As a new edition of the above-mentioned translation of the New Testament has recently appeared, reprinted by the Standard Publishing Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, I deem it my duty to warn God's children against it. Judging from his translation, I can readily believe what I have been told, that the translator, Joseph Bryant Rotherham, was an annihilationist. For example, he invariably renders the Greek word aionios "age-abiding," instead of "eternal" or "everlasting," as it is always translated by J. N. Darby, and F. W. Grant, the Authorized and Revised Versions, etc. In the Appendix, under the caption of age-abiding, Rotherham says:
"Upon the 'aionion correction' (Matt. 25:46) no arbitrary limit can be laid-unless indeed the essential nature of correction' implies it-aionios of itself utterly refuses to settle the dread question. If the equally 'aionion life' is to be endless, that is best made out from the mighty negatives of Scripture ('immortal,' 'incorruptible,' 'unfading;' 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Pet. 1:4), and from the correlative promise, ' Because I live ye also shall live' (John 14:19; Heb. 7:16)."
This note of itself is sufficient to show to the discerning, how he stands on this question of eternal punishment. The word aionion, used by our Lord, he says, "utterly refuses to settle the dread question." But why ? Does he not know, as has been shown over and over again, that the very same word is used to describe the being of God, His Spirit, His power, His Kingship (Messiah), His dwelling place, etc. (See Rom. 16:26; Heb. 9:14; Rom. i:20; i Tim. 1:17; Luke 16:9; 2 Cor. 5:1.) In a letter to G, V. Wigram, Mr. J. N. Darby characterizes Annihilationists and others thus:"If eternal does means what we all take it to mean, their system is a cruel and wicked deception of the enemy."
And why does the translator use the word " correction " instead of " punishment " in Matt. 25 :46, if he really believes in eternal punishment? In a recently published pamphlet, "The Ethics of Eternal Punishment," we read the following:"This punishment is not remedial in its design; it is not synonymous with that which is in its nature corrective. This, as has been said, looks man-ward; but the punishment of sin, on the other hand, is purely penal-it looks God-ward, and contains no remedial element."
Punishment has been defined as " executed penalty." Webster says:"Punishment is designed to uphold law by the infliction of penalty, while chastisement is intended by kind correction to prevent there petition of faults, and to reclaim the offender,"Another has said:"All chastisements are remedial inflictions; but punishment is judicial retribution. Prisons are intended to serve the double purpose of punishing the violator of the law, and correction in view of his reform. Hence they are sometimes called penitentiaries.'But in the case of a man serving a life-sentence the imprisonment is not for the purpose of his correction at all, but as a punishment in vindication of the violated law."Rotherham knew well the meaning of English words; so it is easily understood why he gave the preference to "correction" instead of "punishment."
And to evade the force of the fact that the "life" is of equal duration with the "punishment," he says," If the equally ' aionion life is to be endless, that is best made out from the mighty negatives of Scripture."But can not the endless duration of the punishment be made out also from the "mighty negatives of Scripture "-if such were necessary ? " Hath never forgiveness;" " they have no rest day nor night; " "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;" "shall not see life," etc. So his "mighty negatives" serve but to refute his argument.
Another evidence of this translator's bias towards, if not full belief in, annihilation, is in his punctuation of Luke 23:43, "Verily I say to thee today:With me shalt thou be in Paradise;" and only in a foot-note does he give an alternative reading:"or:This day with me shalt thou be," etc. Rotherham's punctuation is always given by Seventh-Day Adventists, and all who like them deny the immortality of the soul and eternal punishment.
Like all of his kind, Rotherham gives "who" for "God" in i Tim. 3:16. This is a test text to indicate on which side of the line the translator's sympathies are as to the question of our Lord's eternal deity.
I would not have noted these not altogether "sunken rocks" in this translation if it were not for the fact that in one of our assemblies Rotherham's translation is constantly used in the meetings by a brother, to the almost total exclusion of the Authorized, who recommends it highly to others. And finding a new copy of this translation in a brother's house, I fear its circulation may increase among us, especially as it is now published in this country; I therefore sound this note of warning. Some may call it "knocking," but when danger is discerned, the watchman must sound the trumpet. We have not to please men, but God, and are set to watch for souls "as those that must give account."
C. Knapp.