"Commendeth" Is Not a False Friend in the KJV

Mark Ward claims the word commendeth is a “false friend” he has “rediscovered for the twenty-first century.” Yes. Those are his exact words, and lest we think Ward is being facetious with that claim, he immediately follows it with “I’m not exaggerating.” I’m not entirely sure what Ward thinks he has rediscovered, but his video on this word is one of the worst examples of scholarship I’ve ever seen.

Ward begins his video with an age-old tactic that has been used by liars and manipulators for millennia: he assures us that his view just has to be true. Ward didn’t do any research to determine the definition of the word commendeth within the context of Romans 5:8. He simply read the passage and concluded that “this word commend here just kind of has to mean ‘demonstrates’ or ‘shows.’” Ward never offers any explanation for why commend has to mean “demonstrates” or “shows” in this passage. He just makes the assertion and expects his viewers to agree with him.
 
When I studied this word a few years ago, I did not come to the conclusion that it means “to demonstrate” or “to show.” I did an etymological study of both the English word in the KJV and the Greek word from which it was translated, and I found that it means “to stand with.” This is the literal definition of the Greek word, and commend expresses the same idea in English. Commend in English literally means “to place in one’s hands.” It’s an idiomatic expression that comes from the Latin intensive prefix com and the verb mandare which means “to put in one’s hands.” Both the Greek and the English convey the ideas of trust, dependability, solidity, unity, and loyalty. As I pointed out in my previous article, the words “demonstrate” and “show” fail to capture the depth of meaning inherent to the Greek word that the KJV translates as commendeth.
 
After merely asserting that commend “just kind of has to mean ‘demonstrates’ or ‘shows,’” Ward proceeds to address another possible definition for this word. Ward claims that our modern definition of commend is “to praise in a kind of formal way,” and he points out that this definition was used in the KJV in Luke 16:8 where we read about a lord commending or praising an unjust steward. Ward then asserts (again without any evidence) that this meaning “just doesn’t work” in Romans 5:8. What Ward fails to mention is that the Greek word translated “commended” in Luke 16:8 is a completely different word than the one used in Romans 5:8. These two uses of the word commend take different meanings because they are translations of two very different and unrelated Greek words.
 
The Greek Definition
 
The Greek word translated as “commendeth” in Romans 5:8 is the word συνίστημι (sunistēmi). This word has two parts: the prefix συν (sun) which means “with” and the root word ἵστημι (histēmi) which means “to stand.” When these two parts are put together, they form the word συνίστημι which means “to stand with.” The KJV even translates συνίστημι with this literal definition in Luke 9:32 where we read, “But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.” This is the essential definition of συνίστημι, and all of the other definitions should be understood as variations of this primary definition.
 
Ward never mentions this definition in his video because he is diametrically opposed to the idea that we should derive a word’s meaning from a study of its various parts. Ward follows the current fad of referring to this method of determining a word’s meaning as “the etymological fallacy,” and he takes the opposite view that “usage determines meaning.” When it comes to defining words, Ward believes that “if enough people say it, it’s right. It’s the new standard,” and he describes etymology as “ineffectual,” “irrelevant,” and “misleading.” This aversion to etymology explains why Ward skipped over an important part of the definition of the word συνίστημι.
 
Take look at this screenshot from Ward’s video and notice the area that I’ve circled.

What we can’t quite see on Ward’s screen is this sentence from the BDAG entry for συνίστημι:
 
The basic semantic component refers to coherence or being in a state of close relationship.
 
This sentence is a summation of the etymological history of συνίστημι that I provided above. Since συνίστημι is formed from a root word that means “to stand” and a prefix that means “with,” all of the possible definitions of this term should be interpreted in light of its etymological structure. The BDAG entry for συνίστημι says that its basic sense has to do with coherence or a state of close relationship because the word literally means “to stand with.” Coherence means “the act of sticking one thing to another,” and the close relationship mentioned here refers to physical or logical proximity rather than to emotional or genetic closeness. Every use of συνίστημι should be understood in light of this primary definition.
 
Consider for example Romans 16:1, “I commend (συνίστημι) unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.” We could interpret the word συνίστημι here as a simple introduction as if Paul wrote this merely to introduce Phebe to the Romans, but when we view it in light of the etymology of συνίστημι, we get a different understanding. Paul wasn’t just introducing Phebe to the Romans. He was saying, “I want you to know that I stand with Phebe.” He was placing his reputation alongside hers. That’s also what we mean in English when we use the word commend in this kind of context.
 
We can see this again in II Corinthians 10:18 where we read, “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.” What Paul is saying here is that those who rely on their own commendation (i.e., they stand with themselves and rely on their own reputations) are not approved by God, but those who are commended by the Lord (i.e., the Lord stands with them and places His reputation alongside them) are the ones who have God’s approval.
 
Another demonstration can be seen in II Corinthians 12:11. There Paul writes, “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” Paul told the Corinthian believers that they should have stood with him. He spent the previous chapter presenting evidence that he was a great apostle. Paul presented all this evidence because the Corinthians had abandoned him and followed false teachers. He criticized the Corinthians by saying that he shouldn’t have had to write about his apostleship because they should have defended him themselves, they should have stood with him, they should have commended him.
 
When we come to the definition that the BDAG lexicon gives for συνίστημι in Romans 5:8, we should continue to interpret this definition in light of the foundational etymology of συνίστημι. The verse says, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” BDAG lists this use of συνίστημι under the meaning “to provide evidence of a personal characteristic or claim through action.”
 
Before we consider how this definition applies to Romans 5:8, let’s take a look at some of the other uses the BDAG lists under this same definition. The first entry doesn’t come from the New Testament. It’s from the Histories of Polybius. The sentence referenced is translated by Shuckburgh as: “And, to sum up all, he argued (συνίστανε) that such a move would secure them great popularity with the Aetolians generally.” And Paton translates it as: “Finally he dwelt on (συνίστανε) the popularity they themselves would gain in Aetolia.” Given what we know about the etymology of συνίστημι, we can see that the congruence of these differing translations is that Dorimachus, the man making the statement, stood by the claim that they would gain favor with the Aetolians by taking his proposed course of action.
 
The next example of this definition in the BDAG comes from Romans 3:5 where we read, “But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man).” Here, the word συνίστημι, is once again translated as “commend,” and if we keep in mind the etymology of the word and the BDAG’s instruction to view it as describing a close relationship, we can see that this verse is speaking of the logical relationship between our unrighteousness and God’s righteousness.
 
In this chapter of Romans, Paul was responding to the idea that the end justifies the means. In verse seven, he used the example of telling a lie in order to advance the cause of the truth. If a lie works in tandem with the cause of truth, does that make the lie good? Most philosophers and even many Christian theologians say that it’s acceptable to tell a lie if that lie produces a good result. For example, many Christians believe that lying about a box of Bibles is a good thing if that lie allows a missionary to smuggle Bibles into a country that is closed to the Gospel. That lie is deemed acceptable because of its close relationship to the advancement of the truth. They argue that the lie is good because it stands with and is on the side of the truth. This is the type of reasoning that Paul condemned in Romans 3:5-6 when he answered “God forbid” to the claim that lying is okay “if our unrighteousness [lying] commend [stands with] the righteousness of God.”
 
The next example from the BDAG is II Corinthians 6:4 which reads, “But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses.” The word approving is translated from a form of συνίστημι, and once again, it retains the basic etymological sense of the word. This chapter begins with Paul speaking of his team as “workers together” pleading in unison with the Corinthian believers. In verse four, Paul continues to speak of his missionary team standing together in unison. The phrase approving ourselves essentially means “standing with each other in support,” and it is followed by a long list of the trials that Paul’s team endured together as they ministered. In verse fourteen, Paul contrasts the unity of his team with the disunion found among the Corinthians who were attempting to accomplish God’s work by uniting with unbelievers. This use of συνίστημι fits the pattern found in all the other uses we’ve looked at. They are all just variations on the theme of standing with something or someone.
 
When we consider Romans 5:8 in this light, the meaning of the verse becomes obvious. God stood with His love toward us so much that He even died for us while we were still sinners. Paul contrasted this statement with his observation in verse seven that men aren’t likely to die for even the best of their fellows. The implication is that men are reluctant to sacrifice their lives for other men even if the other man is worthy of such an act of love, but Jesus was different. He didn’t just stand by His promise of love by dying for those worthy of His sacrifice; He stood by his commitment of love even when it meant dying for people who were as far from being worthy as they could possibly be. He said that He loved us, and He stood by that statement at the cost of His own life. In other words, συνίστημι means the same thing in Romans 5:8 that it means in all the other uses we’ve examined. It means “to stand with,” and it speaks of God’s dependability, of His loyalty to His love for us no matter the cost.
 
Ward attempted to apply the third definition from BDAG to Romans 5:8 by reading it as “I love you through action, through the cross. Through Jesus dying for evil people who were yet sinners, God was demonstrating or showing or bringing out His love.” This interpretation may sound good at first, but it doesn’t fit with the context of the passage. The whole chapter is about God’s dependability, His commitment to stand with us no matter what. This is why we can “rejoice in hope” (vs. 2). Our experience of God’s dependability is why our tribulations produce more hope (vs. 3-4). God’s presence with us through the Holy Ghost assures us of His love (vs. 5). And His commitment to abide by the demands of love makes our salvation a certainty (vs. 10). The passage isn’t focused on the extent of God’s love. It’s focused on God’s dependability. We can depend on Him to stand by His love for us no matter what because He died for us when we were still His enemies.
 
This view of Romans 5:8 is further supported by the fact that the Greek pronoun translated “His” is a reflexive pronoun. The verse could have been translated to say, “God commendeth the love of Himself toward us,” or “God commendeth His own love toward us.” The use of the reflexive pronoun indicates that the action of the verb is focused on the subject of the sentence. The focus of the verse is not on us. God didn’t stand with love because of us. Neither is the focus on the act of love. God didn’t stand with us because of love. The focus is on God. God stood with Himself who had said that He loves us. He loved us even when we sinned against Him because He cannot act against Himself.
 
The English Definition
 
Now that we’ve established that the Greek word συνίστημι means “to stand with,” let’s move on to consider the English word commendeth as it is used in this verse. Ward claims in his video that when he looked up this word in “the authoritative and expensive and lengthy and exhaustive and all-time-covering Oxford English Dictionary,” he found “two senses of the word commend that would work.” Ward lists sense 2 and sense 4a as being equally plausible definitions for the context of Romans 5:8. Sense 2 is still used quite often today, but sense 4a has become obsolete which means, of course, that Ward views sense 4a as the one more likely to have been intended by the KJV translators.
 
Here are the two senses that Ward claims are contenders for the meaning in this verse:
 

Regarding sense 4a, Ward says:

I want to believe that the King James translators meant this because it is so perfect. When God put Christ on the cross ... He was setting His love to advantage with added grace or luster. He was adding grace and luster. He was adorning or gracing His love. He was doing what a jeweler does when he puts a diamond on a black velvet cushion in his display window. He was setting His love against the dark backdrop of our sin when He displayed that love through Christ’s death.
 
That certainly sounds like a grand and fitting description of the love of God, but there’s just one tiny problem. Ward completely misunderstood the definition in sense 4a. Take a moment to consider the examples the OED provides for this sense of the word commend.

The first example comes from Coverdale’s translation of Proverbs 15:2. The Latin phrase in brackets translates to “adorns knowledge,” which is why the editors listed this verse under the sense of commend that includes “to adorn.” The wise tongue is an ornament to knowledge. It is an embellishment of knowledge. Knowledge sounds even better when it comes from a wise tongue. The focus of this translation is on knowledge. Knowledge is the principal thing held up before our view, and the wise tongue is just an ornament that makes knowledge stand out more.
 
The second example is drawn from a play by John Lyly. The term constancie (or constancy) in this example refers to a woman’s faithfulness. Lyly’s character Issyda had given her heart to Thirsus, but another suitor was pleading for her affection. Issyda’s answer included the rhetorical question, “What is there in this vile earth that more commendeth a woman then constancie?” The claim here is that constancy or faithfulness is the best ornament a woman can display. Faithfulness raises a woman above her peers more than any other characteristic. Issyda later continued the same thought by adding that “a fair woman without constancy is not unlike unto a green tree without fruit.” In this illustration, the woman is a tree, and her faithfulness is fruit that hangs from her boughs. Faithfulness is an ornament that increases the beauty and value of a woman.
 
The OED’s third quotation under this sense is taken from an obscure poem by Richard Robinson. The poem bears the loquacious title of “Verses penned upon the etymology of the name of the right worshipful Lady: The Lady Julian Holcraft, of the Vale Royal,” and the first stanza is,
 
The golden trump, that Fame doth sound,
Proclaims to every ear:
Where virtue is, for to be found,
By works it doth appear:
As gold commends the precious stone,
So worship shows herself alone:
As Phoebus doth exceed a star,
So gentleness doth show:
How can Dame Fortune mount more harre,
Then place her darlings so.
 
The quotation in the OED is extracted from the phrase, “As gold commends the precious stone, So worship shows herself alone,” which implies that worship is its own commendation. Nothing can be added to it to make it more appealing the way that a golden setting draws attention to the beauty of a gem. The gold in this couplet is a mere accessory that is added to the precious stone to frame it and make it stand out in greater detail.
 
I don’t have access to the full text from which the fourth example is extracted, but its meaning is simple enough to determine. “The light of the candle doth not dazzle, but rather commend the light of the sun.” This simply means that the feeble light of the candle, however bright it may seem in the darkness, serves only to remind us of the vastly superior light of the sun. The candle doesn’t take the place of the sun. The candle’s flickering illumination gives us a greater appreciation for the steady, dependable light of the sun.
 
The final example comes from John Milton’s Areopagitica. Milton wrote this pamphlet to defend the freedom of speech against the Licensing Order of 1643. As part of his argument, Milton used an illustration about the need to mar and cut the raw materials in order to construct the temple in Jerusalem. He wrote,
 
There must be many schisms and many dissections made in the quarry and in the timber, ere the house of God can be built. And when every stone is laid artfully together, it cannot be united into a continuity, it can but be contiguous in this world; neither can every peece of the building be of one form; nay rather the perfection consists in this, that out of many moderat varieties and brotherly dissimilitudes that are not vastly disproportionall arises the goodly and the gracefull symmetry that commends the whole pile and structure.
 
The “whole pile and structure” that Milton mentioned here was the actual temple building itself, and the symmetry produced by allowing limited variety in the cuts and materials highlighted the structural design of the temple to increase its appeal. Milton could have said the same thing about any stone building. The multifaceted texture of cut stone contributes an extra depth of dimension to the architectural structure that cannot be achieved with a smooth and polished surface. Cutting the stone into multiple blocks enhanced the look of the temple more than carving the entire structure out of a single stone.
 
There’s a common thread that runs through all of these examples. The item being enhanced is greater than the thing providing the enhancement. Knowledge itself is greater than the wise tongue that shares it. A woman is greater than the faithfulness that sets her apart from others. A diamond is greater than its gold setting. The sun is greater than the candle that comforts us in its absence. The temple is greater than the symmetry of its materials. The word commend carries this sense when the presence of a lesser item commends or enhances the value of a greater item.
 
Can this motif be found in Romans 5:8? Does this verse speak of the presence of a lesser item increasing the value of a greater item? It says that “God commendeth His love toward us.” Does that mean that God is the lesser contributor and that love is the greater recipient? Definitely not. Love is not greater than God, and God’s presence is not presented here as some sort of accessory that enhances the value of love. No, God Himself is the greater of the two, and His love for us increases our appreciation of Him, not the other way around. Sense 4a in the OED entry for commend does not fit the use of that term in Romans 5:8.
 
Ward often refers to himself as a philologist, i.e. someone who studies literature, but a real philologist would never have suggested that Romans 5:8 uses commend in this sense. An actual philologist would have immediately recognized the literary motif shared by the examples given in the OED, and if by chance he had not seen that theme at first, he would have relished the opportunity to study the literature and find the thread that binds these examples to each other. Ward did neither. He latched onto sense 4a solely because it seemed to support his pre-formed conclusion.
 
If sense 4a does not fit with the use of commend in Romans 5:8, then which sense is the correct one? The answer is a combination of sense 1 and sense 2. Sense 1 is the basic sense of commend which is applied in different ways in all of the other senses. Commend essentially means “to give in trust.” This sense is derived directly from its Latin components which literally mean “to place in one’s hands.”
 
This primary sense can be applied in a way that falls under the second sense in the OED entry “to present as worthy of favorable acceptance.” Commend does not lose its primary sense when used this way. The second sense is essentially a subset of the first. The item being presented as worthy of favor is the recipient of the act of commendation. The one doing the presenting is placing his reputation into the trust of the person or thing being presented.
 
For example, when a soldier receives a commendation, his superior officers are placing their reputations in the hands of that soldier. They are declaring that they stand by what they have said about him. When you recommend a particular product to your friends, you are not just showing them a product option, you are telling them that you stand by that product. You are placing your reputation in the care of the recommended item, and you trust that it will live up to your commendation.
 
The use of commend in Romans 5:8 is in line with this second sense. When we read that God commended His love for us, we should read it as God staking his reputation on His love or as God promising to stand by His love. God placed His reputation into the hands of His love for us, and His love was up to the task. When His love for us was challenged by our sin, God continued to stand by it even to the point of sending His Son to the cross in our place. That is what commendeth means in this verse. Paul wasn’t presenting God as an accessory that enhances the value of love. He was praising God for being faithful to His Word and standing by His promise of love in spite of the cost.
 
Mark Ward’s Duplicity
 
The thing that stood out to me the most about Ward’s video on this word was not just the fact that he got the wrong definition. It was the fact that he knew he had the wrong definition all along. Toward the end of the video, Ward made this statement about the KJV translators:
 
I think the King James translators took advantage of the fact that this word συνίστημι can be translated ‘commend’ elsewhere, and they used a somewhat more obscure sense of that word commend that maybe makes Paul say something a touch more eloquent than he actually intended. Συνίστημι seems to me to be a more general word than this very specific sense of, you know, adding grace or luster. So, in one sense, the King James translators added a little meaning that Paul didn’t put there.
 
Talk about a Judas kiss! In the same breath, Ward praises the KJV translators for using an eloquent sense of the word commend even while he simultaneously accuses them of adding to the Word of God (James 3:10). God warns us that “the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov 27:6), and He cautions us against the man who covers up hatred with kind words.
 
He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; when he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart. Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation. Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him. A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin. (Prov. 26:24-28)
 
Ward has known all along that the sense for commend listed as 4a in the OED does not fit the Greek of Romans 5:8. He knows that sense 2 is a much better fit. He only chose to say that the KJV translators used sense 4a so that he could use flattering words to accuse the translators of violating God’s prohibition against adding to His Word (Prov 30:6). If Ward is still reading these articles, I would caution him to remember that “the Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things” (Psalm 12:3). And I caution those who follow Ward to remember that “he that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool” (Prov 10:18). Our enemies don’t always attack us directly from without. Sometimes they join us in the house of God (Psalm 55:14) and stab us in the back with words that are smoother than butter and softer than oil (Psalm 55:21).

Click here to read about more words that are not "false friends" in the KJV.