PART III. OF THE PHRASE ή καινη διαθηκη. ANOTHER title, by which the religious institution of Jesus Christ is sometimes denominated, is ʼn kaivη dialŋkn, which is almost always, in the writings of the apostles and evangelists, rendered by our translators "the New Testament." Yet the word dianen by itself is, except in a very few places, always there rendered not Testament, but Covenant. It is the Greek word whereby the Seventy have uniformly translated the Hebrew a berith, which our translators in the Old Testament have invariably rendered Covenant. That the Hebrew term corresponds much better to the English word Covenant, though not in every case perfectly equivalent, than to Testament, there can be no question: at the same time it must be owned, that the word dianкn, in classical use, is more frequently rendered Testament. The proper Greek word for Covenant is ouvŋkn, which is not found in the New Testament, and occurs only thrice in the Septuagint. It is never there employed for rendering the Hebrew berith, though in one place it is substituted for a term nearly synonymous. That the scriptural sense of the word dianen is more fitly expressed by our term Covenant, will not be doubted by any body who considers the constant application of the Hebrew word so rendered in the Old Testament, and of the Greek word, in most places at least, where it is used in the New. What has led translators, ancient and modern, to render it Testament, is, I imagine, the manner wherein the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews argues, (chap. ix. 16, 17,) in allusion to the classical acceptation of the term. But however much it was necessary to give a different turn to the expression in that passage, in order to make the author's argument as intelligible to the English, as it is in the original to the Greek reader; this was not a sufficient reason for giving a version to the word in other places, that neither suits the context, nor is conformable to the established use of the term in the sacred writings. 2. The term New is added to distinguish it from the Old Covenant, that is, the dispensation of Moses. I cannot help observing here by the way, that often the language of theological systems, so far from assisting us to understand the language of holy writ, tends rather to mislead us. The two Covenants are always in Scripture the two dispensations, or religious institutions; that under Moses is the Old, that under the Messiah is the New. I do not deny, that in the latitude wherein the term is used in holy writ, the command under the sanction of death which God gave to Adam in paradise, may, like the ordinance of circumcision, with sufficient propriety be termed a Covenant; but it is pertinent to observe, that it is never so denominated in Scripture; and that when mention is made in the Epistles of the two Covenants, the Old and the New, or the first and the second, (for there are two so called by way of eminence,) there appears no reference to any thing that related to Adam. In all such places, Moses and Jesus are contrasted, the Jewish economy and the Christian, Mount Sinai in Arabia whence the law was promulged, and Mount Sion in Jerusalem where the gospel was first published. 3. It is proper to observe further, that, from signifying the two religious dispensations, they came soon to denote the books wherein what related to these dispensations was contained; the sacred writings of the Jews being called aλaia dialŋêŋ, and the writings superadded by the apostles and evangelists, kain diaInk. We have one example in Scripture of this use of the former appellation. The apostle says, (2 Cor. iii. 14,) speaking of his countrymen, "Until this day remaineth the veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament,” επι τη αναγνώσει της παλαιας dianens. The word in this application is always rendered in our language Testament. We have in this followed the Vulgate, as most modern translators also have done. In the Geneva French, the word is rendered both ways in the title, that the one may serve in explaining the other, "Le Nouveau Testament, c'est à dire La Nouvelle Alliance," &c., in which they copied Beza, who says, "Testamentum Novum, sive Foedus Novum." That the second rendering of the word is the better version, is unquestionable; but the title appropriated by custom to a particular book, is on the same footing with a proper name, which is hardly considered as a subject for criticism. Thus we call Cæsar's Diary, Caesar's Commentaries, from their Latin name, though very different in meaning from the English word. PART IV. OF THE NAME ὁ Χριστος. THE only other term necessary to be examined here is ὁ Χριστος, the Messiah, or the Christ, in English rendered, according to the etymology of the word, the anointed; for so both the Hebrew Meshiach, and the Greek Xoroç signify; and from the sound of these are formed our names Messiah and Christ. What first gave rise to the term was the ceremony of anointing, by which the kings and the high-priests of God's people, and sometimes the prophets, (1 Kings xix. 16,) were consecrated and admitted to the exercise of their holy functions; for all these functions were accounted holy among the Israelites. As this consecration was considered as adding a sacredness to their persons, it served as a guard against violence, from the respect had to religion. Its efficacy this way was remarkably exemplified in David, who acknowledges, that when he had it in his power to avenge himself of Saul, his enemy, who sought his life, he was principally by this consideration restrained from killing him: "The Lord forbid," said he, "that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord," 1 Sam. xxiv. 6. The word here translated anointed, is, as in other places, in Hebrew Messiah, and in the Greek of the Seventy, Christ. It was a term, therefore, in its original use, applicable to all the succession of kings and high-priests, good and bad, of the people of Israel. 2. But as the king and the high-priest were the heads of the whole nation, the one in civil, the other in religious matters, the term anointed, that is, Messiah or Christ, might not improbably serve by a figure to denote the head, chief, or principal of any class or people. So thinks the learned Grotius. Thus the highpriest is sometimes distinguished from ordinary priests by the title the anointed priest; in the Septuagint, & iɛpevs ¿ χριστος; though this I own is not a proof of the point, since he was literally so distinguished from the rest. But that the word is sometimes applied, when in the literal sense no anointing had been used, cannot be questioned. In this way it is applied to Cyrus the Persian monarch by the prophet Isaiah, ch. xlv. 1. "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus;" yet Houbigant, differing from his usual manner, renders the words, "de uncto suo Cyro." But whether the import of this expression be, that Cyrus was a chief among the kings, a most eminent sovereign, as Grotius seems to imagine, or that he was selected of God for the restoration of Judah, and the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem, the only temple dedicated to the true God, may be made a question. For my part, I am inclinable to think that it is rather this latter interpretation which conveys the prophet's idea, and the meaning intended by the Spirit of God. And to this interpretation the context entirely agrees. The word was also employed to denote those specially favoured of God, as were the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; concerning whom he is represented by the Psalmist as having said, "Touch not mine anointed," Psal. cv. 15; 1 Chron. xvi. 22. The word is in the plural number, 7wv Xploтwv μov, in the Vulgate Christos meos, which, in our idiom, is not distinguished from the singular. Now there is no ground from Scripture to believe that any of them was in the literal sense anointed. 3. But the most eminent use and application of the word is when it is employed as the title of that sublime Personage typified and predicted from the beginning, who was to prove, in the * The sons of Aaron were indeed all anointed in their father's lifetime, by the express command of God; but it does not appear that this practice descended to other ordinary priests. most exalted sense, the Redeemer and Lord of God's people. He is spoken of by the prophets under several characters, and amongst others, under this of God's anointed, the Messiah, or the Christ. Those of the prophets who seem more especially to have appropriated this title, formerly more common, to the Mediator of the New Covenant, were the royal prophet David, Psal. ii. 2, Isaiah, chap. lxi. 1, &c., and Daniel, chap. ix. 25, 26. The first represents him as anointed of God king of God's heritage; the second, as set apart and consecrated to be the messenger of good tidings to the inhabitants of the earth; the third, as appointed to make expiation for the sins of the people. 4. It deserves to be remarked, that, in the English translation of the Old Testament, the word is always rendered anointed, to whomsoever applied, except in the two verses of Daniel already quoted, where it is translated Messiah. In the New Testament, the corresponding Greek word is always rendered Christ, and commonly without the article. In this our interpreters have been so uniform, that they have even employed the word Christ, where the passage is a quotation and literal translation from the Old Testament, in which the Hebrew word, though perfectly equivalent, had been by themselves rendered anointed. Thus, Acts iv. 26, 27, "the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ,” κατα του Χριστού αυτού. The words are quoted from the second Psalm, where they had said, "against his anointed." The change here is the more remarkable, as there is a plain reference to the meaning of the word in the very next sentence: "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, óv expiraç, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gathered together." 5. In the Vulgate, in all the places of the Old Testament above referred to, it is translated Christus. So it is also in Houbigant, except where it is applied to Cyrus, as mentioned sect. 2. Whereas, in regard to Cyrus, it is in the Vulgate, "Hæc dicit Dominus Christo meo Cyro." The same appellation is also given to king Saul, "Dixitque David ad viros suos, Propitius sit mihi Dominus, ne faciam hanc rem domino meo, Christo Domini, ut mittam manum meam in eum, quia Christus Domini est." In the Psalms, "Nolite tangere Christos meos," and adversus Dominum et adversus Christum ejus." In Daniel also the word is in the same way rendered. Here indeed, and in the last-mentioned passage from the Psalms, as no Christian can well doubt the reference to the Messiah, there is not so great an appearance of impropriety; yet, when applied to the high-priest, they have not said Christus, but unctus, giving the import of the word as it was literally applicable to him: otherwise, the term Christus might have been used at least as properly of the high-priest, who was in one respect a figure of our Lord, as either of a heathen prince or even of a bad king of Israel. All the other Latin translators, except Leo de Juda, if I remember right, use unctus, not only in speaking of the priest, but also in relation to Cyrus and Saul; and wherever they have not observed a direct reference to the Lord Jesus. Leo, in the passage above quoted from Samuel, uses both words, Messias and unctus, in relation to Saul, where he probably introduces the latter word for explaining the former. "Servet me Dominus, ne rem istam designem contra dominum meum Messiam Domini, ut scilicet inferam ei manum; est enim unctus Domini." To Cyrus also he applies the word Messias. In Daniel-Leo, Castalio, and Houbigant, all use the word Messias Junius chooses Christus with the Vulgate, both there and in the second Psalm, in which last-mentioned place Leo also uses Christus. About other modern translators it is not necessary here to inquire: it is sufficient to observe, that, at the time of our Lord's appearing, and for many years before, the term was understood to denote the great deliverer and prince whom God, by his prophets, had promised to send for the comfort and redemption of his people. : 6. Let us now consider a little the use of the term in the New Testament. If we were to judge by the common version, or even by most versions into modern tongues, we should consider the word as rather a proper name than an appellative, or name of office, and should think of it only as a surname given to our Lord. Our translators have contributed greatly to this mistake, by very seldom prefixing the article before Christ, though it is rarely wanting in the original. The word Christ was at first as much an appellative as the word Baptist was, and the one was as regularly accompanied with the article as the other. Yet our translators, who always say the Baptist, have, one would think, studiously avoided saying the Christ. This may appear to superficial readers an inconsiderable difference; but the addition of the article will be found, when attended to, of real consequence for conveying the meaning in English with the same perspicuity and propriety with which it is conveyed in Greek. So much virtue there is in the article, which in our idiom is never prefixed to the name of a man, though it is invariably prefixed to the name of office, unless where some pronoun, or appropriating expression, renders it unnecessary, that, without it, the sense is always darkened, and sometimes marred. Thus, in such expressions as these, "This Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ," Acts xvii. 3; "Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ," ch. xviii. 5; "Showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ," ch. xviii. 28-the unlearned reader forms no distinct apprehension, as the common application of the words leads him uniformly to consider Jesus and Christ as no other than the name and surname of the same person. It would have conveyed to such a reader precisely the same meaning to have said, "Paul testified to the Jews that Christ was Jesus ;" and so of the rest. The article |