« ÎnapoiContinuați »
power in man. But St. Paul “purposed in the spirit" (20:20 ! -Ù πνεύματι).
). The conscience might be assigned to the spirit, but it includes a sentiment as well as a judgment; and, besides, the soul as the person, the ego,—as it is admitted to be, —must be the subject of the whole consciousness.
The spirit, as we have seen, may be used for the person also; but when the Divine Spirit is said to “witness with our spirits that we are the Sons of God,” it does not appear that the sense is anywise different from what it would be if the apostle had said “with our minds, “our hearts," or “our souls." For the same apostle says that “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” (not into our spirits); and the Spirit thus imparted begets, or becomes, in us“ the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father.”
The general conclusion, therefore, is, that:
(1) The words soul and spirit are generally employed in the Scriptures in an indiscriminate way, each as denoting the whole mind or inner man.
(2) In some few cases spirit may be used to denote especially the higher faculties or functions of the mind or soul, but even then not in direct contrast with the soul itself.
(3) In son other cases spirit is used for what does not at all belong to man in his natural state; but, for a certain temper, disposition and direction of the heart, imparted by the Divine Spirit in the life of Christ, by virtue of which Christians are called spiritual (or pneumatical) men.
But (4) there is no ground in the Scripture use of the words soul and spirit to furnish the foundation for the trichotomistic doctrine of a sharp and radical distinction between the two, as co-ordinate parts of man's nature, -much less as distinct substances in his constitution.
NOTE.—In the second Scripture quotation, p. 74, from Isa, lvii. 16, the original word for “souls” is igen?
On the Construction of Romans ix. 5.
BY PROF. EZRA ABBOT, D. D., LL. D., CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
We shall understand better the passage to be discussed if we consider its relation to what precedes and follows, and the circumstances under which it was written.
In the first eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans the Apostle has set forth the need and the value of the gospel, as “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” In view of the present blessings and the glorious hopes of the Christian believer he closes this part of the Epistle with an exultant song of triumph.
But the doctrine of Paul was in direct opposition to the strongest prejudices of the Jews, and their most cherished expectations. It placed them on a level as to the conditions of salvation with the despised and hated Gentiles. The true Messiah, the king of Israel, the spiritual king of men, had come; but the rulers of their nation had crucified the Lord of glory, and the great mass of the people had rejected him. They had thus placed themselves in direct opposition to God; they had become ανάθεμα από του χριστο), outcasts from the Messiah and his kingdom. Christians, a large majority of them Gentiles by birth, were now the true Israel. No rite of circumcision, no observance of the Jewish Law was required, as the condition of acceptance with God, and the enjoyment of the Messianic blessings; no sacrifice but self-sacrifice: the only condition was faith, as Paul uses the term,-a practical belief and trust in Christ, and thus in God revealed in his paternal character; a faith that carried with it the affections and will, πίστις δι' αγάπης ενεργουμένη.
How could these things be? How was this gospel of Paul to be reconciled with the promises of God to the “holy nation”? how with his justice, wisdom, and goodness? Had God cast off his people, “ Israel his servant, Jacob his chosen, the seed of Abraham his friend"? These are the great questions which the Apostle answers in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of this Epistle. The first five verses are to be regarded as a conciliatory introduction to his treatment of this subject, on which he had so much to say that was not only hard for the unbelieving Jews, but for Jewish Christians, to understand and accept.
The unbelieving Jews regarded the Apostle as an apostate from the true religion, and as an enemy of their race. Five times already he had received from them forty stripes save one; he had been “in perils from his own countrymen” at Damascus, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium and Lystra, at Thessalonica, Beræa, and Corinth, —often in peril of his life. By a great part of the believing Jews he was regarded with distrust and aversion. (See Acts xxi. 20, 21.) His doctrines were indeed revolutionary. Though he was about to go to Jerusalem to carry a liberal contribution from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to the poor Christians in that city, he expresses in this Epistle great anxiety about the reception he should meet with anxiety sully justified by the result), and begs the prayers of the brethren at Rome in his behalf. (Rom. xv. 30-32.) As the Jews hated Paul, they naturally believed that he hated them.
These circumstances explain the exceedingly strong asseveration of his affection for his countrymen, and of his deep sorrow for their estrangement from God, with which this introduction begins. So far from being an enemy of his people, he could make any sacrifice to win them to Christ. They were his brethren, his kinsmen as to the flesh; he gloried in sharing with them the proud name of Israelite; he delights to enumerate the magnificent privileges by which God had distinguished them from all other nations,—“the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, the covenants, the temple-service, and the promises"; theirs were the fathers, and from among them, as the crowning distinction of all, the Messiah was born, the supreme gist of God's love and mercy not to the Jews alone, but to all mankind. All God's dealings with his chosen people were designed to prepare the way, and had prepared the way, for this grand consummation. How natural that when, in his rapid recital of their historic glories, the Apostle reaches this highest distinction of the Jews and greatest blessing of God's mercy to men he should express his overflowing gratitude to God as the Ruler over All; that he should "thank God for his unspeakable gift"! I believe that he has done so; and that the fifth verse of the passage we are considering should be translated, -“whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Mes
siah as to the flesh: he who is over all, God, be blessed for ever. Amen.," or, “he who is God over all be blessed for ever. Amen." The doxology springs from the same feeling and the same view of the gracious providence of God which prompted the fuller outburst at the end of the eleventh chapter, where, on completing the treatment of the subject which he here introduces, the Apostle exclaims, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and untraceable his ways ! For from Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things : to Him be (or is) the glory for ever. Amen."
I believe that there are no objections to this construction of the passage which do not betray their weakness when critically examined; and that the objections against most of the other constructions which have been proposed are fatal.
The passage is remarkable for the different ways in which it has been and may be punctuated, and for the consequent variety of con. structions which have been given it. The Greek is as follows:
––και εξ ών ο χριστος το κατά σάρκα και ών επί πάντων θεός ευλογητός εις τους αιωνας. 'Αμήν.
It grammatically admits of being punctuated and construed in at least seven different ways.
1. Placing a comma after oupza, and also after 0eus, we may translate the last clause:—"who (or he who) is God over all, blessed for ever,"
2. Putting the second comma aster nóvtwy instead of 0£65:-"who (or he who) is over all, God blessed for ever."
3. With a comma after Távtwy and also after Ošús:—“who (or he who is over all, God, blessed for ever." So Morus, Gess (Christi Person und Werk, II. i. 207 f., Basel, 1878).
4. Placing a comma after ó ñy, and also aster 0€6-:-“He who is, God over all, blessed for ever."--See Wordsworth's note, which however is not consistent throughout; and observe the mistranslation at the end of his quotation from Athanasius (Orat. cont. Arianos, i. $ 24, p. 338).*
5. Placing a comma after oupra, and a colon after rávtwy, the last part of the verse may be rendered:—"and from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh, who (or he who) is over all: God be blessed for ever. Amen."
*Perhaps I ought to add here as a curiosity a construction proposed in the Record newspaper, in an article copied in Christian opinion and Revisionist for March 11, 1882, p. 222. The writer would translate: "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God. Blessed be He for ever! Amen."
6. Placing a colon after supza, Deb: may be taken as predicate, thus:-"he who is over all is God, blessed for ever"; so Professor B. H. Kennedy, D. D., Canon of Ely; or thus:-"he who was over all being (literally, was) God, blessed for ever." So Andrews Norton.
7. With a colon after σάρκα, ο ών επί πάντων θεός may be taken as the subject, and cùhorntós as predicate, with the ellipsis of sin, or ČOT!), making the last part of the verse a doxology, thus:—"he who is over all, God, be blessed (or is to be praised) for ever"; or, “he who is God over all be blessed (or is to be praised) for ever"; or, “God, who is over all, be blessed (or is to be praised) for ever.”
I pass over other varieties of translation and interpretation, depending on the question whether távtwy is to be taken as masculine or neuter, and on the wider or narrower application of the word in either case.
In Nos. 1-4 inclusive, it will be seen that the ó üy with all that follows, including the designation 0:65, is referred to ó Zp!OTÓs; in Nos. 6 and 7, á óv introduces an independent sentence, and 0565 denotes God, the Father. No.
5 refers the first part of the sentence in debate to ó zplotós, the last part to God.
The question of chief interest is whether in this passage the Apostle has called Christ God. Among those who hold that he has done so, the great majority adopt one or the other of the constructions numbered 1 and 2; and it is to these, and especially to No. 2, followed both in King James's version and the Revised Version (text), that I shall give special attention. Among those who refer the last part of the sentence to God and not Christ, the great majority of scholars. adopt either No. 5 or No. 7. I have already expressed my preference for the latter construction, and it is generally preferred by those who find here a doxology to God.
I. We will first consider the objections that have been urged against the construction which makes the last part of the sentence, beginning with ó óv, introduce a doxology to God. I shall then state the arguments which seem to me to favor this construction, and at the same time to render the constructions numbered i to 4 each and all untenable. Other views of the passage will be briefly noticed. Some remarks will be added on the history of its interpretation, though no full account of this will be attempted.
1. It is objected that a doxology here is wholly out of place; that the Apostle is overwhelmed with grief at the Jewish rejection of the Messiah and its consequences, and “an elegy or funeral discourse cannot be changed abruptly into a hymn."--He is indeed deeply