Check the download list

December 1, 2014

Hello, everyone —

We spent the Thanksgiving holiday with Dan’s family — he is home, safe, healthy, and just submitted his last temperature record, so he did NOT bring any Ebola home.   The team had a useful time in Sierra Leone , and we thank all of you who were remembering him in your prayers.  We of course continue to be concerned for the folks over there, and in the other affected areas.

Dan successfully moved the Greek Index to the tab with the other indexes, and we posted all the corrections that had been waiting — so the New Testament text, the Translation Notes, and the 200 Word Studies are all corrected and up to date, as of a couple days ago.

So thanks for your patience, and you can check out the corrected versions.

We still appreciate your questions and comments.

Ruth (and Dan)

2 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Another milestone!

October 9, 2014

At last, we have a very rough beginning to the index I have been promising you all these years.

I still don’t know how to do accents and stuff properly on the computer, but (you will laugh at this!) we managed it with scanning and writing by hand.

There will be a lot of fixing to do, and I will be very appreciative if you let me know of whatever errors you find.  But at least those who are looking for the treatment of Greek vocabulary have something to go on.

You can find the index on the “Indexes” link at the top of this page.

The Greek words are referenced to the Word Studies where they have been treated.  I did not know how to make it “clickable”, so you will just need to use the other indexes, or go by the numbers.  It WILL improve, eventually!

Ruth

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Discernment vs. Decision

September 17, 2014

A recent discussion after church reawakened a long-time concern regarding the popular interpretation of Jesus’ instructions regarding dealing with conflict, recorded in Matthew 18:15-20.
This is a glaring example of translators’ neglect (whether deliberate or inadvertent is not mine to judge) of very elementary grammar, which has resulted in both the assumption of inordinate and unwarranted power/authority on the part of people who consider themselves to be in positions of “leadership”, and abject fear and submission on the part of those deemed their “underlings” – neither of which, may I remind you, is a category instituted or approved by Jesus himself (see Mt.23:7-12).

In the vast majority of English translations of the passage familiarly labeled “binding and loosing” (v.18), Jesus’ words are interpreted as if those two terms were cast in the future tense, and therefore amounted to a “blank check” enabling “church authorities” to hand down a decision that will be confirmed unquestionably “in heaven”. In our large collection of English translations, I have found only two (Charles B. Williams -1956, and Clarence Jordan – 1970) besides my own, where any effort has been made to convey accurately that those words are NOT future, but perfect passive participles. I find it interesting that both of these, like my own work, were translated by individuals, and not by committees hired by institutional hierarchies!

This grammatical error should have been obvious to even the most elementary language student, since the words are not even irregular verb forms, but plainly display the ‘reduplication” characteristic of the perfect tense, in both instances.

The particle, ean , introducing a clause with subjunctive forms,desete and lusete, describes the condition under which the following result will occur. The aorist form of those subjunctive verbs indicates a single, decisive action. And please note that these are second person plural forms: it is action to be taken by the group, not an individual.
The future form estai in the second clause is integral to this very common structure, which grammatically is known as a “future-more-vivid condition”, and simply emphasizes the certainty of the outcome.
This does not, however, alter the tense of the participles dedemena and lelumena in the second clause (the “apodosis”). These participles in the perfect tense can only refer to something that has already occurred, the effects of which remain in the present and beyond.

Far from endowing anyone with the authority to influence (let alone dictate!) what ‘happens in heaven”, this structure clearly charges the brotherhood (the verb is second person plural, remember) with the task of carefully, prayerfully, and responsibly discerning the decision which has already been made “in heaven”, and simply articulating that information.

Jesus’ following statement, a summary of the instructions just given, therefore obviously refers to the intended result of their / our having followed those instructions. With the above understanding, these latter (also much-abused) “verses” (19-20) are likewise removed from the image of a “blank check” by the qualifying statement with which Jesus concludes.

This statement follows the exact same grammatical pattern: ean + subjunctive as a conditional statement, with a future-more-vivid conclusion. Please note that the condition here is limited to those who have come to agreement while gathered in Jesus’ Name (See Word Study #24), in his presence, and with his participation! It may be reasonable to assume, therefore, that the Lord intends for this to be simply a reassurance of his guidance as his disciples try to sort out the situations he has just been addressing – many of which require wisdom far beyond the reach of our limited human minds!
He is not abdicating his own supreme authority, but enabling his followers to access the information necessary for faithfully following his instructions!

This is not obscure, technical grammar! It is explained in a basic, first-year, elementary Greek text! And similar structures appear in the New Testament more than 200 times!
On an even more basic level, the tenses of verbs are essential to understanding the message of the simplest of sentences! (These are briefly explained in the notes on verb tenses in the Appendix to my Translation Notes).

Why, then, are such very elementary principles so universally ignored by “scholars’ and “translators” (who ought to know better!), when they are (or should be) so readily accessible even to beginning students of the language? I can only conclude that those individuals or groups have “adjusted” (read, “edited”) the text to support their already-highly-defined “doctrines”.
Please refer to my earlier essays, “Plea for Linguistic Honesty” and “The task of a Translator”.

If a person or group has any respect at all for the Biblical writings, “What does the text SAY?” must become, and remain, his primary (if not his only) question. Any other principle, policy, or position MUST be derived from, NOT prescriptive of, that understanding.

Discernment by a carefully and responsibly studying brotherhood MUST take precedence over decisions by individuals who assume their right to dictate, if we are to learn faithfully to follow our Lord’s instructions.

Leave a Comment » | essays, Word Study | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Corrections to the latest download

September 1, 2014

I have just finished going over the entirety of the last version of the 200 Word Studies posted. and found  few things you will want to mark if you have downloaded it to print.  (A few more added Sept.5)

p.14 — line 13 — reference should read “Jas.1:12”

p.48 — line 1 — “than” for “that”

P.52 — third paragraph from bottom:  “than” for “that”

p.77 — line 9 — reference should read:  I Jn.3:14

p.88 — end of paragraph in #66 – “love” instead of “live”

p.108 — 16 lines from the bottom of the page:  Change Lk.42 go Lk.24.  (There is no chapter 42!)
and just below that — the reference should read AC.1:1-4

p.153 — I missed capitalizing the S on “subsequently” — third line on the page.

p.174 —  third paragraph from the end of #133 — reference should read “Romans 12.

p.227 — second paragraph of #171 — second line — the Greek word is epiphaneia.

p.255 — add “e” at the end of “therefore” (last paragraph of #191)

p.260 — the reference should read Lk.4:18 in summary paragraph of #194.

Sorry about that, folks!  There are a few punctuation issues, too, but those are not critical.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Invitation to Transformation: RSVP

August 17, 2014

(This was prepared and presented for Greensboro Mennonite Fellowship, August 17, 2014)

I’d like you to think of this message as an expression of appreciation, and a bit of a supplement, to both Jim’s and Solomon’s recent focus on the transformation of life that Jesus offered, expected, and accomplished – and still intends to accomplish – in those of us who choose to follow him.

That is what attracted me to the Lord in the beginning, as a college student many years ago, and it still does. I never had the dramatic story of a messed-up, “wicked” life that seems to be requisite in some circles in order to qualify as having been “redeemed”. My life was just empty: with no purpose, no way to be worthwhile, no place to belong, no people to belong TO. I found the life described in the New Testament, and partly demonstrated by a few small groups committed to it, to be enormously attractive, precisely because it was completely different from anything I had ever seen or known.

That’s why I get so bothered by the prevalence of a few themes that continually crop up in what is labeled “Christian” teaching, preaching or writing, that seem, instead of inviting folks to a transformed life, rather to be trying to assure them that “Just as I am” asserts that no transformation is needed!

These well-meaning, but misguided people promote only half of the real message, that was succinctly displayed on a bumper-sticker in the 60’s and 70’s: “God loves you just as you are – but he loves you too much to leave you that way!” The real message is all about being transformed!

“Transform” – the original word is the one from which we get our biological term, “metamorphosis” – the caterpillar – cocoon – butterfly scenario – actually occurs only four times in the New Testament: twice in the accounts in Matthew and Mark of Jesus’ transfiguration, once in Romans 12:2 (transformed by the renewing of our minds), and once in II Cor. 3:18 (our being transformed, together, into the image of Christ). It would be an interesting project to try to discover together how those four passages are related. The idea, however, runs through the entire New Testament, as people, groups, and situations are radically changed to reflect Jesus’ Kingdom.

Solomon put it extremely well when he observed, “Jesus didn’t come to tell us what to think, but to show us how to live!”, and Jim recently pointed out that being set free from fear enables us to welcome changes. These two ideas are basic to the Kingdom that Jesus came to create, but sadly very rare in “Christian” teaching.

I am convinced that for most people and groups, the confusion results, not from deliberate deception, but from a serious misunderstanding of four words, two of which are found in the New Testament, and two of which are not.

The first, nowhere near as common as general usage would lead one to expect, is metanoeite, traditionally translated “repent”. To the average modern listener, a challenge to “repent” implies having been caught in some sort of misbehavior, or some doctrinal error, for which he needs to beg to be “forgiven”. This interpretation has absolutely NO New Testament basis. Rather, the word indicates a total and radical change of one’s mind, focus, attitude, and behavior away from its self-centered concerns, to a focus on the ways and goals of the Kingdom.

This was already obvious in the conversations of John the Baptist with his audience. When, obviously expecting that some behavior was involved, they asked,”What shall we DO?” he answered, “If you have food and clothing, share it with those who need it. Government agents must quit enriching themselves by cheating people. Soldiers must do no violence to anyone!”
Not a word is said about what anyone was supposed to “believe.” And not a word about anyone’s “eternal destiny”. Just Kingdom values to live by!

The second word is “conversion”, for which the primary original word means simply “to turn around,” or “to return.” It usually had purely physical implications, but could also apply to the direction of one’s attention. It is translated “convert” in only 7 of its 39 New Testament appearances. IN NO INSTANCE does it indicate having lost an argument, or become convinced of some theoretical or theological construct. Even modern usage provides several better illustrations :
* an engine may be converted to run on a different fuel
* a factory may be converted to produce a different product
* farm land may be converted to grow a different crop
* a property’s zoning may be converted to allow a different use.
Any of these would merit a study of its own. The operative concept here is CHANGE.
It may entail a change of ownership, and consequently of activity.
It may indicate a change of direction, or a course correction. (If you’re on I-85 trying to head for Charlotte, and you see a sign for “Raleigh”, you turn around! That’s conversion!)
None of these has any necessary connection to either moral failure or losing a theological argument. The one thing they all have in common is change – with observable results.

The other two words, neither of which appears at all in the New Testament, have compounded the confusion. Far too frequently, whether from a conservative or a liberal perspective, “transformation” and “inclusiveness” are assumed to be opposites. They are NOT.
The early church was a case study in the genuine inclusion of “Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female”, not only in the Kingdom, but in the very family of the King! And this was accomplished without either succumbing to the excesses of first century Greek and Roman culture (the debauchery of which was more similar to our own than we like to admit) , or imposing rigid legal requirements upon prospective participants; and certainly without robbing all languages concerned of their pronouns and making a meaningless muddle of their grammar! (That’s another subject for another time.)
Jesus himself had taught and healed both among the despised Samaritans and in Gentile territory. The crowd present at Pentecost represented the whole world known to Rome. The Jerusalem Conference, described in Acts 15, was a classic example of a faithfully managed confrontation of issues regarding inclusion. The strictures of the old covenant were not imposed upon Gentile converts, but neither were they “affirmed” and encouraged to continue their former behavior!
Every description of the message proclaimed by the early church assumed a radically changed life, whether on the part of Jews or Gentiles. This subject should have a much more thorough study on the part of anyone who is serious about inclusion.

Closely related is the other popular buzz-word, “unconditional.” “Unconditional love”, “unconditional grace”, and their fellows, also pepper the preaching of conservative and liberal alike, although neither phrase appears in the New Testament, nor does “unconditional” anything else.
Now, it is certainly true that nowhere are we told that it is necessary for a person to attain some exalted level of “holiness”, moral or ethical perfection, or anything else, in order to be eligible to answer Jesus’ call. If one person is demanding of another, “you MUST” or “you MAY NOT” (insert your favorite requirement or no-no) – in order to be a Christian”, or if his “target” is asking “Do I HAVE TO” or “Will I be LOST if I… (insert as above) ?”, then both have failed utterly to understand either the scope or the goal of Jesus’ banquet invitation. That invitation is exceedingly broad, as the parable read this morning illustrates. But it does require an RSVP. Both accounts, in Matthew and Luke, assert that the invitation must not only be accepted, but the invited need to show up, and to accord the event absolute top priority. The idea is not to meet any minimum requirement for admission, but to make the maximum effort to conform to Jesus’ pattern!
Even the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus and his disciples, constantly urged their hearers to make a choice – and they all also made it abundantly clear that choices have consequences.
This is where the misunderstanding of the term “conditional” comes in. A “condition” is NOT an entrance exam, a resume requirement, or an eligibility test. It is simply a grammatical structure indicating cause and effect. It is recognized by clauses introduced by “if” or “unless”, which are paired with others containing (or implying) “then”. It is neither a threat nor a promise, but a simple statement of fact. It describes the circumstances under which something will – or won’t – happen. Jesus used this kind of statement all the time. Grammatically, if the “condition” is not met, the premise is of no effect. “If it doesn’t rain, we’ll have a picnic.” “If it does, we won’t.” There is no “judgment” involved. But the picnic plans are conditional.
When it involves people, CHOICE is the universal key. Zacchaeus, (Lk.19), the Samaritan woman (Jn.4), and many more of the people healed, rescued, or forgiven by Jesus, were commended for choices made, or instructed in a changed way of life. It was their RSVP that mattered!

This is what Paul was getting at, in the Colossians 3 passage, and parallels in several other letters. Although Paul speaks in the figure of death and resurrection, the transformation of life, the actualization of the “new nature” that Alexis noted a few weeks ago, is neither automatic nor immediate. The RSVP is a lifetime commitment. Most of the tenses are present, which indicates continuous action. It is a process that will – or should– consume the rest of our lives. Only the words referring to one’s initial choice are cast in “snapshot-like” tenses.

The interplay between active and passive is also instructive. “Resurrected” is passive: something that happens to you by the action of another. “Keep on seeking” is active, referring to continuous effort on our part. “Put to death” is also active, but a single act: the deliberate rejection of behavior associated with one’s former life. This is re-emphasized in v.7, where Paul notes “you all used to live that way”, but adds the admonition to “get rid of” all the rest of the list.
It is easy for people or groups to pick out one or two of the items on these or other lists, for a pious diatribe about their unsuitability as Christian behavior – usually focusing on those which do not involve their own favorite expressions of selfishness . But it’s instructive to note that although the entire first list emphasizes components of idol worship, which are definitely to be abandoned, nevertheless, it is only “greed”, at the end, that actually is labeled “idolatry”! And the second list, which concentrates more on behaviors that are hurtful to one’s associates, is summed up with the prohibition of dishonesty! I strongly suspect that greed and dishonesty cause more damage and problems in most churches than perhaps any of the rest of the behaviors, on any of the lists! Paul’s reminder is that the WHOLE “old person” ( or “nature”) has been discarded, along with its behavior, and a new life has begun. But even this new life needs to be “continually renewed” in order to conform to the pattern of Jesus. This part is passive. The Lord does it – but requires our cooperation.

Maybe we should actually consider our RSVP to be our signature on a remodeling contract, with the Lord as the contractor! And as anyone who has done remodeling knows all too well, any worker serious about doing a good job, once he gets started, keeps finding more stuff that needs to be fixed!
The final list in this passage could be considered the “materials list”, which we are actively expected to supply for the job and the “work clothes” we need for the effort.

Fortunately, the Lord never intended for us to have to do the job alone. Absolutely all the instructions are plural. And just to make sure we don’t miss that, Paul closes this topic by urging us to replicate the Lord’s graciousness to us in our life together. It is only in the Body that real and lasting transformation can happen. But Paul is not unrealistically idealistic, either. If a bunch of radically diverse individuals are going to be formed into a unified Body, there are going to be sparks. It takes effort and skill to make all the pieces fit and function together – but our Contractor has an abundance of both.

The solution is found in another word, very common in the athletically-inclined Greek culture, but appearing only this one time in the New Testament. “The peace of Christ” is assigned the job of umpire, or referee, as we seek to follow his calling together. Elsewhere, the Holy Spirit has been designated the “coach” (a more accurate translation than “comforter”). Only under the instruction of these two – the Coach and the Umpire – do we have any prayer of learning to play skillfully on the Lord’s winning team, and to “teach and admonish each other” in a way that will enable us all to do everything “in the name” (as representatives) of our Lord and King – continually giving thanks for the privilege.

The coach and the umpire have had centuries of experience. They know the game very well. They are ready and eager to incorporate all comers into the team – but as players, not spectators.
We just need to send in our RSVP – and show up for practice!

 

Leave a Comment » | Messages Given at GMF | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

New Download — all 200 Word Studies

August 16, 2014

OK, folks, it is finally here.  All 200 word studies are indexed, corrected, and posted for you to download if you wish.

As always, you may make yourself a print copy if you prefer. The only restriction is that this work, like all of my work, may never be sold or otherwise used for the profit of any person or group.

And do thank the Lord with me, for Dan’s patient coaching and work in the process.
It is offered to the Lord and his people with our love.

Ruth

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

An Invitation

June 17, 2014

Good morning, folks.

(Jimmy, this is for you, and for all the others that have been wondering)

Some of you have been asking why the regular postings of word studies seemed to have stopped.

Well, you see, it’s like this.  I am an electronically-challenged, 75 year old grandma, who was not born in the computer age.  In the middle of working on compiling all 200 word studies into a document that you all can download for printing if you wish, my poor little old computer, with which I was usually able to reach an agreement, went extinct when they did away with “XP”.  So Dan, my geek son, gave it a “brain transplant”, which was supposed to make things easier — and maybe it would have, if I were younger — but it didn’t.  Consequently, the posting of the new, linked index, and the combined document have been delayed, and all my energy has gone into trying to get that figured out.  Dan is incredibly patient, but lives 6 hours away, and can’t do it all with Team Viewer.  Besides, he has a job, wife, and family whom I don’t want to rob.

Nevertheless, while waiting for things to be working properly, I do invite all of you to suggest other words or subjects that you would like to see addressed.  I can work on those with the old-fashioned books that I really prefer, and use a different machine to post them.  This site has never had the interchange that I had hoped it would generate, although many of you have expressed appreciation.  As you can see from many of the postings, some were suggested by readers — and yours are welcome as well.  The only restriction I have placed on that, is that it must be sourced in the New Testament, and not in some commentator’s or “theologian’s” theories.

So the ball is in your court, people.  Raise questions, suggest studies, and ask the Lord to do something to my old brain that will get this mess straightened out!

If you prefer to communicate by email,please say so on the “response” button, and I will get back to you individually at the address that comes up on your response.  I get far too much junk mail to post our personal email on the web.

Love to you all,

Ruth

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Word Study #150 — Incarnation, part 2

May 14, 2014

This study was undertaken during the Christmas season, with its focus on the Incarnation. The seasonal nature of that celebration tends to obscure the impact of such a momentous event. It is easy to be sentimental about a baby in a manger; and pick it up later at Easter time with a lot of talk, most of it not supported by scripture, about Jesus’ death. But that ignores what is probably among the most amazing – and most crucial – parts of the story, the statement in John 1:14 : “The Word became flesh, and lived for a while among us!
“Flesh”: a real, live person! Somewhere along the line, I think probably in the middle ages, “flesh” came to be considered “evil” or “sinful”. The NIV even translates it that way. That can not possibly be true, or Jesus would not have adopted it, or emphasized it to his disciples after the resurrection, when they were frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost – “A spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see I do!” Please refer to W.S. #85.

In the early church, the acid test of faithfulness (I Jn.4:1-3) was the acknowledgment that “Jesus Christ was come in the flesh!” that he was REAL. Hebrews 2 goes into considerable detail about why that was necessary, in order for him to definitively DESTROY death; but basically, it was because he knew that “show” was superior to “tell” when it came to forming a faithful Kingdom. “Tell” had been tried for a long time – the whole Old Testament period. The letter to the Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that “tell” did not work. That’s why Jesus decided he needed to “show.”

Even that, though, is only half of the story. The concept of Incarnation has TWO branches: Jesus becoming a genuine, human person for our benefit, and his people becoming a manifestation of his own Body (#84), for the benefit of the rest of the world! Incarnation has become OUR JOB! Fortunately, the Creator of the universe has graciously undertaken the task of creating that Body – which is a good thing, since we ourselves can be pretty clueless, and often mess things up royally!

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah referred to God as a potter, and his people as clay, although that analogy appears only once in the New Testament. Notice that God told Jeremiah, “Go down to the potter’s house, and there, my word will come to you!”
Since beginning to work with clay, I have learned many things about how the Lord chooses to work – starting long before a potter begins to form any vessel. I prepare my clay from scratch – digging and mixing it, to achieve a “clay body” which I can use. There are many ways in which this illustrates the effort the Lord expends, also, to create a Body he can use.

While in some places, usable clay can be found in a single deposit, in our area, successful pottery requires a mixture of four different kinds of clay, none of which is useful alone! This is also true of the Lord’s clay body.
The red clay is strong – but good for nothing but bricks. It cracks when shaped, bent, or rolled thin.
The yellow is smooth and pliable, but not strong enough to stand up by itself.
The gray is grainy. It doesn’t stain like the other two, but will not polish to a nice surface. However, I always add it if the pot is intended for cookware, as the grit helps it to resist thermal shock.
The white is sticky, and while it can be used alone if one works very slowly, it does not polish well, but it can be used to remedy the problems of some of the other types.

Before any of these can be used, they need to be powdered, soaked, and strained to remove gravel, sticks, roots, and assorted junk. This pounding and straining process does not change the “being” of any of the clays. They still have their created attributes to contribute to the mix, but they are no longer individually recognizable, and have become a part of something entirely new.

The clay cannot have the “junk” strained out without being wet. The proper amount of water at any time is essential. You are familiar with the references to “water” as the Holy Spirit. There are just a few attributes that are relevant here. It is not for nothing that Jesus told his disciples to WAIT for the Spirit to empower their assignment. At many points in the process of clay preparation, YOU HAVE TO WAIT. To get the mix properly strained, I soak it for a week or two, in order that the particles be completely absorbed and soak up as much water as possible.
Then, after straining, you have to WAIT again – while it settles, and excess water is poured off.
After it is dried to a consistency you can handle, if the proportions are not right, one or more ingredients can be added to improve the texture. At each point, the clay has to be thoroughly mixed.
When you are satisfied with the mix, it then has to WAIT again – to sit – for several weeks – to “mature”, to avoid separation. There is a difference between mixing and combining. I once tried combining two clays, because I thought it might “look nice”. But they cracked in the firing. Their shrinkage was not alike. Thorough MIXING is necessary for a successful product. A lot of talk is bounced around today about “diversity.” And that can be a good thing – but only if the diverse elements are MIXED, and not just “combined.” Otherwise, heat will ruin the product.

The forming of a pot, its finishing and firing, also require extensive experience on the part of a potter. They must be regulated by both the characteristics and content of the clay body, and the final result that is desired. (Jeremiah and Paul were not potters! The clay does NOT always perform as the potter may have in mind!) But as Jeremiah observed, if a pot is “spoiled”, the potter can readily use the clay for something else. Unfired clay is completely recyclable.

Perhaps the potter will adjust the mix, or even modify his earlier plan.
Perhaps he will need to work more slowly, allowing the clay to become partly firm before adding more.
Perhaps he will need thicker walls, to be scraped later to the shape and thickness he intended.
Perhaps it will be necessary to do preliminary smoothing and polishing before the piece is finished. Even after it is mostly dry, an even, polished surface may require the addition of a thin coating of finer clay, known as “slip”, to correct imperfections. Many hours of rubbing with a smooth stone are needed to create a good shine.
The firing, too, requires that the potter be very familiar with his clay, and know how much heat it can endure.. Earthenware, with its high iron content, cannot endure high-fire temperatures. It melts. But other clays, like fine porcelains, would crumble if only fired to low temperatures.

Our focus today, however, is simply upon the preparation of the clay body, and the Body into which the Lord intends to form his people, in order that we may actually become a credible part of the miracle of the Incarnation. I was not able to find a Gospel reference to the quotation attributed to Jesus in Heb.10:5, but I believe it is hugely relevant to correct many of the common misperceptions that have persisted in what is labeled “Christian doctrine”. Jesus says very plainly, (presumably to his Father), “You didn’t want sacrifices and offerings, but you fashioned a Body for me!” And after detailing some of the failings of the old system, he declares, “Look, I have come to do your will!”
If we are rightly to fulfill the mandate to participate in the Incarnation, it behooves us to find out what Jesus considers that it involves. Please refer to W.S.#23 as a starting place, and refer also to #84 and 85.

May we be properly strained, mixed, and blended into the Body that our Master Potter can use for his purposes!

Leave a Comment » | Word Study | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

Word Study #149 — Citizenship

May 14, 2014

Throughout history, as well as today, one outstanding indicator of the difference between observable, practical Christianity – a mutual effort at faithfulness – and the theoretical, doctrine-driven, “pie-in-the-sky” version – concerned primarily with sorting who is “in” and who is “out”– , is the understanding that a group promulgates of the Kingdom of God: you can easily tell, by whether they speak of it as a present reality or a future dream.The Biblical balance is skewed heavily in the direction of the present reality.
It started at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Actually, it started at Creation, but immediately after his baptism by John, Mark tells us that “Jesus came into Galilee preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God, saying, “The time HAS BEEN fulfilled; the Kingdom of God HAS ARRIVED!” (1:14,15)

He explained it further in his “inaugural address” (Lk.4:18-21), as providing “good news to the poor, release to the captives, sight to the blind, and freedom to those broken by oppression”. He announced (the word is the same as what is translated “herald” – the task of a news anchor!) “TODAY this HAS BEEN FULFILLED in your hearing!” It only takes third or fourth grade English to realize that “has been” refers to something that is already present.
Later, he outlined the “constitution of the Kingdom” in Mt.5, 6, 7 and Lk.6.

More than half of his recorded parables refer to the Kingdom, many of them introduced with “The Kingdom of God IS like…” (NOT “will be”). And Acts 1:3 informs us that it was also the content of the “graduate course” that Jesus conducted for his disciples in the period between his resurrection and his ascension: “He presented himself ALIVE to them during 40 days, talking about the Kingdom of God.”
He had put it very plainly before, in Lk.16 and Mt.11, “The Law and the Prophets were in effect UNTIL JOHN, and since then , the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!”
THE KING HAS ARRIVED! THE KINGDOM EXISTS wherever the authority of the King is recognized.
A powerful example is seen in the Lord’s prayer – which I’m quite sure was never intended to be a rote memorization to be recited, but to encourage our participation, together with the Lord Jesus, in the basic ingredients of the Kingdom. The Kingdom exists and flourishes where and when God’s name (his entire personality) is recognized as holy – belonging uniquely and exclusively to him – and where presently doing his will is the deliberate choice of his people. This is already the case in heaven – his people are called to model it as well as to pray for it on earth: in other words, we are called to incarnate the Kingdom.

Jesus corrected the eschatological expectations of the disciples, who were still hung-up on the restoration of Israel, explaining that the Kingdom will be established and grow as the Holy Spirit enables his people to spread its influence.
The whole rest of the NT describes that Kingdom in action. There are no cut-and-dried definitions. Its forms vary with the situation. Only two things are certain and inviolable: THE KING IS IN CHARGE, and a radical difference in lifestyle is expected. The people of God are not merely asked to adopt a slightly sanitized substitute for the sordid situation of their surrounding society. The change is enormous – variously described as the change from death to life, from foreigners to citizens, from captive slaves to a ransomed, free people.

This is a Kingdom different from anything the world has ever seen. Sadly, through the ages, most folks who say they “believe” in Jesus have preferred to defer any observable difference to a future heavenly paradise, and not be bothered with it now. But please consider: Is it not possible that, had the Lord Jesus confined his remarks to ethereal, theoretical talk of heaven and hell, he would very probably never have so incurred the wrath of the authorities, both religious and political? They felt their authority threatened in the present, not the future. His opponents understood far better than we, that in the Kingdom of which he spoke, nothing is familiar and manageable. Nothing is under the control of those who are used to exercising control. There is only one King – and his authority is absolute. IN THIS LIFE – not just the next.

Furthermore, Jesus was not talking about a revolution, as some have suggested, all through the centuries. Revolutions never solve – or even address – any real problems. A revolution only changes the cast of characters in an oppressive power system, reversing the role of oppressor and oppressed. Jesus is out to rearrange the entire structure of things so that there exists no oppressive power structure. His citizens function together as his Body, of which he is the only Head! What, exactly, is involved in becoming a part of the Body of Christ?

The idea of citizenship was well understood by first century folks. Rome conferred citizenship upon select allied cities (among which were Philippi, Tarsus, and other major centers) and their inhabitants, as well as to people who had served the state. Even a slave could gain citizenship, if his freedom was attested by his master before a magistrate.
Citizens had legal rights not afforded to others and Paul asserted those rights on occasion – in Philippi, Jerusalem, and Caesarea.
But the New Testament proclaims a citizenship far beyond that offered by Rome. There is a wonderful description in Eph.2:11-22. Right in the middle, v.19, is the key:
“Now, therefore, you all are no longer strangers and temporary residents, but you are fellow-citizens with God’s people, and members of God’s household.”
The citizenship conferred by our King, although vastly surpassing anything the nations of the world can offer, nevertheless bears some similarities to other forms of citizenship.

Even on a worldly plane, it is a weighty decision to change one’s citizenship, one that should not be taken lightly nor made impulsively. One is wise, if not legally bound, to live in a country for a while, to become familiar with its customs and laws, before taking such a step. Likewise, no one should ever be rushed into the Kingdom!!! A citizen needs to be fully apprised of what he is getting into! People recruited in campaigns more closely resembling “scalp-collecting” than Kingdom advocacy, rarely become active, productive citizens.

There is nothing wrong with living in a country as a visitor or foreigner. People go to another country for a variety of reasons.

There are tourists – and turistas. We learned the distinction from a friend in Mexico, years ago. When Jose remarked, “Ustedes no me parecen turistas”, (“You all don’t seem like tourists to me!”) we recognized it as a compliment.
“Turistas” are the overbearing, complaining, arrogant folks who loudly criticize everything unfamiliar.

Tourists go to learn, appreciate varied friendships, and even may adopt some of the ways of their host country. However, even these, with their much healthier attitude, do not usually make the commitment of citizenship. They retain sovereignty over their own way of life. They are free to choose where they will and won’t conform. That is not wrong. But full citizenship demands a renunciation of that autonomy.

Some folks go into a country as entrepreneurs – for what they can get out of it. They will adapt only to what contributes to their own perceived profit, and don’t much care about their effect on the local citizens. There are entrepreneurs in the Kingdom as well.

Some enter a country deceitfully, with a goal of its detriment, or even its destruction. John, Paul and Peter all warned of these in the Kingdom.

Then there are those who enter as refugees. They really didn’t want to leave home, and did so only to escape war or disaster of some sort. They have no desire to become productive, contributing citizens – they only want a place to hide. Sadly, many have “entered” the Kingdom also only because they were threatened with destruction. Unfortunately, some folks call such threats “evangelism.” It’s NOT “good news!” It was not Jesus’ approach!

Jesus never threatened anyone! To the tax-collecting cheat, Zacchaeus, he simply said, “I’m coming over for lunch!” and the man’s life was radically changed. When Peter, who would have been a fine target for today’s so-called “evangelists”, called himself a “sinner” and asked the Lord to go away, his response was simply, “Come on, Peter, I have a job for you!” If only those who are called his followers would follow that example!

Our King, in recruiting citizens for his Kingdom, called folks to become participants in a new and wonderful life, in company with the King, and others he had called. They were not turistas, tourists, entrepreneurs, or refugees, but members of his citizenship class!

The responsibility of a foreigner in a country is minimal. He has no obligation to other citizens, nor they to him. But the true content of Jesus’ offer is full citizenship. No one is a citizen alone. He shares both privilege and responsibility with every other citizen.
He pledges support and allegiance, renouncing every other loyalty, and receives the protection of his Sovereign.

Acknowledging Jesus Christ as “Lord and Savior” (#4), for first century followers, was a far cry from the required password or the creedal recitation it has become in subsequent generations. It was a powerful declaration of absolute allegiance to Jesus’ Kingdom – a declaration that could, and frequently did, cost the life of the person involved! These were titles that the Roman emperors, drunk with power, reserved for themselves, as symbols of their overtly-claimed deity! Applying either of those terms to anyone but the emperor was treason – punishable by assorted forms of gruesome death. One could only persist in that declaration of loyalty by the power of the Holy Spirit, as Paul noted in I Cor.12:3.
Remember: The Kingdom is not a democracy, in which one can participate minimally, enthusiastically, or not at all, at his own discretion.
A King is an absolute ruler. What he says, goes.
Kingdom citizens have no concern for “equality.” Their goal is much higher. They are to become ONE, just as Jesus and his Father are. (Jn.17)
The Kingdom is not a place to “find yourself”. That search belongs to the old creation, where self-centeredness quickly became the original sin. The New Creation was engineered by the One who spoke of “losing, denying, disowning” the tyranny of “self” in favor of being built into the body of the King.
The Kingdom is not an institution, with hierarchy and flow-charts. There is ONLY ONE SUPERIOR.
All the citizens are members of his family – of his own Body! (see #84)

Consider very carefully, then, as you contemplate the King’s offer of full citizenship. The Kingdom has been a long time in the building, and it is not finished yet. Study the blueprints carefully, and only then decide. The blueprints of the Kingdom were drawn by the Supreme Architect of the Universe – the same Architect who also set the standards for the building code. His specifications are not subject to revision.

As Paul reminded the folks at Corinth, “The Kingdom of God does not consist of talk, but of power” – the present-tense experience of the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Kingdom is not an idea to be argued, but a life to be lived!

We also have the assurance (Heb.12:28) that when everything else is shaken apart, this Kingdom WILL STAND.

Clearly, there is “more in store” for those who choose ways of faithfulness. The future is not irrelevant. It simply is not the only, or even the main consideration. It holds indescribable promise – the culmination of the citizenship class.
BUT UNTIL THEN – we already have a King to honor and obey, and fellow-citizens of his Kingdom with whom to learn to reflect his very being!

There are only two requirements:
to acknowledge the King as our only sovereign,
and to follow his instructions TOGETHER.

The citizenship class always has room for more. There are no restrictive quotas. The King is still recruiting citizens for his Kingdom.

Leave a Comment » | Word Study | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

The Case for “Case”

April 25, 2014

It has been brought to my attention that for the average person whose first language is English, the idea of “case”, to which I frequently refer in word studies which deal with nouns, makes no sense whatever.
The English language has no such phenomena in its use of nouns: our nouns do not appear in different forms. Pronouns do, in a limited way: the subject of a sentence employs “I, you, he, she, it; we, you, they”; a possessive is expressed by “my, your, his, her, its; our, your, their”; and an object – direct or indirect – by “me, you, him, her, it; us, you, them”. Even these, however, are often scrambled in common usage. So there really are no English equivalents of “case”, and to translate them requires a degree of circumlocution.

I have dealt with this issue in some detail in the Appendix to my Translation Notes, but since it is such an important key to understanding and evaluating the legitimacy (or not!) of the translation of a text, I have decided to offer a grossly over-simplified introduction. Please feel free to raise any questions that might clarify this subject for persons unacquainted with languages that include “case” with nouns. If you want a more comprehensive treatment, the grammar by A.T. Robertson will take you all the way back to Sanskrit, but this is an attempt at a simplified explanation.

The term “case” refers to the grammatical form of a noun, which is identified by the ending affixed to the “stem” of the word. The “stem” is the part that carries the “lexical meaning” (dictionary definition) of a word. The ending, or “case”, reveals nuances of its meaning and its use in the sentence. Nouns are also identified by “number” (singular or plural) and “gender” ( which has no connection to actual fact). By way of illustration, the Greek words for “hand, head, voice, or heart” all have feminine form; those referring to “foot, mouth, or mind” are masculine; and “breath, or body” are neuter – all completely regardless of the physical gender of their “possessors”. The “gender” of a word is an artifact of the language, and nothing more.

There are four “cases” (some grammarians divide them further, into six), in New Testament Greek. A beginning student will identify them most readily by using an Analytical Lexicon, which provides precise identification of every word-form exactly as it appears in the New Testament text, and includes a reference to the nominative singular form, the one in which a more comprehensive lexicon would list it.

The nominative case is the one used for the subject of a sentence, or, in the event of an intransitive verb, the predicate nominative. A variant form, sometimes classified as a separate “case”, is the vocative, which is used for direct address (the person or persons to whom one is speaking), in the absence of the second-person pronoun, “you”. It is often accompanied with a prefixed omega, which is translated simply “O”. The distinction may be rather ordinary; but may be quite significant. Vocative forms appear in Mt.15:28 and 17:17, Ac.1:1, Rom.2:1 and 9:20, James 2:20, and elsewhere. Significantly, it is not used in Heb.10:7, (a fact ignored by translators), implying that ho theos belongs to the subject of the verb, and is not a vocative address, which would have required a different form and an introductory omega, if the popular rendering were correct. The use of the nominative case clearly intends self-identification of the speaker, the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

The genitive case, most commonly indicating possession (“belonging to”), is used just about anywhere that an English speaker would use a phrase introduced by “of”. These uses would include:
*source: as in “Jesus of Nazareth”, or “John Smith of New York”
*price, or value: Ac.19:19 – the valueof the books burned by folks who renounced their sorcery
*material or content: Col.1:5 – “the word of truth”
*comparison: Lk.7:26 – “ more than a prophet”
*partitive: Jn.12:4 – “one of the disciples
*separation: Mt.13:49 – “out of the midst of the just ones [righteous]”
*measure of space or time: Eph.1:10 – “the fullness of time”
All of these are in addition to the most common possessive, often represented by (‘s) as well as “of” – “Son of God” and “God‘s Son” are equivalent.
The genitive case is also required for the objects of prepositions referring to any of these ideas, especially source, separation, or departure from. Please see the treatment of prepositions in the Translation Notes.

The dative case, usually including what was classically labeled “locative” (for location in place or time), is used to express an indirect object ; for example, a letter sent to someone, or something provided for someone. Example: I (subject: nominative) gave him (indirect object: dative) a letter (direct object: accusative). In Eph.1:1, it refers to the recipients of the letter.

The dative case has other uses, including:
*agency: Eph.1:13 – “by the Holy Spirit” (the one who “labels” the faithful as his own)
*manner: Ac.7:60 – “ with a loud voice”
*means: Eph.2:8 – “by his graciousness”, 2:7 – “by his kindness
*cause or results: Eph.2:1 – (death caused) “by deliberate transgressions and failures”
*location in time: Lk.24:1 – “on the first day; Ac.10:9 – “on the next day”
or place: Jn.19:2 – “on his head”
*degree of difference: Heb.1:4 – “by so much more”
*association: friendly – Ac.10:23 – brethren from Joppa went with Peter
or hostile – Ac.6:9 – (arguing ) with Stephen
Please note that the use of cause or result refers to consequences, but not purpose. That requires the accusative case.
The dative case is also seen in the objects of prepositions referring to location, (over, under, beside, in, near, with), but lacks any sense of motion, direction, or purpose. It is primarily static.

The accusative case, on the other hand, is the most active of the cases.
Besides indicating the direct object of a sentence, (Eph.1:13 – “you heard the word”, it may appear as
*the subject of an infinitive in indirect discourse: (where it also serves as a direct object of the primary verb): Mt.28:20 – “teaching them to follow….”
*the subject of an infinitive in purpose clauses: Eph.1:4: “so that we might be …”
*extent of space or distance: Lk.24:40 : “a journey of”
*duration of time: Mt.12:40: “for three days and three nights”
(Notice that these latter two are different from similar items on the genitive list, which are only measures.)
It is also used for objects of prepositions denoting purpose, direction (toward or into), or motion.

These distinctions are basic to accurate translation and understanding of the intended message. Please see Word Study #182, “Of eis and en” for a more detailed illustration.
Careful perusal of the meticulous compilation of the Greek text from literally hundreds of manuscript fragments reveals a few variations in case endings for nouns, but there are very few, and they are faithfully footnoted, even when thought to be possible copyist’s errors.

Unfortunately, once a “verse” (an artifact added many centuries after the original writing) has been chosen to support a recognized “doctrinal” issue, the accuracy of its translation is no longer open to scrutiny from either lexical or grammatical perspectives. I will conclude by highlighting just one illustration of such an unwarranted manipulation of the text.
One example, among many, of the misunderstanding caused by ignoring (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not mine to judge) issues of grammatical case and lexical accuracy is blatantly obvious in “proof-text” passages like Gal.2:16.

Interestingly, this is a place where the traditional KJV is actually more accurate than modern “evangelical” counterparts, although understanding has been seriously skewed by eager interpreters. The passage in question reads (KJV): “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believedIN Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith OF Christ ….”
Both the NASV and the NIV translators (unaware that “of” indicated possession?) changed both occurrences of “of “ to “in”, conforming it to evangelical dogma, but completely ignoring grammatical accuracy. In both places, there is no preposition, and the older version at least correctly translated the genitive case. There is simply NO construction in which “in” is a legitimate rendering of a genitive case.

The phrase (in all three) “believed IN” is likewise incorrect, since the text uses eis with its required accusative object (see W.S.#182). Giving the translators the benefit of any possible doubt, one may assume this was because they could find no convenient way to express the proper use of the accusative case while maintaining their (also incorrect) translation of pistis as “faith” and pisteuo” as “believe”. (Please see Word Study #1). In neither instance has the erroneous translation of pistis or pisteuo been addressed. A more “literal” rendering of the prepositional phrases would be “became loyal / faithful to / toward Jesus Christ”, with the genitive (possessive) cases correctly acknowledging our dependence upon the Lord’s faithfulness, rather than the achievement of some sort of “spiritual gymnastics” erroneously labeled “faith” on our part.

Romans 3:22 contains the identical error, in both “evangelical” versions, even though their revered KJV maintained the correct genitive possessive translation there as well.
There are many such passages. Please understand: this is not a sales pitch for the KJV. It has other problems. ALL translations need to be subject to scrutiny!

The dilemma, of course, is how to help an earnest student who has not had the privilege to study the Greek language, to discern and correct such errors.
First of all, it should be incumbent upon anyone who presumes to teach, to become knowledgeable about the language, in order to be aware that there actually are problems to be addressed.

As noted in several of my word studies (notably 142 and 182), using an interlinear Greek text with an analytical lexicon can be enormously helpful while acquiring that ability, once a student has a basic understanding of the value of grammar in accurate communication.

It would also be helpful if works of “scholarship” were vetted for linguistic integrity at least as carefully as they are for “doctrinal” acceptability. Ideally, of course, the latter should be contingent upon the former – but try getting that past institutional adjudicators!

Unless/until serious seekers after faithfulness demand this integrity of their gatekeepers, we who consider it important to ask “But what does the text say?” will remain lonely voices in the wilderness.

May we help each other into faithfulness!

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Ruth Martin

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »