Thoughts from Mark "Hat" Rackley

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

• John 3:16 (NIV)

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

• John 3:16 (NASB)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

• John 3:16 (KJV)

For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

• John 3:16 (CSB)

“This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

• John 3:16 (MSG – note, approximately)

The graphic above comes for the God’s Word website in comparing various translations, and they have placed their translation in the center, and the only one in the meaning for meaning range.  But more on that to follow.

Here is the link:

2025 Holy Bible Translation Comparison Chart | GOD’S WORD Bible – God’s Word Mission Society

Rev. Li from Veritas Domain, a.k.a. SlimJim, asked for us to consider different commentaries in a recent post.  The link is HERE.  I told him that I was about to write this discussion, which would come out in another month.  Well, today is the day.

What inspired this discussion had a little to do with commentaries, but I was thinking about three commentaries that I am presently using:  Matthew Henry in my Psalm Bible Studies, John MacArthur, and a new one Tony Evans.  I thought of how different they were.

Matthew Henry has a chapter summary, and then commentaries on each “paragraph” or group of verses.  You get the big picture, but individual thoughts are noted in parenthesis, so that Matthew Henry’s thoughts can be related to specific verses.

Tony Evans does the same thing, but without the chapter summaries.  To compare to the chart above, the Matthew Henry summaries could be thought for thought commentary, while the paragraph by paragraph could be a meaning for meaning commentary.

Then, the Rev. MacArthur commentary is nearly verse by verse commentary.  Sometimes, it is a specific word in that verse that he discusses, bringing in context of the entire verse.  This is more of a word for word commentary.  Basically, the MacArthur commentary is a study Bible, but you need the “Bible” next to the commentary to get what the Bible says.

But as I was considering these three commentaries and how I love each one, I suddenly was taken back in my memories to my teaching days when I worked through translators.

I learned to not ask what type of translator they were.  I never worked with a United Nations style translator who could translate while you are talking and not miss a beat.  Those would have to be word for word translators.  They are already translating before you have completed a sentence.

But I have worked with translators who were mostly word for word.  If I said three sentences before pausing, they would be giving me groans or hand signals that I was going way too fast.  I would say three sentences and stop.  Then they would translate those sentences.

But mostly, I worked with a thought for thought translator.  I could say two sentences and then turn to the translator and they nodded and beckoned with their arm movements that I needed to complete that thought.  Then, I had a much longer pause while they translated.  Since they had more liberties in modifying what I had to say, I would ask more questions.  Then the translator had to translate their responses back to me.  If the concept, or to keep the vernacular the same, if the thought was off, I encouraged them that they were close, but then I would rephrase what I said in the beginning to emphasize how they were slightly off in their understanding.

I also learned how translators stuttered.  They would repeat a word.  The Chinese would repeat the Chinese word meaning “that”.  So, if I heard “that that that that.” I knew he was stuck.  I would use other words to illustrate the same thing.  In those classes, most of the class understood English, but they were afraid to speak it.  They did not want to feel foolish.  But when I rephrased what I wanted the translator to translate, often a classmate would then interrupt the translator to give him the word that the translator could not previously think of.  I would get a little laughter and heads nodding.  But if I did not try to approach the thought from a different direction, using different words, the classmates would never attempt to bailout the translator.  I had to show the class that I cared enough to help the translator before they would help the translator.

Once I taught a technical class about the types of heat transfer: radiation, conduction, and convection.  The translator got stuck.  I had been there before in other classes, and I was prepared.  I suggested, “Try …” And I used the Chinese words for heat transfer, radiation, conduction, and convection.  You could have heard a pin drop.  The translator turned white as a sheet.  But then, he did his homework the next day, and we never had another problem with him not finding the right words to use.  But I had to ask our Chinese liaison to help me learn those terms, including the correct pronunciation and inflection.

With many Asian languages, inflection is very important.  I was in Shanghai teaching a class one day and they signed the signup sheet.  There were the usual last names.  We had more than one Lu, a Liu, and someone who spelled his name Lv.  I looked at the names and stopped at Mr. Lv.  I asked what that meant, and they decided that this was the moment that the teacher had to be tested.  They said, “What do you think it means?”  In perfect English, by the way.  I swallowed hard.  I explained that I grew up in the South in the USA, so I spoke very slowly.  Then I said Lu, but I started the “U” with a high pitch, sweeping to a low pitch and then sweeping back to a high pitch.  The entire class burst out laughing, but Mr. Lv said that I said it far too slow, but I was the first to understand.  I had at least one friend in that class for the next two weeks, but the entire class changed how they interacted due to my sloppy attempt to use inflection in their language.  And within a day or two of practicing, I got it a lot better – at least, acceptable.

But, what translation is the best?  What commentary is the best?  I used a few translations as examples above.  I read the Bible in three translations at the same time.  Since Eugene Petersen, in the Message Bible, translated from the Hebrew and Greek and then paraphrased that into a modern common vernacular, it does not flow easily as verse by verse, more numbered in groups of verses.  So, I would read that and then the corresponding verses in the NIV and the NASB, from Genesis through Revelation, over a couple of years.  The NASB is considered one of the most accurate by most of the charts like the one above as word for word, while the NIV is one of the best for thought by thought.  Yet, in reading them, verse by verse, side by side, there are pages upon pages with hardly any differences.  I know, for the theologians out there, expiation versus propitiation is their heartburn about the NIV.  Our sins are washed away.  They are not simply covered, but they were covered by the Old Testament blood sacrifices.  But in the words being so similar, the best translation, in my opinion is one that is easy for you to read, and one that you will want to pick up each day and read – just make sure the reviews have nothing negative about that translation.  And switching from a word for word one year and then a thought for thought the next year.  And I heard two pastors reading The Message version of First Corinthians 13, and I nearly cried.  A paraphrase is not bad as long as you know it is a paraphrase, and The Message started with the Greek and Hebrew rather than paraphrasing an English translation (which doubles the chance for inaccuracies).

And since the commentaries follow the different styles of translators that I have worked with, I had a lot more experience with thought for thought translators, but I like a mixture of MacArthur and a good thought for thought commentary.  I do not stick strictly to one or the other.  And I am sure there are other commentaries that are word for word commentaries.  I have argued with some of MacArthur’s comments.  Matthew Henry is a few hundred years old, so he was of the time that clearly thought the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews.  Some people might consider that jarring since the style is not the same.  I think the key is Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles, why write the book of Hebrews?  But I agree with the style.  Paul always started and ended with personal greetings.

But regardless, just like the heading in the NIV and some other translations, the commentaries are not the inspired Word of God.  Having more than one is a good idea.  And cross-reference with other Scriptures gives that commentary more weight.

Funny, a trip down memory lane, working with translators in Italy, China, Thailand, India, Indonesia (but never in Indonesia), and South Korea.  The language was different, and the styles and skills of the translators were different.  But in no time at all, if you have patience, you find that rhythm, and after a couple of days, it seems like you are close friends.  In a way, you are finishing each other’s sentences.

Soli Deo Gloria.  Only to God be the Glory.