Mark 5:7: "Swear by God" (Monday with Mounce 27)

There are certain Greek words and constructions that normally will not come over into English easily. It is always fun to watch the translations struggle to get the idea across. Two come to mind.

In Mark 5:7 the demon says to Jesus, "I adjure you by God (horkizo se ton theon), do not torment me" (ESV). The TNIV says, "In God’s name don’t torture me!" There are two issues here. The accusative ton theon is an accusative of oath, the name by which the oath is taken. That is why you can translate an accusative with "by," an idea normally connected with the dative.

The other issue is horkizo. BDAG lists its meaning as, "to give a command to someone under oath, adjure, implore." It is more than just a command or a strong request from the demon. The demon wants Jesus to take an oath not to torment him. This explains the "adjure" and "In God’s name." Pretty bold of the demon—asking the Son of God to swear an oath in the name of God.

Other translations don’t maintain the sense of an oath. The TEV says, "I beg you," which is far from the meaning of the text. The NLT’s is a bit mystifying to me. "For God’s sake, don’t torture me!" I don’t know how "For God’s sake" rings in your ears, but to me it sounds like a curse, and that is not what is happening either.

Another illustration is the optative me genoito (e.g., Luke 20:16; Rom 3:4). We always have fun with this one in class. This use of the optative is the strongest form of a prohibition in Greek.

"Under no circumstances whatsoever" is the idea. I often heard this when I asked students if they wanted to take an extra quiz, do a little extra homework, or hand in papers early. me genoito.

But look at how the translations struggle to get the point across. Let’s take Rom 6:2.

"By no means" (ESV; NRSV; TNIV).

"God forbid" (KJV).

"May it never be!" (NASB).

"Of course not!" (NLT).

"Absolutely not!" (NET).

"Out of the question!" (NJB).

This is one of those situations where no one tries to go word-for-word. It just doesn’t work. But again the NLT is surprisingly weak.

The question is, in your language, what is the strongest way you can say "No!"?

"Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Rom 6:15). Paul responds, "under no circumstances, nohow, nowhere, over my dead body, you’ve got to be kidding me, that’s absolutely the most ridiculous thing have ever heard, do I look that stupid, give me a break! me genoito."

There are other words and expressions that I could list, such as the idiom generally translated "forever," which word-for-word says, "into the age(s)," or "into the ages of ages," a phrase that sometimes is somewhat limited in time (1 Cor 2:7), and other times clearly means forever (Rom 1:25). But I am working on this as a separate blog post.

The point is this: languages are not codes. You can’t go neatly from one into the other. Words don’t have exactly the same meanings, and neither do grammatical constructions. All translation is both science and art. Much of the science is done in first year Greek, but the "art" part requires at least second year Greek.

So hang in there. Keep taking Greek classes as you are able, keep reading a verse a day in Greek, and force yourself to use the better commentaries that require more technical knowledge. The feel for the language will come.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

Comments

[Irving Salzman]

Great post, today! (Though, to be honest, all of your posts are great!) I have a question. I know this will be off-topic, but it is inspired by two of your earlier posts ("How Do You Use Greek in the Pulpit," and "Hebraic Genitives"). I preached on Mt 28:16-20 this past weekend, which was a lot of fun, not the least of which was related to the use of "Hoi de" in Mt 28:17. But on to my question. In your post on "Greek in the Pulpit," you provided an excellent analysis of the Great Commission command to "Make disciples." You noted that "Going" was the dependent construction, which picked up some imperatival force from "Make disciples," though the latter was very clearly the main idea. At the same time, you noted "baptizing" and "teaching" to be circumstantial participles, which partly convey how we are to "make disciples." I concur with your analysis.
What arouses my curiousity is the relationship between "Going" and making disciples. I'm wondering if there isn't a Hebraic background to this as well. For example, in Jonah, God commissions the prophet to go to the Ninevites, not once but twice, in almost the same exact wording both times. God's command to Jonah is to "qum lekh," "Arise, Go!" Most interpreters correctly identify the main verb to be "lekh," "Go!" The addition of "qum," "arise" is generally understood to create a verbal hendiadys with "lekh." "Qum" adds urgency to the single verbal idea of "Go." It's as if God were saying "Get going, Jonah." "Now!"
What I was wondering is if, in the Great Commission charge, "Going" isn't functioning in a similar way. It is definitely subordinate to "Make disciples." But can it possibly be forming a verbal hendiadys with "Make disciples?" In other words, perhaps "going" conveys that we are to be intentionally and proactively making disciples. (The latter, "Making disciples," however, being the main idea.) Further, can any distinction be drawn, on the basis of sentence position/word order between "Going" on the one hand, and "baptizing" and "teaching" on the other, with reference to participial function? In that regard, "Going" of course, comes before the main verb ("Make disciples") whereas "baptizing" and "teaching" come after it. Does this latter fact affect our understanding of the function of the various and respective participles? I would greatly appreciate any of your insight.

[Bill Mounce]

Sorry I can't be more helpful. My Hebrew is woefully inadequate to make this type of judgment. Perhaps someone else out there can help. I have always tied the "going" more into Jesus' pre-ascension command to spread the gospel throughout the world, starting in Jerusalem.

[Irving Salzman]

Thanks. Would your answer qualify "going" as a circumstantial participle as well then? In other words, according to Jesus, making disciples of all nations would be accomplished in three ways. It would be accomplished by: (1) going (starting at Jerusalem, proceeding through Judea, eventually moving to the uttermost parts of the world), (2) baptizing (i.e., evangelizing and making converts who express their new found faith through baptism), and (3)teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded (i.e., spiritual formation). This would seem to assign a circumstantial function to the participle "going" as well. In this view, all three participles would seem to have circumstantial function, explaining how disciples are made. Question: Should the fact that "going" precedes the verb ("make disciples") make any difference in its relationship to the main verb ("make disciples") than the relationships of "baptizing" and "teaching," which come after the main verb (in the sentence)? Stated another way, what advantage, if any, should/does "going" enjoy based upon its position, before the main verb, in the sentence?

Don't mean to belabor you with my questions. Thanks so much for your time.