Hallelujah! Dear brother T in Christ I love you. I believe you are OK. And I'm fine in the Lord. Before, we had a dispute on the dwelling place of God, didn't we? 15 years passed from that day. This is "considerably serious ill" 東 信男(Higashi Nobuo) hahaha(^o^). The quiz above shows the outline of the presentation by me which was held in Sept '99 in the meeting hall of the Church in Tokyo. At that time none understood me. But I believe you now understand the point clearly. How about you brother T? Tempus fugit, 20 years have passed from that day. However, my conviction has been strengthened ever more. From that quiz,it is clear that the the Jews and the Gentiles exist in our spirit. Even the kindergartner can answer correctly. However, All fled away from me since that time on this matter. Hallelujah. Glory to the Name of the Lord! Well, brother T, I heard you to teach Greek to the full time trainees. Fantastic! You had been interested in the Greek and Hebrew from before. Praise the Lord for your gift is utilized by the Lord very much. A. A problem in Eph.2:16 Well my brother, you know the words Eph.2:16. Eph.2:16 And might reconcile both in one Body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by it. Original Greek is this. Ef 2],16 kai' a]pokatalla;xhj tou'v a]mfote;rouv e]n e[ni' sw;mati tw#j yew#j dia' tou# staurou# a]poktei;nav th'n e/cyran e]n au]tw#j Look the underlined parts, don't you feel something odd? e]n au]tw#j is translated as "by it". But, e]n au]tw#j# is usually translated as "in it" or "in himself", but not here. The latter is in the footnote. And, what dose "by it" denote? It demotes "by the cross", isn't it? However, the cross is already exists "through the cross". Replacing "it" to "the cross", Eph.2:16 is this. 【RCV】Eph.2:16 And might reconcile both in one Body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by the cross. The cross is written doubly. It makes no sense! Don't you think so? Such a translation has been tolerated. Other Bibles below(21books) are almost the same. NLT(published 1996)、ESV(2001)、BSB()、NASB(1971)、KJV(1611)、HCS(2004)、ASV(1901)、DBT(1867)、ERV(2004)、GWT(1995)、ISR()、ISV(2011)、KJP(1611)=KJV、NET(2005)、OJB(2002)、WEB(2000)、WBT()、RSV(1952)、NRSV(1989)、MSG(2002)、NIV(1978)、 Some examples are these. 【KJV】 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 【RSV】 Eph.2:16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. 【ASV】 Eph.2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 【NASB】 Eph.2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 【NIV】 Eph.2:16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. The oldest one within these books is KJV. So,are they all follow suit with KJV? But,I found that only DRB(Douay-Rheims Bible1582) translates here "in himself" ◎【DRB】 Eph.2:16 And might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, killing the enmities in himself. This translation is correct as of Greek. Now we go back more to the past. How about Vulgata (390-405 Jerome)? ◎【Vulgata】 Ad Ephesios 2:16 et reconciliet ambos in uno corpore Deo per crucem interficiens inimicitiam in semetipso ... God through cross killing enmity in it self This is a correct translation acording to the Greek. Then,how about Wycliffe's Bible(1382-1395) ◎【Wycliffe's Bible】 Effesies2:16 makynge pees, to recounsele bothe in o bodi to God bi the cros, sleynge the enemytees in hym silf. This is much different from today's English, but we can understand it in some vague way. And this is a correct translation. Then,how about Tyndale Bible1526 by Tyndal(1494or1495-1536)? 【Tyndale Bible】 Eph.2:16 and to recocile both vnto god in one body thorow his crosse and slewe hatred therby: This is not correct. It is similar to KJV. Then, how about the German Bible by Luther (1483-1546)? 【LutherBibel1545 Letzte Hand】(bibel-online net) Eph.2:16 vnd das er Beide versonete mit Gott in einem Leibe / durch das Creutz / Vnd hat die Feindschafft getodtet / durch sich selbs. Luther translated it, saying "He ..through the cross ･･･ through itself killing the enmity ..." So,this is a general translation which is wrong. So, this shows that before KJV(1611) in Luther's day was a general mistranslation. Then, how about Calvin(1509-1564)? I'm interested in him and what he says. He himself originally translated from Greek into Latin in his commentaries. So, it is different from Vulgata. His Eph.2:16 is this. ◎【Calvin's translation(~1555】 Eph.2:16 Ut reconciliaret ambos in uno corpore Deo per crucem, inimicitias in ipsa interimens. (By killing enmity < sg > that is in itself.) (Vulgata)Ad Ephesios2:16 et reconciliet ambos in uno corpore Deo per crucem interficiens inimicitiam in semetipso (By killing enmities < pl > in itself.) Different from Vulgata but his is a correct translation. However, he says in his comments, slaying the enmity thereby .This is a contradiction. But this is an English translation. So, there remains a question of the translator's faithfulness. By the cross. The word cross is added, to point out the propitiatory sacrifice. Sin is the cause of enmity between God and us; and, until it is removed, we shall not be restored to the Divine favor. It has been blotted out by the death of Christ, in which he offered himself to the Father as an expiatory victim. There is another reason, indeed, why the cross is mentioned here, as it is through the cross that all ceremonies have been abolished. Accordingly, he adds, slaying the enmity thereby. These words, which unquestionably relate to the cross, may admit of two senses, -- either that Christ, by his death, has turned away from us the Father's anger, or that, having redeemed both Jews and Gentiles, he has brought them back into one flock. The latter appears to be the more probable interpretation, as it agrees with a former clause, abolishing in his flesh the enmity. (Ephesians 2:15.) After all, as far as I searched in the internet, correct translations of Eph.2:16 are these 4 Bibles. ◎Vulgata(390-405 Jerome) ◎Wycliffe's Bible(1382~1395) ◎Calvin's translation(~1555) ◎DRB(Douay-Rheims Bible 1582) The origin of the mistranslations may happen to be Luther, I guess. "The chain of events that led to the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament possibly began in 1522, the year Tyndale acquired a copy of Martin Luther's German New Testament. Inspired by Luther’s work, Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older than the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (c.AD 340-420)".(Tyndale Bible wiki) So,his translations may hve been influenced by Luther's Bible. And Tyndale's effects on KJV were so great. "Most of Tyndale's works reflected on KJV, so he is thought as the father of KJV. About 90% of KJV are from Tyndale and 1/3 are completely the same as Tyndale".(English Bible wiki.jp) Therefore Luther may be the origin of the mistranslation of Eph.2:16. B. The reason why apparent and so many mistranslations of e]n au]tw#j . However, it is necessary to consider why such apparent and so many mistranslations of e]n au]tw#j ="by it" in Eph.2:16 even though there had been many Greek experts. First of all, the literal translation from the original Greek is "the enmity in it". And this "it" denotes "one body" which is at the front part of this verse. And this "one body" is Christ's own physical body. Not the church. So, this is "the enmity in one body" this is "the enmity in Christ's own physical body". I believe that this may have brought about a serious theological problem for the translators including Luther. Because the enmity against God existed within Christ Himself. So, they may have thought, "Such an translation is so awful and dreadful, we can not offer such a translation." It is understandable for the translators in those days may have been so dreadful, for they had no idea of the“objective we“ that had been involved within the private body of Christ since His incarnation. As a result of such a misunderstanding, an apparent erroneous translations came out and settled. Moreover, in spite of the existence of the cross, they dared to add one more cross in the same verse. So, this verse is extreamly unnatural. These things tell the translators' agonizing decision. So, "the enmity in one body" means that the "objective we" within His body held the enmity against God. We can easily guess from the apperances of the fallen state of the Jews and the Gentiles before His crucifixion in Eph. 2:1-3. Brother Lee understood here as the state of us before we believed in Christ.(Eph. LSM20 and 21) But this is not correct. Because look vv5,6. We were made alive, resurrected, scended and we are now sitting in the heavenlies. Therefore, these are not the we on this earth, but the "objective we". When Christ was slaughtered on the cross, the "objective we" were also slaughtered together with Him. And their enmity against God that had been swirling within them was automatically slaughtered with Him. Thus, through the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ, the "objective we" constituted with the Jews and the Gentiles were reconciled to God. Eventually, the correct translation of this verse is as follows. Eph. 2:16 And might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it. Thus, the complete one new man came into existence. Of course, this event occured in the physical body of Christ Himself. This one new man is an extremely unique being that came into existence through the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ. The constituent of the one new man is unprecedented! Christ and the "objective we" the Jews and the Gentiles. Not described here, but all things are to be included in it.(Eph.1:23) One new man is a completion of the union of Christ with all things including the "objective we". (Heb.10:14) And this is the mystery of Christ(Eph.3:4), and the first step accomplishment of the new Jerusalem(appendix FIG.1, Jerusalem above in Gal.4:26). And this is one Spirit(Eph. 2:18), that is, the Spirit. How about it, brother T? Do you understand concerning only this one verse, except the “objective we“ you can't go well? Sooner or later, the day will come when you cannot help accepting the "objective we". It may be the day of your praising and enjoying. Because the “objective we“ are a truth of God. I hope the days may come that the spiritual eyes of the local church members be clarified, and the blessing from above may increase more and more. And, the glory and honor to our Father and to the Son our saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. Best regards 2019.Feb.○ 東 信男(Higashi Nobuo) Next page appendix  Explanation of the figures: FIG.2.(below fig.) General understanding of the Spirit There are two lines in this figure. The left line shows the union of Christ with the "Objective we". The right line shows that the last Adam became a life giving Spirit. In this line "the Objective we" are not included. And between the two lines there is no relationship. FIG.1.(upper fig.) New understanding of the Spirit. The two lines are made one. So, in the Spirit the“Objective we“ are included. This understanding is correct understanding of the Spirit. END 2019/Mar/06 東 信男(Higashi Nobuo) ftmp2009☆gmail.com |