DEAR BRO. PENDLETON:--I have just arisen from the reading of your article in the Sept. No. of the Harbinger on Jno. iii. 8. I am greatly rejoiced, my dear Bro., that now the subject is fairly before the Christian public, and especially before our own brethren, and hope it may receive the most thorough investigation, and call in the most profound thought.

      For more than a score of years I have steadily contended for this rendering. Have spoken much and written some on the subject. But having mathematically against me 385 to 1, I felt constrained to say but little through our journals on the subject; being assured all the while, however, that " win and not spirit," is the true rendering of the Savior's meaning in this much-mooted passage. On my first reading the "Living Oracles,"--Campbell, McKnight and Doddridge's translation, with A. Campbell's emendations--I thought the rendering of pneuma "spirit," in this place, the greatest defect in what I yet think the best English version of the New Testament I have ever seen. And on the appearance of Lard's Review of J. B. Jeter, I determined to set the matter at rest in my own mind. I made the same induction of the use of the word in the Septuagint as Bro. Anderson, with the same results. Your course of investigation I fully endorse.--Sense, and not uniformity. Sense indeed need not be opposed to uniformity, but it must never bow to it, while it is true that sense and not sound is to be the rule.

      But while, my dear brother, I deem your criticism on the word unanswerable, I do not think your theology at all invulnerable. I therefore call your attention in this fraternal way to some of the points in which we do not agree. I think your first mistake is in supposing a comparison to be drawn by the Savior between the process of the Spirit in his work and that of the wind in its operation. And because Nicodemus could not understand the latter, to forbid enquiries in the operations of the former.

      You will see by an analysis of the passage that there is absolutely no comparison of process at all, but of objects. The comparison is not between the wind and the Spirit in any sense, but is in the understanding of two persons of the operations of these two agents. That is, Nicodemus--a man not begotten (I translate "genea" begotten here)--and a man begotten of the Spirit. [35] The one knows as much as the other about the origin and termination, or whence and whither, of the wind. "Thou hearest the sound" of the wind; so does the man begotten of the Spirit.--"Thou canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth"; neither can the man that is begotten of the Spirit. The comparison, then, I understand, is not between the wind and Spirit as agents, nor yet between the processes by which the agents manifest themselves, but between the capacity of two persons to understand the processes of nature; and the whence and whither of the wind is taken as all example. That this is the truth in the matter, will be apparent from the use of a few grammatical parallels: So is every book made; So is every book that is made.--So is every house built; So is every house that is built. So is every one born of the Spirit; So is every one that is born of the Spirit.

      These are very different sentences, and convey very different significations. The former of the parallels, in each case, notes a comparison of process; the latter of objects of the process. Nicodemus is one of these objects of comparison. He is not born again. A man born again is the other object. Their knowledge of the whence and whither of the wind, the point of comparison, expressed by the phrase--"canst not tell." This phrase "canst not tell," is the cause of the seeming obscurity of this whole passage. But in the translation of this passage, this law of uniformity has done its work of mystifying. I admit it may be a literal rendering of the original, and for that very reason obscure. And especially so when used in a highly wrought metaphor. If "canst not tell" be a true predicate of a man, it must be for one of two reasons. First: Either the man is ignorant of the thing, and therefore "canst not tell" may be predicated of him; or second, He may be deficient in words or language to convey his knowledge to others. "Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things?" precludes the conclusion that the latter of these difficulties was in the way of this Senator of Israel. The only remaining reason therefore is the former. The whole 8th verse would then read, as I translate it, thus: "The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear the sound of it, but you are ignorant of whence it comes and whither it goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit." I paraphrase as follows: You misconceive me. The change I am speaking about is not a physical change, but a [36] moral, a spiritual change. The subject of it has no new faculties added, no old ones taken away. As a Teacher in Israel, you ought to have known this. My first and standing objection to the popular view, and in some respects to your view, if I understand you, is the fact that you make the Savior reprove Nicodemus for not knowing (as a master in Israel) what was unknowable.

      DEAR BRO. BURNS:--You see, I have taken the liberty to publish your letter, accepting the discretion which you gave me in a P. S. to consult my own judgment about it. I am not sure that I fully understand your interpretation. You say "the comparison is not of processes but of objects, . . . . that it is between the capacity of two persons to understand the processes of nature, and the whence and the whither of the wind is taken as an example." If you mean to say, that the object of the passage is to compare the relative capacity of Nicodemus--a man unbegotten of the Spirit--with that of a man begotten of the Spirit, and to affirm of them that they are both alike ignorant of the whence and whither of the wind--that the latter has no additional faculties by which he can understand the processes of nature better than the former can, then we do not agree. A statement like this might be all true enough, but it could have no relevancy to the difficulty in the mind of Nicodemus. This difficulty was as to the 'how' of the process of regeneration. But to tell Nicodemus that a regenerated man could not understand the mystery of the wind any better than he himself could, would be to change the subject altogether, rather than to illustrate it. There had been no question raised about the relative capacity of a man begotten, and a man unbegotten, to understand a natural mystery--and why should the Savior introduce it? This appears so plain, that, though your language seems to justify my construction of it, I am constrained to think, that writing in haste, you have not clearly expressed yourself, and that I do not understand you aright.

      This appears to me the more probable, since you say in another place, "The comparison is not between the wind and spirit in any sense, but is in the understanding of two persons of the operations of these two agents." Do you mean by this to say, the meaning is that as you Nicodemus--unbegotten--are ignorant [37] of the operations of the wind (one agent); so the man, begotten, is equally ignorant of the operations of the Spirit (the other agent)? If so, then the comparison is, after all, of processes, since it is of the relative knowledge of two persons as to the operations or processes of two different agents--the wind and the Spirit. If this be your interpretation, then again--we do not agree. The statement, that the man begotten--is as ignorant of the operations of the Spirit in his regeneration as the man--unbegotten--is of the operations of the wind in nature, appears to me to have no logical connection with the subject under consideration, which is the difficulty of Nicodemus as to the process of regeneration. It would have been quite foreign to the subject, to have said, "you do not understand the whence and the whither of the wind,--and so the regenerated man does not understand the operations of the Spirit." Admit this to have been all true, yet I cannot see its relevancy to the subject. It would have been a remark by the way, and rather a perplexing diversion, than a persuasive illustration. Nicodemus had raised no question about the understanding of the regenerated, but he had expressed his astonishment at the mystery of the process. How can it be? this is his trouble. But I fear I do not clearly understand your interpretation and will say no more. If I have misconceived you, then please consider all I have said as against men of straw out of my own imagination, and let them stand or fall, before my arrows, as they may be able.

      With respect to my own position you say, "You (I) make the Savior reprove Nicodemus for not knowing (as a master in Israel) what was unknowable." In this you mistake me. What I intended to say was this. That the Savior intended to teach Nicodemus, that he should not marvel, and refuse to believe, because, there was to him an inscrutable mystery in the process of regeneration--since there was a mystery equally inscrutable in the whence and the whither of the wind--about which he did not marvel. If you marvel not at one, why should you marvel at the other? In both processes there is an ultimate origin and tendency that lie beyond the sphere of the knowable--as of the wind so of the Spirit. The one you accept, why stumble at the other? Marvel not, but believe.----Fraternally yours,

W. K. P.      

[The Millennial Harbinger 41 (January 1870): 35-38.]

      A. Burns' "'Wind or Spirit--Which?'" and W. K. Pendleton's Reply were first published in The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 1870. The electronic version of the letters has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. W. K. Pendleton (Bethany, WV: W. K. Pendleton, 1870), pp. 35-38.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 36:     paraphease [ paraphrase
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
stefanik@westol.com

Created 13 February 1999.