Hitherto we have found the expression “kingdom of God” four times only in the Gospel by Matthew, the form “kingdom of heaven” being characteristic of Matthew’s writing. Now we read “kingdom of God” only three times in the first Gospel, but nothing is lost by the change. In chap. 6. verse 33, we now read that Christ said: “Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Some critics retain the old reading—(“the kingdom of God and His righteousness”)—which, in addition to having the support of the greatest number of manuscripts, agrees with the early Versions. The Vatican manuscript [fourth century] reads: “His righteousness and His kingdom;” and the Sinaitic manuscript, the oldest of all: “His kingdom and His righteousness.” In adopting this last reading the Revisers have followed Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Green, and other critics. The context certainly favours the Revisers’ reading, for a reference to the previous verse will show that the kingdom and righteousness are those of the Heavenly Father. The parrallel passage in Luke—chap. 12:31—reads: “Seek ye His kingdom, and these things shall be added unto you.” Here, also, in the A.V. we read “kingdom of God;” but the change is made on more certain grounds, the reading adopted by the Revisers being that of the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Beza manuscripts, and some of the ancient versions. Among the editors of the Greek text who have adopted this reading here, may be mentioned Alford, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Lachmann, and many others. In this passage, likewise, the possessive adjective pronoun “His” takes us back to the previous verse, and we find that the Father is meant. In the succeeding verse we read: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” These changes impress one with the fact that the form of words “the kingdom” was a familiar one in the days of Christ, and, whether accompanied or not by the qualifying words “of heaven,” or, “of God,” was well understood as involving all that we use it to express to-day.
We now read in Acts 20:30, that Paul foretold the entry of grievous wolves into the flock, saying: “From among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” Let it be observed that the apostle does not speak of an attempt to draw away a few of the disciples, but of an effort to draw them away in a body, as a whole; the perverse things being spoken, the divine teaching being distorted, to draw away the disciples. This is an instance of the definite article having been duly translated, and what force is lent to the passage by the exact rendering! Among other illustrations of the definite article being properly regarded, may be mentioned Revelation 2:10, where it is recorded that Christ exhorted the ecclesia at Smyrna thus: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.” It is not “a crown of life,” as in the A. V., but “the crown of life”—the life award. At the Grecian games a garland or wreath of leaves was given to the successful competitors. This stephanos, translated “crown” wherever it occurs in the New Testament, brought before the minds of Greek-speaking people the idea of a contest and victory. The life of faith in the Son of the Deity is compared to a race, and also to a fight or contest. Thus Paul wrote (2 Tim. 4:8): “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith;” or, “I have contested the good contest, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” He did not speak of a fight, as the A. V. reads, but of THE fight, THE course, THE faith. So, also, it is not a crown that is spoken of, but THE crown. The stephanoi, or wreaths, of the Greeks were made sometimes of one kind of leaves and sometimes of another, but they had at least one quality in common: they were corruptible. The life award of the Gospel will partake of another character; it will be incorruptible, and will comprehend glory, honour, and deathlessness. Speaking of those who strove in the games of Greece, Paul said: “They do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible” (1 Cor. 9:25). James spoke of that which is in store for those who shall be approved at the judgment seat, as “the crown of life” (James 1:12). Peter wrote (1 Epistle 5:4): “When the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, we shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.” Here, again, the Revisers rightly reads “the crown of glory,” not “a crown, &c.” And when Paul had declared to Timothy how that he had finished his course and kept the faith, he said: “Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his appearing.” This unfading crown, the crown of glory, of righteousness, and of incorruptibility, is the crown of life, the life-stephan. It is not “a crown,” but “the crown,”—the life-award. All who run the race, pressing on to the goal as Paul did, will secure the prize, and that prize is eternal life. Christ has been stephaned with glory and honour, and he dieth no more. Life is the stephan; deathlessness is the victor’s prize. It is not one prize to one successful competitor, and another prize to another; it is not a crown, an award: but it is a sharing of THE LIFE of him who is the first-born of the new creation, a participation by the divine family in the life of Messiah’s age, and all that is therein involved.
Those who examine the Bible for what they call “self-contradictions” (their examinations are, as a rule, of the most superficial character) generally point with confidence to two verses in the Acts of the Apostles, which they think are not consistent the one with the other. How often has it been said that what is stated in Acts 9:7 cannot be true if what is recorded in Acts 22:9 is true? In the first passage we read, with reference to Christ’s appearing to Paul, that, “the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but beholding no man.” In the second passage, Paul, recounting the circumstances of the event, says: “They that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” There seems to be a contradiction; but there is not one in reality. The writer of the Acts is accurate, and Paul himself also tells the truth. Properly informed people will not, of course, question this. The fact is that the men with Paul heard something of the voice, but they did not hear it in its completeness; they did not hear to an understanding of what was spoken. In the first passage it is said of the men: akouontes men tees phoonees, meedena de theoorountes: “hearing indeed of the voice but seeing no one;” they did not hear the voice, but only something of it. It cannot, therefore, after this, be inconsistent to describe the matter as Paul did when he said of his companions: teen de phooneen ouk eekousan tou lalountos moi: “the voice of him speaking to me they did not hear.” They heard of the voice, not the voice; what they heard did not amount to an understanding of what was said. Paul himself heard the voice in its completeness—Acts 22:14. In Acts 9:7, where phoonee is used in the genitive case, and where incomplete hearing is implied, some of the Revisers thought “sound” the proper translation—see margin.
It will be seen that the request of one of the malefactors crucified with Christ appears in a slightly altered form, and that our Lord’s reply to his prayer has not undergone any change. In the A. V. we read (Luke 23:42): “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” We now read: “And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.” From this it would seem that the man addressed Christ as Jesus, and had in view his coming in his kingdom. In considering this passage we should, perhaps, take note of an interesting various reading. The Beza manuscript (sixth century) reads: “And turning to the Lord, he said to him, Remember me, Lord, in the day of thy coming.” While not disposed to regard this reading as any more than an explanatory one, for which some unknown copyist was responsible, we certainly see in it a clear indication that, at the early time whence the manuscript mentioned dates, the verse was looked upon as bringing a particular day to view—“The day of thy coming.” In that case the ordinary form of Christ’s reply would be perfectly plain, “this day [that is, the day of my coming] thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” But the reading just given is doubtless a gloss, although valuable as pointing to an early form of interpretation. The best attested reading of verse 42 is that adopted by the Revisers: “Remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.” The form of Christ’s reply depends upon how we punctuate verse 43, and, of course, the punctuation must depend upon how we construe the sentence. There are good reasons why the present punctuation should be altered, and why we should read “Verily I say to thee to-day—Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” Let it be borne in mind that the old manuscripts in no way indicate punctuation. The oldest documents are closely written, in capital letters, line following line, without any division between words, sentences, or subjects. Then there are abbreviations and other things for the reader to encounter. Punctuation is altogether a thing to be determined by the reader, and in not a few places in the New Testament, scholars are divided as to the exact and proper punctuation of passages. An Anglican clergyman and scholar named Bullinger, in an analytical Concordance to the New Testament, has pointed out that the word seemeron (to-day, this day), when it comes after a verb, belongs to that verb, unless it is separated from it, and thrown into the next clause, by the presence of the conjunction hoti (that). Now, this bears in an important way upon Christ’s reply to the malefactor’s petition. In the Greek we read: Ameen legoo soi seemeron met’ emou, &c. “Verily I say unto thee to-day with me, &c.” If we had read here: Ameen legoo soi hoti seemeron, we should have had no alternative but to have rendered “Verily I say to thee, that to-day thou shalt be, &c.,” the word hoti serving the purpose of introducing the second clause, and throwing seemeron (to-day) into that clause. The absence of hoti from the text, however, shows that seemeron should be construed with the first clause of the sentence, and we should read: “Verily I say to thee to-day—Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” In Luke 19:9 we have the word seemeron thrown into the second clause of the verse by the conjunction hoti (that): “And Jesus said unto him—to-day is salvation come to this house;” in Luke 4:21. “And he began to say unto them—to-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears;” and in Mark 14:30 “Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, &c.” In all these cases we have the word hoti, answering to our English word “that.” In the first two instances, however, translation was not necessary, the word being idiomatically pleonastic in the Greek. In Matt. 21:28, and Luke 22:34, the word seemeron occurs without the conjunction before it, as it does also in the following among other passages in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament: Deut. 6:6; 7:11; 8:1; 10:13; 11:8, 13, 28, ; 13:18; 29:9; 27:4; 30:15, 16, 18, 19; 31:2. These places forcibly illustrate the rule that seemeron should be read with the verb preceding it in cases where it is not accompanied by the word hoti (that). In Luke 23:43, the word seemeron is, therefore, demonstrative and emphatic, and has nothing to do with the promise made by Christ. If, however, regarded as belonging to the opening words of asseveration, the expression is by no means without important signification. As Mr. Rotherham puts the reply: “Thou dost ask to be remembered then; verily thou art assured now. As on this day of my weakness and shame, thou hast faith to ask, I this day have authority to answer.” The latter part of the verse is, then, as the same translator continues, left free to refer to the very matter of the supplicant’s request: “Thou dost ask to be remembered when I come in my kingdom: thou shalt be remembered then, and with distinguished favour; thou shalt be in my kingdom; shalt be with me in the very paradise of my kingdom, in the garden of the Lord (Isaiah 51:3; [Sept: paradeisos] Ezekiel 36:35; compare Genesis 2:8 [Sept: paradeisos] 3:2 [Sept: paradeisos]; Rev. 2:7) in that most central and blessed part of the coming kingdom, of which thou dost believe me to be the destined king.” If, therefore, as we have said, we had read legoo soi hoti seemeron esee met’ emou en too paradeisoo, we should have had to punctuate as in the Authorised Version, adopted by the Revisers; but as we read legoo soi seemeron, &c., we must, to be exact, render: “I say to thee to-day—Thou shalt be with me, &c.”
The verse, Matthew 23:35, exhibits an illustration of the use of the aorist tense of the verb in reference to a future event. We read that Christ said to the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees: “I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.” A scriptural exposition of the text clears up any idiomatic difficulty.
It is obvious that the visitation of the shedding of the blood of the prophets was to come upon that generation. It is also plain that of the prophets, wise men, and scribes then being sent, some would be killed and crucified, and some scourged and persecuted—and upon that generation all the blood shed would be visited. The verb rendered slew is in the first aorist tense, and the idea of this tense is simply that of accomplishment. It is not to be inferred that the slaughter of Zachariah was a past event at the time Christ spoke, but simply that it would be an accomplished fact when the visitation of the shedding of righteous blood upon that generation should take place. The aorist tense is used in relation to events present and future as well as past; and according to history, the prophecy contained in these words of Christ found its fulfilment in the massacre of Zachariah son of Barachiah, “in the middle of the holy place,” three years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, the “all” included the blood of Abel as the first martyr, and the blood of Zachariah was the last of the reckoning. This view of the matter led Granville Penn, and some other translators, to render “whom ye will slay.” There are several other places in the New Testament where the aorist is used with very similar force, and by noting this fact, we can often correctly estimate the faulty interpretations of those who quote the Scriptures to uphold false doctrines. Here is one such passage. In Colossians 1:13, we read that the Father “delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.” Here both the verbs are aorists, and it is certain that, as yet, we are not translated into the kingdom. But, our being delivered from the power of darkness, will, when completed, result in the translation into the kingdom. The fact is viewed without regard to time, and when the consummation contemplated in the passage takes place, both the deliverance from darkness and the translation into the kingdom, will be accomplished facts.
We still read in Acts 20:28 that God purchased the church “with His own blood.” In the margin we are informed that “many ancient authorities read ‘the Lord.’” According to the margin, then, the verse reads: “Feed the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood.” The two oldest manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, read as in the text, and so do some of the early versions, Alford and some other editors following. The Alexandrian, Ephraem, Beza, and Laud manuscripts, with some ancient versions, read “Church of the Lord,” and this is the lection adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. It has been well observed that the expression “blood of God” savours of a later time than Luke or Paul.
If, however, in following the oldest manuscripts, and, bearing in mind that, while in several other places we read of the ecclesia of the Deity, and not of the ecclesia of the Lord, we abide by the reading “church of God” in this verse, we ought to render the concluding words of the verse with that exactness which will prevent the introduction of an erroneous doctrine into the Book, and to translate the verse thus: “Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased through the blood of His own (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). There is then a noun understood, and it may be son, lamb. or sacrifice. Paul, writing to the Romans, said, God spared not His own son, but delivered him up for us all. It will be observed that the American Revisers recommend the reading “the Lord,” with a marginal intimation that some ancient authorities, including the two oldest MSS., read “God.”
Some scholars have disputed the soundness of the Revisers’ judgment in reference to John 1:18. The text reads: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him;” and in the margin there is a note stating that many ancient authorities read “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten Son.” It is clear that to read of “God only begotten,” as declaring, interpreting, or expounding the Father, would not be consistent with the language used by Christ to demonstrate his divine origin when he said: “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father” (John 6:46). And we know that Christ himself, the Son of the Deity, the Word made flesh, was the one by whom the grace and truth of the Father were shown forth, the one by whom the Eternal was manifested. To have decided in favour of the reading “God only begotten” would have been to have introduced into the Revised New Testament a singularly false reading. But Trinitarians, feeling the loss of many apparent testimonies—the Bible is devoid of any real testimony in favour of this doctrine of a corrupt ecclesiastical system—have in many quarters shown offence because the Revisers did not put the marginal reading in the text.
We have been told that the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Ephraem (first hand) manuscripts read “only begotten God,” that many versions and fathers read so, and that Tregelles and Westcott and Hort decided in favour of this decidedly Trinitarian reading. In response, it is admitted that the authorities quoted in favour of the false reading are generally good, but it is said that the marginal reading cannot be the right one, because it is so out of tune with the common phraseology of the New Testament. But there is no little evidence againt the corrupt reading. The Alexandrian, and many less ancient manuscripts, read the same as the text followed by King James’s translators, and approved by the majority of the Revisers, and the Ephraem manuscript was, in the ninth century, corrected so as to read the same. Many of the early versions also read the same, and Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and other “fathers” knew no other reading, so far as their writings enable us to judge. Also this reading has been supported by Alford, Griesbach, Scrivener, Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and McClellan.
The last-named critic, a firm Trinitarian, does not hesitate to style the reading now presented in the margin “a doctrinal correction.” And so it was, and it bears witness of a time when false doctrine was prevalent in a similar shape to that it assumes to-day. McClellan observes: “The phrase ‘only begotten God’ is an expression utterly out of harmony with the verse, and with the whole style and tenor of S. John’s Gospel. In the verse itself the introduction of the term ‘God’ into the second clause would confuse the clear statement concerning God in the first clause: ‘God no one hath ever yet seen.’ . . . . And as to the Gospel generally, we can only say that we are satisfied that no one deeply conversant with its thought and style can help feeling that ‘only begotten God’ cannot have been the expression of S. John (comp. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).”
This position is, undoubtedly, the right one. This condemnation of the reading, too, has peculiar value when the source from whence it comes is considered. No one acquainted with the Truth would speak of God as being begotten, but we can understand the “fathers” making use of almost any from of speech savouring of unsound doctrine: and the manuscripts which contain the extraordinary reading mentioned are evidence that at a very early date efforts were made to provide false teaching concerning the nature of Christ with what might appear to be testimonies to its truth. It is satisfactory, however, to find that the Revisers have resisted the appeal to adopt a manifestly corrup treading.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)