“The Evil One,” as that expression occurs in the Lord’s Prayer and other places, in the Revised Version, has occasioned much comment. It is said that in no previous translation into our language has the novel form “evil one” been adopted. The Greek adjective poneeros means evil, in the sense of being displeasing—in such passages as these, “displeasing to God.” When coming after the preposition apo (from) the word poneeros must be in the genitive case, which is poneerou, precisely the same both in the masculine and neuter genders. On this point a dispute has arisen. It is asked whether, in the Lords Prayer an evil person, an evil thing, or evil itself in the abstract, is referred to. Some have contended that the preposition apo could only be used in the case of a person being understood, but the employment of the word in other parts of the New Testament is against this view. Others have held that the adjective has mostly been used in the masculine gender, but no rule can be laid down where there is no uniformity in the use of a word. In Matt. 5:39. we are made to read “Resist not him that is evil.” If the Revisers had not believed “the evil one” to refer to the othodox devil, they would doubtless have rendered this “resist not the evil one,” which of course, would not fit in with their theological notions. There are many instances of the article being used, to denote emphasis before adjectives used substantively to convey abstract ideas. The secret of the introduction of “the evil one” into the text in several places is that the Revisers have listened more to the Greek fathers than depending upon the light of an intelligent construction of the passages. The writings of Augustine show that that “father” understood ek tou poneerou as meaning “from evil.” Chrysostom and Origen, however, saw a personal devil in these passages. If the Revisers had known the real value of “patristic evidence,” (and this must be tested by the Scriptures alone,) we should not now have had one of their extravagant errors of interpretation brought prominently into notice. In Rom. 12:9. we read “abhor that which is evil,” or in other words, “the evil.” What is here referred to would certainly have been covered in the Lord’s Prayer. As, however, the word occurs in the accusative case, it was out of the question to render it “abhor him that is evil,” for there is a difference between the masculine and neuter forms in the accusative cases, and here we have the neuter. Again, Paul assures Timothy (2 Epis., chap. 4., 5:18), “The Lord will deliver me from every evil work.” Here we have the same verb, preposition, and adjective as in the Lord’s Prayer, with the word ergon (work) added. Should not such a passage as this have had more weight with the Revisers than all the opinions of all the “fathers” put together?
Paul expressed confidence that the Deity would effect in his case the very deliverance mentioned in Matt. 6:13—from evil, from the evil, from all that is evil. It may be observed that in the Lord’s Prayer, we have trespasses and temptations, and in conformity with these ideas, we should expect to read of abstract evil or evil things, rather than persons. The marginal note made by the Revisers shows that some of their number were in favour of retaining the old rendering. Anyway, there is no cause for the friends of the truth to be alarmed. In one passage at least (Matt. 13:19) evil is undoubtedly personified “Then cometh the evil one.” In Mark 4:15. we read “straightway cometh the Satan.” While it may satisfy some uninstructed people to quote passages containing the expression “the evil one,” with a view of propounding the doctrine of a personal supernatural agent of wickedness, believers of the truth will not be much disadvantaged, for it is by no means difficult to show that, from a Divine point of view, the world lieth in evil, and is a veritable incarnation of the serpent principle, given over to the works of the flesh and to the thinking of every evil.
The Revisers have done something to clear away false impressions as to the use of the word psuchee. To have continued the extraordinary practice of King James’s translators, and have given us “soul” in one line and “life” in another immediately succeeding, would never have done. All classes of readers were prepared for more uniformity on this point. How some will explain such verses as Matt. 16:25–26., and Mark 8:35–37. remains to be seen. In these passages we now have “life” in the text. The former quotation reads “For whosoever would save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?” In the margin there is the alternative rendering “soul.” In Luke 12:22, we read, “Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, &c. For the life is more than the food, &c.” Here, also, those who wish can read, “Be not anxious for your soul!” In John 12:25. we find, “He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.”
Those who, in some passages contend for soul (with the orthodox meaning) being meant may be referred to this verse, and asked whether they are disposed to hate their soul in order to keep it unto zooeen aioonion, a life of the age. They may also be referred to the margin and shown that those who love their souls will lose them! The conclusions are all against orthodox ideas. It is, however, much to be regretted that complete consistency has not been observed in dealing with the word psuchee. We read, for instance, in Matt. 10:28., “Be not afraid of them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Here we have no marginal note to say that “soul” may be rendered “life.” In verse 39, however, of the same chapter, we read, “He that findeth his life shall lose it, &c.,” with the marginal note as to “soul” being an alternative rendering. Why did the Revisers not give us the rendering “life” in verse 28, or at least a marginal note saying that the Greek word might be so rendered? Answer, because they interpreted the passage, and as it stands, it declares their views of the Soul Question. There should have been no distinction.
As the Revisers’ theology, however, makes a distinction, they have made one in the text. Strange to say they have given the marginal rendering “life” in Luke 12:19, where, in the parable of a certain rich man, we read, “I will say to my soul, Soul, thou has much goods laid up for many years, &c.” Notwithstanding the inconsistency we have pointed out, the Revisers have given us many marginal renderings, which will not only command the attention of the general reader, but will also excite a spirit of inquiry. In Acts 14:2, Philippians 1:27, and Heb. 12:3, psuchee was, in the Authorised Version, rendered “mind.” In the Revision, these all appear as “soul.” In Ephes. 6:6, it was “heart;” it remains the same, but there is the marginal note “Gr. soul.” In Col. 3:23 ek psuchees is now, as before, rendered “heartily,” but the margin sets forth that the Greek words mean “from the soul.”
The word Gehenna, which is now understood by most intelligent readers of the New Testament, is still represented by “hell”, and all but uniformly we have a marginal notification that the Greek word is Gehenna. The uniformity is broken in James 3:6, where the word occurs, and is rendered as in other places, but it is accompanied by no marginal note. In 2. Peter 2:4 we still read “hell” in the text, and in the margin we find: “Gr. Tartarus”. Hades has been transferred into the text. In one place, however, where it was in the A. V. rendered “grave”, we find it no more. That place is 1. Cor. 15:55, where we now read: “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” The change was generally expected. In the Sinaitic, Vatican, Ephraem, and Clermont manuscripts, we read “death” in both sentences, and the best authorities have decided in favour of this form. Early in the seventh century, however, the Sinaitic MS. was corrected so as to make the second line read “O Hades, where is thy sting?” This, too, is the reading of the Alexandrian MS. The Peshito Syriac supports this reading, and it seems at first, very much as if the apostle was quoting Hosea 13:14, which may be rendered: “Where is thy plague, O death? Where thy destruction, O Sheol?” Nevertheless it is just possible that the apostle wrote “death” in each case, and it may be that those MSS and versions which read hades in one instance were merely adapted to the words of Hosea by transcribers. Although early Scribes might not feel indisposed to “correct” Paul, we have no mind to undertake the task; and as the evidence preponderates in favour of the reading adopted by the Revisers, we must accept it. The words are pregnant with meaning. Though taking some ideas from the book of the prophet Hosea, it is not quite clear that the apostle was quoting from him. Touching the use of the word Hades, another passage may be noted—Acts 2:31. In this and the preceeding verse, there is an explanation of a quotation from the psalms, and the verses setting forth that David, speaking of Christ, said. “His soul was not left in hades, &c.”, are paraphrased as predicting that Christ himself was not left in hades, &c. This is a plain way of showing that the apostle regarded the soul as the man. “His soul was not left” (5:27) is said to mean “He was not left” (5:31). All the oldest and best MSS. read as the Revisers have given the text.
The evidence against the well known spurious passage about the three heavenly witnesses (1. Jno. 5:7, 8) need not be repeated. It is not surprising that the Revisers completely rejected this manifest interpolation, which is absent from all Greek manuscripts written before the fifteenth century, not noticed by any of the Greek or Latin fathers, and not found in any of the ancient versions. It may also be remarked that the passage first appears, more or less variously worded, in the works of Latin writers from the fifth century downwards; it has ever been looked upon with suspicion; its insertion in the third edition of Erasmus’s Greek text, was brought about in a very questionable way; Luther did not insert it in the first edition of his German Bible, and refused to admit it in any subsequent edition, but, contrary to his express wish, it was included in his version soon after his death; and in the old English Bibles of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth, it was printed in small type or enclosed in brackets, but between 1566 and 1580 it began to be printed as it has since stood in the A. V., but by whose authority is not known. Another undoubtedly spurious clause, in Ephesians 3:9, has been excised, and the Revisers may be thanked for not having preserved a trace of it even in a marginal note.
In the A. V. we read that God created all things “by Jesus Christ.” Anyone carefully reading verses 8 to 12 will see that the clause “by Jesus Christ” is an interpolation. There is no room for it, and when the verses are read without it, they are as plain as they well could be. All the best manuscripts and the early versions omit the words, and critics have been compelled to regard them as spurious. If the passage is read with Colossians 1:16, the reader will see how the Divine purpose centres in Christ, and how through him, the purpose of the Deity will be accomplished. The marginal note on Ephesians 3:11, showing that the words rendered “eternal purpose” really mean “purpose of the ages,” cannot but be hailed with satisfaction by readers who understand the word. We read of this purpose or plan of the ages having been purposed or, literally made in Christ. Let it also be remembered that, in Heb. 1:2, we read of the ages having been made through the son of God: as we read also in Colossians 1:16, all things have been created through him and unto him. So, these three passages have a connection, and all refer to him in whom the promises centre, and in whom the purpose centres, who has been appointed heir of all things, and in reference to whom the ages have been arranged and constituted.
In the Authorised Version the word apocalupsis was twelve times rendered “revelation,” twice “to be revealed,” once “coming,” once “to lighten,” once “appearing,” and once “manifestation.” In the Revision, there is much greater uniformity, the word being rendered “revelation” in every place where it is found, except in Romans 8:19, where we read: “The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God.” It is a pity that in Luke 2:32 Simeon should have been misrepresented in the application of this word, Christ being described as “a light for revelation to the Gentiles.” The Greek certainly does not convey the idea of the revelation being to the Gentiles. Such a translation doubtless commended itself to the Revisers as a fitting one, but their interpretation may well be disputed. The passage is one that has puzzled many who have not understood the Divine purpose as revealed in the Scriptures.
The Revisers, no doubt, thought the words of Simeon expressed the idea that Christ was bringing a revelation to the Gentiles. But, of course, everything depends upon whether this idea is a right one or not. The Revisers were guided by what they believed to be the general tenor of the Scriptures; and that their notions as to what the Scriptures teach are wrong, is simply shown by their being obliged to mistranslate a passage, to make it convey an idea consistent with orthodox belief. The Revisers have tried to interpret; if they had simply translated the verse, they would have been right. The words phoos eis apocalupsin ethnoon mean “a light for a revelation (or, revealing) of nations.” The truth regards Christ as this light, and the prophetic Scriptures show how the nations will be illuminated and Israel established in glory, and how they will be redeemed from barbarism, ignorance, and sin, and exhibited, manifested, or revealed in a state of glory, enlightenment, and righteousness. Had the Revisers understood the prophetic oracles they would, as a matter of course, have translated the genitive case of the noun properly, and not as if it were a dative.
There is an interesting reading in Acts 20:25. Paul is speaking to the heads of the ecclesia at Ephesus, and he says to them: “I know that ye all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.” In the common verson we read “preaching the kingdom of God.” Among nineteenth century believers of the truth it is, we know, a common thing to speak of the doctrine of the kingdom and the things of the kingdom, the qualifying words, “of heaven” and “of God,” being omitted for the purpose of ensuring brevity.
Though not expressed, those words are understood. Now, the four oldest manuscripts omit the word “of God” in this passage, and in the face of this irresistible evidence, the Revisers have not retained them, but have, like all the most eminent editors of the Greek text, excluded them. So we find Paul used the same short form of expression which is so familiar to us to-day. He went about “preaching the kingdom.” If the Revisers had perfectly understood what Paul meant by “preaching the kingdom,” they would, out of regard for a custom they have followed in other parts of their work, have begun the word Kingdom with a capital letter, to indicate that it is used in a special and a comprehensive sense. We have Apostolic precedent for speaking of “the Kingdom.”
Among other words in the New Testament which have what may be termed an appropriated meaning, are Way, Truth, and Life, and when these words are met with conveying a peculiar idea, it is well that they should be distinguished by the initial letter being a capital. The Revisers seem to have appreciated this idea, and in Acts 24:14, we read Paul addressing Felix thus: “I confess that after the Way which they call a sect [margin: or, heresy] so serve I the God of our fathers,” &c. In Acts 9:2, also, we read that Saul asked the high-priest for letters to Damascus unto the Synagogues “that if he found any that were of the Way,” &c.; and in chapter 19:9, 23, we read that some “spoke evil of the Way before the multitude,” and that “there was a great stir concerning the Way.” It is not difficult to understand the meaning of this expression. It was used to signify the profession of the truth. The word hodos was indeed a short form of the expressions rendered the way of the Lord (Acts 18:25); the way of God (Matt. 22:26; Luke 20:21; Acts 18:26); the way of salvation (Acts 16:17); the way of peace (Rom. 3:17); the right way (2 Peter 2:15); the way of righteousness (2 Peter 2:21); the way of the truth (2 Peter 2:2). Again we read that Christ is the way (John 14:6). Being used, then, in a special sense, the Revisers did well to begin the word with a capital letter. The word truth has likewise frequently a comprehensive signification, meaning the pure doctrine as it is in Jesus, and full instruction in Divine things.
In 1 Peter 1:22, we read: “Ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth,” &c. What is here called the truth is, we learn on reference to Acts 15:9, the faith, for we read: “He made no distinction between us, and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” [or, as it should be rendered, by the faith]. Believers walk in the truth. (3 Epis. John, verse 4.) To be of the faith is to be in Christ, and to be in the truth is to be in him that is true—in Christ (1 John 5:20). The truth of God is divine instruction for enlightenment. There are again some who, in the words of the Revision, “hold down the truth in unrighteousness,” and who “exchange the truth of God for a lie” (Rom. 1:18. 25). The truth makes free; and, again, Christ is the truth (John 14:6).
There are many places where this word “Truth” is undoubtedly used in the same full and peculiar sense as “way” is, but the Revisers, unfortunately, have not thought, or have not deemed it fit, to begin the word with a capital letter. They certainly ought to have made the distinction. In one instance the word “life” is found with a special meaning. That occurrence is in Acts 5:20, where we read that an angel of the Lord said to the imprisoned apostles: “Go ye, and stand and speak in the temple to the people, all the words of this Life.” What life? It was the eternal life (Acts 13:46). Christ is, in Acts 3:15, referred to as the Prince (or Author) of the life—the life of the age to come. Himself said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;” and, “I am the Resurrection and the Life.” (John 14:6; 11:25.) The Revisers wisely distinguish the word Life, in Acts 5:20, by adopting the capital initial letter.
We will refer to one other such case. In Acts 5:41, we read in the Authorised Version that the apostles rejoiced because they were “counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” In the Revision we read, “suffer dishonour for the Name.” The reading the instead of “his” has been adopted on ample authority, all the oldest manuscripts reading thus. The word being begun with a capital letter shows that the Revisers recognised its peculiar use. The Name referred to, is, in the previous verse, styled “the name of Jesus.” So we have apostolic precedent for speaking of “the Name.”
In John 14:2, we still read of “many mansions,” but we are thankful for the marginal rendering, “many abiding places.” The idea conveyed is made plain by the consideration of a few other passages. The Greek word rendered “mansion” is monee, a place to stay or abide in, an abode. This noun comes from the verb menoo, to abide, to stay. We find the meaning of this passage, which is so frequently misapplied by superficial readers of the orthodox class, by reading down the chapter. Verse 10 tells us that the Father, abiding (“mansioning”) in Christ, did the works; and we read that Christ said to his disciples “the spirit of truth . . . . abideth with you, and shall be in you.” Then again, in verse 23 we read that Jesus said: “If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him.” This should read: and make an abode [abiding place, “mansion:” same Greek word as in verse 2] with him. Also, we read (1 Jno. 4:16): “He that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him.” This much-misunderstood verse shows that abode is made with the members of the house, or household, of the Father [which house we are if we hold fast, &c., Heb. 3:6], and that, before that could be fully brought about, Christ had to go away to prepare for his disciples a place in the Divine temple. Jesus said on one occasion: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him (Jno. 6:56). John wrote (1 Epis. 3:9) “Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him;” and again (chap. 4:15), “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.” Also, Jesus said: “Abide in me, and I in you. If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in His love.” It is likely that the marginal readings, which shows the connection between John 14:2 and the context, will greatly facilitate the understanding of what was before to many a somewhat obscure passage.
The words daimoon and daimonion, which might with the utmost propriety have been adopted into the text in the form “demon,” are still represented by the word “devil,” the word “demon” having, however, been placed in the margin. In the Authorised Version (Acts 17:18), the Stoics and Epicureans were made to describe Paul as “a setter forth of strange gods,” because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection. Here even the Revisers have made no change in the text, but we have the same marginal note as elsewhere—“Gr. demons.” In their “wisdom,” these philosophers regarded the apostle as a discourser on those intelligencies to which their speculations had given an imaginary existence, to play a mediatorial part between man and the gods; they looked upon Paul as the proclaimer of the virtues of some, to them strange, human soul, deified after death and appointed to a guardianship over men. While it is a pity the Revisers did not acquiesce in the judgment of the American Committee and give us the word “demon” in the text, it seems specially unfortunate that this passage should still have been rendered as if daimonioi and theoi were synonymous terms.
The word phantasma, translated “a spirit” in the Authorised Version in Matt. 14:26, and Mark 6:49 is now more properly rendered “an apparition.” In a similar passage, Luke 24:37, it is not at all surprising to find the text unchanged, although it may be stated that some variation exists in the reading of different authorities. We read: “They (the disciples) were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.” The Greek word is pneuma. If the evangelist originally wrote this word, it is pretty clear that he used it in a peculiar sense. The Beza manuscript [sixth century] as well as the writings of Marcion, give phantasma here; and some critics, judging, maybe, not so much from manuscript evidence as from a sense of fitness, have adopted this reading. In 1 Cor. 11:24, we now read: “This is my body which is for you,” a lection most moderns have agreed upon. There is ample manuscript authority for the exclusion of the word “broken.” Some manuscripts read “given for you; The Vulgate “delivered up” for you; while the text without the verb is by you; some translated: “This is my body which is in your behalf.” If any verb is to be understood, there is more to be said for “given” (Luke 22:19) than any other. But the Revised Version is plain. A great improvement has been effected in the reading of Luke 2:38. From the Authorised Version it would appear that Anna, the prophetess spoke of the new-born Saviour to all them that “looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” The Revision gives us “them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” This is very similar to the statement that Simeon (5:25) was “looking for the consolation of Israel.” The Greek reading adopted by the Revisers has the support of the most ancient MSS. and Versions, and is more literally translated “looked for a ransoming of Jerusalem.” The words bring to remembrance the murmur of the disciples while on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:21): “We hoped that it was he that should redeem Israel.” On excellent authority, we have a changed reading in Acts 18:5, where, instead of reading, “Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ,” we now have “Paul was constrained by the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.” The translation of this newly formed text is certainly not so exact and forcible as it might be. Some have rendered: “Paul was earnestly occupied by the word” &c.; and others “was closely engaged with the word, while testifying, &c.” And from these renderings a clearer idea is obtained of that in which the apostle was engaged. Alford rendered “was earnestly occupied in discoursing, testifying to the Jews, &c.”
In Titus 2:13, we have an improved rendering, “looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God;” not as in the Authorised Version, “the glorious appearing.” The reference is to the glory yet to be revealed. So also, we are pleased with the wording of Rev. 22:9 “I am a fellow servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets.” The passage as it appeared in the Authorised Version, has often been quoted as showing that the angel who speaks was one of the deceased prophets. Perhaps the most exact rendering would have been” I am a fellow servant of thine and [a fellow servant] of thy brethren the prophets.” There has been no improvement in the rendering of John 3:3–7, where we now read “ye must be born anew, ” which is instead of “again,” in the Authorised Version. The marginal note showing that “from above” may be read instead of “anew” is retained. The pity is that it was not inserted in the text. The literal and primary meaning of the word anoothen is “from above,” and it is to be regretted that the fact, that such a rendering would not fit with the ideas of the majority of the Revisers to be intelligible to them, should have occasioned the adoption of a rendering that certainly needs an apology. Even in verse 31 of this very chapter, we find the same word rendered “from above:” “He that cometh from above is above all.” The familiar injunction “Search the Scriptures” is now only a marginal rendering, the text reading “Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me that ye may have life.” The verb may be either indicative or imperative. Scholars view the point differently. One might well have expected some of the Revisers to be in favour of the old rendering (as the marginal note shows was the case) which Alford adopted and many have strongly contended for. Thomas Sheldon Green renders: “Search the Scriptures, because yourselves think that you have in them everlasting life, and it is they that witness about me; and you are not willing to come to me that you may have life.” He points out that the force of the pronoun “yourselves” shows that ereunate is more consistently rendered in the imperative mood. Certainly the context seems to favour the marginal rendering, which was in the text in the Common Version. In 1. Cor. 15:3, we now read: “I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures.” The Revisers might have thought that what is here referred to by the apostle would form the sum and substance of his communication to the Corinthians, but readers who are instructed in Paul’s gospel will know that the subject of the death and resurrection of Christ was “among first things” as the words en prootois should be rendered; or as Sheldon Green aptly puts it, “among the foremost matters.” In Revelation 20:10, we read much the same as in the A. V. that the devil “was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet.” In the A. V. the wording was “where the beast and the false prophet are, ” the verb being in italics to show that it was not expressed in the Greek. These renderings are both misleading, for they lead the reader to conclude that the beast and the false prophet are still in the burning lake when the devil referred to in this verse is cast therein. The passage is a reference to chap. 19:20, and the most consistent course would have been to have read, “where the beast and false prophet also [were cast].” In Matt. 26:26, we still read that at the last supper, Jesus “took bread, and blessed, and brake it.” Some would argue from this that our Lord blessed the bread itself, whereas he blessed the giver of the bread. Some have paraphrased the word eulogeoo, as it occurs here, “he blessed God aloud.” In Mark 6:41, the same word is used. In Luke 22:19, we have another word, eucharisteoo, and read “and he took bread, and when he had given thanks,” &c. The A. V. contains an awkward reading in Acts 7:59, where Stephen is represented as “calling upon God, and saying ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’” The word God, in italics, was an unfortunate insertion in King James’s version. We read in the revised version “calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” This is certainly an improvement. But there is no reason why the verse should not have been rendered (after Green): “while he uttered a cry and said, Lord Jesus, &c.,” or (after Alford): “praying, and saying, Lord Jesus, &c.,” or after other translators: “calling out (or invoking) and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” This would have obviated the introduction of italics. Again we have no change in Matt. 26:26, and Mark 16:25, where the words of Christ about drinking wine in the kingdom are recorded. The passage in Matthew reads: “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” The question arises—To what does the word “new” refer? The structure of the sentence will not allow of its being regarded as qualifying “the fruit of the vine.” Some have regarded it as meaning “afresh” or “anew”—“I will drink anew.” This is nearer the mark, but if that had been the exact idea, we should have had different language from that which is in the text. It is clear that this word kainon is an adjective in a neuter form; and in such a context as this, the force of the word is adverbial. Christ therefore tells his disciples that he will drink of the fruit of the vine in a new—what? A knowledge of the circumstances will suggest the understood, but not expressed, word. When the wine is again partaken of Christ will sustain an entirely new relation to his brethren from what he did when he instituted the memorial supper. As Green rendered the verse in Matthew: “And I tell you, I will by no means drink henceforward of this offspring of the vine, until I drink it with you in a new guise in the Kingdom of my Father.”
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)