in a right relation to God, that relation being measured and determined by the requirements of some norm or law. The corresponding term "to justify" denotes a forensic act by which one is declared to stand or to be placed in this relation. When predicated of God it denotes an act of the divine judgment; a procla mation of the relation of favor and acceptance.1 We are not here concerned with the theological conflicts which have been waged over these words. What is of importance for our present purpose is that the whole subject of justification is treated prevailingly from a legal point of view, and that no exegesis of Paul's language can be correct which ignores this fact. It is for this reason that it is necessary to recur to these fundamental peculiarities of Paul's modes of thought in order that his language may be interpreted in accord with his own peculiar genius and not be forced to yield meanings foreign to his type of thinking, or conformed to moulds which belong to the theological interpreter. The application of the forensic type of thought to the phenomena of spiritual life is not agreeable to many minds, but it was so to Paul's. It is proper for those who are little attracted and edified by this mode of thought to urge that it supplies, at most, but the moulds into which his ideas of the spiritual life are run, and to appeal to those more mystical expressions of its truths which find place outside the formal development of his teaching concerning justification. But when the interpreter permits his distaste for legal analogy to lead him to deny its predominance in Paul's doctrine, and to explain away the natural force of his words in accordance with that denial, he is but conforming his interpretation to theological prepossession, and making impossible a sound and impartial exegesis of the Apostle's writings. I say 1 Cf. Schultz, Alttest. Theol., 293, 294. "Sobald der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit an einem göttlichen oder menschlichen Urtheil orientirt wird, heisst "gerecht machen" durchaus immer den Menschen durch den Urtheilsspruch als unschuldig, im Rechte befindlich erklären,' — niemals ihm eine sittliche Erneuerung zum Guten bringen. . . . Bei dieser Bedeutung des Wortes 'gerecht' begreift sich leicht, dass Gerechtigkeit und Sündlosigkeit, im strengen Sinne des Wortes, nichts mit einander zu thun haben." Schultz maintains the "purely forensic significance" of the Old Testament equivalent of dikatovy (177) in all cases except Is. liii. 11 (as well as of its counterpart. To this example Cheyne, following Gesenius, adds Dan. xii. 3. Vide Prophecies of Isaiah, in loc. Is. liii. 11. 2 I may refer in illustration to Sabatier's vehement denial of the forensic character of Paul's doctrine of justification (L' Apotre Paul, 276). I venture to think that the minimizing of this element in the supposed interests of a nothing of the theology of those who neglect or deny this legal quality and form of Pauline thought, but it is no presumption to pronounce their exegesis incorrect. The use of parallel is a noticeable quality of Paul's thinking. In the epistle to the Romans before he enters upon the exposition of the doctrine of justification by faith, he prepares the way for the discussion by proving that men cannot be justified by works. This he does in a twofold manner: first, by drawing a picture of the depravity of the Gentile world (Rom. i. 18-32) which would, without special argument, be sufficient to exclude the idea of their justification by merit; then, as the counterpart of this, he enters upon an arraignment of the Jew, charging him with the commission of the same sins (ii. 1), and denying to him any advantage over the heathen with reference to justification by reason of his possession of the law (ii. 1-iii. 20.) These parallels are employed for the more forcible exhibition of some single truth which it is important to hold clearly in mind in their interpretation. The primary object in the instance re ferred to is, no doubt, to humble the pretensions of the Jew by proving that he stands upon the same moral plane with the heathen and must accept salvation on the same terms. In order to do this it is necessary to bring out several points of comparison. It must be shown that both alike have sinned, and equally against light. It is involved in this that the Gentiles, who had no written law like the Mosaic system, had, nevertheless, a certain moral guide in conscience which rendered their lives blameworthy. This analogue of the Old Testament law was suffi cient to condemn their conduct; how much more, then, would the law do so in the case of the Jew. Moreover, it offered to the Gentile the same opportunity to gain justification by obedience as the written law afforded to the Jew. A perfect obedience to such law as the heathen had would avail as much as perfect obedience to his law on the part of the Jew. Thus both stood upon precisely the same plane; to both the same requirement came; the same principles apply to both (ii. 12 seq.). When, now, the single purpose of the Apostle in this argument is lost sight of, and it is sought to determine whether he supposed that some Gentiles were saved, and, if so, in what way, the effort is made to apply the language to questions which were not in the more spiritual theology detracts from the exegetical trustworthiness of Lyman Abbott's Commentary on Romans, - a work of genuine value in other respects. See especially pp. 36, 52–60. writer's mind, and leads to forced interpretations of his words. He simply teaches that both Gentiles and Jews are great sinners and cannot merit salvation. Both alike, if they obtain it, must do so on the principle of grace, not of desert. His language involves the view that all who are saved from either class are saved by grace upon condition of faith. How many of each are saved, or what degree of light was necessary in each case, or exactly what was the object of their faith, are interesting questions of theological speculation, but Paul has not considered them or said anything relating to them in this whole discussion. He is developing a principle, no salvation by works, in order to pave the way for the establishment of another, salvation by grace through faith, and is not treating those concrete and historical questions for which it is often sought to find an answer in his words. The most famous instance of this mode of Paul's thought is found in the parallel between Adam and Christ in Romans v. 12-21. Here the primary object is to exhibit the greatness of the grace of God in Christ by setting it in contrast with the reign of sin and death in natural humanity. The passage has been ordinarily treated in theology as if its purpose had been to define a doctrine of original sin. The sway of sin and death is used but as a background in order to paint in more glowing colors the reign of righteousness in Christ. The superior greatness of the power of grace as against that of sin and death is emphasized not less than three times in the course of the parallel. The primary object of the passage is thus to exhibit the contrast between the two opposing principles of sin and grace, and to show the superior power of the latter. The key-note of the whole is: "Where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly" (v. 20). But the Adam side of the parallel has been so exclusively emphasized in theology that a passage which was to Paul an exultant pæan of joy and triumph has been made a message of condemnation and sentence of doom to mankind, because its thoughts have been thrown out of adjustment, and a wholly misplaced emphasis laid upon the words in consequence of neglecting the essential point on which the whole comparison turns. Such interpretation is like that which builds doctrines upon the incidents of parables, and which, consistently carried out, finds Christ commending shameless impertinence in the parable of the Unjust Judge, and praising trickery and deceit in that of the Unjust Steward. Another example of parallelism is found in the analogy which is traced between the natural and spiritual in 1 Cor. xv. 35-49, and upon which the doctrine of the spiritual body is based. The parallel is traced through various steps. There is (1) The relation between the seed-grain and its product, and the analogy between this relation and that of the present to the future body (vv. 35-38). (2) He illustrates the variety of embodiments which have been provided for God's creatures in the natural world, from which fact the inference is that there will be embodi ments for souls fitted to their celestial state (vv. 39-45). (3) Next the contrast between Adam and Christ as heads of humanity is briefly mentioned (v. 45); and (4) The natural order as preceding and preparing for the spiritual order suggests that there is a spiritual corporeity to follow and consummate that in which we now dwell (vv. 46–49). Other examples of undeveloped parallelism exist, but need not be considered here. The point of chief importance is that the Apostle's language is to be interpreted in accordance with his characteristic forms of thought and modes of argument. To overlook these is to neglect an essential condition of perceiving the natural force and correct emphasis of his ideas. It should be remembered that exegesis is a study of form as well as of matter. Its task is not merely to grasp the practical contents and bearing of the passages studied, but to see, as it were, with the author's eyes, to apprehend his thoughts in all the peculiarities of form and shades of emphasis in which he has himself presented them. In respect to style, it may be said that the Apostle's letters have a peculiar variety and vivacity, resulting from the free range which the argument takes, and the way in which exhortation and warning are interspersed with didactic and polemic passages. His letters teem with examples of what is called "going off at a word," the linking of statements to the terms just used in such a way as to combine many thoughts which lie outside his immediate purpose with the matter immediately in hand. The salutation in Rom. i. 1-7 furnishes good illustrations. At the mention of "the gospel" (ver. 1) he appends a brief historic description of it (ver. 2); to the title "Son" he adds an account of Him with respect to the two sides of his being (ver. 3, 4). Sometimes some concrete point in his argument suggests to the Apostle a universal truth to which his thoughts, borne aloft by its greatness and power, mount suddenly up, and in the expression of which we have examples of lofty eloquence. An instance is found where, in discussing the Corinthian parties, the Apostle urges that those who enroll under the banner of Apollos, or of himself, for example, are cutting themselves off from the benefits which they might derive from other Christian teachers, whereas the Christian should make all sources of help his own; all are his right. Then the idea of the Christian's possession takes hold upon his mind, and his thought suddenly expands: Yes, all things are yours; not only Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, but the world and life and death, things present and things to come, all are yours, if ye are Christ's, for Christ is God's (1 Cor. iii. 21-23). The vivacity and power of Paul's letters are well described by Weiss in the following just and forcible language: "It is certain that we never find the cold objectivity of the author, because the living warmth of the letter-writer throbs in all his epistles. Hence the frequent addresses, the ever-recurring questions with which he draws out his details. Paul is able powerfully to move, but also to lift up and comfort; high moral earnestness is always associated in him with depth of religious feeling, which often finds vent in inspired utterance. He is not without passion, he lashes the weaknesses and errors of his readers without pity, he is able mortally to wound his opponents, and does not even despise the weapons of irony and satire. But the softest tones of the mind are likewise at his disposal, the ebullition of righteous anger softens down to the most touching expression of heartfelt love; he can speak the language of deeply wounded love as well as of most ardent longing, of exulting gratitude as well as of suppressed pain." 1 YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN. George B. Stevens. "THE STORY OF WILLIAM AND LUCY SMITH." 2 THE two lives, whose delightful memorials have been gathered in Mr. Merriam's charming volume, possessed the originality of genius as well as that originality which accompanies the highest culture. In both there was the vision of the poet, to which in one was added the insight of the philosopher, and in the other an affection the depth and purity of whose devotion offer us a 1 Int. to N. T., i. 212. 2 The Story of William and Lucy Smith. Edited by George S. Merriam. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889. [The writer of this article was for many years a friend and correspondent of William and Lucy Smith. Editors.] |