Grammar | CrossWise

Dan McClellan’s Faulty Analysis of John 1:1c

August 17, 2024 7 Comments

This post is an extension of my recently published “And the Word was ‘Deity’?” in response to Dan McClellan. And my most recent “What to Believe” serves as a sort of backdrop. That is, I am willing to reassess my positions in light of further study; with regard to John 1:1c, is McClellan similarly inclined?

Below I engage with another McClellan vlog covering much the same ground as the one referenced just above. In each one, he dogmatically declares that John 1:1c does not convey “the Word was God”. And he makes the same faulty claims regarding the use and non-use of the Greek article (~the) to support his position (see bold in quotation below).¹

The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Theos is being used qualitatively, as many scholars have recognized. If the author wanted to say “the Word was God,” they would have included the definite article, because in Greek predications, if you have a definite noun preceding the verb, that noun takes the article if its referent is either well-known or has already been mentioned, and both of those are true of Theos in John 1:1.

Having previously studied and written about the Greek article in relation to this specific syntactical ordering, I can only speculate as to where this Bible scholar gets such an erroneous notion.

Continuing where we left off from his vlog:

Now, scholars who acknowledge this still like to avoid the rendering “the Word was divine,” because after John was written that would become a heresy. And so they have to retroject conceptual frameworks into the first century that did not exist when John was written—ideas like God exhausts the category of divinity. Therefore, if anybody has divinity, they have to be God. Additionally, this notion that you can have multiple persons within one Being—that way you can say that “what God was the Word was,” or “the Word was fully God,” or anything to avoid the plain and simple rendering “the Word was divine.”

Essentially, the two separate arguments—the erroneous grammatical/syntactical assertions in the first paragraph and the claims in the second paragraph which rely on the faulty premises of the first—are both examples of the straw man fallacy.² The latter is fabricated from the former’s faulty foundations.

His DOGMA > DATA

In the video above, McClellan wears a hoodie which reads DATA > DOGMA. I like this expression. My contention here, though, is that in the contents of the above he has flipped it to DOGMA > DATA. In other words, it appears he is imposing his preferred dogma onto the related data. To illustrate, below I first shall overturn his Greek grammar assertions by using counter-examples in the Gospel of John. I shall then demonstrate how John’s Gospel and other associated Johannine literature (1 John, Revelation) contain what amounts to “conceptual frameworks” to support the dogma he criticizes.

Despite his faulty reasoning, McClellan arrives at the correct interpretation that “Theos is being used qualitatively” in the context of John 1:1c. I’m reminded of my high school Algebra II class, in which students could lose some or all credit if they failed to provide the proper methodology (‘work’) by which the answer was obtained. The correct answer mattered little or not at all if it was not properly substantiated. Scholarship requires a firm grasp of, and proper presentation of, relevant principles.

Countering His Grammatical/Syntactical Assertions

(It may be helpful to begin with this explanation. “Grammar” is the umbrella term for a set of language rules, which includes “syntax”. “Syntax” specifically refers to the ordering of words in a sentence.)

McClellan is quite dogmatic in his claim: The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Is he right? It depends on how the two renderings are individually interpreted.

Before proceeding I must state that it is only fair to take his argument as he intends it so that I don’t straw-man his position. Yet, strictly speaking, it is anachronistic for him to use an English translation of the Greek to state that John’s Gospel does or does not say this or that, because English wasn’t even a language when this Gospel was penned.³ My hunch is he begins in this somewhat provocative manner in order to quickly grab his audience’s attention.

Now, to put his general stance in the way I think he intends it regarding John 1:1c, he is saying that Theos (“God”) cannot be understood in a definite sense, which is how he construes “the Word was God”. Rather, per McClellan, it is qualitative, describing a quality or qualities of the subject nominative (SN) ho Logos (“the Word”), which he thinks should be translated “the Word was divine”. And to advance his claim, he marshals the specific grammatical/syntactical structure of John 1:1c. It is ordered PN (predicate nominative), CV (copulative verb), art (Greek article), SN (subject nominative), PN-CV-art-SN:

Theos (PN) ēn (CV) ho (art) Logos (SN). God-was-the-Word.

For English, we reorder it art-SN-CV-PN: “the Word was God”.

His specific grammatical/syntactical argument—the bolded portion in his first paragraph in the above vlog quote—can be paraphrased: Because the noun Theos (“God”) in John 1:1c lacks the Greek article (~the) in the predicate nominative (PN) which precedes the copular verb (CV, “to be”), this noun Theos cannot be understood in a definite sense. To be definite, McClellan asserts, the article (ho, “the”) must be present before Theos. Therefore, he declares, because the article is absent (-art) in the PN, it must be understood as functioning in a qualitative sense (~“the Word had God qualities”) instead of a definite sense (~“the Word was ‘the’ God”).

He is basically right about Theos functioning qualitatively in John 1:1—but for the wrong reasons.

Comparing John 8:12 (cf. John 1:4) with John 9:5 easily overturns McClellan’s dogmatic stance regarding the absence of the Greek article in the PN of John 1:1c.

8:12 is ordered just like we would in English: subject nominative (SN), copulative verb (CV), article (art), predicate nominative (PN), SN-CV-art-PN:

Egō (SN) eimi (CV) to (art) phōs (PN) tou kosmou. I (SN) am (CV) the (art) light (PN) of-the world.

“I am the light of the world.”

(Before going further, some explanation is in order for the non-Greek reader. Every finite verb in Greek encodes person and number. In other words, finite verbs automatically include a built-in subject. So, in John 8:12 above, eimi is itself a complete sentence: I-am. This particular finite verb form is a first person singular in the present. With that clarified, we can proceed where we left off.)

In 9:5, John records Jesus saying essentially the same thing as 8:12. But it is ordered differently and similar to John 1:1c—without the Greek article before the noun in the PN: PN-[SN]-CV. The subject nominative (SN) “I” is not explicitly expressed but provided in the verb:

Phōs (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tou kosmou. Light (PN) I-am ([SN-]CV) of-the world.

For English we would, of course, reorder it and add the English definite article (the) before “light”: “I am the light of the world.”

So, in 8:12 we have the PN “light” with the Greek article and placed after the verb. But in 9:5 we have the PN “light” without the Greek article and placed before the verb. And the noun “light” is clearly functioning in a definite sense in both cases.

Now, going back to McClellan’s assertions and comparing to our findings here: We have in 9:5 an example of a ‘Greek predication’ (PN) in which there is “a definite noun preceding the verb” (PN-CV) and “its referent…has already been mentioned” (in 8:12; cf. John 1:4), yet the definite noun in the PN in 9:5 lacks the Greek article.

McClellan is demonstrably wrong here. A predicate nominative lacking the article (-art) and placed before the copular (“to be”) verb (PN-CV) can certainly be definite.

To provide relevant background, we need to look at what is known as “Colwell’s rule”.⁴ This is variously stated in Greek grammars, so I shall quote directly from E. C. Colwell himself as he phrased his general, tentative findings (bold added): A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb, it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.⁵ This concurs with our example above. And the bolded portion is the polar opposite of McClellan’s claim.

One of Colwell’s first examples was John 1:49.⁶ Here Nathaniel identifies Jesus in two different ways. His first statement is ordered SN-CV-art-PN, just as we would in English:

Su (SN) ei (CV) ho (art) huios (PN) tou Theou. You-are-the-Son-of-God.

Nathaniel’s second statement is SN-(-art)-PN-CV:

Su (SN) Basileus (PN) ei (CV) tou Israēl. You-King-are-of-Israel.

Proper English would be “You are the King of Israel.”

Both “Son” and “King” are definite nouns in this context, yet “Son” has the Greek article, while “King” does not. Furthermore, “Son” follows the CV, while “King” precedes the CV. Therefore, one might conclude that “Son” has the article specifically because it follows the CV, while “King” lacks the article specifically because it precedes the CV. This concurs with Colwell’s general ‘rule’ as stated above.

But this ‘rule’ is not universally true.⁷ In other words, Colwell found this to be only a guide, not an absolute ‘rule’ that was followed by the Greek writer. And there is some amount of subjectivity involved in making any judgment regarding definiteness when the article is lacking (-art) in a PN-CV ordering.⁸

One more example: Pilate’s sign over the crucified Jesus reading “The King of the Jews” (John 19:19) includes the article before “King” (ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn). The High Priests were displeased with the wording, which could be understood as a title proclaiming Jesus really was the King of the Jews (cf. John 18:33)—which, of course He was/is—so they asked Pilate to change it (19:21). They first restated Pilate’s verbiage verbatim (do not write “ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn”), and then offered their preferred reading: That man said, “Basileus (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tōn Ioudaiōn”, “King-I-am-of-the-Jews.” “King” is surely definite, yet it lacks the Greek article. For English we would reorder it and add the English definite article before “King” to render it “I am the King of the Jews.” So, once again, the definite PN lacks the article and comes before the verb, and the referent is both well-known and had recently been mentioned. And, once again, this is contrary to McClellan’s assertion regarding this syntax.

Qualifying Qualitativeness

This section will further explain how to interpret this particular syntactical ordering and then offer another possible rendering of John 1:1c.

Colwell himself stressed that context would be the primary factor in determining whether or not an anarthrous (-art) preverbal PN (PN-CV) would be definite.⁹ Yet Colwell apparently favored definiteness in such syntactical constructions to the point of bias.¹⁰ This appears to be what led him to conclude that John 1:1c is definite and rendering it “the Word was God”.¹¹ Some others have followed Colwell’s conclusion of definiteness here.¹² Is it possible this contributed to McClellan’s faulty analysis? Might this be why He necessarily interprets “the Word was God” as strictly definite?

Helpfully, Wallace called an anarthrous (-art) PN-CV ordering a “Colwell’s construction” in order to differentiate between “Colwell’s rule” and the syntactical construction he tested.¹³ And this syntactical construction is what Philip Harner had investigated 40 years after Colwell.¹⁴ Harner, and later Dixon, found that a “Colwell’s construction” ([-art]-PN-CV) most often functions qualitatively.¹⁵ And while this syntactical construction can function in a definite sense (depending on context), this is a far second to a qualitative understanding.¹⁶

Moreover, Harner convincingly argued that qualitativeness does not necessarily preclude a further underlying nuance of either definiteness or indefiniteness.¹⁷ Context must decide, yet he admits to a certain amount of subjectivity.¹⁸ Harner concludes 1:1c to be qualitative, with no shade of definiteness: the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.¹⁹ He suggests a rendering such as “the Word had the same nature as God.”²⁰ His rationale: ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.²¹

With this background, Wallace specifically analyzed John 1:1c as to whether it could be indefinite (“a god”), definite, or qualitative.²² The grammarian ultimately concluded it to be qualitative, adding (bold in original): The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.²³

Without stating so explicitly, Bernard, in his ICC commentary, appears to affirm qualitativeness with an underlying nuance of definiteness: [John 1:1c] asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos, His Pre-existence and Personality having been first stated [ED: in 1:1a, 1:1b]; cf. 10:30; 20:28; and Philippians 2:6.²⁴

Because of the context, Theos in John 1:1c cannot be construed as strictly definite. John 1:1b already describes the Word in relationship with ho Theos, “’the’ God”. Ho Theos In this context refers to the Father. Thus, if one were to construe Theos in 1:1c as strictly definite (as if the Greek article were present), this would make nonsense of 1:1 generally.²⁵ That is, 1:1c would then imply that the Word is the same entity as ho Theos in 1:1b—that the Word is the Father. This obviously cannot be true.

The main issue for translators here is attempting to best capture the meaning for the average English reader. Rendering the PN of John 1:1c as “was divine” or “was Divine” can be interpreted or misinterpreted in myriad ways. In common English “divine” can refer to a well-made dinner or dessert. It can refer to a beautiful artwork, a beautiful woman, etc. Thus, it is too ambiguous, too weak.

The translation “the Word was God” is an attempt at more closely capturing what is perceived as John the Gospel writer’s intent. It is not perfect. And it is not meant to be understood as definite but, rather, qualitative.²⁶

Alternatively, we might translate John 1:1c And the Word was qualitatively God. And since ho Theos (the Father) is in relationship with the Word (“the Word was with God”), it would seem reasonable to understand the qualitative aspect of Theos for ho Logos (“the Word”) as being equal to that of ho Theos in 1:1b. In other words, given the immediate (and larger) context, there appears to be no reason to deem this qualitative aspect of ‘God-ness’ in the Word as in any way diminished from that of ho Theos (the Father). This concurs with Harner’s rationale above.

Summarizing

In summary, Dan McClellan’s grammatical/syntactical assertions have been shown to be erroneous.

In John 1:1c, the lack of the Greek article in front of Theos in and of itself does not preclude a possible interpretation of definiteness. The same syntactical structure is present in other verses in John’s Gospel, and some of those are definite rather than qualitative. It’s the context that determines the sense. And it’s the context of John 1:1c that eliminates definiteness, not the lack of the Greek article.

Similarly, McClellan’s claim that John 1:1c would be definite only if the article were placed before Theos has also been refuted. Had the Greek article been placed in front of Theos, it would make nonsense of the clause in its larger context. That is, in 1:1b the Word is described as in relationship (“with”) ho Theos, which, in context, is the Father; so, adding the article (ho) to Theos in 1:1c would make the Word and the Father (ho Theos in 1:1b) the same entity (ho Theos was ho Logos).

Generally, the absence of the article in this syntactical structure leaves open three possible interpretive senses: indefinite, definite, and qualitative. The context is the decisive factor.

The John 1:1c translation “the Word was God”, as found in many modern translations, is not to be interpreted in a strictly definite sense. It is qualitative (and perhaps with an underlying nuance of definiteness). While “the Word was Divine” might be considered a suitable substitute, it is too ambiguous and too weak for the immediate context and the larger context of John’s Gospel. This is elaborated upon in the next segment (Interpreting Conceptual Frameworks), which also addresses the content of the second paragraph in the vlog quotation.

________________________

¹ Admittedly, McClellan is more measured in his statement in the vlog referenced in my previous article “And the Word was Deity?”. While he basically makes the same claim about the presence/absence of the Greek article for definite nouns, his complete statement is different there. There he says that to be definite “then it should carry the definite article, and without it, it is most likely being used qualitatively.” The first part of this excerpt (“then it should carry the definite article”) basically mirrors the current blog post in this specific regard. And it is incorrect. The second statement (“without it [the Greek article], it is most likely being used qualitatively”) is not incorrect—in isolation (by itself). In other words, Theos is most likely being used qualitatively in John 1:1c due to: (a) the lack of the article; (b) the context. This will be explained as we progress.

² To be completely fair, I cannot definitively know his intent. Is he erecting a straw man (i.e., knowingly misrepresenting the position in order to more easily tear it down, and thus be able to charge Christian scholars with theological motives for the rendering “the Word was God”), as opposed to simply being mistaken regarding the Greek article’s use and non-use in this specific syntactical construction? From my perspective the latter would be difficult to believe, for he consistently self-identifies as a Bible scholar, claims to have addressed issues in Mormon New Testament translation, and has made a very specific grammatical claim here—all of which lead me to think he has specifically studied this issue before making his assertions. (And see footnote 1 above.) Should he be mistaken instead, I would expect him to make a correction or retraction; and, if he makes such a correction or retraction, I will note it here on the blog.

³ Ironically, McClellan uses this charge of anachronism (retrojection) against those interpreting Trinitarianism in John’s Gospel (or the entire NT—he’s not specific here), while he can be accused with the same in this regard.

⁴ See E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 12-21.

⁵ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁶ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁷ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 17. According to his analysis, anarthrous definite PNs precede the CV 97 times, they follow the CV 26 times. And arthrous definite PNs precede the CV just 15 times, follow it 229 times.

⁸ Colwell adds: Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article (“Definite Rule”, p 21).

⁹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, pp 20–21.

¹⁰ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 259–260. Cf. Paul Stephen Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), pp 11–12. Colwell even claimed the converse of his own ‘rule’ (‘a preverbal PN lacking the article is definite’), which is a non sequitur. The converse states what first needs to be determined!

¹¹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”: [John 1:1c] looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or ‘qualitative’ when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the Gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (John 20:28) (p 21).

¹² See Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 257–258.

¹³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 262–270.

¹⁴ Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973), pp 75–87.

¹⁵ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”.

¹⁶ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 262. Contra David L. Mathewson & Elodie Ballantine Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), pp 85–86. The authors here are critical of Wallace’s (and, by extension, Harner’s and Dixon’s) approach, finding it too subjective. They agree with Wallace’s expressed Trinitarian theology, yet: …[W]e are not at all convinced that John’s grammar was intended to reflect such fine trinitarian nuances (p 85). The authors believe the structure merely presents “the Word” as the subject with the presence of the article, while they do not proffer a specific verdict on the nuance of the PN, though definiteness may be implied (p 85).

¹⁷ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–87; Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 263.

¹⁸ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 83.

¹⁹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²⁰ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²¹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²² Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 266–269; cf. 243–247. Wallace also references Dixon “Significance” here.

²³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 269.

²⁴ J.H. Bernard, The Gospel According to John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary; ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs; Accordance electronic ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), para 11469. He seems to assert a qualitativeness with an underlying definiteness by his added cross-references that: (a) more unambiguously assert that the Incarnational Jesus (Logos-become-flesh) is (ho) Theos (John 10:30 and 20:28) in an undiminished sense, and (b) forthrightly claim His preexistence as Theos (Philippians 2:6: en morphē Theou hyparchōn, “in (the) form of God existing”) in conjunction with his verbiage “asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos”. In other words, the local context seems to indicate a qualitative-definite understanding of Theos in John 1:1c, and when considering the larger context of John’s Gospel (10:30, 20:28) and the even larger corpus of the New Testament (Philippians 2:6), this stance is bolstered.

²⁵ And it would amount to what became known as Sabellianism; cf. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934 {1914}), pp 767-768.

²⁶ I would judge qualitative with an additional nuance of definiteness. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar: “…anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives usually fall within the qualitative-definite range” (p 263; emphasis in original).

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Dan McClellan, Greek Language studies, Incarnation, Jesus, Jesus Christ, logical fallacies, Pop Culture, Scripture, Trinity Tagged with anachronism, anarthrous, And the Word was God, arthrous, Christianity, Colwell, context, copulative verb, Dan McClellan, Dan Wallace, DATA > DOGMA, definite article, definiteness, Divine, Dixon, english, God, Grammar, Greek article, interpretation, John 1:1c, King of the Jews, logos, Philip Harner, predicate nominative, qualitative, qualitativeness, right for the wrong reasons, scholarship, straw man fallacy, subject nominative, syntax, Theos

And the Word was ‘Deity’?

July 28, 2024 5 Comments

Dan McClellan—an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon Church, LDS Church)—is a well-credentialed Bible scholar and a relatively popular social media personality. I’ve recently stumbled across a number of his YouTube vlogs, having never heard of him previously.

In this blog post I will partly engage with his short vlog on John 1:1c. Most Christian Bibles render this and the Word was God (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV). Over against this translation, McClellan claims it should be and the Word was deity instead.

My focus here will be on the grammar and syntax, as well as the local and larger context of John 1:1c. In Greek this is καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, and transliterated (exchanging Greek characters for English letters) kai Theos ēn ho Logos. I shall forgo comment on his claims regarding the Christian Trinity.

I begin here with where we agree. I agree with McClellan’s claim Theos in John 1:1c should be understood as qualitative. John the Gospel writer, by way of his use of syntax (ordering of words), is stating that the Logos inherently possesses the quality, or qualities, of Theos. In terms of essence, the Logos is Theos.

But I challenge part of McClellan’s reasoning and, more pointedly, the validity of the claim that Theos here should be “deity” instead of “God”. I also take exception to him calling the Greek article “the definite article”. Some may see this as quibbling (as many Christian scholars indeed do the same as McClellan here), but with no corresponding indefinite article in Greek, it seems best to call it simply ‘the article’.¹ In English, we have both a definite article (the) and an indefinite article (a/an); however, we should be mindful of not subconsciously imposing English grammar concepts upon the Greek.²

To explain the Greek syntax of John 1:1c, we will begin with a brief refresher course of English. Let’s assume Fred has recently been promoted to President of ZYX, Inc. following Ed’s retirement. So we can say:

Fred became President.

Here Fred is the subject, became is the verb, and President is the predicate. Both Fred and President are nouns. So, more specifically, Fred is the subject nominative (SN), while President is the predicate nominative (PN). The verb became (become, to become) is a copulative verb (CV), along with other verbs such as be, seem, etc.

In John 1:1c (kai Theos ēn ho Logos) Logos is determined to be the subject by both the local context—the Logos is the subject of the two previous sections (1:1a and 1:1b) as well as John 1:2—and, more importantly, by the presence of the article in front of Logos (making it arthrous) and the corresponding lack of the article in front of Theos (making it anarthrous). Thus, the ordering of 1:1c is PN (Theos), CV (ēn), SN (ho Logos).

Taking this in syntactical order and translating word-for-word, as literally as possible, we have God-was-the-Word. For English translation we would reorder SN-CV-PN: the-Word-was-God.

As one can readily see, Greek word order is flexible. Word order in Greek can be formatted to emphasize a particular word or clause and/or to signify a particular nuance.

With this background in mind, below I quote McClellan, beginning at 0:19 in his vlog:

The noun Theos there does not have the definite article and it is occurring before the ‘to be’ verb in a predicate nominative clause—an X-is-Y clause. And in the Greek of this time period, if a noun is referring to a specific agent that is either well known or has already been mentioned in close context, and both of these things would be true of the use of Theos in reference to the God of Israel, then it should carry the definite article, and without it, it is most likely being used qualitatively—in other words, to refer to some quality of the subject of the clause. And so here probably the best interpretation would be “and the Word was deity”.

If the Greek article had been present before both nouns in 1:1c, we would have a convertible proposition in which the SN = PN and the PN = SN. In other words, ho Logos would be identified as identical and interchangeable with ho Theos.³ Using our English example, it would be like stating Fred’s entire identity is wrapped up in being President of ZYX, Inc. But in 1:1b the Gospel writer had already established that there was another entity present with ho Logos, specifically ho Theos (in the accusative, direct object form ton Theon)—and the Word was with [‘the’] God. Thus, John did not use the article in front of Theos in 1:1c so as not to confuse with or contradict the use of ho Theos (again, in the accusative ton Theon) in 1:1b.

John’s ingeniousness is evident in his formatting of 1:1c. By ‘fronting’ Theos he emphasizes it, and without the article he makes Theos qualitative (anarthrous PN-CV-arthrous SN). As Westcott states:

The predicate (θεός) stands emphatically first . . . It is necessarily without the article (θεός, not ὁ θεός), inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.⁴

Now I wish to address McClellan’s implicit claim that ho Theos in 1:1b (again, as ton Theon) is “in reference to the God of Israel”. I find this woefully deficient. In considering merely the prologue (John 1:1–18), it is clear that [ho] Theos generally refers to God the Father and that John’s focus is on the special relationship between the Father and the Son of God. This is especially evident in 1:14 (doxan hōs monogenous para patros, “glory as of a one-in-kind from [the] Father”) and, most of all, in 1:18 (Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs Theos[/Huios], ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato, “No one has ever seen God; the one-in-kind, God[/Son], who is in the bosom of the Father, that-one has revealed [Him]”).

Therefore, John 1:1c should be understood within this framework—ho Logos has the same essence/nature as ho Theos in 1:1b.

But perhaps I’m overreacting through misunderstanding? Maybe McClellan would agree with me on the above (while remaining in opposition to any Trinitarian understanding)?

Whatever the case, his rendering and the Word was deity has problems. A qualitative understanding is akin to the anarthrous noun Theos as acting adjectivally. As such, a possible rendering would be and the Word was Divine—with the capital “D” in “Divine” understood as connoting exclusivity over and differentiation from any other “divine” beings (or things). McClellan’s preferred “deity”, even if changed to “Deity” is problematic because this word is not ever used adjectivally. But, then again, “God” is not understood to function adjectivally in standard parlance either.

Yet, had John the Gospel writer wanted to use an adjective related to ho Theos, he could have used Theios (“D/divine”), which is found in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pet 1:3, 1:4. But that would have fallen short of the force of the construction John ultimately used.

Perhaps if McClellan would render ho Theos in 1:1b “the Deity”, I would be more inclined to accept “Deity” (capitalized) in 1:1c. As it stands right now, I stand with Wallace: “Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, ‘and the Word was God.’”⁵ Elsewhere, I render this “and the Word was by nature God.”⁶

_______________________________________

¹ Quoting Rodney J. Decker (Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014]), “There is no such thing as a definite article in Greek—only an article that may or may not express definiteness. Likewise, the lack of an article is not necessarily an expression of indefiniteness but may express a qualitative meaning or some other nuance” (p 39). Cf. Wallace (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996]) notes, “No one questions that the article is used frequently to definitize, but whether this captures the essential idea [of the article] is another matter” (p 209).

² See footnote above!

³ See A. T. Robertson (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. [Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934], pp 767-768) who references this very clause, adding: “[W]hen the article occurs with the subject . . . and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable” (p 768). Cf. Wallace, Grammar, pp 258, 268.

⁴ B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1908), p 6 [http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026844228;view=1up;seq=210;size=125].

⁵ Wallace, Grammar, p 269, note 31.

⁶ See The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 6, Conclusion and Probing the Prologue in The Gospel According to John: John 1:1-2.

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Dan McClellan, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Pop Culture, Scripture, Trinity Tagged with anarthrous, And the Word was God, arthrous, B. F. Westcott, Christian Apologetics, Christianity, context, copulative verb, Dan McClellan, Daniel Wallace, english, God, Grammar, Greek article, John 1, John 1:1c, LDS, logos, predicate nominative, qualitative, qualitativeness, subject nominative, syntax, The Word, Theos, translation, Writing

Book Review/Synopsis: Voice and Mood: A Linguistic Approach, by David L. Mathewson

May 27, 2024 5 Comments

Essentials of Biblical Greek Grammar, Stanley E. Porter, Series Ed.; Baker Academic, 2021, 191 pages.

David L. Mathewson’s Voice and Mood: A Linguistic Approach inaugurates a new series on Biblical Greek Grammar. Mathewson (with Elodie Ballantine Emig) previously co-authored Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2016), and this new volume both expands on and sharpens the related material from that earlier work. As one would expect by its subtitle, Voice and Mood provides a linguistic framework within which to systematically exegete.

After a brief introduction, Voice and Mood divides into two sections, one per subject. The first is Voice, which begins with a brief survey of recent intermediate-level grammars (S. Porter, K. L. McKay, D. Wallace, D. A. Black, Mathewson/Emig, Köstenberger/Merkle/Plummer) and other recent works discussing voice. The author then reveals his approach using New Testament (NT) examples.

Mathewson grounds his methodologies in adaptations of M. A. K. Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Among other things, SFL posits that when a choice is made between available options—e.g., passive voice over against middle or active—a meaningful distinction is indicated (p 26). For the author, “SFL has proven a powerful descriptive model for interpreting…the New Testament” (p 25).

Voice is conceptualized through the lens of causality and agency/medium. In the active voice the subject functions as agent. In the passive and middle voices the subject functions as medium. Thus, the active indicates direct causality, the passive indirect–external causality, the middle indirect–internal causality (p 36). Similar to the method Stanley Porter applies to aspect (see Porter’s VAGNT, p 90), Mathewson views direct causality—morphologically conveyed in the active voice—as the default in a choice between the three causality types. The author illustratively (fig. 2.2, p 38) pairs direct causality with indirect causality as the first option, signified as +Active (direct causality) or –Active (indirect causality). The latter must then be further subdivided as a choice between +Passive (external causality/external agent) or +Middle (internal causality).

Choosing passive or middle over against the default active voice should be seen as exegetically significant, with the middle the weightiest. Yet one must bear in mind the special case of so-called deponent verbs, which lack active forms (e.g., –ομαι endings). Mathewson believes (as others) these should be better termed “middle-only verbs” (pp 70-72). Extrapolating from this, these middles should not be deemed as possessing the same weight as middles within the typical three-voice trinary.

In some contexts, middle-voiced verbs are transitive; that is, there are accusatives following. These accusatives should not be understood as “direct objects” (the “goal” in active contexts) but as the Range, functioning to further define the verbal action or process (pp 65–66).

Mathewson’s approach provides a more precise and internally consistent explanation for the middle voice compared to other works. In short, when viewed through the lens of causality and agency/medium, the three voices can be individuated by the characteristics each expresses—and, correspondingly, does not express—relative to the others.

As with Voice, the section on Mood (Modality) begins by surveying related material. Also like Voice above, Mathewson adapts Halliday’s SFL English modal system. But the Biblical Greek Modal system is necessarily more complex than Voice, given the larger number of and the myriad pragmatic functions for the moods.

Mood is defined as the speaker’s attitudinal, subjective portrayal of the verbal action or process relative to reality (pp 87, 89, 170–171). This portrayal may or may not reflect objective reality or factuality. This is so even in the indicative (which could be expressing the speaker’s misunderstanding, hyperbole, sarcasm, etc.).

Mathewson conceives the Greek Modal system as comprised of either assertive (indicative) or non-assertive (imperative, subjunctive, optative) moods. Similar to Voice, Mood is illustrated (fig. 5.1, p 96) as a choice between Assertion and Nonassertion, with Assertion (indicative) being the default. Nonassertion must be further delineated as a choice between Direction (imperative) or Projection, the latter even further subdivided between –Contingency (subjunctive) or +Contingency (optative). The author suggests this added feature of contingency in the optative might be seen as a sort of parallel to the two imperfective aspects—found in the present and imperfect tense-forms—in that the imperfect adds +remoteness (p 96, nt 3).

Thus, when the Biblical author has chosen any of the non-assertive moods over against the assertive, this should be understood as exegetically significant. And, for example, when the optative is chosen over the subjunctive, “prominence” is indicated (p 121).

It is not sufficient to merely determine voice and mood in isolation. One must consider these as choices over other available options. If a non-default voice (i.e., passive or middle) and/or a non-default mood (i.e., imperative, subjunctive, or optative) is found, the exegete should view this as significant. Within this schema the reader should search for broader patterns. For example, Mathewson notes the significance of Paul’s use of the indicative mood throughout chapters 1—3 of Ephesians as compared to the many imperatives in chapters 4—6. The imperatives build upon the foundation fashioned by the earlier indicatives (p 130).

The future tense-form, which has traditionally proved difficult to categorize, is understood by Mathewson as a quasi-mood. Following Porter, Mathewson views the future as indicating an expectation of fulfillment (p 132). Its form and semantics similar to the subjunctive, the future is sometimes even found where one might expect the subjunctive (e.g., ἵνα clauses). In such usages, the future should be considered “the more semantically weighty form with its feature of expectation” (p 132).

Mathewson suggests how the future might fit within the Modal system—between the assertive and non-assertive moods (chart p 132). Thus, after the Indicative (Assertion) would be the Future (Expectation of fulfillment), followed by the Subjunctive (Projection: no expectation of fulfillment), Optative (Projection: contingent expectation of fulfillment), and Imperative (Direction).

Participles and infinitives (nonfinite verbal forms) are also considered, in conjunction with the mood expressed by corresponding finite verbs (see fig. 6.1, p 139). Participles presuppose the author’s commitment to the subjective reality (which, again, is not necessarily objectively true) portrayed by the control/main verb (p 138). Infinitives do not; that is, “the infinitive merely states the verbal idea” (p 139; emphasis added). The author provides a number of NT examples of each.

I strongly recommend this book. In fact, my goal is to incorporate Mathewson’s approach. While the work necessarily uses some new jargon and some intermediate-level concepts, the writing is suitably accessible for the motivated student. The author illustrates via NT examples as he goes. One might wish he sometimes provided more, but I’d think interested students would be sufficiently inclined to seek out more examples on their own.

Worth the price of the book is Mathewson’s explanation of what is signified by the middle voice of γλῶσσαι, παύσονται (glōssai, pausontai, “tongues, they will cease”) in 1 Cor. 13:8—and, more importantly in my estimation, is not signified (p 68).

Filed under Bible, Book Review, Book Review - Christian Orthodoxy, Christian Culture, Christian living, Greek Language studies Tagged with active voice, Agency, agent, Book Review, causality, David L Mathewson, Essentials of Biblical Greek Grammar Series, Grammar, language, linguistics, medium, middle voice, Modality, Mood, passive voice, SFL, Stanley E Porter, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Voice, Writing

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Addendum

August 5, 2023 26 Comments

In further pondering the overall contents of this series, the argument surrounding the neuter to katechon (“what detains”) could—and should—be strengthened. Moreover, some of the other points would benefit from a bit of refining.

First, I shall further explain and justify my interpretation of the referent for the neuter singular to katechon (“what detains”) in 2:6. As Robertson notes, “A neuter singular as an abstract expression may sum up the whole mass.”²⁹ Larger context will provide some clarity:

Abstract substantives occur in the plural in the N. T. as in the older Greek, an idiom foreign to English…On the other hand [an abstract substantive in] the singular appears where one would naturally look for a plural. A neuter singular as an abstract expression may sum up the whole mass…[a] collective use of the neuter singular…[yet] the neuter plural indeed is common…Then again the singular is used where the substantive belongs to more than one subject…In all these variations in [grammatical] number the N. T. writers merely follow in the beaten track of Greek usage with proper freedom and variability.³⁰

The grammarian also states, “Often the neuter [singular] conveys a different conception.”³¹ By this, Robertson means a different framing than the original context. In 2:6, I interpret to katechon as referring to the collective expression including, but not necessarily limited to, “the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (“rebellion” is grammatically feminine, “man” is masculine). Alternatively, the singular to katechon in 2:6 could refer to the plural tauta (“these things”) in 2:5, which in turn refers to the entirety of 2:3–4. The extent to which the interpreter views Paul’s digression in 2:5 (e.g., as a parenthetical statement) may impact the decision in choosing between these two exegetical options.

In the final (dative) clause of 2:6, en tō̹ heautou kairō̹, the reflexive pronoun heautou (genitive) is interpreted here as neuter (“its”) instead of masculine. Its antecedent is construed as the neuter to katechon—“what detains”. [I]n its season. This agrees with Paul’s timing here. The Day of the Lord, which includes Jesus’ Parousia—His revealing—cannot begin until the lawless one is revealed. Jesus will be revealed in its season—the season of the lawless one’s revealing.

While we certainly do not know exactly when Jesus will return, we will recognize its imminence by remaining alert (1Thess 5:4–10). When the twigs of the fig tree become tender and its leaves sprout, we will know we are in the season of His Parousia (Matthew 24:32–51; Mark 13:28–31; Luke 21:29–36).

Regarding the first (independent) clause of 2:7, Fee notes, “the Greek word mystērion usually referred to something now hidden that would in time be revealed.”³² This is why I prefer the more specific ISV rendering the secret of this lawlessness, which views the article as akin to a demonstrative pronoun—the way in which the article was first used historically.³³ This interpretation well fits the overall context and provides a proper subject for which to make the best sense of the dependent clause. For the secret [hiddenness] of this lawlessness is already working, only until that which now detains Jesus [the season {of the lawless one’s revealing}] becomes out of the middle.

It will probably prove helpful to also expound on the exegesis of “becomes out of the middle”. First, it must be observed that Bruce claims ek mesou “implies removal”.³⁴ And in Frame’s conception, “ἐκ μέσου [‘out of the middle’] refers to Satan’s expulsion from heaven to earth”, about which he later states of this prepositional phrase, “to be sure [it] designates only the fact not the manner (forced or voluntary) of the removal”.³⁵

This interpretation of removal is found in the translation of Leucippe and Clitophon below. Another rendition of the same Greek romance follows further below. However, we must note that both selections are not word-for-word translations. Moreover, as will become obvious by a comparison of the two, these renderings lean more toward paraphrasing than dynamic equivalence translations.

The first selection is from the mid-19^th century. Larger context will probably be more illustrative:

“It appears to me most advisable to get this wench* out of the way at once, and after waiting a few days we can depart ourselves, if still of the same mind. According to your account the maiden’s mother does not know who it was whom she surprised, nor will there be any one to furnish evidence since Clio is removed. Nay, we may perhaps persuade the maiden herself to share our flight; I will accompany you at all events.”

We agreed to the proposal, so Clio was delivered to the care of his slaves to be put on board a boat, while we continued to deliberate upon the course best to be pursued.³⁶

(*Wench meant servant-girl in the time this was written.)

The rendition below is from the early 20^th century:

“I think,” said [Clinias], “that I have conceived the best idea: namely, to send her away privily, and ourselves remain a few days; then, if we like, we can ourselves go after making all necessary preparations. At present, so you tell me, the girl’s mother does not even know whom she caught: and when Clio has once disappeared there will be nobody able to inform here. And perhaps you will be able to persuade the girl to escape with you.” At the same time he told us that he was prepared to share our flight abroad. This plan commended itself to us: so he handed Clio over to the charge of one of his servants, telling him to put her aboard a ship, while we waited there and discussed the future.³⁷

I submit that “is removed” and “has disappeared” describe the logical result of “becomes out of the middle”, as opposed to more authentically translating the text (an idiom, perhaps?). By extension, I suggest there’s a bit of circularity involved in the usual translations of 2Thess 2:6–7. I might agree with Bruce that the phrase “implies removal” if one interprets verses 6–7 under the premise that it is the lawless one being ‘restrained’.

But in the conception here, with the understanding that it is Jesus’ Parousia that is being figuratively ‘detained/delayed’—with the subject time—a “removal” just does not work. In other words, since “the detainer” is abstract (time), any attempt to shoehorn “removal” into the text would obscure the meaning. It seems best to retain the bald “becomes out of the middle”.

p.s.

Perhaps this further explanation will persuade some readers to accept the possibility of the interpretation proffered here?

[See the Introduction describing the main interpretive issue, associated Grammatical Parameters, An Alternate Angle for exegesis, and Concluding Exegesis/Interpretation—it’s about TIME!]

____________________________________

²⁹ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), p 409.

³⁰ Robertson, Grammar, pp 408–409. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p 764, in which the neuter article + participle can be an “abstract singular” or used in a “representative or generic sense”. I would be remiss, however, if I did not also note that Robertson specifically cites to katechon oidate in 2Thess 2:6 as indicating “concealment of the person” (p 409), thereby reflecting his own interpretation of this expression in its context.

³¹ Robertson, Grammar, p 411. Here Robertson refers to the ‘switch’ to neuter when the antecedent is a collective consisting of an item or items of differing grammatical gender. In our case here, the referent is both feminine and masculine.

³² Fee, First and Second Letters, p 288.

³³ See Wallace, Grammar, pp 216–220, 221.

³⁴ Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, p 170.

³⁵ Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261, 262.

³⁶ Rowland Smith, translator, The Greek Romances of Heliodorus, Longus, and Achilles Tatius (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), p 391 / p 424 of pdf version at Archive.org.

³⁷ S. Gaselee, translator, Achilles Tatius (New York, NY: G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1917), pp 109, 111 / pp 109, 111 of pdf version at Archive.org.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Salvation Tagged with "becomes out of the middle", A. T. Robertson, abstract concept, abstract noun, abstract substantive, Achilles Tatius, ἐκ μέσου, blessed hope, circularity, collective singular, Day of the Lord, ek mesou, Fig Tree, Grammar, grammatical number, grammatical number mismatch, ho katechon, Imminence, Leucippe and Clitophon, neuter grammatical gender, parousia, season

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Concluding Exegesis/Interpretation—it’s about TIME!

July 22, 2023 37 Comments

Gathering together everything discussed so far related to our subject verses 2:6–7—the Introduction describing the main interpretive issue, Grammatical Parameters, and An Alternate Angle for exegesis—I now offer my own exegesis and interpretation. I shall call it a ‘tentative conclusion’, for it has not been subjected to any sort of peer review. However, I have made every effort to stay faithful to the grammar and syntax, and—more importantly, in my view—the context.

What if “the restrainer” is not a restrainer at all?

Position Revealed and Contextually Justified

If we had to reduce the Thessalonians’ misconception to one word, it would be timing. Apparently due to ongoing persecution (1:4–7), and perhaps some erroneous foreign communication (2:2), they mistakenly thought the Day of the Lord had already begun (2:2).¹⁹ Under that false premise, they then seemed to have assumed Jesus’ Parousia was imminent (2:1).²⁰ Paul corrects this notion by reminding them of what he had told them in a previous face-to-face teaching (2:5), specifically that the rebellion (apostasia) and the revealing of the man of lawlessness had to occur before the Day of the Lord could begin (2:3–4).

The presumption Paul had provided ‘in-house information’ (2:5) only contemporary Thessalonians were privy to²¹ encourages speculation upon the passage (2:6–7). It abets eisegesis. We ought to question this premise. The idea that Paul is referring to some oral teaching absent from the epistle itself begs the question: Why would we presume Paul would withhold such crucial information from subsequent audiences of his epistle? Certainly there would be later converts to the Thessalonian ekklēsia, who would then be in the dark as to the exact meaning here without assistance from other congregants. Perhaps more pointedly, if we take the position this letter is Holy Spirit inspired—as all Scripture—then we should seek an interpretive solution within the context itself.

Thus, it is better, I submit, to understand Paul’s “these things” (tauta) in 2:5 as strictly referring (anaphorically) to the events in 2:3–4, which are a re-explanation of an earlier oral teaching.²² From this foundational premise, Paul then restates (2:6–7) what he had just re-explained (2:3–4) in order to correct their misconception (2:1–2). In other words, 2:6–7 should be interpreted as Paul’s encapsulation of the issue at hand (2:1–2) and his re-explanation (2:3–4) of his earlier face-to-face teaching (2:5) to correct it. Through this interpretive lens, I suggest Paul is not speaking of some elusive “restrainer” holding back the lawless one but, rather, a “detainer” figuratively ‘holding back’ Jesus’ Parousia (cf. Luke 4:42, “crowds were keeping/detaining Him”).

With this framework in mind, below is my translation of our subject passage. Explanations of the referents for katechō in v. 6 and v. 7 as well as the two pronouns in v. 6 are in italics and brackets. Each occurrence of katechō is interpreted transitively, with the corresponding implied direct objects supplied in italicized red text:

2:₁Now, dear brothers and sisters, concerning the coming [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you ₂ not to be easily troubled in mind or alarmed by any spirit, message, or letter, seemingly from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has already begun. ₃Let no one deceive you in any way, for ⸤ that Day will not begin ⸥ unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed [apokaluptō], the son of destruction, ₄the one opposing and exalting himself above all that is called ‘God’ or ‘object of worship’, such that he seats himself in God’s sanctuary, proclaiming that he himself is God. ₅Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ₆ And now you ~~know~~ understand what [rebellion and man of lawlessness’ revealing] detains Jesus, that He [Jesus] may be revealed [apokaluptō] in its [what detains’] season. ₇ For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until that which [season (of lawless one’s revealing)] detains Jesus now becomes out of the middle. ₈ At that time the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]—whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His coming [Parousia]— ₉which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan . . .

Jesus is ‘detained’ by the yet future season of the lawless one, in which the lawless one will be revealed. Once this season “becomes out of the middle” between the current “mystery of lawlessness” and the Parousia of Jesus, the revealing of the lawless one will occur. This in turn will prompt the Day of the Lord, and Jesus’ Parousia would then be imminent.

This interpretation concurs with v. 8, in which Paul follows at that time the lawless one will be revealed immediately with whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His Parousia. In other words, once this season “becomes out of the middle”, first will come the rebellion and the lawless one’s revealing, which will be followed by the Day of the Lord and Christ’s Parousia.

We should understand “detain” not that the future Day of the Lord and Jesus’ Parousia are actually being delayed, but that Paul is clarifying the proper sequence of events. For sure, God’s timing prevails, God’s sovereignty is secure.

The word “season” (kairos) should be understood, per usual, as a segment of time, rather than a point in time. Thus, the revealing of the lawless one occurs within the ‘season of the revealing of the lawless one’.

Paul has no intention of being chronological in a strict sense. We might call his argumentation here a poetical paraphrasing. In his rhetorical style—using two different referents for katechō as he restates his correction to the Thessalonians’ mistaken timing—Paul is tautological. Yet, the Apostle likely repeated katechō for emphasis. First century Thessalonians probably well understood Paul. Comparatively, we later readers view the passage through anachronistic lenses, thereby obscuring Paul’s intent.

Using the interpretation above, we could paraphrase the passage:

And now you ~~know~~ understand that it is the rebellion and revealing of the lawless one that detains Jesus, so that He is to be revealed in the season of this revealing. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until this season detaining Jesus becomes out of the middle (between the already present mystery of lawlessness, which you are now enduring, and the Day of the Lord, which will bring Jesus’ Parousia). At that time the lawless one will be revealed…

Grammatical (and Inter-Contextual) Justification

Here we shall go through 2:6–7 clause by clause to grammatically justify the exegesis and interpretation.

And now (kai nyn): Most interpreting to katechon as “restrainer” understand “and now” in v. 6 as temporal (and you know what is now “restraining”).²³ In contrast, the view herein interprets it as logical. The sense is and now that I’ve re-explained all this, you ~~know~~ understand. This is where Paul begins to restate the clarification of 2:3–4 and the issue of 2:1–2.

And now you ~~know~~ understand what detains (kai nyn to katechon oidate): The grammatical rubber meets the road right here. Where do we find the neuter referent for “what detains” (to katechon)? The verb is singular, so is it possible to see it as referring to the neuter plural tauta, “these (things)” in v. 5? Maybe, but perhaps it is better to view it as correlating simply to v. 3’s the rebellion and revealing of the man of lawlessness, as opposed to the entire description in 2:3–4. [See Addendum for further explanations.]

The New Testament uses the singular “it is written” (gegraptai) to refer to a single verse or short section of Scripture. But when more than one Scripture is referenced the plural is used. An example is John 12:16 in which these (things) had been written about Him (tauta ēn ep’ gegrammena) refers to the multiple Scriptures mentioned in 12:13–15.

The account of Jesus healing the man at the pool of Bethesda in John’s Gospel provides a good back-and-forth comparison. In John 5:14 the narrator uses the plural meta tauta, “after these (things)”, to refer to the sequence of events related to the healing of the man (5:5–13). Yet in 5:16 the narrator first uses the singular dia touto, “because of this” to refer back strictly to 5:15 (The man departed and reported to the Jews that it was Jesus who made him whole). Yet in the same verse “because of this” is later followed by the plural hoti tauta, “that these (things)” (were done on the Sabbath), referring to 5:5–13 once again. Then in reaction to 5:17 (So Jesus told them, ‘My Father still works, and I am working’) the narrator records them in 5:18 with the singular dia touto, “because of this” (the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him).

So, as we can deduce, the singular “this” (touto) refers to one event. In 5:16 “this” (touto) refers to the healed man’s reporting. In 5:18 it refers to the reaction to Jesus’ response. Comparatively, the plural “these (things)” (tauta) refers to something more expansive, a series of events—in this case the entire account of Jesus’ healing of the man (5:5–13).

Given the above, I interpret the plural “these (things)” in 2:5 as referring (anaphorically) to all of 2:3–4. In comparison, I understand the singular “what detains” (to katechon) in 2:6 as referring (anaphorically) to only a small portion of 2:3, specifically the rebellion and revealing of the man of lawlessness. The rest of 3–4 detail the aftermath of his revealing, and so are not pertinent to the issue of a ‘delayed’ Parousia.

what detains Jesus: Interpreting “what detains” (to katechon) transitively, I construe Jesus as the implied direct object. This brings us back to the main issue: What is delaying Jesus’ Parousia? The Thessalonians were apparently anxiously anticipating Jesus’ Parousia to bring them relief from their persecution (1:4–7).

Alternatively, the Day of the Lord could work as the implied direct object.

that He may be revealed (eis to apokalypsthēnai auto): Over against other interpretations—excepting Schaefer/Frame (noted in An Alternate Angle)—I construe the masculine pronoun as referring to Jesus.

As Witherington observes, in this chapter Paul is employing a rhetorical synkrisis, which contrasts one thing or person with another by using similar verbiage for each.²⁴ In this case, the Apostle contrasts one Parousia with another—a true Parousia, and a false parousia. I also construe one “revealing” (apokaluptō) contrasted with another. The two other instances of “revealing” in this chapter clearly refer to the lawless one (2:3, 8), but here I deem the occurrence as relating to Jesus. The verbal form (article + infinitive) is different from the other two (finite verbs), and I interpret this one as an allusion to 1:7 (article + noun form of the verb), which explicitly refers to Jesus.

Those who view this clause through the lens of a “restrainer” holding back the lawless one usually interpret it as expressing purpose. The method herein favors the clause expressing result:²⁵ As a result of the yet-future revealing of the lawless one “detaining” Jesus, He will be revealed… (see next section).

in its season (en tō̹ heautou kairō̹): The (emphatically placed) reflexive pronoun (heautou) can be interpreted either as masculine or neuter. Under the construal here, most naturally the emphasized pronoun is intended to refer to the neuter “what detains”: in its season. Jesus will be revealed in the season of the lawless one’s revealing. The true Parousia follows the false one (2:8–9).

The word “season” (kairos) here may well be intended as an allusion to 5:1 of the first Thessalonian epistle: Concerning the times [chronos] and the seasons [kairos], brothers and sisters, you have no need to be written to you. It appears they did need this!

For the mystery of lawlessness is already working (to gar mystērion ēdē energeitai tēs anomias): This (independent) clause is fairly straightforward. This is Paul’s way of putting the Thessalonian persecution in perspective. They are currently living in “the mystery of lawlessness”, apparently a subdued level of lawlessness—and persecution—as compared to what will be present at the revealing of the lawless one. Yet this fuller (full?) manifestation of the lawless one will be no match for the Coming One.

Revelation 10:6–7 provides a corollary to the overall interpretation here:

10:₆ …“There shall be no more delay! ₇ But in the days of the sound of the seventh angel, when he should be about to trumpet, then the mystery of God is finalized, as he proclaimed to his servants, the prophets.”²⁶

only until that which detains now (monon ho katechōn arti eōs): only until provides the termination point for “the mystery of lawlessness”.²⁷

The masculine grammatically gendered “that which detains” (ho katechōn) is (anaphorically) correlated to the masculine “season” (kairos) at the end of v. 6. In turn, “season” is (anaphorically) correlated to the neuter “what restrains” (to katechon) via the modifying pronoun “its” (heauton). In this way each referent flows nicely in the text. Each one refers back to an antecedent, as opposed to (cataphorically) looking forward to a postcedent, which is less natural. I submit this better suits Paul’s intention here, for he would surely not want to further confuse the beleaguered Thessalonians!

that which detains Jesus now: Like the earlier instance in v. 6, I interpret “that which detains” transitively, while also understanding “Jesus” to be the implied direct object.

becomes out of the middle (ek mesou genētai): Here I think it best to retain Paul’s apparent poetical intention. It is the lawless one’s season that “becomes out of the middle”, and such a pure translation seems appropriate to suit Paul’s rhetorical style here. Recognizing God’s sovereignty over seasons, “becomes” (genētai) is probably functioning as a so-called “divine passive”; that is, God is the implied agent.²⁸ The lawless one’s revealing, just as the lawless one himself, is subject to God’s sovereignty.

In this context, the phrase “becomes out of the middle” may well be alluding to Matthew 24:34: …this generation shall not pass away until all these things come to be (panta tauta genētai).

And at that time (kai tote): Those interpreting “And now” in v. 6 temporally (as referring to then-current time) also construe v. 8 as beginning with “And then” (referring to the future). By contrast, I understand this word (tote) as “at that time” (see Weymouth NT and Berean Study Bible) and the clause as logical: Once its season “becomes out of the middle” the lawless one’s revealing occurs.

Afterword

This article is the culmination of literally years of thought and work. When I initially had a germ of this interpretation, I lacked the confidence and competence to complete it. I hope I am not now overconfident and my conclusions flawed!

Critique is welcome, both pro and con—especially con. If I have made any blunders, please identify them by commenting. Thanks for reading!

_____________________________________

¹⁹ “Day of the Lord” was likely understood not as one twenty-four hour period, but as the time period encompassing the end of the age. See, e.g., Wanamaker, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, p 240. It is beyond the scope of this article to more fully engage other works regarding the possibilities for the Thessalonian misconception. Space will allow only a brief summary.

²⁰ As Witherington opines (Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006]): “[T]hey may have simply thought that their current sufferings were part of the [D]ay of the Lord, and that Jesus’ coming must then be imminent, all being part of the final events” (p 215). This succinctly captures my own view.

²¹ Even BDAG—“κατέχω” in Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd. ed. (Chicago, IL: Chicago, 2000)—presumes this in a parenthetical note: “vs. 5 appears to imply in-house information” (p 532.1.c).

²² See Frame, Thessalonians, pp 257–258. Using the neuter plural tauta, “these (things)” is a very common way of referring back to things just stated or written, e.g., Matthew 1:20, John 5:16. See further below.

²³ I’ve yet to find a source that interprets καί νυ̑ν as logical, though some admit it as a possibility, e.g., Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), p 286. Fee, though, ultimately favors a temporal interpretation (pp 286–7).

²⁴ Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, p 217.

²⁵ Though Fee, First and Second Letters, favors a “restrainer” holding back the lawless one, he understands the clause expressing result, leaving purpose unmentioned (p 287). In other words, it appears Fee does not see purpose as a possibility here. Cf. Decker at note 10 from the second segment.

²⁶ Many thanks to PowerPoint with Dr. Jack Graham, pastor of Prestwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX for this insight. I heard part of his sermon/exposition of Revelation on KDRY while driving just this past week. As soon as he quoted Revelation 10:6–7, the Spirit immediately correlated “no more delay” and “mystery of God” with “mystery of lawlessness” and the interpretation “what detains” here.

²⁷ On initial inspection, the syntax seems a bit convoluted. But see note 7 above (in the Grammatical Parameters segment) for explanation.

²⁸ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 437–438.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Salvation Tagged with "becomes out of the middle", "divine passive", "the detainer", "the mystery of God", "these things", "The Restrainer", Chronos, context, exegesis, false parousia, God's sovereignty, Grammar, grammatical gender, interpretation, κατέχω, kairos, katechō, Matthew 24:34, parousia, pool of Bethesda, Revelation 10:6-7, season, synkrisis, syntax, tauta, tauto, tautology, the Day of the Lord, Time, timing

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: An Alternate Angle

July 15, 2023 6 Comments

In the Introduction, a brief overview of the main issue in 2:6–7 was discussed. In the Grammatical Parameters segment, relevant grammatical, syntactical, and—to a lesser extent—contextual issues were considered. In this segment, we will take the information gathered thus far and explore another’s alternative exegesis of this passage.

Throughout the centuries, a particular methodology seems to have straight-jacketed exegetes. It was just assumed and followed. This restrained other possible exegeses. For our purposes here, I shall borrow Guthrie’s imperative: “We must continue to ask questions of our methodologies as well as of the text.”¹⁴

Following are some questions we should ask of our subject text, starting with the first clause of 2:6 and finishing with the final clause of 2:7. Questioning the text afresh could yield other interpretive avenues foreign to those usually assumed:

-Is “now” to be understood as logical (‘and now that I’ve re-explained all this, you know’) or temporal (and you know what is now “restraining”’)?
-If intransitive use of to katechon (v. 6) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder”?
-Who does the pronoun (“he”) refer to in the middle clause (the accusative/direct object)?
-Whose/which (“his”/”its”) season/time is referred to?
-If intransitive use of ho katechōn (v. 7) is assumed, what/who holds/prevails?
-If transitive, what/who is being restrained/held?
-If transitive, what/who is the restrainer/holder?
-What is the best way to translate ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes”?

In some cases, an answer to one will directly impact, or even eliminate, another. The alternative interpretation below rather radically ‘reinterprets’ the passage by answering some of these questions differently than prevailing exegesis. A brief background will serve as a preface.

The Schaefer/Frame Interpretation

James Everett Frame, in his early 20^th century International Critical Commentary, references a work (from 1890) by Schäfer (Schaefer), an obscure Roman Catholic scholar.¹⁵ Since Frame’s work is now in the public domain, we shall quote at length.

First, however, owing to the commentary’s technical nature, Schaefer’s exegesis—as interpreted, in part, by Frame—shall be laid out just below. Brackets identify the referents:

2:₆ And as to the present, you know what holds sway [the secret of lawlessness], that He [Jesus] may be revealed in His season. ₇For the secret of lawlessness has already been set in operation [by Satan], only until he who is now holding sway [Satan] becomes out of the middle. ₈ Then the lawless one will be revealed…¹⁶

Thus, in v. 6 Schaefer/Frame interprets the first clause temporally (“as to the present”), the verb intransitively and (cataphorically) referring to v. 7’s “secret of lawlessness”. The direct object is “Jesus”, and, presumably it is in Jesus’ season that He Himself will be revealed. Since, in the Schaefer/Frame conception, the source of “the mystery/secret of lawlessness” is Satan’s power (mysterion, “mystery” is neuter), then the masculine “restrainer” in v. 7 is Satan himself.

Schaefer in his commentary (1890) agrees with Döllinger in taking κατέχειν [“to hold”] intransitively and in translating it “herrschen,” “rule,” “hold sway.” In his exegesis of the passage he comes to the conclusion not only that τὸ κατέχον [v. 6, “what holds sway”] is the mystery of lawlessness and that αὐτόν (v. 6 [“He”]) is Christ, but also that ὁ κατέχων [v.7, “who holds sway”] is Satan. This identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, original apparently with the Roman Catholic scholar, has the advantage of fitting admirably into Paul’s thinking both here and elsewhere. Assuming Schaefer’s identification as a working hypothesis and applying it in our own way, we suggest first of all that just as Christ is to Paul both the exalted Lord and the Spirit operating in believers, so Satan is both (1) “the god of this age” (2Cor. 4:4), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), the (temporary) ruler (ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι [“who holds sway now”]) of the spiritual hosts of wickedness, and (2) the evil spirit (τὸ κατέχο) that energises in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). The effect of the operation of Satan, the spirit or person who is now holding sway, is characterised as “ the mystery of lawlessness,” that is, the lawlessness which is secretly growing in unbelievers under the spell of Satan. This control of Satan is in accordance with the divine purpose, for it prepares the way for the revelation of the Anomos [“lawless one”] in the time set him by God and not before, the reason being that the mystery of lawlessness, which Satan sets in operation, is to culminate in a definitive apostasy on earth which is the signal for the advent of Satan’s instrument, the Anomos. But this apostasy will not come, and the Anomos will not be revealed until Satan, who is now holding sway, is put out of the way…But the unsolved difficulty in our passage is the reference intended by ἐκ μέσου γένηται [“out of the middle becomes”]. It is just possible that Paul is alluding to the war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 ff.), the religious revolt led by Satan, which is the signal for the sudden apostasy on earth. In this case, ἐκ μέσου [“out of the middle”] refers to Satan’s expulsion from heaven to earth. Though he is thus removed, he makes use of his peculiar instrument, the Anomos, who now issues forth from his place of concealment, and gives him all his power, just as the Dragon (Revelation 13:2) gives the beast his power, his throne, and great authority. Equipped with this power, the Anomos, whose advent is for the doomed alone, gathers his forces for war against Christ (cf. 1Cor 15:24 ff.), attempts the assault on the throne of God in his holy temple in heaven, but is slain in the attempt by the Lord Jesus with the breath of his mouth and is destroyed with the manifestation of his advent. To this conjecture, based on Schaefer’s identification of ὁ κατέχων with Satan, it may be objected not that Satan is described in reference to his function of κατέχειν, for Paul calls Satan ὁ πειράζων [“the tempter”] (1Thess 3:5), but that (1) Paul might not subscribe either to the identification or to the deductions therefrom indicated above, and (2) that ἐκ μέσου, which to be sure designates only the fact not the manner (forced or voluntary) of the removal, does not at first blush suggest an ἐκβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὴν γῆν [“throwing down to the earth”] (Revelation 12:9).¹⁷

In Frame’s conception of Schaefer’s position (which seems to have not been fully fleshed out by Schaefer), Satan and “the mystery of lawlessness” are “connected both essentially and temporally.”¹⁸ In other words, Satan is the spirit behind the mystery of lawlessness in the time before the revealing of the lawless one. Concurrent with when this more subdued lawlessness reaches its zenith, Satan “becomes out of the middle” via his expulsion from heaven, which results in the adversary directly operating through the lawless one in a mock ‘incarnation’.

The Schaefer/Frame position can be seen as bolstered by Paul’s use of the same root word (energeō) for “is working” (above as the dynamic equivalent “set in operation”) in v. 7 and in v. 9 (noun form [energeia] of verb: “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”). That is, “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, which was already in operation/working at the time when Paul penned his epistle, culminates in the lawless one’s energization “according to the ‘working’/’operating’ of Satan”. The energy source is the same, only the latter more manifest, probably to the full.

And yet it is at this point that this schema is open to criticism, as Frame freely admits. More pointedly, if Satan’s (more subdued) power is behind “the mystery/secret of lawlessness”, and it is also the adversary’s manifest power energizing the lawless one upon his revealing, then it becomes a question of why Satan would be construed as the one who “becomes out of the middle”. It all seems a bit convoluted.

Another Alternative?

Using the same framework as the lengthy quote above, we might substitute Michael the archangel for Satan here, by construing ho katechōn (v. 7) as transitive (Michael restraining Satan) rather than the Schaefer/Frame intransitive. Once Michael “becomes out of the middle” (Rev 12:9), Satan is able to fully possess the lawless one. But then the issue of context rears its head again. Michael is found nowhere in the context. And this same problem plagues the ‘usual’ interpretations.

Yet, positively, this alternative framework above can induce other conceptions. Is there another way of viewing this passage, while simultaneously remaining faithful to the context? One such view will be presented in the next segment, the conclusion.

_____________________________________

¹⁴ George H. Guthrie, “Boats in the Bay: Reflections on the Use of Linguistics and Literary Analysis in Biblical Studies,” in Stanley E. Porter & D. A. Carson, eds. Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p 32. After this statement, which was used as a section header, the author comments: The fundamental question has to do with how meaning functions—how a specific meaning comes to be obtained by the reader of a literary text. In other words, what is the nature of the author–text–reader relationship? Certain queries in this regard will occupy those who seek to integrate newer literary criticism with linguistics (p 32).

¹⁵ James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs, International Critical Commentary (ICC), (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912). See p 64 for first reference to Schäfer’s commentary; no title is provided. See here for digitized version.

¹⁶ The exegesis and translation are gathered from Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–264. It’s important to note that Frame himself differs at points from Schaefer, though sharing in an intransitive interpretation for both verses. Also prefering this interpretation is Wanamaker (1 & 2 Thessalonians, pp 253–256).

¹⁷ Frame, Thessalonians, pp 261–262.

¹⁸ Frame, Thessalonians, p 264.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation Tagged with "becomes out of the middle", "the mystery of lawlessness, "The Restrainer", 2 Thessalonians 2, energeia, energeo, Grammar, holds sway, intransitive, James Everett Frame, katechō, lawless one, Michael the archangel, parousia, Satan, Schaefer, syntax, transitive

Revealing “The Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2: Grammatical Parameters

July 9, 2023 9 Comments

[See part I: Introduction.]

To assist in identifying “the restrainer” we might scan through the first chapter of 2 Thessalonians for possible points of contact. At least one commonality is found below.

First, I will translate 2:1–9, even though we’ve yet to explore other interpretive avenues for 6–7. One available option is evident in the forward slash ( / ) between two alternatives. Elsewhere, the grammar and syntax allow other renderings. Explanations will follow further below. Greek words repeated in the text are bracketed and in colored font for easy reference and comparison.

2:₁Now, dear brothers and sisters, regarding the coming [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you ₂ not to be easily troubled in mind or alarmed by any spirit, message, or letter, seemingly from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has already begun. ₃Let no one deceive you in any way, for ⸤ that Day will not begin ⸥ unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed [apokaluptō], the son of destruction, ₄the one opposing and exalting himself above all that is called ‘God’ or ‘object of worship’, such that he seats himself in God’s sanctuary, proclaiming that he himself is God. ₅Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I was telling you these things? ₆ And now you know what restrains_[nt] [(him)], that he may be revealed [apokaluptō] in his/its_[ms/nt] season. ₇For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until the one who/which now restrains_[ms] becomes out of the middle. ₈ Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]—whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His coming [Parousia]— ₉which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan . . .

Few would find Paul the model of clarity in 2 Thessalonians 2. Besides the run-on sentences and digressions, he even leaves out part of the sentence in v. 3!⁷ The italicized text between the subscripted brackets ( ⸤ ⸥ ) fills it in.⁸ Paul also deviates from the plural “we” used throughout this epistle (…we ask you…), to the singular “I” in his digression of 2:5 (…when I was with you, I was telling you these things?).

Grammatical and (Inter-)Textual Considerations

Note the repetition of both Parousia and apokaluptō. On the former (Parousia), Paul uses it twice to refer to Jesus (v. 1, 8) and once to “the lawless one” (v. 9—illustrated here by the use of lower case parousia). Paul contrasts the ‘coming’ of the lawless one with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He juxtaposes the lawless one’s counterfeit parousia with Christ’s true Parousia.⁹

Regarding apokaluptō, this word is explicitly used twice in reference to the lawless one (v. 3, 8) and once seemingly to him (v. 6). Yet, v. 6 is in a different verbal form (infinitive¹⁰) than the others. Interestingly, the noun form (apokalypsis) of this verb signifies Jesus’ revelation in 2Thess 1:7.¹¹ Larger context better illustrates:

1:₅ …proof of God’s righteous judgment that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you are suffering, ₆ since it is a righteous thing for God to repay those afflicting you with affliction, ₇ and to you who are being afflicted with relief with us, at the revelation [apokalypsis] of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power.

Paul pastorally comforts the persecuted Thessalonians by assuring them that he, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1) will join them in their relief at Jesus’ revelation, aka Parousia (2:1, 8). Chapter 1, then, serves as a preface to his correction in chapter 2.

Paul specifically uses apokaluptō for the counterfeit parousia. That is, in 2:8–9, he defines the lawless one’s “revealing” by parousia. If we remove the portion of v. 8 referring to Christ’s Parousia (between the em dashes), we are left with: “Then the lawless one will be revealed [apokaluptō]…which is the coming [parousia] according to the working of Satan…”

Zeroing in on 6–7, we must first mention the verb katechō. At root, it carries the meaning “hold”, though in translation we may further nuance it according to context. Yet it may be important to keep this basic definition in mind, for this could foster out-of-the-box thinking in our subject verses.

The New Testament (NT) uses the word in a variety of ways, with “hold” underlying each occurrence:

-Luke 4:42: crowds were holding [keeping, detaining, delaying] Him, that He not depart from them
-Luke 14:9: in shame, you would begin to hold [occupy] the lowest place
-Acts 27:40: hoisting the mainsail to the wind, they began holding course [heading] towards shore
-Rom 1:18: the wrath of God is revealed against men who hold back [suppress] the truth
-Rom 7:6: having died in that which we were held [bound, confined]
-1Cor 7:30: those buying (things), as if not holding [possessing, owning] (things)
-1Thess 5:21: hold [hold fast, cling] to the truth

This briefly summarizes NT applications, providing fodder for possible alternate renderings in 2:6 and 2:7.

In v. 6, note “him” in brackets. The verb for “restrainer”, katechō, can be understood as acting either intransitively (without accusative direct object) or transitively (with direct object). Either interpretation is possible here. If we assume the word is functioning intransitively, then we simply end the clause with “what restrains” and leave it at that.

If transitive use is assumed, then we supply the direct object from context—“him” in the tentative translation above. Luke 8:15, in which the transitive is surely implied, exemplifies: and having heard the word, they hold [katechō]. In this verse, katechō has no expressed direct object, so translators follow “hold” with a supplied “on to it” (“it” referring to “the word”).

No matter how this is interpreted, there is the accusative direct object “that he may be revealed” in the very next clause. In the intransitive application, this clause further explains in some way “what restrains”. In the transitive application, we would then have a double accusative/direct object structure, in which the second one further explains the first in some manner: “…what restrains him, that he may be revealed”.

The verse begins with the Greek kai nyn, “and now”. The “now” can be interpreted one of two ways: temporal or logical. If temporal, it is rendered like the NASB: “And you know what restrains him now”. In other words, ‘you know what is currently restraining him’. If logical, it is akin to the rendering in the above translation: “And now you know what restrains”. The sense is ‘now that I’ve re-explained things (2:1–5), you know what restrains’.

The final clause in v. 6 is ambiguous, in that the pronoun can be either masculine or neuter: “in his season” or “in its season”. If masculine is assumed, the pronoun most naturally refers to “he” in the previous clause. But, could it be neuter? If so, what would be the referent?

At first glance, v. 7 appears to contain a syntactical anomaly. It seems to consist in two separate sentences, the second one missing the main verb. However, the solution is to construe it as one sentence, with word order in the latter portion intending to emphasize the subject (“the one restraining now becomes…”) of the dependent clause.¹² The effect would be to understand “only” and “until” as a consecutive unit, despite the Greek having “the one restraining now” sandwiched between the two. The International Standard Version (ISV), e.g., renders it in this manner: For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way.

The first part of the sentence—the main, independent clause—is relatively straightforward: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already working”. The final phrase ek mesou genētai (ἐκ μέσου γένηται, “out of the middle becomes”, “from the midst becomes”) in the dependent clause, however, has occasioned some difficulty. This exact phrase is absent in the NT. Though the verb (from ginomai, “become”, “come to be”) is very common, ek mesou occurs only a handful of times. Excluding 2Thess 2:7, here are the NT ek mesou occurrences:

-Matt 13:49: The angels will…separate the evil ones from among the just
-Acts 17:33: Paul went out from the midst of them
-Acts 23:10: snatch him [Paul] from the middle of them
-1Cor 5:2: removed from the middle of you
-2Cor 6:17: come out from among them and be separate

Each of the above is, essentially, “from the middle/midst” or “out of the middle/midst”, though context may favor slightly different wording in English. The meaning is very much the same, however.

Some have tried to interpret this final clause using “the mystery of lawlessness” as the subject of “becomes out of the middle”. However, “the one who/which now restrains” is certainly the subject. The capable F. F. Bruce refutes such a notion:

Attempts have been made to construe the clause as though the reference were to the mystery of lawlessness “coming to pass out of the midst”—i.e. emerging from its place of concealment, but that would require εἰς μέσον [ED: accusative] not ἐκ μέσου [ED: genitive].¹³

Excursus: Becoming out of the Middle

To further assist in exegeting ek mesou genētai, “out of the middle becomes” we will compare this phrase with a very similar one (same verb but different form) in a Greek romance, likely composed in the 2^nd century AD. The selection below is from Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon.

To set the stage, Clitophon and Leucippe become attracted to each other after circumstances place the latter in the former’s household in Tyre. After a time, the two conspire to partake in a nighttime rendezvous in her [Leucippe’s] chambers, with the assistance of household servant Satyrus and Leucippe’s personal maidservant, Clio. On that night, moments after Clitophon lies down in her bed, Leucippe’s mother, Panthea, awakens from a nightmare, provoking her to run to her daughter’s room. Upon seeing the silhouette of a man in Leucippe’s bed, Panthea erupts in hysterics. Under cover of darkness, Clitophon escapes, eventually making his way to his room, unsure if Leucippe’s mother recognized him as he fled. He assumes the worst.

Panthea interrogates Leucippe and Clio [her maidservant] in order to determine the identity of the nighttime visitor. In this, Panthea reveals that she did not realize it was, in fact, Clitophon in her daughter’s room. With this knowledge, Leucippe lies to her mother, saying she did not know the identity of the man. Meanwhile, aware of Panthea’s revelation to her daughter, both Clitophon and Satyrus plan to flee before the entire conspiracy is exposed. With this plan conceived, they proceed to the house of Clinias, Clitophon’s cousin, in order to further prepare.

Soon after, Clio arrives at Clinias’ house, desiring to escape from her sure interrogation by torture come morning. With this, she informs Clitophon, Satyrus, and Clinias that Panthea was as yet unaware of the identity of Leucippe’s visitor. Upon hearing this, Clinias pulls Clitophon aside, suggesting they secretly and swiftly send Clio off, out of harms’ way. This would provide the opportunity for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them, as well.

Following is Clinias’ reasoning in suggesting to Clitophon that Clio be sent away. First is the Greek, which is followed by a word-for-word working translation, then a more readable rendering:

Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 2.27.2:

Οὔτε γὰρ νῦν οἶδε τῆς κόρης ἡ μήτηρ τίνα κατέλαβεν, ὡς ὑμεῖς φατε,
ὅ τε καταμηνύσων οὐκ ἔσται τῆς Κλειοῦς ἐκ μέσου γενομένης:
τάχα δὲ καὶ τὴν κόρην συμφυγεῖν πείσετε.

And-not for now she-knows, the girl’s (the) mother whom she took, as you spoke,
that but will-make-known not be (the) Clio’s out of the middle becomes.
Perhaps now and the girl flee-along-with you-persuade

“For now, the girl’s mother [Panthea] does not know whom she saw, as you said,
and there will be no one to inform her when Clio becomes out of the middle.
And then perhaps you could persuade the girl [Leucippe] to flee with you.”

Clio is currently caught between Leucippe and Leucippe’s mother, Panthea. She does not want to divulge the conspiracy, thereby incriminating herself, Leucippe, Clitophon, and Satyrus; yet, Panthea, who wants to know the identity of the night visitor, will surely attempt to torture her for the information. By following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would become out of the middle.

Her escape would also buy some time for Clitophon and Satyrus to persuade Leucippe into fleeing with them all.

To restate, following Clinias’ suggestion, Clio would no longer be in the middle of the situation—in the middle between Leucippe and Panthea. She would become out of the middle, removed from the entire situation. Yet, note that it is Clio’s escape that makes her become out of the middle. In other words, her escape is the means by which she becomes out of the middle. It is not some external force removing her—with help from the others, she removes herself (“becomes out of the middle”) by escaping.

We might render the above, “and there will be no one to inform her when Clio escapes”. But, this would fail to retain the poetic value of the original “becomes out of the middle”. We must be careful not to over-translate when rendering texts, thereby imposing our own interpretation upon it.

Application

Applying this excursus to 2Thess 2:7, the overarching point is that the exegete should not be constrained by the common English versions, which use verbiage such as “is removed”, “is taken out of the way”, or “gets out of the way”. It is prudent to begin with the ‘bald’ translation “becomes out of the middle”. To the extent possible, begin with a tabula rasa, a clean slate. Reach an exegetical conclusion only after considering all grammatical and contextual options.

In v. 7, the verb “becomes” can be either passive or middle. If passive, some external force/person provides the action. If middle, ‘the restrainer’ has some part in becoming out of the middle.

Considering the context of v. 8, we know that once “the one who/which now restrains” becomes out the middle, the result is the revealing of the lawless one.

Opened Avenues

Within the framework provided by this part of the current series, one can begin to explore other exegetical possibilities, unencumbered by the usual interpretations. The next segment will provide one such alternative: An Alternate Angle.

___________________________________________

⁷ Many would argue there is also an ellipsis in 7b, requiring the addition of a finite verb to complete it. However, it is possible ἕως, eōs (“until”) is placed postpositively, after ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι, ho katechōn arti (“the one who/which restrains now”) in order to emphasize “the restrainer”. Assuming so, 7b should be understood as a dependent clause to “The mystery of lawless is already working” instead of a separate sentence. This is the approach taken above. See, e.g., Charles A. Wannamaker, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), pp 255–256.

⁸ More specifically (and technically), v. 3 is missing the apodosis, which is the main (independent) clause in an ‘if-then’ conditional statement. Only the protasis, the dependent clause, is stated here (“unless [‘if not’] the rebellion comes first and…”). In other words, in the case of vv. 3–4, it is the ‘then’ part that is absent. It is probably best to place the ‘then’ in the beginning of the sentence—as most English versions do—though it can be appended to v. 4, which would yield: “…proclaiming that he himself is God, [then] that Day will not begin.” See Young’s Literal Translation (“…the day doth not come.”).

⁹ Relatedly, see this post Not One Parousia, But Two.

¹⁰ More specifically, it is an articular infinitive within a prepositional phrase, indicating result. See Rodney J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp 368, 372.

¹¹ This same noun is used to begin the final book of the Bible, Revelation: The revelation/apocalypse [apokalypsis] of Jesus Christ…

¹² See note 7 above.

¹³ F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p 171.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Early Christianity, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation Tagged with "becomes out of the middle", "mystery of lawlessness", "The Restrainer", 2 Thessalonians 2, accusative, Achilles Tatius, Ancient Greek Romance, apodosis, apokaluptō, direct object, Discourse Analysis, ek mesou genētai, ellipsis, excursus, Grammar, intransitive, katechō, Leucippe and Clitophon, parousia, protasis, syntax, the lawless one, The man of lawlessness, transitive

Not Declining the Divine Name?

June 4, 2022 19 Comments

John writes some strange things in Revelation, aka The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. An angel fills a golden censer with fire from the heavenly altar, and throws it to the earth. And there’s an angel standing in the sun, crying with a loud voice to birds flying mid-heaven, “Come and gather together for the great supper of God.”

More mundane perhaps is the case below. It appears John does not decline the Divine Name. Now why would that be strange?

The One Who Is

Before proceeding directly, some necessary background must be provided. The applicable verbiage in Revelation 1:4, our subject verse, comes not from the Hebrew but the Greek of Exodus 3:14.¹ This portion of the Greek ‘Old Testament’ was translated from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) by Jews in the middle of the 3^rd century BC.² Exodus 3:13 is included, in order to provide necessary context:

3:₁₃ Then Moses said to God, “Behold: I shall go to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of our fathers has sent me to you.’ They shall ask me, ‘What is His Name?’ What shall I tell them?” ₁₄ God replied to Moses, “I AM THE ONE WHO IS [EGŌ EIMI HO ŌN].” Then He said, “So tell the sons of Israel, ‘THE ONE WHO IS [HO ŌN] has sent me to you.’”³

Moses is concerned that telling the Israelites “The God of our fathers has sent me to you” will be deficient. They may also want to know His Name. In response, God first provides what appears to be His Name:⁴ “I AM THE ONE WHO IS.” The pertinent portion is THE ONE WHO IS, for this forms part of God’s directive to Moses when He speaks again: “So tell the sons of Israel, ‘THE ONE WHO IS [HO ŌN] has sent me to you.’”

It will prove beneficial to examine the (transliterated) Greek. We will begin with an overly literal word-for-word translation, and then proceed until we reach a more suitable rendering at the bottom. In the first part of verse 14 is God’s initial reply to Moses:

EGŌ EIMI HO ŌN
I I-am the being/existing⁵
I am the existing (one)
I am the-one existing
I am He-who exists/is
I am He Who Is
I am The One Who Is

EGŌ is simply the first person singular pronoun “I”. The second word, EIMI, is the first person singular finite verb “be” (“I-am”). Since person and number are encoded in all Greek finite verbs, each one has a built-in subject. In this instance, it is the first person singular “I”. Therefore, strictly speaking, the pronoun “I” (EGŌ) is not necessary and likely implies emphasis. So, the initial part of God’s response should be understood as the emphatic “I AM”.

The third word, HO, is the Greek article.⁶ It can be crudely translated simply “the”. In our context, the article functions to substantivize the participle following it. In other words, the Greek article + participle here form a noun, a nominative.

To further explain, a Greek participle is a non-finite verb, which means it can never be a complete sentence unto itself.⁷ Participles can function either as adverbs (modifying a verb) or adjectives (modifying a noun). When the article precedes it, as it does here (the article HO + participle ŌN), the participle is functioning as an adjective. And when the combination of article + participle stands alone,⁸ it is a substantival, taking the place of a noun. HO ŌN is in the nominative case, functioning here as the predicate nominative. ŌN is the masculine singular present participle of “be” (=“being”, “existing”, “is”), and taken together with the article yields: THE ONE WHO IS.

A Greek article also encodes grammatical gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), matching that of its associated part of speech—in this case the participle. Hence, they are both masculine. Therefore, a valid translation is HE WHO IS. For our purposes, we will use THE ONE WHO IS.⁹

Thus, we translate the above I AM THE ONE WHO IS. The predicate nominative of this proclamation then becomes the subject nominative in God’s instructions to Moses to tell the sons of Israel: ‘THE ONE WHO IS has sent me to you.’

With this background provided, we shall proceed to the applicable portion of Revelation 1:4:

1:₄ John to the seven ekklēsiais in Asia: Grace to you, and peace from [apo] THE ONE WHO IS [HO ŌN], THE ONE WHO WAS [HO ĒN], and THE ONE WHO IS COMING [HO ERCHOMENOS]…

John the Revelator is using poor Greek grammar! In the first instance [HO ŌN], it appears John does not decline the Divine Name. To be more specific, in the prepositional phrase (PP) beginning with apo (“from”), THE ONE WHO IS should be grammatically declined to the genitive case [TOU ONTOS], not remain in the nominative case [HO ŌN]. R. H. Charles explains John’s apparent rationale:

We have here a title of God conceived in the terms of time. The Seer [John] has deliberately violated the rules of grammar in order to preserve the divine name inviolate from the change which it would necessarily have undergone if declined. Hence the divine name is here in the nominative [case].¹⁰

Mathewson provides further comment:

This PP [prepositional phrase] is one of the first clear examples of John’s numerous solecisms. Here the preposition apo is followed by the nominative case (ho) rather than the expected genitive (tou). There is broad agreement that the grammatical incongruity is intentional . . . The most likely explanation is that by grammatical incongruity the author wishes to draw attention to the titular nature of this expression and the OT text from which it comes: Exod 3:14.¹¹

Of the three elements, the first [HO ŌN] and third [HO ERCHOMENOS] follow the same pattern. Each uses the nominative case in the form of the substantival Greek article + participle after their common preposition apo (“from”). So, both seem to follow the same logic and purpose, if grammatically odd.

The second element, however, is grammatically worse than the other two! It is not ‘merely’ a nominative where it should be in the genitive case. It is in the incongruous form of Greek article + finite verb. Recall that a finite verb encodes person and number; so, each has a built-in subject, and each can form a complete sentence. Thus, if we were to translate the second element word-for-word, it would be the nonsensical THE ONE WHO HE WAS, HE WHO HE WAS, THE HE WAS, or THE WAS. In other words, even when standing on its own—outside the apo (“from”) PP—this construction (article + finite verb) is nonsensical.

Yet this can be explained somewhat. The verb “be” in Greek (EIMI) lacks a past participle, and so the finite verb ĒN (WAS) is substituted as the closest compromise. The purpose of the article preceding it—though absolutely wrong grammatically—is to retain parallelism with the other elements in this PP to the extent possible.¹²

But one might contend (this writer would) that THE ONE WHO IS [HO ŌN] by itself sufficiently connotes eternality; that is, if God simply IS, then this implies He has no beginning and no end.¹³ Swete observes that “the [Jewish] Targums read into the words [the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14] a reference to the infinite past and future of God’s eternal ‘now’”.¹⁴

In his Prepositions and Theology, Murray J. Harris refers to this text of Rev 1:4.¹⁵ After providing various explanations for the grammatical anomalies, he concludes, “The easiest and most common explanation is that this threefold title of Yahweh is an indeclinable noun that by its very form effectively highlights the unchangeable and eternal character of God.”¹⁶

Divine Name or Title?

The careful reader may have observed that HO ŌN is sometimes referred to as the Divine Name and other times as a title or part of a longer title, depending on the source. The larger context of Exodus 3 may provide clarity on this. Following is the same selection above but with the next two verses included:

3:₁₃ Then Moses said to God, “Behold: I shall go to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of our fathers has sent me to you.’ They shall ask me, ‘What is His Name?’ What shall I tell them?” ₁₄ God replied to Moses, “I AM THE ONE WHO IS.” Then He said, “So tell the sons of Israel, ‘THE ONE WHO IS has sent me to you.’” ₁₅ Then God spoke again to Moses, “So, say this to the sons of Israel: ‘The LORD [Hebrew: YHWH], the God of your fathers—God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My Name forever and how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.₁₆ Now go and gather together the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The LORD [YHWH], the God of your fathers, appeared to me—God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob…’ ”

Observe that God specifically states His Name as “The LORD [YHWH]” in verse 15. The Greek ‘OT’ consistently translates the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as KYRIOS. English versions usually render this the all caps LORD. The portion following His Name, “the God of your fathers”, should probably be understood such that it further describes/defines “The LORD [YHWH]”.

So what do we make of THE ONE WHO IS? Is it to be understood as yet another Name? A Title?

Prior to the transcription of the Targums, a section of the Jewish pseudepigraphic work Sibylline Oracles dated ca. 2^nd century BC–20 BC¹⁷ describes God as existing eternally, by using present participles of “be” [accusative forms]:

3:₁₅ But He, Himself eternal, has revealed Himself ₁₆ as One Who Is/Exists [ONTA], and so even heretofore exists [prin EONTA], and yet even still hereafter.¹⁸

The way this is phrased, it seems that the first part of the sentence (“But He, Himself eternal, has revealed Himself as One Who Is/Exists”) is intended to state God’s eternality, while the rest of the phrase further describes it. He exists, meaning He has existed at all times past up to and including the present, and will continue to exist into the future. And this selection provides a clue to further define John’s likely intention.

There are contemporaneous secular works describing ‘gods’ as existing eternally. But they use Greek finite verbs instead of participles. “Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus shall be” (Pausanias, Greciae descriptio, 10.12.10).¹⁹ Also, “Aion, the god of time, ‘is and was and will be’”.²⁰

Comparatively, Aune notes, “The title [HO ŌN] was known to Jews in Asia Minor as attested by an inscription on an altar from Pergamon that reads THEOS KYRIOS HO ŌN EIS AEI.²¹ This could be rendered: “God, the LORD, the One who exists/is forever.”

Taken altogether, it is the opinion of this writer that the phrase I AM THE ONE WHO IS in Exodus 3:14 is God’s declaration of His eternal existence—His proclamation of His Divine attribute of eternality. Assuming so, THE ONE WHO IS, then, was used as a Divine Title, not a Divine Name. It seems possible it reflects (part of) a self-description inherent in His Divine Name YHWH, the Tetragrammaton.

Therefore, assuming the above, in apparent reverence, John the Revelator kept this Divine Title HO ŌN intact, instead of subjecting it to the usual grammatical declining. But what about the rest of John’s phrase?

Note that John’s full expression does not follow the pattern in any of the others above. Perhaps the most obvious difference is the third element, which does not reflect ‘infinite future’ but rather God’s coming (HO ERCHOMENOS) at the culmination of salvation-history—the eschaton, the end of all things from our earthly perspective.²² This fact more foundationally supports the position that HO ŌN by itself sufficiently expresses eternality.

Less clear is the time referent, temporal or eternal, for the grammatically incongruous second element (HO ĒN) in the three part phrase. It could be a corollary to “the beginning/originator of God’s creation” (HĒ ARCHĒ TĒ KTISEŌS TOU THEOU) in Revelation 3:14.²³ If so, the second and third elements would reflect the entirety of salvation-history, from beginning to end.

If all this holds, John’s expression would reflect God’s intrinsic Self-existence in the Divine Title in the first element, while the second and third elements together would represent the termination points of salvation-history. Stated differently, the first element in this triadic Title reflects God’s eternality, the second and third reflect the beginning and ending, respectively, of God’s direct interaction with humankind in the earthly realm–in temporality.

___________________________

¹ The Hebrew of the first words of God in Exodus 3:14 is usually rendered I AM THAT I AM.

² The Greek ‘OT’ is part of the larger Septuagint (LXX), which includes a body of works known as the Apocrypha, aka Deuterocanon (“second canon”) in some traditions.

³ We must also take note that in the next verse God continues the same line of thought, this time by explicitly explaining and stating His Name; however, John the Revelator does not reference this portion directly. More on this below.

⁴ Or perhaps this is God’s way of proclaiming an ontological attribute, one exclusive to Him: His eternality. The LORD God simply IS. See note 13.

⁵ “I am THE BEING” is Brenton’s translation.

⁶ While English has both a definite article (the) and an indefinite article (a), Greek has only one article.

⁷ This is in distinction from finite verbs (see EIMI above), which can and do sometimes form complete sentences unto themselves, since both person and number are appended morphologically. A great example is Jesus’ final word on the Cross in John 19:30: Tetelestai. It is a 3^rd person singular perfect tense-form verb, in the middle voice, and in the indicative mood. It is best translated “It is finished”, or, perhaps better, “It has been finished.”

⁸ A Greek article + participle can also function as an attributive adjective, if it is modifying a noun, thus further describing that noun.

⁹ Masculine gender here is to correlate with THEOS, GOD, which is also masculine in grammatical gender. While HE WHO IS works, it is subject to possible misinterpretation in English—that God is male in a biological sense.

¹⁰ R.H. Charles, Revelation of John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary; ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs; Accordance electronic ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), para 41640. Charles adds: “It could have been preserved in classical Greek, i.e. apo tou ho ōn. But our author shows no knowledge of this construction” (para 41640; Greek transliterated, bold added for emphasis). Yet the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the KJV) inserts tou here (see this site, e.g.); but, take notice of Charles’ comment that John “shows no knowledge of this construction”. The language/dialect of Classical Greek, from which tou would emanate in this instance, ended about 400 years before the Koine Greek of the NT era. As far as I can determine, the Textus Receptus sources only one manuscript for Revelation here, specifically GA 2814 (12^th century), and this tou appears to be a singular reading. That is, it appears to be the only extant manuscript with this reading. Yet, quite a few manuscripts (including 𝔐 [Majority Text]) insert the genitive for “God” (theou) between apo and the nominative HO ŌN, in an attempt to smooth out the grammar.

¹¹ David L. Mathewson, Revelation: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), p 4 (Greek transliterated).

¹² Cf. Charles, Revelation, para 41641.

¹³ Craig R. Koester (Revelation, The Anchor Yale Bible [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014]) comments that the neuter form of article + EIMI present participle [TO ON] had been used to imply eternality: “Greco-Roman sources sometimes used the form to on for God as “the existent one” or as “being” (Seneca the Younger, Ep. 58.7, 17; Plutarch, Mor. 393B–C)” (p 215). See notes 4 and 5.

¹⁴ Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices, 3^rd ed. (London: MacMillan, 1917), p 5. This is in the public domain and available online here. And here the Targums understand the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 as I SHALL BE WHO I SHALL BE [Gr. ESOMAI HOS ESOMAI].

¹⁵ Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), pp 66–67

¹⁶ Harris, Prepositions and Theology, p 67. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse: This construction “must be explained by regarding the whole phrase as an indeclinable noun” (p 5).

¹⁷ See J. J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles” in James H. Charlesworth, Ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1983): “[Verses 1–45] could have been composed at any time in the late Hellenistic period or early Roman periods. If we assume that they originally formed a unit with any part of 46–92, we can fix their date more precisely . . . Verses 46–62 must be dated shortly after the battle of Actium” (p 360).

¹⁸ The Greek (transliterated): all’ autos anedeixen aiōnios autos eauton onta te kai prin eonta, atar pali kai metepeita. Charles renders it: “But he, himself Eternal, hath revealed himself as One who is and was before, yea and shall be hereafter.”

¹⁹ The Greek here is Zeus ēn, Zeus estin, Zeus essetai (Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἔστιν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται).

²⁰ Koester, Revelation, p 215.

²¹ David Aune, Revelation: Revelation 1–5, Word Biblical Commentary 52A (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1997) p 30, (Greek transliterated).

²² Charles, Revelation, opines that the present participle of erchomai [“is coming”] is used here instead of the future form, “with a definite reference to the contents of the Book and especially to the coming of Christ, 1:7; 2:5, 16; 3:2; 22:7, 12, etc., in whose coming God Himself comes also [ED: in 1:8, e.g.]” (para 41641).

²³ Note the first words of John’s Gospel: “In the beginning (ARCHĒ) was (ĒN) the Word”.

__________________________

Similarly themed posts:

An Eternal Christological Conundrum

Looking Past the Future

Jesus’ Kingly Appearance

Being Blessed

Filed under Bible, Christian Culture, Eschatology, Greek Language studies, Pseudepigrapha, Scripture Tagged with Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, Craig Koester, David Aune, Divine Name, Divine Title, EGŌ EIMI, eternal, eternal now, eternality, Exodus, Grammar, grammatical gender, J. J. Collins, Moses, Murray J. Harris, nominative, participle, Pseudepigrapha, R. H. Charles, Revelation, Sibylline Oracles, substantival, Swete, Targums, Tetragrammaton, The One Who Is, YHWH

What Did Pilate State in John 19:22?: Conclusion (repost)

April 14, 2022 28 Comments

[This is the second of a two-part repost in recognition of Holy Week. See part I.]

In the conclusion here I shall more closely explore the three verses leading up to Pontius Pilate’s pithy phrase in John 19:22. Due to the rather technical nature of the explanation below, I shall provide a summary as preface.

A ‘mismatch’ in Greek grammatical gender in Jesus’ response to Pilate in John 19:11 may well indicate that Pilate’s God-given authority had a more specific application for his role in the Passion (18:28–19:22). His final phrase (19:22) provides the climax to this circumscribed role. Clues to such an elevated role are found in the narrator’s use of specific verbiage in 19:19 and again in 19:20. These include John’s borrowing of the Latin titulus and yet another ‘mismatch’ in grammatical gender. The Latin titulus becomes the Greek titlos, an apparent neologism, and the ‘mismatch’ occurs in this new word and what is translated “it had been inscribed/written”. The latter phrase (and slight variations) is frequently used before Scripture quotations.

Before proceeding to the analysis, some necessary background in John’s Gospel will be provided first.

Events Leading Up to Jesus’ Arrest

In reaction to Jesus’ increasing popularity following the miracle of Lazarus’ revivification (11:38-45; 12:9-11), some of ‘the Jews’⁹ conferred with the chief priests and the Pharisees who then summoned the Sanhedrin (11:46-47). They were concerned they would eventually lose their “place and nation” (11:48). While “place” in its Scriptural context may refer to the Temple, it may well (also) mean the leaders’ privileged positions, which were granted by, yet subject to, Roman authority.

At this meeting Caiaphas, the High Priest (11:49) said, “…it is better that one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish” (11:50; cf. 18:14). The narrator of the Gospel adds:

₅₁ He did not say this of himself but, as High Priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, ₅₂ and not only the nation, but also that He would unite into one the children of God who are dispersed.¹⁰

The Greek words for “children of God” above are found only here and in 1:12 in John’s Gospel. Thus, ironically, the fulfillment of his words would have different consequences than he likely assumed (cf. 7:35), and would result in the inclusion of Gentile believers as children of God on equal footing (12:32; cf. 4:42; Rom 2:28-29).

They then plotted Christ’s death (11:53), apparently conspiring to arrest Him at the next available opportunity toward that end (11:55-57).

In the meantime, the Devil cast into the heart of Judas Iscariot the desire to betray Jesus (13:2; cf. 13:18, 21). Shortly thereafter, at the Last Supper, “Satan entered into him” (13:27), and then Judas left to carry out his betrayal (13:30). Soon after that he went to an olive grove where he knew Jesus often met with his disciples, bringing with him “a detachment of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and the Pharisees” (18:1-3).

Jesus’ Arrest and Trials

Jesus was subsequently arrested and brought before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas (18:12-14), who questioned Him (18:19-23) before sending him on to Caiaphas (18:24). Then Christ was led to Governor Pilate’s palace (18:28).

Pilate enquired about the charges levied against Jesus (18:29), and with no direct answer given (18:30) he instructed them to “judge him by your own law” (18:31).¹¹ ‘The Jews’ replied, “We are not authorized to execute anyone” (18:31). This was to fulfill the kind of death Jesus would suffer (18:32; cf. 12:33), as He indicated earlier—being “lifted up”, i.e., crucified (12:32).

Yet the fact that Roman soldiers (18:3) were employed in Jesus’ capture indicates Pilate may well have been apprised of the charges before Christ was presented to him. This would account for his first question to Jesus: “Are you ‘the king of the Jews’?” (18:33). Pilate’s words here could be intended, alternatively, as showing incredulity (cf. Isa 53:2): “You are ‘the king of the Jews’?”¹² After Jesus informed him that His kingdom is not of this world (18:36, 37), Pilate found him without guilt, then asked the Jews if they would agree to release Him as per the annual tradition of freeing one prisoner at Passover (18:38-39). The Jews chose Barabbas instead (18:40).

With that Pilate had Jesus flogged (19:1). The soldiers, mocking Jesus’ ‘purported’ kingship, put a crown of thorns on His head and clad Him in a purple robe (19:2-3).

After this, still unconvinced of Christ’s guilt, Pilate tried once more to persuade them to reconsider (19:4). When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said (19:5), “Behold, the man!” This is probably Pilate’s way of challenging their charge of His [Jesus’] alleged claim of political kingship.

In response the chief priests and their officials shouted out (19:6): “Crucify! Crucify!” In return Pilate told them to crucify Him—knowing they couldn’t of course—again stating he found the charges to be without foundation (19:6). ‘The Jews’ countered using a different tact, “We have a law, and according to this law He must die, for He made Himself God’s Son” (19:7; cf. 5:18; 10:33). They were likely appealing to Leviticus 24:16, accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

Upon hearing their new allegation Pilate grew more afraid (19:8). Having been immersed in Greco-Roman polytheism, Pilate may have thought Jesus a ‘divine man’. Whatever the case, this new claim prompted him to ask Jesus, “Where are you from?” (19:9). When Christ remained silent Pilate apparently grew agitated, adding, “Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and I have the authority to crucify you?” (19:10). Jesus responded, “You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above; therefore, the one who has delivered me over to you is guilty of a greater sin” (19:11; cf. 10:17-18).

From this point forward Pilate kept seeking to release Him. But, in persistence, ‘the Jews’ shouted, “If you release this fellow, you are no friend of Caesar’s—anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar” (19:12). Note the verbal connection between “makes himself a king” and “made Himself God’s Son” (cf. 5:18, 10:33) above.

It was around the “sixth hour” (noon) on the Day of Preparation of Passover week (19:14; cf. 13:1). With this time marker we know that Jesus’ impending death, only a short time away, would be around the same time when priests would begin slaughtering paschal lambs (Exo 12).¹³ Now the “Lamb of God” (1:29; cf. 1 Cor 5:7; Heb 9:11-15; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:6) is about to meet a similar fate at about the same hour (cf. Exo 12:46; John 19:33, 36).

In response to their last statement (19:12), Pilate brought Jesus out and said (19:13-14), “Here is your king!” To that they shouted: “Take that man away! Take away! Crucify him!”¹⁴

Pilate answered (19:15), “Shall I crucify your king?”

The chief priests, in feigned allegiance to Caesar for the sake of expediency, answered (19:15), “We have no king but Caesar!” Their claim could be understood as a denial of their own God, their King (Jdg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; Psa 136:3)—at Passover, no less.

Their response was intended to dissuade Pilate from releasing Jesus, as doing so would make it appear he recognized Him as a rival to Caesar’s kingship. And thus Pilate failed in his efforts to free Jesus. ‘The Jews’ and the chief priests forced his hand, and so he handed Jesus over to them for crucifixion. Obviously unhappy with this turn of events, Pilate would exact revenge against them.

The Crucifixion and Pilate’s Enduring Statement

With Jesus formally sentenced, the soldiers took charge (19:16). After carrying His cross, He was ‘lifted up’, placed between two others (19:17-18).

Below is the brief section leading up to and including Pilate’s final statement in John’s Gospel. Each occurrence of the Greek verb root “write” (graphō) is bolded. In addition, titlos is left untranslated, for it is difficult to provide a suitable one-word substitute. An exploration of these terms will commence further below.

₁₉ Yet Pilate also wrote a titlos and fastened it to the cross. It had been inscribed: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. ₂₀ Many of the Jews thus read this titlos, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it had been written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. ₂₁ The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘THE KING OF THE JEWS’, but that man, ‘SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS.’”¹⁵

₂₂ Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

Pilate’s inscription was intended as an insult to the Jews. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword here—in more than one way.

Since first century Greek texts lacked punctuation (and spacing between words!), there is some ambiguity as to the exact request of “the chief priests of the Jews” and how they wished to amend Pilate’s original words. I interpret their intention was to replace ‘…THE KING OF THE JEWS’ in the inscription with ‘…SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS’, resulting in their proposed verbiage JESUS THE NAZARENE SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS. They wanted the words to reflect a claim of Jesus, not a claim of the Jewish nation. From their perspective, the inscription as it stood may “appear to be a formal declaration of Jesus’ identity rather than a charge against Him.”¹⁶

Pilate was well aware their charges had been trumped up, so he was undoubtedly taking much pleasure in making a mockery of them in response to their mocked allegiance to Caesar at Jesus’ expense. They may have forced his hand, but he showed them who ultimately had the upper hand.

But Pilate’s vindication would have other ramifications. While we understand the theological implication in Pilate’s inscription—as it stands it makes a true statement of Jesus’ Kingship—taking a closer look at the context while investigating related historical background provides a stronger foundation upon which to construe it this way.

Other Signs

It was not uncommon in first century Rome for a criminal on his way to execution to be accompanied by a sign stating both his name and the offense for which He was condemned. It was either (a) carried by an official walking in front of him¹⁷ or (b) hung around his own neck.¹⁸ But there is not much historical evidence for placing this same sign on the criminal’s cross, and what is available is ambiguous.¹⁹ We must note that none of the Gospels mention anyone carrying a sign of this sort during the Via Dolorosa. This is not to definitively claim someone had not, however. We merely have no explicit evidence. What we know for certain is that a sign was placed onto Jesus’ cross indicating His supposed crime.²⁰

The word used in both instances above referring to the sign accompanying condemned criminals is the Latin titulus. John’s titlos—found only here in 19:19 and 19:20 in all Scripture (and seems to be first used by John)—is a ‘loanword’ from this Latin term. Titulus had rather broad applications in first century Latin texts. In addition to the two examples previously cited, the word was used by Pliny the Younger (ca. AD 61—113) for a notice to rent²¹ and by Roman poet Ovid (BC 43—AD 17/18) for a notice of public sale.²² It was also used to signify a grave marker.²³ As can be deduced, the term applied to both the object inscribed and its inscription in these instances. However, for our purposes, more important is the fact that at times titulus was used solely for the inscription itself in distinction from the object on which it was inscribed.²⁴

The term can refer to epitaphs (i.e., the inscriptions) as distinct from grave markers.²⁵ Roman historian Titus Livius Patavinus (ca. BC 64/59—AD 12/17) applied it to Hannibal’s self-inscription on an altar in which he glowingly described his own achievements.²⁶ Columella (ca. AD 4—70), a writer on agricultural concerns, used the word to reference titles of books.²⁷ Ovid, in the very same work referred to in the previous paragraph, used titulus to signify the title of a pamphlet.²⁸ And most pertinent here, in a work written around the time Christ was born, Ovid employed the term in reference to honorific titles—as applied to Augustus Caesar, for example.²⁹ In similar fashion, in one context Ovid used it as a title acquired by assuming it from those conquered or from some heroic event, yet also in synonymity with “name” (Latin: nomen).³⁰ Yet, given that Pilate’s purpose with the inscription was to antagonize ‘the Jews’, can we rightly apply any of these meanings (epitaph, title, name) to John 19:19?

The text in 19:19 states that Pilate wrote the titlos (titulus) and affixed it to the cross. The task of placing the titlos onto the beam, however, was almost certainly delegated. Yet given the preceding historical investigation—illustrating titulus could refer to either the inscribed object and its inscription or the inscription only—there are a number of possible scenarios with regard to the writing of the words. Perhaps Pilate dictated the desired text to a scribe for inscribing.³¹ Or maybe he himself penned the words on a papyrus (titlos) and then gave this document to a scribe for inscribing onto the (presumed) board of the titlos.³² It could be that he inscribed the titlos in Latin and then gave it to a secretary to translate and write the Aramaic and the Greek. Whatever the case, in some manner, Pilate wrote the titlos.

Textual Clues and Syntactical Pointers

There’s a grammatical issue in the latter part of v. 19 that may well have a bearing here. The words preceding the inscription—“It had been inscribed” in the translation above (akin to the English past perfect)—are translated from a participle reflecting a neuter subject, yet titlos is masculine. In other words, it does not refer to titlos. (Greek grammar usually requires grammatical gender match.) This exact syntax is found again in 19:20. So, to what or whom does it refer?

This is typically translated impersonally: “There was written” (“It [the inscription] read”).³³ However, as Keener notes, each and every time this syntactical structure with this verb is used up to this point in John it references Scripture (it is written; it had been written).³⁴ Keener concludes, “Thus John may ironically suggest that Pilate, as God’s unwitting agent (19:11), may carry out God’s will in the Scriptures.”³⁵ Could God’s Spirit have superintended the writing of the inscription, despite Pilate’s vindictive purpose?

The words it is written in the verses prefacing Scripture references (2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25; cf. 5:46; 8:17) are in the Greek perfect tense-form, while 12:16 contains a pluperfect—the same form as 19:19 and 19:20. Though all these are important to my argument here, key is the usage of 12:16, best rendered these things had been written.³⁶ In that context, the narrator notes that the disciples recalled earlier events but only fully understood how they fulfilled Scripture from the vantage point of their post-glorification perspective (after Jesus’ resurrection).³⁷ Before considering this line of inquiry further, how might 19:11 (which Keener referenced above) impact the interpretation in 19:19?

While the authority Pilate possessed in a general sense was certainly “from above” (anōthen), as it is for all rulers and authorities, this was not Jesus’ point here. Similar to v. 19, there is a mismatch in gender in v. 11. Just as the participle in 19:19 is neuter, so it had [not] been given is neuter in 19:11. The Greek word for authority, however, is feminine.³⁸ Thus, if it had not been given to you from above does not refer to Pilate’s general conferred authority but instead is circumscribed to his specific role in the events unfolding at the time: “the fact that Jesus has been given into his hands has been determined by God”.³⁹ More specifically, my contention here is that this specific authority was conferred to Pilate for his entire role in the Passion sequence.

Below is the pertinent portion of the verse:

19:₁₁ ouk eiches exousian kat’ emou oudemian ei mē ēn dedomenon soi anōthen
not you have authority over me nothing if not was it having given you from-above
“You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above.”

Going out a bit further, interestingly, this same syntactical format (‘not _____’ if it has/had not been given from God) is first found in John the Baptizer’s response to those who mentioned Jesus’ baptizing and the increasing numbers going to Him (3:26):

3:₂₇ ou dynatai anthrōpos lambanein oude hen ean mē ȩ̄ dedomenon autō̧ ek tou ouranou⁴⁰
not s/he be able person to receive and-not one if not may-be it having given him from heaven
A person is not able to receive not one thing if not it may be given to him/her from heaven
“A person is not able to receive anything if it has not been given to them from heaven.”

Though the Baptizer’s statement serves a particular purpose in its context, it should also be seen as a maxim, a general statement.⁴¹ These words of the Baptizer are the first with this syntactical structure in John’s Gospel, while Jesus’ words to Pilate are the last. Thus, in my opinion these form bookends, one opening and the other closing an inclusio. The Baptizer’s maxim then relates to some intervening uses of “give” (didōmi), such as parts of the Bread of Life discourse (e.g. 6:37, 39), Jesus’ Prayer (17:7, 11, 12, 22), and Jesus’ cup (18:11).⁴² Of course, it also relates to Jesus’ statement in 19:11 (ei mē ēn dedomenon, “if it had not been given”). The remaining verse fitting this grammatical structure (6:65) is thematically relevant:

6:₆₅ oudeis dynatai elthein pros me ean mē ȩ̄ dedomenon autō̧ ek tou patros
no one is able to come to me if not may-be it having given him/her of the Father
“No one is able to come to Me if it has not been given to them by the Father.”

The point here is that while God places individuals in certain positions he also orchestrates specific events, using certain individuals to accomplish specific tasks in these events. Thus, understanding Pilate’s unique role in the Passion per Jesus’ phraseology in 19:11, we might be able to assume that this circumscribed, God-given authority extends to the inscription, especially when we consider the syntax in 19:19 and 19:20 (it had been inscribed) and how that relates to other uses of this same structure. Even still, can we make the leap that his words on the inscription are tantamount to writing Scripture? If so, what Scripture is referenced?

Crucial to understanding the Gospel of John is to grasp that the author is writing from a perspective post-Jesus’ resurrection. After Pentecost, the Spirit had been given. And from this perspective the Spirit brings to remembrance past events, further illuminating them to the disciples (14:26; 16:12-15). At various points the narrator implies this by calling attention to some of Jesus’ previous statements (12:32 via 12:33 and 18:32|6:39 via 17:12 and 18:9). In 2:22 the narrator remarks that after “He [Jesus] was raised” the disciples ‘remembered’ His words and “they believed the Scripture (graphē, noun form of graphō) and the word that Jesus spoke” (in 2:19). But what “Scripture” is ‘remembered’ here? It cannot be the one referenced in 2:16, for 2:17 specifically explains that particular one. By the context the intended Scripture referent appears to be the OT (Tanakh) in a general sense, as it relates to the resurrection.⁴³

Somewhat similar to 2:22 is 12:16—the Triumphal Entry. Here the narrator states that the disciples fully realized that these things had been written about Him only “after Jesus was glorified”. “These things”—which is neuter in the Greek—refers to the Scripture referenced in 12:13 and 12:15. Yet in this same context the narrator relates it was not only the things that had been written but also these things done to Him. We can construe that this refers to the events acted out in fulfillment of those two Scriptures. However, oddly, if at the time of Jesus’ ministry the disciples didn’t understand that He was being proclaimed king, why did the crowd say these things? The seeming contradiction is reconciled if we understand it more broadly (similar to 2:22 above) to mean Jesus’ Kingship in the post-glorification sense.⁴⁴ In other words, their initial interpretation of “king” was in a political sense, and then after they ‘remembered’ “these things”, God’s Spirit provided further illumination, as in 2:22.

Tying It All Together

Considering the immediately preceding regarding 2:22 and 12:16, and adding in the syntactical connection between 12:16 and 19:19-20, we have a point of contact. One may argue that the grammatical relationship (these things had been written > it had been written/inscribed) is a bit tenuous, but the thematic one certainly applies. Yet the strength of the thematic link should bolster the grammatical. If the narrator relates how the disciples’ remembrance was further illuminated (implying by virtue of the Spirit: 14:26; 16:12-15), then how much more would the narrator/writer himself be likewise illumined?⁴⁵ When we factor in the syntactical relationship between 19:19-20 and all other uses of it is written / it had been written (as pertaining to Scripture) in conjunction with Pilate’s unique authority in the Passion as revealed in Jesus’ words in 19:11 (and this grammatical and thematic link to 3:27), we have a stronger case for tying all this together.

Therefore, my contention is that John wrote this with the understanding of a dual purpose for the inscription: one for Pilate’s vengeance, and one for the Spirit to make a true identity statement. In other words, John himself recognized that the words Pilate wrote had influence from the Spirit, so he chose (under influence of the Spirit) it had been inscribed/written as a way to make this connection. I further contend this is why John borrowed the Latin titulus in his use of titlos.

Assuming my argument here, one can see it is certainly no leap to enlarge the definition of John’s titlos to include “title” (THE KING OF THE JEWS) and/or “name” (JESUS THE NAZARENE) or both/and (JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS). Thus, rather than merely considering the wording on the inscription as an implication, we have grammatical and contextual reasons to assert with confidence that JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS is indeed written as a Messianic title, and/or a name, a proclamation in a literal sense—in addition to Pilate’s vindication. And the prefatory it had been inscribed designates that the words following, similar to the meaning in 12:16, refer to the OT (Tanakh) generally, rather than one specific verse or section. In other words, the Scripture that Pilate references on his titlos—under the superintending of the Spirit—is the OT (Tanakh) in a general sense, as it relates to Jesus’ Kingship.

Given all this, Pilate’s inscription, with the assistance of God’s Spirit, could be perceived as the climactic contravening of two statements by ‘the Jews’: Jesus “made Himself God’s Son” in 19:7 (cf. 5:18; 10:33) and “makes Himself King” in 19:12 (cf. 1:49; 12:13; 18:38), both encapsulated in Nathaniel’s proclamation in 1:49 “you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel” (cf. 12:13).

If all this prevails, then the chief priests of the Jews’ plea to Pilate to amend the title may be interpreted ironically as an indirect attempt at usurping God’s authority by unknowingly trying to change Scripture. Interestingly, the narrator does not record that they ‘wanted to change’ (using allassō, e.g.) or something to that effect; instead they say to Pilate “do not write” (using graphō). This is yet another linguistic/grammatical and thematic link further cohering the four verses (19:19-22).

Yet Pilate refused to alter the altar: What I have written, I have written. What I have written, I stand by. The irony then is that Pilate, a pagan and acting as God’s unwitting agent, stood by God’s words, while the opposing Jews who had just executed their Messiah wanted to amend them.

So, what did Pilate “state”? His final words “What I have written, I have written” affirm his inscription, and by doing so, those words remain in Scripture in a state of having been written. And, if the analysis here is accepted, with God’s ‘hand’ on Pilate’s ‘pen’, Pilate ‘wrote’ New Testament Scripture, words that endure to this very day.⁴⁶

___________________________________

⁹ I place ‘the Jews’ in single quotes when the text uses οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (hoi Ioudaioi), since this is the manner in which the Gospel of John chooses to identify this sub-group. Note, however, that while John’s characterization is mostly negative in the text here, there are quite a few times in the Gospel when the term is used in positive (2:6; 4:22; 8:31; 11:19, 31, 33, 36, 45; 12:9, 11; 19:31) or neutral (1:19; 2:13; 3:1, 22; 5:1, 15; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55; 13:33; 18:20; 19:20, 40, 42) settings (such as in describing a certain festival “of the Jews”), or times in which the group is perhaps understandably perplexed (2:20; 6:41, 52; 7:15; 7:35; 8:57; 10:19). The term’s meaning in John is a bit ambiguous and remains an enigma. Even the designation the Pharisees is sometimes used positively or neutrally (e.g. 9:16). However in this section of John’s Gospel ‘the Jews’ are Jesus’ adversaries.

¹⁰ My translation, as are all Scripture quotations in this article. The Latin is also my translation, assisted by online sources and, at times, by others’ English translations. My goal is to adhere closer to a formal equivalence than a dynamic or functional one. To that end, I endeavor to translate nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc.

¹¹ The words of Pilate here may well be an example of artistic license on the part of John the Evangelist. These may have been meant to be ironical in that, according to Mosaic Law—and in truth, of course—Jesus was not guilty of any crime.

¹² Since Greek finite verbs encode person and number, a pronoun is not necessary unless the subject is ambiguous; thus, the presence of the pronoun “you” (συ) here is not necessary, and may be used for emphasis.

¹³ Here I’m following John’s intent in his presentation of events without trying to reconcile them with the Synoptic accounts. See Thompson, John: A Commentary, pp 388-390. Thompson presents a synopsis of (1) the difference between the Synoptic Gospel’s accounts regarding the timing of Jesus’ death as compared to John’s, (2) the problem of associating Jesus’ death with the “sixth hour” (noon) and how this does not seem to correlate with the timing of the slaughtering of Passover lambs. However, John’s chronology indicates Jesus will be crucified later than noon (he had to first take up his own cross and then walk to the crucifixion site), and so her observations regarding the typical time range for sacrificing Paschal lambs (beginning a bit after 1:30 in the afternoon at the earliest) do not necessarily contradict this. Those attempting to reconcile John with the Synoptics employ various measures. See, e.g. Andreas J. Köstenberger’s contribution in G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), p 500.

¹⁴ The twice-used verb for “take away” (αἴρω, airō) has a somewhat broad semantic range that can mean take up as in to raise up to a higher position, move to another place, carry away. It seems likely a double meaning is intended here. That is, ‘lift that man up’ may be understood as the additional meaning, in irony.

¹⁵ The word translated “Aramaic” is Hebraisti, which some English versions render “Hebrew”. Following Harris (Murray J. Harris, John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, Andreas J. Köstenberger & Robert W. Yarbrough, gen. eds. [Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015], p 314), I construe the periphrastic ἦν + γεγραμμένον in v. 19 and v. 20 as akin to the pluperfect of γράφω (cf. 12:16), though I prefer to translate as an English past perfect rather than a simple past.

¹⁶ Thompson, John: A Commentary, p 398.

¹⁷ In Roman historian Suetonius’ (c. AD 69—122) Caligula—Emperor from AD 37 to 41—an account of a slave sentenced to execution by the Emperor for stealing silver (32.2) was “preceded by a sign indicating the cause for his punishment” (Latin: praecedente titulo qui causam poenae indicaret). Cf. for a similar account in the 2^nd century (AD 177) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.1.44, in which someone carried a board (πίναξ, pinax) in front of Attalus with the inscription THIS IS ATTALUS THE CHRISTIAN.

¹⁸ In Suetonius’ Domitianus (10.2-3)—Domitian was Roman Emperor from AD 81 to 96—the sign describing the charge was placed upon the accused gladiator himself (cum hoc titulo: Impie locutus parmularius; “with this sign [upon him]: ‘A Parmularian [gladiator] impiously spoke’”).

¹⁹ Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, two volumes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) p 2.1137. “The posting of the accusation on the cross is not well attested, either because those describing the crucifixion had already mentioned it being carried out . . . or because the practice was not in fact standard although, given the variations among executions, in no way improbable . . . (p 2.1137, n 608).

²⁰ Although only Matthew (27:37) and Mark (15:26) specifically refer to a sign stating the cause (aitia) for which Jesus was crucified, this does not mean we cannot infer this from the other Gospels (cf. John 19:6).

²¹ Letters, 7.27 (“To Sura”): Athenodorus legit titulum: “Athenodorus read the notice (to rent the haunted mansion)”.

²² In Remedia Amoris (Cures for Love), for the notice of sale (Latin: sub titulum, “‘under’ the notice”, i.e., “using the notice”) for the household items the unscrupulous girl had plundered (302). Cf. the oft-neglected Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), p II.283. Cf. Tibellus (c. BC 55-BC 19), Elegiae, 2.4.54: ite sub imperium sub titulumque; “you go under her command and under the notice.”

²³ Pliny the Younger: Letters, 6.10.3: post decimum mortis annum reliquias neglectumque cinerem sine titulo sine nomine iacere: “ten years postmortem his remains have been cast down and neglected, without a grave marker and without a name.” That titulus in this context does not mean “epitaph” (the inscription itself as distinct from the marker) is evident by the next line of the epistle, in which the author specifies the words the deceased wanted inscribed (inscriberetur) as his epitaph. Also see Ovid, Fasti, Book IV.23, 44, in which titulus refers to a scroll and the writing upon it (longum scriberet annum vidit . . . proximus est titulis Epytus: “to see what he might have engraved on the roll . . . next on the scroll is Egyptus”).

²⁴ See F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” Journal of Theological Studies old series 31 (1930), pp 272-273.

²⁵ Martial (ca. AD 38/41—102/104), Epigrammata (published between AD 86 and 103), I.93.4: Plus tamen est, titulo quod breviore legis: ‘Iunctus uterque sacro laudatae foedere vitae, famaque quod raro novit, amicus erat’: “Yet more is what you glean from this brief epitaph: ‘Knit in the sacred bond of life with an honored reputation rarely known: they were friends’.” Cf. Ovid, Epistulae: Sappho Phaoni, 15.190-195; cf. Pliny the Younger, Letters, 9.19.3: . . . si immortalitatem quam meruere sectantur, victurique nominis famam supremis etiam titulis prorogare nituntur: “ . . . if they now seek immortalization, and the names they have so greatly earned in glory and fame to secure, and to perpetuate themselves by epitaphs.” By the context it seems possible that both the inscription and the grave marker are included in titulus here, but the primary meaning is certainly the epitaph/inscription itself.

²⁶ Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita (The History of Rome), 28.46.16 aram condidit dedicavitque cum . . . titulo: “he erected and dedicated an altar with . . . an inscription.”

²⁷ De De Rustica, Book IX, preface: tituli, quern prae-scripsimus huic disputationi: “the title, which we have prefixed to this discourse.” Cf. De De Rustica, Book VIII, preface; cf. Quintilian (ca. AD 35—100), Institutio Oratoria, Book 2.14.4: quos hac de re primum scripserat, titulis Graeco nomine utatur: “from earlier [works] which he had written, Greek name titles were used.” In other words, he used Greek names as titles in earlier works.

²⁸ Remedia Amoris, in the very first line of the poem (1): titulum nomenque libelli, “name and title of this little book”. I interpret this as epexegetical such that “name” further defines titulus. In other words, “name” refers to the title (and ‘title’ refers to the name) on the book’s title page, in order to differentiate it from the other meaning of titulus as both inscription and inscribed object (title page). Alternatively, the terms titulus and nomen could be synonymous here. See note 30.

²⁹ Fasti, Book III.419-420: Caesaris innumeris . . . accessit titulis pontificalis honor; “To Caesar’s innumerable . . . titles the honor of Pontificate was added.” Cf. M. Tullius Cicero (BC 106—BC43), Against Piso, 9.19: posset sustinere tamen titulum consulatus: “might have the power to sustain the title of consulate.”

³⁰ Fasti, Book I.599-604: si a victis, tot sumat nomina Caesar, quot numero gentes maximus orbis habet, ex uno quidam celebres aut torquis adempti aut corvi titulos auxiliaris habent. Magne, tuum nomen rerum est mensura tuarum; sed qui te vicit, nomine maior erat: “If Caesar claims names from those conquered, let him take as many as the mighty globe has nations! From one event some celebrate—either from a neck-chain won or allied ravens—the titles they possess. O great one [Pompey the Great], your name is the measure of your deeds, but he who conquered you was greater in name.” Cf. Ovid, Fasti, Book IV.115, in which the goddess Venus is referred to as the titulus of a calendar month. See note 28 for another possibility.

³¹ See Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” pp 271-273.

³² Ibid.

³³ E.g., Harris, John, p 314. See note 15 above.

³⁴ Keener, Gospel of John, p 2.1138. All but one of the Scripture verses Keener cites here are perfects (as the periphrastic ἔστιν γεγραμμένον: 2:17; 5:46; 6:31, 45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25), the lone exception being 12:16, a pluperfect (the periphrastic ἦν + γεγραμμένα). While the perfects are important, it is this exception in the pluperfect that provides the primary link for the argument I shall put forth here.

³⁵ Keener, Gospel of John, p 2.1138. The author understands Pilate’s conferred authority in 19:11 in a general sense (pp 2.1126-27) rather than in the more circumscribed view I shall pursue below. And Keener does not mention the grammar ‘mismatch’ issue at all.

³⁶ It is actually a periphrastic, an equivalent to the pluperfect—see note 34.

³⁷ See, e.g., the late Larry Hurtado’s pre-publication Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John.

³⁸ More specifically, the participle δεδομένον is neuter. It would have to be the feminine δεδομένη to agree with the feminine ἐξουσίαν (authority) here. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2^nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) p 543. In addition, it may be that Jesus’ answer here includes a roundabout answer to the question Pilate posed in 19:9: “Where are you from?” Answer: ἄνωθεν, “from above”.

³⁹ Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, transl. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Gen Ed., R. W. N. Hoare & J. K. Riches (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1971), p 662. Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, D. Hubbard, G. Barker, gen. eds. (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), pp 339-340. Yet neither mentions the grammatical gender mismatch as does D. A. Carson: The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, D. A. Carson, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), pp 600-602. But, Carson appears to terminate the circumscribed authority at Pilate’s capitulation in 19:13 (p 603); however, my position here is that this does not terminate until Pilate’s final words in 19:22.

⁴⁰ There is a difference here in that a neuter subject is found in ἕν, hen (one) from the apodosis.

⁴¹ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 222.

⁴² This does mean to imply, of course, that 3:27 (and 6:65 just below) is no longer applicable as a general maxim.

⁴³ See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 201.

⁴⁴ See Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp 433-434.

⁴⁵ See Jörg Frey, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), pp 151-154.

⁴⁶ Alternatively, John the Gospel writer took certain liberties in fashioning his Gospel, and in so doing, re-formed some words to make his theological and christological points.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Craig Keener, Early Christianity, Greek Language studies, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Passion, Post-Resurrection Era, Sanhedrin, Scripture, The Cross Tagged with "from above", 'the Jews', Authority, Caiaphas, Columella, Crucifixion, Discourse Analysis, Easter, false teaching, Gospel of John, Grammar, grammatical gender, inclusio, Irony, Judas Iscariot, King of the Jews, Lamb of God, linguistics, nomen, Ovid, Paschal, paschal lamb, Passover, Passover Lamb, Pilate, Pliny the Younger, Post-Glorification, Post-Resurrection, syntax, titlos, titulus, Triumphal Entry

What Did Pilate State in John 19:22? (repost)

April 12, 2022 12 Comments

[This is a repost (revised a bit) in recognition of Holy Week. Of necessity, it is a bit technical.]

In reading any common English translation of John 19:22, one finds Pilate saying, “What I have written, I have written.”¹ This is certainly not incorrect, yet I have a feeling some readers may not quite comprehend the significance of this statement, in part, because they are unaware of distinctions in English verb tenses. Some may erroneously think “What I wrote, I wrote” conveys the same meaning. In addition, there is a theologically important connotation in the larger context that readers of the English versions would most likely not perceive.

Below is the Greek of Pilates’s quote, under that is its transliteration (exchanging Greek letters for English equivalents), and below that is a corresponding working English translation:

ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα
ho gegrapha gegrapha
What I have written I have written

The first word is the relative pronoun who/which/what, appropriately translated “what” in this context. Following that are two verbs, the second an exact duplicate of the first. We’ll reserve the final translation until after our investigation. All Greek finite verbs encode person and number (1^st person singular, I; 2^nd person singular, you; 3^rd person singular, he/she/it; etc.), though not grammatical gender (male, female, or neuter). In the above, each verb is 1^st person singular, and they obviously refer to Pilate. Because finite verbs encode person and number, they may form a subject-verb sentence, depending on context. For instance, Jesus’ final word on the cross is tetelestai (John 19:30), translated “It is finished.”

The verb gegrapha is in the perfect tense-form (of graphō), in the active voice and the indicative mood. The indicative is the most common mood—in Greek and English—expressing facts, false statements assumed to be true, false statements as if true, opinions, or questions. The active voice presents the subject performing the action (Jon ate lunch). Comparatively, the passive voice is used when the subject receives the action (Lunch was eaten by Jon).

The precise meaning indicated by the Greek perfect tense-form is in dispute, though there are a number of theories proposed in recent scholarly literature. Specific discussion of any of these theories is not necessary, however, as some of the older Greek grammars address the issues relative to Pilate’s statement, and we can apply them here. While the Greek perfect tense-form has a wide range of applications, for our purposes it is easiest to conceive it as similar to the English present perfect tense. This is what is reflected in all the English translations of John 19:22 at the above hyperlink (have written).

Some Tense Explanations in English

It may be helpful to briefly explain/review the English present perfect as well as a few other English tenses. If you feel like you are sufficiently proficient in the English, you may skip to the next section.

Verbs in the English present perfect tense express past verbal actions that retain some sort of connection to the present. If I were to state I have written over 100 blog posts, you would rightly infer that all 100+ posts are still available for reading on this blog. They are all in a state of having been written, in a state of ‘written-ness’, and available for viewing.

Alternatively, had I constructed the same sentence but in the English simple past tense—I wrote over 100 blog posts—you might infer that the posts were written at some point in the past yet are no longer available for viewing. More on this below.

The difference between these two English tenses can be found in their respective names. The simple past refers to verbal actions in the past with no further implication of present relevance. The “perfect” in present perfect means “complete”, denoting the past (completed, perfected) portion of the verbal action, while “present” in present perfect indicates the verb’s relevance in the present. The “present” portion of the present perfect tense is formed by using the appropriate auxiliary verb for the present tense, matched by person and number: I have (1st person singular), you have (2^nd person singular), she/he/it has (3^rd person singular). The “perfect” (“complete”, past) portion is formed by using the appropriate past participle of the main verb (I have written, you have written, she/he/it has written).

Though the simple past tense does not imply continuing relevance, this does not necessarily mean there is no connection to the present. The simple past is merely silent regarding current relevance. There may or may not be continuing relevance. Further context may (or may not) illuminate.

Comparatively, a verb in the English present perfect always implies something about the present. Thus, the context will determine which one is more suitable. Let’s make a comparison:

I lost my marbles yesterday.
I have lost my marbles! (and I am frantically trying to find them)

In the first instance, reflecting the simple past tense, this is a simple narrative statement, implying no continuing relevance. The second instance reflects the present perfect tense, of course. If it took ten minutes to find my marbles, then that would have been ten minutes I was in a state of having lost my marbles, frantically trying to find them. Upon finding the marbles I would be in a new, much happier (and more lucid) state of having found my marbles. At that point I could exclaim—again using the present perfect tense—“I have found my marbles!”, illustrating this new state.

I could recount the episode by using the past perfect tense: “I had lost my marbles yesterday”. The past perfect indicates a past action that had subsequent relevance in the past following that action (without commenting on present relevance). After finding my marbles yesterday I could have put the two sentences together, stating: “I had lost my marbles, but after a frantic search I have found them!”. Thus, had lost (past perfect) reflects the past action + its subsequent past relevance, while have found reflects the past action + present relevance.

Context will determine which verb tense is best to use:

Francois made dinner last Thursday. He might even make dinner again next month.
Mom has made dinner. (and dinner is now ready to eat)
Myrna has watched all the Die Hard movies three times, and she plans to watch them all again.
Jacob had washed the towels. He has now placed them into the dryer. (they are currently drying)
Johnny has listened to the train coming into the station every day for the past three years.

While the simple past tense of Francois’ dinner in this context implies this was a one-time only or rare occurrence, the present perfect tense of Mom’s dinner implies that dinner is now ready to eat (and we better do so before it gets cold!). As for Myrna, the present relevance of the present perfect tense is the fact that this apparent Bruce Willis fan enjoys these movies so much she wishes to watch them all yet again. The past perfect tense had washed represents the necessary prerequisite for Jacob’s currently drying towels, the latter implied by the present perfect has placed and the adverb “now”. In the final example, it is reasonable to infer that Johnny will listen to the trains yet again tomorrow, given the daily recurring (“every day”) has listened, i.e., present perfect tense.

With this brief review of a few English verb tenses completed, we are ready to proceed to the Greek.

Some Tense Explanations in Koine (New Testament) Greek

The idea of a past action with continuing relevance in the present in the English present perfect tense is the primary thrust of the Greek perfect tense-form. Smyth provides a basic definition: “a completed action the effects of which still continue in the present”.² Dana and Mantey use a broader outline:

The significance of the [Ancient Greek] perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its uses. Emphasis, as indicated by context or the meaning of the verb root, may be on either the completion of the action or on its finished results. This possible difference in emphasis lies at the basis of the variation in the uses of the perfect tense.³

Going back to the aforementioned tetelestai, “it is finished” in John 19:30, this is in the perfect tense-form like the twinned verbs in 19:22. Yet here the verb is in the 3^rd person singular and the passive voice. Note that, with the exception of Young’s Literal Translation, common English versions do not read it has been finished. This is because, though the larger context implies completed actions leading up to the culmination point, translators deem that it is the state of completion that is the emphasis in the immediate context: It is finished.⁴

Similarly, in Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, He answers the Devil’s commands/temptations with gegraptai, “it is written” (Matthew 4:4,7,10, and parallels)—the “it” referring to Scripture. This verb has the same root (graphō) as our subject verse John 19:22, and it is in the same perfect tense-form. The only difference is that here it is a 3^rd person singular in the passive voice. The common rendering “it is written” reflects the primary focus on its state of having been written, not on the fact that Scripture was written. As A. T. Robertson comments on its usage in these contexts, “It was written . . . and still is on record.”⁵ Just like my example of the blog, both the past action and the present results are encoded, but here it is the latter that is understood as the main point: It is written.

Now going back to English for a few moments, let’s say you have a report that needs to be written by 5 o’clock today. At 4:15 your nosy coworker asks if you will meet the deadline. Given that you typically set out to finish a task at least an hour before the deadline (you do, right?), if you express your answer with the verb finish or write, you could say:

I have written the report. (active voice, present perfect)
I have finished the report. (active voice, present perfect)
The report has been written. (passive voice, present perfect)
The report has been finished. (passive voice, present perfect)
The report is written. (passive voice, ___________?)
The report is finished. (passive voice, ___________?)

Though the last two are unquestioningly passive, there is cause to question whether these convey the same meaning as the middle two sentences. To better illustrate, below is a new sentence, stating it in the English present perfect, first in the active voice, then in the passive, followed by a sentence in the same format as the last two above.

Sally has written the book.
The book has been written by Sally.
The book is written by Sally. (?)

To alleviate any possible confusion, observe that the second sentence contains the same exact verb form (has been written) as the passive example further above regarding the report that was due at work. Note the difference between “has written the book” here and “have written the report” above. The different auxiliary verb (has vs. have) reflects the difference between the 3^rd person (Sally has) and the 1^st person (I have). With this clarified, we’ll resume.

Recall that the English present perfect reflects a completed (perfected) action with relevance in the present. The first two sentences certainly are present perfects. But the third one is an attempt at illustrating the state following the verbal action, in order to focus on the result over against the past action. But is this an accurate way to convey this? Let’s take the same basic sentence just above and put it into the English simple past tense, then the simple present tense, both in answer to the question “Who is the author of this book?”

Sally wrote this book. (active) >> This book was written by Sally. (passive)
Sally writes this book. (active) >> This book is written by Sally. (passive)

Notice how the bolded sentence above is identical to the third one in the previous set. Thus, that sentence, like this one, is in the simple present. Speaking on this specific issue, Smyth writes, “When the [Greek] perfect marks the enduring result rather than the completed act, it may often be translated by the [English] present.”⁶ Did you notice what I did in the previous sentence? I prefaced the Smyth quotation with writes, the English simple present, mirroring the first of the second pair of sentences just above (Sally writes this book.). My objective was to signify the enduring words in Smyth’s grammar book. This is typical English convention—that is, substituting the English simple present for the English present perfect when the verb’s enduring result is the emphasis in a given context, as opposed to the verb’s completed action.

Yet this convention does not work as well in the 1^st and 2^nd person for the English present perfect in the active voice. We can quickly deduce that each sentence on the right below cannot be understood to say the same thing as the one on its left:

I have written the document. >> I write the document. (?)
I think you have written this note! >> I think you write this note! (?)

We are now prepared (finally!) to get back to Pilate’s statement. The first instance of gegrapha is best rendered “I have written”, just like the typical English translation.⁷ This reflects the past action of inscribing JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS (19:19) as well as the present results reflected in those words as they appear on the sign. We could paraphrase this first part of Pilate’s statement (ho gegrapha):

“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign…”

The enduring relevance of this first verb began at the point at which the inscribing of the inscription had been completed (19:19) and continued until the time Pilate responded to the chief priests (19:21-22). In other words, the duration was relatively short.

But what does the second occurrence of gegrapha mean and how should it be translated? The Jews were unhappy with Pilate’s phrasing of the sign, strongly suggesting he amend it. But Pilate was resolute—he wasn’t going to change it. So, what is the best way to translate this second Greek perfect-tense verb? Strictly speaking, “I have written” is correct, and we may well leave it that way. Yet this second gegrapha focuses on the then-present enduring result of the sign’s ‘written-ness’. Since we cannot use the passive voice (“it is written”, “it stands written”) because this verb is in the active voice, and we have determined that the active voice in the English simple present (“I write”) does not adequately convey the results of a present perfect (“I write”), we may phrase (paraphrase) it something like:

“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign, I shall keep recorded.” (I shall not change)
“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign, I shall retain.” (I shall not change)
“What I wrote and currently appears on the sign, I stand by.” (I shall not change)

The last sentence above may be the best, since it does not use a future auxiliary verb (shall) as do the others. To be sure, the future enduring results are implied, but it’s the present enduring results that are specifically encoded by the Greek perfect tense-form here. Then again, the state of ‘written-ness’ should be understood as remaining unless and until some further action brings about a new state. With none specified in the larger context, it is safe to assume this state will continue on.⁸

Thus, to capture the overall meaning here—though it’s not as pithy as “What I have written, I have written”—I might render John 19:22:

Pilate replied, “What I have written, I stand by.”

Pilate’s inscription JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS remains written. What does this signify theologically in its context? The next part will elucidate.

______________________________

¹ I am taking the words in the Greek text of John as the words of Pilate, whether or not these reflect his very utterance. The words may well be John’s own rendering in service of a larger theological motif. More on this later.

² Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, Gordon M. Messing, rev. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956 [1920]), p 434, § 1945.

³ H. E. Dana & Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (NY: Macmillan, 1955), p 201 § 184.

⁴ Of course, one must concede that because of the verb root itself—complete, finish—the past necessarily recedes in favor of the state of completion. In other words, it cannot later become ‘unfinished’. Note Marianne Meye Thompson’s objection to this rendering (John: A Commentary, New Testament Library, C. Clifton Black, et al eds. [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015]), “…Jesus’ last words from the cross, tetelestai, ‘It is finished!’ (19:30) surely means ‘it has been accomplished’ or ‘it has been completed’ with reference to completing God’s mission and work” (p 395). I have to agree.

⁵ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), p 895.

⁶ Smyth, Grammar, p 434, § 1946.

⁷ Some grammars and commentaries claim this first γέγραφα is “aoristic”, functioning as if an aorist tense, akin to the English simple past wrote. Entailed in this position is that the second γέγραφα is construed as an English present perfect have written, with a focus on the enduring result. Robertson makes a strong case that the perfect never functions ‘aoristically’ in the NT, though it does post-NT era (A Grammar of the GNT, pp 898-902; cf. 895 [β]).

⁸ Yes, of course, the cross was eventually taken down; however, the point here is that the inscription was not altered.

Filed under Christ, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Passion, Scripture, The Cross Tagged with A. T. Robertson, Dana and Mantey, English Language, Grammar, Greek Perfect Tense-Form, H. W. Smyth, Marianne Meye Thompson, Pilate

← Older posts

	Craig on God Raised Jesus from the…
	Bruce Cooper on God Raised Jesus from the…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Citizen Tom on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Citizen Tom on What is Going On with the Blog…
	La razón por la cual… on Bill Johnson’s Christology: A…
	La razón por la cual… on Bill Johnson’s Christology: A…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Bruce Cooper on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Bruce Cooper on What is Going On with the Blog…

His DOGMA > DATA

Countering His Grammatical/Syntactical Assertions

Qualifying Qualitativeness

Summarizing

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

p.s.

It's Appropriate To Share:

Position Revealed and Contextually Justified

Grammatical (and Inter-Contextual) Justification

Afterword

It's Appropriate To Share:

The Schaefer/Frame Interpretation

Another Alternative?

It's Appropriate To Share:

Grammatical and (Inter-)Textual Considerations

Excursus: Becoming out of the Middle

Application

Opened Avenues

It's Appropriate To Share:

The One Who Is

Divine Name or Title?

It's Appropriate To Share:

Events Leading Up to Jesus’ Arrest

Jesus’ Arrest and Trials

The Crucifixion and Pilate’s Enduring Statement

Other Signs

Textual Clues and Syntactical Pointers

Tying It All Together

It's Appropriate To Share:

Some Tense Explanations in English

Some Tense Explanations in Koine (New Testament) Greek

It's Appropriate To Share:

Email Subscription

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Top Posts

Other Blogs to Check Out

Worthy Charities:

Blog Stats

Archives

Categories