Q: Why does the New World Translation say at Ephesians 4:8 “gifts in men,” whereas most translations say, “gifts to men?”

Hmm. Do they? I checked some resources and they do—by a long shot. This becomes relevant because Ephesians 4:8 was the theme scripture for a recent Watchtower Study: “Show Appreciation for “Gifts in Men”—from the October 2024 issue.

I thought at first that the NWT was up to its old tricks, choosing a unique rendering of the preposition, which they would have to justify. I didn’t doubt they would be able to, but I thought they would have to do it. 

At second glance, it appeared that NWT is the only translation that had it correct! I asked ChatGBT, “At Ephesians 4:8, why do some translations say gifts IN men?” The answer was long and technical. You don’t want Brother Chat in your Kingdom Hall because his windy answers will surely not abide by any 30-second goal. The phrase I zeroed in on was: “The Greek word Paul uses, "ἐν" (en), is typically translated as "in" but can also mean "among" or "through," depending on the context. This flexibility creates the variation in translation.”

Ha! The word they render as “in” is “typically translated” that way, only in this case, everyone else declines to do it! Corroborating this is Appendix 7C at the back of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. It is a diagram illustrating basic meanings of Greek prepositions. The word at Ephesians 4:8 is “en.” It means, first of all, “in.” (At the JW website, enter “prepositions” in the Search box.)

The “gifts in men” allows one to view the men themselves as gifts. The gifts to men (or unto) better furthers the view that holy spirit is the gift, but also allows for the view that the recipients do little with it beyond basking in their own smug ‘righteousness.’ None of that on the Witnesses’ watch. Witnesses are into applying scripture, not just thinking themselves holy by virtue of it.

The difference is subtle because the “gifts to men” results in the same product as the “gifts in men.” That is, it results in men who use their given talents for the benefit of the entire “body of Christ,” with the end result that “we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (vs 13-14)

At any rate, the friends at our Watchtower Study that Sunday had nothing but praise for the gifts in men they have experienced. None of the grumbling you may hear online from ones who have run afoul of discipline or who prefer kicking against the goads. Just unsolicited  accolade after accolade, many of which also threatened the 30-second target or even trounced it entirely. It was not of just servants, not just elders, not just circuit overseers, though all of these drew praise.

Someone extended the point to showing appreciation to anyone, be it servant, elder, CO, brother, sister, or anyone met in the ministry or workplace. Dishing out genuine praise benefits the giver more than the recipient. It trains one’s way of thinking, not to take people for granted, and look to their best side. Someone else said the CO’s day off is frequently anything but that, since everyone knows what it is and they slam him with phone calls that day. 

We have in our congregation an LDC brother (Local Design Committee) who said it takes about 500 brothers or sisters to build a Kingdom Hall, plus other hundreds in support roles. The ones in overseer roles, though they have a project to complete and must keep on reasonable schedule, primarily view themselves and are trained as shepherds. They have a way of breaking down any task into manageable steps and parcelling them out to volunteers according to their ability.

He summed up the review questions with the observation that the young men and women have power—it is what defines them. And, if they turn it towards career, they can do nicely for themselves—certainly not nothing. But, when they turn their gifts to the of building up the body of Christ, they end up writing a “bestseller.” He may have been thinking of the book of remembrance that Malachi 3:17 speaks of, about those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.

Notwithstanding how that Watchtower Study made use of the  New World Translation’s “gifts in men,” that is not to say that “gifts to men” is wrong. In fact, since AI is no more than a compilation of human scholarship, it may not be surprising that it sides with the majority “gifts to men.” Greek prepositions are tricky. There is not a strict one-on-one correspondence to the prepositions of other languages (which also may be tricky). Other factors can influence how they are rendered. Complicating matters further is the fact that Ephesians 4:8 itself is an application of Psalm 68:18: “You ascended on high; You carried away captives; You took gifts in the form of men.”

Says wordy Brother Chat: “The phrase “gifts in men” could arise from an attempt to closely mirror the original Psalm's emphasis on "receiving gifts among men." Some older translations or more literal renderings may choose this phrasing to preserve the link to the Psalm's wording.” 

If there is one thing we know about the NWT, it is that if favors “literal renderings.” Its translators shy away from more interpretive renderings, lest they too get hoodwinked by the “every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men” of vs 14!

“On the other hand,” says Chat, "gifts to men" reflects Paul's interpretation and application of the [Psalm 68:18] verse in Ephesians, where the focus is on the giving of spiritual gifts. Most modern translations adopt this phrasing to align with Paul’s theological point.”

Then it summarizes:

• "Gifts in men": This might suggest that God bestows gifts within people, placing spiritual gifts in individuals to be exercised.
• "Gifts to men": This emphasizes the act of giving, highlighting that Christ distributes spiritual gifts to individuals for the benefit of the church.

Point is, the NWT goes for literalism, which is what they generally do in translating. The others are more modified by context. At first glance, I prefer the majority “to men” interpretation. But since both effectively return the same result, qualified men who turn their gifts toward the betterment of the body of Christ, the more literal one also works.

Just to make sure Chat wasn’t pulling a fast one on me, I arm-twisted it: 

Q: How is that Greek preposition in Ephesians 4:8 usually translated in other settings?

A: (long and windy, as usual) . . . then: “The preposition in question in Ephesians 4:8 is "ἐν" (Greek: en). This preposition is highly versatile in Greek and is most commonly translated as "in" or "within", depending on the context.”

Then some hi-falutin stuff about how, “its meaning can shift based on its grammatical and contextual usage. . . . When analyzing translations, the choice of "in men" versus "to men" hinges on interpretive considerations rather than rigid adherence to the preposition's usual usage. Most translators view the theological emphasis of Paul's argument—Christ giving gifts—as justifying the rendering "to men" over a more literal "in men" or "among men." This also aligns with the broader narrative of Ephesians 4 about equipping the saints.“

So, either is correct. Not allowed is looking down one’s nose at the other for using the “wrong” translation. There are a few instances where translations are wrong, but this is not one of them.

******  The bookstore

The publications of Jehovah's Witness publications have not had a kind word for higher education. Just recently, the Watchtower study included a paragraph of Marcia, who “was offered a four-year scholarship at a university. But I wanted to pursue spiritual goals.” She didn’t throw caution to the wind. She “chose to attend a technical training school to learn a trade that would support me in my ministry,” and counts it “one of the best decisions I have ever made.” (Feb 2024 Watchtower) It is an example of the article’s title: "Keep Following Jehovah’s Guidance." That’s not really trashing university, of course, but it certainly is not lauding it as the bee’s knees.

They are not wrong to be leery of the place. Moreover, who else has the guts to dampen it? Most faiths think it an honor to have churches bristling with lettered people. Most faiths say, ‘Christians may have started ‘uneducated and ordinary,’ (Acts 4:13) but look at how they pulled themselves up! Most faiths replace Paul’s encouragement to be a ‘workman, with nothing to be ashamed of’ (2 Timothy 2:15) with ‘a professional—so you don’t have to be ashamed.’ Not many are like the Witnesses, who expect the passage of 1 Corinthians 1:26 to hold just as true today as it did then: “For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth.” They don’t care if people sneer at them for it. Train yourself for a skill that is both portable and scalable, they recommend. That way, you have time for the ministry.

Their caution is validated in the remarks of Great Courses lecturer James Hall, who covers the topic, ‘Philosophy of Religion.’ A university professor himself, he relates how, “I have parents who come to the university perplexed and amazed that young Susie or young Johnny, who has gone off to the university and has come home for that first holiday, isn't the same that they used to be. And all I can do is lower my glasses to the end of my nose and look over my glasses and say, Why did you send them to university in the first place?”

Got it? The purpose of university is not to accept a student’s childhood values as a given. The purpose is to overhaul them. It’s all agreeable to Hall, who says you send them there “to grow up . . . to be exposed, to expand their horizons, to increase the scale of their life,” with the implicit understanding that he, as faculty member, he, who “lowers his glasses to the end of his nose and looks over those glasses” at the plebian parents, is just the one to do it.

Now, no problem here with growing up. Who doesn’t want that? Go for it. But, is this the setting in which to do it? It was sex, drugs, rock & roll, and protesting, when I was there--albeit with some learning. Here, Hall sits atop the repository of knowledge that has collectively made the world what it is—and he should be the one to expand those horizons and increase those scales? Only the educated can look upon the trainwreck that is modern society and congratulate themselves on their understanding. Spit back what Hall tells you if you want a passing grade—not necessarily verbatim, but you’d better not stray too far from it. The ‘safest’ correlation to his remarks will be what was said of P.D.Q. Bach, that his music bore a relationship with that of a certain great composer, and the name of that relationship was ‘identity.’ He wasn’t one for plagiarizing, but he did believe in recycling.

Hall and the Witness organization are in agreement on one thing, though for different reasons. That answer to Hall’s question as to why parents sent their youngsters to university? He continues, “I'm afraid sometimes the only answer is, ‘Well, because that’s what you do,’ or, ‘Well, all of our neighbors were sending their children to university so we figured maybe we [had] better too.’” Going with the crowd, in other words. Hall doesn’t want children to go for this reason. He wants them to purposefully go so he can mess with their heads, expanding them beyond whatever parochial values they absorbed from back home, such as Bible training. The Witness organization doesn’t want them to go because ‘everyone else is doing it,’ either. They’d rather the parents not give Hall and his cohorts their shot; head youngsters off into the full-time ministry instead. For all the furor of ‘anti-cultists,’ it is the university, not the Witness world, in which newbies are cut off 24/7 from all that once stabilized them—a classic technique of ‘brainwashers.’

You can look like roadkill when you stand against the common stampede. Witness HQ will never stop cautioning about university, I don’t think. They will never recommend liberal arts degrees. They will never stop recommending technical training and trade schools. But they may yield more to the view that secular education is a family decision, not something to be second-guessed by others, much less micro-managed. There is just too much variety in people and circumstances. Maybe that will be on one of those future updates. It may be happening already. A youngster in the congregation went off to college not long ago and nobody had anything to say about it at all; I checked with his mom. Will he evade Hall or even stand up to him? Maybe. Maybe not. But it turns out that Hall has cousins in all walks of life, trying to shoot down biblical values wherever you happen to be.

******  The bookstore

Sometimes a guy prefers the older translation to the newer one. Like with this passage from Acts 18:14, when the Jewish bigwigs hauled Paul before the proconsul because he was teaching new things: “Contrary to the law this person leads men to another persuasion in worshiping God,” they charged, as though it was a crime. (vs 13)

It was a crime, according to their rules but the Roman proconsul Gallio could not have cared less. These people with their religious disputes were such a pain to him that he kept clear. He answers them, just before Paul is going to defend himself, and thereby making defense unnecessary, “If it were, indeed, some wrong or a wicked act of villainy, O Jews, I would with reason put up patiently with you.  But if it is controversies over speech and names and the law among you, you yourselves must see to it. I do not wish to be a judge of these things.” (14-15)

You can read the contempt. It oozes from the guy’s mouth. If he had to (it wouldn’t be easy and he wouldn’t like the task), he would “put up patiently” with these characters. If this fellow Paul had actually done something “wrong” or—is it sarcasm here?—done some “wicked act of villainy,” he’d hear them out. But he hasn’t. So—‘Sheesh! won’t you leave me in peace already?’ you can almost hear his dismissal.

The new version misses that entirely. Here, Gallio is just the earnest county official: He says, “If, indeed, it were some wrong or a serious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to hear you out patiently.” Yes, that rendering gets the job done. It conveys that he’s not going to get involved. But, it’s not as good. It doesn’t convey how he feels about his subjects. Sometimes we are so determined to paint people as mild that we paint them as bland.

So, when the Jews are ignored, they take to beating the snot out of the synagogue head honcho—surely that will get Gallio’s attention. ‘Nope—I’m done,’ is his response, and you can almost see him rustling his newspaper to shoo them away. We read, “But Gallio would not concern himself at all with these things.” (17)

That response is slightly modified, for the worse, I think, in the newer 2013 NWT version which reads that he would not “get involved,” implying he may have been “concerned” but his hands were tied by it not being his affair—so what could he do? Nah, I think he didn’t give a hoot. The older (originally from 1961) is better.

Sigh—the wording from the new serves as the basis for Bearing Thorough Witness about God’s Kingdom, the current JW commentary on Acts of the Apostles. As to Gallio’s indifference, it suggests, “Perhaps Gallio thought that Sosthenes was the leader of the mob action against Paul and was therefore getting what he deserved.” I don’t think so; that implies he cared. I don’t think he did. He just wanted to get back to his paper and cup of coffee.

No, I do not like the new. It is going in the direction of the newer mushier translations, like the New International Version (1978), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, ‘If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you.’” (14)

It’s not as bad as the word-salad Message paraphrase (1993), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to defend himself, Gallio interrupted and said to the Jews, “If this was a matter of criminal conduct, I would gladly hear you out. But it sounds to me like one more Jewish squabble, another of your endless hairsplitting quarrels over religion. Take care of it on your own time. I can’t be bothered with this nonsense,”

“Gladly!” He would “gladly” hear them out! NO! They are a pain in the neck! He would, “with reason, put up patiently” with them. The older versions render it better*. Like the Revised Standard Version of 1952: “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, I should have reason to bear with you, O Jews.” It’s not quite as strong as the older NWT, but it does convey he wouldn’t relish the task.

Forget that verse about the codger who mutters, “Why were the old days better than the present ones?” (Ecclesiastes 7:10) I’ll tell you why he grumbles over that. Because, they were!!

*In fairness to the Message, it does convey that Gallio considered the Jews’ concerns “nonsense.”

******  The bookstore

Within Psalm 115:16 lies a common-sense innocuous verse that has all the impact of the apple landing on Newton’s head.

“As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.”

It is the perfect verse you weave into any reply to those who insist we all go to heaven when we die. Such as this person, who asks, “Why are most Jehovah’s Witnesses not born again? Doesn’t the reason stem from their reading of Revelation 7:9-10?”

Does he think the destiny for all good persons is to go to heaven when they die? I asked him that. He does.

Agreed that Christians who are destined to heaven need to be born again. But that not true for all Christians. A Christian whose hope is to live forever on a paradise earth made so by God’s kingdom rule, the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses today, are not. They are people who “truly trust in, follow, and love Jesus Christ.” But their hope is to live on earth under his kingdom government.

It is not so that this hope rests entirely on how JWs read Revelation 7:9-10, or even mostly. Until the 1930s, Witnesses also thought that those verses referred to a heavenly-destined group. But in time, they came to reconcile the passage with other portions of the Bible.

As for myself, I can’t imagine living forever in heaven. Whatever would I do there? But I can easily imagine living forever on an earth restored. The earth is a beautiful place. 

Witnesses believe God put humans on earth and gave them the commission to fill the earth and subdue it, because he wanted them there. If he had wanted them in heaven, he would have put them there directly. To Jehovah’s Witnesses, the earth is not a temporary place, a launching pad into heaven or a trap door into hell. It is given to humankind as a home. Death was not a part of God’s original purpose. Had Adam and Eve not rebelled, they would have continued living where God put them, they along with all their offspring, spreading out to fill the earth, living there forever. But, according to Romans 5:12, “through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

Jesus makes this point about earth in the beatitudes. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5) The meek do not inherit the earth today. They get stomped all over. Per Jesus’ words in ‘the Lord’s Prayer,’ that will continue until the kingdom comes: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” he says. (Matthew 9:10)

With the resurrection of Christ, a new hope opens up. It is called a “sacred secret.” It takes getting one’s head around because it is so contrary to the earthly hope described above. Fortunately, one does not have to “get one’s head around it.” God directly implants the heavenly hope in ones so called. For example, to the Ephesians, Paul writes of “making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.” (Eph 1:9-10) These ones are destined to rule with Christ in heaven. It is a brand-spanking-new calling. it is called being “born again.” Even John the Baptist, who prepared the crowds for Jesus but died prior to his resurrection, did not have that hope. “Among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is,” Jesus says at Matthew 11:11

Plainly, not everyone can be ruling. There has to be people to rule over. The latter can be expected to greatly outnumber the former. This is true of those later recognized as the “great crowd” of Revelation 7:9-10.

“After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.  And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Rev 7:9-10)

Good things are in store for them: “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down on them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them and will guide them to springs of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.” (7: 14-17)

No one can number them. What is the sense of a numberless amount in government? But as one’s ruled over on earth, numberless makes perfect sense.

***Someone else spelled it out this way, someone who thinks the earth will be destroyed:

“JW Paradise Earth

1. There is no more death, tears, sorrow, crying, or pain
2. It would be like the Garden of Eden before the Fall
3. God and the 144,000 anointed ones will rule over them in Heaven.
4. The current earth remains but the current man governments are gone

“Church New Earth

1. There is no more death, tears, sorrow, crying, or pain
2. It would be like the Garden of Eden before the Fall
3. God and the 144,000 will be with them on the New Earth. You can touch them. Hug them.
4. The first earth has passed away including it's seas, but this New Earth replaces it.

If I understand this church view of the new earth (which most church members don’t know anything about; most think it’s just straight up heaven-bound for the faithful), am I to conclude that God takes the faithful to heaven, destroys the earth, recreates it, and then puts the faithful back on it again? This seems like an extraordinarily convoluted way to go about it.

Did the earth do something wrong for which it should be destroyed? Does anyone think God should take out his wrath upon the planet? Or do you think he should take out wrath upon the wicked people on it?

The illustration that all Witnesses love (because it makes so much sense) is that if you rent your house out to tenants and they destroy it, you do not destroy the house. You evict the tenants. 

The earth is far better than a house. All you have to do is stop abusing the earth and it heals up pretty quickly. We see that in the aftermath of every oil spill and forest fire. Just stop abusing the earth, stop the destruction of it, put a kingdom in place and citizens that will treasure it and take care of it, and the existing planet becomes a “new earth.” No need for this rigamorole of a wholesale move of all the righteous to heaven and back again.

But, if we go the church view expressed, that the earth literally needs be destroyed, then what about the heavens? Cited was 2 Peter 3:6-7 KJV:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: [7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So the literal heavens, too, are reserved for fire? What’s wrong with them that they also must be replaced?

To my mind, this view takes a perfectly reasonable teaching of the righteous surviving upon an earth made new under God’s kingdom, something that is consistent with the entire Bible, from Adam to Armegeddon, and replaces it with something that makes no sense at all and enjoys little scriptural support.

Heavens are often used in the Bible as a metaphor for rulerships. Both could scorch you one moment, freeze you the next, drench you the next minute, and there wasn’t a thing you could do about it. For the most part, that is still true of even modern governments. Their policies affect you greatly and there is very little you can do about it. A thousand pounds of pressure yields a once of result—and in many lands, the governed have no say whatsoever.

Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses view the “new heavens” to be a metaphor for God’s kingdom ruling over the “new earth” after the wicked are removed from it.

I am all for literalism. But not to the point of converting obvious metaphor to it. When someone tells me to stop beating around the bush, I realize he is not speaking of a literal bush.

***

There is another keeper from Psalm 115, verses 4-8. Note the zinger at verse 8. It is as though the punchline of a joke. Only, in this case, it is no joke.

4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of human hands.

5 A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes, but they cannot see;

6 Ears they have, but they cannot hear; A nose, but they cannot smell;

7 Hands they have, but they cannot feel; Feet, but they cannot walk; They make no sound with their throat.

8 The people who make them will become just like them, As will all those who trust in them.

That last line is a beaut. Contrast it with the psalmist’s God, who “does whatever he pleases.” (3) Their god does nothing at all. Worse yet, by devoting your life to them, you find yourself in that same predicament.

I am told that when our people speak with Muslims, they are quick to read this verse. It makes their eyes bug out. See, Muslims hate idols and they associate them with Christianity. To read how the God of the Bible also hates them makes a powerful impression.

******  The bookstore

A: Define “should.”

For the most part, people don’t care about politics. They do so only when it seriously interferes with their lives. With most Witnesses, even when it does that, they are inclined to say it is Satan the devil. Which it is—ultimately. But sometimes you’d think there’d would be some interest in the intervening details.

A: Yeah, I think so too. I don’t know why more don’t look at it in the same sense as an ambassador assigned to another country, seeking reconciliation to his own government—which in our case means explaining kingdom interests. An ambassador may well take an interest in the affairs of his host country. He just draws the line at involving himself in political processes reserved for citizens. 

No Witness I know of will bring politics into the Kingdom Hall. But, the thinking of many is that they ought not even have opinions regarding it. The easiest way to achieve that goal is to deliberately stay ignorant of it. So, many do.

Politics is one of those things that, unless you devote significant time to it, you are easily diverted by this side or that who pretend to be neutral but are not. Here I am sitting in a living room right now with a boomer relative who hears NBC saying RFKjr, an ‘anti-vaxxer’ and spinner of ‘conspiracy theories,’ has just received Trump’s cabinet pick for Health and Human Service director, to oversee health in America. “Well, that’s stupid!” she says. Like most boomer Witnesses, what little news she watches is network news.

Thing is, if a guy is unfailingly introduced as an “anti-vaxxer,” “science skeptic,” and “conspiracy theorist,” then you hear they put him in charge of national health agencies, it does appear stupid. She is exactly right given the input that she has.

Following politics represents such an input of time to search out a balanced picture and take it in that one must never advocate the course for a Witness. When we studiously ignore things that everyone else knows about, however it can backfire. It’s fine to downplay things that are not your core interest. In fact, it would be strange not to, as though suggesting you had doubts about your core interests. But when you studiously ignore things, as though going out of your way to squelch them, eventually someone finds out that you studiously ignore them and successfully paints you as, at best insular, and at worst, a cult.

A bit more nuanced is what might be the ticket—if you want to go there, go. Maybe enough to do what they say we should do with every other sign of interest we see on the part of the householder. Engage them on their garden/children/home, etc. Read those bumper stickers. Comment on whatever you might see there UNLESS it is politics—in which case, run. Why should it be that way? If the householder eats politics, engage him/her on that if you like. We all know how not to advocate for princes. We all know how the Witnesses’ overall message is validated with every passing day, that humans are not capable of ruling themselves and are thus in need of God’s kingdom rule, the very same kingdom the Witnesses proclaim and the Witness organization facilitates: