Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

"his anguish on account of the rejection of the Messiah by the great majority of his countrymen." This is also clearly implied in the first words of my criticism," Paul's grief for his unbelieving countrymen, then." Not a word of my criticism, which Dr. Gifford seems to misunderstand, would be affected in the least by the insertion of the omitted clause.

Two typographical errors in Dr. Gifford's pamphlet give a false color to his complaint. He calls on the reader to "observe the note of admiration in place of the all-important words 'whom they had rejected." It stands inside of the quotation-marks in the sentence as he gives it, as if I had ascribed it to him, but outside in the sentence as printed in the Journal. Again, in quoting his own sentence from the Commentary on Romans, he omits the comma before "whom they have rejected," thus making the relative clause an inseparable part of the sentence, and aggravating my supposed offence in omitting it.

In commenting on Dr. Gifford's assertion that "Paul's anguish was deepened most of all by the thought that their race gave birth to the Divine Saviour, whom they have rejected," I had exclaimed, "Paul's grief for his unbelieving countrymen, then, had extinguished his gratitude for the inestimable blessings which he personally owed to Christ; it had extinguished his gratitude for the fact that the God who rules. over all had sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world!" (Journal, P. 92.)

Dr. Gifford remarks, "Another note of admiration at Paul's ingratitude, a pure invention of Professor Abbot." (Letter, p. 28.)

My critic appears to misunderstand me. I shall be very sorry if, through my unskilful use of irony of which Dr. Gifford speaks, any other reader has failed to perceive that my note of admiration is an expression of wonder that in his reference to the Jewish birth of the Messiah as deepening Paul's grief at the unbelief of his countrymen, and in his whole argument against a doxology, Dr. Gifford ignores the fact that THE ADVENT OF CHRIST, necessarily suggested by the words καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, was to the Apostle a cause of joy and gratitude immensely out-weighing all temporary occasions of grief, and might well prompt an outburst of thanksgiving and praise to God. That the very language he uses did not suggest this is a marvel. He does not meet at all the point of my objection to his view.

It will be observed that I do not, with many commentators, regard the doxology here as simply or mainly an expression of gratitude for the distinctive privileges bestowed upon the Jews as a nation, and still

less for the particular fact that, as Dr. Gifford expresses it (p. 30, and note in his Commentary), "Christ was born a Jew." That gratitude, not sorrow, was the predominant sentiment in the mind of the Apostle in view of these privileges I do not doubt; but these particular occasions for thankfulness were lost, I conceive, in the thought of the actual advent of Christ, incomparably the greatest and most joyful event in the history of the world, and the most glorious expression of God's love and mercy to man, for which eternal gratitude was due. It was this which prompted the song of the angels, "Glory to God in the highest," and which prompted here the doxology which so fitly closes the Apostle's grand historic survey of those privileges of his people, which were the providential preparation for it.

Let us now consider more particularly Dr. Gifford's arguments and criticisms.

Jewish Privileges, and Connection of Thoughts in

Rom. ix. 1-5.

Dr. Gifford assumes that the Apostle, in his enumeration of the privileges which God had bestowed on his nation, names them only as reasons for the deepening of his grief for the fall of his countrymen ; and thus finds in vv. 1-5 of the chapter one unbroken strain of lamentation, leaving no room for a doxology.

It appears to me that this is a very narrow view of what was probably in the Apostle's mind, and that there are other aspects of these privileges, which the way in which they are mentioned would more naturally suggest to the reader, and under which it is far more probable that the Apostle viewed them here. As I have elsewhere observed, the manner in which he recites them is not that of one touching upon a subject on which it is painful to dwell. To say nothing here of the oTives, observe the effect of the repetition of the v and the kaí. Let us consider some of these other aspects.

(1) The privileges of the Jews which the Apostle recounts were the glory of their nation, distinguishing it above all the other nations of the earth. This detailed enumeration of them, so evidently appreciative, was adapted to gratify and conciliate his Jewish readers, and to assure them of the sincerity of his affection for his countrymen. It was also adapted to take down the conceit of his Gentile readers, who were prone to despise the Hebrew race.

(2) These privileges had been the source of inestimable blessings to the Israelites in the course of their long history, (See Rom. iii. 1, 2.) Through them the worship of one God, who rewarded righteousness and punished iniquity, was preserved in their nation.

(3) They were parts of a great providential plan which was to find and had found its consummation in the advent of the Messiah, "the unspeakable gift" of God's love and mercy.

(4) They were tokens of the Divine favor to the Jews as a nation, and especially to their pious ancestors, which gave assurance to Paul that God would not cast off his people, whom he had chosen; that they were still "beloved for the fathers' sake"; that the present unhappy state of things was only temporary, and that, finally, all Israel should be saved.

The first three aspects of these privileges are obvious, and would naturally suggest themselves to every reader of the Epistle; the fourth we have strong reasons for believing to have been also in the mind of the Apostle. (See the eleventh chapter.)

Here I must express my surprise at the manner in which Dr. Gifford has treated my quotations from the eleventh chapter in reference to this last-mentioned aspect of the Jewish privileges. (Letter, p. 26 f.) He omits entirely my statement of the purpose for which I introduce them (Journal, p. 92), though this is absolutely essential to the understanding of what is meant by "this view" in the first sentence which he quotes from me; and then, wholly without ground, represents me as teaching two things: (1) "that as we read the simple enumeration of Jewish privileges in vv. 3, 4 [he means vv. 4, 5], we are not to connect it, as is most natural, with the preceding context." How can he say this, when in the whole treatment of the subject (Journal, pp. 88 f., 91, 2d paragr., 104, 105), I have taken particular pains to point out the connection of thought, and to show that my view of vv. 4, 5 agrees with the context? (2) That "in order to understand the Apostle's meaning at this point, we must anticipate by an effort of our own imagination all the long-sustained argument ... and the far-reaching prophetic hopes which make up the three following chapters." If Dr. Gifford had not omitted the sentences in which I stated my purpose, it would be at once seen that I did not make these quotations to show what the reader of verses 4, 5 is expected to draw from them by an effort of his own imagination, but what the Apostle, together with other things more obvious to the reader, may be reasonably supposed to have had in mind when he wrote. When a person treats at length of a subject on which he must have meditated often and long, meeting objections which he must have been frequently called upon to answer, I have been accustomed to suppose that what he actually says may afford some indication of what was in his mind when he began to write.

I admit that the privileges which the Jews enjoyed as a nation may be regarded as having incidentally aggravated the sin and the shame. of their rejection of the Messiah; that the contemplation of them. under that aspect would have deepened in some measure the Apostle's grief; and that it is possible, though I see nothing which directly proves it, that he viewed them under this aspect here. Dr. Gifford's error, I conceive, lies in ignoring the other obvious aspects, under which they could be only regarded as occasions of thankfulness; and in not recognizing the well-known psychological fact that the same object of thought often excites in the mind at the same time, or in the most rapid succession, mingled emotions of grief and joy and gratitude. One knows little of the deeper experiences of life who has not felt this. That this should be true here in the case of the Apostle who describes himself as "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing"; who exhorts his Christian brethren to "rejoice evermore," and to "give thanks always for all things to God, the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," cannot be regarded as strange or unnatural.

There is no incongruity between sorrow for the misuse of a great privilege, whether by ourselves or by others, and devout thankfulness to God for its bestowal. In a pious mind, these feelings would naturally co-exist. Take, for example, the privilege of having been born and educated in a Christian land, so sadly abused by the majority of those who enjoy it.

I may note here another fallacy which appears to me to lurk in the language Dr. Gifford uses respecting the Jewish privileges. He repeatedly speaks of them as "lost" (pp. 30, 34, 35), inferring that the remembrance of them can only deepen the Apostle's grief. But these privileges were distinctions and glories of the Jewish people, which from their very nature could not be lost. They, and the blessings of which they had been the source, were facts of history. Even in the case of the unbelieving Jews, though abused, or not taken advantage of, they were not, properly speaking, "lost." The privileges themselves remained unchanged, a permanent subject of thankfulness to God. In Dr. Gifford's assumption that verses 4 and 5 are only a wail of lamentation, he ignores these obvious considerations.

I will here state briefly my view of the connection of thought between vv. 4, 5 of the ninth chapter, and what precedes.

In vv. 1-5 the purpose of the Apostle was to conciliate his JewishChristian readers, and indirectly, the unbelieving Jews, by assuring

1 Though the Epistle to the Romans was not addressed to unbelieving Jews,

them of his strong affection for his people, and his appreciation of their privileges. His affection is shown (1) by his deep sorrow for the unhappy condition of the great mass of his countrymen in their rejection of the Messiah (ver. 2); and (2) by his readiness to make any sacrifice, even that of his own salvation, were such a thing possible, if thereby he might bring them to Christ. His appreciation of their privileges is indicated by the detailed manner in which they are enumerated, and is distinctly expressed by the οἵτινές εἰσιν ΙσραηAeira: and what follows. The ofrues shows that it is not merely because he belongs to the same nation with the Jews that he is ready to make such a sacrifice for them; but because their nation is such a nation, distinguished above all the other nations of the earth; a nation dedicated to God, whose whole history had been glorified by extraordinary marks of the Divine favor, a nation to which he is proud and thankful to belong. The oiries introduces the distinguishing characteristic of his συγγενεῖς κατὰ σάρκα. They are not merely fellow-countrymen, they are ISRAELITES; and as Philippi remarks, "In dem Namen Israelit lag die ganze Würde des Volkes beschlossen." So far as the word ourives indicates a causal relation, it strengthens the reason for the affirmation which immediately precedes (not directly that in ver. 2, to which Dr. Gifford refers it); it serves, as Tholuck remarks, "zur Begründung eines solchen Grades aufopfernder Liebe." Dr. Gifford's assumption that the memory of these privileges only deepened the Apostle's grief is not proved by the oiries, and really rests on no evidence.

So much for the connection of vv. 4, 5 with what precedes; how naturally the doxology at the end was suggested, and the reason for

one object of it was to meet, and to enable its readers to meet, objections which the unbelieving Jews urged against Christianity, and which many Jewish Christians urged against Paul's view of it. The strength of the prejudice against himself personally which the Apostle of the Gentiles had to encounter, is shown by the earnestness of his asseveration in ver. 1.

1 So Theophylact, on vv. 1, 2: — Μέλλει προϊὼν δεῖξαι, ὅτι οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξ 'Αβραὰμ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ εἰσι. Καὶ ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ κατ' ἐμπάθειαν ταῦτα λέγειν, προλαμ βάνει, καὶ λέγει περὶ τῶν Ἑβραίων τὰ χρηστότερα, τὴν ὑπόνοιαν ταύτην ἀναιρῶν, και ὁμολογεῖ αὐτοὺς ὑπερβαλλόντως φιλεῖν. And on vv. 4, 5 : — Ἐπαινεῖ τούτους ἐνταῦθα καὶ μεγαλύνει, ἵνα, ὅπερ ἔφην, μὴ δόξῃ κατ' ἐμπάθειαν λέγειν. Ἠρέμα δὲ καὶ ἐπαινίτε τεται, ὅτι ὁ μὲν θεὸς ἠβούλετο αὐτοὺς σωθῆναι κ.τ.λ. So also, in the main, Theodoret, Calvin, Locke, and especially Flacius Illyricus, whose notes on vv. 1, 3, and 4 are very much to the point. Dr. Hodge has stated his view of the Apostle's purpose in almost the same language as I have used above. (See Journal, p. 91, note; see also Dr. Dwight, ibid., p. 41.)

« ÎnapoiContinuă »