I.
DEAR SIR,
I would renew my purpose to take notice of any passages in which it would appear to me more light might be thrown on the word, as read in English; which I conceive would be a valuable thing to many interested in the study of the scriptures. Often on an isolated expression much chain of argument depends; and again, a single expression often contains a head of argument which clears and satisfies the mind as to its bearings. I do not attach any extraordinary importance to the observations; only I feel that whatever clears scripture to the ordinary reader is of importance-I will add, of importance to God in His loving- kindness to us. I will, trusting to the Lord's guidance, advert to one or two passages in the epistle to the Romans.
First, Rom. 1:1818For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (Romans 1:18): " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." It appears to me, that the ordinary punctuation here mars the sense. Its force I apprehend is this, " all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness "; and this is a most important distinction, for it brings in the whole Gentile world guilty; as the apostle afterward proves. God having been revealed in Christ, wrath is revealed against all ungodliness without exception, because it is such, and as ungodliness, ἀσέβειαν. Your Greek readers will remember that worshipping Gentiles are called by the opposite word to this, that is, σεβομένους, or " devout." Hence we have two great classes-ungodliness universal; and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
I would add another remarkably beautiful circumstance of the most accurate word of God in this passage: wrath is not revealed in Him. In Him, or therein, the righteousness of God is revealed; but there is no " therein " or " in him," when the wrath is spoken of. It is universally revealed. What we have revealed in Christ is, " that he died for the ungodly " (the same word), and of God, that in and by the gospel He justifies the ungodly.
There is another expression which often puzzles the reader, which seems to me very plain by attention to the use of the words of the original-" revealed from faith to faith "; ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. Now I believe that ἐκ (the word here translated " from ") always, when thus used with an abstract word, means the character, or order, or manner, of the thing which is spoken of. Thus salvation is ἐκ πίστεως here, " from faith," as we should say, " faithwise " (a form retained in many common words). This is its manner, order, the dispensation according to which salvation comes. The literal meaning is its source, " out of," which very readily in an abstract word is used in the sense of its order or dispensation. Even in English the expression is not unusual; for example, " It is out of kindness he does it," as we might in a similar sense add, " not through severity." Now I believe this to be the uniform sense of the preposition ἐκ used abstractedly, or in its moral sense, and hence also especially when it is used without the definite article in Greek following it. Applying this to this sentence, of which I will give further instances explanatory of passages in this book, " The righteousness of God is revealed from faith "; that is, according to the principle of faith, or a dispensation of faith, in this order or manner-" to faith," therefore, which is the recipient power consequently in man. The statement is a most perfect abstract of the character of the dispensation: a revelation; the subject of that, " the righteousness of God "; the character of the dispensation by which it is revealed, ἐκ πίστεως, and, consequently, that to which it is so revealed, " faith."
The following may be taken as instances: ἀκροβυστὶα ἐκ φύσεως, " uncircumcision by nature "; and in Rom. 2:2929But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:29) we have an instance of the remark as to the leaving out of the article, ἕπαιωος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, that is, " human praise "; that is, the character of their praise: expressions, in this instance, adequately represented by the English of them.
Again, chapter 3: 20, διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, "by the works of the law," that is, in this way. And hence we have the plain sense of another passage in this book, which has perplexed English readers: " justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith "; ἐκ πίστεως... διὰ τῆς πίστεως. The circumcision had been seeking justification, but they had been seeking it ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, in that way, the wrong way-by works of law. God would now justify them, not in that way but in another way, that is, ἐκ πίστεως, " by faith," according to that principle or dispensation. But, inasmuch as it was upon this principle, the same God would justify, must justify, him who had the principle; and therefore a Gentile who had this faith (God's gift) would be justified through or by it, διὰ τῆς πίστεως. The former being the principle of the dispensation, which involved justification, when the thing existed, the person who had it was justified necessarily upon this principle; and therefore by the same God the believing Gentile was necessarily admitted. It was therefore εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, for the obedience of faith to all nations for His (Christ's) name, the object and subject matter of faith, in whom the Lord requiring the obedience was revealed.
So, in chapter 4: 2, ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, "justified by works," that is, in that way. So οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς—οἱ ἐκ νόμου—ἐξ ἐριθείας. I have given instances sufficient, I believe, to explain what I mean; were I to adduce all the proofs, I should quote every place where ἐκ is used without the article. I would only remark, sir, that it is not a hasty observation, though of course liable to correction, for I have held it in the use of scriptures these nine years, but had not the opportunity of your journal to express it thus.
I have alluded to the use of the article or its omission; and it seems to me a most important point in the use of the Greek Testament. My observation has led me (and in these things we are as dependent on the Lord's guidance, and as much debtors to His mercy as in anything) to this conclusion that, whenever the article is used, it denotes a or the substantive object of the sentence; and where it is not used, the word is always characteristic; and that this rule holds good in all circumstances, though more difficult of discovery, to a mind not accustomed to abstract, in some cases than in others. Granville Sharp and Bishop Middleton have elaborately treated the article, and with great value in many respects; but I believe the above simple rule involves the true decision of every case. Bishop Middleton makes all prepositions an exception; I believe them none. The principle is recognized distinctly in a formal proposition: that is, the subject has, the predicate has not the article; so much so, that if it has, the proposition becomes what is called reciprocal: that is, the terms are so identical in extent, that either could be affirmed of the other. I would note, before I pass on, an instance of this, the mistranslation of which I believe to have been a cause of as much error in the Church as any one thing: ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία, " sin is the transgression of the law." The apostle states no such thing. Sin is lawlessness; or lawlessness, that is insubordination, is sin. Disobedience is sin. This may be proved in breaking the law in a given instance: that is, transgression of the law is sin; but sin is not the transgression of the law, for, ἄρχι γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτὶα ἦν ἐω κόσμῳ. Yet I suppose upon this false translation half the formal judgment of the Church upon what sin is has been founded; but it is not my business to reason upon this here. It is exceedingly interesting from its connection with 2 Thess. 2:3, 7, 83Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (2 Thessalonians 2:7‑8), where we have the man τῆς ἁμαρτίας of sin; and then the mystery τῆς ἀνομίας of iniquity (the two terms of the reciprocal proposition above), concluding with ὁ ἄνομος the wicked one; and I believe it to assist much in the solution or understanding of that passage. I believe there is a much higher characteristic of sin than the breach of a commandment-the spirit of disobedience.
The rule destroys the folly of many Socinian comments, easily else destroyed, such as Wakefield's and the like. " In the beginning was the word," &c.; καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Θεός here is the predicate of λόγος, and if it had had the article, it would have proved that there was naught else at all God but the Word- that the extent of Godhead was equivalent to ὁ λόγος. It has nothing whatever to do with any emphatic sense of Θεός, a sense which I believe Θεός never can be proved to have.
Take another illustrative instance; Rom. 1:2121Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21): διότι γνόωτες τὸν Θεόν, οὐχ ὡς Θεὸν ἐδόξασαν-not clearly as a subordinate God: the apostle's argument is directly the other way. But when they knew God, the Person, the one God, the object of reverence, they glorified Him not in that character. Had the other notion been right or in any instance true, this passage would have no force, unless it were ὡς τὸν Θεόν. I believe then, in every instance where the article is omitted, the noun is characteristic, adjectival in its character; where inserted, it presents the substantive object of thought.
The observations of Granville Sharp quite fall in with this, but are only an instance of it. Thus in τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεὸν καὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, the τόν belongs to Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν-all the rest is characteristic of Jesus Christ, " the only [master] God and our Lord Jesus Christ." The rule has been drawn of old from the reading of the New Testament. If any student of it would take the first seven verses of the epistle to the Romans-a book in which the observation has peculiar value from the character of the reasoning-I think he will find the light it throws on the subject, and be recompensed through the whole of the rest of scripture for his trouble. I am aware it may be found to militate against many reasonings of individuals, with whose results at the same time I may fully agree. I have no doubt myself of its universal applicability and use.
The undoubted truth of it in the case of a preposition is a strong argument for the truth of the principle. To take a single example, Rom. 1:33Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3), περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, this is the substantive object of that sentence. In the next, His identification as Jesus (whom we have known as man) is so. Hence we have τοῦ, that is, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κθρὶου ἡμῶν—ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, this is what He is. Again, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. Now this might perhaps, with almost equal (I do not say equal) force, be διὰ τῆς, though it would then be αὐτοῦ; but it states here the manner of the determination, not the fact by which it is declared, therefore it is simply ἐκ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. So in English we might say " by resurrection," or again, " by the resurrection "; both would be true, their force would be different.
The application of this rule is of most extensive, and consequently immense importance, remembering it is applicable to scripture. I have myself no doubt of its universal truth, but I should feel obliged by any of your correspondents suggesting any passage, if there be any, which falsifies it.
One instance destroys a principle, not a human custom; where there is only one distinct act, the insertion or omission makes no difference in sense, only in force; and hence some apparent difficulty, which for this reason alone I notice.
Thus, in an instance I take casually, πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου νῦν δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων. (Heb. 9:2626For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26).) The point was His often suffering; the other was a necessary, not the substantive part of the sentence. On the matter it would have been equally true ἀπὸ τῆς καταβολῆς τοῦ κόσμου, but the sentence would not have carried the same quantity of moral truth. It gives the characteristic of the period, not the period itself. As in vulgar English, often more pregnant with force than what is accounted refined grammatical language, we say " in kingdom come," it would be much less expressive to say, which is all I am now concerned in, " the kingdom to come "; it would state the same fact, but would not in the same way apply the character of it to the subject of conversation. So again, ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ. Here again the whole force of it arose from this being one of the characteristics of the suffering (indeed that suffering had an essential characteristic from it); whereas if it had been put merely αἰώνων it would have lost much of its force; for there were specific ages, the closing of which as definite things constituted the object which characterized the appearing of the Lord. Thus we shall find the apparent difficulty highly illustrative of the principle.
I believe many an effort at a various reading has arisen from a want of understanding of the sense, and I confess that learned criticisms have often proved to me children playing with toys. I do not despise their value in their place; but no one unspiritual, no one untaught of God, is fit to be a judge (he may be a servant) in the interpretation of the divine word.
I would instance in this Bishops Horsley and Lowth, because of their eminence; men, masters in criticism confessedly, and to be used as such it may be; but in interpretation founded on it by using it alone by intellect, the well taught reader of a mere English Bible would be more to be trusted in all the sense of the scripture writers than they are.
I am well aware of the opinion which would be formed of such an assertion, but I do not make it lightly; and while I would be thankful for their service, as for a grammar or a dictionary, or for their intellect as God's gift, judgment and deference to it I believe to be so far ruin to the Church. I do not say they were in nothing taught of the Spirit: so far as they were, they will be blessed; so far as not, they will be confusion and bad guides to others, so that both would fall into the ditch. I am quite willing, and desire, any remark I make to be subject to the same rule; I need not say that as mere grammatical critics, though not bound by them, I should be content to learn from them, or those far indeed below them.
I add another passage of which the mistranslation is apparent, and its application mischievous in the study Of the divine mind. It is one of the very few passages in the wonderful, though human, translation we have of the New Testament, in which I confess I believe the translators judged of the translation from the sense, which I am perfectly satisfied they, if it be so, mistook. It is Rom. 11:3131Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. (Romans 11:31), οὕτω καὶ οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν, τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθῶσι, so these have now disbelieved your mercy (that is, the mercy to the Church or the Gentiles), that they might be objects of mercy. That is, Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, and that the Gentiles should glorify God for His mercy; but they, having rejected Christ as mercy to the Gentiles, forbidding to preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved, have now lost this ground, and stand upon mercy themselves; and yet God's faith abounding over their lie shall make His promise good, yet so as it shall be mercy. This marvelous wisdom of order and dealing it was which made the apostle cry out " O the depths of the wisdom," &c. The present English translation destroys all this, and mistakes the purposes of God. His mercy they will have; but it is indeed mercy to them now ἐν ἀπείθειᾳ where the Gentiles otherwise once were, now they, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθῶσι. And thus ignorant of this mystery, the Gentiles-the Church- has become wise in its own conceits, subject, in the true judgment of God, to he cut off.
I add, in Hebrew, one which is to me of great interest in Psa. 89 The Holy One of Israel, and the Holy One, are both spoken of, but the words in the original are quite different; in verse 18 it is åÀìÄ÷ÀãÉ֖åùÑ éÄùÀÒøÈàÅ֣ì, in verse 19 it is לַֽחֲסִידֶ֗éêÈ, a word which I believe will be acknowledged ordinarily to mean goodness or mercy. What makes it interesting here is, that it is the same word as is used in verse 1, " I will sing of the mercies of Jehovah forever." It is a concentration of the mercies of Jehovah in the person of the man chosen out of the people-David His servant, one able to sustain all the attributes of Jehovah, spoken of before as the medium of, and making them all, mercy towards His people. It is the same word in verses 24, 28, 33. The whole seems to be the presenting Christ as the sustaining person of Chesed, and the consequences towards those with whom He is united. The same word is used in Psa. 16, when the resurrection of our Lord is spoken of.
I have a strong conviction that the words abstractedly might be applied to either; yet that, when they have a definite formal application, Chasidim applies to the Jewish, Kedoshim to the Gentile or Church saints; but the thing cannot be taken as a simple general rule without more understanding of the subject.
I remain, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
D.