« ÎnapoiContinuați »
Even if we do not regard the Pastoral Epistles as written by Paul, and confine our attention to them only, we reach the same result. Observe how clearly God, the Father, is distinguished from Christ in 1 Tim. i. 1, 2 ; ii. 3-5 ; v. 21; vi. 13-16 ; 2 Tim. i. 2, 8, 9 ; iv. 1; Tit. I. 1, 3 (comp. for the xar' SATT I Tim. i. 1, Rom. xvi. 26), 4; iii. 4-6. Observe, particularly, that the expression “God our Saviour" is applied solely to the Father, who is distinguished from Christ as our Saviour; God being the primal source of salvation, and Christ the medium of communication, agreeably to the language of Paul, 2 Cor. V. 18, τα δε πάντα εκ του θεού, του καταλλάξαντος us autỢ Ôei. Ipoto; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6. See 1 Tim. i. 1; ii. 3-5; iv. 10; Tit. i. 1-4; iii. 4-6; compare also Jude 25. Such being the marked distinction between ysós and locotós in other passages of these Pastoral Epistles, should we not adopt the construction which recognizes the same here?
An examination of the context will confirm the conclusion at which we have arrived. I have already shown that the title “God our Saviour" in the Pastoral Epistles belongs exclusively to the Father. This is generally admitted ; for example, by Bloomfield, Alford, and Ellicott. Now the connection of ver. 10, in which this expression occurs, with ver. 11 is obviously such, that if Isov denotes the Father in the former it must in the latter. Regarding it then as settled that Jsov in ver. ni denotes the Father (and I am not aware that it has ever been disputed), * is it not harsh to suppose that the 9500 in ver. 13, in the latter part of the sentence, denotes a different subject from the Jeov in ver. 11, at the beginning of the same sentence? It appears especially harsh, when we notice the beautiful correspondence of ene¢ ávelov in ver. 13 with the èreçávy, of ver. 11. This correspondence can hardly have been undesigned. As the first advent of Christ was an appearing or visible manifestation of the grace of God, who sent him, so his second advent will be an appearing of the glory of God, as well as of Christ.
To sum up: the reasons which are urged for giving this verbally ambiguous passage the construction which makes “the great God a designation of Christ, are seen, when examined, to have little or no weight ; on the other hand, the construction adopted in the common English version, and preferred by the American Revisers, is favored, if not required, by the context (comparing ver. 13 with ver. 11); it perfectly suits the references to the second advent in other
* If it should be questioned, all doubt will probably be removed by a comparison of the verse with Tit. iii. 3-7, and 2 Tim. i. 8, 9.
parts of the N. T.; and it is imperatively demanded by a regard to Paul's use of language, unless we arbitrarily assume here a single exception to a usage of which we have more than 500 examples.
I might add, though I would not lay much stress on the fact, that the principal ancient versions, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshitto and Harclean Syriac, the Coptic, and the Arabic, appear to have given the passage the construction which makes God and Christ distinct subjects. The Ethiopic seems to be the only exception. Perhaps, however, the construction in the Latin versions should be regarded as somewhat ambiguous.
Among the modern scholars who have agreed with all the old English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, the Genevan, the Bishops' Bible, the Rhemish, and the Authorized) in preferring this construction, are Erasmus, Calvin, Luther, Grotius, LeClerc, Wetstein, Moldenhawer, Michaelis, Benson, Macknight, Abp. Newcome, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Schott, Bretschneider, Neander (Planting and Training of the Christian Church, Robinson's revised trans., p. 468, note t), De Wette (and so Möller in the 3d ed. of De Wette, 1867), Meyer (on Rom. ix. 5), Fritzsche (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 266 ff.), Grimm, Baumgarten-Crusius (N. T. Gr. ed. Schott, 1839), Krehl, H. F. T. L. Ernesti (Vom Ursprunge der Sünde, p. 235 f.), Schumann (Christus, 1852, ii. 580, note), Messner (Die Lehre der Apostel, 1856, p. 236 f.), Huther, Ewald, Holtzmann (in Bunsen's Bibelwerk, and with more hesitation in his Die Pastoralbriefe, 1880), Beyschlag (Christol. des N. T., 1866, p. 212, note), Rothe (Dogmatik, II. i. (1870), p. 110, note 3), Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Fairbairn, with some hesitation (The Pastoral Epistles, Edin. 1874, pp. 55, 282-285), Davidson, Prof. Lewis Campbell (in the Contemp. Rev. for Aug., 1876), Immer (Theol. d. N. T., 1877, P. 393), W. F. Gess, Christi Person und Werk, Abth. II. (1878), p. 330), in opposition to the view expressed in his earlier work, Die Lehre von der Person Christi (1856), p. 88 f., Reuss (Les Épitres Pauliniennes, Paris, 1878, ii. 345), Farrar (Life and Work of St. Paul, ii. 536, cf. p. 615, note 1); Westcott and Hort, apparently, according to the punctuation of their text, as distinguished from that of their margin; and so the grammarians Winer and T. S. Green (comp. his I'wofold N. T.). In the case of one or two recent writers, as Pfleiderer and Weizsäcker, who have adopted the other construction, there is reason to regard them as influenced by their view of the non-Pauline authorship of the Epistle, disposing them to find in its Christology a doctrine different from that of Paul.
Very many others, as Heydenreich, Flatt, Tholuck (Comm. zum
Brief an die Römer, 5e Ausg., 1856, p. 482), C. F. Schmid (Bibl. Theol. des N. T., 2e Aufl., p. 540), Luthardt, leave the matter undecided. Even Bloomfield, in the Addenda to his last work (Critical Annotations, Additional and Supplementary, on the N. T., Lond. 1860, P. 352), after retracting the version given in his 9th edition of the Greek Testament, candidly says: “I am ready to admit that the mode of interpreting maintained by Huther and Al[ford] completely satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence ; that it is both structurally and contextually quite as probable as the other, and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing."
The view of Lange (Christliche Dogmatik, Heidelb. 1851, ii. 161 f.), Van Hengel (Interp. Ep. Pauli ad Romanos, ii. 358, note), and Schenkel (Das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879, p. 357), that 'lyovv Χριστού is here in apposition to της δόξης, ιhe words which precede (του μεγ. θεού και σωτ. ημών) being referred to the Father, has S0 little to commend it that it may be passed over without discussion.
NOTE A.-(See p. 4.)
On the Omission of the Article before σωτήρος ημών. .
Middleton's rule is as follows:-"When two or more attributives joined by a copulative or copulatives are assumed of (assumed to belong to] the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted; before the remaining ones it is omitted." (Doctrine of the Greek Article, Chap. III. Sect. IV. 82, p. 44, Amer. edition.) If the article is not inserted before the second of the two assumable attributives thus connected, he maintains that both must be understood as describing the same subject.
By attributives he understands adjectives, participles,' and nouns which are " significant of character, relation, or dignity.”
He admits that the rule is not always applicable to plurals (p. 49); and again, where the attributives "are in their nature plainly incompatible.” “We cannot wonder," he says, “if in such instances the principle of the rule has been sacrificed to negligence, or even to studied brevity. ... The second article should in strictness be expressed; but in such cases the writers knew that it might be safely understood.” (pp. 51, 52.)
The principle which covers all the cases coming under Middleton's rule, so far as that rule bears on the present question, is, I believe, simply this: The definite article is inserted before the second attributive when it is felt to be needed to distinguish different subjects, but when
the two terms connected by a copulative are shown by any circumstance to denote distinct subjects, then the article may be omitted, for the excellent reason that it is not needed. *
Middleton's rule, with its exceptions, applies to the English language as well as to the Greek. Webster (Wm.) remarks in his Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament:
In English, the Secretary and Treasurer means one person ; the Secretary and the Treasurer mean two persons. In speaking of horses, the black and white means the piebald, but the black and the white mean two different horses.” (pp. 35, 36.)
But this rule is very often broken when such formal precision of expression is not felt to be necessary. If I should say,.“ I saw the President and Treasurer of the Boston and Albany Railroad yesterday,” no one, probably, would doubt that I spoke of two different persons, or (unless perhaps Mr. G. Washington Moon) would imagine that I was violating the laws of the English language. The fact that the two offices referred to are generally or always such corporations held by different persons would prevent any doubt as to the meaning. Again, the remark that " Mr. A. drove out to-day with his black and white horses ” would be perfectly correct English and perfectly unambiguous if addressed to one who knew that Mr. A. had only four horses, two of them black and the other two white.
Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus “cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple," cuvs Toortuş zal azopakova.. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of towş before àyopásovras; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them.
In the case before us, the omission of the article before owsi, poş seems to me to present no difficulty; not because owsi pos is made sufficiently definite by the addition of 1:4Ò» (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called « our Saviour,” ή δόξα του μεγάλου θεού και σωτήρος ημών, standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the additior, of 'goud Xperson to owsi,pus 7,Wy changes the case entirely, restricting the owsi, posyy to a person or being who, according to Paul's habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ú vysús, so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression zucù ziv záp! Tois issons 1,110v za! zupiou would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be
* See the remarks (by Andrews Norton) in the Appendix to the American edition of Winstanley's Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common Eng. Version of the N. T., p. 45 ff.; or Norton's Statement of Reasons, &c., 2d ed., (1856), pp. 199--202.
required before pupio is two were intended; but the simple addition of Ιησού Χριστού to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.
But the omission of the article before the second of two subjects connected by zai is not without effect. Its absence naturally leads us to conceive of them as united in some common relation, while the repetition of the article would present them to the mind as distinct objects of thought. The difference between the two cases is like the difference between the expressions " the kingdom of Christ and God,” and “the kingdom of Christ and of God" in English. The former expression would denote one kingdom, belonging in some sense to both ; the latter would permit the supposition that two distinct kingdoms were referred to, though it would not require this interpretation. The repetition of the preposition, however, as of the article, brings the subjects separately before the mind. In the present case, the omission of the article before 50.1,po-, conjoining the word closely with jui, may indicate that the glory spoken of belongs in one aspect to God and in another to Christ (comp. Eph. v. 5); or that the glory of God and the glory of Christ are displayed in conjunction (comp. 2 Thess. i. 12, 20tà crv zapey cons 4.0 1/2Ūy zal wpiou 'l. Y.; Luke ix. 26).
There may be still another reason for the omission of the article here before twipos 6,10, or, perhaps I should say, another effect of its absence. It is a recognized principle that the omission of the article before an appellative which designates a person tends to fix the attention on the quality or character or peculiar relation expressed by the appellative, while the insertion of the article tends to throw into the shade the inherent meaning of the term, and to give it the force of a simple proper name. For example, in Heb. i. 2 èy tù vù would simply mean “in (or by) the Son," or " his Son ;” but the omission of the article (ey vio) emphasizes the significance of the term viós, --" by one who is a Son," and in virtue of what that designation expresses is far above all “the prophets." (Comp. T. S. Green, Gram. of the N. T., 2d ed., pp. 47 f., 38 f.) So here the meaning may be, "the appearing of the glory of the great God and a Saviour of us," one who is our Saviour, " Jesus Christ"-essentially equivalent to " of the great God and Jesus Christ as our Saviour;" (comp. Acts xiii. 23); the idea suggested being that the salvation or deliverance of Christians will be consummated at the second advent, when Christ " shall appear, to them that wait for him, unto sal. vation." Comp. Phil. iii, 20, 21, “ For our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, to za σωτήρα απεκδέχομεθα κύριον Ιησούν Χριστόν, who shall change the body of our humiliation," &c.; Rom. viii. 23. 24; xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8, 9; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. i. 5. The position of twipos y before you Ip!otoð, as well as the absence of the article, favors this view; comp. Acts xiii. 23; Phil. iii. 20, and contrast Tit. i. 4.