by Kevin Cauley

(Author's note: This article concludes this series of articles on "Beginners' Pitfalls." I hope that the reader has enjoyed studying these things and can take some practical benefit from them.)

7. Presume ordinary meanings to grammatical terminology.

I mentioned this particular pitfall earlier as an example of using grammar to interpretationalize the text, but I believe that this pitfall deserves its own brief discussion. When one reads through a Greek grammar, one will notice that words that describe grammatical constructions often appear familiar. Words like "absolute," "accusative," "locative," "habitual," "temporal," "aspect," "elative," and even simple things like "gender" and "number" can provide difficulties to the beginning student. It's easy to impose a definition one already has in mind upon one of these grammatical words and come to a conclusion that isn't warranted. These words are used by the grammars to have reference to grammatical relationship. While if one ponders the grammar, the ordinary usage may be enlightening, to come to conclusions about grammar based upon the conversational use of the word more than often leads to misunderstanding. Moreover, it is a good idea to keep an English dictionary handy when studying such words as many times the English dictionary will give the grammatical meaning of a word as one of its definitions.

8. Presume that everything can be translated word for word.

I believe in word-for-word translation as much as is possible. However, I don't believe that every Greek word can be translated with a single English word all the time. Some Greek verbs contain multiple thoughts and must be translated by multiple English words. Sometimes in order for the sentence to read smoothly in English, one must supply certain English words. Too, Greek nouns in the gentive, ablative, dative, locative, and instrumental cases often imply certain prepositions which must be understood in order for these words to make sense in the translation. We don't decline English words into cases like the Greek language does. So we have to use some additional words to translate case. But even beyond that, there are idioms. Idioms are mostly small groups of words that, when used together, render a specially unique meaning that one would not normally expect from just reading the solitary words in the idiom by themselves. A frequently used idiom in the book of First John is EN TOUTW. Literally translated it means "in this thing" or "in this one." Idiomatically, it may be translated "hereby" or "herein" depending upon how the phrase is used in the context. Another idiom that I discussed in a previous article relates to the use of definite article and the conjunction KAI to link together multiple epithets applied to the same noun. When so done in Greek, one may come to the conclusion that the epithets are being used adjectivally instead of as distinct and different nouns. (See my article, A Greek Proof For the Deity of Christ.)

9. Presume that nothing may be translated word for word.

Just the opposite of the above fallacy is the presumption that everything in Greek is idiomatic and that, therefore, nothing may be translated word for word. This presumption underlies most of the modern translation theories. They state that since one cannot translate everything word for word then nothing may be translated word for word. Hence the effort at word-for-word translation is abandoned and replaced with a more or less thought-for-thought translation process. While it is true that not everything may be translated word for word, it isn't the case that nothing can be. 1 Thessalonians 5:16 (the shortest verse in the Greek New Testament) is a fine example of a passage that may be translated word for word. And frequently there is a one-to-one correspondence from words in the Greek to words in the English. God chose to reveal his message to us in words selected by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13). It's not the translator's prerogative to abandon God's chosen method of revelation in the effort to translate. So while we must recognize the existence of idioms in the Greek language, we must also maintain the feasibility of literal translation. This method of translation is referred to as the modified literal method.

10. Assume that you can know it all when it comes to the Greek language.

I offer this last "pitfall" more or less as an ending cap to this series of articles. The Greek language is tremendously difficult. Even grammarians who have studied the language for years and years find occasion to disagree regarding this or that particular aspect of the language. I started studying Greek in 1987. I'm still working on it today and wouldn't dream of calling myself a "master" at the language. When we consider the vast period of time over which the language was spoken (some believe it to be nearly 2000 years, not including modern Greek), the amount of literature that was written in this language, and the fact that it was once the language of the world, we can begin to appreciate the complexities involved in understanding it. I would caution the beginning student not to believe that he could ever "master" the language as a whole, but rather come to understand that studying Greek is more like peeling an onion. Once one gets through one layer, there is yet another, thicker layer, waiting to be discovered. Of course, I don't want to discourage one from studying Greek. There are true gems to be discovered and treasured in the language, but one should not set one's expectations so high that he becomes discouraged, but rather be encouraged to know that just around the bend is another nugget waiting to delight the mind and capture the intellect.

By Michael E. Brooks

"To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1).

The death of a very good friend prompted reflection on this verse and the remainder of its context. This was one of his favorite passages, and one which was born out by his life. He died at the age of 92. Consider the various "times" of his life:

He was a bachelor for 52 years, then married to the same woman for 40.

He was a soldier/airman for 30 years, a farmer for 40.

He was not a Christian until he was over 50 years of age, yet served as an elder of the church for 20 years.

He was a member of the last mounted cavalry band in the U.S. Army.

He was in the crew which flew the last active B-36 bomber to its final resting place.

Not only is there a time for every purpose in this world, but there is often time for a variety of purposes in each of our lives. We often become trapped and limited by the conception that we are of few talents or opportunities. Ours is the age of specialization and we may feel that if we can accomplish one thing, that is enough. Or we may feel that we cannot reasonably expect more than that. The truth is that life often holds many and varied opportunities and we may be able to take advantage of them all.

History is filled with the stories of men and women who completed one or more "careers" before attempting that which earned them greatest fame. Grandma Moses, Colonel Harlan Sanders, Winston Churchill, and many others were great achievers at times when most are well into retirement. Others tried and succeeded in differing vocations earlier in life.

A favorite advice column letter from several years ago read, "I would like to be a doctor, but if I started medical school right now and completed it in six years I would be 36 when I graduated." The answer was, "If you don’t go to medical school, how old will you be in six years?"

There is indeed a time for every purpose under heaven, and many of us have the time to fulfill more than one of those purposes. Paul urges us, "Redeem the time" (Ephesians 5:16).

by Tim Hall

The couple was separated by 600 miles. They had met in college, fallen in love and planned to marry in the spring. His graduate studies took him to a distant state, but they kept in close touch. When he received the phone call earlier this month from her mother, it seemed like a terrible dream. His fiancé had been murdered by an intruder, stabbed several times in her apartment.

Anyone could understand the overwhelming grief the young man must have felt upon hearing the news. A passing neighbor heard his cries and stopped to see what was wrong. According to the story in the newspaper, this neighbor (he doesn't even know her last name) helped him pack a suitcase, drove him to the airport and assisted him in booking his flight. A law school student should be able to do those things for himself. But when grief is blinding, help is needed. He said he'll never forget the help this woman gave in his moment of greatest need.

Does this true story have a familiar ring? To me, it sounds much the same as one told twenty centuries ago. Jesus began by telling of the misfortune that befell a traveler; he was beaten, robbed and left for dead. After two "religious" men passed by without helping, "A certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion on him" (Luke 10:33, NKJV). The rest of the story is well known. The Samaritan spent time and personal resources to attend to the man's needs. At the end, Jesus instructed his audience to "Go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37).

Most of us would respond similarly if confronted by an obvious crisis. There is good within the human breast that almost always comes out in times of great need. But what about times when needs are not as obvious? Who will come to help when our sobbing can't be heard?

One solution given by our heavenly father is found in Hebrews 10:24: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works." "Consider" is translated from a Greek word which connotes careful study and observance. [In Acts 27:39, sailors desperate for refuge from a great storm "discovered" (KJV) a bay where they hoped to safely land their ship.] Christians who follow this admonition will keep their antennas raised, looking for signs of distress among their sisters and brothers.

My times of suffering are not always revealed by audible moans or words. But for those who care to look, there are almost always visible clues written on my face, in my posture, in my overall demeanor. Those who know me can usually tell when I'm down -- and they want to find out why.

Our Lord knew the thoughts of men's hearts without having to ask (John 2:24,25). His followers are not endowed with such abilities. But by cultivating the art of closely observing one another, we'll learn to spot the signs of unspoken trials. When discovered, those with the compassion of Jesus will reach out to do whatever needs to be done.

Blinding grief will come to most of us. When it does, we'll thank God if someone hears our cries, even though silent. "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise" (Luke 6:31).

by Mike Benson

The news media announced the jury's verdict this week: Scott Peterson should receive the death penalty for the brutal murder of his wife and unborn son. More than one juror said Peterson's lack of emotion during the trial was a deciding factor in the penalty phase of the court proceedings. One observed, "For me, a big part of it was at the end -- the verdict -- no emotion. No anything. That spoke a thousand words -- loud and clear." Still another commented, "I still would like to see, I don't know if remorse is the right word... He lost his wife and his child and he's romancing a girlfriend. That doesn't make sense to me -- at all."

People with a good heart can't comprehend Peterson's unemotional demeanor. But the veritable mountain of evidence tells us why he was incapable of any overt sensitivities. Consider:

He pursued romance with another woman during the search for his wife. He told his mistress that he was single, when in fact he was not only married, but his wife was expecting their first child. He lied to his mistress as to his whereabouts during a phone conversation. He had multiple affairs during his marriage. He killed his pregnant wife and unborn son and then dumped their lifeless bodies in the bay. He converted his unborn son's baby room into a storage area. He told a TV interviewer that on the morning his wife was reported missing, he had loaded his lawn umbrellas in his warehouse to protect them for the winter, but police found them in the back of his truck later that same day. He lied to TV reporters when he said that he had broken off his relationship with his mistress after his wife vanished.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that Peterson never shed any tears or exhibited any emotion. We can't expect conscience from someone who is devoid of such. Conscience is a God-given sense of moral oughtness. It is an inward conviction that there is such a thing as right and wrong. But Peterson's conscience has been so irreparably damaged that it is impervious to feeling. That "pain nerve of his soul" has been rendered insensible (Titus 1:15).

In 1 Timothy 4, the Bible speaks of those whose conscience is "seared with a hot iron" (v. 2b; cf. Mark 3:5; John 12:40). Commenting on this passage, one student observes:

"It seems more probable that kausteriazo is used here in its alternative, medical sense... When skin, a nerve or a superficial tumor is cauterized, it is destroyed by burning and so rendered insensitive. Just so, a cauterized conscience has been 'anaesthetized', even deadened. By constantly arguing with conscience, stifling its warnings and muffling its bell, its voice is smothered and eventually silenced" (John Stott, "Local Leadership," Guard the Truth, InterVarsity Press, p. 112).

This is exactly what happened to Scott Peterson. He got to the point inwardly where he was "past feeling" (Ephesians 4:18,19); his conscience had been cauterized. Normal men suffer pain and guilt when they do wrong. It's illogical to engage in your families' demise and not experience pangs of grief and sorrow. And ultimately that's what sealed his fate. His real accuser during that three-month trial was his Vulcan-like passivity. Peterson should have wept. He should have wailed. But he just sat there -- unmoved, stoic, indifferent.

There's a lesson for us here. We need to properly train, guard, and protect our conscience (Romans 2:15; 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:12; Hebrews 13:18; 1 Timothy 1:5). If you or I engage in sin but feel no pain, that's a signal that we need to rush to the emergency ward (e.g. church) and visit the Great Physician (Hebrews 9:14; 10:19-22). "The good conscience must be kept healthy, vital, alive, and fully enlightened if we are to do the right thing. We must, therefore, always be filled with the desire to do right, and when we fail to do right because of ignorance or weakness, we must get right" (cf. Hebrews 10:22; Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9). ...When we have done wrong and take God's way for getting right, our conscience recovers its soundness and becomes a good (1 Peter 3:21) conscience" (D. Ellis Walker, "Your Conscience Never Hurts?", Gospel Advocate, May 5, 1977, p. 282).

by Stan Mitchell

"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9,10).

A religious organization in our country has just elected an openly homosexual cleric to the level of archbishop. I watched on television as he declared, somewhat sarcastically: "It seems that this time God is actually moving in his church!" The message of the Bible, he went on to explain, was that no lifestyle should be excluded.

I have been fascinated by the silence of religious leaders and churches on this matter. Could it be that our thinking is so confused, or have we decided not to decide on the matter?

Back in the 1930's, when NAZI Germany was rearming, Britain was in, as we would say, heavy denial. Winston Churchill stood one day in parliament and made the classic description of a government that was completely indecisive: "Government," he said, had "decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

Is homosexuality wrong? How would we decide on such an issue? Does the Bible tell us its view on the subject? And if so, would we decide to proclaim that view? Is the Bible's message intended to teach us to accept all lifestyles? Isn't Christianity itself a lifestyle? If so, doesn't that by definition exclude alternative lifestyles? Make no mistake, the Bible is clear on the subject; the real question is whether Christians will decide to say so! Or will we remain silent, hoping those ugly symbols will just go away.

I know some will protest that the church is called on to be loving. Beloved friends, it is also called on to be godly. Homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in scripture, but it is sin. While homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, it is not an alternative for the Christian.