Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"
In Strong’s Concordance we see πονηρός defined (in the primary sense) this way:
- full of labours, annoyances, hardships
This word, ponēros, is translated "evil" in most versions, and "bad" ("as bad as you are") in the CEV. Why do translators so uniformly render this word as "evil," when it could be translated in the primary sense, as in
"If you then, who are full of labors, annoyances, and hardships, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"
Is it possible that, traditional doctrine notwithstanding, Jesus could have been teaching about giving good gifts in spite of our troubles? We know that Jesus’ compassion for the poor in their difficult lives was exemplary; did he really think that all people are evil and wicked, or just that in our harried and trudging existences, we make imperfect decisions, and miss the mark of our higher calling, to completely trust that God has our best interests at heart?
It seems clear that in many places Strong brings his own religious bias to his translations, rendering words and phrases according to established doctrine (e.g. "Satan", a proper name with an entire doctrine behind it, instead of ha-satan, "the adversary", a title for an office occupied by a messenger of God.) Could it be that early translators also made the mistake of eisegesis?
Anonymous
very carefully Link Hudson John Mushenhouse
Anonymous
strong’s concordance.
Anonymous
John Mushenhouse hahahaha level Link
Anonymous
Troy Day the article relied on Strong’s – that was about all I could read. I am sure he meant well though.
Anonymous
John Mushenhouse CEV too if you are familiar with it
Anonymous
Troy Day Yes Contemporary English Version.
Anonymous
John Mushenhouse so bad or evil ?
Anonymous
Troy Day It is good news for modern man Part 2 – If I had no other bible it might do, but I have other bibles–
Anonymous
Troy Day A.T. Robertson did a study —- evil—and so the contrast.
Anonymous
John Mushenhouse I remember that
Do you have it digital somewhere ?
Anonymous
The context is about the contrast between holy God and sinful humanity.
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! LSB
ponéros: toilsome, bad
Usage: evil, bad, wicked, malicious, slothful.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess but how should be translated / John Mushenhouse