NOTE I FOR PAGES 42, 43
THE THOUGHTS expressed in four paragraphs to which this note refers are certainly true; but the translations suggested, while giving the true thought, are not strictly literal. On page 133, 3, the Author quotes a literal translation of Jer. 23:6 from Dr. Young's translation. "This is the name that Jehovah proclaimed him, Our Righteousness." In more idiomatic English the words might be literally rendered: This is the name that Jehovah shall call him, Our Righteousness. This thought we find stated by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:30: "Who of God is made unto us … righteousness." Similarly Jer. 33:16 should be translated, This is that which Jehovah shall call her, Our Righteousness. The A.V. has certainly maltreated both passages. Expressly has it so done to Jer. 23:6, to read into it its trinitarianism. In the first place it renders the active verb, shall call, as a passive verb, shall be called. In the second place it makes one of the objects of the active verb, him, the subject of a passive verb, he. In the third place it makes the subject of the active verb, Jehovah, a compounded part of the predicative subject of a passive verb, he shall be called Jehovah—our righteousness. Thus has the passage been butchered in order to read trinitarianism into it. Properly translated it neither calls Jesus Jehovah nor does it favor trinitarianism, rather it opposes it; for it clearly distinguishes between Jehovah, the Supreme Being, and Christ.
Nor are the translations suggested, p. 43, para. 1, literally correct, though they give the right sense. Thus Jehovah-Jireh literally means Jehovah will provide; Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah is my banner; Jehovah-Shalom, Jehovah is peace; Jehovah-Shammah, Jehovah is there. Ginsberg gives as the proper reading of this last expression Jehovah-Shemah and translates the sentence as follows: And the name of the city from the day of Jehovah [onward] shall be [shall remain] the name thereof, i.e., the Christ class as a religious government will never change their nature, character, office and honor.
The Atonement
492
NOTE II FOR PAGE 204
To clarify the matter under discussion somewhat more, we will in this note quote from THE PRESENT TRUTH, 1926, pages 120-122, our review of a criticism of pertinent features of this volume. The review follows:
"Some notes on STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES by the Rev. Stow, criticizing especially some of the statements in Vol. 5 respecting the relation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have come into our hands. They call for some reply from us. In our reply we will discuss mainly the grammatical, and only briefly the doctrinal questions involved in the criticism. We are sorry to note that the critic accuses the author of the STUDIES of being either ignorant or attempting with deliberation to deceive his readers. From the criticism we infer that the critic does know something of Greek syntax as is evidenced from his remark toward the end of his notes: 'In John 14:17 'which the Father will send' is neuter to agree with the Holy Ghost' (pneuma hagion).' The critic here shows that he knows very well that gender in Greek is not based on sex and non-sex as in English, but almost always upon the endings of words in various declensions; also that pronouns must agree in gender with the nouns to which they refer. Why did he not elsewhere state these facts and therefore refrain from remarks that would leave an English reader under the impression that the gender in Greek is based upon sex and non-sex? His remarks on the pronouns ekeinos and ekeino leave this impression, as also some that he makes on the pronouns autos and aute in their genitive case. 1 Cor. 13:5 is one instance to which he refers. The word for charity in Greek, agape, is feminine, because belonging to the first declension ending in long e. It is not feminine because of sex; for it has no sex. The translation should have been: Charity seeketh not its own, because in English charity is neuter; for in translating into English, we should use the English and not the Greek idiom. Whether the critic 'is either ignorant or attempting with deliberation to deceive his readers' in leaving this misleading impression, we will not presume to judge, but will leave it to him, and especially to the Lord to decide.
"In order to show to those unfamiliar with Greek syntax the fallacy of Rev. Stow's criticism, a few remarks on
Appendix.
493
Greek syntax pertaining to the points at issue must be made: While in English sex or non-sex determines the gender, with but a few exceptions, in Greek the gender of nouns, with few exceptions, is determined by the endings of nouns in their various declensions. Thus nouns of the first declension ending in a or e are feminine, e.g., chora, land, agape, love; those ending in as and es (generally proper nouns) are masculine. Nouns of the second declension ending in os are generally masculine, e.g., choiros, swine, teichos, wall; those ending in on, e.g., paidarion, boy, John 6:9, paidion, child (used repeatedly of Jesus and John the Baptist—see Matt. 2:8, 9, 11, 13; Luke 2:17, 21, 27, 40), are neuter. In the third declension nouns have a great variety of endings, some of which are, with some exceptions, for the masculine, others for the feminine and others for the neuter, e.g., nouns of the third declension ending in ma are neuter, like pneuma, spirit, soma, body. The kind of gender prevailing in Greek is called grammatical as distinct from natural, i.e., sex and non-sex, gender, such as we have in English grammar. The failure to make this point clear in connection with his remarks on ekeinos, ekeino, autou (from autos) and autes, auten (from aute), and speaking of them as though they denote sex or non-sex as in English would, of course, deceive any English reader unacquainted with the Greek.
"This makes necessary another remark on a point wherein Greek and English syntax are quite unlike, if we are to see daylight on the criticism offered. While in both Greek and English the pronouns must among other ways agree in gender with the nouns to which they refer, yet because on the one hand English bases gender on sex and non-sex, and therefore with few exceptions its masculine pronouns refer to males, feminine pronouns to females and neuter pronouns to things without sex; and because on the other hand the Greek bases the gender on the ending of words almost wholly, regardless of sex or non-sex, the masculine, feminine and neuter gender in the pronouns are determined by the ending of the nouns to which they refer and not by the sex or non-sex of things denoted by the nouns. Therefore masculine pronouns in Greek frequently refer to antecedents which are females or which are without sex for the reason that the nouns are by ending masculine: again feminine pronouns in Greek frequently refer
The Atonement
494
to antecedents which are males or which are without sex for the reason that the nouns are by ending feminine. So, too, neuter pronouns not infrequently have as antecedents nouns denoting a male or female, because the nouns are by ending neuter. The suppression of this fact in Rev. Stow's criticism in his remarks on ekeinos, ekeino, autou, autes and auten, together with the impression that he gives that they denote sex gender, is bound to deceive an English reader unacquainted with Greek. If the gentleman had kept these things in mind and told them in his criticism, he would probably not have made the remarks that he has made on these words. He correctly makes these points in dealing with the gender of the pronoun referring to pneuma in John 14:17; but there it served his purpose to parry off a blow that one might deliver who would treat the passage with the English syntactical rules with which the Rev. Stow treated the uses of ekeinos, ekeino, autou, autes, auten!
"From the above remarks it, of course, follows that sex, non-sex or personality cannot be construed from the masculine, feminine or neuter forms of ekeinos and autos or any other Greek pronoun. The nature of the thing indicated in the noun, and not its Greek gender and that of its accompanying pronoun, must determine whether the thing is a male, a female, a personality, or a thing without sex.
"A third remark will also prove helpful. Since Greek and English usage is so different in the use of gender, in translating from the former into the latter language the usage of the latter should prevail, just as if English were translated into Greek, the usage of the latter should be followed. The A. V. in almost all cases does this. 1 Cor. 13:5 is a violation of this rule as shown above.
"We will now give a few examples to illustrate the second and third of the foregoing remarks, having already given illustrations under the first. Mark 3:24-26, 'If a kingdom [basileia is feminine in Greek because it is a noun of the first declension ending in a] is divided against itself' [eph' heauten, feminine to agree with basileia and in the accusative case because governed by the preposition eph', correctly rendered into English by itself because the English idiom would not justify the use of the word herself as a pronoun referring to kingdom] that [ekeine, feminine, because basileia, kingdom, is feminine] kingdom cannot
Appendix.
495
stand. And if a house [oikia is feminine, because it is a noun of the first declension ending in a] be divided against itself [eph' heauten, feminine for the same reason, and in the accusative case because governed by the preposition eph'. The A. V. has correctly given it by 'itself,' because house in English being neuter our idiom forbids the feminine 'herself' as good English] that [ekeine, feminine, because oikia, house, is feminine] house cannot stand. And if Satan [Satanas in Greek is masculine, because it is a noun of the first declension ending in as] rise up against himself [eph' heauten, masculine, because its antecedent noun is masculine, and it is in the accusative case, corresponding to our objective case, because dependent upon the preposition eph'].'
"The Rev. Stow's remarks: 'I don't believe ekeinos is once used in the New Testament for a thing; it is always a person' and 'ekeinos cannot ever be translated it,' require correction. In these remarks he evidently conveys the impression to one unfamiliar with the Greek that a Greek masculine pronoun must be translated into English by the English masculine pronoun, the feminine by the feminine pronoun and the neuter by the neuter pronoun. We would here remark for English readers that each gender has its own ending in the Greek and each gender has five cases in each of the singular and plural numbers, with almost as many variations of form. The nominative case, singular number, of both words ekeinos and autos are as follows, omitting the other forms, singular and plural.
"That the masculine of ekeinos is used to refer to things that are not 'persons' we can see from the following cases in the New Testament: Matt. 17:27, 'And when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money' [stater, i.e., a shekel]; that [ekeinon, the masculine gender, accusative case, from ekeinos. Ekeino, the neuter, accusative, is the same as the nominative case ekeino, as one can verify from any Greek Grammar] take.' Inverting the words, 'that take,' we have 'take that,' i.e., 'it,' the stater. Stater is masculine by ending, therefore its pronoun ekeinon is masculine,
The Atonement
496
but here is translatable by 'it.' Another case, Luke 8:32, 'And then was there a herd of many swine … and they [the demons] besought Him that He would suffer them to enter into them [ekeinous, i.e., the swine]. Here ekeinous is used. It is the masculine gender, accusative case, plural number, and therefore its nominative case singular number is ekeinos. Here again we find that ekeinos is used not of persons but of things, i.e., swine. The reason the masculine is used is because choiros, swine, is a noun of the second declension ending in os and is therefore masculine.
"AN INFORMING EXAMPLE"
"Consequently since parakletos [Comforter, helper, advocate, encourager, exhorter—John 16:7], referred to by ekeinos in verses 8, 13, 14, is a noun of the second declension ending in os, it is masculine regardless of the sex or non-sex of the comforter. Whatever would comfort, help, advocate, encourage or exhort one, whether a person, male or female, or a sexless thing, the Greek would call a parakletos. To storm tossed sailors a calm would be a comforter, parakletos. To a shipwrecked person a piece of wreckage would be a comforter, etc., etc. To conclude therefore that since the masculine pronouns autos and ekeinos are used with reference to parakletos, the Holy Spirit is a person, is so fallacious that a boy who has studied Greek but three months would in most cases know better than doing. Just so little on the other hand can we conclude, since pneuma (spirit) is neuter in Greek, that the Holy Spirit is not a person. How then may this matter be decided? We answer: by the teachings of the Scriptures on the office, works, attributes and relations of the Holy Spirit. To those who have the eyes of understanding opened, the Scriptural descriptions of these things prove most satisfactorily to mind and heart that the Holy Spirit is not a person. These remarks will suffice to remove the dust that Rev. Stow throws into the eyes of the English reader unacquainted with Greek by his statements on ekeinos, ekeino, eautou in John 16:8, 13, 14, and autes and auten in other passages.
"A few grammatical remarks on the Rev. Stow's claim as to Jesus' statement 'Before Abraham was, I am.' (John 8:58, compared with Ex. 3:13, 14, where, in response to
Appendix.
497
Moses' inquiry respecting God's name, Jehovah answers 'I AM THAT I AM' and 'I AM.') His claim is that Jesus in John 8:58 called himself Jehovah, I AM. To this we first reply: The two verses are not at all related. In Ex. 3:13, 14, a name is asked for and given. In John 8:58 Jesus gives no name at all, but states a fact, i.e., that he existed before Abraham. Why, then, one may ask, is the present tense used in John 8:58? In answer, it must be stated that Jesus uses what grammarians called a Hebraism, i.e., a Hebrew syntactical use of a Greek word. While in Greek, as in English, the tenses of the verbs denote time past, present or future, in the Hebrew language there are but two tenses, Imperfect and Perfect. The Imperfect denotes an incomplete act or state in the past, present or future; while the Perfect tense refers to an act or state completed in the past, present or future. The Apostles while writing in Greek often used the Greek tenses according to Hebrew syntax. Because Jesus' existence had never terminated, was never finished, he used the present tense I AM in John 8:58. For a similar reason he uses the present tense in John 14:3, 'That where I am there ye may be also,' and John 17:24, 'be with me where I am.' A future event unquestionably is referred to in both cases. Why, then, does one ask, does he use the present tense? We answer: because his future existence and glory would never terminate. According to the Hebrew idiom, he therefore uses the present tense for a future state which will never terminate, as in John 8:58 he uses it to denote a past state that never had terminated. All Greek scholars who understand Hebrew recognize these Hebrew idioms in the Greek New Testament. Details on this point can be found in any standard Greek Grammar of the New Testament.
GOD'S AND CHRIST'S UNITY
"Again the Rev. Stow concludes from the statement of Jesus, 'I and my Father are one' (John 10:30), that Jesus and the Father are one God, one being. That they are not one God or one being, but two beings, Jesus shows (John 8:16-18), 'I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one [of the two witnesses] that bear witness; and my Father [the second of the two witnesses]
The Atonement
498
that sent me beareth witness of me.' It is certainly strange, since Jesus himself and St. Paul show (John 17:11, 21, 23; 1 Cor. 3:8) that the oneness that exists between the Father and Jesus is the same kind of oneness as exists between his faithful followers, therefore not 'one' of a Godhead or being, that any one should seek to predicate a oneness between the Father and the Son nowhere hinted at in the Bible, and one that is everywhere contradicted in the Bible and by sanctified reason. But apart from these reasons the grammatical construction of John 10:30 forbids such a construction of the word one. All Greek scholars are familiar with the rule that Greek adjectives among other ways must agree in gender with the nouns that they modify.
The following are the nominative forms of the Greek numeral adjective for one:
The word for one in John 10:30 is hen, which is neuter gender. The Greek word for God, theos, is masculine by ending, the Greek word for person is hypostasis, feminine gender by ending, and the Greek word for being, ousia, is also feminine by ending. Therefore none of these words can be supplied after the word one, hen, in John 10:30, because according to the rule for the agreement of adjectives in gender with the nouns that they modify, the masculine noun, theos, would require the masculine form of the Greek word for one, i.e., heis; the feminine nouns, hypostasis and ousia, would require the feminine form of the Greek word one, i.e., mia. Consequently since the neuter hen, i.e., one, is used in John 10:30, we could not supply any of these words after the word hen, one, without making the passage read ungrammatically, 'I and my Father are one God,' i.e., hen (!) theos, or hen (!) hypostasis, one person, or hen (!) ousia, one being. What word may be supplied? Since Jesus shows us in John 17:3 that he is not one God or person or being with the Father, and then in John 17:11, 21, 23 that he is one in spirit, disposition, with the Father, we might supply the Greek word pneuma, spirit, disposition, after the word hen in John 10:30 because pneuma is neuter in gender. I and my Father are one [spirit, disposition].
Appendix.
499
"In answer to the Rev. Stow's remark on 1 John 5:7, it may be said: That the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES nowhere teach that originally the doctrine of the trinity was based upon this interpolation; for it cites facts to prove the reverse; but that now in the popular mind it is based on this passage. Even this passage, if genuine, would not prove that the Father, Son and Spirit are one God, Person or Being. The word hen, neuter for one, is here used and for the reason given in the preceding paragraph would only teach that they are one in spirit, disposition, purpose, which thought THE STUDIES endorse.
"Next our critic quotes the Apostolic benediction (2 Cor. 13:14) as proof for the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. At least the Rev. Stow will admit that the passage does not so state. And if their working together in the matter of salvation would prove, as he says, that they are one God, person or being, our working together with God (1 Cor. 3:9, 'We are laborers together with him,' also 2 Cor. 6:1) would prove that we are a part of the Godhead! In which case we would have to abandon the word trinity, i.e., three in one, and call the so-called Godhead 144,003 in one! This word would not look well Latinized or Anglicized!
"The other points of the letter are sufficiently answered in Vol. 5 of THE STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES."