Koinonia

Hell, Hades, Gehenna, and the Realm of the Dead - Acts 2:27 (Monday with Mounce 130)

Hell is a slippery concept; and no, I’m not talking about recent debates. I am talking about what the word ᾅδης means.

I was reminded of this in reading the NIV of Acts 2:27. Peter cites Ps 16:10 as fulfilled in Christ. “You will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay.” Why did the NIV switch from “grave” (1984) to “realm of the dead”? (I was not on the CBT when this change was made, so I was not part of the discussion.)

ᾅδης occurs ten times in the New Testament. In eight the NIV translates ᾅδης as “Hades.” In Acts 2:27 and in Peter’s following comment (v 31), it translates ᾅδης as the “realm of the dead.” In our passage, most translations simply write ”Hades” (NASB, NRSV, HCSB, NET) or “Hell” (ESV, KJV).

Sheol, the Old Testament word, is the place where all dead go, whether righteous or unrighteous. It is a place of shadowy existence. (Can we use this phrase, “shadowy,” any more without hearing the voice of Gandalf?) This is why the rich man could see Lazarus in the parable (Luke 16:23). This is the context of Ps 16:10, and reflects David’s conviction that God will not abandon him to the realm of the dead, the place of decay, and prophetically sees that God will likewise not abandon the Davidic Messiah.

Hades, on the other hand, is a transliteration of a Greek concept (obviously), referring first to the god of the underworld, and then eventually his domain, the realm of the dead, the grave, and death. ᾅδης was chosen as the primary translation of the Hebrew Sheol.

The Difference a Comma Makes - Acts 5:18 (Monday with Mounce 129)

We all know that commas are not part of the biblical text, and yet they are required by English. To someone just starting their Greek career, it may not seem that commas deserve much attention; but Acts 5:18 gives a good example of why a comma can make all the difference.

I was reading the NIV the other day and came across this verse. “Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy.” What is the relationship between the “associates” and the “Sadducees”? In English, there are two. 

1. It is possible that Luke is writing that the high priest has some associates, and those associates were part of the Sadducee party. What this interpretation permits is that there were Sadducees who were not associates of the high priest. I suspect this is the most natural reading of the NIV, implying that we are dealing here with a subgroup of the Sadducee party, a doubtful interpretation.

2. If you read the comma differently, you could understand that all the Sadducee party were the associates of the high priest. This is what the NASB is trying to convey with the parentheses. “But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy” (see also the ESV, NRSV, KJV, NET). 

A No Win Scenario - Acts 2:11 (Monday with Mounce 128)

There are some times in which there simply is no good way to translate a verse. No matter how hard you try, there will always be some ambiguity.

I am reading through the NIV looking for what I call “NIVisms,” phrases that stand out as a little unusual. Every translation has them. I suspect that sometimes these NIVisms are the result of hours of debate, and there simply was no easy solution.

In the story of Pentecost, when the plethora (I love that word) of people heard the disciples speaking in tongues as evidence of the newly bestowed Holy Spirit, they were bewildered because “each one heard their own language being spoken” (2:6). Here is an example of our decision to use “their” as an indefinite, referring back to one or more than one. I think this works fine here, even though you have the singular “one,” then “their,” and then the singular “language.”

But when you get to v 11, it gets stranger. The NIV reads, “we hear (ἀκούομεν) them (αὐτῶν) declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues (ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις)!” The reason this sounds unusual to me is a confusion of number, but the confusion is in the Greek.

Confess and Believe - Rom 10:9 (Monday with Mounce 127)

Something occurred to me this morning, and I am curious as to what you think about it. It actually has far reaching ramifications.

If you have been following this blog, then you know that I have been thinking about what is a Christian, how do we define it. Specifically, I have been looking for a balance between Jesus’ “Follow me” and the more propositional statements of Paul.

An example of the later is Rom 10:9. Paul is talking about the nearness of the word of faith and says, “if you confess (ὁμολογήσῃς) with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe (πιστεύσῃς) in your heart that  God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart a person believes (πιστεύεται) and is made righteous, and with the mouth he confesses (ὁμολογεῖται) and is saved” (Rom 10:9-10).

Here is my question. I have always thought of this confession and believing more in terms of a single event, namely, conversion, going through the gate (Matt 7:13-14). But does it have to be limited to this?

Doug Moo in his commentary says, “Paul is therefore explaining the ‘nearness’ of the word of faith, the gospel, by emphasizing that it demands only a simple response and that, when responded to, it mediates God’s salvation” (657).

Now, certainly this is true of conversion, which is coming to a point of confessing and believing. But I wonder if Paul would agree with the sentiment that a person could make a one-time confession, and later deny his confession, and still be saved. I wonder if Paul would agree that a person could come to a point of faith, and later deny his faith, and still be saved.

I can find no such teaching in Paul. 

Difference between “have” and “have” - Acts 23:19 (Monday with Mounce 126)

I thought for sure I had blogged on this; but I can’t find it anywhere, so sorry if I am repeating myself.

There obviously is no difference between “have” and “have,” except when you speak. “I have a book.” “I have purchased a book.” “I have to read a book.”

Unless I am gravely mistaken (and my accident is mid-west), I say the third “have” differently, much closer to “half.” The first “have” denotes possession. The second “have” is a helping verb. The third “have” denotes obligation or necessity.

Now come to Acts 23:19. The NIV reads, “The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, ‘What is it you want (ὃ ἔχεις) to tell me?’” The ESV goes more with the word for word, “What is it that you have to tell me?” So far, no problem. But now read it out loud. Is the commander asking the boy if he merely has some information, or is there something of necessity that he must report. “What is it that you have to say?” vs. “What do you have to tell me?” Interesting difference.

“May,” “Might,” and Adverbial Participles (Monday with Mounce 125)

I came across Matt 2:8, and it highlights two of the things I have talked about in the past. (Warning: this is a slightly techie Greek blog.)

The first is the force of an aorist adverbial participle followed by an imperative. Herod says, “Go (πορευθέντες) and search diligently (ἐξετάσατε) for the child; and when you have found him, report back (ἀπαγγείλατε) to me, so that (ὅπως) I also may go and worship (προσκυνήσω) him.”

The structure of the adverbial participle πορευθέντες followed by the imperative ἐξετάσατε is similar to the construction of the Great Commission: “go and make disciples” (πορευθέντες … μαθητεύσατε). It has sometimes been argues that “go” doesn’t carry an imperatival force. The grammatical answer (see Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 645) is that the participle does pick up some of the force of the imperative and so can be translated imperatively. However, as I have stated elsewhere, the imperative contains the primary thrust and the participle is secondary; in other words, the main thrust of the Great Commission is to make disciples.

However, it is interesting in this verse that the participle contains just about the same thrust as the imperative. Herod is certainly emphasizing that the wise men must both “go” and “search diligently” as well as “report back.” Ah, the power of context. I am always being amazed that while grammar does give us basic rules, we have to be careful at not thinking of grammar as some monolithic entity without nuance. Language is nuance, and the context always shapes and guides the specific rules of grammar.

What night is “this” night - Acts 27:23? (Monday with Mounce 124)

Paul is on his way to Rome, the captain of the ship does not heed his warning, and they are caught in a storm. “When neither  sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small storm continued to rage, all hope of our being saved was at last abandoned” (Acts 27:20).

Apparently several days had past, since the men had gone without food for some time. An angel appeared to Paul, telling him that the ship would be lost but no human life (v 23). Fourteen days into the storm (v 27), they run aground. So much for context.

Verses 23-24 say, “For there stood by me this night (ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί) an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve, saying, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted you as a gift all those who sail with you.’” When did the angel appear?

If I were to tell you that “this night” I would read a book, you would understand it to be the coming night. Of course, that would make no sense in Paul’s case. If the angel had not yet come, Paul would not know what he was going to say.

Part of the answer may be that in Jewish reckoning the new day starts at sunset and goes to the next sunset, so the night is part of the next day. With this mindset, “this night,” i.e., the night belonging to the current daytime, would be the previous night.

It is interesting to watch the translations. Some leave it as “this night” and let you figure it out (KJV, HCSB). Others help you by saying “last night” (NRSV [changed from the RSV “this very night”], NIV, NET, NLT), an acceptable decision since we think of day and night as the same day, not night and day.

Reconciled … if we continue - Col 1:21-23 (Monday with Mounce 123)

I was asked about the interchange of tenses in Col 1:21-23. It is part of a much larger theological question that I can’t get into right now, but it is worth looking at the Greek.

Paul writes, “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled (ἀποκατήλλαξεν, aorist) in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present (παραστῆσαι, aorist) you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue (ἐπιμένετε, present) in the faith, stable (τεθεμελιωμένοι, perfect) and steadfast, not shifting (μετακινούμενοι, present) from the hope of the gospel” (ESV).

Everyone’s theology, Wesleyan and Calvinists, have to struggle with this passage. And remember, if our theology can’t honestly handle this passage, then our theology is wrong.

Paul says that the accomplished fact of our reconciliation is for the purpose of presenting us holy before God (presumably at the final judgment), but this is “dependent” (and this is the controversy) upon our continuation in the faith, having been established and not presently shifting from the gospel. Whew!

I say this is a controversy, but to my mind the meaning is so abundantly clear that I wonder why there is so much of a controversy. It is one thing to acknowledge the accomplished work of Christ on the cross, but that reconciliation has not been applied to me if I do not remain faithful. Hard to get around that plain meaning.

My way of saying this is that changed people live changed lives. 

Was Jesus "son" (σοι) or "Son" (ὑμῖν)? (Monday with Mounce 122)

Nathaniel declares Jesus that he is the “Son of God, the King of Israel” (Jn 1:49). I wonder if “Son” should not be capitalized. We read it in light of later teaching on the deity of Christ, but Nathaniel obviously equates “Son” and “King.” There is no sense of deity in Nathanael’s declaration, at least on his part.

(I would be curious how many people in our churches know that the Greek text doesn’t use capitalization the way we do, and therefore do not understand that “Son” is interpretive. I will put a poll on Facebook.com/teknia. Please let me know.)

Jesus responds, “Is it because I told you (σοι) that I saw you under the fig tree that you believe? You will see greater things than that.” Then he said to him (αὐτῷ), “I tell you (ὑμῖν) the solemn truth: you will see (ὄψεσθε) heaven standing open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” (vv 50f).

Jesus answers Nathaniel directly with the singular σοι, and then tells Nathaniel and those around him (ὑμῖν is plural) that “y’all” will see heaven open. Because English does not distinguish number in the second person, shifts in number in the Greek can often be hidden in the translation. I like using “y’all” for “you” plural, but that is because of my years of living in Kentucky.

Thoughts on Love and Care (Monday with Mounce 121)

My dad is very well known as a scholar and a translator. His commentary on Revelation is still the standard. But what many people don't know is how loving he is to his aging wife (my mom), and the model of love he is for his children and grandchildren.