Pt1-07-TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION
THE CONFLICT OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS IN the majestic prologue to John’s Gospel there are several utterances of great interest to the expositor. The fifth verse concerns the conflict between light and darkness, and offers much material for examination and reflection by the seeker after divine truth. Speaking of the Logos who became flesh, John says that creation was through Him; He is the Source of life and light. There is a parallel with the opening words of "Genesis", but the apostle rapidly passes from the natural to the spiritual. It is characteristic of him to use natural things in a spiritual sense, though of course this is by no means peculiar to him. In the Old Testament such usage is common, as for example, "The Lord is my light, and my salvation; whom shall I fear?" (Psalms 27 : i). Presenting light and darkness in contrast, John seems to regard them not as positive and negative, but as two positive forces in active opposition. In the Authorised Version John 1:5 is translated, "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." This translation, which has had, and still has, many supporters, is cited as an instance of what is called the "tragic tone" in John’s writings. In pre-Christian times, when the light shone out, it was often misunderstood and unappreciated. Job said concerning the wicked, "They are of those that rebel against the light"; and Isaiah cried, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness" (Isaiah 5:20). When God revealed His will through the prophets, many even of those who claimed to be the chosen people rejected the message and persecuted the messengers. At length, when the Messiah came, He came unto His own possessions, as John says in 1: 2, and His own people did not receive Him. The world did not know Him, and several passages in this Gospel tell us of the rejection of the testimony to Christ. It may be said then, that, whether the Authorised Version gives the correct translation or not, it was true that when the light shone out the darkness failed to appreciate it. Even today we must lament the fact that so few take heed to God’s glorious revelation of Himself. But from very early times there have been those who thought that John’s words should be differently translated. The Revised Version has employed a somewhat ambiguous term, "apprehended" in place of "comprehended", but in the margin has suggested the translation "overcame". Many modern commentators and translators give their support to the marginal rendering of the Revised Version, although there has been much discussion. As the matter depends upon a rather technical point of Greek grammar, this is not the place for presenting the pros and cons; but it is in order to say that Scriptural support can be given both from the Old and the New Testaments for the rendering "overcame". Two passages in the New Testament are very strongly in favour. Jesus said, "Walk while ye have the light, that darkness overtake you not" (John 12:35, R.V.). Paul wrote to the Thessalonian Christians, "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief" (1 Thessalonians 5:4). In both these sentences, the same verb is used as in John 1:5.

If this rendering can be accepted, the passage is turned from a lament to a claim for victory in a great conflict. John is claiming that the darkness did not overcome the light, or, as Goodspeed translates, "the darkness has never put it out". There is another significant fact in the tense of the word "shineth". It is a present tense. Some have taken it as an historic present, but as it is the only principal verb in the present tense in the whole section, it seems far more likely that John means that at the time of his writing the light was still shining, triumphant over all efforts to stay its beams. John had witnessed the crucifixion of his Lord and the persecution of Christians, and yet was confident of victory for the light. Are there any other facts which would lend support to the change from the Authorised Version of this passage? A study of John’s writings as a whole will show that the conflict between light and darkness is prominent in his thought. He does not underestimate the power of darkness, and he realises to the full the stubbornness of men’s hearts and the wiles of the devil. But he is confident that the overcoming power is with God. It seems to me that the prologue of John’s Gospel is in two parts. The first part is a brief statement of his "thesis", ending with the victorious note of verse five. The second part then introduces the earthly ministry of Jesus. In the body of the Gospel the victory of the light is asserted even when the power of darkness seems at its height. Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" (John 8:12); and again, "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me may not abide in darkness" (John 12:46); "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). Similarly in one of John’s Epistles we read, "The darkness is passing away, and the true light already shineth" (1 John 2:8). The Revelation of John tells of the victory of Christ over Satan, and of the rich inheritance of the overcoming believer. In the city which has no need of the sun, the Lamb is the Light thereof.

Thus the rendering suggested in the Revised margin, which is certainly possible on linguistic grounds, is supported strongly by other evidence. Thank God for the victory of the Light!

"WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY?"
(John 6:67) In the later part of the Galilean ministry of Jesus, following upon two miracles wherein the Lord demonstrated His power over material elements, a notable discourse was given in the presence of a great company of people. From various motives the multitudes had followed the Master. Some had come seeking further material benefits; some, "the Jews", had joined the group as members of the hostile party; others had come as disciples, among these "the twelve". As Jesus directed the attention of His hearers away from the bread which perishes to Himself as the bread of life, and then gave utterance to deeper teaching concerning the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, the thoughtless began to lose interest, the Jews commenced to murmur and to argue, and many of the disciples uttered terms of dissent. The crowd melted away, and Jesus was left with the twelve. This is the first mention, in John’s Gospel, of "the twelve", but the reference is so made as to imply that they were a well-known body. They were all Galileans, except Judas Iscariot. "The band held within it a number of men of strongly contrasted types of character. Allusion need only be made to the impetuous Peter, the contemplative John, the matter-of-fact Philip, the cautious Thomas, the zealous Simon, the conservative Matthew, the administrative Judas." No detail is given in the narrative as to the feelings of Jesus when His disciples turned their backs on Him. A divinely-imposed restraint is upon the New Testament writers. They do not enlarge, as most writers do, upon such incidents. Yet enough is said to show that Jesus felt keenly His position as the "rejected of men". Observe the little word "also" in the question of Jesus to the twelve. He noted the withdrawal of disciples among the crowd. Perhaps some lingered near, halting between two opinions. He even knew that of the twelve who remained one should betray Him! Hence there was deep emotional appeal in the question which He asked. As rendered in the Authorised Version, the question asked was, "Will ye also go away?" In the Revised Version the rendering is, "Would ye also go away?" Neither of these does full justice to the original. Moffatt’s rendering, "You do not want to go, too?" is much better. One of the subtleties of the Greek language is in the use of various forms of interrogation. When the answer "yes" is expected, a certain negative form (ou) is used at the beginning of the question. When the answer "no" is expected, or where there is hesitancy, another negative (me) is employed. Professor A. T. Robertson, in his exhaustive Grammar of the Greek New Testament, says: "The use of me varies greatly in tone. The precise emotion in each case (protest, indignation, scorn, excitement, sympathy, etc.) depends on the context." A few examples will illustrate: In Matthew 7:9 Jesus says, "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?" The English equivalent to the Greek is best secured by a circumlocution, "Surely he will not give him a stone, will he?" In Romans 3:3 Paul writes, "Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" The meaning is, "Surely their unbelief will not render inoperative the faithfulness of God, will it?" When Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 1:13, "Was Paul crucified for you?" he means, "Surely Paul was not crucified for you, was he?" When the woman of Samaria told of the wonderful things Jesus had said, she did not affirm that Jesus was the Christ, but in a hesitant way she said, "Can this be the Christ?" (John 4:29, R.V.). Professor Robertson says of this passage, "There is certainly a feminine touch in the use of me by the woman at Jacob’s well when she came to the village. She refused to arouse opposition by using ou (expecting the answer ’yes’) and excited their curiosity by using me (a hesitant question)."

Now the question which Jesus asked His disciples in John 6:67 is introduced by me, and the context favours the view that He was appealing to the disciples and rallying them to Himself by the words, "Surely you also do not wish to go away, do you?" In harmony with this expectant question, Peter made his first great confession. Speaking for the others he answered by another question, followed by an affirmation, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and know that Thou art the Holy One of God." Thus the appeal in the question of Jesus was answered. One indeed would betray Him, but the others had been chosen for a great mission, and, though later in the hour of sore trial they forsook Jesus, they ultimately became the champions of His cause. Realising that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved", these men "of strongly contrasted types", became united in their fearless testimony of the risen Christ.

ROM. V. 1

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5 : i, Authorised Version).

"Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Revised Version).

Why have the revisers made this change from affirmation to exhortation? It is partly a question of text, involving what might seem to be a slight variation. Whether the word is in the affirmative sense or in the mood of exhortation depends upon whether one Greek letter is short or long. The Greek word is ekhomen. In the indicative mood, "we have", the "o" in ekhomen is short; in the subjunctive mood, "let us have", the "o" is long.

Two facts are claimed in support of the Revised rendering: (a) The weight of manuscript authority favours the subjunctive mood; (b) it is the less obvious reading. The latter statement is based on a principle of textual criticism: if of two readings one is less obvious, it is more likely to be correct. The reason for this is that a copyist would be more likely to slip in making a difficult reading easy than in making an easy reading difficult. In reply, those who support the Authorised Version translation point out that in the texts, and also in the papyri, there was frequent confusion between short "o" and long "o", and they claim that the matter depends on interpretation rather than text. They are confident that the context supports the indicative mood in this passage. Paul has been declaring the great principle of justification by faith, and now he states that as a result of that justification believers have peace with God. But even if the argument from textual criticism is not conclusive, in the judgment of many recent scholars the context decides in favour of the Revised rendering. "The mood of exhortation is clearly required by the context," says Parry in the Cambridge Greek Testament: "Paul is passing from the description of the fundamental initial act of God in bringing man into this state, to the character and duties of the state so given".

It will be seen that there is ground for difference of opinion when the meaning must be decided by an appeal to the scope of Paul’s argument. There is an additional fact, however, in support of the mood of exhortation in this passage, which the Revised Version has not made clear. The verb "have" is sometimes used in the sense of "keep". In Romans 1:28, the Authorised Version translation reads, "Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge"; and in 1 Timothy 1:19, "Holding faith, and a good conscience". In both these passages, the word which normally means "have" is used.

It can be argued, then, that the sense of Romans 5:1 is, "let us maintain peace". The verb is an instance of what is technically called "durative". "This requires further activities in man, and continual help of the Lord." And since "to have" may be "to possess" and even "to enjoy", Dr. Moffatt probably has not gone beyond the evidence in translating, "As we are justified by faith, then, let us enjoy the peace we have with God through our Lord Jesus Christ".

PART II
STUDIES IN PERSONS, PLACES AND INCIDENTS