“Alluding to Barth again, the virgin birth is posted on guard at the door of the mystery of Christmas; and none of us must think of hurrying past it.  It stands on the threshold of the New Testament, blatantly supernatural, defying our rationalism, informing us that all that follows belongs to the same order as itself and that if we find it offensive there is no point in proceeding further.  If our faith staggers at the virgin birth what is it going to make of the feeding of the five thousand, the stilling of the tempest, the raising of Lazarus, the transfiguration, the resurrection and, above all, the astonishing self-consciousness of Jesus?  The virgin birth is God’s gracious declaration, at the very outset of the gospel, that the act of faith is a legitimate sacrificium intellectus (sacrifice of intellect).”

Basically this quote is saying that the virgin conception is essentially the first thing we come to in learning about Jesus Christ.  If we cannot accept that God brought forth a true Man inside the womb of a virgin woman, then there’s no point in accepting anything else in Christianity.  All of the rest of the content of Christianity is equally “astounding.”  We cannot even begin to explain how God accomplished the virgin conception; it is simply our choice whether to believe that it happened or not.  If we can accept it, then all the rest that follows about Jesus (His healings and resurrection, for instance) can be accepted as well.  But, if we cannot accept this first statement about Jesus, then you may as well give up on the rest of Christianity.  Where do you stand?

The quote comes from Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ, InterVarsity Press, 1998, p. 37 {here}.

“Humility is basically agreeing with reality.”

“Being humble doesn’t mean you let people walk all over you.”

“Being humble doesn’t mean you grovel in the dirt all the time.”

“Being humble doesn’t mean there is no reward.”

The attitude of humility is based on the principle in 1 Peter 5: “At the proper time He [God] will exalt you.”

“Modesty and humility are different.”

A thought on humility from Robert F. Morneau in Humility: 31 Reflections on a Christian Virtue:

“What is humility? It is that habitual quality whereby we live in the truth of things: the truth that we are creatures and not the Creator; the truth that our life is a composite of good and evil, light and darkness; the truth that in our littleness we have been given extravagant dignity…. Humility is saying a radical ‘yes’ to the human condition.”

Many people assume that translating the Bible is not that difficult.  After all, they think, each Greek or Hebrew word has a corresponding English word, and you just substitute one for the other.  This has led to the dogmatism many people show when it comes to one particular English translation of the Bible, for example, the King James only movement or the New American Standard only people.  Proponents of only certain translations claim that their translation best captures the reading of the original language, and all other translations “interpret” too much.   This view of translation also leads to people being furious over the “change in meaning” when one translation renders a Greek or Hebrew word one way and another translation renders it a different way.

These people usually say, “Well, you just have to translate the Bible literally!”  And of course this involves the debate between the “word-for-word,” “literal” translation technique versus the so-called “dynamic (or functional) equivalent” technique.

I used to be one of these people.  I learned Greek and some Hebrew in college and was confident in my abilities to translate the Word of God.  Then I went to seminary…

There I learned that the issue of translation is really not that easy.  There’s no such thing as a “word-for-word” or “literal” translation technique.  This is true of any language.  Every language has idioms and a certain way of writing that simply does not convert at a one-to-one level with another language.  Take, for example, the Hebrew word “shalom” that most of us know.  In Hebrew this has multiple ideas including, “peace,” “hello,” “completion,” “goodbye,” “welfare,” and so forth.  No single English word can communicate all of the ideas embedded in this one Hebrew word.  There is no “word-for-word” or “literal” translation that can communicate across languages at a one-to-one level.  Every translation, no matter what languages are involved, is a study in interpretation.  Here’s another example. English has many words for boat-type vessels: ship, boat, cruiser, dinghy, etc.  How would you translate one of these words, with all of the connotations that come with it, into another language that only has one word for all boat-type vessels.  Sure you can do it, but you are losing some of the English connotations as soon as you translate it into the more limited language.  This is the challenge of translation–you must interpret the message.

I’d like to provide you with an example of the challenge/difficulty of translating the Bible from Greek into English that I had to work through this past week in class.

This is Philemon 1:6 in Greek:

ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν.

If you look at different English translations, hardly any two end up exactly the same.  Eg,

NIV:

I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.

NASB:

and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake.

KJV:

That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

See also the ASV, NET, ESV, HCSB, TNIV.

As you can see, the versions handle verse 6 very differently.  Why?  It is because the Greek is somewhat ambiguous, and the translator must interpret Paul and try to decide what Paul means and how to communicate it in English.  Let’s break the verse into its parts and study its difficulties:

The first issue is the word ὅπως (“hopos”).  It probably is communicating the content of Paul’s prayer (v.4) ["that"], but it could also be (as it often is) introducing a purpose clause linked to v.5 ["in order that"].

The second issue is the phrase ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου (“he koinonia tes pisteos sou”).  Firstly, what does κοινωνία (“koinonia”) mean?  Is it “fellowship,” “participation,” or “sharing”?  Secondly, what kind of genitive is τῆς πίστεώς (“tes pisteos”)?  Thirdly, what kind of genitive is σου (“sou”)?  This phrase could be legitimately translated any of the following ways:

1. “your fellowship [with Christ] that is characterized by faith”
2. “your sharing in the faith [Faith]“
3. “their participation in your faith”
4. “our fellowship with you as believers”
5. “your fellowship [with Christ/with other believers] that arises from your faith”
6. “your faith, that enables you to share in Christ”
7. “your generosity, which arises from your faith”

[These options gleaned from Murray Harris, Colossians & Philemon, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.]

There is nothing in the Greek text itself that can tell you which translation option is right.  Those are all perfectly valid translation options.  Which one do you pick?  It’s up to the interpreter to sift through the possibilities and make a decision based on his/her understanding of what Paul was trying to say.

A look at the English translations illustrates the different ways their translators have taken the phrase.  The NIV takes it as evangelism: “you may be active in sharing your faith,” as does the ESV: “the sharing of your faith.”  The ASV and NASB translate it basically word-for-word: “the fellowship of your faith,” but you, the reader, are left to determine what “the fellowship of your faith” means.  The NET takes it as a sharing in the common Faith: “the faith you share with us.”  The HCSB translates it as participation in the Faith: “your participation in the faith.”  The TNIV translates it as partnership in a common faith: “your partnership with us in the faith.”

You can translate the phrase with the typical first-year-Greek-technique word-for-word (as the NASB has done), “the fellowship of the faith of you,” but then you are left with understanding what that means.  The job of the translator is to communicate meaning, not just words.  And, as mentioned above, the Greek does not help you very much in deciding the right meaning among the available options.  The translator must decide based on context, and that is certainly not always easy.

The third issue is what does the phrase ἐνεργὴς γένηται (“energes genetai”) mean?  Options include “become active,” “become effective,” “become effectual.”  What is Paul saying?  The interpreter must decide.  There is nothing in the language to make that call.

The fourth issue is what does the prepositional phrase ἐν ἐπιγνώσει (“en epignosei”) mean?  It typically is translated “in the knowledge,” but what does “knowledge” refer to?  Is it “knowledge” or “full knowledge”?  Does the preposition ἐν (“en”) mean “in,” “by [means of],” or something else?  It can mean any of these; only context can decide.

The fifth issue is what does παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ (“pantos agathou”) mean?  What kind of genitive is it?  Is it, “of every good thing” or “of every good blessing” or “of all good”?

The sixth issue is what does τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν (“tou en hemin”) mean?  Is the definite article τοῦ being used as a relative pronoun, as is usually suggested?  Is the preposition ἐν about position truth (“in”), sphere (“in”), means (“by”), or “among”?  And what about the text critical issue?  Some manuscripts (some very good ones, in fact) have ὑμιν (“humin”) ["you"] instead of ἡμῖν (“hemin”) ["us"].  Is Paul talking about himself, Christians in general, Philemon, or Philemon, Archippus, Apphia, and the church in Philemon’s house (v.2)?  Once that issue is settled, the interpreter must decide how the phrase relates to the previous phrase παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ.  Is he talking about positional truth as he has in Ephesians?

The last issue is what does the phrase εἰς Χριστόν (“eis Christon”) mean?  This phrase is only used once elsewhere in Paul (Col 2:5).  Why doesn’t he use his normal phrase ἑν Χριστῳ (“en Christo”)?  Is it merely a stylistic change since he already used ἑν twice in the near context?  Does εἰς mean “in” or “to” or “into”?  Is it “for the sake of” (as the NASB)?

So, all this discussion has hopefully demonstrated to you that the translation of the Bible from the original languages into English is NOT easy.  All translation involves interpretation as the translator struggles to determine what the author meant, since the language often has several possible ways of being translated.

The translation I came up with, as I understand the Text is:

that your sharing in the Faith might become effective by means of the knowledge of every good thing which is in us in Christ.

So, I hope that this encourages you to be careful in what you say and think about Bible translators.  There is no one version that is “the best.”  It is not an easy task, and those who do it for those of us who cannot read the original languages should be highly honored for their thoughtful diligence.

By the way, this is not to suggest that the translators manufacture whatever meaning they want to twist out of the Greek text.  Certainly the Greek has limits as to its meaning, and usually context makes it clear what the author was saying, but there are some difficult passages that could have several different perfectly legitimate translations, and it is then up to the translator to do the best he/she can in communicating what the author intended.

The Puritans were men whose minds derived a peculiar character from the daily contemplation of superior beings and eternal interests. Not content with acknowledging, in general terms, an overruling Providence, they habitually ascribed every event to the will of a Great Being, for whose power nothing was too vast, for whose inspection nothing was too minute.  To know Him, to serve Him, to enjoy Him, was with them the great end of existence…They recognized no title to superiority but His favor; and, confident of that favor, they despised all the accomplishments and all the dignities of the world.  If they were unacquainted with the works of philosophers and poets, they were deeply read in the oracles of God….The intensity of their feelings on one subject made them tranquil on every other…cleared their minds from every vulgar passion.

What do you set your mind on?  May you think of God more today.

Taken from Macaulay’s Milton, cited in Richard Ellsworth Day, The Shadow of the Broad Brim: The Life Story of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Heir of the Puritans, Chicago: The Judson Press, 1934, p. 118.

However, once I began reading it, I could hardly put it down.  It is not merely about the KJV-only debate.  Rather, it discusses many, many important topics related to Bibliology in general.  It does speak much about the KJV-only debate, but what it says about other topics related to the Bible is invaluable.  I highly recommend reading this book.  It will give you an appreciation for the issues surrounding the KJV-only debate, and it will also provide you with many other key concepts related to the Bible in general.

In my opinion, the book deals very fairly, yet honestly and intelligently about the issues concerning the KJV-only debate.  It’s conclusion is that there should be no reason to dogmatically support one Bible version over all others.  Which Bible version one reads should not be a test for orthodoxy.  All Bible translations have some value, so none should be made the standard version of evangelicalism.

Far more importantly, however, the book discusses in understandable yet deep ways the complex issues affecting the Bible.

• The history of the OT and NT Texts in the original languages are discussed at length.  This part proved to be particularly fascinating to me.  I had always wondered how we got our Bible’s Text, and this answered most of the questions.  I came to realize that the issue of the Text of Scripture is not so simple as we might hope.  There is no one perfect Hebrew or Greek manuscript.  We have to study all the available manuscripts (some of which are faulty) and “create” a reliable manuscript which most nearly represents the original manuscript by comparing the variant manuscripts.
• The matter of the preservation of Scripture is considered.  Do we have the exact words with which the original manuscript was written?  Do we have to have them in order for our Bible to be the Word of God?  How do we explain errors introduced into the manuscript copies by copyists?  Does our Bible represent the original message God gave to the writers of Scripture?  These are vital questions, and this book considers them very well.
• The matter of Bible translations is weighed.  What is the best translation to use?  Is the KJV okay?  Is the NIV okay?  What about the NLT or the TNIV?  Which is better: dynamic equivalent (aka, functional equivalent: “thought-for-thought”) translation theory or formal equivalent  (“word-for-word”) translation theory?

All in all, this book is outstanding in its consideration of these matters.  Once you read this book, you will realize that the matters of translations and the preservation of Scripture is not as cut-and-dry as you once thought it was…  If you have any interest in these matters, this is an excellent introduction to the subject.  Please take the time to read it.  It will prove invaluable to your consideration of Bibliology-related matters.

One Bibly Only? Edited by Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder.  Grand Rapids, Mi: Kregel, 2001. {here}

…[There is a] need for us to work with all our power in this life since we will have no further opportunity for this sort of work after we have left our bodies. (commenting on Ecclesiastes 9:4-10)

We shall not be brought back again for a second chance to cooperate with God in doing His will on this side of eternity. (commenting on Ecc 3:22)

It is so easy to put things off.  We tell ourselves that we’ll start praying more tomorrow, we’ll read our Bibles tomorrow, we’ll go visit that unsaved neighbor tomorrow, we’ll work on that sin problem next time temptation comes up…  Friends, we’re running out of tomorrows!  One of these days will be our last on earth, and we can’t come back to do all those things we’ve postponed.  We are only promised today, and we must make the most of this day.  Let us be diligent to do today whatever God has asked us to do.  There won’t be opportunity after your last breath to make up for lost time.  Let’s be diligent about our time and opportunities!

See also James 4:13-14 and all the NT references to “today.”

I misplaced the source information, but I think the quote is from: J. Stafford Wright, “Ecclesiastes” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol 5 (1991). {here}

No amount of emphasis on grace can justify taking liberties with God, for the very concept of grace demands gratitude, and gratitude cannot be casual.”

In other words, we cannot use the fact that we are saved by grace alone as a justification for becoming careless with God.

Under pre-Christian times,  one approached God based on the commands of the Law–”do this” and “don’t do this!”  With that kind of system, one had to be careful how he treated God, otherwise he might be punished by God for approaching God in an unacceptable way (cf. Nadab & Abihu, Aaron’s sons, Lev 10:1-3).

Now that we’re saved by grace alone regardless of our good or evil works (Eph 2:8-9), we might be tempted to treat God however we want since He cannot eternally condemn us or unsave us based upon our works.  But this is not the case!  Grace is not a license for us to do whatever we want with regards to God!  We cannot approach Him any old way we want.  He still is a holy God with standards that must be met.  Grace, rather, should drive us to humble gratitude for what God has done for us, and teach us willingly to obey what God has commanded of us.  True gratitude is thoughtful and careful to express itself rightly, not however it feels.  True gratitude is purposeful.

Quote from: Derek Kidner, Ecclesiastes (Intervarsity Press: 1984). {here}

Prayer is not reciting a list as quickly as possible so as to rush once more into the round of daily life…

In other words, when you pray, don’t be in a hurry to just name off to God all the requests on your list so you can get back to the chores and busyness of daily life.  Prayer is about communication with God.  It is about talking to Him, not telling Him a bunch of things that He ought to do.  It is also about listening and meditating on His Word.  So, please set aside some day every day when you just talk with God.  Make it true communication.  Perhaps even spend a few minutes with God without asking for anything–no request list!  Just praise Him or thank Him; don’t ask.  Make your prayer life part of your relationship to God.

Quote from: J. Stafford Wright, “Ecclesiastes” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol 5 (1991). {here}

The immediately following account is of Darby visiting a deathly-ill boy and sharing the Gospel with him:

“…’After upwards of an hour’s toilsome walking…over steep hills…[and]…heavy marshes,’ Darby arrived at a peasant’s cottage and found the young lad with his mother, lying on a bed of straw ‘in a state of extreme suffering and exhaustion.’  The boy stared at Darby ‘like a frightened animal.’  Darby was immediately ‘struck with dismay and almost despair,’ not knowing how to reach this lost soul who was close to death, illiterate, and ‘altogether ignorant of the way of salvation.’  Darby records how he ‘raised up’ his heart in prayer, asking the Lord to direct him ‘in this most difficult and trying position’ and to open to him ‘by His Spirit of wisdom a way to set forth the glad tidings of salvation so as to be understood by this poor benighted wanderer.’  As Darby enquired about his condition, the boy told him how he had fallen ill after searching the mountains in inclement weather for one of his father’s sheep, which had gone astray.  Having found the distressed animal, the boy, whose lungs had been pierced by ‘the cold mountain blast,’ lifted it on his shoulders and carried it home, much to the delight of his father.  As the boy declared, ‘I did my best to save the sheep.’  The Lord had provided ‘this happy opening’ for Darby, who proceeded to use the story to tell him the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7). ‘The Lord mercifully opened not only his understanding, but his heart also, to receive the things spoken.  He himself was the lost sheep, Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd,  who was sent by the Father to seek for him….My poor sick lad seemed to drink it all in.  He received it all; he understood it all.  I never saw a clearer proof of the power of the divine Spirit to apply the Word of God….He accepted Christ as his Savior [and] earnestly prayed to be carried home like the lost sheep in the heavenly Shepherd’s arms.  He died humbly, peacefully, almost exulting, with the name of Jesus, my Savior and my Shepherd, the last upon his lips.’”

Wilkinson with Philip Hallie in Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed and David Brog in Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State points out  that Darby’s influence among some villagers in the French village Le Chambon led these villagers to harbor some 5,000 Jews during the Holocaust.  They loved the Jews, and they were willing to risk their own lives to help them.  One account in this village includes a German Jewish lady visiting a farm of some Darby followers.  When the Jewess asked to buy some eggs, the farmer’s wife asked her if she was Jewish.  She affirmed that, only to have the farmer’s wife summon the whole family down to where the two women were standing.  The Jewess, who had become very nervous,  was completely taken aback when the farmer’s wife gladly showed her family this representative of the Chosen People.  They loved the Jews, and this love came through John Darby’s influence.  The main organizer of this effort to save the Jews in Le Chambon was Andre Trocme, who was posthumously honored as a Righteous Among the Nations in 1972 by Yad VaShem (Israel’s Holocaust memorial museum).

Quotes by Darby:

Darby loved the church all his life, but “there was, however, another flock that Darby took into his heart,  a flock despised, neglected, and rejected not only by the world, but by many in the church.”  This was, of course, the Jews.

“Israel is always the people of God [and] cannot cease to be the people of God.”

“The Jews are the habitual object of the thoughts of God; for, although He cannot recognize them for the moment, as being under His chastening hand, they are nevertheless still His people…”

Material taken from Wilkinson, Paul R. “John Nelson Darby and His Views on Israel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 166, no. 661 (January-March 2009): 84-99.

Paul has written a book with Thomas Ice on John Darby’s influence in supporting the Jews and Zionism: Wilkinson, Paul and Thomas Ice. For Zion’s Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson Darby. Wipf and Stock, 2007. {here}