Page images

If the doctrine had been maintained by St. Paul, as it was by Justin, one would think that, in answering the objections of the Jews, it would have been as necessary for the Apostle, as for Justin, to explain and defend it. The sentiments of the Jews concerning it, which undoubtedly would have been as strong in the time of St. Paul as they were a century later, appear from the words which Justin ascribes to Trypho: "You undertake to prove an incredible and almost impossible thing, that a god submitted to be born and to become a man."* "As for what you say, that this Christ existed as a god before time was, and afterwards becoming a man, submitted to be born, and that he was born out of the common course of nature, it seems to me not only paradoxical, but foolish." "All we [Jews]," says Trypho in another place, "expect that the Messiah will be a man born of human parents." The whole argument of St. Paul in opposition to the prejudices of the unbelieving Jews must have been incomplete and unsatisfactory, if he asserted this "incredible and almost impossible" doctrine in the clause of a sentence without attempting any vindication of its truth.

The passage has, I believe, no bearing whatever upon the doctrine which it has been adduced to prove. The fact is well known, that the present pointing of the New Testament is of no authority;

* Dial. cum Tryph., p. 283, ed. Thirlb. [c. 68. p. 292, D. ed. Morel.] † Ibid., p. 233. [al. c. 48. p. 267, B.]

Ibid., p. 235. [al. c. 49. p. 268, A.]

the more ancient manuscripts having been unpointed; and the points which we now find having been introduced by later transcribers and by editors. Let any one, then, turn to the passage in his Greek Testament, and put a dot at the top of the line (equivalent to a semicolon) after oάρка instead of a comma, as at present, and a comma after Távτwv, and he will perceive that the following meaning immediately results: "He who was over all was God blessed for ever."

"He who was over all," that is, over all which has just been mentioned by the Apostle. The rapidity of expression in the original, however, does not fully appear in such a rendering; because in our language we are obliged to supply the ellipsis of the substantive verb. It may be imitated, however, by employing the participle instead of the verb. Doing this, I will give what seems to me a more correct translation of the passage, and of its context, than that in the Common Version:

"My brothers, my natural kinsmen; who are Israelites, whose was the glory of being adopted as sons, whose were the covenants, and the Law, and the service of the temple, and the promises; whose were the fathers, and from among whom the Messiah was to be born; he who was over all being God blessed for ever. Amen."

This conclusion, as every one must perceive, is in the highest degree proper and natural. Among the privileges and distinctions of the Jews, it could not be forgotten by the Apostle, that God had pre

sided over all their concerns in a particular manner. With regard to the ellipsis of the substantive verb, which we have supposed, nothing is more common. In the five verses, including the verse we are considering, between the 3d and 9th, it occurs at least six times.*

* The following texts, to which many others might be added, afford examples of a similar ambiguity of construction in the writings of St. Paul from the omission of the substantive verb: Romans viii. 33, 34; x. 12; 1 Cor. i. 26; 2 Cor. iii. 14 (μǹ ávaкaλuπTÓμενον for ἔστι γὰρ μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον); 2 Cor. v. 5 ; Ephes. iv. 4 (comp. 5); Coloss. ii. 17.

[Considering the importance which has been attached to this passage, and the different explanations which have been given of it by distinguished scholars, a few additional remarks will perhaps be pardoned.

The past privileges of the Jews being referred to by the Apostle, Mr. Norton has used the past tense in supplying the ellipsis of the substantive verb. So Conybeare and Howson, in their recent work on St. Paul, with Locke, Taylor, Wakefield, our countryman Charles Thomson, Semler, Stolz, and other translators and commentators. The past tense of the verb should similarly be supplied in 1 Cor. xv. 47, 48, though the authors of the Common Version have improperly used the present. As the present participle denotes present time not absolutely, but relatively to the time of the leading verb of the sentence, or to the time, whatever it may be, which the writer has in mind, there can of course be no objection, if this view of the ellipsis is correct, to rendering ó ŵv ènì ñávтшv "he who was over all." (See John xii. 17, and Winer, Gram. des neutest. Sprachidioms, § 46. 6.) It has, indeed, been contended by some critics, as Noesselt and Flatt, that ó v must refer to Xplorós as the antecedent, and be rendered "who is"; as if the article ó with v or any other participle could not form the subject of an independent proposition. It can hardly be necessary to refer to such passages as John iii. 31, vi. 46, viii. 47, Rom. viii. 5, 8, etc., to prove a fact which belongs to the elements of Greek grammar.

In the first part of the fifth verse, Mr. Norton has translated έ wv ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, “ from among whom the Messiah was to be

The passage was at an early period applied to Christ, particularly by the Latin Fathers. With the notions, however, of the earlier Christians, respecting the inferiority of the Son to the Father, the passage, when thus constructed, presented a difficulty as well as an argument. Hippolytus,*

born." The verbal rendering is, " from whom [was] the Messiah as to the flesh." It has been urged by many Trinitarians that the phrase "as to the flesh," which they would render "as to his human nature," implies that Christ possessed also a higher nature, namely, the divine; and that it is necessary to understand the last part of the verse as referring to him, to complete the antithesis. Let us examine these points. In the third verse of this chapter Paul speaks of his "kinsmen as to the flesh." Did Paul or his countrymen have also a divine nature? In 1 Cor. x. 18 we find the words, "Behold Israel as to the flesh"; or, to translate more freely, "Look at those who are Israelites by natural descent"; that is, in distinction from Christians, the spiritual Israel, the true people of God. See also Galatians iv. 23, 29, and compare the eighth verse of the present chapter. The phrase κarà σáρka is a common one in the Epistles of St. Paul in reference to natural descent, or to other outward circumstances and relations, in distinction from what is spiritual. It certainly suggests an antithesis; but it does not follow that the antithesis must be expressed, as is manifest from the first two passages quoted above. It was not to the Apostle's purpose, in this enumeration of the peculiar distinctions of the Jews, to supply the antithesis. It was only "as to the flesh" that Christ belonged peculiarly to the Jews. This view is confirmed by a passage in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, cited by Yates in his "Vindication of Unitarianism." Ἐξ αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευῒται πάντες οἱ λειτουργοῦντες τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα• ἐξ αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡγούμενοι, κατὰ τὸν Ἰούδαν. "For from him [Jacob] were all the priests and Levites who served at the altar of God; from him was the Lord Jesus as to the flesh ; from him were kings and rulers and leaders, in the line of Judah."" (Cap. 32. Patr. Apost. Opp. ed. Hefele, p. 98, ed. tert.) If Clement,

* Contra Noëtum, § 6. Opp. I. 237.

or some writer under that name, explains it in reference to the declaration of Christ rendered in the Common Version, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father"; conceiving the dominion over all things not to have been essentially inherent in Christ as properly the Supreme God, but

in a passage so similar to the present, did not think it necessary to express the antithesis implied in тò кarà σápкa, St. Paul may not have thought it necessary here,

In another place, however, the Apostle has supplied the antithesis suggested by the words in question; but there, instead of describing Christ as "God over all, blessed for ever," he clearly distinguishes him from God. See the beginning of this Epistle, where he speaks of himself as 66 set apart to preach the gospel of God," "the gospel concerning his Son, who was of the race of David by natural descent [verbally, as to the flesh], but clearly shown to be the Son of God, as to his holy spirit, by his resurrection from the dead." (I quote from the unpublished translation of Mr. Norton.) Though this passage has also been brought to prove the Son of God to be God himself, it does not appear to call for any remark, except perhaps this: that if any doctrine is unequivocally taught by St. Paul, it is, that the divine power displayed in the resurrection of Christ from the dead was not his own, but the power of God, the Father. See Acts xiii. 30-37; xvii. 31; Rom. iv. 24; vi. 4; viii. 11; x. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 14; xv. 15; 2 Cor. iv. 14; xiii. 4; Galat. i. 1; Ephes. i. 19, 20; Coloss. ii. 12; 1 Thess. i. 10.

But to return to our text. Among the examples of the ellipsis of the substantive verb referred to in Mr. Norton's note, we find one in which the construction is strikingly similar to that here supposed, as will be seen on placing the passages in juxtaposition: —

Romans ix. 5. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, εὐλογητός, κ. τ. λ.

2 Cor. v. 5. ὁ δὲ κατεργασάμενος ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο Θεός. To this may be added,

2 Cor. i. 21. ὁ δὲ βεβαιῶν ἡμᾶς ..... καὶ χρίσας ἡμᾶς Θεός· and Heb. iii. 4. ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκεύασας Θεός.

The construction of the passage thus illustrated, though apparently first suggested by Mr. Norton, not only seems to be liable to no well

« EelmineJätka »