Saturday, October 31, 2015

My Enemy is My Guest: Jesus and Violence in Luke

By J.M. Ford



Jesus’ teaching on this occasion has the maximum significance – namely, that the members of violent resistance movements are to be numbered with transgressors. For him, these are the real transgressors, not tax collectors, ‘others,’ harlots, women disciples, and the handicapped. This is a sobering thought. It is a readjustment of values.

The purpose of this pericope is the conversion of violent revolutionaries. According to the Lukan theological pattern – word and deed – this word of Jesus will be complemented by his conduct in the garden, his healing of the severed ear, his forgiveness of the criminal on the cross...

Thus the two swords passage is central to Luke’s theology of the passion and to the understanding of Jesus’ teaching on non-violence and non-resistance. Jesus’ teaching is dramatically implemented in the garden where the disciples finally learn that the eschatological war will not commence. There is no need for swords on the part of Jesus’ friends or foes. Jesus’ teaching at the last supper forms a climax to all his teachings that accompanied meals during his earthly life. It means that sword bearers are classified with transgressors. Jesus will implement his own teaching about non-resistance in the next scene, in the garden.

The two swords passage prepares the reader for the trial of Jesus according to Luke.

Of most importance is the fact that Luke, and Luke alone, reports that Jesus healed the ear of the servant of the high priest. This is significant because an insult to a servant was an affront to his or her master (see 2 Sam. 10:4ff; Mark 12:1ff). In Luke it is the chief priests and their assistants who condemn Jesus. Thus this healing is a dramatic implementation of Jesus’ precept to love one’s enemies and to do good to those who hate one (Luke 6:27-28, 32-36). It is the climax of Jesus’ non-violent deportment in the garden. Indeed, both Jesus’ words and actions show an active endeavor to avoid violent resistance and show love of the enemy...

As in the other Synoptics, Jesus rebukes the crowd for coming to capture him as if he were a revolutionary or armed bandit (lestes, the word that Josephus uses so frequently for political rebels). [W.R. Wilson, The Execution of Jesus, p. 111] adds that in Luke the saying is recorded without any reference to Scripture.

“This very apt and pointed remark by Jesus at the crucial moment of his arrest would probably have been well remembered by his disciples. It was, in fact, probably the last words they heard from his lips before he was raised onto the cross...There can be little doubt that Jesus objected to his seizure as a teacher of violence and rebellion.”

Luke ends this pericope with Jesus’ words: “This is your hour and the power of darkness” (v. 53). These words are peculiar to Luke and imply that armed resistance belongs to the realm of supernatural evil (cf. Satan entering Judas at the beginning of the passion, Luke 22:3)...

Jesus, in word and action, is seen not only as non-violent, but as a healer of his enemy...The narrative ends with words that strongly suggest that violent hostility is supernaturally inspired.

These points seem to decrease any emphasis on armed conflict and lessen the risk that readers might mistake Jesus for a revolutionary. The account would also imply that bearing arms is demonic.
(pp. 116, 121).

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Does “the Son” know “all things”?


The way early Trinitarians tried to get around the clear biblical fact that the Son is said to lack knowledge of “all things” [ta panta] is by creating the doctrine of double nature at the council of Chalcedon in 451AD. The ESV Study Bible note on Mat 24.36 is particularly enlightening, since it seeks, but fails, to teach what frankly cannot be taught. Here I quote it in full:
“In his incarnate life, Jesus learned things as other human beings learn them (cf. Luke 2:52; Heb. 5:8). On the other hand, Jesus was also fully God, and, as God, he had infinite knowledge (cf. John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Here he is apparently speaking in terms of his human nature. This is similar to other statements about Jesus which could be true of his human nature only, and not of his divine nature (he grew and became strong, Luke 2:40; increased in stature, Luke 2:52; was about 30 years old, Luke 3:23; was weary, John 4:6; was thirsty, John 19:28; was hungry, Matt. 4:2; was crucified, 1 Cor. 2:8). 
Taking account of these verses, together with many verses that affirm Christ's deity, the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 affirmed that Christ was ‘perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man.’ Yet it also affirmed that Jesus was ‘one Person and one Subsistence.’ With regard to the properties of his human nature and his divine nature, the Chalcedonian Creed affirmed that Christ was to be ‘acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.’ That meant the properties of deity and the properties of humanity were both preserved. How Jesus could have limited knowledge and yet know all things is difficult, and much remains a mystery, for nobody else has ever been both God and man. One possibility is that Jesus regularly lived on the basis of his human knowledge but could at any time call to mind anything from his infinite knowledge.”

But a big monkey wrench is thrown in the works once we analyze the text. For example Mat 24.36 says “of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone”.  In other words, it cannot be argued from the doctrine of double nature that in this instance Jesus is “speaking in terms of his man/human nature” since neither the “man” or “human nature” are in view here [equated with “Jesus Christ, son of man”], only the “God/divine nature” [“the Son”].

Just like the word “genesis” in Mat 1.1, 18, the problem [called a “mystery” by the ESV note above] this posed for the Chalcedon component of the doctrine of the Trinity is reflected in the textual history of Mat 24.36. According to textual critics, the “longer reading” in Matthew [“nor the Son”] appears only in “some important witnesses, including early Alexandrian and Western mss.”[1] Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the NT, says that a shorter reading without “nor the Son…appears in the majority of the witnesses of Matthew, including the later Byzantine text [due to the] doctrinal difficulty” the longer phrase exposed. (The NET Bible refers to it as an “intentional change on the part of the author [given its] theologically significant issue”.) But the majority of NT scholars today support “the originality of the [longer] phrase” [Metzger again] not only due to the appearance of it in the Markan text [Mar 13.32, which is uncontested] but simply on contextual consistency alone.

“That the phrase in Matthew was seen as problematic by Christian scribes is demonstrated with particular clarity by the history of codex Sinaiticus. The original hand of the manuscript included the phrase, a corrector erased it, and a second corrector restored it. The reason scribes in general found the phrase problematic should be self-evident: it suggests that the Son of God is not all-knowing [ta panta]...”[2]

(Similarly, Jesus doesn’t know the name of the “unclean spirit” [“demon”, Legion] who identifies him as “Jesus, the Son of the Most High God” [Mar 5.7; Luke 8.28].  NOTE: later on Jesus does not know who touches him [Mar 5.30; Luke 8.45]. For other examples where ‘Jesus only’ is in view see Mar 9.16; John 11.34; 21.17.) 


[1] NET Bible online, Mat 24.36, f. 53.
[2] Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, pgs. 91-92, 1993.

The Sad History Behind the First Spanish Translations of John 1.1



 “[It is illegal for anyone to translate the] Bible in Castilian romance [Spanish] or in any other vulgar tongue, the Spanish New Testament of Francisco de Enzinas…and any other books of Holy Scripture in Castilian romance, French or Flemish or any other tongue which have prefaces, notes or glosses that reveal erroneous doctrines repugnant or contrary to our holy Catholic faith or to the sacraments of Holy Mother Church” (Index of the Spanish Inquisition, 1551).

It was in this environment of intimidation and persecution that the Spanish reformer Francisco de Enzinas published the first known translation of the New Testament from the original Greek into Castilian in 1543. He was one of the first to convert to the cause of the Spanish Protestant Reformation. The translation was done directly from the Greek, using as basis the Greek text of Erasmus of Rotterdam (for which he himself was arrested in Brussels, leading to his work being prohibited by the Inquisition). Enzinas dedicated his edition to Emperor Charles V, mentioning the three reasons that led to his work: the assurance that such a translation would serve both God and the Christian world, the honor this would bring to the Spanish nation, and the fact that the author considered the work as not violating any law.[1]

From 1556 to 1560, Dr. Juan Perez de Pineda published a number of works in Geneva designed to introduce these ideas throughout the rest of Spain. Among these was his translation of the New Testament, only the second complete translation into Castilian. Perez was helped by Enzinas’ translation. However, quick opposition in their native country led both of them into exile. But thanks primarily to the efforts of one Julian Hernandez, copies were spread by smuggling them into Catholic churches and monasteries. Like Enzinas and Perez, Julian was persecuted by the Catholics but, unlike them, he did not escape the hands of the Spanish Inquisitors.

“Unfortunately, Julian was betrayed by a supposed friend and imprisoned for his ‘crime’ of Bible smuggling. He was brutally tortured by the Catholic Inquisitors. After three years of remaining firm in the faith despite the persecution, refusing to denounce his convictions, Julian was burned alive at the stake.”[2]

Casiodoro de Reina was a Catholic monk in the monastery of San Isidoro del Campo in the city of Sevilla where he obtained one of Julian’s contraband New Testaments by Enzinas-Pineda. He immediately set to work on what would become the most famous of the early Spanish Bible translations, La Biblia del Oso, published in 1569.

Like Enzinas and Pineda before him, Reina made extensive use of various sources for his translation, some of which are mentioned in his introduction. The work also shows other sources used, which were not mentioned for fear of the Inquisition. The basic texts used were the Hebrew and Greek texts available at the time: the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Greek texts compiled and used by Erasmus. In addition Reina also used the Latin version made in Lyon in 1528 by Sancte Pagnini, the Bible of Ferrara, the Latin Bible of Zurich and the Latin Bible of Sebastian Castellón. But most of all, Reina extensively used the Spanish translations of Francisco de Enzinas, Juan Perez and Juan de Valdés. All of these books were banned by the Catholic compendium known as the Index of Forbidden Books.

Like Enzinas before him, Reina sought the acceptance of the Catholic Church and the Spanish government. Unfortunately, these not only rejected his translation but made it illegal, persecuting anyone involved in its distribution.
“He was constantly pursued by the Catholic Inquisitors and a price was placed on his head. He was labeled a heretic, a criminal, and was even accused of being a Sodomite by the Catholic Church. [His translation] was labeled [as] ‘a most dangerous edition of the Bible.’”[3]

In his dedication to his 1543 edition, Enzinas “fiercely postulated the convenience and necessity to translate biblical texts in their native language and in particular to Spanish.” Years before he died of a plague that was raging in Europe, Enzinas wrote to a friend saying:
“I'm working with good conscience, God is my witness. If the people of this time do not thank me, I hope others in the future come with a better judgment, who will be better served by our studies.”[4]

More prophetic words could not have been written but, unfortunately, the effort and hard work of these first Spanish Reformers are yet to be fully appreciated by modern biblical translators. They until this day continue to ignore the simplicity and truth brought by these scholars, attained through their rigorous study and knowledge of the original biblical text. The best example of this is the way they translated John’s prologue.

Logos: Word or Verb?
“In the beginning was the word [la palabra] and the word was with God and God was the word…All things were created by her and without her nothing that that is made was made. In her was life…She was the true light that illuminates all men who come into the world.”

The fidelity of the first Spanish Reformers in translating logos as “palabra” (“word”) instead of “verbo” (verb), followed by feminine pronouns (“she, her”) instead of masculine (“he”), has survived in a few modern translations. But unfortunately they have been overshadowed by the overwhelmingly popular Spanish version known as the Reina-Valera, itself influenced by the (in)famous King James Bible of 1611. This version has been proven time and time again, by Catholic and Protestant scholars alike, to be one of the worst — not only for its antiquated style but, more importantly, because of its many errors. 

An example of this is the persistent addition since the 1500s of the only verse which explicitly teaches a Trinitarian doctrine, 1 John 5.7-8, also known as the Johannine Comma.[5]

The first Reina-Valera edition of 1569 was subsequently revised by a number of editors and biblical groups through the centuries. Indeed, they changed the all-important meaning that was first faithfully translated from the original languages by the first Catholic converts to Protestantism: Enzinas (1543), Pineda (1556), Reina (1569) and Valera (1602).

The first to introduce this fatal interpretation into the text of John’s prologue, changing the feminine noun “palabra” to the masculine “verbo,” was the Spanish scholar Pedrosa Lorenzo Lucena in 1862. Lucena was a Catholic bishop who later joined the Protestant Episcopal flock. His task was not only to change the antiquated spelling, but also to revise forms and meaningless expressions into the modern Castilian. In the process, he changed the significance of logos.

Unfortunately, Lucena’s translation was adopted not only by the Catholic Church but by all the Protestant Bible societies. Therefore, from 1869, Lucena’s text appears in Bibles published in London, Madrid and Barcelona. Nowadays the Reina-Valera Bible, thanks in large part to Lucena’s revision, remains the most popular version in Spanish, reaching an annual distribution of some two million copies.

So why the change of the word “palabra” to “verbo”? The answer should be self-evident.

Christological Prejudice
“As a matter of solid fact…such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar” (Bruce Metzger on John 1.1).[6]

The reader of John 1 can come to a Trinitarian interpretation only with an already developed Christology. That is why many Spanish readers find it hard to read logos in John 1.1 as “palabra,” since the translation of logos into a feminine noun necessitates the use of feminine pronouns in the rest of the prologue. That is why translators chose the masculine noun "verbo" which in turn was probably taken from the “verbum” of the Latin Vulgate by Jerome, a version made famous since the 19th century.
Furthermore, any Greek lexicon confirms that logos means "word" and never "verb." Logos can also mean: story, cause, communication, doctrine, purpose, preaching, thought, mind, plan, activity, statement, expression. As we can see, logos can never be translated as “verb”! However many Spanish dictionaries today have added a new meaning to “verbo”: "The Second Person of the Holy Trinity."

In personal correspondence Professor Lynette Dyer Vuong, Instructor of Latin at the University of Houston, wrote:
“If the translator who used 'verbo' instead of 'palabra' did so on the basis of gender and rejected 'palabra' because it's feminine, he was wrong...I would side with the majority and vote for ‘palabra’, which obviously means ‘word’, while ‘verbo’ generally means ‘verb’…It looks to me as if the Reina-Valera translator may have had some bias against females that made him unwilling to translate a word used to refer to the deity, who was 'with God' and 'was God,' with a word of the feminine gender.
[Apparently, he either didn't know or chose to ignore the fact that the word for 'spirit' as in Holy Spirit is feminine in Hebrew. (It's neuter in Greek and masculine in Latin.)]
Translators should give as nearly as possible the meaning of the words and keep their own biases and agenda out of it.
I think you are right on in your assessment. I agree with you.”


[1] P.W. Comfort, R.A. Serrano, The Origin of the Bible, p. 347, 2008.
[2] Rodriguez, God’s Bible, p. 39.
[3] Ibid., p. 40.
[4] Boehmer, Eduard, Bibliotheca Wiffeniana: Spanish Reformers of Two Centuries, (Strasbourg 1874), vol. 1, p 155.
[5] “The Roman Catholic Church was slower to reject the comma…On 13 January 1897…the Holy Office decreed that Catholic theologians could not ‘with safety’ deny or call into doubt the Comma's authenticity. Pope Leo XIII approved this decision two days later, though his approval was not in forma specifica [full papal authority]…On 2 June 1927, the more liberal Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute” (Comma Johanneum, Wikipedia).
[6] Bruce M. Metzger, Theology Today, 10.1 (April 1953), p.75.

Helpful Quotes on the Meaning of logos: John 1.1


Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, p 114f:
“Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems…It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus…The Stoics…define the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence [cp. Pro 8], nature, god and the soul of the universe…Philo taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God.”


Article on Logos from The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, 15th ed., p 449.

“In the first chapter of The Gospel According to John, Jesus Christ is identified as ‘the Word’ (Greek logos) incarnated, or made flesh…The identification of Jesus with the logos…was further developed in the early church but more on the basis of Greek philosophical ideas than on Old Testament motifs. This development was dictated by attempts made by early Christian theologians and apologists to express the Christian faith in terms that would be intelligible to the Hellenistic world and to impress their hearers with the view that Christianity was superior to, or heir to, all that was best in pagan philosophy. Thus, in their apologies and their polemical works, the early Christian Fathers stated that Christ as the preexistent logos (1) reveals the Father to mankind and is the subject of the Old Testament manifestations of God; (2) is the divine reason in which the whole human race shares, so that the 6th-century-BC philosopher and others who lived with reason were Christians before Christ; and (3) is the divine will and word by which the worlds were framed.”


 “Jesus: The Christ and Christology” in The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 22, 15th ed., p 370-71.

“Earlier forms of the [Apostle’s] creed seem to have read: ‘Born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary’. The primary affirmation of [preexistence] is that the Son of God, the Word, had become man or, as John’s Gospel puts it, ‘flesh’ (John 1.14). Preexistence and Incarnation presuppose each other in the Christian view of Christ. Hence the New Testament assumed his preexistence when it talked about his becoming man; and when it spoke of him as preexistent, it was describing in the flesh.”

 “It obviously follows from this admission that Jesus was in the fullest sense a man, as much so as any other human being, that He had not merely a human body, but a human soul, intellect, will. This was not always recognized by the Church. Many of the earlier Greek fathers, Irenaeus, for instance, and Athanasius obviously thought of Him simply as the Logos of God residing in a human body. Later councils condemned this position in the person of Apollinarius[1]

It is equally unorthodox to suppose that the human soul of Jesus pre-existed. There is simply no basis for such a doctrine unless (with Origen) we say that all human souls exist before their birth into the world: but that is not the usually accepted Catholic position. St. Paul, indeed, believed in the preexistence of the heavenly Messiah or Son of God without distinguishing between the human and the Divine or semi-divine Christ but from the time when the Logos Christology was accepted by the Church it has been held that what pre-existed was the Divine Logos, not the human Jesus…

Such at bottom is the permanent meaning of that doctrine of the Logos and the Holy Trinity in which this conviction clothed itself under the influence of Greek philosophical conceptions and terminology. The doctrine of the Logos grew up at a time when the Neoplatonic idea of the transcendence of God, His aloofness from the world, His inaccessibility to human thought or effort, had been pushed to a point which made it seem impossible that He should express Himself in created things or created minds without some sort of intermediary. The Reason or Thought or Word of God, the thought concept, be it remembered, rather than the spoken word was conceived of as such an intermediary. God gave birth to the Logos and the Logos gave birth to the world. In the books of Proverbs and Wisdom the Logos, or rather the Wisdom of God (which is practically the same conception), is personified in a semi-poetic manner as the Assessor who stood at God's right hand in the creation of the universe. In the Alexandrian Jew Philo the idea becomes more metaphysical.”


God and Man, “Christ as the Logos and the Son of God”, Hastings Rashdall, Oxford, 1930.

“There remained, indeed, the problem of the relation between this ‘Word’ which was God and yet incarnate in the human Jesus, and the Father-God, whose only begotten Son He was. Was this Word personal or impersonal? If personal, how can we escape Polytheism? And if the Logos be identified with the One God, what becomes of the distinction between Father and Logos?”


[1] In his earlier days. In the period when he wrote the De Incarnations (before the Nicene Council) and almost as distinctly in the Orations against the Avrans, there is no trace of any distinct recognition of a human soul in Jesus; the Logos seems simply to take the place of the human soul. In his later days (when the question began to be discussed) he did formally recognize the existence of a human soul, but it may be doubted how far this admission really affected his general way of thinking.