Page images
PDF
EPUB

in common, (see John i. 18. iii. 13. 2 Cor. xi. 31.) for is $1, who is. The ground of this lies simply in the nature of Greek usage. Whenever is used for os, it takes the participle av instead of the verb eoTI. The Greeks say wi

but ἐς εστι.

Exi Tavrov Jeos is, literally, "ovér-all God,” i. e. supreme God. Compare with the phraseology here, the word wayra (all) as used in a connexion which respects Christ, in Col. i. 17. Eph. i. 19, 23. John iii. 31. and 1 Cor. xv. 27. It is used in such passages, as a term of qualification, which serves to describe him as the head, or ruler of the universe. What then can : Tw Js05 mean, but supreme God?

But on no text has greater pains been bestowed, in order to devise an unusual construction and meaning. Schlichting proposed to transposer, and read ŵvo; i. e. of whom (the Jewish Fathers) is God, blessed forever. But as in this very Epistle, the apostle has laboured to prove that God is as well the God of the Gentiles as the Jews, (ch. iii. 29,) this expedient would seem to impeach the apostle's consistency, as well as violate the text. Nor would the text itself, as amended by Schlichting's conjecture, be in any measure accordant with the idiom of the Greek language. If Jos has the article, (and his transposition makes it eos,) then evλytos must of necessity have it too; inasmuch as an adjective following a noun with an article, and agreeing with it, of necessity takes the article.

Wetstein's conjecture, that it should be read wv, ô eπi Tarrar Deos, is not any more fortunate. Such a mode of expression, as i wy, all relating to the same subject, is repugnant to Greek usage. Besides, this conjecture, like that of Schlichting, not only violates the integrity of the text, but assigns the article to res, and omits it before Ayros; which is surely inadmissible. λόγητος

Enough of amending the apostle's words by conjecture, without the authority of a single manuscript or version. Critical acumen has also employed itself, in dividing and translating the verse in question, in a manner different from that in our common Testament. The late Professor Justi, at Marburg, a man of great acuteness and fine taste, undertook to defend the ingenious supposition, that the latter part of the verse is a doxology. He renders it,

"Whose ancestors were those [renowned] Fathers from whom the Messiah, as to his mortal body, was derived, who is exalted over all [the Fathers.] God be blessed forever!" Thus, by the aid of supplying an idea not contained in the text, and by doing violence to the custom of language, in the doxological part, he has devised a method in which we may avoid the assertion, that Christ is God over all, or supreme God. But who does not perceive the violence and inaptitude of the divulsion which he makes, by separating the former from the latter part of the verse? Besides; how would a doxology fit the passage in question? Crel lius, (Init. Evang. Johan. p. 230, 237,) long ago, was candid enough to own, that when the apostle was affected with the greatest sadness, on account of the unbelief of his Jewish brethren, and the loss of their privileges, a doxology was not very congruous. A prayer, (as in ch. x. 1.) would seem, as he thinks, to be much more appropriate.

Omitting however, all this; it may be added, that Greek usage by no possibility admits of the doxological version of Justi. Oso evλontos means, God who is blessed ; i. e. the proposition in such a case is assumed, not asserted. But evλynos 90s means, God be blessed; let God be blessed, or praised. In accordance with this Greek usage, we find five instances of doxology in the New Testament, and about forty in the Old, in which λytos is uniformly placed FIRST. The same order is observed in respect to xaraAros, (cursed,) when an imprecation is uttered.

Besides, the text must be changed to make out a doxology; and we must read eos, instead of Jeos; for universal usage prescribes ευλογητος ο Θεος. (The instance Ps. Ixvii. 19. Sept., brought by Stolz in his Erlaeuterungen &c. to support Justi's rendering, depends merely on wrong punctuation, and the repetition of a word which does not correspond to the Hebrew text.)

Finally, if a doxology to the Father were intended here, it is scarcely possible to suppose, that a particle of transition, (de for instance,) should not have been inserted, in order to give notice of so great a change. In any other case, we should expect to find it thus, o de av; or if the doxology begin at 9eos, then evλOYNTOS & JEOS. No text, no. manuscript, no ancient version gives us a trace of either of

these readings. To invent them, therefore, and force them upon the text; or to substitute a conjecture, which originated from theological speculation, against the plain and incontrovertible evidence of the integrity of the text; what is it, but to introduce a principle fundamentally subversive of all interpretation and criticism, and give up the Scriptures to be moulded to every man's own wishes?

All conjectures and theories, then, appear to be quite incompetent to explain away the common rendering of the verse, and the meaning connected with it. On the other hand, we may ask; How comes it that Christ, according to his human nature, (ro nara capxa,) is said to have descended from the Fathers? What if I should affirm, that David, as to his human nature, was descended from Jesse ? Would you not of course ask, what other nature had he, except human? And such an inquiry, forced upon us by the expression in question, the apostle has immediately answered? As to his nature not human, he was 66 supreme God, blessed forever, Amen." To have produced the human nature connected with such an exalted Being, the apostle reckons as one of the special privileges which the Jews had enjoyed. See and compare verses 1-4.

I do not argue that Christ is divine, merely from having the appellation Deos bestowed upon him. But if ό ων επι TaTaros be not supreme God: and if the antithesis in this verse do not require us to understand a divine nature here; then I must despair of discovering the sentiment of any text of Scripture, by using any of the rules of exegesis.

Heb. i. 8, 9. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

This passage is quoted from Ps. xlv. 6, 7. It has been objected, that eos here should not be translated as the Vocative, but Nominative; e. g. "God is thy throne, forever and ever, or thine everlasting throne or eternal support."

To this it may be replied; eos is the common Voca

tive, of the New Testament and Septuagint. No objectionto the usual rendering of this verse in the Vocative case, can be made from the form of the word, which is altogeth er common in Hellenistic Greek. The Attics use the same form of the noun, but they write it w Jeos, and not 9:05. One needs only to open his Septuagint, in the book of Psalms, or in almost any other part, to see incontrovertible evidence, that eos is the common Vocative of the Hellenistic writers.

To the translation, "God is thy throne," i. e. thy support, several objections may be made.

1. Greek usage does not permit such a version. The subject and predicate cannot both have the article, unless in the case of a convertible, or reciprocal sentence; and surely it will not be urged, that such is the present case. God is thy throne" would stand in Greek, Igovog σau à Deos.* For such a change in the text, there is no respectable authority.

2. Such a translation would render insipid the argument of the apostle, in this chapter, to prove the preeminently exalted nature of Crist. To say of this illustrious per sonage; God is thy throne, i. e. thy support, might excite the persons, to whom the epistle was addressed, to ask, "And who is not supported by God? How is Christ entitled on this acconut, to claim any preeminence in our regard?

3. Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the word throne, understood either literally or figuratively. Literally, it is the seat on which kings sit. This sense is here out of the question. Figuratively, it stands for dominion, empire, regal authority; because it is one of the ensigns of such authority. But there is no such figurative? sense to it, as that of support. And what sense would it make, to say, God is thy dominion, thy regal authority? you reply, This may mean, God is the cause of thy domin ion, or regal authority; then I ask again, of what king's dominion and authority is not God the cause? Is it not the universal doctrine of the Bible, that "by him kings reign,

[ocr errors]

* See the latter clause of the verse: where i pabdos is the subject, but jabdes the predicate, according to the laws of the language.

and princes decree justice?" And how then is Christ entitled to any preeminence, because God is the cause of his dominion? Or what advances does the apostle make in his argument, by such an assertion?

To the Translation in question, there is still another objection, which is drawn from the nature of Hebrew parallelism in poetry. The verse under discussion, piainly is one, in which the subject is the same in both parts; i, e. it is a synonymous parallelism. Now the second member of this is," the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness;" in other words, thy dominion is righteous. The first member of the parallelism, consequently, is to be explained in a similar way, and evidently means thy dominion (throne) is everlasting. What could be more tasteless, or unmeaning here than to say, "God is thy throne," 1. e. support, or cause of dominion: when the object of the wri, ter is to show the preeminent dignity of the Son of God?

The proposed mode of rendering then, violates Greek usage; frustrates the argument of the apostle : forces an unexampled meaning upon povos: and transgresses the laws of parallelism in the Hebrew original, from which the pas sage was taken.

I am aware of the objections which have been made, ta understanding the word God, in the passage now under consideration, in its highest sense. For 1st. It is said, that the person called God (Elohim,) here, calls another being his God, and therefore he cannot be Supreme.

To the fact I readily assent; but the conclusion draws from it I must be permitted to doubt. If Christ be descri bed in the xlv. Psalm, (and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews asserts this to be the fact,) he is described as a king triumphing over his enemies. As the Messiah, the anointed king, he might, with the greatest propriety, call Jehovah his God; for as Messiah he is to be considered as incarnate; and of course subordinate. Is it still a matter of wonder, that the same person could at one time be called God, and have everlasting dominion ascrib ed to him, who, the next moment, calls Jehovah his God? It is a wonder of the same nature, as that which perplexed the Jews, when Christ asked them how David could call the Messiah Lord, while at the same time he was his Son,

« PreviousContinue »