W
W W W
World
Wide Web Witness
Inc.
Home Page Contents
Page for Volume What is New
CHAPTER
4
Translation of Texts in Matthew,
I
Corinthians, Ephesians and Isaiah
Includes in order:
Items: 31,41,43, 33, 35, 52, 21, 32
Matthew 10:8.
31)
Matthew 10:8
Now we come to a case where
both the AV and the NKJV, indeed nearly all versions, are of one kind; whereas
the vast majority of the Greek text is to the contrary. This seems to come about
because those stuck with the Westcott and Hort love of the defective and
careless manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, follow what they
have; and those who follow the Textus Receptus have just the same.
However in this relatively rare instance, the Textus Receptus does not
follow the mass of its family. Remarkably well chosen for its time, it is yet in
this instance not in accord with the very basics of its selection criteria, as
to the family.
Thus in Matthew 10:8, "raise
the dead" does not appear in the large majority (M, as recorded in The Greek New
Testament according to the Majority Text) and it likewise fails to appear in the
parallel passages in Mark (3:15) and Luke, the latter in 9:6 even specifying the
thrust in retrospect, without including it. Luke 10, where the 70 are sent on a
similar mission, has no reference to it either, though the specifics of coverage
are long. In other texts, re Matthew 10:8, it is omitted by many of the "fathers" or early
writers, cited among others being Athanasius and Jerome, and versions - translations from early times; and there are erasures
and even a re-writing here, in Sinaiticus.
The reference of Christ to
raising the dead is found in His OWN account of His fulfilment of prophecy, in
order to re-assure John the Baptist, who sent enquiring (Matthew 11:5, cf. Mark
5:41, Luke 7:11, John 11), in a list of far greater magnitude. At that, however,
no doctrine is involved, since Peter raised Tabitha (Dorcas) , as shown in Acts
9:37-41.
It is true that in an early
place, the disciples are seen baulked indeed, when Christ triumphed, even in a
case of demon possession, though it seems this one was very special!
(Matthew 17:14-21).
Christ's work was beyond
measure (Mark 7:37, 6:56).
It is therefore apparent
that there was scribal involvement of some kind in this text, but that the
united testimony of many kinds weighs too heavily to be ignored, in the
providential pluralities and objectivities of the textual situation as it stands
revealed. It appears then that "raise the dead" should in this instance be
omitted in terms of general criteria. Although as noted this does not affect any
doctrine, it is nevertheless a reminder that 'rules of thumb' such as we may
construct for pastoral convenience are no more than that. On the other hand, as
to doctrine, no difficulty appears ever, and the thoughts of the Lord, His
directions and divulgements, are maintained with splendid precision, fulfilling
His undertaking.
I Corinthians
15:33.
41) I Corinthians 15:33 - Truth
and Tradition
This having been said, it is
fascinating in terms of variety, to notice that there is in I Corinthians 15:33
a case where the AV is far surpassed by the NKJV (both apparently erring in the
preceding case), in terms of clarity. This is no fault of the AV, but it is a
LARGE fault in the approach which would slavishly keep to it. Thus it has,
"Evil communications corrupt
good manners", whereas the NKJV with admirable clarity, puts it thus: "Evil
company corrupts good habits." The New Scofield rendering is "Evil
company corrupts good morals" which has the advantage of being highly idiomatic
in our tongue.
How necessary today is such
a reminder! How searing is the company of the lost whose addictions of mind,
body and spirit are so great that ears, bodily resistance, aims, ideals,
objectives are one great bundle of contagion in many cases, which can obstruct
health in every dimension, tempt and tamper with rapidity born of great cultural
acceptance, TV addiction mechanisms to reinforce, in the interest of money,
power or popularity, for example and parental absence in the pursuit of more
income, more something or other, while the family tissue is often allowed to
rot, a worse than AIDS depression of resistance soon being found in mind, heart
and spirit in the young.
Of course it is not only
this group which is reminded in our text; but it is a poignant reality that
whole lives may be turned, like a just launched ship to the rocks, by an early
tug from community, commune or conquest of peer pressure.
It may be well here to note
a vast difficulty in traditionalism, whether of translation approach or
theological convention, the forbidden man+ism of I Corinthians 3, expounded
further in The Biblical Workman,
Ch.8. (with special reference also to
*2) and in Repent or Perish
1 (and in particular in
*1 of that Chapter). On the side of translation, first then, the case is
clear. The Latin of the RC dominion of ignorance in pre-Reformation (and some
Reformation) times was appalling. It is true that this was compulsory (sundry
people could be burnt if they dared to read and understand) in many cases, per
the diligent opposition to the word of God on the part of the Church of Rome at
that time.
It is true that now the
option of consulting other texts is free in most places. However, diligence is
not everywhere the same, and the deadening weight of tradition does not always
build only on physical compulsion, since cultural constraints readily apply for
many. Hence it is dangerous to make traditional preferences for text have any
constricting force. In the case of the AV, the tradition is a good one, but as
with all tradition, its elevation to (practical) parity with the word of God is
evil, because presumptuous, and not always accurate as shown.
The ACTUAL MEANING in CLEAR
TERMS of what is written is a first priority. But let us diverge for a moment in
a further aspect of traditionalism, as a topic, in a parallel area.
On the
side of theological occlusion, obfuscation, through the man+ism device, that is
expressed elsewhere as noted, so that for the present it is sufficient to note
that not only is it expressly forbidden by Paul, but the simple fact is that the
elevation of (admittedly) heroic Christian figures of the past to -ism status
for those of the present tends to reduce awareness of weaknesses whether at some
point of teaching or approach in the same - and who is perfect among all of us,
sinners - so constricting the word of God. This may occur in two obvious ways:
a) areas left untouched, or
relatively superficial in the past hero's work, may now require because of the
times and their individual pressures, much exposure now.
b) areas of error can be
duplicated like someone using an uncorrected master for the making of thousands
of copies - all the same in fault. The further this goes, the worse the case,
since one may then confirm the other in the error.
The same
type of thing is seen in the 1991 action of the Presbyterian Church of
Australia, in which it was required that one show FROM THE WESTMINSTER
CONFESSION any place which would allow one to depart from any of it, in order to
gain that ... liberty. This was despite the fact that in the Basis of Union of
1901, by which the people were willing to gather as one, LIBERTY WAS EXPRESSLY GRANTED. Here it is
denied in terms of a Confession which itself has the excellent grace to note
that since all assemblies in the past are capable of error and many have erred,
that therefore it is wrong to make any of them a criterion for faith. And what
was the body of those who drew up the Confession except an assembly! Hence the
genius, one of the excellent poverties of spirit which adorn this excellent
Westminster Confession, is turned on its head, while at the same time, a liberty
already granted as a condition of unity is REMOVED, and reduced to NULLITY
except the CONFESSION (of all things, in view of what it expressly demands in
terms of liberty) may be shown (as of course it in fact may be shown) to deny
such stringency.
The net result is both undue
and improper stringency, afflicting the union original basis, and undue laxity,
since the word of God is bound VIA the Confession, which in this sense cannot be
bound. It is of course true that, as the Procurator showed in an official
publication of the PCA (Basic Documents on Presbyterian Polity, 1961, p.
92), decades ago, that the definition of "word of God" must be such as to
conform to the use of that term in other official documents, such as the
Confession, which makes it clear it is "infallible". Since the Word of God
contained in the Bible is the UNCHANGEABLE doctrinal basis of the PCA, it is
thereby bound, though this fact was disregarded for about 40 years in extreme
measure, and is still difficult if not indeed quite impossible to reconcile with
some of the practices of the body.
This
illustrates aptly the danger of using tradition and giving it undue place; since
the word of God alone is adequate, pure enough and sure enough to do the job.
Subordinate standards (as the Confession is deemed to be expressly in the PCA,
in good Presbyterian practice in INTENTION) have great use; but when the
subordinate becomes inordinate it is insubordination! Tradition always has this
peril. It is to be used like radioactive material, by one equipped with gloves
and protective apparel, however useful it can be when rendered ... safe.
To revert to
our I Cor. 15:33 example and its
rendering in the AV. The use of this version now for such things runs a great
risk. The word of God can be suppressed without inquisitorial torture
procedures.
It provides
this:
§"Evil company
corrupts good morals" -
and to have this put in some ancient version
of our native tongue, that actively misleads by suppressing the meaning in our
current speech, this is to use what is good to do what is bad. Such is always
the vulnerability of elevating to parity with the word of God, the traditions of
men (Mark 7:7). It can be direct, dire or indirect, tendential, but it is now
desirable. Indeed to require the AV is presumption, the more when it is
spuriously presented as tantamount to inspiration, thereby bypassing the
evidential reality concerning the Greek and Hebrew text, and adding to the word
of God itself, both in favour of rampant subjectivism. Proverbs 30:6, Mark 7:7
with Psalm 19:13 show the way to avoid. Unwise is the man, the church taking any
such step.
The word of God is to be
presented to every generation with entire and sublime accuracy in the symbols -
words - that express to that people what it says. By policy or confusion to do
anything less is unfaithful, suppressive, a covering over a light that must
shine.
We are indeed fortunate that
in most (but by no means in all) countries, we have or can have the implements
needed, without overt suppression. With the exception noted ('scourging' and one
minor case), the AV does not err in translation AS TO DOCTRINE, that one has
found; while the NKJV, with one major exception noted, does not actively
mislead, though it has less refinement or sensitivity at times in rendering with
a view to all the context*1,
despite its very commendable clarity. With both in hand, the lay reader is
really well placed, though at that, a prepared pastor can lead further safely
from the vast array of translations, using the original languages as attested.
God has made for us teams,
not so that we are utterly reliant on them, but so that in their
co-functionality there may be enrichment and strength. Thus the helps which can
be given pastorally in this way, or through the student work of the lay scholar,
the extensions and the nuances, the touches and the exposures, though not
substantial and not affecting doctrine, are yet of great stimulus and
blessing. The church is a divine invention, and though it does not MAKE
doctrine, for this, the Bible, is in the written word of God from the
infinite mind of God; yet it has both opportunity, office and blessing to
present it faithfully. This is not less so in the field of translation than in
that of exposition.
Ephesians
3:21
43)
Ephesians 3:21
Another translation of
particular interest in its field, is this in Ephesians. Neither the AV nor the
NKJV are impressive here. The phrase of our interest, "throughout all ages, world without end"
is NOT what it says, but it is what the AV has. It is an attempt which is more
fluent in feeling than accurate in depiction in this case. It can readily given
an impression that not merely can cater to this-world worldliness, holding on to
it as to an eternal regime, which it assuredly is not (Isaiah 51:6, II Peter
3:10-13), but it does quietly introduce a word which is not there.
§'All phases of history
here and hereafter'
is the meaning and
anything, for the sake of common speech, putting it more concretely in terms of
the world, changes the text and makes a person without he original vulnerable to
misunderstanding.
It is a poor effort as
translation, this time, on the part BOTH of the AV and NKJV: it is not so much
false as inept. While a person reading II Peter 3 is in little danger, not
all read it at once, and this is thus a weakness in translation. A query to a
pastor, arising from this, could solve it, of course, or the educated reader
might divine the point. But some might not and this translation leaves much to
be desired accordingly.
Even the possibility of
scholarly extensions of meaning of the term for "age", in no way reduces the
direct meaning, its flavour and phrasing; and this rendering exposes those not
versed in Greek to a real danger of mistaking the point. THAT is not the work of
a good translation.
Idolatry of the AV or KJV is
to be avoided : just as they do almost always supply sound DOCTRINE (and an
exception in each case has been noted, and another in an area of fine precision
is about to be in 14) below. Yet they are not to be made shibboleths. The word
of God needs no shibboleths, just as theology needs no name+isms; and it is to
be taken as it is. Testing all things and holding fast by faith, that is our
aim. It is not aided by substituting subordinates for it, or subordinating it to
any kind of convenience, traditional or other. Taking accurately what God gives,
we shall not be disappointed. God has indeed kept His word in exactly the sense
He specified; and it is available fully for testing, for taking, for doctrine
and for truth.
HERE THEN IS A FURTHER
VERIFICATION OF ITS TRUTH, THAT IT IS TRUE IN THIS PREDICTION ALSO.
Matthew 28:9
33)
It is all but amusing in a grave sort of way, to see heretics and those
'concerned'
who may also at times not 'see' how some part fits, and who change some
manuscript in antiquity, so creating some minor tradition of their own; and then
to see how the vat mass of the text remains, both clear and challenging, at
first, and penetrating and enlightening at last.
Thus in Matthew 28:9, the Westcott- Hort
tradition omits "when they were going", but not so the vast majority of texts.
In fact, the verb for
'going' is in the imperfect tense, signifying a continuing or repetitious act or
series of actions. Quite possibly, the sequence is this:
a) the women concerned
all told the disciples in Luke 24:10-11, of the message that Christ was risen
from the very dead (without any mention of the transcendentally important
personal meeting with Christ being recorded there, because quite simply, they
had not at that time seen Him in this way, but received report from the angels
only).
b) Then, like Mary in fact
(John 20), they went back, drifting perhaps and drawn irresistibly, pondering,
wandering, attracted like moths to light, seeking more in the face of the
disbelief of the disciples.
c) Christ then met Mary who
perhaps because of her profound need, and sense of it, went back more quickly
following the race of Peter and John (cf. John 20:11ff., Mark 16:9). She, truly
concerned and deeply moved, addressed the One she thought to be the gardener,
through her tears, the mist of eye compounded with the fog of heart, saying, "If
you have carried Him from here, tell me where you have laid Him" - John 20:15.
d) Later, in the same
vicinity, He meets the women, meandering back unsated with anything new to
provide the disciples, and gives to them also, this direct confrontation and
confirmation. They also held His feet, in worship (John 20:17, Matthew 28:9). Rising from the dead
without even a prophet as intermediary was no small divulgement, like the
transfiguration (Matthew 17, where the divine voice punctuated the divine
light), unique in all recorded history; but in this case, it was also unique in
fulfilling the unique prediction.
However, let us revert to
the text itself. To depart from the overwhelming and vast attestation of the
text as INCLUDING the words "as they were going" or "engaged in going" , is
neither necessary, safe nor wise. Except there be overwhelmingly clear objective
evidence of a transmission error, nothing can be done. It is the word of
another. In this instance, the opposite is the case. This objective
reality is always paramount, lest people become authors of what is then not the
word of God, but the surmise of man. Subjective surmise has here no proper
place, lest the word of man thrust itself into the mouth of God, who in His
infinite wisdom, speaks what He will.
Incidentally, John 20:17
more literally has "cease clinging to me", a more informative translation,
since this particular (present) imperative holds the concept of continuity.
Hence its negation is a CESSATION of that which was continuing: i.e. a ceasing
of clinging.
35)
The case
of Acts
9:35 is of much interest. Here both the
AV and the NKJV have an excess beyond what is written. Thus the latter has - "So all who dwelt at
Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord" , while in the former we
find, "And
all that dwelt at Lydda, and in Sharon saw him, and turned to
the Lord."
Oddly enough
the Pulpit Commentary prefers the Revised Version (English) here, saying that
the addition of "they" to make it, "they turned to the Lord" is better; but it
proceeds to exegete it as if the REASON they turned was this healing. This may
have been a significant feature; but the text does not say this either. These
then are two sorts of translations, one too broad in extent, concerning the
populations, and the other too restricted, in requiring the cause of turning to
the Lord to reside in the healing.
Berkeley does a fine job in precision,
translating it,
"And all the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon, those who turned to
the Lord, saw him."
This is almost a literal translation. The Greek has this, forgetting for
the moment the Englishness of the translation (or otherwise!): "and all those inhabiting
Lydda and Sharon saw him, those who turned to the Lord." It is a way of speaking that they
have, that Luke in particular has, and it is found in a very similar way, and
case, in Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the
word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
This is an accurate translation, but if we take, again, the way it appears in
Greek, for parallel purposes with 9:35, it has, in terms of word order AT THE
POINT of our interest: "And hearing it, the Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of
the Lord, and believed as many as were appointed to life eternal life."
Thus first you get the
ACTION:
"they REJOICED", and "GLORIFIED" and "BELIEVED" - and then with a similar relative
pronoun, we get the qualification as to precisely which category did these
things, "AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED". Thus Luke not only uses this limit,
grammatically, but he does it again nearby in a similar limiting, adding the
limit or qualification, AFTER noting what it was that happened.
This is not trivial, though
of course it is not doctrine as such. It means that there were people in the two
cities mentioned in Acts 9 who SAW the healing, and there were people were
TURNED TO THE LORD, and the two categories were the same. Whether SOME HAD
ALREADY believed (presumably, as Peter went to the Christians already there) who
saw the healing in the Christian midst, and what proportion of the population of
the 2 towns believed, we are not told.
A good translation is found
as noted in Berkeley, but if we tried to make it sound
more natural in English idiom, we might render it:
§"And all those inhabiting
Lydda and Sharon saw him -
those who turned to the Lord."
We often do this, and it simply means
this - that no Christian did not see him as healed, in that place, and there is
an emphasis on action "turned", which suggests it had a strong bearing on the
faith of many, possibly leading to it in a number of cases. These are the
inferences, the sentence in quotation marks, however, is what we are TOLD. It is
wise to separate text from inference! Let it say what IT wills, while we think
what we may, but separate our thoughts of appearances and possibilities from
what is stated. Is this not what we like others to do to us; how much more do we
do this when it is the Lord who provides the data!
52) Revelation 20:4 is an interesting case. BOTH the NKJV AND the
AV do an inadequate work in translation here; though in this case, the NASV, The
American Revised Version and the English Revised Versions
do well. The NIV is all but unbelievable in its change of the text in this case,
being even less accurate to the original than the AV and the NKJV. This
therefore represents a case where NEITHER the AV nor the NKJV have an accurate
readout; but two famous revisions do have it right; and this is most exceptional
indeed. If it were not important, one could ignore it, but it has repercussions
which make it worth while attending to it.
The case is this.
The NASV rightly puts:
§"I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of
the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not
worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their
forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for
a thousand years."
However, the AV has "that
were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which
had not worshipped"; while the NKJV has this: "who had been beheaded for
their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped
the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on
their hands." In the English 'translation', this allows for a double condition
for those present: that is, they BOTH had been beheaded and had not
worshipped... They are a selection of the saints.
The Greek, however, has a
participial phrase for the first set, "souls of those who had been beheaded"
and then in the second reference, that is to the group "who had not worshipped",
instead of a parallel participial phrase, it uses a finite verb and notes "and those who had not worshipped". It is not only a grammatical
change, one which designates this group clearly and pointedly; it is a clear and
simple assertion. These people were present.
Indeed, the verb for "saw"
has three objects:
1) the thrones, near to it;
2) the souls as quoted above; and
3) those who did not do homage.
These are what he saw,
ending in the "and" for the last one. The "souls" are further defined in terms
of a genitive participial phrase "of the having been beheaded people". The third
category is further detailed by a further clause, with a finite verb, indicating
what they had not done. The selected grammatical architecture preserves clarity.
The term used relative to
"had not worshipped", oitines, thus is "all those who". The plural
of ostis, it represents a bald recital
of a group in question, exhaustively. ALL THOSE WHO HAD NOT WORSHIPPED have
something predicated of them. They were present entirely, as a group, at this
time. That is? In other words, this is the first resurrection, that of those
beheaded, just as also of those not worshipping the beast. They are ALL
there. The bridesmaids who were asleep, certainly, are not there (Matthew 25);
but those who were awake with hearts burning, they were ALL there. To the
wedding they have gone (Revelation 19:8), to be clothed with the robes sparkling
white with the washing of the blood of the Lamb (as defined in Revelation 1:5,
7:14), and their righteousnesses (as stated - see End-Note
*2
in Section 1, pp. 161ff.) are both a donation and enveloping (cf.
Appendix 4, The Biblical Workman).
Berkeley puts this well re Matthew 22, where
the parable of the wedding guest WITHOUT his proper clothes is told, and he is
REMOVED to a dire fate. He indicates that the rejected guest had failed to use
the grace provided, and had depended on his own presentability! Quite contrary
is the covering and glory of the saints as declared in Isaiah 61:10, I will
rejoice - nay!
- "I will greatly
rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He has clothed me
with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of
righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments and as a bride
adorns herself with her jewels."
The imputed
righteousness and all its glories, as perfected in and by Christ, untouched by
the hand of man, cleaned with the holiness of eternity, covers the bride. It is
a righteousness wanted, washed and worn, without trace of unacceptability
because with no trace of human production. The savour of Christ, the
satisfaction of Christ, His thrust and working in us both to will and to do: it
is all there in its grand beauty, with no derivative of the flesh at all.
With Christ come ALL the
saints (Zechariah 14:5) while He comes to be admired in all those who believe
(II Thessalonians 1:10), with Him as His own bride.
These then are they, who are
noted in Revelation 20:4: there is no limitation. The categories are
comprehensive. The entire course of the beast is before us; those dying in
Rome’s first manifestation like those in later days. Now let us examine the
category of those who had NOT done this homage to the beast, more thoroughly.
Who then
has not so worshipped ? The beast as we see in Daniel, has multiple
representatives, indeed beasts of a type are so homogeneous spiritually, that
they are composed into one body in the symbolism of Daniel 2, while put in
separate carnal convulsions and convolutions, in the beast parade of Daniel 7.
The last beast, the fourth of Daniel 7 is as noted in SMR, the partly strong and
partly broken Roman body that stretched from imperial Rome to Holy Roman Empire
to later assortments, and it has its supportive dragon with lamb's clothing, and
its 'female' adornment (Revelation 17:6). But where is the beginning of the
thing ?
Moving back in Daniel's
imagery, we find in Daniel 7, that the pictogram given him was an historical
device to relay and relate to a series of imperial world dominions, and as also
shown in SMR, and explicit in Daniel, these are shown from Babylon on. We move then back to Babylon, the head of gold in Daniel 2.
Babylon however did not spring from nowhere.
In its denunciation at great length and with that same magnificent sweep of
historical power which we find from the lips of the Lord in the Bible, we find
partly in Jeremiah 50-51 and partly in Isaiah 13, its own place in the scheme of
things. Its lofty self-assurance, its failure to have any compunction in being
used as a broom of the Lord to sweep out the dirt of Jerusalem and Judah, is
linked to its partial namesake Babel, where this same disregard of divine things
was no less apparent. Thus we read in Jeremiah 51:53-54:
"Though
Babylon were to ascend up to
heaven,
And though she were
to fortify the height of her strength,
Yet from Me
plunderers would come to her," says the Lord.
The sound of a cry
comes from Babylon,
And great
destruction from the land of the Chaldeans,
Because the Lord is
plundering Babylon
And silencing her
loud voice..."
Just as Babel
was indeed to "ascend up to heaven" in its heedless and reckless haste to
divine honours or power or survey or situation (Genesis 11), and the Lord
engineered its destruction because of its vapid and rapid grasping for a
greatness which did not and could not so belong to it, so its namesake covered
many religions, basked in grandeur and did not bother about the transgression of
revelation involved in its empire-building spiritual enterprises, as rash and
brash as the current internationalising of religion which goes on apace in the
UN, in the "international community" and in the hearts of many who, though they
may inhabit churches, make so fast and loose with the Bible that they seem but a
convenient way-station for building into the heavens themselves, from which
pathetically some look in the mere created universe, for celestial messages!
The spirit of
Babel and of Babylon is alive and as sick as ever, but strong in its throes for
the time as predicted; and many have been those who have worshipped there
throughout all history from the first; but those who have NOT so worshipped and
have not taken such a mark, the whole company of the elect throughout history,
"all the saints" (I Thessalonians 3:13, cf. Zechariah 14:5, Deuteronomy 33:2-3*2),
they will be there, fresh from the marriage feast of the Lamb (Revelation 19),
where as "his wife" (19:8) they have been regaled by His regality. The cloud of
witnesses (Hebrews 12:1), which sums up the vast review of history in Hebrews
11, where the FAITH has been seen with arms and legs, at work, will indeed
witness. (Cf. SMR p.
1031C, and
SMR Index, 'Babylon the Great'.)
But let us ask this further
question. What of those who at ANY time worshipped the beast? Would that be
fatal, unrepentable? Whether or not a worship of the beast is deemed to be (and
therefore is) fatal, that is to say, an element in the unforgivable sin, or
whether the concept is the normal one that sins repented of are dismissed (and
that this could be repented of) is not stated.
However in the absence of
anything to the point here, it would seem invasive to assume there is a special
case here when it is not mentioned. Presumably therefore, it is as in Ezekiel
18:21. If someone heeds the warning of the watchmen, though he were appointed to
very death, if he repents and turns, he is forgiven, and this sin will not be
remembered. As both Old and New Testaments put it, "I will remember their
sins no more", or as Micah says, "You will cast their sins into the depths of
the sea".
In fact, of
course, this is a universal statement for this world, it is a principle
plenipotentiary. However, WOULD any such person repent? We do not know. There is
no assurance that this is an exceptional, once-gone-never-repent case.
What is quite
certain is this: those not so engaged are present. This is quite simply the
assemblage of the church of Jesus Christ present in the millenium.
It is not some special paratroop corps only. The book of Revelation is not a
development of difference here, but provides expression in most salient and
solemn terms sufficient to arouse the due circumspection of dabblers in the
depths of the follies of this earth as its rigor mortis sets in, at the
last days, now coming upon us like a mist from the sea.
On Rev. 20:4 see
also Sparkling Life in Jesus Christ Ch. 10,*2,
which deals further with the topic.
Isaiah 64:4-5
21) Isaiah 64:4 is of great interest, the more since 64:5 is stated to
have occasioned immense difficulty in interpretation. Obviously, how 64:4 is
rendered will greatly affect the flow and sense of sequence to 64:5. What meets
this need, if solving any puzzle, hence would be commendable for rigorous care.
In this
case, there has been a considerable addition in the material given, to that
first appearing in The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch. 9.
a) THE
THEMATIC ASPECT
The AV renders Isaiah 64:4
like this: "For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor
perceived by the ear, neither hath eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath
prepared for him that waiteth for him." Certainly, 16th century English does not
help. Why should it! Using former usages does not aid modern problems.
However, let us pass on from
this. The beauty, dignity, perception often involved in the AV are genuine
arguments for its high place in the arena of translations; its facility in our
speech at the contemporary level, quite naturally and indeed necessarily, is
not. But there is more here, much more. In this instance, it appears to be
giving a quite indefensible translation. Before we consider this, let us note
some other renderings of this verse. Thus the NASB has (to take the main area of
divergence only): "neither has eye seen a God besides Thee, who acts in behalf
of the one who waits for Him." Delitzsch in his magnificent and famed commentary
set, has this here: " a God beside Thee," and proceeds to the point of His
action "on behalf of him that waiteth for Him."
The Berkeley version: "seen a God besides Thee
who works for him who waits for Him."
E.J. Young in his immense
Isaiah commentary: "a God beside thee, he doeth to the one waiting for him."
This gives, he states, in v.4 a reason for what was stated earlier in verse 3:
thus God is in v.3 stated to have DONE wonderful, astonishing things for Israel
in past times, and the principle is now enunciated: He DOES (acts) for the one
who waits for Him. He is not an illusory, philosophical, clairvoyant's muse type
of God. He acts. He has power. He used it before. He still does. THESE, the
'waiting' for HIM, are conditions (cf. Hebrews 11:6).
While the sense in all these
is much the same, it is fascinating in the context to consider the very
literal translation: "seen GOD, besides Thee. He acts for the one who waits for
Him." The last clause is from a participle, "the one who waits for Him", and the thrust preceding, 'GOD', is dropped into the scene like a
vast, awesome wonder. Here is the ONLY ONE WHO as GOD is there; the rest are NOT
GOD (Deuteronomy 32:17,18,21). The last has this: "They moved Me to anger
with that which is NOT GOD" (last caps. added). Besides HIM, nothing intelligible, real at
all. It is this God who IS, the I AM, who ACTS (being able) for those who wait.
Attention has been drawn to
Deuteronomy 29:2 and Joshua 23:3 where quite the same emphasis is being made.
Moses recapitulating, says to the people,
"You have seen all that the Lord did before your
eyes in the land of
Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all
his servants and to all his land; the great trials which your eyes have
seen..."
Here, it could
readily have been part of this very address in Isaiah, so close is the
wording, the concept, the emphasis! It is a case of what the Lord DID, and
indeed did BEFORE YOUR EYES, and further, the things which YOUR EYES HAVE SEEN.
This moreover fits with the recurring emphasis in Isaiah 41-48, that God is the
One who DOES IT, fulfils it, makes it happen, whether in general, as in Ch.48,
or in particular, as for Cyrus the coming deliverer for the Jews, who would send
them home from Babylon. (We shall emphasise the point below.)
In the latter case, that of
Joshua, we find:
"And you have seen all
that the Lord your God has done to all these nations because of you: for the
Lord your God is he who has fought for you."
Again there is the relevant action,
the rescuing action, the notable action.
This is a frequent theme.
In Psalm 78
it is the same; and there too, you see the additional challenge. THEY despite
all this have sinned and provoked the Lord, in the very face of such repeated
and marvellous ACTIONS, wonders, things DONE!
In Joshua 23:14, we read a
further strand in this theme:
"... not one thing has failed of all the good things which
the Lord your God spoke concerning you; all have come to pass to you, and not
one thing has failed..."
GOD reveals Himself as He will! The NOT-GOD crew are wholly
deficient in evidence; God abounds in it.
b) THE
GRAMMATICAL ASPECT
The AV adds here. It
provides what the text does not state. The word 'what' is added. Hence and hence
only, they get the ... rendering, 'WHAT HE HAS PREPARED'. It is however
the translators who have prepared that word 'what'.
To add a word, however, when
the sense is both clear and straightforward, the sequence cogent, is
indefensible. That way, anything can be made ambiguous, and things can be
manufactured, rather than translated.
Poetry may require
understanding that perceives words which are omitted from a necessary intended
sense, for stylistic reasons; or dropped out because of the constraints of
metre, etc., so that the alert reader, seeing there is no way of AVOIDING
addition, is willing to see the implicit point and put it in.
However this is a part of
the words of God which are 'all clear to him who understands', as Proverbs 8
expressly states. It is not a matter of strange oracles for powerful prophets to
make sense of some way or other, to their own personal and highly individual
satisfaction. It is intrinsically clear, not crabbed, contrived.
That is the point: the word
at times be difficult, challenging, profound indeed, and what more natural when
it is God who speaks: but clear? THAT is another question. The word before
us is eminently clear, and unless some reader fashions on the mistaken idea that
you can treat a clear statement as having optional extras which would profoundly
change an already clear meaning, clear it stays.
The additional mode here would
be to interpret the word of God contrary to its own claims and constraints, and
for anyone, would be playing somewhat fast and loose with the words actually
given. In other words, when what is present is both exceedingly clear and
impressively direct, and flowing like one stream with other scripture and
context, to add to this is to put the words of God into the hands of men - never
a wise procedure, and NOT a divinely PERMITTED PROCEDURE.
c) CONTEXT
Verse 5 in this passage of
Isaiah 64, at once keeps to the exact sequence given. God acts (verse 4), and
God meets (v.5 - one form of ACTING, not being mere dream or thought or ideal or
inclination, but personal, powerful and active in our affairs - in certain
specified WAYS, as is the case in all the other contexts noted!). Whom does He
meet ? The text tells us of 64:5:
"He has met the one who rejoices and works
righteousness" - indeed, "those who remember Him in His ways".
What could be more
straightforward, cogent, elicitive, impactive!
"You have met
the one who rejoices and works righteousness,
those who remember You in Your
ways"
GOD HAS ACTED in spectacular
fashion in the days of Moses and Pharaoh, for the people. More generally,
GOD ACTS for those who wait for Him. So far, that is the thrust or movement in
verses 3 and 4, respectively. Indeed, GOD acts in a SPECIAL WAY for those who wait for Him, at the
now individual level. After all (verses 5b-7), there is a massive movement AWAY
from God before us in the context, so that God is acting differentially towards
those who in fact WAIT for Him.
What is this special way
noted so boldly in verse 5: "Thou meetest him who rejoices and works righteousness" -
not merely some homogenised 'righteousness' but the sort which arises in those
who remember Him in His ways, His words, His witness, His past dealings. Why
however this: 'rejoices'? That is indeed a question for our own generation set
so firmly in so many sad ways of degeneration (see
"Generation of the Dispossessed" - Appendix 1, Barbs, Arrows and Balms).
Literally, here, it is "hast
met" or "You have met" and despite idiomatic considerations, it seems best to
retain this; but to do so with some thought.
Thus, what precedes is this ,
"He acts for the one who waits for Him," and we then have "You have met him who
rejoices ..." and then literally proceeds, "In Your ways they (will) remember
You" or "remember You" (either tense is here possible). It appears always best
to be as sensitive as the bounds of comprehensible language in the language into
which one translates, to the original. It can, and here it seems, does make a
difference to the depth of understanding. Thus here, we could render much as
Young does, with a little less literalness but a little more flexibility to the
style of our language, together with some effort to be even closer to the text.
In the last statement, effort is however made to relate more intimately in
rendering the context :
§
"And from eternity, they have not heard, they have not given ear,
nor has eye seen a God beside You, who works for the one who waits for Him.
"You have met
with the one rejoicing and executing righteousness.
In Your ways they remember You.
"Look,
You have been wrathful, and we have sinned: in those ways is eternity, and we
shall be saved."
Thus then we
have for Isaiah 64:4-5.
It is needful
also to note that there is no "who" or "those who" in the text, between the waiting and the
rejoicing. Hence the new sentence as in Young's rendering: "In their ways, they
remember You". This then becomes not an added feature of those who He has
met, but a characteristic to be found in them. It is not so much causative as
consequential in concept: like a shimmer of perfume found in flowers given
recognition in some show, which is to be found them, although this was not a
criterion.
It would be very difficult to
be lithely comprehensible, it seems, in our language, and yet faithful to the
original, than this translation above given; and when you do act in this
way, there is gain. Thus now we see that
there is a CHARACTERISTIC in God's relationship to man. He WORKS for the one who
waits for Him. This is not now or then, but BOTH! It is what happens, it is -
How He acts! This being so, there is reference to the KNOWN, that is, to times
past when it is all clear from what was said by the Lord and by what He did, and
their correlation giving magnificent scope for a correct understanding.
Thus "You HAVE met" is most
meaningful and intimate to the context, and ... what is there! Next, we revert
to the present, because although the past has been summoned in order that we
might reflect, as so often in the Psalms (e.g. 78, 106) on what actually
happened, it is IN ORDER to relate to the initial statement of the way God acts
to man in GENERAL. Hence we quickly revert to the present ... "they REMEMBER
you" in their ways. These are the ones to whom He is acting, acting for them as
they wait for Him. It is the generic, the way things are, now OR then!
Next, the prophet is moved to
summon reflection on their own particular status quo - "we have sinned", and
this, in all humility, all races and people at all times since Adam, can adhere
to: it is the case. It is useless, as I John 1 points out, to deceive yourself:
ALL have sinned, as Paul too notes in Romans 6:23. There is therefore here room
for empathy which increases the sense of universality which pervades these
verses, even though this universality is APPLIED to Israel at that time.
We now look at the basic
contrast in the verses. There are those who WAIT and REJOICE IN HIS WAYS, and
these of course as we see in Habakkuk 3:6, "His ways are everlasting", are of
His own unique kind. Thus we read concerning those who have so rejoiced and so
remembered Him in HIS ways: "In them is eternity" and then "and we shall be
saved." Lest any forget in the intense inter-relationships here, what "them"
here means, it seems best to repeat the point which is eternal, from the above
context, namely "His ways", in correlation with other scripture, and so we come
to the translation above given.
As may be seen simply from
the above, the "You met" is seen in the total movement of the words in 64:4-5,
by no means to evacuate the present, but to reinforce it FROM the past, in terms
of the general characteristics provided, for the Lord. Indeed, in those ways is
ETERNITY! There is nothing limited in time when this is the way!From first to
last, it is the continuity which is question, the disruption being the special
prerogative of sin, which interferes like static, like sand in machinery, with
the normative, and has its own reward. Thus God acts, now or then.
It is not indeed a real
question for the practising Christian, who not only sees this eternity of kind,
in the ways of the Lord, but sees the manifest Saviour in the definitive
declarations.
Christ told us in John 16 we find, that
our joy should be full, that we should ask and obtain, and Peter in I Peter 1
tells of joy unspeakable and full of glory, while I Peter 4:13-14 tells of a
transcendent joy as the spirit of God and glory rests on the persecuted servant
of the Lord, and one has experienced just this. It is so. It is all the case, in
life, just as it is prescribed in the word of God. As He says, so HE DOES! And
there, that is the continual emphasis here. THIS too is something that HE DOES.
It is HIS JOY - "that My joy may remain in you", Christ declared (John 16:22-24; 15:11).
However, it is here
literally,
"You met him who rejoices and works".
This is the norm of the past, the principle
which is contrasted with the contemporary, sad scene as depicted by the prophet.
Of vast interest is this point:
it is the
GOD WHO ACTS ON BEHALF OF THOSE WHO WAIT,
and who in particular, has
MET
with those who ACT, or WORK RIGHTEOUSNESS.
This is where E.J. Young's rather
awkward sounding rendering has real merit. He says 'DOES': God DOES and the one
who DOES righteousness, with the whole will of God and word in his heart -
here consider John 15:7,
"If My words abide
in you, and you abide in Me,
you shall ask what you will, and it will be done to
you" -
is seen in a
refreshing rejoicing. Compare John 14:21-23!
Hear again from the text just given: "DONE" to you. GOD is the GOD WHO ACTS, and
those who expect and wait and abide will find it so, not in some mere principled
fashion (though God does not change and is faithful to the uttermost part), but
in a way which IN ADDITION, has the personal splendour of His joy-creating
presence. If a great painting has produced delight in the artistic, what does
THE GREAT GOD produce in the one WHOM HE MEETS, did meet, does meet, and will
meet when the faith and abiding is present!
NONE is present, there is none "BESIDES THEE" who is GOD! That is
one of the basic thrusts throughout Isaiah, as for example in Isaiah 40:21-26,
41:21-24-42:6, 42:8, 43:11-13, 44:6-8, 44:24, 45:5, cf. 46:10. Indeed a very
close parallel to what is in Isaiah 64:4 is 45:5: “I am the LORD and there is none else, there is no God beside
me: I girded you, though you have not known me.”
That is to Cyrus, whereas in Isaiah 64:4 we move to the
domain of those who remember Him in His ways, by contrast, and rejoice! Yet the
designation of who God is, this is quite parallel.
A God
beside Him ? Such is not to be met,
it has never been found,
from eternity to eternity (as in Psalm 90:1-2): HE ALONE is God. It is HIS WAYS
which are everlasting and HENCE NONE has ever found, ear has not heard, nor eye
seen, any besides Him, no, no deity, for they lack, eternity does not know them,
nor does temporality find them. From eternity this is the empirical fact; it is
in eternity that the reason lies, for HIS ways are everlasting. This is their
unique nature, their sovereign disposition: on earth they resound, in heaven
abound.
There is none else, and
over eternity other 'gods' are vainly sought, or their base equivalents, which have not the
benefit of existence! It is precisely there that 'nothing' lies: for there is NO
OTHER GOD, for all else vaunted here is in the realm of NOT-GOD (as in Deuteronomy 32:17)
where the name alone, like a distant scene painted, but having no reality, with
only the inscription without so much as the colour or item, is viewed in some
fusty gallery.
There, in the NOT-GOD
realm, is the domain of imaginative corruption, intellectual corrosion,
ideational dispersion, ontological vacancy and human asininity. This makes ruin
to the lungs from smoking cigarettes, like sheer wisdom by comparison: for that
is NOT AIR which corrodes the lung tissue, but this is NOT GOD which by its
sheer vacancy, kills the lungs of the spirit, gives exit to life and entry to
damnation, that final disposition of the dynamics of inherent folly.
Such is the glorious impact
of the inspired text, and grievous is failure to reproduce it. Unhappily, it is
not clear in the AV that this is so. NOWHERE EVER is there found but HERE in Him
who is the Lord, the God who acts for those who wait for Him, the event creating
God, the God of power and compassion, accessibility and reality. Sin separates
from this bountiful and blessing God, but His ways are eternal, the text goes on
to say: in HIM we shall be saved, says the voice of faith to the certainties of
the only God, a God who is God indeed, with name, fame and power alike, joined
with concern and reliability.
A God besides Him ? eternity
has not heard, time is mute to the point, action is denied. There is none such:
but the One who is heard, is seen to work, HE it is who is the GOD WHO ACTS.
Like GOD WHO PROVIDES, in Genesis 22:13, Jehovah-jireh, this is GOD WHO ACTS, a
revelation of His nature, that He not only has a sole place as God, but such a
place as this! He acts of course AT HIS WILL (I John 5:14-15), and withholds at
His discretion (as in Isaiah 32:14ff., Hosea 5:14-15); but not arbitrarily. If
indeed we abide in Him and His words in us, Christ explains (John 15:7),
"you shall ask what you will, and it will be done to you."
Such is the wonder of this
classic, impactive and precious text.
The rendering of the AV may
have been intended consciously or more probably unconsciously, to reflect
the wording of the reference in I Corinthians 2, where Paul touches on
this passage in Isaiah; but Paul is not limited to one passage, any more than we are, when
he refers to the scriptures: they are ALL WRITTEN! Psalm 31:19 has much of
the other element, with Psalm 16:11 and especially 17:15; with Isaiah 65:16-17.
Penetrating to much, and distilling in his inspiration, the apostle brings out
the relevant feature with all its multi-faceted wonder.
It is unfortunate that the AV
is in this case inferior to the accurate rendering procedures; but this unusual
lapse in that version helps
people not to idolize it! It is so often very dependable, and in general is
almost a monument to integrity; but we cannot rest on
others, or idolatrise what is outstanding: for it is ONLY ON THE LORD that one must rest.
It is always to HIS word as
it is, not as some have in their labours, marvellous or otherwise in general,
presented it. Constant vigilance is part of the glory of being free in Christ,
testing all things by HIS word, which is as HE gave it, not as some have
rendered it. Traditions of men can come in doctrine, in dogmas about this or
that, invented from the air. It is the word and will of God Himself which is
without comparison, and it is this fact which must motivate all translation,
neither novel for personal glory, nor hoary with tradition, because of the fear
of man, or laziness.
We must collect all we can
from every source and be glad of all that the Lord over time has done for His
people, without idolizing theologian or translator or any other thing (cf.
I Cor. 3:3ff., and 3:21-22, and the camp mentality - see Repent or Perish,
Ch.1, Endnote1). Let us be thankful for the CARE of the AV and the scope of the
whole, and yet acknowledge that, not only from our barracked-for team, we
must be prepared to learn, but from other translation sites, where the word of
the Lord is actually honoured. At times, too, some phase of a translation is
marred; but not all.
Matthew 11:27
A
Double Addendum
32) Next,
Matthew 11:27 is of much interest.
Here the AV has of the Son, concerning those to whom He will reveal Himself,
this: "he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal Himself". This is inaccurate, quite simply. It
is in fact:
§"he to whomsoever the Son wills to reveal Himself" - as in the NKJV.
The Greek verb added (there are two
in action here) signifies this action of Christ's will, His disposition to
determine or decide or resolve, and it is much more than a simple expression of
the future tense, which is all that appears expressly in the AV in this case!
This is another case showing
the folly of idolatry, or even obsessive disregard or neglect of what the Lord
has done outside the admittedly excellent KJV. It is quite wrong to neglect
these workings of His body (cf. Ephesians 2:20ff., 4:16). This, His body, is MADE with a
view to interaction, and scholarship is simply one way of assisting this over
time, including the past in review of translations, and proceeding onwards. It
is no part of purity to adopt a translation in a blindfolded fashion, though it
is true there has been much and even gross provocation in the form of the use of
indefensible theories concerning manuscripts, to limit the word of God,
divorcing it from its own eloquent and elegant preservation testimony.
Let us however return to
dwell for a further moment on Matthew 11:27 and what the actual text, now
exposed, has for us to learn when the "wills" is added, as found in the Greek.
It brings to light that the
Son is not some sort of quasi-mechanical device with no personality, who simply
implements like a CEO. His relationship to the Father is far more profound than
that. It is quite true that as the word, He is the One sent, from the speaker,
if you will, the One who speaks. It is equally accurate that He spoke as His
Father commanded (John 12:48-50). It is however also true that He
is in delighted (Psalm 40:1ff.) correlation with His Father, is heard by His
Father (John 11:41-42), has upon Him "the Spirit of counsel and might" (Isaiah 11:2), and that in Him is "all the fulness of the
Godhead in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).
The concerted collaboration
of Son and Father, especially in the glory before this world was (John 17:1ff.)
was such then that there was no smallest question of Christ's character and love
being at all shortcircuited, cramped, crimped or pinched. What HE was on earth,
He was before it, in heart and mind, only the FORM (Philippians 2) having become
lowly, and subject to explicit direction in a vulnerable setting.
Hence as shown in
Predestination and Freewill, it is a gross misunderstanding of the
nature of deity, to imagine that the Christ who as on earth, was absent in the
predestinative activities of the deity, or that His principles and perceptions,
His values or His character were mutative: for as to God, in Him there is no
shadow of turning or variation (James 1:17), and He, Christ is God (John 20:28,
8:58, Philippians 2:6). It is no question of sovereignty dictating away, and the
sovereign putting a stamp on it. HE IS THE SOVEREIGN: GOD is not under
sovereignty, but sovereignty is under God: it is HIS, and expresses HIMSELF. The
FATHER is precisely mirrored in His Son, and the SON precisely
mirrors His Father and it is from both that the SPIRIT comes (John 15:26), who
shows forth the Son, and through whom is given the word of God (II Peter
1:19-21, Acts 4:25, Isaiah 34:16), which we have preserved for us, as is
preserved likewise the soul of each, by His grace, when we know Him!
Fully inscribed in
predestination is the reality of the Christ who showed the Father in His own
Person (John 14): fear of it is as foolish as is fear of Christ not receiving
one who in faith comes to Him. These things we know from the Bible as shown in
Predestination and Freewill; but Matthew 11:27 helps us to recognise them
perhaps even more clearly.