Luke 2:14: Glory to God in the Highest and on Earth Peace, Good Will Toward Men.

Unfortunately, we no longer possess the original autographs set to paper by the writers of the NT. What we do have is an abundance of manuscripts – far more than exists for any other book of antiquity. While it’s true there are variations among these manuscripts, because of their sheer abundance of them, we can have a good confidence what the original texts must have said.

Certainly none of the variations significantly impact any fundamental doctrine; however, occasionally variations result in a more than trivial difference in translations. One such variation occurs in Luke 2:14

The NA²⁷ – which most modern translations use – reads:

δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

The Textus Receptus – which was the text used in the KJV translation – reads:

δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια

The difference between these two texts is only a single letter – the final sigma in ευδοκια. This single letter, however, changes the case of the word from the nominative case (ευδοκια) to the genitive case (εὐδοκίας).

The nominative case means εὐδοκία (along with εἰρήνη) is the subject of the clause εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια. This is a rather simple translation: “Good will toward men.” This is the KJV translation.

If the word is a genitive, then εἰρήνη is necessarily the subject of the clause εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας since it is in the nominative case. Translating this is somewhat more tricky (at least for me). It would mean something like: “peace toward men of good will.” More likely it means, “peace toward men of His [God’s] good pleasure.” The NASB reads, “peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

Theologically speaking, there is a slight difference between the two translations. “Good will toward men,” suggests a universal peace from God toward all people. “[P]eace among men with whom He is pleased,” suggests God’s peace is reserved only for those who please God, namely those people who trust in His Son.

What a wonderful message the shepherds heard that night. This Christmas, I pray that everyone’s response would be the same as the shepherds’: “Let us now go… and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.”

John 20:31: Is Jesus the Messiah or is the Messiah Jesus?

ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ,

[B]ut these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; (ASV)

To my native-English-thinking mind, the natural reading of this verse is “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” However, I was recently reading up on the nominative case in Wallace’s book and I came across this interesting insight. In the above verse, Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) is in the predicate position to ὁ χριστὸς (the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One). We see a similar construction in John 1:1:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

[A]nd the Word was God. (ASV)

These constructions in these two verses are remarkably similar: anarthrous noun in the nominative case, verb (εἰμί), and articular noun in the nominative case. In John 1:1, we translate it as “The Word was God” and not “And God was the Word” because the article appears with λόγος indicating that it is the subject.

The question becomes why, then, do we translate John 20:31 as, “Jesus is the Christ”? The article modifies χριστὸς suggesting it should be the subject. If we translated it as we do John 1:1, it should read: “The Christ is Jesus.”

Now, we do have the added entanglement of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (“the Son of God”). This shouldn’t be too troublesome since it also appears in the nominative case and is articulated; thus, typical rules of grammar suggest that it modifies ὁ χριστὸς. Therefore, the clause could read, “The Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus.”

Some will argue that proper names, even anarthrous names, take precedence over articular nouns. There is some merit to this argument and thus the debate will continue.

What is the theological significance between the two possible translations? Essentially there is no difference. Jesus is the Messiah and the Messiah is Jesus. Both are equally true. So what is the intent of the Gospel writer? It could be that John is trying to proclaim to the world Who Jesus is: Jesus is the Messiah. Or it could be that John is trying to proclaim to Jews who the Messiah is: The Messiah is Jesus. In that sense, there is a difference between the translations.

Did Jesus Speak Greek?

Jesus, of course, is able to speak any language. But the question arises sometimes, “What language did Jesus speak to His disciples.” I’ve heard it suggested that Jesus actually spoke Greek while on earth. I came across an article online many years ago that really had me going for a while. I don’t have a link to it anymore but I remember a couple of points made by the author who argued that Jesus spoke Greek to His disciples.

The first point raised was from the book of Revelation where Jesus said to John, ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, “I am the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8). This begs the question – why did Jesus refer to Himself with these Greek letters?

The author went on to cite Matthew 5:18:

ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.

In the KJV, this passage is translated as: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

The word translated as “jot” in the KJV is the word, ἰῶτα, iota, which, of course, is the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet. Iota can also be subscripted (as in ῃ) making it a very small letter indeed. The word translated as “tittle” is the Greek word, κεραία, keraia, which is a reference to a stroke of a letter. I have also heard it applied to accents and the breathing marks over beginning Greek vowels. Of course, at the time I read this, wasn’t aware that the original Greek writers did not use accents, breathing marks, or subscripts so these points sound less persuasive in retrospect.

After the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek was the common language of nearly the entire world. Koine, of course, means “common.” This is the reason why, when Jesus was crucified, the plate nailed above his head was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. And certainly the books of the New Testament were written in Greek. It was the language understood by everyone.

But did Jesus really speak Greek while on earth? While reading the gospels, I noticed a peculiar habit of the gospel writers that might shed light on the question.

Consider John 1:42:

ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

He led him to Jesus. When Jesus saw him he said, “You are Simon, the son of John. You will be called Cephas,” which is translated, “Rock.”

I thought that was very interesting. John is recording the very words Jesus used upon seeing Peter. Jesus called him, “Cephas.” “Cephas” is an Aramaic word. But for the sake of his readers who might not understand Aramaic, John inserts a translation right into the gospel – Cephas means “Rock” (Πέτρος).

We see a similar example only a few verses earlier. In John 1:38, the disciples following Jesus call Him, “Rabbi.” John again supplies a translation – Rabbi means “teacher” (διδάσκαλος).

This interesting phenomenon, which occurs many times in the Gospels, argues very persuasively that Jesus did not speak Greek while on earth. He most likely spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.

John 20:17: Touch Me Not

λέγει αὐτῇ Ἰησοῦς· μή μου ἅπτου, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα·

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:” (John 20:17 KJV)

My blog today isn’t really so much of a revelation as it is an explanation since many translations have this verse correct. But because the King James Version (and a few others) renders this verse as “touch me not,” this passage has led to a lot of speculation about what Jesus meant.

According to Scofield, one possible interpretation of this is, “That Jesus speaks to Mary as the High Priest fulfilling the day of atonement (Leviticus 16). Having accomplished the sacrifice, He was on His way to present the sacred blood in heaven…” In other words, Jesus was going to the Father to present His own blood as the payment for our sins. He did not want Mary to touch Him lest some of His blood would cling to her. That’s an awful lot of speculation crammed into three words. It’s also counterintuitive when you consider the amount of blood that was surely spilled during the act of the Crucifixion (as in John 19:34).

Another explanation I’ve heard goes thusly: “… He appeared to Mary Magdalene the next morning, the day after the weekly Sabbath during Unleavened Bread, when the priests presented the wavesheaf offering. He did not permit her to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Just as the High Priest had to wave the sheaf of grain before the spring harvest began, so our Savior had to ascend to the Father that day to be accepted before Him. Once this happened, He allowed His disciples to touch Him.”

These speculations, and many others, all hinge on the misunderstanding that Jesus did not allow Mary to touch Him. A reading of the verse in Greek, however, quickly dispels any such speculation about Jesus’ true meaning. ἅπτου is in the imperative mood and is modified by the negative particle μή. Any time an imperative verb is modified by the negative, μή, it means to stop an action that is already in process. She was already touching Him! So Jesus did not forbid Mary to touch Him; rather, He was telling her STOP touching Him because He was to ascend to the Father.

We see this conclusively in Matthew 28:9:

"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him."

This passage makes clear that the women held Him by His feet.

Consider these other, popular translations:

“Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.” (NIV)
“Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father;” (NASB)
“Jesus saith to her, `Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father;” (Young’s Literal)

Don’t waste too much time pondering why Jesus wouldn’t let Mary touch Him. A casual reading in the Greek shows no such prohibition.

New Testament Greek Words You Already Know

As I began to learn Greek, I was surprised at the number of English words that have come from the Greek. Of course, English is descended from the European languages so I knew that Greek would certainly have had some influence on English. But I have heard estimates that as much as 1/3 of English words are of Greek etymology. I had no idea it was that much. I thought it would be fun to look at a few Greek words from the NT that have made their way into the English vernacular.

First is the word, “Bible.” It is a transliteration (an English spelling of a Greek word) of the Greek word, βίβλος (biblos) which simply means “book.” Coincidentally, (or perhaps not coincidentally) it is the first word of the New Testament.

Many words that are included in the English Bible are simply transliterations of Greek words:

Χριστός (Christos): It’s not hard to identify this as the word Christ. It’s the equivalent of the Hebrew word, “Messiah.” Both mean “Annointed.”

ἄγγελος (aggelos): When two gammas appear next to each other, the first gamma is pronounced like an “n”; thus, this is the word “angel.” The word means “messenger.” We typically think of angels as heavenly beings and when the word is used of such a being it is not translated. However, John the Baptist is referred to as a messenger (aggelos) in Mark 1:2.

ἀπόστολος (apostolos): This is transliterated as “apostle” in English Bibles. It can be translated as “messenger” but conveys a meaning closer to the word “envoy” or “ambassador.”

βαπτίζω (baptidzō): This is the verb “baptize.” It means to dip or immerse. It generally isn’t translated when referring to ceremonial baptism. However, there are a few verses where it is translated; one instance is John 13:26, where Jesus dips bread in a bowl and gives it to Judas at the Last Supper. The cognate noun of βαπτίζω is βάπτισμα (baptisma) which means “baptism.”

γένεσις (genesis): This word only appears once in the NT (Matthew 1:18) – in this form – where it is translated. Of course, most people will recognize it as the name of the first book of the Bible. It means “origin, birth, or genealogy.”

The words above are all transliterations. However, there are also words in the NT which are translated yet English readers will recognize the Greek word.

εὐαγγέλιον (euaggelion): This is a compound word – eu (good) + aggelion (message). It is translated as “good news” or “gospel.” It is where we derive the word, “evangelical.”

ἰχθύς (ichthus): Many people will recognize this word from the fish symbol that has become popular on cars. It means “fish” but some people use the letters as an anagram: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός θεός υἱός σωτήρ – Jesus Christ: God, Son, Savior.

θεός (theos): This word is usually translated as, “God.” Some might recognize this as the root of the term, “theology.”

μαθητής (mathētēs): This word is usually translated as “disciple” though the meaning is closer to “student.” From this word we get the English word, “mathematics.” Jesus had 12 apostles but many disciples.

πνεῦμα (pneuma): The word for “Spirit” is πνεῦμα but the word is also translated as “breath” or “wind.” It is where we derive the word, “pneumatics.” This creates an interesting exchange in John 3:8 where Jesus talks to Nicodemus: “The wind/Spirit blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the wind/Spirit.”

πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros): This word is typically translated as “elder.” You can easily see that this is the term “Presbytery” or “Presbyterian.”

There are many more words I could include but I wanted to begin those that would be most readily identifiable. Hopefully, when you come across these words now in the Bible, you will have a little better understanding of the meaning behind them. Keep studying the word! God Bless!!

By or Through: Agency in the New Testament

In Greek, agency – that is, the agent who is doing the action – is often expressed with prepositions. By far, the most common preposition used to denote agency is ὑπὸ (hupo). ὑπὸ typically identifies who is the “ultimate agent.”

Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου.

“And it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John.” Mark 1:9

In this passage, John is the agent who is actually doing the baptizing. Therefore, he is the “ultimate agent.” But there are also times when the actions are performed by an intermediate agent. When this occurs, the preposition διὰ (dia) is used.

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας· οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ προφήτου·

“And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judaea: for so it has been written by the prophet.” Matthew 2:5

The prophet referred to in this passage is the prophet, Micah (Micah 5:2). But Micah is only the intermediate agent who spoke the words. Ultimately, the word came from God (the “ultimate agent”), so διὰ is used to denote the intermediate agency of Micah.

Whenever agency is expressed, it’s interesting to see if the agent is considered the intermediate agent or the ultimate agent. Recently, this came to light in my personal reading.

οὐαὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων· ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ δι' οὗ τὸ σκάνδαλον ἔρχεται.

“Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Matthew 18:7, KJV)

While we live in this cursed world, offence will come. Jesus says it is inevitable. The offences often come by wicked men but we see the men are only considered the “intermediate agents” - διὰ. They may commit the offences, but they are not the source of them. This begs the question: who then is the ultimate agent?

I believe John 8:4 answers this clearly:

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

When we sin, we are only the intermediate agents of sin. The devil is the ultimate agent of sin. Nevertheless, we are not absolved from our actions. Jesus is very clear that we are held accountable. “Woe to the man through whom the offence comes!”

John 14:26, The Comforter

ὁ δὲ παράκλητος τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν ἐγώ.

"and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you." (John 14:26, Young’s Literal Translation)

In this passage, Jesus promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to His apostles (and ultimately to the whole world). He described the Holy Spirit with the term ὁ παράκλητος, ho parakletos, (Strong's Number 3875). The term is translated many different ways including Comforter, Helper, and Advocate. It’s a compound word whose parts mean, “Called beside.” This paints a picture of the Holy Spirit as One who stands beside us, helping us, encouraging us, and comforting us. It’s a marvelous picture of the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives.

In a recent Sunday School class, we were reading from 1 Thessalonians 4:18 where Paul said:

ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις.

“so, then, comfort ye one another in these words.”

The word παρακαλεῖτε, parakeleite, (Strong's Number 3870) sort of leaped out at me. It seemed an obvious cognate of ὁ παράκλητος – which I later confirmed referring to Trenchard. The same word (rather, the cognate of it) used to describe the Holy Spirit, is our command to encourage one another.

I don’t mean to seem overreaching but I think the implication is clear: what the Holy Spirit is to us, we are also commanded to be to one another: helpers, comforters, and advocates. We are to stand beside them, encouraging them, just as the Holy Spirit stands by us. To be sure, we are poor shadows of the True Spirit but we are called to comfort, help, and encourage notwithstanding.

So how do we go about this task? I suggest we should let the Spirit be our Guide. See again what Jesus said of the Spirit:

“He will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you.”

How simple. We teach people and remind them of what Jesus said! What better encouragement can there be?