« ÎnapoiContinuați »
The points which I would make, then, are, that the insertion of the article before owti, pos was not needed here to show that the word designates a subject distinct from του μεγάλου θεού; and that its absence serves to bring out the thoughts that, in the event referred to, the glory of God and that of Christ are displayed together, and that Christ then appears as Saviour, in the sense that the salvation of Christians, including what St. Paul calls “ the redemption of the body," is then made complete. These are conceptions which accord with the view which the Apostle has elsewhere presented of the second advent.
But as many English writers still assume that the construction of Tit. ii. 13 and similar passages has been settled by Bishop Middleton, I will quote in conclusion a few sentences, by way of caution, from one of the highest authorities on the grammar of the Greek Testament, Alexander Buttmann. He says :
“ It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N. T., to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, the inquiry when with several substantives connected by conjunctions the article is repeated, and when it is not. ... From this fact alone it follows, that in view of the subjective and arbitrary treatment of the article on the part of individual writers (cf. § 124, 2) it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw important inferences affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature, from the single circumstance of the use or omission of the article ; see e. g. Tit. ii. 13 ; Jude 4; 2 Pet. i. I and the expositors of these passages." (Gram. of the V. T. Greek, 2 125, 14; p. 97, Thayer's trans.)
NOTE B. (See p. 5.)
The use of earçávela and kindred terms with reference to God.
It has already been observed that the expression used in Tit. ii. 13 is not επιφάνειας του μεγάλου θεού, but επιφάνειας της δόξης του μεγάλων 0:0ų, and that the reference of the title “the great God” to the Father accords perfectly with the representation elsewhere in the N. T., that the glory of God, the Father, as well as of Christ, will be displayed at the second advent. This reference, therefore, presents no difficulty. But the weakness of the argument against it may be still further illustrated by the use of the term êriçávela and kindred expressions in Josephus and other Jewish writings. It will be seen that any extraordinary manifestation of divine power, whether exerted directly, or through an intermediate agent, is spoken of as an êr!Çdveld of God.
1. For example, the parting of the waters of the Red Sea is described as “the appearing" or manifestation of God.” Morais de ópwy 27, Elçuy con Devj %. ... Joseph. Ant. ii. 16. 22.
2. Speaking of the journey through the wilderness, Josephus says: “The cloud was present, and standing over the tabernacle, signified the appearing of God," TAIçávelay too 0:00. (Ant. iii. 14. & 4.)
3. Josephus uses both = cap gia co) 0:00, and i ==!ẹá»£?a [com 0:00], in reference to a miraculous shower of rain; Ant. xviii. 8 (al. 10). 86. So a violent thunderstorm which deterred the army of Xerxes from attacking Delphi is described by Diodorus Siculus as ή των θεών επιφάvala (Bibl. Hist. xi. 14). Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. II (al. 14). & 7, where ý chlçavela tuù 0eoj is used in a similar way. Observe also how in Herod's speech (Ant. xv. 5 (al. 6). & 3) angels are spoken of as bring. ing God εις εμφάνειαν to men.
4. In reference to the miraculous guidance of Abraham's servant when sent to procure Rebecca as a wise for Isaac, the marriage is said to have been brought about órò Ostaş iriçavelas, where we might say, " by a divine interposition." (Joseph. Ant. i. 16. & 3.)
5. After giving an account of the deliverance of Elisha from the troops sent by Ben-Hadad to arrest him, which were struck with blindness, Josephus says that the king “marvelled at the strange event, and the appearing (or manifestation) and power of the God of the Israelites (τήν του Θεού των Ισραηλιτών επιφάνειας και δύναμιν), and at the prophet with whom the Deity was so evidently present for help.” (Ant. ix. 4. & 4.) Elijah had prayed that God would " manifest thavira:) his power and presence," rapuuria. (Ibid. & 3.)
6. In Josephus, Ant. v. 8. % 2, 3, the appearance of an angel sent by God is described as a sight of God," ¿tis oçews toù Osvi, tùy 0zu aurois pa0 val.
7. In 2 Macc. iii. 24, in reference to the horse with the terrible rider, and the angels that scourged Heliodorus, we read, TÒ Furépwy [al. πνευμάτων] κύριος και πάσης εξουσίας δυνάστης επιφάνειας μεγάλης εποίησεν, and in ver. 30, του παντοκράτορος επιφανέντος κυρίου, “the Almighty Lord having appeared," and farther on, ver. 34, Heliodorus is spoken of as having been "scourged by him," úz' avtoð, i.e. the Lord, according to the common text, retained by Grimm and Keil. But here for 'z' quzu Fritzsche reads ovpavod, which looks like a gloss (comp. ii. 21, τας εξ ουρανού γενομένας επιφανείας).
8. The sending of a good angel is described as an freçuvela toð 02011, 2 Macc. xv. 27, comp. ver. 22, 23.
Observe also that in 2 Macc. xv. 34 and 3 Macc. v. 35 tun freçarī ziplov or 0:6v does not mean "the glorious Lord (or God)" as it has often been misunderstood, but riçan's designates God as one who manifests his power in the deliverance of his people, a present help in time of need, "the interposing God” (Bissell). Compare the note of Valesius (Valois) on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 6. & 2.
9. See also 2 Μacc. xii. 22, εκ της του πάντα εφορώντος επιφανείας 7:vojlérou čx' avtous; comp. 2 Macc, xi. 8, 10, 13.
10. “They made application to him who ... always helpeth his portion [his people) pet' ¿niçaveias," 2 Macc. xiv. 15.
II. In 3 Macc. v. 8, we are told that the Jews “besought the Almighty Lord to rescue them from imminent death μετά μεγαλομερούς EREÇavelas," and again, ver. 51, "to take pity on them metà èniqavelas." The answer to the prayer is represented as made by the intervention of angels, vi, 18. In ch. i. 9. God is spoken of as having glorified Jerusalem εν επιφανεία μεγαλοπρεπεί.
12. In the Additions to Esther, Text B, vii. 6 (Fritzsche, Libr. Apoc. V. 1. p. 71), the sun and light in Mordecai's dream are said to represent the çava 0800, " appearing" (or manifestation) " of God” in the deliverance of the Jews.
13. In the so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, c. 12, & I, we read : " Let us therefore wait hourly (or betimes, Lightf.) for the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, because we know not the day of the appearing of God, της επιφανείας του θεού.” The tuÙ Osvű, employed thus absolutely, must, I think, refer to the Father, according to the writer's use of language. This consideration does not seem to me invalidated by c. 1, § 1, or by the use of įreçávela in reference to Christ, c. 17 ; but others may think differently.
THE USE of the term èreçávela in the later Greek classical writers corresponds with its use as illustrated above. Casaubon has a learned note on the word in his Exercit, ad Annales Eccles. Baronianas II. xi. Ann. I. Num. 36 (p. 185, Lond. 1614), in which he says: “Graeci scriptores •REÇdvclav appellant apparitionem numinis quoquo tandem modo deus aliquis suae praesentiae signum dedisse crederetur." (Comp. his note on Athenæus, xii. 11. al. 60.) Wesseling in his note on Diodorus Siculus i. 25 repeats this, and adds other illustrations from Diodorus, viz. iii. 62; iv. 82 [v. 62 ?]; xi. 14; and xiv. 69 (a striking example). See also the story of the Vestal virgin in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. ii. 68 (cf. 69), and of Servius Tullius, ibid. iv. 2. Other examples are given by Elsner, Obss. Sacr. on 2 Pet. i. 16, and by the writers to whom he refers. But it is not worth while to pursue this part of the subject further here. One who wishes to do so will find much interesting matter in the notes of the very learned Ezechiel Spanheim on Callimachus, Hymn. in Apoll. 13, and in Pallad. 101, and in his Dissertationes de Præstantia et Usu Numismatum antiquorum, ed. nova, vol. i. (Lond. 1706), Diss. vii. P. 425 sqq.
I WILL only add in conclusion: If Paul could speak of the first advent of Christ as an êregávela of the grace of God (see ère Çawn Tit. ii. 11; iii. 4), can we, in view of all that has been said, regard it as in the least degree strange or unnatural that he should speak of his second advent as an éreçávela of the glory of God?
NOTE C. (See p. 7.)
On the expression, toū usydaou Oso.
There is no other passage in the N. T. in which this expression occurs, the reading of the “received text” in Rev. xix. 17 having very slender support. But the epithet “great" is so often applied to God in the Old Testament and later Jewish writings, and is so appropriate in connection with the display of the divine power and glory in the event referred to, that it is very wonderful that the use of the word here should be regarded as an argument for the reference of the 0:ús to Christ on the ground that “God the Father did not need the exalting and laudatory epithet péyas," as Usteri says (Paulin. Lehrbegriff, 5 te Aufl., p. 326. It might be enough to answer, with Fritzsche, " At ego putaveram, Deum quum sit magnus, jure etiam magnum appellari" (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 268). But the following references will show how naturally Paul might apply this designation to the Father: Deut. viii. 21 (Sept. and Heb.); x. 17. 2 Chr. ii. 5 (4). Neh. i. 5; vii. 6; ix. 32. Ps. lxxvii. 13; lxxxvi. 10. Jer. xxxii. 18,19. Dan. ii. 45; ix. 4. Psalt. Sal. ii. 33. 3 Macc. vii. 2. Comp. ó péyiotos 0£65, 3 Macc. i. 16; iii. 11; v. 25; vii. 22; "the great Lord,” Ecclus. xxxix. 6; xlvi. 5. 2 Macc. v. 20; xii. 15. So very often in the Sibylline Oracles; I have noted 31 examples in the Third Book alone, the principal part of which was the production of a Jewish writer in the second century before Christ.
Though all will agree that God, the Father, does not "need” exalting epithets, such epithets are applied to him freely by the Apostle Paul and other writers of the N. T. For example, he is called by Paul " the incorruptible God," “the living God,” “the eternal God," “ the only wise God," "the only God,” “the invisible God," "the living and true God," "the blessed God;" and since there is no other place in which the apostle has unequivocally designated Christ as 0:ús, much less 0£65 with a high epithet, it certainly seems most natural to suppose that ó péyas 0:05 here designates the Father. Professor Wace in the “Speaker's Commentary") appeals to 1 John v. 20, where he assumes that Christ is designated as the true God." But he must be aware that this depends on the reference of the pronoun oţtos, and that many of the best expositors refer this to the leading subject of the preceding sentence, namely, tùy à 7,0vóv; so e. g. Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Lücke, De Wette, Meyer, Neander, Huther, Düsterdieck, Gerlach, Brückner, Ewald, Holtzmann, Braune, Haupt, Rothe, C. F. Schmid, Reuss, Alford, and Sinclair (in Ellicott's N. T. Comm.); and so the grammarians Alt, Winer, Wilke, Buttmann, aud Schirlitz; comp. also John xvii. 3. So doubtful a passage, and that not in the writings of Paul but John, can hardly serve to render it probable that Paul has here applied the Cesignation péya: 0:uş to Christ rather than to God, the Father.
In regard to the question whether the permission to separate, in this verse, leaves the believer who has been deserted by the husband or wife free to marry again : Meyer says, yes ; because Paul's permission in this case is based on the fact, necessary to his interpretation of the Lord's command, that that command applies only to cases in which both parties are believers, i. e., that it is a Christian, not a general law. DeWette makes the same answer, though on the entirely different ground that the case contemplated here, like the one treated as an exception to his prohibition of divorce by our Lord, is one in which the marriage tie is actually broken. But, as regards Meyer's position, it seems scarcely tenable that our Lord's command is to be treated as merely Christian, and not general law. For his argument in Mt. 19 is based on the original relations of man and woman, established at creation and inherent in their structure, and must therefore be universal in its application, not limited to Christians. It is true that in Mt. 5, Christ is laying down the law of his kingdom, but that law is based on universal human relations and obligations, and is applicable in all its parts to man as such. And in Mt. 19. Christ is discussing what is lawful under the Jewish dispensation, but on the same general grounds. As to De Wette's position, that both in our Lord's treatment of the matter and in Paul's, the exception to the law is reducible to an actual dissolution of the marriage tie, which leaves the party divorced free, our Lord, instead of leaving it so that the two cases can be classed together in this way, himself draws the line between them, and declares that, where there is divorce without adultery, he who marries the divorced party commits adultery. Our Lord does not consider divorce an actual, but only a formal dissolution of the marriage tie.