SIMON . . . DO YOU LOVE ME?

 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.  (John 21:15-17)

The above discourse between Jesus and Simon Peter has stirred a great deal of discussion among Bible commentators for more than a century.  The issue involves two Greek words both translated “love” in nearly all English translations:  agapao and phileo.  The interpretive question is whether Peter, in responding to Jesus’ evocative queries concerning Peter’s love, intentionally used a different word (phileo) than the one Jesus used the first two times (agapao).  Or are the two words used synonymously in this context.[1] Bible expositors have expressed their different interpretations of this text in serious, respectful comments, giving their rationale while respecting opposing views.  In recent decades, however, the discourse has taken a less congenial turn.  A new linguistic approach to Scripture, championed by Dr. James Barr,[2] a liberal scholar who wrote against J. I. Packer’s stance on biblical inerrancy, has changed the paradigm.  The new approach depreciates the importance of individual words in Scripture, minimizing etymology (the study of the origins and development of words) and biblical word studies. This movement led to a new approach to Bible translation that seeks to give readers “the meaning” of Scripture – as the translator sees it – without any obligation to translate the actual words of Scripture.  

This movement has serious implications for the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Bible. That doctrine teaches that the very words of Scripture in their original languages are inspired by God.

In Chapter one of his book Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson states, “How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used.”  Then in the next paragraph he calls this reasoning, along with other alleged fallacies, “linguistic nonsense.”[3]

Carson tries to demonstrate that agape and the verb agapao can even mean sexual lust by citing the Septuagint translation (LXX) of 2 Samuel 13:15, where Amnon’s lust for his half-sister Tamara is called agaph.  Here we need to point out that the LXX is not inspired Scripture but a Greek translation of the Old Testament.[4]  

 J. Gresham Machen made a very pertinent point about the vocabulary of the New Testament:

Moreover, the originality of the New Testament writers should not be ignored.  They had come under the influence of new convictions of a transforming kind, and those new convictions had their effect in the sphere of language.  Common words had to be given new and loftier meanings, and common men were lifted to a higher realm by a new and glorious experience.  It is not surprising, then, that despite linguistic similarities in detail the New Testament books, even in form, are vastly different from letters that have been discovered in Egypt. The New Testament writers have used the common, living language of the day.  But they have used it in the expression of uncommon thoughts, and the language itself, in the process, has been to some extent transformed.[5] 

The question, then, regarding any New Testament word is how it is used in the New Testament.  Of the 144 uses of the verb form in the New Testament, only nine clearly refer to loving something sinful or ungodly.[6]  Carson cites Paul’s use of agapao in 2 Timothy 4:10 which states that Demas had departed “having loved this present world.”  (Carson adds “evil” to the citation to make apagao even less noble.)  The predominant use of agapao in the NT is positive, and the verb is never used in the NT with any sexual connotation.  Nevertheless, those nine references to loving ungodly or worldly things do support Carson’s main point, the one that seems to irk him the most, that agape love is not some sort of higher, nobler, or more godly type of love than the word with which it is often contrasted -- phileo.  Granted.  The words express different kinds of love, not higher or lower kinds of love.  Are those different kinds of love in play in John 21?  Shouldn’t we respectfully consider the possibility?

Carson takes to task William Hendriksen for the latter’s observation that there are semantic differences between agapao and phileo, and that such differences apply in John 21:15-17.  Carson boldly states that “Henriksen’s argument will not stand up, precisely because he mishandles the difficult questions surrounding synonymy.  The heart of his argument is that the total semantic range of each word is slightly different from the other, and therefore that there is a semantic difference in this context.”  Carson is putting words in Hendriksen’s word processor!  Hendriksen made his judgment that there is a difference between the two words in this context on the basis of the historical relationship between Peter and Jesus, and between Peter and the other disciples.  Hendriksen also gave careful attention to a vital aspect of linguistics that Carson totally ignores in this part of Exegetical Fallacies:  The sociolinguistic context of the conversation.  Peter’s emotional state entered into his responses, and Hendriksen took that into account, as well as the fact that the conversation was conducted in Aramaic.  Most importantly, Hendriksen noted the Holy Spirit’s work of inspiration in moving John to record the conversation in Greek:

We simply do not have the Aramaic written text, if there ever was one.  And we do not know enough to be able to affirm categorically that in no possible way could such fine distinctions have been conveyed by means of the Aramaic of that day.  We are compelled to proceed on the basis of the Greek text as it lies before us, in the conviction that it is fully inspired; hence, accurate in every way.”[7]

Hendriksen also gave an extensive list of commentators and translators on each side of the issue, showing his vast research into the matter.  Carson brushes off Hendriksen’s exposition as though the latter were an amateur.  But then Carson also does not hesitate to take on A. T. Robertson, the whole Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (on page 44 speaking of its “bankruptcy”), Richard C. Trench, and other notables.

My concern is that Carson’s scientific linguistic analysis of biblical texts and his iconoclastic bent are leading him and his readers away from the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.  God did inspire (“breathe”) the very words of Scripture, and Jesus placed great importance on the smallest elements of the original text.  (See Matthew 5:18)  Certainly there is room for variety of expression, the use of words that are more or less synonymous, but in light of verbal, plenary inspiration, we owe it to the Word of God to consider whether there is reason in the total context – linguistic, historical, social, political, theological, and interpersonal – to see shades of meaning in the inspired words.

 

---

[1] There is also the question of the meaning of the two words, whether one is a deeper, more noble love than the other, but that is not the issue in this article.  Suffice it to say that they express different kinds of love, though their semantic ranges overlap. 

[2] Barr’s book, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961, laid the groundwork for dynamic equivalency translations, such as the CEV, NIV, NLB, etc. 

[3] Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. 28

[4] Where the New Testament quotes the Septuagint, we must concede that the Holy Spirit has invested those words with His infallible inspiration, but that does not then carry over to the entire text of the LXX.

[5] Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners.  Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company.  6

[6] Mat. 6:24; Lk. 11:43; 16:13; John 3:19; 12:43; 2 Tim. 4:10; 2 Pet. 2:15; 1 John 2:15 (2X).

[7] Hendriksen, Willam.  New Testament Commentary: John. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.  495.

THE NET BIBLE: SUBTLE DIVERSION FROM ORTHODOXY

As the Preacher declared, “of making many books there is no end” (Ecclesiastes 12:12 ). That’s certainly true of the making of Bibles. One suspects that since the Bible is a perennial best seller, a new crop of them is certain to come out in time for Christmas.

But the NET Bible[1] is not just another modern translation like all the others. The NET’s translation of four verses in Paul’s epistles radically alters a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith: the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).

Here are the verses, first in the NET Bible and then the NASB. The troublesome phrase is in bold print in the NET and underlined in the NASB.

Romans 3:21-22

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction . . .

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Galatians 2:16

yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 

nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Galatians 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Philippians 3:9

and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness--a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness. 

and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith ...

Now the word translated faith in the NASB (and nearly every other version) and faithfulness in the NET is the word pistos. It can mean either faith or faithfulness, but the context in the above verses clearly demands the former.[2] Paul’s whole argument is a contrast between works of the law and faith in Christ for salvation. The actor in each verse is the believer. But the NET translators shift the subject from the individual believer to Christ, saying we are justified by Christ’s faithfulness, rather than our faith in Christ. Paul illustrated the principle of faith in Romans 4 when he referred to Abraham’s faith in God’s promise:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Romans 4:1-3 NASB)

Paul’s argument in Galatians is equally clear. How could anyone miss Paul’s emphasis on individual faith – as opposed to works – in the following verses?

Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Galatians 3:2-9 ESV bold print added)

  

In light of Paul’s consistent emphasis on simple faith as the means of receiving salvation, it is difficult to understand the mindset of the translators who changed it. Their translation takes the believer out of the equation. Paul is dealing with the very question the Philippian jailer cried out to Paul and Silas: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And Paul’s answer, of course, was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:30-31) Paul proclaimed that it was and is through faith in Jesus Christ that one receives salvation.

The same Greek phrase used in the verses in question – dia pisteos – is used nine times in the New Testament, all in Paul’s writings, and the NET translators render it “by faith” or “through faith” in six of the nine! There is no justifiable reason to change it in the verses in question.[3]

Galatians 2:20 has rather complex syntax, but there is absolutely no justification for adding “because of” in that verse. William Hendriksen explained that Paul was posing a riddle of personal salvation. I have modified his presentation only slightly:

The Riddle Propounded: In Christ I am crucified.

The Riddle Intensified: But I live.

The Riddle Clarified: Yet not I, but Christ lives in me.

The Riddle Explained: And that (life) which I now live in flesh, I live in faith – the faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.

It’s not hard to see Paul’s logic in this verse. So why didn’t the NET translators see it? Their translation obliterates the central point of this verse and the whole of Galatians! Their “because of” is totally unjustified in the grammatical context. J. B. Lightfoot pointed out that in faith is “the atmosphere, as it were, which he (Paul) breathes in this new spiritual life.”

The NET translators boldly dismiss previous translations as simply carrying on the tradition of previous translators and theologians. In that company of translators who, over the centuries got it wrong (according to the NET translators) were Jerome, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Giovanni Diodati, Giovanni Luzzi, the Hampton Court scholars of the KJV, and countless modern translators throughout the world!

The four verses examined in this article may seem insignificant, but they represent a startling departure from accepted principles of translation and they introduce a bizarre new idea of salvation, one not hinted at in the context.

More problems with the NET Bible are brought to light by Michael Marlow in his excellent review at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html   It should also be mentioned that the International Standard Version, completed in 2011, takes similar liberties with the text, translating the four verses in the same manner as the NET, but substituting “Messiah” for Christ.

---

[1] The name is a play on New English Translation and “NET” as online Bible.

[2] The difference is the same as when we urge someone to “keep the faith,” as opposed to when a lawyer accuses a party of failing to “keep faith” in a contract. The first refers to the object of one’s belief, and the latter to faithfulness in carrying out the terms of an agreement. Context is everything!

[3] The genitive case of the noun used in the three verses under discussion is the objective genitive, properly understood in context as referring to Jesus Christ as the object of faith. A. T. Robertson gives numerous examples of the objective genitive in similar phrases in the NT, e.g. Mark 11:22 (“faith in God” which Robertson compares with Romans 3:22); John 17:2 (“over all flesh”); 1 Corinthians 8:7 (“consciousness about the idol”). These and many others illustrate the vast flexibility of the objective genitive.

SOME GREAT READING FOR 2014!

Looking for some good books to curl up with on the couch during those cold winter evenings?  Maybe you like adventure stories.  Or is it history you like?  How about drama or romance?  Maybe philosophy, psychology, or inspirational writings appeal to you.

Whatever your preferences, let me recommend one volume that has it all:  The Bible. 

The Bible has been called God’s “Unfolding Drama of Redemption,” and that it is.  The Bible reveals the nature of God and his plan for mankind progressively through the ages.  The remarkable thing is that God used a broad variety of literary forms and authors to accomplish that task.  Here are some of the literary forms and subjects represented in the Bible:

Drama :           Job, Song of Solomon, Jonah

Romance:        Song of Solomon, Ruth

History:           Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, portions of                                 Isaiah and Jeremiah, Acts

Narrative:       Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Ruth, Esther, the Gospels, Acts

Poetry:            Psalms, selected passages from the Song of Solomon and the prophets

Prophecy:        The major and minor prophets, portions of the Gospels and Epistles, Revelation

Letters:           Epistles to churches, General Epistles, personal letters of Paul and John

Journals:         Ezra, Nehemiah, parts of Acts

Philosophy:     Ecclesiastes, Proverbs

Psychology:    Proverbs

Inspirational:  Psalms

Fiction:           (Yes, fiction, used to illustrate spiritual lessons) The Parables of Jesus and of                         some Old Testament prophets. 

 

In the Bible you will find literature that will keep you on the edge of your seat, stir up your indignation, or move you to tears.  I always get a lump in my throat when I read of Jacob’s reunion with his brother Esau (Genesis 33:1-4).  Ruth’s deep, unwavering devotion to her mother-in-law Naomi, and Boaz’s love for Ruth make that book an incomparable classic. 

When I want to reflect on life, to be challenged concerning my values, Solomon always comes through in his philosophical work, Ecclesiastes, and in his book of wisdom, Proverbs.  David and other psalmists give my heart and spirit a voice of prayer and praise, and Job helps me understand God and the reasons for suffering.

The Old Testament prophets inveigh against the same evils that plague our society today, and they offer hope of a new kingdom of righteousness through Messiah. That new hope is unveiled in the Gospels that tell of Messiah Jesus, and in the Epistles that illuminate the deep spiritual meaning of new life in Christ.  God’s plan is consummated in the Book of Revelation, which concludes with a stunning and highly symbolic description of the New Heaven and the New Earth.

It’s safe to say that you won’t find more compelling reading between two covers than you’ll find in the Bible.  I suggest that you read through it in 2014.  Get a translation that is “essentially literal,” that is, one that seeks to be faithful to the original words of Scripture.  Some essentially literal translations are the following:  The New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, and (for those who can handle 17^th century English) the King James Version (still considered the most literary translation ever made).  I must also mention that the Geneva Bible is still in print, and it predates the King James Version.

I would also recommend that you read a few chapters in the Old Testament and one in the New every day.  That way you get a breath of grace to relieve some of the heaviness of the Old Covenant and the people’s constant waywardness and sin.

Let’s get into the adventure!  Start today!

LET PAUL BE PAUL

I’m sure you’ve known people whom you could identify solely by certain features of their speech.  When I enrolled in my senior high school English class, a former student of the teacher said, “Don’t let him utilize you.”  I thought that was a strange remark until, during a rather warm spring class period, that teacher looked at me and said, “Mr. Jones, could I utilize you to open a window?” I’ll always remember Mr. Daly by that word – utilize.

Certain authors are especially skilled at developing characters by their speech patterns.  John Grisham is one.  Those authors can record pages of dialog without a dialogue tag and we know just who is talking.  Bible writers have their peculiar expressions, too.  When the Holy Spirit moved upon the writers of Scripture, he guaranteed the result without destroying the writers’ style.  Yet that rich expression of individuality is all but obliterated in most modern translations because the translators (more accurately paraphrasers) felt they had to explain the meaning of the texts rather than faithfully convey the text itself with all the original authors’ stylistic words and phrases.

One important example is the Apostle Paul’s use of the Greek word for “flesh,” sarx, especially in the phrase “according to [the] flesh.”[1]  This is a common phrase in Paul’s writings; in fact, the exact phrase that Paul uses, kata sarka, “according to flesh,” is only found in Paul’s epistles.[2]  But the NIV translators seem to be repulsed by the word “flesh,” as though it were a cross in the face of a vampire! Using their license called “dynamic equivalency,” the translators interpret for the reader what they think Paul meant by the phrase “according to flesh” in its various contexts.  Here’s how they render it:

“as to his (Christ’s) human nature”  (Romans 1:3)

“according to the sinful nature” (Romans 8:4, 5, 12, 13)

“of my own race” (Romans 9:3)

“the human ancestry” (Romans 9:5)

“by human standards” (1 Corinthians 1:26)

“in a worldly manner” (2 Corinthians 1:17)

“from a worldly point of view” and “in this way” (2 Corinthians 5:16)

“by standards of this world” (2 Corinthians 10:2)

“as the world does” (2 Corinthians 10:3)

“in the way the world does” (2 Corinthians 11:18)

“in the ordinary way” (Galatians 4:23, 29)

“earthly” (Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22)

How would anyone guess that these “translations” were of the same phrase in the original Greek? Not only do the translators completely obliterate this characteristic of Paul’s writing, but in so doing, they obscure some important biblical truths.  I am amused when I see advertisements for “exegetical” commentaries “based on the NIV”.  That seems to be akin to a literary analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet based on Cliff’s Notes! 

It’s time to end the dictatorship of the NIV and get back to what God actually said! Essentially literal translations, like the NKJV, ESV, and NASB, those that seek to be faithful to the words and expressions of the biblical authors, give us a window through which we may interact with God's Word as He inspired it. I urge everyone to procure one.[3]

---

[1] Paul’s phrase is actually “according to flesh” in the Greek, but it is translated “according to the flesh” in essentially literal translations.

[2] Late manuscripts include the phrase in Acts 2:30, with variations, but that reading does not appear to be the original reading.  Even if it were to be accepted as original, the would be understandable that Paul’s companion, Luke, who wrote Acts would use the phrase.

[3]For an excellent discussion of the difference between Dynamic Equivalent and Essentially Literal translations I recommend the following: Choosing a Bible by Leland Ryken and the longer book, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation by Leland Ryken.