03.01. Introductory

Introductory

"Oh, how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day." It would mean much for his own spiritual well-being and for the advancement of the church of God if every Christian could truthfully make the announcement of the Psalmist. For it remains true, as the ancient Scriptures taught, and as our Lord Jesus Christ declared, that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

"Hard to be understood."

We have the authority of an apostle of Christ for the view that in the Scriptures are "some things hard to be understood." There need be no wonder at this. The way of salvation is made so plain that "the wayfaring man, though unlearned, shall not err therein." The vital things are most clearly revealed, and no one of humblest estate is so handicapped by lack of leisure, wealth or learning, that he may not know enough to have the blessed assurance of redemption through Jesus Christ his Lord. But yet the Scriptures are to us as an inexhaustible mine of wealth much of which can only be extracted by diligent and unremitting labor. Why should we expect all to be easy here, when we have to earn our daily bread in the sweat of our brow? Seeing there is need of the most painstaking study and application on the part of one who would advance in scientific knowledge and read the lessons of "Nature’s infinite book of secrecy," why should there not be a similar demand for diligence, and even strenuous study on the Part of those who would understand the riches of grace, the treasures of divine wisdom, hidden in the Scriptures? It is not unreasonable that Peter should write that "the ignorant and unstedfast" wrest the hard sayings of Scripture "unto their own destruction." The numerous conflicting interpretations of Scripture heal, witness, in part, to the inherent difficulty of the sayings. They may more often be attributed to ignorance and lack of stedfastness on the part of the interpreters. Our present writing, however, is not concerned with such passages. It is our purpose to give a series of studies of texts which can legitimately be rendered or interpreted in more than one way. The student of Holy Scripture knows that there are many such passages. It may be of interest to those who cannot give much time to minute study of the text, or who are wont to read from one version alone to deal with some of these "ambiguous texts".

Variant readings.

Sometimes the varieties of renderings given in the different translations are due to the fact that the readings of the manuscripts vary. No New Testament manuscript extant goes back beyond the fourth century. That there are many divergent readings is not surprising, and the fact is made plain in the marginal readings an d references of our English Revised Version. Some of the differences in the texts of the common and revised versions, and again in the English revision as compared with the American Standard Revised Version, are due to the adoption by the translators of different Greek readings. In Moffatt’s New Translation, again, we occasionally have renderings and alterations due to his choice of a Greek text which was not adopted by most other translators. Instances of variant readings both in Old Testament and New will readily occur to most readers. The omission from our Revised Version of such passages as Acts 8:37, John 5:4, 1 John 5:7, and Matthew 18:11, is due to the fact that the revisers felt that the great weight of manuscript authority was against the readings. The familiar words of "the Lord’s Prayer," "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" are for a like reason excluded from Matthew’s record. Similarly, the third petition of the prayer ("Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth") and the words "Deliver us from the evil one," are omitted from Luke’s account, though "many ancient authorities" include them. Many such instances occur. Where there is not omission, there may be great variation. For instance, the remarkable difference between the common and the revised rendering of Jude 1:22-23 is largely due to uncertainty in the reading of the Greek text. In Mark 7:4 our translation has the words "wash themselves" where the American version has the more definite "bathe"--each being given as a rendering of the Greek word "baptise" but the marginal note indicates that there is an alternative Greek rendering "sprinkle themselves." Curiously, this has led some to think that our translators meant that the Greek word "baptizo" could legitimately be translated by "sprinkle," than which nothing can be more unfounded. The contrary is the case; some manuscripts have "rantizo," which of course would be translated by "sprinkle"; but our translators (English or American) did not suggest that "baptizo" could possibly be so translated.

Ambiguities and doubtful applications.

There are in the Greek text ambiguities of construction. This is not strange, for we have similar ambiguities in English and other languages. Shakespeare’s line, "The Duke yet lives that Henry shall depose," is a well-known example of amphiboly or ambiguity of structure. There are similar ambiguities in the New Testament. One of the best known of these is "Lovest thou me more than these?" which will later he dealt with in detail.

Some ambiguous texts are of a different kind. The application of a word may be doubtful. For instance, the word "pneuma" is used of the human spirit and of the Holy Spirit. It is not easy in some places to say whether the reference is to the divine or the human. Our translators have indicated the difference by the use of the capital "S" where in their judgment the Holy Spirit is meant. The great majority of the passages are clear and simple, but in some cases there is ambiguity. An excellent illustration is found in Romans 8:4-5. Our English Revised Version reads: "That the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit." The Common Version and the American Standard Revised Version both read "Spirit." All three versions make Romans 8:9 ("if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his") refer to the Holy Spirit, though many preachers in their sermons on this text wrongfully speak as if "the Spirit of Christ" merely meant his character or disposition. The three versions named all again agree that 1 Corinthians 2:12 should read: "We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God." The word is "pneuma" in each case. A similar confusion may arise with the word "psukee," which stands either for "soul" or "life." Compare, for example, the following passages in common and revised versions: Matthew 10:28, Matthew 10:39; Matthew 16:25-26; Mark 8:35-37; Luke 9:24-25; in each case the word "life" or "soul" is the translation of "psukee." Other cases will probably readily occur to the reader. In this series of studies we wish chiefly to consider another kind of alternative readings, viz., those due not to divergent readings in the Greek texts, but to the fact that there are various ways of rendering the one text. Every student of language knows that there may be several equally legitimate translations of the same text. Hence our different helpful English versions of the Bible.

Meanings change.

Some of our variant translations and interpretations are due to the fact that language grows and words change their meanings. This is so with English words, and explains some of the alterations made in our Revised Version. "By and by" now means "after a time"; in 1611, when King James’s version was issued, it meant "at once" or "forthwith" (compare C.V. and R.V. of Mark 6:25). "Prevent" once meant to "come before" or "anticipate" and has this meaning in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 where the Revised Version rightly renders "precede." The "let" of 2 Thessalonians 2:7 used to mean "hinder"; hence the revised reading "restraineth."

Similarly Greek words changed their meaning with the passing centuries. Sometimes it is difficult to decide between the older and newer meanings, and hence the text is to us ambiguous. In part, the meaning of the phrase in the Commission relating to baptism is thus open to question. Is the baptism "into" or "in" the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The Revised Version gives the former rendering, which seems to give a much richer meaning. Another case is found in Luke 6:35, where the revisers substituted for the common reading "hoping for nothing again" the more significant words "never despairing." We shall later deal more specifically with this interesting passage.

Some texts are ambiguous to us because of the lack of punctuation marks in the Greek manuscripts. We to-day may indicate the difference between a question and a statement both by the insertion of a mark of interrogation at the end, or by a variation in the order of the words. Even without the interrogation point, no one could fail to discriminate between these sentences--"He did eat" and "Did he eat." But with Greek it was not so. If we had had the interrogation point in our admittedly correct text, there could be no question whether 1 Corinthians 1:13 should be translated "Christ is divided" or "Is Christ divided?" Yet see R.V. margin. It is because of this kind of ambiguity that some ingenious interpreters have, quite unnecessarily and rather quaintly, sought to get rid of the well known difficulty in connection with Christ’s cursing of the barren fig-tree by altering the translation of Mark 11:13 from "it was not the season of figs" to "was it not the season of figs?"

We are not suggesting that where there is ambiguity in the structure of a sentence, there is no way of arriving definitely at the meaning. The context may make the reference quite plain.

Ours the difficulty.

It should be noted, also, that the texts which are ambiguous to us were not necessarily so to the persons to whom they were originally written or spoken. With spoken words the tone or emphasis may assist to make the meaning plain. Take, for instance, the written question, "Did you walk to Melbourne yesterday morning?" According as the speaker accentuates different words, that question has seven different meanings; but when spoken by anyone the emphasis would indicate the precise inquiry, and elicit the appropriate answer. Again, the current meanings of terms, and shades of expression, would he familiar to those who read the New Testament writings or listened to the teaching of Christ and his apostles, as they are not known to us. At times, a gesture or look would illuminate the expression. Thus, doubtless, all ambiguity would be banished from the question of Jesus to Peter, "Lovest thou me more than these?" Probably, also, would this have obviated any difficulty in that much discussed statement of Christ’s, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."

It will frequently he the case that in whichever possible and legitimate way we read an ambiguous passage we can derive helpful and beautiful lessons from it. So the loss need not be great even if we cannot wholly remove the ambiguity. In our studies, we shall attempt to put fairly the differing views and the supplementary lessons drawn from the texts, while at the same time we shall indicate a preference and give reasons for one reading rather than another. Our attitude. As we approach the Sacred Oracles once again, and seek to understand the divine truths therein revealed for our growth in grace and knowledge, the appropriate prayer of our heart may be that expressed in Charles Wesley’s hymn: