Vol. 28 New Series February, April, 1967 No.'s 1 & 2

Part 1
In the Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:29-32) Simeon declares "my eyes perceived Thy Salvation" (1930 C.V.). Here again, however, we ought to understand perhaps thus, "Thy Salvation-Instrument." In 3:6 the same words occur, "all flesh shall be viewing the salvation-work of God." However we may render or understand this it refers to something concrete rather than abstract.

I am glad you call my attention to Tit. 2:11. The word here is sOtErios. I observe Wigram in his Englishman's Greek Concordance places this word all by itself. The C.V. Concordance places it along with sOtErion-os, as meaning saving (although rendered in all the other four occurrences by "salvation"). Either we must understand the sOtErion as an adjectival form used almost as a noun, or we must make the sOtErios of Titus 2:11 a pure adjective, as the C.V. renders it. "Grace" (charis) is feminine, and the adjective refers to it. Some adjectives such as sOtErion (neuter) take their masculine and feminine as sOtErios. I must alter the C.V. Concordance here at page 295.

I think you are correct in your view of the end of Acts, that Acts tails off like a river running into desert sands, leaving every question unanswered. Some may term the Acts "a treatise upon the Kingdom" (whatever they may understand by "Kingdom"), but might it not rather be intended by Luke quite as much to be a kind of introduction to or explanation of Paul's message to the Gentiles? He shews the nation as very indifferent, or worse, and clears the way towards their complete removal as an entity from the scene but a few years later.

(This was written by me about the view, held by many, that Acts is exclusively the close of Israel's history for the time being. I never thought that was more than part of Luke's purpose in writing his further account. I had forgotten this remark by Alexander Thomson, and only recently have I independently come to appreciate its profound truth. R.B.W.)

As you know, languages which possess nouns or pronoun cases are capable of changing the sense quite suddenly merely by changing the case without any verb at all. Thus, Acts 17:30, God is in-the-present-state-of-things (ta nun, plural) charging mankind (that) all everywhere are to be changing-their-mind. The 1930 C.V. hid the sense, by putting "charging all men everywhere to repent." But the sudden stepping down from the dative, tois anthrOpois (to the men), to the accusative pantas (all), not pasin (dative, which would have meant "to all men"), while like an anacoluthon to our ears would not be so to a Greek. Thus, in Rom. 7:13 the sense to a Greek was "Became the good thing, then, death to me?" Might it not come to be! But sin (did) . . .." In verse 25 the Greek must have understood it as "I am thanking God (Who will rescue me . . . ." In chapter 8:3 the sense to the Greek must have been, For what the law could not do, in which it was infirm through the flesh, God (did), sending His own son. . . ." You will observe the 1930 C.V. had required to insert "and" before "God," which really signifies that the translator had not understood the passage or the genius of the Greek language.

I am glad you have mentioned Acts 17:4, as in the winter when I was checking the 1944 C.V. of Acts I was powerfully struck by the apparent fact that these "reverent Greeks" were not at all proselytes; both here and in an earlier statement in Acts. Mentally I queried the dogma that during the Acts period believing Gentiles must be proselytes. I suppose you know that pros-elutos (Concordance page 70) is literally a toward-come-able person. One who could approach Israel's ceremonies or Israel's God. We should not think of the term in a passive sense, as of one who had been so acted upon that we could say that he was "proselytized." Could there not be the Gentiles, who were attracted to the Hebrew synagogue without being in any way subject to Jewish observances? There is another way of reading Acts 17:4, "And some of them were persuaded (i.e., those of the synagogue of the Jews, verse 1); and there were allotted to Paul and Silas besides of the reverent Greeks a vast multitude, besides of the foremost women not a few." Meantime, I shall not go so far as to say we must read thus, but the reading seems quite the face. I said to myself, "These do not look like proselytes." One dare not dogmatize, but I should imagine that had they been proselytes Luke would have called them that. But he has so expressed himself as to make it seem they were not proselytes. As you point out, in the N.T. the term prosElutos occurs but four times, and of these three are in Acts, and in Acts 13:43 there were both Jews and reverent proselytes, who followed Paul. It would not have been an unnatural state of affairs for reverent people among the Gentiles, people who were more or less seeking after divine things, to turn towards the Hebrew synagogues, because only there could they hear anything at all about the real God. And it was only there that the sacred oracles of the O.T. were to be had.

It may be that in Acts 17:17 the reverent ones are proselytes, but there is nothing to shew this to be so, unless it is the dative cases in the Greek before "the Jews" and "the reverent" after the verb "argued." Because when we reach the final category it is "toward (or face to face with; pros) those happening along." That is to say, the arguing with the Jews and reverent ones would be indoors; with the ones happening along it would be outside, people met face to face. This is one of the cases where the C.V. could very simply and easily have "gone to the limits" to state the exact sense. Very often pros can well be rendered by "face to face," as in John 1:1. I seem to remember that in connection with John 1:1 it was AEK who denied that pros ever really meant "with."

I note the reading of Codex A at Acts 17:4 where KAI is inserted. Alford says Codex D does the same, and a few minuscule manuscripts. This makes a decided difference in the sense. I should say that would make the sense to be "and there (or, they) were allotted to Paul and Silas, both of the reverent ones and of Greeks a vast multitude, besides of the foremost women not a few." The Greek te. . . . kai was rendered by AEK formerly by as well as, but now in the 1944 he puts both. . . .and. Sometimes he rendered te (besides) simply by "and," as others usually do, because "besides" says just rather much.
I agree with you that we have not fully mastered the teaching of 1. Cor. 12 and 13 (also ch. 14). And if that is the case, if we have not mastered or understood these chapters, we cannot properly understand the Maturity Epistles.

There are Maturity Epistles for those who wish to proceed on to maturity more or less. But there are certainly some very immature souls, and always will be in this age. They cannot enter into the Maturity Epistles very far or at all. Paul must have known that not all believers would ever advance into maturity. Has he, then, nothing else for them? We know that the Catholic Church and ritual, etc., suit people of a certain mentality. Its adherents are found mostly among brachycephalic peoples (broad-heads). I should reason that any man who was brachycephalic would probably gravitate towards what was Catholic or akin to it; largely leaving his thinking to others; putting himself under the authority of those whom he considered superior or better fitted.

It does seem strange that Paul tells the Corinthians to be "zealous for spiritual endowments" and most of all to be prophesying (1. Cor. 14:1). Unless we can take the prophesying as meaning, as some say, merely giving spiritual addresses. While we know that prophecies, languages and "knowledge" are to cease on the coming of "maturity," are we necessarily to assume that this "maturity" means that maturity found in Paul's later Epistles? It has always seemed reasonable that Paul should write so much in his earlier Epistles to cover conditions existing in such a very brief period of time, i.e., up to, say, 62 A.D. I wish to look upon this matter objectively and straightforwardly. What would the Corinthian believer or reader. understand by "maturity"? Would he think of it as something to come within a few years, or in the resurrection of life?

What we want is a definite pronouncement or some definite state of affairs which positively nullifies the statement made known in 1. Cor. 14:40 (Be zealous to be prophesying, and the speaking in languages do not forbid). What we are doing is that we assume the "Prison" Epistles have somehow shoved aside these Gifts. These Corinthian believers were no proselytes, nor were they thinking of any Hebrew Kingdom to come. The C.V. note at 1. Cor. 13:8 makes out that the writing of Paul's later Epistles "was the signal for the abrogation of the gift of prophecy," etc. So I have hitherto believed, and it may be quite correct, but my question still remains: Why did Paul require to write so much about these gifts, to be in operation for perhaps only ten years, and what has been the real utility of these earlier Epistles of Paul to the Gentile world, which has been greatly confused by them? In other words, how was the Church to know through the centuries that these earlier Epistles were intended only to be read as history, and explanatory, while the later Epistles were the ones to be closely and deeply studied?

Like you, I fear all subjective phenomena, and as you say the mature saint would rather speak five words with his mind than ten thousand in a tongue.

(The problem posed by Alexander Thomson in the foregoing has yet to be solved properly. I have some ideas about it, which I hope I may be able to develop later. One question is: Does the coming of "the mature" or "maturity" mean something general, like the publication of Ephesians was; or is it an individual matter, some fresh experience that those who are mature have had and those who are immature have failed to reach? R.B.W.)

Part 2
I have discovered one hundred and five cases in Geden's Concordance, shewing neuter plural nouns in the nominative, taking a verb. Of these fully thirty have the verb in the plural. I may have missed some nouns, or some samples, but I think I have most of them. Many neuter nouns do not occur in the plural at all.

I think I can now safely confirm that the rule seems to be that the plural verb expresses individuality of action, whereas the singular verb speaks of collective action. Forty neuter nouns are involved in all, the commonest being (strange to say) ethnos (nation), followed by erga (works); probata (sheep); tekna (children); pneumata (spirits); daimonia (demons); and zoa (animals or living creatures).

I was going to say that the cases shewing a plural verb would be of the most interest, and so they are in one way, but doctrinally perhaps the cases followed by a singular verb are just as interesting.

First, ta erga, the works, seem always to be taken as collective, and the works are not viewed individually. "The works which I am doing. . . these is-witnessing concerning Me" (John 10:25). "For their works is-following with them" (Rev. 14:13). "Now apparent is the works of the flesh-which-indeed (hatina, plural) is adultery. . . ." (Gal. 5:19). First we have a collective notice regarding works of the flesh; then these are gone into in detail. I take the hatina as sufficient to shew that the works collectively are now to be specified.

Next, ta daimonia, the demons: These entered, came out, or were subject, collectively, at Luke 8:30, 35, 38; 10:17. At chapter 4:41 Codex Aleph is for a plural verb, meaning that they came out (middle) and also individually; while Codices A and B have a singular verb, also middle, meaning they came out (of their own accord) collectively, en masse. A most instructive case is James 2:19: "The demons also are-believing, and are-shuddering" (each one for himself individually). Demons could come out en masse, but they do not believe en masse. Next, ta dikaiOmata: which I render by "righteous standards"—Rev. 15:4: "Seeing that Thy righteous-standards were made manifest" (plural verb). These are not viewed en masse, but each standard in its own power and beauty.

Next, ta zOa, the animals: In four occurrences, the verb is always plural, but this is understandable as these are not really neuter things but living creatures of some sort. And in two of the cases they are classed along with elders, both forming the subject of the verb, in which case a plural would be expected. They give glory, fall, and worship, in the plural, at Rev. 4:9; 5:8 and 14; and 19:4. This would agree with the number four being representative of four special groups or features.

Next, ta melE, the members: All the members of the body have not collectively the same function (Rom. 12:4), and if one member is suffering, all the members collectively, as one lot, should be suffering together, or sympathising. In these cases the verbs are in the singular. I have learnt a small point here.

Then, biblia, scrollets: (Rev. 20:12) "And scrollets were-opened," and the dead were judged out of the things having been written in these scrollets. Here there is individuality about the scrollets, not merely a mass of them collectively. Probably there will not be many scrollets.

Next, ta grammata, the letters: (Acts 26:24) "Much scripture is deranging you to madness!" ta polla se grammata eis manian peritrepei, the many thee letters unto madness is-about-reverting. "Much" is therefore correct, much writings or letters; much in bulk.

Next, hudata, waters: (John 3:23) "Seeing that waters many is there." hoti hudata polla En ekei; Seeing-that waters much is there. It is perfectly idiomatic to render as "seeing that much water is there." The waters are not seen as distinct, but collectively.

Next, ta thusiastEria, the altars: (Rom. 11:3) "Thine altars they dig down" (kateskapsan, plural). It is not only altars in general, but every one of them, individually, and apparently with great deliberation and intention, one by one overthrown.

Next, ta himatia, the garments: (Matt. 17:2 and Mark 9:3) The Lord's garments, as a whole, not individually, became (egeneto, singular) white and glistening. Had the plural been used, it could have signified that each garment underwent a separate process of becoming white, which under the circumstances would have been ridiculous.

Next, ta probata, the sheep: (John 10:16) "Other sheep I have which is not of this fold." These are not detailed or described, and there is no occasion to individualize them in any way. It is just sheep seen as a collective flock. In verses 3 and 4 the sheep is listening to his voice and following him, as a flock, collectively.

A very curious and instructive case is shewn at John 10:4 "the sheep is following him (akolouthei, singular) because they are acquainted with (oidasin, plural) his voice," where the c.v. sublinear clearly shews the verbs as singular and plural correctly. Would that mean that the sheep follow the shepherd in the mass, seeing that individually they know his voice? On the other hand, at verse 27 of the same chapter, Codez A reads, "The sheep, My-own-personal-ones, are hearing (akouei, singular) of My voice (i.e., listening to My voice), and I am getting to and they are following Me (akolouthousin, plural)" (Note: verb akouO, hear, when followed by a genitive appears to mean listen, although the C.V. never makes any distinction. But in Matt. 26:31 and Mark 14:27, "Will be scattered (plural) the sheep of the flock" (sub linear wrong; read flock for sheep-herd, poimnEs). When sheep are scattered each one goes its own way. In John 10:8 Christ's sheep do not hear (ekousan, plural), or, rather, listen to, the thieves and robbers. Being here human sheep, they do not individually listen to imposters. In 10:27 Christ's own-personal sheep are-listening to His voice and are-following Him, that is, individually. Singular verbs here would have been quite out of place.

Next, ta sEmeia, the signs: (2. Cor. 12:12) "The signs, indeed, of the apostle are produced among you. . . ." Here the verb is singular, as individual signs are not in view. Same in Acts 2:43: "Yet many miracles and signs through the apostles came to be." Also Acts 5:12: "Yet through the hands of the apostles there came to be signs and miracles." But in Luke 21:25 there is a difference: "And there shall be (esontai, plural) signs in sun and moon and constellations, and on the earth pressure of nations in perplexity." These signs will be distinct, of varying kinds.

Next, strouthia, sparrows: Here are two very interesting examples. In Matt. 10:29, "Are not two sparrows being-sold (pOleitai, singular) for a penny?" But Luke 12:6, "Are not five sparrows selling for two pence?" Here the verb is plural. Probably in the former case the numeral is like our "pair,"—a pair is selling for a penny. In the latter case the numeral five stands out more distinct. With us at least it is more distinct than saying "half a dozen." But why the 1930 C.V. should render middle verbs once as a passive and once as middle, is not explained. But I observe the 1944 C.V. has rendered them both as middles) by "selling."

(1. Cor. 10:11) "All these things happened (Codex A, plural, sunebainon; Codex B and Aleph sunbainen, singular of past tense, not aorist, as C.V. states, which would have been sunebEsen) . . . and were written (egraphE, singular; Although the C. V. begins the new sentence with "Yet it was written. . . ").

In the same verse I had noted that the verb is in the singular, C.V.: "the consummations of the eons have attained. . ." (katEntEken), where ta telE is neuter plural. If our theory is correct, this would meant that it is the finishes in general of the eons, their outcomes as a whole, that attained to the Corinthians.

Jelf, in his large and very satisfactory Greek Grammar (1866), says the same regarding the neuter plural with singular verb, that it expresses "a class as one individual things, a whole ( collective unity); the notion of the individuality of the several members of the whole being lost sight of." So that we must understand such a verse as Rom. 12:4 thus: "Yet all the members (in general) have not the same function." 1. Corinthians 12:26 would mean, "And whether one member is suffering, all the members (in general) are sympathising, or a member is being esteemed, all the members (in general) are rejoicing together." It would seem that your despair over a word in Eph. 4:1 has unearthed quite a mine of useful information and discoveries.

I come now to ta ethnE, the Gentiles: This occurs fifteen times, and of these, in eight cases, it is "all the Gentiles." The plural verb examples are as follows :—Matt. 6:32, "For all these things the Gentiles are seeking." Matt. 25:32, "And shall be assembled in front of Him all the Gentiles." There is an individuality here of the Gentiles that we must not lose sight of, although the separation that is to proceed among them is of individual men. Acts 13:48, "Now hearing, the Gentiles. rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord." Rom. 15:11, " Be praising, all the Gentiles, the Lord." (Verb is imperative, so perhaps we should exclude this case). Romans 15:27, "For if in their spiritual things participate the Gentiles." 1. Cor. 10:20, " . . . . but, seeing that what things are sacrificing the Gentiles. . ." Gal. 3:8, "Will be emblessed in thee all the Gentiles." 2. Tim. 4:17, ". . . . that should be hearing all the Gentiles. . . ." Rev. 11:18, "And the Gentiles are angered" (each of them, individually). Rev. 15:4, "For all the Gentiles will be arriving and will be worshipping. . .." Rev. 18:3, "For all the Gentiles have fallen. . .." Rev. 18:23, "Seeing that in your pharmakeia (enchantment?) all the Gentiles are deceived." Rev. 21:24,. "And will be walking-about the Gentiles through its light."

The only example of a singular verb is at Eph. 4:17. "Gentile-world" or "gentile-community" would be quite right as to sense. The gentile nations collectively are walking in vanity and darkness, alienate from the life of God, and there is no occasion to distinguish between nations in this respect here. But I am somewhat astonished at the preponderance of cases with a plural verb, although the appearance of the word "all" in so many of these helps to explain.

You are undoubtedly quite right never to wish to appear as a leader. I do not forget your example at Wolverhampton, when a lady sought to make much of you. I think Dr. Bullinger was a very good leader without ever becoming anything like tyrannical or bossy. As you say, XYZ, dare not lose face. This is just the truth. For that reason he has required to tell lies about Rev. 12:11 and other verses, such as 1. Cor. 15:15.

Notes on 1. Corinthians
4:6: The pronoun "you" must be inserted before "may be puffed up." This error is due to the "defective sublinear" of which AEK complained. In the next verse the C.V. sets a problem, "For who is discriminating between you?" The last word is in the Greek thee. That shews the verb used in the C.V. does not fit. Panin puts, "For who maketh thee to differ?"

6:9: I prefer the very literal sense: "Or are you not aware that unrighteous (people) God's Kingdom (theou basileian; anarthrous) will not be tenanting?" Similarly, in verse 10: "a kingdom of God (basileian theou, again anarthrous, but order or words reversed) will be tenanting."

6:15: The scholarly Bentley made a very clever conjecture here. C.V.: "Taking, then, the members of Christ away, should I be making them members of a prostitute?" "Taking, then. . . . away" is aras oun. He "conjectures for aras (taking away) ara, which should read, "Accordingly then. . ."

7:29: "the era is limited" (ho kairos sunestalmenos estin). No doubt you will recollect Dr. Bullinger's interpretation of this, which was a dispensational one. For the verb he put "wound up." In Acts 5:6 the same verb is "they enshroud him." The standards are together-put. Rotherham renders by "the opportunity is contracted for what remains-in order that both those having wives may be as not having. . . ." I should think the verse ought to be explained and kept in harmony with verse 31, "For the fashion of this world is passing by." The C.V. note on verse 31 is quite in line with this. As you know, I deprecate attempts to drag dispensational explanations into passages to which they are not germane.

9:1: Here again Bentley has a conjecture. The 1930 C.V. reads, "Have I not (ouchi, emphatic negative) seen Jesus, our Lord?" The 1944 reads, "I have not seen Jesus our Lord." But why should this single negative be emphatic, whereas the others are all ou or ouk? Bentley suggests instead of ouchi IEsoun ton Kurion (OYXI IN TON KYPION), OY XN IN TON KYPION, "Not Christ Jesus our Lord have I seen?" Such proper names were very often thus contracted in the manuscripts.

10:11: C.V.: "Yet it was written for our admonition, to whom the consummations of the eons have attained." AEK appears to explain this as though the saints had, in spirit, attained to the consummations of each of the coming eons. But what Paul says is that these consummations in general have attained unto (eis) the saints. I was once long ago impressed by what Moulton wrote in connection with the expression telE, plural, "the tolls of the ages." Certain events befell the Israelites typically, and these things were recorded for our admonition. One would naturally expect that the succeeding statement would refer to past ages, not future ones. The same word telos at Matt. 17:25 is in the C.V. rendered by "tribute"—"The kings of the earth, from whom are they getting tribute (plural) or poll tax?" Also Rom. 13:7, "to whom tribute, tribute." Do not the past eons yield to us their tribute? These lessons or tributes have drawn up alongside us, attained to us. On page 119 of the C.V. Concordance under verb teleO (finish) it is stated, "not in the sense of cessation but of accomplishment." Now I think that U.R., when writing of the "consummation of the eons" has rather in view their end, their cessation, than their outcome, their result, their fruition, or their tribute. In what sense is Rom. 10:4 true? How is Christ the consummation of law? "For telos of law Christ (is)." I know this verse is generally understood as saying that the Lord has brought law to an end and superseded it. "Outcome of law Christ unto righteousness to every one who (is) believing." "For Moses is describing the righteousness which (is) out of law, that the doing (it) man will-get-him-life in it" (autE, feminine, i.e., the righteousness).

We might render 1. Tim. 1:5 thus: "Now the outcome of the charge is love out of a clean heart and (out) of a good conscience . . . ."

The noun telOnEs is in the A.V. publican, in the C.V. tribute collector.

It appears to me that the C.V. note on 1. Cor. 10:11 is out of harmony with the context. The whole passage has to do with idolatry and lusting.

10:17: Another pronoun is not shown. Read, "for we the all out of the one bread-loaf are partaking." The sublinear again is "defective."

Note on 1. Corinthians 11:20
I cannot understand the hesitation to render the adjective kuriakos by "lordly." Literally it reads, "it is not a lordly dinner to be eating." There is no article before "lordly." Paul is not referring to the Lord's Dinner but to the fact that these Corinthians were gathering, not to partake of an august and dignified meal, but to eat in a disorderly and unbecoming manner. In Rev. 1:10 John came to be in spirit in the Lordly day. The meaning of the adjective is said to have been ascertained from the Papyri as something like "Imperial." It is a Royal, Imperial, Kingly Day and Dinner.

In this verse the verb "to be eating" is phagein. Yet in verse 22 the same part of speech, present infinitive, translates the Greek esthiein. That is, two different Greek verbs, phagO and esthiO, are both rendered by eat. It is commonly said that these are "irregular" verbs, and the C.V. Concordance so treats them, copying slavishly what some grammars and lexicons say. But I am somewhat doubtful about them being irregular. In Wigram's Englishman's Greek Concordance the verbs are shewn as separate, but in Geden's Concordance they are shewn under esthiO only.

If there are in reality two distinct verbs the matter is one of no little interest to us. Thus, should it turn out that esthiO signifies the ordinary and general act of eating, whether little or much at a time; the partaking or sampling of food, or a mere nibbling, and if it should be that phagO in every case means a feeding, taking a meal, this would utterly destroy the common practice at the Lord's Supper (or "Breakfast," is it?) of taking a nibble at a biscuit or crust and a sip of wine.

The C.V. Concordance at pages 97 and 98 shews both verbs. Somewhat significant it is that phagos is also shewn as meaning "gluttonous" (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). The standard is shewn as eater. But an eater is something less than a glutton. A glutton is more even than one who takes a meal or a good feed.

In an irregular verb, so called, such as our verbs to be, there are remains of other verbs, used for some of the tenses. We have be, am, is, was. We have go and went, from different roots. In Latin fero, tuli and latum, making up the parts for one verb.

On the other hand, the C.V. Concordance shews both esthiO and phagO as occurring in the past tense; in the present infinitive (esthiein and phagein); in the subjunctive; in the present imperative. EsthiO alone shews present indicative and present participle; while phagO alone shews a future (in the middle). But the compound kataphagO (devour) shews a present participle. Tromm's LXX Concordance shews phagO in the present (middle).

It may be that where there is no emphasis upon the amount of food taken, but rather upon the mere act of eating, the form esthiO is used. Thus, in 1. Cor. 11, verse 22: "For not at all houses do you have for the eating (esthiein, infinitive) and drinking." Here there is no need to refer to the extent of the eating. A house can be for a mere nibble, a small meal or a big one. If phagO invariably connotes the bigger eating it will always incorporate the minor act described in esthiO. Thus, in verse 26, "For whensoever you should be eating (esthiEte this bread and this cup drinking, the Lord's death you are announcing until what (time) He should be coming."

In verse 27 it is easily understood that the habit of eating is referred to and not the amount of the food. "Whoever should be eating (esthiE) the bread or drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily. . .", Paul has in mind the mode of the eating, not the mete of the meat. The same reflections govern the usage in verse 28 and 29. But in verse 33, "coming together unto the (to be) eating," the verb is phagein, and necessarily so, because if it was to be a Dinner (as AEK says, the main meal of the day) it would be a full meal. But should anyone be hungry (verse 34), in order to obviate anything disorderly, "let him be eating {esthietO; taking a nibble or a taste) at home, that for judgment you may not be coming together." I have done the same thing myself. Each year when I used to go to Inverness for a few days with two or three other men we were invited one evening by the Manager to go with him to his house for a meal. This meal turned out to be the one occasion in the year which was quite exceptional as regards food. It became a practice with me to make the previous meal a very light one in order that I should be ready for this lordly dinner at our friend's home.

In Chapter 10 of 1. Cor. I think the same facts (or theory) hold good. Verse 3: "And all the same spiritual food ate" (ephagon). They drank of a spiritual following rock, who was the Christ. (I cannot understand the 1944 C.V. reading here). This feeding and drinking must have been more than a nibble; it must have been sufficient. Verse 7: "The people are seated to be eating (phagein) and drinking, and rise up to be sporting."

But in verses 18, 25, 27, 28 and 31 there is no occasion to allude to the quantity eaten, so verb esthiO is used. Thus, verse 27, "everything that is placed before you be eating." This would not do if it meant to make a complete meal off everything produced. It means take some of anything placed before you.

In Rom. 14 there are again some occurrences of these two verbs. Verse 2 illustrates, I think, my theory. "One indeed is believing to be eating (phagein) all things; yet he who is feeble greens is eating (esthiei)." Most people would not take a full meal off greens, and I take them often during spring and summer. In verse 3 it is the mere practice or habit of eating that is referred to, so the word is a form of esthiO. The same refers to verse 6. In verse 20, "All things indeed (are) clean, but (it is) an evil thing to a man who through a stumbling-block (is) eating (esthionto). Ideal—the not to be eating (phagein; a full meal) meats, nor yet to be drinking wine" if it stumbles or ensnares another. Verse 23, "Yet he who is doubting if he should be eating (phagE) has been condemned, seeing that it is not out of faith. Now everything (in regard to this matter of eating and drinking) which is not out of faith is sin."

When the disciples plucked the ears of corn, passing through the cornfields, they ate them, but this was certainly not a meal. So esthiO is used. It is the same with the crumbs which the puppies ate. No one can get a meal off crumbs only. In Matt. 15:32 the meaning is not necessarily that the throngs had absolutely nothing to eat, but they they had nothing they could make a meal out of (phagO). In Mark 6:31 the apostles had not yet had an opportunity to have a meal (phagO). The eating of the Passover is always phagO, a set meal, although during the meal the process is also called esthiO. For three days after his conversion Saul had neither a meal (phagO) nor drank (Acts 9:9). The forty Jews who made a pact to murder Paul were neither to have a meal nor drink until they had killed him (Acts 23:12 and 21). It is true that their story, when they came to the chief priests and elders, was somewhat different, for then it was that they were "to taste nothing" till they had killed Paul (verse 14).

Any importance this matter may have for us is connected with the Lordly Dinner. Some good brethren, like Walter Bundy, cannot observe any efficacy therein. Perhaps they might be differently disposed did they fulfil the scriptural conditions during a proper meal and in a natural setting. I do not know of any company of Concordant folk who do this.

I do not say I have proven my theory regarding these two verbs. I should like some stronger and further evidence. If you have anything to say on the subject, be sure I shall welcome it.

Notes on 1. Corinthians, 14 and 15
Unfortunately, in this whole chapter, the great importance of rendering lalO by talk has now been obliterated by rendering it as speak (for which legO is also used). In this chapter lalO occurs twenty-four times, and legO not once. Yet legO occurs very much oftener in the N.T. than the more uncommon lalO. When Dr. Atkinson of Cambridge and Professor Lockwood of London University attacked the C.V. I replied to the attack that one of them made on the C. V. use of talk for lalO, pointing out that Trench in his "Synonyms" devoted three or four pages to the difference between it and legO. AEK was so impressed that he had his chief supporters in England all hunting for a copy of Trench, of which evidently he had never heard or at least seen. Why he should now go back on his previous rendering is hard to understand. It is not permitted to women to be talking in the ecclesias, and this is a shame "in ecclesia." If it is scriptural to have women speakers in an ecclesia, then this talking can only refer to noise and whispering or gossiping. If women are totally excluded from uttering anything in ecclesia, then I fear many ecclesias are openly disobeying Paul.

14:12: Note that here the Greek states "since zealots you are of spirits." Nothing is said about "spiritual endowments."

14:22: Note that the languages for a sign are not (eisin ou) to the believing, but the prophecy (is) not for the unbelieving but for the believing. In the second clause there is no verb is. The believing ones are the pisteuousin (participle), but the unbelieving the apistois (adjective).

14:32, 1930 C.V.: "And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets." 1944 C.V.: "And (the) spirit(ual endowments) of prophets are subject to (the) prophets." Kai pneumata prophEtOn (and spirits of prophets). Why this juggling? Spiritual endowments ought surely to stand for pneumatika. This is something more than providing us with all the evidence. It is taking away some of the evidence. The Greek puts it very clearly, "prophets' spirits to prophets are being subject."

15:4: "that He was entombed, and that He has been roused the third day." The perfect tense here may seem rather odd, but it might be explained as meaning roused quickly after the entombing. The Greek perfect seems to mean something like this at times.

15:12: It might be better and clearer to read thus: "Now if it is being heralded that Christ (emphatic by position) out from dead ones has been roused."

From a letter to Mr. X
You think one of the most serious failures among Concordant followers is their failure to believe in "predestination." You give me indeed a shock, as I had always thought they strongly believed in this. You say AEK has left this subject alone, and given it the meaning "designates before hand." But in this matter we must train ourselves to think not in Latin but in Greek. What does proorizO mean? I should say, without hesitation, going by its etymology, "to mark out before." Horion is "boundary"; horizOn is our horizon; horizO means "to mark out." Now there is a world of difference betwixt marking out beforehand and the awful idea contained in the Latin term predestination, which has certainly, at least, come to mean something fixed unalterably. How, for example, could we possibly say of the Lord that He is being "destinated" Son of God in power (Rom. 1:4)? Was he not that already? But it rings very true that He came to be out of David's seed according to flesh, but was marked out (specified) as Son of God in power, according to spirit of holiness, out from a resurrection of dead ones. It was that powerful rising from dead people that emphatically marked Him out for what He was, Son of God. I know there are some people who teach that he only became Son of God at resurrection; such people might believe that his future destiny was to be Son of God.

If you would peruse my article in the volume of Unsearchable Riches for year 1935 entitled (by AEK) "How Eternity Slipped In" you would see how Christendom has been led astray in various directions by a long usage of Latinized terms, such as, "destruction," "perdition," "eternal," "sacrament," "penance," "propitation," "salvation," "redemption," "justification," "sacrifice," "substance," "creed," "transubstantiation." Thus it may seem strange that the very common term "salvation" only entered into the English Bible with Tyndale in the year 1534. Wycliffe (1380) used "health."

It is therefore of some importance to discover whether the Latin term "predestination" accurately represents the Greek verb proorizO.

I have therefore just made a careful study of the various Greek allied terms found in the N.T.—horizO and its compounds.

I would ask, is it possible to use the term "destiny" in a biblical text without thinking of that which is final and fixed? The January-February issue of "The King's Herald" has just been sent to me. It is headed on the front page "Special Human Destiny Number." The various articles on this topic revolve around the idea contained by the expression "for ever and ever." In common parlance we used the words "destination" :and "destiny" in very different connections. Our destination may be merely local and daily; but destiny looks far ahead.

Now when we know, and so very little is revealed concerning the ages to come, next to nothing about the vast future, is it right to talk about our destiny as though it were rigidly and unalterably fixed? Beyond knowing that we shall be with and like our Lord Jesus Christ, in some way carrying out His wishes, just what do we concretely know about our deathless future? There may be one hundred different and glorious destinies for each of us! It would not be like God to have us invariably the same or perpetually doing the same thing. You know the shallow people who laugh at the idea of anyone for ever playing a harp in heaven. I am not musically inclined. But if ever I am permitted in the heavens to play a musical instrument I should like to learn to play a harp. But not for ever, and not incessantly. God loves variety and change.

But I must accord you every opportunity to justify your conclusions. No doubt you have much to say upon the subject, and I am ignorant of your ideas on the matter. If you are correct, no doubt you will have some good explanation of 1. Cor. 2:7. There we learn that Paul was talking God's wisdom in a secret, which (wisdom) has been concealed, which God designates before the eons for our glory. . . . (C.V.).

Now, in what sense could we say wisdom was "predestinated"? Would it be correct to speak of wisdom having a destiny? You will have observed that both the A.V. and the R.V. here forsake the term "predestinated" and use "ordained before."

I think you must have misunderstood what AEK says upon predestination. Have you not been over hasty in averring that he has left this subject alone? Why, look at Rom. 8:29 in his version. While the text reads (and has read since the earliest C.V. in 1914) "designates beforehand" his note on the passage states in the plainest of terms "Our destiny was fixed by God from the beginning, long before we could have any part in it. . ."

While I have been severe upon AEK's grammatical blunders in his Version (if, indeed, it was he who perpetrated them), I must not bring myself to condemn all or any of his teachings merely upon such grounds. Prejudice is a most miserable teacher. I think his lack of positive teaching on persevering prayer is most unscriptural, and I detest his fatalism; but I must not be taken as disagreeing with all his teachings simply because I differed very radically with him over his translations. But for the late Ethelbert Bullinger and A. E. Knoch, perhaps we should possess very little or no knowledge of how to divide the Scriptures aright.

Last updated 11.10.2005