Arndt, W.

Forster, F.

English

Concordia Seminary, St. Louis: Scholarly Resources

Concordia Theological Monthly Volume 21 Article 29 4-1-1950 Brief Studies F. Forster Concordia Seminary, St. Louis W. Arndt Concordia Seminary, St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm  Part of the Practical Theology Commons Recommended Citation Forster, F. and Arndt, W. (1950) "Brief Studies," Concordia Theological Monthly: Vol. 21, Article 29. Available at: https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm/vol21/iss1/29 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Print Publications at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Concordia Theological Monthly by an authorized editor of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact seitzw@csl.edu. BRIEF STUDIES "RBcoNCJLE," 2 CoR. 5: 18-20 The word r11concilt, in 2 Cor. 5: 18-20 had troubled me for a long rime, and I gradually came to the convicrion that "reconciling the world unto Himself" in this passage is ll mistmnslarion. When irs object is a person, the verb r11concilc in everyday English, it seems to me, is understood as meaning to cause a person to dismiss from his heart the cnmiry, the hatred, the dislike, he felt against a fel-low man. When rwo persons uc the object, reconciling them means to bring about that change in the heart of both. When, c. g., the pastor reconciles Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, both give up their comiry against each other and become friendly to each other. Ir is therefore, strictly speaking, not in agreement with the facts when Charles Wesley and we with him sing that through the birth of the newborn King God and sinners arc reconciled (Hymn 91:1). The wo:ld is as full of hatred against God toda)• as it was in the rime of Noah. - When it is said that John has been reconciled to George, the change was brought about in John, not in George; the sentence says nothing about the attitude of George; it says that John has forgiven George and is now kindly disposed towards him. Therefore for a person who is not acquainted with the Christian doctrine rhe Authorized Version rendering of 2 Cor. 5: 19 will mean that the world has been induced to give up irs enmiry against God (which, we know, is not the case, the carnal mind still being enmity against God); and one cannot blame th:at uninformed person if, when he gers ro v. 20, he asks, Why docs the Apostle in v. 20 appeal to his readers ro be reconciled to God after having said in v. 19 that God h,u reconciled tl1c world ro Himself; that, therefore, all men a,11 reconciled to God? Of course, we are ready to tell him, perhaps in rhe words of Francis Pieper, th:at the reconciliation of the world to God consisrs in a change of mind, nor on the part of men, but on the part of God; that through rhc saaificc of Christ, God's wrath against the world is appeased; that through the acrivc and passive obedience of Christ God is reconciled to men ( Ch,istliche Dogm111ilt1 II. 409,405, 410,411). But an we blame that person if he replies, 'That is not what 2 Cor. 5: 19 says." We must admit that he is right as far as the English version is conccmcd: The English version of this text 296 1Forster and Arndt: Brief StudiesPublished by Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary, 1950BJllBP mmms 207 does not warn.nt the interpretation that Goel bas been m:onciled to men. By the way, neither does the German uanswioo, "venoehnete die Welt mit ihm selber," as we have it in our German Bible, though I would not say the same of Luther's original translation "venuehnere die Welt mit ihm selber," which, I think, can be understood as meaning, "er leisrete sich selber Suehne fucr die Weir." But if "reconciling" is not a correct translation of xa'talluaac.ov in 2 Cor. S: 19, how shall we ttanSlate it? Thayer, after having stated that xa'tallaacreLv means reconcile, says: "In the New Testament Goel is said xa'tcvJ.aacreLv fau"Cii> 'ttva, to ieceive one into His favor, 2 Cor. 5:18 sq .... (where in the added participles two arguments are adduced that God has done this); xa'tallayijvaL 't«p -DE,p, to be restored to the favor of God, to recover God's favor, Rom. S: 10." Accepting as correct the statement of Thayer (Fritzsche) that xa'tallaaaELV nd &LCVJ.aaaELV are used promiscuously, we may add (Marr. 5:24) &tallay116L 'tcp Md.qxp and translate: "Be restored to, regain the favor or friendship of thy brother." Ir is plain that not the person addressed in these words, but the "brorher" "who hath ought against thee" (because he has been wronged or offended) needs to ~ reconciled or appeased. Moreover, it will not do to take xa-rcvJ..dY11T£ in v. 20 ( a passive form of xa-rcvJ,uaCJEL\P) in the sense attributed to it in the foregoing, which would give us, "Be received, or restored, to God's favor, or gmce"; for if we did rake it in this sense, we should have an admonition to do what according to v. 19 has alre:idy been done. But there is nothing to prevent us from taking this passive form in the sense of reconcile and uanslare as the Authorized Version does: "Be recon-ciled.'" The tr.msl:irion suggested by Thayer: "Allow yourselves ro be reconciled wirh God"' is not identical wirh the simple passive, bur we need nor object to ir. However, his version '"Do nor oppose your rerurn into His favor"' we must reject for the reason rhar we should have an admonition to permir what has already been done. Perhaps there is another way of approaching the form xa-rcvJ,uy11u. Have we in ir, perhaps, what Kaegi calls a Medial-Passi11Nm? In thar case, I suppose, we should have to rmnslare xa-rcvJ..dy11u 'tcp -D Ecp "Reconcile yourselves to God.'' Either rhis rranslation pr "Be reconciled to God"' makes excellent sense. Having shown his readers the marvelous love bestowed upon them by God in resroring them to His gmce through the sacrifice of H s Son, not imputing their trespasses unto them, thus pardoning them, the Apostle appeals to them to desist from 2Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. 21 [1950], Art. 29https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm/vol21/iss1/29298 BaJEP mn>JBS enmiiy against God, which will follow spootaDeOUlly if they believe what be bu a,Jc:l them about God. Now, acx:oiding to what bu been said the Apostle pses the WOid xmalldcroaLv in two diffaent meanings: (1) to reconcile and (2) to m:eive, o.r to restore, into favor, o.r grace ( ,.1,or• seems preferable to nclliff, as it gives us a moie convenient and cxpiessive noun for xamllciyi), though, of c:owse, ,•sloN would really be cbtoxa-ralldacnLY in Greek). But how is it possible that ,ca-ralldaaeLV should have both meanings? Well, this will not seem so impossible if we bear in mind the literal and basic meaning of this Greek verb, which, accotding to Thayer, is lo t:hllng•, accotding to Grimm, ,P•mutt11re, to change thoroughly. xcmuJ.aacmv nvci nvL literally means to change one's relation to another. Bu  this gcneml meaning usually assumes, accotdiog to cirrnmsraaces indicated by the context, a specific signi.6.caocc, as words having a general meaning often do. If the object of -xa-rcvJ.aacnLY is n person who is angiy with another because he has been wronged or offended by him, the verb acquires the meaning of chan ing his relations to the other in such a way th11.t he forgives him, is friendly to him again, is reconciled to him. If, however, the object of -xa-rcuJ.ciaal!LV is a person who has wronged or offended another, the verb assumes the meaning of ch:mging his relation to the other in such a way th11.t he is again in favor or grace with the offended one. Now, it seems to me that if we, retaining as much as possible the vocabulary of the Authorized Version, render the passage 2 Cor. 5: 18-20 thus: "All things are of God, who hath restored us to His grace by Jesus Christ and hath given us the ministry of the restor:ition to grace, to wit, that God was in Christ, restoring the world to His grace, not imputing their trespasses unto them [thus pardoning them] and hlltb committed unto us the wotd of restoration to grace [perhllps the wotd of patdon]. Now, then, we are amb:issadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God," a considerable part of the difficulty of under• stADding this passage correctly ha.s been removed. t F. FOllSTl!R t EDl'IO&IAL NOTB: The same aaenrion ro derail manifested in this brief study cbaraaerize  all the work of the late llev. Fonrcr as member of the Bclhorial Depanment of Concordia Publishiog Howe. For years he faidifully serftd me church at large and CoNCOllDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY in per· ricular by conscientiously "reading copy and proor• nor only for rypograpbic:al errors, but also for historical, exegetical, and clogmarical s ips. The publiacion of this brief smdy is a small tribute to him and the "unsung" laboren whole worlc is perfonned in the obscurity and anonymity of the publisher's edi• rorial chambers. 3Forster and Arndt: Brief StudiesPublished by Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary, 1950BI.JBllsnJDIBS lyvo,, 2 TIM. 2: 19 In 2 Tim. 2: 16-18 the Apostle addresses seven1 admonitions to his beloved disciple which stress that teaching must be sound. He points to men whose doctrine was false and w s going to spread like gangrene, among them Hymenaeus and Philetus, who denied that there would be a resurrection of the body. Apparently these men held that the resurrection of which Christ had frequently spoken occun at the time when a person is converted, for then he eaten upon a new life. That this is merely a part of Christ's teaching involving use of the term rm,"•clion, they refused to see. Through this insidious error some people had lost their faith. But while these errorim constituted a real peril, Paul was not dismayed. Triumphantly he says, v. 19: "However, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal: 'The I.md did know (iyvo,) those that arc His,' and: 'Let everyone who names the name of the lord depart from iniquity.' " The general mc:ining of this sentence is dc:ir. The foundation of Goel (i.e., that which God has founded, the Church) will not be overthrown, the destruaive work of the false tc:ichen will not succeed; God's struaure stands. Two things arc said about this suuaure: Goel "knew" those who belong to Him and His Church, and these people have the charaaeristic as well as the obligation to depart from every form of wickedness, induding doarinal errors. It is not my intention to investigate all the details of this statement of the Apostle, but merely to examine the precise meaning of lyvco. The uanslations that I have examined all, like the A. V., render this aorist with the present tense, the R. S. V., Luther, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Knox (Roman Cath-olic), and the Twentieth Century New Testament. It is my opinion that the present tense is wrongly used here by the uanslators and that a different word from "know" should be employed. Let me present my arguments. While Paul does not say that he is quoting, the words that he uses arc found in the LXX rendering of Num. 16: S, where Moses is .reported as saying: mCJ'l'.£2t-CUL xat i!yvco o -0EO!; -cou; O\ITQ!; U'U'tOU xa\ -cou; cly[ou; xa\ :1tQoa11yciye-co :itQo; iav't6v. ~.a\ o~ l;Elt;a'tO iau'tep neocniyciyno :itQo; iau'tov. A fairly literal translation of these words reads: "God has looked down, and He 'knew' those that are His and the saints and brought them to Himself; yes, those whom He chose for Himself He brought to Himself.'' The srory of the rebellion of Korab is told in this chapter of the book of Numbers. A group of people led by Korab was dissatisfied becau e Moses and Aaron exer-cised leadership; apparently they themselves desi.rcd to have the 4Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. 21 [1950], Art. 29https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm/vol21/iss1/29300 BJlIBP snJDIIS positions at the head of Israel Moses adchessed the dissatisfied people and spoke the wmds given in v. 5. Ac:coming ro the Hebiew origiDal. Moses poincs ro the fuaue. The A. V. gives a conec:r tramlation: "And he spake unm Konh and unro all his company saying: Even romorrow the Lord will show who llEC His and who is holy and will cause him ro come near unto Him, even him whom He hath chosen will He cause to come near unto Him." The LXX uanslaton either had a different text ( which is not likely), or they misundenrood the unpointed Hebrew. For our understanding of 2 Tim. 2: 19 their misrmnslation is not a viral matter. Paul merely employs Old Testament words that fittingly express what he wishes to s:iy. That the LXX tmnslaton thought that Moses referred to something in the past is evident from their rendering of v. 5. They use the aorist indicative a number of times. Now and then the Greek aorist translates a Hebrew perfect, and we in our English idiom use the present tense to give the meaning. but that is not the case io this instllDCC because the Hebrew origirutl contains a future, not the perfect tense. It might be thought that the aorist iywi> was intended by the translators to be the gnomic aorist, which in our idiom we usually render with the present. But that is impossible in this case; as men• tioned before, v. 5 contains a number of aorists; the ochers are historic in meaning, and iy,'fl> muse belong to th s:ame class, and hence we are not permitted to assume that the translators wished to express a general truth. What, then, did they mean to express in the aorist iy,'f.O? I think that Kittel's Thaologisches l~oerlerbttch 'Zlt11i N1111en Tes1a-men1 (s. 11 . yLV<i>a,,.0>) is right when it in reference to this passage, where God is the subject of the statement, s:ays that yLv<i>axco means er11111ablen, to choose, to elect. "Im Sinn von erw:iehlen finder sich das Wort am deutlichsten 2 Tim. 2, 19 (=Num. 16, 5; vgl. auch Matth. 7, 23; aber auch 1 Kor. 8, 3; 13, 12; Gal. 4, 9) .'' W. Bauer in the Preuschen-Bauer Diaionaty says that yw<i>axco, if God is the subject, may mean "als zu sich gehoerig anerkennen, ausenehen, fast crw:iehlen (Am. 3, 2; Hos.12,1); lKor.8,3; GaL4,9.'' (Bauer does nor list 2Tim.2:19 among the pass:ages where YL\'<Ocr.cco has this special meaning. He places it among those where the verb simply means "to know." It seems to me that he has not classified the passage correaly.) One circumstance that shows that the I.XX translators had the meaning "choose," "elect," in mind is that they use the word i;u.i;a-ro in the parallel statement. What they think of is not merely intel-leaual knowledge, but a knowledge cmn 11/Jacls al e/Jaclu , a knowledge 5Forster and Arndt: Brief StudiesPublished by Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary, 1950DIEPmmms 801 chat inc;luded a loring apprehension of the penon on whom God bad mm Hil eye. Passages where this meaning is demanded are those alluded to above, f. i., 1 Car. 8:3; Gal. 4:9. These I.XX translaton, then, uadentood Moses to say that God had chmen those that were his, among whom were included Moses and Aaron. The great question, of course, is: How does Paul wish iy,,ro to be taken? I should like to submit that the aorist compels us to agree with Kittel To render: The lo.rd knew those that are His, brings us nowhere; it is a rather meaningless statement. God knew everything; a reference to His "past omniscience" pertaining to the Christians does not furnish consolntion. But if we translate: "God elected those that are His," then we have a satisfying significance and, moreover, one that firs the context beautifully. What Paul says is: The Church will not be overthrown, God's children, those that are really His, in spite of the defeaion of some people, will not be carried away by soul-destroying error, for God has chosen them to be His own. That lyvoo should be given this rendering need not surprise anyone. rLVti>OY.(I) is a word thac has :m inchoative connotation; it means really: to come to know, er-kemltm. But "come to know" indicates point action; it has a "puncriliar" significance. Hence,· for the aorist a verb denoting this kind of :1.Ction is the proper rendering, and we have it in "He chose," "He elected." But why do the translations render the verb with the present tense? As a rule they do not tell us. Commentators, too, are strangely silent on this grammatical phenomenon. Robertson is one of the exceptions. In Word Pictures i11 the N c 111 Tes111me111, IV, p. 620, he says that in our passage we have "the timeless aorist active indicative." He adds that here there is a quotation from Num. 16: S. Evidently he regards the aorist as being the so-called gnomic aorist. That must be the view of the translators too. The grammars, I muse add, as far as I have been able to check, do nor list this passage as containing this kind of aorist. It is well known that the aorist at times is us d co express a general truth where we in English employ the present tense, a point briefty alluded to above. Instances of this kind are rare in the New Testament. They occur so seldom that Winer, as RobettSOn (disagreeing with him) states, holds there arc no cases of the gnomic aorist in the New Testament (cf. Grammar of the Gree/, New Testamtlfll in 1be Ligbl of His1oriul Rese11rcb 2, p. 836). Radermacher, as RobettSOn in the same connection remarks, likewise thinks that Hellenistic Greek was not hospitable to the gnomic aorist. Lenski properly contends for the view that iyVfl> is the historical aorist and that it points back to 6Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. 21 [1950], Art. 29https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm/vol21/iss1/29SOB BJUBll STUDDS ecemity. He c:loa DOC reader it "elected," "chose," and hence c:loa DOC go Eu enough in his explanation of the passage, but he &pea that 2 Tim. 2: 19 should be placed int0 the u.me cat goiy u John 10:28. The old German commentator J. T. Beck, in B,-j,..,._g tiff _. B,;./• Pllllli • Timo1hns, published 1879, p. 292, voices a view which is not Ear removed from the one I advocate: "lyvo,, cp. John 10: 14 and Num. 16: 5. It is a word of Moses in which over against the mob of Konh the·separation between true and alleged servants of God is meed back to the divine yLva>CJXELV. But this is a real coming to know, which hu the character of an actual ailing and thus gm to be a seleaioa, a holy separation, Amos3:2; Rom.11:2. For that reason the preterite tense [i.e., aorist. A.] is used quite suitably for the meaning of the Apostle: The Lord has iecognized His own as such and made them manifest through electing them out of the world in on act that was u gracious u it was holy." With interest one notes that the Formula of Coac:md looks upon this passage u i:efcrring to Election. It spcab of the coosolation given in the doctrine of election that we know that our salvation is not placed in our own hands, "but in the gracious election of God which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose band no man shall pluck us, John 10:28; 2 Tim. 2: 19" (Trigl., 1039, 90). Viewed thus, this passage docs not speak of the invisibility of the Church, but of its indcstruaibility and permanence. W.ADDT 7Forster and Arndt: Brief StudiesPublished by Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary, 1950

Brief Studies

https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3263&context=ctm

Brief Studies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Concordia Seminary, St. Louis: Scholarly Resources