Was Jesus Killed and Afterwards Hanged on a Tree?

 

The Aorist Participle of Circumstance in the New Testament:  Literal Translation Versus English Approximation

By Charlie J. Ray, M.Div.

 

With the advent of progressive translations of the Bible within Evangelical academic circles the King James Version has come under increasing attack because of the attempt by the King James translators to be faithful to the original Koine Greek text and the Received Text.  Although there are issues of textual criticism or what the original autographic manuscript said in syntax and exact wording, there are also issues of translation when the underlying text is not in question.  Such is the case involving the KJV translation of Acts 5:30.[1]  Another text that is similarly translated by the KJV is Acts 10:39.  Other New Testament texts also use the aorist participle of circumstance.  This paper will discuss the grammatical problems of translating the aorist verb when it is accompanied by the aorist participle.

The specific issue to be analyzed is whether or not the aorist participle in certain contexts is to be translated as if it were a dative of means, which would require a completely different Greek formation of the participle, or should it be translated as an aorist of circumstance?  The other possibility chosen by the modern translators of the Bible into English is to say that the aorist participle suddenly becomes an aorist of instrumentality or means.  But this is a highly questionable translation for the simple reason that the aorist verb and participle do not exactly translate into English because this is a strictly Greek idiom.  Although it is easy to see how this could be a legitimate translation to say that this is an aorist participle of means, the actual Koine Greek grammar agrees more with a literal translation as an aorist participle of circumstance or the circumstantial use of the aorist participle. 

The ESV, NIV, NASB and other modern translations go with Jesus was killed by hanging Him on a tree.

NAU  Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.[2]

NET  Acts 5:30 The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree.

NIV  Acts 5:30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead-- whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.

NKJ  Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.[3]

NRS  Acts 5:30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.[4]

RSV  Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.

This paper will examine the occurrence and use of the aorist participle by Luke and Paul in the New Testament and how that impacts the exegesis of Acts 5:30 and Acts 10:39 respectively.  In fact, Dana and Mantey’s second year Greek grammar indicates that Luke favored using the participle and the aorist participle in the Gospel of Luke and his second volume of the Acts of the apostles.

ii. The extent of participial usage in the New Testament varies with different authors, in accordance with their literary training and taste. Luke shows the greatest fondness for the participle, particularly in the book of Acts. Especially noticeable is the frequency in the New Testament of the aorist participle. This is typical Greek usage, for though the aorist participle was lost from the Sanskrit and fails to appear in the Latin, yet it is very abundant in Greek, doubtless due to the fact that Greek is an “aorist-loving language” (Broadus).[5]

In Dr. Jeffrey Riddle’s article he makes an excellent point that the Brooks and Winebery shows that the aorist verb and aorist participle of circumstance can be accurately translated by connecting the two with the coordinating conjunction “and”.  Riddle argues that the Tyndale New Testament, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Version all follow the rule of grammar mentioned by Brooks and Winebery under the description of an adverbial participle further particularized as a participle of circumstance.[6]  This writer does not own a copy of Brooks and Winebery.  Instead, this writer consulted Dana and Mantey Greek Grammar instead.  That work says,

(9) The Circumstantial Participle. A participle may not present in a distinct way any of the above functions, but may merely express an attendant circumstance— an additional fact or thought which is best rendered in English by the conjunction “and” with a finite construction. Here the English participle fails to extend its use sufficiently to take care of the entire force of the Greek participle, and at the same time it is doubtful if a separate clause is an exact translation. It is one of those idioms which have no exact parallel in English. ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ. They went forth and preached everywhere. Mk. 16:20. See also: Lk. 4:15; 2 Tim. 4:11.[7]

Thus, Dr. Riddle’s reference to the Brooks and Winebery Syntax of New Testament Greek is confirmed by the brief mention in Dana and Mantey.  This being a singular mention of the participle of circumstance, further investigation shows that the classical academic Greek grammars hardly mention the participle of circumstance.  On the other hand, Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics[8] goes into great detail to affirm what Brooks and Winebery and the Dana and Mantey grammars both say.

The aorist participle, for example, usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb. But if the main verb is also aorist, this participle may indicate contemporaneous time.

The problem with Greek grammar reference works is that grammarians give their opinions and often the particular verse of the New Testament is not dealt with inductively.  The reader is left to deduce from the principles of the consulted works for himself.  There is some ambiguity involved, as even Wallace implies in the quote above.  He couches his opinion with the English subjunctive “may” when he says that the aorist participle could indicate a time that occurs simultaneously with the main verb if the main verb is also aorist. 

The evidence in doing an exegesis of both Acts 5:30 and Acts 10:39 is in favor of the aorist of circumstance because of the obvious connection between the finite verb and the participle, both being aorists.  Even Dan Wallace acknowledges this with his lengthy section on the aorist participle of circumstance.

2. Attendant Circumstance

a. Definition

The attendant circumstance participle is used to communicate an action that, in some sense, is coordinate with the finite verb. In this respect it is not dependent, for it is translated like a verb. Yet it is still dependent semantically, because it cannot exist without the main verb. It is translated as a finite verb connected to the main verb by and. The participle then, in effect, “piggy-backs” on the mood of the main verb. This usage is relatively common, but widely misunderstood.[66][9]

Further down, Wallace acknowledges that the most of these participles of circumstance occur in the aorist tense or aspect.

In the NT (as well as other ancient Greek literature) certain structural patterns emerge regarding the attendant circumstance participle. These are not absolute. We might, however, say that they follow a “90% rule.” That is to say, all five of the following features occur in at least 90% of the instances of attendant circumstance.  

The conclusion from this is that if these five features are not present (or if one or two of them are not present), to label a participle as attendant circumstance needs strong corroborative evidence. It is not impossible, of course, but one should double-check the other possibilities before he/she so tags the participle. The five features are:

· The tense of the participle is usually aorist.

· The tense of the main verb is usually aorist.[69]

· The mood of the main verb is usually imperative or indicative.[70]

· The participle will precede the main verb–both in word order and time of event (though usually there is a very close proximity).

· Attendant circumstance participles occur frequently in narrative literature, infrequently elsewhere.[71][10]

While it is tempting to translate both Acts 5:30 and Acts 10:39 as aorist participles of means, the grammatical evidence shows that there is no time involved with the aorist participle itself.  The aorist verb and participle are timeless in aspect.  Therefore, the translation must be indicated from the context.  So, when the King James Version translates Acts 5:30 and Acts 10:39 using the conjunction “and”, it does not mean that “hanged” is a subsequent action to the killing or slaying of Jesus.  It’s simply reporting a simultaneous event or circumstance. 

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30 KJV)

ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε, κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου. (Acts 5:30 SCR)

And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (Acts 10:39 KJV)

καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν μάρτυρες πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν ἔν τε τῇ χώρᾳ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ· ὃν ἀνεῖλον κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου. (Acts 10:39 SCR)

 

Lastly, the New Testament narratives have a frequent use of the aorist participle in Koine Greek.  This is especially true of Luke and Acts.  It seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus was hanged on a tree or “cross” and that the circumstance of his being hanged also included his death.  It does not mean that Jesus was first killed and then hanged on a tree as critics of the KJV have asserted.  As Dr. Riddle pointed out, we know from other passages of Scripture that Jesus was whipped and tortured before He was crucified. 

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23 KJV)

23  τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔκδοτον λαβόντες, διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλετε· (Acts 2:23 SCR)

Acts 2:23 has both the aorist participle and the finite verb, but in this case the participle precedes the finite aorist verb instead of following it as in Acts 5:30 and 10:39.

We know that He died on the cross from other passages of Scripture as well.[11]  So, it would be difficult to understand why Luke would say that Jesus was first killed and then hanged on a tree.

This conclusion is supported by Burton:

132. The general statement made under 118, that the tenses of the participle do not in general in themselves denote time, applies also to the Aorist Participle. It is very important for the right interpretation of the Aorist Participle that it be borne in mind that the proper and leading function of the tense is not to express time, but to mark the fact that the action of the verb is conceived of indefinitely, as a simple event. The assumption that the Aorist Participle properly denotes past time, from the point of view either of the speaker or of the principal verb, leads to constant misinterpretation of the form. The action denoted by the Aorist Participle may be past, present, or future with Reference to the speaker, and antecedent to, coincident with, or subsequent to, the action of the principal verb.[12]

I concur with Dr. Jeffrey Riddle that the King James Authorized Version is a legitimate translation of Acts 5:30, and, by implication, Acts 10:39.  The Tyndale New Testament, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Version all translate the Greek aorist finite verb and the aorist participle this way.  Furthermore, the KJV is a more accurate translation following the Greek aorist participle of circumstance rather than the modern translations that go with translating this as an aorist participle of means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Dr. Jeffrey Riddle.  “Does the King James Version Wrongly Translate Acts 5:30?”  Bible Trust League.  https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/does-the-king-james-version-wrongly-translate-acts-530/

[2] NAU is the NASB 1995 in Bibleworks.

[3] New King James Version or NKJV.

[4] New Revised Standard Version or NRSV.

[5] H. Dana.  Julius Mantey.  [Shawn Burton edited this edition for a contemporary Kindle version]. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. (p. 244). Kindle Edition. 

Hardcopy edition:  H.E. Dana.  Julius R. Mantey.  A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.  1927.  3^rd edition.  (New York:  MacMillian, 1957).  P. 221.  The 1957 edition has an index with Scripture references.  The 1955 second edition had no Scripture index.  368 pages.

[6] Ibid., Riddle.

[7] Ibid., Dana and Mantey.  P. 228-229, hardcopy.  P. 251, Kindle Edition.

[8] Daniel Wallace.  Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).  BibleWorks edition.

[9] Ibid., p. 640.

[10] Ibid., pp. 641-642.

[11] Mark 15:34; Luke 23:33-34; Matthew 24:44-46.

[12] Ernest De Witt Burton.  Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek.  1^st edition, 1900.  Reprint. 1976. 1978. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1982).  Pp. 59-60.

Deuteronomy 32:43 in the ESV and the NRSV Has Two Emendations

 

A Textual Criticism Issue:  Should the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls Emend the Masoretic Text?

By Charlie J. Ray, M.Div.

 

Evangelical scholars today place a high priority on proving that the Bible is accurate according to the extant manuscript evidence that underlies the modern English translations today.  All parties in the disputes agree that only the original autographs are the actually inspired or God-breathed words of God.  There are numerous complications entailed by the Evangelical dogmatics which assert that modern textual criticism can reconstruct the original autographs of the Bible from the original language texts in Koine Greek and Masoretic Hebrew.

This paper will examine only one example of a textual criticism issue that compares a reading from the Hebrew Masoretic text of Deuteronomy 32:43 and Hebrews 1:6 of the Koine Greek New Testament.  Advocates of modern reasoned eclecticism claim that Hebrews 1:6 indicates that the Masoretic Text of Deuteronomy 32:43 shows that the Masoretes or the Jews edited out part of the verse during the transmission of the text or that it was somehow accidentally left out due to a scribal error.  The basis for this claim is that at least one manuscript tradition of the Septuagint has the exact phrasing of Hebrews 1:6 as it is recorded in the Greek New Testament.  A further assertion is that at least one Hebrew manuscript discovered at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls has a version of Deuteronomy 32:43 that contains the missing phrase that is recorded in one edition of the Septuagint.  Allegedly, the Greek wording of the Septuagint verse in Deuteronomy 32:43 is an exact phrasing match to the wording in Hebrews 1:6.

It is my contention that this is not necessarily a proof that the Masoretic Text is in error and that the LXX and the DSS scrolls are a correction to the Hebrew of the MT.  I will approach this problem using logic as the basis for my critique of the reasoned eclecticism position.  The science of modern textual criticism is based on the fallacy of induction or the fallacy of asserting the consequent.  If there are allegedly errors in the Masoretic Text, there could be other explanations for the apparent discrepancies.  Presupposing that the apparent errors are actual errors, leads to asserting the consequent for the simple reason that it is just as possible that the LXX adds to the text of the Masoretic Hebrew text and that the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the text was altered to fit with the Septuagint reading.  There are, of course, other possible explanations for why the DSS manuscript has the alternate reading.  This paper will dig into the scholarship and offer an opinion at the end of this paper.

Since the English Standard Version of the Bible[1] is now the go to translation for many Reformed denominations and congregations, I want to first examine the translation of Deuteronomy 32:43 in the ESV and then talk about the footnotes in the 2002 edition and the 2025 edition.  There is at least one change in the footnotes for 2002 to 2025 in regard to Deuteronomy 32:43.

Apparently there was a matter of controversy over the footnotes in the ESV in earlier editions.  The 2002 edition reads as follows:

“Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods,(4) for he avenges the blood of his children(5) and takes vengeance on his adversaries.  He repays those who hate him(6) and cleanses(7) his people’s land.”(8)[2]

The 2025 edition has the following text with footnotes:

“Rejoice with him, O heavens;(9) bow down to him, all gods,(10) for he avenges the blood of his children(11) and takes vengeance on his adversaries.  He repays those who hate him(12) and cleanses(13) his people’s land.”(14)[3]

The first thing to notice is that in the updated edition that there is an additional footnote following the word “heavens”.  The second thing to notice is that there is an additional phrase in the verse that is not included in other translations:

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. (Deut. 32:43 KJV)

The added phrase in the ESV is after footnotes 4 and 10 respectively in the above quote.  I will first examine those two footnotes and offer a critique before proceeding to the other footnotes.  Of the several translations that I checked, only the New Revised Standard Version adds the phrase “bow down to him, all gods.”  The only difference is that the NRSV translates “bow down” as “worship”.  The NASB 1995, the Legacy Standard Bible, the NIV, the NET, and even the RSV[4] all leave out the additional phrase.  Footnote #4 in the 2002 edition of the ESV reads: 

Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text Rejoice his people, O nations[5]

            What is going on with this footnote?  Footnote 10 from the 2025 edition of the ESV reads as follows:

Masoretic Text lacks bow down to him, all gods,[6]

Notice that the comment from the 2002 edition has been changed to remove the acknowledgment that the sources of the phrase come from the reading in the Septuagint manuscripts and from a manuscript found at Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Footnote #10 in the 2025 edition completely removes the information about the sources and simply says that the phrase is not included in the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text.  Whether intentional or not, the footnote in the 2025 edition splits the verse in order to remove the information earlier admitted in the 2002 edition of the ESV.  I tend to think that this is intentional because Bible readers familiar with other translations, especially the KJV and the NKJV translations, will be quick to notice that the ESV emends the Masoretic Text by adding a verse found only in an obscure DSS manuscript discovered in Qumran sometime after 1947 in the original Hebrew.  Presumably, the fact that the DSS confirms a reading from one of the Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint tradition.  But the question is whether or not this proves that the Masoretic Text is wrong and somehow mistakenly dropped the phrase from the Hebrew text?

            To their credit, most of the modern translations do not emend Deuteronomy 32:43 using the DSS or the LXX.[7]  Next, I will examine the reasoning behind the decision of the ESV translation committee to emend the verse with the added phraseology and the theological implications that result from that conjectural emendation.  Also, why did the ESV change the translation of “nations” to “heavens”?   I will also examine that issue before moving on to the argument that Hebrews 1:6 is a direct quote from the LXX as stated by Greg Lanier.[8]

Hebrews 1: 5– 14 draws on multiple Old Testament passages to make exalted claims about Jesus’s divinity. Hebrews 1:6 is one of the most impressive, as the Father commands even angels to worship his “firstborn” son— a status no mere human could enjoy. But the quoted text is drawn from the longer Greek of Deuteronomy 32:43 and is not present in the Masoretic Text (recall table 5.3 in chap. 5). A portion is also attested in 4Q44 of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, the Old Greek wording used in Hebrews may reflect an earlier and better text than the shorter Masoretic Text form (which is why some modern Bibles like the ESV present a composite form at Deut. 32:43). Whatever the case, this additional wording from Moses’s final song allows the author to drive home the huge difference between Jesus and angels.[9]

            Although Lanier and Ross were not part of the translation committee for the Old Testament of the ESV, the reasoning used is most likely the same.  For some reason moderate Evangelicals tend to repeat the arguments of theological liberals, baptizing them with their Evangelical views as if this justifies the liberal arguments.  So, exactly what is the LXX reading that is supposedly quoted in Hebrews 1:6 and how does that match up with the Hebrew reading from the DSS 4Q44?  The first thing to notice is that the LXX reads “sons of God,” not “angels”.  The other difference is that the Hebrew of DSS 4Q44 reads “gods”[10], not “sons of God”.  The Hebrew word is elohim, which is sometimes in reference to God and other times a reference to angels or false gods.

The discrepancies are numerous.  Furthermore, the emendation used to justify the reading in the ESV and the NRSV is based on a tiny fragment of a Hebrew parchment found at Qumran, which is dated to 50-1 B.C.  Instead of confirming Hebrews 1:6, the emendation that is lauded by Lanier and Ross in Deuteronomy 32:43 undermines the Masoretic Text as the standard and objective foundational text for the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew original.  A further discrepancy is that the LXX does not exactly match Hebrews 1:6 because in the New Testament the verse reads “angels” not “sons of God”.  In short, the supposed match between Hebrews 1:6, 4Q44, and the LXX is very loose and mostly based on conjecture and on an extremely small fragment of a Hebrew manuscript found in the DSS.  The only other evidence is the portion of the LXX found in Codex Vaticanus, which has both the Old Testament with apocrypha in Greek and the New Testament in Greek.[11]

A short rejoinder regarding the theological implications of the Lanier and Ross view is in order.  First, it does not logically follow that because the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text is dated to the Leningrad Codex of about 1008 A.D. that it is therefore less trustworthy than the LXX or the DSS, including a fragment from 4Q44.  The Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is preferred by the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Reformation Bible Society, is dated to the 15^th century A.D.  Dr. Jeffrey Riddle argues that the tenacity of the text means that the readings that are preserved in the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text were providentially kept pure in all ages because those were the readings that God caused the church to accept as canonical Scripture over the centuries.

Another question arises concerning Hebrews 1:6. Is it really necessary to make conjectures as to how the apostolic writer came to write this verse?  What we do know is that the text has been universally accepted as the God-breathed and written word of God from the beginning.  Just as the apostle Paul quoted pagan poets in the book of Acts without implying that the writings of the poets were inspired, so the writer of Hebrews could possibly be aware of the LXX without viewing it as replacing the Masoretic Text.  A further possibility is that the writer of Hebrews viewed the allusion to the LXX as theological support for the deity of Christ without regarding that translation as a correction of the extant Hebrew of his day.  In other words, it is a huge jump in logic to presuppose that the writer of Hebrews had access to an earlier Hebrew manuscript that agreed with the LXX.  This is an entirely subjective conjecture on the part of Lanier and Ross.

Furthermore, there are other emendations added to the text of Deuteronomy 32:43 which Lanier and Ross completely ignore.  The MT reads goyim or “nations”, not “heavens”.[12]  Another entire clause gets added from the LXX: 

6 Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text lacks He repays those who hate him[13] 

None of the modern translations that translate from the MT add this clause to the verse.  Only the ESV and the NRSV add the verse as far as I can tell.  This is another reason that I do not recommend the ESV.  Not only is it based on the RSV, a liberal translation of the Bible, but it goes even further astray from the RSV by emending the Old Testament based on conjectural readings from the DSS and the LXX.  Even the RSV of 1952 did not go that far—at least in regard to Deuteronomy 32:43.  Finally, the phrase “bow down to Him all gods” is a bias towards henotheism, or the acknowledgment that other gods exist in reality rather than simply being either empty idols or demonic fallen angels.  The Bible in both the Old Testament and the New Testament rejects the ancient near eastern idea of henotheism.  There is only one God.  All of the others are either idols with no real god behind them or they are viewed as demons under God's control. 

 

---

[1] All Scripture references in this paper refer to the King James Version, 1900 edition, unless otherwise noted.  References from the English Standard Version are only pertaining to the topic of this paper, namely textual criticism, translation issues, and the footnotes from the 2002 and 2025 editions of the English Standard Version.

[2] English Standard Version.  2001. (Wheaton: Good News, 2002).  Thinline edition. 

[3] ESV, Ibid.  2025 edition.  The footnote numbering is different.

[4] The RSV was published in 1952 before the Dead Sea Scrolls became popularized.

[5] ESV, 2002 edition.

[6] Ibid., 2025 edition.

[7] Hereafter the Dead Sea Scrolls will be abbreviated to DSS, and the Septuagint will be referenced as LXX.

[8] “Hebrews 1:6 (Deuteronomy 32:43) Again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him [Heb. omits phrase].’”  Lanier, Greg; Ross, William A.. The Septuagint (p. 157). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[9] Ibid., pp. 157-158.

[10] See:  https://dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q44.htm

[11] 0240  Dt 32:43–33:11: Image 1.  Brannan, Rick, ed. Manuscripts of the Septuagint. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020. Print. Manuscripts of the Bible.

[12] ESV 2025, footnote 9.

[13] ESV 2002, footnote 6.

A Review of Paul King Jewett's Book: Emil Brunner's Concept of Revelation

 Book Review:  Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation, by Paul King Jewett

 

Paul King Jewett.  Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation.  (London:  James Clarke & Co. Ltd, 1954).  190 pages.

This book has been out of print for so many years that I cannot determine when it was no longer published.  It was written as publication of the Evangelical Theological Society, which Dr. Gordon H. Clark helped to found.  Paul King Jewett was a student of Gordon Clark when Clark taught at Wheaton College during the 1941 school year.[1]   Later Paul Jewett did a Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard Divinity School, and Dr. Clark used Jewett’s dissertation in his philosophy classes when was a professor at Butler University in Indiana.[2]  In 1954 the book was published by the Evangelical Theological Society at Dr. Clark’s request. 

I became interested in reading this book after reading about Fuller Seminary and Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s former students in Douglas Douma’s authorized biography of Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  It took some time to find a used copy online.   This book review is the result of that endeavor.  In the front of the book, Paul Jewett clearly dedicates the book to “Dr. Gordon H. Clark, Teacher and Friend.”  At the time of the publication Paul Jewett was teaching philosophy of religion classes at Gordon Divinity School, in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.  The school is now known as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

In the acknowledgements on page vii, Jewett says that he is indebted to Dr. Gordon H. Clark, Dr. Roger Nicole, and Dr. Edward John Carnell for feedback during the writing of the book, and presumably the dissertation.  While doing studies for his doctoral dissertation, Jewett took classes with Emil Brunner in Switzerland at the University of Zurich where Brunner taught systematic theology and practical theology in 1951. 

In the first four chapters of the book, Jewett explains in detail Brunner’s views on a host of theological topics, including time and eternity, the Bible, historiography, and existentialism.  In chapter five, Jewett begins to offer a critique of Brunner’s theology and neoorthodoxy.  Also discussed was the feud between Karl Barth and Emil Brunner over the issue of special revelation versus natural revelation and natural theology.  The problem with both men is that terms used by Evangelicals in theological discussions are completely redefined by the two neoorthodox theologians.  I suspect that this is one reason that Dr. Gordon H. Clark insisted on precise definitions of terms in his writings.  One indication of Clark’s influence on Jewett in the writing of this book is the precision with which Jewett discusses existentialism and the existentialist philosophers, especially Soren Kierkegaard.

In the interest of brevity, I will try to summarize the chapters of the book and the subsections of each chapter.  In the introduction Jewett says that Barth and Brunner wish to be known as theologians of the word:

Though the thought of Barth and Brunner has been nicknamed the Theology of Crisis, of Paradox, of Dialectic, sometimes even of Pessimism, the designation which undoubtedly best conforms to the intention of these theologians themselves is that of Kattenbusch, i.e., The Theology of the Word.[3]

In reviewing this book, perhaps the reader will indulge me a few digressions.  In the debates between the supporters of Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the question of the qualitative difference between God’s knowledge and human knowledge is often brought up in regards to the Creator/creature distinction and God’s archetypal knowledge versus humanity’s ectypal knowledge through divine revelation in the Scriptures.  The hard truth here is that Gordon Clark did not try to pry into God’s archetypal knowledge.  What he said was that the ectypal knowledge revealed to man, who thinks discursively, is univocally the very same propositions and thoughts that God has.  Clark did distinguish between God’s intuitive and direct knowledge of propositions and all other knowledge and man’s discursive and limited knowledge.  In other words, the qualitative difference between man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge is that God’s knowledge is omniscient and intuitive as an eternal Being, and man’s knowledge is limited to what man can intellectually absorb discursively given the limitations of time and history.  I bring this up in reference to Jewett’s quotation from Karl Barth at the top of page 1, opening the discussion of Revelation and History in chapter 1.

If I have a ‘system’, it consists in this, that I always keep in mind with the utmost vigour what Kierkegard has called the ‘infinite qualitative difference’ between time and eternity, and that in both its positive and negative implications.  ‘God is in heaven and thou upon earth.’”  --Karl Barth[4]

This book is heavy reading for anyone who is unacquainted with neoorthodoxy or existentialism.  The very first chapter raises the issue of relativism in regards to historiography.  The problem of relativism is not new to the 21^st century.  It was already obvious in the early 20^th century.  Both Brunner and Barth recognized that WWII raised the problem of Nietzschean relativism to a higher level that had caused the totalitarian regime of Hitler’s Nazi party to rise to power.  The problem is that the existentialist view did not return to the authority of an infallible and inerrant Bible as the basis for a civilized society.  According to Jewett, the neoorthodox theologians did not think that the Bible could withstand modern criticism:

The answer to Relativism, however, is not a return to the infallible Bible of Orthodoxy.  Brunner shares with the other leaders of the Neo-Supernaturalistic school, the conviction that in the light of Biblical criticism, such a procedure would be hopeless scientific obscurantism that could only widen the breach between the modern mind and the Christian faith.[5]

Brunner wanted to oppose relativism because of what he had observed when the Nazis took over Germany. 

Brunner styles Relativism in religion “Historicism”.  It marks the dissolution of all theology.  Revelation becomes “’the inner feeling and certainty of the whole of things and its being, which we call religious feeling or perception’ (Troeltsch)”.  This progeny of religious Liberalism, is the parent of modern Totalitarianism.  The Relativism into which we have been irresistibly drawn by the abandonment of Biblical faith is, so Brunner feels, a cause of that monster of wickedness, the totalitarian state.[6]

Jewett’s analysis of Brunner’s beginning point or axiom for his neoorthodox theology or new modernism sounds almost orthodox, except it is not.  According to Jewett, Brunner understood that “Christianity stands or falls with its claim to a transcendental revelation . . .” that cannot be part of the historical process of world events.[7]  Yet, Brunner does not want to throw out history because he recognizes that the Bible reveals a history of revelation in historical time.

The thrust of Jewett’s analysis of Brunner is that he wants to ignore history and instead replace it with an existential encounter with an eternal God.  Brunner’s theology is nothing like the Reformed view of propositional truth and a biblical system of theology.  Instead, Brunner returns to a man-centered or anthropocentric view where revelation is an existential experience of God’s revelation, not a written source of information in propositional form.  Like Barth, Brunner emphasizes God’s transcendence, not His immanence in His creation.  Jewett’s book has the advantage of tracing the theological and historical roots of the development of modernist theology and philosophy and their influence on Barth and Brunner.

The problem is that Barth and Brunner did not return to orthodoxy.  Instead, they redefined the orthodox terms to fit with their reaffirmation of theological liberalism in a different form.  In chapter one Jewett compares Brunner’s view of Hegel and Kierkegaard.  Hegel’s view of history was that of an evolution of religious thinking in the “consciousness of the race.”  Kierkegaard objected because this would just make Christianity a dot on the historical timeline, a blip on the radar screen of history.[8]

One of the reasons that Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til had differences is that Clark accused the supporters of Van Til of unknowingly crossing the line into neoorthodoxy at certain points of their arguments, which emphasized paradox.  On the other hand, supporters of Van Til's apologetics accused Clark of violating the Creator/creature distinction by his view that the Bible is univocally the very words of God in propositional revelation.

Jewett, although not mentioning the Clark/Van Til Controversy, brings out aspects of the dispute by highlighting Brunner’s belief in a totally transcendent God:

Brunner shares with Kierkegaard and Barth an unshakeable conviction in the absolute otherness of God, in the infinite qualitative difference between the Creator and the creature (eternity and time).[9]

The controversy rages on today.  John Frame, a student of Van Til, and professor emeritus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Oviedo, Florida, has proposed that God has two existences.  He was highly criticized for this view because it suggested a downgrade into ditheism.  Another professor at Westminster Theological Seminary proposed that God took on covenantal properties so that he could condescend to human level or become immanent in the world.  This was criticized by theologians who said that this would make God mutable instead of immutable.  The key feature of Van Til’s apologetic is the Creator/creature distinction.  To violate this distinction would be to make God mutable and immanent, not transcendent, according to Van Til.  The one thing that students of Van Til were supposed to avoid is mutualism or confusing the Creator with creation or with the creature.  Ironically, both Frame and Oliphant were students of Van Til as well.

For those who want to understand Gordon H. Clark’s critique of neoorthodoxy better, I highly recommend buying a used copy of Paul King Jewett’s book.  It is in fact the first book that Jewett wrote and the most conservative one.  In later years, Jewett went down the road of limited inerrancy and joined the Presbyterian Church USA where he began to push for egalitarian views of male and female leadership.  Clark’s book on neoorthodoxy[10] is recommended as well as his book on historiography[11].  Both books are meant to respond to both Barth and Brunner.  Clark was critical of Arminianism because of its view of God as finite and subject to autonomous humanity.   You could say that he opposed making God mutable or immanent as well.  Furthermore, Clark affirmed the transcendence of God by recognizing that God knows all things by intuitive and eternal omniscience.  He recognized the limitations of humans as discursive and limited to the temporal realm of time and space.

 

Soli Deo Gloria. 

 

---

[1] Douglas Douma.  The Presbyterian Philosopher:  The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark.  P. 307.                                                                                                                                                

[2] Ibid., pp. 309-310.

[3] Paul King Jewett.  Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation.  (London:  James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1954).  P. 1.

[4] Ibid., p. 7.

[5] Ibid., p. 9.

[6] Ibid., pp. 8-9.

[7] Ibid., p. 10.

[8] Ibid., p. 12.

[9] Ibid., p. 13.

[10] Gordon H. Clark.  Karl Barth’s Theological Method.  1963.  Second edition.  (Trinity Foundation, 1997).  277 pages.

[11] Clark.  Historiography:  Secular and Religious.  1971.  Second edition.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1994).  366 pages.