SECOND RESPONSE TO BROTHER SMELSER
by Maurice Barnett
Foreword
Because
brother Smelser introduced that Gospel Truths will not publish a
continuing exchange between us, I must explain the reason for the reader’s
benefit. It has always been the policy
of Gospel Truths that if someone objects to an article in the paper, he gets
one response and a rejoinder by the original writer. This policy was restated in the editorial
column of the December, 2003 issue.
Every paper with which I have been associated has had the same
policy. Brother Smith has applied this
policy fairly and uniformly. He has even
published articles with which he disagreed, allowing a response followed by a
rebuttal by the original author and no more.
Further, brother Smith printed two articles
from me and one from Willie Ramsey on Mark 10 within three consecutive issues
and these were followed by brother Smelser’s response
and my rejoinder. No editor can just
turn his paper over to an indefinite discussion like that. If anyone wants a lengthier discussion, he
must do it elsewhere or in another format.
What brother Belknap will do regarding our articles and his website is
up to him. I thank him for his
willingness to post these articles.
Preliminary Remarks
Brother
Smelser accuses me of having some hidden position to uphold and that I am more
concerned about that than I am with the truth.
Here is what he says:
“Apparently, brother
Barnett feels that some doctrinal position he holds concerning divorce and
remarriage is jeopardized by understanding against her to mean against
the first wife. Because brother Barnett believes the words refer to the second
woman, the woman in the adulterous relations, he feels the need to explain how
the adultery is against her.”
Brother
Smelser says it is “apparent” that this is what I’m doing but it is apparent
only in his own mind. He has no basis on
which to read my mind as to what I “feel the need” to do or not do. He later says:
“But when our efforts become
exercises in ferreting out obscure theories that might shore up endangered
positions, we ourselves are in danger of straying from the pursuit of
truth. We are in danger of defending a
creed.”
It has been
my experience in debates that when someone attacks the motives and integrity of
his opponent it means he is frustrated because he cannot handle his opponents
arguments and, at the same time, he must try to prejudice the hearers or
readers against his opponent so they will give no consideration to what he
says. My conclusions come from my own
study with a desire to know the truth.
It has never been any different.
Brother Smelser would do himself a service to present evidence for his
position rather than question my character.
But, there is more. He says:
“Remember, he wouldn’t have this
problem if he understood the words against her to refer to the first
wife.”
That works
both ways: “Remember, brother Smelser
wouldn’t have this problem if he understood the words “against her” to
refer to the second woman.”
But, while we
are on the subject, we ask brother Smelser: just what position are you
trying to establish? Your articles and
arguments are being used to support the position that the put away woman has
the right, in some sense, to “put away” the man and remarry without sin after
the man has first divorced her and married another woman. Be sure to tell us.
What is he saying?
In reading
brother Smelser’s material, any difficulty is not in
answering his assertions and arguments but in trying to figure out just what he
is saying. At the very beginning of his
first article, he says:
“There’s no denying the man
commits adultery with the second wife. But is that really what this passage is
saying?”
That
statement is a strong implication that Mark
“Greek grammar does not
necessitate our understanding the verse to say the man commits adultery either
with or against the second woman. If brother Barnett wishes to establish that that is what the
verse means, he will need to build his case on something other than Greek
Grammar.”
This sounds
like he is denying that “commits adultery” has anything to do with literal,
sexual relations with the woman the man marries! This means that “commits adultery” has to be
figurative only because the man cannot be committing literal sexual
relations with the woman he divorced.
But, then he says:
“Let’s be clear about one thing
here: There is no disagreement between brother Barnett
and me about the fact that the man does indeed commit adultery with the second
woman.”
Now it is the
other way around. The man does indeed
commit adultery with the second woman.
But, brother Smelser is not finished.
Notice:
“But brother
Barnett wants us to believe that if the man commits adultery with the second
woman, he can’t be committing adultery against the first wife, and if he
commits adultery against the first wife, he can’t be committing adultery with
the second woman.”
Here he is
contending for two definitions of “commits adultery.” One is literal, physical, durative sexual
intercourse with the second woman. The
other is some sort of figurative sexual intercourse with the woman he divorced.
But, there is more. Note:
“The man commits adultery with
someone, and he commits adultery against someone, but the prepositional phrase against
her points to only one of these facts.
Our disagreement is about which of these facts is indicated by the prepositional
phrase.”
Now it is
adultery with the second woman based on “commits adultery” but is figurative
because of the
prepositional phrase, “against her.”
Recall that he said, “Remember, he wouldn’t have this problem if he
understood the words against her to refer to the first wife.” So, it is not “commits adultery” that refers
to the first woman but the prepositional phrase, “against her.” Brother Smelser, do you really understand
what you are talking about?
I have
already shown, in previous material, that Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10: 11 are
parallel accounts. I have also shown
that moichatai, commits adultery, is literal,
durative, unlawful sexual relations between a man and a woman in every place it
is found in the New Testament; it cannot be both literal and figurative at the
same time. At this point, we will look
at brother Smelser’s splitting up the clause “commits
adultery against her” and see just what the grammar tells us.
Sentence Structure
Apparently,
brother Smelser insists that the preposition epi, cannot possibly
mean “with,” and that the phrase, against her, absolutely must refer
to the put away woman. He says:
“Brother Barnett seems to have
acknowledged that context will play a role in helping us to determine what the
antecedent of the pronoun is......”
Brother
Smelser, I have insisted on context from the beginning. I have discussed context from the first
article. I have asked more than once
just where does the context of Mark 10 require
that we understand epi with the accusative to mean “against?” Where does the context require that
“her” absolutely must refer to the first woman? I have yet to get an answer to those
questions while brother Smelser has treated us to nothing but assertions. He just claims that his conclusions are true
but presents no evidence. Here is one of
his statements already mentioned above:
“Greek grammar does not
necessitate our understanding the verse to say the man commits adultery either
with or against the second woman. If
brother Barnett wishes to establish that this is what the verse means, he will
need to build his case on something other than Greek Grammar.”
As stated
above, I have already shown the meaning of moichatai
to be literal sexual relations from the parallels with Matthew 19:9 and
Luke 16:18. We know that moichatai, “commits adultery,” refers to literal,
durative (continuous) unlawful sexual relations with a woman because of its grammatical
form. We know that it is not an intransitive verb because one does not
commit adultery by himself; it must be “with” someone. It is thus transitive. The literal adultery
cannot be with the put away wife because that relationship is broken. The only one with whom he can be practicing
the continuous adultery is the second woman, the one he marries. Simple grammar, brother
Smelser. What was it you
said? We can’t understand that the man
commits adultery either with or against the second woman from the grammar?
We get a view
of brother Smelser’s handling of grammar by his
interpretation of the clause “(he) commits adultery against her.” Fitted in among his other statements, he
tells us that “commits adultery” refers to the second woman and the
prepositional phrase “against her” refers to the put away woman. He also insists that we must consider the context
and then he destroys the context by breaking up and rearranging the
sentence. I made the following points of
grammar in my previous article but brother Smelser observed the passover. So, I will expand on that material now and
it’s going to involve grammar, which brother Smelser says doesn’t prove
anything. Well, we’ll see.
Prepositions
originated as
adverbs. In koine
Greek, they join the object of a preposition with an antecedent of the
preposition. This is true in both Greek
and English. William Mounce
in his book, Basics of Biblical Greek, (an up-to-date, current, Greek
grammar) page 55, 56 says, relative to a preposition
in English:
“A preposition is a word that
indicates the relationship between two words.
In the sentence, ‘The book is under the table,’ the preposition
‘under’ describes the relationship between ‘book’ and ‘table,’ which in this
case is a spatial relationship.....The function of a preposition in Greek is
the same as English.”
William B.
Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,
pages 356-7 (another current and widely used Greek grammar), says,
“Prepositions show how the verb
connects to various objects....the accusative and dative are usually connected
to a verb and the genitive is usually connected to a noun.”
Other Greek Grammars
say the same thing. Since the function
of prepositions is the same in English as in Greek, we will add the following
information. It is from The English
Sentence, A Grammar of the English Language by
Jonathan Rigdon.
This book was the English grammar used for many years at
“Prepositions are relation words,
and relation implies two objects. There
are, therefore, always two terms of the relation expressed by a
preposition. These two terms are object
and antecedent. The object is
the substantive governed by the preposition. The antecedent is the term
to which the preposition joins the substantive .... The object of
a preposition is always a substantive.
It may be, a noun, a pronoun, an adverb, an adjective,
an infinitive, a participle, a clause, a phrase ...
The Antecedent of a preposition is the word the phrase limits. It may be a verb, a noun, a pronoun, an
adjective, an adverb, an interjection.”
Let’s apply
this to our sentence in Mark 10:11. “(he) commits adultery against her.” In word order, this is the
exact counterpart of the Greek phrase, moichatai
ep’ autein. The object of the preposition is
“her.” The antecedent of the
preposition is the verb, “commits adultery” (moichatai) “Commits adultery”
and “her” are joined together by the preposition.
The action of
“commits adultery,” moichatai, carries over by
means of the preposition to the object of the preposition, “her.” The pronoun is feminine, singular. It can apply only to one person. The action of the verb, “commits adultery,”
applies only to that one person and no other.
Seeing that “commits adultery” refers to literal, durative sexual
intercourse, which brother Smelser accepts, it can only refer to the woman with
whom he is having that sexual intercourse and that is the second woman, the one
he marries.
Regardless of
what English word translates epi, whether upon, in reference
to, against, regarding or with, the object of the
preposition is the one who is linked directly to the verb. The “her” of Mark 10:11 is
directly involved in the durative sexual relations. And, that means the second woman. It is just elementary grammar, brother
Smelser, Greek or English.
At the same
time that brother Smelser is splitting up the sentence, as we just noted, he
turns around and contends for dual definitions of terms. He says:
“But brother
Barnett wants us to believe that if the man commits adultery with the second
woman, he can’t be committing adultery against the first wife, and if he
commits adultery against the first wife, he can’t be committing adultery with
the second woman.”
I want the
reader to notice how brother Smelser slips and slides around on the
clause. He first denies that commits
adultery refers to the woman the man marries, then he splits the sentence and
makes “commits adultery” refer to the woman the man marries and “against her”
to the woman he divorced. Now he wants
to define “commits adultery” to mean literal sex with the second woman and
figurative with the first one.
Brother Smelser uses Joseph and Potiphar’s wife to prop up his contention. He thinks he has a passage that proves he can
split up the sentence (first one way and then another) in Mark to apply to both
women. He says:
“In Genesis 39:9, Joseph refused
to lie with Potipher’s wife saying, ‘How then could I
do this great evil and sin against God?’
Had Joseph lain with Potipher’s wife, wouldn’t
he have been sinning with her, and also sinning against God” Indeed he would have. And we might add that he would have been
sinning against Potipher. Surely we have no difficulty in understanding
that. That should help us to understand
how adultery can be both with someone, and against someone else.”
Notice
brother Smelser’s attempt to get two meanings of the
same act by using the word “sin.” That
is, Joseph “sinned” with the woman and “sinned” against God which is supposed
to give us two meanings of the word “sin” in keeping with what he wants to
establish in Mark 10.
First, Potiphar’s
wife kept after Joseph, saying, “lie with me.”
That meant have literal, sexual intercourse with her. Notice that there is a
verb, “lie,” a preposition, “with,” and an object of the preposition, “me.” “Lie” is tied to “me” by the preposition and
it refers to no other person than Potiphar’s wife.
We can fine
tune that even more. “Commit adultery
with me.” “Commit adultery” is the verb,
“with” the preposition and “me” the object of the preposition who was only one
person, the one who received the action of the verb. Sounds like Mark
Second, it
would be a “sin against God” because “sin is the transgression of law.” This underlies every rule God has made
whether it is stated or not. Inherent
in the word “adultery” is “sin against God.” It is the nature of the word itself. But, we know this because the Bible tells us specifically
that violating any law of God is sin; that defines “sin.” Further notice, “sin” is the verb, “against”
is the preposition and “God” is the object.
The sin in this statement is directed only against God.
Now, let’s
apply this again to Mark 10:11, “(he) commits adultery against her.” “Commits adultery” is unlawful,
literal sexual intercourse, which is the verb in the sentence. “Against” is the preposition that ties the unlawful,
literal sexual intercourse to the object of the preposition, “her.” Potiphar’s wife
said, “lie with me.”
Injecting any other person into that sentence requires that he or she
be specified. Potiphar’s
wife did not acknowledge God and so Joseph introduces Him into the matter by
adding “and” sin against God. In order
to get another person to begin with, the first wife in Mark 10:11, into
“commits adultery against her,” requires that she be
specified. To put the divorced woman
into the verb, moichatai, is nothing but
imaginative assumption. To put her into
the preposition, epi, is nothing but
imaginative assumption. To put her into
the pronoun, autein, is nothing but imaginative assumption. I ask again, where does the context require
brother Smelser’s contention?
To illustrate
the point, look at Mark 9:13. “But I say
unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they
would, even as it is written of him.”
“Is written” is the verb followed immediately with ep’
auton, epi with an accusative personal
pronoun, “of him.” The preposition ties
the verb and object of the preposition together. Jesus focuses only on the Old Testament
writings that referred to a single person, John the Baptist. Were there things written in the Old
Testament about any other individuals? Certainly. Jesus and
Judas come to mind, but they are not contained in the above statement Jesus
made; we must go to other passages to find that information. In the same way, any doctrinal consequence
regarding the put away wife in “commits adultery against her” must be found in
some passage other than Mark 10 because that verse does not say it.
Regarding
antecedents of pronouns, brother Smelser continues with nothing but his
assertions. When there are two eligible
antecedents to a pronoun, the nearest substantive is to be considered the
antecedent. Exceptions to that occur
when the context requires we understand the remote substantive as the
antecedent. But, there must be some
compelling reasons why we absolutely must take the remote substantive. I have asked before and still ask: Where in the context of Mark
Brother
Smelser refers to the Majority Text as the “so-called majority text,” a
belittling expression. To him, these
texts and any translations from them are nonstandard, substandard, inferior or
the like. If interested, I suggest that
the readers obtain material on both sides of the controversy over texts and
make their own judgments. Brother
Smelser has identified himself as siding with one wing of modern
scholarship and wants to be our advisor on what texts and translations will be
acceptable. He wants to tell us what is the “Standard” for inspired texts and what translation we
must look to. I’m not willing to accept
that.
Brother
Smelser criticizes the documents and text behind the King James and Majority
Text in favor of those based on the Vaticanus and
Alexandrian manuscripts. In view of his
preference for these manuscripts, and their derivatives, I want him to explain
to all of us if he believes that the last twelve verses of Mark, including Mark
16:15-16, should be stricken from our New Testaments. We might add, to these deletions, enough
words, phrases and verses of the New Testament that take up the same space as
first and second Peter. Since he is
going to tell all of us what texts and translations make up the inspired word
of God, we need to know what we should believe, preach and practice and what we
shouldn’t. If he tells us that he accepts
the inclusion of those “deleted” verses as genuine New Testament, then his
prejudice against the Receptus and Majority Texts means nothing. A maybe yes, maybe no won’t do. Which is it, brother Smelser? We want to know.
My “Lexical Litany”
This is what
brother Smelser calls all of the lexical scholars that I have brought as
witnesses to the varied meaning of epi. The word “litany” as used by brother Smelser
means “a tedious recital.” I’m sure he
does consider it tedious, seeing that he doesn’t agree with them. Brother Smelser made no comment on the Brown
and Comfort Interlinear, based on the UBS Greek text where they use “with” in
Mark 10:11. Nor did he deal with Zondervan’s Interlinear based on the Nestle text. Nor did he say anything about Bullinger’s Lexicon.
Perhaps these were just oversights.
Speaking of
oversight, I do want to point out James Strong.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and
Hebrew-Greek Dictionary is one of the most widely used reference works in
the world today. A large number of other
books are cross-referenced to Strong, using his numbering system for Bible
research and study. Brother Smelser
probably won’t consider it a “Standard” work but other moderns do. I have the latest edition, the “New” Strong’s published by Thomas Nelson Publishers. In the Publishers Preface, they say:
“Comprehensive Hebrew and Greek
Dictionary improvements include: new enlarged type; hundreds of corrections and
updated entries, including corrections of outright errors, inconsistencies,
variant readings, and syllabification of pronunciations; consistent
abbreviations throughout; clarification of obscure terminology; and updated,
reader-friendly introductions.”
That sounds
pretty up-to-date to me. And, what does Strong’s say under epi (#1909) with accusative? Strong lists “with” among the uses. We are going to come back to Strong’s shortly when we talk about Nigel Turner to see
what else Strong’s has to say on our subject.
I am going to
show through the rest of this article that my “litany” of lexicons are vindicated and his “Standard” authorities are the ones
that fall short of the facts.
Bass:
Brother Smelser says of Bass’s Manual Lexicon that it was “a small
rudimentary lexicon published in 1851.
It was in fact pocket size.” So,
his point must be that we should dismiss what Bass says because he considers it
just “rudimentary,” very small in size, that little tiny book. So, must we conclude that Bass was either
ignorant or lied when he used “with” as one application of epi with
accusative?
As a point of
fact, the pages of Bass’s Lexicon were just three inches by four and
three-quarters inches in size. The print
was extremely small so that it could be published as a pocket edition that
people could easily carry around with them.
That was a testimony to its popularity.
At that, there were 246 pages in it!
If the type was increased to a 12 or 13 point font, it would have made a
large volume. In the introductory
remarks of this Lexicon, it says:
“While every thing has been
retained which adapted it to the wants of the mere learner, the author has
aimed to accommodate it also (as far as its limits would permit) to the use of
those whose perusal of the sacred volume is more critical and
discriminating. The careful distribution
of the definitions into separate heads, the references to passages in which
words are used in peculiar acceptations, and the examples quoted of unusual
combinations of language, will in this light, he trusts, be regarded as
improvements, and, with others, render the work more extensively useful.”
Bass was very
careful and thorough in his scholarship as well as physical structure of the
volume. He does not deserve any “put
down.”
Laing:
Brother Smelser says about Laing, “According to Laing himself, this was designed to be an ‘elementary
work.’ It was primarily intended to
serve as a guide to pronunciation with particular emphasis on vowel
quantity. Beyond that its discussions
truly are elementary.” My, my. What is
“elementary” must be unreliable if not totally false if we are to understand
brother Smelser’s statement at all. Brother Smelser is a teacher of Greek. He has a website and offers courses for a
fee. Does brother Smelser teach elementary
Greek? Surely that is where he starts
with new students. I wonder if he tells
them that the “elementary” Greek that he teaches them is not really reliable
because it’s elementary? What brother Smelser has overlooked in Laing’s Preface is the following:
“Though much was to be supplied
from his own researches, the Author is anxious to acknowledge his obligations to former writers of whose labours he has made free use, particularly Stephens,
Scapula, Schleusner, Parkhurst,
Leigh, Matthie, &c., in the grammatical
part......”
Laing’s work was much more than just
pronunciation. It also dealt with
grammar and word meaning. Was Laing ignorant or dishonest in listing “with” as an
application of epi?
Robinson:
Brother Smelser says that the 1825 edition of Robinson’s Lexicon was his
first effort and was just a translation of Wahl’s Lexicon. From that point alone, I suppose, we are to
reject the 1825 Robinson. However,
brother Smelser adds that by the 1850 edition that Robinson had learned better
and dropped the word, “with,” from his lexicon.
But, brother Smelser overlooks some things. Apparently, he just doesn’t know the facts.
First, Wahl
has always been considered an outstanding lexicon of N.T. Greek. Second, Robinson said in the introduction to
the 1825 edition:
“In translating from a language
in which the significations of the words are in most cases so
general as in the Latin, there is a great difficulty in seizing the exact shade
of meaning, and expressing it in an English definition. Hence it became necessary to recur constantly
to the original Greek, and to form the definitions from the Testament itself,
rather than from the very general Latin definitions either of Wahl or Schleusner. This, of
course, caused a great amount of additional labour;
but the value of the work, it is hoped, will be found increased in at least an
equal proportion.”
Third,
brother Smelser asserts that Robinson “thought better” of his using “with” for epi
with the accusative by his 1850 edition and removed it. For those who are familiar with Robinson,
they recognize in him the same thing that has happened with a number of men as
they get older; they also tend to become liberal in their attitude toward the
Bible. This was the case with
Robinson. On pages 118-119 of his 1850
edition, he says that “baptism” cannot refer to “full immersion” because, in
his thinking, there wasn’t enough water in
After saying
this, I do recognize that no lexical writer is without mistakes, but the basis
on which brother Smelser discusses them is without merit.
Parkhurst:
Brother Smelser does indeed cite a revision of Parkhurst
made by Hugh Rose, a revision that was extensively changed by Rose to suit himself. Parkhurst was dead by the time Rose published his “new
edition.” I was citing the original work
by Parkhurst. Parkhurst, to my knowledge, is the only linquist
who independently wrote a major lexicon on both the Old Testament Hebrew and
New Testament Greek. Both works were
outstanding. I quote first from the
introduction of his second of four editions of his Hebrew Lexicon, which is
indicative of his careful attention to his work, and the second quotation is
from the first of three editions of his Greek Lexicon :
“Now, in fixing the leading sense
of each Root, after carefully and constantly consulting the ancient versions (I
mean those of the LXX and Vulg. together with the Chaldee
Targums, and the fragments of the Hexaplar
versions of Aguila, Symmachus,
Theodotion, &c. published by Montfaucon), I have endeavoured
as much as possible to let the Holy Scriptures, on a diligent and close
examination and comparison of the several texts, speak for themselves, well
knowing that nothing cuts a diamond like a diamond.”
“All I can say for myself in
these respects is, that I have honestly and conscientiously done my best, nor
have I knowingly and wilfully misrepresented a single
word of expression, nor paid a regard to the opinions of any man, or number of
men whatever, further than they appeared to me agreeable to the sacred Oracles,
and to the analogy of the Greek Tongue.”
Parkhurst was very careful in writing his
Lexicons, and regardless of what a later editor did to his work, Parkhurst listed “with” as a meaning of epi with the
accusative.
Nigel
Turner: Brother Smelser claims that I have staked my
“case” on antecedents and Nigel Turner.
That’s nothing but wishful thinking on brother Smelser’s
part. As I said in my last article, I am
not interested in defending Turner. He
was just one of many linguists that I cited. I also said that they cannot be brushed aside
as of no consequence.
But, brother
Smelser has said that he has made a deep study of Turner on this point. This is why brother Smelser has made such an
issue of Turner. Also, according to
brother Smelser, all of the linguists who agree with Turner, such as Hanna and
Alfred Marshall, can be dismissed because Turner is wrong to begin with and,
therefore, they are wrong. While brother
Smelser deals primarily with epi in the Septuagint, it is the Hebrew
preposition, el, that is the center of
controversy. In view of his insistent
pursuit of this matter, I think it is necessary to point out some facts that
brother Smelser does not tell the reader.
The Hebrew
preposition in Jeremiah 5:8, is “el.” The word is a multifaceted word in meaning,
just like its counterpart, epi, is in Greek. It is variously translated. Among the possible applications is “with,”
just like “epi” in the New Testament.
I’m going to present yet another “litany of lexicons” and other
authorities for brother Smelser, which he won’t like, but they should have
meaning for the reader. These bear on
the Hebrew Old Testament.
Among the
Hebrew Lexicons that give “with,” as a meaning for el, in the range of
applications in the Old Testament are the following: Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of over 1500 pages by Julius Fuerst, Third Edition, p. 88. Hebrew and English Dictionary by W.L.
Roy, p. 29. Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary by Alexander Harkavy,
p. 24. Langenscheidt’s
Pocket Hebrew Dictionary, by Dr. Karl Feyerabend,
p.16. Of those Lexicons that also say
that it means “together with” are the following: Gesenius,
translated by Edward Robinson, p. 51. Gesenius, translated
by Samuel Tregelles, p. 47. Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 40, #413 with Strong’s numbering. Benjamin Davies, revised by Edward C. Mitchell, p. 38. And, let’s not leave Strong’s
Dictionary off the list. Under el
(#413), Strong’s lists “with,” just as he does
under epi.
Further,
Genesis 4:8 translates el in “Cain talked with Abel” in the KJV. The Hebrew-English Interlinear by J.P.
Green, also translates “with” in Genesis 4:8. In Lamentations
The exact
same range of possible meanings attach to both el and epi. In Jeremiah 5:8, el in Hebrew is epi
in the Septuagint. There is thus,
after all, a foundation for Turner’s contention on that passage and on Mark
10:11. And, there was enough evidence
for Hanna and Marshall, and no doubt others, that they
agreed with him, enough so that they put it into print. But, let’s cut to the chase.
Hebrews 8:8
Brother
Smelser has contended that not only does epi not mean, in any sense,
“with” or “in concert with” in Mark 10:11 but has denied that there is any
place in the New Testament where it means any such thing. Here is what he said in his first response to
me, followed by another in his second response:
“What context could we imagine
wherein the root idea upon would in effect end up meaning with, i.e., in
concert with? In fact, there is no other NT passage where epi is understood to
mean such a thing.”
“Brother Barnett has yet to cite
any New Testament passage where a case can be made that epi with
accusative is generally understood to mean with. The standard lexicon of New Testament Greek,
in its thorough treatment of the preposition epi, makes no allowance for
the idea that the preposition could mean with
when used with the accusative case.”
What brother
Smelser has formed is what is called in logic a “Universal Negative” expressed
in a proposition as “none are.” That is
written out this way: “No verse in the New Testament uses epi with
accusative to mean ‘with’ or ‘in concert with’.” That is a universal negative
proposition. Brother Smelser has
staked his entire position on that universal negative. All of his assertions, his “Standard” works,
his criticism of my “Litany of Lexicons” and his position on Mark 10:11 are all
based on that universal negative.
In the
logical square of opposition, it takes only one contradictory to prove a
universal negative to be false. In fact,
there is more than one such passage in the New Testament but we will focus on
Hebrews 8:8 at this point.
“But God found fault with the
people and said: ‘The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new
covenant with the house of
It reads the
same in the King James, New King James, American Standard, New American
Standard, New American Standard Update (1995), Revised Standard Version, New
Revised Standard Version, The New English Bible, Todays
English Version, and so on. In this
“litany” of translations are some of brother Smelser’s
“Standard translations” based on his “Standard texts.” The Greek text has epi with the
accusative and it is translated specifically the way it could not possibly be, according
to brother Smelser.
What does
brother Smelser have to say about Hebrews 8:8. Well, just take a look at the maneuvering and
suppositions he presents to get around it.
Just look at the backflips he takes, jumping
first one way and then another, to get “with” deleted from Hebrews 8:8! Shame on him. He is doing the very thing he claims others
do plus he completely abandons all he wrote at the beginning about sticking
with the “Standard” works. Let’s
look at some of the things brother Smelser says.
“In Heb. 8:8, at least brother Barnett can point to English translations that
actually use the word with where the Greek text has epi. But the fact that an English translation of a
phrase may use the word with is not the same thing as saying epi itself
means with. Brother Barnett needs epi
to actually mean with to support his argument in Mark 10:11.”
Here is a
reference I gave in my last article. It is from A.T. Robertson in his monumental grammar,
page 602:
“In personal relations hostility is sometimes
suggested though epi in itself does not mean ‘against.’”
Perhaps
Robertson is not “Standard” enough for brother Smelser but Robertson stated the
fact there. “With” is just as much a
meaning for epi as is “against.”
I don’t have to prove that “with” is inherent in epi in order to
understand that epi means “with” in some passages. According to brother Smelser’s
logic, he must prove that “against” is inherent in epi before that can
be used in some passages. There is a
list of varied applications of epi.
Brother Smelser makes rules for others that he doesn’t follow
himself. But, here is something else he
says:
“Brother Barnett asks, ‘Just how
would brother Smelser have Mark
I wonder why
brother Smelser has the King James in that list? Since it is quite old and based on the
Receptus text, he doesn’t think it is a “Standard” translation and thus of no
value; he has to throw that one out.
Anyway, I can just as well say:
“The KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV, NASV,
NASVU, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NEB, Amplified Bible and Young’s Literal all translate
so as to say that God made a covenant with the house of Israel and with
the house of Judah. At this point,
I’m happy with that rendering.”
That works
just as well for me as it does for him.
And, I have more translations in my list than he has in his. But, here is a real gem from him about
Hebrews 8:8:
“Though the Septuagint is quoted,
the verb used in the Greek text represents a departure from the text as found
in the Septuagint. The meaning of the
verb used here is to complete or to bring to accomplishment. With the preposition epi, the idea is
‘I will bring to accomplishment upon (for) the house of
Then brother
Smelser launches into speculation. Now,
let’s just use his gymnastics with the verb while using the preposition in the
“Standard” translations.
“I will bring to
accomplishment with the house of
That makes
sense. Here is another translation of
this passage made by Louw and Nida
in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains, 13.88. This is surely a
modern “Standard Lexicon.” True to the
text and clearly stated, it says:
“I will bring into existence a new covenant
with the people of
Has the
reader noticed that brother Smelser has not only retranslated epi with
the accusative to get rid of the meaning “with” in this passage but he has also
retranslated the verb to try to accommodate the change in prepositions
so it will all conform to his position?
All of his attempts to get around the passage just will not work. After everything is said and done, all of
what he called my “Litany of Lexicons” were right and
his “Standard” references are the ones that are mistaken.
Here is a
question that needs answering. With so many translations, from the King James to the most recent
versions, all of them translating epi with the accusative in Hebrews 8:8
“with,” why have brother Smelser’s “Standard
Lexicons” failed to include “with” as a possible meaning under epi? I’m not going to speculate on that but
somebody goofed and brother Smelser has based his universal negative on their
mistake.
Together
Brother
Smelser says: “Brother Barnett
completely misunderstands the Greek expression epi to auto. This is the sort of case brother Barnett has
made, and it is not credible.” So,
brother Smelser then tells us the following:
“In I
Cor. 7:5, brother Barnett has in mind the phrase, ‘may be together again,’ and
from the word together brother Barnett infers the meaning with. The word together represents the Greek
phrase, epi to auto. But epi is
not translated with, nor is it understood to mean with, nor even
is it, in and of itself, understood to mean together. Rather the whole expression epi to auto
is translated together.”
Yes, brother
Smelser, I have been aware all along that the phrase epi to auto is what
is translated “together.” But, how in
the world did epi with an accusative pronoun become a stock phrase
meaning “together” if epi with an accusative never has even a
particle of the meaning of “with?” I
will remind brother Smelser again of what he said in his first article:
“What context could we imagine
wherein the root idea upon would in effect end up meaning with, i.e., in
concert with?”
“Together”
means “in concert with,” which he, himself, says is the meaning of “with.” According to Webster, one meaning of
“together” is “with each other” and that means the same thing as “in concert
with.” Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 7:5
to see what it says:
“Defraud ye not one the other,
except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer,
and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your
incontinency.”
This is
talking about stopping sexual relations for a short while, a voluntary
abstinence, to give each other time for prayer and spiritual uplifting. Nothing is even implied that either
of them would be leaving the house; they are still in the same place
as far as the text says. Look at the
passage. “Be together again” (epi to
auto) is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. They are shortly to resume sexual intercourse
lest they be tempted to wrongdoing because of continued abstinence. And, sexual intercourse is something that one
only does “with” another. Further, in
other passages, to come together “in one place” still means something people do
“with” each other. After all, one
person, alone, does not “come together in one place” by himself.
Now, with all
of brother Smelser’s maneuvering, Hebrews 8:8 and I
Corinthians 7:5 contradict his universal negative which means it is false. My “Litany of Lexicons” were
correct. In some
places, epi with the accusative means “with.”
Concluding thought
I want brother Smelser to remember the two questions I asked
him to answer. (1) Is it your position
that after a man’s unlawul remarriage that his
divorced wife can then “put him away” and remarry with God’s approval? (2) Are the last twelve verses of Mark 16,
including verses 15-16, along with numerous other words, verses and phrases, a
part of the New Testament or must they be deleted as uninspired? Don’t forget.
We want to know.