Why There’s No “Hero” in the Bible

Last night I witnessed a seemingly small act by my 8 year old daughter that may have saved her 6 year old sister’s life. Then today I read two stories of unsuspecting heroes.
The first story was of a man who crashed his Hummer into an oncoming vehicle to save the lives of 4 children in a crosswalk. He denied being a hero. He was just doing what anyone would have done.
The second story was of a bus driver who caught a 7 year autistic old girl falling from a 3rd story window. He denied being a hero. He was just doing what anyone would have done.
Think about the hero’s in your own life. Maybe it’s a neighbor who acted as a Good Samaritan. Maybe it’s a legislator who made it impossibly hard for your mother to abort you after she was raped. Maybe it’s a daughter who let you know her little sister was choking on plastic horse so you could help dislodge it before it was too late. Heroes.
But what is a hero?
Normally, I turn to the Bible to help me answer these kinds of questions, but a quick search turns up no occurrence of the word “hero” in the Bible. Interesting. But surely this is just a translational issue. If I were to look in a Bible Lexicon, I would certainly find a word that could be translated “hero”. Greek? Nope. Hebrew? Nope.*
But the Bible is full of stories of heroism, self-sacrifice, doing what’s right in the face of impossible odds and personal peril. Think about David facing Goliath or Esther standing up to to Artaxerxes, King of Persia. Think about the Jael driving a tent peg through Sisera’s temple as he slept hidden in her tent. Think about Jesus with nails through His hands and feet refusing for the sake of us poor sinners to cut short his suffering.
So, why aren’t they called heroes? Maybe they were just doing what anyone would have done. Maybe they were just doing what was required of them, what was expected. Maybe they were just doing what was right.**
They didn’t think they were heroes. Maybe the Hummer driver and the bus driver aren’t heroes. Maybe my daughter isn’t a hero. Maybe they just did what was right when it mattered most.
Maybe they were heeding the words of Jesus in Luke 17:10.
“So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ ” (ESV)
Like the biblical and modern examples, we should not desire to be heroes, but only to do what is right in every circumstance. No matter the difficulty. No matter the consequences.
*I did a search using the Logos Bible software in BDAG and BDB for English glosses and extended definitions containing the word “hero” resulting in zero hits.
**The Bible does have a word for this kind of behavior. It’s called righteousness.

Christmas Announcement - "Peace to whom"?

Consider the Lyrics penned by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882) from the Christmas classic "I Heard the Bells On Christmas Day"

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet the words repeat

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head:

"There is no peace on earth," I said,

"For hate is strong and mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good will to men."

The last line of each refrain is a quote from Luke 2:14, but why do none of the modern translations convey the sense of "good will to men"?


Why does the Authorized Version (i.e. KJV) differ from all  modern translations in rendering the praise of the Angelic Hosts after announcing Jesus' birth to the shepherds? It is the difference of but one letter in the Greek text, but has a profound difference in meaning.

The KJV reads:
     "Glory to God in the highest,
      And on earth peace,
     Good will toward men." (Luke 2:14)

The ESV reads:
     "Glory to God in the highest,
      and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

The reason these two differ so significantly has to do with the Greek text behind the two translations. The Authorized Version (commissioned by King James the be the authorized Bible of the Church of England) was completed in 1611 (though it underwent revisions for the next 150 years, and the current KJV is based on the 1769 edition). It was based on the manuscripts (ancient copies) available at the time now known as the Byzantine text (also known as the Majority text and roughly equivalent to the Textus Receptus - "received text"). Since that time many more and much earlier biblical manuscripts have been uncovered resulting in greater access to the original writings (autographs). Modern translations are based on Greek New Testaments that collate all known manuscripts to determine the most likely original reading (known as critical texts).

So, what is different about the Greek text behind the KJV and the ESV in Luke 2:14? I'm glad you asked.
The NA27 text (Nestle-Aland 27th ed. - a standard critical text) reads:
      δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ
      καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη
      ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

The Byzantine text reads:
     Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ,
     καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη·
     ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.

Notice two differences.

1. The Byzantine text has a semicolon after the second line (the half colon · ), whereas the NA27 has no punctuation between the second and third lines.
2. The NA27 text has a sigma (ς) at the end of the last word, making it a genitive case instead of nominative (more about this later).

These two differences are not unrelated. The addition of the semicolon was a later scribal decision and was likely influenced by viewing the verse as three parallel lines.
     Glory in the highest       --- to God
     Peace                               --- on earth
     Good will                         --- among (in, to) men
However, it is better to view them as two parallel lines covering the heavenly and earthly ramifications of Jesus' birth.
     Glory  --- in the highest --- to God
     Peace --- on the earth   --- among men with whom he is pleased

But how do we get from "good will toward men" to "among men with whom he is pleased"? That's where the sigma comes in.

BDAG (the standard lexicon for biblical Greek) gives two defintions for εὐδοκία (eudokia)

1. "state or condition of being kindly disposed, good will" 
2. "state or condition of being favored, favor, good pleasure this would refer to the persons upon whom divine favor rests"

If εὐδοκία (eudokia) is in the nominative case, then it is the subject of a sentence with an implied verb ("shall be"?) and should be understood in the first sense above. This results in the reading "good will shall be toward men" as a result of Jesus' birth. However, if εὐδοκία (eudokia) is in the genitive case (i.e. has the sigma on the end), then it is describing the type of men among whom peace "shall be" and should be understood in the second sense. This results in the reading "toward men of favor".

For a good summary of the textual evidence for the genitive reading see footnote 44 of the NET translation. 

So, the angles are not announcing that Jesus' birth will produce peace on the earth and a good will towards men (from God? from one another?), but that Jesus' birth will bring peace on earth among only those who find favor with God.

As can clearly be seen by the 2000 years that have transpired since Jesus' claim to have accomplished what he came to accomplish, the earth is not in a state of peace and abounding in good will. Quite the contrary! Jesus admitted that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword that would tear families apart and pit brother against brother. The peace announced by the angels is not for the the earth as a whole, but is only promised to those who find favor with God. And this is done only by faith in his son.