John 3:36 - Translations - Obey vs. Believe?

[TimothyH]

A friend and I noticed a pretty glaring difference between tranlations.

New King James
“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

NAB
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

Navarre
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him”

“Does not believe” vs “Does not obey”?

We were both quite taken aback by the glaring difference, especially in light of the doctrine which must necessarilty result. The NKJ is exactly in line with my friends belief in sola fide and both the NAB and Navarre are exactly in line with Catholic doctrine as far as I understand it.

I did read “Choosing a Bible Translation” by James Akin but am wondering what the original manuscripts say, “Obey” or " Believe"?

Are there two different version of the manuscripts? Is the original text that difficult to translate so that the same word could be interpreted as obey or believe?

Is there something more sinister going on here, an evil plot by Martin Luther (as I would expect) or by some ancient council of the Church (as he would expect)?

Or do my question even make sense?

Your insight is warmly welcomed.

-Tim-

 

[JPCalifornia]

it is not that hard… to believe is to obey. to do without believing is not pleasing to God and to believe a not doing is foolish. There for believe and be saved and work out your salvation by being obedient to the Lord. God bless.

 

[lynx]

it is not that hard… to believe is to obey.

I guess that’s true if you don’t have free will. But if you do have free will, you can not believe in the trinity, which is different from not obeying the words of God (sinning?). Can I sin if I do not believe?

 

[JRKH]

Well this is interesting too -----

I went to StudyLight to check what the “litteral translations” had to say and turned up this:
Young’s Literal Translation
he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is **not believing **the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.’

J.P. Green’s Literal Translation
The one believing into the Son has everlasting life; but the one disobeying the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

So it appears that not even the “literal” translations can agree on the meaning.
I think we may need the help of someone who knows Greek.

Peace
James

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Latin text has believe / not believe:

{3:36} Qui **credit **in Filium, habet vitam æternam: qui autem **incredulus **est Filio, non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum.
{3:36} Whoever **believes **in the Son has eternal life. But whoever is **unbelieving **toward the Son shall not see life; instead the wrath of God remains upon him.”

The Greek for ‘unbelieving’ is more vague, meaning something like ‘refusing’. This is apparently interpreted by some translators as refusing to obey, and by others as refusing to believe.

The Latin text in Catholic translation is normative; it is supposed to be the deciding factor when there is an ambiguity that it not clear from the Hebrew or Greek. Also, the earlier use of believes in the same verse would also favor the translation unbelieving, over disobey or not obey.

 

[JRKH]

The Latin text has believe / not believe:

{3:36} Qui **credit **in Filium, habet vitam æternam: qui autem **incredulus **est Filio, non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum.
{3:36} Whoever **believes **in the Son has eternal life. But whoever is **unbelieving **toward the Son shall not see life; instead the wrath of God remains upon him.”

The Greek for ‘unbelieving’ is more vague, meaning something like ‘refusing’. This is apparently interpreted by some translators as refusing to obey, and by others as refusing to believe.

The Latin text in Catholic translation is normative; it is supposed to be the deciding factor when there is an ambiguity that it not clear from the Hebrew or Greek. Also, the earlier use of believes in the same verse would also favor the translation unbelieving, over disobey or not obey.

Interesting - thanks.
So in the Greek, is the term for “unbelieve” some sort of derivative of the term of belief? Or are they two entirely different words?

Peace
James

 

[crazzeto]

Greek interliniar:

36: o <3588> {HE THAT} pisteuwn <4100> (5723) {BELIEVES} eiV <1519> {ON} ton <3588> {THE} uion <5207> {SON} ecei <2192> (5719) {HAS} zwhn <2222> {LIFE} aiwnion <166> o <3588> {ETERNAL;} de <1161> {AND HE THAT} apeiqwn <544> (5723) {IS NOT SUBJECT} tw <3588> {TO THE} uiw <5207> ouk <3756> {SON} oyetai <3700> (5695) {SHALL NOT SEE} zwhn <2222> {LIFE,} all <235> {BUT} h <3588> {THE} orgh <3709> tou <3588> {WRATH} qeou <2316> {OF GOD} menei <3306> (5719) {ABIDES} ep <1909> {ON} auton <846> {HIM.}

Obey is clearly in there, I like JP’s insight there though. If you believe, you will most certainly obey.

 

[SyCarl]

I would note that the Douay Rheims also has “believe”/“not believe”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, believing in Jesus is not merely believing that He is Lord. Believing in Jesus means you believe what Jesus teaches and follow those teachings.

IOW, you don’t just talk the talk, you walk the walk.

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks everyone, for taking the time to reply. I appreciate the scholarly insights more than you will ever know.

I Googled “Greek interlinear” and it is very interesting, will have to look into that more. One site with such a Bible referenced the term “not persuaded”.

"The one yet un-persuading to the son not shall be viewing life"

I guess one of my questions has been answered… translation is not all that easy.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

IOW, you don’t just talk the talk, you walk the walk.

That is interesting and I’d like your take on my thought…

Unlike today in the the Western world, belief in Jesus (belief in your heart and confess with your lips, Romans 10:9) would have had dire consequences for ancient Jews. They would have been abandoned by family members, noone would have wanted to do business with them and “Confessing with your lips” could possibly be a death sentance.

So is not “Belief”, in the context of christianty and as it would have been understood by the earliest Christians, more of an action, rather than a mental and/or spiritual conviction of some truth which would not require a public act, as we understand the generic word “Belief” today?

In this way, was not public “Belief” more of a work, rather than a private thought or feeling?

I don’t mean to get into a whole debate or discussion about faith vs works.

But it is something I ponder… to what extent was belief/faith in Jesus Christ a public act with dire consequences for an early Christain and how much did Jesus and the desciples understand this and mean it as such.

Or am I trying to read my Catholic faith into something which scripture does not say?

-Tim-

 

[NHInsider]

No, you are understanding the Bible in its context. For example, we know that the demons believed in Him - knew Him to be the Son of God even before He had made this clear to His disciples - and this belief obviously does not “save” them. (See both James 2:19 and Mark 1:24/Matt. 8:29).

But I don’t think it is so much the fact that the earliest Christians risked persecution and martyrdom for their profession of faith, but that each and every one of us is told by Jesus that “having faith” means “picking up the cross and following,” or as Paul put it, “pressing on toward the prize.” (Phil. 3:14)

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Greek word in question (apeitho) seems to mean to neither believe nor obey and translators simply chose of the two meanings that which they though best fit the context.