesus on the cross
E) When they come to the empty tomb.

John's Gospel invites us to come and see, even Jesus on the cross and finally the empty tomb. The result of coming and seeing is believing.

συκη ("fig tree"; vs 1.48 and 50). The Bible contains numerous references to fig trees. Jesus preaches parables on them. Metaphors about the end times allude to the both the weakness of the fig leaves but also the bounty of figs. As the NET Bible notes: "Many have speculated about what Nathanael was doing under the fig tree. Meditating on the Messiah who was to come? A good possibility, since the fig tree was used as shade for teaching or studying by the later rabbis (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:11). Also, the fig tree was symbolic for messianic peace and plenty (Mic 4:4, Zech 3:10; You shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig tree.)"

I have a more "out there" connection. It is clear that John 1 drips with OT references. Nathaniel calls Jesus the king of Israel. Alone in this pericope, Jesus declares himself to the be son of Man with angels descending on him. This calls to mind all sorts of OT passages, including Jacob's ladder. So I venture that the fig tree here is a reference to figs in the garden of Eden. Where do we find ourselves? In a broken world covered by fragments of God's mercy. God intends better than fragments; indeed, heaven's gate is reopened in Jesus Christ; the Garden's door is no longer barred by a flaming sword.

Grammar concept: Present tense in John's Gospel.

The present tense often signifies repeated action, in contrast to the aorist tense. The produces some very nice theological conclusions. For example, "follow me" is in the present tense in vs 43, ακολουθω. The idea is that we are to keep following Jesus. It doesn't work as well in vs 43, however, with the verb "find", ευρισκω. This is also in the present tense. Does Jesus keep finding Philipp? It seems unlikely within the context of the story, although it makes for a very nice sermon point ;-) Sometimes it is hard to know, when John is simply being poetic and when he is deeply theological.

Luke 1:26-38

2011-12-14T04:48:00.000-08:00

Summary:
Last time I sounded off on the modern scholarly penchant to read books in the Bible in isolation of each other and the creeds. This passage we discover another pitfall, namely, the hermeneutic of suspicion. The anchor Bible commentary was lamenting that Luke put everything in an OT style. Strangely enough, this was proof that he was making this stuff up. (Imagine, God works in a consistent manner over time). The virgin birth becomes highly problematic within this hermeneutic of suspicion!

I don't think Luke wants us to read with such cynical eyes. First, Luke goes to great lengths here to give us names and dates, indicating he intends not to write fiction, but history. He even has the angel offer Mary a sign (the pregnancy of Elizabeth), reminding us of Mary's human need for proof. While his characters may follow patterns of other Biblical characters, they seem to me to be real people with hopes and fears.

I think Luke offers us another hermeneutic: belief in God's word to do miracles. I use the word hermeneutic because Luke plays on the word herma in this passage; the word for "thing" in verse in 37 is "herma"; the word for "word" in verse 38 is also "herma." We should read the Bible, not ready to doubt, but ready to be amazed at what God has done. This hermeneutic, I believe, is what Luke intends that we might echo the angel and Mary in declaring that “All things (hermas) are possible through God” and “Let it be done according to your word (herma).”

Key Words:
οηομα ("name"; appears throughout the section) It is curious that the word name appears four times in this section. In addition, every character has a name; even people not part of the immediate story, David and Elizabeth, are named.
καλεω ("call"/"invite"; appears throughout the section) It is also curious that the word "call" appear four times in this section. Clearly calling things a name is a vital part of this pericope
παρθενου ("virgin" or "young woman"; 1:27) Let's settle this debate. Linguistically it is possible to imagine that Mary is simply referred to hear as a young woman and not a "virgin." However, the word for virgin is parthenos (like the Parthenon building, to the virgin Athena). Furthermore, Mary's very objection to the pregnancy is the fact that she has never known a man.

χαρις ("grace"; 1:28; 1:30) In 1:28 this appears as a verb in the perfect passive form: "Having been graced." It is interesting that the grace is in the perfect, in that the graceful event occured previous to the angel's announcement. What was the even that already gave her this grace? Perhaps her own immaculate conception!! Another tough thing about this idea of Mary's grace is found in the NET's translation notes. They lament the vulgate translation, "full of grace" because it presents the idea that Mary has grace to bestow on others. While it is true that Mary's grace comes from God, it is hard to make the argument that Mary does not bestow grace on the rest of us through her role in the birth. Catholics go to far, but we protestants have never quite done Mary justice!

Grammar Review: Missing words
The phrase the "The Lord be with you" is not really what the Greek says. It simply reads "The Lord with you." (ο κυριος μετα σου) This can be read as an imperative, as in it expresses a wish, "The Lord be or will be with you." Or as an indicative: "The Lord is with you." Interestingly, most translators translate a similar construction at the end of the Gospel of John (Peace to you) with an imperative/wish "Peace be with you." Using the same translation method they use here, that phrase should read there "Peace is with you." In this case, I would probably argue for the translation, "The Lord is with you" because a) the angel is standing right there and b) the angel says she is graced.

Mark 1:1-8

2011-11-29T12:38:00.000-08:00

Summary:
The Greek in this passage is not complex, but it is riddled with problems. I guess you could say the same thing about John: He is not complex, but presents us a great riddle: What do we do with him? Perhaps the hermenuetic offered by Mark about Isaiah is the proper one for us today. Mark rips Isaiah out of his historical context and reestablishes the passage's meaning christologically. In the same way, let's rip John out of his context and interpret him christologically: You need more than confessing your sins. You need the son of God to send out the Spirit to forgive your sins in your Baptism! Sure, that adds a bit of theology to the whole thing, but as Mark shows, that is the job of a proclaimer :-)

Here are some problems:
1. Citation problem: Isaiah in verse 1:2&3
Mark says "Just as it is written in the prophet Isaiah" and then goes to quote Exodus (and likely Malachi)! He doesn't get to Isaiah until verse 3. Even if you ignore this problem, Mark is clearly a bad student of the OT because he takes the verse out of context. Clearly Isaiah was not talking about John the Baptist! But wait a minute. If Mark takes Isaiah out of its historical context and reinterprets the passage in light of Christ...then cannot we do the same??

Word problem: Baptist/baptizing in verse 1:4
Literally the text reads "John the one who baptizes" or even "John, while baptizing." However, I do not think calling him "John the Baptist" is an unfair translation. The most complex thing however is simply the word "baptism." We have 2,000 years of interpretation of this word. In this case it simply means, "to dip in water to wash." It came to mean, according to the Freiberg dictionary, "of Jewish ritual washings wash, cleanse, purify by washing." The point of all this is that John's Baptism is not necessarily what we think of...John was simply telling people to commit themselves.

Textual problems: "Of God" in verse 1:1
The phrase "of God" (tou theou) is not found in all the manuscripts. It is pretty debatable from a textual point, although I think Nestle Aland 27's double brackets are a bit strong. Some significant manuscripts have it. However, this is kind of a moot point for the Gospel of Mark. Jesus clearly is the son of God in the book; the question is when and how do we learn this. From the first line of the book? No. From the cross. Perhaps it simply adds to the great mystery novel that Jesus wrote...

Punctuation problem: "In the wilderness" in 1:3
The position of the phrase "in the wilderness" is arbitrary. In the Hebrew suggests, "A voice cries out, 'In the wilderness prepare the way'" but the writer of Mark moves the break and makes it "A voice cries out in the wilderness, prepare the way." Admittedly, we really don't know Mark's original punctuation (this was not passed on for the first four centuries at least) but Mark definitely seems to suggest the punctation in later Greek manuscripts, which is a change from the Hebrew.

Participle problem: "confessing" in 1:5
The tenses of the Greek participles fight against an "Ordo Salutis" here. Baptizing and confessing occur at the SAME time CONTINUALLY. Not one after the other (imperfect active verb with a present participle == concurrent, on-going action). The people do not confess and then get baptized or the otherway around. They are doing both of them.

Mark 13:24-37

2011-11-22T13:13:00.000-08:00

Summary: Check your 2nd coming baggage at the ticket counter and preach the text! This passage is a great passage for a culture swamped with Christmas chores. Our focus should not be on to-do lists that come and go, but on Jesus Christ and his Word! I also think you can play around with the word authority and derive the mission of the church from Mark's Gospel:

While we await the coming of Christ in an age of idolatry masked as piety, we are to pray and teach prayer; cast out unclean spirits and heal people; we are to spread the Good News of repentance and forgiveness.

Key words:
γρηγορειτε ("watch out". 13:34, 35 and 37) This word comes into English as "Gregory". To note: the very next chapter the disciples will not be able to stay awake...

θλιψις ("suffering", "distress" or "tribulation"; 13:24 and also 13:19) This is hard word to translate. "Suffering" has all sorts of baggage, both in the Bible and in our culture. "Tribulation" can mean a particular thing to certain people. As Wikipedia helpfully summaries:

In the futurist view of Christian eschatology, the Tribulation is a relatively short period of time where anyone who chose not to follow God before the Rapture and was left behind (according to Pre-Tribulation doctrine, not Mid- or Post-Tribulation teaching) will experience worldwide hardships, disasters, famine, war, pain, and suffering, which will wipe out more than 75% of all life on the earth before the Second Coming takes place.

I would translate it "distress" here. But I want to focus on why. Normally I believe in "canonical" translation, that is, help people see connections within the larger context of Scripture. However, suffering and tribulation are such buzzwords that they distract from the immediate point of Jesus: There will be an age of false messiahs and prophets who will claim to be saviors. The great distress is living in an age where people turn away from the true worship to idolatry, the worst kind, where people call it Jesus but it is not.

Power: Three different manifestations here:
αι δυναμεις (25): When this word (coming directly into English as "dynamite") is in the plural, it means mircales or deeds of power. In this case, it is translated "the powers" a logical translation, but strange use of the word!

δυναμεως (26): Here the word is an adverb meaning powerfully

εξουσιαν (34): Here the word means authority. It is worth noting that in spite of the "conclusion" of all things, Jesus has still given us authority to do works. In chapter 6 of Mark's Gospel, Jesus gives his disciples authority. This time it is to cast out unclean spirits, heal, evangelize and preach repentance. In chapter 11 you might also argue that Jesus gives his disciples authority to pray, to teach and to forgive. I think if you put these together, you come up with the mission of the church in Mark's Gospel:
While we await the coming of Christ in an age of idolatry masked as piety, we are to pray and teach prayer; cast out unclean spirits and heal people; we are to spread the Good News of repentance and forgiveness.

Grammar note one: Why learning future participles is a waste of time
The construction of 13.25 is so odd. The word for fall here (from pimp-oo) is a present tense participle used with the the future tense of the "to be" verb. This construction (instead of a future participle) is a good lesson of why you should not waste any time learning future participles. They are so rare and even Greek speakers avoided them with other constructions, using the familiar English construction of: "They will be falling"

Grammar note two: Strong future denials
In 13.31 the promise of Jesus that his Words will never pass away is a ου μη construction, ie, a STRONG future denial. Also interesting is that this word (parercho-mai) appears in 2 Cor 5:17, Behold, Everything has passed away. This could effectively be translated, "no way, never gonna happen."

Matthew 25:31-46

2011-11-15T17:08:00.000-08:00

Summary
Much like the beatittudes, it is hard to preach this text without steering off the cliff of works rightousness. A few thoughts. First, a goat and sheep are born that way; the sheep did not become sheep by their actions; neither for the goats. They are declared rigtheous, but the text never declares them righteous because of their action. It simply says they are rightous. They did X, Y and Z good things. Lutherans believe the righteous do good things. Second, the sheep are not endeavoring to save their hides but they are simply helping people. The goats were perfectly willing to help Jesus to help themselves, but they weren't interested if it didn't get them points. The whole freedom in faith righteousness is that we no longer have to work about our own reputation (glory) or status before God but instead can worry about our neighbor. The goats never got that far. Lastly, through Matthew glory is found in judgment. For Lutherans we believe that judgment comes on the cross, which points toward the cross being the center of glory. Even if this seems stretching it the basic point of this text is a theology of the cross: Jesus's glory is revealed, yet still somewhat hidden, in the brokenness of the world.
Key words:
δοξα ("glory"; 25.31) It is interesting to note that in the Gospel of Matthew the word δοξα is almost always connected with Jesus second coming and judgment. Perhaps it is worth reflecting on -- what is so glorious about judging?

εθνος ("gentiles" or "nations"; 25.32). When used in the plural it normally means "gentiles" ie, non-Jews. Jesus will finally tell us to go to all the nations.
ξενος ("stranger"; 25.35) The phrase, 'I was a stranger and you welcomed me' actually has the word: "xenos" as in xenophobia. Furthemore, the verb is "synagagete," from which we get synagogue. To translate a different way: "I was an outsider and you gathered me to worship." "Synag-oo" as a verb does not mean invite to church, but the word underneath means gather. I think Jesus is implying something stronger than simply welcoming strangers but more like: ushering in freaks.

Grammar: Unclear antecedents
Like in English, Greek uses pronouns. Sometimes it is unclear what "it" is refering to. For example, the Greek says, "throne of glory of his." Is the throne his or the glory? Probably doesn't matter in this case, but worth reminding ourselves that Greek does have ambiguities.
In 25.32 the object of the word divide is interesting. Jesus has just finished talking about the εθνος (gentiles), which is a neuter noun. Here the pronoun object of the word divide is a masculine, suggesting the nations are not what are divided, but the individuals in the nations (masculine plural pronouns can refer to a group that has both men and women).

Matthew 25:14-30

2011-11-08T04:28:00.000-08:00

Summary:
Alas, another Matthew Parable that seems to preach the Law and not the Gospel. As a person and as a congregational leader, this passage troubles me. Yet there is a bit of Gospel is we pay close attention here. The master gives talents to his slaves. Talents are huge sums of money. What kind of person gives someone 1 or even 2 or even 5 to 10 million dollars?? What kind of person gives slaves this kind of money? Sure, this parable may serve as warning not to hide our gifts. Law, law and more law. But the Gospel news is this: God gives us his assets in a way that in unimaginable in the real world of money. (heehee...you might also say that God blesses his slaves investments in a way unimaginable in this real world of money...)

Key words:

ταλαντον ("talent", a measure of gold weight worth roughly a million dollars or 20 years worth of a standard persons wages, 25:15). While this parable may produce guilt and anxiety in us that we don't do enough, it is worth remembering that anyone who gives away 5 talents to his slaves (not friends, slaves) doesn't value money they way the rest of us do. 5 talents would be 5-10 million dollars; 100 years worth of human labor entrusted!

τα υπαρχοντα ("possessions", 25:16) see below for a grammatical explanataion of this word. This word does mean possessions, but it comes from the verb for "to be" an does not simply mean goods, but really the entirity of one's resources and means. For instance, in Genesis 12:5, Abraham and his family take τα υπαρχοντα of theirs when they are moving countries. Second Peter 1:8 actually describes personality traits as υπαρχοντα. This word is probably better translated as "assets"

εκερδησεν ("gain" from κερδαινω, 25:16) Worth remembering that a few weeks ago Paul said that all of his achievements were "dung" in order that he might gain Christ. Also worth noting is that Jesus, in all three synoptics, warns of "gaining" the world (same word) but losing the soul. Jesus is not simply teaching financial advice, but spiritual.

εκρυψεν ("hide", κρυπτω, 25:18) The word here literally means "encrypt." The sin here is not having enough gifts, but hiding that which we have. I wonder too if it is worth playing with this word, "hide" and how people hide their gifts.

Grammar Review: I thought substantive participles were easy!
Generally, one of the easiest participles to translate are a group called "substantive." Basically, the form is 'the word the'+'participle' and it is translated the 'one(s)/thing(s) that do this verb'. So in verse 14, you have τα υπαρχοντα. The second word is a verb meaning "to be" so this substantive participle is translated, "the things that are." In this case, this is an idiom which means "possessions" but at its core, it is a partciple made into a 'substance' by the word 'the'.

However, Greek can get pretty fancy with the substantive participle. They can stick words in between the 'the' and the partciple. For example, in 25:18
ο δε το εν λαβων means "But the one having one (talent)." First, it is tricky because you have to figure out that the words το εν refer to "the one talent" but it is especially tricky because you have to realize that ο goes with λαβων and becomes "the one who has." Lastly, you have to unpack the middle and put it on the end to translate it because in English you cannot have, outside of poetry, "the one one talent having."

The nice thing about such participles is that they allow Greek to build some monster phrases, which ultimately are not that hard to translate. You just have to identify the participle pieces (in this case the 'the' and the participle), translate them and then go after the middle.

Saints

2011-11-04T11:19:00.001-07:00

The First Sunday in November is often called "All Saints."

A word on the "Saints"

The word saint is a translation of the adjective holy (or hagios) in Greek. Like in English, you can make an adjective a person-noun by sticking the word “the” in front of it: the poor, the rich, the lazy. What we translate as saint simply means “the holy” or “the holy one(s).”

More importantly, the phrase “oi hagios” (the holy ones) does not refer to a specific group of people within the church, but to all of those who bear Christ’s holy name. Take for example Philippians 1:1, “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” You can read the first few sentences in almost all of Paul’s letters and you discover that he is addressing the congregation as the saints. You can also see this outside of Paul. For example, in Acts Ananias complains about what Paul has done to the saints in Jerusalem (9:13); the writer of Hebrews addresses the congregation as saints (13:24). In Revelation the blood was shed for all the saints (5:9). And so forth. It was no until much later that the church began distinguishing between “real” Christians, aka, the Saints, and the rest of us. In this sense, Luther returns to the Bible and the early church by claiming that all Christians are, by virtue of Christ, holy ones.

What does it mean to be a Holy One, a Saint, then? This is where the rubber meets the road. Holy (hagios) in Greek means to be put aside for God’s use. Some Christians emphasize the moral purity associated with or even necessary for God’s use. To avoid a long debate, I will simply say that the whole Lutheran orientation of holiness is distinct. I would offer that holiness as humans consists of joyful suffering for the sake of the other. I think one can get there with the beatitudes, often a text for All Saints. We do not seek to suffer to add to our own glory, but that as we follow Christ, we will suffer and that as we suffer, the Holy Spirit will meet us to renew and resurrect us, that is, once again, make us holy.

John 8:31-36

2011-10-26T13:34:00.000-07:00

Summary: I have never understood why this is a Reformation text. It talks a lot about law and seems to remove the simul from the saint and sinner dialectic so essential for Lutheran thinking. For me the most reformation insight here is that truth is Jesus Christ. John's Gospel was not simply calling us to right thinking or apprehension of some set of facts, but in the Gospel of John, Jesus invites his followers to know him. In the same way, Martin Luther didn't invite people to accept a set of tenets but invited them to know Christ and his benefits.

Key Words:
Ιουδαιους ("Judeans" or "Jews", 8:31). This word is problematic for modern translators. If we translate it as Jews, we think of, perhaps rich bankers on wall street or modern Israelis. Jesus is referring to the people in the country side who believed in YHWH and practice Mosaic law. In otherwords, to translate it as Jews misses out on the geographic and political realities of its day. However, to translate it Judeans misses out on all of the religious connotations of the Mosaic law. Good to remember that Jesus is not necessarily simply preaching to the Jewish people living today, but anyone who commits a sin. The enemy in this text is not the Jewish law, but entitlements and moral laxity.
μεινητε ("abide", aorist form μενω, 8:31 and 35). A key motif of the entire Gospel is abiding in Jesus. The NET translation offers, "If you continue to follow my teaching." This may push this too far, but abiding in Jesus' words certain carries with it an expectation of following Jesus teachings.
αληθεια ("truth", 8:32) It is worth remembering that in the Gospel of John, truth is not a proposition or a collection of facts, but it is the person of Jesus Christ. If you follow me, you will know me, and I will set you free...is another way to hear this verse.

Some tenses worth noting
8:31: ελεγεν is imperfect, suggesting that Jesus had to repeat this more than once...
8:31: μεινητε is aorist. I would suggest this is an "inceptive" aorist meaning the action begins. The previous verse talks about new conversions. This verse says, look, now that you are believing, begin to stay in my word and then you will be my disciples. The only problem with making this an inceptive is that it splits apart believing and being Jesus disciple, something that seems incoherent for John's Gospel. However, perhaps Jesus points to a reality here that discipleship requires faith; but not all faith means discipleship (sadly).
8:32: γνωεσθε (know) and ελευθερωσει (being set free) are both in the future tense; whereas being a disciple is in the present, suggesting that discipleship may preceed knowing the truth rather than be based on it.
8:33 δεδουλευκαμεν is perfect. Perfect means past action with present reality. Probably best to translate this: We have never been enslaved. Which is not really true because they were slaves in Egypt. But if we really take the perfect to mean what it shoud, perhaps they are being more honest (even if wrong) in that they are currently not under the yoke of slavery. (Which again is false).

Matthew 22:34-46

2011-10-18T12:34:00.000-07:00

Summary: I suppose one could go to great lengths to parse out the Greek meaning of the words, "heart", καρδια, "soul," ψυχη, and "mind," διανοια. After discovering that they mean different things in Greek than in English you learn that Jesus wants us to...drum roll...Love God and love our neighbor with everything we've got. This is probably not much for a sermon, but I find it comforting that Jesus wants us to love God with our minds. In my formation and candidacy, I was often made to feel guilty about my intelligence as if somehow, I just needed to be a big ball of emotions to serve God. One of my professors, Dr. Henrich, pointed out that in this passage, we are called to love God with our mind. This was an incredible word of Gospel to me. We intellection exploration of God's Word is okay too! Funny how law can be heard as Gospel sometimes...

Key words:
διδασκαλε ("Teacher", 22:36) Thanks be to God Jesus wasn't simply a teacher, but also the savior. However, let us not dismiss the idea of Jesus as teacher. The word teacher appears throughout each Gospel a total of 48 times. What can we learn from Jesus this week?
αγαπαω ("Love" 22:37) One can parse the word love a number of ways. What is interesting here is that αγαπη, which is often thought to refer to divine love, here refers to neighborly love. A reminder that in the kingdom of God, love doesn't remain on heaven, but comes to earth.
καρδια ("heart", 22:37) In Greek, the heart is NOT the center of emotions, but of will.
ψυχη ("soul", 22:37) BDAG points to the broad nature of this word. The soul is, perhaps best said, that which makes flesh alive. The Bible will use the word ψυχη to mean more than simply "the ghostly blue vapor" of our existence. Perhaps another way: our essence? Hard to nail down...
διανοια ("Thoughts" or mind, 22:37): As I stated in my summary, I want to point out that Jesus wants us to love God with our mind. Also interesting is that God admits fulfilling this is impossible. In Genesis 8:21 God says that all our thoughts (διανοια) are bent on evil. Eph 2:3 and 4:18 are similiar. Interestingly, in Jeremiah 31:33, God says he will put the law into our minds. All this points out that not simply our "hearts," but our minds, are also a battle ground for God, a place that needs rebirth. (In fact, this word is often translated from the Hebrew word that means "heart" because the Jewish thought located thoughts in the heart).
χριστος ("annointed" 22:42). This is a very common word in the NT. The reason why I bring it up here is because most of our thoughts about the word "Christ" are not what the listener's in the OT would have heard. They would have expected someone to replace David as a true king over Israel. The spiritualization of his role was a NT development.

Grammatical review: "Hendiadys"
A Hendiadys is a very fancy way of saying "using two words to mean one thing." Literally from the Greek: "One through two." An example of this might be from Genesis 1: "Formless and void." They both essentially mean the same thing. Put them together and you get: "A whole lot of nothing."
In this particular passage, we have a hendiadys typical of the New Testament:
ο νομος και οι προφηται (22:40)

The law and the prophets. This is the NT way of refering to the Old Testament. Sometimes they will include the Psalms, but more often, just these two sections. So Jesus isn't simply saying, "All of the commands and words of the prophets hang on these two commandments" he is saying, "the whole Bible that you know of depends on this."

Matthew 22:15-22

2011-10-12T11:38:00.000-07:00

Summary: One does not find the Greek words for church and state in this passage, as much as this passage is used to justify all sorts of behavior and relationships between church and state. What is mentioned though is the word "εικον" meaning icon, or image. The temptors of Jesus, forgetting Genesis 1, say that the coin bears the image of Caesar. They answer the truth, but not the whole truth. An image of man is still an image of God. Money, whether it says, "In God We Trust" or "Caesar" or anything, isn't exempt from God's creation. It still has to do with humans and how we live in this creation, and thus it still belongs under God's dominion.

Key words:
παγις ("hunter's trap", used as a verb, 22.15) The word for ensnare comes from the root for trap. What a cruel image of the pharisees trying with metal jaws, to trap Jesus.
αποστελλω ("send" 22.16). The literal phrase here is that his enemies "apostled their disciples," a reminder that Jesus is not the only one with apostles and disciples...
υποκριτης ("actor/hypocrite", 22.18) The word for hypocrite means actor, or one who plays a part. (He answered above the others from stage.) This is not necessarily a negative word, but in the NT it is used exclusively that way. Jesus isn't interested in actors, but real people with real sins that need real forgiveness.
εικον (image/icon, 22.20) The word here for "head" or "portrait" here is literally "eikon," which means image. So the question is whose image? If it is a human head, the answer could just as easily have been "God." (See Genesis 1!)

Translation/Grammar reivew: Idioms
Some things in a language are simply impossible to translate literally. This week Jesus is told, "You do not look into the face of people." This doesn't sound so nice. It simply means, "You don't look at exterior things." (Which is a positive assessment). He is also told he doesn't care about nothing. Missing from this idiom is the word "opinion." Jesus doesn't care about the opinions of others, in the sense that he acts free from petty judgments of others. You could take them literally, and perhaps derive some meaning, but often with idioms, its best to let professional translators do the work...

Philippians 4:1-9

2011-10-05T12:51:00.000-07:00

Summary: As I have stated previously, I view Paul's letter to the Philippians as a small treatise on sanctification. You can find beautiful fruit in these passages, beloved words that evidence the Spirit's work in Paul to make him a little Christ for all of us. What struck me this time around though was the profound way in which the community in Christ takes precedence in this passage. Paul continues to offer many images of working together and community love, even calling his fellow Christian his "desired." Paul doesn't conclude with his love of Christ, but the love Christ has given him for his fellow believers. Our sanctification is precisely this: OUR sanctification as the Holy Spirit moves us closer together in love and hope.

αγαπητοι and επιποθητοι ("beloved" and "desired" 4:1) αγαπητοι is probably familiar enough to most Christians, especially those who work with Greek. Paul calls his brothers and sisters in Christ who beloved. Wow! Yet, επιποθητοι is more startling. This word comes from desire. While we have seen the root verb elsewhere in Philippians (1:8; 2:26), no where else in the Bible do we find this term επιποθητοι! This sense of desire can be positive, for example, the deer pants for the water like the soul desires God (see Psalm 84:3/Psalm 41:2). However, Paul here is claiming the other Christians are his desired. This truly is taking the mind of Christ -- when we love each so deeply that we can talk about a deep love for one another. What does the mind of Christ and sanctification mean? It means loving your neighbor, so much, that you desire to be with them like Christ desires to be with them, like their soul desires to be reunited with God.

και σε ("even you", 4:3) Paul generally speaks in the second person plural throughout the letter. Perhaps he is writing to someone specific; maybe he wants to drive home that these words are for each person. Maybe its ambiguous so we all think, well, its my job to help those two women who are fighting.

συζυγε; συνηθλσαν; συνεργων ("yoked", "co-striving" and "co-worker", 4:3; the second is a verb, the other two adjectives) Paul here presents us with a few images of the Christian life. The first is from the idea of a yoke and can actually refer even to marriage. The image of oxen plowing the field. The next is to atheletes in contest with one another. The last is co-worker, perhaps the least descriptive, but you put the three of them together and Paul profoundly gives us some images of our life together!

γνωσθητω ("let it be"; imperative (command), 4:5 and 4:6). There first time Paul uses this verb, it is telling us to let our gentleness be known to all people; the second time it is Paul telling us to let our prayers be known to God. In this context though, I wonder if they are so exclusive. I wonder if we read this through a western-post-enlightenment idea of worship that would have our prayers of thanks be those in private. Part of our joy and duty, as Psalm 66 suggests, is not simply praising God in private but offering thanks in front of the congregation.

Grammatical review: "αυτο"
The word αυτο and its various conjugated forms (αυτου for example) can be a bit tricky for the reader. First because another set of words, meaning this and that, looks very similiar but have different accents. But it is also tricky because the word αυτο can mean three different things, even if it looks the same.

It can function like a pronoun: αυτου for example, almost always means "him." In this case, the pronoun is in the genitive, so it fully means "of him." It functions this way 95% of the time.
It can also mean "very." This is when it stands alone (predicate position). This is fairly rare. An example of this is in Philippians 1:6 πεποιθως αυτο τουτο: "I am convinced of this very thing."
It can also mean "same." It behaves like this when it follows an article. Hence, in Philippians 4:2 you get: το αυτο φρονειν: "The same thinking." Paul actually uses this also in 2:2 and 2:18.

Again, for 90-95% of translation, the word functions as a pronoun, but it can be helpful to remember these other uses.

Philippians 3:3b-14

2011-09-28T05:00:00.000-07:00

Summary: In certain theological circles I often find that justification is the aim; yet for Paul in this passage justification has a purpose.  As the Greek indicates, it has a purpose, namely that we would know Christ, his resurrection and his suffering. Rather than claim this is something other than good Lutheran doctrine, Luther and countless other Lutherans have seen justification has the key to the kingdom, but not the kingdom itself, which is Christ.

Key Words
σαρξ ("flesh" 3:4 and elsewhere) Normally we think that Paul sees the flesh as an entirely evil entity. In this case Paul talks about his righteousness in the law (and therefore the flesh). He never says that his Jewish upbringing was evil. In fact, Paul's whole take on flesh and law may often be more a productive tact than the normal torpedo attack on human sinfulness. Simply acknowledge that people have seen and accomplished great things, yet they still often sense a worthlessness about themselves and are haunted by a sense that something greater exists. To reiterate, Paul is not claiming the flesh is evil, but he is clearly affirming its limits.

ζημια ("loss" or "damage"; found as noun and verb 3:7 and 3:8) Interestingly, Paul calls his accomplishments a loss. The Greek here is a bit stronger in that it can also mean "damage" or "penalty." Paul here lays the groundwork for a later group of Lutheran orthodox thinkers who argued that good works are damaging to salvation. While I don't like admitting this, I can see both Paul's and the orthodox thinker's point here that human achievement can cloud our vision from seeing Christ's blessings.
side note:  Paul here echoes back to 2:5 and 2:6 in the Christ hymn; Christ did not regard (ηγεομαι) equality with God as something to be exploited. Here Paul is saying he regards all of his beneifts as loss through Christ.

διωκω ("pursue"; 3.6,3.9 and 3.12):   Paul's bragging here has a double rheotical effect -- he will return to the words "persue" (διωκω) and "righteousness" (δικαιοσυνη) later in this section (3.9, 12 and 14).

σκυβαλα ("crap"; 3:8) Rubbish is about as nice as you can translate this. Paul wants a rhetorical effect here.

καταλαμβανω ("receive, obtain, overcome"; 3:12,13) This verb presents a problem in most cases for the translator because it has a broad array of meanings. In this case, the challenge is in the tenses. In verse 12 Paul claims that he has been obtained (aorist passive) by Christ; yet he also says in the aorist subjunctive that might obtain it; finally, in the perfect active he says he has not obtained it. Here is Paul at his grammatical worst and perhaps theological best: The event of Christ's death and resurrection obtained Paul for Christ, but this process is not finished!
επιλανθανομαι ("forget"; in participle form in 3:13). Most important is not the participle form, but the present tense. Both verbs in the second half (forgetting and looking ahead) in the present tense, suggesting this is an on-going process of doing this.

Grammar review & theological commentary on verses 3:9-10
Infinitive purpose clausesIn Greek, the infinitive can be used to express purpose, especially when it is an "articular infinitive." (ie, article + infinitive) In verse 9 Paul discusses justification by faith. He begins verse 10 (which the Greek scribes connect with a comma to the previous verse, not a period) with the "articular infinitive": του γνωναι (the knowing). Paul's use of an infinitive here suggests that justification's purpose is to know God, the power of the resurrection and the fellowship of suffering. In otherwords, 9 and 10 are linguistically linked by Paul and a strong possible reading is purpose...vs 9 (justification) is for the purpose of vs 10 (resurrection). To build on last's weeks passage about μορφη (shape), justification leads to transformation as our "morph" becomes like Christ.

Philippians 2:1-13

2011-09-19T12:22:00.000-07:00

Summary:

This is a very rich passage. By itself it stands as one the most powerful description of Christ and his work. Worth pointing out though is that Paul continues to build off the imagery the rest of his letter to discuss not simply Christ's work on the cross, but also Christ's work on us. He changed his shape (μορφη) into humility but will co-shape (συμμορφος) ours into glory, not simply through his suffering, but even our own.

Key words:

μορφη ("shape" or "form"; 7, 8) If you look up this word, you will find it appears twice in Philippians, once in verse 7 and once in verse 8. Jesus had the form/shape of God; took the form/shape of a human. Sounds good. However, later on in Philippians, Paul comes back to this word, but using it with the prefix συν (the -n becomes a -m...see note below) . First, in verse 3:10 where he says that he is being συμμορφιζομαι-ed into Christ's death and later when he is being συμμορφος with Christ's resurrected body (3:28). Paul moves from talking about the form of Christ to the co-formation of the believer, both into suffering, death and then resurrection. I think the word μορφη can be used to guide one's reflections on the whole letter: The transformation of Jesus creates the transformation of the believer. To put it another way, I see Philippians as Paul's personal exposition on his line in Romans 8:17: If children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ -- if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

εκενωσεν and κενοδοξια ("emptied" from κενω, 7; conceit, 3) Much is made from κενω, which means to empty. I find it interesting that Paul gives warning just a bit earlier about conceit, literally false glory. The only way to true glory, for Christ and for us, is through suffering and death.

κατεργαζομαι ("work out", 2:12; from kata (intensifier) and erg-oo (to work)) One possible meaning for this verb is simply "achieve" but another one is "to work up," ie, to make use of; fields, for example, are worked on to make them ready for harvest. This verse can be problematic in that it makes it sound like our salvation is our responsibility. However, Paul's never verse, 2:13, makes it clear that God is the author of our salvation. I think in this case, Paul uses salvation (σωτηρια) to describe our entire relationship with God in Jesus Christ, specifically the process of dying and rising. It is worth noting that the verb here (and also for "co-form" (see above) are in the present tense, suggesting this an on-going process.

Grammar/translation: The morphing "n"
When someone learns Hebrew, they learn verbs like n-t-n, which means to give. They then try to read these in the Bible and discover it hardly ever exists in that form and most often the "n"s drop out in conjugation so that words like y-t-l-m mean he gives or something like this. This is true in Greek, but in a different way. The problem is not Hebrew, but the letter "n" which has a soft sound. It tends to morph into other sounds. This actually happens in Latin. For example, con is the prefix for "with" But notice how often that "n" disappears or morphs: communication, cooperation, combat, comfort, command, corroberate. This happens in Greek, especially when verbs add the prefix συν. The weekness of the "n" sound is also shown in the fact that its moveable (ie not very necessary).

Philippians 1:21-30

2011-09-12T13:32:00.000-07:00

Summary: Paul begins to describe two paradoxes of the Christian faith: First, our growth comes about through our decline. Second, our heart is in heaven, but our hands are on earth. Paul continues to work these themes throughout his letter to the Philippians. I offer a third one. Paul talks about the importance of the community giving both a unified and public witness of the faith. My paradox: The more unified, the less public the witness; the more public, the less unified.

ζην ("live"; present infinitive; 1:21). Few translations catch the distinction here for Paul between living and dying. They are not in the same tense; dying is in the aorist (which refers to a one tme event). Paul is not talking about existential dying as he might in other letters. He is refering to his physical death that will lead to heaven: 'Living is Christ; death is gain' is probably a more accurate translation. Or perhaps 'Living is Christ; to die is gain.' Excellent textbook example of the subtleties conveyed in tenses...

καρπος εργου ("fruit of work"; 1:22). The NET translates this word here as 'productive work.' This is the most American translation ever! Paul is not driving toward productivity by modern metrics. He is using the biblical idea of bearing fruit in Christ. Keep it as fruit and help the reader see Paul's connections to other places in Scripture (including the Gospel for today).

επιθυμια ("desire"; 1:23) Paul uses the word "desire" here, which he will elsewhere caution Christians against (make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires...Romans 13:14). There is something intensely emotional about Paul's relationship with Jesus Christ.

προκοπη ("advancement"; 1:25) I assert that Paul's letter to the Philippians picks up this theme: Christian advancement; what does Christian maturity look like? Paul boasts in Galatians that he had progressed in his Judaism (1:14) but then indicates this was not really gain at all. The root of this word is "cut" κοπτω; pioneers were cutting ahead in order to make advancement. For Paul, advancement in Christ -- "sanctification" -- is related to being cut off, to having our plans, our pride and even our habits amended, if not ended.

περισσευη ("overflow" or "excess"; 1:25) This word is not that remarkable in this context, but provides a nice contrast to the believe in scarcity found in this week's Gospel, Matthew 20:1-16

πολιτευεσθε ("live" from πολιτευομαι, 1:27) This verse means not simply to live, but live as a citizen. Paul does not use this word elsewhere; why? I assert this is because Philippi was a Roman colony run by military heros turned citizens. The idea of citizenship would have been important for his hearers. Paul continues this theme, even discussing a heavenly citizenship (3:20). Here Paul begins to contrast citizenship in this world and in Christ's kingdom. Worth noting is that this verb is in the plural! Paul exhorts them all together.

συναθλουντες ("work together" from συναθλεω; 1:27) Paul also commends people "in one spirit to fight/work together." Note: In 4:3 he thanks God for the women who have done precisely this. The root word here "αθλεω," from which comes our word for athelete. Today this has connotations of merely sport, but in ancient Greek it means more broadly means battle or contest. Paul is emphasizing first the challenge of Christian life, but also the importance of a) unified and b) public witness for faith which must be made. As Paul notes, he should be able to hear and see the witness of the church!

πασχειν ("suffer" 1:29) and αγωνα ("struggle" literally agony); reminders of what our sanctification means for us, to return to the idea of being cut off.

Grammar: Simple infinitive
Paul uses simple infnitives throughout this section: το ζην "The living" e.g. το αποθανειν, The dying (21); το επιμενειν, the remaining (24).
An infinitive is simply a verb that has not been conjugated; it is unclear who is doing the action. In English, infinitives take to forms, here with the verb "run": "to run" and "running." These are fairly easy to translate, because they function like English. They allow a verb to behave like a noun: "The remaining here is better." (Perhaps in English a good example is: "I like running")
I call them simple because Greek can use the infinitive in some pretty striking ways, but here Paul is simply using a verb as a noun as a way to emphasize the act but still treat it like a noun.
One example of how Greek can use an infinitive is found in verse 29: το εις αυτον πιστευειν (29)
Here this means "the believing in him"; Paul could have said, "the faith in him" but by using an infinitive it draws attention to the action. In this case, the Greek is doing something that English should not, namely split an infinitive, this time with lots of information!

Matthew 18:21-35

2011-09-08T12:40:00.000-07:00

Summary: A classic tale of forgiveness. A man owes an absurd amount (Roughly 10.8 billion by my calculations). After being forgiven he arrests his friends who him a couple of hundred dollars. Take your pick: Are we debtors, beggars or slaves? All popular American terms. At least the first one...

Key words:
δανειον ("debt"; 18.27) This word for "debt" here is unique to the NT; there is a suggestion of interest, even usury with this debt. Most simply it means a loan. God is calling the loan and then forgives it. What has God loaned you!?

ει τι ("whatever" 18.28) The exact construction of the phrase "Pay what you owe me" is rather interesting. It actually includes an "ει τι" phrase. This phrase is normally translated "if anything," as if to say, the man was not even really sure what the debt was, if in fact, it was anything.

παρακαλεω ("encourage"/"plead"; 18.29, 32) This is a powerful theological word used throughout this section. Also used in the present tense. Here the image is one of constant begging (used in present tense).

συνδουλος ("fellow-slave" 18:28, 29, 31, and 33) The Greek can put "fellow" and "slave" together in one word. Powerful word. Fellow slave.
Grammar review: Future vs. Subjunctive
The Greek langauge is obsessed with the future. There are multiple ways to show the future implications of a given action. Worth noting is that there is no future subjunctive. Either something will happen or it might happen. But you cannot do "might happen in the future"; that simply means might happen. Today, when Peter is asking Jesus about forgiving others, he does not put the verb in the subjunctive αφησω (forgive) in the subjunctive. The whole sentence is in the future. In short, Peter expects sin and forgiveness. The sentence literally reads: "How often will my brother against me and I forgive him? Until seven times?"

Matthew 18:25-30

2011-09-01T04:23:00.000-07:00

Summary: Jesus seems to let us off the hook today, telling us we can treat sinning Christians like gentiles and tax collectors, as long as we've gone through the appeal court system. However, this is the worst news of all, because Jesus spends most of his time eating with tax collectors and even getting harassed for his association with them. In other words, Jesus doesn't give us permission to drop them, but rather instructs us to bear them, teach them and even get persecuted because we continue to care for them over and against their difficulties toward us. Yes, he does let us remove our heart strings a bit from them, but not our moral obligiation. Hence why Jesus has to promise us his presence in the midst of conflict!

Key Words:
αδελφος (borther/sister; found throughout section) Earlier in Matthew's Gospel, he refers to his followers as his brothers and sisters (12:49). He is telling his disciples that in the church they are also brothers and sisters to one another.

εθνικος (pagan, gentile, literally "ethnic"; 18:17) Jesus suggests we treat Christians who have greatly sinned against us as gentiles. Interestingly, Jesus final words in the Gospel of Matthew instruct us to preach to the gentiles (all the nations of the world; same root word) and earlier Jesus reminds us to love our enemies, because even the gentiles to this. Jesus is not giving us permission to be rude and dismissive to our brothers and sisters in Jesus, even those whom we are angry with.

τελωνης ("tax collector"; 18:17) Jesus eats with tax collectors. He repeatedly takes heat for being seen with them. So considering someone a tax collector means something more like this: "Treat them in such a way that no one knows how much they anger and embarrass you, bearing your cross and thanking God for this opportunity to become a more patient and compassionate person."

συμφωνησωσιν ("agree" or "match", from συμφωνεω; 18:19) The actually meaning of this word is not that interesting. What is interesting is the derivation, "symphony" which means "together-sounds." Jesus says that if we make a symphony, God listens. Haha!
συνηγμενοι ("gathered"; passive perfet participle from "συναγω"; 18:20) This participle covers up a familar word: synago, from which we get synagogue. The tense and voice are significant here. We do not gather ourselves in the church, but rather our gathered, namely, by God. Thus, we are moving from human action to God's promise. Also worth noting that Jesus promises his presence in the midst of the office of the keys and congregational conflict. The church is a gift, however human and sinful it can be!

Translation Issue: Hypotheticals with εαν

Technically, this word is a combination of: ει αν, both of which are "subjunctive" markers. Put them together and you have a very hypothetical situation. If you have the word εαν, the writer/speaker is not specifying if this will actually happen. It means something like, "if" or perhaps "whenever." If is used in Greek to set up a simply phrase (so necessary for science), if-then. So in our text for this week, Jesus is not promising conflict; nor is he promising that people will not listen. He is simply saying, "If you experience this, well, then do this..."

Also worth noting: Every other verse in this section has an "if" clause, yet in 18:20 Jesus simply declares -- Where two or three are gathered, I am in the midst of you.

Matthew 14:13-21

2011-07-27T04:08:00.000-07:00

Summary: The Greek highlights marvelously the key thrust of this passage: When human beings feel overwhelmed, God's abundance and compassion continues. Two Greek words highlight this. First, Jesus has compassion (σπλαγχνιζομαι; verb here), which comes from the Greek for intestines. Yes, he is exhausted, but when he sees the crowd, his insides still get tight. Also, right after the disciples see nothing but a few loaves of bread, Jesus has them sit down on the χορτος, the grass. In fact, the word for "filled" or "satisfied"means, literally, "grassed." In the midst of the wilderness, God's abundance still is present, but we need Jesus to show us this! Finally, this passage ends with a meal that echoes communion, the ultimate reminder of God's compassion in the midst of human limitations.

Key words:
αναχορεω; εν πλοιω; ερημος; κατα ιδιαν; ("withdrew"; "in a boat"; "by himself"; "wilderness", 14.13) Matthew puts together a string of words here to describe Jesus' determination to "get away" from it all. While each of these words may have their own importance, the culmulative effect is powerful!
    κατα ιδιαν: by himself. This is the first time Jesus has done anything by himself in the Gospel of Matthew.
    αναχορεω: withdrew. This has been the response of Jesus before (news of John's imprisonment; news of Pharisee's plot against him.) Jesus withdraw does not signify retreat though. Normally it just sends him away from the powerful and back to the people, whom he heals.

σπλαγχνιζομαι ("compassion", 14.14) Here Jesus has compassion -- which in Greek literally means "intestined."   His gut is turning when he sees the crowds. It is also worth noting that Jesus compassion does not simply signify feelings, but leads him into action, here, healing.

απολοσον ("release" or even "divorce"; here as an aorist imperative) The reaction of the disciples to the crowd is the opposite of Jesus. Where as Jesus is moved internally by their condition, the disciples ask Jesus to move away from the disciples. Send them away! is what they are asking. The disciples lack of concern and lack of faith is also noted by how they respond in vs 17 to Jesus command to feed them. They respond (in the present tense, suggesting they are repeating this to Jesus!) "ουκ εχομεν" which means we are not having. Their response begins with the word "no!" They first see their lack instead of their abundance, who is Jesus Christ.

δοτε ("give"; aorist imperative)  This is the same tense of the verb in the Lord's prayer, "Give us this day our daily bread." Perhaps this suggests that the disciples, in their worry about future provision are forgetting their only task is in the present. I wonder if sometimes we make the task of serving Jesus far bigger than it is; Jesus is not asking them to feed the crowds forever, just this once.

λαβων ευλογησεν κλασας εδωκεν ("took, blessed, broke and gave", 19) Yes, yes, these appear again in Matthew 26:26. The NET Bible has an interesting note here:
"And after instructing the crowds to recline for a meal on the grass, after taking the five loaves and the two fish, after looking up to heaven, he gave thanks, and after breaking the loaves he gave them to the disciples." Although most of the participles are undoubtedly attendant circumstance, there are but two indicative verbs--"he gave thanks" and "he gave." The structure of the sentence thus seems to focus on these two actions and has been translated accordingly. Yes, good Lutherans, giving thanks is not an optional part of communion...

εχορτασθηασαν ("satified/fill", 19) The word here for "fill" is related to the word for grass -- the crowd sat on the grass "χορτος" and later was "χορτο"-ed.   This is a reminder that God's abundance is always there -- even in the midst of a "ερημος" (wilderness, vs 13; and 15) and when the "ωρα" (hour) has past (vs 15).

Translation: "Genitive Absolute"
The genitive absolute has been cursed with a tricky name. It is actually not that bad to translate! Basically Greek writers will often begin a sentence with a phrase or clause that contains information about people/things besides the subject of the main sentence. For example: "After the sun rose, the people got up." The people are the subject of the main sentence. The rising of the sun is simply a phrase (adverbial) to give some background info.
What makes this tricky in Greek is that the writers stick the participle and the subject of the clause into the genitive case. For example, Matthew 14:15:
Οψιας δε γενομενης
Is "evening and became." Again evening and the participle became are both in the genitive case. You don't translate them in the genitive case "of the evening" or something like this. You simply put all these words together to form a little phrase to set up your sentence: "As evening fell" or something poetic like this.
Matthew 14:14 also has a participle phrase that sets up the rest of the sentence
και εκελθων   In this case, this is not a genitive absolute; it describes the action of the subject in the main clause (Jesus): As he went out,...
So again, the genitive absolute is all in the genitive (which can sometimes make it easier to identify) and sets up a little participle phrase that the author uses to talk about something besides the subject. Matthew 14:32 is the next genitive absolute. Have fun.

Romans 8:26-39

2011-07-20T12:42:00.000-07:00

Summary:
Often theologians dwell on words the Bible does not. For instance, in this passage, we have God predestining (προοριζω) his elect (εκλεκτος). The word predestine occurs 6 times in all of Scripture; Paul at most uses the word elect 6 times. Yet libraries are full of Paul's comments on predestination and election. I think the more interesting question for this week, however, lies in 8:28 and not 8:29. The standard translation of 8:28 is "All things work together for good for those who love God." One might argue, very strongly in fact, that it should read, "God works all things together through those who love him for good." This switches Paul's message from "God helps your pain" to "God uses you to help the pain of others." Both are good sermons; I think the later is more true to Paul.

Key words:
συνεργεω ("work together" 8:28) If I were not a Lutheran, I would not notice this verb. However, Lutherans tend to be allergic to this verb. We so want to protect the "bondage of the will" and God's grace that we tend toward a God-only-and-not-you theology for salvation. Which is fine. Unfortunately, we often carry this over and limit humanity's role in God's creative and redeeming work on earth. Paul says that things work together; the Spirit prays for and through us. God is making us right with him, God is praying for us; God is glorifying us; I would even argue that God is working through us.
προοριζω ("predetermine" or "predestine" 8:29) Loaded theological term. Means what it says. God preordained us for salvation. Deal.
εικων ("image" literally icon, 8:29) Humanity is made in the image of God; even after the fall, God still declares us made in his image (Gen 9:6). Yet Paul says we are being reborn in the image of Christ. Something about humanity is both in God's image yet needing to be restored.
συμμορφη ("same shape" 8:29) This word plays a key role in Paul's letter to the Philippians. It is worth pointing out that Paul continues the work of the Spirit in chpt 8-- not only are we co-inheritors, co-sufferes or co-glorifieders, but we are also co-shapers.
χαριζομαι (literally "grace"; "act favorably" or "forgive" 8:32) Heehee...how do you translate the word grace in action?
εκλεκτος (literally "elect") Means what we think it means. God elected and chose you. Deal.

Translation: Dative case in 8:28: Through or for those who love God?
Greek has four cases: nominative, accusative, dative and genitive. (OKay, there is a vocative case, but that is quite rare). The case of the word establishes its function within the sentence. In English, we use word order and prepositions for this purpose: "The man knocks a glass of wine onto a woman" means something different than "A glass of wine knocks the man onto a woman." In fact, in English the later makes no sense. In Greek, the later sentence word order could be used, because each word would be conjugated by case, which would give its function in the sentence. So, the four cases and the basic functions:
Normally nominative case indicates subject (who does the action: the man);
accusative indicates direct object (whom receives the action: the wine);
dative shows indirect object (to whom the action was directed: the woman);
genitive shows relation (the glass and wine are related somehow)

Dative and genitive both can actually take a wide variety of meanings. In 8:28, Paul employs the partcipial phrase "those who love God", τοις αγαπωσιν, in the dative. The most common meaning of the dative is indirect object. In this case then, all things work for God TO or FOR those who love God. However, the dative can just as easily signify means or instrument. Then this sentence could mean God works all things for good through those who love him.
Both seem pretty Pauline to me!

Romans 8:12-25

2011-07-12T12:28:00.000-07:00

Summary: Paul describes in some beautiful and novel ways our relationship to God through the work of the Holy Spirit. First, Paul uses the word adoption (υιοθεσια); he, alone among NT writers, uses this concept to talk about our relationship to God. Second, Paul uses a string of "συν" verbs to talk about our togetherness with God: We have inheritance, suffering and glorification WITH Christ. Lastly, Paul says we have the first-fruit of the Spirit. EVERY time before this, first-fruits went to God to appease him. Now, God is offering us the first-fruit (απαρχη) of the Spirit. I am still pondering the interpretation of verse 23, but it is clear that Paul is pushing the dimensions of the God-humanity relationship in new (and strange) directions, made possible by the work of the Holy Spirit through Christ.

Key Words:
υιοθεσια ("adoption"; 8:15, 23) Paul employs the imagery of adoption to describe our relationship with God. Rather profound, not only because of the metaphor itself, but because Paul had no Biblical antecedents. Paul claims that our adoption comes with rights, including inheritance and glorification. (oh, yes, and suffering too).

ει ("if"; 13, 25) This word is often translated as "if" but it can also mean "since." For example, in verse 25, it would be a much more natural reading in English: "Since we hope for what we have not seen, we wait in patience." I've written about this word before in my grammar review, but in this passage, it does have an impact on translation, especially in verse 13. Basic review: "ει" with subjunctive verb means "if"; with an indicative verb it can range from "if" to "since under the condition of X." The verbs in 13 are indicative, so we have some flexibility. If you read verse 13 with "if" it reads like a moral imperative: sin and die or put to death the body and live. But if you read it with "since" it makes a much more Lutheran reading: "Since you are sinning, you will die; since you, by the Spirit, putting the deads of the body to death, you will live." In otherwords, Paul may simply be describing a situation rather than prescribing a situation.

ματαιοτης ("futility" or "vanity" 8:20) This is the main word of the book of Eccles. in the OT. I think keeping it as "vanity" might be a better translation. This is life before Christ: not simply dark or evil, but vain and rather pointless.

απαρχη ("first-fruit"; 8:23) Paul employs this word in a striking way. Normally this word refers to the choice part of the sacrifice offered to God. God explicitly commands this part; the rest can be used for secular (ie our) use. Paul says that we now have the first-fruit of the Spirit. There a number of ways to read this passage (I assume) but one that strikes me is this: We have Christ, the first fruit sacrifice of God. This means the age of sacrifice is over. We no longer have to live in fear of appeasing God, but we can live as his children, assured of his mercy and grace. Another way to think of it is this. The Spirit is the first-fruit, in the sense of the Spirit is the downpayment, the promise, the sealed legal papers, of our future glory with God. This word remains an enigma to me, but it is clear that Paul is pushing beyond the bounds of its normal cultic and OT usage.

σαρξ: (Note: This is a much longer entry)
Paul uses σαρξ three times in this passage (8:12 (twice); 8:13). It seems to have a variety of meanings concretely and abstractly related to “flesh.” Although Paul uses the word in various ways, in Romans he tends to offer a negative view of σαρξ, presenting it as hostile to the purposes of God.

BDAG suggests a variety of meanings for σαρξ ranging from purely physical to more abstract. Although BDAG suggests that Paul uses σαρξ to signify a variety of these possible meanings, it also indicates that

“in Paul’s thought especially, all parts of the body constitute a totality known as sa.rx or flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that whatever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the σαρξ.”

The Theological Lexicon of the New Testament offers a similar assessment: “Paul treats the flesh – the inferior part of the person – as the locus of the passions and covetousness.”

In the beginning of the book, Paul seems more neutral on flesh. His argument against flesh grows! For example, although Jesus is the descendant of David according to the flesh, he is designated son of God in power according to the Spirit (1:4). Indeed, faith, not our fleshly ancestry in Abraham, provides us with justification (Romans 4:24; Paul reiterates this point in chapter 9). Paul even writes that the inward – real – circumcision is not in the flesh, but in the heart by the Spirit (2:28-29). It is clear that even when Paul uses σαρξ in a more neutral manner, he views it as incomplete, if not incompatible, with God’s purposes and the work of the Spirit.

Although Paul uses σαρξ throughout Romans, it overwhelmingly appears in the middle of his letter. Here Paul explicitly describes σαρξ as hostile to purposes of the God. He writes, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh (7:18).” Most of chapter 8 negatively contrasts the flesh against the Spirit. For example, “To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace (8:6).”

In conclusion, Paul uses this word generally and also specifically in chapter 8 of Romans to describe something in our human nature opposed to God and the work of the Spirit. Paul seems more concerned with what it does (causes us to sin) than what it is (some entity in us). The Spirit will not work to improve the flesh, but the flesh and its works must be put to death.

Translation/Grammar Review: συν verbs
Greek can easily make new verbs by combining prefixes to existing verbs. In English, we could do this too, but perhaps not as easiliy: "Co-suffering" would make sense, but it would be bad English. But in Greek writers will often add suffixes freely to verbs to slightly modify their meaning. Paul does this a number of times in this passage, see, for example, verses 16, 17 and 22. Here Paul adds the prefix συν, which means "with" to a number of verbs. Some words in English still have this prefix, for example: "synergy" or "syntax." But mostly in English we have words with the Latin "con" or "co" as their prefix (which also means "with").

At first, you might not notice the verbs because you don't see συν. Don't worry! The problem is "n" is a weak sound, so it often gets dropped -- in every language. For example, it is not "con"operation, but cooperation. It is not "con"munication, but communication. The "n" is dropped or moved to another sound. (In Hebrew this makes certain verbs very difficult to detect after they have been conjugated).

This happens in verse 17: συγκληρονομοι, συμπασχομεν, συνδοξασθωμεν. The point for translation is that you have to try to capture, in both 16-17 and 22 the great amount of "co"working that is happening:
We are "co" witnesses (16); "co" inheritors"; "co" sufferes and "co" glorifieders (spelling intentional).

Matthew 13:18-23

2011-07-07T13:05:00.000-07:00

Note: This text is yoked with 1-9, but since these verses have similiar vocabulary, I will focus my comments on 18-23.

Summary: What is this parable about? The soil? The seed? Normally we think of the Word of God as the seed. Yet in Matthew 13, we are the seed, the seed that will endure hardship, will survive temptation and finally bear fruit. Well, how is that going to happen? How will get the deep soil? As Jesus says, the parable is about the sower, the sower who constantly comes to us again and again, sowing the seed that we might finally be at a point in our lives where the soil is deep, that we might repent, turn and be healed (13:15), that we will bear fruit.

Key words:
σπειραντος ("the one who sows", participle of σπειρω; 18) There is not distinct about this word, but it is worth pointing out that Jesus says the parable is about this, namely, the one who throws his seed, even into wasteful places!
παντος ("all"; 19) The Greek here reads literally, "Everyone hears the word and does not understand it." There is a sense of the impenetrable nature of God's Word in chapter 13! I think the translators do a fair job of moving this word "all" to "anyone" because grammatically the rest of the paragraph lines up this way, but there is just a little suggestion here that all hear and don't understand.
καρδια ("heart"; 19) Interestingly, this word never refers to the actually beating heart inside the body in the NT! Hebrew and Greek map the whole heart-brain-feelings-thoughts a bit differently, but the basic point is that the heart here is not the Hallmark center, but the core of who we are, including our thoughts.
ακουω ("hear"; multiple times) Warning: Overly pietist comment coming up: Hearing the word is not sufficient.
σπειρος ("seed"; multiple times; also see 13:38) In Greek the word "seed" is actually a participle made into a noun, literally "The thing that is sown." It is worth point out that in verse 38 the good seed are the sons of the kindgom. Moreover, the in this parable, the seed does not refer to the word, but consistently refers to the people who receive or do not receive the word. Again, I think most times we view ourselves as the field and the word as the seed, but in Matthew 13, we are the seeds.
σκανδαλιζεται ("stumble"; 21) This means "scandalize"; how does the word scandalize you?
απατη ("deception"; 22) An interesting side note on this word. It closely sounds like "agape" which Christian communion meals were often called. 2 Peter 2:13 plays on this a bit a condemns the "apate" at the communion meals.

Grammar Review: Substantive participles
In Greek, you can make "substantive" participles very easily. They are also easy to translate.
They follow the following pattern: "The one who does X/Y/Z" In English, this idea is accomplished with a relative pronoun clause: I like the woman who married me. Greek also has relative clauses, but the substantive participle is common. Here we have a nice one:
ο τον λογον ακουων
Step one: Identify it as a substantive participle. How? Well, you have a "the" (ie a definite article: ο) and you only have one, otherwise it would be an adjectival.
Step two: Get the participle: ακουων
Step three: Translate the basics under the formula "the one who does X": The one who hears
Step four: Correct for voice and tense: Don't have to hear.
Step five: translate the other stuff: "The one who hears the word." Greek will often sandwich important stuff for the substantive participle clause in between the article and the particple

Give it a try, with the last five words of verse 19...

Romans 7:15-25

2011-06-29T04:55:00.000-07:00

Summary: While this passage describes the human captivity to sin, I believe 7:22 is worth a closer look. When Paul says he "delights" in the law, the word delight actually is a cognate of "hedonism."  The inner man has a "with-hedonism" relationship to the law. I wonder if Paul, deep down, is pointing out that the inner person truly delights in doing the will of God. To drive this a bit further, Paul says that he has a body of death. We know he will later talk about an immortal body. This immortal body, I believe, will experience tremendous pleasure doing the will of God, whether serving others, enjoying creation or praising God.

Key words:
οικει, οικουσα ("dwell" 7:17, 18, 20) This word should be recognizable from the first few weeks of Greek (rememeber, οικος means house). Paul will come back to this verb in Romans 8:9 and 11 as well as 1 Cor 3:16 also 8:9 and 8:11. Here he speaks of the indwelling of the Spirit.  One key difference however is that when Paul refers to the indwelling Spirit, he is referring to the Spirit dwelling in the plural you -- all of you, not the singular you. One might argue that he means the Spirit dwells in all of the individuals. Regardless, it is interesting that when he returns to what God can come inside of us, he does not speak on individual terms any more.

νομος ("law"; 50 times in the book of Romans)   Alas, I cannot possibly do justice to Paul's use of this word. What I want to bring up rather is that, t the very least, there is a theological use going on here. By this I mean Paul is moving beyond specific commands or ceremonial practices; the law has become something else, something larger, something accomplishing God's purposes. What exactly the law is doing and what is the connection between Paul's understanding of the law, the OT's approach to the Law and 1st century Jewish understandings of the law, well, you'll just have to do your own research on that one!!

αμαρτια ("sin" 39 times in the book of Romans). Again, a bigger concept that I can take on here. But I want to point out again a theological use of the word here: sin no longer simply means a particular moral failure, but for Paul it has become a force enslaving and taking over his body. Paul here moves from laws to law; sins to sin.

συνηδομαι ("delight", 7:22) This word is great! It comes from hedon, like hedonism. It literally means "with hedonism"; The noun form of this word will be found in 2 Peter 2:13, James 4:1-2, and Luke 8:14, and Titus 3:3 and will always be considered "lawlessness/debaucherous pleasure" The irony of course is that Paul is talking about the law. Perhaps, and I press this too far here, I believe, but perhaps the point is that deep down inside, we crave to do the will of God and this will be our true delight.

΄ρυοεται ("rescue" from ΄ρυομαι; 7:25): This means deliver. It is tough to see the cognate, but the word "hero" comes from this. Jesus is the hero who will save us.

Grammar Review: Relative pronouns
Paul uses a number of relative pronouns in this section. A relative pronoun works like this:
There goes Tommy, whose mom is Linda. Whose is a relative pronoun.
I long for a vacation, which gives me the chance to relax. Which is a relative pronoun.
In Greek, the relative pronoun functions much like it does in English.
So Romans 7:19: ου γαρ ο θελω ποιω αγαθος
Literally: "Not for [which I want] I do good"
You need to bracket out the whole relative clause. Translate this: ο θελω "that which I want to do." Then move it back into the whole phrase: "For I do not do the good which I want."
A few things make Greek relative pronouns tricky. First, the relative pronouns themselves often look like the Greek word "the" but their accents are different (it has an accent!) Second, Greeks are always more flexible about word order. In English, we could not sandwhich a relative pronoun like Paul did. Third, English gets sloppy about the true case of relative pronouns.
"That is the woman who I love" should actually be "That is the woman whom I love." Reading Greek we have to be ready for the fact that Greek will use all four cases for relative pronouns. In English we still tend to use possessive relative pronouns (ie, whose) but we lump everything else together under "who" or "that" and ignore their case. Greek, again, will use all four cases. That said, Greek writers will also often get sloppy and the relative pronoun's case will "slide" to become like words around it instead of functioning like it shuld!
Lastly, participles in Greek take the case of the word which they modify; relative pronouns take the case of their function in the new sentence. It can be easy to get these confused.

Matthew 10:40-42

2011-06-22T06:33:00.000-07:00

Summary: Last week we heard the Great Commission: Go therefore... This week we hear the Least Commission: We are sent to do small things to the least of these. Put that in your Trinitarian pipe and smoke it!

Key Words
αποστειλαντα ("send" aorist participle of αποστελλω 10:40) Perhaps you might be familiar with the phrase or concept: "The sending of the Trinity." This idea develops out of verses like this one: The Father sends the Son; who sends the Spirit; who, along with Jesus, sends the disciples. This motif is most recognizable in John (John 3:16 for Father sending son; John 14:26 and 15:26 for the sending of the Spirit; John 20:21 for Jesus sending the disciples.). Luke has a similiar phrase in 10:16: "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (This verse uses the same participle as Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37 also is similar). The point of these various Scripture citations is to show that Trinitiarian thinking is deeper in Matthew (and the other Gospels) than we often give credit. Furthermore, one of the earliest ideas of the Trinity was this procession of sending. It is also worth noting that even in Matthew's Gospel Jesus equates action with himself to action to God.

This ties also back to Matthew 10:5 and the sending of the disciples by Jesus.
δεχομενος ("welcome" present participle of δεχομαι; 10:40). This word can also mean accept (See Matt 18:5). Instead of accepting Jesus, you need to accept your pastor, who stands in line of the apostles :-)

μισθος ("wages" or "reward" 10:41,42) I am not sure what to make of it, but Matthew uses this word way more than the other Gospels. I think it might reflect the fact that Matthew aims at the working class, who would be well aware of the reality of wages and rewards? For the most part Matthew is telling others that they already have their reward or that they will not get theirs! In this case though, Matthew has Jesus offer us a promise: If you welcome a prophet, you get your reward; if you give a small cup of water, you also gain your reward. The question remains, what is the reward?

προφητης ("prophet" 10:41) Worth noting: For Matthew, the notion of prophecy is very important; the word appears 34 times. By comparison, in Mark the word only appears 5 times! Luke 28; John 14. It is always worth remembering that connections to the OT are important for Matthew, but Luke doesn't leave them out!

μικρων ("least of these" from μικρος 10:42). This phrase is often understood to mean "children." This is because in Matthew 18 Jesus explicitly connects the phrase little ones with the word for children. Also, Jesus says, "Who welcomes children, welcomes me" in all three synoptics. So, it is probably a fair translation to say, "children" here. However, I think that Matthew 25 and, "Do unto the least of these" is probably a fair direction for understanding this passage too. Jesus is always concerned about the least in society, of which children are an example. I'd rather leave the translation as the "least of these" instead of "children" to leave open this ambiguity. As a side note, some manuscripts use the word "least" that is found in Matthew 25 (ελαχιστος).

Grammar Review: ου μη
In Greek the strongest denial of a possibility is ου μη. It probably best means "It ain't never ever gonna happen." Whenever you see this, you can know the speaker is completely and totally sure about something. In this case, we will never lose our reward when we give a cup of cold water to the least of these.

Romans 5:1-11

2011-06-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

Summary:

The English reader will catch what Christ does: In an unjustified act of love, Christ justifies us and the Holy Spirit pours out love into every aspect of life. The Greek helps the reader see when this all happens. For example, whenever Paul refers to Christ's death in this passage, he uses the aorist tense. This allows him to reference this event with great subtlety. Yet the past event of Christ's death is not without present and future implications: Having peace, having access, standing in grace and boasting in hope. Faith is connecting the past event of our justification and our current reality of peace, grace and even pride in God with the future hope of our salvation.

Key Words:
διακιαωθεντες ("make right," passive aorist participle of διακιοω, 5.1) Paul begins the whole train of thought with the verb “justify.” Because it is in participle form, most translators make it an adverbial phrase, “Since we are justified…” But I think any phrasing here loses a bit of steam. It can and should just read: “Justified therefore by faith we have peace with God through our lord Jesus Christ.” In other words, Paul does not mess around, but simply begins with justification. Also worth noting that the verb justify, as always, is in the passive. We do not justify ourselves; only God justifies. It is also in the aorist, pointing toward an event in the past, namely, Christ's death.

εκ πιστεως ("of faith" 5.1) We are justified out of or as a result of faith. Fine, but whose faith is Paul talking about? Jesus or ours? This is a trickier question in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In this case though, especially in light of 4.24, Paul seems to be speaking about the faith of humans in God.

καυχωμεθα ("boast", from καυχαομαι, 5:2, 3, 11) Only Paul boasts; James specifically tells us not to! Clearly we are not supposed to be braggerts, but Paul is okay with us boasting in the Lord. Have you bragged about God recently? As Psalm 107:32 says, "Let them exalt him in the assembly of the people and praise him in the council of the elders."

δoθεντος (διδωμι, aorst paritiple, "give" 5.5) Paul uses an interesting tense here with the word “given” in that “we are given the Holy Spirit.” One would have expected a present or perhaps a perfect tense, but Paul again puts it in the aorist. Throughout this section, Paul is using the aorist tense to point toward the event of our justification – the cross. It might seem that Paul is suggesting we get the spirit at Christ's death. However, the spirit is not given to us in Christ's death, but rather through our Baptisms, as Paul will suggest in 1 Cor 12:13. I believe Paul here is setting up his argument in Romans 6, that our Baptism and Christ's death are linked.

συνιστησιν ("present" or "demonstrate" 5:8) This verb is significant not for its meaning, but for its tense. The cross was not but IS a show of God’s love for us. A reminder than even if it is a once and done matter, we always need this demonstration of God’s love.

σωθησομεθα ("will be saved", future passive of σωζω, 5:9) The verb save is in the future here. The cross did not save us but will save us! In fact Paul generally avoids the idea of salvation as a past activity, but views it as a present, on-going reality that will reach culmination in the future. Yes, the cross did save us from hell. But it did more than this!!!

οργης ("wrath" from οργη, 5:9) The word God is not used here; although it is hard to understand where the wrath comes from if its not from God.

καταλλαγεντες ("reconcile" present participle of καταλασσω, 5:10) This idea is probably the favorite metaphor for liberals; worth pointing out: Reconciliation required Jesus’ death.

Grammar Review: Past tense: Aorist, imperfect and perfect

This passage is an excellent passage to examine verb tenses. Go through and highlight each verb in a different color based on tense. A very interesting pattern emerges, especially with the aorist tenses…It may be tough to explain in a sermon, but for your own personal good, this is a worthwhile exercise.

Moreover, Greek has three ways to speak about past action. Technically, four, but the pluperfect is rarely ever used. The most basic way is through the aorist. The aorist describes an event. Within in a narrative, this normally describes a simple action most easily translated by the simple past (Christ died). The aorist can be more flexible than this, but 90% of the time, it is describes a simple event that occured in the past. In geometic terms, think "point."

The imperfect describes an event start started in the past and whose action continues. "Jesus began to teach them" or "Jesus was preaching." In geometry, think a "ray."

Most interestingly, Greek's perfect tense functions in a past-present manner. It refers to a completed past action than still has a present impact. Like "I got dressed." The action is past but the state of being continues. So in this passage, the love is poured out (5.5); the love is still flowing from our hearts. The past action creates the current state of love that is being poured out.

The present tense is almost always the most interesting because the writer is intentionally connecting two time frames in a manner difficult to convey in English. However, in this section the aorist might be the most interesting because Paul uses it always to refer to Christ's action onthe cross.

Matthew 28:16-20

2011-06-13T05:22:00.000-07:00

Summary:
Well, this passage clarifies a few things:
* Jesus did have to suffer
* The law still exists in the new creation
* Commissioning is just as important as proclamation
* Baptizing is subordinate to making disciples; yet Baptism binds us to God
* The resurrection changes God's name
While we are at it, let's also clarify two other things
* The Trinity was in Matthew's Gospel
* Some, not all, doubted

Okay, I will be less pugnacious, but Matthew brilliantly closes out of his Gospel. Only five verses, but it really does tie together so much of Matthew's writing. I've been at it for quite some time this morning...I could go on for a long, long time.
Key Words

ορος ("mountain", 28:16)   Mountains show up at many key points in the Gospel of Matthew: The sermon on the Mount, the tranfiguration and the betrayal of Jesus. Matthew may be connecting some of the "dots" within his story here.

εταξατο ("command" from τασσω, 28:16) Even after the resurrection, the concept of obedience still exists. I write this because recently I've been engaged in some discussions with "hyper" Lutherans who want to functionally deny the role of the law within the new creation. The law still exists; the new creation does the law. But okay, let's avoid this discussion and actually get to something that we can preach:  Living as a disciple means obeying, even as we doubt. (See below for more on law and Gospel post resurrection)

προσεκυνησαν ("worship", from προσκυνεω, 28:17) and εξουσια ("authority" or "power", 28:18). The President of Luther Seminary once gave a great sermon linking this passage (Matthew 28:16-20) with the temptation of Christ. It will be on a mountain that the devil offers Jesus all authority if Jesus would worship him. Poetically, here it is on a mountain that the disciples worship him as the hear that Jesus has all the authority. The point of the sermon (by Dr. Richard Bliese) was that devil tried to convince Jesus that suffering wasn't necessary for his authority and glory, but Jesus would have none of it.
εδιστασαν ("doubt", from δισταζω 17) Back in chapter 14, Jesus rescues a sinking Peter and asks him why he doubted. Here we are, after the crucifixion and resurrection, and doubt still lingers. Interestingly, Jesus does not rebuke them for their faith (or even false worship) but simply puts them to use and offers them the promise of his presence. What is Jesus response to failure on the part of the disciples? Commissioning and promise. I would argue that in both John 22 and Matthew 28, Jesus not only hands over the promise but also employs people. This to me suggests that law can function as Gospel when it lets us know that Jesus cares about us. In otherwords, when someone tells us to quit smoking, we can hear this as law but also as love in that the person cares about us. The failure of church to commission people is a failure to communicate God's love for them. Ultimately I would argue that it is the promise of Jesus' presence that will give them the strength to carry out this command!

μαθητευσατε and βαπτιζοντες ("teach" and "baptize", 19) Interestingly, the only imperative verb in verse 19 is "teach." The rest are partciples that likely describe the verb "teach." [Grammatically you can argue that "go," although not an imperative, functions like this because of its position.]  In the Greek, baptizing and teaching are not imperatives, they are partciples that describe the manner of teaching. This is true in the parish too; we make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them. One should not press too hard here because even if "baptize" only modifies "make disciples" it is still commanded to us by Jesus!  However, it reminds us that Baptism without teaching is not what Jesus commanded.

I would also add that the purpose of our teaching is making disciples...Do we look at Christian Education as formation??

εις το ονομα ("into the name" 19) Two points here. First off all, there is only the most scant evidence that Matthew's Gospel did not originally have the Trinitarian name. All the major manuscripts have it. In fact, each and every manuscripts has it. The main evidence against it consists of one or two Greek Fathers who don't include it when they cite Matthew, most importantly Eusebius. However, Eusebius wrote around 300; the Didache (110 AD), which heavily quotes from Matthew's Gospel includes the name Father, Son and Holy Spirit within its Baptismal formula. (The Didache also use the word "into" and not "in" reflecting Matthew's langauge)

Second point, we are baptized into the name of God. There is something that happens in Baptism that joins us to Christ; I will start using this formula when I baptize now!

μεθ υμων ("with you"; the word μεθ is μετα but the letters change before a vowel, much like "a" becomes "an", vs 20). It is a good reminder that Jesus offers a plural promise here: "With all of you." More importantly though, the words "with you" appear in the middle of the words "I am." "I am" or εγω ειμι can also signify the name of God (see one of the previous' weeks entries on this). Here though we find the construction "I with you am." In the middle of God's name is "with us." I would argue that God's name has been changed by the death and resurrection of Jesus. God is forever bound to humanity in a way that God was not before. Even if the whole name of God thing seems like a stretch, Jesus is indicating that after the crucifixion and resurrection he is truly Emmanuel, or God with us, as the angel declared in the beginning of the Gospel.

Grammar: How Greek often switches subjects.
In verse 17, Matthew says that "some doubted." He actually doesn't use the word some, but the words οι δε. These two words simply mean "The and." But in this case, that could mean "some."

This particular construction (δε following the word "the") almost always implies a new subject. Often times Greek writers will do this; perhaps to save space; it is quicker to write "ο δε" then to write out "the other person I was just writing about." This device, I assume, almost functioned like a period or a paragraph start; "attention reader, new subject." For example, Matthew uses this construction back in verse 16 to switch the narrative from the Jews to the disciples. We have a paragraph marker there, but in the original Greek, which lacked punctuation, this didn't exist.

In verse 17, the question becomes, who is Matthew refering to when he switches the subject? We are not told of anyone on the hill. It seems the only option is to assume Matthew here switches from all eleven disciples to a smaller group within that. While a minority think he means all the disciples (and thus is NOT switching subjects), most people assume he is refering to a subset within the disciples.

Acts 1:1-11

2011-05-31T12:53:00.000-07:00

Summary:
Acts 1:1 may just summarize all of the book. In fact, one word may summarize all of acts: "began." Luke says that his Gospel is "all that Jesus began to do and teach." The whole book of Acts shows the work and teachings of Jesus carried forth by his apostles. By the Spirit, they carry forth and do the greater things Jesus told us we would do if we believed in him. Well, if 1:1 explains the whole book, 1:2 leaves us curious how this all works. Luke says Jesus communicated things through the Holy Spirit. But how? That is what the book really wrestles with, in my mind, how the Holy Spirit worked to guide the early choice in making decisions about the doings and teachings of Christ.

Key words:
Θεοφιλος ("lover of God", 1:1) Luke may have written this to a specific person name Theophilos. Or he writes it to all of us who love God!

ηρχατο ("begin" aorist form of αρχω, in 1:1) It is worth noting that Luke says that Jesus begins his doings and teachings. The completion of Jesus ministry will be done through the disciples. This one verb, may in fact, tell you everything you need to know about the book of Acts!

τε και ("and and" in verse 1). BDAG suggests this combination means "connecting concepts, usuaully of the same kind." Here it links the words ποειεν (doing) and διδασκειν (teaching). A helpful reminder than the hands and head are connected in Luke's mind!

εξελεξατο ("choose" aorist form of εκλεγω, in 1:2; see also 1:24; 6:5 and 15:7;22;25) Throughout the book of Acts, the disciples have to make choices. The tricky thing is figuring out how the Holy Spirit will guide this process of choice. In Acts 1:2 no indication is given for this. In 1:24, lots are used; in 6:5, the Spirit works through community's approval of the leadership's suggestion concerning deacons; in chapter 15, the choice is made through collective debate. The book of Acts is a powerful study in how decisions are made in the Spirit!

[gift] This work appears in the NIV but not in the Greek in 1.4.

τω Ισραηλ ("to Isreal"; 1:6) Jesus was teaching them about the Kingdom of God; they were concerned with the Kingdom which belongs to Israel.

μαρτυς ("to witness"; 1:8) This word looks like "martyr"...because it means just that. Jesus hear commands his disciples to be witnesses. When Jesus used the word it had no implication of suffering. However, the early Christians who were witnesses became "martyrs." The defintion of the word was changed by the heroic actions early Christians. So, Jesus here is calling his disciples to be martyrs. Ouch!

Grammar/translation review: Word order!
In Greek, word order is not essential for understanding the sentence. In English, they are. For example, "The boy hit the dog" and "The dog hit the boy" are two different ideas in English. In Greek, the reader knows who did the action by the cases of the nouns, not their order in the sentence. The nominative does the action; the accustative is the object of the action, regardless of which comes first. This means that Greek (and to some extent Hebrew) can move words around for emphasis. For example, Acts 1:2, is very convoluted if you just read the words: until which day, after he taught the apostles whom he had chosen, he was ascended. Permissible in English perhaps, but the sentence points out that good Greek can have words all over the place because the cases are governing their function, not word order.

In Acts 1:5 we have a very unusual split of some words: εν πνευματι βαπτισθησεσθε αγιω
Although the specific conjugation may be odd, (future passive 2nd person plural is fairly rare for verbs!), the words are pretty clear: "In a spirit you will be baptized holy." One could perhaps take holy and spirit as separate adjectives: "You will be baptized in a spirit in a holy manner." But that makes little sense. Why? First, because Greek would unlikely have two adverbial phrases, in the same case, with unclear prepositions. But let's assume for second that someone could find some odd grammatical example of this. Most imporantly, Luke earlier claims that Jesus will baptize us with the Holy Spirit. (Let's use more clear Scripture to interpret less clear Scripture!) So what could Luke possibly be doing here by putting Baptism in the middle of the Holy Spirit? Well, duh, Luke is making the claim that the Holy Spirit and Baptism are bound up in each other! To put it another way, Luke has done in writting what he says: Baptism is in the Holy Spirit! This is something like, in my mind, when Handel has the tenor sing "The rough places plain" and the word "rough" has a change in note while "plain" is constant.

Acts 17:22-31

2011-05-25T10:30:00.000-07:00

Note: The previous few verses describe Paul's immediate reaction to Athens and will provide insight into this section of Scripture.

Summary: Paul gives a great apology for the Christian faith here, weaving in Greek philosophy and religious thinking of his day. Yet he never shies away from the most amazing and counter-cultural: That Christ experienced a resurrection from the dead and he will return to judge people. While we may not preach on this text, it is certainly worth reflecting on how Paul does it (or fine, be a modern biblical scholar: how Luke does it through Paul). The more one reads this passage, the more amazed one becomes at how subtly Paul uses words. However, the reader of Paul's letters should not be surprised at Paul's amazing ability to proclaim Christ across cultural boundaries!

I have a websited dedicated to Paul's cross-cultural proclamation. For more on Paul's visit to Athens, you can go here: http://www.zionsjonestown.com/paul/athens/areopagus.htm

Key words:
Αεριου παγου ("areopagus" or "Mars Hill", 22) Paul gives this speech on a hill named for the Greek god of war. More remarkably, within 100 meters of him is the acropolis, upon which stood the Parthenon. As Paul spoke about God not living in temples made with human hands, a 100 foot high statue of Athena was being worshipped with animal sacrifices; the smoke would have been rising up to the heavens behind Paul; to his left the meat would have been sold in the market. Also, the Areopagus was the ancient court of Athens and hub of philosophical speculation. It was the Harvard Cigar club and Supreme Court rolled into one.
δεισιδαιμονεστερους ("religious/superstitious", 22) You can see the word "daimon" within the word. It can mean god-fearing, but it also tends toward superstitious. This word reminds us that Paul is going to splice words perfectly in this passage, subtly conveying his message. He both compliments them and insults them all at once.
αγνοστω ("unknown" from αγνοστος, 23) Paul says they have a monument to an "agnostic god." I wonder how many in our society worship an "agnostic god"
χειροποιητος ("hand made", 24) While hand-made may have nice connotations today, in the Bible it inevitably refers to idols made from hands. Which is a very, very bad thing. I find this striking that everything made by human hands is tainted with sin in the Bible; even Solomon's Temple will be destroyed by Jesus (Mark 14:58) in order to make the new temple!
θεραπευεται ("serve" or "heal" from θεραπευω, 25) This is fascinating word I would like to study more. English speakers will recognize the word "therapy" and immediately move to healing. However, the original meaning of this word was much more akin to serving the gods, like a priest. In fact, in the Old Testament the word never means heals, as in God heals, but means the people serve the god or king. Jesus turns the Bible upside-down by actually doing the service toward people. My sense is that those who did service to the gods were healed and this is how this word came to have its dual meaning, but I need to research this more.
ψηλαφησειαν ("grope" or "search", 27) Paul uses this word to describe our searching for God. Interestingly, Homer will use this word to discuss cyclops after he is blinded. A striking word to describe our searching for God outside of proclamation!
υπαρχω ("be at one's disposal; exist", 24&27) I never have liked this Greek word because it seems to mean all sorts of the things. The point I want to emphasize here is that when Paul says that God is not far away from us, he more closely means, God is available to us; ie, Paul is not simply discussing physical space, but spiritual space. I argue for this translation because Paul uses the word back in verse 24 to discuss how everything is at God's disposal; by verse 27 Paul is arguing that God is also at our disposal.
μετανοειν ("repent" from μετανοεω, 30) Most times when Biblical writers use this word, they are picking up off of the old Testament concept of repentance as a turning of one's heart and really actions away from sin and toward God. However, within this philosophical mileau of the Areopagus, Paul here, I argue, leans into its more Greek meaning, which means "new mind." Paul is calling them to a new way of thinking, namely, that, God has provided for the:
αναστησας νεκρον ("resurrection from the dead," 31) This was a radical concept for the Greeks. The immortal soul was acceptable, but the resurrection from the dead was just gross. It is after this comment that Paul's speech breaks down and people said, "They've had enough!"

Grammar review: Moods and the Optative
Greek has a number of "moods" for verbs. Moods are not like tenses. Moods describe the role of the verb within the sentence. For example, a verb may be in the indicative mood, which means it describes what happens: "Peter eats dinner." A verb may be in the imperative mood, which means it tells someone what to do: "Eat dinner, Peter!" A verb may be in the infinitive mood: "Peter needed to eat." A verb may also be a participle mood, like "Eating his dinner, Peter..." A verb may also be in the subjunctive mood. "If Peter wouls eat." In English, however, you need to add helping verbs to make a verb truly subjunctive. Greek simply slaps on a different ending, much to the chagrin of Greek learners! Greek also has another mood, called the optative. It is very rare, occuring less than 40 times in the New Testament. In fact, 15 of these are Paul saying "μη γενοιτο." (Heck no!) The optative mood describes a wish. It is probably best to assume the translators get it right when it comes to the optative. Books upon books are written about the death of the optative mood in Greek. Let me again save you the time: Trust the translators with the optative. With the subjunctive, well, its more subjective ;-) There you have to watch them...

John 14:1-14

2011-05-17T14:06:00.000-07:00

Summary
"I am the way, the truth and the life." These three words in Greek are a multilayered as they are in English. In fact, I put no special entry for them. What does truth mean? What does life mean? What does way mean? Perhaps the best story to explain this is found in the book of Acts, with our doubting Philip. In the eighth chapter, the Spirit works with Philip in some profound ways! On the way, he preaches the truth and the Eunuch is given the life. He does the work of Christ. Does this satisfy you? Well, don't let your hearts be troubled because, just like Philip, God works through us imperfect, doubting and sinful disciples to preach the truth to people, on the way, that they might have life, and have it abundantly.

Key Words
ταρασσεσθω ("troubled" or "grieved", a form of ταρασσεσθω, 14:1). Jesus himself will be grieved in John 12:27 and 13:21. Here though he tells the disciples not to grieve. Perhaps this a beautiful example of the communicatio idiomatum (the exchange of properties between God and man in Jesus Christ on the cross, often called the Glorious Exchange by Luther). Jesus takes on our grief so that we don't have to grieve anymore.

πιστευετε ("believe" or "trust" 14:1). This is a second week of class vocabulary word. However, it is worth pointing out that in the Gospel of John, faith is never a noun, but is always a verb -- believing. Faith is always an act, never a concept!

οικια - μονη ("house" and "rooms" 14:2) The NRSV butchers this one. Yes, a μονη does mean a dwelling place and does come from the Greek for dwell/abide, μενω, a word of great importance in John's Gospel. But it sounds so abstract! οικια does not mean mansion, but I suppose if God lives there, its a big house.

αρκει ("satisfy," form of αρκεω, 14:8) Philipp earlier complains that a huge amount of bread wouldn't be enough to satisfy the crowd; now he claims that seeing the Father will satisfy him. Obviously Phillip doesn't get it. You might even say that this is Phillip's grand Peteresque moment. Philipp will go out and on the road, preach the truth and give the eunuch the waters of life.

εργα ("works," 14:12) Yes folks, faith does make works. It is worth pointing out that here, there is no subjunctive in this sentence. Simply, the one who is believe will do works

Grammar/translation
What I ought write about here is Greek subjunctive, but alas, I've done that a lot recently. So let's turn to a new subject. In Greek, you do not need to specify the subject because the verb conjugations reveals this to the listener/reader. In fact, the subject is often dropped, especially when the subject is clear from the context or it is "I" or "you." So, for example, in 14:7, the English reads: "If you know me, you will know my father." If you read the Greek, you will read:
ει εγνωκατε με και τον πατερα μου γνωσεσθε
Notice the lack of "you." The verb endings reveal the subject as "you" to the Greek reader/listener. However, in verse six, when Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life" he includes the subject, the pronoun "I." He says, εγω ειμι. The word εγω is unnecessary because ειμι means "I am." Normally the use of a pronoun with a conjugated verb is simply done for emphasis. To be translated "I, I mean I, am the way." Something else may be going on here though! In the OT, God will also use the phrase εγω ειμι to name himself. Like in Exodus 3:14 "I am who I am" begins with εγω ειμι. Often times in the Gospel, Jesus seems to refer to himself as God by calling himself εγω ειμι. Like in Matthew 14:17 Jesus tells them not to be afraid as he walks across the water, for "It is I" or in Greek: εγω ειμι. Peter responds by calling him κυριε, which means Lord, another name for God, and then Peter follows him out of the boat. In John 18:6, when Jesus refers to himself as εγω ειμι, all the soliders fall in reverence, because Jesus is declaring himself God. So, what about John 14:6 and the other εγω ειμι sayings in John, of which there are many? Are these all declarations of Jesus divinity? Yes! John does play on this ancient name for God, but in Jesus Christ we continue to discover anew God's identity: Here, the way, truth and life.

Psalm 23, take 2

2011-05-10T12:14:00.000-07:00

For Good Shepherd Sunday I've looked at Psalm 23. Given people's emotional resonance with the Psalm, this week does not call for one's "exegetical underwear." Reading the actual Psalm presents more "earthy" image than the bucolic landscape scene the Psalm often conjures in our minds. There is wet grass to be eaten, wine to be poured, death to be encountered and God's disciplining rod to be felt slamming into our side. To put it another way, God doesn't simply want to paint pictures, but truly revive our soul that we might return to his temple, time and time again, even in our everlasting life, made possible by the Good Shepherd.

Translation and commentary (I changed the format for this week, next week back to key words/grammar review!)

Verse 1:
"Yahweh shepherds me. I do not lack."

The word "LORD" in Hebrew is Yahweh. This most of us know. But I think two things are worth reflecting on here. First is that in English we always put the word "The" in front of the "LORD." In Hebrew it simply reads, "Yahweh is my shepherd." Second, we read the "LORD" with a certain complacency unimaginable to early readers of this. The Hebrew reader replaces "Yahweh" and always says, "Adonai"

The word "Shepherd" is a verbal noun in Hebrew, that is, it is a participle (shepherding) that has been fixed into a noun. Thus, every time you read the word "Shepherd" in the OT, you are reading something much more akin to, "The one shepherding." If you notice the Vulgate and Septugint translation of this verse actually leave the word as a verb: "The Lord shepherds me." Although telling people their favorite Psalm has been mistranslated, it is worth noting that God's work as a shepherd is an action!

The word for lack here, K-S-R, is also used in Deuteronomy 2:7, when God says the people lacked nothing. At this point the people were in the wilderness and had been for years. A reminder that what God says we need is probably different from our own estimatation.

The Greek (and Latin) add the word "nothing." The Hebrew simply reads: "I am not wanting..." The nothing is implied though, so I don't consider this a translation foul!

Verse 2:
He makes me rest in meadows of lush grass; he leads me beside still waters.

I've translated this as "lush grass" and not "green pastures." The word "green" as in "Green pastures" does not appear in the Hebrew. The word is "grass." God is not simply giving us a pretty picture, but food!

The second half of this verse is often translated, "He leads me besides to still waters." However poetic, this does not fully capture the idea. The Hebrew here means "waters of resting place." As Bible Work's TWOT dictionary says: "Basically the root nûaµ (which means resting place) relates to absence of spatial activity and presence of security, as seen, e.g. in the ark which "rested" on Mount Ararat (Gen 8:4)," The NET prefers the more active "refreshing" but I think the words, "still waters" captures the sense of rest that comes from utter trust.

Verse 3:
He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his glory.

The word "restore" is the reason I find Hebrew so wonderful but so frustrating. If you look at the word in English, you might have no clue that its root is Sh-U-V, which means to turn, even to repent. The sentence could read, "He turns my soul." This is the verb used in the phrase, "Return to the Lord your God!" Here God is returning our soul to him.

Soul, here N-PH-SH, can mean a variety of things, but certainly not the idea of a wispy part of us that lives on after we die. The Hebrew is trying to get at the core of our being; the NET tries to get at this by saying, "He restores my strength." I think soul is fine, but you can see how the English ends up making this whole Psalm more "spiritual."

The word "name" as in "Name's sake" might be a little weak here. The word of name in Hebrew "SheM" means name, but in the sense of "reputation" or even "glory."

Verse 4:
Though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.

How does one translate "Valley of the shadow of death"? I again defer to the TWOT dictionary, which is so helpful here: "It describes the darkness of eyelids tired from weeping (Job 16:16), the thick darkness present in a mine shaft (Job 28:3), the darkness of the abode of the dead (Job 10:21ff; Job 38:17), and the darkness prior to creation (Amos 5:8). Emotionally it describes the internal anguish of one who has rebelled against God (Psa 107:10-14; cf. Psa 44:19ff [H 20f]). Thus it is the strongest word in Hebrew for darkness." Shadow of darkeness is probably too weak a translation, but the idea here is that it encompasses more than death. The NRSV tries to get at this by writing, "Though I walk through the darkest valley" but really, for the average reader, "Valley of the Shadow of Death" gets at this...

The Hebrew here juxtaposes two words: rod and comfort. Neither one in Hebrew has a strange meaning. N-K-M (comfort) is a lovely word, but I'd like us to slow down and considering Bible Work's BDB definition of a rod (SH-B-T): rod, staff (evidently common article), for smiting; for beating cummin ; as (inferior) weapon; fig. of chastisement; national; individual. b. shaft, i.e. spear, dart. c. shepherd's implement, club; used in mustering or counting sheep.
Strange that this would be comforting!

Verse 5:
You prepare a table in the presence of those wishing me harm; you annoint my head with oil; my cup is full of wine

The phrase "in the presence of my enemies" delights the investigator! It has the sense of "in front of my enemies." I have read this Psalm many times but it never caught me that the table is not simply prepared privately amid trouble but literally, in the presence of enemies the person is having the table set! Also the word for enemies is another verbal noun. Much like shepherding, this word has an active connotation; the enemies are actively seeking your down-fall!

(heehee) The word here for "oil" is also "fat" and the word here for "overflow" is "saturate," so here we have a feast with saturated fats :-) In fact, the Greek uses the word "made drunk." There is something a bit almost vindicative about this verse: "I am getting drunk thanks to you in front of those who hate me!"

Note: The NET Bible has a long commentary on the word "anoint" and why the use "refresh" instead. I will save that for the very hungry, but suffice to say, the Hebrew literally reads, "He fattened the oil on my head."

Verse 6:
Surely goodness and love will pursue me all my days and I will continue to return to the house of the Lord for all my days.

Sometimes translated, "faithfulness" K-S-D means "love-in-constant-action-over-and-against-people's stupidity." To avoid a mistranslation, translators often avoid "love" because that is such an emotional word. However, it is more than faithfulness. Also, that it is K-S-D means that the subject (or possessor) is God!

"Follow" is too passive for R-D-PH. It means pursue, like pursue enemies!

The Hebrew literally reads, "I will return in(to) the house of the Lord," however everyone translates this "I will live" (amending the text). I like the image not simply of dwelling but of returning to the house of the Lord. The verb is in a continuous tense, so the idea here is that just as God's goodness and love pursue the person, the person returns to God's temple. Furthermore, the continuous nature of the verb allows us to imagine, in a way that is probably untenable to the Hebrew mind, always returning to the house of the Lord, even after death! The literal translation probably leans more toward "all the days of my life" instead of "forver" but again, I think this continual tense of the verb allows us to imagine the idea of a forever returning to God's holy presence.

Luke 24:13-35

2011-05-03T06:12:00.000-07:00

Summary:
A very moving piece of Scripture. You might argue it is the "ultimate" piece of Luke's Gospel, bringing together so many themes: importance of hospitality, completion of OT salvation and vitality of worship to name a few. This passage can often be seen as a "trump" card for the importance of Holy Communion because the disciples recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread. However, a few curiosities. First, Jesus does not use the word eucharist here, which he does at the last supper. Furthermore, the resurrected Christ shows up to the disciples not in the breaking of the bread, but in the proclamation of the Word as they tell each other Jesus is risen! Finally, when Jesus first gives them the bread, it is not after the breaking but after the distribution that their eyes are opened. They had to know that Jesus was for you in order to know Christ. Ultimately though, this theological masterpiece cannot be used against communion, but I want to point out that for Luke, everything good and wonderful (including praise, the power of the Word and the importance of intimacy, even relationship with Christ and the community) is included! To put it more eloquently: This passage is about way more than breaking bread. Likewise, Holy Communion is about more than breaking bread, it is about praising God in Glory, proclaming the death and resurrection of Jesus and finally, by the Holy Spirit, recognizing Christ did this for me and my brethren.

Key Words:
συν (preposition meaning "with"; but it can also be combined with verbs to slightly change their meaning; three such verbs appear in 24:14,15) By using these words Luke plays on the sounds the words makes but also strongly suggests those on the road were together.

λυτρουσθαι ("redeem," present infinitive form of λυτρομαι, 24:21) This verb means redeem in a the "ransom" sense of the word. The Bible uses this word to talk about people redeeming property with payment. People can also make a redemption payment to God to avoid punishment for their sins (see Number 35:31). In Exodus, in fact, the people must pay a ransom to God to avoid a plague (30:12). On passage of particular note for Christians is Psalm 49:8 For the ransom of life is costly, and can never suffice 9 that one should live on forever and never see the grave. (NRSV) In the OT, this idea of redeeming a property had a theology dimension in that it could describe the possibility or impossibility of healing the relationship between God and the debt the people owed to God because of their sin.

Yet, God was not the only one from whom redemption could be sought. For example, God redeems (same verb) the people from slavery in Egypt (2 Sam 7:23, Deut 13:5). Without too much more research, I feel confident saying that for Luke, his idea of redemption grows out of Exodus rather than Leviticus. (Ie, freeing from others rather than freeing from the debt of sin).

It is worth point out that Luke employs the idea in a different manner than Mark. In Mark, Jesus is the redemption (the think paid to do the redeeming, 10:45). Based on the structure of this sentence in Luke, Jesus is the one doing the redeeming. This small distinction raises great question for Christians: Why was a redemption necessary? Who did God possible have to deal with? But if you don't want to go there, keep it simple: Jesus gave his life that you might be redeemed, namely, set free from sin and death.

δοξαν ("glory" accusative of δοξη, 24:26) This word has many layers; originally meaning "opinion" it can also mean "splendor." Yet in the NT, borrowing from the OT, it also means the amazing presence of God! Luke uses this word at some key passages to point toward the glory related to the presence of God and his kingly splendor: Glory of Christmas Angels (2:9/2:14); Devil's promise (4:6); Transfiguration (9:32); Palm Sunday (19:38); Second coming (9:26/21:27)

προσεποιησατο ("pretend" aorist of προσποιεω, 24:28) So, can Jesus pretend? Yes!!

μενω ("abide," used twice in 24:29) Although a more essential word in the Gospel of John, this word still carries import here. The disciples invite Jesus to abide with them. Not in their heart, but at their table!

εγνωσθη ("know" aorist form of γινωσκω 24:35) I point this verb out because Luke changes it from the earlier "recognize" (επιγινωσκω). I cannot figure out why Luke draws this distinction, other than to say: If you know Jesus, you will recognize him; if you recognize him, you know. To put it in familiar Lutheran terms: To know Christ is to know his benefits. When it comes to these words, I am not sure if I know the difference, even though I recognize it...

κλασει ("breaking" dative of κλασις 24:35; in a verb form κλασας 24:30; also sounds like the name Κλεοπας) It is in the breaking of the bread that the disciples recognize Jesus; worth pointing out, however, is that it is also in the proclamation of Jesus resurrection (vs 35-36) that Jesus shows up. Luke does not neglect a theology of the Word! It is also worth pointing out that the first time they recognize Jesus, they do so, not in the breaking of the break, but while the bread is being distributed. Based on the verb tenses you get: Taking the bread he blessed it. After he broke it he was distributing it. And their eyes began to be opened (or became opened). The point here is that breaking the bread may not be the only "magic" moment when Jesus shows up. In other words (I know I am pushing it here), it was only when they heard the for you that the recognized Jesus.

ευλογησεν ("blessed" aorist form of ευλογεω in 24:30; comes into English as "eulogy") Clearly Luke plays on the idea of communion (taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it and giving it to the disciples). However, at the last supper Jesus gives thanks (ευχαριστω, 22:19). Again, I recognize the difference, but not as sure why Luke has Jesus use a different verb.
καιομενη (present passive participle of καιω 24:32) While God often makes things burn out of his anger, I think the best recollection for this verb is the burning bush -- it was not consumed, but the Word of God kindled it brightly!

Grammar review: Negative questions
Greek shows questions with a ";" mark. Some sentences can be very tricky because we miss this!
Also, in Greek, a question can have a negative. Depending on the wording, the question expects either a no or yes answer. The word order, if not inflection, reveals this information in English:
"You don't think that is a good idea, do you?" (Expects a no answer)
"Don't you want you some ice cream?" (Expect a yes answer)
In Greek, the distinction is easier! When they use "μη" they expect a no answer. When they use "ου" they expect yes.
So, for example, when Jesus asks the question, "Grapes are not gathered from throns, are they?" the Greek uses a μη (7:16, technically μητι).
Again, if it has a "ου" it expects a "yes." The only challenging part is that ου can show up as ουκ when it appears before a verb; also ουχι is a more intense form, like "REALLY PEOPLE, the answer must be yes..."

In this 24:26, Jesus asks the question about the necessity of his suffering:
ουχι ταυτα εδει παθειν τον χριστον και εισελειν εις την δοξαν αυτου;
Because the sentence (really a question!) begins with ουχι it expects a "yes" answer:
"REALLY PEOPLE, wasn't it necessary for the Christ to suffer this and then enter into his glory?"

Matthew 28:1-10

2011-04-19T16:52:00.000-07:00

Summary: Lots of confrontation, fear and shaking…I thought for a second I was reading Mark…or the story of the second coming…

But...I am going out on a Lutheran limb here: I want to reflect a bit on the use of the word "speak" by Jesus. I would argue here that you could translate this verb as promise. "He is not here...he has been raised, as he promised." Why? Because Hebrew doesn't distinguish between the two; Greek does more clearly. But in the Gospels, Jesus never speaks a promise; he always says. So, I think you can go by the Old Testament rule: Everyone speaks, but when God speaks, you can translate it as promise...

Key Words:
σεισμος ("earthquake," 28.2): We've had this idea before in Matthew...during Palm Sunday the who city shook with the cheers of the people! Also, after the crucifixion, an earthquake caused the centurion to confess his faith. Interestingly, σεισμος can also mean storm. Jesus slept in the boat during the storm in Matthew 8:24; he emerges from the hull to calm the storm and disciples. Likewise, Jesus will emerge from the tomb to calm this σεισμος, including the disciples. Perhaps in both stories the disciples remain of little faith...
See also εσεισθησαν ("shake," aorist passive of σειω, 28.4):

φοβου ("fear," 28.4 as a verb in 28.5): While Matthew's portrayal of the resurrection is perhaps not as stark as Mark's, Matthew still has fear! Worth noting is that the imperative verb (do not be afraid) is in the present tense: "Stop being afraid and keep not being afraid." The resurrection means we have nothing to fear, truly, nothing to fear.

εσταυρωμενον ("crucify," passive perfect participle of σταυροω, 28.5): The perfect tense in Greek implies that the action still results in a current state. Jesus has been and still is in the state of crucifixion: Resurrection did not negate crucifixion. Jesus was and is eternally crucified!

ειπεν ("said" from λεγω, 28:6) I would argue here that you could translate this verb as promise. Why? Because Hebrew doesn't distinguish between the two; Greek does more clearly. But in the Gospels, Jesus never speaks a promise; he always says. So, I think you can go by the Old Testament rule: Everyone speaks, but when God speaks, you can translate it as promise...

αστραπη ("lightning," 28.3): This word would be uninteresting to me except that it also appears in 24.27, "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." Jesus also predicts σεισμος in 24.7; perhaps a reminder that with the resurrection, the new age, has begun...Okay, its Holy Week. Not enough mental energy to unpack all of this, but for Matthew, it seems, and I am sure that others know more about this, but the resurrection unlocks the kingdom. As Jesus says, "
υπηντησαν ("meet," aorist of υπανταω, 28:9) This word can mean meet, but it is also used in Matthew 8:28 (also in Acts 16:16) to mean confront or oppose. This is an interesting idea of Jesus confronting them here!

Grammar and translation:
There are two things you shouldn't waste time tying to learn in a dead langauge: numbers and dates/times. Why? Because translators don't get these wrong! For example, in 28:1 you have the phrase: εις μιαν σαββατων. The literally means "the first of the sabbath." Which means, as it turns out, on the first day after the sabbath (akin to Monday being the first day of the week). It doesn't mean "the first thing on the Sabbath!) Similary, I would want to translate, οψε δε σαββατων as in "late on the Sabbath" but it really means, in this case, "after the Sabbath was over." When it comes to time/dates, just trust the people that spend their lives translating. There is nothing theological at stake; they just spent time learning the ancient idioms!
Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (16.28)

Matthew 21:1-11

2011-04-12T12:52:00.000-07:00

Summary: In light of the tragedy of Japan, the word "εσεισθη" (shook, akin to seismic) caught my attention. The events of Holy Week shake the city. They still shake our world today, perhaps even causing a fair amount of disruption, if not sadly violence, in our world. Call it good, call it bad, but the events of Holy Week make every person ask the haunting question: "Who is this man?"

Key Words:
απεστειλεν ("sent" in 21:1 and 3; aorist form of αποστελλω) This is a well known verb to Greek students. I find it interesting that the particular it is used here -- Jesus sends the disciples to get a donkey. A reminder that often times, our "missional" or "apostolic" calling can be very mundane, but serve a tremendously amazing purpose.

συνεταξεν ("commanded" in 21:6; aorist form of συντασσω) Ah, the "syntax" of discipleship. This would mean obedience to particular commands. Okay, its Holy Week. I am not going on a diatribe, but it is worth noting, especially for us Lutherans, that the disciples display here the syntax of discipleship: hearing specific tasks and doing them. Or to put it another way, the proper syntax of discipleship is "hearing, being sent and then obeying..."

οχλος vs πολις ("crowd" in 21:8 and 11 and "city" in 21:10). The events of Holy Week force each of us, whether disciple, distant follower or outsider, to confront the question facing the whole city: "Who is this?" Also, the same crowds that cheer him now will vote for his death...

ὠσαννα ("Hosanna" in 21:9). Here is the "NET" commentary: Hosanna, literally in Hebrew, "O Lord, save" in the quotation from Ps 118:25-26 was probably by this time a familiar liturgical expression of praise, on the order of "Hail to the king," although both the underlying Aramaic and Hebrew expressions meant "O Lord, save us." In words familiar to every Jew, the author is indicating that at this point every messianic expectation is now at the point of realization. It is clear from the words of the psalm shouted by the crowd that Jesus is being proclaimed as messianic king. See E. Lohse, TDNT 9:682-84.

εσεισθη ("shake" in 21:10; aorist form of σειω) This word comes into English as "seismic." The events of Holy Week shake the city and their aftershocks still continue to reverberate around the world two millenia later.
Grammar/translation:
Often times participles are stacked near other participles and verbs, which can make them seem more difficult to translate. Here are two examples:
21:1 λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι
The verbs (and pronoun!) should be fairly familiar: "loose/free", "lead", "me"
Let's translate this rather methodically. First, let's do the non-participle parts:
"[participle] lead to me"
Now, let's go back and add in the participle, in this case, some form of "free." The first thing to do is NOT worry about person, gender or any of that, but simply stick the verb in with an "ing"
"Freeing, lead to me"
Okay, now we need to check out the tense and voice. In this case it is active voice, so we don't have to fix anything. Tense wise, it is aorist. An aorist participle occurs before the other verb. So, we get:
"Freed, lead to me"
Yuck. Let's put this back in the "under the circumstances" machine:
Under the circumstances of having freed, lead to me."
What makes this hard is that you don't have an object. Let's add one in for clarity:
"UtC of having freed the donkey, lead it to me."
Now we simplify:
"After you freed/untied the donkey, lead it to me."
Next one is 21:9
ευλογημενος Ὁ ερχομενος εν ονοματι κυριου
Again, translate what you know here:
"[participle] the [participle] in the name of the Lord.
[Technical point: In Hebrew, you don't have articles in expressions like "name of the Lord" It is just assumed that it is all definitive: "the Name of the Lord." The Greek translators just left them out but we ain't talking about any Lord, here, but YHWH! Which leads always to the question of, how do you translate this name? Simply LORD using all caps??]
In this case, the second participle: ερχομενος is a lot easier. It is a substantive: You simply put in the "The one(s) that/which do X" formula. You get: "The one who comes" What makes this a little tricky is the "μεν" in the middle of the participle which might make you think this is passive, but no, this is simply a deponent verb!
But the first one...ευλογημενος...tricky.
Stick in the word+ing
"blessing the one who comes in the name of the Lord."
Now we check tense and voice. Voice is passive, so we have to reverse the language: "Blessed be" or "blessed is." The tense is perfect which means the action, having occured in the past, still has an implication for today.
"Blessed and still is blessed the one who comes in the name of the Lord."

Matthew 4:1-11

2011-03-08T12:12:00.000-08:00

Summary:
This is a text of testing. That verb, πειραζω, appears three times! Testing allows us to discover the nature of something. What do we discover? We discover that the devil is pretty good at tempting...tempting with the flesh, the power and the glory. Even using scripture! More importantly, we learn that Jesus draws his strenght from the Word of God. We learn that the Word of God comes from God's mouth, brings life in the wilderness, overcomes evil and is even worshipped by angels.

Key Words:

πειραζω & εκπειραζω ("tempt" or "put to the test," Found in 4:1, πειρασθναι (aorist passive infinitive), 4:3, πειραζων (participle present) and 4.7, εκπειρασεις (2nd person future)): BDAG offers that this word means, "to endeavor to discover the nature or character of somthing by testing." In this story, we discover the nature of two people, both the devil and Jesus. The devil is the one who tempts us, tempts us with the flesh, glory and finally deceptive power, all so that we would worship him and not God. He will quote Scripture and has no fear of God. We learn also, here, by experience, that Jesus will draw on his power from the Word of God. He alone, and not the devil, is master of Scripture. He will also be ministered by angels, and though human, cannot be defeated by human weakness, but only by the will of God.

Note: Although a different word is used when Jesus says to the Devil, "Don't test God," I don't think this distinction is key. It is slightly more intense. You could say you can test but not really test God? I don't think it is a fine line worth testing ;-) Regardless, this word comes into English in very clear way: "experiment"! Jesus is saying, "Don't experiment with God!"
εκπορευομαι ("come out" 4:4, εκπορευομενω (dative participle)) This word here is a fairly common word in Greek -- "come or go out." What is significant here is that is goes hand and hand with the word and the mouth of God. God's Word does not stay still, but goes out from God's mouth. And what does it do? It brings like in the middle of the wilderness and overcomes all evil.

προσκυνεω and λατρευω ("worship" 4:10, προσκεησεις & λατρευσιες (2nd person future)) προσκυνεω comes from the Greek for "forward kiss" as in lean down to touch and kiss the ground in front of the person. λατρευσιες can also mean worship, but has to do with serving God in the temple, or more broadly, serving God as a way to fulfill obligations. The root of the word is payment! In the sense of "paying one's vows" before God. When you put these two together, you have the image of full body worship, with both our knees (on the ground) and our arms (serving God through the offering plate, the acts of worship).

διακονεω ("serve" 4:11, διηκονουν (imperfect)) This word means to "serve" like a waiter serves on tables. It comes into English and the church through a variety of servant ministries. Here we see the other means of worship, not simply on our knees, or with our hands raised, but also on our feet, serving Christ.

Grammar: εαν vs ει

εαν is nice for translators. It means "if" in a truly hypothetical sense. "εαν" it rains today, the game will be canceled. For example, in Matthew 4:9, the devil says, "εαν" you throw yourself down Jesus, I will give you all of this.
ει, however, is much harder. It can mean "if" or "since" or "because not" depending on the context and the verb moods used around it. Let's look at 4:3:
ει υιος [ει] του θεου, ειπε ινα οι λιθοι ουτοι αρτοι γενωνται
The [ει] has breathing marks that indicate it is a form of the verb "to be," in this case, "are." In fact, most of the words in this sentence an individual learns in the first couple weeks of Greek:
if son are of God, say in order the stones these bread [some form of become]
Becuase you know the sentence, you probably piece it together:
If you are the son of God, tell these stones to become bread. Why the subjunctive γενωνται? Why ουτοι? For another day! In this sentence, it seems odd that the devil would wonder if Jesus is the son of God. The devil is saying, more likely, "As the son of God, do X, Y and Z." Not only does this make more sense in the narrative, but grammatically, the fact that the verb [ει] is in the indicative and not subjunctive mood, also suggests this.

Matthew 17:1-9

2011-03-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

Summary:
Obviously a familiar and beautiful passage. What caught me is that this is only event that occurs "six" (hex) days after something in any of the Gospels. Before this, Jesus foretold his death and resurrection and then Peter rebuked him. So why six days later? The last time we found something happening on the six day was the creation of humans, which the Bible calls good; in fact, very good. Peter likewise calls it "good" to be on the mountaintop.  The sixth day of creation was good, but it was not the ultimate day; the 7th was and is. In the same way, the transfiguration is a good day. Moses and Elijah, the law and the prophets, are great and to be celebrated. By they are not the ultimate; Jesus is. Likewise, turning bright as light is good and to be celebrated. But it not the crucifixion and resurrection Jesus for which has come.

Key words:
εξ ("six" -- there is a rough breathing mark over the e, so this word is read "hex" like "hexagon"; 17:1): This is the only event that occurs "six" days after something in any of the Gospels or in the whole Bible. The last event is a series of teachings in which Jesus foretells his death and resurrection and Peter rebukes him. So why six? The last time we found something happening on the six day was the creation of man. Which the Bible calls good; in fact, very good. Peter likewise calls it "good" to be on the mountaintop.  The sixth day of creation was not the ultimate day; the 7th is. In the same way, the transfiguration is a great day. Moses and Elijah, the law and the prophets, are great and to be celebrated. By they are not the ultimate day. This is not the crucifixion and resurrection Jesus has foretold that will bring salvation.

αναφερω ("took up" or "sacrificed"; 17:1): This word literally means "take up," but is often used to describe the action of the priest in sacrifice. It is also used for Abraham taking up Isaac to Mount Moriah. Is Jesus taking up his disciples for a sacrifice? Is he sacrificing them? I think in this case, the verb probably just means "took up" but an interesting connection.

μεταμορφομαι ("transfigured" or "metamophisized"; 17:2): The latin "transfigured" is not as cool, in my mind, as the Greek "metamorphisized." This word is fairly rare in the NT. Notable verse is:
φος ("light"; 17:2 see also 5:14). Jesus called his disciples to be the light of the world; a city on a hill cannod be hidden. Here we have light on the hill...this time it is Jesus himself. The NRSV covers up the literal phrase, "white as light," which is too bad because it is one of the few times, outside of John, that Jesus is referred to as light. Even the angel at the resurrection (28:3) will not be bright as light!

αγαπητος ("beloved"; 17:5; 12:18; 3:17): This harks back to Jesus baptism. It also pushes back to the prophets declaration of the Spirits work that Matthew claims Jesus fulfills. God's redeemeing word in the OT, the work of the Spirit, Baptism and beloved...and even transformation. Sounds like a sermon seed...

αψαμενος ("touch"; aorist participle of απτω; 17:7): I find it interesting that Jesus touches them. I had missed that before. I think it greatly softens Jesus words. He touches them. Tells them to arise and not be afraid. We often remember his words at the end of the story, not to tell anyone, but this is a powerful gesture by Jesus: to uplift with his touch and his words.

οραμα ("vision," 17:9):  The NIV probably gets this right by translating it "what you have seen" instead of vision, because vision for most of us sounds like something made up. Freiburg Lexicon says, (1) literally what is seen, appearance, spectacle; (2) in the NT a supernatural vision, given as a means of divine communication, to be distinguished from a dream (οναρ)

εγερθη ("stand up" or "resurrect"; aorist passive of εγειρω; 17:7 & 9) Jesus uses the same verb for talking about his resurrection as he does to tell the disciples to "stand up." They are the same word. Jesus tells them to stand up. And then he tells them he will "stand up." Jesus intends for them not to be raised up.

Grammar: The quick and easy circumstantial participle
A number of verses in this section have easy circumstantial participles. 17:7 for example, puts one right in the middle of the sentence (after the και)
και αψαμενος αυτων ειπεν
first step: plug in English words in "untranslated format"
and touch? of them he said
It turns out that the "he said" is the main part of the sentence. The αψαμενος αυτων is the participle
The participle is in the aorist, which means it happened before the other verb. So
"touched of them, he said."
Two things are tricky. First, the verb is in the middle. Don't worry about that. He did not touch himself; what langauges consider "middle voice" varies. Second, αυτων is in the genitive simply because this verb takes a genitive object. So
"and touched them, he said."
Now we figure out who is doing the action
Here it should be obvious that Jesus touched them. You could also check that the participle is in the nominative, which means the subject of the rest of the sentence is doing the action...who is Jesus.
Then we add in the circumstance
"and after he touched them, he said"

Consider also 17:9
επαραντες δε τους οφθαλμους αυτων ειδον...ει μη...
Here again we have a circumstantial participle. Step one, fill in English that you know
look up* and the eyes of them they saw...
Once you figure out that ειδον = they saw = the main verb of the sentence, you should be able to move quickly through this participle. Indeed, your brain can probably figure out the actual reading:
"After lifting their eyes they saw..."
You could work through this in sequential steps:
Fix tense: "lifted their eyes they saw"
Fix voice...already done
Figure out who -- the disciples! (Again, you can check the case and number, but disciples makes sense!)
Then add circumstance. Since it is aorist, it happened first...
"After lifting their eyes they saw..."
Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds.
Transfigured is a fairly church word, but transform -- just as acceptable of a translation -- is probably a better term.

Matthew 6:24-34

2011-02-22T13:58:00.000-08:00

Summary:
As usual, the Greek makes things more exciting! First, the word for "serve" in 6:24, as "cannot serve God and Mammon" is not serve like "wait on the table" but serve as in "be a slave to." Second, Jesus gives a number of commands throughout this passage. The tenses of the commands (for which I devote an entire section) highlight Jesus’ point. A brief review: Jesus tells his disciples to look up into the sky using an aorist command; he tells his disciples to seek the Kingdom of God using a present tense command. The one is a simple request; the other is a constant task. The translations generally do not capture this distinction.
Key words

δουλευω ("serve" or "be enslaved to," twice in 6:24): This word does not simply mean "serve" as "I painted a wall for a poor person's house." It is more akin to slavery and servanthood. "It is not possible to be a slave to God and Money." Saving "serve" allows us a bit more control, I think, than Jesus implies. The word for serve as in clean-up/pitch-in is διακονεω.
μαμωνα ("mammon" or "money," 6:24): This word is not a Hebrew or Greek word, but is Aramiac, meaning wealth or property. It it not found in the OT; it is not picked up in any of the NT letters. It appears a few times, three times in Luke and once in Matthew. I guess it is a deeper question -- is Jesus trying to personify money here or not? I would suggest so, based less on what the word Mammon actually means, and more within the context of serving a master.
ολιγοπιστοι ("little faith," 6:30; appears in a few forms in Matthew's Gospel, also 8:26,14:31, 16:8, 17:20); This is a "pet" phrase of Matthew. The question is -- is this a rebuke or an encouragement? Of course, there is some element of rebuke, but perhaps there is an element of encouragement. Even being of little faith is better than being of none! In fact, if you compare the stories in chapter 8 and 16 from Matthew's Gospel with their Marcan parallels, you will see that Matthew adds this word into to soften the words of Jesus! (Or Mark excludes it). It is a humbling reminder that Jesus teaches us, not simply when we are wise and have full faith, but even when we have little faith.
προσθειναι ("add" an aorist infinitive of προστιθημι in 6:27; also in 6:34): Jesus here makes the point that worrying will not add an inch to our lives but seeking the kingdom of God will add all these things to us!

Translation issues
1) What does that refer to?
In English grammar, a pronoun needs an "antecedent," ie, what it is playing the roll of pronoun for. For example, "She and her sister are nice. I like her." The "her" doesn't really have a clear antecedent and so it is hard to understand. In this case, Jesus says, "Seek the KoG and its righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you." The question is, what are these things? Righteousness or clothing and wealth? (Kind of like King Solomon, who, in asking for wisdom, gained wealth).

2)  Tenses in commands: Aorist vs Present

Jesus gives a number of commands in this section. Commands can also be called imperatives. They provide a helpful way to understand how tenses function in Greek commands. In English, we really only have present tense commands: "Go!" or "Help!" In Greek, however, the command can be given in either the aorist or the present tense. This impacts how the verb should be translated.
The aorist is used for a simply command, like a "Do this now" sort of thing. For example, εμβλεψατε ("Look up in the sky!", 6:26) or καταμαθετε ("Consider the lillies", 6:28). An aorist command requests a specific action to be taken right now.
The present tense is used for a command that requires continued action. For example, ζητειτε ("Seek the Kingdom of God," 6:33). Jesus wants his followers to ALWAYS seek the Kingdom of God. While the "continuous" nature of present tense can be sometimes overstated, the present imperative strongly suggests a continuous action.
In English the distinction between these two tenses is often overlooked. In this case, a fair translation would be "always" or "continually seek the Kingdom of God." (Whereas you don't always have to look up into the sky)

With negatives, it is a little more tricky. I confess, I get them confused! Jesus uses the same verb here in both the negative aorist and negative present command forms, so this will hopefully clarify.
Jesus uses the negative present imperative in 6:25: μη μεριμνησητε.  In this verse, he is telling the disciples a forever command: "Do not ever worry about your life." The implication too, with a present tense negative imperative, is that the listener was in fact doing this action. For example, angels often have to tell people μη φοβου. (Present tense of "fear") We translate this "Do not be afraid" but it would better as "Stop being and continue to stop being afraid." Or perhaps, more poetically, "Do not fear."
Jesus then switches to a negative aorist command in 6:31 μη μεριμνατε. This verb is actually an aorist subjunctive. (Why? Well, I don't know the deep reason, but the basic reason is that negative aorist prohibitions take the subjunctive mood.)  In this verse, Jesus is telling the people not to ask "What shall I eat?" While this could also be considered a permanent command, Jesus uses the aorist here because he was neither suggesting that the disciples were specifically doing that at that moment nor was he suggesting that this would be their constant question. Lastly, Jesus tells the disciples (again using a negative aorist subjunctive) not to worry about tomorrow. The use of the aorist is almost humerous here. It is almost as if Jesus is saying, "For today, I tell you, don't worry about tomorrow." The command is not in the present tense because Jesus doesn't want them to think about their actions for tomorrow!

Final note: Sometimes trying to figure out why a particular author used a particular tense is challenging. This is certainly true with negative aorist prohibitions! They could easily have been present tense! Sometimes there is a bit of sloppiness in the tenses. However, when you see Jesus using a present tense command for seeking the Kingdom of God, you can know that Jesus wants them to do this all the time!

Matthew 5:38-48

2011-02-16T06:31:00.000-08:00

Summary: Once again, Jesus offers us challenging words. He calls us as a church, as the community of disciples, to act differently than the rest of the world. He calls us to turn the other cheek; to love our neighbor and to give without counting the costs. Yet he also points to the cross and God's act of self-giving. Jesus is the one who will be slapped (ῤαπιζω), his coat (ιματιον) will be taken and finally Simon will be put into service (αγγαρευσω) to carry Jesus' cross. Furthermore, Jesus will teach his disciples not simply to "give" but to pray to the heavenly father to "give" them their daily bread. Lastly, the very gentiles (εθνικος) Jesus seems to chastise will be those Jesus calls us to baptize. Read in isolation, these verses are simply moral exhortation, but read in the context of the whole, they powerfully remind us of the Gospel.

ῤαπιζει ("slap," 5:39; 26:67) A rather rare word in the Bible (4x). Interestingly though, the word comes back in Matthew's Gospel during the passion when Jesus is the one who is slapped. (Ι included the accent mark to make it clear that the word is pronounced with a "her" at the beginning.)

ιματιον ("coat" 5:40, 27:31, 27:35) A very common word in the Bible. Like ῤαπιζω, this word comes back into Matthew's Gospel during the passion when they take Jesus' coat.

αγγαρευσει ("put into service", 5:41, 27:32) The word only appears twice in the Bible, both times in Matthew's Gospel. Here and in the passion narrative, when Simon or Cyrene is "put into service" to carry the cross. Someone was asked to go the mile; now a "second" has come in its place.

δος ("give," aorist imperative of διδημι, 5:42; very common but also 6:11). Jesus exhorts us to give to people who ask from us. The same verb (in the same form) will appear only a bit later in the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus teaches us how to pray, telling us to δος to God for our daily bread. We are to live out of generosity, only dependent on God's graciousness.

διωκοντων ("persecute" or "persue," present participle of διωκω, 5:44) The Gospel of Matthew never specifices that Jesus is himself persecuted, although the story clearly demonstrates that he is. In fact, Jesus warns the disciples that they will be persecuted (10:23, 23:34).

εθνικος ("Gentile" or "Pagan," gentile as an adjective; 5:47) Just a reminder of how "raw" the word for "Gentile" is: Ethnic. Gentile sounds so clean to us; I don't think it sounded this way in Greek! Also, even though Jesus may disparriage the gentiles now, he will finally tell us to baptize them in his name!

Grammar + Translation: Matthew 5:40
Translating participles when they connect with other verbs.

και τω θελοντι σοι κριθηναι και τον χιτωνα σου λαβειν, αφες αυτω και το ιματιον
NRSV and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;

The second half of the sentence is more straight-forward: αφες αυτω και το ιματιον

As usual, look for your subject and verb. You don't have an obvious subject; this is because the verb "αφες" is an imperative (command) so, like English, you don't necessarily state the subject ("Give" instead of "You give"). It is important to recognize this as the subject (within the verb) because το ιματιον also could look like a subject. το ιματιον (the coat) looks the same in the accustative or nominative! But once you have the subject verb figured out, you have "forgive/permit/allow αυτω και the coat." αυτω here is in the dative and simply means "to/for/with him." Now we have "permit him και the coat." The και is probably best here translated as "even," so you end up with "permit him even the coat."

The first-half is where the action is: και τω θελοντι σοι κριθηναι και τον χιτωνα σου λαβειν

You have three verbs: θελοντι, κριθηναι, λαβειν
The first is a participle; the other two are verbs.
τω θελοντι is a substantive participle, which we translate as "the one who does X." In this case, "the one who wants." Now, the word "want" in both Greek and English is a helper verb (sometimes called modal); it often takes another verb. I want to eat, for example. The other verbs that it does with are in the infinitive. And...wow...look, the other verbs in this sentence are in the infinitive! So the outline of the sentence is: "The one who wants to judge and take." But we run into a problem here. The verb κριθηναι is in the passive. "be judged." The one who wants to be judged doesn't make sense. But if we add back in the σοι it helps a bit: "The one who wants you to be judged." Or as dictionaries suggest, κριθηναι, should be translated (because it is passive) as "bring before court." So, "The one who wants to sue you." Then the second half becomes easy: "Take your coat." Do you see why σου becomes "your"?
Participles can act as helper verbs! This can be confusing, but when you have verbs llike θελω, you should always look for another verb!

Matthew 5:21-37

2011-02-08T14:17:00.000-08:00

Summary:
This passage is brutal, even in the Greek. Normally English translations water down the Greek. For example, in 5:25, most translations have Jesus saying, "Settle the matter." He is more likely saying, "Get on good and friendly terms." When it comes to the passages on divorce and adultery, the Greek makes the passage more complex, not necessarily more intense. For example, the word for a divorced woman in 5:32 is "the freed one." The grounds for adultery, furthermore, probably mean more than simply lustful looking. I don't these subtleties change the preaching approach (which is "Lord have mercy), but they might be helpful in studies with people to talk about lust, marriage, freedom and reconciliation.
Key Words for Preaching and Teaching:
ευνοων ("make friends" (participate of ευνεοω), 5:25). This word occurs only once in the New Testament.
The NRSV and NIV translate this along the lines of "come to terms quickly." The original Greek here is sharper, meaning "make friends with." Jesus wants more than simply a truce, he wants friendship!

επιθυμησαι ("desire" (aorist infinitive of επιθυμεω), 5:28). This word does not necessarily imply sexual desire. It simply means desire (literally: upon-soul). Desire for many good things in the NT uses this verb, such as the coming of Jesus (Matthew 13:17). So the verb is itself not sexual or "dirty." Furthermore, given the use of this verb (within a "προς" infinitive construct), Jesus here means more than simply "looking at a woman" but means something more like, "looking with the purpose of desiring her" or "looking with the result that your heart is upon her." I feel odd though, as a male, watering down this particular passage...Regardless, lustful looking is already adultery.

λογου πορνειας ("matter of unchastity", 5:32). Jesus says this is an exceptable reason for divorce. But what does it mean? Both of these words have easy English cognates: logos as any word that ends in -logy and porneias as pornography. The combination is a bit strange. "A word of porn" might be one literal translation. A better translation is probably to treat λογου (here in genitive) as "matter." But what about πορνειας. This can mean having sex out of wedlock but also means prostitution. It cover the spectrum of "non permitted sexual intercourse." It is odd that Jesus, while discussing adultery, switches words. Maybe he wants to make sure that people don't think that lustful looking constitutes divorce? If anything, he seems to offer narrow grounds for divorce: sexual misconduct, which includes but is not limited to prostitution. The NRSV (unlike the NET here, yuck), hits the nail on the head. The Message also offers a helpful translation: "If you divorce your wife, you're responsible for making her an adulteress (unless she has already made herself that by sexual promiscuity)."

απολελυμενην ("divorced" (passive feminine participle of απολοω), 5:32). This participle does not naturally mean divorced, but actually, "freed" or "released." It is interesting that Jesus used this word here -- if you marry one who is freed, you commit adultery. It is also interesting that the woman is not seen here as the one committing adultery. The message translation connects these two by suggesting that the one "freed" is the one who committed the sins earlier in the passage. Not necessarily! I find it powerful that the word for divorced is "freed." Many divorced people might find a glimmer of comfort in this!

αρχαιοις ("ancient" from αρχαιος (dative plural); found in 5:21; 33). This word, from which we get "archeology," simply means old or ancient. It is used in the form here "the ancients." The question is, what is Jesus speaking about: the ancient days, the ancient times, the ancient generations? Not much worth investigating here, but wanted to point it out because translations differ.Regardless, hard words.

Translation and Grammar Review:

Matthew 5:27, You have heard: "Do not commit adultery." Let's unpack what should be an easy sentence! (And get around the road blocks it throws up!).
ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη ου μοιχευσεις

ηκουσατε: Remember here that Jesus is speaking not to individuals, but to everyone. Hence the plural ending. Also, this verb is really a familar one, but the aorist changes the first letter. If you run across words beginning with η switch it to an α and see if you recognize it. ακου...should be a familiar root!

οτι: Can mean because or that. When used with a sense verb (hear, say) it is almost always "that"

ερρεθη: This is an odd form (aorist passive) of a very common verb: λεγω. Unless you read Greek a fair amount, the odd forms of words in the aorist or aorist passive are probably not going to be remembered. Big deal. This is what Bible works is for. "To speak" in the aorist passive is simply, "was said"

ου: When Jesus retells the OT commands, he presents them in an unusual way. The 10 commandments, when given to Moses in Hebrew, are not really commandments in terms of their linguistic form. They read, literally, "You are not murdering" instead of "Do not murder." The odd use of language here is meant to emphasize the strict nature of these commandments. Like wise in the New Testament Greek, they are retold using this odd grammer: "You will not murder," instead of "Do not murder." Hence why Jesus uses "ου" instead of μη. So you can either be faithful to the words: "You will not murder" or to the sense of a strong commandment "You shall not murder." (ie, shall is how translators have tried to get around this problem.)

μοιχευσεις: Adultery. Now what that means is tough. Does this include premarital sex? Ten years ago I would have said no, but now I think it does.
Alas, sometimes easy words make for hard sentences to translate!

Matthew 5:13-20

2011-02-01T19:12:00.000-08:00

Summary:
The basic meaning of the passage should not be lost: Discipleship of Jesus means living our lives in contrast to the world's general order. It might be tempting to go down the path, well, if we are in Matthew, it is out with Luther and faith and in with discipleship and law. Yet a closer examination of verses 18-20 suggests that Jesus clearly rejects the law as a path to salvation. First, those who don't do law are still in the kingdom of heaven; second, those who love the law do not have the necessary righteousness and finally, the law eventually will give way in the new creation.

My question to ponder: Jesus says no one "iota" or "stroke" of the law will be taken away. Yet when translated from Hebrew, plenty of little squiggles and dots went away...

Grammar focus: Aorist subjunctive.

Key words.

μωρανθη ("lost flavor" or "made fools," aorist passive subjuntive of μωραινω, 5:13): The word here means "lose flavor" but elsewhere means "make fools." Paul uses this saying that people, thinking they are wise, have become fools (Romans 1:22; 1 Cor 1:20). Interesting to think about salt (ie, us) becoming fools! Maybe this is precisely the call of the beatitudes and ther sermon on the mount. We are to become beaten down by the world, trampled underfoot.

ορος ("mountain" or "hill", 5:14). A small reminder that this passage takes place during the sermon on the mount!

λαμπει ("shine," of λαμπω, 5:15; also 5:16; also 17:2, during transfiguration). The only time anyone truly shines in the Gospel of Matthew is Jesus during the transfiguration. A reminder that the church only functions as the light when it reflects the light of Christ.

νομισητε ("think," aorist subjunctive of νομιζω, 5:17). Jesus kind of does a play on words here. He says that he has not come to abolish the law (νομος). He starts out the sentence with a verb that has the same root. Okay, nothing here for a sermon, more a little smile when you read the Greek :-)

ιωτα ("iota," 5:18). This is fascinating. The law here has already been translated from Hebrew to Greek. The tiddle of Hebrew has been changed. Yet Jesus hear argues that even the smallest point of the law remains. So do we assume here that this means the law is so eternal that it transcends language?

ποιηση ("do" aorist subjunctive of ποιεω, 5:19): Alas my Lutheran heart sinks. Jesus actually expects us to do stuff. It is fascinating to look up the word faith in the Gospel of Matthew. Faith leads to sins being forgiven (9:2), heals people (9:22; 9:29; 13:58; 15:28), moves mountains (17:20), empowers prayer (21:22). So it is not that faith and justification are entirely separate in Matthew's Gospel. However, one cannot escape the reality that Jesus does expect people to do!

Grammar review (translation exercise): Aorist subjunctive
As you can tell from the words above, Greek likes to employ the aorist subjunctive. This is both complex yet simply for the English reader. It is complex because it is used in many and unusual ways. "Subjunctive" normally refers to hypothetical events. However, Greek (like most languages) conceives of the subjunctive in some different ways than English. So understanding what is signified by the aorist subjunctive may not be very intuitive or directly translatable. What makes it simple is that there are basically six (or so) catagories of use and they all have a translation formula. This passage has a most of the categories for translation.

εαν clause
In 5:13, you have the aorist subjunctive in εαν clause: μωρανθη
The word εαν signifies an uncertain event (technically ει αν) and will almost certainly have a verb in the subjunctive mood. In this case, Jesus is saying that the salt may or may not lose its flavor. The way to translate this is with the word "if." If salt loses its flavor...

εαν + μη or ει + μη clause
In 5:20 you have this in εαν μη περισσευση. The way to translate this is with "unless"

ος αν clause
This is akin to εαν in terms of hypothetical translations. In 5:19 you have this with ποιηση, when its used with ος αν. In this case you can translate it with, "whoever"

μη prohibition
5:17 reads μη νομισητε. Greek will put simple commands in the μη + aorist subjunctive. This implies that the listener should do this activity without implication of the action being on-going. You could think of this as a prohibition. It is how Greek does negative aorist prohibitions. Like "Don't eat that" would employ aorist subjunctive. When Jesus says, for example, "Do not let your hearts be troubled," he uses the present tense, implying that they were worrying and they shouldn't ever again. The way you translate this is by saying, "Do not XYZ." Aorist subjunctive makes no implication about past or future action.

ου μη prohibition
5:20 ου μη εισελθητε. This simply should be translated as "no, not ever" Strongest negative possible in Greek!

Matthew 5:1-12

2011-01-25T13:01:00.000-08:00

Summary:
A very familiar passage. What caught me this time was the focus on Jesus teaching them: διδασκω. Jesus is presented as a teacher in the Gospels. Sometimes in our (Lutheran) emphasis on Jesus as savior we overlook Jesus as teacher. This passage if not Matthew's Gospel can rub us the wrong way as theologians because it portrays Jesus as moralistic and therapeutic. So where is the theology of the cross? Well, God, once again, is showing up in the wrong places for the wrong people. This is the theology of the cross and something worth teaching.

στομα ('mouth'; 5:2) The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel all use this expression to talk about the Word coming from the mouth of the Lord. It does not seem an entirely common phrase, but one really picked up by these three prophets, all of whom faced false prophets. Perhaps Matthew here harkens back to this prophetic tradition, portraying Jesus as the Word of God who had spoken through the prophets?

εδιδασκεν ('began to teach'; imperfect form of διδασκω; 5:2) Jesus teaches in all four Gospels. Jesus as teacher is not simply a product of one particular theology or one section of Jesus' ministry. The question is, what is he teaching them? About heaven? About how to live? About how they are all sinners in need of grace? Sometimes as Lutherans we want to avoid Jesus as teacher, but the Gospels have no problem with Jesus teaching!

παρακληθησονται ('they will be comforted', future passive of παρακαλεω; 5:4) This is a major word in the Bible; in fact, the word for Holy Spirit (the advocate in John 14:26) comes from this verb. In Isaiah 40, God promises to comfort the people. Have fun with the concordance on this one! It is fair to say that, although Jesus is not simply a big teddy bear, part of the mission of God is comfort.

ονειδιζω ('reproach'; see also 5:11; 11:20; 27:44). This word appears twice more in Matthew's Gospel...once when Jesus rebukes the unrepentant and finally when Jesus himself is on the cross. This would mean that Jesus is blessed even on the cross. Moreover, it shows that Jesus is not simply talking about his disciples' conduct, but talking about his own ministry.

μακάριος (‘blessed’ or ‘happy’: 5:3 and throughout the passage): The theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Spicq) gets to the core of this word and its striking use in the beatitudes. After a long summary of the Greek understanding of what it means to be blessed (pretty much what average Americans think, namely, healthy, wealthy and wise), the Lexicon finally assesses Jesus' use: “It is impossible to insist too strongly on the meaning of this μακάριος …This is much more than contentment; it is an interior joy that becomes external, elation translated into shouts, songs, acclamations. …Secondly, the new faith implies a reversal of all human values; happiness is no longer attached to wealth, to having enough, to a good reputation, power, possessions of the goods of this world, but to poverty alone.”

η βασιλεια των ουρανων (5:3; the kingdom of heaven): Matthew's Gospel does not use the phrase kingdom of God. Some scholars speculate this may be out of deference to the word God that comes from Matthew's Jewish piety. Generally Matthew only uses θεος in quoting the OT; κυριος (often the NT translation of YHWH) is reserved for its more secular meaning, "master."

Grammar review and verse translation: To be or not to be?
NRS Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνεθματι οτι αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων

First clause: μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνεθματι
In Greek, you do not need to use the verb "to be." You can simply add it. So the sentence reads: "Blessed the poor in spirit." You supply the "are."
The phrase τω πνεθματι is challenging for a translator, even though the words are straight forward. The simplest translation is to interpret the dative as indicating location (where it is). But then what does "Poor in the spirit" mean? Psalm 34:18 has a similar phrase often translated "discouraged."

The second clause: οτι αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων
is more interesting. In this case we have a "to be" verb - "εστιν"
What is most pecular is the genitive case in which we find "αυτων" and "ουρανων." The genitive can be translated a number of ways. Consider how many relationships the word "of" can imply in English: Kingdom of Fish. Does this mean possessive (it belongs to the fish) or partative (it consists of fish) or objective (kingdom for fish). So in this case, "αυτων" might be a possessive genetive, like "the kingdom of heaven BELONGS to them." However, nothing suggests why it couldn't be partitive, ie, "the kingdom of heaven CONSISTS of them." In fact, it might even be "objective," as in "the kingdom of heaven is for them." I think "belongs" ie possessive is probably the most natural use of the genitive, but this exercise reminds us possibilities. Likewise, "heaven" is in the genitive, which mean all of these translation possibilites exist for it as well. (Also worth throwing in there is that οτι can mean "because" or "that")

So, this sentence could read:
"Happy are the poor in spirit that the kindgom belonging to God consists of them."
or
"Blessed are the poor in spirit because the kingdom which belongs to God belongs to them."
or
"Blessed are the discouraged because the kingdom from God is for them."
And so forth!

Matthew 4:13-23

2011-01-18T12:55:00.000-08:00

Summary: Reading Matthew's call of the disciples after John's seems unfair. John's seems a work of art. Matthew's seems like a clean-up job on Mark! However, Matthew's touch-up work is good theology and good writing. See blog for me details on this. But what interests me is something Matthew doesn't clean up from Mark, namely Jesus' command to his disciples to "Follow me." Actually, Jesus never says "Follow me." He barks out three words, none of which are a verb: "Here after me." A bit rougher indeed than "Come and see" but effective nonetheless. Get out of the way and let Jesus shake up the people!

Also worth noting: The Greek reading of Matthew 4:17 is the foundation for Thesis 1 of the Luther's 95.

Key Words:
μετανοειτε (4:17; "Repent"): It is worth pointing out that this verse, Matthew 4:17, begins the 95 thesis. Luther had grown up reading the vulgate, which translated this as, "Do penance." Luther's reading of Greek helped him see the deeper ethical (and existential demand) of Jesus: Always and continually repent. It is not an aorist (one-time) command, but a present tense command, which indicates the intent is for continued action. Thus Luther says that when Jesus says this, "He wills that the whole life be one of repentance."

καταλιπων (here a participle form of καταλειπω, 4:13; "abandon"): Jesus leaves his hometown. This is something that Mark leaves out. I like this detail though because before Jesus asks his disciple's to leave their home, he has already left his.

πληρωθη (πληροω, 4:14; "fulfilled"): One of the cliches regarding the Gospels is that Matthew wrote for Jews; Luke for gentiles. However, a quick search on this verb reveals that Luke takes nearly as much time as Matthew to connect Jesus' actions as "fulfilling" OT prophecies. The only Gospel writer seemingly unconcerned with fulfillment of the OT is Mark. Helpful to remember that in the year of Matthew (and Luke) we will find lots of direct OT connections.

δευτε (with οπισω μου, 4:19; "Follow??"): This word is not a verb. It is more of an adverb like "quick" or an interjection, like "Here!" or "Come on!" Jesus does not literally say, "Follow me" using the Greek word follow. He simply says, "Hey, Come on! After me!" In other words, "Follow me" makes it sound like Jesus even gave them more instructions than he did.

ποιησω (4:19; "I will make"): It is helpful to remember that the task of becoming disciples is not one that we accomplish, but rather Jesus says he will make them fishers (of men). Jesus is the subject of transformation; we are the object.

Grammar review/ sentence translation: Let me know if anyone reads this section. I am trying a different format here.
4:14 ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια Ησαιου του προφητου λεγοντος
NRS Matthew 4:14 so that what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

A couple of points:
1) When you have a ινα, expect a verb in the subjunctive form. Don't translate it with "would" as you might; just know that in Greek the ινα demands a subjunctive verb: "in order to do X" In this case, "in order to be fulfilled"
2) Notice the -ου suffix train? Three words in a row. Nice to connect them: "the prophet Isaiah."
3) There are two participles. One is nice. One is not. The nice one is λεγοντος. This circumstantial is surprisingly nice because your brain can probably recognize the root verb and figure out...the prophet Isaiah is saying something. Although circumstantial participles are often difficult to translate, λεγοντος is so common you might even be able to recognize it and simply translate it "saying." Lastly, even if you don't include it, you still get the sentence correct, "What was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:"
The hard participle is το ρηθεν. It is hard to recognize the participle, in this case the aorist passive form of λεγω. It is also a substantive, so you translate it in the form, "The one who/what/which XYZ." Because it is passive, it is "The one who/which/what XYZ (in passive form)" In this case, "The one which is spoken." Since it is aorist, it is the "the one which was spoken." "The one" sounds silly so we just make it: The thing.
Yuck
4) The preposition is δια. So, you could read it, "The word spoken by the prophet Isaiah." However, this stretches the preposition's meaning. The more natural reading is, "The thing spoken through the prophet Isaiah." Who says Matthew doesn't have a concept of the word as an eternal substance coming down to earth??

John 1:29-42

2011-01-11T12:43:00.000-08:00

Summary: John's narrative is very basic to read...because he only uses about 30 words in 14 verses! He invites us into the world of the Old Testament, he invites us to follow Jesus, and he also invites us into witnessing ourselves to the lamb of God. Speaking of the lamb of God, what is John getting at here. There is no lamb in the OT who takes away the sins on the day of atonement. The main lamb in the Old Testament is the passover lamb, which has nothing to do with sins! John's creativity, hopefully, inspires our preaching and teaching.

ερχομαι & οραω (1:39; 1:46; 4:29; 11:34, 19:33; 20:8 "Come and see") These two verbs come together s number of times in John's Gospel. A quite impressive list actually:
A) When Jesus begins his ministry
B) When the woman at the well returns to her hometown to invite others (different cognate for "come");
C) When they bring Jesus to Lazarus' tomb
D) When they find Jesus on the cross
E) When they come to the empty tomb.

John's Gospel invites us to come, see and as it finally happen in 20:8.

αμνος (1:29; 36, "lamb"). The imagery of "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" often makes us think of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. However, the main sacrifices on Yom Kippur (day of atonement) were not lambs, but a bull and two goats! In fact, other sin offerings (Lev 4&5) are not lamb offerings but again bulls and goats. I am sure that many other summaries would be better than this one, but the lamb was used in OT times for sacrifices in the following manner:
Daily offerings (Exodus 29): To please the Lord and welcome his presence
Lepers (Leviticus 14):  To cleanse the lepers by its blood
Passover Meal (Exodus 12):  To protect the Israelites from the angel of death by its blood marking the door panes.

A lamb could be used a burnt offering, a type of sin offering, but we are getting further afield here. The point of this discourse is to say that in the Jewish sacrifice model of the Old Testament, you do not find a theology where a lamb is constantly being used to take away the sins of the individuals. Isaiah 53 develops the idea of the suffering servant as a lamb led to slaughter, but again the point here is that one cannot simply draw a nice line from OT sacrifice to Messiah predictions to Gospel of John. Okay, you can, but it is not so simple.

More deeply, I do not think the Gospel of John is advocating an angry God who slaughters Jesus to be happy. I think John is riffing on Old Testament themes here, but the connection between Lamb of God, Jesus and "taking away" the sins of the world, moves far beyond what the Old Testament was prepared to acknowledge. Is this a problem? Not for this Christian. I just want to point out that John 1:29 is probably not a good time to bring out angry God needs a Jesus animal sermon.

μαρτυρεω (1:32, "witness") This verb appears 33 times in the Gospel of John!! It means to testify. It came to take on the connotation of "martyr" as people began to die for testifying to the truth. Stephen is often considered the first martyr (Acts 7 and 8), but it is worth remembering that John the Baptist also died.
Cheap sermon insight: 3+3=6. Bad number. Needs one more witness to be complete. That witness is you.

επαρυριον (1:29, 1:35, 1:43, "tomorrow") This little word appears three times in this section. It is kind of a nice progression. The first day Jesus is pointed out to the people. On the second day, the people begin following Jesus. On the third day they begin to invite others.

Grammar note:
The present tense often connotes continuous action. This can create some great insights but also make the narrative illogical. For example, in verse 1:43, Jesus goes to find (ευρισκω; present tense) Philipp. In the narrative this makes no sense that he "continually is finding" Philipp. On the other hand, it does make sense in theological terms that Jesus always is finding Philipp! Then Jesus is saying (λεγω in the present), or really "continually saying" to Philipp, follow me. This could make sense in both the narrative and in theology. In fact, even the verb for follow (ακολουθεω), is in the present, meaning Jesus intends for Philipp to keep following him. This all works out great on a theological level, but it pushes the narrative to the limits. This is especially true when these verbs are used in the present tense in verse 41, when Andrew finds his brother to tell him about Jesus. Is Andrew also continually finding Jesus and continually telling Peter about Jesus?   It was ingrained into me the "continuous" nature of the present tense. This can create some great theological insight, but we cannot completely rest on it because authors often stretch the tenses more than we might expect.

John 1:41:   He first found his brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed).

We divide by punctuation and conquer:
1) ευρισκει ουτος προτον τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμονα και λεγει αυτω
We find the subject and verb:
ευρισκει: he/she/it finds - main verb
ουτος: he -- subject!
προτον: adjective in accusative case as an adverb: "first"
τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμονα: His own brother Simon
και λεγει αυτω: Another sentence: "He is saying to him."
   Tricky to recognize this as another subject and verb combo, but the familiarity of the verb should make it possible.
2) ευρηκαμεν τον Μεσσιαν
We have found the Messiah. We is implicit in the verb.
3) ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον χριστος

who/what/which is translated Christos. Notice the o has a an accent and rough breathing accent, which means it is a relative pronoun.
So this sentence can almost be read word for word, once you divide it up. The complicated part, as a we discussed in the grammar review, is translating the present tenses of the verb.

ευρισκει ουτος προτον τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμονα και λεγει αυτω ευρηκαμεν τον Μεσσιαν ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον χριστος

Matthew 3:13-17

2011-01-04T13:07:00.000-08:00

Summary:
Unpacking this short passage of Jesus' Baptism is a delight. What caught my eye this time was the word for dove, περιστερα. This word can also mean pigeon. Imagine...God's Holy Spirit finally taking shape...as a lowly pigeon! I think that kind of captures the reality of Baptism...God working through pigeons like you and me!

Key Words:
βαπτιζω ("baptize"; 3:11,13,14,17): Baptize is fairly straight-forward in Matthew's Gospel. John does it to people; Jesus is baptized; Jesus tells people to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As I have mentioned before, it simply meant to dip in Hellenistic times. For your enjoyment, here are the Liddell-Scott hellenestic meanings of the word. Wow!

I. trans. to dip in water
2. to dip in poison
3. to dip in dye, to dye
4. to draw water

II. intransitive the ship dipped, sank

περιστερα ("dove" or "pigeon"; 3:16). What a difference it would make if our imagery was of an ugly black pigeon...but a few other key points in Scripture this little bird appears:
1) During Noah's flood, the bird that brings him the olive branch is the dove
2) When God makes his first covenant with Abram, Abram must offer a dove
3) In Leviticus, the poor could offer a dove/pigeon for a sacrifice
4) In all four Gospels, the dove descends on Jesus as he is being baptized
5) Jesus turns out the doves (and their merchants) in the temple.

It is kind of interesting if you make out the spirit to be an ugly black pigeon that only the poor use for a sacrifice. That is the vehicle through which the spirit works!

ευδοκεω: (3:17; pleased). Matthew also uses this verb in verse 12:18:
Matthew 12:18-21 18 "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I take great delight. I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. 19 He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20 He will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory. 21 And in his name the Gentiles will hope."

What is the hope of the Gentiles? Baptism, of course, where they are connected to the promises of God!

Grammar Review: "Articular Infinitive"

Greek has a million ways to express the intention of something. A very intentional people if you will! One of these such ways is through the "articular infinitive." See verse 13: του βαπτισθηναι. Literally you might read this as: "Jesus...to John of the baptizing." However, because you have an article+ infinitive you can read this as "to John for the purpose of being baptized" or leave it as an infinite in English, "to John to be baptized." In this particular example, the infinitive is in the passive (notice the θη suffix). Question: What else suggests its passive? (Besides the overall context of the sentence? Hint: prepositions!)

Sentence Analysis: 3:16 βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν οι ουρανοι, και ειδεν το πνευμα ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον

Divide and conquer! Use the grammer markings (which I cannot easily copy) to help you here
1) βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος
2) και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν οι ουρανοι
3) και ειδεν το πνευμα ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον

1) βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος

Here we have a fairly easy sentence -- trust me. Let's divide it up
βαπτισθεις: Participle, but even if you don't know that, you recognize something with Baptism!
δε: worry about later
ο Ιησους: Subject
ευθυς: worry about later
ανεβη: main verb
απο του υδατος: prepositional phrase

Get your subject and main verb: Jesus came up/rose
Now add in the prepositional phrase: Jesus came up out of the water. hmm...Jesus rose from the water.

Now add in the little words (look up what they mean): And Jesus came up immediately out of the water
Alas, what to do with the participle? Simple...in this case just stack it onto the beginning of the sentence (but first make it an aorist passive...ie past tense passive):
"Baptized, Jesus immediatedly rose out of the water."
Do we need to smooth out the pariciple? (Technically determine the circumstances under which it happened?) Add any other phrases or adverbs? We could do:
"After Jesus was baptized..." however, we cannot do "While Jesus was baptized..." We cannot do this because the participle is aorist which means it happened before the main verb.
So, "After Jesus was baptized, he rose from the water."
2) και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν οι ουρανοι
This is even easier. Word for word:
and behold opened the heavens.
The only tricky part is translating the aorist passive verb, but not really, because we have this in English: "The heavens were opened." (in my mind, hard translation from Greek is when we don't have something really similar...in this case we do: Simple past passive.) You know its aorist passive by the θησ suffix in the middle.

So, "After Jesus was baptized, he rose from the water. And behold, the heavens were opened."

3) και ειδεν το πνευμα ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον

Let's divide up here, again, as always, trying to find subject and main verb:
και: filler
ειδεν: main verb
το πνευμα: subject
ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον: let's come back to it.

So if we put verb+subject together, we get " And the spirit saw.

Hmm...what is going wrong here? Well, it turns out that the word Spirit looks the same in the nominative and accusative case. So actually, the subject is Jesus and the spirit is the object. "And he saw the Spirit."

ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον: Literally: "like (a) pigeon/dove coming upon him."

Two things worth pointing out: First, for your own exploration, notice how Mark and Matthew differ on prepositions here...
But more over, the pariticple here is not that hard to translate. it is always worth sticking in the easy translation of the participle (for present, add ing to the verb; to aoristl add ed to the verb) and see what happens. In this case, the participle modifies the pigeon/dove so it works out nicely.

Final translation:
So, "After Jesus was baptized, he rose from the water. And behold, the heavens were opened. Jesus saw the Spirit like a pigeon coming upon him."

(ΝRSV) And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

Matthew 11:2-11

2010-12-07T12:37:00.000-08:00

Summary:
For some comments on blessing, scandal and Luther, see below! I would like to focus though on the words Jesus attributes today to John the Baptist, claiming that "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you." This passage is often said to refer to Malachi 3:1. However, a careful reading, in English or in Greek, reveals that it is quite different from Malachi 3:1. In Malachi, the Lord sends a messenger to prepare a way for himself (the Lord) to return to the temple and bring about the day of the Lord. In the case of John, Jesus says that he prepares a way for YOU.  I think Jesus may be referring to another passage in Scripture, namely Exodus 23:30 (see also 33:2). Here the messenger is supposed to show the people the way into the promised land and out of the wilderness. This sounds a lot more like the job of John than the messenger Malachi describes!

Key words

μαλακοις (11:8; "fancy") Hardly a key word for this passage, but alas, we've heard more about this word in the last two years than we care to. Paul uses this word in 1 Cor 6:9 to refer to, well, we really don't know. Ask the NRSV and they will tell you male prostitutes. Ask the NET and they will tell you "passive homosexual partners." It seems that at least, in this case, it refers to soft as in luxury soft. I think.

ἀγγελος (11:8; "messenger") This word in Greek, literally angel, also means messenger. Interestingly, in the Bible, especially in the OT, the line between messenger and God is often blurred. It begins with an angel speaking and then suddenly God is speaking. Why is this? One answer may be historical. As the NET commentary writes, "Cassuto says that the words of the first clause do not imply a being distinct from God, for in the ancient world the line of demarcation between the sender and the sent is liable easily to be blurred." I provide a Lutheran, and therefore cooler, answer: Where the Word is, so is God.

σκανδαλίζω (11:6; "take offense") This word appears often in the New Testament. It is most often translated as offensive. If you want to shake people up though, translate it more literally, "become scandlized." I recall here Luther's 95 theses:
62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).

Grammar Review: Alas...Christmas is two weeks away, so we are skipping this section this week!

Sentence Translation: NRSV Matthew 11:11. I picked this sentence because it has no participles. Instead, it has a lot of nouns in different cases!

αμην λεγω υμιν -ουκ εγηγερται γεννητοις γυναικων μειζων Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου, ο δὲ μικροτερος ἐν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων μειζων αυτου εστιν

As usual, divide into little pieces, using the Greek punctuation to help
αμην λεγω υμιν
ουκ εγηγερται εν γεννητοις γυναικων μειζων Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου
ο δὲ μικροτερος ἐν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων μειζων αυτου εστιν

1) αμην λεγω υμιν: This should be straight forward: Amen, I am saying to you. Or Truly I say to you all. Just fill in the words! The only mildly hard thing is the pronoun, "2nd person plural dative." Or "To you all"

Proposed translation: "Truly I am telling all of you:"

2) ουκ εγηγερται εν γεννητοις γυναικων μειζων Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου

Find the verb...εγηγερται   "perfect passive singular" He/she/it has been born. In Greek, the perfect makes sense here, because the perfect indicates a previous action that still has a linger impact, in this case, birth. A long with the verb you need to "not" or ουκ. So, before we get to the rest of the sentence, we know what has happened. "He/she/it has not been born." It turns out there is no obvious subject so far, so we will just leave it as "he/she/it"

Now divide up the rest of the sentence into "cars on the train." Group them by case (hint: cluster them by what looks the same in terms of endings):
A) εν γεννητοις B) γυναικων μειζων C) Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου

C) is the easiest: John the Baptist. But why is John in the genitive?
A) Bible works helps us here: Among mankind. You don't have to worry about mankind being in the dative because the preposition (en) governs its translation: in, with, among, etc
B) is "women" in the genitive...and it turns out that μειζων is something entirely different but means greater.

So what we know so far is: "among mankind [genitive link] women greater [genitive link] John the Baptist."

To translate the genitive, just try "of"

"among mankind of women greater [of] John the Baptist." This works in the first case, but not the second. It turns out that μειζων requires the genitive. We can now translate this with a "than" ... and at the same time, clean up the first part of the sentence:

"among people born to a woman greater than John the Baptist."

We combine this with earlier

"Truly I am telling all of you:"+"He/she/it has not been born."+ "among people born to a woman greater than John the Baptist."

Truly, I am telling you: "No one has been born unto a woman who is greater than John the Baptist."

ο δὲ μικροτερος ἐν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων μειζων αυτου εστιν

Find the verb -- its at the end: εστιν. This means "is" So now lets find the subject, which is something after the ο δὲ. Hint -- when you have ο δὲ, the δὲ tells you that you are switching subjects. But where to go from here? Again, make you train cars:
A) ο δὲ
B) μικροτερος
C) ἐν τη βασιλεια
D) των ουρανων
E) μειζων αυτου
F) εστιν

F and A you know. Now E I put two words that seem different, but we've already learned that μειζων

means greater and requires a genitive. So this means: "greater than him."

C+D simply means: "in the kingdom of heaven." (Now what that means would take me the whole New Testament to explain."

B) Means least. And it is in the nominative. So we combine with A) for our subject. You get: "the one who is least." Or simply, "the least."

So we get: "Even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater then he."

Matthew 3:1-12

2010-12-01T12:49:00.000-08:00

Summary: The great fun of this passage is that everything is happening all at once and then over and over again. First, John commands the people to repent, but tells them to do this repeatedly. Then, people are contiunally getting baptized while at the same time continually confessing. The order of baptism-confession-repentance is not entirely clear. Well, actually, it is clear: They all happen at once. Over and over again. Does this mean baptism happens again and again? I think the baptism of fire does happen again and again, even if the ritual only happens once in our lives. The question is, does the baptism of the Holy Spirit happen more than once?

Key Words:

μετανοιετε ("repent"; 3:2). This verb is in the present tense. This is significant because it implies that the action ought to be on-going. In otherwords, the action of repentance is not a one time event, but a life-time one. Interestingly, this is the verse that begins the 95 thesis. When Luther read this passage in Mark in Greek, he saw that the Latin had removed this continuous aspect of the Greek and said, "Hey!" "When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent" he willed that the whole life is one of repentance."

βαπτισμα ("baptism"; 3:7). Originally, this word did not have religious meaning. It simply meant to dip. For your enjoyment, here are the Liddell-Scott hellenestic meanings of the word. Wow!

I. trans. to dip in water
2. to dip in poison
3. to dip in dye, to dye
4. to draw water
II. intransitive the ship dipped, sank

Try preaching that: Baptism as a dip in poison; as a dip in dye; as a drawing of water from God; as finally, a sinking ship!

πνευμα ("spirit"; 3:11). The word can mean "breath" as well. What is worth noting, especially as we begin the year of readings from Matthew's Gospel, that the Holy Spirit plays an integral role in Matthew's Gospel. It is not fair to simply say Luke is about the Spirit...In Matthew he is there too, connected with the birth of Jesus (1:18) and the command to make disciples (20:18).

This word also shows up in this week's Isaiah text (11:2). The "Spirit of the Lord" is upon me. The NRSV, always trying to avoid the Trinity in the OT, makes it "spirit of the Lord." Everyone else, of course, gets it right and makes it "Spirit of the Lord" if not "Lord's Spirit."

Grammar point:
Greek and Hebrew punctuation. Well, their ain't much! Especially in the earlier manuscripts when things were all caiptals (in Greek). Anyway, there is some and Mark does a little slight of hand here:
"A voice cries in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord." The Hebrew more accurately reads:
"A voice cries, "In the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord." Ie, get ready to go back from exile on the road through the wilderness. Mark and Matthew take the verse and give it new meaning! A reminder of the freedom that the Spirit gives us to interpret the Word for our context. Or maybe a warning too!

Verse Translation:
Matthew 3:6 και εβαπτιζοντο εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομολογομενοι τας ἀμαρτιας αυτων

Sometimes, before you divide and conquer, just try reading the sentence by sticking in vocab you know and see where you get. When it comes to this verse, if you know a bit of Greek, you should be able to get:

And baptize in the Jordan under/by/of him ?? the sins of them

Let's save that nasty participle and look at the first half of the sentence (ie, now divide)

και εβαπτιζοντο εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου

The key to translation here is to recognize that baptize is a passive voice verb. This allows you to make sense of "υπ αυτου" which is how Greek tells you who did the action in passive voice:

"And baptized in the river Jordan by him."

Now we nail down our verb a bit more: imperfect, 3rd person:

"And they were continuously being baptized in the river Jordan by him."

So, now onto: εξομολογομενοι τας ἀμαρτιας αυτων

τας ἀμαρτιας αυτων should be clear: Their sins or the sins of them.

However, the participle is a mess here. It turns out it means "confess" It is a middle present participle. Hmm...middle means you can translate it as active.
So: "confessing their sins."

What is the connection of this clause to the rest of the clause? Well, the participle is a circumstantial participle...but what circumstances? Well, the key here is the tense. It is present tense. That means the action is on-going. However, the main verb is in the imperfect. So does this mean the baptizing happened before the confessing? No! The present tense of the participle means that this action happens at the SAME time as the main verb. In otherwords, the people did not baptize and then confess; or vice verse. What is means is that while they were being baptized, they simulteanously were confessing. So we get:

"And they were continuously being baptized in the river Jordan by him, while they were confessing their sins."

In the wilderness of life, our baptism and confession...and repentance are all related.

Isaiah 2:1-5

2010-11-23T10:59:00.000-08:00

*Note. While this blog overwhelmingly looks at the New Testament passages from the weekly lectionary, this week the Hebrew Bible text is so compelling, that it deserves some closer examination. For those of you that like Greek better (like me!), don't worry, there will also be some tie-ins to Greek, LXX style! (no, now XXX style. LXX style).

There are only five verses, so I want to add a few comments on each verse:

2:1 The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

"The Word..." The word for "word" here is D-V-R, davar. Translated as "logos" in the New Testament, this word appears time and time again in the Bible. The Word of The Lord speaks to and through the Prophets. The Word of the Lord is said to be rare in the childhood days of Samuel (1 Sam 3:1) a sign of bad times.

"saw concerning" This word, K-Z-H (khazah), means behold or see. Normally the Word of the Lord comes to people, but in Isaiah's case, he beholds the Word. The word becomes visible!

2:2 In days to come the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it.

"In the days to come...": This specific phrase in the Bible, "In the after/end of the days" is often used in the prophets to connote the end times. In this light, the NIV "In the last days" may be closer. On other hand, the phrase may also simply mean the future. I think the best word that provides this ambiguity is: "ultimate." In the ultimate days...

"The Lord's House": The specific phrase used by Isaiah, "Bet-YHWH" does mean House of the Lord literally, however, it refers to the temple in Jerusalem. Tricky to translate. Do you take the historically and linguistically acurate translation of "The temple" or do you leave it as "House of the Lord." I like the idea of House of the Lord because it gives the sense that the Hebrew listener probably had -- the temple is not a place of human hands or even of human worship, but the place of God's dwelling.

LXX (Greek) Note: The LXX translates the word as oikos tou theo (house of God). Interestingly, YHWH is almost always translated as kyrios, however, not in this case. This anomally is probably best explained by the insertion that it is the mountain of the "kyrios," leaving the sentence with at least one incidence of "kyrios."

Technical grammar note: The preposition in the phrase, "as the highest of the mountains" is one of those strange "bet"s that would have certainly found its way onto a Hebrew exam...let's not get bogged down there, but if you have a bunch of spare time, have fun catagorizing that particular preposition.

"All nations" Once, while working at my rather Jewish firm in New York, I was called a goyim. This is, in modern Jewish slang, often a derogatory term for non-Jews. However, in the Bible, it simply refers to the nations -- the ethne in Greek.

2:3 Many peoples shall come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

"For out of Zion shall go forth instruction" The word for instruction here is "Torah" which can mean many things, including Law. The LXX will actually translate this as nomos. More broadly, Torah can also include, not simply the laws, but also the story that involves the instruction. This is probably too technical a point for a sermon, but the point that people could understand is that in the Bible, instruction never drops from the sky, but always comes to the people in a relationship and for their good.

"the word of the LORD" Here again we have the word "Devar" (translated as logos by LXX).

"from Jerusalem." Before, people were streaming to the city (EL)...but now the word is going out FROM (MIN) Jerusalem.
2:4 He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

No language comment, but a point: Good laws (justice) leads to peace

2:5 O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD!
"Let us walk" This phrases echoes the previous verse: "They will say...come, let us..." This is why the translation, "In the last days," is not as helpful because 2:5 invites us to participate in that vision here and now.
"Light of the Lord" This is the only time that this expression appears in the Bible.

Luke 23:33-43

2010-11-16T12:23:00.000-08:00

Summary
There is an ambiguity in the Greek this week. Do those mocking Jesus disbelieve he is king or, knowing this, misunderstand what this means? I think the world has often suffered, not simply because we deny Jesus' his title, but because we misunderstand what it means for him to be king. This passage offers great contrasts between Jesus' rule (or even economy) and that of Rome (and the world): Jesus willingness to die and forgive. A smaller detail also offers a large contrast: Jesus earlier had commanded his disciples to divide the bread during communion; here the soldiers divide his garments. The world divides the spoils; Jesus shares the wealth. Okay, don't use that phrase in the Obama-era. But you know what I mean.
Key Words
σταυρόω (23:33; 'crucify') As scholar Martin Hengel writes, “Death on the cross was the penalty for slaves, as everyone knew; as such it symbolized extreme humiliation, shame and torture.” People wear crosses around the necks and jewelry today. Not so in Jesus' day.

διαμερίζω  (23:34; see also 22:17, "divide") The soliders divide Jesus garments by lot. Interesting, a scene early in the passion Jesus has the disciples divides the bread. Quite a contrast between the kingdom of Rome and the Kingdom of Jesus!

χριστος (23:35,39, "Christ" or "Annointed.") This word is from the Hebrew: "Messiah," which means annointed. Worth pointing out is that Jesus has been called the Christ before. First, by angels (2:11), then by Peter (4:41) and perhaps one could argue, by the penitent thief.βασιλεύς (23:38; "King") As BDAG puts it, "one who rules as possessor of the highest office in a political realm." This doesn't mean mayor. King. In Athens, he had charge of the public worship and the conduct of criminal processes.

Grammar Review: εἰ
Once again we come to the lovely word "εἰ." This can mean "if" or "since." The correct translation depends on context but especially on the mood of the verb. If the verb is in the subjunctive, "εἰ" should most likely be translated "if." If the verb is in the indicative mode, then "εἰ" should be translated as "since." In this particular passage, the verbs are indicative, so perhaps we should go with "Since you are the son of God." Perhaps it makes little difference, but the translation begs a question: Are the passers-by, the soliders and even the thief wrong about him being the son of God; or are they wrong about what it means to be the son of God. If you translate εἰ as "if" then you are arguing they don't know that he is the son of God. If you translate εἰ as "since" then you are arguing that they know he is the son of God, they just don't have a clue what this means for the world. I think the later translation probably makes us more uncomfortable and hence why we go with the grammatically incorrect (or at least less correct) "If you are the son of God..."

Sentence Translation. 23:33
καὶ ὀτι ἠλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον, ἐκει ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους, ὀν μὲν εκ δεξιων, ὀν δὲ εξ ἀριστερων

(NRSV) When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesusthere with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

I picked this sentence because its not that hard in the Greek, but you need to know a trick or two to get through it.

First task, as always is to divide the sentence in to smaller pieces. Use the commas:
1) καὶ ὀτε ἠλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον
2) ἐκει ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους
3) ὀν μὲν εκ δεξιων
4) ὀν δὲ εξ ἀριστερωνLooking at section 1: First, look for a verb. Ah! Notice the nice verb: ἠλθον. This normal, nice looking aorist verb tells you two things -- one, you have a relatively straight-forward part of the sentence here and two, the subject of your sentence is I or they. Remember, Greek can bury the subject in the verb.

Fill in what you know: "And when they upon the place the something-ugly Kranion."

Here you have the adjective participle. Easy to translate; easy to recognize. Notice the pattern: the +noun+ the + participle: τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον

The formula is "the noun who/which does the verb of the participle."
Or in this case, "The place which calls Kranion."
You also need to recognize (perhaps again through software) that it is a passive participle. You should be able to figure this out on your own...know how? Hint: μεν
So you fix for the passive voice:
"The place which is called Kranion." Kranion, or Cranion, means skull. So we fix this up:
The place which is called "Skull"

"And then they came to the place which is called "Skull"
2) ἐκει ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους

Again, find the verb. Notice again, its a nice verb: ἐσταύρωσαν   Long, but not too bad...classic aorist. Adds an "ε" in the beginning and "σ" toward the end. Also tells you the subject: "They"

So another basic sentence with a little twist: "Here they cruficified him and the-something or other"

Here we have the "substantive" participle. Easiest in the book to translate. Formula is: "the+participle" and transaltes, "The one/ones who/which verb" In this case: "The ones who do bad things."

So we put it all back together: "Here they cruficified him and the others who did bad things."

3) ὀν μὲν εκ δεξιων

4) ὀν δὲ εξ ἀριστερων

A little hint: μὲν and δὲ is a parallel structure hint: "on the one hand...and on the other."

To translate ὀν you should put in "who." "who on the one hand of his left, who on the other hand of his left."
In fact, since ὀν is accusative, this should be" "whom on one hand..." But this is all too confusing and we let the words we've heard most of our life suffice: "one on his left and the other on his right."

Two questions for you: why is ὀν in the accusative?   (Because the sentence is describing the two bad guys. The bad guys were in the accusative and so the writer is letting you know he is still talking about them by keeping things in the same case.)
And why is it εξ instead of εκ before ἀριστερων? Because the Greeks like a harder sound before words that begin with vowels.

Luke 21:5-19

2010-11-08T11:50:00.000-08:00

Summary: The translators do a good job in this passage of not "covering up" the intensity of Jesus words. As I played around in the Greek, I found a number of odd parallels between this passage and the resurrection account in Luke 24. First, both this story and the resurrection story are haunting. Here Jesus warns the people not to be terrified (πτοέω). When his disciples encounter him after the resurrection, they will be terrified. Next, Jesus warns of the listeners they will be betrayed (παραδίδωμι); after the resurrection, the disciples will hear the angels announce that it was necessary for Jesus to be betrayed. Finally, Jesus tells them about their future witness (μαρτύριον); after the resurrection, Jesus will send them out to be his witnesses to the world.

These are loose parallels, I admit. The basic point of the passage is that witnessing to Christ is connected with our suffering and finally, our own resurrection. I would argue, both from the text and theologically, however, that witnessing to Christ finally is grounded in the suffering and resurrection of Jesus.

Theological curveball, completeled unrelated to the Greek: This week Jesus promises to give words; in Mark's account, the Holy Spirit will give the words!

Key Words:
μαρτύριον ('witness'; 21:13; see also 24:48) Originally this word simply meant "testimony." Because so many Christians gave their life as a martyr, however, the word eventually came to mean one who would die for a cause; ie, their willingness to die became their witness. Jesus, after the resurrection will say, "You will be my witnesses." (Again in Acts 1:8)

πτοέω ('terrified'; 21.9; 24.37) This word means terrified; the only other appearance of this word in the New Testament is used in Luke 24 to describe the reaction of the disciples to the risen Christ, who they believe is a ghost.

παραδίδωμι ('hand over'; 21.12; 16) A very common word in the NT (roughly 100 times!) Jesus ministry in the Gospel of Mark, for example, begins with the handing over (or betrayal) of John the Baptist. Interesting to point out here is that this word will also appear in the resurrection accounts -- from the angels and then from Cleopas.
-> Oddly enough, sometimes handing things over can be good -- Paul, for example, says he is simply handing over the words of institution (11:23) and the core kyrgma (15:3).

ὐπομονή ('endurance'; 21.19) Although rare in the Gospels, the epistles in the NT are filled with calls for endurance! 6x in Romans; 7x in Revelation. The word means to endure and is often connected with suffering. See Romans 5:3: "Suffering produces endurance (NRSV)"
κτάομαι ('acquire'; 21.19) This word appears rather infrequently in the NT. One example is from Acts, where an official mentions he acquired his citizenship for a large amount of money (22.28). This word does not mean hold but means acquire.

Grammar Review: Non-necessity of an implied subject (its easier than it sounds)
In Greek, because you conjugate the verb based on who is the subject, you don't always need to list the subject. For instance: "λεγω" tells you both the action (speaking) and the subject (I). Normally, in fact, Greek doesn't explicitly say the subject, but the reader/listener figures it out from the conjugated verb.
Sometimes though Greek will leave in the non-necessary subject for emphasis. This is true in a particular expression: "I am" or "εγω ειμι." This particular expression is often used as a name of God -- the one who is! A handful of times Jesus will use this in the Gospels, most pointedly in John. In this particular passage, Jesus says that many will come and that "I am," using two words, the subject and verb. Again, the subject is unnecessary. So why the emphasis? First, because anyone declaring they are the messiah would probably want to emphasize the fact that they were indeed the Messiah. Secondly, someone could employ this construction to indicate, in short hand, that they are God.

What is really worth pointing out is that only once will Jesus use these words for himself in the Gospel of Luke. After the resurrection he stands in the midst of his disciples and say, "εγω ειμι." (24.39) A reminder that its not only in John that Jesus uses such expressions!

Sentence Translation: 21:9
οταν δε ακουσητε πολεμους και ακαταστατιας, μη πτοηθητε; δει γαρ ταυτα γενεσθαι προτον, αλλ ουκ ευθεως το τελος

First step, as always, is to break down the sentence into smaller parts. Let the punctuation help you here.
1) οταν δε ακουσητε πολεμους και ακαταστατιας
2) , μη πτοηθητε;
3) δει γαρ ταυτα γενεσθαι προτον
4) , αλλ ουκ ευθεως το τελος

Now you've got four fragments, each of which is really translatable
1) οταν δε ακουσητε πολεμους και ακαταστατιας

First step to translating a clause is to figure out its subject-verb. Here this is ακουσητε , which is conjugated (thanks Bible Works) for a 2nd person plural. But you knew that anyway, right ;-)

The basic of the sentence is then: You hear

-> Do you know yet why the verb is in the subjunctive mood?

πολεμους και ακαταστατιας is the object: wars and destruction. Its in the accusative case telling you its the object of the action. So in proto-english:
You hear wars and destruction
You gotta add in the "of" because in English the verb "hear" needs this
You hear of wars and destruction

Now lets go back (skip the de) and figure out this conjuction οταν. Actually, pretty straight-forard again. It means "when" or "whenever." It also demands the subjunctive mood of the verb.

Clause 1: "Whenever you hear of wars and destruction."
2) , μη πτοηθητε;

Translation: Do not be terrified. Worth noting here. Simple aorist subjunctive regarding a future event/action we are not to engage in ;-) Normally in the Bible, the words "do not fear" are in the present (and not aorist) tense, suggesting that the person who hears them is currently fearing. The aorist subjunctive doesn't assume the person currently engages in such actions!

Clause 2: Do not be terrified.

3) δει γαρ ταυτα γενεσθαι προτον

When you see a dei clause, look for a verb in the infinitive. In this case - γενεσθαι. So we know that the basic translation of this passage will be : "It is necessary to happen/be/occur." Once you know you are in an infinitive clause, then find your subject, which will be in the accusative case.

Agh! There are two things in the accustative: ταυτα and προτον. Well, it turns out that Greek likes to stick neuter accustative adjectives in there as adverbs -- first in this case. So you get "It is necessary for these (things) to happen first." But even if you didn't know about first functioning as an adverb, "It is necessary for first to happen this" doesn't work. Add back in the "gar" and you get:

Clause 3 "For it is necessary for these things to happen first."
4) , αλλ ουκ ευθεως το τελος

"But not immediately the end." If we recall from last week, sometimes Greek drops the "to be" verb. So we can get: "But the end is not immediately." Or perhaps better: "But the end will not happen immediately." It is not so hard to conceptually figure out what the Greek means, but its kind of ackward English.

Clause 4: "But the end will not happen immediately."

Luke 6:20-31

2010-11-02T12:19:00.000-07:00

Summary:

You don’t need Greek to catch the big picture here: Jesus is turning the world upside down and is, well, happy about it! What the Greek can help us with, but not necessarily solve, is the trickier issue of who are blessed, when they are blessed, and what this blessing looks like. For example, Jesus does not say in Greek, “Blessed are you who are poor” but rather he simply says, “Blessed are the poor.” Are we included in that? Does Jesus himself bless the poor in heaven? Does Jesus bless them now with good things, like his relational love? Or, are the poor blessed because the Kingdom of God belongs to the disciples, who will, in turn, bless the poor. Again, the Greek doesn’t change the radical nature of the passage but rather invites us into the rugged yet rejoicing terrain of Jesus’ thought.

Something the translators missed (6:20):

Jesus did not simply look up, but he lifted his eyes toward, if not into, them. This is a minor piece, but it adds to the emotional intensity. In, fact the whole verse is rather intense!

Key Words:

μακάριος (‘blessed’ or ‘happy’: 6:20; 21; 22): The theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Spicq) gets at both striking points of this word and how it is used in the beatitudes. After a long summary of the Greek understanding of what it means to be blessed (pretty much what average Americans think), The Lexicon finally reviews how Jesus: “It is impossible to insist too strongly on the meaning of this μακάριος …This is much more than contentment; it is an interior joy that becomes external, elation translated into shouts, songs, acclamations. …Secondly, the new faith implies a reversal of all human values; happiness is no longer attached to wealth, to having enough, to a good reputation, power, possessions of the goods of this world, but to poverty alone.”
πλουσίος (‘rich’; 6:24): Luke uses this word more times than the rest of the Gospels combined. Generally, Luke has a fairly negative attitude toward the rich, however, it would be unfair to say that Luke, or therefore Jesus, simply criticizes them. Zaccheus, for example, is rich; Jesus comes to his house!

οὐρανος (‘heaven’: 6:23): It might be tempting to think of heaven as a “state of being” rather than a place. However, in Luke’s Gospel, heaven is not simply a relationship or a state of the world, but a place. Luke uses the word 35 times, almost exclusively to refer to the dwelling place of God, but in a very concrete way, namely, the space above us. The point of this is to say that Jesus, according to Luke, is not saying: Well, you will be poor but you will have me. Jesus is saying, you are suffering now but have a reward (μισθός) in heaven. But we will return to this point!

μισθός (‘wages’ or ‘reward’: 6:23 also 6:35). This word literally means pay, as in a worker receives his pay for a day’s work (Luke 10:7; Matthew 20:8).

Grammar review: Predicate adjectives and nouns

In Greek, as in Hebrew, a sentence can occasionally lack a verb. For example, Psalm 25:8, translated as, “Good and upright is the LORD,” simply reads in the Hebrew: Good-upright LORD. Admittedly, Hebrew always seems to be missing words the English reader longs for. However, here Hebrew is simply putting the adjectives (good and upright) in predicate form. This is how grammar people, who addiction to Latin is scary, describe the placement of the word “brown” in: “The cow is brown” instead of “The brown cow.” The point is that the author is saying that the rest of the stuff in the sentence (like in Psalm 25: Good and upright) describes the subject (God). Because of the rules of Hebrew, you don’t have to use a verb when you do this. You let the reader do the work.

Greek does this less frequently (far less frequently) but on occasion it still happens. So in this case, we have 6:23: ιδου γαρ ο μισθος υηων πολυς εν τω ουρανω

or literally “Behold for your great wages in heaven.” Here we have a predicate adjective! Thus, the phrase “great in heaven” describes the wages.

So has our grammar helped us derive meaning? Well, maybe. The point is that the wages are great and are in heaven. We know then, the WHAT (great) and the WHERE (in heaven). The question then is WHEN do we get them! The sentence grammar suggests they are in existence now.

Verse Analysis:
NSRV: Luke 6:20 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Και αυτος επαρας τους οφθαλμους αυτου εις τους μαθητας αυτου ελεγεν Μακαριοι οι πτωχοι, οτι υμετερα εστιν η βασιλεια του θεου

First step is to divide and conquer. Here you have at least three parts based on punctuation alone:

1 Και αυτος επαρας τους οφθαλμους αυτου εις τους μαθητας αυτου ελεγεν
2 Μακαριοι οι πτωχοι,
3 οτι υμετερα εστιν η βασιλεια του θεου

1 Και αυτος επαρας τους οφθαλμους αυτου εις τους μαθητας αυτου ελεγεν

This sentence is a classic mid-level sentence. The first part of the sentence is a participle phrase around the participle (επαρας). You probably don’t recognize the verb. That is okay. Bible Works tells you it’s an aorist participle. You also know it’s a circumstantial participle (see some of my previous articles). Anyway, aorist circumstantial participles are rather easy to translate. You can simply make them into indicative: “lifted up.” Sure, you might get flowery and add some adverbs or clauses to connect it, but for first go, just make it an indicative (and past tense verb). So if we plug all the words in we literally get:

“and he lifted up the eyes of him in the disciples of him he saying.”

The only slightly tricky part is how one gets “of him” from αυτου. That you can look up on your own, but you can tell that this sentence, once you get rid of the hanging slider of a participle, is actually quite straight forward.

By now you’ve also figured out that the English translators have watered down this puppy. It should not simply read “he looked at them,” but “Jesus lifted his eyes toward them.” (You could even go with “into” them for eis, but probably best to stick with “toward.” Furthermore, the imperfect on the verb “speak” (legein) means that he was continually speaking, perhaps even repeating himself. So, we drop the “kai” and here we go:

Αfter he lifted his eyes toward them, he began speaking,”

2 Μακαριοι οι πτωχοι,

Blessed are the poor. The Bible does not say, “Blessed are you who are poor.” It simply says, “Blessed are the poor.” If we stick with just “blessed are the poor” we actually can get an interesting option or two!

3 οτι υμετερα εστιν η βασιλεια του θεου

On the one level, this too is easy to translate. Just stick in the words:

“Because yours is the kingdom of God.”

However, not so fast. η βασιλεια του θεου: “Kingdom of God” is tricky. The genitive case has a lot of possibilities. In English this ambiguity is preserved because the word “of” is ambiguous too. A few examples of possible translations:

a) “Kingdom belonging to God” (The house of my family)

b) “Kingdom from God” (Sound of water drops)

c) “Kingdom done by God” (Singing of a choir)

d) “Kingdom for God” (Love of money)

e) “Kingdom consisting of God” (as in “bag of money)

Two translation possibilities:

First, the not-very-exciting-leave-well-enough-alone

“Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

Second, the out there translation:

“Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom from God.”

In other words, the poor are blessed because we, who hear God’s Word, have the kingdom from God to give away to them!

Let’s put it all together:

After he lifted his eyes toward them, he began speaking, repeating, “Blessed are the poor, because yours, you who are listening, is the Kingdom which comes from God.”

John 8:31-36

2010-10-26T13:08:00.000-07:00

Summary:

This passage lays out the fundmental convictions of the Reformation: That the nomral human condition is bondage to sin; that in Christ, through faith, we are freed and Christ abides in us. Worth noting in the Greek is the word μενω which appears throughout the Gospel of John; justification is not here seen as simply forensic (ie, Jesus died for your sins) but as ushering in the new creation: Jesus abiding in us. Worth also considering is the household nature of δουλος, or slave; not simply the worker, but also the lower member of the family.

Note: This Greek is easy. 8:31 is moderately challenging, but the rest if very simple. Dig in!

Key WordsGrammar review: “Conditional sentences”: ει vs εαν
εαν is really the Greek word for “if”; we learn that ει means this when we memorize Greek words, but actually ει simply sets up a conditional sentence. In other words ει can me if/since/in the case of. εαν leaves “the probability of activity expressed in the verb left open.” (BDAG).

δουλος: (8:34;35, meaning “slave”) Slavery provided the gas of the Greco-Roman economic engine. People became slaves through various means: captivity from war, kidnapping by slave hunters or debt. Slaves exists in all parts of the empire.
Slavery could be quite brutal, especially for slaves that engaged in mining. However, slaves often were attached to households and gained a certain amount of responsibility. Such slaves often helped raise the children (even educated them in manners), administer property, earn money and even sign legal contracts. Some slaves even owned other slaves. Even after manumission, the freed person would often pledge themselves to the former master or to a patron.
The slave was not simply the bottom of the macro social and economic structure, but the bottom of the micro social and economic structure, the household. This afforded some degree of comfort, security and even opportunity for advancement. However, there was nothing glorious about slavery. Regardless of their particular status in the house, the slave did the work that allowed the masters of the house to participate in civic life.

See: http://paulandgreece.com/thessa/slave.htm

ελευθερος: (8:32;36, meaning “free”) My sense of the Greek word for free is that it aligns itself with the idea of being unencumbered, not so much the freedom “for” as the freedom “from.”

μενω: (8:31; 35, meaning “abide.”) This word is translated here as “belongs” or “stays” which are probably fine, but the important thing to remember is that this word appears throughout the Gospel of John; “abide in me…” One might argue this is the most important concept in John, this idea of abiding.

Sentence breakdown: John 8:35

The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever.

Greek: ο δε δουλος ου μενει εν τη οικια εις τον αιωνα, ο υιος μενει εις τον αιωνα

First step is to divide up the sentence into smaller parts: divide at the comma!

Second, look for the verb in the first part of the sentence. In this case the verb is μενει. You have to work a little hard because here you have the negative particle, “ου”. So you have your verb: ου μενει which means “does not abide.”

Then you look for your subject. How to find a subject? Look for nominative definite articles: ο, το, η. In this case, again, you have to take it one step further because you have the word δε in front of δουλος. But now you have your subject (you can ignore “de” for now): “ο δουλος” which means “the slave”

So now you have: “The slave does not abide.” The rest of the sentence until the comma are two prepositional phrases: “εν τη οικια” and “εις τον αιωνα” which mean “in the house” and “into forever.” Test yourself: Why is the first “dative” and the second “accusative” cases.

Do the same with the second half: First, find the verb; then the subject (hint: Look at the articles.) Once you’ve done this, you can plow right through: The son abides into forever.

When Greek doesn’t have participles or subjunctive phrases, it’s really a matter of finding the subject and verb; figuring out what the small words mean; conquering the prepositional phrases…and then presto, you’ve got English

Luke 18:9-14

2010-10-19T10:46:00.000-07:00

**Note -- I have tried adding a basic Greek font. Let me know if this is working!

Summary:

This is a small passage, but loaded with meaning! A little thing worth pointing out. The worshipers go up to worship and come back down. A reminder that worship isn't just like every other experience. We come into the presence of the living God. Like the tax-collector in this passage and Isaiah before him, this demands our confession!

Key words:
anabainw (go up; 18:10) and katabainw (go down; 18:14); It is a small note, but it is interesting that the worshipers go up to worship and come down into their homes. Luke does not seem to use the langauge often (Jesus does go up into the mountain to pray (Luke 9:28) but this seems like something worth mentioning in our casual culture -- even the sinners must go up to worship.

telonhs (tax-collector; 18:10,11,13): The word tax-collector is used almost exclusively in the same breath as sinners. Tax-collectors (publicanus in Latin) were notorious for taking more than their fair share.

exouqenew (despise; 18:9): This word is not just reserved for tax-collectors, but Christians run into this problem...(See Rom. 14:3, 10; 1 Cor. 1:28; 6:4; 16:11; 2 Cor. 10:10)

dikaiow (justify; 18:14): Lovely word for us Lutherans (and all Christians). A reminder, God justifies. Never used in the active sense correctly; by this I mean that in the Bible and in real life, we can try to justify ourselves, but finally, only God makes right. Even in James, when works do the makeing right, the person is still only passively justified! (See James 2:21-25). (There are times when the verb appears in the active voice; but normally this is God speaking or the people asking for God to bring justice).

ilaskomai (have mercy on; Luke 14:13). A rare word in the NT; only mentioned in Hebrews 2:17. This word and its cousins are always a matter of intense debate: How do we translate the concept of appease/expiate for sins? What does Paul means by this in Romans 3:25?? What is interesting here is that the person does not offer a sacrifice of bulls (see Deut 21.8) or any logic of Moses, but simply a broken and contrite heart, recalling Psalm 51

uyow (exalt; 18:14) The word here, interstingly, is used in Luke 1:52; God promises to exalt the humble! (And again in Luke 14:11, an almost copy of 18:14). Luke uses this word in an adjective form (exalted) quite frequently to refer to God.

Grammar review: Substantive participles

These are the easist participles to translate. You get definite article+participle.

Easy formula:

The one/ones who do X.

The only thing that can trip you up is that occasionally you will get other words around them and in between them like: "de" or "pas" (all).

So: ho de akousas (Luke 18:22) is simply
The one who listens.

Verse analysis:
Luke 18:14 legw umin katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon oti pas o uywn eauton tapeinwqhsetai o de tapeinwV eauton uyswqsetai

NRS Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted."

See also Luke 14:11 for the almost same sentence!
First step is to divide this sentence into three parts:

1) legw umin
2) katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon
3) oti pas o uywn eauton tapeinwqhsetai o de tapeinwV eauton uyswqsetai

How did I decide on this breakdown? Well, the comma and dot (semicolon essentially) suggest this. hoti is a conjunction that also tells you as a reader that a new clause is starting

1) legw umin: Simple interjection -- I am saying to you.

2) katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon -- this is a big one, so let's break this down. Take the low hanging fruit first:

eis ton oikon autou: Into his house. eis takes the accusative case; autou is genitive to describe the relationship of the house to the man. Simply translate with "of" as in "into the house of him." Or more elegantly, "into his house"

par ekeinon: From there. Technically, ekeinon is in the genitive and so para should not be translated from "para." It doesn't really matter though for the point of the story. The man simply went home from/at/alongside there.

Okay, so now you've got: katebh outos dedikaiwmenos into his house from there.

The katebh is the east part: Simple means he/she/it went down, which makes sense because you have "into his house" and also, earlier the Greek says they went up to worship (vs 9).

The outos is a bit trickier because you don't see it that much. It simply means this/that. If Jesus had used "autos" it would have simply read: "He went down" By using outos Jesus can say, "This very one" adding a bit of emphasis.

Now you've got: "This very one went down into his house from there." You can offically tackle the participle! Which in this case means "being made righteous," or "being justified." A circumstantial participle to boot...So he did all of this going down under the circumstance of being justified.

So, let's put this all together: "This very one, having been made righteous, went down into this house from there.

Now we come to the last part of the sentence:
3) legw umin katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon oti pas o uywn eauton tapeinwqhsetai o de tapeinwV eauton uyswqsetai

Basically you have a little parallel going here:

substantive participle+infinitive; substantive participle + infinitive

So you get, "all who do X, then Y; all who do Y, then X."

(See above for substantive participle translation)

All who exalt themselves will be humbled; all who humble themselves will be exaulted.

Luke 18:1-8

2010-10-12T10:49:00.000-07:00

Summary
This parable does not simply commend us or even command us to pray; rather it humbles into prayer. The Greek used indicates Jesus told them this parable to make it necessary for them to pray. The particular construction and use of the word "necessity" do not suggest a teaching moment, but a transformation one, where people are humbled into prayer. What kind of God would compare himself to an unjust judge, who only gives in when brow-beaten? Furthermore, the particulars of the grammar -- the inclusion of the word "they" -- reveal this is not simply about the need for prayer in the abstract, but this parable is intended for us who hear it that we would pray.

The preaching task then is not simply to teach about prayer but fill the peoples hearts (and guts) with a hunger for prayer.

Key Words
dei: (It is necessary; 18.1). The translations here talking about a parable shows the people should pray. Actually, the word in Greek carries more force then should; It is used, for example, when Jesus says, "it is necessary for the son of man to die." Furthemore, the word "show" is never used. The Greek does not say this parable shows them why prayer is necessary but the parable makes prayer necessary! See below for more on the construction.

exdikew (revenge, 18.3;5) This word is hardly used in the NT; it does not simply mean justice, but really vengeance (as in Romans 12:10; Vengeance is mine."

hypopiazw (wear out or beat; 18:5) This word does not simply mean annoy or wear down, but means to give a black eye. Paul talks in 1 Cor 9:27 about beating his body (anod not punching the air).

macrothyme-oo (delay, 18:7). This word does not really mean delay. It means be patient (as in love is patient, 1 Cor 13:4). It seems that the verse ought to be translated, "Will God not be patient?"

Grammar point
See sentence review about articular infinitives. Read this and then try 18:5, the first five words. Hint: Dia here means "because."
Also 18:4 is a great example of an "ei" clause where "ei" means "since" and not "if"

Sentence review
NRS Luke 18:1 Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart.
18:1 Elegen de parabolhn autois pros to dein pantote proseuchesthai autous kai mh egkakein

Elegen de parabolhn autois: "Then he was telling them a parable." The four words here are all learned in the first few weeks of Greek: legw, to speak; de, and; parabolhn, parable; autos, he/she/it. However, you've got to work a bit to put then together. Let's start with "de." You can ignore this, or add a "then/when/and" to connect this sentence to the previous one. The next word to look at is "parabolhn." Easy enough -- you just have to realize that in Greek, they rarely ever include an indefinite article (tis) and so you have to add "a" before the word.
"legoo" is simply to speak, here in the imperfect (review: why not aorist or future?), so you have to give a little bit of umph here: "Was continually telling...", something that reflects the on-going nature of the action. Finally you go to "autois." This is "he" in the plural dative. First, make it plural: "they" now dative: "to/with/for/through them." Put this all together and you get: Then he was telling them a parable.

pros to dein pantote proseuchesthai autous: "so they would need to pray all the time." The pantote is the easy part; simply an adverb meaning always or at all times The tricky part is the "articular infinitive with preposition." In this case, "pros to dein." Pros means toward; when used in an articular infinitive, it shows purpose or reason. The purpose of the parable then, is the necessity of prayer. The parable is not really "to show them it is necessary" but really, "so that they would need to pray." These infinitive constructs are hard for us English speakers because we really don't have anything like it. You can sort of say, "I was in Spain for the running of the bulls." But there running is almost purely a noun and not a verb. More tricky here, the verb "dei" requires another verb (it is necessary to do something), which in this case is "pray" (proseuchesthai). So you get: "for the reason of being necessary to pray." The autous is simply here an accusative form of autos, or "they." Because its part of an infinitive clause, it behaves not as an accusative, but as a nominative, namely, the subject. This might not seem like much, but by adding this word it moves it from "the necessity of prayer" to "the necessity of them praying."

kai mh egkakein: "Not be discouraged." The mh is the Greek "no" for non-indicative moods. What does that mean? Well, if the sentence is "I do not go to the store" the no in Greek would be "ouk." However, if you have a command or an infinitive or a participle, you get "mh" In this case, the word discouraged is connected with the verb, "dei" or it is necessary. You know this because it is an infinitive and not an imperative (a command). So the parable is also for the purpose of them not losing heart.

Luke 17:11-19

2010-10-05T10:26:00.000-07:00

Summary:
This week has just about every key theological word: glory, salvation, eucharist, healing, mercy. The word I want to draw you attention to, however, is "piptw," or fall. The man literally falls on his face to give God thanks. When was the last time you were not simply knocked to your knees, but you actually fell flat on your face in thanksgiving -- got so low to the ground you could smell the carpet??

Key Words

allogenes (17:18, "foreigner") This word is used only once in the NT. It literally means "other genes." That is the kind of God we have, one who welcomes ones with other genes; not other customs, but other genes!

piptw (17.16, "fell", "threw himself" or even "prostrated"). The word here is not kneel, or pray but literally fall on his face. When was the last time you prayed with your face flat on the ground.

lepros: (17.12, "leper") The Greek is interesting here in that the word for Leper appears before the word for man (andros). The first thing we find out is not their humanness, but their disease. The NIV and NET cover up this fact their translations.

eleison: (17.13, "mercy") The men today cry out, "Jesus have mercy" in the Greek, a chant we cry out weekly in our worship.

Some other words to notice:
eucharistoo (17.16, "give thanks") Literally "eucharist"; the man, from his knees, gives thanks to God!
doxe (17.18 as noun; 17.15 as verb, "glory") Here it means give praise, but the word in Greek is doxe, as in doxology
swzw (17.19, "save") The granddaddy of 'em all -- salvation -- appears in this sentence, a reminder that, as always, spiritual and physical healing are related.
iaomai (17.15, "healed) This word comes into English in "psychiatry"

Grammar point: 17:11 and "Articular Infinitive"
Luke uses a whole bunch of articular infinitives. It is a construction we really don't have in English but it makes sense. The sentence literally reads: "And it happened in the walking into Jerusalem." In the walking is an articular infinitive with preposition. Which sounds complex but it means you have the following: preposition (in, with, for)+the+infinitive. In this case in+the+walking. To translate you need to figure out two things. First, who is doing the action. And second, what does the preposition mean. In this setnence, the subject of the infinitive phrase is not really given, but you can guess its Jesus and the disciples. (Reminder -- the subject of an infinitive is given in the accusative). Second, the preposition in this case, "en" signifies concurrent action. So... "And it happened in the walking into Jerusalem..." becomes "While they entered Jerusalem,"

See 17.14 to test yourself if you understand this.

Sentence breakdown:
NRS Luke 17:16 He prostrated himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan.
BGT Luke 17:16 kai epesen epi proswpon para tous podas autou eucaristwn autw kai autos hn Samariths

kai epesen: Easy way to start a sentence. Ignore the kai (for now at least) and then translate the verb, 3rd person singular aorist: "He fell"

epi proswpon: Easy preposition: Upon (a) face.

para tous podas autou: Similarly an easy phrase to translate: "at the feet of him." Reminder: autou and its various forms, 95% of the time, refer to prepositions. They can mean "very" and "same" but these are quite rare.

So "he fell upon a face at his feet." The NRSV simplifies: He prostrated himself. However, most people don't know what prostated means.

eucaristwn autw: Now the sentence gets a bit trickier. However, its still pretty straight forward (as far as circumstantial participles go!). To translate the preposition, let's plug it in:
step one: Determine what type -- circumstantial
step two: rough translation by adding "ing": "giving thanks"
step three: figure out who: "the leper"
step four: adjust tense and voice -- in this case, unnecessary.
step five: put it in the sentence: "He prostated himself at the feet of Jesus, (the leper) giving thanks."
In this case, because neither the subject nor even the verb tense changes from sentence to participle, its plug and play!

kai autos hn Samariths: And he was a Samaritian.

This sentence can be a good review of your pronouns! But straight-forward!

Luke 17:5-10

2010-09-28T10:47:00.000-07:00

Summary:

The passage before this (17:1-4) is about forgiveness. Jesus tells his disciples to forgive people over and over. This is where they protest and ask for more faith, or "pistis". Faith in the Gospel of Luke is not simply "getting it" or even "getting it right" but the deep hunger for Jesus that motivates us, trees and even mountains to fall down at his feet.

Key words:
pistis (17:5; 17:6; "faith") The word faith has taken on many theological meanings. A few comments about how Luke uses it. First, the people that have faith are always outside the circle of pious jews, including the disciples (bleeding woman (8:48), samaritan leper (17:19), Roman Centurion(7:9). Faith leads to healing but also forgiveness (5:20, 18:42). Above all, faith leads to move themselves toward Jesus. Faith is the motivation for people to move toward Jesus and for him to act. It is not an intellectual assent to propositions, but it is the deep, gnawing trust that moves people and moves mountains to fall at the knees of Jesus.

diakone-oo (17:8; to serve, minister or wait on tables). This verb is where we get the terms deacon and diaconal ministry. It doesn't mean anything glorious, simply waiting on tables! Just a reminder though, Jesus finally says is the one who serves us (Luke 12:37, 22:27)

apostoloi (17:5; "apostles") Luke uses the term apostles far more than the other writers, even indicating that at the Lord's Supper (22:14) the apostles joined him. Perhaps this is because he writes Acts! I wonder if Luke helps us see that being a disciples of Jesus necessary means being an apostle, being sent out into the world.

Grammar point: ei-an clauses
When you see "ean" this normally means there is a simple, "if (ean) A, then B" However, if you see an ei-an clause, this probably means that the conditions are false. This is the case in verse 6: If you had faith (which you don't), you would say (which you haven't). Great example of this contruction is in John 11; "If (ei) you had been here (which you weren't), my brother (an) wouldn't have died (but he did)."

Sentence review:
(Warning, this sentence is complex because Luke intermixes the various components of each sentence; using Bible Works/lexicon to tell you the cases is probably essential)
NRS Luke 17:7 "Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, 'Come here at once and take your place at the table'?
BGT Luke 17:7 Tis de ex humwn doulon echwn arotriwnta h poimainonta, hos eiselthonti ek tou agrou erei autw euqews parelthwn anapese?

Tis de ex humwn: Basically: Who of you? Notice the accent on the word tis leans forward? This means its a strong accent, which tells you it is a question word (who, which, what) and not an indefinite article (a, any, certain)

doulon echwn: The verb echwn is a participle. At this point, the sentence is not too bad. For your English eyes, you probably need to switch doulon and echwn for word order. Then you can just do the "quick sloppy circumstantial participle" transation which is where you just add "ing" to the verb. In this case, you get: "Which of you, having a slave"

arotriwnta h poimainonta: Here is where the train wreck comes. You have another two participles. First step -- get vocab (so your brain can help you piece this together unconsciously). "plow" and "tend." Your brain probably can figure out that the slave is the one plowing and tending. How would you know for sure? Notice how these are both accusative participles? Therefore they do not refer to the subject (the one who has the slave) but the object (the slave). So the slave is under the circumstance of plowing and tending.

So, we have so far: "Which of you, having a slave, tending and plowing." Hmm...unclear in English, so we get: "Which of you, having a slave who tends and plows,"

hos eiselthonti ek tou agrou erei autw: This clause is awful because you go back and forth between subject and object. First off, your brain knows its a relative clause because you have this "hos." In fact, hos is the subject, so we need to find a normal verb to match this with. Turns out that eiseltheonti is not a normal verb, but a participle. The verb you need to find is erei. This is a basic verb (lego, to speak) but tough to recognize in the future form. (Who will say). So we know that someone is speaking. We also know, thanks to the autw in the dative, that someone is speaking to someone. So, who are the someones? Well, the verb "eiselthonti" is a participle. In this case it functions like an adjectival. Kind of strange sucker, but basically, it works like this: The one who enters from the field (ex tou agrou) is the one to whom the words will be addressed. You can know this because it all is in the dative. So you translate this relative clause like this:
"he, who will say to him, the one coming in from the field"
or:
"will say to the one (namely the slave) coming in from the field."
One final note -- the coming in preceeds the speaking (the verb is in the aorist), so to make it all clear:
"will say to the slave after he has come in from the field."

Put it together and you get
"Which of you, having a slave who tends and plows, will say to the him after he comes in from the field:"

euthews parelthwn anapese? The euthews means immediately...and the anapase is a simple command: sit at the table.

So you have: "immediately parelthwn sit." You can translate the parelthwn (which can mean just about anyhthing) a couple of ways. Really, it is not a key verb in the sentence; it functions more like another adverb: "immediately come over and sit." Or more politely, "Come here at once and sit!"

Luke 16:19-31 (Lazarus and the rich man)

2010-09-21T11:52:00.000-07:00

Summary:
The story begs for a different ending, one where someone can go back and straighten out the sinners, in this case, the rich man's brothers. The story also begs for an ending because it ends in Hades with Abraham speaking a word of hopelessness. The idea though of resurrection from the dead sends us away from the story of Lazarus and to the story of Jesus. Ironically, Jesus will wear clothes of splendor; both as Herod mocks him (Luke 23:11) and finally as he comes, as the splendid morning star, who has overthrown death and hell (Rev 22.16). For me, I will emphasize that Christ has defeated death the chasm, but I don't think it would be fair to Jesus' words to let people off the hook when it comes to how we treat the poor!

This week I have some longer notes on hell which resolve little but give much to ponder...

Some words to note:

hades (16.23; hell, hades): This word appears throughout the New Testament. Some poking around is interesting here; it kind of makes me want to do a further discourse on what the Bible says about hell. A few levels here:
1) Luke doesn't mention the word very often, except in the context of punishment (see also 10.15).
2) The word and idea of hades has its own meaning in the Greek mythological world. However, because the Septugint translates Sheol so frequently as Hades, it is fair to look at Jesus comments in light of the OT. Matthew uses the word "geenna" instead of "hades," which functions much more like what Luke is talking about then the Greek understanding of the underworld.
3) The Bible seems to shift/develop its thoughts on hell and resurrection.
3A) On one level, Sheol is simply the place of God's absence. Psalm 88:5 says God doesn't even remember those in Sheol. Psalm 113:25 and Isaiah 38:18 suggest the dead in Sheol cannot praise God. In this sense, Sheol simply means death as the end.
3B) On another level, however, the OT also envisions Sheol as a place of punishment: (Psalm 9:17; Proverbs 5:5). In this sense, Sheol means hell.
3C) On another level, Sheol seems not entirely absent of God or goodness: God can hear prayers from Sheol (Jonah 2.3) and still find us there (Psalm 139:8). In this sense, Sheol almost functions like purgatory.
4) Shoel and Hades become a personified force set against God in the Bible (Psalm 49:15; Matthew 16:18). At some points, it seems that God is in control of sheol (Hos 13:14; 1 Sam 2:6). Regardless, Sheol/Hades finally loses: Rev 20.

To summarize all of this, the more you get into this stuff, the more of chasm you find yourself. What is hell? Is it a judgment pit? It is a time of separation? In this storparable, it is both. Is there rescue from it? This is the most haunting part of the parable. The rich man doesn't get out of hell.

basanos (16.23;28; torture; pain): This word origin is interesting: "a dark-coloured stone on which pure gold, when rubbed, leaves a peculiar mark." In the NT, Matthew and Luke uses this word to imply more than simply testing, but also physical pain. One might be tempted to translate this word as "testing" here; that hades was simply a place of testing for Lazarus, but the existence of fire in verse 24 suggests something more than simply mental anguish.
chasma (16.26; chasm): The word appears only once in the NT, but it should be familiar enough to English readers: chasm; a pit!

lampros (16.19; splendidly): You will not find this word easily in concordances; that is because it is the adverb form of the adjective: "lampros" (omicron vs omega)
The word is akin to the word for "lamp" and means bright like the sun or stars. In the NT, Jesus will wear a lampros robe, but only before Herod. Jesus will actually declare himself the morning star; the star portion here is literally "lampros." (Rev 22:16). James warns against people who wear such nice clothing thinking highly of themselves (James 2:2-3).

Sentence break-down:
BGT Luke 16:19 Anthrwpos de tis hn plousios kai evnedidusketo porphuran kai bu,sson euphrainomenos kath' hmeran lampros
NRS Luke 16:19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.

Anthrwpos de tis hn plousios: "A certain man was rich." You can ignore the "de"; the "tis" is the "indefinite" article in Greek, ie "a, any, certain" It is not before the word "man" as it should be in English, but you can tell they are linked because they are both nom. sing. mas. But even if you didn't, if you see some "ti..." word not at the beginning of a sentence it almost always will function as an indefinite article, you just have to find which word it matches. Perhaps you could poetically phrase this, "There once was a rich man."

kai evnedidusketo porphuran kai busson: Verb here is imperfect, emphasizing the continuous nature. I would translate this with an adverb: "he was ALWAYS dressed in purple and fine linen."

euphrainomenos: circumstantial participle (note: no "the" near by and no "to be" verb). Easy to translate: rejoicing

kath' hmeran: idiomatic for "every day"

lampros: splendidly, like the sun; exceedingly luxorious

Luke 16:1-13

2010-09-14T10:43:00.000-07:00

Summary:
The Greek for this week does nothing to improve the harshness of the text. Quite the opposite! According to the Greek, the manager (literally the economist) is praised for being shrewd, but Jesus point blank calls him adikia, which means unrighteous. Furthermore, the eternal homes of the wealthy are "skenas" or tents, the word used for the tabernacle in Exodus or the tents on the mount of Transfiguration. Finally, we are commended, not simply to use "worldly wealth" but actually -- "unrighteous mammon." What is going on!?!

Its only Tuesday, so I don't have my mind wrapped around this text. But a few nuggets below:

Key words:
oikonomos; oikonomia (16:1,2,3,4; other cognates appear in this passage): "manager"; This word comes into English as "economics" or "economist." BDAG translates it as "estate manager" and "steward" or "treasurer."

adikia (16;8,9); "dishonest" or "shrewd" The word does not mean dishonest. It means unrighteous or evil. dikaios, the opposite word, means righteous. The manager
never praises the man for being dishonest, but does call him shrewd, "phronimos" (16.8)

dechomai (16,4,6,7,9), "welcome" or "take." This word appears more in Luke then any other verb. Look where else it comes into play:
2:28 Simeon "receives" the baby Jesus
18.7 Children "receive" the kofG as a child
22.17 Jesus "took" the cup and gave thanks...
There is something central about welcoming in Luke's Gospel!

Other words:
skenas (16.9), "house"; this word literally means "tent" and is used in both the OT as the word for Tabernacle and then in the NT when Peter wants to build tents during the transfiguration. Luke is clearly is not editing Jesus here.

mamon (16.11,16.13): "Wealth"; Jesus words are sharp here. The word used by Jesus toward the end of the passage is not simply posessions but "mammon"; verse 13 is not the first verse where Jesus uses this word!

opheil-oo (16:5,7): "Debt"; This word can used in all sorts of beautiful ways (Lord's prayer, Matthew 6:12). Here it is more straight forward in its use. A reminder that this passage is very real; debt is as old as currency. For many in the Bible -- and today -- debt is also a massive problem. What if Jesus really meant cancel your literal debts each time we pray the Lord's prayer! That might be easier than forgiving others our sins. Now, you might say, wait, nobody owes me anything. Really? If you own business stocks or an investment accounts, somebody, somewhere, however indirectly, owes you something.

Greek grammar concept:
Circumstantial participle. The thing that causes most Greek readers to stumble is the circumstantial participle. While some are very tricky, probably 50% are very easy. Let's look at one. In verse 16.2 the sentence starts out with one:
"phonhsas"
BW returns this as verb participle aorist active nominative masculine singular

Scary, right? Well, look, there is no "the" near by it, so its not an adjectival or substantive participle; there is no form of "is/was/to be" nearby, so its not supplementary. So its going to be circumstantial. Which means we need to figure out three things: What happened? Who did it? And how does this connect to the rest of the sentence?

What happened: Get the BW translation of the verb, or just pull it from your memory: phone...means hear. So, what happened, well, someone hears/got heard

Who did it? Well, your brain probably figured this one out already -- the rich man. But if you need help here, you need to break down what BW tells you into two buckets. First bucket is "aorist active." That relates to the action. The second bucket is "nominative mas...singular" which realtes to who does the action. Who is the nominative, masculine, singular? Well, it is the single man subject of the sentence, who is, as your brain knew already, the rich man.

And how does this connect? Well, in this case you first got to put the verb in its tense. Which is here an aorist: "Heard" Now you add in the what and who + the phrase "under the circumstance"
"Under the circumstance of the rich man heard"...
Yuck. Make it English:
"After the rich man heard" or "When the rich man heard."

It sounds like a lot of work, but your brain probably pulled out "heard" and "rich man" right away. See how you do with the second word in 16.5.

Sentence break down:

NRS Luke 16:4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.'
egnon ti poihso, ina otan metastath-oo ek ths oikonomias dexontai me eis tous oikous autwn

egnon: I know. Just looks funny. Simple verb.

ti poihso: Notice the direction of the accent on "ti" Indicates it is a question. The verb poihso can be either future or aorist subjunctive. In this, does not matter. What will vs. what shall I do.

, ina otan: Double whammy of conjunctions. Both demand subjunctive verb: "In order that whenever..."

metastathoo: Verb conjugated for conjunctions

ek ths oikonomias: ex takes genitive. Not sure what kind this here. genitive of separation?? Doesn't really matter: "Out of this administration."

dexontai me: Here the "me" is the object and not the subject. Question -- how does one know this? Why could, in this infinitive phrase, this been a question at all?

eis tous oikous autwn: 2nd week of Greek: Into his house.

Luke 15:1-10

2010-09-07T11:43:00.000-07:00

Greek key idea of the week:

The words in luke 15 are "lost" and "found." They occur over and over. But a reader of English would know this.

A little ripple in the text, but hopefully a good insight. Having found her coin, the woman invites her female friends over. This is the only occurance in the NT and OT of female friends (philas)! So while we Lutheran pastors delve into the mechanics of lost sinners repenting, let's not forget the fact that everyone in this passage, Jesus, the shepherd and the woman, call together their friends and rejoice!

Key words:
eurisk-oo (15.4,5,6,7,8,9; "find") To remember this verb, remember Archimedes running through the city naked shouting "Eureka" when he realized how bouancy worked.

apollumi (15:4,6,8,9; "lost") This word has a range of meaning, from destroy to perish. Worth noting is that it is not the sheep who passively gets lost, but actually, the shepherd who loses the sheep!

Other words:

hamartwlos (15:1,2,7; "sinner") Luke uses this word quite a bit -- 18 times in fact. What is interesting is that this word is not really defined; the assupmtion is that people know who sinners are and what this means. The first explicit sinner in the Gospel is Peter (back in chapter 5), who confesses before Jesus.

kataleip-oo (15.4; "leave behind"). Ironically, the first person to "kataleip-oo" everything for Jesus is a tax collector, Levil! (Luke 5:28)

chari-oo (15.5; "rejoicing"). This word is used more in the book of Luke than in another book in the Bible. Other writers don't shy away from it (although Mark uses it is measely two times). Luke though, time and time again, emphasizes worship and devotion.

philas (15.9; "female friends"). This is only time in the Bible that the word friend is used in the feminine.

Grammar focus: "syn"-verbs.
In Greek one can use the pronoun "syn" (meaning with) as a prefix. This passage has a number of such verbs: "synesthei-oo" (15:2, eat together) and "sygkale-oo" (15:6, call together"). You might ask, why "syg" instead of "syn" in "sygkale-oo." This is because the n-k sound morphs into an g-k sound. "n" is a very soft letter. For example, "con" means with and mean English words have this as a prefix: "connect" or "contact." But the "n" often changes or disappears: "communicate" or "cooperation."
One thing to notice is that in Greek, the writers can sometimes pack a powerful punch with "syn" verbs, such as in Romans 8:17.

Sentence break-down

Luke 15:4
tis anthropos ex hymon echon hekaton probata kai apolesas ex auton hen ou kataleipei at enenhkonta ennea en th hermoo kai poreuetai epi to apolwlos ews eurh auto;

"Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?

tis anthropos: The tis here is a question...You can tell because the accent is strong. You can also tell because the last mark of the sentence is a semicolon, indicating a question. This is really the only word in Greek where the accent type matters. If it were not a strong accent, the sentence would read: "any man of you." (Strong face lean forward; weak lean backwards. Doesn't take much of a breath to make them fall off the wagon!)

ex hymon: The "of/from you" has a fancy genitive name but the translation is straight forward: "which among you"/"of you" (I believe this is called a partitive genitive)

echon hekaton probata kai: participle here...can you guess which type? Well, there is no "the" nearby, so probably not a substantive or adjectival. Also, no "to be" verbs nearby, probably not a supplementary. You guessed it: Circumstantial: "Under the circumstances of "having" sheep. To simplify: "having sheep"

apolesas ex autoon hen: The circumstances have changed: "lost" a sheep :-( The "hen" meaning "one" is out of order for our English minds, so we read it as "of them one" but our brains should be able to reorder this: "one of them."

ou kataleipei ta enenhkonta ennea: a question that has a "ou" to start expects a "yes" for answer. I remember this alphabetically: "mh" expects "no"; "ou" expects "yes" (m-n-o-y). Do you know why the ninety has the "ta" in front of it? Email me and I will tell you!

en th hermoo: In the wilderness. Why is this dative?

kai poreuetai epi to apolwlos: Here we have a substantive participle: The one who is lost. It has a preposition (epi) before it; don't let this distract you. Substantive participles are easy to translate!

ews eurh auto; Alas, they put this little diddy at the end. The ews, a conjunction, demands the subjunctive here, hence why eurisko looks so stinking wierd!

Luke 14:25-33

2010-08-31T10:15:00.000-07:00

Summary:
Regardless of the great imagery used in Jesus passages, the word "hate" is the stumbling block to this passage. BDAG suggests a softer translation, as in "disregard." I think this is better than "hate" but this doesn't really save the day! Jesus words to disregard our family is difficult to understand. Let's assume for a second though, that Jesus really means some sort of emotional aggression. What should we then do? Well, Jesus teaches us to do good to those who hate us (6.26). Trying to do good for people is actually a fairly exhausting activity which is why Jesus reminds us that bearing our cross is not a one-time activity but a continous one. In fact, all the verbs in this passage are in the present tense, suggesting that renouncing our possessions, disregarding our loved ones, bearing our cross and following Jesus are on-going, life-long activities. That sounds difficult. Good thing the most gracious chapter in the entire Bible is next!

Key word:
mise-oo: (14.26; "hate") Hate may not be the best transaltion here. BDAG puts it, "depending on the context, this verb ranges in meaning from 'disfavor' to 'detest.' The English term 'hate' generally suggests affective connotations that do not always do justice, especially to some Semitic shame-honor oriented use of miseoo (sh-n-a in Hb) in the sense 'hold in disfavor, be disclinined to, have relatively little regard for.' In fact, BDAG even suggests translating it "disfavor, disregard" in contast to preferential treatment"
Some other intersting words:
* ochloi (14.25; "crowds") This word does not mean leaders or elite, but really the everyday mass of people; can also mean 'mob'
* psehphiz-oo (14.28; "calculate") I don't think it is important for this passage, but this is the verb that is used in Revelation to indicate it is time to "add" up the number values for a word such as "KASER NERON" (666).
* empaiz-oo (14.29, "ridicule") In Luke's Gospel, Jesus is the only one mocked (18:32;22:63, 23:11, 23:26)
* apotass-oo/apotasso-mai (14.33, "give up") This word, which refers to the correct Christian posture, means basically "say good-bye." This is a fun image, saying good-bye to one's possessions.

Grammar concept: present tense
A number of verbs in 14.25-27 are in the present tense. Greek does not distinguish between present progressive (I am running) and present like English (I run). Generally the present tense connotes present progressive. When I was taught Greek, I was taught to even add the adverb "contiunally" to present tense translations, "I am running continually." I am not sure if this is as helpful in all cases, but the basic point of my teacher bears itself out in Greek. The present tense generally signifies an action that is on-going. In this case, the verb of carrying the cross, following and (gasp) hating are all in the present tense.

Sentence break-down: 14.33
Greek: houtoos oun pas ex hymoon hos ouk apotassetai pasin tois eautou uparchousin ou dunatai einai mou mathetes
"So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions."

houtoos oun: "Thus, therefore" or "Likewise." Two little words here. Don't change much; they appear a combined nearly 2000x in the NT/OT so its good to recognize them for that they are, namely, fill-in words that don't alter too much!

pas ex hymoon: "All of you" This you can literally translate word for word. The pronoun is in the genitive, but your brain figured this out automatically.

hos: hos is a relative pronoun. They behave a lot like in English. Relative pronouns start a relative clause, like, "I love the one whom I married." Whom I married is the relative clause here. The relative pronoun, like in English, is in the case that it functions within the relative pronoun. Back to my example, this would not be correct English: I love the one who I married. Who must become a whom because it is not behaving as a subject in the relative clause. This happens in Greek too. Greek relative pronouns behave a bit differently, or perhaps one could say, a bit more advanced. Because the nouns (and thus pronouns) have a gender, you can connect the pieces a bit more clearly in Greek, because the pronoun contains more information that will link it back to what it refers. In English, it is considered poor writting to move the "antecedent" (the thing to which the relative pronoun refers) far away from the pronoun. Greek has less of a problem doing this. Moreover, Greek can build massive sentences that continue to add relative sentences.

ouk apotassetai: "is not saying good bye." Reminder here -- the verb is in the present tense. This suggests Jesus is not talking about a one time action.

pasin tois eautou uparchousin: "all your possessions." A couple of things here. First, it is all in the dative, because it is the object of the verb "apotassetai." This is a case where the dative takes the direct object (normally accusative). Don't ask why. Just accept that some verbs take a direct object in the dative! If it helps, think about it this way. To translate the dative, you often can add the word "to" in front of the word. In this case we add in, "say good-bye TO all your possessions." The only word here not in the dative is "eautou" which here is a genitive of possession (ie, belonging to you.). It is slightly out of order for our English eyes. Literally you get here: "to all the belonging to you posessions." Or more eloquently: "All your possessions."

ou dunatai einai: Not able to be! This is a case where to describe what is happening is complex (helper verb taking an infinitive) but translation is easy: "not able to be." (normally to translate an infinitive in English (from Greek) you need to add "to" in front of the verb).

mou mathetes: Like with the word "eautou" we have a genitive possessive occur before the noun: "my disciples."

Luke 14:1;7-14

2010-08-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

Luke 14:1;7-14

Summary:
At first glance, this passage seems practical moral advice with a heavenly reward. Jesus' use of "doxa" and "doxe" suggest something deeper is going on. Doxe is a fairly uncommon word meaning "banquet." In fact, in the OT, the people who throw such banquets are normally persian kings! Also unusual is the word doxa, or glory. Although it is a fairly common word, here it is translated unusually as "honor." This is possible, but really stretches it. The word is not really a word one would associate with mortals. In fact, the last time we heard the word in Luke's Gospel was when the angels announced Jesus birth. These two words, in other words, are fairly out of place for a typical meal. Which suggests that what is at the stake (and not steak) is hardly a common meal, but the feast of the humbled yet exaulted one! He is the one to whom glory will be given.

Key Words:
doxa (14.10; "honor"): Normally we think of doxa as glory (Think OT and the "glory of the Lord"). Here, however, it is translated as honor. Well, maybe. Luke only uses this word three other times. When Jesus is born and the angels sing (2.9 and 14) and when the people cry out during Jesus' entry in to Jerusalem. The context permits translating "doxa" as "esteemed." However, it has such divine implications that it points us back to Christ, to the one to whom glory is given.
doxe (14.13; "meal"): This word is very rare in the New Testament; only used twice. The other time it is in Luke when Levi, the tax-collector, invites Jesus to his house. When this word is used in the OT, it normally refers to banquets put on by Persian kings. In otherwords, this is a big, rich party that few can actually host.

Other words worth pondering:
tapeinow (14.11; "humble"): This word here is connected with exaults "hypso-oo". In Philippians, Jesus there humbles himself that he might be exaulted.
makarios (14.14; "blessed"): This is the word Luke (and Matthew) use for the beatitudes, "Blessed are..."
kale-oo (14.7; used 7 times in this passage!; "invite") This word is used virtually very sentence. It means invite and call.
aischune (14.9; "disgrace"): One would expect to find this word quite frequently in the NT, especially given the 'fuss' about honor/shame socities. While this word appears quite frequently in the OT, it is rather rare in the NT. This might be an avenue for more reflection. Is Jesus neglecting this dynamic in his society? Aside: One of the places "shame" (aischune) is used in the NT is Philippians 3:19 -- "their glory is their shame." Classic line.

Sentence decontructed:
14.1 Kai egeneto en tw elthein auton eis oikon tinos twn arcontwn twn Farisawn sabbatw fagein arton kai autoi hsan parateroumenoi auton
14.1 On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the sabbath, they were watching him closely.

Kai egeneto: This is a typical way to begin a sentence. It simply means: "And it happened." It is unnecessary.

en tw elthein auton: Technically this is an "articular infinitive with preposition." This means a couple of things. It combines a preposition (in) with an article (the) with an infinitive (coming). Literally: "In the coming." You have to translate the preposition as an adverb: "While he comes..." The problem with an infinitive is that it is, well, infinite. This means it is unconjugated. You don't know who is doing the action. So, to indicate this, they stick the subject of an infinitive clause in the accusative. In this case, auton, or he.

eis oikon tinos twn arcontwn twn Farisawn: "into the house" is fairly straight forward. The rest is a genitive where we just put in a lot of "ofs": 'of one of the leaders of the pharisees.'

sabbatw: The sabbath here is in the dative; here this is a dative revealing when something happens, ie, "on the sabbath." So you can combine this with the earlier infinitive (we are still in the infinitive phrase here): "When Jesus went on the sabbath into the house of one...pharisees...

fagein arton: Here we have another infinitive, which completes the other verb, "went" as in, "he went to eat." Oddly enough, the object of this infinitive phrase is also in the accusative, "arton" or bread. In an infinitive phrase, both subject and object can be in the accusative!

kai autoi hsan parateroumenoi auton: Let's take care of the "autoi"s here. The first is plural, they; the second is mas sing, him. 95% of auto are not going to be "self" or "very" but are simply pronouns.

hsan parateroumenoi: A really complex way of making a verb in the imperfect -- put an imperfect for of "to be" with a perfect tense participle. Used quite frequently with middle/passive verbs. But simple to translated: "were watching."

Luke 13:10-17

2010-08-17T10:53:00.000-07:00

I'm trying a new format here. I want to highlight some words ; I will also totally breakdown one sentence, digging into the grammer gems of that sentence

Key words of interest for this passage:
lu-oo (13.15;13:16): "...untie his ox; should not this woman...be set free" The English translators translate the word differently in verses 15 and 16. The verb, which many of us know from all sorts of conjugation charts, means "to loose, to set free." Jesus makes a play on words here: You set free your animals; I see people free.
anothro-oo (13.13): "...she stood up straight" This verb comes from the prefix/preposition "ana" which means upright or again and the adjective "ortho" meaning straight. It simply means straighten up or restore. It is not an especially common word in the Bible, but it recalls the Psalms to mind: "The LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down (146:8)."
panteles (13.11): "could not straighten up at all..." The word builds "pan", meaning "all" and "teles" meaning complete together for a 1-2 punch, as in "it could...go...all...the...way" The woman was bound up over herself so she did not have the power to stand up into her full measure.

Other words worth reflecting on:
aganakte-oo (13.14): "Indignant because Jesus..." The word here has its root in "agony." The people watching are in agony over Jesus performing a healing!
therapeu-oo (13.14): "healed" The word began in Greek by meaning service to the Gods; almost like worship! It became to mean, it seems, service that the Gods could render, namely, healing.
hypocrites (13.15): "hypocrites!" The word literally means "down answerer." It comes from theatre, where the person has to speak to the people from above (or more likely, in Greek ampitheatre, from below). It came then to mean someone who pretends

Total breakdown of 13:11
kai idou gunh pneuma echousa astheneis eth dekaoktw kai hn sugkuptousa kai mh dunamenh avnakuyai eis to panteles

NRS Luke 13:11 And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight.

The sentence begins with "kai" typical for a Greek sentence and essentially translatable by either "and" or a "period." However, it can also mean but, even, more, also, etc...

The next word is "idou" This word, like the Hebrew hennah means "pay attention!" It does not describe what happens in the narrative, but it is a direction for the reader

"gunh pneuma echousa astheneis" Before we parse this, let's just stick in the word-for-word translations: "woman spirit having weakness." The specific cases (accustive verses genitive) help here, but one can probably deduce this reads: "a woman having a spirit of weakness." For modern readers we'd like to take out the word "having a spirit" and replace it with "illness" but this limits the connection we will make later when Jesus says that Satan had this woman bound.

The participle "echousa" looks like an aorist because it has an "s" toward the end, but this is a feminine marker! Sigh! How does one translate this participle? Because there is neither a "the" (definitive article) nor a helping verb anywhere near by, you can assume it is a circumstantial. If we then use the formula "A woman, under the circumstance of having, an ill spirit" we see we can toss out the formula and just roll with it, "A woman having a ill spirit."

"eth dekaoktw" 18 years.

kai hn sugkuptousa; some wommen on the kai as before. Here though we have a supplementary participle. This is a complex way of saying: "Your brain in English already thinks this way." If you see a form of a "to-be" verb (ie, something short) next to a participle, you can read it like in English -- just stick in the basic translation of the words -- "The woman was bent over." This is the very complex way in Greek of forming the imperfect tense!

kai mh dunamenh avnakuyai: This is a train wreck by Luke! He basically continues to leave the helping verb, here dynamai (to be able) in a participle. This means he must use "mh" for a negative instead of "ou" (all non indicative nos should be mh and not ou). He then connects it with an aorist infinitive. Because it is a participle, you probably want to connect it with the previous participle, a supplementary, and thus you translate this, "was not able to stand up"

eis to panteles: This use of eis here basically makes the adjective, panteles, an adverb because it now describes the action of standing up straight.

Luke 12:13-21

2010-07-27T10:44:00.000-07:00

Side note: Jesus has just finished saying, "The Holy Spirit will teach you what to say..." and then we get this silly question. Jesus clearly needs to do some more teaching, or more realistically, some more dying and rising.

NRSV 12:13 Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me."

The word here for crowd is "ochlos," a fairly common word in the NT. It refers to the uneducation mass of citizens; Jesus is among "the people."

The word here for inheritance (kleronomia) in Greek explains the trouble people had with it. The word is literally "lot-law" as in the cast lots. Actually, the word kleros comes into English as "clerics" as in the first new disciple was picked by selection of the lot/kleros). Okay. But the point here is that the Greek word for inheritance includes the word law (nomos). This is the problem as humans...we cannot leave a gift a gift, but we have to "protect" it with laws until the point where it no longer becomes gift.

12:15 And he said to them, "Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions."

The word here for "greed" is "pleonexia" This word, whenever it appears in the NT, has a negative connotation, most often used in laundry lists of obvious sins.

The word for possessions, "hyarchonton" does not simply mean toys or things, but rather it is the more broad idea of: means, resources, the things which one can claim for existance. In fact, the word is a substantive participle, literally meaning "the things that exist to him."

12:16 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly.

Greek grammar note: The literal translation of the clause is: "of a man certain rich produced good crops the field." The fact that the first three words - man, certain, rich - are all in same case shows they are related.

12:17+18: And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?'...I will do this...I will tear down...

If you notice, the verb for "I do," "poihsw" is spelled the same in both verses but is actually a different verb conjugation in both cases. In one it is aorist subjunctive: "What shall I do?" In the other it is future indicative: "This I will do." Context, not the spelling, determines the correct translation

Another verb used twice here is the verb "synago" which means to lead together or gather; hence the term syagogue. The farmer is talking about "gathering" his stuff together.

12:19 And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'

The word for soul here is "psyche"

The word for relax here is "anapauo" This word is used in Matthew 11:28, as in, Jesus says I will give you rest.

12:21 So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."

The word for "store up treasure" is "thesaurizo" as in thesaurus!

Two other markers for the word rich. One is the beginning of Luke's Gospel: The rich he has sent away empty-handed (1:53). Also in Romans 10:12, we learn that God is the one who makes people rich!

Lord's Prayer

2010-07-21T19:06:00.000-07:00

For this week, I will analyze the Greek in Matthew and Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer. I am comparing then Matthew 6:9-15 and Luke 11:2-4

Intro: The two prayers have different set-ups. In Matthew, the Lord's Prayer is folded into a longer section about Christian discipleship during the Sermon on the Mount. In Luke, the Lord's Prayer teaching occurs in the middle of the narrative. Obviously how Luke and Matthew set up the prayer is not a Greek issue, however interesting it may be. So, let's start playing in the Greek.

Luke sets his up with a subjunctive phrase: "Whenever you pray"; Matthew says (building on what Jesus says earlier), "Thus you shall pray." It is an indicative, a command. Jesus is not commanding his disciples to pray in Luke, he is simply saying, when you pray...
However, Luke also adds another verb: lego. Based on its form, it is unclear whether it is a command (imperative) or description of action (indicative). Ie, it could read:
a) Whenever you pray, you shall say OR
b) Whenever you pray, are continually saying.
It probably is a command. Assuming this we can summarize the Greek difference in the intro as:
In Matthew, Jesus commands them to pray; in Luke, Jesus commands them how to pray.

Regardless, both use a present tense of the verb for pray, indicating this is a continual and repeated action.

Invocation: Big difference here. In Luke, you just call God, "Father" (Pater); in Matthew Jesus calls God "Our Father in the heavens" NOT "in heaven." However, this is fairly common in Matthew to refer to heaven as "the heavens." Sounds a bit more grand!

Hallowed be your name: Same in both. Worth noting is that the word "hallowed" (hagiazw) is a passive aorist imperative in the third person here. Yuck! The first tricky thing is the verb itself. It does not mean holy, but to make holy, to set aside. If Jesus had prayed, "Let your name be holy" we would have a real theological problem. But Jesus does not do this. The reality is that God's name is always holy, but it is not always hallowed, in that it is not always set aside for holy purposes. The NET tries to get at this by translating it "Let your name be honored." The problem here is that the verb "hagiazo" does not refer to cleaning things for shelves, but for using them in worship. In other words, Luther's explanation of this petition gets at the fact that Jesus (in Luke's words) uses a verb (make holy) and not an adjective (is holy).

Now, on to the conjugation. An aorist imperative implies that we are to do an action, but not necessarily do over and over again. Furthermore, any passive imperative is tricky. "Get hit!" is an example of an aorist passive infinitive. In the third person this would be "Let him get hit." So if we apply this to the Lord's Prayer, specifically this case of the verb "make holy" we get "let your name get made holy." Again, yuck. Let's make this a bit prettier English: "Let your name be set aside for holy purposes." That is beginning to sound a bit better.

The tough issue however is that the verb doesn't have the sense of an on-going action. This is not "Contiue to let you name be set aside..." but refers to a one time event. So we can go to ways here. The first is to completely emphasize the moment of prayer: Your name be used right now at this very moment for the holy purpose of prayer. The other is to completely emphasize the future moment of prayer: Your name will one day be completely set aside for holiness. Let that day come. The reality is that this petition is eschatological in nature: There is a day when God's kingdom will come; in this prayer we catch a glimpse of that, here and now and only in this moment.

Your kindgom come. Same in both. I guess the most interesting thing for a sermon is what the word Kindgom actually means! Royal monarchy might make sense. This term, from what I can tell, does not have a specific culturally connotation more than the word kingdom or government would today. It was a catch all phrase common in society. Worth noting is the aorist imperative nature of the verb 'come.' This again puts us back in the eschatological moment. God's kingdom comes for a moment and will fully come later (also in a moment).

It is worth noting that whatever intimacy and presence on wishes to ascribe to the idea of "hallowed is your name" one must ascribe to "your kindgom come." The Greek is the same; God's name is hallowed in the same time-dimension as the kingdom coming.

Your will be done: In Matthew, not in Luke

Daily bread: Matthew and Luke differ here. Luke makes the verb in the present: Continue to give us our daily bread day after day. Matthew leaves it in the aorist: Give us our bread for today.

Forgive us: In Luke, the verb "forgive" (aphihmi) when we pray is again in an aorist tense, indicating we are asking for forgiveness right now. However, the verb "forgive" is in the present tense when it comes to our own action! Matthew keeps both verbs the same. Perhaps Matthew encourages the prayer to forgive in that moment of prayer; Luke perhaps realizes the need of humans to forgive again and again, not simply once.

Furthermore, Luke uses the word "sin"; Matthew keeps the word "debt." I am going to walk away slowly from commentary here...

Lead us not into temptation: Same in both.

But deliver us from evil: Only in Matthew

For thine is the Kingdom, the power and the glory. Amen. This is in the Didache, around 100-110 AD...not in Matthew!

Colossians 1:15-28

2010-07-13T13:26:00.000-07:00

1:15 The theological buzz word here is "eikwn" or "icon." A few things worth noting; this is a word used in Colossians, but not Ephesians. Second, Christ is the first thing mentioned, not as being made in the image, but in fact the image of God. Third thing, the word will come back into play in Col, in Chapter 3, where our minds our renewed into the image of the one who created us. One thing rather interesting is that in as much as the tension between Jew and Greek may have been solved in the book of Colossians (perhaps suggesting a later date than Paul himself!), but tension between Christ and world has not. The writer of Colossians (who I assert is Paul) continued to hold up the dramatic newness of Christ and the corresponding life in Christ.

1:17 " in him all things hold together." The Greek verb here underneath this all is "stand together." This is a rather interesting verb because it literally means "stand with." (synistehmi) "hold together" is a fair translation, but one could even make this a bit stronger -- all things stand united in him; or are even combined in him!

1:18 Great words here: arche. Jesus is the arche. As in "monarch" means one ruler, one principle...Jesus is the ruler, the root, the principle, the beginning, the origin.

1:18 We get the second time for "prototokos": First born. This time not of creation, but of the dead. (Remember the Nestorian debate over "theotokos..."

1:24 The word "my" as in "my sufferings" is not in the Greek. Paul simply says, "I rejoice in the sufferings on your behalf." It is the translators interpretation (ie NRSV and NET) that Paul here refers to rejoicing because of Christ or his sufferings. Regardless, the more difficult part of the sentence is what is meant by "sufferings 'tou' Christ" (the word for suffering and Christ here are straight forward!). The 'tou" there indicates a genitive. So we are back in a familiar place in translation -- sufferings for Christ (objective gen) or sufferings of Christ (subjective gen). The most favorable translation for Paul is that he is going to complete the lack of his suffering for Christ on behalf of the church.

1:25 I will save this for another post/year/time, but Paul says he is commissioned. The actual Greek here is that he is a servant "according to the 'oikonomia' of God." To read another way: "He is a servant according to the economy of God." That is our call, folks, the economy of God. What might this passage say about God's economy? One brief comment: Creation, Jesus, suffering, proclamation, reconcilation and see Col 3.20...a new creation!

Galatians 6:1-7

2010-06-29T11:34:00.000-07:00

Gal 6:1 The word here for catch is "prolambano." "Lambano" is a common word in Greek, meaning give or take. The pro is also a familiar word meaning before or ahead of time. So this word means 'catch ahead.' Interestingly, this phrase then almost means "If you catch someone before they sin..." The point here is not simply admonishment but prevention of further injury.

6:1 The word for "restore" here is "katartizo" which comes from the Greek medical term for "set a bone in place." This obviously takes skill, time and care. What a powerful image about admonishment!

6:1 The word for "spiritual" here is pneumatikos; this word appears a lot in other Pauline writings, see 1 Cor 2:13, but it is not developed in Galatians.

6:3 This is a devilishly short yet grammatically interesting sentence... "If someone (tis; nominative) thinks (dokeo) they (implied subject from before) are something (ti), while under the circumstance of being nothing...
Normally the subject of an infinitive phrase is in the accustative. But this time, it is in the nominative. Why? Dokeo it seems (which is funny because the verb means "seems") takes a nominative subject with the verb "to be." Perhaps it is because the infinitive here is not really its own phrase but completes the initial verb: "He thought he was smart." If anybody can solve this grammatical puzzle, I'd be in their debt. One option is that Bibleworks is wrong; ti can be in the nom or acc as the same spelling. But looking up other examples of dokeo and eivai, it seems this is a consistent pattern. It is also not becauseof the verb einai, which elsewhere, when in an infinitive phrase, takes an accusative subject.

6:3 Less of a grammar note: Paul uses the phrase "thinks/seems to be" three times in this letter -- 2:6 and 2:9 also. Notice how in 2:9 the translators cover up Paul's aggression toward Peter and James?

6:4 The NRSV and NIV locate the pride in different places. The NRSV is in the work; the NIV in the person. "Each can take pride in himeself" is how the NIV and NET translate this phrase. The Greek leaves a slight ambiguity here. It really says, "in himself" (eauton). Eauton can mean his as in possessive, but if this were the case, Paul would use the word in the genitive. Here I'd go with the NIV.

6:5 Although Paul does stack two close phrases here: Bear one another's burden; each much carry their own load, he employs two different words. I struggle to systematize the difference in the two words. The first, baros, probably means more weight (and can mean emotional weight). The second one, phortion, means more merchandise, a specific thing you could carry, a load. At some level, both have metaphorical meanings! Maybe one could say that the second injunction, to carry a phortion is something like this: You are responsible for making your own ship float but this does not absolve you from helping your neighbor's sinking boat either. Or something like this. I wonder if this is a case, like the Gospel of John, where you can try to splice synonymns and not get very far!

6.7 The command here: Do not be deceived! is in the imperative. This is not then a specific injunction (like, don't eat the cookies on the table) but is more a constant remind: "Stop being and continue not to be deceived!" Furthermore, God is constantly not being mocked.

6:16 I want to skip ahead here -- we return to some interesting things. First, Paul again (see chapter 5) uses the word "stoicheo"; those who follow this standard. The word here for standard is "canon," ie standard or law!

Galatians 5:1;13-25

2010-06-23T05:32:00.000-07:00

5:1 This little verse is a good example of how context helps us translate. Paul here commends us not to "be subject/be burdened" to the yoke of slavery. This word, "enecho," is tough to translate. Literally it means "hold in." It has the connotation of "cherish inward wrath at one," or perhaps "be siezed" with something, as in get caught up in a situation. Elsewhere in the NT (Mark 6:19; Luke 11:53) it means hold a grudge or be bitterly opposed to. If one inserts this translation, one gets a very different meaning: "Christ set you free; don't be opposed to the yoke of slavery!" This might make sense if Paul then began to talk about slavery. However, the context of the letter as a whole and chapter 5 and the specific sentence mean that the yoke of slavery is not the burden of following Jesus but of antiquated laws and works-righteousness. Thus, we need a different translation. Here the best sense is probably "caught up in" Like, "dont get caught up in the law again" or to most effectively contrast the two options laid out in the sentence: "Don't contend with yoke of slavery..." I think the NIV does the best job with this translation (be burdened) in that it still leaves the odd verb precisely as an odd verb rather than smooth it over for rhetorical and theological effect...which again, is the job of the pastor and not the translator!

5:13 A little bit more word play. Paul tells us here not to "indulge the flesh" (NIV). Paul literally writes: Not freedom for APORME in/to the flesh, but through love serve/slave one another. The word APORME is pretty interesting and alone would make for a good sermon in two ways. The word comes from apo+horme. A horme, coming into English as "hormone," comes from the word for stir or impulse. An apohorme then is a base from the impulse comes. Moreover, the word can also mean the capital of a banker. So you have three metaphors for how our freedom can be abused: we follow the hormones of our flesh; we use our freedom as a base of operations for the flesh or it becomes the captial on which we draw to sin...Grace becomes the bank that we rob...

5:14 Paul curiously phrases this verse: "The law can be fulfilled in one command, love one another as yourself." First off, he does not use the word command; he uses the word "logos." I am speculating here, but I wonder if Paul almost wants to elevate this above the idea of commandments, if not the law itself. (Paul uses similar language in Romans 13:9). It as if Paul is saying -- loving your neighbor belongs to the eternal Word; the other stuff we have are laws and words.

5:14 Also interesting is the use of the word "summed up" fro mthe Greek "pleroo" which means fulfill. Paul is not saying the law is summed up but rather fulfilled in this word. I think the translation: The law is fulfilled in one word, in this: Love your neighbor as yourself" probably captures more of what Paul is saying. It leaves questions, but I don't think those questions are questions that are solved by the Greek.

5:16 When Paul says to not gratify the pleasures of the flesh he is using the strongest prohibition: No, not never is probably a better way to phrase this in English...

5:24 It is striking here that Paul says that Christians are actually doing the crucifying of the flesh. Normally these sorts of activities are done by God or left in the passive; here the verb is in the active. We, of Christ, do this. The whole passage (esp 5:5-6) would speak to the fact that the Spirit makes this possible, but Paul does not let our own activity off the hook!

5:25 The word for walk here is "stoicheoo" (from which stoicism comes). This word has a rather interesting meaning and related sets of words, but basically, it comes from the word for rows. The idea here is that to "walk" in the spirit here would mean to "assemble orderly ranks for walking."

Galatians 3:19-29

2010-06-15T12:03:00.000-07:00

The actually lectionary lesson begins at verse 23, but let's pick up Paul's argument at verse 19.

3.19: Paul literally writes: "Why then the law?" Perhaps the great question is: What does Paul mean by "nomos" or "law" here? Well...let's see!

3.19: Paul here writes that the law was added "archis" (until) "whom the one came..." Just a note here; we will come back to this later.

3:19: The NIV and NRSV/NET differ in how the translate a little relative pronoun "whom" (literally hoo or 'who') The NIV reads: "until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come" The NRSV/NET read: until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made. I confess I am not the greatest in reading relative pronoun sentences, but I see little support for the NIV translation grammatically. The NIV basically says that a dative pronoun refers to a subject, ie, they translate whom was promised as "who was promised." I realize if you look at this too long it all looks alike, but the question is: What came? The promised seed (NIV) or the seed to the promised (NRSV/NET).

3:19: Point about how Greek works: Paul switches back to talking about the law in the latter half the sentence. How do you know? Because the aorist partiple beginning this part of the sentence is in conjugated as a masculine nominative and thus refers back to the law (alos a mas. nom). If it referred to the seed it would be neuter; if it referred to the promise it would be feminine. Participles are conjugated based on what they relate to in the main sentence; relative pronouns are conjugated based on what they relate to in the relative clause.

3:20: Paul is laying the smack down here. In Greek. In English. Anyway, moving on.

3:21: Great example of an ei-an clause. If both are in the indicative, this means that both points are wrong: If the law could give life (but it doesn't); then you could have righteousness (but it doesn't).

3:22 The NIV is hopefully creative here in its translation of "synklei-o" to mean "declares." It means "shut off" or "imprisoned" and would be used, for example, to talk about catching fish in a net. By translating this word as "declared...by the power of sin..." it distorts the Scripture to protect Scripture. The much more natural reading of the verb "synklei-o" and "hypo twn amartian" (under sin) is what the NRSV/NET render it: Scripture has not simply declared, but has actually done the deed itself. Scripture, has like a net, caught us up under sin. That's the image. Now you can figure out what that means.

3:22 See my notes last week on "Faith of Christ". Another interesting note is thatthe faith (noun) of Jesus makes possible the believing (verb; action) by us.

3:23 To further my point about the verb "synklei-o) see (3:22), the NIV translates it in this sentence as "lock-up."

3:23 Here comes another translation issue on a preposition: eis. This little bad boy can mean until or toward or to. So, the question for interpreters of Gal 3 is: Does the law lead us until Christ or up to Christ or toward Christ?

3:24 The great word here is "paidagogos" (literally foot-leader). As Liddell-Scott puts it: a boy-ward; at Athens, the slave who went with a boy from home to school and back again, a kind of tutor, Hdt., Eur., etc.:-hence Phoenix is called the paidagogos of Achilles. The law is slave...

3:25 The participle here is a genitive absolute (they stick everything in genitive to start out the sentence that has nothing to do with the second half). So you have to treat the genitive word and the genitive participle as all in the nominative and then put a coma: "Faith came," Or to make it connect: After faith came...

3:25 The Bible never says what the NIV says here: "We are no longer under the supervision of the law." It simply says, "We are no longer under a paidagogos."

3:27 Compare this verse with Col 3:12. Can you see the difference in Greek?

Galatians 2:11-21

2010-06-08T11:32:00.001-07:00

2:11 Lesson on "supplementary participles": The way Greek uses the participle here for "he was condemned" is really intuitive. Don't let the book's "supplementary" or other words trick you up. It reads just like English: "He was condemned." Greek will often do this for passive perfect verbs. Some translations stick in a "self-condemned" here because the verb is in the passive. Not sure if this is fair or not. What I do know is that the NIV's "he was in the wrong" is about a sugar coated as a summer fair cotton candy stick...

2:12 Lesson on infinitive phrases: The phrase "Before they came..." is in "articular infitivie with preposition" construct. Which basically means it reads like this: "Before the coming them" and should be translated, "Before they came." First translation help: The subject of any infinitive phrase in Greek is in the accusative. Second translation help. The verb here is in the aorist. Which suggests not as much past time but "point" or "event" time. Before the event of their coming...or even "Before their arrival."

2:12 The word here for "set aside" is aphoriz-oo. This is not always a bad thing. Paul says he is "set aside" to be an apostle (Rom 1:1) and Paul even addresses this fact in Gal 1:15!!

2:13 The word "hypocrite" comes from the Greek hypo-krin-oo. Although krin-oo means judge, the word does not have its root in "over judge" put rather it is a varient of the word "apokrino-mai" which means "answer." The person on stage (above/over) would call out or answer and the "apo" got replaced by the "hypo" (which means above/over). The word then has its root in acting; to play a part; to read dramatically. In the NT, this world only has a negative connotation.

2:14 Paul here uses a word that is only found once in the NT (side note: There are just as many single use words (hapax legomenon) in Gal as in Eph; for a nice article on the difficulties of using hapax legomenon as evidence of authorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapax_legomenon).

Back to the word: "orthopode-oo" (Loan word in English: orthopedics!) Paul here talks about walking correctly toward/with the truth of the gospel! Great image.

2:14 Lesson on the subjunctive: Paul uses an "ei" clause; because the verb of the clause is in the indicative and not the subjunctive, you can (and should) translate the "ei" as "since" and not "if."

2:16 Lesson on the genitive: Faith of Jesus Christ...Here is the commentary by the NET bible:

Quick review:
A) Objective genitive: The genitive is the object; faith's object is Jesus Christ.
B) Subjective genitive: The genitive is the subject; Jesus Christ is the subject who has the faith.

Or "faith in Jesus Christ." A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated "faith in Jesus Christ," an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that pi,stij Cristou/ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean "Christ's faith" or "Christ's faithfulness" (cf., e.g., G. Howard, "The 'Faith of Christ'," ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, "Pi,stij Cristou/," NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when pi,stij takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, "The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul," NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, "Once More, PISTIS CRISTOU," SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

2:17 The phrase here for "heck no" is "mh genoito" (Let it never be so). What is kind of funny is that Paul uses this phrase a fair amount, especially after he has sort of trashed the law and wants to say, "but is the law a bad thing..." heck no!

2:18 The word for build up is "oikodome-oo" which Paul will take up with greater intensity in 1 Cor.

2:19 The word for "together crucified" is one word..."syn-stauroo-mai." Furthermore it is in the passive perfect; which means that Paul did not do it (it was done to him) and it still has an impact on him now.

Galatians 1:11-24

2010-06-01T12:00:00.000-07:00

1.11: We have a nice "adjectival participle here. The Gospel that was preached by me. Adjectival participles are easy to recognize and translate. Notice the "to" structure "to" euangellion..."to" euan...it tells you they are a pair.

1.12: The word here for revelation is...Revelation or "apocalypse"! It is indefinite (no article) so it can be translated just as "revelation" or "a revelation."

1.13: A point about the passive. Paul here does the passive construction in a few ways here:
a) verb in passive voice with "hypo" to signify agent (Gospel which was preached by me -- hypo mou)
b) verb in passive voice without any agent (not taught to me)
c) use of prepositions: "recevied from men (para)" but "through the revelation of Jesus Christ (dia)"

1.14: A rather ironic twist here. Paul says he was hungry for the "tradition" of his elders. Tradition is a latin word; the Greek is almost the same "paradidhmi" (both mean over-give). Paul here seems to be attacking tradition, yet in 1 Cor he will appeal to this same word that he handed over what was of first importance, what was given over to him, (paradidhmi), ie, communion. (See 1 Cor 11.2)

1:16 The NRSV smoothes over something rather awkward by Paul here. Paul writes that Christ was revealed (back to apocalypse) in me; not to me, but "en emoi." The NRSV translates it as "to" because Paul uses the same preposition to write I preached it "to the gentiles." There though it can mean "among" but this makes no sense in the context we currently have it.

1:16 Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" (sakri kai haimati) (hendiadis = two words that have one meaning) for human here.

1:22 Double dative object construction here. I was unknown (dat) to the face (dat) to the churches...

The first one we translate as an adverb: "I was personally unknown"; the second as the direct object (normally in the accusative, but some verbs that a dative direct object)

1:24 Finally Paul says, "the Glorified God in me" Once again, we have this tricky "in me." The NET Bible justifies this saying, "The prepositional phrase evn emoi, (en emoi) has been translated with a causal force." Blah blah. Why do we want to cover up Paul so much??

In this case, I think Paul is preparing us for his amazing chapter 2 -- where he finally concludes that Christ is in him. wow!

Romans 5:1-11

2010-05-25T10:23:00.000-07:00

I know the lectionary this week only covers the first few verses, but verses 1-11 form a coherent whole.

This passage is an excellent passage to examine verb tenses. Go through and highlight each verb in a different color based on tense. A very interesting pattern emerges, especially with the aorist tenses…It may be tough to explain in a sermon, but for your own personal good, this is a worthwhile exercise.

5.1 Paul begins the whole train of thought with the verb “justify.” (dikaio-oo) Because it is in participle form, most translators make it an adverbial phrase, “Since we are justified…” But I think any phrasing here loses a bit of steam. It can and should just read: “Justified therefore by faith we have peace with God through our lord Jesus Christ.” The arguments begins with justification…(again, think about the aorist tense here).

5.1 The phrase “by faith” is a translation of the underlying Greek “ex pisteoos.” There are two problems here – one grammatical and one deeply theological. The first is what is meant by “ex.” Does this mean “of,” “by” or even “through.” This discussion though is perhaps is not as fascinating as the deeper question: whose faith is Paul talking about? Jesus or ours? This is a trickier question in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In this case though, especially in light of 4.24, Paul is talking about the faith of humans in God.

5.2 Our justification (aorist) is leading to a handful of present implications (both perfect and present verbs): Having peace, having access, standing in grace and boasting in hope. Faith is connecting the past event of our justification (done on the cross; perhaps one would argue in Baptism) and our current reality of peace, grace and even pride in God.

5.5 Paul uses an interesting tense here with the word “given” in that “we are given the Holy Spirit.” One would have expected a present or perhaps a perfect tense, but Paul again puts it in the aorist. Throughout this section, Paul is using the aorist tense to point toward the event of our justification – the cross (and I would argue, our Baptism).

5.8 Again, an interesting choice of verb tense for demonstrate (sunistehmi): It is in the present, suggesting that the cross was not but IS a show of God’s love for us. A reminder than even if it is a once and done matter, we always need this demonstration of God’s love.

5.9 The verb save (soozoo) is in the future here. The cross did not save us but will save us! In fact Paul generally avoids the idea of salvation as a past activity, but views it as a present, on-going reality that will reach culmination in the future. (My own assertion: Even if you ignore Ephesians I don’t think Paul would say no, “The cross didn’t save us from hell.” I think Paul would just point toward this and say it’s bigger than this.)

5.10 Reconciliation (katallass-oo)…the favorite metaphor for liberals in the church! Worth pointing out: Reconciliation required Jesus’ death.

Acts 2:1-11

2010-05-18T10:34:00.000-07:00

2:1 An interesting note: Chapter two begins with an articular infinitive "in the xyzing" which is a fancy way of saying "During the ..." In this case, the verb is "fulfill." During the time of Pentecost approaching, they were all together in one place. The verb is in the present (passive) suggesting it is ongoing action; especially when paired with an imperfect as the main verb. The point here is that the text suggests that they were all together, not simply on Pentecost, but they were all together leading up to Pentecost.

2:1 The text here uses a rather interesting phrase "homou epi to auto." Which is a fancy way of saying "together together." Luke wants to drive the point across that they were united.

2:2 The word here for violent (biaios) is only found in the OT, where it most often describes the wind blowing back the waters during Exodus.

2:3 The word here for cast/divide (diameriz-oo) is found twice in the book of Acts; here and then at the end of chapter two, when the group sells their possessions and divides the money. The Spirit divides his gifts that we might divide ours.

2:4 For the third time now we see a word meaning "fulfill" used; the days of Pentecost were being fulfilled; they house was filled; now the people are filled.

2:5 The men in Jerusalem are considered "devout" (eulabhs). Interestingly, Simeon was labeled as devout as well -- a rather rare term in the NT (only used four times). As Jesus was revealed (as a baby) to a devout man, the church was revealed (as a baby!) to a devout man.

2:8 "Our own langauge" literally "the idiom dialect" Luther hits the nail on the head: Muttersprache.

2:6,8 and 11: The verb "akou-oo" is found. This very means listening. Perhaps the more importatn activity of the Holy Spirit is working on the ears of the listener!