'Heretical reading' of John 5.27-28: on the Son and executing judgement

[Christophoros]

I was reading through Blessed Theophylact's The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to John, and came across a reference to a "heretical reading" of John 5:27-28 found in the King James Version. It reads:

"And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming..."

Both Blessed Theophylact and the translator, Fr. Christopher Stade of the ROCOR (through a long footnote on page 90) condemn this rendering as "utterly foolish" and "heretical", in that it follows the opinion of Paul of Samosata and is opposed by St. John Chrysostom. Apparently, the verses should be rendered like this:

" and hath given Him authority to executeth judgment also. That He is the Son of man, marvel not at this: for the hour is coming..."

The distinction is between a particular word being translated as "that" or "because", and the teaching that Christ is given authority to judge by virtue of being the Son of God, as opposed to the Son of Man. St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact support the former, while Paul of Samosata believed the latter (since he held that Christ was not born the Son of God).

I have two questions... First, how does the Slavonic Bible (or other recognized Orthodox translations) render these verses? And second, why do you think that virtually every English translation of the New Testament renders these verses in the manner used by Paul of Samosata? I can find only two which deviate from the KJV and follow the Chrysostom rendering: The Orthodox New Testament of Holy Apostles Convent and the Western Peshitta translation done by Dr. James Murdock in 1852.

Thanks in advance for any input.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I'm not a Slavonic expert. But as I understand it the Slavonic reads, "for [He] is the Son of Man." The Russian version in the Slavonic/Russian version I have says: "because He is the Son of Man."

This could be interpreted in a heretical way. But this is not necessarily so.

After all, the NT clearly says that the Son does not know 'the hour'. Strictly speaking this could be given an Arian interpretation. But yet we interpret this in a very different way.

I wish I had a clearer way of expressing how the Fathers convey themselves. I don't think it is correct when we say it's just rhetorical. They mean what they say. But the emphatic way they address us is always meant to fit within the larger context of the witness of the Church. So this gives such language a nuance we can miss if we are not careful.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Stickles]

And second, why do you think that virtually every English translation of the New Testament renders these verses in the manner used by Paul of Samosata? I can find only two which deviate from the KJV and follow the Chrysostom rendering: The Orthodox New Testament of Holy Apostles Convent and the Western Peshitta translation done by Dr. James Murdock in 1852.

My two cents worth (and I'm probably overvaluing it) is that there is a school of thought which sees the title "son of man" as a clear Messianic title, taken from Daniel 7:13-14. In all probability, the translators of most English versions held to this view of the title. So, to say that God "hath given Him authority to execute judgement also, because He is the Son of man" meant something very different to them than it did to St. John Chrysostom, who apparently did not view the title that way. As St. John read it, the meaning was nonsense, as he argued:


... He did not receive judgment “because” He was man, (since then what hindered all men from being judges,) ...

But the translators would read it as identical to "hath given Him authority to execute judgement also, because He is the Messiah", and hence unobjectionable.

In Christ,
Mike

[Christophoros]

But the translators would read it as identical to "hath given Him authority to execute judgement also, because He is the Messiah", and hence unobjectionable.

In Christ,
Mike

This school of thought is expressed in Metropolitan Fan Noli's New Testament translation/paraphrase, which reads in verse 27: "Moreover, he gave him authority to execute judgment, for he is the
Messiah."

But given the outright condemnation of this understanding by St. John Chrysostom, I'm suprised that it has been retained by so many.

[Michael Stickles]

But given the outright condemnation of this understanding by St. John Chrysostom, I'm suprised that it has been retained by so many.

I'm not surprised by it at all. First, St. John technically does not condemn this understanding; in fact, he doesn't appear to even think of it. He treats "son of man" as referring to Christ as a man, not as the Messiah. Otherwise, he would not have said:


... He did not receive judgment “because” He was man, (since then what hindered all men from being judges,) ...

After all, "all men" are not the Messiah, but "all men" are definitely men.

But that's really a minor point. The second and primary reason it does not surprise me is that most of these translators were Protestant. It is a fairly common Protestant understanding of church history that the church began falling away from the truth somewhere in the early second century (usually this is kind of held subconsciously, but I do have a Protestant book on church history at home which explicitly labels the period from 100 AD to around 450 AD as "The Decline of the Church", and enumerates all the "unbiblical" beliefs which came in during that time period). So, they wouldn't necessarily give a lot of weight to St. John's writings, since he was writing from within this period.

I know I held this belief for quite some time myself before really becoming conscious of it. Even then, I didn't realize how ridiculous it was until I reformulated it in my mind as: "Men taught personally by the apostles and their disciples, in the same culture that the New Testament was written in, nonetheless began to fall away from the true faith and introduce elements contrary to it, but men studying the Scriptures over one and a half millennia later, in a completely different culture and without benefit of apostolic tutelage or tradition, were somehow able to rediscover and restore the true knowledge of the faith." It sounded pretty silly when I put it that way, and that allowed me to begin considering the idea that maybe Orthodoxy really had preserved the faith of the Apostles.

All this, of course, doesn't explain why Orthodox translators would use that phrasing, but if I had to make a guess, I would say that they accept "Son of man" as being a messianic title, and if they are aware of St. John's commentary they consider it as addressed to a particular way of thinking which is not present today (at least, not in the reading of that verse), rather than as a dogmatic pronouncement on how the verse should be translated. But, that's only my guess (i.e., unsupported speculation).

In Christ,
Mike

[Christophoros]

Just for additional information, here is the footnote found on page 90 in The Explanation of the Gospel of John, further explaining Blessed Theophylact's and St. John Chrysostom's understanding of the verses in question:

The KJV follows the heretical reading of Paul of Samosata: "The Father hath given the Son authority to execute judgment also, because [Greek word] He is the Son of Man. Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming..." Bl. Theophylact follows the reading of St. John Chrysostom: "The Father hath given the Son authority to execute judgment also. That [Greek word] He is the Son of man, marvel not at this; for the hour is coming..." Keep in mind the absence of all punctuation marks in ancient manuscripts - the reader must provide breaks between words according to his interpretation of the text. In addition, the reader must choose between two possible meanings of the Greek conjunction [Greek word]: "that" and "because." In the heretical reading a period is placed after the words "the Son of man," and [Greek word] is interpreted as "because." In the readings of Chrysostom and Theophylact, a period is placed after the words execute judgment also, and [Greek word] is read as "that." According to Paul of Samosata's reading, Christ judges the world because he is the Son of man; according to Theophylact's and Chrysostom's readings, Christ judges the world because He is the Son of God.

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

Thank you for the posts above which explain this teaching of the Lord. It had always been my understanding (though I don't know if it is my own interpretation or something I've read somewhere), that 'He is the Judge because He is also the Son of Man'. In other words, precisely because He assumed our nature and overcame its corruption by His sinless life, death, and resurrection, He can now be the blameless Judge, with Whom there is no guile nor deceit nor hypocrisy, but rather truth, justice and life. Thus, before the Incarnation, God ruled in ways which seemed inexplicable at times and difficult to discern (think certain Old Testament events). But after the Word of God condescended Himself out of Divine Love and became as we are in everything but sin, it then became right and proper for the 'the Father to give the Son authority to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man'. In other words, after the Incarnation, one could not accuse Jesus of being an unfair or unjust Judge because He Himself, as the Son of Man, had felt our pain, our fears, our sufferings, and our death.

In Christ,
Antonios