Some have suggested that the Hebrew verb tense used when referring to instances where God is said to be responsible for sickness is permissive rather than causative. They argue that this means God is not directly responsible for the sickness inflicted but is allowing other events and beings to cause the sickness.
It is said that Dr Robert Young, author of Young’s Analytical Concordance and Hints To Bible Interpretation, points out that in the original Hebrew (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew), the verb is in the permissive rather than causative sense. (I have spent some time trying to identify the source of this statement but have been unable to do so. If you know where it comes from please let me know in a comment below.)
According to those who hold this view, Deuteronomy 28:27 should have been translated something like, “The Lord will allow/permit these plagues to be brought upon you…” The original Hebrew of these scriptures was in the permissive tense, but because the English language has no corresponding permissive tense, the verbs were translated in the causative tense (http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/verbtense.html)
The reference made to the Hebrew tenses seems to be incorrect. This can be determined fairly easily through the use of the online Bible tool http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/verbtense.html
It is true that there is an Active and Passive (not really permissive I dont think) tense to the Hebrew verbs. But in all instances I have checked the active form of the verb is used. This is the reason the translators have unanimously translated the verses as ‘he struck’ rather than ‘he allowed to be struck’.
The ‘Causative’ form of the verb has both active and passive tenses. The active form can be rendered “he caused to kill”. The passive form can be rendered “he was caused to kill”. All the references in De 28.22-35 use the active/causative form of the verb. Thus, the translation “God caused to strike you with boils” is essentially the same as the NKJV rendering of “the Lord will strike you”.
But even if we were to eliminate the causative (Hiphil) verses, there are still many verses in both the Simple and the Intensive form that can be used to demonstrate that God directly inflicts sickness upon people.
The following verses use an active verb (he killed / he caused to kill) and so attribute the sickness directly to the action of God.
Exo 9:14 NKJV for at this time I will send all My plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
Deu 24:9 NKJV Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on the way when you came out of Egypt!
2Ch 21:14 NKJV behold, the LORD will strike your people with a serious affliction–your children, your wives, and all your possessions;
2Ch 21:18 NKJV After all this the LORD struck him in his intestines with an incurable disease.
Lev 26:16 NKJV I also will do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
Deu 28:27 NKJV The LORD will strike you with the boils of Egypt, with tumors, with the scab, and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed.
Verb Tense Usage:
|Passive (Niphal, Pual, Hophal)Niphal: He was killed|
Pual: He was killed indeed!
Hophal: he was caused to kill
|Active (Qal, Piel, Hiphil, Reflexive)Qal: he killed|
Piel: he killed indeed!
Hiphil: he caused to kill
|Ex 9.14: “send” – Qal|
Ex 12.23: “to smite” – Qal
Lev 14.34: “and I put” – Qal
2 Ch 21.14: “smite” – Qal
2 Sam 12.15: “struck” – Qal
2 Sam 24.15: “sent” – Qal
Zec 14.12: “will smite” – Qal
Lev 26.16: “I will appoint over you” – Hiphil
Lev 26.25: “I will send” – Piel
De 24.9: “did” unto Miriam – Qal
De 28.1: “will set” – Qal
De 28.7: “shall cause” – Qal
De 28.8 “shall command” – Piel
De 28.9: “shall establish” – Hiphil
De 28.11: “shall make thee plenteous” – Hiphil
De 28.12: “shall open” – Qal
De 28.13: “shall make” – Qal
De 28.20: “shall send on you” curses – Piel
De 28.21: “cleave” – Hiphil
De 28.22: “shall smite” – Hiphil
De 28.27: “will smite” – Hiphil
De 28.28: “shall smite” – Hiphil
De 28.35: “shall smite” – Hiphil
Jer 29.17: “”I will send” – Piel
- Qal (active) – he killed
- Niphal (passive) – he was killed
Intensive – giving force or emphasis; emphasizing
[very in the very same man is an intensive adverb]
- Piel (active) – he killed indeed! / he slaughtered
- Pual (passive) – he was killed indeed! / he was slaughtered
- Hithpael (reflexive) – he killed himself
Causative – expressing causation, as certain verbs
[fell is a causative verb meaning to cause to fall]
- Hiphil (active) – he caused to kill
- Hophal (passive) – he was caused to kill
Pingback:God and Sickness « A Wild Voice
I have recently been looking for the book by Dr. Young which you referred to, and have thus far had little success. However, I have found several significant scholarly sources further supporting the concept of the permissive or occasional case of active Hebrew verbs, including Dr. Young himself.
The general argument presented by these scholars tends to follow this form: The Hebrew language does not have the necessary faculties by which to convey the idea of granting permission or the idea of giving occasion to another party on which to act. Instead, an active verb tense is used, and the reader is meant to understand from context or “known nature of things, or the known character of persons” (i.e., the revealed character of God) that permission or occasion is being implied (Emphasized Bible, p. 919). Rotherham (in his appendix to the Old Testament of his Emphasized Bible) offers several examples, including this one:
“[And] [s]o with regard to hayah, ‘to live’; in piel, ‘to cause to live.’ The historian [presumably Dr. Benjamin Davies] says that the midwives (literally) ’caused the male children to live’ (Exo. i. 17)–plainly, ‘permitted them,’ ‘refrained from putting them to death.'”
Here Rotherham conveys the idea that in some circumstances the subject of the verb should not be understood to be the active agent. In this specific example, it does not make sense to interpret the verb in the causative. The midwives did not have it within their power to “make” or “cause” the children to live. However, their action of ignoring the Pharaoh did provide the occasion for the children to live, so it could be said more accurately that they “permitted” or “suffered” the children to live.
See The Rotherham Emphasized Bible, p. 919 for the full article. Additionally, the footnote on p. 87, referencing Exodus 4:21. The full text of The Emphasized Bible (1902 edition) can be found online:
In this same vein, Thomas Jackson cites three well-regarded scholars in his support of the permissive case: John Howe, Dr. Thomas Pierce and Richard Hooker. See The Providence of God in the Light of the Holy Scripture, beginning at the bottom paragraph of p. 294. The full text (1862 edition) can be found online:
Regardless of the difficulty of obtaining Dr. Young’s Hints to Bible Interpretation, Young’s Analytical Concordance is commonly available and contains in the introductory matter (of the original editions) an article entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation.” Some have proposed that those referencing Hints to Bible Interpretation were in fact referencing this work, while others insist that this introductory article is merely an outline or a distilled version of the elusive larger work. (It should be noted that the article in Young’s Concordance does not contain the specific reference to Deut. 28 which is so commonly found as a “quote” from the larger work.) Whichever may be the case, Young’s “Hints and Helps” does specifically record the respected translator’s position on the permissive case:
“70. (b) Active verbs frequently express a permission of [the action], e.g.–[see text for list of example scripture references]
(d) Active verbs frequently express giving an occasion for [the action], e.g.–[see text for list of example scripture references]
(h) Active verbs frequently express what is done by a deputy, e.g.–Gen. 16.13, &c.”
Note that Young indicates that all three cases are frequent. The entire text of Young’s Concordance can be found online, with the specific page referenced being here:
The active can clearly be seen to indicate both a deputy and the granting of permission in the account of the tenth plague in Exodus 12:23. At first, this verse (in fact, the entire account of the final plague) would seem to suggest that God himself was actively smiting the Egyptians, but it is shown in the second half of the verse that the smiting actually occurred through the agency of “the destroyer” who could only act if God would “permit” it. In further support of this point, Psalm 78:49 indicates that the plagues were carried out by “evil angels”, and Isaiah 54:16 refers to a “waster” whose job is “to destroy.”
Several people have erroneously argued that Dr. Young could not have favored permissive renderings, as his Literal Translation of the Holy Bible offers only causative renderings. It should be noted that all of the sources thus far cited agree that the literal rendering of the original languages is always causative, and that the permissive is always inferred. Since Young set out to offer a literal translation, it should be expected that he would take no license to render the inferred meaning in lieu of the direct translation. Dr. Young himself makes it very clear that he intended to take no such license in the “Preface to the Revised Edition” of his Literal Translation.
As a final note, another scholarly source is cited in a discussion forum in support of active verbs connoting the permissive, but my online searches for the source document were in vain. Hebrew Notes by Bob R. Ellis (a contributing author to the Holman Bible Dictionary) and Harry B. Hunt is said to contain on page 14 some explanation of the permissive and the potential in Hebrew. The reference to this text along with the details of the permissive and potential is found in post 4 at the following link:
While the references and research presented here do seem to contradict some of the points you have made in your article, it should be rather clear at this point that many respected Hebrew scholars, including Dr. Young, were in favor of permissive renderings of active tenses in certain circumstances. Since this does allow for the possibility of rendering each active verb tense in the permissive case (depending on context clues) it is my hope that you are open to reconsidering the rigidity of your stance.
One thing to note is that Hebrew verbs are often so broad that that they simply don’t contain information about God’s mental state or specifically how he is acting. In Genesis 8:1, it says that God “remembered” Noah and dried up the waters. But we know that God didn’t forget about him. Here the verb “remember” refers to acting in accordance with a promise made earlier. It really isn’t telling you anything about God’s mental state – it’s describing God’s actions. English speakers think that they can read into Hebrew verbs meanings finer than what they actually have.
No offense to anyone commenting or disrespect for the translators mentioned, however to assume a permissive tense when YHWH himself didn’t create one in the original language He chose to give the bible in is to do as many denominations do when reading into the scriptures. Begin with an assumption as to the nature of YHWH and interpret scripture based on that assumption. I know it is hard to imagine a loving God doing things like flooding a whole world and killing possibly a billion people because it grieved Him that He made them. Or ordering the annihilation of seven whole nations when the Israelites entered the promised land. Or in the N.T. when Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead for lying to the Holy Spirit. Or the Angel of the Lord that struck Herod for taking glory from Elohim. But that doesn’t change God. He is still the same. It is man’s faulty assumption of what good and evil are and the idea that God would never do anything we would deem evil. This is the error of “you thought I was altogether like you”. No it is apparent from Genesis to Revelation, that YHWH is a God of judgement and mercy,, and His judgement has many times included sickness, disease, plagues and pestilence. While there is mercy for those He will have mercy on, there is judgement to those He will not and it says in Romans that He is the one who hardens and He is the one who has mercy on whomever He chooses. I was never of this belief while I was a health and wealth preacher. However I started reading the Tanach and the words of Yahshua and discovered my error. I was interpreting the bible by a preconceived notion of what God has to be like to fit my doctrine. After learning the fear of YHWH as we are commanded to do I also learned to form my doctrine by the plain interpretation of the scriptures. Yahshua told us to fear Him who after he has destroyed the body can cast the soul into hell. This coming from the representative of the Godhead in bodily form. Even in the letters of Paul which are so misinterpreted we now have a do nothing greasy grace message of mental assent instead of a sell all and follow me message that Yahshua preached, we see a man turned over to Satan for the destruction of the fless so that in the end his spirit might(subjunctive verb tense) be saved. Two others were turned over to Satan to learn not to blaspheme. And in Rev 2:23 Yahshua will be killing with death the children of Jezebel(Future Active Indicative(fact) first person singular). Now that is pretty plain that Yashua is doing the killing for their sinfulness. So my suggestion is that we read it like it is and not assume to change the tense. There are many ways Elohim could have written the sentences to make them permissive if He had wanted to protect His reputation as a “Good” God. That being said. I believe He is Good, and loving and merciful and He wants His children healthy with every need met but at the same time Joseph spent years in slavery as did Daniel, Hannaniah, Azariah and Mishael, Esther was taken from her home to be tried out by the king, Paul and others went to jail and all of the early Apostles except John were martyred. And the church in other countries of the world is being persecuted and many are put to death and suffer lack as we speak. So lets let God be God and interpret the bible by the bible and not by our favorite guru or commentator. Or study help. I am in the process of learning Hebrew and Greek. I hope to go to Israel in 2016 to study the Hebrew language and the Tanach with real Hebrews. I have found that for the most part the american people are so gentilized and think from a greek mindset instead of Hebrew. Remember God is a God of the Hebrews and Yahshua is still the Lion of the tribe of Judah, making Him a Jew. The New covenant is a covenant with Israel and the gentiles are grafted in. The writers of the NT were all Jews and that is the reason it is said the NT is terrible greek sentence for but very good Hebrew. It was either written in Hebrew or it was written in Greek with good Hebrew sentence structure. To try to understand the NT without a very good knowledge of the customs, language and Elohim of the Hebrews is almost a futile effort which will actually leave a person with a false image of YHWH. I hope this helps. I am no scholar but the study of the scriptures has been my life work for the last 27yrs. I hope some day to really know something about them. Till then I will endeavor, by the grace of Elohim to give my life to “comtinuing in His Word” that I may be a true disciple. May YHWH bless you as you give yourselves totally to Him and His will.
To A.C.D, that is a masterpiece you put together; given your clear points and references, not much more can really be added.
By the way, God did not “create” the Hebrew language any more than you can create a new language with a group of people or even create sign languages with loved ones, and yet, God can choose to use those media of communication to still communicate with you or with any people for that matter.
To Victor (and agrogers): I can actually add one more useful bit of information that I happened across since writing that comment.
The claim that Dr. Young authored a book titled “Hints to Bible Interpretation” seems to have originated with Kenneth Hagin in his book “Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, Death.” (p. 15 of the first edition… I don’t own the current revised edition, so I can’t cite that). I believe the evidence is strong that this is the first occurrence of the claim, and that Dr. Young never wrote such a book, but Kenneth Hagin was making a second-hand reference to “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation” (the article from the front-matter of Young’s Analytical Concordance).
Reading Hagin’s book “Redeemed, etc.” one will see a prominent story involving Dr. John Alexander Dowie and the healing of a young girl afflicted with the bubonic plague (beginning on p. 20 of the first edition). According to Hagin, this story is “from the pen of Dr. Dowie…” This same story can be read in “The Sermons of John Alexander Dowie: Champion of the Faith” compiled by Gordon Lindsay. It begins on page 23:
When you compare the two accounts, it becomes clear that Hagin was referring to this story, and given the affiliation between Kenneth Hagin and Gordon Lindsay during the Voice of Healing movement, it is likely that Hagin sourced the story from Lindsay’s compilation of Dowie’s sermons. This is important, because on page 50 of that same compilation, Dr. Dowie speaks in detail about about the causative and permissive in the Hebrew, making reference to Dr. Young’s “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation.”
According to information I have heard from Billye Brim (I cannot provide a source, as I heard it on a television show several years ago), most of Kenneth Hagin’s books are edited transcriptions of his sermons (she herself worked for Hagin and transcribed some of them). Given this information, it seems very probable that 1) Kenneth Hagin sourced his information on the causative and permissive from John Alexander Dowie, specifically from Gordon Lindsay’s compilation of his sermons, 2) that Hagin misspoke while preaching and gave the wrong name for Dr. Young’s work, 3) that his error was transcribed verbatim without checking source material, and 4) that students of Hagin read his book “Redeemed, etc.” and propagated the error.
It can be seen that others who refer to “Hints to Bible Interpretation” are quoting from Hagin’s book by making a direct comparison. For example, compare the text of Hagin’s book (pp. 15-16) to the following article found on Creflo Dollar’s website (specifically section B):
I hope that bit of history was not too boring. John Alexander Dowie was a near-contemporary of Robert Young, so his reference to Young’s work in support of the permissive is likely one of the earliest.
(Please don’t allow this information to detract from my previous points, though. Dr. Young did in fact support the permissive reading of causative verbs, and he is neither the only scholar to do so nor the first.)
Nor boring at all. Good research and nice to put that title to bed.
You are 100% wrong in your assumption. The book “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation” does exist and is currently in the library at Rhema Bible Training College.
Looks like A.C.D. and I came to many of the same conclusions in our research on this. See a blog I wrote on this last month.
Furthermore, there is a “permission idiom” in the Ancient Near East culture where the Hebrew culture adopted their language and ways. This is acknowledged by numerous scholars both past and present. Some of this information is recorded in my book, “What God is Said to Do He Only Permits”
I am continuing to find more and more evidence of this truth about the “permissive sense” of the Word. Hagin was right. BTW, if that book is actually real and is not part of Young’s concordance then it would be nice if the folks at Rhema made this more public. Keeping it in their exclusive library helps no one but Rhema Bible students, none of who I have seen citing it.
Is there no literal way of saying in Hebrew “The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten…”?
Or “The Lord shall allow thee to be smitten…”?
The guys who have commented above have much more knowledge on this topic than I so maybe they can reply. It has always seemed strange to me that across all the translations of the Bible almost all translators translate the same way – the wrong way if what has been said in the comments is true. Could the true intent of these passages be misunderstood by so many language experts? Or do they all realise it means something different but choose to translate it in a way that conveys the wrong message to their audience. Those two options seem unlikely to me.
As I began to answer Mr. Udofa’s question I saw that the answer was becoming long so I decided to write a blog to address the answer. You can read it here:
So I know nothing at all concerning this subject but I do know God is love and am told what love is in the new testament one of which is do unto others as you’d have them do to you. So would God (if it were possible) want anyone to make Him sick, I think not. Also the bible tells us that in times past God spoke to us through the prophets BUT now has spoken to us through His son. We are also taught that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, He Himself also said if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father. There is nothing recorded in the new testament that shows Jesus ever made anyone sick, He healed ALL who came to Him. We are also taught that it is satan who bound, oppressed, steals, destroys, Kills, but Jesus (Gods exact representative) who came to destroy satans work. We know from the new testament that God tempts no man with evil and every good and perfect gift comes down from the father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. If Jesus is my reference point as to the character and nature of God, I dont see God using sickness to judge or punish anyone, Jesus (again Gods exact representative and mouth piece) said when being accused of casting out demons by beelzebub, “a kingdom divided against itself will not stand” So it seems to me if God made people sick when He wanted and Healed when He wanted how then could His kingdom stand. I think many claiming to be wise have become fools on this subject. My last statement is this the old testament was the law of sin and death you were rewarded for your right or wrong living and yet God was still merciful time and time again. The new testament is the law of truth and grace which came by Jesus Christ. We are under a much more glorious beneficial covenant one that will never pass away, why then do we still get tripped up with stories like Job etc seems like people always want to make a trip back to Egypt, I dont get it.
Comments are closed.