This passage occurs as a New Testament Lesson in the RCL
"Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently July 2014.
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.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Matthew 6:24-34
This passage occurs in the Epiphany season of the Revised Common Lectionary (Year A).
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!
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!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Lord's Prayer
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" (αγιαζω, hagiazoo) 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 "Continue 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: God's 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 kingdom come. Same in both. I guess the most interesting thing for a sermon is what the word Kingdom 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 one wishes to ascribe to the idea of "hallowed is your name" one must ascribe to "your kingdom 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" (αφιημι, aphieemi) 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, suggesting an on-going action! Matthew keeps both verbs the same. Perhaps Matthew encourages the one praying 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 the oldest copies we have of Matthew's Gospel.
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" (αγιαζω, hagiazoo) 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 "Continue 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: God's 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 kingdom come. Same in both. I guess the most interesting thing for a sermon is what the word Kingdom 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 one wishes to ascribe to the idea of "hallowed is your name" one must ascribe to "your kingdom 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" (αφιημι, aphieemi) 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, suggesting an on-going action! Matthew keeps both verbs the same. Perhaps Matthew encourages the one praying 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 the oldest copies we have of Matthew's Gospel.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Colossians 1:15-28
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!
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!
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Galatians 1:11-24
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: "received 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 smooths 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!
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: "received 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 smooths 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!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Acts 11:1-18
11.1 Great use of a substantive participle here. literally: The brothers the being throughout Judea. [Odd use of kata (in the accusative it can mean throughout).] The two "the"s help you see the link between brothers and being...so we translate this: The apostles and brothers in Judea heard...why? Because the participle phrase "who are throughout Judea" is cumbersome!
11.1 Three times in the book of Acts Luke refers to people "accepting" the Word of God. No justification bending of the text. Deal with it: 8:14; 11:1; 17:1
11.5 The word for vision here is not related to sight but rather "exstatis" or "ecstatic." Peter was having an estatic vision!
Also, the way the prepositions and participles work in this verse is rather interesting; I don't think it impacts the interpretation, but worth looking at! (Note, the dative use of "corners"!)
11.6 Funny note here -- the word for "see" here (katanoe-oo) is a bit unusual. Another person looked at food and ate it -- Eve; same verb. Kind of ironic that Eve did the wrong thing; Peter here does the right thing.
11.7 The word for kill here (thy-oo) has connotations of sacrifice. (The word appears 17 times in the LXX version of Exodus!) Talk about making the common holy!
11.8 The two words Peter uses to describe the food are "koinos" (as in Koine/common Greek) and akathapos (as in unclean).
11.9 Interstingly, the verb here for "call common/unclean" is simply "koino-oo," which has no connotations of "calling" but rather means "make unclean." This seems like a subtle point, but once again, alas, the translators water it down for us. At issue is not simply the "names" Peter uses but actually how Peter treats the objects/food/people. When the translators limit the issue to naming, the avoid part of the punch -- the issue is not simply what Peter calls it but in fact is how he treats it (which includes, but is not limited to how he treats it).
11.12 The word here for "without hesitation" or "make a distinction" (diakrin-oo)goes back to an earlier word in this pericope, 11.2, when the "of circumcision party" had "took issue" with Peter. So, the "of circum. party" "diakrin-oo"s Peter; Peter will not "diakrin-oo" this invitation.
11.18 The brothers now praise (glorify) God for the repentance of the gentiles. In order to discover the repentance (metanoia) Peter had to "kata-noia" (see/observe/think) again.
11.1 Three times in the book of Acts Luke refers to people "accepting" the Word of God. No justification bending of the text. Deal with it: 8:14; 11:1; 17:1
11.5 The word for vision here is not related to sight but rather "exstatis" or "ecstatic." Peter was having an estatic vision!
Also, the way the prepositions and participles work in this verse is rather interesting; I don't think it impacts the interpretation, but worth looking at! (Note, the dative use of "corners"!)
11.6 Funny note here -- the word for "see" here (katanoe-oo) is a bit unusual. Another person looked at food and ate it -- Eve; same verb. Kind of ironic that Eve did the wrong thing; Peter here does the right thing.
11.7 The word for kill here (thy-oo) has connotations of sacrifice. (The word appears 17 times in the LXX version of Exodus!) Talk about making the common holy!
11.8 The two words Peter uses to describe the food are "koinos" (as in Koine/common Greek) and akathapos (as in unclean).
11.9 Interstingly, the verb here for "call common/unclean" is simply "koino-oo," which has no connotations of "calling" but rather means "make unclean." This seems like a subtle point, but once again, alas, the translators water it down for us. At issue is not simply the "names" Peter uses but actually how Peter treats the objects/food/people. When the translators limit the issue to naming, the avoid part of the punch -- the issue is not simply what Peter calls it but in fact is how he treats it (which includes, but is not limited to how he treats it).
11.12 The word here for "without hesitation" or "make a distinction" (diakrin-oo)goes back to an earlier word in this pericope, 11.2, when the "of circumcision party" had "took issue" with Peter. So, the "of circum. party" "diakrin-oo"s Peter; Peter will not "diakrin-oo" this invitation.
11.18 The brothers now praise (glorify) God for the repentance of the gentiles. In order to discover the repentance (metanoia) Peter had to "kata-noia" (see/observe/think) again.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Psalm 23
Note: I profess a much greater humility in regards to my Hebrew comments than Greek!
Verse 1: 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.
Verse 1: 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."
Verse 1: The word for lack here, K/H-S-R, is also used in Deuteronomy 2:7, when God says the people lacked nothing. A reminder that what God says we need is probably different from our own estimation...
Also, the translation, "I want for nothing" in stead of "I am not wanting" is from the Greek and Latin, not the Hebrew (ie, the Hebrew simply reads: "I am not wanting..."
Verse 2: The word for "resting place" is interesting. As Bible Work's TWOT dictionary says: "Basically the root nûaµ 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),"
Verse 2: The word "green" as in "Green pastures" does not appear in the Hebrew. The word is "grass." God wants to feed us, not show us pretty pictures.
Verse 3: The word "restore" is the reason I find Hebrew so wonderful but so frustrating. If you look at the word, 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."
Verse 3: 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: 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.
Verse 5: (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 :-)
Verse 6: Warning on manuscripts: The Hebrew literally reads, "I will return in(to) the house of the Lord," however everyone translates this "I will live" (amending the text). Which is bizarre; the NET translation says, "return" makes no sense. Which is too bad because I think it makes more sense this way!
Verse 1: 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.
Verse 1: 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."
Verse 1: The word for lack here, K/H-S-R, is also used in Deuteronomy 2:7, when God says the people lacked nothing. A reminder that what God says we need is probably different from our own estimation...
Also, the translation, "I want for nothing" in stead of "I am not wanting" is from the Greek and Latin, not the Hebrew (ie, the Hebrew simply reads: "I am not wanting..."
Verse 2: The word for "resting place" is interesting. As Bible Work's TWOT dictionary says: "Basically the root nûaµ 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),"
Verse 2: The word "green" as in "Green pastures" does not appear in the Hebrew. The word is "grass." God wants to feed us, not show us pretty pictures.
Verse 3: The word "restore" is the reason I find Hebrew so wonderful but so frustrating. If you look at the word, 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."
Verse 3: 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: 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.
Verse 5: (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 :-)
Verse 6: Warning on manuscripts: The Hebrew literally reads, "I will return in(to) the house of the Lord," however everyone translates this "I will live" (amending the text). Which is bizarre; the NET translation says, "return" makes no sense. Which is too bad because I think it makes more sense this way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
