Blog

When you hear the term “False Friends” in the context of Bible Translations, one typically thinks of examples from the King James Version of The Bible in which words that meant one thing back in the day no longer mean what they mean now. When Yahweh says “Thou shalt not cover thy neighbor’s ass” (Exodus 20:17), He isn’t talking about your neighbor’s butt and whatever it might mean to covet it. Also, “How long halt ye between two opinions?” (1 Kings 18:21) does not mean “How long will you stop between two opinions?” Ass meant donkey whereas now it predominantly means the buttox. The way we use the word “halt” means to stop, but in King James English, it meant to waver between two things. As biblical scholar Mark Ward said. “A false friend in the KJV is three things: And it’s a word where that difference often escapes English readers: they don’t realize they’re misunderstanding the intent of the KJV translators at that place. It’s a word in the KJV that we still use. It’s a word that we use differently than did the Elizabethans 400+ years ago.” ^[1]Mark Ward, Ward On Words, “Fifty False Friends in the KJV: Series Intro”, April 10th 2020 –> … Continue reading

It may surprise you to hear me say that there are some false friends in most of our modern translations of The Bible as well. Now, unlike the KJV, the number of these false friends are much fewer and far between. This is to be expected as the NIV, ESV, NRSV, NASB, and other modern translations were written in modern English. However, though few in number, they have resulted in some interpretive difficulties because we just assume that those words mean what we mean when we use them. In this blog post, I’ll show you the examples, what the words used to mean compared to what they now mean, and what was actually meant by the biblical author. You may be shocked to find out you’ve been reading some well known passages of scripture incorrectly for years..

False Friend 1: “Lust” – Drooling Over Pretty Girls VS. Desire

In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus says “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (NIV).

My preferred translation, the ESV, does a bit better when it says “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

For most of my life, I have taken this to be one of the most unreasonable commands in all of scripture. We take lust to be a variety of things from mere sexual attraction, to sexual arousal, to a guy in the dark pleasuring himself to pictures of naked women on the internet. Anyone who is past the age of puberty surely has found the sight of a pretty girl, clothed, naked, or semi-clothed pleasing to his visual sense. If what Jesus means here is that you can’t find women attractive, then he’s basically condemning us for being biological mammals. And arousal is a biological response to things outside of our control. Now, perhaps it isn’t as unreasonable to think that Jesus is telling you not to treat women like sex objects, and I definitely do think that pleasuring yourself to PlayBoy or having lewd fantasies is sinful, and profanes those made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Nevertheless, the act of masturbating while viewing nude pictures, sinful and disgusting as it undoubtedly is, is not what Jesus is talking about when he tells you not to lust after a woman.

Lust Is Coveting!

As Jason Staples says in his article; “The first thing to understand in this passage (and in the Sermon on the Mount in general) is that Jesus is in no way intensifying the Law here, nor is he really saying anything new. What’s that, you say? The Law doesn’t forbid lusting after a woman, so Jesus has obviously turned things up to eleven by doing so? Well, as it turns out, the Greek word usually translated ‘lust’ in this passage ( πιθυμέω; epithumeô) is precisely the word for ἐ ‘covet’ (Hebrew חמד (in the Tenth Command in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which says: ‘You will not covet your neighbor’s wife. You will not covet your neighbors house or his field or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or any animal which is your neighbor’s.’ (Ex 20:17 LXX)

Looks pretty familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, it’s essentially identical; since there’s no distinction between the words ‘wife’ and ‘woman’ in Greek, the word translated ‘wife’ here is the same that is translated ‘woman’ in Matthew (both English words translate the same Greek word γύνη; gynē). It turns out that Jesus isn’t saying anything new at all in Matthew 5:27–28. Instead, he directly cites one of the Ten Commands to remind his audience that the Law not only prohibits adultery, it prohibits coveting with the same severity. This is not an intensification of the Law; it’s a reminder of what the Law already says. In addition, Jesus gives no indication that he regards the Law as too difficult to keep—he not only assumes that his followers can follow his interpretation of the Torah but commands them to do so” ^[2]Jason Staples, “Whoever Looks At A Woman With Lust”, Misinterpreted Bible Passage #1” –> https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/

Now that we know that Jesus isn’t dropping a never-before-heard teaching, but is just tying the tenth commandment to the seventh, we now need to understand the tenth command and the concept of ‘coveting.’ First of all, when the Hebrew חמד or Greek πιθυμέω are ἐ used as verbs in the OT, it denotes desire directed at obtaining the specific object in question and not merely the existence of the desire itself. Sexual desire in and of itself is not condemned anywhere in scripture. It is only associated with the potential to sin, not sin itself. As Jesus’ brother James wrote “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (James 1:14–15, ESV). Notice here that James clearly distinguishes between ‘lust’ (or “desire” as the ESV translates the word) at the stage of temptation and ‘sin,’ which is actually doing performing some action.

In his commentary on Matthew in the Tyndale’s New Testament Commentary series, R.T France says basically the same thing. ^[3]R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 126. To Lust after and commit adultery in the heart is to covet a married woman to such an extent that you’d be in danger of actually committing adultery with her. It is the same principle Jesus applied to anger (Matthew 5:21-22). Jesus wasn’t saying anger is just as sinful as murder. Jesus was teaching that unchecked and unrighteous anger can escalate to murder. Jesus is the Great Physician and is not merely concerned with our outward behavior. King Jesus is concerned to cure us from the inside out. Our thoughts, desires, and attitudes lead to our behaviors. As Proverbs 4:23 says “Gaurd your heart, for everything you do comes from it.” If you allow yourself to feel murderous rage towards someone, you are in danger of murdering them. If you desire a married woman, you are in danger of committing adultery with her. Sin manifests itself in the heart before it manifests itself as physical actions in space and time (cf. Matthew 15:19). If you’re interested in more of my exposition, check out my book “The Sermon That God Preached: Exegeting Jesus’ Sermon On The Mount” available in Paperback and Kindle.

We can see that “lust” is a false friend. Jesus wasn’t telling his disciples not to notice a beautiful woman when she passed by. He was telling them not to strongly desire to romantically possess a woman who was already spoken for. I think that the song “Jesse’s Girl” by Rick Springfield is an excellent illustration of what Jesus was saying not to do. Throughout the whole song, Springfield pines and pines for the girlfriend of his friend, Jesse. ^[4]Or maybe wife? I don’t know. The song doesn’t specify. Listen to the song sometime and pay close attention to the lyrics. Now, let us suppose that Springfield allowed his desire for “Jesse’s girl” to build and build and build. Eventually, he might crack under the weight and make a move towards her. Possibly, he might come off as so charming, that he might woo this girl to cheat on Jesse! Let’s suppose that they aren’t merely dating, but that Jesse is married to this woman. You can see how sin began in Springfield’s heart and lead him down a path to committing adultery. It would have been just fine if Springfield has just thought his friend’s girlfriend or wife was pretty. Mere beauty recognition is not lust. If that were the case, then we’d have to raise an eyebrow if you hear a man describe his daughter as “Beautiful” or a child saying “Grandma was so pretty” upon seeing an old photograph. God is not in the business of condemning aesthetic appreciation, especially of His divine images. To recognize beauty in humans is a tacit recognition of the beauty of Yahweh Himself.

As someone who used to have a lust problem, I have thought about my thoughts more than most men, so at this point, I can easily tell the difference.

1: Aesthetic Admiration – if I simply like how a woman looks, but would not have sex with her, even if given the chance, then I don’t desire her sexually whatsoever.

2: Desire (Old definition of lust) – if I want to initiate a romantic relationship with a woman that will include or lead up to sexual intercourse, then I am lusting after her. This is a sin if she is a woman who is spoken for. The term “coveting” is a proper synonym just as “desiring” is.

3: Sexual Objectification (Modern definition of lust) – Stripping a woman not only of her clothes, but also of her humanity. She’s seen not only as an object of sexual desire, but only as a object for sexual desire in the present moment, to be discarded later. This could involve pleasuring yourself to her images and fantasizing about having a liaison with her, or it could involve an actual liaison as physical in person prostitution involves. Sexual objectification reduces a woman from a person with inherent dignity and value as a person made in God’s image to just a piece of meat to be drooled over and devoured.

By this, the old definition of lust can sometimes be non-sinful. If I am an unmarried man, and I desire an unmarried woman, in my culture, that might prompt me to go talk to her, and maybe ask her out on a date. If things go smoothly for several months up to a year, it will result in marriage, which will lead to Intercourse and a family and everything that God designed marriage to be (Genesis 2:24, Psalm 127:3-5, Proverbs 18:22). And I can “lust” after a woman while preserving her dignity. Just because I want a woman to become my girlfriend and maybe eventually my wife doesn’t mean that I don’t honor and respect her as a human being made in God’s image. On the old definition of lust, you’re only wrong if you set your sights on a woman spoken for.

Now, on my view, the third thing in the list is never morally ok. This is what philosophers of ethics would call a moral absolute. It is not just objectively wrong in some or most circumstances, but there isn’t even any possible scenario in which it could ever be right. There are no extenuating circumstances that could ever justify it. Jesus doesn’t even have objectifying women in view in Matthew 5:28. Porn wasn’t even a thing back then. The most you could do is be a peeping Tom. He is telling men not to covet/desire their neighbor’s wives. To do so would be to already be going down the path of an adulterer. Because sin starts in the heart before it manifests as external actions.

Now, in light of the fact that the term “lust” is so misleading, how should future Bible translations render this verse? I’ll offer an example for a strict word-for-word translation and an example for a dynamic equivolence translation.

Matthew 5:27-28 (possible future renderings):

Word For Word: “You have heard that it was said ‘Do not commit adultery’, but say to you that everyone who looks at a wife with covetousness has already comitted adultery with her in his heart.”

Thought For Thought; “You have heard that it was said ‘Do not commit adultery’, but I tell you that anyone who eagerly desires his neighbor’s wife has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

False Friends 2 and 3: “Faith” and “Believe In”.

Those who have read a couple of my previous blog articles will already know where I’m going with this one. The word “faith” is sometimes, though not always, a false friend.

This false friend was so dangerous that despite being raised in a Christian home and never not believing Christianity is true ^[5]Although if you’ve followed this ministry long enough, or read the introductions to my books“The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of … Continue reading, I didn’t “get saved” until I was 17 years old. When I hear the phrase “believe in”, I tend to think giving mental assent to the existence of something or to the truth of a set of propositions. Someone might say “I believe in angels” to indicate their assent to the existence of angels. To say “I’ll just have to take it on faith.” means you accept a proposition without adequate justification. ^[6]Justification here is being used in its epistemological sense to mean “I have good reasons to accept X as true. Sometimes faith carries a less irrational connotation and is a synonym for trust, such as when someone says “I have faith that Jack will keep his word.”

The Greek word often translated as faith is “pistis”. Pistis sometimes means trust or belief, but in the context of what we would call “saving faith”, biblical scholar Matthew Bates has made a strong case that it could be translated “Allegiance”, or at least something similar like loyalty.

Matthew Bates writes, “Paul writes to the Thessalonians, ‘We boast about your steadfastness and pistis in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring’ (2 Thess. 1:4 AT). The immediate context associates pistis with remaining steadfast and indicates that it pertains to persevering through trials. This suggests that the correct translation of pistis here is ‘loyalty,’ ‘faithfulness,’ or ‘allegiance’ rather than ‘faith.’ Thus, Paul says, ‘We boast about your steadfastness and loyalty.’

This informs our understanding of the relationship between pistis and the gospel. The presence or absence of loyalty (pistis) during these trials (2 Thess. 1:4) is specifically the criterion for whether one is helped or harmed by the Lord Jesus’s judgment when these difficulties continue (v. 7). The Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven and will take ‘vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus’ (v. 8). Contextually, loyalty (pistis) to the Lord Jesus when experiencing difficulties has been equated with obedience to the gospel.

In other words, in 2 Thessalonians 1:4–8, maintaining pistis while enduring trials is equivalent to saving obedience to the gospel. Context demands that this pistis with respect to the gospel is not merely trust in Jesus as Savior but obedient allegiance to Jesus as the heavenly Lord. The royal gospel demands loyalty in response. In 2 Thessalonians 1:4, pistis can fairly be translated as ‘allegiance’ and is the saving response to the gospel.” ^[7]Bates, Matthew W. 2019. Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press: A Division of Baker Publishing Group.

Another example that that Matthew Bates pointed to was 1 Maccabees. Although not considered scripture by Protestants like myself, that doesn’t really matter when it comes to word studies and how people writing in Greek, especially those close in time to the New Testament authors, used a word. After all, scripture wasn’t written in a special Christian code language, but the language of the day. First Maccabees, says Bates, written about 150 years before Jesus’s death. It contains a letter from King Demetrius. He is concerned that his rival, Alexander, may have beat him to the punch in allying with the Jewish people. King Demetrius, in seeking to persuade the Jews to his cause, writes:

“King Demetrius to the nation of the Jews, greetings. Since you have kept your agreement with us and have continued your friendship with us, and have not sided with our enemies, we have heard of it and rejoiced. Now continue still to keep faith [pistis] with us, and we will repay you with good for what you do for us.” (1 Maccabees 10:25–27 NRSV)

On this passage, Bates writes “Here Demetrius is asking the Jews to continue showing pistis—that is, loyalty or allegiance—to him rather than to his rival, promising a reward for the allegiance. Just a few lines later King Demetrius further promises that some Jews will be put in positions demanding loyalty (pistis) as administrative leaders in the royal government. Could it be that when Paul and others talk about salvation by “faith,” not by works, they intend something close to what Demetrius means by pistis—so that we should translate, ‘It is by grace you have been saved through allegiance” (Eph. 2:8)?” ^[8]Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 4.

Matthew Bates’ works (of which only two out of the four I have read so far) are excellent and I highly recommend you read them. He talks about exactly what the gospel is, and how our allegience to Jesus the King is our correct response to the gospel, and often times preachers and theologians intermingle The Gospel itself with what our response to it should be, and sometimes they overemphasize some parts of the gospel while under emphasizing others (e.g focusing on the cross and resurrection, and maybe not even mentioning the Kingship of Jesus via the ascension). I myself have endorsed some of Bate’s arguments most heavily in my lengthy essay “Evangelism: Non-Violent Conquest Warfare”.

Jesus being The King of kings, and the Gospel (Evangelion in Greek) having as its backdrop the proclamation of a new ruler makes “allegiance” or “giving allegiance” better translations of faith in passages like Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:16, respectively.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (Future possible renderings)

Word For Word: “For by grace you have been saved, through allegiance. And this is not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. Not by works lest anyone should boast.”

Thought For Thought: “For by grace you have been saved, through loyalty to King Jesus. This salvation didn’t come from yourselves. It is the gift of God. Not by works so that no one may boast.”

John 3:16 (Future possible renderings)

Word For Word: “For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever gives allegience to Him will not perish but have eternal life.”

Thought For Thought: “For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever gives allegience to Him will not perish but have eternal life.”

Now, I am at pains to say that not every instance of pistis in the biblical text should be rendered this way. There are many places where it does simply mean to believe a proposition or trust in a person. For example, in Matthew 14:31 when Jesus says to Peter “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” it would make no sense to render that “You of little allegience. Why weren’t you loyal enough?” Faith as trust is clearly in view. Peter’s trust in Jesus’ ability to keep him afloat wavered, thus he sank.

Conclusion

What do you guys think? Should future English translations of The Bible render these passages differently? Are there other false friends in modern English translations that I didn’t even think of? If you know of some, leave them in the comment section below. Also, don’t forget to subscribe to the blog via the newsletter below, so you’ll always be notified by e-mail when I have a new blog post out. Why should you be at the mercy of algorithms? Get my articles sent directly to your inbox!

Peace out, God bless, and keep using the brains that God gave you!