Translating No-Verb Sentences
Many languages do not require every complete sentence to have a verb, among them Hebrew and Greek, although English is not such a language.1 In the absence of a verb, the tense is usually unimportant or irrelevant. Therefore it is important that italics (or brackets) be used to indicate that a verb in English has been added in the translation.
Grammatically, the tense of the translated English verb may be past, present, or future, or all three (or any combination of two out of the three). Context may rule out some possible translations. Where context does not fix the tense, related scriptures may help. But one must be careful not to allow theology to dictate a desired “translation.”
Paul’s epistle to the Romans (ASV) furnishes examples of no-verb sentences or clauses which should be translated into English with different tenses (where supplied words are indicated by italics):
5:18. “as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation”
8:31. “If God is for us, who is against us?” [or, both could be rendered by a future tense]
2:8. “unto them that are factious … shall be wrath and indignation.”
A particularly good example of multiple no-verb clauses may be found in 1 Timothy 2:1-6, where five verbs are omitted in just four verses, comprising just two sentences:
“I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications … be made for all men … (3) This was/is/will be good and acceptable before God our Savior, (4) who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. (5) For there was/is/will be one God; there was/is/will be also one mediator between God and men, himself having been/being/will be a man Christ Jesus, (6) the one having given himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be borne in its own seasons.”
The exhortation in verse one suggests that the emphasis in verse three is on what the believers should do from now on, although nothing suggests that it should not have been so in the past – hence, was/is/will be.2 Towards simplifying translation, one may use “is,” provided it is understood not to exclude other tenses.
“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God” (Psalm 90:2) suggests for verse 5a that all three tenses are allow- able – hence, was, is and will be. In verse 5b, the theological question comes to the fore as to when Jesus Christ is active as a mediator. While few would desire to exclude all but the past tense, the choice between is and will be (or both) may derive only from one’s theology. In verse 5c, few would desire to specify a future tense. Guidance might be suggested by a present tense back in verse four or by the past participle (technically, Second-Aorist participle) in the succeeding clause.3
In verse 6, while few would think that having been borne would well fit a context of verse four, the plural “seasons” would still leave the question of whether the first season is in the present age or whether both (or all) seasons are yet future. The was/is/will be question may be largely avoided by using to be borne.4
Returning to verse 5c, Jesus Christ at his resurrection became “so much mightier than the angels,” and is now “the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance” (Hebrews 1:4,3),5 that is, Jesus Christ is now of the same nature as God. So if Jesus Christ were himself still a man, then he would at present be a God-man. On the other hand, most would agree that Jesus had been a man when he was here on earth. Therefore, “himself having been a man Christ Jesus” appears preferable.
Here one may suggest a better English translation of these verses (especially 1 Timothy 2:3-6): “I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications … be made for all men … (3) This is good and acceptable before God our Savior, (4) who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. (5) For there was, is and will be one God; also one mediator between God and men, himself having been a man Christ Jesus, (6) the one having given himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be borne in its own seasons.”
The above selections of preferred tenses points to Jesus Christ as supremely qualified to be a mediator between God and man. Jesus now has the nature of God and had previously had the nature of man. Nobody else – not even Adam or Moses – had been on both sides of the fence. Thus was Jesus uniquely qualified to mediate between the two parties, who to this day remain at odds.
– Br. James Parkinson
(1) Today our Hebrew and Greek grammars make no mention of omitted verbs. It occurs very early in scripture, already in Genesis 1:2 and 1:4, “and darkness was upon the face of the deep” [ocean], and “God saw the light that it was good.” These both are the literal in the Hebrew Students Manual, this part by S.P. Tregelles. There is a note in the lexicon section, page 67, on the verb hayah, “I. came to pass … II. was, i.e., existed; never used as the logical copula, is, was …” That is, the use of the Hebrew word commonly translated “is” never is used to mean this is identically that (like an equal sign). The identity, the equality, is what is implied by omitting the verb in an otherwise complete sentence.
(2) Editor’s note – The non-appearance of a verb does not necessarily mean we can pick and choose what tense we wish to use. Perhaps it indicates the matter is true presently, without mitigating against the past or future.
For example, “for one God” evidently is the statement in the Greek translated into English words. If Paul had wished to say “God was, is, and will be,” presumably he could have said that, as for example Revelation 1:4 effectively does say. Presumably the statement by Paul, “for one God,” means there is one God, without limiting that state to only the present.
(3) Actually, the two nearest antecedents are the infinitives in verse four which are translated, “to be saved” and “to come;” in the Greek both are in past (Aorist) tense, being passive and active respectively. So technically, the implied verb in verse 5c is surrounded by explicit verbs in past tenses.
(4) Editor’s note – Paul refers to the fact that in the due time God sent his son who bore witness to the Truth, died for us, and there- after was preached through the disciples to all men. That testimony will continue in a fuller way during the Millennium, but it will not only commence in the future, it will continue in the future in an enhanced way.
For example, in Romans 5:6 Paul says “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” There the “due time” refers to Christ’s ministry and service. That testimony in “due time” we appreciate now and have for 2000 years.
Titus 1:3, also from Paul, says something similar. Presuming 1 Timo- thy and Titus were written about the same time, probably Paul had the same thought in mind. “But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching” – something ongoing in Paul’s day. “The testimony in its own time” in Timothy was thus a present activity at the beginning of the Gospel Age. 1 Peter 1:20 is not much different, but from another writer – “But was manifest in these last times for you.”
As for the “one mediator between God and men,” the then present sense seems appropriate. Romans 5:10 tells us that when we were enemies, we were reconciled. We are not now enemies, but we were. The one standing between as mesites to do this work is our Lord Jesus.
Perhaps one purpose of this article is to explore how “the man Jesus Christ” can be re-expressed since of course Jesus is not now a man. The motive for this is understandable. But inserting verbs with past perfect tenses may not be the answer. If Paul had wished to express it that way he could have – and he did not.
May it be that Paul meant that Jesus interposed between the two parties to heal the breach through his ministry and death, and thus served as a mesites even while he was a man? To render the expression “one mediator between God and men, the [one having been a] man, Christ Jesus,” would remove that dimension of the subject.
Perhaps it is better to explain that the reason Paul referred to the mesites as a “man” is because Jesus as a “man” died to effect a reconciliation between God and men (at least in the words of Romans 5:10).
(5) “Effulgence” means “shining.” “The very image of his substance” might be translated, “the impress of his substance.”