The Minister and His Greek NT at Robertson 1923

THE MINISTER AND HIS
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

————————————————————
A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D., LITT.D.
1
THE MINISTER AND HIS
GREEK NEW
TESTAMENT
A.T. Robertson
BIBLICAL LIBRARY
2
First Published 1923
2002 Biblical Library
Digital Edition
All rights reserved
The Minister and his Greek New Testament

by Archibald Thomas Robertson
3
TO MY SISTER
NELLIE R. McLENDON
4
PREFACE
The present volume of essays is designed for those who love the
Greek New Testament. That number is very large and is increasing
rapidly. The drift back towards Greek is definite, particularly among
ministers. In the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for instance,
three hundred young ministers were enrolled during the past session in
the various classes in the Greek New Testament, besides those who
had carried such work in previous sessions. This is nearly three-four-
ths of the total number of students, and shows conclusively that Greek
is not dead in this institution.
The reception given my New Testament grammars proves the same
thing. The “Short Grammar” appeared in 1908, and is now in the Sixth
Edition (American and British), and has been translated into four
languages (Dutch, French, German, Italian). The “Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research” appeared
July 1, 1914, just a month before the World War began. It is now in
the Fourth Edition (American and British) in spite of the war, the great
size and the cost of the book. Evidently the love of the Greek New
Testament survives among preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
On May 1, 1923, I completed thirty-five years of service as a
teacher of the Greek New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theolog-
ical Seminary. My interest in the subject has grown with each year. In
November, 1923, I shall be sixty years old, if by God’s grace I round
out this period. American professors do not usually (but Dr. B. L.
Gildersleeve is over ninety) live so long as their British and contine-
ntal compeers (Dr. Theodore Zahn is eighty-five), but it is a comfort
to me beyond words to know that all over the world there are former
students of mine, some five thousand in all, who are teaching the truth
as it is in Jesus. And I may be allowed a word of felicitation in this my
Festjahr to all ministers and teachers of the Greek New Testament
everywhere, who revel in the riches of Christ in the greatest treasure
of all the books of earth, the Greek New Testament.
A. T. ROBERTSON
Louisville, Kentucky.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following journals have courteously conse-

nted to the use of such chapters as first appeared in
their pages: The Biblical Review, The Expositor
(London), The Homiletic Review, The Methodist
Review (Nashville)
6
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 8

II NOTES ON A SPECIMEN PAPYRUS OF THE FIRST CENT-
URY A.D. 17
III THE USE OF JUpevr IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS IN THE
PAPYRI 21
IV PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 26
V THE GREEK ARTICLE AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST 36
VI THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF Mhv WITH HESITANT
QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE MODE 41
VII GRAMMAR AND PREACHING 46
VIII SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 53
IX JOHN BROWN OF HADDINGTON OR LEARNING GREEK 62
WITHOUT A TEACHER
X THE GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 66
XI THE ROMANCE OF ERASMUS’S GREEK NEW TESTA-
MENT 69
XII BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 71
7
CHAPTER I
THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTAMENT
SOME KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK POSSIBLE TO ALL
It ought to be taken for granted that the preacher has his Greek
Testament. This statement will be challenged by many who excuse
themselves from making any effort to know the Greek New Testa-
ment. I do not say that every preacher should become an expert in his
knowledge of the New Testament Greek. That cannot be expected. I
do not affirm that no preacher should be allowed to preach who does
not possess some knowledge of the original New Testament. I am
opposed to such a restriction. But a little is a big per cent. on nothing,
as John A. Broadus used to say. This is preeminently true of the Greek
New Testament.
There is no sphere of knowledge where one is repaid more quickly
for all the toil expended. Indeed, the Englishman’s Greek Concord-
ance almost makes it possible for the man with no knowledge of Gre-
ek to know something about it, paradoxical as that may sound. That
would be learning made easy, beyond a doubt, and might seem to
encourage the charlatan and the quack. It is possible for an ignoramus
to make a parade of a little lumber of learning to the disgust and
confusion of his hearers. But the chief reason why preachers do not
get and do not keep up a fair and needful knowledge of the Greek
New Testament is nothing less than carelessness, and even laziness in
many cases. They can get along somehow without it, and so let it pass
or let it drop.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMMON MAN
The New Testament is written in the vernacular Koiné, which was

the language of the common people as well as of the cultured in the
first century A.D. The papyri which have been unearthed by many
thousands in Egypt give us vivid pictures of the life of the age. We
thus catch the people in their business and pleasures. We have love
letters, receipts or bills, marriage contracts or divorce decrees, census
rules and tax lists, anything and everything. The New Testament is
shown beyond a doubt to be a monument of the same vernacular
koiné. The same words jump at us in the most unexpected places. The
8
book that is in the vernacular of its time has an appeal to men of all
times and need not be a scaled book because written in Greek.
If one will read Cobern’s New Archæological Discoveries he will
be able to see how much the papyri have helped us in our knowledge
of the New Testament. Then let him read Milligan’s The New Testa-
ment Documents, his Greek Papyri, and his charming new volume,
Here and There Among the Papyri, and his interest will be deepened.
If he will go on and read Deissmann’s Bible Studies and his Light
from the Ancient East, he will have a glowing zeal to push his Greek
to some purpose.
THE REAL NEW TESTAMENT
The real New Testament is the Greek New Testament. The English
is simply a translation of the New Testament, not the actual New Test-
ament. It is good that the New Testament has been translated into so
many languages. The fact that it was written in the koiné, the universal
language of the time, rather than in one of the earlier Greek dialects,
makes it easier to render into modern tongues. But there is much that
cannot be translated. It is not possible to reproduce the delicate turns
of thought, the nuances of language, in translation. The freshness of
the strawberry cannot be preserved in any extract. This is inevitable.
We have, no doubt, lost much by not having the original Aramaic say-
ings of Jesus, though He often spoke also in Greek.
But the New Testament itself was composed by its authors in Gre-
ek, unless Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Aramaic. Papias says that
he wrote Logia (probably the Q of criticism) in Hebrew (Aramaic).
Some progress has been made by Dalman (The Words of Jesus) and
others in the effort to reproduce the original Aramaic employed by
Jesus. Dr. C. F. Burney now claims (The Aramaic Origin of the Fou-
rth Gospel) that the Fourth Gospel was originally written in Aramaic
as Dr. C. C. Torrey (Composition and Date of Acts) argues for Acts
1-15. In the main we have to rely upon the reports in the Greek New
Testament which are wonderfully vivid and vigorous.
TRANSLATION NOT ENOUGH
The preacher cannot excuse himself for his neglect of Greek with
the plea that the English is plain enough to teach one the way of life.
That is true, and we are grateful that it is so. The Bible is in the vern-
acular and has entered into the very life of the modern man. It is imp-
9
THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
ossible to overestimate the influence of the King James Version upon

the language and life of the English-speaking world. Prof. William
Lyons Phelps of Yale will have nothing to do with recent translations
because of the literary charm of the Authorised Version. But words
are living things and, like all life, are constantly changing. Dictio-
naries run out of date quickly, not merely because of new ideas and
new words, but because the old words change their meanings. The
Psalmist said that he would “prevent” the morning, not stop the light
from coming as one wishes he could do in the short summer nights,
but get up before the morning. So “let” is even used in the Authorised
Version for “hinder” instead of “allow.”
It was for this reason among others that the revisers undertook to
make a new translation of the English Bible. The American Revisers
have revised that. Then we have Weymouth's Translation of the New
Testament, The Twentieth Century New Testament, and Moffatt’s
brilliant New Translation of the New Testament. We shall have many
more. They will all have special merit, and they will all fail to bring
out all that is in the Greek. One needs to read these translations, the
more the better. Each will supplement the others. But, when he has
read them all, there will remain a large and rich untranslatable element
that the preacher ought to know.
THE PREACHER A BIBLE SPECIALIST
We excuse other men for not having a technical knowledge of the

Bible. We do not expect all men to know the details of medicine, law,
banking, railroading. But the preacher cannot be excused from an acc-
urate apprehension of the New Testament. This is the book that he
undertakes to expound. It is his specialty, and this he must know wha-
tever else he does or does not know. Excuses for neglecting the New
Testament are only excuses after all. Dwight L. Moody made himself
at home in the English Bible, and he shook the world. Spurgeon made
himself efficient in Greek and Hebrew in spite of insufficient school-
ing. John Knox studied Greek when over fifty. Alexander Maclaren’s
Expositions of Holy Scripture are the wonder of modern preachers
because he steadily throughout a long life pursued his Hebrew and
Greek studies. He had consummate genius and he added to it fullness
of knowledge by means of laborious scholarship. One notes the same
careful scholarship in the preaching of Dr. J. H. Jowett. A popular
preacher like Dr. G. Campbell Morgan is a close and laborious student
of Greek New Testament grammar.
10
ORIGINALITY IN PREACHING
Every preacher wishes to be original. That is a proper desire,

within limits. One does not care to be bizarre or grotesque. He cannot,
if loyal to Christ, be original in his creed. But he can be individual in
his grasp of truth and in his presentation of his message. Originality is
relative after all. The ancients have stolen all our best ideas from us.
But one can be himself. That is precisely what people like most about
us.
Now, the Greek New Testament has a message for each mind.
Some of the truth in it has never yet been seen by anyone else. It is
waiting like a virgin forest to be explored. It is fresh for every mind
that explores it, for those who have passed this way before have left it
all here. It still has on it the dew of the morning and is ready to refresh
the newcomer. Sermons lie hidden in Greek roots, in prepositions, in
tenses, in the article, in particles, in cases. One can sympathise with
the delight of Erasmus as he expressed it in the Preface of his Greek
Testament four hundred years ago: “These holy pages will summon up
the living image of His mind. They will give you Christ Himself,
talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will
give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible
to you if He stood before your eyes.”
Many who saw Jesus in the flesh did not understand Him. It is pos-
sible for us all to know the mind of Christ in the Greek New Testam-
ent in all the fresh glory of the Galilean Gospel of grace. The origi-
nality that one will thus have is the joy of reality, the sense of direct
contact, of personal insight, of surprise and wonder as one stumbles
unexpectedly upon the richest pearls of truth kept for him through all
the ages.
ENRICHMENT OF ONE’S OWN MIND
The trouble with all translations is that one’s mind does not pause
long enough over a passage to get the full benefit of the truth cont-
ained in it. The Greek compels one to pause over each word long eno-
ugh for it to fertilise the mind with its rich and fructifying energy. The
very words of the English become so familiar that they slip through
the mind too easily. One needs to know his English Bible just that
way, much of it by heart, so that it will come readily to hand for com-
fort and for service. But the minute study called for by the Greek
opens up unexpected treasures that surprise and delight the soul.
11
Three of the most gifted ministers of my acquaintance make it a

rule to read the Greek Testament through once a year. One of them
has done it for forty years and is as fresh as a May morning to-day in
his preaching. One of them is a man of marked individuality and he
has added to undoubted genius the sparkling exuberance from the con-
stant contact of his own mind with the Greek text. There is thus a fla-
vour to his preaching and speaking that makes him a marked man
wherever he appears upon the platform. He makes no parade of his
learning, but simply uses the rich store that he has accumulated
through the years. He brings out of his treasure things new and things
old. And even the old is put in a new way. Light is turned on from a
new angle of vision. The old has all the charm of the old and the glory
of the new.
GRAMMAR AS A MEANS OF GRACE
The doctor does not complain at the details of his science. He has
to know the minutiae of nature’s handiwork. Nothing is too small for
his investigation. He must know the laws of life, the ways of the cell,
the habits of the bacilli and microbes that help and endanger human
life, the value of all kinds of medicine, the idiosyncrasies of the indiv-
idual, the wonders of the ductless glands and their influence on perso-
nality. Nothing is too small in order that one may save life. Surely the
life of the soul is as important as that of the body. Scientists have high
regard for the ways of nature. The microscope has done more for the
prolongation of human life than has the telescope. Astronomy has bec-
ome a science of grandeur and glory, but disease has been conquered
largely through the revelations of the microscope. Generalities are the
peril of the preacher who has a fine scorn of technicalities. One must
be able to make the proper generalisation out of a mass of details, but
he is no theologian who is not first a grammarian, as Dr. A. M. Fair-
bairn said. The preacher who ridicules word-studies merely exposes
his own ignorance. The lexicon may point the way to life. The preac-
her is of necessity a student of words. He is the interpreter of language
and employs language to convey his interpretation of life to the minds
of men. They understand his words in their own sense, not in his. He
understands the New Testament in his own sense, not in that of the
writers, unless forsooth he has managed to grasp the fullness of that
meaning.
Thus there are all sorts of pitfalls for the preacher as the exponent
of the message of the New Testament. If the blind guide leads the
12
blind, they will both fall into the ditch. One simply has to know his
parts of speech if he is to keep out of the ditch and avoid dragging his
followers after him. Schisms have arisen around misinterpretations of
single words. Grammar is a means of grace. One may, indeed, break
grammar if he can break hearts, provided his grammar smashing conc-
erns unessential details not vital to the sense. Theological and phil-
osophical crudities have always played an important part in the history
of heresy.
THE TOOLS AND THE MAN
Civilised man has triumphed over brutes largely by the use of

tools. They do not make the man, but the man makes the tools. As
man makes progress, he continually improves his tools and his use of
them. This is true in war, railroads, agriculture, everything. The man
who has the best tools, other things being equal, will do the best work.
Efficiency is largely skill in the use of the right tools. The modern pre-
acher in his study is a man with his tools. If he does not have the right
tools upon his desk, he cannot produce rapid results and as high grade
work as he otherwise may. A man of parts without tools may surpass a
dunderhead with good implements for work. That is beside the point.
The man of genius with the best tools will do far more and far better
work than he can do without such implements of service. No preacher
can be satisfied with less than the best that is in him. One can usually
tell the quality of a preacher’s work by looking at the books in his
library.
Dr. Jowett says in his The Preacher; His Life and Work: “I would
urge upon all young preachers, amid all their reading, to be always
engaged in the comprehensive study of some one book of the Bible.
Let that book be studied with all the strenuous mental habits of one’s
student days.” That is the way to grow as a preacher. That is the way
that Jowett grew. “You will see every text as coloured and determined
by its context, and indeed as related to vast provinces of truth which
might otherwise seem remote and irrelevant. And you will be con-
tinually fertilising your minds by discoveries and surprises which will
keep you from boredom.” How can a man who can get the best tools
be content to use any others? How can he be willing to have the best
tools and not use them?
13
LEARNING TO USE THE GREEK
It is possible for one to teach himself the elements of Greek so as

to get a great deal of benefit from the study of the Greek New Test-
ament. Davis’s Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament is a
good book for one who knows no Greek at all. A man of average inte-
lligence and culture can go through this little book without a teacher.
In a few months he will be reading the Gospel by John with some
comfort. If he will then secure Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon of New
Testament Greek, he will find every form in the New Testament given
in alphabetical order and explained for a beginner. It will then be a
matter of perseverance.
It is an open road for one at this stage to get a Westcott and Hort
Greek Testament with a lexicon, or he can get Souter’s Pocket Lexi-
con of the Greek New Testament or Abbott-Smith’s Manual Lexicon.
He can get a limp-back copy of the Westcott and Hort or of the Nestle
edition that he can carry in his pocket and pull out whenever he has a
moment of leisure. He can add now to this equipment Robertson’s
Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament and by degrees get ready
for a more extended study of the Greek New Testament. One does not
have to be a gifted linguist to follow a course of study like this. It req-
uires only a half hour a day and the determination to stick to it stea-
dily, and one will win out and be glad of it all his life. So will his
hearers.
NEW HELPS FOR THE STUDENT
There is less excuse than ever for the man with college and semi-
nary training who does not turn his knowledge of Greek to tremend-
ous account. His tools are far superior to those of a former generation.
The critical and grammatical commentaries of Meyer served their day
well and have been revised and brought up to date in the German edit-
ions. One who knows German can also use Zahn’s commentaries and
those by Holtzmann, and Lietzmann’s Handbuch. But the English
student of the Greek New Testament has perhaps better commentaries
on the whole. Those who have Ellicott will still find his comments of
value, and certainly that is true of the great commentaries of Lightfoot
and of Westcott in the valuable series so ably carried on by Swete,
Milligan, Mayor, and Robinson (the Macmillan Commentaries). The
International Critical series challenges comparison with the best in
any language. The Expositor’s Greek Testament is a distinct advance
14
on Alford, and that is saying a good deal. The Cambridge Greek Test-
ament for schools is a model series for brief and scholarly exposition.
We still lack a new lexicon to take the place of Thayer which mak-
es no use of the papyri, but the Vocabulary of the Greek Testament
Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources, by Moul-
ton and Milligan will, when completed, go a long way toward supple-
menting Thayer until some one shall give us a new lexicon. Souter’s
Pocket Lexicon of the New Testament is useful and convenient as is
Abbot-Smith’s Manual Lexicon of the New Testament, which gives a
good deal of fresh information not in Thayer. The death of Caspar
René Gregory postpones indefinitely a new edition of Tischendorf’s
Novum Testamentum Graece, but some one will some day perform
this greatly needed service. The untimely death of James Hope Moul-
ton leaves his Grammar of New Testament Greek incomplete. The
Prolegomena (Vol. I) was published in 1906. Accidence (Vol. II) he
nearly finished before his death, and it was published. Syntax (Vol.
III) unfortunately he had not done, and this is the most important part
of all.1 However, in his Prolegomena he made many syntactical rem-
arks which very well outline his general attitude. He rendered an imp-
erishable service by his work on the papyri in illustration of the Greek
of the New Testament. Debrunner has revised Blass’s Grammatik des
neutestamentlichen Griechisch, but English students have only Thack-
eray’s translation of the original. Radermacher’s short Neutestam-
entliche Grammatik is also untranslated. Burton’s New Testament
Moods and Tenses is still of real worth. Robertson’s Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research covers the
entire grammatical field in one large volume of over 1500 pages now
in the fourth edition.
There is, therefore, ample opportunity for the student who wishes
to pursue his Greek studies. The books mentioned above will lead one
on to monographs without number. A dip into the papyri can be had in
Milligan’s Greek Papyri. This book will tempt one to go on and read
widely in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri of Grenfell and Hunt and in other
fascinating volumes that are now at one’s command. Deissmann’s
Licht vom Osten is now in the fourth thoroughly revised edition.
1
One of Moulton’s students, Prof. W. F. Howard, has undertaken to write Vol. III and has
edited Vol. II, which appeared in two parts.
15
THE CHARM OF THE GREEK
The high schools and the colleges may drop the Greek out of the
curriculum in obedience to the demand of a utilitarian age. But the
changing whims of modern educators cannot change the eternal charm
of the Greek language. Chancellor West of Princeton University has
published a remarkable volume of papers called The Value of the
Classics. In this volume prominent men in various walks of life bear
witness to the value of Greek in preparing them for great enterprises in
modern life. The study of language has a value all its own as a mental
discipline.
The most perfect vehicle of human speech thus far devised by man
is the Greek. English comes next, but Greek outranks it. The chief
treasure in the Greek language is the New Testament. Homer and Thu-
cydides and Aeschylus and Plato all take a rank below Paul and John
and Luke. The cultural and spiritual worth of the Greek New Testa-
ment is beyond all computation. In the Renaissance the world woke up
with the Greek Testament in its hands. It still stands before the open
pages of this greatest of all books in wonder and in rapture as the
pages continue to reveal God in the face of Jesus Christ.
16
CHAPTER II
NOTES ON A SPECIMEN PAPYRUS OF THE

FIRST CENTURY A.D.
COMPARATIVELY few students have access to the extensive volu-

mes of the papyri in the large libraries. Where that is the case, the
volumes prove to be intensely fascinating, as I notice is the case with
my own students in Louisville. There is a small volume of Selections
from the Greek Papyri by Prof. George Milligan, D.D., of the Univ-
ersity of Glasgow, that is admirably suited as an introductory text-
book, as I can testify from use in one of my classes. It is edited with
translations and notes and introduction and index, and is inexpensive.
It ought to have a wide circulation among ministers who are intere-
sted in the Greek New Testament. I have written this chapter for the
purpose of drawing attention to the book as an aid to knowledge of the
current Koiné, in which the New Testament is written. The little book
has examples of various types of culture. I have chosen one as a fair
representative of what one finds in the volumes of Egyptian papyri. It
is number 22 in Milligan’s volume (B. G. U. 530), belongs to the first
century A.D., and comes from the Fayûm. It is a letter of remonstrance
from a father to a son who has left home and who does not write. The
lot of land is about to be ruined and the son is urged to come home to
help take care of it.
I am glad to have the privilege of giving here the translation of the
papyrus letter made by my colleague, Professor W. H. Davis.
Translation:
Hermocrates to Chaeras his son (tw'/ uiJw'/i), greeting (caivrein).

Before all things (pro; tw'[n o{lwn) I pray (eu[comai) that you are in
health. . . . I beg you (devomev se) . . . to write concerning your health
(peri; th'" uJgiva") and whatever (o{ti) you wish (bouvli). Some time ago
I wrote (e[graya) you concerning the . . ., and you neither answered
nor came (kai; ou[te ajntevgraya" ou[te h\lqa"), and now (kai; nu'n), if
(aija;n) you do not come, I run the risk (kindineuvw) of losing the plot
(of land) which I possess. Our partner (coinwno;") did not help with
the work (ouj sunhrgavsato), for, in truth, not only (ajll j oujdev mh;n)
was the well not cleaned out, but in addition (a[llw" te kai;) the water-
channel (uJdragwgo;") was filled with sand, and the whole land lies
uncultivated. Not one of the tenants (gewrgw'n) was willing to work
17
it-only I continue to pay the public taxes (ta; dhmovsia) without re-
ceiving anything in return—for hardly a single plot (prasea;n) does
the water irrigate (potivzi). Therefore, because of necessity, come;
otherwise (ejpi;) the plants are in danger of perishing. Your sister Hel-
ene greets you, and your mother reproaches you because you did not
answer her (ejpi; mh; ajntevgraya"). Above all, security (iJcano;n) is
demanded by the tax gatherers (practovrwn) because you did not send
(o{ti oujc e[pemya") the tax gatherers; (tou;" pravctore") to you (?):
but also now send to her. I pray that you are well. Pauni 9.
(Addressed on the verso):
Deliver from Hermocrates to Chaeras his son.

The letter opens with the absolute infinitive1 so common in the pa-
pyri, though rare in the New Testament2 (James 1:1), like our greeting
or “howdy.” The use of the article3 as equivalent to “his” is a common
enough idiom. The word for son4 has both the iota subscript and adsc-
ript as printed, the latter being irrational iota also. I wonder if the
subscript was really in the manuscript. “Before all”5 reminds us of
James 5:12, where the same preposition occurs. In 3 John 2 another
preposition6 appears though the same verb for “I pray”7 or “I wish” is
found. The same concern for the bodily health is shown as in John’s
Epistle. The word for beg8 is the common one for urgent personal req-
uest as in 2 Cor. 5:20. Note the spelling -me for -mai. The father begs
the son to write concerning9 his health.10 The word for “whatever”11 is
in the accusative neuter singular as in the New Testament examples,
though the papyri, unlike the New Testament, have occasional insta-
nces of the masculine and feminine accusative singular. It is not poss-
ible to tell what form of itacism occurs in the word for “you wish.”12
The use of “I wrote”13 is not the epistolary aorist, but the ordinary use
in reference to a previous letter. There is an interesting use of “and”: 14
“and you neither answered nor came and now, etc.,” where “neither–
nor”15 come in between the positive connectives. The word for “answ-
ered” 16 is interesting because of the use of the preposition (ajntiv) (in

1 2
caivrein. Probable conjecture for hiatus in manuscript. See my Grammar, p. 1093.
3 4
tw'./ See my Grammar, pp. 684, 760. uiJw'/i. See my Grammar, p. 194. 5 pro; tw'[n o{lwn.
6
periv. 7 eu[comai. 8 devome(ai). 9 periv, the common preposition though uJpevr occurs also
in this sense. 10 uJgiva". This form is short for uJgieiva" where -iei- (by itacism -ii-) contracts
into i', a new kind of contraction in the Koiné and in the N. T. See my Grammar, p. 204. 11 o{ti
See Grammar, p. 729. 12 bouvli = bouvlh or bouvlei. See Grammar, pp. 191, 195. 13 e[graya.
14
kai; 15 ou[te – ou[te. 16 ajntevgraya".
18
NOTES ON A SPECIMEN PAPYRUS
17
return). The spelling of “if ” is frequent in the papyri and is due to
the interchange of ai and e in sound as in (devome) above (see Gram-
mar, pp. 186 and 190). The use of the verb for peril, “I run the risk,” is
like that in Luke 8:23. The word for “partner” 18 is that found in Luke
5:10 of James and John, “who were partners with Simon.”18 The word
for “help with the work”19 is Paul’s word for his fellow-workers like,
Priscilla and Aquila (Rom. 16:3). The use of adversative particles20 is
like Paul’s impassioned moments as in Phil. 1:18; 3:8. The word for
channel21 from the Nile for irrigation is expressive, “bearer (or leader)
of water.” The term for tenants is the common one for “tillers of the
soil”22 (Matt. 21:33-34). The expression for “the public taxes”23 illus-
trates pathetically that the only public duty many of the people in the
Roman Empire shared was taxes. The word for “plot”24 of land is pre-
cisely Mark’s “garden beds, garden beds” (Mark 6:40) for the pic-
turesque groups on the green grass in orderly rows with the many
coloured garments of the orient. Two striking examples of itacism25
occur. The use of ejpeiv (ejpiv sic) in the sense of “since otherwise” is
like that in Rom. 3:6; Heb. 9:26 (Grammar, pp. 1025-6). The use of
the negative mh; with the indicative in a causal sentence26 is like the
single example with o{ti in the New Testament (John 3:18).27 The sub-
jective nature of this negative in a causal sentence when the mother
blames the son comes out sharply here in contrast with the emphatic
negative a few lines below “because you did not send.”28 The word for
“security”29 is precisely the one employed by Luke of the security that
Jason had to give to the politarchs for having sheltered Paul in Thessa-
lonica (Acts 17:9). The term for “tax gatherers”30 is the noun for the
verb used by John the Baptist to the publicans when he charged them
not to “exact” or “extort”31 more than was allowed them; in other wor-
ds, not to be grafters or profiteers. The publicans were past masters in
the art of “doing” the public. Here is also an instance of the nomina-
tive plural form used as an accusative,32 as is found in some of the
dialects and occasionally in manuscripts of the New Testament and in
the Septuagint.
These are not all the grammatical and lexical points that call for
comment in this letter of a page and a half (narrow column). But
enough has been said to show how rich the papyri are for the student
of the Greek New Testament. The best linguistic commentary on the

17
aijavn. 18 koinwnov". 19 sunhrgavsato. 20 ajll j oujdev mh;n - a[llw" te kai;. 21 uJdragwgov".
22 23
gewrgov". ta; dhmovsia. 24 praseav. 25 potivzi (= ei) and ejpi; (= ei;). 26 ejpi; (= ei;)
mh; ajntevgraya". 27 o{ti mh; pepivsteuken. 28 o{ti ouJk e[pemya". 29 iJkanon. 30 pravktore".
31
pravssete. 32 tou;" pravktore". See Grammar, pp. 62, 266.
19
Greek New Testament is the papyri of the first century A.D. and the
Septuagint. It is now possible for any eager student to have both these
privileges without having to sell his coat to get them.
20
CHAPTER III
THE USE OF JUPER IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS

IN THE PAPYRI
TO-DAY I was at work in volumes xi and xii of the Oxyrhynchus

Papyri for another purpose, when I was struck with the recurrent use
of uJper at the close of business documents where the writing was
done for a man who was too ignorant to write himself. A couple of
instances from the papyri are cited in my Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical Research (p. 631), and Moulton
(Prolegomena, p. 105) alludes to the idiom. Deissmann (Light from
the Ancient East, pp. 152 f.) notes the frequent use in the ostraca, even
in one from Thebes (e[grayen uJpe;r aujtou') where uJpevr has the sense
of “for,” and adds that “it is not without bearing on the question of
uJpevr in the New Testament.” I wrote the sentence (p. 631): “In the
papyri and the ostraca, uJpevr often bore the sense of ‘instead of.’” This
judgment has been confirmed afresh by today’s reading in the papyri.
Once quite an argument was made against the substitutionary theo-
ry of the atonement on the ground that Paul in the great passages (Cf.
2 Cor. 5 and Rom. 5) employs uJpevr rather than ajntiv. In this criticism
it was admitted that in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10: 45 (luvtron ajnti;
pollw'n) substitution is clearly taught. But it was argued that Paul’s
careful preference for uJpevr proved that he did not conceive of Christ’s
death as vicarious. This antithesis between ajntiv and uJpevr was imag-
inary as a matter of fact. Neither word in itself means substitution. It is
a secondary idea in each instance. jAntiv literally means “at the end of”
and so suggests contrast, succession, substitution, opposition, as the
case may be. JUpevr means literally “over” and the context alone can
decide the resultant meaning which may be “concerning,” “beyond,”
“in behalf of,” “instead of.” The ancient Greek writers employed ajntiv,
prov, or uJpevr for substitution as they wished. In the Alcestis of Eurip-
ides, where the substitutionary death of Alcestis for her husband is the
point of the story, we find uJpevr seven times, while ajntiv and prov
together have fewer uses. The substitutionary use of uJpevr appears in
Thucydides 1. 141, Xenophon’s Anabasis 7. 4, 9, and in Plato’s Gorg-
ias (515 C). In the Epistle to Diognetus (p. 84) we actually see luvtron
uJpe;r hJmw'n. So then it was never fair to say that the Greek idiom
required ajntiv for the idea of substitution. One followed his whims in
the matter. For instance, Pausanias (Rüger, Die Präpositionen bei
Pausanias, p. 12) employed uJpevr twice as often as ajntiv. Moulton
21
(Prolegomena, p. 165), remarks that uJpevr is “more colourless” as

compared with ajntiv.
But the papyri, particularly the business documents, show that Paul
is following current usage when he prefers uJpevr for the idea of subs-
titution. The instances in the papyri are far too numerous to quote, but
enough are here given from a few volumes of the Oxyrhynchus and
the Tebtunis Papyri, which I happened to be reading to-day, to prove
the point up to the hilt. Certainly in all these instances the writing is
done on behalf of one, but one cannot stop there. Winer (Winer-Tha-
yer, P. 382) rightly says: “In most cases one who acts in behalf of
another takes his place.” This is absolutely true in the case of this rec-
urrent idiom so common in the papyri, where a scribe writes a docu-
ment in behalf of and instead of one who does not know letters. The
scribe writes “for” one who is not able to write.
In a contract for a loan, Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1281, lines 11, 12
(A.D. 21) the scribe appends his name thus: JHraivkleio" {Wrou
e[gra[ya] uJpe;r aujtou' mh; ijdovto". This solemn asseveration makes the
loan binding on the illiterate party to the contract. There is not the sli-
ghtest doubt about the meaning of uJpevr in this sentence. The phrase-
ology becomes almost a set formula in such documents.
We find it twice in a declaration of temple lamplighters, Oxyrhyn-
chus Papyri 1453, lines 33, 34 (B.C. 30-29); Q]w'ni" JArp[a]hvsi(o)"
gevgra[fa uJpe;r] aujtou' ajxiwqei;" dia; to; [mh; eijd]evnai aujto;n gravm-
ma[t]a.
Ibid., lines 36, 37, \Wro" Totoeu't[o" e[graya uJpe;r a]ujtou' ajxi-
wqei;" d[ia; to; mh; eijdevnai auj]to;n gravmmata.
That the lacunae here have been properly filled in the other instan-
ces of the idiom make plain.
Take this instance in a sub-lease of crown-land, Tebtunis Papyri
373, line 23 (A.D. 110-1) second hand: [gev]grafa uJpe;r aujtou' favs[k-
onto"] mh; eijdevnai gravmmata. There the formula varies a bit in the
use of favskonto" (alleging).
The next instance occurs in the resignation of claims to an estate,
Tebtunis Papyri 380, lines 43, 44 (A.D. 67): e[grayen uJpe;r [a]ujtw'n
Lusa'" Diduv[mou] dia; to; mh; eijd[ev]ne aujtou;" gravmmata. One cannot
break the force of these examples by saying that they all reflect the
same set idiom. The point is rather strengthened than otherwise. The
set idiom for substitution employs uJpevr rather than ajntiv.
There is a case of division of property, Tebtunis Papyri 833, lines
57, 58 (A.D. 46) second hand: e[grayen uJpe;r aujtw'n Mareyh'mi" dia;
to; mh; e[ijdevnai gravm(mata).
22
THE USE OF U
J PER IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS
The examples cover a great variety of cases. There is an apprenti-
ceship to a weaver, Tebtunis Papyri 385, lines 28, 29 (A.D. 117) sec-
ond hand: e[gray]en uJpe;r aujtou' Mareyh'mi". . [. . . . gravmmata mh;]
eijd(ovto").
The next belongs to a marriage contract, Tebtunis Papyri 386, lines
25-28 (B.C. 12): e[grayen uJpe;r aujtou' JIpp[iva" JI]pp[ivou] ajxiw[qe]i;"
dia; to; favskin (a)ujto;n mh; ejpiv[stasqai g[r(av)mmata.
Surely one more instance will suffice. This one belongs to a loan of
grain and money, Tebtunis Papyri 388, lines 34, 35 (A.D. 98): e[gray-
en uJpe;r aujtou' Lus[ivmac(o")] Kronivwno" mh; eijdovto" gravm(m)ata.
It is needless to add more. They tell the same almost monotonous
story of the substitutionary use of uJpevr.
When we turn to the New Testament from the papyri there can, of
course, be no grammatical reluctance to allowing the same usage for
uJpevr if the context calls for it. Theological prejudice must be overru-
led.
There are two instances in the New Testament that are as plain as
any in the papyri, examples that are explained in the context on the ba-
sis of the substitutionary use of uJpevr. One of these occurs in John
11:50, where Caiaphas unwittingly plays the prophet, but makes
perfectly clear his own meaning: oujde; logivzesqe o{ti sumfevrei uJmi'n
i{na ei\" a[nqrwpo" ajpoqavnh/ uJpe;r tou' laou' kai; mh; o{lon to; e[qno" ajp-
ovlhtai. The last clause shows conclusively that Caiaphas means that
Jesus is to be put to death so that the people perish not. It is political
substitution that Caiaphas has in mind and not theological, though
John finds that in the words also. But the author of the Fourth Gospel
has no hesitation in employing uJpevr for the idea of vicarious suffering
in the mind of Caiaphas. Abbott (Johannine Grammar, P. 276) thinks
that in almost all the Johannine instances uJpe;r refers to the death of
one for the many.
The other instance is in Galatians 3:13. In this passage (3:10-13)
Paul draws a picture by means of three prepositions (uJpov, ujpevr, ejk).
There are pictures in prepositions if one has eyes to see them. Here
Paul is discussing the death of Jesus on the Cross. Let us see his pic-
ture. He is arguing that the real children of Abraham are those who be-
lieve, whether Jews or Gentiles, for all who try to be saved by the law
are under a curse (uJpo; katavran). The curse of the law, like a Dama-
scus blade, hangs over the head of every one who lives not up to every
requirement of the law. But Christ became a curse for us or over us
(genovmeno" uJpe;r hJmw'n katavra), that is the Damascus blade fell on
Christ instead of upon us, Christ standing over (uJpevr) us and between
23
us and the curse of the law under (uJpo;) which we lived. Thus Christ
bought us out from under the curse of the law (Cristo;" uJma'" ejxhg-
ovrasen ejk th'" katavra" tou' novmou). The curse had no longer power
over us and we were set free. We walked out (ejk) from under (uJpov)
the curse because Christ became a curse in our stead (uJpevr). Thus Pa-
ul tells the story of Christ’s atoning death by means of these three
Greek prepositions. It was a common thing for a man (see the papyri)
to buy a slave for the purpose of setting him free. Paul uses this idiom
in Galatians 5:1, 13. “For freedom did Christ set us free” “for ye were
called for freedom.” There is no fair way to get around Paul’s mea-
ning in Galatians 3:13. There is no grammatical reason for trying to do
so. When one turns to such passages as Mark 14:24; 2 Corinthians
5:15; Romans 5:6 f.; 8:32; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 2:9, there is no room
left for protest from the side of grammar. In a case like Philemon 13
one is inclined to think also that Paul means that Onesimus ministered
to him in lieu of Philemon (i{na uJpe;r sou' moi diakonh'/), though “in
behalf of” will make sense.
I do not care to go farther into the theological objections to the sub-
stitutionary theory of the atonement which have been used to distort
the plain meaning of a context like Galatians 3:10-13. For myself I
may say that no one of the theories of the atonement states all the truth
nor, indeed, do all of them together. The bottom of this ocean of truth
has never been sounded by any man’s plumb-line. There is more in
the death of Christ for all of us than any of us has been able to fathom.
There is, no doubt, an element of truth in all our theories. Each is one
angle of the truth, but only one. However, one must say that substit-
ution is an essential element in any real atonement. It is by no means
all of it, as one can see from Hebrews 9:12-14. But it is futile to try to
get rid of substitution on grammatical arguments about uJpevr. The pre-
sumption is now in favour of the use of uJpevr for the idea of
substitution.
As to philosophical difficulties they were always chiefly imaginary
and grew out of the fancied necessity of explaining every aspect of
this blessed truth. Nicodemus is not the only theologian or philosopher
who has stumbled at “the earthly” things before he could believe “the
heavenly” (John 3:12). The necessity of the lifting up of the Son of
man (3:4) lies back in the purpose of God who was just and wished to
justify the sinful (Rom. 3:26). We can thank God that He did so love
the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one who
believes on Him should not perish but might have eternal life (John
3:16). That is the gospel. It is the gospel since the war as it was before.
24
THE USE OF U
J PER IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS
The men in the trenches have put the theologians to shame by the
readiness with which they accepted and in a measure apprehended the
fact that Christ died to save sinners, died to make men holy as they
were dying to make men free. It is a good time to preach again the
gospel of grace. There never was any other real gospel to preach, but
just now the hearts of men are ready for the real gospel of love. We
may leave to God His part of the problem provided we act in accord
with His demands upon us. We do not have to explain in full precisely
how the death of Christ has value with God for our sin so that He is
willing to forgive us and let us go free. There are many defects in the
human intellect. We see in a glass darkly, but God’s love, like His
laws, works on in spite of our dullness. It will do us no harm to spec-
ulate with our philosophical theories. That is our privilege and our
duty so long as we recognise clearly that we are quite beyond our
depth. Meanwhile it is good to preach over again the full gospel of the
redemptive sacrifice of Jesus for human sin. That is what is meant by
the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:9). The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ app-
ears precisely in this, that, though rich, He became poor that we,
through His poverty, might become rich. That is substitution. The one
who knew no sin God made to be sin in our stead (uJpevr) that we mi-
ght become God’s righteousness in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). All this and
more Paul poured into the preposition uJpevr. The papyri forbid our
emptying uJpevr of this wealth of meaning in the interest of any theolo-
gical theory.
25
CHAPTER IV
PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS
ALL language was originally pictographic. The picture was first

seen and then the effort was made to describe it. Some of the words
retain the picturesque origin and in some it fades away. Prepositions
are essentially words of location employed to help out the meaning of
the oblique cases and then later used in composition with verbs. Often
the original concept survives in composition when it has vanished els-
ewhere. One cannot afford to slur over the prepositions in the sentence
if he wishes to understand the Greek New Testament. It is worth while
to examine some instances that illustrate this point in a striking way.
The New Testament preserves amphi1 only in composition. It was
obsolete in most of the dialects, though common in Homer, the poets,
and Herodotus and occasionally in Attic prose. It still survives as a
free preposition occasionally in the papyri. The word is the locative
case of ampho,2 both. It is the same root as the Latin ambo and
literally means “on both sides.” So a man is ambiguous who tries to go
on both sides or is in doubt which side to go. Thus in Mark 11:4 we
read that the two disciples found the colt “tied at the door without in
the open street” (Am. St. Version), “in a place where two ways met”
(Auth. after Tyndal),3 “in the street” (Moffatt), “in bivio” (Vulgate),
“in the meeting of tweye weyes” (Wycliffe). The Septuagint has it in
Jer. 17:27; 30:16. Evidently the house stood where two streets met or
crossed. But the most striking instance of amphi in the New Testament
is in Mark 1:16, where we are told that Jesus, passing along by the Sea
of Galilee, “saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a
net in the sea.”4 Moffatt has it “netting fish in the sea.” The word
literally means “to throw on both sides.” It is thus used of putting on
clothes around the body, of throwing the arms around one. Here the
idea is, as Thayer shows, “to cast to and fro, now to one side, now to
the other.” Mark’s word reproduces Peter’s vivid picture of the fish-
ing, first on one side of the boat, then on the other, and with no result
after a whole night of such work (Luke 5:5).
The use of ana5 is very common in composition and only a few
striking examples can be adduced out of the great number that are
interesting. The word literally means “up” as opposed to “down,”6 but
1
ajmfiv. 2 a[mfw. 3 ejpi; tou' ajmfovdou. 4
ajmfibavllonta". In Matt. 4:18 we have ajmfivblhs-
5 6
tron for net. Cf. Hab. 1:17. ajnav. katav.
26
the two words are very much alike in the distributive phrases and in
some verbs. Thus both anaklino7 (Luke 12:37) and kataklino8 (Luke
14:8) are employed for “recline.” Sometimes some manuscripts give
one, some the other, as in Luke 9:15. So both anakeimai9 (Matt. 9:10)
and katakeimai10 (Mark 14:3). “Up” and “down” differ only in stand-
point and both come to be used in the sense of “back.” In Mark 16:4
both senses of “up” and “back” occur: “And looking up,11 they see
that the stone is rolled back,”12 “rolled to one side” (Moffatt). Some-
times a contrast is made between the word with ana and without it as
in Acts 8:30. “Understandest13 thou what thou readest?”14 The English
fails to show that the verb is the same except the preposition ana.
Simple ginosko means to “know” while anaginosko means to “know
again,” to recognise as of persons. When applied to written characters
or letters, it means “to read.” There is thus a subtle play on the word in
the question of Philip to the Eunuch. Precisely the same distinction
occurs in 2 Cor. 3:2: “Known and read of all men.” The delicate pun is
concealed in 2 Cor. 1:13: “What ye read15 or even acknowledge.”16
The verb is the same, but the prepositions (ana and epi) differ. Moffatt
tries to reproduce the idea: “You don’t have to read between the lines
of my letters.” The same preposition appears with two different verbs
in 2 Tim. 1:6: “I put thee in remembrance17 that thou stir18 up the gift
of God.” Moffatt preserves a trace of the repetition of ana: “I remind
you to rekindle the divine gift” (note re-). Paul is stirring the embers
of memory again that he may spur Timothy to renewed endeavour to
keep the fire blazing (present tense of ana-zo-purein, not aorist of
punctiliar action to start the fire again or “stir into flame” as the mar-
gin of American Standard Version has it). There is a sad story of hum-
an depravity in anaireo.19 The word simply means to take up, to lift
up, as when Pharaoh’s daughter “herself took up”20 the babe in the
bulrushes (Acts 7:21) and “nourished him for her own.” But the very
same word came to be used for taking up and making away with and
killing as when Herod “sent forth, and Slew21 all the male children
that were in Bethlehem” (Matt. 2:16). The enemies of Christ plotted to
“kill” him (Luke 22:2) and Peter charges the Jewish leaders with
having “made away with” or “slain” Jesus (Acts 2:23). In Matt. 11:28
(and 29) the word for “rest” 22 is like our “refreshment” or even like

7 8 9 10 11
ajnaklivnw. katakivnw. ajnavkeimai. katavkeimai. ajnablevyasai.
12 13 14 15
ajnakekuvlistai. ginwvskei". ajnaginwvskei". ajnaginwvskete. 16 ejpiginwvskete
17 18 19 20
ajnamimnhvskw. ajnazwpurei'n. ajnairevw. ajneivlato. Note middle voice.
21 22
ajnei'len. ajnapauvsw (v.28). ajnavpausin. (v.29).
27
our vernacular “rest up.” The verb means to cause to stop or cease,
middle to make oneself cease and so to rest and find restoration of
energy (refreshment). Jesus is himself the source of spiritual energy,
the fount of life. One more example may be permitted. It is Acts 17:6:
“These that have turned the world upside down,”23 “these up setters of
the whole world” (Moffatt). The word means “to upset” (not “to set
up”). In the papyri24 two striking illustrations of precisely this sense
occur in two private letters. One is a boy’s letter: “he upsets me.”25
Probably no preposition presents a more vivid picture than anti.26 It
means literally “at the end” of a line or of a log or whatever it may be.
So the notion of “face to face” or “opposite” follows. It is our very
word “end” and is in the locative case. The picture all depends on the
two objects that come face to face. Two lovers at each end of the sofa
and two rival claimants for the same girl’s hand and heart make quite
different pictures. In Gal. 2:11 Paul says of his controversy with Peter:
“I resisted 27 him to the face” where the addition of “face to face”28
makes the picture plainer. But in Luke 24:17 there is the fullest fello-
wship with no notion of opposition. “What are these words which you
are exchanging 29 with one another as ye walk?” Here the words are
pictured as tossed back and forth from end to end of the imaginary
line of conversation. That is free converse. In Acts 27:15 Luke in poe-
tic vein says that “the ship was caught and could not face 30 the wind,”
literally “could not eye the wind face to face” or “could not look the
wind in the eye.” In 1 Peter 2:23 we see a pointed illustration of the
use of anti: “who, when he was reviled, reviled not back.” 31 It is so
hard not to “answer back.” Slaves had abundant provocation, but Peter
urged the example of Jesus to influence the Christian slaves to forbe-
arance. In Luke 10:31 and 32 both the priest and the Levite “passed by
on the other side,” 32 where “on the other side” is expressed by anti in
composition. Each of them “came” to where the poor fellow had been
left by the robber and for fear of ceremonial defilement promptly ste-
pped to the other side of the road (anti) and then “passed by” (para)
safely. It is a vivid picture of the working of Jewish scrupulosity with-
out ethical responsibility and without mercy. It is drawn to the life.
The preposition is also employed in the law of retaliation, “an eye
for33 an eye,” “a tooth for33 a tooth” (Matt. 5:38). It was often empl-
oyed with the word for ransom 34 that was used for the price of a slave
—————————
23 24
oiJ ajnasttatwvsante" See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the N.T.
25 26 27 28
ajnastatoi' me. ajntiv. ajntevsthn, I stood face to face with. kata; provswpon.
29 30 31 32
ajntibavllete. ajntofqalmei'n. ajntelo:. ajntiparh'lqen. 33 ajntiv. 34 luvtron.
28
that was bought and set free. It is the word that is given in the great
saying of Jesus when he said that he came “to give his life a ransom
for many” (Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28). The life of Jesus is the price
paid for our freedom from sin.
There is less that is spectacular in apo.35 It is our word “of” or
“off” and often gives a touch of life as in Matt. 13:46: “He has gone
off 36 and has sold all that he had” (cf. Jas. 1:24). It is common with
many verbs in composition with the notion of “off,” “away,” or “ba-
ck.” In Heb. 11:26 it is used for the wistful looking away 37 of Moses
to the distant recompense in the future as seeing him who is invisible.
It is found in the common word for “enrolment”38 in the papyri that
reënforce Luke’s statement in Luke 2:2 in such a striking way.39 It is a
part of the ordinary word for “receipt” in multitudes of the papyri and
is the idea of Jesus in Matt. 6:2; “They have their reward in full.40 It is
in the common word for “answer,” 41 to make a reply, to say a word
back at one. We have it in our English word “apology,” a defence in
reply to an attack.
The word dia 42 often conceals its root meaning. That is “two,”
“twain,” “in two.” This original conception appears clearly in some
compound words. Thus we read of the wild Gerasene demoniac that
“the chains had been rent asunder 43 by him” (Mark 5:4), “snapped in
two,” where the notion of “asunder” or “in two” is in the dia. We see
the same idea of “two” in Acts 15:9: “And he made no distinction 44
between us and them,” where Peter (or Luke’s report of Peter’s Aram-
aic) not only employed the word 45 which means to “separate,” but he
adds the preposition dia, which means “two,” and then he adds anot-
her preposition meaning “between.”46 So in 1 Cor. 6:5 the compound
verb47 is followed by a prepositional phrase for “between.”48 The pre-
position often appears with an intermediary as in Matt. 1:22, “that
which was spoken by 49 the Lord through 50 the prophet.” In Acts 5:7
the word “interval” 51 suggests the space coming in between two
events.
The word ek 52 (s) means “out of” as opposed to “from” or “away
from” (apo). Thus in Matt. 3:16 we have “Jesus went up from 53 the
water” while in Mark 1:10 we find Jesus “going up out of 54 the wat-
er.” Occasionally both prepositions occur together as in Phil. 3:20:
—————————
35
ajpov. 36 ajpelqwvn. 37
ajpeblepen. 38 ajpografhv, ajpogravfomai (writing off, copying).
39
See my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research. 40 ajpevcousin. 41
ajpokrivnomai.
42 43 44 45 46
diav from duvo (two) diespavsqai. dievkrinen. krivnw. metaxuv.
47 48 49 50 51 52 53
diakri'ai. ajna; mevson. uJpov. diav. diavsthma ejk, ejx. ajpov. 54 ejk.
29
55
“whence also we wait for a Saviour.” The picture is like that of a
wife who watches at evening for her husband, who tarries. She steps
out of the door, down the steps, finally out of the gate and looks away
down the street with longing for his coming. In John 2:15, where Jesus
“poured out 56 the changers’ money,” we can see the pieces of money
rolling away in every direction. In Luke 9:31 Moses and Elijah “spoke
of the exodus 57 which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” The
same word occurs in Heb. 11:22 of “the departure of the children of
Israel” from Egypt, to which Joseph looked forward. In 2 Peter 1:15 it
appears as the word for Peter’s death, “after my departure.” In Heb.
13:7 another word 58 appears for the “close” or “issue” of life, “going
out” from this life.
En 59 and eis 60 are really the same root only slightly altered by the
addition of s. En is older and originally was alone employed either
with the locative case or the accusative as in is in Latin. Eis was a later
development for the accusative idiom alone, but the two uses were not
sharply distinguished. En ceased to appear with the accusative, but
continued to be employed with the locative where eis and the accu-
sative would be appropriate. Likewise eis and the accusative made
inroads on all the uses of en and in Modern Greek vernacular eis has
displaced en. In the New Testament there is no absolute line of cleav-
age. It is idle to insist on a fast meaning of “into” for eis. In reality it
simply means “in” just like en. One must be prepared to find en and
eis used interchangeably for they are in truth the same word. So in
Matt. 12:41 we read of the men of Nineveh: “For they repented at 61
the preaching of Jonah.” Moffatt has it: “when Jonah preached.” Cer-
tainly the book of Jonah forbids the rendering, “in order that Jonah
might preach.” Undoubtedly, repentance on the part of the hearers
usually is a great aid to good preaching, but on this occasion Jonah
became quite angry at the repentance of the people, for it led to their
forgiveness by God and to the failure of his proclamation about the
destruction of the city in forty days. So in Matt. 10:41-42 we have “in
the name of a prophet,” “in the name of a righteous man,” “in the
name of a disciple,” 62 where Moffatt pointedly puts it “because he is a
prophet,” “because he is good,” “because he is a disciple.” Both in the
Septuagint and in the papyri the word for name 63 is common for the
person (Acts 1:15) and for the power and authority of the person. It is
quite immaterial whether one uses eis onoma as in Matt. 10:41-42 and
——————————
55 56
ajpekdecovmeqa. ejxevceen. 57 e[xodo". 58 e[kbasi". 59
ejn. 60
eij" = ejn" = ej" = eij" .
61 62 63
eij" to; khvrugma. eij" o[noma. o[noma.
30
12:41 or en onomati as in Matt. 21:9; Mark 9:49. Hence we find

64
either “baptized en 65 the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) or “baptis-

ing eis 66 the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
(Matt. 28:19). It is splitting a hair to insist on “into” the name because
of the use of eis. There are many turns in the use of both en and eis
into which we cannot go here. They are all treated at length in Chapter
XIII of my larger Grammar.
The use of epi 67 is very common both in composition and with no-
uns and pronouns. It means resting upon (not in, under, or merely
over). Thus in Matt. 3:16 (= Luke 3:22) we find the Spirit of God
descending as a dove and coming upon 67 him. Here Mark 1:10 has eis
(“on”). The idea plainly is that the Spirit came upon Jesus as a dove
lights upon one. In Luke 10:6 the preposition occurs both with the
verb and with the pronoun: “Your peace shall rest upon,67 him.” Paul
has this figure in 1 Cor. 3:10-14 where he uses the verb to “build
upon” 68 (four times) Christ as the only right foundation. It is common
also with onoma as in Matt. 18:5, “upon the basis of my name” (cf.
the similar use of en and eis with onoma). Epi is employed to help out
the meaning of the genitive case as in Matt. 6:10, “upon earth” in con-
trast with “in heaven” (en), the locative as in Matt. 4:4, “upon the
basis of bread alone,” the dative as in 2 Cor. 9:14, “by reason of the
surpassing grace of God to you,” the accusative as in Matt. 3:16
(above). But the distinction between the cases with epi grows dim in
the expression for “sitting on the throne” with the genitive and the
accusative in Matt. 19:28; the accusative in Rev. 4:2, the locative in
many manuscripts in Rev. 4:9 (genitive in text of W. H.) and the geni-
tive in 4:10. A most interesting use of epi is the sense of “addition to,”
something piled upon what has already been said or done. Thus in
Col. 3:14 we have “and above all these things,” 69 “on top of all the
other spiritual garments” described in Col. 3:12-13, “Put on 70 love” as
an overcoat or outer wrap or girdle that covers and holds together all
the rest, the overcoat of love or the girdle of love.
In the use of kata,71 “down,” we see the question of standpoint
emphasised. In reality “up"” and “down” are the same idea from opp-
osite poles. In 1 Cor. 11:4 the figure is that of having a veil hanging
“down from the head” 72 (ablative case). So in Acts 27:14 the typhonic
wind “beat down from it” 73 (the island, not “down on it”). In Mark
5:13 “the herd rushed down the steep 74 into the sea,” pellmell down
—————————
64 65
ejn ojnovmati ejn 66 eij" 67
eijpiv 68
ejpoikodomei' 69
ejpi; pa'sin de; touvtoi".
70 71 72 73
ejnduvsasqe. katav. kata; kefalh'". kat j aujth'". 74 kata; tou' krhmnou'.
31
from the top of the hill. The word is common in the sense of “down
on” (“against”) one (Matt. 5:11). In Mark 5:40 the people in the house
of Jairus “laughed him to scorn” 75 when Jesus insisted that the child
was not dead, but sleeping. They tried to “laugh him down.” In comp-
osition the Greek often has kata (down) when we say “up.” Thus in
Matt. 3:12 “the chaff he will burn up.” 76 So in Rev. 10:9 “eat it up” 77
where the Greek has “eat it down.” Again, in Phil. 2:12 we have
“work out your own salvation” where the Greek has “work down”78 to
the finish (perfective use of the preposition).
The doctrine of repentance is set forth by meta.79 The word literally
means “midst.” We see this idea in Luke 12:29: “Neither be of doubt-
ful mind,” 80 where “being in mid-air,” tossed about in the air like a
balloon, is the conception. The same idea appears in “with” as in
metochos,81 partner, as in Luke 5:7, one who has a business in com-
mon with one. In repentance the notion of “midst” has passed to that
of “after” possibly by “passing through the midst” of an experience
and then looking back on it. It is thus the “change” due to reflection.
Certainly the word for repentance82 is more than a mere “after-thou-
ght.” It is a “change of mind” that leads to and is shown by a change
of life, “fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8). We see the notion of
change in the Transfiguration (Metamorphosis) 83 of Jesus (Mark 9:2).
It is the word employed by Paul in Rom. 12:2 for nonconformity to
the fashion of the world. The phrase seems like a bit of satire as one
notes how the world shapes the habits of Christians instead of
Christians transforming the life of the world.
The word para 84 means “beside,” “by the side of.” It is found with
the locative, the accusative and the ablative. The classic example of
para with the locative is in John 19:25, where the Mother of Jesus
with three other women stood “by” 85 the cross of Jesus.” Evidently
they stood as close up as possible. The famous oratorio, Stabat Mater,
rests on this expression. Mary stood with the sword piercing her heart
clear through as Simeon had said it would. In Matt. 19:26 we have an-
other fine illustration of the vivid use of para. The disciples were puz-
zled over the impossibility of a camel’s doing through the eye of a ne-
edle and the consequent impossibility of any one’s being saved if the
rich could not be. Jesus promptly accepted their point of view: “With86
men this is impossible; but with 86 God all things are possible.” Stand-

75
kategevlwn. 76 katakauvsei. 77 katavfage. 78 katergavzesqe. 79 metav. 80 mh; metew-
rivzesqe. 81 mevtoco". 82 metavnoia. 83 metemorfwvqh. 84 parav. 85 para; tw'/ staurw'./
86
parav.
32
ing by the side of men it did look impossible for any one to be saved
as it was impossible for the camel to go through the eye of the needle.
But standing by the side of God nothing is impossible and he can save
even the rich. Sometimes para is used for “at the home of” as in Acts
10:6, which is rendered in 10:32 by en oikiai (“at the house of”). See
also Acts 11:12. See the same idea in John 14:23 when Jesus promises
that he and the Father “will come and make our abode with” 86 the
man who loves and obeys him. They will make a permanent home in
his heart and life.
The meaning of peri 87 is “around.” We see that idea clearly in the
repeated preposition in Mark 9:42, “if a great millstone were hanged
about his neck.” In Acts 25:7 the Jews, we read, “stood round about”88
Paul, eagerly accusing Paul to Festus. The word appears twice in
Mark 3:34 besides kykloi (circle). In 2 Thess. 3:11 Paul makes a play
on the word for “work,” 89 with 90 and without the preposition, “doing
nothing but doing about,” “busybodies instead of busy” (Moffatt). A
vivid picture is given in 2 Cor. 3:16 for “removing the veil from
around” 91 the heart of the Jews who do turn to the Lord Jesus. So the
same verb occurs in Acts 27:20 when all hope is taken away. In Luke
10:40 a vivid picture of Martha’s overanxiety is drawn by the repeated
preposition: “She was drawn around 92 (distorted) about 93 much ser-
vice.”
Pro 94 is simple enough and appears in our English “fro” “fore.” It
means literally “fore,” “before” as in Acts 12:14, where the maid rep-
orted that “Peter stood before 94 the gate.” Jesus is described as “the
forerunner” 95 in the Christian race who has run on ahead and has ent-
ered the veil ahead of us. It is found in Paul’s word for “progress,”
“cutting ahead” 96 like blazing a path through the forest, a pioneer who
presses on ahead of the rest who will come later (1 Tim. 4: 15): “that
thy progress may be manifest to all.” It is fine to see the young preac-
her forging ahead year by year. It is used by Paul of God’s forekn-
owledge and foreordination in Rom. 8:28.
The meaning of pros 97 seems to be “near” and then “face to face.”
“Peter stood by97 the door outside” (John 18:16) and “Mary was stan-
ding without at 97 the tomb” (John 20:11) and the two angels stood,
one at 97 the head and one at the foot of the tomb (20:12). In the New
Testament there is only one example with the genitive or ablative (Ac-
ts 27:34) and seven with the locative, but the accusative is exceedingly

86 87
parav. periv. 88 perievsthsan. 89 ejrgazomevnou". 90 periergazomevnou". 91
peri-
92 93
airei'tai. periespa'to. periv. 94 prov. 95 provdromo". 96 prokophv. 97
prov".
33
common. The accusative seems to be sometimes devoid of any notion

of motion (only extension). The Greek word for “face,” prosopon 98
has pros in it. It means “before the eye,” “in front of the eye” “the
face.” In 1 Cor. 13:12 Paul says: “For now we see in a mirror darkly,
but then face to face,” 99 with pros three times. In John 1:1 John says
that “the Logos was with 100 God” “face to face with God,” in equal
fellowship and nature. In fact the language means that the Logos was
eye to eye with God and the conclusion follows, “the Logos was
God.” Paul longs for the day when he will be “at home with 101 the
Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). See Gal. 1:18.
We have sun 102 in our word “sympathy” which appears in Rom.
8:18: “If so be that we suffer with 103 him, that we may also be glori-
fied with104 him.” See also “symphony” in Matt. 18:19. Paul is excee-
dingly fond of compound words with sun for the idea of association
and coöperation. In Luke 10:40 Martha begs Jesus to make Mary “ta-
ke hold of her end of the work along with” 105 her. Paul employs the
very same for the help rendered by the Holy Spirit who helps 105 our
weakness. Paul uses sunergos 106 for co-worker as in Rom. 16:3 and
sunkoinonos 107 for partners as in Phil. 1:7. We have been raised
with108 Christ (Col. 2:12) and crucified together with 109 Christ (Gal.
2:20). The acme of bliss for Paul is “to be with 110 Christ” (Phil. 1:23).
The meaning of huper 111 is “over” (the same word, in fact) like the
Latin super. The meaning of “over” as “upper” appears in Acts 1:13,
“the upper room” 112 and in Heb. 9:5 of the cherubim of glory “abo-
ve113 it” (the ark of the covenant). This is all that the preposition mea-
ns of itself, but it is used in various kindred and resultant senses of
“beyond” with the accusative or “in behalf of,” “instead of” with the
ablative. But the original figure is always present. We have the very
word “hyperbole” in English, though in a slightly different sense from
the New Testament usuage (Rom. 7:13). In Rom. 8:37 Paul adds it to
the verb to be victorious in his exultation and our “more than con-
querors” 114 is hardly adequate. In Phil. 2:9 “highly exalted”115 falls
short of the full idea, “exalted above (or beyond)” what Christ had
before his Incarnation. In Rom. 8:26: (“the Spirit himself maketh
intercession 116 for us”) the verb has a lively picture. The root means
to happen along, to come up with, and en accents the notion of “on”

98 99
provswpon. provswpon pro;" provswpon. 100 pro;" to;n qeovn. 101 pro;" to;n kuvrion.
102 103
suvn. sunpavscomen. 104 sundoxasqw'men. 105 sunantilambavnetai. 106 sunergov".
107 108
sunkoinwnov". sunhgevrqhte. 109 sunestauvrwmai. 110
su;n Cristw'./ 111
uJpevr.
112 113 114 115
to; uJperw'/on. uJperavnw aujth'". uJpernikw'men. uJperuvfwsen.
116
uJperentugcavnei.
34
one. Then huper shows the newcomer bending over one in trouble and
pleading for him, interceding. It used to be said by superficial critics
that Paul did not teach the substitutionary theory of the atonement
because he used huper rather than anti. But the papyri, as is amply
shown in Chapter III, give abundant examples of the use of huper
when substitution is the plain idea. There never was any ground for
such a hypercriticism of Paul’s usage which finds ample justification
in ancient Greek. And the New Testament itself makes it as plain as a
pikestaff as in John 11:50, where substitution 117 is the whole point
with Caiaphas. And then Gal. 3:13 occurs in a context that absolutely
compels the substitutionary view of the death of Christ. However, as I
have said elsewhere, I by no means believe that this view is a comp-
lete statement of all that is true of the death of Christ for sinners.
The word hupo 118 is really the positive form of the comparative
huper. It is the Latin sub and the English “up.” It is found with the
genitive (or ablative) and the accusative. The literal usage is still com-
mon as when Jesus saw Nathanael “under the fig tree,” 119 “under the
bushel” or “under the bed” (Mark 4:21). In 1 Peter 2:21 the “exam-
ple”120 left by Christ is like a copy book when one writes on the lines
below and tries to copy the first line. Too often, alas, we copy the line
lowest down as we go down the page and at the bottom find ourselves
a long way from the copy at the top. The same idea appears in another
word for “example” 121 in John 13:15. The word for patience 122 mea-
ns to remain under the particular strain. It calls for patience “to wait
for” the slow fruition of God’s plans for us (Rom. 8:25). It is inter-
esting to note our word “hypocrite.” 123 The word means to act under a
mask and was in old Greek employed for actors who covered their
faces. Then the word came to be used for any one who pretended to be
what he was not. It is Christ’s terrible word for the Pharisees and its
sting is felt to-day by all who pose for a piety that they do not possess.
These examples are mere specimens of the wealth of meaning in
the prepositions in the Greek New Testament. Do not skip the prepos-
itions, whatever else you skip. There is a picture in it for you and for
your sermon if you have eyes to see it.

117 118 119 120 121
ajpoqavnh uJpe;r tou' laou' . uJpov. uJpo; th;n sukh'n. uJpogrammov". uJpovdeigma.
122
uJpomonhv. 123 uJpokrithv".
35
CHAPTER V
THE GREEK ARTICLE AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST
THE objections to the real Deity of Jesus Christ have taken various
forms (philosophical, historical, theological, exegetical, grammatical).
There are those who will not take Jesus as Lord of life and death
because they cannot comprehend the mystery of the Incarnation and
who refuse to admit the possibility of the union of God with man in
the person of Jesus Christ. There are those who reject the historical
evidence for the existence of Jesus and seek to explain the record of
his life and death as myth and legend. There are those who say that
Jesus lived and was the noblest of men and was deified by Paul and
John (or whoever wrote the Fourth Gospel) after the fashion of the
Roman emperors. There are those who accept the New Testament wri-
tings as adequate interpretations of Christ and Christianity, but who
say that Trinitarianism is a misinterpretation of the New Testament.
Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, but only in the sense that all belie-
vers are, greater in degree, to be sure, but not in kind.
And then the grammarians have had their say, pro and con, on this
great subject. As early as 1798 Granville Sharp wrote a monograph on
the subject entitled, “Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in
the Greek Text of the New Testament, containing many New Proofs
of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages which are wrongly translated
in the Common English Version.” He laid down a “rule” (p. 3) which
has become famous and the occasion of sharp contention, but which is
still a sound and scientific principle: “When the copulative kaiv conne-
cts two nouns of the same case [viz., noun (either substantive or adje-
ctive, or participle) of personal description respecting office, dignity,
affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or
ill], if the article oJ, or any of its cases precedes the first of the said
nouns or participles and is not repeated before the second noun or par-
ticiple, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or
described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther
description of the first named person.”
Now it is not easy to lay down a universal principle of syntax, part-
icularly in a language so rich and varied in significance as is the Gre-
ek. But, though Sharp’s principle was attacked, he held to it and affi-
rms (p. 115) that though he had examined several thousand examples
36
of the type, “the apostle and high priest of our confession Jesus”1
(Heb. 3:1), he had never found an exception. He does not, however,
claim (p. 6) that the principle applies to proper names or to the plural
number. Proper names are definite without the article. Ellicott (Aids to
Faith, p. 462) says: “The rule is sound in principle, but in the case of
proper names or quasiproper names, cannot be safely pressed.” But
Sharp did not apply it to proper names. Middleton followed Sharp in
an able discussion, “The Doctrine of the Greek Article applied to the
criticism and illustration of the N.T.” (1808). A few examples may suf-
fice to show how the principle works. Take the common idiom, “the
God and Father”2 (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Gal.
1:4; Eph. 5:20; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13), all in Paul’s Epis-
tles, and add Rev. 1:6 and “the Lord and Father” (Jas. 1:27; 3:9).
All this is plain sailing. Now take the precisely parallel idiom, “the
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”3 in 2 Peter (2:20; 3:2). There is no
dispute here that the author describes one and the same person by the
two epithets with the one article. In 2 Pet. 1:11 and 3:18 the pronoun
“our” 4 comes after “Lord,” but that makes no difference in the idiom.
It is “our Lord and Saviour,” and it is so translated in the English vers-
ions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Pet. 1:1, “our God
and Saviour Jesus Christ” 5 as the Canterbury Revision rightly has it
and so Moffatt translates it. But the King James Version renders it
“God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” while the American Standard
Version reads, “our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ” (note the inse-
rtion of the not in the Greek text) after the marginal rendering of the
Canterbury Revision. Now why this confusion where the syntax is so
simple? A strange timidity seized some of the translators in the Jerus-
alem Chamber that is reproduced by the American Committee. There
is no hesitation in translating John 1:1 as the text has it. Why boggle
over 2 Pet. 1:1?
The explanation is to be found in Winer’s Grammar (Thayer’s
Edition, p. 130, W. F. Moulton’s, p. 162), where the author seeks by
indirection to break the force of Granville Sharp’s rule by saying that
in 2 Pet. 1:1, “there is not even a pronoun with awth'po".” That is
true, but it is quite beside the point. There is no pronoun with awt-
h'po" in 2 Pet. 1:11, precisely the same idiom, where no one doubts
the identity of “Lord and Saviour.” Why refuse to apply the same rule
1
to;n ajpovstolon kai; ajrciereva th'" oJmologiva" hJmw'n jIhsou'n. 2 oJ qeo;" kai; pathvr. 3 oJ kuvrio"
kai; swth;r jIhsou'" Cristov". 4 hJmw'n. 5 tou' qeou' hJmw'n kai; swth'ro" jIhsou' Cristou' (or
Cristou' jIhsou').
37
to 2 Pet. 1:1 that all admit, Winer included, to be true of 2 Pet. 1:11?
There is no escape from the logic of the Greek article in 2 Pet. 1:1.
The idiom compels the translation, “our God and Saviour Jesus Chr-
ist.” One may agree or not with the author, but that is what he said and
what he meant to say. The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian
prejudice overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remark about 2
Pet. 1:1. The name of Winer was supreme in New Testament grammar
for three generations and his lapse from the plain path on this point is
responsible for the confusion of the scholars in the English Versions
on 2 Pet. 1:1. But Schmiedel in his revision of Winer (p. 158) frankly
admitted Winer’s error as to 2 Pet. 1:1: “Grammar demands that one
person is meant.” Winer really gives the matter away in his comment
on Tit. 2:13, where the Canterbury Version again has it right: “Our
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” 6 Here the King James Version
and the American Standard Version have it: “The great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ.” The American committee here again are resp-
onsible for standing by the King James Version in the margin of the
Canterbury Revision. Moffatt follows the King James Version, but
adds “of” before “Saviour.” Winer (Winer-Moulton, p. 162) attacks
the Sharp rule in Tit. 2:13 by arguing that “the article is omitted before
awth'po", because this word is defined by the genitive hJmw'n, and bec-
ause the appositive precedes the proper name.” But the appositive
“precedes the proper” name in 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:18, and in the
same passages, except 2:20, we have also hJmw'n. The grammatical
criterion is plain, and Winer knew it, for in a footnote he adds: “In the
above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of gra-
mmar, swth’ro" may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly
depending on the article tou'; but the dogmatic conviction derived
from Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the
great God, induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle
to our taking the clause kai; swth'ro" . . . . Cristou' by itself, as ref-
erring to a second subject.” In the text above the footnote Winer had
said: “Considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me
to believe that swth'ro" is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with
qeou', Christ being first called mevga" qeov", and then swthvr.” Here,
then, Winer gives the whole case away both about Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet.
1:1. The grammarian has nothing to do per se with the theology of the
New Testament as I have insisted in my grammar.7 Wendland 8 challe-

6
tou' megavlou qeou' kai; swth'ro" hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou'. 7 Grammar of the Greek New Test-
ament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 786. 8 Zeitschrift f. Neut-Wiss., V, 335 f.
38
nged Winer on Titus 2:13, and considers it “an exegetical mistake” to

find two persons in Paul’s sentence. Moulton (Prolegomena, p. 84)
cites papyri illustrations from the seventh century A.D., which “attest
the translation, ‘our great God and Saviour’ as current among Greek-
speaking Christians.” Moulton adds this pointed conclusion: “Famil-
iarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri
and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends strong support
to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter part of 1/A.D.
onward, deliberately annexed for their Divine Master the phraseology
that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst of
men.”
It is plain, therefore, that Winer has exerted a pernicious influence,
from the grammatical standpoint, on the interpretation Of 2 Pet. 1:1
and Tit. 2:13. Scholars who believed in the Deity of Christ have not
wished to claim too much and to fly in the face of Winer, the great
grammarian, for three generations. But Winer did not make out a sou-
nd case against Sharp’s principle as applied to 2 Pet. 1:1 and Tit. 2:13.
Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these
passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories abo-
ut the theology of the writers.
There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate
2 Pet. 1:1, “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and Tit. 2:13, “our
great God and Saviour Christ Jesus.” It is true that thus we have two
passages added to the side of the Trinitarian argument to make up for
the loss of 1 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Jo. 5:7-8. Scholarship, real scholarship,
seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar finds
the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations will be
destroyed. It is interesting to note also that in Acts 20:28 both the
King James Version and the Canterbury Revision have “the church of
God, which he purchased with his own ‘blood,’” whereas the Amer-
ican Standard Version has “the church of the Lord” (so Moffatt). Here
the difference is a matter of text, not of the article. But the two oldest
and best manuscripts (the Vatican and the Sinaitic) read “God,” which
is almost certainly right. There is a good deal more that can be said
concerning the Greek article and the Deity of Christ, but enough has
been said concerning the crucial passages to show the part that the
article plays in the argument.
A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the arti-
cle in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author.
“The Word was God.” 9 If both God and Word were articular, they
9
Qeo;" h\n oJ lovgo" .
39
would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable.

But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the cons-
truction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and
Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos,
but not that the Logos was God. As it is, John asserts that in the
Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater
than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (John 1:14), and
not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really “God only Begotten
in the bosom of the Father” (1:18 correct text).
In Rom. 9:5 the punctuation is in dispute and the article plays no
decisive part in the meaning. Westcott and Hort punctuate the sente-
nce so as to make God in apposition with Christ, as do the English
Versions. This punctuation makes Paul apply the word God to Christ
as we find it in John 1:1 and 2 Pet. 1:1 and Tit. 2:13. In Col. 1:16-17
Paul treats Christ as Creator and Upholder of the Universe.
40
CHAPTER VI
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF mhv WITH HESITANT

QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE MODE
BLASS seems disturbed by the use of mhv with questions in John

4:29; 7:26; 21:5, where mhv “hardly lends itself to the meaning,
‘certainly not, I suppose’” (Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 254,
note 2). Blass was a classicist and lays down the normal rule that ouj is
used where an affirmative answer is expected and mhv where a negative
answer is expected. It properly lays stress on the fact that “the nega-
tive used depends on the answer expected, and not on the actual ans-
wer given.” In other words, the negative used, whether ouj or mhv, is de-
termined by the mind of the questioner, not by that of the one who
replies. If the questioner asks a rhetorical question and makes his own
reply, the principle is the same.
Moulton (Prolegomena, p. 170, note) rightly argues that the use of
mhv or mhvti in hesitant questions “is not really inappropriate.” In inde-
pendent sentences in the New Testament mhv is retained only in quest-
ions, but is quite frequent in this idiom. There are fifty-six such exa-
mples of mhv in the New Testament, thirteen of mhvti, one of mhvpote,
and one of mhvtige, seventy-one in all. Twenty-two of the seventy-one
are in the Fourth Gospel and twenty-five in Paul’s Epistles, but only
twelve in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts, according to Moulton and
Geden’s Concordance. There are no instances in Hebrews, the Johan-
nine Epistles and the Apocalypse, or the Petrine Epistles.
Most of the examples are plain enough and reflect the clear feeling
of the questioner. The idiom is commonest in the Gospels in the words
of Jesus, where he makes a vehement or indignant or rhetorical appeal
to his hearers. The same idiom occurs in parallel passages as in Matt.
7:9 f. (= Luke 11:11), Matt. 9:15 (= Mark 2:19 = Luke 5:34), Matt.
11:23 (= Luke 10:15). Paul sometimes expresses his indignant denial
by mhv gevnoito after the question with mhv as in Rom. 3:3; 9:14; 11:1,
11. Paul also uses mhv ouj in a question where the ouj coalesces with the
verb and the mhv is the negative of the question as in Rom. 10:18, 19; 1
Cor. 9:4, 5. It is not easy to reproduce this idiom in English, though it
is plain in the Greek. We may do it by the use of “fail” as in Rom.
10:18: “Did they fail to hear?” In 1 Cor. 12:29, 30, Paul has a string of
questions with mhv, but they are all according to form. In 1 Cor. 9:6
Paul uses ouj — mhv where ouj negatives the question and mhv the infin-
41
itive. It is slightly confusing in English, but clear in the Greek. In

Romans 11:2 Paul uses oujc ajpwvsato as the answer to mhv ajpwvsato;
But the really troublesome hesitant questions occur mainly in Joh-
n’s Gospel. Here the solution lies in the psychology of the questioner
rather than in the strictly grammatical form. We must always bear in
mind that in actual speech people do not bother about rules of gram-
mar. Language is a servant, not a master. We must watch for the light
and shadow that play on the face and catch the tones of the voice if we
wish to gather the real meaning of the speaker. Half at least of human
speech is what is not said in words, but is expressed in the flash of fire
from the eye and the lips. It is for this reason that written language is a
poor substitute for the spoken word. There is power in the pen of the
ready writer who has learned the art of delicate and accurate expres-
sion of thought. But in conversation and in public address that is
sincere there is the full play of the personality that far transcends mere
words.
Hence men have so much difficulty in interpreting written langu-
age. Lawyers higgle over the technicalities of a will or a code of laws.
Preachers become metaphysical hairsplitters in the explanation of a
passage of Scripture because they fail to read between the lines and to
visualise properly the atmosphere of the saying. The historical imag-
ination is essential to correct interpretation and to effective preaching.
The preacher who sees men as trees walking will speak to an audience
that does not see them at all.
In John 4:12 we have the normal use of mhv, expecting the negative
answer. “Art thou greater than our father Jacob?” The Samaritan wo-
man thus expresses, if she used Greek (or John does it for her, if she
used Aramaic), her surprise at Jesus for claiming to be able to give her
“living water.” So far so good. But in 4:29 the same woman uses mhvti
in a question1 that seems to call for an affirmative reply. She is speak-
ing to her friends and neighbours in the city of Sychar and is seeking
to interest them in Jesus, who has confessed himself to her as the Mes-
siah both of the Jews and of the Samaritans (4:25 f). Apparently she
ought to have employed oujc or even oujciv, for she cannot wish to dis-
credit the claims of Jesus, whom she has just accepted as the Messiah.
But she does not employ oujc, because to do so would have challenged
the opposition of Samaritans to a Jew as Jesus was (cf. 4:9). Besides,
if she had taken a public and positive stand for Jesus as the Messiah,
many would have instantly assumed an antagonistic attitude before
1
Mhvti ou\tov" ejstin oJ Cristov";
42
HESITANT QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE MODE
they had seen and heard him. She evidently wishes to avoid arousing
needless antagonism and to excite curiosity by raising the question in
a more or less doubtful and debatable form, without being dogmatic
herself. It is a dull interpreter who stumbles over this use of mhvti by
the Samaritan woman. It is merely interpretation by the rule of thumb
to say that the Samaritan woman was disloyal to Jesus in using mhvti,
or that John misrepresents her real mood in so doing. It is a woman
who is speaking, a woman who knows how to pique the interest of her
neighbors in a great sensation. For it was the biggest sensation of the
time if the Messiah was in reality near Sychar. The results justified her
insight and her skill. The townsfolk went forth at once (ejxh'lqon) and
went out in a stream (h[rconto) towards Jacob’s Well, where Jesus
was. In the end many believed on Jesus and said, “Now we believe not
because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know
that this is indeed the Saviour of the world” (4:42). By her subtle intu-
ition she kept herself in the background and avoided controversy and
won them to Jesus as the Messiah. All this is involved in her use of
mhvti. The Revised Version renders the question thus: “Can this be the
Christ?” That is a fair translation, for it avoids committing her to a
negative response. It is a species of linguistic camouflage, this use of
mhv when one declines to take a positive stand. It is not fear with the
Samaritan woman, but shrewdness that leads to this form of inquiry. A
similar excited and timid use of mhvti occurs in Matt. 12.23.
In John 7:26 we find mhvpote employed by the rabble of Jerusalem,
as reported or translated by John, to throw ridicule on the rulers in
Jerusalem: “Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the
Christ?”2 It is irony or sarcasm, as shown by the continuance in verse
27: “Howbeit we know this man whence he is.” Here the syntax of
mhvpote is not so subtle as that of mhvti in 4:29, but there is the quick
flash of scorn at the rabbis for their cowardice in the actual presence
of Jesus after their loud professions of courage before he came. One
only needs nimble wit to see the beauty of the Greek idiom here.
The lightning play of emotion in mhv in questions comes out finely
in John 7:45-52. When the officers returned to the Sanhedrin without
Jesus, they were met with a sharp oujc as to why they had not brought
Jesus under arrest. On their reply the Pharisees sneered at them in two
questions with mhv: “Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers
believed on him, or of the Pharisees?” Now Nicodemus interposes
with a timid point of order or legal procedure with mhv: “Doth our law
2
Mhvpote ajlhqw'" e[gnwsan oiJ a[rconte" o{ti ou\tov" ejstin oJ Cristov".
43
judge a man except it first hear from himself and know what he doe-
th?” This is an adroit question on the part of Nicodemus (cf. my
Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 1168) and is in perfect form
and syntax, but it rouses the Sanhedrin to fury for one of their own
number to champion the cause of Jesus, even when he is in the right.
So they storm at Nicodemus with mhv: “Art thou also of Galilee? Sear-
ch, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” They tear a passion
to tatters and tell a falsehood to bolster their prejudices, for Galilee
had produced prophets. They strongly suspect Nicodemus of affinities
with the Galilean, though the form of the question for propriety’s sake
has mhv. They really mean ouj though they use mhv. See a similar scor-
nful use of mhvti in John 8:22, where the Pharisees scout the claims of
Jesus, about going where they cannot come. They ask if he will kill
himself, using mhv, though devoutly wishing that he would do so. This
is quite in contrast to Pilate’s rage at the Jews, when he blurted out at
Jesus (with mhvti) “Am I a Jew?”
Once more in John 21:5 there is nothing at all the matter with the
use of mhvti by Jesus: “Children, have ye aught to eat?” Clearly ouj wo-
uld have been too abrupt and harsh on the part of a stranger. So he del-
icately employs mhvti. It is really more polite and courteous to use
mhvti, when one makes an inquiry that implies asking a favour. It mak-
es it easy for a negative answer without any strain in one’s relations.
The very fact of such a question implies the possibility of an affirma-
tive reply else it would not have been made at all. And yet the use of
mhv or mhvti by no means compels a negative reply. In the case in John
21:5 the disciples promptly replied ou[, for they had caught nothing all
night. Now the way was clear for Jesus to offer his help, whereas bef-
ore it might have seemed an impertinence. In English we manage it by
saying: “You haven’t had breakfast, have you?” We employ two clau-
ses to catch the delicate nuances of mhv in Greek.
So in John 18:17 the maid that kept the door said to Peter (using
mhv): “Art thou also one of this man’s disciples?” She means that he is,
but with a woman’s delicate insight implies that he is not, so as to give
him a hole by which to slip out. And Peter slips out with a blunt oujc
eijmiv. But he was a disciple and the maid knew it, her syntax or John’s
to the contrary notwithstanding. In 18:25 the servants gather round
Peter once more and use mhv: “Art thou also one of his disciples?”
Peter hotly retorts oujc eijmiv, but he does not convince anyone, least of
all himself. But now at last a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had
cut off in the garden stepped up to Peter and used, not mhv, but oujc:
“Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” This oujc was like a pistol
44
HESITANT QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE MODE
shot at Peter, and revealed in a flash his peril, and so he plunged

deeper into the bog of denial and the cock crew.
There is a striking use of mhvti in Matt. 26:22, 25, where in grief
and amazement the disciples one by one began to ask: “Is it I, Lord?”
It looks as if Judas hesitated till Jesus said: “But woe unto that man
through whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good were it for that man
if he had not been born.” Then Judas, knowing that Jesus knew, and
not wishing the disciples to know, his purpose, brazenly asked (with
mhvti): “Is it I, Rabbi?” Judas had to use mhvti to save his face, but he
did not save it, for Jesus gave the affirmative reply: “Thou has said.”
So we see that in the interpretation of mhv in hesitant questions we
must go beyond mere rules of grammar into the principles of speech
which have a psychological basis. Psychology is a rich field for the
preacher, not only in the delivery of the message to living hearers, but
also in catching on to the real meaning of the spoken or the written
language which one interprets. One needs the mind of the Spirit of
God if he is to understand the things of the human spirit.
45
CHAPTER VII
GRAMMAR AND PREACHING
PAUL vs. PETER AND JOHN
IT may provoke a smile on many a preacher’s face when there is

suggested any connection between grammar and preaching. Moody
broke grammar and broke hearts, we are reminded. That is true, but he
did not break hearts because he broke grammar. Plenty of preachers
have broken grammar who have never broken hearts. Power in the
preacher rests at bottom on the Master, the message, and the man. The
power of Christ is mediated through the Holy Spirit and is at the serv-
ice of all men. The message of the gospel is open to all who can appr-
ehend it. We gain fresh glimpses of the word of life, but in essence it
remains the same. The one variable quantity in preaching is the man’s
personality. This is itself complex and includes what we call genius
and magnetism for lack of more precise terms, for there is a subtle
power in a real man that cannot be defined. God uses men of differing
gifts. “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor.
12:4). But we must not confuse cause and effect. The Spirit of God bl-
esses the work of different men, not because they are ignorant of Gre-
ek or English, but although they are ignorant. We can thank God for
this fact. Knowledge ought to be power and ignorance is weakness.
Knowledge may minister to pride and so become an element of
weakness (1 Cor. 8:1). God has always been able to take the weak
things of the world and confound the strong (1 Cor. 1:7). But we must
not forget that Paul himself was a man of the schools with the best
technical training of his day at Tarsus and Jerusalem. The chosen
vessel of Christ for the conquest of the Roman Empire was the ablest
mind of the age with Hebrew, Greek and Roman culture, and not the
fishermen of Galilee, who had courage, but lacked the special scho-
lastic equipment (Acts 4:13) that Paul possessed. Paul was a linguist,
at home in Aramaic (Hebrew), in Greek, and probably in Latin, and
did not need an interpreter like Mark for Peter. Even his oratorical im-
petuosity and intensity of feeling in Second Corinthians did not betray
him into the grammatical crudities seen in the Apocalypse. Paul wrote
and spoke the vernacular Koiné, but as an educated man in touch with
the intellectual life of his time. I am not pleading that Paul was a prof-
essional stylist, as Blass has done. I do not believe that Paul cons-
46
ciously imitated the rhetoricians of Rhodes or the grammarians of
Alexandria. He was not artificial, but real, in his learning. However,
Paul knew the power in a word and in a phrase and was able to write 1
Cor. 13, the noblest prose poem on love in all literature. Man of gen-
ius that he was, he was also a man of the schools, as Peter and John
were not. He became the great preacher, missionary, theologian of the
ages. Linguistic learning is not all that the preacher requires, but the
supreme preacher like Paul does need it. Instance Alexander Maclaren
as a modern example of the scholarly preacher.
NOT PLEADING A LOST CAUSE
There is no denying that the drift to-day in educational circles is

heavily against the study of the classics. This undoubted fact by no
means proves that the modern minister acts wisely when he ignores or
neglects the Greek New Testament. There are fashions and fads in ed-
ucation as in other things. It remains to be seen whether the new utili-
tarian education will equal in value the old cultural standards and
ideals. There may be as much mental drill and gymnastics in the study
of scientific details and sociological theories as in the study of the lan-
guage and of the literature of the ancients. The modern topics demand
a place, but the old term “humanities” for the classics is not without
significance. They have had a refining and a humanzing influence be-
yond a doubt. In Dean West’s volume, The Value of the Classics, the
most striking argument is that made by business men, captains of ind-
ustry, who plead for the retention of Latin and Greek in the college
curriculum on the ground that classical students make better leaders in
business life than those without the humanities. And ex-President Wo-
odrow Wilson is quoted in a recent magazine as saying that, if he had
his college course to go over, he would give more attention to the
study of Greek. In his case he was not thinking of Greek is a pastime,
as when Gladstone would write Greek hymns to relieve the tedium of
dull speeches in the House of Commons, but rather as a means of sha-
rpening his intellect for problems of statecraft. The best outcome of
educational discipline is not the storing of facts, useful as that may be,
but the training of one’s powers for instant service on demand. For
this result the study of the Greek language claims preëminence. It is
true that in the United States the high schools now seldom offer Gre-
ek. Here in Louisville my own son could not study Greek at the Male
High School because it was not offered, though he did take it up at
47
college. Even Oxford University, with the approval of Professor Gilb-
ert Murray, has at last dropped compulsory Greek. One can now, alas,
secure his B.A. in some colleges without either Greek or Latin. But if
the study of the dead languages become itself dead in our colleges, the
problem is still not settled for the minister of the gospel.
THE MINISTER A SPECIALIST
The physician has to study chemistry and physiology. Other men

may or may not. The lawyer has to study his Blackstone. The preacher
has to know his Bible or the people suffer the consequences of his ign-
orance, as in the case of the physician or the lawyer. The extreme in
each instance is the quack who plays on the ignorance and prejudice
of the public. It is true that the minister can learn a deal about his
Bible from the English versions, many of which are most excellent.
There is no excuse for any one to be ignorant of his English Bible,
which has laid the foundation of our modern civilisation. But the prea-
cher lays claim to a superior knowledge of the New Testament. He
undertakes to expound the message of the gospel to people who have
access to the English translations, and many of these are his equal in
general culture and mental ability. If he is to maintain the interest of
such hearers, he must give them what they do not easily get by their
own reading. It is not too much to say that, however loyal laymen are
to the pulpit, they yet consider it a piece of presumption for the pre-
acher to take up the time of the audience with ill-digested thoughts.
The beaten oil is none too good for any audience. Now the preacher
can never get away from the fact that the New Testament was written
in the Greek language of the first century A.D. The only way for him
to become an expert in this literature of which he is an exponent by
profession is to know it in the original. The difficulty of the problem is
not to be considered. One will not tolerate such an excuse in a lawyer
or in a physician. The only alternative is to take what other scholars
say without the power of forming an individual judgment. Some
lawyers and physicians have to do this, but they are not the men that
one wishes in a crisis. The preacher lets himself off too easily and
asserts that he is too busy to learn his Greek Testament. In a word, he
is too busy about other things to do the main thing, to learn his
message and to tell it. Fairbairn says: “No man can be a theologian
who is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is no divine.” Me-
lanchthon held that grammar was the true theology, and Mathias Pasor
48
argued that grammar was the key to all the sciences. Carlyle, when
asked what he thought about the neglect of Hebrew and Greek by min-
isters, blurted out: “What! Your priests not know their sacred books!”
THE SHOP AND THE SERMON
One is familiar with the retort that the preacher must not be a doc-
tor dry-as-dust. It is assumed that technicalities sap the life out of
one’s spirit. The famous German professor who lamented on his dea-
th-bed that he had not devoted his whole time to the dative case is
flaunted before one’s eyes. So the preacher proudly reminds us of the
“Grammarian’s Funeral,” and scouts “Hoti’s business” and all the
other dead stuff while he preaches live sermons to moving audiences.
“Grammar to the wolves,” he cries. No gradgrind business for him!
He will be a preacher and not a scholar. He will leave scholarship to
the men who cannot preach. Such a preacher seems to rejoice in the
fact that he does not look into his Greek grammar, lexicon, or Test-
ament, and not often into his commentary.
It is not argued that the preacher should bring the dust and debris of
the shop into the pulpit, only that the workman shall have a workshop.
There is music in the ring of the hammer on the anvil when the sparks
fly under the blows. Certainly the iron has to be struck while it is hot.
No parade or display of learning is called for. Results and not proc-
esses suit the pulpit. The non-theological audience can usually tell
when the sermon is the result of real work. The glow is still in the pro-
duct. There are men who study grammar and never learn how to read a
language, men who cannot see the wood for the trees, who see in
language only skeletons and paradigms, who find no life in words,
who use language to conceal thought, who have only the lumber of
learning. These men create the impression that scholarship is dry. Ign-
orance is the driest thing on earth. One does not become juicy by bec-
oming ignorant. That is a matter of temperament. The mind that is
awake and alert leaps with joy with every scholarly discovery that
throws light on the thought of a passage.
THE PREACHER A LINGUIST
He is so by profession and he is debarred from unconcern about

grammar. He is a student of language in the nature of the case. Just as
the lawyer must know how to interpret phrases to make a will effe-
49
ctive and to keep one from losing money, so the preacher must be able
to expound the will of God to men that they may not lose their souls.
The preacher only reveals his incompetence when he disclaims being
a student of language. He uses the English language and he must be
understood in that tongue. Often he is not understood because he
preaches in the language of the books while the audience thinks in the
language of the street. The homely language of Spurgeon went home
to men’s business and bosoms. Spurgeon was deficient in his college
training, but he made himself at home in Greek and Hebrew that he
might speak with first-hand knowledge. Language is man’s greatest
discovery, or inventionor whatever it may be called. Nothing else
save the gospel of Christ has played so great a roÆle in human history
as the use of language. It is folly for the preacher to affect a supe-
riority to linguistic knowledge. There is no other key to literature save
the knowledge of letters. Grammar is simply the history of human
speech. It is the record of human thinking. The first thing to do with
any passage in a book is to read it, to construe it. This has to be done
by the elements of speech. One picks up a certain amount of English
without much technical study. He hears English of a certain type
spoken and he learns to speak that dialect. But he has to learn his
dialect whether he gets it out of books or by hearing of the ear. The
very preacher who glories in his own eloquence condemns his lack of
interest in the Greek New Testament. He is a linguist by profession.
EXACTNESS IN EXEGESIS
It is pitiful to think how the Bible has been abused by men who did
not know how to interpret it. Many a heresy has come from a misin-
terpretation of Scripture. The worst heresy is a half truth. The literalist
carries it to one extreme and the speculative theorist to the other. The
only cure for wrong criticism is right criticism. The people find
themselves at the mercy of every new “ism” because they are thems-
elves so poorly instructed in the Bible. Sometimes the preacher does
not know how to expose the subtle error before it is too late. There is
in some quarters a prejudice against all scholarship because of the
vagaries of some men who have not been able to be loyal to Christ and
open to new learning. To a little man a little learning is a dangerous
thing, Broadus used to say. Obscurantism is no answer to radicalism.
The man who loves the light is not afraid of the light. No amount of
toil is too great for the lover of the truth of God. The true preacher
50
wishes to plant his feet on the solid rock of real learning. Grammatical
exegesis precedes the historical and the spiritual. A preacher with coll-
ege and seminary training can hardly keep his self-respect if he does
not have upon his study table a Greek Testament, a Greek lexicon, a
Greek grammar, and several modern commentaries on the book that
he is studying. He will have many other books, of course, but these are
prime necessities if he plans to do serious work upon a page in the
New Testament before he preaches upon it. Only thus can he be sure
of his ground. Only thus can he be relatively as original as he ought to
be. The contact of his mind with the Greek Testament is a fresh exper-
ience of first importance. The mind of the Spirit literally opens to his
mind in a new and wonderful fashion.
THE PREACHER A PSYCHOLOGIST
The psychology of preaching is attracting fresh attention these

days. Language itself has its psychological side. Grammar cannot be
fully understood until one considers language as the expression of the
thought in the mind. The thought shapes the mould into which it is
cast. The very inflections and cases have a meaning. The Greek prepo-
sitions are instinct with life. There are pictures in Greek prepositions
and sermons in Greek roots that leap out at one. The preacher has to
know the mood of the audience as well as the mind of the spirit. He
mediates the written word by the living word to the hearer. He must
know his own heart and keep it ready for this spiritual transmutation.
If a man is a wizard in words he will win hearts to attention and to
service. Those men spoke like Jesus in depth of thought, simplicity,
charm, and power of expression. Men, even rough soldiers, hung on
his words, listening. His enemies gathered round him to seize him, but
their hands were palsied as they listened to his speech. The gift to pick
the right word and drive it like a nail in a sure place is what makes a
speaker effective. Hence the exact and prolonged study of language is
of inestimable value for the preacher. Instead of scorning grammar he
should devour it with avidity.
A CLOSED GREEK TESTAMENT
Imagine yourself with a Greek Testament, priceless treasure of the

ages, and yet with no lexicon and no grammar and no teacher. Imagine
yourself without even a copy of the Greek Testament of your own,
51
and yet with a deathless passion to read for yourself this book that is
the greatest not only in the Greek language but in all the world! Ima-
gine yourself too poor to buy a copy of the Greek Testament and
unable to go to school because you had to make your living as a shep-
herd boy on the hills of Scotland. Surely one would be excused for not
learning to read the Greek Testament in such a case. One day in 1738
a youth of sixteen, John Brown, walked twenty-four miles to St. And-
rews, and in his rough homespun clothes startled the shopman by ask-
ing him if he had a Greek Testament for sale. He took it eagerly and
read a passage in the gospel of John, and proudly walked back to his
sheep with the most precious book in all the world in his hand. This
lad had borrowed a Greek Testament from a minister and at odd hours
had made a grammar for himself slowly, like a new Rosetta Stone, in
order that he might unlock this treasure for himself. One of the dearest
treasures at St. Andrews to-day is John Brown’s Greek Testament.
Grammar, self-made grammar, unlocked the closed Greek Testament
for him and opened the door to the treasure of the ages. To-day tho-
usands of ministers who have had Greek courses in college and sem-
inary and who have Greek grammars and lexicons on their desks lack
the energy to hold themselves to a steady course of daily reading in
the Greek Testament till it becomes one of the delights of life. One
could wish that the picture of John Brown, the shepherd lad, making
his own grammar, might rise to put us all to shame and send us back
to grammar and lexicon and Testament. For in the Greek Testament
Jesus speaks to us with almost more of reality, Erasmus says, than if
he stood by our side and we heard his audible voice. He spoke both in
Greek and in Aramaic. Certainly we have some of his ipsissima verba
and his very words are life.
52
CHAPTER VIII
SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES
THE purpose of this discussion is to emphasise and to illustrate the

homiletical value of the Greek tenses in the New Testament. If there
are sermons in stones and books in the running brooks, surely there
are homiletical hints in delicate and precise shadings in the tenses if
scientifically treated. Henry Drummond found biological science rich
in spiritual significance. The modem minister should find grammatical
research a gold mine for his soul and for the sermon.
Language is the sign of intellectual life. Talk comes before books.
Strangely enough our very word homiletics, the science of sermon
making, goes back to conversation. Luke alone has the verb,1 though it
is common from Homer’s day. The word means to be in a company or
crowd and so to talk, to converse. The two disciples on the way to
Emmaus (Luke 24:14) are pictured by this verb as communing with
one another in earnest and animated talk. The tense here is the imp-
erfect indicative 2 and shows that the talk was going on (linear or
durative action) at a lively rate when the stranger overtook them. Luke
repeats the verb (the present infinitive, linear action again) in the next
verse and adds another present infinitive 3 in the repeated counter-
questioning as they walked and talked and as the stranger walked
along with them.4 But their eyes continued to be held 5 from recognis-
ing 6 him at all. The stranger interrupted their talk with a sudden que-
stion (aorist tense, verse 17) that accurately and in picturesque lang-
uage described the talk to which he had been listening. “What are
these words that you are flinging back and forth 7 with one another as
ye walk?” It is hard to imagine a more beautiful picture of conve-
rsation and one less like a modern sermon. Likewise in Acts 24:26 the
verb is used in the imperfect indicative 8 of the frequent talk that Felix
had with Paul in the hope of securing money from him. But in Acts
20:11 we have the aorist participle 9 very much in the sense of a mod-
ern sermon. Paul’s long discourse 10 (20:7) was interrupted by the acc-

1
oJmilevw (Luke 22:14, 15; Acts 20:11, 24:26) and sunomilevw (Acts 10:27). Paul has oJmiliva (1
2
Cor. 15:33) and the Apocalypse (18:17) o{milo" in the Textus Receptus. wJmivloun.
3
sunzhtei'n. 4 suneporeuveto aujtoi'". Imperfect indicative again and so linear action.
5
ejkratou'nto. Imperfect indicative still. 6 ejpignw'nai. Aorist (second) infinitive. Ingressive
aorist, not even for an instant. 7 ajntibavllete. Present indicative of duration or linear action.
This tense in the indicative is sometimes punctiliar, but not here. The preposition ajnti- shows
the mutual exchange of words in conversation. 8 wJmivlei. 9 oJmilhvsa". 10 dielevgeto.
Imperfect indicative.
53
ident to the young man who fell asleep and fell out of the window.
After restoring him to life Paul went on with his “talk” till break of
day, evidently discourse with question and answer. The modern serm-
on is more in the nature of an address or deliverance without the
variety found in conversation. Questions to-day during a sermon wou-
ld usually be regarded as disturbances of divine worship. They would
upset the preacher and make him forget his discourse and wake up the
deacon before the sermon was over. But our word “homiletics” has
come out of the atmosphere of conversation. The conversational style
in preaching is certainly more in harmony with the original meaning
of the word, whatever other virtues o defects it may possess.
The Greek tense, as I have shown in the ninety pages devoted to
the subject in my Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light
of Historical Research (pp. 821-910), seizes upon the three kinds of
action (punctiliar, linear, and state of completion) present in some
verb stems and preserves them in a wonderful way. One must drop
any idea of time in connection with the Greek tense and think only of
the kind of action. Then one will see the beauty of the Greek tense.
The time element does occur in the indicative mode, but it is a secon-
dar matter. The tenses are not confused in the Greek New Testament.
On the other hand, they are employed with wonderful precision and
clearness. The difficulty that modern men have with these tenses is
that they come to them from the standpoint of the translation into
English, French, German, or some other modern tongue. Unfortun-
ately the Greek tenses do not run parallel with our modern tenses.
They correspond much more nearly to the tenses in the Sanskrit than
to the Latin tenses, but they have their own genius and history. One
must leave translation alone when he approaches a Greek tense and
understand it as Greek before he undertakes to translate it. Often he
will find it quite impossible to put into any English tense what the
Greek tense carries. Certainly no English tense or all of them can
express the variety of connotations conveyed by the aorist indicative.
With these ideas in mind it may be helpful to examine a few of the
most striking instances of tenses in the Greek New Testament that are
rich in meaning for the preacher.
In general one may say that the aorist tense is the one to be expec-
ted unless there is reason for some other. The aorist treats the action as
punctiliar, and that is the natural thing to do in narrative unless there is
special reason for accenting the linear idea or the state of completion.
We are not, therefore, to insist on the momentary aspect of the action
when the aorist tense is used. Often in a summary manner the author
54
gathers up in this tense a long series of acts that are treated as a single
whole. Thus in Hebrews 5:8 the author says that Jesus, although Son
of God, “learned obedience from what he suffered.” He employs two
aorist indicatives,11 although there were many other instances in which
Jesus thus learned besides the one in the Garden of Gethsemane, to
which he immediately refers. The emphasis may be on the climax of
the process (effective aorist) as when Paul says: “I learned 12 to be
content in whatsoever circumstance I am” (Phil. 4:11). Paul did at
length learn his lesson and hence the aorist tense.
Sometimes it is rather the entrance into a condition that the aorist
presents (ingressive aorist). Thus in Mark 10:21 we read that Jesus, on
looking at the rich young ruler, “fell in love13 with him.” It was a case
of love at first sight, and the heart of Jesus yearned for this young man
who was in the grip of the money devil and did not know it. Even
Jesus, alas, failed in this instance to shake the young man free from
his vice. A striking example of the ingressive aorist appears in John
11:35, the shortest verse in the Bible, “Jesus wept.” More exactly it is
this, “Jesus burst into tears,” 14 silent tears of sympathy in sorrow. In
Luke 19:41 another verb is used that means usually to weep audibly as
a child, but here also the ingressive aorist15 occurs: “On seeing the city
he fell to weeping audibly over it.” The cry took the form through the
tears of Jesus of a lamentation over the fate of the city that he loved
and that, in spite of this demonstration in his honour, was soon to kill
him. The same ingressive idea is seen in John 1:14, when we read that
“the Word became 16 flesh and dwelt 17 among us” (took up his abode
among us, pitched his tent among us, tabernacled among us). But in
John 1:18 it is probably rather the summary (constative) idea in “hath
declared 18 him.” More exactly the idea seems to be that the Logos,
the Son of God, God only-begotten (correct text), the one who is in
the bosom of the Father (and so qualified to reveal Him), that one of
all others in the universe, “interpreted” God. As the Word, both Rea-
son and Expression, He is the only adequate Interpretation (literally
Exegesis) of the Father to men. He did so interpret God by the Incar-
nation and he does now so reveal Him and declare His glory.
The original timelessness of the aorist tense often appears in the

11 12 13 14 15
e[maqen, e[paqen. e[maqon. hjgavphsen. ejdavkrusen. e[klausen.
16
ejgevneto. Aorist indicative. In contrast to the imperfect h\n in 1:1 when the eternal
Preëxistence of the Logos is stated, as He was face to face (prov") with God in full fellowship
17 18
and since he was God. ejskhvnwsen. Aorist indicative. ejxhghvsato. See chapter
on Tense (in my large Grammar) for Aktionsart of the aorist (constative, ingressive,
effective).
55
aorist indicative, where in spite of the augment as the sign of past

time, no point is made of past time. This is clearly seen in the voice of
the Father at the Baptism of the Son (Mark 1:11; Matt. 3:17; Luke
3:22): “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” 19 Here
the Father expresses pleasure at the act of baptism to which the Son
has submitted, but the satisfaction covers the whole relation between
the Father and the beloved Son. It transcends all time and no English
tense is an equivalent for this aorist indicative. We have the same
tense of this verb in the Father’s words at the Transfiguration of Jesus
(Matt. 17:5). The same usage occurs in Matthew 23:2: “The Scribes
and the Pharisees sit 20 on Moses’ seat.” They took their seats long
ago. They expect to occupy them forever. Jesus does not here challe-
nge their right to be there in the place of authority. They are the autho-
ritative teachers of Judaism. Only, alas, “they say and do not” (23:3).
They misuse their high prerogatives for hypocritical pretence, as Jesus
proceeds to show with withering sarcasm.
Often a sharp distinction is drawn between the aorist and other ten-
ses in the same context. Thus in Matthew 25:5 we read of the ten
virgins that “they all slumbered and slept.” 21 But this rendering ignor-
es the fact that the first verb is in the aorist indicative and the second
in the imperfect indicative. “They all fell to nodding and went on
sleeping.” Every preacher has observed this experience in some of his
hearers. We see a like distinction in John 5:8 and 9. Jesus said to the
lame man: “Arise, take up 22 thy bed, and walk.” 23 He was to take up
his bed at once as a single act (aorist imperative) and to go on walking
(present imperative, linear action). In the result John keeps the same
tenses: “He took up his bed (at once, aorist indicative24) and went on
walking” (imperfect indicative).25 Thus the whole picture is beautif-
ully set before us. Certainly a vivid example of the imperfect indicat-
ive is found in Luke 1:59, where “would have called” 26 is the inadeq-
uate rendering of the Revised Version. It is really interrupted action.
The neighbours were trying to give the name of Zacharias to the babe
on the eighth day, but Elizabeth, the mother, sharply interposed by
saying: “Not so; but he shall be called John” (1:60). Even so the anxi-
ous friends refused to acquiesce until they had appealed to Zacharias,
who wrote the name John on a tablet. The whole lively scene is set
before us succinctly in the Greek tense. A like illustration of the cona-
tive imperfect indicative occurs in Matt. 3:14: “But John would have

19 20 21 22
eujdovkhsa. ejkavqisan. ejnuvstaxan pa'sai kai; ejkavqeudon. a\ron.
23 24 25 26
peripavtei. h\re. periepavtei. ejkavloun.
56
27
hindered him.” John was engaged in hindering Jesus from submit-
ting to the ordinance of baptism on the ground that he himself stood in
need of baptism at the hands of Jesus. But in this battle of the spiritual
giants Jesus had his way and John’s work of hindering was interr-
upted. The English rendering very poorly reproduces the idea of the
Greek.
The difference between the aorist and the present comes out in
many ways. Thus in John 10:38 the English rendering fails to note that
we have merely two tenses of the same verb: “that ye may know and
understand.” 28 A more exact translation of the thought involved in the
change of tense in the same verb thus repeated would be: “that ye may
come to know and may keep on knowing.” Jesus is anxious that his
hearers may grasp the idea and hold on to it that he and the Father are
one. Even if on this occasion Jesus spoke in Aramaic, John has repro-
duced his idea of the distinction between these two tenses of the same
verb. A failure to observe the difference between the aorist and the
present subjunctive in Rom. 5:1 has led to much misapprehension.
Here the best and oldest Greek manuscripts have the present subjun-
ctive 29 instead of the present indicative. The present indicative (“we
have”) gives no trouble and seems merely to state the result that fol-
lows from justification by faith: “We have peace with God.” The
American Standard Version recurs to this text of the Authorised
Version though the Canterbury Revision has: “Let us have peace with
God.” The objection to this text lies in the apparent superfluity of this
exhortation after “being therefore justified by faith.” But the trouble is
not in the Greek text, but in the English translation. The tautology
would be present if Paul had used the aorist subjunctive 30 instead of
the present subjunctive. Then he would have expressed the idea of
“making peace” by the ingressive aorist. But the present subjunctive is
linear or durative action and Paul says: “Being therefore justified by
faith, let us keep on enjoying peace with God.” It so happens that in
Acts 9:31 Luke employs this very phrase in the imperfect indicative
for the notion of enjoying peace: “So the church throughout all Judea
and Galilee and Samaria had peace,31 being edified.” There is no supe-
rfluity in the exhortation as Paul means it by the tense employed in the

27 28
diekwvluen. Imperfect indicative. So linear action, not punctiliar. i{na gnw'te kai;
ginwvskhte. The aorist subjunctive is punctiliar and ingressive and the present subjunctive is
linear action. Note also Paul’s use of ajqlh'/ (present subjunctive) for the athlete and ajqlhvsh
29
(aorist subjunctive) for a particular game. 2 Tim. 2:5. e[cwmen instead of e[comen. The
30
slurring of the distinction between w and o does not explain the readings here. scw'men
31
instead of e[cwmen (the real text). ei\cen eijrhvnhn.
57
idiom. The rather it is in perfect harmony with the argument in Rom.

5:1-11.
It is interesting to note the difference between the present indica-
tive, the present subjunctive, the aorist subjunctive, and the future
indicative in questions where the same verb is employed. In John
11:47 the Sanhedrin are pictured as perplexed and terrified at the pow-
er of Jesus with the people after the raising of Lazarus from the grave.
They met in solemn conclave and were saying to one another: “What
are we doing32 because this man is doing many signs?” Here the pres-
ent indicative of linear action is pertinent and parallel to the similar
tense used about Jesus (“is doing.”) 33 The point is that they are doing
nothing while he is doing everything. It is a rhetorical question about
the facts, expecting a negative answer, and hence the indicative mode
is employed. It is a question about their present condition and hence
the present tense is used rather than the future. We have an example of
the future indicative in a rhetorical question in 1 Cor. 15:29: “Else
what shall they do 34 that are baptised for the dead?” A good instance
of the present subjunctive 35 appears in John 6:28. It is a deliberative
question and the subjunctive mode is suitable to the puzzled attitude.
It is a habit of life that the multitude have in mind rather than one
single act: “What are we to do as a habit that we may keep working
the works of God?” On the other hand, after the Baptist had denou-
nced the smug hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the multit-
udes asked what specific thing they should “do” to prove their repent-
ance: “What, then, are we to do?” (Luke 3:10).36 They ask their quest-
ion with the aorist subjunctive. The same construction occurs in the
query of the publicans (3:12) and of the soldiers (3:14). The note of
seriousness and personal interest is struck by the aorist tense, and John
answers them with terrible frankness.
Paul makes a deft use of the present subjunctive in Rom. 6:1, and
of the aorist subjunctive in 6:15. As he often does, he opens the arg-
ument with a rhetorical question in the future indicative: “What shall
we say then?”37 He has two points in mind as possible wrong deduc-
tions from his great climax at the end of Chapter 5, that grace imm-
easurably surpasses sin: “Where sin abounded, grace super-aboun-
ded.” No doubt the Judaizers had already drawn both of these infer-
ences from Paul’s doctrine of grace as an argument for license. One
inference is that Paul leaves the door open to a life of sin, the habit of

32 33 34 35 36
tiv poiou'men; poiei'. tiv poihvsousin; tiv poiw'men; tiv ou\n poihvswmen;
37
tiv ou\n ehrou'men;
58
sin, as a means of giving God a chance to display his grace. Paul puts
it bluntly with the present subjunctive: “Are we to abide 38 in sin that
grace may come to abound?” 39 Are we to live in sin as if at home in
that state for such a pious subterfuge? Paul scouts the imputation and
disproves it by the analogy of death and life as illustrated by baptism.
But one more false alternative remains. The cynical Judaizer may arg-
ue that Paul at least allows occasional indulgence in sin, a lapse now
and then as one of the privileges of grace. So Paul faces this phase of
the subject with the aorist subjunctive: “Are we to commit an act of
sin40 because we are not under law, but under grace?” (Rom. 6:15).
Paul evidently chooses the aorist tense to suit this idea. Once more he
scouts the idea, but argues powerfully against it by the illustration of
slavery. Voluntary yielding to sin means becoming the slave of sin.
The habit of sin begins with the first indulgence.
The infinitive offers some interesting examples of the difference
between the aorist (punctiliar) and the present (linear) tenses. One of
the best is in Acts 15:37 and 38, where the English renderings fail to
note the point. Barnabas proposed to Paul that they take along John
Mark on the second mission tour: “Barnabas was minded to take 41
with them John also, who was called Mark.” The set purpose of Barn-
abas comes out in the imperfect indicative and the modest proposal in
the aorist infinitive as just this once. But Paul had memories of Perga
in the first tour and he put his foot down on the suggestion with the
demand 42 that they do “not take along 43 with them this man who
withdrew from them from Pamphylia and went not with them to the
work.” Paul uses the present infinitive because of his vivid recollec-
tion of Mark’s desertion. He did not want to have a quitter again on
his hands. It would be a constant strain on Paul’s nerves and patience.
So there it was. A paroxysm 44 (sharp contention) arose between Paul
and Barnabas, as was so skilfully forecast by the two tenses of the
infinitive. The present infinitive in 1 John 3:9 assumes a doctrinal sig-
nfficance because of the sentence in verse 6: “Whosoever abideth in
him sins 45 not.” Here an ideal of perfection is held up that has discou-
raged many a believer in Christ and made him wonder if after all he is
a child of God because of weaknesses and shortcomings that beset
him still. The present indicative, unlike the present subjunctive and

38
ejpimevnwmen. Present (linear) subjective (deliberative) the word mevnw means to remain and
39
the tense is linear while ejpi- adds to the idea. pleonavsh. Ingressive aorist subjunctive.
40 41
aJmarthvswmen. Ingressive aorist, to fall into sin. ejbouvleto sunparalabei'n.
42 43 44
hjxivou. Note the imperfect indicative also. uh; sunparalambavnein. paroxusmov".
45
oujc aJmartavnei.
59
infinitive, may be punctiliar as well as linear, for the indicative in pre-

sent time has only this one tense for these two ideas. Sometimes it is
clear that the action is linear as in Matt. 25:8, when the five foolish
virgins cry: “Give 46 to us of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” 47
One can see the flickering, sputtering, smoking lamps. One may argue
plausibly that we have linear action (the habit of sin) presented in 1
John 3:6 as in 3:4 and 3:8, where the idea is plain in the clause: “for
the devil sins from the beginning.” He is a continual sinner. Now in
3:9 John says of the man who is begotten of God: “and he cannot go
on sinning (as a habit like the devil), because he is begotten of God.”
The English rendering “he cannot sin” fails to note that it is the pres-
ent infinitive here and not the aorist. John does not here say that a
child of God is not able to commit a single act of sin as the aorist inf-
initive would mean. John is refuting the Gnostic plea that one may
lead a life of sin in the body without harm to the soul. That heresy still
survives in various ways.
Some instances of the perfect tense clamour for notice. In Paul’s
great Christological passage in Col. 1:15-23, he twice employs the
verb “create” in verse 16 of the universe (“the all things”) as made by
Christ. But he uses first the aorist indicative and then the present perf-
ect indicative for an obvious reason. He first says: “In him were all
things created.”49 Here in summary fashion Paul employs the consta-
tive aorist indicative (passive) for the work of creation Then he resu-
mes the subject and repeats what he has said, but with the present
perfect (passive) tense: 50 “All things have been created (stand in the
state of creation) through him and unto him.” But Paul is not quite
done with the supremacy of Christ in creation. He adds: “And in him
all things consist” 51 (1:17) or “stand together” (another present per-
fect indicative). Christ made the universe and he holds the universe
together in the hollow of his hand.
Once more in 1 Cor. 15:4 Paul employs a present perfect indicative
of the Resurrection52 of Jesus in the midst of a long list of aorist indic-
atives. It was once held that this perfect was just used like an aorist,
with no distinction in meaning. But it is not proven that any perfect in
the New Testament has lost its real significance and is just like the
aorist. Certainly there is no reason for taking it so here. Paul undoub-
tedly means to emphasize the fact that Jesus is still risen by the pres-

46 47
dovte. Aorist imperative. Urgent action at once. sbevnnuntai. Present middle indicative.
48 49 50
aJmartavnein, not aJmartei'n (or aJmarth'sai). ejktivsqh. e[ktistai.
51 52
sunevsthken. ejghvgertai.
60
ent perfect. He is the Risen Lord as is shown by the very tense that is
employed. There are many other instances of the vividness of the pres-
ent perfect in the midst of other tenses as in James 1:24; Rev. 5:7. But
the subject fascinating though it is, cannot be pursued further here.
Suffice it to say that one misses much of the spirit of the New Testa-
ment unless he can go with the writers in the use of the Greek tenses.
One fails to see Paul’s delicate courtesy and passionate love for his
people in Rom. 9:3, unless he sees that in the use of the imperfect
indicative Paul went as far as loyalty to Christ would let him go. He
was on the point 53 of praying what he had no right to wish, but he
drew back on the brink and could not pray to be accursed from Christ,
even for the sake of his fellow Jews, whom he so greatly loved. So
one might go on, but this presentation of the sermonic value of the
Greek tenses in the New Testament may well close with Paul’s
triumphant state of conviction 54 of the victory of the believers in
Christ, who saw the triumph even in the hour of death when he cried:
“It is finished” 55 (John 19:30). He saw the victory in the darkest hour
of the universe, saw it its final state.

53 54 55
hujcovmhn. pevpeismai. (Rom. 8:38.) tetevlestai. Present perfect indicative passive.
61
CHAPTER IX
JOHN BROWN OF HADDINGTON

OR LEARNING GREEK WITHOUT A TEACHER
THERE are few stories more thrilling than the simple narrative of
John Brown of Haddington, as he came to be called. The facts are all
given in the fascinating biography by Robert Mackenzie, published in
1918. The list of his important works cover three pages (347-9) and
include A Dictionary of the Holy Bible, republished as late as 1868.
The dates of his books run from 1758 to 1785. The Self-interpreting
Bible was reissued in America in 1919, with 26 editions in all.
“Brown’s Bible” came to be a treasure to ministers. For twenty years
at Haddington, Scotland, in connection with his pastorate, he acted as
professor of theology to about thirty students each year, who came to
sit at his feet. He sided with the Erskines and the United Presbyterian
Church, which later in 1900 was united with the Free Church of Scot-
land as the United Free Church. But our interest in John Brown, who
became the greatest preacher and scholar of his people during this per-
iod, lies in the marvellous zeal exhibited by him for acquiring knowl-
edge. He was born in 1722 in Carpow near Abernethy in Perthshire.
His father was in winter a weaver of flax on the little farm and a fisher
of salmon in the summer. He had taught himself to read and had
current religious literature in his little home. Thus the son formed a
taste for good reading. It was the law that a schoolmaster should be
appointed for every parish, but in the strife between Prelacy and Pres-
bytery little regard was paid to the law. When a school was held, it
might be a cowshed, a stable, a family vault, or a hovel. John Brown
had a few months in a school like this, but the fire was kindled in his
mind and soul that was to become a great light. He read what cate-
chisms he could get. “My parents’ circumstances did not allow them
to afford me any more, but a very few quarters at school, for reading,
writing, and arithmetic, one month of which, without their allowance,
I bestowed on Latin.” So he tells the pathetic story.
But where did the Greek come in? “My father dying about the ele-
venth year of my age and my mother soon after, I was left a poor orp-
han, who had almost nothing to depend on, but the providence of
God.” That and his own pluck and courage. He found shelter in a
religious family, but had fever four times during the year and seemed
a mere wisp of a boy. In his twelfth year he was converted. He became
62
the herd-boy for John Ogilvie for several years on the sheep farm of
Mieckle Bein. Ogilvie was an elder of the church at Abernethy, who
had never learned to read. He was fond of having the shepherd boy
read to him. He built a shelter on Colzie Hill for that purpose, where
they could watch the sheep and have spiritual communings.
Young John Brown borrowed what Latin books he could and used
them so well that he mastered the language. He had two hours at noon
each day for rest. But he used this time to go to his minister at Aber-
nethy, Rev. Alexander Moncrieff, or to Rev. J. Johnstone, a minister
at Arngask, several miles away. These set him tasks in Latin, which he
finished with dispatch.
Latin led to Greek, but in a curious way. He hesitated to ask help
about the Greek, as it was not so commonly known as Latin. So he
took an old Latin grammar, his copy of Ovid, and went to work to find
out the Greek alphabet by the use of the proper names in the geneal-
ogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke. This was the key to unlock the
door between Latin and Greek. He had borrowed a copy of the Greek
New Testament and kept on his comparative study till he learned the
sounds of the Greek letters. He learned the meanings of the words by
comparing short ones with the English translation. He made compa-
risons of the endings with the Latin and thus made a rough grammar
for himself. Now and then he would ask questions of a Mr. Reid in the
neighbourhood.
He became anxious to get for himself a copy of the Greek New
Testament. It was twenty-four miles to St. Andrews, where there was
a copy to be had. He got his friend, Henry Ferney, to look after his
flock, and set out one evening for St. Andrews and arrived there next
morning. This was in 1738, and he was only sixteen. He was footsore
and weary and found the book store of Alexander McCulloch. Let us
follow Mackenzie (pp. 26 f.): “Going in, he startled the shopman by
asking for a Greek New Testament. He was a very raw-looking lad at
the time, his clothes were rough, homespun, and ragged, and his feet
were bare. ‘What would YOU do wi’ that book? You’ll no can read
it,’ said the bookseller. ‘I’ll try to read it,’ was the humble answer of
the would-be purchaser. Meanwhile some of the professors had come
into the shop, and, nearing the table, and surveying the youth, quest-
ioned him closely as to what he was, where he came from, and who
had taught him. Then one of them, not unlikely Francis Pringle, then
Professor of Greek, asked the bookseller to bring a Greek New Test-
ament, and throwing it down on the counter, said: ‘Boy, if you can
63
read that book, you shall have it for nothing.’ He took it up eagerly,
read a passage to the astonishment of those in the shop, and marched
out with the gift, so worthily won in triumph. By the afternoon, he was
back at duty on the hills of Abernethy, studying his New Testament
the while, in the midst of his flock.” This simple narrative is eloquent
in its portrayal of the determination of the poor shepherd boy of Aber-
nethy to know the Greek New Testament. This very copy of the Greek
New Testament, a precious heirloom, has been handed down to the
fifth John Brown in lineal descent of Greenhill Place, Edinburgh.
But there is a tragic sequel before the final triumph of young John
Brown. There were some young men in Abernethy studying for the
ministry who became jealous of the shepherd lad who had forged
ahead of them in his knowledge of the Greek New Testament. One of
them, William Moncrieff, son of the minister at Abernethy, said to
him one day: “I’m sure the de’il has taught you some words.” This
seemed to John Brown a jest, but it was an expression of jealousy that
led to serious consequences. John Brown added Hebrew to his Latin
and Greek, and the suspicion of witchcraft grew apace. Even John
Wesley in his Journal for May 25, 1768, expressed sorrow that the
English had given up belief in witchcraft, for “the giving up of wit-
chcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible.” In 1743 the ministers of the
Secession in Scotland deplored the repeal by Parliament of the law
against witchcraft for the punishment of witches.
Unfortunately his pastor, Rev. Alexander Moncrieff of Abernethy,
gave heed to the charge of witchcraft as the explanation of John Bro-
wn’s knowledge of Greek. This slander followed young Brown for
five years. On June 16, 1746, the elders and session of the church at
Abernethy by unanimous vote gave John Brown a clear certificate of
full membership in the church; but even so Rev. Alexander Moncrieff,
the pastor, refused to sign it and left it to the clerk of the session. The
narrow preacher continued to throw difficulties in the way of the
brilliant young scholar, who was struggling towards the light. Later in
1752, some members of the church at Abernethy were brought by
Moncrieff before the session for going to hear John Brown, “a
pretended minister.” But the young man fought his way on as peddler,
soldier, schoolmaster, divinity student, and finally pastor at Haddin-
gton, theological professor and great scholar and author.
It is a romantic story that puts to rout all the flimsy excuses of pre-
achers to-day who excuse themselves for ignorance of the Greek New
Testament or for indifference and neglect after learning how to read it.
64
Any man to-day can learn to read the Greek New Testament if he
wants to do it. There are schools in plenty within easy reach of all. But
if circumstances close one’s path to the school, there are books in
plenty and cheap enough for all. No one to-day has to make his own
grammar and lexicon of the Greek New Testament or go without a
teacher. One can start with Davis’s Beginner’s Grammar and
Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon and go on to the mastery of the noblest
of all languages and the greatest of all books. Indeed, to-day one
actually hears of young ministers who rebel against having to study
books that help them learn the Greek New Testament, and who regard
their teachers as task-masters instead of helpers. The example of John
Brown of Haddington ought to bring the blush of shame to every
minister who lets his Greek New Testament lie unopened on his desk
or who is too careless to consult the lexicon and the grammar that he
may enrich his mind and refresh his soul with the rich stores in the
Greek that no translation can open to him. Difficulties reveal heroes
and cowards. Every war does precisely that. The Greek New Testam-
ent is a standing challenge to every preacher in the world.
65
CHAPTER X
THE GRAMMAR OF THE

APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
THERE is a constant challenge in the language of the Apocalypse of

John quite apart from the interpretation of this remarkable book. The
massive and monumental commentary on The Revelation of St. John,
by Dr. R. H. Charles, has drawn fresh interest to the subject. Dr. Cha-
rles boldly affirms that “John the Seer used a unique style, the true
character of which no Grammar of the New Testament has as yet rec-
ognised” (p. x). “He remodelled its syntax freely, and created a Greek
that is absolutely his own” (p. xi). Indeed, “to a certain extent he cre-
ates a Greek Grammar of his own” (p. xxi). The judgment of Charles
is that “the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely uni-
que” (p. cxliii). “No literary document of the Greek world exhibits
such a vast multitude of solecisms” (ibid.). So convinced is Charles of
the uniqueness of the grammar of the Apocalypse that he has written a
“Short Grammar” (pp. cxvii-clix). “This Greek I slowly mastered as I
wrote and rewrote my commentary chapter by chapter” (p. xi). The
results of such long and laborious toil in a field where Dr. Charles is
the acknowledged master, Jewish Apocalyptic, call for serious consid-
eration. Too much cannot be said in praise of the work of Dr. Charles
to throw light upon the language of the Apocalypse of John.
What is the solution offered by Charles? “That he has set at
defiance the grammarian and the usual rules of syntax is unquest-
ionable, but he did not do so deliberately. He had no such intention.
His object was to drive home his message with all the powers at his
command, and this he does in some of the sublimest passages in all lit-
erature” (p. xxi). So, then, Charles does not charge John with being a
deliberate grammatical iconoclast. “With such an object in view he
had no thought of consistently committing breaches of Greek Syntax.
How, then, is the unbridled license of his Greek constructions to be
explained? The reason, as the present writer hopes to prove, is that
while he wrote in Greek, he thought in Hebrew, and frequently trans-
lated Hebrew idioms literally into Greek” (p. xxi). There is no inher-
ent objection to this theory, and Charles produces many proofs that
John had a Semitic mind. The Apocalypse is a network of Old Testa-
ment phrases which he generally translated first hand, though some-
times he employed the Septuagint version and also another, which was
later revised by Theodotus (Jn. 21). We are now in a position to form
66
THE GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
a more intelligent conception of the Greek of the Septuagint since the

work by Swete (Edition and Introduction) and the Grammar Thack-
eray. The papyri discoveries throw this Hebraized translation Greek
into its proper light in relation to the vernacular Koiné. Charles is
justified in correcting the over enthusiasm of James Hope Moulton for
the vernacular Koiné for he had said: “Even the Greek of the Apo-
calypse itself does not seem to owe any of its blunders to ‘Hebraism’”
(Prolegomena, pp. 8, 9). It is true that the non-literary papyri can
show parallels for nearly every grammatical peculiarity in the
Apocalypse, some with even greater profusion of variations from
literary style. But Swete (Apocalypse, p. cxxiv, note) rightly observed
that it was not fair to compare a literary document like the Apocalypse
of John with the personal and business letters in the papyri from
Egypt. I also pointed out that Moulton overstepped the mark in his
sweeping statement aga-inst Hebraisms (see my Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pp. 90-93,
136, 413-416). Charles (p. cl, note) chides me with being too much
under the influence of Moulton, and, like other grammarians, failing
to recognize the number of the Hebraisms in the Apocalypse.
It may be admitted at once that Charles has done great service by
his careful study of the Hebraisms in the Apocalypse. One can see this
readily without agreeing to the author’s theory of the authorship of the
Gospel and the Apocalypse. There is no evidence that Charles has said
the last word on this subject. Indeed, his view that the work of John
the Seer was edited by a man who “was a better Greek scholar than
the author” (p. li) has its own difficulties. “But though a fair Greek
scholar, the editor is very unintelligent” (p. li). Charles speaks of “his
ignorance,” “the climax of his stupidity” (p. lii), and “the editor’s
incompetence” (p. 1v). One is inclined to view this hypothetical editor
as the convenient dumping-ground for all the solecisms in the Apoca-
lypse apart from the Hebraisms in spite of the editor’s better know-
ledge of Greek. But not so. “His (the Seer’s) solecistic style cannot be
wholly explained from its Hebraistic colouring” (p. x). After giving a
few striking Hebraisms after the fashion of the Septuagint (pp. cxlv-
cxlix) Charles adds some solecisms that occur in vernacular Greek,
like the nominativus pendens and the nominative in apposition to other
cases, especially participial phrases (pp. cxlix-cl). Then Charles adm-
its that some of the solecisms are designed by the Seer, like ajpo; oJ w[n
(Apoc. 1:4). “Our author knows perfectly the case that should follow
ajpov, but he refuses to inflect the divine name” (p. cliii). Then he finds
a score of passages due to slips on the author’s part (cliii-cliv), some
67
primitive corruptions due to accident or to deliberate changes or

interpretation (cliv-clvi).
The net result is interesting beyond a doubt. Charles has made a
most valuable contribution to the study of the language of the Apoca-
lypse of John. He has shown that Moulton was wrong in his denial of
Hebraisms in the Apocalypse, but he has not carried conviction in his
theory of the dual authorship of the Apocalypse and the denial of the
same author for the Fourth Gospel. That may turn out to be true. But
there is nothing revolutionary in the linguistic work of Charles that
compels belief in that theory. As a matter of fact the problem of the
author and of his language, apart from a larger Semitic influence in
the Apocalypse than Moulton perceived, is very much where it was
before Charles wrote. Dr. C. F. Burney now argues that the Fourth
Gospel was written first in Aramaic. It is not certain that the Seer had
an editor who knew Greek better than he did. The Seer may have wri-
tten the whole book and so may have known Greek better than Charles
allows. Charles admits a number of slips that the Seer would have cor-
rected if he had revised his own work. But the known facts about the
author are not different in essential respects from what we knew bef-
ore. If John did not revise the Apocalypse after writing it in isolation
and excitement in Patmos, and if he was a Jew who thought in Heb-
rew, often if not always, who freely used the Old Testament (Hebrew
and Greek) and who did not use the literary Koiné (only the vernac-
ular), we have a conceivable picture of the facts as we now know
them.
It need not be proven that John the Seer was the Beloved Disciple
of the Fourth Gospel and the Apostle John. But it still appears possible
for this to be the case. The picture of Peter and John in Acts 4:13,
“unlettered (ajgravmmatoi) and private men (ijdiw'tai)” not schoolmen
or officials, certainly holds true of the author of the Apocalypse as
Charles has found him. There is evidence that the Fourth Gospel was
read by friends of the writer who endorsed his message (John 21:24,
25). Paul, in moments of passion, tore grammar to tatters to pour out
the thoughts that clamoured for utterance (for instance, 2 Cor.
8:18-20; Gal. 2:4-8). The work and zeal of Charles command and
deserve ent-husiastic admiration, though one may not be able to agree
that the aut-hor of the Apocalypse made a Greek grammar of his own
or with Benson, that it is “a grammar of ungrammar.” The phenomena
are not to be explained by a single dictum. They are complex as life is
and call for still further patient research.
68
CHAPTER XI
THE ROMANCE OF ERASMUS’

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
IN 1893-4 J. A. Froude, Regius Professor of Modern History at

Oxford, delivered lectures on Erasmus. They were published as Life
and Letters of Erasmus. These lectures tell the story in fascinating
form of the publication of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus (pu-
blished in A.D. 1516). Pope Leo X had encouraged Erasmus to publish
the Greek New Testament. But he published the original Greek with a
new Latin translation with notes on special passages that hit off the
corrupt lives of many of the clergy (pp. 120-2). “Never was volume
more passionately devoured. A hundred thousand copies were soon
sold in France alone. The fire spread, as it spread behind Samson’s
foxes in the Philistines’ corn. The clergy’s skins were tender from
long impunity. They shrieked from pulpit and platform, and made
Europe ring with their clamour” (p. 127). The original Greek revealed
in startling fashion the travesty of real Christianity current among the
clergy. The Encomium Mariæ was attributed to Erasmus, but he den-
ied it. “Universities, Cambridge and Oxford among them, forbade stu-
dents to read Erasmus’s writings or booksellers to sell them” (p. 138).
It was not merely the notes that angered the priests, but the Greek
itself was blamed for turning on the light. “See what comes of Greek,”
the clergy cried. “Didn’t we always say so? We will have no Greek,
we will stick to our Scotus and Aquinas” (p. 138). Froude adds: “And
so the battle began between ignorance and intelligence, between the
friends of darkness and the friends of light, which raged on till Luther
spoke at Wittenberg, and the contest on languages was lost in larger
issues” (p. 138). Strange to say, the outcry was loudest in England,
where Erasmus was personally known. Colet and Thomas More had
been his friends. At Oxford there were two parties (the Greeks and the
Trojans). Sir Thomas More denounces the leader of the Trojans: “He
calls those who study Greek heretics. The teachers of Greek, he says,
are fullgrown devils, the learners of Greek are little devils” (p. 141).
The Greek New Testament scattered over Europe by the printing press
had produced a spiritual earthquake. The darkness began to vanish
from the world when the Greek New Testament was allowed to shed
its light. It was vain for men to try to hide that light. Such a scamp-
ering the light from the Greek Testament caused in Europe. It is ever
so. Jesus shines in the pages of the Greek New Testament. He shines
69
there still for all who will take the trouble to see. He is the Light of the
World. No obscurantist can hide that Light. No one can afford to
neglect that Light. The Greek New Testament is still the Torchbearer
of Light and Progress for the world.
It is now over four hundred years since the Greek New Testament
of Erasmus made such a sensation in Europe. Over a thousand editions
of the Greek New Testament have since been printed. The new light
on the language of the New Testament from the papyri discoveries is
as romantic as the work of Erasmus. We are just beginning the most
wonderful period in the study of the Greek New Testament. Happy are
those who are wise enough to use the new means within their grasp to
learn the Word of God.
70
CHAPTER XII
BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER
IT is now twenty-eight years since John Albert Broadus died on

March 16, 1895. It was felt then and said by many competent critics
that one of the world’s greatest preachers had died. The world has
never seemed the same to me since Broadus passed on. For ten years I
was enthralled by the witchery of his matchless personality. For three
years I was his student. For seven years I was his assistant and colle-
ague and for part of the last year an inmate of his home. It was my
sacred and sad privilege to see the passing of this prince in Israel. No
man has ever stirred my nature as Broadus did in the classroom and in
the pulpit. It has been my fortune to hear Beecher and Phillips Brooks,
Maclaren, Joseph Parker and Spurgeon, John Hall and Moody, John
Clifford and David Lloyd George. At his best and in a congenial atm-
osphere Broadus was the equal of any man that I have ever heard.
It may be that I am not a competent judge of Broadus’s powers as a
man and minister because he put the stamp of his personality upon my
very soul. It is not easy for me to write in an objective way concerning
my Master in Christ and in the New Testament. My heart insists on
being heard with every criticism of the intellect on this subject. For
this reason in The Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (1901, Ame-
rican Baptist Publication Society) I used his own letters and diaries as
far as possible, together with the correspondence of his compeers and
friends, that Broadus himself might stand before the reader in his own
personality. I have never regretted that plan for the book. Each one
who wishes to know Broadus can thus form his own opinion of his
powers and his performances. And yet, when all is said, those of us
who knew Broadus face to face, know that no book can reproduce the
magnetism and grace of his presence. He had charm and courtesy and
courage in a wondrous blend. He could win a little child or sway a
vast throng with equal ease. I used to wonder why it was that one so
richly endowed by nature and by grace could not live on at least for a
century to hallow the world with his life. And yet Jesus was upon
earth only thirty-three years at most.
Broadus is still blessing the world. There are records that preserve
his mind in Christ. True, he has left only one volume of sermons,
Sermons and Addresses (Doran). These fail to catch the power of his
public speech, but they do adequately portray his habits as a preacher.
Dr. W. C. Wilkinson in his Modern Masters of Pulpit Eloquence
71
(Funk and Wagnalls) pays the highest tribute to Broadus as a preacher.

Dr. Wilkinson begins by saying: “I have named in my title a man with
every natural endowment, every acquired accomplishment, except,
perhaps, plenitude of physical power, to have become, had he been
only a preacher, a preacher hardly second to any in the world.” That
judgement comes from one of the leading critics of preaching in the
preceding generation, in a course of articles in The Homiletic Review.
Dr. James P. Boyce, while President of the Southern Baptist Theol-
ogical Seminary, used to say that one could not name the five greatest
preachers in the world without naming Broadus. Dr. Wilkinson rem-
arks in an article in The Seminary Magazine for May, 1895, that Bro-
adus had beyond Alexander Maclaren the proper and distinctive ora-
toric endowment, and would have excelled him in “the brilliancy of
immediate effect, in usefulness and fame due to mere eloquence in the
pulpit,” had he given himself “with the same approach to exclusiv-
eness that Doctor Maclaren has done.”
Beecher and Brooks, Maclaren and Spurgeon devoted themselves
exclusively to preaching, each in a cosmopolitan centre. Broadus gave
the greater part of his life to teaching. Yet it is believed by many that
in actual preaching power he was the peer of these four princes of the
pulpit and deserves to rank with them. George C. Lorimer has called
Broadus the prince of the pulpit. The reason for this opinion lies in the
tremendous impression that Broadus made all during his life upon the
varied audiences to which he preached. He had no great platform like
a metropolitan pulpit and no great daily to sound his praises. He did
not publish numerous volumes of sermons. Taking his life as a whole,
Wilkinson is right in saying, “Dr. Broadus is distinctively a scholar,
distinctively a teacher, and besides, tho’ less distinctively, an author.
This preaching work has been incidental, rather than principal, in his
career.” And yet, on occasions when he did preach, no man in Amer-
ica was heard with more joyful enthusiasm than Broadus. Multitudes
to-day cherish as a hallowed recollection the memory of the occasions
when they had the privilege of hearing Broadus preach.
One wishes that Broadus had published more of his sermons. He
did not write out his sermons. He studied them with great care, not
preaching old sermons without a couple of hours of hard work on each
of them, but he did not take his sermon notes with him into the pulpit.
He spoke extemporaneously in preaching after long pondering of the
theme and after profound research into the passage of Scripture under
discussion. Dr. Broadus became the typical scholar in the pulpit and
yet not a Doctor Dry-as-dust. He loved the liberty and spontaneity of
72
free speech in the pulpit, and would not even have an outline or a
scrap of paper before him. He wished his mind, full of the theme, to
play with the minds of the hearers. In lecturing he always had before
him full notes and spoke freely from them. He drew this sharp dist-
inction in his own practice between preaching and lecturing. But one
result of this habit is that he left few sermons ready for the press. One
summer, when he supplied the Calvary Baptist Church in New York
City, he had a stenographer take down the sermons which he meant to
publish as Calvary Sermons. But he did not do so, feeling that his
sermons as reported did not do him justice.
But there is much of Broadus in his other books. As an interpreter
of Christ we see him at his best in his Commentary on Matthew (Am-
erican Baptist Publication Society), which still has no rival save Plum-
mer’s recent work on this Gospel. In this great work Broadus has freq-
uent homiletical and practical notes, though the book is distinctly hist-
orical and critical. He had no patience with purely homiletical comme-
ntaries with ready-made outlines and anecdotes. After his death there
was published a small Commentary on Mark (American Baptist Publ-
ication Society), the result of expositions for Sunday School teachers,
originally published in The Sunday School Times. His “Jesus of Naz-
areth” (Doran) is an able defence of the deity of Jesus Christ in the
light of modern criticism. He delivered this volume as a course of lect-
ures to the Johns Hopkins University. His “Harmony of the Gospels”
has had some dozen editions, and is still in great demand (now thorou-
ghly revised). This book was the first harmony to break away from the
division of the ministry of Jesus by Passovers.
But it is Broadus’ Preparation and Delivery of Sermons that has
given him his chief fame and most far-reaching influence (next to his
work in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). This famous
book, now in the 40th edition, was published in 1870, fifty-three years
ago. It is not only the most widely used book on homiletics in the wor-
ld, but it is still used in this country more than all other textbooks on
the subject put together. The book grew out of the fact that when the
Seminary reopened after the Civil War, Broadus had only one student
in Homiletics, and he was blind. Hence he taught him altogether by
lectures, which he afterwards published. It is almost a miracle that
such a book by a professor in a small Southern school in Greenville,
S. C., in 1870, only five years after the war, should have met with the
reception that it won. It leaped to the front and has held its place for
over fifty years. Broadus had planned to incorporate his Yale Lectures
on Preaching, which he did not publish, with this great volume. But
73
death cut short his plan, though Dr. E. C. Dargan, his successor in the
Chair of Homiletics (now with the Baptist Sunday School Board of
Nashville, Tennessee), did revise the book with the help of the Yale
Lectures. Lawyers and other public speakers have found the volume
extremely helpful and use it constantly. In this book Broadus gave
expression to his ideals in preaching, as he had formed them from
study of the great masters of the art in all ages and as he had practiced
the art himself. It is the ripe reflection of a scholar and a gifted pre-
acher to men of all grades of culture. One knows that he is not reading
the doctrinaire opinions of a man who is only able to tell others to do
what he is not able to do himself. Broadus was already known all over
the country as a preacher of rare charm and power. In a way this book
reacted upon Broadus’s style as a preacher. He felt that he had to
practice what he preached about preaching.
It will be interesting to see what had gone into the making of
Broadus as a preacher in 1870, when the Preparation and Delivery of
Sermons brought him national fame. He had not in early youth expe-
cted to be a preacher. His father, Major Edmund Broadus, was a far-
mer and a politician in Virginia. But young Broadus heard good prea-
ching in his boyhood in Culpeper County. Barnett Grimsley was his
pastor and he was a man of real power in the pulpit, as were Cumb-
erland George and H. W. Dodge, whom he used to hear. He had often
considered whether it was his duty to be a minister, but had, as he
thought, fully decided to be a physician and was planning to enter the
University of Virginia as a medical student in the autumn of 1846. But
one Sunday in August at Upperville, in Fauquier County, he heard A.
M. Poindexter, one of Virginia’s great preachers, at the Potomac Dis-
trict Association. The sermon was on “Glorying in the Cross.” Broa-
dus tells it himself in his “Memorial of A. M. Poindexter” (Sermons
and Addresses, p. 397). He says that “he thought, that Sunday at Upp-
erville, that he had never before imagined what preaching might be.”
The next day Poindexter preached on the Parable of the Talents, with
the result that with a choking voice young Broadus sought out his
pastor and said, “Brother Grimsley, the question is decided. I must try
to be a preacher.” Surely there is a bright star in the crown of A. M.
Poindexter, who, under God, was the means of winning this young
student to the ministry.
What was Broadus’s preparation for the ministry? He came of
preaching stock. The Broadduses of Caroline County (note the two d’s
in the name, the one d being a peculiarity of Major Edmund Broadus
and his descendants) had many preachers in their line, and some of
74
them very able men, like Andrew Broaddus (Andrew the Great some
called him). John A. Broadus had two uncles who were ministers of
mark, Wm. F. Broaddus and Andrew Broaddus. After all, the poten-
tiality for preaching is wrapt up in the wonderful bundle of humanity
that we call a child. One never knows with what fine stuff he is
dealing when a young boy in his ’teens diffidently announces his pur-
pose to be a minister of Jesus Christ. Certainly no one at the Univ-
ersity of Virginia in the autumn of 1846 had any idea that the young
man from Culpeper, with the wistful face and the piercing eyes, was
destined to be the University’s “greatest alumnus,” as Professor F. H.
Smith will one day call him, or “the greatest American Baptist of the
present (nineteenth) century,” as Dr. J. B. Hawthorne will rank him.
Of him Dr. W. H. Whitsitt will say in his address at the funeral of Bro-
adus: “He was always first wherever he chose to stand at all. He was
first among the Baptists of the South, of our entire country, of the
world. In the elevation of his character, the splendour of his genius,
and the extent of his attainments, he towered above us all, almost
above our conceptions.” He was first at the University of Virginia in
the brilliancy of his scholarship. He revelled in the scholastic atmos-
phere of this famous seat of learning which was a pioneer in our
country in the introduction of the elective system of study and the use
of the new methods of study from abroad.
Broadus had three really great teachers who left their mark upon
him. E. H. Courtenay, the Professor of Mathematics, had the habit of
patient repetition, when the student failed to understand a point. He
would repeat slowly and in the same language. W. H. McGuffey, the
Professor of Moral Philosophy, would try to get the student’s point of
view and endeavour to solve the difficulty in that way. Gessner Harr-
ison, Professor of Ancient Languages, would turn the subject round
and round and let his imagination play upon it from every angle till
the student saw the light. In his teaching and in his preaching Broadus
showed the stamp of each of these. He would follow now one method,
now the other, and if necessary, all three in order to make plain what
he wished to say. There were already great traditions at the University
of Virginia, and young Broadus responded heartily to the appeal of
this classic environment. It was soon evident that Broadus had the gift
of brilliancy in books, but he did not let that take the place of hard
work. He toiled at his lessons with the zeal of a very plodder, and that
habit continued with him to the end. In classroom, in the pulpit, or on
the platform, Broadus never trusted to the inspiration of the moment to
the neglect of previous preparation. No man was more sensitive than
75
he to the atmosphere of his audience, and he always looked eagerly at

the start for the few sympathetic faces that are the joy of the pre-
acher’s life. He spoke steadily to them till all were won. But the ins-
piration came after thorough preparation. Broadus had small patience
with the student who trusted his genius and shirked his daily tasks. He
had only scorn for the preacher who lowered the dignity of his calling
by giving a flow of pretty language in the place of solid and great
thoughts.
There was no theological seminary in the South among Baptists in
1850, when Broadus was graduated with the M.A. degree at the Univ-
ersity of Virginia. His father died just two days before he obtained his
degree. His own health was poor as a result of his severe application
to his books. In fact, Broadus was in more or less delicate health to the
very end, though he lived to be sixty-eight years old. He soon learned
that, if he would live long, he must take care of his body, which lac-
ked the robust vigour of his intellect. But he did learn it and showed
how a minister of rare gifts could do a stupendous amount of work
and live a reasonably long life by careful attention to the needs of the
body. One of the joys of my life as Broadus’s assistant was the freq-
uent privilege of long walks about Louisville or a jaunt to one of the
parks when he was full of talk and the spirit of abandon. Young Bro-
adus after graduation spent a year in Fluvanna County teaching school
in the home of General J. H. Cooke, as he had taught school before
going to the University. During this year he did a great deal of hard
study.
But this genial retreat was not for long. There came a call to
become assistant instructor in Greek under Gessner Harrison, one of
whose daughters (Miss Maria Harrison) he had recently married. This
attractive offer had in it the possibility of the Professorship of Greek
in case Dr. Harrison divided his Chair and retained the Latin. In point
of fact this division was made, and Broadus succeeded so well as
instructor in Greek that the Chair was offered him. He declined it
because that would mean the practical abandonment of the ministry
and he had set his heart upon preaching. Dr. Basil L. Gildersleeve,
now the famous Emeritus Professor of Greek in Johns Hopkins Univ-
ersity, was chosen for the position. He has told me himself that it was
well known at the University of Virginia that he was only offered the
Chair because Broadus declined it.
The Baptist Church at Charlottesville had called Mr. Broadus as
pastor in connection with his teaching in the University. This begin-
ning of his work was a prophecy of his whole career. He was to be
76
both teacher and preacher, a teaching preacher, a teacher of preachers,

a man at home with the scholars of his time, and yet a popular prea-
cher of great directness and winsomeness. Unconsciously he was bei-
ng moulded into the model of the Master Teacher and Preacher of all
times, our Lord Jesus Christ. Broadus threw himself enthusiastically
into the work in the University and into the pulpit and pastorate in
Charlottesville. Young and inexperienced as he was, it was soon evid-
ent that a man of mark was among them. But the time came when he
had to decide whether to give up the University or the pulpit in Char-
lottesville. He would have made a great professor of Greek on a par
with Gildersleeve. As a matter of fact in the Seminary in after years he
did become one of the greatest teachers of Greek of his time. And
many can testify that they owe the chief impulse to their love for the
Greek New Testament and to the study of any language to John A.
Broadus. In simple truth this young giant had the making of several
men in him. He himself used to say of Gladstone, that he was a Hom-
eric scholar, a great churchman, and a transcendent statesman and ora-
tor. To this day men differ as to the sphere in which Broadus excelled,
whether as scholar, teacher, or preacher. But there can be no question
that he decided rightly to choose the pastorate in Charlottesville. He
believed profoundly in his own call to preach and his sense of duty to
that call overbore his love for Greek and for teaching.
As a matter of fact he was not completely severing his ties with the
University life. Later for two years he was chaplain at the University,
but meanwhile there were University professors in his audience. The
students flocked to hear the eloquent young preacher who made no
parade of his knowledge, but who gave them the beaten oil. He took
up Hebrew and began systematic study of the Bible and held himself
to rigorous habits of study. He made a course of Wednesday evening
lectures on the Apostle Paul and then delivered a sermon on the Apo-
stle Paul as a Preacher that is preserved in his Sermons and Addresses.
He was sedulously endeavouring to master the problem of the
preacher to a popular audience in a scholarly community. In 1854 he
wrote an essay on the “Best Mode of Preparing and Delivering
Sermons” that is a prophecy of his “PREPARATION AND DELI-
VERY OF SERMONS” in 1870. The preacher was growing in the
solid foundations of real scholarship and practical life.
The Baptist Church in Charlottesville was not a wealthy or an aris-
tocratic body, but a church of the people. There has always been more
or less of a breach between town and gown at Charlottesville. The
University on the hill held aloof from the town of busy people below.
77
But Broadus gathered both groups around him and the slaves occupied
the gallery of the church. So each Sunday morning the young pastor
faced a great crowd of townsfolk and country folk, of University stud-
ents with professors and with plenty of children and of Negro slaves.
He had to interest and instruct this diversified audience. Broadus used
to advise his students to study Butler’s Analogy and preach to the
Negroes as the way to learn how to preach. That was literally his own
method in his first and crucial pastorate. He had to give this audience
high thinking in simple language. The ideas must be strong enough to
grip University teachers and clear enough for the slaves to understand.
Whimsical critics, like the children, must be held and omniscient
critics, like the students, must be satisfied. The busy trades-people,
unused to serious thinking, must be edified, and women must be com-
forted. Broadus accomplished this feat and made each group, not to
say each individual, feel that every sermon was a special message to
that class.
Broadus never forgot that lesson, once mastered. He always used,
at some point in the sermon, to speak directly to the children who
loved to hear him. Once in Louisville a boy of ten slipped off from
home and went to his church to hear Broadus preach a sermon. The
subject was, “The Practical Aspect of the Trinity.” At the close, the
youngster came up and said, “Dr. Broadus, that was a delightful ser-
mon that you gave us.” Naturally Broadus was proud of having won
the child’s attention on such a theme. Broadus made a special study of
sermons to children and was greatly concerned that preachers should
have a ministry to children which, alas, is now so difficult when the
children go home after church and cut the regular church services. But
Broadus knew the child’s heart. He could tell a story charmingly, in a
sermon or in the home. Broadus was sincerely fond of children and
loved to have them in the congregation. He made a point to win their
love and confidence and talked to them about their lessons and their
games. One of his signatures in Kind Words, a Sunday-School paper
in Greenville (now in Nashville), was J. Lovechild. He loved to have
his own children sit in the study while he worked. They could see his
zeal in consulting commentaries, dictionaries, and grammars.
The child is father of the man. The University and the Charl-
ottesville pastorate gave the bent to the life and work of John A. Broa-
dus. He was to be a profound and accurate student all his life. He was
to be a teacher who had learned how to open the Word of God and to
open the minds of his hearers. He was to be a powerful preacher of the
gospel of Christ. Of his pastorate in Charlottesville Dr. A. E. Dickin-
78
son writes (The Seminary Magazine, April, 1895, p. 347) of the stud-
ents who heard him preach: “Whatever else, in after life, they may
have forgotten of their University course, they have not forgotten the
pastor of the Charlottesville Baptist Church. To this day one may hear
governors and senators and professors tell how they enjoyed Dr.
Broadus’ preaching.” Of the University, Professor F. H. Smith says
(The Seminary Magazine, April, 1895, p. 346): “The University of
Virginia bends in grief over the grave of her greatest alumnus. Had
she done nothing more in all these years than give to the world John
A. Broadus, there are many who think that her founder and her faithful
professors had not laboured in vain.”
Men will always differ as to whether Broadus acted wisely in joi-
ning hands with James P. Boyce, Basil Manly, and William Williams
in founding the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Greenville,
now for forty-six years in Louisville. He wisely at first declined to go,
being unwilling to give up the active pastorate, but finally he yielded
on the plea that he could do more for Christ by training other men to
preach than by merely preaching himself. Jesus had done both. Certa-
inly Southern Baptists stood in great need of such training. The new
Convention of Southern Baptists, formed in 1845, had no general
theological seminary. Broadus seemed the man of destiny for the
place with his scholarly attainments and popular gifts as preacher.
Boyce pleaded that he could not make the enterprise succeed without
Broadus. He was to have the Chairs of Interpretation of the New
Testament (Greek and English classes) and of Homiletics. Thus the
two sides of his nature that had been developed most were engaged in
these two chairs. He undertook and carried to the end both of these
great departments. It is certain that no one, to-day, could do it. And
yet it is hard to tell in which he most excelled, New Testament
Interpretation or Homiletics. He was first in both.
So his teaching reacted powerfully upon his later preaching and
made it richer and riper. At bottom Broadus was a Greek specialist.
He revelled in the Greek tenses, cases, prepositions. He brought to the
teaching of the New Testament English the wealth of his technical
Greek learning. Then in preaching he drew upon his linguistic lore and
historical interpretation of Bible times and preached with an expert’s
skill, for he was the master in the homiletical art. Add to all this the
wealth of his natural endowments and growth in grace and you have
the elements that went to the making of Broadus the preacher. He was
not obtrusive with his great learning. He used it rather to make things
simple. He abhorred bombast and pretence and display. He did not
79
take the shop into the pulpit. There was no posing as a model for pre-
achers.
Broadus had no tricks of elocution. He had a rich and piercing voi-
ce that carried well, a voice that could be wondrously sympathetic and
tender and that could cut like a knife in moments of indignation and
denunciation. He sought to improve his voice by elocution. He did not
always let his voice go except at times when in an explosive moment
it had a very powerful effect.
So Broadus made himself the greatest teacher of his generation in
this country in the opinion of many who were familiar with American
affairs. Some who had studied abroad maintained that they had not
found his equal in the classroom, where he was a very king. But he
had already become a great preacher and he was to become a greater
one. Soon the shock of war closed the doors of the Seminary in Gree-
nville. Necessity compelled Broadus to preach to country churches
around Greenville, S. C. Happy churches these who had as their pastor
the greatest Baptist preacher in the country. One Kentucky church, the
Forks of Elkhorn, later had the same privilege. Broadus was faithful to
these country churches, and did his best to help them with their pro-
blems. He used to say to his students that when they went to the town
churches, they must be sure to take their best coat; but when they went
to the country churches, they must take their best sermon. And yet not
all the country folks relished Broadus’ preaching. It was without the
“holy whine” or “sing-song” which some of them loved. One church
in South Carolina after Broadus resigned, recalled “old Brother Robe-
rtson,” who had the sacred “whang-doodle,” much to the joy of some
of the saints. One of the blessed arrangements about preaching is this,
that somebody can and will enjoy the poorest sort of preaching.
Broadus had a great experience in the summer of 1863 as evan-
gelist in Lee’s army. It was exciting work that greatly appealed to him,
and Dr. J. Wm. Jones (Christ in the Camp) thinks that Broadus did the
best preaching of his life during these months with the soldiers. “I
never heard him preach with such beautiful simplicity and thrilling
power the old gospel that he loved so well.” Lee became fond of
Broadus and was grateful for his preaching.
But it was in Louisville that Broadus reached the zenith of his pow-
ers as a preacher. There in a great and growing city he became the out-
standing minister of all denominations, and on his death was termed
by the daily press of Louisville “our first citizen.” It was an event
when Broadus preached in any churchBaptist, Disciple, Methodist,
or Presbyterian. Great crowds flocked to hear him, particularly profe-
80
ssional men, some of whom rarely went to church at all. These men
found in Broadus a depth, a balance, a ripeness, an insight, a force, a
sympathy, an uplift quite without a parallel.
Already Broadus had become a favourite preacher in Northern
cities like North Orange, N. J., where he had lifelong friends. He was
in constant demand as supply in neighbouring cities, for dedication
sermons, for commencements, for summer vacations in New York and
Chicago, Detroit and St. Louis. The strongest churches among the
Baptists pulled at him for the pastorate, but he stuck to his task at gre-
at cost, and even, after the war, with real privation and suffering. The
last sermon that Broadus preached was at the Vanderbilt University
commencement in 1894. He spoke upon Moses. Memories of that ser-
mon linger yet. Broadus was careful in his dedication services not to
preach from passages about the temple, as he held strongly that our
churches are kin to the synagogue and not to the temple. His favourite
text for dedications was “God is a Spirit.” (See Sermons and Addr-
esses.)
Broadus was not only the pride of Louisville, but of American
Baptists. Dr. Armitage, in his History of the Baptists, placed Bro-
adus’s picture on the outside cover as the representative Baptist prea-
cher. But he belonged to all Christians and his ministry spread to all
denominations who read his books and heard him preach or lecture at
Northfield or Chautatiqua or at some of the Y. M. C. A. Conferences.
As a teacher Broadus drew men of other denominations to his cla-
ss-room, men like Gross Alexander and J. J. Tigert for a year, Thor-
nton Whaling and C. R. Hemphill, John R. Mott and Fletcher S. Broc-
kman for a short while.
Broadus employed the conversational style in preaching, with occ-
asional bursts of passion or flights of imagination. One Baptist prea-
cher of the florid style of oratory accused Broadus of ruining the prea-
ching of Baptist preachers. His example and precepts undoubtedly
exerted a powerful influence in moulding the public speaking of prea-
chers in general. The conversational style is the ideal one, provided
the speaker really has something to say. But it reveals with terrible
fidelity the emptiness of a sermon that is only wind.
Broadus had the gift of wit and humour, sympathy and pathos,
irony and sarcasm. His wit was nimble and his humour kindly. The
lights of fancy played around the subject and he kept all in a
sympathetic mood. His sarcasm was biting at times, particularly in
teaching, if a student undertook to “bluff” him without study of the
lesson. Broadus used to say that no really great man was without a
81
sense of humour. He had no aversion to making people smile during

his preaching, only he did not use humour just to be funny. He drove
the point home by his humour. And tears often followed quickly upon
the smile. Broadus’s use of illustrations was sparing, but he made
them telling. He was a student of eloquence and had a great lecture on
Demosthenes. Not all people thought Broadus eloquent. Some thought
him too simple in his language and lacking in the grand style. But
Broadus went after the verdict. He made his appeal primarily to the
will. He sought to infl-uence the life far more than to tickle the
emotions or to please the fancy by momentary effervescence.
Broadus laid great emphasis on the use of hymns and would spend
a long time in selecting the proper hymns for the sermon. He aimed at
harmony in the service. One of his pet abominations was the phrase,
“the preliminary exercises,” as if prayer and praise to God and the rea-
ding of God’s Word were merely introductory to the performances of
the preacher. He made a profound study of hymnology and often told
the history of a hymn. There was the note of genuine piety in the prea-
ching of Broadus that one could not imitate. His preaching was the
expression of his life with God in Christ.
Broadus loved good literature and read widely, particularly in hist-
ory, in poetry, and in biography. He made a wise use of such know-
ledge to set people to reading good books. But most of all he loved the
Bible and loved to teach it and to preach it. He had many famous
sayings, some of which are preserved in the Seminary Magazine. One
of them was, “Be willing to let the Bible mean what it wants to mean.”
“If you forget everything else I have told you, don’t forget to treat the
Scriptures in a commonsense way.” “Some preachers get their texts
from the Bible and their sermons from the newspapers.” “A man is
known by the reading he chooses when he is tired.” “Gentlemen,
when you preach, strike for a verdict” “If a man fails to establish in
early life habits such as will enable him to maintain freshness in old
age, he cannot supply the deficiency when the time comes. Preachers’
habits are soon formed.” “When you read the Bible, please persuade
yourselves that it is worth your while.” “You talk just like a preacher.”
“What you know, learn to know it straight.” Oh, the pith and the point
of this wondrously wise preacher and teacher of preachers. The last
lecture of his life was to the New Testament English class on Apollos.
He pleaded with them to be “mighty in the Scriptures.” Broadus used
to say, every year, in his last lecture to the class in Homiletics that he
would have to look to them to do in their preaching what he had hoped
to do in his own and what he had given up in order to teach them. He
82
begged them to preach a bit better for his sake. And they did. And tho-
usands upon thousands of preachers have preached because of John A.
Broadus, who taught them in class-room or by text-book or by shining
example the glory of the ministry and the dignity of preaching Christ.
There is consummate art in the preaching of Broadus matched with
the highest order of genius and the ripest scholarship. He had less pas-
sion, but more knowledge and diversity than Phillips Brooks. He had
less oratory, but more simplicity and sympathy than Beecher. He had
less brilliance, but more balance than Parker. Broadus was more like
Spurgeon and Maclaren than any of the others. He lacked Spurgeon’s
intensity of experience in a continued pastorate, but he surpassed Spu-
rgeon in Biblical learning and general culture. Broadus had the hom-
ely wit of Spurgeon and the scholarship of Maclaren with all of Macl-
aren’s charm. His true place is with these great preachers of the seco-
nd half of the nineteenth century. The pity of it all is that so few of his
sermons are preserved, but the power of the man’s personality is imm-
ortal.
83

The Minister and His Greek NT at Robertson 1923

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Minister and His Greek NT at Robertson 1923

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Minister and His Greek NT at Robertson 1923

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE MINISTER AND HIS

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

The Minister and his Greek New Testament

The following journals have courteously conse-

I THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 8

THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTAMENT

SOME KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK POSSIBLE TO ALL

THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMMON MAN

The New Testament is written in the vernacular Koiné, which was

THE REAL NEW TESTAMENT

TRANSLATION NOT ENOUGH

ossible to overestimate the influence of the King James Version upon

THE PREACHER A BIBLE SPECIALIST

We excuse other men for not having a technical knowledge of the

Every preacher wishes to be original. That is a proper desire,

ENRICHMENT OF ONE’S OWN MIND

Three of the most gifted ministers of my acquaintance make it a

GRAMMAR AS A MEANS OF GRACE

THE TOOLS AND THE MAN

Civilised man has triumphed over brutes largely by the use of

It is possible for one to teach himself the elements of Greek so as

NEW HELPS FOR THE STUDENT

NOTES ON A SPECIMEN PAPYRUS OF THE

COMPARATIVELY few students have access to the extensive volu-

Hermocrates to Chaeras his son (tw'/ uiJw'/i), greeting (caivrein).

(Addressed on the verso):

Deliver from Hermocrates to Chaeras his son.

THE USE OF JUPER IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS

TO-DAY I was at work in volumes xi and xii of the Oxyrhynchus

(Prolegomena, p. 165), remarks that uJpevr is “more colourless” as

ALL language was originally pictographic. The picture was first

12:41 or en onomati as in Matt. 21:9; Mark 9:49. Hence we find

either “baptized en 65 the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) or “baptis-

common. The accusative seems to be sometimes devoid of any notion

THE GREEK ARTICLE AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST

nged Winer on Titus 2:13, and considers it “an exegetical mistake” to

would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable.

THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF mhv WITH HESITANT

BLASS seems disturbed by the use of mhv with questions in John

itive. It is slightly confusing in English, but clear in the Greek. In

shot at Peter, and revealed in a flash his peril, and so he plunged

GRAMMAR AND PREACHING

PAUL vs. PETER AND JOHN

IT may provoke a smile on many a preacher’s face when there is

NOT PLEADING A LOST CAUSE

There is no denying that the drift to-day in educational circles is

THE MINISTER A SPECIALIST

The physician has to study chemistry and physiology. Other men

THE SHOP AND THE SERMON

THE PREACHER A LINGUIST

He is so by profession and he is debarred from unconcern about

THE PREACHER A PSYCHOLOGIST

The psychology of preaching is attracting fresh attention these

A CLOSED GREEK TESTAMENT

Imagine yourself with a Greek Testament, priceless treasure of the

SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES

THE purpose of this discussion is to emphasise and to illustrate the

aorist indicative, where in spite of the augment as the sign of past

idiom. The rather it is in perfect harmony with the argument in Rom.