Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight we're going to be talking about when you pick up your Bible and read it, are you really reading the Word of God? Now, this is not a King James only message that if you're not reading the King James, you're not reading the Word of God. I know some people think that unless you're reading the 1769 revision of the King James Bible, you're not really reading the Word of God. Now that is not what I believe, and it's not the point of tonight's message.
On the other hand, I will say that the King James Bible receives very high marks when it comes to most of the issues I'll be talking about tonight. I should explain upfront that I'm not going to be discussing or taking into account the various text types of both the Old and New Testament. I'm not saying that those aren't important, but I've discussed the New Testament text in a CD I recorded a number of years ago entitled " The Early Christian Writings and the Textus Receptus.
" And I've discussed the Old Testament text in the CD series I made in 2015 on discovering the Septuagint. So I've already given messages on the underlying text types. The matters we'll be discussing tonight apply to whatever text your Bible was translated from, and it applies to whatever translation you use. Now one thing I want to make very clear is that the points I'll be discussing are not a reason to view the Bible in a different light.
Now they should give you a reason to view whatever translation you're using in a different light, but by that I don't mean that you should view it in a bad light, only in a realistic light. Regardless of the imperfections in translations, God's Word is the message of the Scripture, and that message survives and surpasses man's imperfect translations. Like all of you, I believe that the original manuscripts of the Scriptures were inspired by God and that they were inerrant and infallible.
However, we don't have those original manuscripts, and the human copies, transcriptions, and translations are not inerrant. Unfortunately, as God's Word has been transmitted and translated through the centuries, it has been modified in both subtle and not so subtle ways by human hands. Some of this has been intentional, but I think the vast majority of it has been done innocently. But sadly, these human influences can obscure and skew Jesus ' Gospel of the Kingdom.
So tonight I'm going to identify some of the ways human imperfections have been able to influence the very Bible translation you are using, regardless of what translation you're using. But then we'll also be learning how we can counteract those influences. We're going to begin with those influences that are there before we ever read the text of the Bible itself. Here I'm speaking about the chapters, the verses, and the subheadings in our Bibles. All of these are man-made additions to God's Word.
The chapter divisions were added by a medieval Roman Catholic archbishop named Stephen Langton sometime in the 1200s. The verse divisions were not added until the year 1551. They were done by Robert Stephanus, a printer who lived in Paris. Now I think we all find these chapter and verse divisions very helpful, but they also have disadvantages.
For one thing, they make us feel that we can take an isolated statement in the Scriptures and present it as a full representation of what the Scriptures teach on a given subject. A prime example is John 3:16, one of the most quoted verses in the entire Bible. " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
" Now, I don't know if you've ever thought about it, but if you mentioned that citation, John 3:16 to the New Testament Christians or the early Christians, they would have no idea what you were even talking about. John 3:16, what is that? In fact, the Christians who have lived through most of the centuries since the death of Christ would have no idea of what you're talking about. The chapters and particularly the verses are a fairly new addition to God's Word.
And yet in a few hundred years we've become so comfortable with them that we assume because something is in a verse that that represents something special in itself. And people feel comfortable in quoting a particular verse as if it's a complete picture of what the Bible teaches on a subject. But for example, John 3:16, if you read what Jesus says before that famous sentence, you'll find that He talks about the necessity of the new birth.
If you read what he said after it, you find out about the necessity of living a godly life, and that we cannot believe in Jesus Christ and still live in darkness. Now before the Bible was artificially divided into chapters and verses, Christians were more apt to read the entire text of, say, one of the epistles instead of just taking a section of it. They were aware that it all ran together, you had to take the epistle as a whole, not verse by verse. Now subheadings are another big influence.
Some Bibles don't have any, which is just fine. But I don't have any problem with what I call innocuous subheadings. That is headings that simply let you find a passage very quickly that you're looking for. For example, if you're looking for the parable of the prodigal son, and you're flipping through Luke, aha, you see a subheading, the prodigal son. That helps you if you don't remember exactly where it's found in Luke.
However, most Bible publishers can't withstand the temptation to push their theology through the use of slanted subheadings. Or they may think they are placing an innocuous subheading, but because of their preconceived ideas, they end up steering the reader in the wrong direction. For example, in my NIV Bible, at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 11, which contains Paul's commandments on the head covering, the NIV has the subheading propriety in worship. Yet Paul in no way limits his commandments to times of worship.
But when most people see that subheading, they're going to be thinking, " Oh, Paul is limiting his instructions here to public worship. " They probably also will be thinking, " Oh, this only has to do with propriety. " These aren't real commandments. 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is also a prime example of how chapter divisions can steer us wrong. Archbishop Langton decided to group Paul's commandments on the head covering together with Paul's instructions about the love feast and communion.
Now this grouping naturally makes the reader think the two subjects go together, that this entire chapter is talking about public worship. Langton should have ended chapter 11 with Paul's final statements about the head covering. He should have then begun a new chapter with Paul's instructions about the love feast and communion. So what do we do to counteract the human influence that chapters, verses, and subheadings have on God's Word? Well, my answer is to learn to pretend they're not there.
As you're reading, you make your own decisions where natural breaks should occur. Pay no attention to where Archbishop Langton made his chapter divisions, and pay no attention to where Robert Stephanus made his verse divisions. As for subheadings, use them only to find a passage you're looking for. But after that, totally ignore them. When I'm reading the Bible, I simply don't look at the subheadings. As far as I'm concerned, they're not there. Now chapters, verses, and subheadings are a little man-made influence.
But now I want to talk to you about a much bigger human influence. And it is this, the fact that every translation is to a degree also an interpretation. Right now I'm studying New Testament Greek through a course taught by Bill Mounce, who is a very well-known New Testament Greek scholar. It was either in the first or second lesson he made the statement, " Translating Greek is both a science and an art. " Now another way of saying that is translating Greek is both objective and subjective.
And a translator's theology and worldview and prior influences are going to supply a lot of that subjective part. To begin with, one of the decisions that all translators have to make is this: Do I make a word-for-word translation or a thought for thought translation? Let me give you a real-life illustration of what I mean by that choice. Let's say you're having a conversation with someone in Spanish, and they ask you, " Quantos Agnos Tiene.
" Now, a word-for-word translation of that question would be, " How many years do you have? " Now, that's a rather strange question to ask in English, and you may not even understand what the Spanish speaker is after if his question is translated to you, how many years do you have? But now a thought-for-thought translation of that question would be, " How old are you? " That's how we would ask that question in English. So, which is better, a word-for-word translation or a thought for thought translation?
Well, if I'm reading a translation of a modern Spanish novel, or say a Spanish newspaper, or a conversation with someone, I want a thought-for-thought translation. Because it's easier to understand, and it flows more naturally, it better fits my own English understanding. On the other hand, if I were examining a legal contract, I would want a translation that was closer to a word-for-word translation because that contract is going to turn on every single word.
And the same principle holds true when I'm reading a translation of Scripture. You see, there's a big difference between translating a modern living language like Spanish and translating biblical Hebrew and Greek, which are no longer spoken. To illustrate, my wife Deborah and I are involved in a ministry to the poor in Honduras, and we go down to Honduras twice a year in connection with this ministry. Now, when I speak in public there, I normally speak in English and have it translated.
And my good friend and brother Luis Vega, he does the translating for me. Now his native language is Spanish, but he is also fluent in English, and he's lived in the United States. Not only that, he regularly hosts groups of short-term missionaries who come down from the U.S., and he interacts with missionaries from the United States who live in Honduras on almost a daily basis. So he can think like a Honduran, but he can also think like someone from the United States.
Now, I know enough Spanish that when he's translating for me, I can tell that what he is saying in Spanish is not a word-for-word translation of my English. He's giving a thought-for-thought translation, saying things in a way that are the most understandable for our Honduran listeners. Now, for most of the things I say, that's just fine. In fact, it's what I want him to do. However, his thought-for-thought translations are not so good when I'm speaking on theological subjects.
Now, Luis would hold to evangelical Protestant theology, but I'm sharing things from a kingdom theological perspective. So when he translates, he reinterprets what I'm saying into his evangelical thought pattern. And he ends up telling my listeners something that is a bit different from what I was trying to tell them. Now, when I'm in Honduras, I'm there to help the poor not to preach theology, so I don't make an issue of this.
But, if I were down there to preach at a Bible seminar or something, I would want a translator who stuck a little closer to my actual words. It's the same with the Bible. A thought-for-thought translation might be suitable for passages of Old Testament history, perhaps, but when we're dealing with prophecies and instruction and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, I don't want a translator who is second-guessing what Jesus and His apostles intended to say.
I want the translator to give it to me as literally and as word for word as possible. Does that mean that we should seek out a translation that is a precise word-for-word translation of the Greek? Well, actually, no. That's because a strict word-for-word translation is what you have in a Greek English interlinear Bible. And if you've ever looked at an interlinear Bible, you've probably immediately noticed that the English is essentially non-readable.
For one thing, the Greek word order is different than the English. Now incidentally, when I refer to Greek in this message, I'm talking about coiné Greek. That is the Greek the New Testament is written in. But even if you took an interlinear Bible and you rearranged the words in the order that we use in English, it still would be barely understandable. For one thing, typically you can say something in Greek in less words than you can say it in English.
So you have to add certain words in English for the sentence to make sense. I'll give you an example from Scripture. This is from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:9 and 10, where Jesus asked, " Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? " Now actually in the Greek it doesn't say if his son asked for bread. The word " if " isn't there in the Greek, but it is implied by the form of the sentence.
Also, the word " for " isn't there in the Greek, where he says " if his son asks for bread. " The Greek simply says, " If his son asks bread. " We need to add for for that statement to make sense in English. Having said that, it's interesting that the original King James simply says if his son asked bread. And perhaps that made sense in English in the year 1611. It doesn't really make sense in English today. Then moving to the next phrase, Jesus asked, will he give him a stone?
Now in Greek, there wasn't any indefinite article. In English we have the indefinite articles " a " and " an ". But those words didn't even exist in New Testament Greek. So in the Greek, Jesus simply asked, " Give him stone, " not " give him a stone. " So the translator has to add the word " a " in English, or it doesn't make sense. It's improper English if you don't. That's just one small example of why a precise word-for-word translation doesn't work going from Greek to English.
Also, even though Greek usually uses fewer words than English does, there are times when a word is used in Greek that doesn't make sense if we translate it word for word into English. One example is the definite article " the ", which in Greek is " ho. " Now the Greeks often use the definite article with somebody's name, where we would simply say " Jesus, " the New Testament writers often say " the Jesus. " They don't always put it that way, but they do quite often.
Or when the New Testament writers are using the word " God " as a proper name, they usually say " the God. " So in English, where we say " the kingdom of God, " they say " the kingdom of the God. " Again, this is a minor illustration, but again it is an illustration of why an exact word-for-word translation of New Testament Greek into English would not make for a very understandable English Bible. Not only that, an exact word-for-word translation can be very misleading.
So what we're actually looking for in a translation is one that is partly word for word and partly thought for thought. And that's what just about every translation is, including the King James version. But as a result, that means that every translation is also to a degree an interpretation. It's unavoidable. You can't get around that. And as I said earlier, the translator is going to interpret things based on his theology and his preconceived ideas. That too is unavoidable.
Now, I don't think any translator purposefully changes God's Word in order to mislead people. Rather, I believe that translators tend to be so certain that their theological framework is correct that they believe they can honestly and accurately render the Bible writer's thoughts when they are moving away from a word-for-word translation to a thought for thought translation. The problem is they aren't able to accurately render the Bible writer's thoughts.
That's because they're rendering something written about 2,000 years ago and written in a completely different culture and time than what we live in today. When I first read the early Christian writings back in the mid-1980s, I immediately noticed that the early Christians were not just interpreting the Scriptures differently than do most professing Christians today.
But I also noticed that they obviously were understanding the Greek differently than the way it is translated in many of our Bibles or most of our Bibles. To put it another way, the attempts of English translators to produce thought-for-thought translations from the time of William Tyndale to the present are often off the mark even though their intentions are good.
In contrast, the early Christians weren't having to make a thought-for-thought translation because the word-for-word text of the Scripture was their native language. That's exactly how they talked, and it's exactly how they thought.
Now that doesn't make their understandings of the Greek infallible, but it certainly calls into question so many of the attempts of English translators who are far removed from the time and culture of the Bible writers to accurately render a thought-for-thought translation of their words. So how do we get around this problem? Well, the answer is we can't completely get around it. We're always dealing somewhat with an interpretation.
Even people who know Koine Greek automatically read their theological assumptions into the Scriptures when they read the Greek text. It's unavoidable. However, we can eliminate a lot of the human interpretation by using a translation that is closer to a word-for-word translation, while it still makes sense in English. Now, as I said at the beginning of this message, I'm not going to get into a discussion of the underlying Greek text in this message.
But I do know that many of my listeners strongly prefer the Textus Receptus for the underlying text, but that others of my listeners prefer the critical text. Now, if you're one of those who stand by the Textus Receptus, then you're already either using the King James or the new King James. Neither one is precisely a word-for-word translation, but they do have less human interpretations than most modern translations that are out there.
On the other hand, if you're a proponent of the critical text, then the New American Standard Bible is the translation I would recommend, as it is closer to a word-for-word translation than any of the other modern translations. The ESV, or English Standard Version, would be a second choice. Now, I know many of my listeners use and prefer the NIV. And I appreciate the fact that the NIV is very readable. The translators did an excellent job of making a rendition into smooth reading English.
But unfortunately, the NIV contains more human interpretation than do most other translations, with the exceptions of the loose paraphrases such as the Living Bible and the Message, which in my opinion, no Christian should ever use. To me to paraphrase the Bible, borders on blasphemy. Unfortunately, whether we're using a word for word translation or a thought for thought rendition, there is still another problem we can't avoid. And that problem is ambiguity. Ambiguous means having more than one possible meaning.
And it's difficult to speak or write any language in such a way that certain combinations of words cannot be interpreted in more than one way. Back in law school, the professor who taught contract law, he had a standard illustration he liked to use that was taken from real life. And it was a statement that read, " Save paperclips and waste paper. " Now, what does that mean? Well, it can mean one of two things. It could mean that the boss wants you to waste paper, but to save paperclips.
In other words, the word " waste " is being used as a verb there. Or the statement could mean that the boss wants you to save both paper clips and scrap paper. In other words, the word waste is being used as an adjective, meaning scrap or used paper. Now, which interpretation is the correct one? Well, we really don't know without more information. It's why legal contracts read the way they do.
Most of the time, lawyers aren't purposefully writing contracts in a manner so that nobody but another lawyer can understand them. What we're trying to do is to eliminate any possibility of either party to the contract, misunderstanding what is being agreed to. The problem, of course, is that by the time the lawyers get through with the contract, nobody but another lawyer can understand what it's saying.
And even after trying to eliminate any ambiguity, contracts that have been carefully drawn up by lawyers still often end up with ambiguities. Furthermore, nobody would want God to have given us His Word in language that sounded like a lawyer wrote it. So, even if you can read the original languages, many passages of the Bible, like those in other writings, can be understood in more than one sense. Happily, most of the ambiguous passages don't affect the overall message that God has given us.
I'll give you a fairly innocent example, Matthew 18 verses 21 through 22, that says, " Then Peter came to him and said, ' Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? ' Up to seven times? " Jesus said to him, " I do not say to you up to seven times, but up to 70 times seven. " End quote. In other words, according to that translation, up to 490 times. However, the Greek there could equally mean up to 77 times.
So whichever rendering a translator goes with, he's having to make a human interpretation of what Jesus was saying. Now, thankfully, it doesn't really matter in this passage because Jesus isn't telling us to keep count and then quit forgiving our brother after either 77 times or 490 times. What he was telling Peter was that there's no limit to how many times we forgive our brother. But in other passages, the difference in meaning is more significant.
Before going any further, I want to reiterate that when I'm talking about a passage being ambiguous, I'm only meaning that it can be translated in more than one way. I say that because some people use the term ambiguities to mean contradictions in Scripture. Now I think that's a wrong use of the term ambiguity, but regardless, that is not what I mean when I use the term. Now I want to look at a passage in Scripture that demonstrates several of the causes of ambiguity in Scripture.
That passage is Hebrews 12 verses 1 and 2, a fairly well-known passage. It reads, " Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us. Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
This passage contains several examples of words and phrases that can legitimately be translated in more than one way. The first word I want to look at is the word witnesses. In Greek, it's the plural form of the Greek word martus. Now normally martus means a person who testifies. But in the New Testament and in the early church, Martus took on the meaning of someone who testifies about Christ through suffering or death. In other words, what we call in English a martyr.
So the translator has to make the decision of whether to translate this word here in Hebrews 12:1. Does he translate it as witnesses or as martyrs? I've looked through the writings of the pre-Nicene Christians to see how they understood this passage, and so far I've been unable to find any of the pre-Nicene Christians who discuss this particular passage of Hebrews 12:1 and 2. The earliest writer I found actually lived in the middle of the 4th century, and that person is John Chrysostom.
Now his testimony is very valuable, but it would be better if we had someone who lived closer to the time of the apostles. Nevertheless, let's look at how he understood this passage in Hebrews. So how did he understand the word martus here? Well, he understood the writer to be talking about martyrs rather than witnesses in general.
The reason is that in the sentences leading up to Hebrews 12:1, the writer says, " Women received their dead raised to life again, and others were tortured not accepting deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection. " Still others had trials of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword.
They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy. Now, remember, the chapter divisions weren't there when this letter was written and when the early Christians were reading it. So the passage flows without a break from the discussion of all of these men and women from the Old Testament times who suffered and/or died for their faith, up to the sentence that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses or martyrs.
And the writer of Hebrews refers to these people that he's just described who suffered and died for their faith. He uses the Greek term Martus. So it's natural that the early Christians understood the writer to be using Martus in the special sense of someone who suffers or dies for their faith. What's important is that he certainly did not understand Paul to be saying that we are surrounded by a cloud of eyewitnesses. That is that the saints are watching what we are doing. That thought never crossed his mind.
Okay, the writer of Hebrews continues to say, " Let us lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily ensnares us. " Let's talk for a moment about that phrase " the sin. " I can't tell you how many sermons I've heard and how many articles I've read where someone speculates or pretends to know exactly what that particular sin is that the Scripture says so easily ensnares us. Now in the Greek, the phrase there is Ten Hamartian, which literally means the sin. So the King James translators, the New King James, etc.
They're doing a word-for-word translation here when they say the sin that so easily ensnares us. And that may be a correct translation of what the writer is intending to say. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Greeks used the definite article " the " in places where we don't use it in English. For example, they often say " the Jesus, " where in English we simply say " Jesus. " Also, when they're using a word in an abstract sense, they often place the article " the " in front of it.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 13, the famous chapter on love, in Greek, Paul doesn't say, " Love suffers long and is kind. Love does not envy. " Rather, Paul says the love suffers long and is kind. The love does not envy. But in English, that doesn't make sense. That would be very poor English. So our translators properly render it, love suffers long, etc. The same situation exists here in Hebrews 12:1.
The writer could be saying the sin which easily entangles us, but it's just as likely that he's saying sin, which easily entangles us. That's how John Chrysostom understood it. Interestingly, Chrysostom also says that the phrase which easily entangles us can be interpreted in two different ways. He says it can mean the way that most English Bibles translate it, that sin, or the sin, that easily entangles us. It may mean that, but he says it can also mean sin, which can be easily circumvented.
And he thinks that the writer means the latter, that we can easily disentangle ourselves from sin. Now he's not meaning that we can live sin free, but we can disentangle ourselves from the kind of sin that would prevent us from running this race to the finish. Now moving on, still using this same passage as an example, we want to look at the phrase " the author and finisher of our faith.
" That phrase is often quoted as a proof text by people who hold to Luther and Calvin's theology that salvation is all a matter of predestination, that God does it all. We play no role in our salvation. And they point to this. They say, " See, we actually don't play any role because Jesus is the one who put the faith in us in the first place, and He's the one who will complete our faith for us. " And theoretically, the Greek could be translated that way.
But that's not necessarily at all what the writer there is saying. The Greek word that is translated author in that passage is the word archaegos. Now if you look up Archaegos in Strong's Greek Lectionary, you'll find that it tells you the word can mean author, captain, or prince. Now even though Strong's Lectionary lists the meanings in that order, Mr. Strong actually should have listed those definitions the other way around. I say that because archaegos rarely means author.
The word appears only four times in the New Testament, and the King James translates it three times as captain or prince, but only once as author, and that's here in Hebrews 12:2. Furthermore, in the Greek Old Testament, that is, in the Septuagint, Archaegos is used 23 times, far more than in the New Testament. And every time the word obviously means " chief " or " leader " or " prince. " It never means " author. " Now, I'm not saying that archaegos cannot mean author.
I'm only saying that it's not its normal meaning. But Chrysostom himself understood Paul to be using the word in the sense of author or founder or initiator. After all, Jesus did say that no one can come to Him unless the Father first draws Him. So God helps us to believe in the first place. We don't run this race alone. We have help at the very beginning, and we have help all the way through till the very end. But Chrysostom certainly didn't understand the writer to be speaking in a Calvinistic sense.
After all, the whole point of this passage in Hebrews is exhorting us to disentangle ourselves from sin and every other weight and run the race with endurance. Jesus isn't going to run the race for us. In fact, that's one of the themes that runs throughout the entire epistle to the Hebrews. It tells us that if we drop out of the race, if we sin willfully, we forfeit our salvation. You may be wondering, yes, David, but what can I do about all of this? I don't read Greek.
How can I know what Greek words are being used in a given New Testament passage? Well, let me tell you about a marvelous tool that makes it very easy for a person who cannot read Greek to know what Greek words are being used. In fact, it's also a helpful tool for someone who does read Greek. It's an interlinear entitled The English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament. It uses the ESV for the English text, and it's published by Crossway Publishers.
What makes it different for most interlinears is that other interlinears set forth the Greek text in its proper order, and then they provide a literal English translation directly below each Greek word in the text. The problem with these conventional interlinears is that the English words are totally out of grammatical order, and they don't fit any particular translation. And so for the most part, the English rendition of the Greek words is unreadable. It makes no sense in English.
However, in the ESV English-Greek reverse interlinear, what you have in front of you is an actual English translation, the ESV, or English Standard Version, which is actually closer to a word-for-word translation than even the King James is. So you can read the English text. It makes sense. The editors have then rearranged the Greek word order to fit the English. So right below every English word, you have the Greek word that is being translated.
In fact, to make it very user-friendly, the editors give you the Greek word as written in the Greek alphabet, and then they give you the same Greek word that has been transliterated into our Latin slash English alphabet. Not only that, the editors give you the parsing information for the Greek word. In the event you're a Greek student or if you just want to know more about the word. Now the parsing information tells you whether the word is a noun, verb, or adjective, for example.
If it's a noun, it tells you whether it's singular or plural, and whether it's the subject, the direct object, or indirect object. If it's a verb, it tells you what tense the verb is in. And then finally, this reverse interlinear gives you the strong concordance number of that Greek word, so that you can easily look it up. I've personally found this work incredibly helpful and eye-opening. It costs around $40. I wish it were cheaper, but it's well worth the money.
It's available from Scroll Publishing or from Amazon and other places. As I said, it is a tremendous help for the serious Bible student. Of course, I wish it were constructed around the King James version or the new King James version and their underlying Greek text, since those are the translations I'm normally working with. But most of the time, for the purpose of analyzing the Greek, I find that it doesn't make a lot of difference.
Now to go along with this reverse interlinear, you also need a Greek lexicon or dictionary that is coded to the Strong's numbering system. If you have any kind of Bible software, it probably already includes Strong's lexicon. And with those two tools, the reverse interlinear and the Greek dictionary, you can discover a lot about God's Word and where human interpretation has played a role in things.
As I said earlier, when I first read the early Christian writings in the mid-1980s, it was obvious that the early Christians were understanding the Greek differently than the way it was translated in my Bible. That is in many instances. However, I had no way of determining why they were understanding the Greek differently. Well, now with these simple tools and a basic knowledge of New Testament Greek, I can normally determine exactly why the early Christians were understanding the Greek differently.
Oftentimes, it's because the Greek can legitimately be translated in more than one way. Other times it's because our English Bible translators have taken undue liberties with the Greek or have added words that are not in the Greek, and which the early Christians didn't infer to be there. So with the tools I've just mentioned, any of us can do meaningful linguistic detective work, so to speak. We can look at alternate ways that particular words could be translated.
Now at the same time, we have to be careful to maintain a huge dose of humility. I think we do need to give a lot of deference to people who are Greek scholars, and we shouldn't be too quick to think that we know more than they do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to question how a given verse is translated, particularly when it seems to go against the general message that Jesus preached.
Without being scholars, we do have the ability to see what Greek word the Bible writer used, and we can look up the various meanings of that Greek word to see if there's another meaning that better fits the overall teachings of Scripture. The passage we were just looking at in Hebrews 12 demonstrates another problem we have to deal with, and that's the issue of translators adding words to Scripture. I've already mentioned that translators often have to add words when translating from Greek to English.
For example, translators frequently need to add the word " a " within a sentence, or else a sentence doesn't make sense in English. At other times, however, it is simply a judgment call on the part of the translators whether or not to add a word. It may be a legitimate judgment call, but it's a judgment call nevertheless. Now Hebrews 12:2 contains one of those legitimate judgment calls. It reads in the King James, " Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.
" And many other translations read similarly. But if you look at that passage in your Bible, you'll notice that the word " our " is italicized, indicating that it's not in the actual Greek text. It's a word the translators have added. To be sure, it might be proper to add it there. It could be what the writer meant, that he is the captain or author of our personal faith. I say that because the ancient Greeks often didn't include our in places where we would use it in English.
It was understood in the Greek, but it wasn't written out. Is Hebrews 12:2 one of those instances? Well, it could be. That is, the writer could be saying that Jesus is the author or founder or captain of our personal faith. But it's just as likely that he means that Jesus is the author, founder, or captain of faith in general. I say that because the writer points out that Jesus had faith in the things the Father promised Him.
He said, " Because of the joy set before Him, He willingly went to the cross and endured these things. " When it comes to adding words to actually translate the Greek, I see this passage in Hebrews 12 as a neutral example. Adding the word " our " may fit what the writer meant, and it may not. There are many passages of Scripture that fall into this kind of neutral category. Let me give you another example. It's 1 Corinthians 10:23.
Now in the New King James, this reads, " All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. " And nearly all other English Bibles translate this passage similarly. Now I don't know about you, but all of my life I have wondered about that passage. Why does Paul say all things are lawful for me? Because we know for a certainty that all things are not lawful to Christians.
In fact, Paul sets forth many things in that very letter to the Corinthians, showing that they are not lawful and those who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God. So why would he say all things are lawful for me? Well, just a few weeks ago, I was reading one of the early Christian writings, and I noticed the writer, when he talks about this verse, he quotes it by memory as, " All foods are lawful for me, but not all foods are helpful. " Now when I saw that, I immediately stopped.
All foods, well that's not what Paul said. And you know I went back and looked in the Bible. Sure enough, it says all things are lawful for me, not all foods. So why did the writer say all foods? Back in the days of the early church, they didn't have printed Bibles, so when people are writing about the Scripture, they're usually quoting the scriptures by memory. And sometimes they quote them a little bit differently than the way they actually read in our Bible. That's pretty understandable.
But I decided to look at the Greek there. And to my surprise, I found that the word " things " doesn't appear in the Greek. Paul simply says, " All are lawful for me, but not all are helpful. " Now it's certainly understandable that translators would add the word things. That certainly makes more sense in English or it's a better way to say it rather than all are lawful for me. The problem is it doesn't make theological sense because all things are not lawful to Christians.
So this writer who's quoting it, in his mind as he was reading it, where Paul says, " All are lawful, " he's assuming Paul means all foods are lawful, because that's what Paul goes on to talk about, about food that has been sacrificed to idols and what we can eat and can't eat, et cetera. So it made perfect sense that in his mind, that's what Paul is meaning, all foods. The two examples I've given you fall into gray areas. That is, the translators were making legitimate judgment calls when they added these words.
Just as it would have been a legitimate judgment call not to add any words in these verses we've been looking at. Of course, these are fallible judgment calls. Whether they added these words or chose not to add them, they risked translating the passage differently than what the Bible writer meant. And there's no way to get around this problem. However, I believe that the reader should be informed that a word has been added in the English that is not necessarily implied in the Greek.
In other words, we as readers need to be made aware that the passage might mean this, or it might mean that. Unfortunately, translators usually don't tell us that. However, there are situations where translators add words not because it's necessary for the English translation to make sense, and not because it might be implied in the Greek. Rather, translators often add words in the English translation in order to fit their preconceived views or their theology or their biases.
And I would contend that that is very, very wrong. Let me give you some examples of passages where translators have done this very thing. One is Romans 2 verses 28 and 29, which in the New King James reads, " For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly. " Now that is exactly what the Greek text says.
But now if you read that passage in the NIV, the New International Version, it says this: " A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. " Now there the translators have added the word " only " and " merely ", and it totally changes the meaning. It says that in order to be a Jew, you have to first be one outwardly, but it needs to be not only outwardly. You have to be circumcised, but it needs to not be merely outward in physical circumcision.
And that is not at all what Paul is saying. He's saying that anyone can be a Jew, whether he was born Gentile or Jewish, because he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward and in the flesh. So without any warrant, the translators added words there that changed the entire meaning of that sentence and of a particular doctrine of Scripture. I'll give you another one, this time from the ESV, the English Standard Version. This is Romans 6:23, a very famous passage.
It says, " For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. " That's how it reads in the ESV. But the Greek does not say the free gift of God. It simply says the gift of God, and it uses the ordinary Greek word for gift, which is charisma. Now in Greek, a charisma, that is a gift, it can be given as a reward, and it can be conditioned on certain behavior.
But by adding the word " free " in there, the translators of the ESV have simply tampered with Scripture, making it say something that Paul did not say. Okay, I'll give you another example, this time, the translators of the New King James Version. 1 Peter 3:3 reads in the New King James, " Do not let your adornment be merely outward, arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel. " Now that word merely is not in the Greek text.
What the Greek says is, " Do not let your adornment be outward, " arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on apparel. It doesn't say merely outward. They've totally changed the meaning by adding that word. And it also, in that passage, doesn't say fine apparel. It just says apparel. In other words, it doesn't have to be expensive apparel. Our adornment isn't supposed to be in our apparel at all. I'm going to give you one last example, and this will be from the King James.
John 1:16 and 17, it says, " And of His fullness, have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. " Now, the way that is translated there, and the way it's preached so often, is that the law was given by Moses, but in contrast, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. In fact, that's how I've always understood that verse because of the way it's translated.
But again, I was reading one of the early Christian writers a short time ago, and when he's discussing this passage, he discusses it in a very different way. He's understanding it to say that we've all received of God's fullness grace for grace. And if he were punctuating it, he would put a colon after the phrase " grace for grace. " Because John is now telling us what he means by grace for grace. First, the law was given by Moses. The early Christians understood that to be grace. Grace means favor or goodwill.
That God's favor to the Jews was giving them the law, something wonderful, something that was a tutor leading them to Christ. Likewise, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. So we receive grace today as Gentiles. They receive grace as Jews. So the early Christians saw no contrast here in what John is saying. So why does it say but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ? Well, I went back to the Greek text, and guess what? The word " but " isn't there.
It just says, " For the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, " just as the early Christians were understanding it. But the King James translators inserted the word " but " because it fit their preconceived notions that there's a contrast between law and grace where the early Christians saw no contrast between them. In short, even the King James version is still a fallible human translation. Its translators were not above adding words to the text of Scripture to make it fit their theology.
Now there's less of it in the King James than in many modern translations, but it's still there nevertheless. Another translation problem that can blind us to what Scripture is actually saying is the use of special theological words. For example, in the preface to the ESV, the Translation Committee makes this statement. Quote, " The ESV also carries forward classic translation principles in its literary style.
Accordingly, it retains theological terminology, words such as grace, faith, justification, sanctification, redemption, regeneration, reconciliation, propitiation. Because of their central importance for Christian doctrine, and also because the underlying Greek words were already becoming keywords and technical terms in New Testament times, end quote.
Although I've quoted from the preface to the ESV, the English Standard Version, virtually every other English translation out there, including the King James, follows this same practice of creating and maintaining various special theological words. By theological words, I mean words that either do not have an ordinary meaning in English or else are being used by the Bible translators in a sense that is not the ordinary sense that that word has in English.
However, I would strongly contend that the New Testament writers did not write in theological terminology, nor did Jesus use special theological terminology in His preaching. The translators of the ESV state that the words they mentioned were already becoming " technical terms in New Testament times. " However, they offer no evidence to back up this claim they're making, and that's because there is no such evidence.
The writings of the pre-Nicene Christians provide overwhelming evidence of just the opposite, that the early Christians understood these words in their ordinary senses, in their ordinary meanings. In fact, there's no one in the second century you can really even call a theologian. One of the striking characteristics of second-century early Christian writing is the absence of theological language.
You see, the theologians actually came along in later centuries, and they are the ones who turn the ordinary everyday words of the Bible writers into special, technical, theological words. And few practices have done more to keep people from actually hearing God's Word when they read their Bibles, than this practice of creating and using special theological terminology. For example, when Bible translators use words like grace, justification, or sanctification.
They're using words that don't have any meaning in ordinary English, or else they have a meaning that is unrelated to the way the translator is using the term. Well, what is the result of that? The result is that theologians can then completely alter the meaning of Scripture by giving us their special theological definition of these words.
For example, in a companion message to this one, entitled " Grace, the most misunderstood word in the Bible, " I talk about how by redefining this one simple word, grace, theologians have been able to completely change what the Scriptures are saying. And they've done the same with words like " justification. " So what's the answer to this problem?
Well, one of the answers is simply to look up these Greek words, like the word for grace or the word for justification, in a simple dictionary like Strong's, and it will usually give you the ordinary meaning of that word.
So when you're reading the New Testament and the word grace appears, just simply insert in place of it favor, which is its ordinary meaning, or goodwill, and ignore the definition that theologians have told you that word meant in Bible times, because almost always it did not mean what they're saying. In closing, I think we need to talk for a moment about what is the point of all of this? Am I saying that we can't trust the Bible, that there's so many uncertainties in it, that we just have to forget the whole thing?
Not at all. The point is not to question the Bible, it's to question translators. It's to question proof texts that people like to use in order to change the overall message of Scripture. When you look at the totality of what the New Testament teaches on any given subject, there's usually a consistent harmonious message. If there isn't, it's almost always because of what translators have done.
When there is a verse, or sometimes a couple of verses, that seem to say the opposite of what the rest of the Scriptures are saying, it's almost always an issue of translation. You'll usually find that that verse or those verses can be translated in more than one way. And you'll find when you go and look at the actual Greek words that the passage can be translated and should be translated in a way that fits the rest of the New Testament.
So my being aware of the ways that translators intentionally or unintentionally alter the meaning of Scripture has strengthened my faith in God's Word. That's because it's cleared up the various proof texts that seem to have said something contrary to what Jesus taught. It has made the New Testament even more harmonious for me. Finally, I want to remind you that God's Word is the overall message of Scripture.
Christians began translating the New Testament into other languages like Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic, soon after the apostles died, or perhaps while the apostles were still living. Those translations weren't done by scholars, and they weren't inerrant. Several different Latin translations of the Bible were floating around during the first few centuries of Christianity, and they didn't read exactly the same. These early translations all had their imperfections, just like our Bibles do today.
Yet through those imperfect translations, people still came to a strong faith in God. They came into a living, obedient relationship to Christ, and they came to a knowledge of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. So even if a number of verses in our English Bibles are mistranslated, even if there are many verses we don't know for sure how to translate. God's overall message remains the same. That is, it remains the same if we pay attention to it.
Over the past hour, I've given you several examples of factors that affect Bible translations. We've gone all the way from the mere existence of chapters and verses to the inexcusable practice of translators adding words to Scripture in order to fit their theological biases. We've talked about the fact that every translation is also, to some degree, an interpretation of Scripture. We've talked about ambiguities in the underlying text that many passages can legitimately be translated in more than one way.
However, none of these factors are the main reason that people can read the Bibles their entire lives and yet never hear the real message of God's Word. The main reason is that their preconceived ideas, their theological indoctrination, blinds them to the very words that they're reading. You could have an absolutely perfect, inerrant translation, and yet it would do you no good if you don't start out with a blank slate and let the Bible speak for itself.
If you're going to read human interpretation into Scripture, then you will likely shut out the Word of God.