5
SHES
ΠΗ
eas
Done
ἐξ
aye ΠΣ
a's ἣ
Ἶ : SFG ae BS
far alt an ἣ
¥
ye
“τ
ῆ
a
EE
a
it
ΠΝ
if
I η ν
ae es ΔῊΝ
ΟΝ
BIA
sy a
AAAI AE SNA
ὯΝ
fe feta ia
Mane
5
i
ae.
5
“2
£
KANG, AS
Dray ν᾿ Faery
ey AY Ses
4
ἢ
totaeeates.
Sarasa
Payee
ey ne vi
By
is
δ
ee
ays tea prayers
PERS
ΠΡ ΣῊ γεν
ae
Ὦ
τ
ἣν
> >
ote
τῆς
LEONG:
SE
5
ἜΡΙΝ
>,
5
Soothe
πων
ale
Ἂν:
SAY
at
oe
a
BANC aa
AAS ON Gos
At My as
ei
Ni αι A
ie
AA
Ἢ
iota
fe Sa”
a
τὸς
ay
nd
Sa
Wihrary uf
Niesenter πὶ
fin, £ (ἢ.
μα. ἃ ὁ τὰ
~ od ge: ͵
r ὌΡΟΣ -ς.
=f sath
nen
~ = -
f ~~
᾿ + ,
; Sais = Sarton He a a ng ne
ed a tg a) Ὁ eve tbeisints ies ΝΣ ΡΩΝ aos ‘
τον AE ef RO alles “AG al iE rears cle site = "θὰ amen δ βναβνόνα ant. ee
‘ SN lee ae " " joe egal Ὁ σατο μάθοι ων
2 ee a ως προ ων Ἀς
ae wees
5 PRED gr
»" sete caer: Be ge remot dec bys pies
R ent Ft Pik iret mi vs
a Te
τον ine rin as Se
“ἢ caine Abend:
one συ
DITO
E.
KIND PERMISSION OF THE
MEN OF MARK BY
FROM
v4
YORK: | ἽΝ
OLEH & COMPANY,
Cee OO ee ae
Fp a ἢ : _ τος ῦ
“- = -
i.
ὶ
ἁ
.
4
" a
f 2
.
‘
‘ ἢ =i ᾿
,
we "
δ τὰ i. j
ls 7
fm
‘
|
re x
ὡς
al
'
’
ἡ 6 celine aan ee ἔριν vee Rr eee
ton,
THE
bend ΟΞ Ol:
EDITED BY THE REV,
W.- ROBERTSON NICOLL, M-A.
THIRD SER/ES.
Volume ITI.
WITH ETCHING OF PROFESSOR FRANZ DELITZSCH,
BY H.-MANESSE.
: LONDON:
HODDER AND STOUGHTON.
NEW YORK:
ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY,
38, WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET.
MDCCCLXXXVI.
/ mae.
BuTLer & TANNER,
Tue SELWooD PRINTING WORKS,
FROME, AND LONDON.
Contributors to Volume ITI.
Rey. Frep. H. CuHasr, M.A.
Captain C. R. Conner, R.E.
Rey. Eustace R. Conner, D.D.
Rey. Pror. 8S. Ives Curtiss, D.D., Pa.D.
PrincrpaAL Siz J. W. Dawson, LL.D., F.R.S.
Rey. Pror. Franz De.nirzscu, D.D.
Rey. Marcus Dops, D.D.
Rey. Pror. 5. R. Driver, D.D.
Rev. Principat T. C. Epwarps, M.A.
Rey. Pror. F. Gopret, D.D.
Pror. A. Harnack, D.D:, Pa.D.
Rev. J. R. Inuineworrtu, M.A.
Rev. Pror. A. F. Kirkpatrick, M.A.
Rev. ALEXANDER Mactaren, D.D.
Rev. J. H. Overton, M.A.
Rey. Pror. 8S. D. F. Satmonp, D.D.
Rev. Pror. W. Sanpay, D.D.
Rev. Pror. G. T. Stokes, M.A.
Rev. Pror. H. L. Srracx, D.D., Pa.D.
Rev. C. Taytor, D.D.
Rev. Pror. B. B. Warrietp, D.D.
Hon. Lavy Wetpy-Grecory.
Rey. ror. B..F. Westcott, D.D.,.D.C.L.
Tue Eprror.
ῳ
Ay
*
᾿
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR :
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
I. THe Trias oF A New AGE.
‘* This word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are
shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not
shaken may remain.”—Heb, xii. 27 (Rev. Vers.).
EVERY age which is moved by the Spirit of God feels keenly
the searching, chastening power of that Divine Presence.
“He that is near Me,” the Lord is reported to have
said, “15 near fire.’ And we cannot hope to enjoy the
splendour of a fuller, purer light without enduring the pain
which necessarily comes from the removal of the veils by
which it was obscured. Gain through apparent loss; vic-
tory through momentary defeat; the energy of a new life
through pangs of travail; such has ever been the law of
spiritual progress. This law has been fulfilled in every
crisis of reformation ; and it is illustrated for our learning
in every page of the New Testament.
But in no apostolic writing is the truth unfolded with
such pathetic force as in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And
so it is, I think, that that mysterious ‘‘ word of consolaticn”’
appeals to us with a voice of thrilling power in our time
of trial, when the law of progress, the law of frnitfulness
through death, seems to be hastening to a fresh fulfilment.
The student of that Epistle cannot but observe that no
men were ever called upon to endure greater sacrifices, to
surrender more precious hopes, to bear deeper disappoint-
ments, than those to whom it was first addressed. Men
who had lived in the light of the Old Testament, men who
VOL, III, B
2 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
had known the joy of a noble ritual, men who had habitu-
ally drawn near to God in intelligible ways, men who had
but lately welcomed Him in Whom they believed that the
glory of Israel should be consummated, were most unex-
pectedly required to face what seemed to them to be the
forfeiture of all that they held dearest. The letter of Scrip-
ture, the worship of the temple, the expectations of national
triumph, had to be abandoned. The heirs of the patriarchs,
when they first felt that they were entering on their in-
heritance, were compelled, if they remained Christians, to
accept the position of outcasts from the ancient common-
wealth of God, and to confess themselves followers of One
crucified and rejected, Who delayed to assume His throne.
And what then? They could not but begin to reckon
up their loss and gain. The fresh enthusiasm of their early
faith had died away in the weary waiting of a lifetime.
They had in part degenerated because they had not grown.
But they were not uncared for in the crisis of their peril.
Out of the darkness of the gathering storm, in which the
Holy Place was to be for ever swept away, came a voice
which interpreted the sad riddles of their fate. Under the
guidance of a nameless apostle, the Hebrews were enabled
_to see how the sufferings of Christ were not a difficulty in
the way of His Messiahship, to be compensated by a visible
triumph, but the very pledge of the fulfilment of the destiny
of man in spite of sin; to see how the unbelief of Israel
opened the way for the larger unfolding of the world-wide
counsels of God; to see how in giving up type and shadow
they secured the realities which these signified; to see how
things visible and transitory were replaced by things un-
seen and eternal; to see how above the vanishing grace of
the Levitical service rose in supreme and sovereign majesty
the figure of the ascended Christ Priest and King for ever,
seated at the right hand of Gc4, infinite in sympathy and
power.
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 3
Now when we read the apostolic words, and picture to
ourselves the sorrows which they illuminated—when we
feel that in the portraiture of the perils of early believers we
have the record of true human struggles, and know that the
essential elements of human discipline must always be the
same—we cannot, I think, fail to recognise in the trials of
the Hebrews of the first age an image of the peculiar trials
by which. we are beset; and so by their experience we may
gain the assurance that for us also there is the promise of
larger wisdom where they found it, that the removal of those
things that are shaken is brought about in order that those
things which are not shaken may remain in serener and
simpler beauty.
If we look at the circumstances of the Hebrews a little
more closely we shall notice that the severity of their trials
came in a great degree from mistaken devoutness. They
had determined, in obedience to traditional opinion, what
Scripture should mean, and they found it hard to enter into
its wider teaching. They had determined that institutions
which were of Divine appointment must be permanent, and
they found it hard to grasp the realities by which the forms
of the older worship were replaced. They had determined
that Christ’s sovereignty should be openly vindicated by the
victorious faith of God’s people, and they found it hard to
hold their belief firm against the general unbelief of their
fellow-countrymen.
Now in these respects, we cannot, as I said, fail to recog-
nise that the difficulties of the Hebrews correspond with
our own. For I am speaking now of the difficulties of those
who hold to their first faith, and are yet conscious of shak-
ings, changes, losses, of the removing of much which they
formerly identified with it. Many among us, for example,
tremble with a vague fear when they find that that “ Divine
Library,” in the noble language of Jerome, which we call
the Bible—“ the Books ’’—‘the Book’’—cannot be sum-
4 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
marily separated by a sharp, unquestionable line from the
other literature with which it is connected; that the text
and the interpretation of the constituent parts have not
been kept free from corruptions and ambiguities which re-
quire the closest exercise of critical skill; that deductions
have been habitually drawn from incidental modes of ex-
pression in Scripture which cannot be maintained in the
light of that fuller knowledge of God’s working which He
has given us. |
Others again find the historical problems raised by the
study of the Bible carried into a wider region. They learn
in the turmoil of action, and they learn in the silence of
their own souls, that the Faith can no longer be isolated
and fenced off from rude questionings as something separate
from common life. They perceive that they must bear, as
they can, to see the deepest foundations of truth laid open
and tested by impetuous inquirers; bear, as they can, to
acknowledge once and again that formulas which, in earlier
times, seemed to declare the Gospel adequately, no longer
cover the facts of the world as they have been revealed to
us in these later days.
And others have a more grievous trial still. As their view
of the world is widened ; as they come to understand better
the capacities of humanity and the claims of Christ; as
they are driven to compare the promises of the kingdom of
God with the present fruits of its sway; as they feel that
they cannot separate themselves from the race of which they
are heirs; as they look upon the light, still after eighteen
centuries struggling (as it appears) against eclipse, their
heart may well sink within them. We cannot wonder if
such are tempted to ask with those of old times, Where is the
promise of His coming? or to listen with little more than
the sad protest of a lonely trust to the bold assertions of
those who say that the Faith has exhausted its power in
dealing with the facts of an earlier and simpler civilization.
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 5
There is not, I believe, one who reads these words—not
one who looks with calm, open eyes upon the spectacle
of the world and the nearer vision of his own nature—
who has not been stirred by the anxious thoughts which I
have indicated, and asked how they shall be met, met not
by a strong effort of overmastering will, but with that
quiet confidence which is able to welcome every lesson
of the discipline of God. And what then shall we say?
How shall we escape the double danger which besets
us, of hastily surrendering every position which is boldly
challenged, or of rigidly refusing to consider arguments
which tend to modify traditional opinion ?
I do not doubt one moment, as to my answer. I bid
those who are tempted to accept their trials with the
frankest trust, as the conditions through which they will
be brought to know God better. I have been forced by
the peculiar circumstances of my work to regard from
many sides the difficulties which beset our historic Faith.
If I know by experience their significance and their
gravity ; if I readily allow that on many points I wish for
fuller light; then I claim to be heard, when I say without
reserve that I have found each region of anxious trial
fruitful in blessing: that I have found my devout reverence
for every word of the Bible quickened and deepened, when
I have acknowledged that it demands the exercise of every
faculty with which I have been endowed, and, that as it
touches the life of man at every point, it welcomes, for
its fuller understanding, the help which comes from every
gain of human knowledge; that I have found my absolute
trust in the Gospel of the Word Incarnate confirmed with
living power, when I have seen with growing clearness
that no phrases of the schools can adequately express its
substance, or do more than help men provisionally to
realise some part of its relation to thought and action;
when I have learnt through the researches of students in
6 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
other fields to extend the famous words of the Roman
dramatist, and say ‘‘ Christianus sum: nihil in rerum
natura ame alienum puto”; that I have found, even in the
slow and fitful progress of the Church, which still does
move forward, a spring of hope, when I turn, as I must turn
from time to time, to take count of the unutterable evils
of great cities, and great nations, and whole continents,
which wait for atonement and redemption in the long-
suffering and wisdom of God. Yes, if, as I have en-
deavoured to show, our trials, the trials of a new age,
correspond with those of the Hebrews, the consolation
which availed for them, avails for us also. We shall find
in due course, as they found, that all we are required to
surrender—child-like prepossessions, venerable types of
opinion, partial and impatient hopes—is given back to us
in a new revelation of Christ; that He is being brought
nearer to us, and shown in fresh glory, through the “ fall-
ings from us, vanishings of sense and earthly things”
which we had been inclined to identify with Himself.
There is a picture with which we are all familiar, in
which Christ seated in glory is represented as dispensing
His gifts to the representatives of suffering humanity.
From His hands the slave receives freedom and the sick
health: the mourner finds rest in His sympathy, old men
peace, children joy. “ Christus Consolator’’ is indeed an
image which touches every heart. But it is not the whole
Gospel; it is not, I venture to think, the particular aspect
of the Gospel which is offered by the Spirit of God to us
now for our acknowledgment. Sin, suffering, sorrow, are
not the ultimate facts of life. These are the work of an
enemy ; and the work of our God and Saviour lies deeper.
The Creation stands behind the Fall, the counsel of the
Father’s love behind the self-assertion of man’s wilfulness.
And I believe that if we are to do our work we must learn
to think, not only of the redemption of man, but also of
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 7
the accomplishment of the Divine purpose for all that God
made. We must learn to think of that swmming up of all
things in Christ, in the phrase of St. Paul, which crowns
the last aspirations of physicist and historian with a final
benediction. We must dare, in other words, to look beyond
Christ the Consoler to Christ the Fulfiller. Christus Con-
_solator—let us thank God for the revelation which leaves
no trial of man unnoticed and unsoothed—leads us to
Christus Corsummator.
This thought of “Christ the Fulfiller”’ is, as it seems
to me, the characteristic teaching of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. The author of that marvellous book, speaking to
the heart with a pathos to which the prophecy of Jeremiah
offers the only parallel in the Bible, shows us in many
ways how He through whom God made the world in all the
rich variety of its growing life, has been appointed heir of
all things; how He has fulfilled the destiny of men in spite
of the inroad of sin, and borne humanity to the throne of
the Father; how in the plenitude of royal majesty He ap-
pears before God for those whose nature He has taken to
Himself; how in Him we have present access to a spiritual
society, in which earth and heaven, men and angels, are
united in a glorious fellowship; how He has given us for
our daily support a covenant and a service, which trans-
figure the conditions of our conflict into sacraments of a
higher order.
These, then, are the four thoughts which I wish to follow
out in due succession. They meet our difficulties, as far
as I can judge, with messages of widened hope, as they met
the difficulties of the Hebrews. They enable us to realise
with a personal and present conviction, that the Spirit of
God is even now taking of the things of Christ, and showing
them unto us; that we too are living in an age of revela-
tion, and called to listen to a Divine voice.
And if the thoughts seem strange to any, and removed
8 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
from the familiar circle of religious reflection; if they re-
quire devout patience for their mastering; if they add an
element of infinite interest to the commonest details of life,
and therefore claim the tribute of complete self-surrender ;
let us remember that progress is still, as in the first age,
the essence of our faith. We have to gather little by little
the fruits of a victory in which Christ has overcome the
world. The Hebrews were, as we have seen, in danger of
apostasy, because they failed to go forward. And that we
may be shielded from the like peril, the words which were
spoken to them are spoken also to us: let ws be borne on to
perfection, not simply “let us go on,” or even “let us press
on,’ asif the advance depended on the vigour of our own
effort, but ‘‘let us be borne on,” ‘‘ borne on” with that
mighty influence which waits only for the acceptance of
faith, that it may exert its sovereign sway, ‘‘ borne on” by
Him whose unseen arms are outstretched beneath the most
weary and the weakest, ‘‘ borne on’’ by Him who is the
Way and the End of all human endeavour.
And as we are thus “borne on,” as we yield ourselves,
yield every gift of mind and body, of place and circum-
stance, yield all that we cherish most tenderly, to the
service of Him in Whom we are made more than con-
querors, let us not fear that we shall lose the sense of the
vastness of the Divine life in our glad consciousness of its
immediate power. We assuredly shall not fail in reverent
eratitude to our fathers for the inheritance which they
have bequeathed to us, while we acknowledge that it is our
duty to improve it. We shall not disparage the past, while
we accept the inspiring responsibility of using to the utter-
most the opportunities of the present We shall cling with
the simplest devotion to every article of our ancient Creed,
while we believe, and act as believing, that this 2s eternal
life, that we may know—know, as the original word implies,
with a knowledge which is extended from generation to
LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 9
generation, and from day to day,—the only true God and
Jesus Christ.
By the pursuit of this knowledge we come to acknowledge
that the difficulties which press us most sorely are really the
discipline through which God is teaching us: veiled promises
of coming wisdom. We learn through the living lessons
of our own experience that the eternal Gospel covers the
facts of life, its sorrows, its needs, its joys, its wealth.
Through every conflict the Truth is seen in the majesty
of its growing vigour. Shakings, shakings not of the earth
only but of the heaven, will come; but what then? We
know this, that all that falls is taken away, that those
things which are not shaken may remain.
Brooke Foss WESTCOTT.
LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
II. GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES.
i. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLES.
THE Epistles of Ignatius, as is well known, have come
down to us in three different recensions. Mainly through
the researches of Zahn,! it is now generally admitted that
of these three recensions the shorter Greek recension (con-
taining seven Epistles) is the earliest, and that it alone can
be taken into account in the discussion regarding genuine-
ness. Lightfoot, who was previously disposed to regard the
Curetonian Epistles as the earliest, has now expressed his
thorough agreement with Zahn. In two comprehensive
chapters,” he has discussed the longer Greek recension and
the Curetonian Epistles, and has shown that the former
1 Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873. 2 See vol. i. pp: 222-266 ; 267-314.
10 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
was fabricated in the fourth century,! and that the latter
is a harmless collection made about the year 400 or some-
what earlier. The demonstration is so complete that it is
no longer necessary to spend words on this question.
There remains, therefore, only the shorter Greek recen-
sion of the Epistles. Whether these Epistles are genuine
or not, is one of the main problems of early Church history.
Upon the decision of this question depends more than can
be indicated in a short sketch. After repeated investiga-
tions, the genuineness of the Epistles seems to me certain,
and I hold the hypothesis of their spuriousness to be un-
tenable.
In this conclusion I agree with Lightfoot, and I also
thank him for having removed many difficulties in detail
which I had previously felt. But, on the other hand, I can
subscribe to only one of the deductions which he has drawn
in the sixth chapter—that entitled “The Genuineness.” ὃ
To me it seems that neither in the section on the Ex-
ternal Evidence, nor in that on the Internal Evidence, is
everything so very plain and so completely free of diffi-
culty as the reader would be led to suppose from Lightfoot’s
representation.
I begin with the External Evidences. Lightfoot has here
summed up in four propositions the conclusions reached
by his investigations.* 1. No Christian writings of the se-
cond century, and very few writings of antiquity, whether
Christian or Pagan, are so well authenticated as the Epistles
1 Lightfoot has rejected Ussher’s hypothesis that the compilation of the Con-
stitutiones Apostolicae, and the working up of the Ignatian Epistles were by the
same hand. He assigns the Pseudo-Ignatius to the second half of the fourth
century. In opposition to this I hold firmly to the conclusions which I reached
(See Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 11. p. 241, sq.). I believe that the proofs
of the identity of the Pseudo-Clemens and the Pseudo-Ignatius brought forward
by me are so complete that they cannot be overthrown. Lightfoot has unfor-
tunately not been able to enter more fully into these. See, however, vol. i.
p- 738.
= See vol. i. pp. 315-414. 3 Sce vol. i. p. 407.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 11
of Ignatius. In the Epistle of Polycarp be accepted as gen-
uine, the authentication is perfect. 2. The main ground of
objection against the genuineness of the Epistle of Polycarp
is its authentication of the Ignatian Epistles. Otherwise,
there is every reason to believe that it would have passed
unquestioned. 8. The Epistle of Polycarp itself is excep-
tionally well authenticated by the testimony of his disciple
Ireneus. 4. All attempts to explain the phenomena of
the Epistle of Polycarp as forged, or interpolated to give
colour to the Ignatian Epistles, have here signally failed.
I can subscribe to these propositions in regard to all they
say about the Epistle of Polycarp and the value of its testi-
mony. This Epistle is undoubtedly genuine; it is not in-
terpolated; it can by no means be understood as the attempt
of a forger to authenticate the Ignatian Epistles; and it
consequently affords testimony to the genuineness of the
Epistles as strong as any that can be conceived of. But
with this the external evidence is exhausted. If we do not
retain the Epistle of Polycarp then we must allow that the
external evidence on behalf of the Ignatian Epistles is ex-
ceedingly weak, and hence is highly favourable to the suspt-
cion that they are spurious. This fact, however, is kept out
of sight by Lightfoot, and that indeed for these reasons,
because Lightfoot (1) produces very doubtful witnesses for
the Epistles,1 and (2) has not strictly enough considered
the form in which the earliest witnesses for the Epistles
make their appearance. From the time before Eusebius,
we possess only these testimonies to the Epistles, one by
Irenzeus, and one by Origen. How do these speak ?
(1) Irenzeus, in order to maintain the necessity of tribula-
tions for those who would be saved, appeals to the words of
a martyr whom he does not name, for he writes :* ὡς εἶπε
1 In the Epistle of the Smyrnmans, the Epistle of the Churches of Gaul,
Lucian, and even—though hesitatingly—Theophilus.
2 Adv. Har., ν. 283.
12 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
τίς TOV ἡμετέρων διὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν μαρτυρίαν κατακριθεὶς
πρὸς θηρία. This is followed by a sentence from Ignat. ad
Rom. iv.
(2) Origen, in his prologue to the Song of Songs,! cites
words from Ignat. ad Rom. vil., with the formula: denique
memini aliquem sanctorum dixisse, Ignatium nomine, de
Christo. In his sixth Homily on Luke, he quotes a sentence
from Ignat. ad Eph. xix., with the words :? καλῶς ἐν μιᾷ τῶν
μάρτυρός τινος ἐπιστολῶν γέγραπται---τὸν ᾿Ιγνάτιον λέγω, τὸν
μετὰ τὸν μακάριον Πέτρον τῆς ᾿ἀντιοχέιας δεύτερον ἐπίσκοπον,
τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ ἐν Ρώμῃ θηρίοις μαχησάμενον."
Up to the beginning of the third century, that is, up to
the time of Origen, apart from the Epistles and the testi-
mony of Polycarp, we have absolutely no evidence that
there was an Antiochian Bishop Ignatius.
In the third century, Origen reports that Ignatius was
the second bishop of Antioch; it is the only testimony that
is not derived from the Epistles themselves ; but more than
this no one even in the Church of Ignatius was aware of,
for everything else, which was reported later, and is not in
the Epistles themselves, is utterly fabulous.*
Treneeus, Origen, and even Basil® have referred to the
author of the Ignatian Epistle with a τίς, and thereby
prove that there was no continuous tradition regarding the
Epistles in the Church.®
Thus, apart from Polycarp’s Epistle, there is really no
1 Opp., ed. Delarue, T. iii. p. 50 A. 2 Opp., T. iii. p. 938 A.
3. The sentence in Origen, de Orat., 20 (comp. Ignat. ad Rom. iii), οὐδὲν
φαινόμενον kahov—is probably not copied from Ignatius.
+ On the report that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan see below.
5. See Hom. in Sanctam Christi Generationem, 3 (Opp., ii. ed. Garnier, p.
598), εἴρηται δὲ παλαιῶν τινι Kal ἕτερος λύγος ὅτι ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαθεῖν τὸν ἄρχοεντα τοῦ
αἰῶνος τοῦτο τὴν παρθενίαν τῆς Μαρίας κιτ.λ. See Eph. xix.
6 The Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius are not to be regarded as affording
such testimony, but are pure inventions. The Roman Acts date at the earliest
from the 5th century, and perhaps only from the 6th century; and even the
Antiochian Acts are not ancient. That they contain an historical element is
nothing more than a possibility. See Lightfoot, vol. ii. pp. 363-472.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 13
external evidence. The early Church was indeed in exactly
the same position in which we are. It possessed only the
Epistles themselves, nothing more. It was not even known
whether the writer of the seven Epistles actually suffered
a martyr’s death. On this fact are founded the doubts as
to the historical character of an Antiochian bishop Ignatius,
which many entertain. A difficult historical problem is
here presented, which we are not able to clear up. How
has it come about that the writer of the seven Epistles has
left behind in the memory of the Church no other trace than
just these Epistles! If the genuineness of the Epistle of
Polycarp be acknowledged, it is clearly no longer admis-
sible to answer this problem by declaring the figure of the
Ignatius of the Epistles a fiction; but the problem still
remains and cannot be overlooked. But in Lightfoot’s
work it is not acknowledged.
We now pass to the Internal Evidence. Lightfoot has
summed up the results of his investigations in ten pro-
positions.
1. “The external testimony to the Ignatian Epistles
being so strong, only the most decisive marks of spurious-
ness in the Epistles themselves, as for instance proved
anachronisms, would justify us in suspecting them as inter-
polated or rejecting them as spurious.”’
2. ‘ But so far is this from being the case, that, one after
another, the anachronisms urged against these letters have
vanished in the light of further knowledge. Thus the
alleged refutation of the Valentinian doctrine of eons in
Magn. viii. depends on a false reading which recently dis-
covered materials for the text have corrected. ‘The sup-
posed anachronism of the ‘leopards’ (Rom. v.) has been
refuted by the production of passages overlooked by the
objector. The argument from the mention of the ‘ Catholic
Church’ (Smyrn. viii.) has been shown to rest on a false
interpretation which disregards the context.”
14 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
3. ‘As regards the argument which Daiillé calls ‘palmary’
—the prevalence of episcopacy as a recognised institution
—we may say boldly that all the facts point the other way.
If the writer of these letters had represented the Churches
of Asia Minor as under Presbyterial government, he would
have contradicted all the evidence, which, without one
dissentient voice, points to episcopacy as the established
form of Church government in these districts from the
close of the first century.”’
4, “The circumstances of the condemnation, captivity,
and journey of Ignatius, which have been a stumblingblock
to some modern critics, did not present any difficulty to
those who lived near the time, and therefore knew best
what might be expected under the circumstances; and
they are sufficiently borne out by examples, more or less
analogous, to establish their credibility.”
5. “The objections to the style and language of the
Hpistles are beside the purpose. In some cases they
arise from a misunderstanding of the writer's meaning.
Generally they may be said to rest on the assumption that
an apostolic Father could not use exaggerated expressions,
overstrained images, and the like—certainly a sandy foun-
dation on which to build an argument.”
6. ‘A like answer holds with regard to any extravagances
in sentiment, or opinion, or character. Why should Igna-
tius not have exceeded the bounds of sober reason or
correct taste? Other men, in his own and immediately
succeeding ages, did both. As an apostolic Father, he was
not exempt from the failings, if failings they were, of his
age and position.”
7. “While the investigation of the contents of these
Epistles has yielded this negative result, in dissipating the
objections, it has at the same time had a high positive
value, as revealing indications of a very early date, and there-
fore presumably of genuineness, in the surrounding circum-
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 15
stances, more especially in the types of false doctrine which
it combats, in the ecclesiastical status which it presents,
and in the manner in which it deals with the evangelical
and apostolic documents.”
8. ‘‘ Moreover we discover in the personal environments
of the assumed writer, and more especially in the notices
of his route, many subtle coincidences which we are con-
strained to regard as undesigned, and which seem alto-
gether beyond the reach of a forger.”’
9. ‘So likewise the peculiarities in style and diction of
the Epistles, as also in the representation of the writer's
character, are much more capable of explanation in a
genuine writing than in a forgery.”
10. ‘‘ While external and internal evidence thus combine
to assert the genuineness of these writings, no satisfactory
account has been, or apparently can be, given of them as
a forgery of a later date than Ignatius. They would be
quite purposeless as such; for they entirely omit all topics
which would especially interest any subsequent age.”
The largest portion of these propositions has been actually
proved by Lightfoot. In fact the inner grounds for the
genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles are overpowering.
They are apparent indeed only to the careful investigator,
not to the dilettanti. It may be said: Epistule Ignatii
obiter inspectze fraudem, plene perspecte veritatem com-
mendant. Zahn already in this connexion brought striking
arguments, which Lightfoot has further confirmed. His
careful deductions regarding the situation, regarding the
individuality of each separate Epistle (especially the Epistle
to the Romans), regarding the route along which Ignatius
travelled, regarding the relation of the Epistles to the New
Testament, etc., are just so many incontestible proofs of
the genuineness of the Epistles. Two of the statements,
however, which are here set forth as facts, I can by no
means recognise as facts which are of decisive importance
16 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
for the question of the genuineness of the Epistles,
namely, the episcopate,! and the delineation of heresy. ?
On account of the importance of this matter, I must enter
more fully into this question.
1. The Episcopate. Lightfoot makes the assertion: ‘ If
the writer of these letters had represented the Churches
of Asia Minor as under Presbyterial government he would
have contradicted all the evidence, which, without one dis-
sentient voice, points to Episcopacy as the established form
of Church government in these districts from the close of
the first century.’ Even should we take it for granted that
this statement is correct, the matter of fact is very imper-
fectly set forth by it. The most remarkable thing is, not
the monarchical-episcopal constitution in itself, but the way
in which this constitution is spoken of. Lightfoot certainly
is quite right, when he remarks that Ignatius’ conception of
the episcopate is to be completely distinguished from that
of Ireneus.? But we must observe (1) that Ignatius’ con-
ception of the position and significance of the bishop has
its earliest parallel in the conception of the author of the
Apostolic Constitutions (Original text, 1. i—vi., Sec. iii.
extr.), and (2) that the Epistles show that the monarchical
episcopate in Asia Minor was so firmly rooted, so highly
elevated above all other offices, so completely beyond dis-
pute,* that, on the ground of what we know from other
sources of early Church history, no single investigator would
assign the statements under consideration to the second,
but at the earliest to the third century. On account of
1 See No. 3, p. 14. * See No. 7, p. 14.
3 Ignatius does not speak of an institution of bishops by the apostles; he
does not consider bishops as successors of the apostles. He knows nothing
yet of applying the name bishop beyond the realm of the local congregation.
4 It was a very unfortunate hypothesis to imagine that the Epistles were
composed for the purpose of first securing the adoption of the episcopate or
helping to secure its triumph. Nothing of this sort is to be traced in the
Epistles. Ignatius rather exhorts that the already naturalised or adopted order
should be turned to account as the best means against heresy.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 17
the other facts which afford evidence of the genuineness
of the Epistles, we are compelled to assign them to the
first half of the second century, and therefore from this we
must feel ourselves compelled to admit that our knowledge
of the second century is very defective, and that we cannot
be careful enough in forming conclusions. But it would
be a reversal of facts, if one were to affirm, that from the
way in which Ignatius has spoken of the bishop, and from
the impression which one receives of the supremacy of the
bishops of that time, he could obtain proofs of the genuine-
ness of the Epistles.1 The matter rather stands thus: the
doubts are overcome, but the enigmas still remain unsolved.
The statements of Ignatius regarding the rank to which the
episcopate has attained, occupy, so far as our knowledge
goes, an altogether isolated position in the second century.
But is the state of the case such, that, as Lightfoot
thinks, we should be very greatly surprised, if there were
nothing said in the Epistles regarding the monarchical epis-
copate? Are there actually witnesses to show that already,
in the later years of the Apostolic age, monarchical epis-
copacy had been developed? Lightfoot affirms this,” and
seeks to prove its existence in Asia Minor from historical
witnesses. He refers, (1) to Ireneeus’ testimony to Polycarp,
(2) to the Epistle of Polycrates of Ephesus to Victor of
Rome, (3) to Clement of Alexandria, Quis Div. Salv. 42,
1 In saying this I by no means deny that a series of characteristics in the
representation of the episcopate, which we obtain from the Ignatian Epistles,
give the impression of extreme antiquity, and that much that is strange is to
be explained by the rhetoric of the bishop.
2 See vol. i. pp. 377 sq.: “It is there shown, if I mistake not, that though
the New Testament in itself contains as yet no direct and indispensable notices
of a localized episcopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the
moveable episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus, and by Titus in Crete,
yet there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years of the
Apostolic age: that this development was not simultaneous and equal in all
parts of Christendom ; that it is more especially connected with the name of
St. John; and that in the early years of the second century, the episcopate
was widely spread and had taken firm root, more especially in Asia Minor and
Syria.”
VOL. III. σ
18 LIGHTFOUT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
and (4) to the Muratorian Fragment.! Against these
witnesses I have very serious objections, both in general
and in regard to details.
(1) All these witnesses belong to the end of the second
century, that is, to a period when the Catholic Church was
already established. By that time the New Testament was
recognised as a collection of apostolic writings; by that
time the rule of faith was accepted as an apostolic heritage;
by that time the monarchical episcopate had secured its
place as an institution ordained by the apostles. The
statements, therefore, of writers during this period regard-
ing the earliest ages of the Church in most cases could not
be correct.
(2) As concerns Irenseus’ testimony to Polycarp, upon
which Lightfoot places the highest value, it is to be con-
sidered, that Irenzeus communicates a list of bishops of
Rome, which reaches from Paul and Peter to Eleutherus,
and declares that the Apostles had ordained Linus as bishop
in Rome. That this is false, can be proved, and is not
denied even by Lightfoot. But what reliance then can we
have in the statement of Irenzeus that Polycarp was ordained
a bishop by the Apostles? If to this it be replied that
Treneus was personally acquainted with Polycarp, and that
consequently his testimony has here quite a different weight,
it must still be said that by an uncritical interpretation of
the historical succession—Ireneus, Polycarp, John—the
entire system of catholicism can be dragged into the
Apostolic Age. Take an example. IJrenwus has the New
Testament and says nothing as to when the New Testament
had its origin; he compares the four Gospels with the four
parts of heaven. Hence his honoured teacher must have
already possessed the New Testament, and since he [Poly-
1The testimony of Polycarp (Zp. ad Philipp. inscri.), ἸΤολύκαρπος καὶ οἱ σὺν
αὐτῳ πρεσβύτεροι, is no certain testimony to the existence of a monarchical
episcopate.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 19
carp] has faithfully preserved the heritage of John, nothing
taken from and nothing added to it, the Apostle John must
already have had the New Testament. Take another
example. Ireneus regards the bishops as the successors
of the apostles, who have received the charisma veritatis.
Since he can have brought forward nothing new, which he
had not learned from Polycarp, this must already have been
Polycarp’s view. No considerate critic will accept these
conclusions, nor admit that from the statement of Irenzus ἢ
-- Πολύκαρπος οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ Ἀποστόλων μαθητευθείς καὶ
συναναστραφεὶς πολλοῖς τοῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἑωρακόσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ὑπὸ Ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ
ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπίσκοπος --- it will follow that Ireneus knew
on sure historical grounds that Polycarp was ordained a
monarchical bishop by the Apostles.» He will rather,
either assume that the assertion of Ireneus is simply a
combination on the model of the Gallican bishop, or he will
at furthest regard it as credible that some apostle or other
entrusted Polycarp with the office of the ἐπισκοπή, while
in this office he gives the blessing alongside of other bishops
of the same community. But Iveneus in this passage
undoubtedly supposes that Polycarp by apostolic ordination
has become what bishops of his time (about 185) were,
namely, successors of the apostles endued with special
official grace. That this is incorrect, even Lightfoot cannot
dispute, but then he should not borrow from the passage
a testimony to the existence of monarchical episcopate
in the age of Domitian and Trajan. JIrenzus does not
distinguish between monarchical bishops and episkopoi:
Lightfoot himself distinguishes between them, and knows
very well® that there were ἐπίσκοποι in many Churches but
yet no ἐπίσκοπος. But how will one prove that from the
1 Adv. Haer., iii. 3, 3.
2 The general character of the expression should be noted,
3 See Philippians, p. 181, sq.
20 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
beginning Polycarp was the one bishop in Smyrna? It
cannot be proved from the testimony of Irenzeus.!
(3) Still less weight is to be given to the testimony of
Polycrates (in Eusebius, Hist. Hccles., v. 24). Polycrates
wrote about the year 195. He enumerates several famous
bishops in Asia Minor from the age of the Antonines, and
says that seven of his relatives had been bishops, and that
he himself observed Easter in accordance with the tradition
of his relatives. More than this he does not say. How
from these words it should follow that there were already
in the age of Trajan and Hadrian monarchical bishops in
Asia Minor is to me utterly inexplicable. A sceptic might
indeed draw the conclusion, from the fact that Polycrates
speaks of seven relations who had been bishops, that in
Ephesus there had been presbyters who were at the same
time bishops. I do not draw this conclusion, but for the
period from A.D. 90 to 140 the statements of Polycrates are
without any value.
(4) The testimony of Clement of Alexandria” depends
upon an altogether unverifiable source. It consists of a
legend whose voucher Clement has not produced.2 From
such legends one cannot accept proofs. But even apart
1 After quoting many passages from Irenzus, Lightfoot concludes with the
words (vol. i. p. 379): ‘After every reasonable allowance made for the
possibility of mistakes in details, such language, from a man standing in the
position of Ireneus with respect to the previous and contemporary history of
the Church, leaves no room for doubts as to the early and general diffusion of
episcopacy in the regions with which he was acquainted.” But as observed
above, Ireneus has also regarded the monarchical episcopate in Rome as
primitive. From the words of Ireneus there is absolutely nothing gained in
regard to the origin of the episcopate and its spread during the period between
A.D. 90 and 140.
2 Quis Div. Salv., 42 ;—dkovoov μῦθον, οὐ μῦθον, ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον “περὶ ᾿Ιωάννου
τοῦ ἀποστόλου παραδεδομένον, ἐπειδὴ yap τοῦ τυράννου τελεοτήσαντος . . - μετῆλθεν
ἐπί τὴν "Ἔφεσον, ἀπήει παρακαλούμενος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ πλησιόχωρα τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὅπου μὲν
ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα
κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων.
3 Clement himself is not at all sure about the credibility of the story: he has
it from hearsay, and he does not once name the city in which that which is
related took place.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 21
from this, the testimony is evidently worthless, for 1t proves
too much. According to it already in the time of John
the distinction between clergy and laity had been firmly
established in Asia Minor, and the congregations had not
chosen their own office-bearers, but John had appointed
them for them. It comes then to this, that ὅπου μὲν
ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων cannot by any means be so under-
stood as to imply that there was only one bishop appointed
in each city, particularly as in the legend of the bishop, a
presbyter also is named.
(5) Least of all can I understand why Lightfoot should
have referred to the Muratorian Fragment. The passage in
question reads: ‘‘ Johannes ex discipulis cohortantibus con-
discipulis et episcopis suis dixit etc.’ Now that which I
have already advanced against all these witnesses under (1),
applies in a special manner to the Muratorian Fragment.
Then no one’ knows who are to be understood by the
episcopt sui. The episcopi of the Ephesian congregation
may indeed be intended. Such an acceptation of the term
would actually rest on the supposition that the author of
the Fragment has faithfully reported an old story. Iam
not of that opinion; but whoever regards the notice as
historically valuable, cannot turn away from this interpre-
tation, for it is nearer the truth than the other, according
to which those episcopi were monarchical bishops from the
province of Asia. But the proper explanation is this, that
the author of the Fragment has thought of John as the
Metropolitan of Asia.
Thus are all the witnesses exhausted. I may now sum
up my judgment. Apart from the Epistles of Ignatius, we
do not possess a single witness to the existence of the mon-
archical episcopate in the Churches of Asia Minor so early
as the times of Trajan and Hadrian.| We do not indeed
1 Lightfoot, too, does not regard the angels of the Seven Churches in Asia
Minor (dpocal. of Jol, ii. 3) as bishops. See his Comm. on Philippians, p. 197
Sq.
22 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
possess any witnesses that show that it did not exist,! and
this is sufficiently important ; but the Epistles of Ignatius
as a source of information stand alone, not only in assur-
ing us that the monarchical episcopate was thoroughly
naturalized in the Churches of Asia Minor of his day, but
also in testifying to the existence of this episcopate.” But
if this be so, then one cannot obtain any evidence for the
genuineness of the Epistles from what is to be read about
the episcopate in the Ignatian Epistles. The conviction of
the genuineness of the Epistles obtained from other grounds
must rather be defended against the objections which
obtrude themselves when the constitutional matters are
considered. Only in three points can we recognise a
relatively high antiquity for the Epistles in regard to these
matters; in so far as (1) their author does not name the
the bishops successors of the apostles, (2) reports nothing
about an institution of bishops by the apostles, and (3) only
takes the bishop, as representative of God and Christ, to be
the head of the particular Christian community.
Giessen. A. HARNACK.
1 With reference to the Roman Church we do possess such a witness in the
Shepherd of Hermas.
2 The question of the origin of the episcopate has only been touched upon
by Lightfoot in his works. I have, therefore, not found any occasion for
entering into it more fully. When he remarks (vol. i. p. 739): ‘* The document
entitled Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων seems to me to confirm yery strongly the
historical views put forward by me in the Essay on the Christian Ministry
(Philipp., Ὁ. 181 ff.) to which I have here (vol. i. p. 376) referred,’’—I cannot give
to this judgment an unqualified assent. Ivregard that Hssay as excellent ; but
the meaning of the author in reference to the origin of the episcopate did not
seem to me quite plain, and I believe further that the newly discovered Διδαχή
renders it necessary that in answering the question about the origin of the
Catholic church constitution other factors should be taken into account besides
those which Lightfoot has given attention to in his celebrated treatise. See my
edition of the Διδαχή, Prolegg. 8. 88-158. It must be conceded to the
Episcopalians that there were already ἐπίσκοποι in the Apostolic age, and that
not every πρεσβύτερος was an ἐπίσκοπος. But on the other hand, it can be
shown that the monarchical constitution of the Churches cannot be traced back
to the apostles.
(To be concluded.)
23
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
A WELL-WoRN theme! we fancy we hear the reader exclaim
to himself. True, the subject is one on which it is diffi-
cult to say what has not, in one form or another, been said
before ; nevertheless it is also a subject which ever engages
fresh interest, and the editor of the ExposIToR is anxious
to know what has been said last upon it.' Are we any
nearer than we were to a reconciliation of Genesis and
science? and, if not, what position is the theologian to
assume, and in what light is he to view the familiar and
impressive narrative with which the Bible opens?
The cosmogony of Genesis occupies the opening section
of the important document of the Pentateuch, which,
passing rapidly over the patriarchal period, culminates in
the detailed description of the theocratic institutions of
ancient Israel, the structure of the Tabernacle, the organi-
zation of the priesthood, and the sacrificial system.” This
opening section, it should be understood, does not terminate
with the first chapter, but with the third verse of chap. 1].
(where in the Revised Version a new paragraph com-
mences)—or perhaps, more strictly, with the word created
in ver. 4*—the first three verses of the second chapter
describing the Divine rest of the Seventh Day, and ver. 4
beginning a new account, by another hand, dealing more
particularly with the formation of man, and passing on to
describe the Fall. The narrative broken off at u. 4 is
1 The present article, it may be stated, was completed, and in the printer’s
hands, before Professor Huxley’s reply to Mr. Gladstone in the Nineteenth
Century for December last had appeared or even been announced. The mate-
rials embodied in it were, in fact, collected some time since for an independent
purpose. The writer would not willingly interpose between two such com-
batants.
3 Bxod. xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.—-xl.; Lev. ixvi., ete.
5. Τῇ the rendering of R.Y. be correct, the construction of the verse must have
been modified by the final Redactor of the Pentateuch.
)
24 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
resumed in chap. v., where the attentive reader will notice
its characteristic phraseology recurring. The question, how-
ever, of the precise point at which the section terminates
is immaterial for our present purpose, the details of the
work of creation being entirely confined to chap.i. We
may proceed, therefore, at once without further preface
to the consideration of this.
The past history of our earth is known approximately by
evidence which cannot be gainsaid—the evidence engraven
in the rocks. Those cliffs which tower out of the sea on
our southern coasts have revealed to the microscope the
secret of their growth: they are composed of the minute
shells of marine organisms, deposited at the rate of a few
inches a century at the bottom of the océan, and afterwards,
by some great upheaval of the earth’s crust, lifted high
above the waves. Our coal measures are the remains of
mighty forests which, one after another in slow succession,
have come and gone in certain parts of the earth’s surface,
and have stored up the energy, poured forth during long
ages from the sun, for our consumption and enjoyment.+-
The huge boulders resting now upon the soilin many parts
of this country, the striated rocks eroded by the slow move-
ment of glaciers, bear witness to the long centuries during
which this hemisphere was encrusted in a case of ice. Since
Pearson wrote * geology has become a science; and the
indications which have been noticed, with countless others,
show that the earth was not created, substantially as we
know it, some 6000 years ago, but that it reached its present
state, and received its rich and wondrous adornment of
vegetable and animal life, by a gradual process, extending
over untold centuries, and embracing unnumbered genera-
tions of living forms. More than this, not only do geology
1 Comp. two striking passages in the Hulsean Lectures for 1867, by Prof.
Pritchard, pp. 11 ff., 19 ff.
21659. See end of Art. I. in ed. 5 (1683) ‘‘ most certainly within not more
than six, or, at farthest, seven thousand years’? (fol, 68: comp. fol. 62).
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 25
and paleontology trace the history of the earth’s crust, and
determine the succession of living forms which have peopled
it, but astronomy, comparing the system of which this globe
forms part with other systems, takes a bolder flight, and
rises to the conception of a theory explaining, by the aid of
known mechanical and physical principles, the formation
of the earth itself. Observing the nature of the sun and’
of the planets, and other countless small bodies revolving
round it; perceiving, by the spectroscope and other means,
that the elements of which all are composed are similar, and
assured by the nebule of the existence in the heavens of huge
masses of luminous gas; astronomers following Laplace
have supposed that the substance of which the solar system
is composed existed once as a diffused gaseous mass, which
gradually condensed and became a rotating sphere, from
which, in succession, the different planets were flung off,
while the remainder was more and more concentrated until
it became what we call the sun.' One of these planets,
our earth—we need affirm nothing respecting the others—in
course of time, by reduction of temperature, and otherwise,
developed the conditions adequate for the support of life.
Certainly, both in structure and mechanism, the different
parts and movements of the solar system are so inter-
related, that it is difficult not to postulate for them some
common physical source; and this theory, which has been
accepted, at least provisionally, by many as well astrono-
mers as theologians, provides the unity of origin desider-
ated ; and, while it satisfies the scientific instinct, presents
at the same time, on a majestic scale, an example of that
1 For further particulars reference may be made to almost any modern man-
ual of astronomy. Compare Whewell, Essay on the Plurality of Worlds (1853),
p. 243: ‘The planets and the stars are the lumps which have flown from the
potter’s wheel of the Great Worker ;—the shred-coils which, in the working,
sprang from His mighty lathe ;—the sparks which darted from His awful anyil
when the solar system lay incandescent thereon ;—the curls of vapour which
rose from the great cauldron of creation when its elements were separated.”
26 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
slow development of a pre-arranged plan, which in a well-
known passage is signalised by Butler as one of the most
striking characteristics of the Divine action.}
Passing by some questions, chiefly connected with exe-
gesis, Which though not without interest in themselves
haye no direct bearing on the present issue, let us proceed
αὖ once to compare the process by which, according to the
narrative in Genesis, the earth was fitted to become the
habitation of man, with that which is disclosed by the in-
vestigations of science. In the first place, since the fossil
remains embedded in the different strata of the earth’s
surface show, beyond reach of controversy, that the living
forms which preceded man upon this globe were distributed
in a definite order over periods: of vast duration, we must,
if we suppose this order to be described in Genesis, inquire
whether it is permissible to understand the term day in
any but its literal sense. In the representation of the
writer it seems clear that the term denotes a period of
twenty-four hours. The passages which have been adduced
_ to establish the contrary are inconclusive. Certainly the
term day is sometimes used to mark what may be in reality
a longer period by concentrating it, as it were, into a vivid
point ; but this usage is practically confined to the prophe-
tical descriptions of the arrival of a new epoch, designated
as the ‘‘day of Jehovah” (Isa. ii. 12, etc.), or to the
idiomatic expression the day of . . . =the timeof .
(Isa. x1. 16; Jer. vil. 22, xi. 4, xvi. 19, xvii. 17, etc.) ; and in
such phrases the “day,” used thus metaphorically, is
naturally not subdivided into day and night. Psalm Χο. 4
(cf. 2 Pet. i. 8) is not more conclusive. By the expression,
‘“A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday,”
the Psalmist significantly declares that as a measure of the
1 Analogy, Pt. ii. ch. iv. (last paragraph).
THE COSMOGONY OF GHENZISIS. 27
Divine eternity, human standards of time are inapplicable ;
but where, as here, it is the writer’s object not to contrast
the eternity of God with the transient life of man, but to
mark the stages of the Divine action itself, an adaptation
of the Psalmist’s poetical phraseology does not appear in
place. In the representation of the writer, then, it seems
that the term must be held to denote a literal day. At the
same time the possibility must be admitted that the writer
may have consciously used the term figuratively, fully aware
on the one hand that the work of the Creator could not
be measured by human standards, but on the other hand
desirous of artificially accommodating it to the period of
the week. In spite of the phrases evening and morning,
which seem to imply literal days, the supposition that the
narrator meant his ‘“‘days’”’ as the figurative representation
of periods should not, as the present writer ventures to
think, be ruled as inadmissible.
If, then, at least provisionally, day be interpreted as
equivalent to period, two questions at once arise: Do the
days of Genesis correspond with well defined geological
periods ? and does the order in which different living things
are stated to have been created agree with the facts of
geology? To both these questions candour compels the
answer, No. Here is a table of the succession of life upon
the globe, taken (with slight modifications in form) from
Sir J. W. Dawson’s Chain of Life in Geological Time? :—
1 Commentators are much divided in opinion respecting the word. Keil, for
instance, maintains that the explanation (‘‘Umdeutung”’) of the days as periods
cannot be justified exegetically; and Professor Huxley (American Addresses, p.
20) declares that ‘‘as one who is not a Hebrew scholar, he can only stand by
and admire the marvellous flexibility of a language which admits of such
diverse interpretations.” ‘The question, however, is not so much what the
word means, as whether or not it may have been applied tiguratively by the
writer. It seems reasonable to admit that this may have been the case. The
“ morning” and “ evening ’”’ will then be part, not of the reality, but of the
representation.
? Religious Tract Society.
28 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
ANIMAL LIFE. VEGETABLE LIFE.
1. Laurentian. Eozoon Canadense.}
2. Huronian. Age of Protozoa (low- Indications of plants
liest marine animals). not determinable.
. Cambrian. Marine plants (sea-
Invertebrata: Age of weeds, ete.).
4, Silurian. mollusks, corals, and Earliest land-plants.
Eozoic
oo
crustaceans.
σι
. Devonian. Fishes abundant (but
no modern species).
|
E| Amphibians (many of
large size).
6. Carboniferous. Reptiles begin (chiefly Coal plants; chiefly
smaller and lower tree-ferns and large
species). mosses (flowerless “
Insects (spiders, beetles, plants), pines, and
cockroaches, etce.). cycads.
4
. Permian.
8. Triassic. Earliest marsupial
manmals.
9. Jurassic. Age of great reptiles Earliest modern trees.
and birds.
Mesozoic
0. Cretaceous.
1, Tertiary (clos- Age of extinct mam- Age of Angiosperms
ing with Glacial mals. First living and palms.
Cainozoic ~ Period). invertebrates.
12. Post-Tertiary. Age of modern mam-
mals and man.
The earliest organic forms occur in the remains belonging to the period first
named, marked, as its name implies, by the ‘‘ dawn of life.”
In Genesis the order is :—
Third Day.—Grass, herbs (i.e. vegetation more generally), trees.
(Fourth Day.—Luminaries.)
Fifth Day.—Aquatic animals, small (/7t),? and great (093'3N),? and winged
creatures (birds; also probably such insects as usually appear on the wing).*
Sixth Day.—Land animals, both herbivora (7197) and carnivora (8 1%),°
and creeping things (small reptiles ; perhaps also creeping insects). Man.
1 Tf this be of organic origin, a question on which geologists appear still to
be undecided. Comp. Geikie’s Teat Book of Geology (1885), p. 634 f.
2 Lit. swarming things (see Exod. viii. 3), a term applied also to land-crea-
tures (Ley. xi. 20-23, 29-31, 41-43, R.V., where it is rendered creeping, creep).
3 Sea monsters: ef. Job vii. 12. Applied specially to the crocodile, regarded
as a symbol of Egypt (Isa. i. 9; Ps. xxiv. 13 [R.V. retains here the old popu-
lar rendering inherited from Coverdale, dragon] ) ; but also applicable apparently
to a land-reptile (Exod. vii. 9, 10, 12). + Cf. Lev. xi. 20-23, R.V.
5 Or, domesticable and wild. The distinction is true generally, but must not
be pressed.
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 29
The two series are evidently at variance, ΤΠ The geolo-
gical record contains no evidence of clearly defined periods,
corresponding to the days of Genesis. This, however,
may be considered a minor discrepancy. (2) In Genesis
vegetation is complete two days before animal life appears:
geology shows that they appear simultaneously—even if
animal life does not appear first.) (3) In Genesis birds
appear together with aquatic creatures, and precede all land
animals: according to the evidence of geology, birds are
unknown till a period much later than that at which aquatic
-creatures (including fishes and amphibia) abound, and they
are preceded by numerous species of land animals—in par-
ticular by insects, and other ‘‘ creeping things.”
The second and third of these discrepancies are formid-
able. To remove them, harmonists have had recourse to
different methods, of which the following are the principal :—
i. It has been supposed that the main description in
Genesis does not relate to the geological periods at all,
that room is left for these periods between ver. 1 and ver.
2, that the lfe which then flourished upon the earth was
brought to an end by a catastrophe the results of which
are alluded to in ver. 2, and that what follows is the
description of a second creation, immediately preceding the
appearance of man. In so far as this theory assumes a
destruction of pre-existing life to be alluded to in ver. 2,
and its renovation to be described in the verses which
follow, it is called the ‘‘ restitution-hypothesis.” Exegeti-
cally the theory must be granted to be in the abstract
admissible; the form of ver. 2? is that which is frequently
used, in introducing a new narrative, to state a fact or
1 It is admitted that the proof from science of the existence of plants before
animals, is inferential and ἃ priori. (See the work cited, p. 28, note 1, pp.
191-2, 196.)
2 The copula with a noun followed by the substantive verb. Cf. iii. 1; Num.
xxxii. 1; Judg. xi. 1; 2 Kings v. 1; and other instances cited by Dr. Pusey in
the Preface to Lectures on Daniel (ed. 2), pp. 1xxxiii.-lyxxvii.
30 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
condition from which it starts, and implies no necessary
connexion with ver. 1. At the same time a connexion
with ver: 1 is in no respect excluded by the form of the
verse ; and the assumption of an interval between them
wide enough to embrace the whole of geological time is
contrary to the general tenor of the opening verses of
the narrative. It is a scientific difficulty that the theory
assumes the existence of the earth together with the
whole flora and fauna of the geological periods, prior to
the creation of hght and formation of the sun, etc. And,
thirdly, the existing species of both plants and animals are
so closely related to those of the period shortly preceding
the appearance of man, that the assumption of an inter-
vening state of chaos and ruin is in the last degree im-
probable; not only would it be in direct conflict with
the continuity of design which these facts establish, but
geologists themselves pronounce it to be untenable.’ Arbi-
trary in itself, and receiving no support or countenance
from science, the restitution-hypothesis has been generally
abandoned by modern apologists.”
il. It has heen supposed that the narrative was not
meant to describe the actual succession of events, but was
the description of a series of visions presented prophetically
to the narrator’s mental eye, and representing not the first
1 Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, p. 122.
2 In the present century it has been advocated most notably by J. H. Kurtz,
in his Bibel und Astronomie (ed. 5, 1864), abridged in the English translation of
his History of the Old Covenant, vol. i. pp. 1.-cxxx., see I. ὃ 6, III. ὃ 12. It was
embraced also by one whose name and writings do not yet deserve to be forgot-
ten—Dr. Chalmers. See his Memoirs, by Dr. Hanna (1851), vol. i. p. 386 f. (relat-
ing to the year 1814), and his Treatise on Natural Theology (1836), Pt. 11. ch. 11.
δὲ 1, 24, 26 (in the Glasgow edition of his Works, in 25 vols., vol.i. pp. 229,
250f., 256). But the language of verses 14-18 presents a stumbling-block
which both Dr. Chalmers (following Rosenmiiller) and Kurtz (I. § 8) in vain
endeayour to surmount. (Of course the argument for creative intervention
derived from the ‘‘ immutability of species ” would require now to be re-stated.)
This hypothesis is stated by Zéckler to have been first propounded by Epis-
co ius, an Arminian theologian of the 17th century.
a ae
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 91
appearance of each species of life upon the globe, but its
maximum development. The ‘‘drama of creation,’ it is
said, is not described as it was enacted historically, but
optically, as it would present itself to a spectator, in a series
of pictures, or tableaux, embodying the most characteristic
and conspicuous feature of each period, and, as it were,
summarizing in miniature its results. The view that the
contents of the narrative were revealed in prophetic vision,
was suggested by Kurtz! (though he, in accordance with
his restitution-theory, interpreted the ‘‘days”’ literally) ; it
was adopted and accommodated, with great eloquence and
skill, to the geological periods by Hugh Miller.’
The Third Day is identified with the Carboniferous period,
the marine life of the preceding periods being supposed to
be not visible in the tableaux, and, therefore, disregarded.
The theory expounded in Hugh Miller’s delightful pages
will be abandoned by many with regret; but the arguments
against 1ὖ appear to be conclusive. They are enumerated by
Delitzsch,® the principal ones being, that no indication is
contained in the narrative of its being the relation of a vision
(which in other cases is regularly noted, e.g. Amos vii.-ix. ;
Isa. vi.; Ezek. 1., etc.), that it purports to describe not
appearances (‘‘ And I saw, and behold . . .’’), but facts
(‘Let the earth. . . . And it was 50}, and that to sub-
stitute one for the other is to attribute to the narrator what
he nowhere expresses or claims. It is a material, and not
merely a formal difficulty, that, while marine animals, small
as well as great, were not hidden from view in the tableau
of the Fifth Day, the fishes and great amphibia of the
Devonian period (which precedes the Carboniferous period)
are not described ; in accordance with the hypothesis itself,
these should have been noticed’ before the vegetation of the
!Third Day.
Ὶ
LG le 8.8.,.8.8. 2 Testimony of the Rocks (1857).
5 Commentary on Genesis (1872), p. 68 f.
32 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
iii. Sir J. W. Dawson, one of the ablest and most
scholarly writers on the subject,' rejecting (p. 193) the hypo-
thesis of Hugh Miller, as Hugh Miller before him had re-
jected that of Kurtz, adopts another mode of reconciliation,
assigning nearly the whole of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic
periods (Nos. 4 to 9 in the table) to the Fifth Day, and
supposing 2 and 3 to contain such relics as survive of the
work of the Third Day. The objections to this scheme
are: (1.) it brings together fishes and birds, which never-
theless are in reality widely separated (Nos. 5 and 9); (11.)
Genesis places the appearance of creeping things on the
Sixth Day, while in fact they appear in what Sir J. W
Dawson assigns to the Fifth Day (Nos. 5 and 6); (111.) in
Genesis vegetation, including trees, is complete on the Third
Day, whereas prior to the Silurian period (No. 4) nothing
but the humblest forms of marine vegetation is observable.
The last difficulty is felt by Sir J. W. Dawson, and he
allows that the existence before the Silurian period of vege-
tation that would satisfy the language of Genesis still awaits
proof.2 He is sanguine himself that in time this proof may
be forthcoming; but the fact that vegetable life is admit-
ted to have advanced progressively from lower to higher
forms is not favourable to this expectation.* A theory
which identifies the Third Day not with the period during
which an abundant vegetation is known to have flourished,
but with one during which, as geologists assure us, “at
the utmost we can only speculate upon its presence or
condition,’’* can scarcely be received as satisfactory.
Two discrepancies of a different order remain to be
1 Origin of the World according to Revelation and Science (London, 1877).
2 Pp. 192, 194, 195.
3 Dana (Manual of Geology, 1880, pp. 157 1.) admits only the lowest form
of life as a (possible) explanation of the graphite (carbon) of the Laurentia. —,
period.
4 Phillip's Manual of Geology, ed. 2 (1885), by Seeley and Etheridge, vol. ii/
[
pp. 23-5.
{
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 33
noticed. (i.) Upon the assumption of Laplace’s theory of
the formation of the solar system (which may be said to
be tacitly accepted upon both sides), the formation of the
sun and moon cannot be placed subsequently to the separ-
ate existence of the earth and the appearance upon it of
a tolerably complete vegetation (‘‘trees”): it is assigned
in Genesis to the Fourth Day. The explanation usually
offered is that made (MWY) in ver. 16, means not formed but
appointed, appointed, viz. to their office and work (includ-
ing—or, at least, attended by, cf. ver. 17—the ‘“‘setting”’
or “placing them in the heavens’’).' This explanation,
however, is quite untenable. (1) In the very few passages
in which ΓΤ means appointed, either this sense is at once
apparent from the context,” or the word is followed by
a specification of the office or function intended ;? used
absolutely, it can only be a synonym of formed.* The
office for which the luminaries are ordained is described
in ver. 17 by a different ποτα. The expression in ver. 14
Let there be luminaries . . . implies that, in the concep-
tion of the writer, luminaries had not previously existed. _
(2) The hypothesis of the sun and moon being assigned
to their places after an abundant vegetation had appeared
upon the earth, is opposed to the entire scheme of the
solar system, as disclosed by science. ‘The process by which
the different bodies composing it acquired their existing
dimensions, and their orbits and distances were adjusted
to their present mean averages, must have been a gradual
1 Origin of the World, ete., p. 201.
2 As, “Ἢ made priests from among all the people” (1 Kings xiii. 31, R.V.);
2 Sam. xv. 1 (where “ prepared ᾽ is lit. made); 1 Kings i. 5; 2 Kings xxi. ὁ (ΠΥ,
marg.). The passage 1 Sam. xii. 6, stands alone in the Old Testament.
3As Ps. civ. 4; 1 Sam. viii. 16. In both these cases DY or 12) is the
word commonly employed (Gen. xlv. 8; Exod. xviii. 21,25; Deut. xvi. 18; 1 Sam.
viii. 12; Ps. civ. 3). In Ps. civ. 19, ‘‘ He made the moon for—i.e. with refer-
ence to—stated times (sacred seasons),” made retains its proper force.
+ As ver. 26; chap. v.1; Amos ν᾿. 8; Job ix. 9; Ps. cxv. 15, etc.
5 n3
VOL, III.
94 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
one; and it is unreasonable to suppose that the final stage of
this process, such as might have been passed through after
the earth was clad with vegetation, could be described
by the term ‘‘ made,” or designated as a “‘setting’’ in the
heavens. This word then must be taken in its natural
sense. It is true, now, that made does not in itself specify
the mode of formation employed, and would be perfectly
applicable to the concentration of diffused matter (in
accordance with Laplace’s theory) to form the sun; but
this explanation is precluded by the physical inconsistency
it which it at once lands us. If the different bodies
constituting the solar system were formed by the gradual
condensation of diffused matter, it is incredible, and indeed
impossible, that one member of the system, viz. the earth,
should have consolidated, and have so far cooled as for seas
to exist and vegetation to appear, while the substance of
the sun itself was still in at least a partially diffused con-
dition. The present writer recently, for his own satisfaction,
put this question definitely to one of the most eminent
of living English astronomers, whose name, were it to be
mentioned, would be at once recognised as at the same
time that of an eloquent and able apologist. The answer
which he received was unmistakeable. ‘It is not only
unscientific, 7.e. inconsistent with the harmony of known
facts, but incomprehensible, to suppose that the earth was
clothed in vegetation and ‘fruit trees,’ while the sun or
its atmosphere was in a diffused unconcentrated condition.
At such a period of the sun’s condition, vegetation could
only exist in a cooked state.” The 14th to the 17th verses
of Gen. i. do not indeed affirm that the luminaries were
created on the Fourth Day, but they imply that there were
no luminaries previously—whether sun or moon, fixed
stars, or planets; that these were ‘‘ made” then—whether
from pre-existing matter or not, is immaterial; and “set”
(not merely “‘adjusted’”’) in their places in the heavens,
ee
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 35
after the separation of sea and land, and the appearance
of vegetation upon the surface of the earth. No reconcili-
ation of this representation with the data of science has
yet been found.
These objections, it may be thought, are of force only
against the attempt to reconcile the Biblical cosmogony
with a particular theory, viz. Laplace’s. True, the Creator,
so far as we can see, had it pleased Him so to do, could
have created the earth, and fitted it for the maintenance
of life, prior to the creation of the other heavenly bodies;
but that He did this actually is contradicted by the evidence
of the solar system itself, which, in its organization and
structure, bears marks of being the resultant of a long
succession of antecedent changes, effected in accordance
with definite laws, and modifying, slowly but simultane-
ously, and in unbroken continuity, the different bodies of
which it consists. ‘The theory of the separate and isolated
creation, first of the earth, then of the other heavenly
bodies, does not account for the phenomena of correlation,
and unity of origin, which impress with irresistible cogency
every scientific observer. If Laplace’s hypothesis, upon
whatever grounds, be abandoned, the substitution of an-
other, which will account better for these phenomena, rests
not with the theologian, but with the mathematical phy-
sicist or astronomer. And the reconciliation of any such
new hypothesis with the narrative of Genesis rests likewise.
with the astronomer. The problem is to finda theory of the
origin of the solar system which, while adequate scientifi-
cally, and accounting comprehensively for the phenomena
of correlation and unity which have been alluded to, shall
at the same time be consistent with the existence of the
earth and the presence upon it of vegetable life, for an
indefinite period before the other bodies composing that
system were formed. lLaplace’s theory, as we have seen,
does not satisfy this double condition, The consideration
90 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
of the whole question rests with those whose minds are
versed in the methods and principles of physical science.
But the theologian will do wisely if he declines to commit
himself either to any theory of the origin of the solar
system, or to any attempt to reconcile such theory with
the representation in Genesis, which does not in the judg-
ment of competent scientific authority, satisfy the demands
of science.!
1 Keil, adhering in every respect to the literal interpretation of Gen. i.,
attempts to discredit the conclusions of geology, explaining (apparently) the
phenomena of the earth’s strata by means of the deluge of Noah! But
whatever may be the difference between geologists upon the causes of particular
phenomena, or upon the absolute date of the successive formations, all are
agreed upon the main conclusions, viz. that animal and vegetable life appear
together in the earliest strata, and that these date from a period vastly anterior to
the creation of man and ἃ fortiori to the Noachian deluge. Keil’s entire treat-
ment of the scientific issue is in fact that of a writer belonging to the 18th
century (see especially the notes at the end of verses 19, 30). Τὸ 15 not a question
of the omnipotence of the Creator; the bodies constituting the visible universe
bear the marks of being parts of a vast and wonderfully constituted system,
the significance of which is entirely destroyed by the supposition that it was
created (or completed) literally four days after the earth, in the year 4004 8.0.
A few words may be permitted on a recent work by Dr. Kinns, entitled
Moses and Geology. This work is a popular explanation of different scientific
facts, arranged in the order of the narrative in Genesis; but the space devoted
in it to the question of reconciliation is exceedingly small. The correspondence
of ‘“‘ fifteen creative events,’? exhibited in the table pp. 13-15, is inconclusive
upon both logical and material grounds. If the description in Genesis be so
precise that the grass, herbs, and fruit-trees of ver. 11, can be identified with
the flora of the Silurian, Devonian and Carboniferous periods respectively, it is
legitimate to expect similar precision in every part of the narrative. But in point
of fact, as regards the abundant and varied animal life which marked the same
periods, the narrative is altogether silent. To escape this difficulty, Dr. Kinns ©
does violence to the language of ver. 20, by interpreting it not of the dawn of |
animal life, but of a great increase in the number of the genera of marine and |
other animals—contrary to the evident intention of the writer. Otheritems |
in the list of correspondences are open to similar objections. Does science, for
instance, teach that seas (‘‘ water,” ver. 2) existed, while the substance of the
solar system was still diffused? It is mockery to suppose, as is done p. 21 f.,
free hydrogen and oxygen (!) to be denoted by the term ‘“ water.” And if (p.
13) the formation of ‘‘air and water” be assigned to the Second Day, this is
contrary to the express language of ver.2. The key, it is evident, only fits
the fifteen-warded lock after both have been subjected to arbitrary alteration ana \
adjustment. Before a valid argument can be based upon the number and
minuteness of the correspondences, they must be duly compared with disagree-
ments and omissions, and their relative weight determined. Dr. Kinns deserves
|
|
:
|
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 37
(ii.) From the injunction in ver. 30, it is a legitimate
inference that the narrator considered the original condition
of animals generally to be one in which they subsisted
solely on vegetable food. This is not merely inconsistent
with the physical structure of many animals (which is such
as to require animal food), but is contradicted by the facts
of paleontology, which afford conclusive evidence of animals
having been the prey of one another long before the date of
man’s appearance upon earth.
From all that has been said, however reluctant we may ῃ
be to make the admission, only one conclusion seems
possible. Read without prejudice or bias, the narrative of
Genesis i. creates an impression at variance with the facts
revealed by science: the efforts of reconciliation which have
been reviewed are different modes of obliterating its charac-
teristic features, and of reading into it a view which at_,
does not express. Every proposed scheme? either combines
what is separate in one series, or divides what is united in
the other; and all presuppose a non-natural interpretation
of made in ver. 16. While fully bearing in mind the im-
mediate design of the narrator, to describe, viz. how the
earth was fitted to become the abode of man, it is impos-
sible not to feel that had he been acquainted with its actual
past, he would, while still using language equally simple,
equally popular, have expressed himself in different terms.
the credit of having produced an entertaining book on popular science, but his
reconciliation is entirely illusory. The scientific authorities, quoted pp. xvii._xx.
(7th ed.), it should be observed, certify the accuracy of the facts stated by
Dr. Kinns in themselves ; but pronounce no opinion whatever upon the system
by which they are accommodated with the narrative of Genesis.
1 Including, it must be reluctantly added, the one advocated by an illustrious
statesman in the Nineteenth Century for November, 1885. Every one who has
read the article in question will admire the eloquence, and appreciate the
breadth and justness of view, by which in general it is characterised ; but its
special constructive parts, if examined, will be seen to be open to the same
objections which are alluded to in the text. The water-population, for instance,
synchronizes with the air-population in Genesis, while in actual fact it precedes
it by an indefinite interval of time, being accompanied from the beginning by
| either marine or land vegetation.
"ῆ
ws)
8 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
Recognising these facts, many theologians of the present
day are satisfied with establishing what is termed by
Zockler,! an ‘ideal harmony,” 7.6. a harmony not extend-
ing to details, but limited to salient features.” No other
reconciliation is, under the circumstances, possible. At the
same time those who accept this-solution do not always
appear to perceive that it involves really an abandonment of
the position for which the harmonists have throughout con-
tended. Yet this result clearly follows. If the relative
priority of plants and animals, or the period at which the
sun and moon were formed, are amongst the details on
which harmony cannot be established, what other statement
can claim acceptance on the ground that it forms part of
the narrative of Genesis? Commentators and apologists
are justified in directing the reader’s mind either to the
broader truths of physical fact, or to the permanent truths
of theology, which the narrative enunciates; but they ought
not, in doing this, to conceal from him the grave discrepan-
cies in detail which it at the same time exhibits.®
What then may we suppose to be the source of the
cosmogony in Genesis? In answering this question we
must bear in mind the position which the Hebrews took
among the nations of antiquity. In the possession of apti-
tudes fitting them in a peculiar measure to become the
organ and channel of revelation, the Hebrew nation differed
radically from its neighbours; but it was allied to them in
language, it shared with them many of the same institu-
1 In his Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft
(1877-9), the most elaborate work on the subject which exists. See vol. ii. pp.
538, 540 f.; or (more briefly), in his article Schipfung, in Herzog’s Encyclopiidie,
ed. 2, vol. xili. (1884), p. 648.
2 Comp. Mr. (now Dean) Perowne, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i.
(1863), p. 673 b; Delitzsch, Commentar tiber die Genesis, ed. 4 (1872), p. 72.
4 These, in many commentaries, are not brought into adequate relief.
Luthardt, Lectures on the Fundamental Truths of Christianity, pp. 102-4, in-
sinuates but does not show, that the conclusions of geology, on the questions |
here concerned, are uncertain.
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 39
tions, the same ideas and habits of thought. Other nations
of antiquity made efforts to fill the void in the past which
begins where historical reminiscences cease; and framed
theories to account for the beginnings of the earth and man,
or to solve the problems which the observation of human
nature suggests. It is but consonant with analogy to sup-
pose that the Hebrews either did the same for themselves,
or borrowed those of their neighbours. Of the theories
current in Assyria and Pheenicia, fragments have been pre-
served, and these exhibit points of resemblance with the
Biblical narrative sufficient to warrant the inference that
both are derived from the same cycle of tradition. Here
are three fragments from the ‘‘ Creation Tablets,” belonging
to the library of Asshurbanipal (668-626 B.c.), discovered
by the late George Smith :—
“When as yet the heavens above had not declared,
Nor the earth beneath had recorded a name,
The august ocean was their generator,
The surging deep was she that bare them all,
|
The waters thereof embraced one another and united,
But darkness was not yet withdrawn, nor had vegetation sprung forth.
“ When of the gods none yet had issued forth,
Or recorded a name, or [fixed] a destiny,
Then were the [great] gods formed.
The gods Lachmu and Lachamu proceeded forth.
“He made beautiful the dwellings! of the great gods.
The stars, likewise, he caused . . . come forth:
He ordained the year, established for it decades,
Brought forth the twelve months each with three stars.
“When the gods in their assembly formed
They made beautiful the mighty [trees ?],
And caused living beings to come forth . . . ”?
1 Or, stations.
3 Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. T. (Eng. Trans., 1885), on Gen. i.
Some of the names here given are confirmed by the testimony of Damascius,
who wrote in Greek, and there is a general agreement in outline with the view
of the Babylonian cosmogony presented by Berosus (8rd cent. B.c.). See also
Sayce’s Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, p. 27.
40 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
τ--
From a theological point of view, this is different enough
from the Biblical record; at the same time, side by side
with the difference, there are material resemblances which
cannot be mistaken. We have, for instance, the same idea
of a surging chaos, reduced gradually to order, the same
view of the appointment of years and seasons, and of the
formation subsequently of living creatures. Similarly, the
Phoenician traditions, which were translated into Greek by
Philo of Byblus, and are preserved to us in their Greek
form by Eusebius,' describe the origin of different institu-
tions and inventions, in a style which at once recalls that of
the latter part of the fourth chapter of Genesis. In the
light of these facts it is difficult to resist the conclusion
that the Biblical narrative is drawn from the same source
as these other records. The Biblical historians, it is plain,
derived their materials from the best human sources avail-
able; the function of inspiration was to guide them in the
disposal and arrangement of these materials, and in the use
to. which they applied them. The materials, which with
other nations were combined into the crudest physical
theories, or associated with a grotesque polytheism, were
vivified and transformed by the inspired genius of the
Hebrew historians, and adapted to become the vehicle of
profound religious truth. They become symbolic pictures
of the prehistoric past. By a figurative narrative, based, it
is probable, upon materials derived from the far Hast, the
fact of the Fall of man is brought home to every one of us.”
1 Prep. Evang., i. 10. Comp. the translation and notes in Lenormant’s
Origines de Vhistoire (1880), vol. i. pp. 536 ff,
2 Compare Lenormant, whi. sup, vol. i. Preface, passim, pp. 97-8, 106-8, 260-1 ;
and especially vol. ii. pp. 263-9, where the same view is defended. Thus,
‘Plus j’étudie les premiers chapitres de la Genése avec l’attention et le respect
qwils imposent au chrétien . . . plus je suis convaincu que les récits qu’ils
contiennent sont essentiellement allegoriques, et qu’en les prenant au sens |
directement matériel on s’écarte de la pensée de leurs auteurs.” Again, ‘‘ Main-
tenant, que ces allégories aient ét¢ fournies aux écrivains inspirés par une
tradition populaire, qui s’était formée spontanément dans le cours des siécles,
|
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS, 41
The character of Cain, borrowed from popular tradition, is
made a lesson and warning to all time. Behind the first
chapter of Genesis lies a history which we may suspect,
but cannot demonstrate. As we read it, it is the result of
mature theological reflection, operating, as we seemed forced
to suppose, upon elements derived from human sources, but
breathing into them a new spirit, and not different in
character from the reflection which, for instance, is evident
in the Epistles of St. Paul. That the cosmogony may
display besides flashes of the intuition of the prophet is not
to be categorically denied; the remark of Dillmann should
not be forgotten, that ‘“‘ amongst all ancient cosmogonies
that of the Bible approaches most nearly to the conclu-
sions of science.’ But that it contains a ‘‘ revelation,” in
the sense in which this term is commonly understood, as
a direct communication of knowledge undiscoverable by
human faculties,! whether given to the author, or, as others
have supposed, handed down by tradition from primitive
man, seems to be a position which cannot be maintained.
The discrepancies that have been dwelt upon—and which,
so far as can be seen, appear irremovable—seem to constitute
an indication that the cosmogony of Genesis is not meant
to be an authoritative exposition of the past history of the
earth, but that it subserves a different purpose altogether.
᾿ Its purpose is to teach religious truth, not scientific truth.
With this object in view, its author sets before us a series
of representative pictures, remarkably suggestive of the
reality, if only they be not treated as a “ revelation”’ of
it, and embodying theological teaching of permanent value.
It only remains to indicate briefly the nature of this
teaching.
et qui était commune ἃ tous les peuples de l’Asie antérieure, aucune raison de
foi, aucune d¢finition faisant loi pour le catholique n’empéche de l’admettre.”
(Vol. ii. pp. 263 f., 268).
1 On the distinction between “ Revelation’? and “Inspiration,” see Arch
deacon Lee’s Inspiration of Holy Scripture (ed. 1865), pp. 27 f., 149 f.
vf
=e
42... THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
(1) It, shows in opposition to the conceptions prevalent in
antiquity, that the world is not self-originated; that it was
called into existence, and brought gradually into its present
state, at the will of a spiritual Being, prior to it, indepen-
dent of it, and deliberately planning every stage of its
progress. It is this feature which distinguishes it funda-
mentally from the Babylonian cosmogony, with which, as
we have seen, it bears an external resemblance. The Baby-
lonian scheme is essentially polytheistic ; chaos is anterior
to Deity; the gods are made, or produced—we know not
whence or how.! In Genesis, the supremacy of the Creator
is absolute; as Ewald long ago finely said: ‘‘even chaos
was not, without the Spirit of God: already there, as to-
day, He was accomplishing His work!” ”
᾿ς (2) Dividing artificially the entire period into six parts, it
1 The best explanation of the plural form of the Hebrew word for ‘‘ God,”
Elohim, seems still to be the old-fashioned ‘ plural of majesty,’ or the plural of
intensity, in which case (if the derivation from a root signifying to fear be
accepted) it will express—to adopt the words of Professor C. A. Briggs, in his
instructive volume, Biblical.Study (New York, 1883)—‘ The fulness of the idea
of God conceived as the one to be revered” (p. 53). Those who adduce it as
an anticipation of the doctrine of the Trinity appear to forget that this use of
the plural does not stand alone in Hebrew; the words 11 ΠΝ and bys, meaning
lord, master, are often used in the plural with reference to a single human
superior (6.4. Exod, xxi. 4, 6,8, 29); and Isaiah (xix. 4), describes the conqueror
of Egypt as ΠΡ DIN, where the adj. is singular, but the subst. plural.
On the other hand, it is possible, though it cannot be demonstrated, that that
doctrine is adumbrated in the 1 pl. of ver. 26 (comp. xi. 7; Isa. vi. 8). Hyen
those, however, who question this explanation, still recognise the plural here as
suitable and significant—in Dillmann’s words, ‘‘not only on account of the
solemnity of the moment, in which God speaks in the supreme consciousness of
His majesty, but also because His purpose now is to impart to man a share of
the Divine powers which are concentrated in Himself.”
2 Jahrbiicher, vol. i. (1849), p. 83. The statement in the English translation of
Keil (p. 46), that Ewald’s construction of ver. 1-3 “15. invented for the simple
purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo,” is false. In the
article referred to, in which Ewald advocates it, he distinctly states (p. 82) that
‘“‘the true religion must always maintain the original dependence of matter
upon God, and in consequence its creation.” In his Lehre der Bibel von Gott,
yol. iii. (1874), p. 43, he expresses himself still more strongly to the same effect,
adding that the maxim Ea nihilo nihil jit is valid only within the limits of
human experience. ‘The remark is omitted in Keil’s third (1878) German
edition.
᾿
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. 43
notices in order the most prominent cosmical phenomena,
and groups the living creatures upon the earth under the
great subdivisions which appeal to the eye. By this
method it exhibits an ideal picture of the successive stages
by which the earth was formed and peopled with its living
inhabitants ; and it insists that each of these stages is no
product of chance, or of mere mechanical forces, but is an
act of the Divine will,’ realizes the Divine purpose, and
receives the seal of the Divine approval.) It is uniformly
silent on the secondary causes through which in particular
cases or even universally the effects-described may have
been developed or produced, it leaves these for the investi-
gation of science; it teaches what science as such cannot
discover (for it is not its province to do so), the relation in
which they stand to God. “Whe slow formation of the earth,
as taught by geology, the gradual development of species
made probable by modern biology, is but the exhibition
in detail of those processes which the author of this cos-
mogony sums up into a single phrase and apparently
compresses into a single moment, for the purpose of declar-
ing their dependence on the Divine will.’
(3) It insists on the distinctive pre-eminence belonging
to man, implied in the remarkable self-deliberation taken
in his case by the Creator, and signified expressly in the
phrase, ‘“‘image of God,” by which doubtless is meant the
1 The repeated ‘“* And God said,’ should be observed. ‘It gives clear and
exact expression to the truth that the Divine thought is realized in each stage
of the work, not through the operation of any principle of necessity, or by a
process of unconscious emanation, but by the free determination of the Divine
will” (Riehm, Der Biblische Schipfungsbericht, Halle, 1881, p. 22—a lecture
pointing out the theological value, at the present day, of the narrative of
Genesis).
2 The appropriateness of the “ day,” rather than of some protracted period,
for the purpose contemplated by the narrator, is well brought out by Dillmann
(p. 21). Periods:‘of thousands or millions of years, he remarks, are in their
place in a treatise on natural science, because this is essentially concerned with
the gradual operation of secondary causes ; where the sole object is to exhibit
clearly and forcibly the operation of the Divine causality, the shorter period is
equally adequate, and more expressive.
ζ
44 THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS.
possession by man of self-conscious reason—an adumbration,
we may suppose, however faint, of the supreme mind of
God—enabling him to know, in a sense in which animals
do not know, and involving the capacity of apprehending
_moral and religious truth.
The conclusions on the scientific issue which have been
expressed in the present article, have been arrived at by the
writer independently ; but they can lay no claim to novelty.
More than twenty years ago, to name but a single instance,
substantially the same judgment was pronounced, in a
well-known work, by an English scholar who is not less
distinguished as a theologian than as a Hebraist.! More
recently Dr. Reusch, Roman Catholic Professor at Bonn,
has arrived at similar results. After reviewing with great
fairness the different theories of reconciliation, and conced-
ing in favour of each the utmost latitude of interpretation,
he is compelled ultimately to admit that they all fail, and
holding strongly the opinion that it does not lie within
the scope of the Bible to impart secular knowledge, adopts
ultimately the view that the six days denote not six suc-
cessive periods, but ‘‘ six logically separable ‘ moments,’ or
phases, of the creative process, six Divine thoughts or ideas
realized in creation.’’ The chronological succession, which,
nevertheless, is a material feature in the representation of
Genesis, is thus abandoned as untenable. The efforts of
{the harmonists have been praiseworthy, and well-meaning,
but they have resulted only in the construction of artificial
schemes, the unreality of which is at once detected by the
scientific mind, and creates a prejudice against the entire
system with which the cosmogony is connected. The
1 Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 673 Ὁ: “. . . What we ought to maintain
is that no reconciliation [of the six days with geological periods} is necessary.
It is certain that the author of the first chapter of Genesis, whether Moses or
some one else, knew nothing of geology or astronomy . . - It is also certain
that the Bible was never intended to reveal to us knowledge of which our facul-
ties rightly used could put us in possession.”
2 Bibel und Natur (ed. 4, 1876), pp. 136 f., 256 f., 260-3.
THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS. . 45
cosmogony of Genesis is treated in popular estimation as
an integral element of the Christian faith. It cannot be
too earnestly represented that this is not the case. A
definition of the process by which, after it was created, the
world assumed its present condition, forms no element in
the Christian creed. The Church has never pronounced
with authority upon the interpretation of the narrative of
Genesis. It is our duty to eradicate popular illusions, and
to teach both that the cosmogony of Genesis does not
accord with the results established by science, and that the
recognition of this fact is no invasion of sacred ground, and
in no degree imperils the Christian revelation.| There are ὦ
many whose minds are acute enough to discover the truth
of the first of these propositions, but who do not with equal
clearness perceive the truth of the second. It is a law of
psychology that ideas which have been long associated are
apt to become actually inseparable. For this very reason
our teaching should be the more explicit ; we should distin-
euish between what can, and what cannot, be claimed for
~\the Biblical narratives; we should maintain upon positive
grounds, rather than as a-concession extorted from us, its
true position and value. We-should show that it is its
office neither to anticipate scientific “discovery, nor to de-
fine the lines of scientific research. It “heither comes into
collision with science, nor needs reconciliation with it ; its
office lies in a different plane altogether; it is to present,
under a form impressive to the imagination, adapted to the
needs of all time, and containing no feature unworthy of
the dignity of its subject, a truthful representative picture
of the relation of the world to God.
5. R. Driver.
1 Comp. Dillmann, Die Genesis erkliért (1882), p. 10, whose notes on this
chapter are remarkably appreciative and just.
THE HPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
AT:
THE BANE AND THE ANTIDOTE.
“Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of
the world, and not after Christ: for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily, and in Him ye are made full, who is the head of all princi-
pality and power.’’—-Cot. ii. 8, 9, 10 (Rev. Ver.).
WE come now to the first plain reference to the errors
which were threatening the peace of the Colossian com-
munity. Here Paul crosses swords with the foe. This is
the point to which all his previous words have been steadily
converging. The immediately preceding context contained
the positive exhortation to continue in the Christ whom
they had received, having been rooted in Him as the tree
in a fertile place ‘‘ by the rivers of water,’ and being con-
tinually builded up in Him, with ever-growing completeness
of holy character. The same exhortation in substance is
contained in the verses which we have now to consider,
with the difference that it is here presented negatively, as
warning and dehortation, with distinct statement of the
danger which would uproot the tree and throw down the
building, and drag them away from union with Christ.
In these words the Bane and Antidote are both before us. —
Let us consider each. |
I. The Poison against which Paul warns the Colossians is |
plainly described in our first verse, the terms of which may |
require a brief comment.
“Take heed lest there shall be.” The construction im-
plies that it is a real and not a hypothetical danger which
he sees threatening. He is not crying “ wolf” before there
is need.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ’COLOSSIANS. 47
““ Any one’’—perhaps the tone of the warning would be
better conveyed if we read the more familiar ‘‘ somebody ”’ ;
| asif he had said—“I name no names—it is not the per-
} sons but the principles that I fight against—but you know
᾿ς whom I mean well enough. Let him be anonymous, you
understand who it 15. Perhaps there was even a single
““somebody ’’ who was the centre of the mischief.
“That maketh spoil of you.” Such is the full mean- °
ing of the word—and not ‘‘injure”’ or ‘‘ rob,’ which the
ἡ translation in the Authorized Version suggests to an
English reader. Paul sees the converts in Colosse taken
prisoners and led away with a cord round their necks, like
the long strings of captives on the Assyrian monuments.
He had spoken in the previous chapter (ver. 13) of the
_ merciful conqueror who had “ translated’? them from the
realm of darkness into a kingdom of light, and now he fears
lest a robber horde, making a raid upon the _ peaceful
colonists in their happy new homes, may sweep them away
again into bondage. And the instrument which the man-
— oO ον
stealer uses, or perhaps we may say, the cord, whose fatal
noose will be tightened round them, if they do not take
care, is ‘‘ philosophy and vain deceit.”
If Paul had been writing in English, he would have put
‘“‘philosophy’” in inverted commas, to show that he was
\quoting the heretical teachers’ own name for their system,
lif system it may be called, which was really a chaos. For
ithe true love of wisdom, for any honest, humble attempt
‘ito seek after her as hid treasure, neither Paul nor Paul’s
master have anything but praise and sympathy and help.
‘Where he met real, however imperfect, searchers after
truth, he strove to find points of contact between them and
his message, and to present the Gospel as the answer to
i their questionings, the declaration of that which they were
. | roping to find. The thing spoken of here has no resem-
| blance but in name to what the Greeks in their better days
48 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
first called philosophy, and nothing but that mere coinci-
dence warrants the representation—often made both by |
narrow-minded Christians, and by unbelieving seekers—that |
Christianity takes up a position of antagonism or suspicion |
to it.
The form of the expression in the original shows clearly |
that “vain deceit,’ or more literally ‘‘empty deceit,” de-
' scribes the “philosophy” which Paul is bidding them be-
ware of. They are not two things, but one. It is hkea
blown bladder, full of wind, and nothing else. In its lofty}
pretensions, and, if we take its own account of itself, it is a
love of and search after wisdom, but if we look at it more
closely, it is a swollen nothing, empty and a fraud. This is
what he is condemning. The genuine thing he has nothing
to say about here.
He goes on to describe more closely this impostor, |
masquerading in the philosopher's cloak. It is “after the
traditions of men.” We have seen in a former paper what
a strange heterogeneous conglomerate of Jewish ceremonial
and Oriental dreams the false teachers in Colosse were
preaching. Probably both these elements are included here.
It is significant that the very expression, “ the traditions of
men,” is a word of Christ’s, applied to the Pharisees, who
He charges with “leaving the commandment of God, and
holding fast the tradition of men” (Mark vii. 8). The
portentous undergrowth of such “ traditions ” which, lk
the riotous fertility of creepers in a tropical forest, smothers
and kills the trees round which it twines, is preserved fox
our wonder and warning in the Talmud, where for thou-|
sands and thousands of pages, we get nothing but Rabbi So)
and So said this, but Rabbi So and So said that ; until we
\
ΓᾺ
.
babble.
The Oriental element in the heresy, on the other hand Ϊ
prided itself on hidden teaching too sacred to be entrustec
THE BANE AND THE ANTIDOTE. 49
to books, and passed from lip to lip in some close conclave of
muttering teachers and listening adepts. The fact that all
this, be it Jewish, be it Oriental teaching, had no higher
source than men’s imaginings and refinings, seems to Paul
the condemnation of the whole system. His theory is that
in Jesus Christ, every Christian man has the full truth
concerning God, and man, their mutual relations, the
authoritative Divine declaration of all that can be known,
the perfect exemplar of all that ought to be done, the sun-
clear illumination and proof of all that dare be hoped.
What an absurd descent, then, from the highest of our
prerogatives, to “turn away from Him that speaketh from
heaven,” in order to listen to poor human voices, speaking
men’s thoughts !
The lesson is as needful to-day as ever. The special
forms of men’s traditions in question here have long since
fallen silent, and trouble no man any more. But the
tendency to give heed to human teachers and to suffer them
to come between us and Christ is deep in us all. There is
at one extreme the man who believes in no revelation from
God, and, smiling at us Christians, who accept Christ’s
words as final, and Himself as the Incarnate truth, often
pays to his chosen human teacher a deference as absolute as
that which he regards as superstition, when we render it to
our Lord. At the other extremity, are the Christians who
_ will not let Christ and the Scripture speak to the soul unless
| the Church be present at the interview, like a jailer, with
i, bunch of man-made creeds jingling at its belt. But it is
τοῦ only at the two ends of the line, but all along its length,
jthat men aie listening to “traditions” of men and neglect-
“ing “the commandment of God.” We have all the same
endency inus. Every man carries a rationalist and a tra-
itionalist under his skin. Every Church in Christendom,
whether it has a formal creed or no, is ruled as to its belief
and practice, to a sad extent, by the “traditions of the
) VOL. Ill. E
; ᾿
"
50 Pith UPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
elders.” The freest of the Nonconformist Churches, un- |
trammelled by any formal confession, may be bound with as
tight fetters, and be as much dominated by men’s opinions, |
as if it had the straitest of creeds. The mass of our
religious beliefs and practices have ever to be verified,
corrected and remodelled, by harking back from creeds, | j
written or unwritten, to the one Teacher, the endless signi-
ficance of whose person and work is but expressed in
fragments by the purest and widest thoughts even of those
who have lived nearest to Him, and seen most of His‘
beauty. Let us get away from men, from the Babel of
opinions and the strife of tongues, that we may “‘hear the ©
words of His mouth!” Let us take heed of the empty —
fraud which lays the absurd snare for our feet, that we can | i
learn to know God by any means but by listening to His i .
own speech in His Eternal Word, lest it lead us away’
captive out of the Kingdom of the Light! Let us go up to |
the pure spring on the mountain top, and not try to slake
our thirst at the muddy pools at its base! ‘‘ Ye are_
Christ’s, be not the slave of men.” ‘‘ This is My beloved
Son, hear ye Him.”
Another mark of this empty pretence of wisdom which |
threatens to captivate the Colossians is, that it is “ after
the vudiments of the world.” The word rendered πιο.
ments” means the letters of the alphabet, and hence comes |
naturally to acquire the meaning of “‘ elements,” or “ first
principles,” just as we speak of the A BC of a science. |
The application of such a designation to the false teaching,
is, like the appropriation of the term ‘‘mystery”’ to th
Gospel, an instance of turning the tables and giving bac
the teachers their own words. They boasted of mysteriou
doctrines reserved for the initiated, of which the plaiz
truths that Paul preached were but the elements, and the
looked down contemptuously on his message as ‘ milk fox
babes.’’ Paul retorts on them, asserting that the tru
THE BANE AND THE ANTIDOTE. 51
mystery, the profound truth long hidden and revealed, is
| the word which he preached, and that the poverty-stricken
elements, fit only for infants, are in that swelling inanity
, which called itself wisdom and was not. Not only does he
|) brand it as “ rudiments,” but as “‘ rudiments of the world,”
}, which is worse—that is to say, as belonging to the sphere
| of the outward and material, and not to the higher region
of the spiritual, where Christian thought ought to dwell.
So two weaknesses are charged against the system: it is
the mere alphabet of truth, and therefore unfit for grown
men. It moves, for all its lofty pretensions, in the region
of the visible and mundane things, and is therefore unfit for
\ spiritual men. What features of the system are referred
to in this phrase? The expression in the Epistle to the
Galatians (iv. 3), as a synonyme for the whole system of
ritual observances and ceremonial precepts of Judaism, and
_ the context here, which passes on immediately to speak of
circumcision, point to a similar meaning, though we may
include also the ceremonial and ritual of the Gentile
᾿ ‘religions, in so far as they contributed to the outward forms
which the Colossian heresy sought to impose on the Church.
This then is Paul’s opinion about a system which laid
stress on ceremonial and busied itself with forms. He
regards it as a deliberate retrogression to an earlier stage.
A religion of rites had come first, and was needed for the
{4 spiritual infancy of the race—but in Christ we ought to
ἣ have outgrown the alphabet of revelation, and, being men,
Ἵ to have put away childish things. He regards it further
as a pitiable descent into a lower sphere, a fall from the
spiritual realm to the material, and therefore unbecoming
| for men who have been enfranchised from dependence upon
outward helps and symbols, and taught the spirituality and
inwardness of Christian worship.
‘a We need the lesson in this day no less than did these
6 Christians in the little community in that remote valley of
52 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Phrygia. The forms which were urged on them are long,
since antiquated, but the tendency to turn Christianity)
into a religion of ceremonial is running with an unusually
powerful current to-day. We are all more interested in ~
art, and think we know more about it than our fathers —
did. The eye and the ear are more educated than they
used to be, and a society as ‘‘ esthetic’? and ‘musical’
as much cultured English society is becoming, will lke
an ornate ritual. So, apart altogether from doctrina
grounds, much in the conditions of to-day works towards
ritual religion. Nonconformist services are less plain;
some go from their ranks because they dislike the “ bald’
worship in the chapel, and prefer the more elaborate form
of the Anglican Church, which in its turn is for the ἘΠῚ
reason left by others who find their tastes gratified by th
complete thing, as it is to be enjoyed full blown in th
Roman Catholic communion. We may freely admit thal
the Puritan re-action was possibly too severe, and tha : ;
a little more colour and form might with advantage hav
been retained. But enlisting the senses as the allies ὦ
the spirit in worship is risky work. They are very 8}.
to fight for their own hand when they once begin, ant
the history of all symbolic and ceremonial worship show
that the experiment is much more likely to end 1
sensualising religion than in spiritualising sense. Th’
theory that such aids make a ladder by which the sor
may ascend to God is perilously apt to be confuted |
experience, which finds that the soul never gets above ti
steps of the ladder. The gratification of taste, and α
excitation of esthetic sensibility, which is the result |
such aids to worship, is not worship, however it may |
mistaken as such. All ceremonial is in danger of becomir
opaque instead of transparent as it was meant to be, ad
of detaining mind and eye instead of letting them pa
on and up to God. Stained glass is lovely, and whi
THE BANE AND THE ANTIDOTE. 53
windows are “ barnlike,” and “starved” and “bare”; but
perhaps, if the object is to get light and to see the sun,
these solemn purples and glowing yellows are rather in
_the way. I for my part believe that of the two extremes,
ν Quaker’s meeting is nearer the ideal of Christian worship
_ shan High Mass, and so far as my feeble voice can reach,
{ would urge as eminently a lesson for the day Paul’s
great principle here, that a Christianity making much of
_ forms and ceremonies is a distinct retrogression, and a
distinct descent. You are men in Christ, do not go back
to the picture book A B C of symbol and ceremony,
which was fit for babes. You have been brought in to
‘he inner sanctuary of worship in spirit; do not decline
to the beggarly elements of outward forms.
εὐ Paul sums up his indictment in one damning clause,
_ the result of the two before. If the heresy has no higher
' source than men’s traditions, and no more solid contents
than ceremonial observances, it cannot be “ after Christ.’’
‘He is neither its origin, nor its substance, nor its rule and
ystandard. There is a fundamental discord between every
‘ysuch system, however it may call itself Christian, and
‘Christ. The opposition may be concealed by its teachers.
sThey and their victims may not be aware of it. They
_rmay not themselves be conscious that by adopting it they
zhaye slipped off the foundation ; but they have, and if in
stheir own hearts they are loyal to Him, they have brought
wn incurable discord into their creeds which will weaken
oheir lives, if it does not do worse. Paul cared very little
or the dreams of these men, except in so far as they
-parried them and others away trom his Master. They
cnight have as many ceremonies as they liked, and welcome ;
yout when these interfered with the sole reliance to be
‘placed on Christ’s work, then they must have no quarter.
ον {Ὁ is not because the teaching was “after the traditions
‘of men, after the rudiments of the world,” but because
U
τή
54 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
being so, it was ‘not after Christ,” that Paul will have)
none of it. He that touches his Master touches the apple’
of his eye, and shades of opinion, and things indifferent’
in practice, and otherwise unimportant elaborateness οὗ
forms of worship, have to be fought to the death if they
obscure one corner of the perfect and solitary work of
the One Lord, who is at once the source, the substance,
and the standard of all Christian teaching. |
Il. The Antidote.—‘‘ For in Him dwelleth all the ful-
ness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him ye are made full,
who is the head of all principality and power.”
These words may be a reason for the warning—‘ Take)
heed, for’; or they may be a reason for the implied
exclusion of any teaching which is not after Christ. The
statement of its characteristics carries in itself its con-
demnation. Anything “not after Christ” is ipso facto
wrong, and to be avoided—-‘‘for’”’ etc. ‘In Him” is
placed with emphasis at the beginning, and implies ‘and
nowhere else.” ‘ Dwelleth” that is, has its permanent
abode; where the tense is to be noticed also, as pointing
to the ascended Christ. ‘All the fulness of the God-
head,” that is, the whole unbounded powers and_ attri-
butes of Deity, where observe the use of the abstract
term Godhead, instead of the more usual God, in order.
to express with the utmost force the thought of the in’
dwelling in Christ of the whole essence and nature c
God. ‘‘ Bodily,’ that points to the Incarnation, and s
is an advance upon the passage in the former chapte —
(ver. 19), which speaks of “the fulness”? dwelling in th
Kternal Word, whereas this speaks of the Eternal Word i,
whom the fulness dwelt becoming flesh. So we are pointe —
to the glorified corporeal humanity of Jesus Christ in Hi
exaltation as the abode, now and for ever, of all th
fulness of the Divine nature, which is thereby brough
very near to us. This grand truth seems to Paul ὁ
THE BANE AND THE ANTIDOTE. oo
| ‘shiver to pieces all the dreams of these teachers about
| \ langel mediators, and to brand as folly every attempt to
ἣ tlearn truth and God anywhere else but in Him.
Ὶ δ If He be the one sole temple of Deity in whom all
(| Divine glories are stored, why go anywhere else in order
“to see or to possess God? It is folly; for not only are all
these clories stored in Him, but they are so stored on
‘purpose to be reached and possessed by us. Ehersinee the
\ Apostle goes on, “and in Him ye are made full ;’’ which
‘gets forth two things as true in the inward life of all
_ Christians, namely, their living incorporation in and union
i) τῷ Christ, and their consequent participation in His
MH I ‘fulness. Every one of us may enter into that most real
ἢ} πὰ close union with Jesus Christ by the power of con-
ig fe cvone faith in Him. So may we be grafted into the
)) ‘Vine, and builded into the Rock. If thus we keep our
"hearts in contact with His heart, and let Him lay His lip
‘eon our lips, He will breathe into us the breath of His
own life, and we shall live because He lives, and in our
Bi incasure; as He lives. All the fulness of God is in Him,
“that from Him it may pass into us. We might start back
Ἷ from such bold words if we did not remember that the
Ssame apostle who here tells us that that fulness dwells
| ἣν Jesus, crowns his wonderful prayer for the Ephesian
IGhristians with that daring petition, ‘‘that ye may be
\ 3tilled with all the fulness of God.” The treasure was
| Wodged in the earthen vessel of Christ’s manhood that it
ἥ Anioht be within our reach. He brings the fiery blessing
‘Sf a Divine life from Heaven to earth enclosed in the
Feeble reed of His manhood, that it may kindle kindred
Gres in many a heart. Freely the water of life flows
+ “nto all cisterns from the ever fresh stream into which
᾿ς the infinite depth of that unfathomable sea of good pours
Ὁ ltself. Every kind of spiritual blessing is given therein.
i That stream, like a river of molten lava, holds many
ἢ
56 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
precious things in its flaming current, and will cool into
many shapes and deposit many rare and rich gifts. Ac-
cording to our need it will shape itself, being to each
what the moment most requires,—wisdom, or strength,
or beauty, or courage, or patience. Out of it will come
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of
good report, as Rabbinical legends tell us that the manna
tasted to each man like the food he wished for most.
This process of receiving of all the Divine fulness is a
continuous one. We can but be approximating to the
possession of the infinite treasure which is ours in Christ,
and since the treasure is infinite, and we can indefinitely
srow in capacity of receiving God, there must be an eter-
nal continuance of the filling and an eternal increase of
the measure of what fills us. Our natures are elastic, and
in love and knowledge, as well as in purity and capacity,
for blessedness, there are no bounds to be set to their
possible expansion. They will be widened by bliss into:
a greater capacity for bliss. The indwelling Christ will
“enlarge the place of His habitation,’ and as the walls
stretch and the roofs soar, He will fill the greater house
with the light of His presence, and the fragrance of His
name. The condition of this continuous reception of the
abundant gift of a Divine life is abiding in Jesus. It is
“in Him” that we are being “being filled full ’’—and
only so long as we continue in Him that we continue full.
We cannot bear away our supples, as one might a full
bucket from a well, and keep it full. All the grace will
trickle out and disappear unless we live in constant union
with our Lord, whose Spirit passes into our deadness only
so long as we are joined to Him.
From all such thoughts Paul would have us draw the
conclusion—how foolish, then, it must be to go to any
other source for the supply of our needs! Christ is “ the
head of all principality and power,’ he adds, with a
THE BANE AND THE ANTIDOTE. 57
reference to the doctrine of angel mediators, which evi-
dently played a great part in the heretical teaching. Τί
He is sovereign head of all dignity and power on earth
and heaven, why go to the ministers, when we have
access to the King; or have recourse to erring human
teachers, when we have the Eternal Word to enlighten
us; or flee to creatures to replenish our emptiness, when
we may draw from the depths of God in Christ ?
Why should we go on a weary search after goodly
pearls when the richest of all is by us, if we will have
it? Do we seek to know God? Behold Christ, and let
men talk as they list. Do we crave a stay for our spirit,
euldance and. impulse for our lives? Let us cleave to
Christ, and we shall be no more lonely and bewildered.
De we need a quieting balm to be laid on conscience,
and a sense of guilt to be lifted from our hearts? Let
us lay our hands on Christ, the one sacrifice, and leave
all other altars and priests and ceremonies. Do we look
longingly for some light on the future? Let us stedfastly
gaze on Christ as He rises to heaven bearing a human
body into the glory of God. Though all the earth were
covered with helpers and lovers of my soul, ‘‘as the sand
by the sea shore innumerable,’”’ and all the heavens were
sown with angel faces who cared for me and succoured
me, thick as the stars in the milky way,—all could not
do for me what I need. Yea, though all these were
gathered into one mighty and loving creature, even he
were no sufficient stay for one soul of man. We want
more than creature help. We need the whole fulness of
the Godhead to draw from. It is all there in Christ, for
each of us. Whosoever will, let him draw freely. Why
should we leave the fountain of living waters to hew out
for ourselves, with infinite pains, broken cisterns that can
hold no water? All we need is in Christ. Let us lift
‘our eyes from the low earth and all creatures, and behold
58 THE BIBLE AND WINE.
“no man any more,’ as Lord and Helper, ‘‘ save Jesus
only,” “that we may be filled with all the fulness of God.”
ALEXANDER MACLAREN,
THE BIBLE AND WINE.
As I was sitting last year, engaged in familiar converse
with a friend, in a vine arbour near to the bank of the
glorious German Rhine—I with a glass of beer beside me,
he with a bottle of the generous growth of his home land,
which I had ordered for him as my guest—I exclaimed in a
little burst of enthusiasm, ‘‘Is it not so? Just as this view
of the Rhine charms us both, so the Jordan once laved the
roots of Christianity not less than those of Judaism ; for
through the Jordan, Israel coming out of Egypt entered
into Canaan; and through the Jordan, too, Jesus passed
after He had returned out of Egypt, in order, accompanied
by His disciples, to traverse the Holy Land as a Preacher
of the kingdom of Heaven.’ When I observed that this
parallel did not indeed repel my friend, but yet startled
him, I gave a more inoffensive turn to the discourse, and
said: ‘‘ Well, then, in one thing contradiction is impossible,
namely, in this, that as we two are sitting under one and
the same arbour encircled with vine branches, so the Old.
Testament and the New Testament Scriptures are equally
inwrought with figures of wine, vines, vineyards and vine-
culture. Though the two may differ in many respects, yet
as regards wine they are one. They resemble an arbour
whose foreground and whose background is covered with
tendrils, is fragrant of the vine. Upon this we will touch.
The subject 1s worthy of it.
In vino veritas In wine is verity
Atque sinceritas. And sheer sincerity.
Quidquid latebit Whate’er lies concealed
Mox apparebit, Shall soon be revealed.
THE BIBLE AND WINE. 59
With this reminiscence of the Middle Rhine I introduce
my present talk.
The Rhine country was not always a wine country; Pales-
tine, which is called by way of endearment, the gladsome
land (Wonneland), was from of old a wine land. Then when
the worthy Roman emperor Probus, from 276, took a deep
interest in the culture of the soil, in the conquered lands
also, and naturalised the cultivation of the vine upon the
Rhine, the vine-culture on the Jordan had already received
some heavy blows; for the wars of liberation against the
Romans, of which the first ended in the year 72 with the
destruction of Jerusalem, and the second in 135 with the
exclusion of the Jews from the restored city of Jerusalem,
had left the fertile vine tracts for the most part uncultivated
and desolate. The Jewish city was transformed by Hadrian
into a heathen city, and then by Constantine into a Christian
one. But since, in the year 637, it became a Moslem city,
and the whole land even to Lebanon fell into the possession
of Moslem rulers, the cultivation of the vine has fallen into
entire desuetude on account of the prohibition by the Koran
of the use of wine. The establishment of a Christian
kingdom in Jerusalem on the part of the Crusaders made
but little difference in this respect, for the vine is—as
called by the prophet Zechariah (vii. 12)—a “plant of
peace ;”’ the cultivation of the vine demands peace even
_ more, in comparison, than the cultivation of the land; the
Christian dominion, however, was maintained only in con-
stant readiness for war, without assured peace. And now,
since the Osmanlis obtained possession of Palestine in
1517, the Holy Land has sunk down, under the indolence
and mismanagement of its potentates, to a slag of its
ancient fertility, and there is found now in the attention
paid to the growth by Jewish and Christian cultivators
only a remnant of the ouce magnificent and famous vine
husbandry of Palestine.
60 THE BIBLE AND WINE.
There was a time when the mountains of the Holy Land,
and specially of Judza, were cultivated in terraces far up
their sides; so that the singer of Psalm Ixxil., in view of
the Salomonian time of peace, can wish without exaggera-
tion, ‘‘ May there be an abundance of corn in the land unto
the top of the mountains, may its fruit wave as Lebanon.”
And Isaiah, comparing the disappointed expectation of the
God of Israel to the disappointed expectation of a vine-
dresser, strikes up like a wandering minstrel the song (chap.
v.): “Up, I will sing of my Wellbeloved [the wellbeloved of
the prophet is his God], a song of my Beloved touching His
vineyard. A vineyard had my Beloved upon a mountain-
horn, the son of fatness. And He made a trench about it,
and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with a
precious vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and hewed
out also a winepress therein, and He hoped for the grape-
bearing, and—it brought forth wild grapes.” The moun-
tain-horn was a son of fatness; 7.e. fatness was inborn in
it, namely the fatness of a fruitful soil. The humus, the
cultivable earth, had not first with toil to be carried up to
it, but was proper to it by nature. Where should we now
find in Palestine such a mountain-height with piled up solid
layer of mould? In Palestine at least there is none. The
mountains are bare and stony, and where they are covered
with trees and bushes, this brushwood hardly deserves the
name of a forest—even in the valleys and plains we miss the
humus-soil ; meadows like our meadows are nowhere to be
found save on the heights of Lebanon, and even Sharon
and Jezreel, the lauded plains between sea and mountain
chain, have—as Faas, the geologist among the Palestine
explorers, assures us—only the character of a vegetation of
the steppes, rich in herbage and enchanting by its wealth of
colours; the foot treads, between the herbs and flowers, not
upon fertile earth, but upon naked, sandy, or clayey, or other-
wise mineral soil.
THE BIBLE AND WINE. 61
This was not so at one time. As the Sinaitic peninsula,
when the children of Israel after their departure from Egypt
journeyed in it for forty years, was not as yet, to the same
extent, the dismal wilderness it afterwards became, so
Palestine in olden time long enjoyed an alternation of the
seasons more favourable than at present to the formation
of a prolific soil; it was, as Moses describes it in the Book
of Deuteronomy, ‘‘a good land, a land of water brooks,
fountains, veins of water gushing forth in valley and in hill;
a land of wheat and of barley, and of the vine, and the fig
tree, and the pomegranate; a land of the choice? olive tree
and of honey; a land wherein thou mayest eat thy bread
without scantiness.” If we take a survey of the contents
of Holy Scripture, with an open eye for the natural beauty
of the theatre of its events, then we have before us on the
right hand and on the left—from the oasis of Engedi by
the Dead Sea, right away to Lebanon, and from Hebron
away to the south-west into the Jewish South District,” and
farther north from the plain of Jezreel, away beyond the
Carmel headland—the silver-green olive plantations and
the dark green fig-tree plantations, and smiling vine tracts,
A good part of this glory remained till the first century of
our era, and something of it has lingered even to the present.
Josephus boasts that by the Lake Gennesar you might pluck
ripe grapes and figs (he calls these two the kings among the
fruits) for ten months out of the year. And where the cul-
tivation of the vine is pursued in the present day, as is the
case in Hebron and the Lebanon, it is seen how gigantic
the productive power of nature is there. The missionary
Stephen Schultz relates that there are clusters of grapes
weighing as much as twelve pounds, with berries of the size
of plums; and in the southern Lebanon he came upon a
vine thirty feet high, whose branches presented a foliage of
more than fifty feet long and broad.
1 As opposed to the merely wild olive. Σ᾿ Daroma, Negeb.
62 THE BIBLE AND WINE.
So greatly did the land abound in wine in olden days,
specially Judea, that, as is said in the language of pro-
phetic poetic imagery, men washed their garments in wine
as in water, and without anxiously guarding against damage,
one bound his riding-beast to the noblest vine, in place of a
stake. Olive, fig tree, vine are the ancient emblems of the
Land of Israel. In the fable which Jotham relates to the
Shechemites, to warn them against the government of the
fratricide Abimelech, the trees go forth to anoint for them-
selves a king. They repair first to the olive, which, as the
producer of the anointing oil, seems to be first pointed out
for the office ; then to the fig tree, whose umbrageous crown
resembles a royal canopy; and then to the vine, which is
rather a shrub than a tree, and loves to entwine itself in its
growth about the stem of the fig tree, but the vine too
answers with a refusal: ‘“‘ Should I leave my juice! which
gladdens gods and men, and go to sway to and fro over the
trees?”’ It is a standing figure of prosperous peace, that
every one sits under the shadow of his vine and of his fig
tree. Depicting the future age of freedom and of peace, the
prophet Zechariah exclaims: “‘ How great its pleasantness
and its beauty! Corn makes the young men to bloom, and
hew wine the maids;” 7.6. the young men thrive on the
nourishing bread-fare of the land, and the soft sweet juice of
the grape sheds a youthful freshness over maiden cheeks.
And in the Song of Songs, in which all that is most glorious
in the vegetable world is combined, as in the Isola bella of
the Lago Maggiore, the vine stands at the head. Solomon’s
only beloved has a bronzed visage, because the severe
brothers haye made her the guardian of a vineyard, and
visiting her home at the foot of the Lesser Hermon, leaning
on Solomon’s arm, she hints to the king, in a figure taken
from his vineyard at Baalhamon, that he is not to leave
without a present—as he gave presents to the guardians of
1 Tirosh, must, new wine:
THE BIBLE AND WINE. 63
this vineyard—the guardians of her vineyard, 1.6. of her
virginity, namely her brothers; and in the interval we hear
how, before she is taken to her new home, visited by the
king, and called upon to let her voice be heard, she pours
forth a lay of the vineyard :
“ Behold with fragrant blossoms adorned
Stands the vineyard, already the grapes begin to form;
Up then and take the foxes, the little ones,
That they spoil not for us the fair vineyard.”
The development of the vine-blossom, which in Hebrew
bears the beautiful name of semadar, appears thrice in the
Song of Songs as the sign of spring; all who have ever
visited a vineyard in the time of bloom (with us, end of
May), have been ravished with the incomparable fragrance.
Apart from the Feast of the Vintage, other national
festivals, too, were held by preference in the vineyards.
As Israel’s history has its Iphigenia in the daughter of
Jephthah, who falls a victim to a vow, so has it likewise a
counterpart to the Rape of the Sabines in the carrying off
of the daughters of Shiloh. When the tribe of Benjamin
had been brought down to a pitiful remnant, through the
war of revenge waged against it by the other tribes, and the
members of the other tribes had bound themselves by an
oath not to suffer their daughters to wed with Benjamites,
a national festival which was observed annually in Shiloh
afforded a way ‘of escape out of the difficulty; the young
maidens of Shiloh held there the circular dances, and the
Benjamites broke forth from the vineyards and carried off for
themselves wives from among them, with the tacit permis-
sion of the elders. And even in the Herodian period there
were associated with the 15th Ab (concluding day of the
cutting of the sacrificial wood) and the 10th Tishri (Day of
Atonement) for the whole populace of Jerusalem two unique
forms of diversion; for on these days the maidens went
forth, attired in white garments; which even the richest had
04 THE BIBLE AND WINE.
borrowed in order not to put the poor to shame, into the
surrounding vineyards, and danced there, and sang spor-
tively provoking songs, addressed to the youths who had
gathered as spectators.
It is noteworthy that the winged word, ‘‘ Wine maketh
olad the heart of man,’ is found in the Psalter, and indeed
in Ps. civ., which is a song of praise to God the Creator.
The interest of Holy Scripture in the world of nature is not
called forth merely by the sensuous charm of the beautiful
in nature, not merely by the enjoyment afforded by such
natural objects as food and drink, but it is before every-
thing a religious interest; it sees in the things of nature
incorporated thoughts of God, copies in this world from
archetypes in the world beyond, miracles of creative omni-
potence and wisdom, gifts of the heavenly love. The joyous
aspect of a glorious vinetract points the spirit up to God
the Creator and Giver; and when it is laid waste the sight
of this desolation attunes the soul to sadness, something as
when a table laden with festive gifts has been overturned
and that which sparkled thereon is reduced to fragments.
In this sense Isaiah, in his oracle upon Moab, bewails
the desolation of the Moabite vine-district by the Assyrian
war; the city of Jazer weeps for the devastated vinefields
of Sibma, and the ‘prophet weeps and laments with her,
that over the luxurious tillage of the Moabite sister cities
Heshbon and Elale there has gone up in place of the Hedad
(huzza) of the wine-treaders, the Hedad (hurrah) of the
wildly charging foeman :—
“Therefore I bewail with Jazer’s weeping Sibma’s vine,
I water thee with my tears, Heshbon and Elale,
That upon thy summer fruits (fruit-gathering) and upon thy ἘΠ 2
Hedad is fallen.”
Joel’s lament, too, over the all-withering drought and
the all-consuming swarms of locusts is, above everything, a
THE BIBLE AND WINE. 65
mourning with the mourning world of nature, although also
over the fact that the sources of nourishment for the world
of men and beasts are destroyed, and especially over the
fact that the necessary means for the daily service of God
are withdrawn: ‘‘Cut off is meal offering and drink offer-
ing from the house of Jahve; they mourn, the priests, the
ministers of Jahve.’’ They mourn, for the presentation of
the daily morning and evening sacrifice, which in other
cases even amidst the straits of a siege was not omitted,
has become impossible, owing to the devastation of the corn
and the vines.
The daily morning and evening sacrifice concluded with
a libation of wine, in connexion with which the trumpets
of the priests and song and music of the Levites resounded,
as described in the Book of Ecclesiasticus (and admirably
translated by Luther): ‘‘ He,’ namely the High Priest,
Simon II., ‘‘ stretched out his hand to the cup, and poured
of the blood of the grape; he poured out at the foot of the
altar a sweet-smelling savour unto the Most High, King
of all. Then shouted the sons of Aaron, and sounded the
silver trumpets, and made a great noise to be heard, for a
remembrance before the Most High. Then all the people
together hasted, and fell down to the earth upon their faces
to worship their Lord God Almighty, the Most High. The
singers also sang praises with their voices [with psalms]
and the whole house resounded with the sweet melody.”’!
In the Mishna-tractate on the meal offerings (menachoth),
the localities are mentioned whence the best and second
best wine for the wine libations were derived. Among the
latter localities is found also the White City on the Hill.
That is probably Nazareth; for this bears in ancient records
the name of the White City, because the houses are built
of white limestone, and because it lies in an amphitheatre
1 The concluding words, from those bracketed onwards, are after Luther’:
version,
VOL, III. τ
66 THE BIBLE AND WINE.
formed by hills of white calcareous lime. In the present
day the wine culture there is insignificant ; they train upon
the soil creeping vines, but the red and white grapes, cut
unripe, are brought to market to be enjoyed as a refreshing
compote.
That the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament
condemns the immoderate use of wine we need not say.
To the officiating priests wine, or other strong drink, is
prohibited under pain of death ; as likewise of the presbyters
and deacons of the Church it was required first of all that
they should be no wine-bibbers. For the rest, however,
only the Nazarite, who had taken a vow of abstinence for
a limited time or for the duration of his life, entirely ab-
stained from the use of wine, and that nomadic tribelet, too,
of the Rechabites, whose inexorably firm adherence to the
custom handed down from their fathers Jeremiah holds
forth as a pattern to his own countrymen; there were also
in the Roman Christian Church, Jewish Christians who on
principle renounced the use of flesh and wine, perhaps be-
cause the time was not meet for indulging in such enjoy-
ments, even as after the destruction of Jerusalem many
said: ‘‘ Shall we eat flesh and drink wine now, when the
altar is destroyed on which flesh was wont to be offered and
wine to be poured forth to God?’’ There are, therefore,
under given circumstances, relatively legitimate grounds for
abstaining from wine. That is the standpoint which should
be taken by the Anglo-American advocates of the Temper-
ance movement, without seeking to wrest from Scripture a
testimony that the use of fermented wine is forbidden under
any circumstances. How often have I been asked by those
on this side whether the wine of the four cups of the Jéwish
Paschal meal was fermented! They would fain substitute
in the Lord’s Supper the unfermented juice for the fer-
mented wine. The Jewish Passover wine, however, 15
really fermented, and only as a substitute in case of need is
THE BIBLE AND: WINE. 67
unfermented wine permitted. Thus it was unfermented
wine, too, which Jesus handed to the disciples at His part-
ing meal, concluding with the mysterious words: ‘ Verily,
I say unto you, I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine,
until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
One is reminded in this of the old synagogal metaphor, that
there is a wine of the world to come, which has been laid
up since the six days of the Creation for the future use of
the blessed.
The vine is a beautiful image, at the service of men, of
ascending from humility to glory. There is among the
useful plants no one more modest, more easily satisfied,
and without display rendering such great things, out of un-
pretending form developing such delicious fruits. The vine
is Magnanimous in its endurance; it accommodates itself
to the most diverse kinds of soil and a pretty high degree
of cold, and does not succumb even to cruel ill-treatment.
In this respect Joseph, in the blessing of Jacob, is
likened to a vine, the dreamer delivered by his brethren
to the heathen, who as the exalted one became the de-
liverer and benefactor of his people. Therefore in Ps. Ixxx.
Israel is compared to a vine, a vine transplanted out of
the soil of Egypt, the house of bondage, to Canaan, which,
though sorely plucked at and bitten, yet remains an object
of Divine choice and protection, and of a love which event-
ually dispels for itself every cloud. And therefore Jesus
also compares Himself to a vine, and His Father to the
vinedresser, and His disciples to the branches; and the
Church sings of the wine which He sacramentally dis-
penses :
“Ὁ sacred wine, to me be blest;
Since He, whose blood gives me
To feel forgiveness of my sins,
Meets me indeed with Thee.”
Through these three figures of the vine there runs the
68 THE BIBLE AND WINE.
chain of historic connexion, but an intermediate link is
wanting. The Messiah is the Son of David, and is known
by the prophets simply as David. Where, however, is
David compared to a vine? When I was sitting with my
friend in the vine arbour on the Rhine, I related to him
that in the library of the Jerusalem cloister in Constan-
tinople there had been discovered an ancient and beyond
doubt Jewish-Christian Church Order, of which the text has
been published since the year 1883. Here a communion
prayer reads: ‘‘ We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy
vine of Thy servant David, which [vine] Thou hast made
known to us by Thy servant Jesus.”’ No one has yet
succeeded in pointing out the place whence this figure of
the vine of David is taken.
“‘T think I know the place,” said my companion, “ but
we have no books here.” Then he took a draught, smiled,
and continued: “Τὺ is remarkable how the early Jewish
and early Christian literature accord in matters of wine.
“That is just what I was driving at,” cried I: ‘‘The Old
Testament and the New are one stream, as the German
Middle Rhine from Bingen to Coblenz and from Coblenz to
Bonn—one stream, wherein the mountains and the wine-
lands and the stars and the sun are reflected.” He was
silent, and left me the last word.
EPILOGUE.
The explanation which my Rhenish friend had in mind
consisted, as I think, in this, that in Ps. lxxx., where
Israel is compared to a vine transplanted out of Egypt
into Canaan, it reads (vv. 15, 16): ‘‘ Elohim Zebaoth, oh!
turn again, look from heaven and see, and visit this vine.
And protect him whom Thy right hand hath planted, and
the son whom Thou hast firmly bound to Thee,” and that
these verses are rendered in the Targum (the Aramaic
DESTRUCTION OF THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN. 69
paraphrase) : “ Elohim Zebaoth, oh! turn now again, look
from heaven and see, and remember in mercy this vine.
And the vine-shoot which Thy right hand hath planted,
and the King Messiah (Malka Meshicha), whom Thou hast
established for Thyself.’ Here the parallel is drawn: vine
-Messiah (David). As I quitted the chamber after my
lecture, a friendly scholar gave me in passing another solu-
tion, in referring me to a passage of the Talmud (Berachoth,
57a) where it is said: ‘‘He who sees a choice vine in a
dream, may look for the Messiah, for it is written (Gen.
xlix. 11), ‘He bindeth to the vine his foal, and to the choice
vine his ass’s colt.’’’ Rabbinowicz, in his Varie Lectiones
to the Talmud, observes on this place that a Paris MS. of
the Talmud bases this interpretation of the dream upon
Ps. Ixxx. 9 [8], for it reads, ‘‘A vine out of Egypt didst
Thou transport, dravest out heathen and plantedst it.”’
Thus here too the parallel is drawn, with an appeal in
justification partly to Gen. xlix. 11, partly to Ps. lxxx.—
vine = Messiah. The two references to the source of the
figure in the newly discovered document of the early Church
mutually supplement each other.
FRANZ DELITZSCH.
THE PROBABLE PHYSICAL CAUSES OF THE
DESTRUCTION OF THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN.
GENESIS XVill., XIX.
A RECENT interesting article in the Exposttor by Dr.
Cheyne, has induced me to return to the consideration of
the physical causes involved in the destruction of Sodom
and its companion cities, and has suggested some questions
which had not occurred to me, when discussing this most
realistic narrative, and comparing it with the appearances
70 THE PROBABLE PHYSICAL CAUSES OF THE
on the ground, in my recent little book on ‘‘ Egypt and
Syria.” }
From a geological point of view we are scarcely warranted
in saying that the recent researches of my friend Professor
Hull, or those of Lurtet, and other previous observers have
‘‘ disposed for ever”’ of the theory that the doomed cities or
their sites, in whole or in part have been submerged under
the waters of the Salt Sea; and I feel confident that Pro-
fessor Hull could not assert that they have necessarily had
this effect, though his own opinion in the matter may
favour that view. What they have effectually disposed of is
the theory that the Dead Sea originated at the time of the
destruction of those cities, which is quite a different matter.
There is indeed the best evidence that this salt lake has
existed from early Tertiary times, and that in the ages
preceding human history it was much more extensive than
at present. But this does not settle the question whether
at the time of the destruction of the cities it may not have
been a little larger or smaller than at present, or whether
there may not have been some local subsidence in con-
nexion with the tragic event. The answer to these ques-
tions would depend on other considerations distinct from
the geological history of the sea.
As to the size of the lake, this would be regulated by
the relative amounts of precipitation and evaporation in the
Jordan valley and the basin of the sea at the time referred
to. As to local subsidence, nothing could be more likely
than this in connexion with the disturbances recorded
in Genesis. Such evidence as we have, however, gives
no reason to believe that the climate of Palestine was less
humid than at present in the time of Abraham. On the
contrary, the probably greater amount of forest surface
would justify the beliet that it was at least less arid than in
modern times. Further, if the country was better wooded,
1 Bye-paths of Bible Knowledge, Religious Tract Society.
DESTRUCTION OF THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN. 71
the floods of the Jordan would probably be less violent than
they now are, and the level of the Dead Sea would be more
constant. As to local subsidence, there are facts noted in a
previous narrative in Genesis xiv., which give some reason
to believe that this may have occurred. I take it for granted
that as Canon Tristram and Dr. Selah Merrill have so ably
argued, the cities were at the north end of the sea, and
that the vale of Siddim in which their kings met the
Eastern invaders was also there. Now these invaders are
said to have marched up the western side of the sea by
way of Engedi, and to have been met by their opponents
in a vale or plain full of bitumen pits. At present it would
be difficult for an army encumbered with plunder to move
along the coast of the Dead Sea northward of Engedi, and
it does not appear that the host of Chedorlaomer and his
confederates went up the Engedi pass to the westward and
round to the plain of Jordan through the hills of the
Amorites. It is possible therefore that they may have
passed along a fringe of low country now submerged, and
in which were the petroleum wells. Tristram notes in this
vicinity a band of bituminous rock in the cliffs and exuda-
tions of mineral pitch, but there seem to be no indica-
tions of the numerous petroleum pits referred to in Genesis,
and possibly these may be now submerged. Nor would
it be wonderful if the locality in question should now
be occupied with deep water, since such local subsidence,
occasioned by removal of material from below, might be
of considerable natural amount. It is proper to add, how-
ever, that the disappearance of the bitumen pits may be
accounted for in another way, to be noticed in the sequel.
It may be urged as an argument against the occurrence
of any subsidence, that the notice of the locality in Deu-
teronomy xxix. 23, would imply that in the time of Moses
the site of the destroyed cities was believed to be a land
characterized by salt and sulphur and dryness, or in other
(2. THE PROBABLE PHYSICAL CAUSES OF THE
words a plain covered with deposits similar to that which
occur in various places around the sea; yet there is no con-
tradiction between this and the supposition that a portion
of the original plain had been submerged. What remained
of it might present the characters of aridity and barrenness
referred to.
With reference to the causes of the destruction of the
cities, these are so clearly stated in a perfectly unconscious
and incidental manner in Genesis xix., that I think no
geologist, on comparing the narrative with the structure of
the district, can hesitate as to the nature of the phenomena
which were presented to the observation of the narrator.
Nor is there any reason to suppose that the history is com-
pounded of two narratives giving different views as to the
cause of the catastrophe. On the contrary, the story has all
the internal evidence of being a record of the observations
of intelligent eye-witnesses who reported the appearances
observed without concerning themselves as to their proxi-
mate causes or natural probability.
We learn from the narrative that the destruction was
sudden and unexpected, that it was caused by ‘“‘ brimstone
and fire,’ that these were rained down from the sky, that
a dense column of smoke ascended to a great height like
the smoke of a furnace or lime-kiln, and that along with,
or immediately after the fire, there was an emission of brine
or saline mud, capable of encrusting bodies (as that of Lot’s
wife), so that they appeared as mounds (not pillars) of salt.
The only point in the statements in regard to which there
can be doubt, is the substance intended by the Hebrew
word translated “brimstone.” It may mean sulphur, of
which there is abundance in some of the Dead Sea depths ;
but there is reason to suspect that, as used here, it may
rather denote pitch, since it is derived from the same root
with Gopher, the Hebrew name apparently of the cypress
and other resinous woods. If, however, this were the inten-
~
DESTRUCTION OF THE OITIES OF THE PLAIN. 73
tion of the writer, the question arises why did he use this
word Gaphrith (D3), when the Hebrew possesses other
words suitable to designate different forms of petroleum
and asphalt. In this language Zepheth is the proper term
for petroleum cr rock oil in its liquid state, while Chemar
denotes asphalt or mineral pitch, the more solid form of
the mineral, and Copher is asphaltic or resinous varnish,
used for covering and protecting wood and other materials.
As examples of the use of these words in the Pentateuch,
Noah is said to have used copher for the ark, the builders
of Babel used chemar or asphalt as a cement, and the
careful mother of Moses used both chemar and zepheth to
make the cradle of her child water-tight. These distinc-
tions are not kept up by the translators, but a comparison
of passages shows that they were well understood by the
original writer of the Pentateuch, who had not studied the
chemistry of the Egyptian schools to no purpose.! Why
then does he in this place use this quite undecided term
-gaphrith? The most likely reason would seem to be that
he did not wish to commit himself to any particular kind of
inflammable mineral, but preferred a term which his readers
would understand as including any kind of mineral pitch or
oil, and possibly sulphur as well. It would have been well
if later writers who have undertaken to describe the fires
of Gehenna in terms taken from the destruction of the Cities
of the Plain, had been equally cautious. It is interesting to
note in connexion with this, that in the notice of the pits
in the vale of Siddim, the specific word chemar, asphalt, is
used, and it is in this particular form that the bituminous
exudations of the region of the Dead Sea usually appear.
It is scarcely necessary to say that the circumstances
1 T do not know if it is necessary to apologise for assuming that Genesis is a
Book of Moses. It is at least quite evident that its editor was trained in the
schools of Egypt, and was better qualified to describe natural phenomena than
the greater number of his critics and commentators in later times.
74 THE PROBABLE PHYSICAL CAUSES OF THE
above referred to are not those of a volcanic eruption, and
there is no mention of any earthquake, which, if it oc-
curred, must in the judgment of the narrator have been
altogether a subordinate feature. Nor is an earthquake
necessarily implied in the expression ‘‘ overthrown,” used
in Deuteronomy xxix. Still, as we shall see, more or less
tremor of the ground very probably occurred, and might
have impressed itself on traditions of the event, especially
as the district 15 subject to earthquakes, though it is not
mentioned in theological narrative.
The description is that of a bitumen or petroleum
eruption, similar to those which on a small scale have been
so destructive in the regions of Canada and the United
States of America. They arise from the existence of
reservoirs of compressed inflammable gas along with petro-
leum and water, existing at considerable depths below the
surface. When these are penetrated, as by a well or bore-
hole, the gas escapes with explosive force carrying petroleum
with it, and when both have been ignited the petroleum
rains down in burning showers and floats in flames over the
ejected water, while a dense smoke towers high into the air,
and the inrushing draft may produce a vortex, carrying it
upward to a still greater height, and distributing still more
widely the burning material, which is almost inextinguish-
able and most destructive to life and to buildings.
In the valley of the Euphrates, according to Layard, the
Arabs can produce miniature eruptions of this kind, by
breaking with stones the crust of hardened asphalt that
has formed on the surface of the bitumen springs, and
igniting the vapours and liquid petroleum.
Now the valley of the Dead Sea is an “ oil district,” and
from the incidental mention of its slime pits, or literally
asphalt pits, in Genesis xiv., was apparently more productive
in mineral pitch in ancient times. It is interesting in
connexion with this to notice that Conder found layers
DESTRUCTION OF THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN. 75
of asphalt in the mound which marks the site of ancient
Jericho, showing that the substance was used in primitive
times for roofs and floors or as a cement to protect brick
structures from damp, and it is well known that petroleum
exudes from the rocks both on the sides and in the bottom
of the Dead Sea, and, being hardened by evaporation and
oxygelation, forms the asphaltum referred to by so many
travellers.
The source of the bituminous matter is in the great beds
of bituminous limestone of Upper Cretaceous age which
appear at Neby Mousa, on the Jericho road and at many
other places in the vicinity of the sea, and no doubt underlie
its bed and the lower part of the Jordan plain. From these
beds bituminous and gaseous matter must have been at all
times exuding. Further, the Jordan Valley and the Dead
Sea basis are on the line of a great fault or fracture
traversing these beds, and affording means of escape to
their products, especially when the district is shaken by
earthquakes. We have thus only to suppose that at the
time in question reservoirs of condensed gas and petroleum
existed under the plain of Siddim, and that these were
suddenly discharged, either by their own accumulated
pressure, or by an earthquake shock fracturing the overly-
ing beds, when the phenomena described by the writer in
Genesis would occur, and after the eruption the site would
be covered with a saline and sulphurous deposit, while many
of the sources of petroleum previously existing might be
permanently dried up. In connexion with this there might
be subsidence of the ground over the now exhausted
reservoirs, and this might give rise to the idea of the sub-
mergence of the cities. It is to be observed, however, that
the parenthetic statement in Genesis xiv., ‘‘ which is the
Salt Sea,” does not certainly mean under the sea, and that it
relates not to the cities themselves but to the plain where
the battle recorded in the chapter was fought at a time
76 THE PROBABLE PHYSICAL CAUSES OF THE
previous to the eruption. It is also to be noted that this
particular locality is precisely the one which, as previously
stated, may on other grounds be supposed to have subsided,
and that this subsidence having occurred subsequently may
have rendered less intelligible the march of the invading
army to later readers, and this may have required to be
mentioned.!
It seems difficult to imagine that anything except the
real occurrence of such an event could have given origin
to the narrative. No one unacquainted with the structure
of the district and the probability of bitumen eruptions in
connexion with this structure, would be likely to imagine
the raining of burning pitch from the sky, with the atten-
dant phenomena stated so simply and without any ap-
pearance of exaggeration, and with the evident intention
to dwell on the spiritual and moral significance of the
event, while giving just as much of the physical features
as was essential to this purpose. It may be added here
that in Isaiah xxxiy. 9 and 10 there is a graphic description
of a bitumen eruption, which may possibly be based on the
history now under consideration, though used figuratively
to illustrate the doom of Idumea.
In thus directing attention to the physical phenomena
attendant on the destruction of the Cities of the Plain,
I do not desire to detract from the providential character
of the catastrophe, or from the lessons which it teaches,
and which have pervaded the religion and literature of
the world ever since it occurred. I merely wish to show
that there is nothing in the narrative comparable with
the wild myths and fanciful conjectures sometimes asso-
1 Lyell notices a subsidence as haying occurred within the present century in
Trinidad, which gave origin to a small lake of mineral pitch, and the well-known
pitch lake of that island is supposed to have originated in a similar subsidence.
The later subsidence is said to have caused ‘ great terror’’ among the inhabit-
ants, and if the petroleum or its gaseous emanations had been ignited serious
consequences might have ensued.
DESTRUCTION OF THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN. 77
ciated with it, and that its author has described in an
intelligent manner, appearances which he must have seen
or which were described to him by competent witnesses.
I wish also to indicate that the statements made are in
accordance with jthe structure and possibilities of the
district as now understood after its scientific exploration.
From a scientific point of view it is an almost vague
description of a natural phenomena of much interest and
of very rare occurrence.
Nor do I desire to be understood as asserting that Sodom
and its companion cities were unique in the facilities of
destruction afforded by their situation. They were no
doubt so placed as to be specially subject to one particular
land of overthrow. But it may be safely said that there
is no city in the world which is not equally, though perhaps
by other agencies, within the reach of Divine power ex-
ercised through the energies of nature, should it be found
to be destitute of ‘‘ten righteous men.” So that the
conclusion still holds—‘‘except ye repent ye shall all
likewise perish.”
I may be permitted to add that, notwithstanding all that
has been done in recent times, there is still much room
for the application of natural science to the interpretation
of the more ancient books of the Hebrew Scriptures, which
are undoubtedly the productions of men of culture and of
keen and accurate appreciation of nature, but which have
come down to us through ages of comparative darkness
in regard to physical phenomena—a darkness unhappily
scarcely yet dispelled even from the higher walks of biblical
interpretation.
J. Wi~Lt1am Dawson.
μῶν
[ο 6]
A NEW BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPT.
Axout five years ago two well-known German scholars, Harnack
and Gebhardt, discovered a new manuscript of the Gospels at
Rossano, a curious old town of Greek origin situated near the heel
of Italy. That manuscript was of very great interest in many
respects. It was a new manuscript of the sixth century at least,
and its antiquity alone invested it with importance. It belonged
to a very limited class again. It was written in letters of gold
on a purple ground. It was a most expensive work therefore,
and may represent to us the type of New Testament which
Husebius was commissioned to supply for the use of some leading
Churches after the triumph of Christianity. The Rossano Manu-
script was also embellished with a number of pictures, and was
thus a specimen of very early Christian art. From another
point of view this manuscript was important, because it illus-
trated the old Greek connexion between Constantinople and the
eastern coast of Italy, which existed down even so late as the
last century, when traces of the old Greek rites still existed
in the services at Rossano. Another similar manuscript has
now turned up on the opposite coast, and has been described
by Pierre Batiffol, a member of the French Archeological School
at Rome.! So long ago as 1881, L. Duchesne, another French
scholar of the same school, mentioned its existence, deriving his
knowledge from the work of Anthymus, Metropolitan of Berat,
published at Corceyra in 1868.2, Duchesne however knew it only
by report. This year Batiffol was despatched by the French
Minister of Public Instruction to inspect it. The French govern-
ment, whether Imperial or Republican, seems animated by a
more genuine spirit of learning and research than the British.
He found in the library of the Albanian Metropolitan quite
a store of ancient MSS., amounting to some twenty in number,
partly biblical, partly liturgical, the most valuable of which
1 Melanges @ Archéologie et Whistoire publiés par UV Ecole Francaise de Rome.
1885.
5. Berat is a corruption of Belgrade. It must, however, be carefully dis-
tinguished from the Servian Belgrade on the Danube. Berat is situated on the
little river Argent, which flows into the Adriatic nearly opposite Otranto in
Italy. There is a very interesting description of the place in Tozer’s High-
lands of Turkey, vol. i. p. 218, and even of the personal appearance of Anthy-
mus, the Metropolitan. The work above referred to was an ecclesiastical history
of his seee
A NEW BIBLICAL SMANUSCRIPT. rh
he here describes. It is a fifth or sixth century MS. of the
Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, written like the Rossano one,
in gold on a purple ground. It belonged originally to a mon-
astery in Patmos, whence it passed probably to Asia Minor or
Syria, and thence was carried by some chance to its present
abode some time about the end of the fourteenth century.
The great interest of the manuscript however centres in a
note which it bears, stating that it was written by St. John
Chrysostom, when he was deacon of the Church at Antioch,
which of course cannot be true if critics are right in the date
assigned to it, but may indicate its transcription from a text
derived from the Antiochene school. This note was written
afresh when the book was rebound in the year 1805, but pro-
fesses to be a copy of a more ancient note to the same effect.
The German government published a transcript of the pictures
and part of the text of the Rossano MS. soon after its discovery.
We hope the French government will not only give scholars the
opportunity of studying the conclusions of their agents as can be
done in the treatise of M. Batiffol, but also enable them to
judge the value of the manuscript for themselves by a similar
publication. Gebhardt has reviewed, with his usual learning,
Batiffol’s account of the Codex ® as it is called, in the Theolo-
gische Literaturzeitung for Dec. 12th.
It is a curious coincidence that just as this Biblical manuscript
sees the light, another manuscript comes to us from the very same
Greek Monastery of St. John, at Patmos, the original home as it
would seem of the Codex Aureus ®. The Acts or Passions of SS.
Peter and Paul were originally Catholic documents, dating, in the
opinion of Lipsius, the great authority on this subject, from the
end of the second century. They were adopted by the Gnostics
for their own purposes, and have given rise to various well-known
ecclesiastical traditions about St. Peter, as that concerning his
crucifixion with his head downwards, and specially to a very in-
teresting and beautiful one, which we tell for the benefit of the
reader who may not have met it. It sets forth how St. Peter was
fleeing from Rome to avoid the rage of Nero, when he met Christ
entering the gate through which he was leaving. Peter said to
Him, “ Domine, quo vadis?” ‘‘ Lord, whither goest Thou ?”’ words
which every visitor to Rome will remember in connexion with a
well-known spot. The Lord replied, ‘I am entering into Rome
80 A NEW BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPT.
᾽
to be crucified a second time.” ‘‘ Lord, is it to be a second time
crucified Ὁ said Peter. “Yes, Peter,” replied Christ, “I shall
be again crucified.” Whereupon Christ ascended into heaven,
and Peter, recalled to himself, returned to the disciples who had
overpersuaded him to fly from Rome. These Acts have long been
known in a Latin shape, while the traditions involved in them are
found in Ambrose and other early patristic writers. The Greek
text has been known to be in MS. at Patmos, but has never been
printed. lLipsius has now published it in the new number of the
Jahrbiicher fiir Protestantische Theologie, being the first part of the
volume for 1886. The accounts of both martyrdoms are very in-
teresting, while we can recognise in the text many traces of the
Gnostic and heretical legends which became intermingled with
them. The Greek text now published by Lipsius is much purer
and simpler than the Latin form as published by Tischendorf, and
criticised by Dr. Salmon in his Introduction to the New Testament,
Ῥ. 436, with which there may be usefully compared his article on
Linus in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, t. iii. p. 736. Per-
haps the greatest interest of all attaching to these discoveries is
the possibilities they suggest. Hven Mr. Tozer does not seem to
have thought of investigating the literary resources of the Cathe-
dral perched on the romantic Albanian rock. How many another
treasure may lie hidden amid the recesses of these comparatively
unexplored regions !
Trinity College, Dublin, Grorce THomas SToKes.
Dec. 15th, 1885.
P.S.—Professor Harnack has called my attention to the fact
that I have misrepresented his views with respect to the Gospel
of the Egyptians. In my article on the Faytm Gospel Fragment,
in the August Number of this Magazine, p. 136, I stated that he
had changed his views since last year, about the relation of that
Apocryphal Gospel to the Canonical St. Matthew. He points out
that his views are still exactly the same as they were then... The
mistake was mine in quoting his work on the Teaching of the Twelve
from memory and without verification.
PROFESSOR JULIUS WELLHAUSEN AND HIS
THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
JuLIUS WELLHAUSEN was born May 17th, 1844, in the
province of Hanover, in the quaint and romantic walled
town of Hameln on the Weser, where his father was pastor.
After attending school three years in the city of Hanover,
he entered the university of Géttingen in the spring of 1862.
Here he was attracted by Ewald, who held him to the study
of theology, with which, owing to some other influences, he
might easily have become disgusted. In the autumn of
1865, one year after Ritschl’s connexion was formed with
the theological faculty,! he left the university and was en-
gaged for a time as a private tutor, but returned to Gottingen
in 1867, where he remained five years, from the spring of
1868 until the autumn of 1870 as Repetent,? and for two
years thereafter as Privat-docent.’ In 1872 he was called
as an ordinary professor of theology to Greifswald, where
he became the colleague of Cremer and Zockler, winning
golden opinions by the modesty, vivacity and friendliness of
his demeanour, and by the marked ability of his lectures.
The estimation in which he was held by his colleagues of
the philosophical faculty of Greifswald is indicated in the
1 Wellhausen is regarded as sharing in the general aims of Ritschl’s school,
which seeks to combine personal piety, and a firm maintenance of the New
Testament basis of religion as divinely revealed, together with the freest criti-
cism.
* This would seem to correspond to the office of a private tutor in the Eng-
lish universities.
3 This is the technical German term for a private lecturer at a university,
who has received the professor's right to lecture, without his official position or
emoluments.
VOL. ΠῚ. G
82 WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATRUCH. Ἴ
eulogium! of the doctor’s diploma which was presented to
him on his departure for Halle.
His acceptance of an extraordinary professorship? of
Oriental languages at Halle was not a promotion in any
sense. But his departure from Greifswald was of his own
free will and highly honourable to him. Feeling that he
was not adapted to train young men for the ministry, and
perhaps on account of the destructive character of his
theories regarding the origin of the Pentateuch, he relin-
quished the position® which he had held with honour for
ten years.
Some of those who know him best speak with warmth
of his sincerity, and even of his piety. It is well that we
should get an impression of the personality of the man
outside of his writings, as they seem to be animated with a
spirit that prejudices many against him. They all display
marked thoroughness and ability. None of them were pre-
pared to fill a publisher’s order. They are rather the ripe
fruitage of careful study. His Text of the Books of Samuel,
1 Tvlivm Wellhaysen Theologie Doctorem et Professorem qui de Libris
Sacris et ad Artis Precepta Recensendis et Felici Ingenio Emendandis Optime
Meritvs et Regni Hasmonzxorvm Popvyliqve Ivdaici Stvdia ac Simvltates Ivdicio
non minys candido qvam acri illvstravit et priscam Popvli Hebraici Memoriam
e Seqviorvm Cerimoniarvm Involvcris ad Castam Pristine Religionis Sancti-
tatem Revocavit.
* An extraordinary professorship is the second step above the position of
privat-docent in the ladder of promotion. Unlike the ordinary professor, he
does not receive a full support from the state, and has no seat in the faculty,
nor in the senate. Last spring, however, Wellhausen was appointed an ordinary
professor of Oriental languages and history at Marburg.
* The reason which he assigns in his Muhammed in Medina (Berlin, 1882),
p. 5, is only partial. He says: “θη Uebergang vom Alten Testament zu den
Arabern habe ich gemacht in der Absicht, den Wildling kennen zu lernen,
auf den von Priestern und Propheten das Reis der Thora Jahve’s gepfropft ist.
Denn ich zweifle nicht daran, dass von der urspriinglichen Ausstattung, mit
der die Hebrier in die Geschichte getreten sind, sich durch die Vergleichung
des Arabischen Alterthums am ehesten eine Vorstellung gewinnen liisst.”
It is said that the influence of the minister of worship, both in Germany and
Austria, is unfavourable to the appointment of theological professors holding
Wellhausen’s critical views, and that this fact has a restraining influence
upon the younger theologians.
WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 83
his Chronology of the Book of the Kings after the Division
of the Kingdom, his Composition of the Hexateuch, and his
contributions to the fourth edition of Bleek’s Introduction,
all prepared the way for his masterpiece, the Prolego-
mena to the History of Israel.! The data for the arguments
contained in this book were in existence before in the
writings of a Graf, Duhm, Kayser, and Kuenen, not to
speak of an earlier circle, but they were scattered here and
there. It was Wellhausen’s discrimination which tested
them, and his genius which skilfully combined them in an
argument which seems to their author, and perhaps to the
majority of German Old Testament theologians, invincible,
at least if we may judge from the effects. On all sides
since this book has appeared we hear of conversions and
! The following is a list of Wellhausen’s writings, all of which except the
first have passed under the eye of the writer.
1. De gentibus et familiis Judeis que 1 Chron. ii.-iv. enumerantur. Dissertatio
TInauguralis. Gottingx, 1870.
2. Der Text der Biicher Samuelis, Gottingen, 1871.
3. Die Pharisier und die Sadducter. Griefswald, 1874.
5. Die Zeitrechnung des Buchs der Konige seit der Theilung des Reichs, in
the Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, pp. 607-640. Gotha, 1875.
6. Ueber den bisherigen Gang und den Gegenwiirtigen Stand der Keilent-
ziferung, in the Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie. Frankfurt a. M., 1876, pp.
153-175.
7. Die Composition des Hexateuchs. Jahrbiicher, etc. 1876, pp. 392-405 ; 531-
602; 1877, 409-479.
8. Die Biicher Judicum, Samuelis, und Regum, further die Geschichte des Kanons
and die Geschichte des Textes in the fourth edition of Bleek’s Einleitung in das
Alte Testament. Berlin, 1878.
9. Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1878. Second edition. Prolegomena zur Geschichte
Israels. Ibid. 1883; also in English, Prolegomena to the History of Israel.
Edinburgh, 1885.
10. Article Israel in the Encyclopedia Britannica. New York, 1881, pp.
396-432.
11. Muhammed in Medina. Berlin, 1882.
12. Mohammed and the First Four Caliphs, Encyclopedia Britannica. New
York, 1883, p. 545-565.
13, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Erstes Heft [pp. 1-102, cover substantially the
same ground as the article Israel in the Britannica, although ina more extended
form]. Berlin, 1884.
14. Pentateuch and Joshua, Encyclopedia Britannica. New York, 1885, pp.
505-514.
84 WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
concessions.!. But while on the one hand Wellhausen adopts
the sarcastic language of Isaiah (xi. 6, 7) with reference to
his opponents, he scornfully rejects the plan of taking votes
as to the progress of the new criticism. Perhaps it is an
utter disgust for cant which has led him to employ a style
in treating of the Old Testament Scriptures, which, if used
in discussing any other subject, would be considered piquant,
but which in his earlier productions is flippant, and in the
book which we especially have in hand sounds profane and
irreverent. It seems as though the author delighted in
wounding the sensibilities of his Christian readers. We
must however admit that in his Sketches,” one of his latest
productions, he omits such offensive language.
In our present discussion of Wellhausen’s theory of the
1 The writer, however, does not know of more than one who publicly acknow-
ledged that his critical views were changed through Wellhausen’s History of
Israel. This was done by Kautzsch in Schiirer’s Theologische Literaturzeitung,
Leipzig, 1879, columns 25-30. The following very general classification may per-
haps be made, although it must be rememembered that Reuss should be regarded
as the father of these views, and that each of those mentioned seeks to hold an
independent position for himself: 1. Supporters of the post-exilic codification of
the Priests’ Code: Bonn (Budde), Giessen (Stade), Gottingen (Duhm, H.
Schultz), Greifswald (Giesebrecht), Heidelberg (Kneucker), Jena (Siegfried),
Leipzig (Guthe, Kénig), Marburg (Cornill), Strassburg (Kayser, ἃ, 1885, Nowack
Reuss), Tiibingen (Kautzsch), Basel (Smend), Lausanne (Vuilleumier), Ziirich
(Steiner). 2. Supporters of the Priests’ Code as an older document: Berlin
(Dillmann, Strack, but with concessions), Erlangen (Kohler), Greifswald (Bre-
denkamp, d. 1885), Kiel (Klostermann ?), Leipzig (Delitzsch, with concessions),
Dorpat (Miihlau, Volck?). 3. Mediating critics : Bonn (Kamphausen), Leipzig
(Ryssel), Marburg (Baudissin). 4. Defender of the Mosaic authorship : Rostock
(Bachmann), Keil is not a professor in any university, but resides in Leipzig.
While the above list cannot be absolutely accurate, it is approximately so, and
rests not only on the writer’s partial knowledge, but also on classifications
furnished by two eminent German Old Testament scholars, one of whom has
made his mark in Old Testament bibliography.
The writer has received valuable letters from Professors Baudissin, Delitzsch,
Dillmann, Kautsch, Siegfried, Wellhausen, and Zockler.
Wellhausen does not hesitate to claim that the great change in the views of
the German professors of Old Testament theology has been brought about by
his book. He says that this fact is not weakened by their sudden claim that
they have long known what they have learned from him. Cf. Prolegomena,
ΤΣ Me
2 Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. Berlin, 1884.
WELLHAUSEN'S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 85
Pentateuch, we shall consider two main points. 1. What
are the constituent parts of the Pentateuch ? And 2. How
does Wellhausen justify this division ?
On entering Wellhausen’s critical analysis of the Pen-
tateuch we find ourselves at once in a labyrinth, in which we
seem at first to be hopelessly lost, but he gives us a thread
by which we may find our way out. If we would follow
the path which he indicates we must dismiss such modern
devices as chapters and verses, names of books, and
Massoretic sections. While we lose Moses from the
Pentateuch, we shall find in it a mosaic, not brought
together by chance, but exhibiting the hand of a master.
Perhaps we should form a clearer conception of the
critical method in the analysis of the Pentateuch, if we
were to suppose that our four gospels only existed in the
form of a harmony, as one continuous life of Christ, and
that in such a harmony the synoptists had been combined
as much as possible, by cutting out passages from one gospel
that were found in another, by allowing some parallel
passages to stand, and by fitting in passages from John in
their proper places. If we now had only Tatian’s Diatessa-
ron of the gospels, which began with John i. 1, a similar
problem would be presented to students of New Testament
criticism as to those of Old, for Wellhausen claims that we
may trace four main documents in the composition of the
Pentateuch.
Tatian’s Diatessaron therefore, as far as we know about
it, may serve to illustrate the process by which the critics
claim that the Pentateuch, or rather the Hexateuch,! came
into existence. Sometime during the years 850-770 B.c.,
or perhaps even later,? two narratives of Israel, from the
1 This term has been invented by the critics to indicate the five books of the
Pentateuch, and the Book of Joshua.
2 Cf. The Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. xiii. New York, 1881, p. 408. Well-
hausen affirms that certain collections of laws and decisions of priests were written
somewhat eartier than the legends about the patriarchs and primitive times,
86 WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
creation of the world to the conquest and settlement in
Canaan, were written. Which is the older of the two we
cannot ἐἰ611.} The last part of one of these, whose author
is called the Jahvist, from the name of God which he pre-
dominantly uses, breaks off with the blessing of Balaam.’
In his narrative he combined the myths, the legends, and
the traditional histories then existing. After he had
committed his work to writing the legends were still
growing beside it, and from time to time were incorporated
into it, so that the Jahvistic work may be considered as
having passed through at least three editions before it was
united with the following book.®
The second narrative, which is not necessarily second in
the order of time, is called the Elohistic, from Elohim, the
name of God which is characteristic of it. We must not
confound its author with the Elohistic writer in Ewald’s
Book of Origins, whose work appears at the very beginning
of Genesis, (1. 1; 11. 4a), and who is called by a misnomer
the older Elohist, while the one of whom we are now
speaking is called the younger Elohist, thus prejudging the
whole question of the relative age of the documents. The
history of the Elohist which Wellhausen has in view is
unlike that of the Jahvist in extent, since while it first
begins with the patriarchs, it extends throughout the book
of Joshua.’ It resembles the other, however, in having
passed through three editions.
Still later a writer, whom Wellhausen calls the Jehovist,°
wished to prepare a new history of Israel from the creation
of the world until the settlement of Israel i Canaan under
1 See Einleitung in das Alte T'estament. Berlin, 1878, p. 178.
2 Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. Gotha, 1876, p. 585.
3. Tdem, 1877, Ὁ. 478. 4 Cf. Idem, 1876, p. 392. 5 Tdem, p. 602.
6 This term must be distinguished from the Jahvist, which is derived from
Jahyeh (Yahveh), the pronunciation which is commonly adopted by erities for the
name ΠῚ). Wellhausen means by the Jehovist the combination of J(ahvist) and
H(lohist)=JE. Cf. Hinleitung,in das Alte Testament. Berlin, 1878, p. 178.
WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 87
Joshua. The two works named were his chief, although
not his only sources of information.’ Instead of digesting
them as a modern author would do, and writing an entirely
new history, he took the existing materials much as a New
Testament harmonist would in preparing a life of Christ in
the words of Scripture. He made the Jahvistic work the
basis of his narrative, and interwove with it passages of the
parallel Elohistic book.* In some cases he has sacrificed
one writer at the expense of another,?in others he has
allowed two accounts to stand stand side by side.t There
are, too, certain parts where he has made a much freer use
of his materials,° and where he has engaged in independent
authorship,’ This work was mostly narrative, yet it con-
tained a brief legal code, the so-called Book of the Covenant’
(Exod. xx.—xxi.), and Exod. xxxi. the former of which at
least was taken from the Jahvist.
The third contribution to the constituent elements of the
Pentateuch was mainly legal. Doubtless during the reign
of the wicked king Manasseh, the prophets and priests ὃ had
become convinced that something must be done to check
the growing idolatry of the people, and it is not unlikely
that the Decalogue dates from this period.’ It seemed to
them that a stop must be put to the practice of the Judeans
in worshipping on the high places (bamoth). This could
only be accomplished by limiting the worship of Jehovah
to Jerusalem. They therefore prepared a new law-book,'° a.
deuteros nomos (Deuteronomy), based on the Book of the
Covenant, and yet differing from it in its reiterated com-
mand that God should be worshipped in one place, and in
Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. Gotha, 1876, p. 419.
2 Idem, Ὁ. 413. 3 Idem, pp. 537, 542.
4 Idem, pp. 420-423, 428, 429, 535, 536. 5 Idem, p. 561.
® Idem, p. 564. 7 Idem, p. 557.
% Prolegomena. Berlin, 1883, p. 26.
9 Cf. Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. Berlin, 1883, p. 26.
0 Οἵ, Idem, pp. 69 ff. Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. Gotha, 1877, pp.
466 ff. Cf. Prolegomena. Berlin, 1883, pp. 392 ff.
88 WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
the position which it assigned to the Levites as the only
legitimate priests. This book was at first purely legal, and
embraced only Deut. xii.—xxvi. Afterwards there were two
recensions of it, one consisting of chapters 1.-1v., Xl1.—XxV1.,
xxvil., and the other of v.—xi., xll.-xxvi., xxvill. These two
were subsequently united and inserted in the legal code of
the Hexateuch, when chapter xxxi. was added.' This Book
of Deuteronomy is the law book which was discovered under
king Josiah in the year 621 B.c.
This narrative, which comprised only a fraction of the
present Hexateuch, was lacking in the most striking elements
now found in the Pentateuch. There was nothing in it
about the tabernacle as the central sanctuary around which
the twelve tribes were encamped, nothing about an elaborate
system of sacrifices, nothing about an Aaronic priesthood.
While the priests may well have had a traditional code, it
was still unwritten, and was yet destined to great modifica-
tions. The Deuteronomic code was not without effect. Its
chief polemic brought the worship of the high places into
disfavour,” and, as a result which was not designed indeed,
the Levitical priests who had served the people there were
degraded from their office,? as we learn from Ezekiel, and
became servants of their more fortunate brethren, the sons
of Zadok,* at Jerusalem. This centralization of worship
and degradation of the Levites, could not but affect the
traditional priestly code, but the most important factor was
the Babylonian exile, which suddenly cut off the political
and religious life of the nation for more than two genera-
tions. The ritual ceased to be practised, it now became
the object of study and reflection. The priests of necessity
1 Idem, p. 464.
2 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. xiii. New York, 1881, p. 418.
3 Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. Berlin, 1884, p. 71.
4 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. xiii. New York, 1881, p. 418.
δ From the year 586 8.c., when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed,
until 5388, when Cyrus gave the exiles permission to return. Skizzen, pp. 75-81.
δ Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1883, p. 62.
WELLHAUSEN'S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 89
became scribes.!. How much their ideals differed from the
law already found in the Book of the Covenant and in
Deuteronomy appears from the sketch presented in the last
nine chapters of the Book of the priestly prophet Ezekiel.
A further stage is indicated in the small code Lev. xvu.—
xxvi., which was subsequently written in the spirit of
Ezekiel’s code, although not by Ezekiel himself. Meanwhile
a new account of Israel’s history from the creation to the
settlement in Canaan under Joshua was written from the
stand-point of these new priestly enactments. How long
the new work was finished after the exile is not indicated.
Wellhausen calls it the Book of the Four Covenants.” This
book was made the basis of what he calls the Priests’ Code,
a work whose materials may have extended far back,* and
which grew up among the priests as the Mishna at a later
period among the scribes. There were then two historico-
legal works in existence, both running parallel from the
creation of the world to the settlement of Israel in Canaan.
At last part of the Jews were restored to their own land.
In the year 458 B.c., the scribe Ezra came to Jerusalem,
and cast in his lot with his Judean brethren. While he
was not the author of the Priests’ Code,* which had
gradually grown up with the Book of the Four Covenants,
on which it was based, among the priestly scribes at
Babylon, yet he is supposed to be the one who united it
with the Jehovistic edition of the Hexateuch which included
the Book of Deuteronomy. For fourteen years Ezra did
not introduce the new law book, but conducted the con-
gregation according to the Deuteronomic code. What was
the reason of this delay in its introduction does not appear.
1 Die Pharisier und die Sadduciier. Greifswald, 1874, pp. 12-14.
2 He gives it this name which he indicates by Q[uatuor], because it prepared
the way for the Mosaic covenant through the covenants with Adam, Noah, and
Abraham. Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. Gotha, 1877, p. 407.
3 Skizzen, pp. 43 ἢ. Prolegomena, p. 388.
4 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1883, p. 434.
90 WHLILHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
It is not unlikely that he was adapting this product of
Babylonian wisdom to the practical needs of the congrega-
tion at Jerusalem, and was perhaps training helpers to assist
him in carrying out the provisions of the new code. The
book which Ezra introduced in the year 444 B.c. was es-
sentially our present Pentateuch, although various novels
and interpolations crept in until the year 300 8.6."
Such in general is Wellhausen’s theory of the origin of
the Hexateuch as nearly as it can be gathered from his
various writings, although he nowhere attempts the hazard-
ous experiment of presenting a connected picture of the
origin of the different parts, but evidently leaves each
student of his writings to paint one for himself.
We have next to consider on what grounds Wellhausen
adopts this theory of the origin of the Pentateuch. We
shall find that it is based on the history of worship, of the
Hebrew language, and of the Hebrew literature. As all
roads led to Rome, so it will be seen that the result of every
investigation presented by Wellhausen tends to establish
the position that the priestly portions of the Pentateuch
were first codified after the exile.
If we consider the evidences drawn from the history of
worship we shall find that they fall under the four heads of
time, place, mode, and persons, and that each of the works
described reckoning them as the Jehovistic, Deuteronomic,
and Priestly, mark three stages in a development. Before
the last, a fourth, however, should be inserted, as forming
a necessary connexion, which may be called the Code of
Hizekiel (xl.—xlviii.). The dates represented are about 850-
770 B.c. (Jehovistic), 621 B.c. (Deuteronomic), 573 B.C.
(izekelian), 444 B.c. (Priestly). We begin in the Jehovistic
Code with the simplest ideas of the time, place, and mode
of worship, and of the persons engaged in it, we reach a
1 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1883, pp. 429 ff.
2 Cf. Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. Gotha, 1876, pp. 441-442.
WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 91
higher plane in Deuteronomy, a still higher one in Ezekiel,
and the highest of all in the Priests’ Code.
Let us take the matter in detail with regard to the sacred
seasons. Beginning first with the unit seven, which marks
off the Sabbath of the week, and of the years, reaching its
culmination with the year of jubilee, we do not find this
highly developed system of Sabbatical time in the Jehovist,
or in the Deuteronomist. The Sabbath in all its strictness
is a product of the ascetic spirit of the exile, and the year
of jubilee is one of the latest inventions of Jewish scribes.'
The same principle may be observed with regard to the
Hebrew festivals, passover, pentecost, and tabernacles. In
the Jehovistic code, all but the first are simple, gladsome
feasts of harvest 3 for individuals,® in the Deuteronomic they
are more elaborate,‘ although they still possess the same
joyful character, but in the Priests’ Code all the spontaneity,
and gladness have vanished ; they are to be celebrated by the
congregation as a religious duty.’ Thus the motive assigned
for their observance is of an entirely different sort from that
which we find in the early documents.
The same law of development is illustrated in regard to
the place of worship. In the Book of the Covenant, which
is a part of the Jehovistic work, the suppliant may build his
altar anywhere ;° but in the second edition of the law (Deut.
Xii.-xxvi.), he is distinctly told that he may not worship
everywhere, but that he must confine himself to the one
place, which the Lord his God shall choose to set His name
there.” In the Priests’ Code it seems to be taken as a
matter of course that there is only one place where worship
can be offered, and that is at the tabernacle.* 'The steps,
Cf. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1883, pp. 117-124.
2 Prolegomena, p. 95. Wellhausen connects the passover with the life of
herdsmen.
3 Idem, Ὁ. 103. 4 Idem, pp. 86 ἢ. 5 Tdem, pp. 104, 107.
5 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1883, pp. 29-80.
7 Idem, pp. 33-35. 8 Idem, pp. 35-37.
92 WHLILHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
then, in this development are: the Jehovist allows worship
anywhere, the Deuteronomist limits it to one place [Jeru-
salem], the Priests’ Code does not once debate the question,
but assumes that worship at only one place is established
usage.
What then is true in regard to the mode of worship, may
we not have an exception here? In the first place we find
the Book of the Covenant and of Deuteronomy almost
barren of the terms which describe sacrifice,! which they
seem to regard as an ancient institution. If we look again,
we notice a childlikeness in the views of sacrifice, which could
not bear the scrutiny of the priestly scribes during the exile.
Sacrifices were at first evidently spontaneous sacrificial
meals, at which the offerers were gathered with their friends,
and where in a naive way they considered themselves as
God’s guests.” The vicarious element was largely if not
entirely wanting until after the exile.? The great day of
atonement is a product of Judaism. Here, as elsewhere, the
ascending steps from a simple sacrificial meal, which the
offerer ate with gladness in company with his friends, to
the elaborate ritual of the great day of atonement are clearly
marked.
Again, what persons may offer sacrifice, must they be
priests? The Jehovist answers, “ΝΟ; young men may offer
the sacrifices’; the Deuteronomist says, ‘“‘ Yes, but any
Levite may officiate as priest’; Ezekiel says, ‘‘ Yes, but of
the Levites, those who have served at the high places may
not present the offerings, only the sons of Zadok can perform
this office”’; the Priests’ Code replies, ‘‘ Yes, but only the
sons of Aaron may be priests.” Here then we have four
steps: young men, Levites, sons of Zadok, sons of Aaron,
1 This is rather implied than directly stated. Cf. Prolegomena, p. 54, pp.
τ EG ἘΣ ες pp. 74, 79.
3 Wellhausen does not say this in so many words, but he seems to imply it,
pp. 76, 83, 84.
WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 93
and a complete hierarchy with the high priest at its
head.
Now if we regard the Jehovistic, Deuteronomic, Ezeke-
lian, and Priest’s Code as forming a pyramid with the Jeho-
yistic work as the base and the Priests’ Code as the apex,
we shall find that there are steps on each of the four sides
ascending to the top, and that the apex is four-faced: 1. On
the side of the sacred seasons, ascending to the year of
jubilee; 2. On that of sacred places, reaching the one legiti-
mate place of worship in the temple at Jerusalem; 3.
Sacred ceremonies, which find their culmination in the
sacrifices of the great day of atonement; 4. Sacred persons,
attaining their highest dignity in the high priest, who is at
the same time an ecclesiastical and civil ruler.
It remains for us to inquire whether the history of Hebrew
literature lends its support to Wellhausen’s theory of the
origin of the Pentateuch. He claims that it does. He
affirms that, excluding the books of the Pentateuch, and
taking into account the older literature, preserved almost
intact in the historical books of the Prophets, only one half
of the Old Testament is pre-exilic,' since the Books of Kings
did not receive their present form until after the exile,” and
the greater part of the third division of the Old Testament
Canon, the Sacred Writings, is post-exilic.* He holds that
Hebrew literature did not begin before the ninth century
B.C.,* and that the common notion that the exilic and post-
exilic period was comparatively barren of literary productions
is false, since it was really very fruitful.? He holds therefore
that there is no inherent improbability of such a work as
the Priests’ Code receiving its written form after the exile.
1 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1883, p. 2.
-* Idem, p. 1.
3. Idem, p.1. Wellhausen says it cannot be proved that any part of the
Hagiographa was written before the exile.
1 Encyclopedia Britannica. New York, 1881, vol. xiii. p. 408.
5 Prolegomena, p. i.
94 WHLLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
What then is the testimony of Hebrew literature which is
known to have been written before the exile with reference
to the date of the Priests’ Code ?
Those parts of the Pentateuch which are known to have
been written before the exile manifest only exceedingly
problematical traces of 10.} While the Deuteronomist knows
nothing about it,? he evidently derives his materials from
the Jehovist.’ There are no distinct traces of Deuteronomy
in the prophetic writers before Jeremiah, but he is full of
them, ‘There are no indisputable traces of the Priests’ Code
in any prophetic work written before the exile. Ezekiel
manifests no knowledge of the Priests’ Code as a code, there
are merely correspondences between the last nine chapters
of his prophecy and the small code in Lev. xvil.-xxvi.
If it be maintained that certain passages in the historical
books, aside from the priestly parts of Joshua, are favourable
to the origin of the Priests’ Code before the exile, as in
Judges, Samuel and Kings, it is affirmed that these cannot
be quoted, since they are the product of post-exilic glosses,
or of a recension ina priestly spirit. For the same reason
the prophecy of Joel, which has been regarded by the great
majority of critics as one of the oldest prophecies, may not
be quoted as favourable to the antiquity of the Priests’ Code,
since the latest criticism reverses this opinion, and maintains
that 1t was written long after the exile.
Now while there is no certain trace of the Priests’ Code
in pre-exilic writings, the Jehovistic history in the Penta-
teuch represents the patriarchs as freely offering at various
places in accordance with the provisions of the law in the
Book of the Covenant. Likewise in the historical books,
kings and prophets have no thought of displeasing God by
offering sacrifice at various places. It is only after Solomon
that a Deuteronomic redaction, contrary to the original
1 Prolegomena, p. 12. 2 Idem, p. 392.
3 Idem, pp. 18, 395 f.
~
ee fo
WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 95
form and spirit of the Book of Kings, blames the rulers for
worshipping on the high places.
If now we turn to the narrative in the Book of the Four
Covenants, we find that it differs remarkably from the
Jehovistic record. There, in the Jehovistic record, the patri-
archs offer sacrifices freely ; here, in the Book of the Four
Covenants, they do not venture to do so, and for the obvious
reason, that in the mind of the author such a step would
be illegitimate, as the true mode of sacrifice was yet to
be revealed to Moses. There the patriarchs stand forth
in their true colours, exhibiting all the faults and weak-
nesses of the children of their time; here they are pious
Jews whose characters are above reproach. There is the
most temperate use of numbers and genealogies; here are
found the most exact enumerations of time and peoples, and
the authors are never weary of tracing the relationship
between father and son.
But these two books, so utterly different in spirit, are
not our only means of comparison. The Book of Kings
aside from its Deuteronomic and slght priestly redaction
is in entire harmony with the Jehovistic parts of the
Pentateuch, written with the same spirit and from the
same religious standpoint. Running parallel with it is the
Book of Chronicles, written long after the exile. The Book
of Kings seeks to record the history of Israel, even after
the establishment of the northern kingdom. It presents
David and Solomon as they are, and does not withhold
the dark background which has been a warning to men of
all times. There are only the most casual references to
worship, priests and Levites are never mentioned as two
distinct classes. Beyond the usual scheme which it uses
to indicate the royal succession, and the duration of reigns,
it is sparing in its genealogies and its use of numbers. In
_ Chronicles all is changed. It has no place for the northern
langdom, it is simply a history of the Jews. It knows only
96 WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
one dynasty, that of David. From his character and that
of his son every dark line is erased. It might almost be
called a history of worship. Priests and Levites appear on
every hand. It is at the same time a family register of
every prominent Jew, and a census report of the Jewish
nation. These are indeed striking peculiarities which have
their roots in the Book of the Four Covenants in Genesis,
and are all the more remarkable because they extend side
by side from the creation until the exile, where the Book
of Kings breaks off.
Such in the main are some of Wellhausen’s reasons,
although not stated in his language, or in the order of
thought indicated by him, for holding that the Priest’s Code
was first committed to writing after the exile. It is un-
necessary to say that he absolutely rejects the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch. The same is substantially
true of all modern German critics. As he himself claims,
the question whether the Priests’ Code was written some-
what prior to the work of the Jehovist (800-750 B.c.)
cannot be considered essential as affecting the authority of
the Old Testament. He cannot conceive why his views
should be so objectionable to those who simply date the
Priests’ Code before the exile instead of after it. The
English and American theologian will be likely to agree
with him in this.
There is however an undefinable something in his style,
as the expression of his animus, which must give pain to
every reverent student of the Old Testament as God’s
Word, for Wellhausen evidently regards it as nothing more
than man’s words, marking successive stages in a develop-
ment. He mocks at every effort made to re-establish the
Divine authority of the Old Testament, and is evidently out
of sympathy with the supernatural view of miracle and
prophecy. Whatever may be his feeling toward the Jeho-
vistic writer, for whom he expresses admiration, he shows
WELLHAUSEN’S THEORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 97
his repugnance for the Priests’ Code and Chronicles in scorn-
ful and sarcastic remarks. This is of course natural from
his point of view, when he believes that the genealogies,
chronologies, enumerations of armies, descriptions of the
tabernacle and of Levitical worship as found in the Priests’
Code and Chronicles are the invention of Jewish scribes,
and that while the authors of the Jehovistic work and of
Deuteronomy are not anxiously careful to show that their
books were written upon the settlement in Canaan, the
author of the Priests’ Code uses every endeavour to make
his work appear to have been written in the wilderness.
Such a theory of the Pentateuch, even when cleared of
the offensive accessories with which Wellhausen surrounds
it, is revolutionary not only of our whole conception of the
origin of the Scriptures, but also of the history of Israel, and
of Old Testament Theology, nor can it be denied that, if
adopted, it must seriously affect our view of the New
Testament.
It is indeed a question of fact, and of higher criticism,
but other elements must enter into the problem. There
are at least two postulates with which we should begin: that
God is a factor in human history, and that as such we
should expect that He would make a revelation of Himself
to man. Egypt, Assyria, Phoenicia, and Babylonia may
shed some light on the problem. Indeed light should be
welcomed from whatever quarter it may come.
Nothing is to be gained by hasty answers, however well
intended, or by attempting to belittle the chain of evidence
which Wellhausen presents. From this point of view we
have sought to exhibit his position in its full strength. The
limits of this article do not admit of a reply, nor are we
prepared to attempt one. It is our desire to master the
subject in a historical way before taking it up in detail.
The answer which may be made that will have weight will
not be wrung from the Christian heart by the seeming neces-
MOT, LIT. H
98 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
sities of the case, but will be recognised as the truth and
as such commend itself to evangelical Christian scholars.
Meanwhile if Wellhausen and his school are animated by
an evangelical spirit they will sink their own personality out
of sight, and cease to jeer at those who feel called upon to
seek a view of the origin of the Old Testament, which does
not cast such dishonour upon God’s Word.
Let us remember, however, that we should not tremble
for the ark of God, since a mightier hand than ours has it
in keeping, and a wiser counsel than that which prompts
our well meant endeavours can use the higher and the
lower criticism not as ends, but as means for the further-
ance of His plans.
In subsequent articles we may show how these critical
views revolutionize the History of Israel and Old Testament
Theology. SAMUEL IvES CURTISS.
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
XII.
THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION.
‘In whom ye wete also circumcised with a circumcision not made with
hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ ;
having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with
Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And
you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
you, I say, did he quicken together with Him, having forgiven us all our
trespasses.”’—CoL. ii. 11-13 (Rev. Vers.).
THERE are two opposite tendencies ever at work in human
nature to corrupt religion. One is of the intellect; the
other of the senses. The one is the temptation cf the
cultured few; the other, that of the vulgar many. The
one turns religion into theological speculation; the other,
into a theatrical spectacle. But, opposite as these ten-
dencies usually are, they were united in that strange chaos
THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION. 99
of erroneous opinion and practice which Paul had to front
at Colosse. From right and from left he was assailed, and
his batteries had to face both ways. Here he is mainly
engaged with the error which insisted on imposing circum-
cision on these Gentile converts.
I. To this teaching of the necessity of circumcision, he
first opposes the position that all Christian men, by virtue
of their union with Christ, have received the true cir-
cumcision, of which the outward rite was a shadow and
a prophecy, and that therefore the rite is antiquated and
obsolete.
His language is emphatic and remarkable. It points
to a definite past time—no doubt the time when they
became Christians—when, because they were in Christ, a
change passed on them which is fitly paralleled with that
rite. This Christian circumcision is described in three
particulars: as “ποῦ made with hands,” as consisting in
“ putting off the body of the flesh,” and as ‘‘ of Christ.”
It is “ποῦ made with hands,” that is, it is not a rite
but a reality, not transacted in flesh but in spirit. It is not
the removal of ceremonial impurity, but the cleansing of
the heart. This idea of ethical circumcision, of which the
bodily rite is the type, is common in the Old Testament,
as, for instance, ‘‘The Lord thy God will circumcise thine
heart . . . to love the Lord thy God with all thine
heart’ (Deut. xxx. 6). This is the true Christian circum-
cision.
It consists in the ‘‘ putting off the body of the flesh ’’—
for “‘the sins of” is an interpolation. Of course a man
does not shuffle off this mortal coil when he becomes a
Christian, so that we have to look for some other meaning
of the strong words. They are very strong, for the word
“putting off” is intensified so as to express a completé
stripping off from oneself, as of clothes which are laid aside;
and is evidently intended to contrast the partial outward
100 THE HPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
circumcision as the removal of a small part of the body,
with the entire removal effected by union with Christ. If
that removal of ‘‘ the body of the flesh”’ is “ποῦ made with
hands,” then it can only be in the sphere of the spiritual
life, that is to say, it must consist in a change in the
relation of the two constituents of a man’s being, and that
of such a kind that, for the future, the Christian shall not
live after the flesh, though he live in the flesh. ‘‘ Ye are
not in the flesh but in the Spirit,” says Paul, and again he
uses an expression as strong as, if not stronger than that
of our text, when he speaks of ‘the body” as “ being
destroyed,’ and explains himself by adding “that hence-
forth we should not serve sin.” It is not the body con-
sidered simply as material and fleshly that we put off, but
the body considered as the seat of corrupt and sinful af-
fections and passions. A new principle of life comes into
men’s hearts which delivers them from the dominion of
these, and makes it possible that they should live in the
flesh, not ‘‘ according to the lusts of the flesh, but according
to the will of God.” True, the text regards this divesting
as complete, whereas, as all Christian men know only too
sadly, it is very partial, and realised only by slow degrees.
The ideal is represented here,—what we receive ‘‘in Him,”
rather than what we actually possess and incorporate into
our experience. On the Divine side the change is complete.
Christ gives complete emancipation from the dominion of
sense, and if we are not in reality completely emancipated
it is because we have not taken the things that are freely
given to us, and are not completely “ὧν Him.” So far as
we are, we have put off ‘the flesh.” The change has
passed on us if we are Christians. We have to work it out
day by day. The foe may keep up a guerilla warfare after
he is substantially defeated, but his entire subjugation is
certain if we keep hold of the strength of Christ.
Finally, this circumcision is described as “‘ of Christ,’ by
THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION. 101
which is not meant that He submitted to it, but that He
instituted it.
Such being the force of this statement, what is its
bearing on the Apostle’s purpose? He desires to destroy
the teaching that the rite of circumcision was binding on
Christian converts, and he does so by asserting that the
Gospel has brought the reality, of which it was but a
picture and a prophecy. The underlying principle is that
when we have the thing signified by any Jewish rites,
which were all prophetic as well as symbolic, the rite
may—must go. It is an anachronism, ‘‘as if a flower
should shut, and be a bud again.” That is a wise and
pregnant principle, but as it comes to the surface again
immediately hereafter, and is applied to a whole series of
subjects, we may defer the consideration of it, and rather
dwell briefly on other matters suggested by this verse.
We notice, then, the intense moral earnestness which
leads the Apostle here to put the true centre of gravity in
Christianity in moral transformation, and to set all outward
rites and ceremonies in a very subordinate place. What
had Jesus Christ come from heaven for, and for what had
He borne His bitter passion? To what end were the
Colossians knit to Him by a tie so strong, tender and
strange? Had they been carried into that inmost depth of
union with Him, and were they still to be laying stress on
ceremonies? Had Christ’s work, then, no higher issue
than to leave religion bound in the cords of outward
observances? Surely Jesus Christ, who gives men a new
life by union with Himself, which union is brought about
through faith alone, has delivered men from that “‘ yoke of
bondage,” if He has done anything at all. Surely they who
are joined to Him should have a profounder apprehension
of the means and the end of their relation to their Lord
than to suppose that it is either brought about by any
outward rite or has any reality unless it makes them pure
102 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and good. From that height all questions of external
observances dwindle into insignificance, and all question of
sacramental efficacy drops away of itself. The vital centre
lies in our being joined to Jesus Christ—the condition of
which is faith in Him, and the outcome of it a new life
which delivers us from the dominion of the flesh. How
far away from such conceptions of Christianity are those
which busy themselves on either side with matters of detail,
with punctilios of observance, and pedantries of form! The
hatred of forms may be as completely a form as the most
elaborate ritual—and we all need to have our eyes turned
away from these to the far higher thing, the worship and
service of a transformed nature.
We notice again, that the conquest of the animal nature
and the material body is the certain outcome of true union
with Christ, and of that alone.
Paul did not regard, as these teachers at Colosse did,
matter as necessarily evil, nor think of the body as the
source of all sin. But he knew that the fiercest and
most fiery temptations came from it, and that the foulest
and most indelible stains on conscience were splashed
from the mud which it threw. We all know that too.
It is a matter of life and death for each of us to
find some means of taming and holding in the animal
that is in us all. We all know of wrecked lives, which
have been driven on the rocks by the wild passions
rooted in the flesh. Fortune, reputation, health, every-
thing is sacrificed by hundreds of men, especially young
men, at the sting of this imperious lust. The budding
promise of youth, innocence, hope, and all which makes
life desirable and a nature fair, are trodden down by
the hoofs of the brute. There is no need to speak of
that. And when we come to add the weaknesses of the
flesh, and the needs of the flesh, and the limitations of
the flesh, and to remember how often high purposes are
THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION. 103
frustrated by its shrinking from toil, and how often mists
born from its undrained swamps darken the vision that
else might gaze on truth and God, we cannot but feel
that a man does not need to be an Eastern Gnostic to
believe that goodness requires the flesh to be subdued.
Every man who has sought for self improvement recog-
nises the necessity. But no asceticisms and no resolves
will do what we want. Much repression may be effected
by sheer force of will, but it is like a man holding a
wolf by the jaws. The arms begin to ache and the
grip to grow slack, and he feels his strength going, and
knows that, as soon as he lets go, the brute will fly at
his throat. Repression is not taming. Nothing tames
the wild beast in us but the power of Christ. He binds
it in a silken lash, and that gentle constraint is strong,
because the fierceness is gone. ‘‘The wolf also shall
dwell with the lamb, and a little child shall lead them.”
The power of union with Christ, and that alone, will
enable us to put off the body of the flesh. And such
union will certainly lead to such crucifying of the animal
nature. Christianity would be easy if it were a round
of observances; it would be comparatively easy if it
were a series of outward asceticisms. Anybody can fast
or wear a hair shirt, if he have motive sufficient; but
the ‘putting off the body of the flesh” which is “ not
made with hands,” is a different and harder thing. Νο-
thing else avails. Highflown religious emotion, or clear
theological definitions, or elaborate ceremonial worship,
may all have their value; but a religion which includes
them all, and leaves out the plain moralities of subduing
the flesh, and keeping our heel well pressed down on the
serpent’s head, is worthless. If we are in Christ, we shall
not live in the flesh.
II. The Apostle meets the false teaching of the need
for circumcision, by a second consideration; namely, a
104 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
reference to Christian Baptism, as being the Christian
sign of that inward change.
Ye were circumcised, says he—being buried with Him
in baptism. The form of expression in the Greek implies
that the two things are cotemporaneous. As if he had
said—Do you want any further rite to express that mighty
change which passed on you when you came to be “in
Christ’? You have been baptised, does not that express
all the meaning that circumcision ever had, and much
more? What can you want with the less significant rite
when you have the more significant? This introduction
of Baptism is quite consistent with what has been said as
to the subordinate importance of ritual. Some forms we
must have, if there is to be any outward visible Church,
and Christ has yielded to the necessity, and given us two,
of which the one symbolises the initial spiritual act of
the Christian life, and the other the constantly repeated
process of Christian nourishment. They are symbols and
outward representations, nothing more. They convey
grace, in so far as they help us to realise more clearly
and to feel more deeply the facts on which our spiritual
life is fed, but they are not channels of grace in any other
way than any other outward acts of worship may be.
We see that the form of Baptism is distinctly by im-
mersion, and that the form is regarded as significant. All
but entire unanimity prevails among commentators on this
point. The burial and the resurrection spoken of point
unmistakably to the primitive mode of baptism, as Bishop
Lightfoot, the latest and best English expositor of this
book, puts it in his paraphrase: ‘“‘Ye were buried with
Christ to your old selves beneath the baptismal waters,
and were raised with Him from these same waters, to a
new and better life.”
We observe the solemnity and the thoroughness of the
change thus symbolised. It is more than a circumcision.
THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION. 105
It is burial and a resurrection, an entire dying of the old
self by union with Christ, a real and present rising again
by participation in His risen life. This and nothing less
makes a Christian. We partake of His death, inasmuch
as we ally ourselves to it by our faith, as the sacrifice
for our sins, and make it the ground of all our hope.
But that is not all. We partake of His death, inasmuch
as, by the power of His cross, we are drawn to sever
ourselves from the selfish hfe, and to slay our own old
nature; dying for His dear sake to habits, tastes, desires,
purposes in which we lived. Self-crucifixion for the love
of Christ is the law for us all. His cross is the pattern
for our conduct, as well as the pledge and means of our
acceptance. We must die to sin that we may live to
righteousness. We must die to self, that we may live to
God and our brethren. We have no right to trust in
Christ for us, except as we have Christ in us. His cross
is not saving us from our guilt, unless it is moulding our
lives to some faint likeness of Him who died that we might
live, and live a real life by dying daily to the world, sin,
and self.
If we are thus made conformable to His death, we shall
know the power of His resurrection, in all its aspects. It
will be to us the guarantee of our own, and we shall
know its power as a prophecy for our future. It will be
to us the seal of His perfect work on the cross, and we
shall know its power as God’s token of acceptance of
His sacrifice in the past. It will be to us the type of
our spiritual resurrection now, and we shall know its
power as the pattern and source of our supernatural life
in the present. Thus we must die in and with Christ
that we may live in and with Him, and that twofold
process is the very heart of personal religion. No lofty
participation in the immortal hopes which spring from
the empty grave of Jesus is warranted, unless we have
106 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
His quickening power raising us to-day by the better
resurrection; and no participation in the present power
of His heavenly life is possible, unless we have such a
share in His death, as that by it the world is crucified to
us, and we unto the world.
III. The Apostle adds another phase of this great con-
trast of life and death, which brings home still more closely
to his hearers, the deep and radical change which passes
upon all Christians. He has been speaking of a death and
burial followed by a resurrection. But there is another
death from which Christ raises us, by that same risen life
imparted to us through faith—a darker and grimmer thing
than the self-abnegation before described.
“And you, being dead through your trespasses, and the
uncircumcision of your flesh.’ The separate acts of trans-
eression of which they had been guilty, and the unchastened,
unpurified, carnal nature from which these had flowed were
the reasons of a very real and awful death ; or, as the parallel
passage in Hphesians (11. 2) puts it with a slight variation,
they made the condition or sphere in which that death
inhered. That solemn thought, so pregnant in its dread
emphasis in Scripture, is not to be put aside as a mere
metaphor. All life stands in union with God. The
physical universe exists by reason of its perpetual contact
with His sustaining hand, in the hollow of which all Being
lies, and it is, because He touches it. ‘‘ In Him we live.”
So also the life of mind is sustained by His perpetual in-
breathing, and in the deepest sense ‘‘ we see light” in His
light. So, lastly, the highest life of the spirit stands in
union in still higher manner with Him, and to be separated
from Him is death to it. Sin breaks that union, and
therefore sin is death, in the very inmost centre of man’s
being. The awful warning, ‘In the day thou eatest there-
of, thou shalt surely die,” was fulfilled. That separation
by sin, in which the soul is wrenched from God, is the real
any ὰ
THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION. 107
death, and the thing that men call by the name is only
an outward symbol of a far sadder fact—the shadow of
which that is the awful substance, and as much less terri-
ble as painted fires are less than the burning reality.
So men may live in the body, and toil and think and feel,
and be dead. The world is full of ‘‘ sheeted dead,” that
“squeak and gibber’’ in “our streets,” for every soul that
lives to self and has rent itself away from God, so far as
a creature can, is ‘‘ dead while he liveth.” The other death,
of which the previous verse spoke, is therefore but the
putting off of a death. We lose nothing of real life in
putting off self, but only that which keeps us in a separation
from God, and slays our true and highest being. To die
to self is but ‘‘ the death of death.”
The same life which the previous verse spoke of as
coming from the risen Lord is here set forth as able to
raise us from that death of sin. ‘‘ He hath quickened you
together with Him.” Union with Christ floods our dead
souls with His own vitality, as water will pour from a
reservoir through a tube inserted init. There is the actual
communication of a new life when we touch Christ by faith.
The prophet of old laid himself upon the dead child, the
warm lip on the pallid mouth, the throbbing heart on the
still one, and the contact rekindled the extinguished spark.
So Christ lays His full life on our deadness, and does more
than recall a departed glow of vitality. He communicates
a new life kindred with His own. That life makes us free
here and now from the law of sin and death, and it shall be
perfected hereafter when the working of His mighty power
shall change the body of our humiliation into the likeness
of the body of His glory, and the leaven of His new life
shall leaven the three measures in which it is hidden, body,
soul, and spirit, with its own transforming energy. ‘Then,
in yet higher sense, death shall die, and life shall be victor
by His victory.
108 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
But to all this there is one preliminary needful—
“having forgiven us all trespasses.’’ Paul’s eagerness to
associate himself with his brethren, and to claim his
share in the forgiveness, as well as to unite in the ac-
knowledgment of sin, makes him change his word from
“you” to “us.” So the best manuscripts give the text,
and the reading is obviously full of interest and suggestive-
ness. There must be a removal of the cause of deadness
before there can be a quickening to new life. That cause
was sin, which cannot be cancelled as guilt by any self-
denial however great, nor even by the impartation of a new
life from God for the future. A gospel which only enjoined
dying to self would be as inadequate as a gospel which only
provided for a higher life in the future. The stained and
faultful past must be cared for. Christ must bring pardon
for the past, as well as a new spirit for the future. So the
condition prior to our own being quickened together with
Him is God’s forgiveness, free and universal, covering all our
sins, and given to us without anything on our part. That
condition is satisfied. Christ’s death brings to us God’s par-
don, and when the great barrier of unforgiven sin is cleared
away, Christ’s life pours into our hearts, and ‘“‘ everything
lives whithersoever the river cometh.”
Here then we have the deepest ground of Paul’s intense
hatred of every attempt to make anything but faith in
Christ and moral purity essential to the perfect Christian
life. Circumcision and baptism and all other rites or sacra-
ments of Judaism or Christianity are equally powerless to
quicken dead souls. For that the first thing needed is the
forgiveness of our sins, and that is ours through simple faith
in Christ’s death. We are quickened by Christ’s own iife in
us, and He “ dwells in our hearts by faith.’’ All ordinances
may be administered to us a hundred times, and without
faith they leave us as they found us—dead. If we have
hold of Christ by faith we live, whether we have received
THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 109
—
the ordinances or not. So all full blown or budding sacra-
mentarianism is to be fought against to the uttermost,
because it tends to block the road to the City of Refuge
for a poor sinful soul, and the most pressing of all neces-
sities is that that way of life should be kept clear and
unimpeded.
We need the profound truth which lies in the threefold
form which Paul gives to one of his great watchwords:
‘Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but the keeping of the commandments of God.” And how,
says my despairing conscience, shall I keep the command-
ments? The answer lies in the second form of the saying
—‘‘In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.’’ And how, replies
my saddened heart, can I become a new creature? The
answer lies in the final form of the saying—‘ In Jesus Christ
neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision,
but faith which worketh.” Faith brings the life which
makes us new men, and then we can keep the command-
ments. If we have faith, and are new men and do God’s
will, we need no rites but as helps. Without these all rites
are nothing.
ALEXANDER MACLAREN.
THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
THE BOOKS OF JUDGES AND KUTH.
THE aim of these papers is to call attention to some of the
more important changes in the Revised Version, to offer
some explanation of the reasons for them, and to point out
the difference of meaning involved. The limits of space
must necessarily make these notes brief and incomplete, but
110 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
I hope that they will stimulate rather than supersede
further study.
Let me say once for all, that when I venture to dissent
from the Revisers’ conclusions, it is in no spirit of captious
criticism, and with a clear sense that it is somewhat pre-
sumptuous for an individual to do so. It only means that —
he votes with a minority, perhaps a very small one: and
possibly, if he had been privileged to hear the arguments,
he would have been converted to the view of the majority.
Opinions will necessarily differ as to whether the Revisers
have done all that might have been expected, but no one
can study their work without constant recognition of the
unwearying diligence and sober judgment with which they
have accomplished their difficult and delicate task.
THE BOOK OF JUDGES.
1. 8. The pluperfect rendering of the A.V. ‘‘ had gone,”
was doubtless due to the supposition that the preceding
verse implies that Jerusalem had already been captured.
But it is grammatically untenable (see Prof. Driver’s Tenses,
Ῥ. 105), and the natural sense of the passage is that the
victorious Israelites carried their prisoner Adoni-bezek with
them on their southward march as far as Jerusalem. ‘The
narrative of vv. 7, 8, 9 is consecutive.
9. Note the improved rendering of geographical terms.
15. The text is preferable to the margin. It is doubtful
whether the suffix of ‘1.1 can be taken as a dative ;
and moreover only Hebron and its neigl bourhood, not the
whole district of the Negeb or South, was Caleb’s por-
tion. The Negeb was dry and barren, and Achsah makes
the very reasonable request that as her father was sending
her to dwell there, he should add to her husband’s portion
the precious gift of springs of water.
16. Moses’ brother in law, namely Hobab; chap. iv. 11,
10M signifies a relation by marriage, and may certainly
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 111
mean father in law, chap. xix. 4, 7, 9: but as Hobab was
the son of Reuel (Num. x. 29), Moses’ father in law, it is
necessary to render brother in law here.
24. The watchers, i.e. the ‘spies,’ who had gone in
sufficient numbers to besiege the city, though they would
not venture to attack it until the man whom they found
stealing out showed them some unguarded entrance.
30. Tributary, rather as in marg. subject to taskwork.
Ὁ certainly means, (1) taskwork, or (2) the “‘ levy”’ or corvee
of workmen set to such forced labour, though in Aramaic
and later Hebrew it also means ‘‘tribute.’’ The employ-
ment of these Canaanites by Solomon is mentioned in
1 Kings ix. 20, 21.
ii. 1. The, not an, angel, as in v. 23; vi. 11 ff. ; xii. 3 ff.,
for the title is used of one who represented Jehovah in a
special way. See Oehler’s O. T. Theology, i. § 59. This
is probably right, for the angel speaks as if God were
speaking, without any preface of ‘Thus saith the Lorn,”
but the marg. ‘‘ messenger ”’ is retained in deference to the
opinion of many commentators, and Jewish tradition as
old as the Targum, which paraphrases ‘‘a prophet sent
from Jehovah.”
2. Why have ye done this? should surely have been
altered to ‘‘ What is this that ye have done?” an expression
of astonishment at the baseness of their apostasy, not an
inquiry as to the reason for it. Comp. the saime phrase in
Gen. i. 18.
8. The text is corrupt. Hither as A.V: and R.V. both
assume, some such word as thorns has been lost (cf. Num.
xxxill. 55; Josh. xxiii. 17), or, as the marg: suggests, for
OX “ sides’? should be read OMS “ adversaries,” with
Sept., Targ., Vulg.
7. The great work of the Lord. All the separate works
(Deut. xi. 3) of the Lord for Israel are regarded as forming
one great whole, a connected scheme:
112 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
11, 18. The Baalim . . the Ashtaroth. Baalim, the
plural of Baal, denotes the various forms or names under
which Baal, the supreme deity of the Canaanites and Phe-
nicians, was worshipped in different localities (Baal Peor,
Baal Berith, Baal Zebub, and the like): Ashtaroth, the
plural of Ashtoreth, the various forms of the corresponding
female deity.
10. The Lorp, the God of their fathers. Cf. iv. 6, ‘ the
Lorp, the God of Israel.” This slight change helps to
remind the reader that Lorp represents the proper name
JEHOVAH, and is not a mere appellative.
20. This nation. There is a touch of rebuke in the use
of the phrase, ‘‘ this nation.’’ Israel had degraded itself
from its high position as the Lord’s people to the level of
an ordinary “‘ nation.”
111. ὅ. The Canaanites. As the Hittite follows without
the conjunction and, Canaanites may here be a general term
for the inhabitants of the country, who are then specially
described by their national names ; but the marginal render-
ing is certainly possible, and in Exod. iii. 8, and elsewhere,
the Canaanites seem to be mentioned as a separate nation.
7. The Asheroth. On the Ashérah, and the mistransla-
tion of the A.V. following the LXX. and Vulg., see Dr.
Driver’s note on Exod. xxxiv. 13.
9,15. A saviour. So A.V. in 2 Kings xiii. 5; Neh. ix.
27. The suggestiveness of the right rendering is obvious.
10. Here and elsewhere the ΤῸ. rightly prints spirit,
not Spirit, as in A.V. “The spirit of the Lorp”’ in the
O.T. is a power proceeding from Him, but is not yet re-
vealed as a distinct ‘‘ Person.” The way is prepared in
the O.T. for the N.T. revelation of the Trinity, but that
revelation is not yet made, and it is a mistake to read N.T.
doctrine into the O.T. See Oehler’s O. T. Theology, i.
§ 65.
19, 26, Quarries. The word Ὁ Ὁ occurs 20 times
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 113
in the O.T., and always in the sense given in the margin,
graven images. So the LXX. and Vulg.; and it would have
been safer to retain the established meaning of the word
in the text. The meaning of “ quarries,’ which is noticed
by Jerome, and is adopted by most Jewish commentators,
comes from the Targum. Can the Meturgemanim have
preserved a true tradition of an exceptional meaning of the
word, or were they offended by the idea of idols at Gilgal ?
22. And it came out behind. The meaning is very
obscure, and the text is possibly corrupt, the words ΝΙΝ
MTWI5DT, being an alternative for the first clause of ver.
23. If the text is sound, it is most natural to take Ehud
to be the subject of N38”) here, as in the next verse (the
words for ‘‘came out” and ‘“‘ went forth” are the same) ;
and the marginal rendering appears to be preferable.
25, 26. Tarried. . . tarried. Why not represent the dis-
tinction of words in the original? The second (73737)
seems to express the lingering delay of irresolution. Cf.
Gen. xix. 16; xlii. 10 (linger) ; Jud. xix. 8 (tarry).
iv. 11. The oak in Zaanannim. On ‘ oak” for “ plain”
see Dr. Driver’s note on Gen. xi1.6. ‘‘ Zaanaim”’ (A.V.)
is the C’thib, ‘‘ Zaanannim”’ the K’ri, agreeing with Josh.
xix. 33.
21. So he swooned and died. The construction points to
this connexion of the words. But on the other hand 4p"
elsewhere means “‘to be faint’”’ or “‘ weary” (1 Sam. xiv.
28, 31; 2 Sam. xxi. 15), not ‘‘to swoon away,” and the
accents connect it with ‘‘in a deep sleep.’’ Should we read
#1 and render as in the margin ?
v. 2. For that the leaders took the lead. This is the
rendering of the LXX. according to Cod. Alex., and some
other MSS., and of Theodotion, from whose version it
probably came into the MSS. of the LXX. The meaning
“leaders,” can be supported from the Arabic, and it suits
the only other passage in which the word occurs (Deut.
VOL, III. I
114 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
xxxli. 42). The nobles and the people are contrasted as in
vv. 9 (Ὁ), 10,18. The A.V. (and before it the Genevan),
follows Minster and the Jewish commentators in giving
the words Y75I Myr, the sense which the root has in
Aramaic. So too the Peshitto. But it destroys the paral-
lelism of the clauses.
Bless for praise as in v. 9.
7. The rulers ceased. The A.V. (again following Mun-
ster’s habitatores villarum), agrees with the Targum in
regarding }#79, as equivalent to NW, villages. But this
meaning will not suit v. 11, the only other passage in which
the word occurs. The marginal rendering ‘‘ toward his
villages,’ given there, can hardly stand. If the text is sound
TB is best rendered “rule” inv. 11, and here regarded
as abstract for concrete “rulers.” The same sense suits
the cognate DY (Hab. ii. 14), and is supported by LXX.
δυνατοί, Vulg. for tes. In spite of such judges as Shamgar,
the general condition of the country was one of anarchy
until Deborah arose. Studer however points out, (1) that
this rendering involves a contradiction to v. 6; ‘‘ when
Shamgar and Jael were judges, there was no judge:”’ (2)
that 1270 must be taken in a different sense from that
which it has in v. 6; and perhaps we should follow him in
reading W715, and render as in R.V. marg. The words
then forcibly describe the desolate state of the country,
when no one dared to live in unfortified villages for fear of
plunderers. But the text as it stands can hardly, in view
of v. 11, be rendered otherwise than in R.V.
9. A third translation deserves consideration.
‘““My heart is towards the governors of Israel,
Towards them that offered themselves.”’
The verse would then be exactly parallel to v. 2.
10. Ye that sit on rich carpets. The A.V. follows LXX.,
Vulg., Targ.; but {1 can hardly be 3°, with prep. 79, or
a subst. with preformative 9. It is an Aramaic plur. of 19,
᾿ς
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 115
which means ‘‘garment”’ or “carpet,’’ such as rich men sit
upon. Three classes of men, poetically representing the
whole people, are summoned to celebrate Israel’s deliver-
ance: wealthy nobles, who now ride fearlessly along the
highways ; rich men, who enjoy the comforts of their
homes in undisturbed peace; the ordinary folk, who go
afoot, and can now travel from place to place without fear
of molestation.
11. Very obscure. The text of the R.V. leaves the
sense of the first two clauses substantially unchanged.
The people who had formerly stolen out to draw water at
the risk of their lives from the archers of the enemy, now
congregate undisturbed round the wells to celebrate the
Lord’s righteousness manifested in His deliverance of Israel.
This is probably right. In the marginal alternative ‘“ the
archers’ are those of Israel, who are represented as en-
camped by the wells and celebrating their victory ; and in
gratitude for this all are bidden to join in praising the Lord.
His rule. See on v. 7.
Went down, not shall go down, is the correct translation.
So already the Genevan, “did . . . go down.” The
meaning is either that the Israelites came down from their
mountain fastnesses to attack the cities of their enemies,
or that after the defeat of the Canaanites they returned to
dwell peaceably in their own cities. As “then” in vv. 18,
19, 22 refers to the time of the war of independence, the
first explanation is perhaps best. The mention of thanks-
giving for deliverance in the first part of the verse carries
the poet’s mind back to the course of the war which freed
Israel, and she proceeds to describe it in the second part of
the song, vv. 12-31.
13. The Massoretic division and punctuation of this
verse, which the A.V. follows, bristle with difficulties. 1
is pointed as imperf. Piel of 79, which does not occur
elsewhere, and rendered in the A.V., after the Jewish
116 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
commentators, ‘‘made to have dominion.” ‘This, as the
traditional Jewish interpretation, has been thought still to
deserve a place in the margin. But in the text the Revisers
have rightly treated ὙΠ) as the perfect of 17’, “‘ went down.”
Whether the anomalous pointing is to be retained or altered
to the usual 17’, they had not to decide. ‘‘ Among the
people” (A.V.) is an impossible rendering, and if we retain
the Massoretic accentuation, the only course is to supply
and as the R.V. does. The construction is a somewhat
harsh asyndeton. But it seems much better to desert the
Massoretic accents, and connecting DY with 7’, render as
in the margin, ‘‘ the people of the Lord.” ‘There is then a
contrast between the nobles and the people, as in v.2. The
nobles were but a remnant, for some cowardly remained at
home. Cf. the LXX.: τότε κατέβη κατάλειμμα τοῖς ἰσχυροῖς"
λαὸς κυρίου κατέβη αὐτῷ ἐν τοῖς κραταιοῖς. But I cannot
help thinking that Studer’s rendering is the right one:
‘Then came down a remnant to meet the strong:
The people of the Lorp came down for me against the
mighty.”
There is then an exact parallelism between ‘“‘ remnant”’ and
“people,” “strong” and ‘‘ mighty”’: the latter terms both
refer to the Canaanites: and Deborah extols the heroism
of the ten thousand, who, a mere handful or remnant com-
pared with Sisera’s host, dared to come down and face
them in the field.
14. They whose root is in Amalek. The Ephraimites who
had settled (Isa. xxvii. 6) in the part of their territory
known, probably from some ancient colony of Amalekites
there, as “the hill country of the Amalekites ’’(chap. xii. 15).
14. Staff of office, not pen, is the meaning of DAY,
1 The American Revisers would place another alternative in the margin,
taking 77° as an anomalous form of the imperative. ‘Then go down, O
remnant, for the nobles. . . . Ὁ Jehovah, go down for me against the
mighty.”
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 117
and 9D, lit. ‘scribe’? or ‘enumerator,’ denoting the
officer who counted and mustered the troops, is happily
translated marshal. Cf. 2 Kings xxv. 19; Isa. xxxiii. 18;
Jer. xxxvil. 15.
15,16. Watercourses or ‘‘streams”’ is the meaning of
the word nip in Job xx. 17, the only other place in which
it occurs. Reuben heard the great news of the bold enter-
prise of his brethren as he fed his flocks beside the streams
of the Belka; conscience pricked him, and he made mag-
nanimous resolves to go to their help, but courage failed
him to translate words into action.
17. Shore (marg.), not haven, is the best attested mean-
ing of 7. See Gen. xlix. 18. Creeks, lit. places where
the sea breaks into the coast: hence the rendering of
the A. V.
26. Nail, i.e. as in marg., tent-pin, which the American
Revisers would place in the text. Cf. chap. iv. 21, 22.
26. Smote off in A.V. is a mistranslation, and necessitated
the further ungrammatical rendering when she had pierced,
etc. Itis a pity that the Revisers did not see their way to
a more exact rendering of the tenses, which give a vivid
picture of Jael in the act of stretching out her hand. “See!
she putteth her hand . . . she smiteth through his
head, yea, she pierceth and striketh through his temples.”
Cf. Dr. Driver’s Tenses, § 27. But poetry cannot be trans-
lated any more than Raphael’s pictures can be copied.
27. Dead. Why not as A.V. marg. destroyed, which is
what the word means? Cf. Ps. cxxxvii. 8.
29. Her wise ladies. Lit. ‘“‘The wisest of her princesses.”’
The tense is again pictorial, ‘“‘answer.” The marginal
rendering, ‘‘ Yet she repeateth her words unto herself,” is
very attractive. It describes very forcibly the anxious dis-
quietude of Sisera’s mother, still foreboding ill, in spite of
her ladies’ endeavours to console her. But, (1) ἢΝ adds;
it does not contrast: it means yea, not yet: (2) DWN Dw
118 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
is the poetical equivalent of Ὁ Dw, which regularly
means ‘“‘to answer,” not ‘‘to repeat’’; and it has this
meaning in the only other place where it occurs, Prov.
ΣΤ Ὁ].
vi. 8. The Revisers should have made it clear that inva-
sions repeated year after year are described. Would “used
to come up”’ (as in chap. xiv. 10), have been too clumsy ?
11. Thenot anangel. See on 11]. 1.
13. Wondrous works. ‘‘ Miracle” occurs in the A.V. of
the O.T. six times only: (1) twice for NIX (Num. xiv. 22;
Deut. xi. 8), commonly and rightly rendered ‘ sign,’’ which
the R.V. gives in these places also; (2) twice in the text,
and once in the margin, for MDVD (Exod. vii. 9; Deut. xxix.
3; 2 Chron. xxxi. 24 marg.), usually rendered ‘‘ wonder,”
and so the R.V. in Exod. and Deut.; in Chron. “sign,”
marg. ‘‘ wonder”’; (3) here only for myx553, elsewhere ren-
dered in A.V. ‘‘ wonders,’’ ‘‘
29 66
wondrous works ”’
or ‘‘things,’’ ‘wonderful works,’”’ ‘‘ marvellous works”’ or
‘“‘ things,”
marvels,
all of which various renderings are still to be
found in the R.V., though a few changes have been
made for the sake of uniformity in the same chapter.
Opinions will differ as to whether this is not a case in™
which the principle of ‘‘assimilation’’ of renderings should
have been more thoroughly carried out. Some readers may
object to the elimination of the word ‘“‘ miracles”’ from the
O.T. Clearly, however, the word could not have been re-
tained for IN or ΠΕ, for which “sign” and ‘“wonder”’
are the proper renderings; nor as an isolated rendering in
the present passage. The application of the same term
to exceptional works of Providence (as here; Exod. ii. 20;
xxxiv. 10), and to the regular operations of nature (Job
xxxvil. 14; cf. v. 9; 1x. 10), is exceedingly instructive. Both
alike excite the wonder and reverent awe of the beholder,
and reveal God to him.
vu. 8. The Hebrew text is almost certainly corrupt.
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 119
“ People”’ in v. 7 means the army in general; but the sub-
ject to “‘took”’ in v. 8 must be the three hundred. The
marginal rendering is that of the Sept. and Targ., but it
is not quite satisfactory. The sense would be that the
three hundred took store of provisions and trumpets from
the people; as Jerome paraphrases, ‘‘sumptis itaque pro
numero cibariis et tubis.”’!
23. Were gathered together. The verb means literally
“‘were cried together.” See A.V. marg., chap. x. 17. Might
not this have been retained? The ‘‘ Land-Fyrd”’ was
literally ‘‘ called out.’
vil. 18. From the ascent of Heres. OT (Heres) may
mean swn (xiv. 18), but ΠΟ) cannot mean either “ before
the rising’ (Vulg. and Jewish commentators), or “setting”’
(Targ.) “οὗ the sun.” The R.V. is certainly right; compare
~LXX. (Cod. Alex.), ἀπὸ ἀναβάσεως apés. Gideon pursued
the Midianites as far as (9) the pass known as the ascent
of Heres, and returned from thence (2). The spot has not
_ been identified, but for Heres in proper names, see i. 35;
li. 9; and for ‘‘ ascent,’ 1. 36.
16. Taught. YT is probably a corruption for WI,
*threshed,”’ asin v. 7. So the LXX. ἠλόησεν (Cod. Vat.),
κατέξανεν (Cod. Alex.), Vulg. contrivit. Textual proba-
bilities are very evenly balanced. On the one hand we
should expect the same word as in v. 7; on the other
hand this very fact would dispose the ancient versions to
introduce it, if a different word was used.
21,26. Crescents. . Cf. Isa. 11. 18.
ix. 2. The men of Shechem. Literally ‘‘the lords”’ or
“masters”? : DDW ya. So throughout this chapter, in-
cluding wv. 46, 41, “men of the tower,’ and 51, “‘ they of
1 Is it too bold to conjecture 'J3 for N78? The letters are not unlike in
some of the archaic types of alphabet. ‘‘They took the pitchers of the people
and their trumpets’ would mean that in readiness for his stratagem
(v. 16), Gideon, before dismissing his army, made the three hundred provide
themselves with pitchers and trumpets.
120 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT,
the city’”’; also in Josh. xxiv. 11, ‘‘men of Jericho”; Jud.
Kx. ὦ, “men ‘of Gibeah’’; 1. Sam. xxin. 11, 12, “mentee
Keilah”’; 2 Sam. xxi. 12, “men of Jabesh-Gilead.’”’ Whether
the term denotes the governing body of the citizens, as
distinguished from the mass of the inhabitants, as v. 51,
and 1 Sam. xxii. 11 compared with v. 5, appear to show;
or the citizens in general, may be doubtful; but the
distinction between this word and the ordinary word for
“men,” e.g. ‘‘men of Israel,” v. 55; ‘‘men of Jabesh-
Gilead,’ 2 Sam. 11. 4, 5, ought to have been marked in
the ΠΥ.
9. Wherewith by me they honowr God and man. Can
this sense be got out of the Hebrew? The margin is
certainly preferable, and is parallel to v. 18. Cf. LXX.
(Cod. Alex.), τὴν πιότητά μου ἣν ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐδόξωσεν ὁ Θεὸς
καὶ ἄνθρωποι, and Vulg. ‘“ pinguedinem meam qua et dii
utuntur et homines.’”’ So Coverdale, ‘‘ My fatnesse which
both God and men commende in me.”’
44. The companies. The correct translation introduces
a difficulty. Abimelech divided his men into three com-
panies; two were in the field, only one can have been with
him. The Authorised Translators felt the difficulty, and
boldly substituted ‘‘company”’ for ‘“‘companies.”” Probably
the text is corrupt; perhaps D'WINi7, “the men,” should be
read for DWN, “the companies.”
52. Went hard, 1.6. near. Is not this a ‘ misleading
archaism’”’? It is the only place in which the word, which.
simply means ‘‘ approach,”’ is so translated in the A.V.
ὅθ. Brake. The archeologist’s pet word, ‘all to,” dis-
appears. It has no equivalent in the Hebrew.
ΧΙ. 37. Go down upon the mountains. The A.V. avoids
the apparent difficulty by an unjustifiable translation. But
the construction is a pregnant one. Mizpah was on a hill;
she would descend from it first, and then go up again upon
the surrounding mountains.
πὰ
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 121
39. And she had not known man. So already the Gene-
van, ‘‘shee had knowen no man.” This, which is un-
questionably the correct translation, makes it clear that
Jephthah sacrificed his daughter in accordance with his
vow. The rendering of the A.V. seems intended to favour
the old interpretation that he compromised the matter by
devoting her to perpetual virginity.
40. To celebrate. This, and not the margin, is right.
In chap. v. 11, the only other passage where the word
occurs, it is rendered rehearse. Thought is directed, not
to Jephthah’s rash vow, but to the maiden’s heroism; and
the best commentary on the passage is to be found in
Tennyson’s noble lines in A Dream of Fair Women :—
“My words leapt forth: ‘ Heaven heads the count of crimes
With that wild oath.’ She rendered answer high:
‘Not so, nor once alone; a thousand times
1 would be born and die.”
The whole passage (stanzas xlv.-lxi.) should be read.
xu. 14. Sons’ sons. The A.V. nephews is an archaism
for grandsons.
xiii. 12. What shall be, etc. Manoah’s question refers
to the angel’s message in vv. 4, 5. He asks for repeated
direction and assurance. ‘‘The manner of the child”’ re-
fers to the command to bring him up asa Nazirite: ‘his
work’’ to the promise that he should be the deliverer of
Israel. The margin, ‘‘how shall we do unto him,” makes
ἽΠΠΟΝ. the equivalent of 30 ΤΌ, ΠΣ in v. 8, but it is
questionable whether the words can mean this, and the
sense given in the text is preferable.
18,19. Wonderful . . . wondrously. Ct. Isa. 1x, 6;
Exod. xv. 11, etc., and the note on vi. 13.
xiv. 15. On the seventh day. It is no doubt possible to
explain this reading. The guests puzzled over the riddle
for three days, and then gave it up until the seventh day,
when they became desperate, and threatened Samson’s wife.
122 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Meanwhile she had all the time been trying to persuade
him to tell her (v. 16), though she did not succeed until the
seventh day (v.17). But fourth, the reading of the LXX.
and Syriac, is certainly probable, and it only requires the
change of a single letter. .Cya0n for (yawn). .7lhe
cuests naturally appled to Samson’s wife as soon as they
gave up trying to guess the riddle themselves. The chief
objection to this reading is its obviousness, but the canon
preferatur lectio ardwa may be overstrained. And>+there
is another almost certain error in the text of the verse.
The word Non “is it not so,” stands most awkwardly at
the end of the verse, and with some MSS. and the Targum
we should probably read 097, “hither,” and render “called
us hither to impoverish us.” There is a note in Cod. 154,
to the effect that the scholars of Sora read D977 in the text
and NT in the margin, while those of Nahardea read
NOM in the text, and D> in the margin. See De Rossi,
Var Lect. παὶ ὃς
xv. 15. Ropes for cords: the same word as in chapter
xvi. Lt.
17. Ramath-Lehi. Ktymologically, the name as pointed
in the Massoretic text can only mean “ the hill of the jaw-
bone;” but the writer may intend to suggest an allusion
to 1199, rdimdh, to throw (Exod. xv. 1, 21), with reference to
the casting away of the jawbone. ‘True the word he uses
for ‘‘cast away ”’ is different—J>w"—but the Targum in
rendering it by N97 distinctly suggests the connexion.
Cf. Prof. Driver’s note on Gen. iv. 25.
19. The hollow place that is in Lehi. WH, maktesh,
means literally ‘‘a mortar’’ (Prov. xxvii. 29). “It was the
name of some hollow or valley in or near Jerusalem (Zeph.
1. 11); and here denotes a mortar-shaped hollow or basin
in Lehi. The Jewish interpreters explain it to mean the
socket of a tooth or a tooth, and so the Vulg. molarem dentem ;
but against this explanation are: (1) the definite article,
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 123
(2) the form of expression which is in, not simply of, (3)
the fact that the spring was permanent.
xvi. 2. And it was told. No ingenuity can defend the
integrity of the Hebrew text here. Some such word as
73°) has fallen out. All the ancient versions express it.
5. Wherein, ete. it. “ Wherein” or “ whereby his
strength is great.”
Afflict. Vulg. affligere : but ‘‘ humble ”’ or “ subdue” ex-
presses the sense.
7. Green withes. 1). means elsewhere: (1) tent-cord,
(2) bowstring, (3) bridle-rein. The rendering withes is
suggested by the description “‘ green’’ (elsewhere applied
to vegetable products, Gen. xxx. 837; Num. vi. 3), “fresh,”
“that were never dried;” but the marg. ‘ bowstrings,”’
v.e. cords of sinew or catgut, is certainly possible. LXX.
veupai; Vulg. nervicet funes.
18. Me. “Ὁ K’ri: and so LXX., Vulg., Targ., Syr. : her,
m0 C’thib, due to a careless scribe repeating ΠΝ 19 737 9D
125 5D, “that he had told her all his heart,” from the
line above.
28. Be at once avenged: i.e. not immediately, but once
forall. So LXX., Vulg., Targ., treating NNN as if it agreed
with DP): and this certainly gives the best sense. But
ὮΡ2 is masc., and NON Op), “a vengeance of one,”’ for ‘one
final vengeance” is very questionable. If the text is
sound, OTN must, it would seem, refer to }'Y, and the
words must be translated as in the margin. Rashi and
Kimchi refer to the Talmudic explanation: “ Reserve the
revenge for the other eye in the world to come, but grant
the revenge here for one of the twain ;’’ which at any rate
shows how it was understood by the ancient Rabbis. In
either case the reflexive force of the Niphal, ‘“‘ avenge my-
self,’ should have been retained.
xvill. 7. For there was none in the land, possessing au-
thority, that might put them to shame in anything. The
124 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
text is very obscure and perhaps corrupt. But a place
should certainly have been found in the margin for an alter-
native rendering, which is grammatically and philologically
possible, and better suited to the context. ‘‘ They saw the
people . . . how they dwelt in security . . . no man
in the land doing any hurt: possessing wealth.” DYDD PN
YONA WAT is a circumstantial clause, and must be treated
as a parenthesis. For Ὁ 57, to injure, cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 7.
IY WI agrees with OY; and Wy, which occurs here only,
is to be explained with Gesenius, Studer, and Bertheau, by
the corresponding Arabic word meaning ‘‘ abundance of pos-
sessions.” Cf. the Vulg. magnarum opum. The meaning
“authority is derived from the use of the verb in 1 Sam.
ix. 17, and is by no means certain. The text would be
easier if Wy Ww) and YONA . . . PR) might be trans-
posed. Possibly a marginal gloss has made its way into
the text : or, as is suggested in the Speaker's Commentary
the words from “quiet” to “anything”’ are a quotation
from another writer.
30. The son of Moses. The reading of the Massoretic
text is muir (MNSH), with the note mon 3, “Nun sus-
pended ” or wlitten above the line. Without the Nun, the
name would be MW) (MSH), Moses, and there can be no
doubt that this is the true reading. Gershom was Moses’
firstborn (Exod. 11. 22), and Jonathan is expressly described
as a Levite, not a Manassite. Why then was the change in
the text made? The reason is given in the Talmud, Baba
Bathra, fol. 109 b (quoted by Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 171), as
follows: ‘‘Gershom is called the son of Manasseh: was
he not the son of Moses? for it is written, ‘The sons of
Moses were Gershom and Eliezer.’ But because he did
the works of Manasseh [the idolatrous and apostate king
of Judah], the Scripture hangs him on NOD] to the
family of Manasseh.”” The Nwn must have been interpo-
lated in very early times, for the LXX., Targ. and Syr.
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 125
read Manasseh ; though the Vulg. has Moses. But there
was no intention of falsifying the text. As bosheth was
substituted for baal in proper names (Ish-bosheth, etc.), to
avoid pronouncing the hated word, so Manasseh was read
in place of Moses, to avoid what seemed like a disgrace to
the great lawgiver.
xix. 1. On the farther side, from the house of the nar-
rator, or from Bethlehem. But ‘37° may mean simply
the ‘“‘recesses’”’ of the hill country.
22. Sons of Belial. It is a great pity that the Revisers,
after translating correctly base fellows (with marg. ‘‘ Heb.
sons of worthlessness’’) in Deut. xiii. 13, should have gone
back in the historical books to the erroneous rendering of
the A.V., which follows the Vulg. Elsewhere they have
treated the word rightly, rendering uwngodliness (marg. Heb.
Belial) in Ps. xviii. 4 (2 Sam. xxii. 5); an evil disease, as
A.V., (with marg. some wicked thing), Ps. xli.8; base thing
(no marg.) Ps. ci. 3; worthless in Prov. vi. 12; xvi. 27; xix.
28 (with no margin); wickedness and wicked, with marg.
(worthlessness, Heb. Belial), in Nah. i. 11, 15. No doubt by
the help of the A.V. and Milton (Par. Lost, i. 490 ff.) Belial
has come to be to the English reader an impersonation of
subtle and malicious wickedness; but this hardly seems to
be a justification for perpetuating him, and the American
Revyisers are certainly right in wishing that he should be
banished altogether.
18. To Beth-el (cf. vv. 26, 31; xxi. 2). The A.V. follows
the Vulg. (ὧν domum Dei, hoc est in Silo) in a rendering
based on the assumption that the ark must have been at
Shiloh. But, (1) ‘“‘the house of God”’ is DTN. (beth
héeléhim), as in xviii. 31, not ONIN, which always denotes
the place Beth-el; (2) there in v. 27 implies the mention
of a place in the preceding verse; (3) the place was no
great distance from Gibeah, for the people could go and
return in the day, vv. 19, 23, 26, which suits Beth-el but
126 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
not the more distant Shiloh. There was a sanctuary at
Beth-el (1 Sam. x. 3), but why the ark was there at this
time can only be conjectured.
28. Or shall I cease. Why not, as in 1 Kings xxu. 6, 15,
* shall I forbear ? ”’
48. Both the entire city. The Massoretic reading is
on yi, but OND elsewhere means ‘‘ soundness,” and it
is very doubtful whether it can mean “the entire city.”
The pointing should be changed to DM, which is found in
some MSS., and the words rendered the inhabited city, as
in the margin.
xxl. 5. Assembly for congregation, as in v. 8 and xx. 2.
THE BOOK OF RUTH.
i. 15. Her god. Chemosh, the tutelary god of Moab
(Num. xxi. 29; 1 Kings xi. 38).
19. The women said. A touch of naturalness not to be
missed. ‘The verb is feminine.
11. 3. The portion of the field. The share of the com-
munal land held by Boaz. See an article on Land Tenure
among the Hebrews, in the Church Quarterly Review for
July, 1880. ;
11. 16. Who art thow. The paraphrase in the margin,
and the literal rendering in the text, might change places
with advantage.
iv. 8. The parcel of land. The phrase is identical with
that in 11. 8, and should be rendered in the same way;
“the portion of the field,”
Selleth. The verb is in the perfect tense, and though this
may mean ‘“‘ has determined to sell,” or ‘ selleth,” it is by
no means clear that it does. The law of Redemption (Lev.
xxv. 25 ff.) applied to land which had been actually sold by
its owner under stress of poverty. Ruth’s going to glean in
the field of Boaz does not look as if Naomi still owned any
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. 127
land, and she may have sold it while she was settled in
Moab. It is true that vv. 5 and 9 speak of the transaction
ag a purchase direct from Naomi, and no third party who
had purchased the land is mentioned; but redemption
seems to imply that the land had been previously alienated.
5. Thou must buy tt also of Ruth. The LXX. and Targ.
attest the antiquity of this reading; but a comparison of
v. 10 makes it very probable that the Vulg. and Syriac are
right in reading ‘‘ thou must buy also Ruth,” 1.6. ON OJ for
ΤΙΝῚ, the change of a single letter.
15. A restorer of life. The same phrase is better ren-
dered, ‘‘ refresh the soul,” in Prov. xxv. 138; Lam. i. 16.
A. EF. KiIRKPATRICK.
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Il. Tur DEstTINy oF MAN FULFILLED BY CHRIST THROUGH
SUFFERING.
** Not unto angels did He subject the world to come, whereof we speak, But
one hath somewhere testified, saying,
What is man, that Thou art mindful of him ?
Or the Son of man, that Thou visitest Him ?
Thou madest Him a little lower than the angels ;
Thou crownedst Him with glory and honour,
And didst set Him over the works of Thy hands:
Thou didst put all things in subjection under His feet.
. But now we see not yet all things subjected to Him. But we behold
Him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because
of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of
God He should taste death for every man. For it became Him, for whom are
all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory,
to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.’—Hen. ii.
5-10 (Rey. Vers.).
In these pregnant words we have a view of the destiny,
the position, the hope of man, which answers alike to the
noblest aspiration and to the saddest experience: We 566
128 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
the purpose of God in creation, and the failure of the
creature, and then the triumph of Christ through suffering,
which is for us the pledge that the Divine counsel of love
will not fail of fulfilment.
So the writer of the Epistle met at once the central dif
ficulty of the Hebrews. The Hebrews since they believed
had been doomed outwardly to the bitterest disappoint-
ment. They had looked for a national welcome and they
found themselves outcasts; for sovereignty, and they were
the victims of popular outrage; for visible triumph, and, as
the years went on, they were required to endure as seeing,
through the thicker gathering gloom, Him who is invisible.
Therefore the apostolic teacher, with abrupt and majestic
eloquence, reaffirms in the beginning of his Epistle the glory
of the Christian Faith, by disclosing a fuller prospect of the
person and the work of Christ. Without preface and with-
out salutation he opens the innermost treasury of God, and
brings out things new and old. He shows how them ani-
fold lessons of earlier revelation were crowned by the
coming of Him who was not servant but Son, the Maker
and Heir of the world. He shows how the angels, through
whose ministry the Law was given, waited to do homage
to Him, proclaimed King of the renovated order. He shows
how our responsibility as Christians corresponds with the
grandeur of the Truth which is placed within our reach.
He shows how nothing is taken from the universal range
of man’s dominion, but—and this is his peculiar message—
that it must be reached, that it has been reached, through
suffering.
To this end He places in sharpest contrast the Psalm-
ist’s description of human destiny and the actual condition
of things. He abates nothing of the inspired estimate of
man’s nature, and honour, and sovereignty. At the same
time he claims no premature accomplishment of the
promise assured to him. We see not yet, he confesses, all
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 129
things subjected to him. So far there is failure, failure
though the Christ has come. But we do behold
Jesus—the Son of man—because of the suffering of death
crowned with glory and honour. There is the spring and
the pattern of attainment, the interpretation of the shame
and of the Passion of the Christ, which is for all time the
interpretation of every grief that clouds the world. .
For, as we have already seen, the writer of the Epistle,
when he met the difficulties of the Hebrews, meets diffi-
culties which press sorely upon us. Time has not softened
the sharpness of the impression which is made upon
thoughtful spectators by the sight of the sorrows of life.
If the contrast between man made a@ little lower than
angels—nay literally a little less than God—and man as
man has made him, was startling at the time when the
Apostle wrote, it has not grown less impressive since.
Larger knowledge of man’s capacities and of his growth,
of his endowments and of his conquests, has only given
intensity to the colours in which poets and moralists
have portrayed the conflict in his nature and in his life.
Whether we look within or without, we cannot refuse to
acknowledge both the element of nobility in man which
bears witness to his Divine origin, and also the element
of selfishness which betrays his fall. very philosophy of
humanity which leaves out of account the one or the other
is shattered by experience. The loftiest enthusiasm leaves
a place in its reconstruction of society where superstition
may attach itself. Out of the darkest depths of crime not
seldom flashes a light of self-sacrifice, hke the prayer of
the rich man for his brethren when he was in torments,
which shows that all is not lost. We cannot accept the
theory of those who see around them nothing but the signs
of unlimited progress towards perfection, or the theory of
those who write a sentence of despair over the chequered
scenes of life. We look, as the Psalmist looked, at the sun
VOL, ΠῚ, K
130 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
and the stars, with a sense which he could not have of
the awful mysteries of the depths of night, but we refuse
to accept space as a measure of being. We trace back, till
thought fails, the long line of ages through which the earth
was prepared to be our dwelling-place, but we refuse to
accept time as a measure of the soul. We recognise
without reserve the influence upon us of our ancestry and
our environment, but we refuse to distrust the immediate
consciousness of our personal responsibility. We do not
hide from ourselves any of the evils which darken the face
of the world, but we do not dissemble our kindred with
the worst and lowest, whose life enters into our lives at a
thousand points. We acknowledge that the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, but we
believe also that these travail pains prepare the joy of a
new birth. We make no effort to cast off the riddles or
the burdens of our earthly state, but we cling all the while
to the highest thoughts which we have known as the signs
of God's purpose for us and for our fellow-men. We allow
that man and men are uncrowned or discrowned in the
midst of their domain, but we hold that they cannot put
off the prerogatives of their birth. We ask, as prophet
and apostle asked: What, O Lord, is man that Thou art
mindful of him? or the son of man that Thou visitest him ?
without any expectation that we shall find an answer to
the questions; but none the less we proclaim what we
know, and confess that He is mindful of us, that He has
visited us, that the Word became flesh and tabernacled
among us, full of grace and truth.
And indeed this Gospel reconciles the antagonisms of
life. The fact of the Incarnation shows the possibilities
of our nature as God made it. The fact of the Passion
shows the issues of sin, which came from the self-assertion
of the creature. The fact of the Resurrection shows the
triumph of love through death. Christ, in a word, fulfilled
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 131
man’s destiny, fellowship with God, by the way of sorrow ;
and the Divine voice appeals to us to recognise the fitness
of the road. Jt became Him—most marvellous phrase—It
became Him for whom are all things, and through whom
are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory to make
the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
When we ponder these words we shall all come to feel,
I think, that they have a message for us on which we
have not yet dwelt with the patient thought that it
requires, though we greatly need its teaching. The cur-
rents of theological speculation have led us to consider
the sufferings of Christ in relation to God as a propitia-
tion for sin, rather than in relation to man as a discipline,
a consummation of humanity. The two lines of reflec-
tion may be indeed, as I believe they are, more closely
connected than we have at present been brought to
acknowledge. I do not however wish now to discuss the
propitiatory aspect of the sacrifice of Christ’s life. It is
enough for us to remember with devout thankfulness that
Christ is the propitiation not for our sins only, but for the
whole world, without further attempting to define how His
sacrifice was efficacious. And we move on surer ground,
when we endeavour to regard that perfect sacrifice from
the other side, as the hallowing of every power of man
under the circumstances of a sin-stained world, as the
revelation of the mystery of sorrow and pain. Of this
truth the writer of the Epistle assumes that we are
competent judges. Again and again he presents the
thought as the motive and the issue of the Incarnation.
He shows that the Advent fulfilled the words of the
Psalm: “100! 1 am come to do Thy will, τ Lord,”
‘“a body didst Thow prepare for me’; and he
ΤΕΣ the whole sum of the Lord’s earthly work in
a phrase which, if we can take it to our hearts, must
become a transfiguring of life: though He was Son, He
132 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
yet learned obedience by the things which He suffered, and
having been made perfect—perfect by suffermg—He became
to all that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation.
Yes, Christ, though He was Son, and therefore endowed
with right of access for Himself to the Father, being of
one essence with the Father, for man’s sake, as man, won
the right of access to the throne of God for perfected
humanity. He learnt obedience, not as if the lesson were
forced upon Him by stern necessity, but by choosing,
through insight into the Father’s will, that self-surrender
even to the death upon the Cross which was required
for the complete reconciliation of man with God. And
the absolute union of human nature, in its fullest matu-
rity, with the Divine in the one Person of our Creator
and Redeemer, was wrought out in the very school of hfe
in which we are trained.
When once we grasp this truth the records of the
Evangelists are filled with a new light. Every work of
Christ is seen to be a sacrifice and a victory. The long
years of obscure silence, the short season of conflict, are
found to be alhke a commentary on the Lord’s words,
“For thew sakes I sanctify myself.’ And we come to
understand how His deeds of power were deeds of sove-
reign sympathy; how the words in which Isaiah spoke
of the Servant of the Lord, as “taking our infirmities
and bearing our sicknesses,’’ were indeed fulfilled when the
Son of man healed the sick who came to Him, healed
them not by dispensing from His opulence a blessing which
cost Him nothing, but by making His own the ill which
He removed.
Dimly, feebly, imperfectly, we can see in this way how
it became God to make the Author of our salvation perfect
through sufferings ; how every pain which answered to the
Father’s will, became to Him the occasion of a triumph,
the disciplining of some human power which needed to be
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 133
brought into God’s service, the advance one degree farther
towards the Divine likeness to gain which man was
made; how, in the actual condition of the world, His
love and His righteousness were displayed in tenderer
srace and grander authority through the gainsaying of
enemies; how, in this sense, even within the range of
our imagination, He saw of the travail of His soul and
was satisfied.
Dimly, feebly, imperfectly we can see also how Christ,
Himself perfected through suffering, has made known to
us once for all the meaning, and the value of suffering ;
how He has interpreted it as a Divine discipline, the
provision of a Father’s love; how He has enabled us to
perceive that at each step in the progress of life it is an
opportunity ; how He has left to us to realise ‘in Him”
little by little the virtue of His work; to jill wp on our
part, in the language of St. Paul, that which is lacking
of the afflictions of Christ in our sufferings, not as if
His work were incomplete or our efforts meritorious, but
as being living members of His Body through which He
is pleased to manifest that which He has wrought for
men.
For we shall observe that it was because He brought
many sons to glory, that it became God to make perfect
through sufferings the Author of their salvation. The fit-
ness lay in the correspondence between the outward cir-
cumstances of His life and of their lives. The way of the
Lord is the way of His servants. He enlightened the path
which they must tread, and showed its end. And so it
is that whenever the example of Christ is offered to us in
Scripture for our imitation, it is His example in suffering.
So far, in His strength, we can follow Him, learning
obedience as He learned it, bringing our wills into con-
formity with the Father’s will, and thereby attaining to a
wider view of His counsel in which we can find rest and joy.
134. CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
We must dare to face this solemn fact. For the
most part we are tempted to look to the Gospel for the
remission of the punishment of sins, and not for the
remission of sins. But such a Gospel would be illusory.
If the sin remains, punishment is the one hope of the
sinner ; if the sin is forgiven and the light of the Father’s
love falls upon the penitent, the punishment, which is seen
as the expression of His righteous wisdom, is borne with
gladness. Responsive love transfigures that which it bears.
Pain loses its sting when it is mastered by a stronger
passion. The true secret of happiness is not to escape toil
and affliction, but to meet them with the faith that through
them the destiny of man is fulfilled, that through them
we can even now reflect the image of our Lord and be
transformed into His likeness.
For the power of love is not limited by its personal
effects. It goes out upon others with a healing virtue.
Not only does the mother know no weariness in minis-
tering to her child, but the sympathy of a friend can
change the sorrow which it shares. So love kindles love;
and in the world such as we see it, suffering feeds the
purifying flame. Was I not right then when I said that
the thought of Christ perfected through suffering, does
indeed bring light into the darkest places of the earth ?
In that light, suffering, if I may so speak, appears as the
fuel of love. Up to a certain point we can clearly perceive
how the vicissitudes, the sadnesses, the trials of life, become
the springs of its tenderness and strength and beauty;
how the stress of the campaign calls out the devotion of
him whom we had only known as a self-indulgent lounger ;
how a cry of wrong stirs the spirit of a nation with one
resolve; how a cry of agony is answered by the sponta-
neous confession of human kinsmanship; how the truest
joys which we have known have come when we have had
erace to enter most entirely into a sorrow not our own.
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 135
And even where sight fails, the virtue of the Lord’s life
made perfect through suffering guides us still. We know
that not one day of His hidden discipline was fruitless.
Each had its lesson of obedience; each marked a fresh
advance in the consummation of manhood. So taught, we
can feel how the lonely sufferer is still a fellow-worker
with Him; how in the stillness of the night-watches a
sleepless voice of intercession, unheard by man, but borne
to God by a “surrendered soul,’ may bring strength to
combatants wearied with a doubtful conflict; how the
word ‘‘ one soweth and another reapeth,’”’ may find a larger
application than we have dreamed of, so that when we
wake up we may be allowed to see that not one pang in
the innumerable woes of men has been fruitless in puri-
fying energy.
Looking then to Christ, Born, Crucified, Risen, Ascended,
we can look also on the chequered scene of human life
without dissembling one dark trait or abandoning one
hope, and claim, in spite of every sign of present dis-
order, the promise of man’s universal dominion as the
watchword of our labour. We see not yet all things sub-
jected to Him; but we behold . . . Jesus because of
the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour. .
And again looking at the conditions of our own life, we
can confess through the experience of quickened love that
the Gospel justifies itself: that τέ became Him, for whom are
all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing
many sons unto glory, to make the Author of their salvation
perfect through sufferings.
Brooke Foss WEsrcorr.
136
THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
I. THe First THREE VISroNsS.
In the first two chapters of this Book there are recorded
three visions, all of them of an encouraging character.
They were seen by the prophet by night, and probably
while he slept. And as in the vision of Dante, he repre-
sents himself as accompanied by a guide who interpreted
to him all that he saw, so Zechariah, unable himself to
understand the meaning of what he saw, is instructed by
an angel that appeared to talk with him in his sleep.
In the first vision, Zechariah sees with all the vividness
which characterizes the scenes to which dreams introduce
us, a “ bottom,” or small plot of hollow, low-lying ground,
planted with myrtle trees. It was probably an actual spot
well known to the prophet; and if he was accustomed to
retire to it for prayer, as our Lord retired among the olive
trees outside Jerusalem, it becomes at once apparent how
it should be this spot which was now suggested to him.
For no doubt he had often in this quiet garden or plan-
tation used the very words he now hears the angel of the
Lord using, “Ὁ Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not
haye mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah,
against which Thou hast had indignation these threescore
and ten years?” Zechariah was a public-spirited man
whom no private prosperity could compensate for the in-
dignities his people were suffering during the dreary, igno-
minious years after their return to Jerusalem. This had
been the burden of all his thoughts as he nervously paced
under the shade of these myrtles; this his uniform cry as
he cast himself perplexed and pained on the earth beneath
them. It was this watching and praying, this taking upon
himself the burden of his people, which enabled him at
length to see what God was really preparing for them.
But familiar as was the myrtle grove, it was to-night
JEHOVAH’S SLEEPLESS SYMPATHY. 137
thronged with figures before unseen. The mounted scouts
of Jehovah seemed to be gathering there to-night from all
parts of the earth to give in their reports. These reports
presented an unusual, a marvellous agreement. In every
quarter there was peace and prosperity. The whole earth
seemed to be enjoying a time of rest and golden weather.
“All the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.’ It was the
humbling contrast to this prosperous condition, in the mean
appearance presented by the people of Israel, that struck
their leader, the man on the red horse, and caused him
to exclaim: ‘‘ How long, amidst this universal prosperity,
is Israel to be the strange and sorrowful exception? How
is it that the one dark spot on the bright and joyful earth
is precisely that spot where God’s peculiar people dwell ?
Is God’s inheritance the only kingdom which does not ex-
hibit the marks of a beneficent government and a happy
social condition ?”’
To this Intercessor—this horseman who watches over
Israel,—God answers “ with good words and comfortable
words.’ This closes the vision ; and then the interpreting
angel bids Zechariah report to the people the substance
or significance of it, to the effect that although God had
given His people into the hand of their enemies that
they might be chastised, yet these enemies had gone too
far, had entered into the work of correction with too evi-
dent a zest, and had overstepped their commission ; and
that now God would compensate to His people for their
SOLroWS.
The practical outcome or substantial meaning of this
vision was this: that to every one who sees with eyes
cleansed and directed aright, the Angel of the Lord, or God
Incarnate, appears, ready mounted, prepared to interpose
in His people’s behalf, and watchfully receiving the reports
of His commissioners from all parts of the earth. It can
readily be imagined what a difference this vision would
138 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
make in the courage and hopes of the people, with what
different heart and conversation they would go out to their
building next morning, having been assured that the Lord
thought their punishment had gone far enough and that
now He was to show His mercies to them. It is easy to
conceive with what tremulous joy Zechariah sought the
myrtle grove, how he would scarcely have been surprised
had he seen it still peopled with those heavenly forms, and
how to him it was henceforth always hallowed ground. To
his bodily eye there was in the morning no added brilliance
in the air; the turf bore no mark of the horses’ hoofs that
had troddenit; the silence was unbroken as it had been
last evening when he had almost thought heaven deaf and
hard as he prayed and heard no answer; and yet all was
changed to his inward eye, the silence did not now
discompose him, he felt no more as if he had the sole
charge and burden of his people.
As human history presents a constant recurrence of
similar experiences under altered circumstances and in new
individuals, so the history of God’s people very much re-
peats itself; and the helps and solace provided for one
generation are found serviceable to all. We have our dull
and ignominious times when nothing seems to prosper
with us, when we feel as if everything Divine were remote
or unreal, when our prayers have so long been unanswered
that we begin seriously to doubt whether prayer avails. To
have an eye for things spiritual makes all the difference
at these times. The veil that hides the forces which really
rule this world is lifted and we see things in their true
relations. We see the swift couriers of Jehovah inces_ .
santly streaming in from all parts of the earth, we see
that there is nothing unobserved, and that He to whom
this detailed information is present does not wait to be
urged or prompted by us to take action but that with
sravity, earnestness, and impassioned tenderness, He in-
PUNISHMENT A TEMPORARY EXPEDIENT. 159
terposes at the fitting juncture. While we are thinking
that our efforts to set matters right are not observed or
regarded by any higher power, there is a grave and com-
prehensive consideration of our affairs, a sense of responsi-
bility which accepts and discharges the management of
all human interests, an efficient activity to which ours is
as negligence.
The second vision speaks for itself. When the four
horns had tossed and gored Israel, four carpenters are sent
to cut them down. God's zest in removing the execu-
tioners of His justice reveals His reluctance to punish.
When the causes of distress have done their work they
are removed. Asa matter of actual experience, men who
have suffered great reverses of fortune declare that no
sooner had the calamity brought them to the point of a
true, hearty and permanent submission to God about it,
than it was removed. There are no doubt irremovable
distresses, but God can introduce into the life alleviations
of distress and compensating joys. He can at all events
enable us to see as clearly as Zechariah saw that He will
not give us over to unlimited punishment, but allows
present distresses only as temporary expedients which may
fit us for more enduring and perfect happiness.
The third vision of Zechariah was also based on what
was in his thoughts and under his eye from day to day—
plans for restoring the city. He seemed to see a man
proceeding to take measurements for the laying out of
streets and walls. As we often get notice of city improve-
ments by seeing surveyors with theodolite and chain at work,
so this man with the measuring line explained that he was
going to ascertain the size and capabilities of Jerusalem,
and to see what could be made of the ruins. But as he
passes on to his work the angel is told to run and stop
him and prevent him from measuring the city and planning
new walls and fortifications. He is assured that it was
140 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
useless marking out boundaries, because the city is destined
to exceed all ordinary dimensions and become so great
that no walls would be capable of containing it. It will
overflow into suburbs, adjoining villages, and even annex
the neighbouring towns, so as to present the appearance
not of a walled city, but of a densely peopled district.
Neither would any danger result from this extra-mural
overflow. As Jerusalem had in former times gloried in
the strength of her natural position and impregnable forti-
fications, so now “I,” says Jehovah, “‘ will be unto her a
wall of fire round about.’’ The expression, a wall of fire,
was probably first suggested in the wilderness days by the
camp fires which outlying parties used to scare the wild
beasts, and it was retained as a vigorous way of expressing
an impenetrable defence.
What Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem,
made of this prophecy it is impossible to say. It would
have been interesting to trace the fortunes of a city which
in those days had been bold enough to rely on a spiritual
defence and not on fortifications. Certain it is that the
walls of Jerusalem were ultimately her destruction; en-
couraging, as they did, the Jews to make so obstinate a
stand against the Romans that an almost unparalleled, if
not quite unparalleled, slaughter and misery was the result.
But though this part of the prediction was suspended
through the unbelief and timidity of the Jews, that part
which promised an overflowing population was abundantly
fulfilled, the whole land being very soon densely filled with
people, and Jerusalem being found too small and confined
within the walls built round her.
The unexpected development of Jerusalem is repeated in
all well-placed cities. In many old cities, if we wish to
see the original town-walls, we must leave the outskirts
and walk to almost the heart of the city. The original
builders had as little faith as these Jews in the great in-
THE CHURCH MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE. 141
crease of the population. Municipal corporations in our
day must often wish their predecessors in office had seen
a little further into the future, or had had some Zechariah
among them to warn them of the growth of their city.
The provision made by a past generation for the sick, the
uneducated, the criminal, the dead and the living, is all
found insufficient. The cramped railway stations, the
dangerous sewage systems, the meagre water-supply, all
teach us how prone men are to act as if what served their
turn would serve the future as well. They have in general
no regard to the rapid expansion of society; they do not
seriously take into account the progress of things.
But the law of this world is progress. And where there
is no change there can be no progress. This does not
mean that wherever there is change there is progress, that
every change is a change for the better. But it means
that if we are to fall in with God’s law we are to be on
the outlook for change and are to be ready to make it
with a glad abandonment of the old wherever reason and
conscience approve the new. ΤῸ remain as we are, to be-
lieve that what was good enough for our fathers is good
enough for us, is to throw away the advantages our fathers
won for us and to repudiate the fundamental law of the
world. The constant and essential problem of the poli-
tician is to adjust the institutions and laws of the country
to the growing intelligence, and the growing sense of
justice, and the growing wants of the people.
And this is the problem for the Church as well. If the
Church cannot look ahead and make provision for growth,
she will forego a large part of her function. The Church
must take into account that she is destined to be world-
wide ; and she must therefore beware of running up walls
which can only cramp her and retard her expansion and
prove that she has no faith in her own living power of
growth. She must be such a corporation as can admit
142 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
Hindoos, Chinamen, savages. She must not tie herself
to any practice which cannot be adopted by all men every-
where. Most religions have made this mistake ; they have
limited their expansion and made themselves local by
demanding belief in what reason rejects or by requiring
observance of practices which it is impossible for all men
to observe. And Christianity is made local in so far as if
is identified with certain practices which it is impossible
for some nations or for some persons to adopt; in so far
as it is identified with Western forms of thought and with
traditions which have grown up during the history of the
Church. To make certain forms of worship compulsory,
to prohibit divergence from our own creed and from our
own habits, is simply to do what is here reprehended ; it
is to limit the expansion of Christianity, to shut ourselves
up within walls of our own building and have little or no
share in the extension of true religion. Be comprehensive,
be progressive, is the voice of this vision to the Church.
But is there not a danger in this counsel? Is there not
avisk that we may be trodden down or corrupted by out-
siders if we have not a well-defined and solid wall around
us through the gates of which none can pass without
strictest scrutiny? Certainly there is a risk. Wherever
faith leads, there is arisk. But it remains true that all we
really have to rely on is the promise here given: ‘‘ I will be
unto her a wall of fire round about.’’ No subscription of
strict creeds, no adhesion to traditional practices, no careful
discipline in doctrine and worship will protect the Church ;
but a right spirit, the spirit of God, will. Nothing but the
inhabitation of God in the Church will defend her. The
Church has come to resemble ancient Greece, where every
town was a state by itself, with laws, customs, and interests
of its own. Itis with us as with them, a great part of our
energy is spent in keeping right our relations with other
Churches, in steering our own little Church through the
NO RESPECT OF PERSONS WITH GOD. 143
troubled sea of jealousies, rival schemes and so on. And it
will be well if the end is not also similar, if we do not so
bite and devour one another that we become an easy prey
to the common foe. Sound creeds, reasonable forms of
worship, wholesome practices, are all most useful, but they
become worse than useless when they separate us in spirit
from our fellow Christians, and are depended upon for
defence.
The great increase of population here predicted was to
arise partly from the return of a larger number of Jews
from Babylon. Very significant are the urgent appeals
that were found necessary to move them to return. ‘‘ Flee
from the land of the north. Deliver thyself, O Zion that
dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.’’ They had to be
warned even that punishment was to fall on Babylon, and
that they would share in it if they did not escape. For
people are always apt to get hardened to that deserted and
distant condition into which God banishes them for their
sin. The want of high spiritual communings which at first
aman mourned over he gradually gets used to. The gaiety
and dissipation which were distasteful to him, he can at
last scarcely abandon. The cessation from Christian work,
which at first he recognised as an infliction, he becomes so
used to that it frets and hardens him to resume it. Just as
the child who is banished into another room is at first wild
with misery, but very speedily begins to find amusement
there and is sorry to be recalled.
And as the conquering troops of Darius would make no
distinction between Jew and Babylonian, but would slay
indiscriminately—so the common visitations and disasters
that wait upon wrong-doing make no nice distinctions
between those who profess themselves of the world and
those who assume to be something better. Men often
promise themselves impunity while engaging in sins which
they know commonly bring consequences much to be
144. THE BOOK OF ΖΗΟΗΑΒΙΑΉΤ.
dreaded, and they cherish this expectation of impunity on
the ground that though sinners who boldly follow such
courses are punished, yet they themselves are not such men.
But they are awakened out of this dream by the sharp
blow of natural law. Commercial distress makes no dis-
tinction between the man who has overdriven his business
on avowedly worldly principles and the man who has over-
speculated while he has also nursed himself in the belief
that he is a child of God. He may be a child of God, but
if this fact did not prevent him behaving like a man of the
world it will not prevent him suffermg as men of the world
suffer. A parent may pray for his children, may teach them
much Christian truth, and may lay the flattermg unction to
his soul that they will turn out well; but if he does not see
that they learn to love duty more than pleasure, and if he
does not by his own life show them that duty is more than
pleasure, he will find himself involved in the consequences
which always result from neglect and _half-discharged
responsibilities. Natural law, in short, is no respecter of
persons, and utterly disregards the professions we make and
the fancies in which we dream our life away. Justice is
blind, and weighs deeds irrespective of the person who has
thrown them into her scale.
In closing this prophecy Zechariah encourages the people
to expect that not only would Jerusalem be filled to over-
flowing with their kinsmen, but that God would dwell there.
But the prediction runs on in language which seems too
magnificent for any contemporary events: ‘‘ Many nations
shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be My
people.” This is characteristic of Old Testament prophecy.
It is always occasioned by some present need of the genera-
tion among whom the prophet lives, but the language em-
ployed seems larger than the occasion requires. Prophets
did not arise in quiet times, when there was no special call
for warning or encouragement or instruction. They ap-
PRESENT AND FUTURE IN PROPHECY. 145
peared in emergencies and spoke of matters within the view
of those they addressed. Zechariah speaks of the rebuilding
of the Temple that was lying half-built before the eyes of
the people; he speaks of that very Jerusalem in which
they lived and from which they dated their letters. And
regarding these well-known objects he makes explicit and
intelligible statements.
But the Church of Zechariah’s time was immature, and
the events among which he lived were only the prelude and
preparation for the far greater events which were to signalize
the Church’s maturity; and as the prophet looked forward
to the triumph of his people over present misfortunes he
could not fail to catch a glimpse of the perfect triumphs
which were destined to be won by the perfected Church.
Under the forms and appearances present to any one
generation there lay truths and principles common to all
generations. The Temple was the then-existing form of
God’s dwelling-place, the temporary expedient for Divine
manifestation ; but in all generations there is a manifes-
tation of God, though not always a stone temple. And so
round the whole circle of things with which God’s people
had to do. ‘Through those things the prophets were, by
God’s inspiration, enabled to see the permanent principles
which operated in them, and in speaking of the visible and
familiar objects they therefore often used language which
was verified not in those very objects and events then pre-
sent, but only in the ultimate, highest forms which those
principles and ideas were to assume.
The comprehensive promise which seemed to augur all
good to Jerusalem in Zechariah’s time was this: “1 will
dwell in the midst of thee.” Beyond this, indeed, no
promise can at any time go. If God dwells with us because
He loves us and seeks our presence, this implies that all
good will be ours. Only the most unreasonable of the Jews
could have said within themselves: ‘‘God must do more
VOL. IL. L
146 THOUGHTS.
than this. This will not bring us the substantial benefits
we need.” What can God do more than come and share
with us? What else can He promise in order to encourage
us? What more can He do than bring Himself? And
if it would have been unreasonable in the Jews to murmur,
what must we say of murmuring now after the promise
has been fulfilled in a manner which beforehand none
could dare to anticipate? Are we to live as if this promise
were yet unfulfilled? Are we to make no _ response,
no acknowledgment ? Is the fact of His Presence to
excite no hope, no ambition, no craving for the Divine ?
Are we to go on through life practically saying, ‘‘ What
about it; what though God does love me? It is nothing
to me though His love for me does draw Him to live with
me.” If so, we wait in vain for any more encouraging
fact to enter our life. In this alone have we all that we
need to balance and guide our life. To live as in a world
from which God can never pass away, this is the key to
happiness and energy.
Marcus Dons.
THOUGHTS.
I. Jesus never Sleeping in a Walled Town.—
“ Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out,” is written
over every day and night of the life of Christ. There never lived
80 open a man, so accessible always to all. Sitting at the well of
Sychar, and talking freely to the first comer; receiving Nicodemus
by night; listening to the Syro-Phcenician mother, who breaks
through His concealment; preaching to the five thousand, who
disturb His retirement,—He is the property of every man that
wants Him, and leaves us an example to follow His steps. Yet
His command to us, “ Enter into thy closet, shut thy door, pray to
the Father in secret ’—suffer no man, no business, no allurement,
to keep you from the secret place of prayer—was singularly
observed by Himself.
μ᾿.
7
THOUGHTS. 147
᾽
“Jesus never slept in a walled town,” is the striking remark
of a literary writer (Mr. Hepworth Dixon) ; but without referring
to His devotions which clothed the fact with its lessons. The
assertion may seem too absolute, but it stands examination. At
Jerusalem Jesus slept in Bethany with open access to the Mount
of Olives. Tiberias lay close to the scenes of His daily ministry,
yet He never entered its gates; and He “entered Jericho” only to
“ass through it,” and sleep in the house of Zaccheus outside
the walls.
Jesus loved the “closet,” and enjoins us to use it as the secret
place to which most men have the readiest or the only access.
But He chose for Himself besides to keep always at command the
more absolute loneliness of the “solitary place, the desert, the
mountain,’ whence no man was shut out, and whither none could
intrude. This freedom Jesus had from childhood in Nazareth ;
He had it again in Capernaum, the home of His own choice; and
if throughout His ministry He chose it rather, it was surely that,
in the hours when men did not require Him, He might have
freedom for the most perfect solitude, that He might be “alone,
and yet not alone, because the Father was with Him.”
pwesus never Loosing.a Fetter, Fastened) by
Man.— And when He had opened the book, He found the place
where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because
He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath
sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at lberty
them that are bruised.” All these signs of the Messiah Jesus
wrought literally except one. He preached the gospel to thousands
of the poor, healed with pardon the broken-hearted weeper, shed
light on the eyes of the blind, went about delivering all that were
oppressed of the devil; but He released no captive bound by any
earthly chain. The Son of God had come to live and to die on
earth for great spiritual and eternal purposes, of which His
_—
outward works were only the transient tokens. He interfered
with no human sentence; and He refrained from the work and
sign of setting the prisoner free.
There was one captive whom He could have freed with a word,
even as from heaven he loosed the chains of Peter, and to refrain
from whose release must have been one of the severest trials in
the life of Jesus. John is cast into prison for righteousness’ sake ;
148 THOUGHTS.
he is familiar with Isaiah’s signs of the promised Messiah; and
has probably heard of Jesus reading them in the synagogue of
Nazareth. All the other tokens are fulfilled in the letter. Here
is at once an urgent call for the release of Christ’s faithful herald
aud a bright opportunity for sealing His own Messiahship with
the letter of this promised sign. Yet He stretches no hand and
speaks no word for John’s release. The lonely prisoner hears of
all His miracles, is perplexed, and sends two messengers to Jesus. —
He bids them return and report what they witness,—‘“‘ the blind
see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, the dead are raised, to the poor
the gospel is preached, and’””—the hour is come for “the opening
of the prison to them that are bound.” No: the blank is left
unfilled, but in its place Jesus adds, ‘“‘ And blessed is he that shall
not be offended in Me.” Wondrous history! strange, mysterious
teaching for us all in every age! ‘‘ Let patience have her perfect
work: what I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know
hereafter.”
3. Jesus never Writing except in the Dust.—All
in the Bible that is tenderest in love, brightest in truth, and
terriblest in judgment, is found in the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and
they are life.” Yet the servant Paul wrote his thoughts, so that
even those who deny his inspiration own that we possess many of
his exact words; while Jesus the Master never wrote except on
the passing dust of the temple floor. Teaching us—
1. That Christ on earth knew that in heaven He could and
would so give the Holy Spirit to men of like passions with us,
that they would record His words exactly and infallibly as if He
had Himself written them all.
2. That the same Spirit has equally directed the inspired
writers in writing their own words as in writing their Lord’s,
thus giving them equal authority.
3. That Jesus Christ, by making His ascent to the Father’s
right hand and His gift of the Holy Ghost essential for the sure
preservation of any of His words, and so making the very memory
of His past work on earth altogether dependent on His present
power in heaven, assures us how near, by His intercession and by
His Spirit, He is to the Church and all its members on earth,
even as if outwardly present with us every moment.
A. M. BS:
a :
:
149
RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE ON THE
OLD TESTAMENT.
THE YEAR 1884.
To furnish, within the space of a few pages, a complete survey of
all the Literature—save that of England and America—relating
to the Old Testament is not possible, not even though we should
confine ourselves to a bare enumeration of titles. Since, however,
titles without elucidatory remarks possess for the most part but
little value, we here abandon any attempt at completeness, in order
to be able briefly to characterise at least the more important
writings. In particular we shall but rarely cite articles appearing
in magazines. Those who care for completeness we must refer
again to the reviews of Kautzsch and Siegfried (comp. Expositor,
1885, No. I. p. 70). On this occasion may be quoted the Zeitschrift
fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited since 1881 by Prof.
B. Stade (Giessen). Unfortunately this magazine has mostly as
its contributors adherents of the extreme tendency of Wellhausen,
and has therefore become a sort of party organ. Nevertheless, we
will gladly acknowledge that it likewise contains many a produc-
tion adapted to give general satisfaction.
We begin once more with the works belonging to the province
of Lineuistic Science. Friedrich Delitzsch has republished his
Studien iiber indogermanisch-semitische Wurzelverwandtschaft (Leip-
zig: pp. 119), which called forth the attention of scientific men
in the year 1873. We regret to say it is republished without
any kind of change. The great Sammlung Karthagischer In-
schriften (vol. i., Strassburg, 208 plates) of the well-known paleo-
grapher, J. Huting, enriches our knowledge not only of the
Phoenician language, but also of the Phoenician religion. It is
very gratifying to find that Theodor Noéldeke has continued his
investigations on the Semitic grammar. This time he treats of
the Terminations of the Perfect (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl.
Gesellsch., xxxiv. pp. 407-422). The Grammaire hébraique of S.
Preiswerk, remoulded in the fourth edition by the author’s son,
of the same name (Basle: pp. Ixvi. 403), affords nothing new to
German and English readers ; on the other hand, it may be used
with profit in France and in the French-speaking part of Switzer-
land. The Concordances to the Hebrew Old Testament in use in
150 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE
Germany have not a few gaps, and labour also under other
defects (comp. Die neubearbeitete hebriisch-chaldiische Bibel-Con-
cordanz von Dr. S. Mandelkern. Leipzig: pp. 15); it were to be
desired, therefore, that the carefully prepared work of Mandelkern
were printed. The Concordance of B. Davidson (London, 1876) is
better than that of Buxtorf and that of J. First, but yet not free
from errors. A monograph displaying commendable diligence, on
Die hebriiischen Conditionalsitze, was furnished by Paul Friedrich
(Konigsberg: pp. vii. 109). Two other special themes were
thoroughly treated by Carl Siegfried (Die Aussprache des Hebriii-
schen bei Hieronymus, in Stade’s Zeitschrift, pp. 34-83) and Wilh.
Bacher, Professor in Budapest, Die hebriiisch-arabische Sprachver-
gleichung des Abulwalid Merwdn ibn Gandh. Wien: pp. 80.
The Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramiiischen. Mit einer kritischen
Hrérterung der aramiischen Worter im Neuen Testament (Leipzig :
pp. vin. 181), by Prof. Emil Kantzsch of Tubingen, supplies a
long-felt desideratum. The errors censured on many sides can
easily be corrected in a second edition (comp Géttingische gelehrte
Anzeigen, No. 26).
In his Finleitung ins Alte Testament (v. Handbuch des theo-
logischen Wissenschaften . . . herausgegeben von Otto Zickler.
Zweite . . . teilweise neubearbeitete Aujflage. Nordlingen: vol.
1. pp. 123-210) the author has endeavoured to give an objective
survey of the present standing of this science, adding an abun-
dance of literary references for those who wish for thorough
information on special points. The Roman Catholic Prof. Franz
Kaulen has published in a second revised edition the general part
of his Hinleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten und Neuen Testa-
ments (Freiburg im Breisgau: pp. 152 [156]). There he speaks of
the Inspiration, the Canon, the History of the Text, the Transla-
tions, and furnishes—so far as he is not prevented by his religion
—many useful particulars. Yet more is it seen in the production
of Zschokke (Historia sacra antiqui testamenti, Vienne, 11. ed., pp.
iv. 464), that the adherents of the Romish Church have not the
possibility of pursuing, with regard to very many questions, a free
critical research. The much spoken of passage of the Talmud,
Baba bathra, fol. 14b, 15a, is discussed by Gust. Marx, Traditio
Rabbinorum veterrima de librorum V* T" ordine atque origine.
Leipzig: pp. 60. The author seeks to show that the order of
sequence of the books of the Bible, mentioned in the Talmud, J.c.,
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. 151
is only a precept for the future. I must adhere to the view that
only an ancient custom, which is to be explained from the history
of the Canon, is there determined. (Comp. Protestantische Real-
Encyklop., 2nd ed., vii. p. 417 sqq., and Literarisches Centralblatt,
1885, No. 17, col. 567 f.).
For a good edition of the Massoretic text of the Book of Ezekiel
we are indebted to Dr. S. Baer (Liber Hzechielis. Textwm
expressit . . . notis criticis confirmavit S. Baer. Cum preefatione
Francisci Delitzsch et glossario Hzechielico-Babylonica Friderict
Delitzsch. Lipsiew: pp. xviii. 134.
Versions.—In the Alexandrine translations of the Book of Job
there were wanting about 400 hemistichs of the Hebrew text. So
early and so zealously were the defects supplied by the aid of
Theodotion, that Jerome could say in his day, there was no Greek
or Latin manuscript to be found which reproduced the original
text of the LXX. entire. Now, by the assistance of a manuscript
of the South Egyptian (Thebaic) version, the early Septuagint
text can be reconstructed, v. Agapios Bsciai, Une decowverte biblique
importante (Moniteur de Rome, 1883, 26th October; comp. De
Lagarde, Mittheilungen, pp. 203-205). Dr. A. Berliner has re-
printed the “Targum Onkelos” after the very rare punctuated
editio Sabionetta, 1557, and followed it up in a second volume
with various readings, investigations as to the history of this
Targum, etc. (Berlin: pp. iv. 242; x. 266). Moritz Heidenheim
has conceived the plan of combining in a Bibliotheca Samari-
tana the most important products of the Samaritan literature.
The plan is good, the execution in the first instalment, unhappily,
disappointing. The long title of this (first) number reads: Die
samaritanische Pentateuch-Version. Die Genesis in der hebriiischen
Quadratschrift unter Benutzung der Barberinischen Triglotte heraus-
gegeben und mit Hinleitung, textkrit. Noten, Scholien und Beilagen
versehen (Leipzig: pp. lii. 98). The editor has regard to the
renowned manuscript named after Cardinal Barberini in only a
few passages, alters the text in many places—without always
giving a hint of the change—by needless, often impossible con-
jectures, and in the Annotations (‘ Scholia”’ !) asserts very much
which must call forth the contradiction of competent judges
(comp. S. Kohn in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch.
1885, pp. 165-226).
ExucGesis anp CriricisM.—Joseph Kénig, Professor of Catholic
152 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE.
Theology, at Freiburg i. B., has published a History of the
Pentateuch-Criticism, from J. Astruc to the present day, which
is worth reading (Das Alter und die Entstehungsweise des Penta-
teuchs. Freiburg: pp. 73, 4to). H. Vuilleumier has continued
his work, mainly designed for French readers (comp. Expositor,
ut supra, p. 74 init.). La critique du Pentateuque dans sa phase
actuelle | Revue de théol. et de philos. 1884, Mai, pp. 292-306]. Herm.
LL. Strack has shown, by discussing the first chapters of the
Genesis, that the results of the Higher Criticism can be used in
many ways in favour of the credibility of the biblical accounts
(Hebraica, i. pp. 5-10; March). The articles of S. I. Curtiss,
“Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Translated from Manuscript
Notes,” are reprinted from The Hebrew Student, vol. i. (Morgan
Park, Ill., pp. 37). The other works of Curtiss we must leave
to the writer of the report on the American literature to mention.
C. H. Cornill, Die Composition des Buches Jesaja (in Stade’s
Zeitschrift, pp. 838-105), strove to show that the redactor of the
Book of Isaiah laboured to attain first a chronological order, and
secondly an order of subjects, and this for the most part under
the guidance of certain ‘‘ keywords.” C. Clausen defends the
genuineness of the Elihu discourses, and has thus no sense of per-
ception that they interrupt in a disturbing way the connexion
between Job’s last words and the discourses of God (comp. his
articles in Luthardt’s Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft εν.
kirchl. Leben, pp. 393-408, 449-460, 505-515). The Praktische
Auslegung der Psalmen, by HK. Taube (8rd ed., Berlin: pp. 889) will
be welcome to those who seek for edification. Prof. Gust. Bickell,
Innsbruck, has been occupied with the criticism of the Book
Koheleth [ Ecclesiastes]; his hypotheses, however, are so artificial
and so forced, that they will never indeed win acceptance with
serious invesigators (Der Prediger {ἰδοὺ den Werth des Daseins.
Wiederherstellung des bisher zerstiickelten Teaxtes, Uebersetzung und
Erklérung. Innsbruck: pp. 112). A young Greifswald theo-
logian, Joh. Meinhold, has pursued investigations on Die Compo-
sition des Buches Daniel (Greifswald: pp. 87). His results accord
to a gratifying extent with that which I had already indicated
in my WHinleitung. The dissertation of G. T. Miihling, on the
genealogies of the Chronicles, I. ch. i-ix. (in [Tiibinger] Theo-
logische Quartalschrift, pp. 403-450), bears an essentially apolo-
getic character.
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. 153
The history of Exegesis is detailed by the following writings :
1. 5. Schiffer, Das Buch Kohelet. Nach der Auffassung der Weisen
des Talmud und Midrasch und der jiidischen Erklirer des Mittelal-
ters. Theil I. Leipzig: pp. vii. 140 [promises much, but gives
little]; 2. 5. H. Margulies, Saadia al-Fajumi’s arabische Psalm-
dibersetzung nach einer Miinchener Handschrift herausgegeben und
ins Deutsche ibersetzt. I. Breslau: pp. iv. 51, 26; 3. M. Wolff.
Zur Charakteristik der Bibelexegese Saadia Alfajjumi’s (in Stade’s
Zeitschrift, pp. 225-246); 4. J.J. L. Bargés, R. Yapheth Abou Aly
ibn Aly Bassorensis . . . in Canticum Canticorum commen-
tarium arabicum . . edidit atque in linguam Latinam transtulit.
Paris: pp. xxxii. 340; and 5. O. Zoéckler, Luther als Ausleger des
Alten Testaments gewtirdigt auf Grund seines grisseren Genesiskom-
mentars. Greifswald: pp. 77.
APOcRYPHAL AND PsEUDEPIGRAPHIC LirpraturE.—Paul de Lagarde
has edited the Latin version of the Sapientia Salomonis and
of the LHcclesiasticus after the Codex Amiatinus in Florence
(Mittheilungen, Gottingen: pp. 241-380). He is certainly right
in his conviction that this much spoken of Codex is neither so
ancient nor so trustworthy, as has ordinarily been supposed on
the authority of C. Tischendorf. The article of G. Schnedermann,
Basel, on the Judaism of the two first Books of the Maccabees,
although contributing nothing strictly new, merits reading as
a diligent and judicious combination of the existing material
(Luthardt’s Zeitschrift, pp. 78-100). The shrewd dissertation of
Friedr. Schnapp, Die Testamente der zwilf Patriarchen (Halle :
pp. 88), seeks in particular to shed light upon the composition of
this pseudepigraphon, and to prove the existence of interpola-
tions.
ArcumoLocy, History ann Grocrapny.—The Handwirterbuch
des Biblischen Altertums fiir gebildete Bibelleser. Herausgegeben von
Eduard Riehm (Bielefeld und Leipzig: pp. 1849, with more than
400 illustrations and maps), begun in the year 1874, is at last
completed. Although the book is designed in the first instance
for the educated laity, many of the articles nevertheless merit
attention on the part of scholars; I mention here only one,
“ Zeitrechnung,” from the pen of Riehm himself. The names of
the most important contributors are: Gust. Baur, Franz Delitzsch,
G. Ebers (Leipzig); P. Kleinert, Eberhard Schrader (Berlin) ;
Kamphausen (Bonn) ; Kautzsch (Tiibingen) ; Miihlau (Dorpat) ;
154 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE
Schlottmann (Halle); Schiirer (Giessen). The Biblisches Wor-
terbuch fiir das christliche Volk (3rd re-modelled edition, Karls-
ruhe and Leipzig: pp. 1410, with 9 maps), edited by H. Zeller,
stands upon the ground of the traditional-apologetic views and
is adapted to wider circles of readers. Of the Real-Hncyklopdidie
fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, second edition, two
volumes, xiii. and xiv., have appeared. Some of the larger
articles are: Samaritaner (Kautzsch), Sanherib (Friedr. De
litzsch), Schépfung (Zockler), Schreibkunst und Schrift bet den
Hebréern (Strack), Semiten (Volek), Sibyllen (Hd. Reuss), Sinai
(F. W. Schultz), Spriiche Salomos (Franz Delitzsch), Sterne
(Lotz), Stiftshiitte (Riggenbach).
F. W. Schultz (Breslau) has essentially improved and enlarged
his treatise on the Geography, the History, and the Archeology
of the Old Testament in Zockler’s Handbuch (see above, p. 150),
second edition, vol. i. pp. 211-327. J. Wellhausen has published
in the first part of his Skizzen wnd Vorarbeiten (Berlin, pp. 1-102),
the revised original of his article “Israel” in the Hncyclopedia
Britannica, 9th edition, vol. xiii. In this way German scholars
have obtained the desired opportunity of learning how the course
of the Israelite history has shaped itself according to Wellhausen ;
and this is naturally of importance for a thorough testing of the
critical theories of Wellhausen himself. Substantially upon the
same ground stands Bernh. Stade’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
of which the third instalment has appeared (Berlin: pp. 305-464).
Yet more radical is L. Seinecke, who e.g. represents the Book
of Ezekiel as owing its composition to the years 164-163 B.c.
(Geschichte des Volkes Israel. II. Theil. Vom Hwil bis zur Zerstérung
Jerusalems durch die Rimer, Gottingen: pp. xii. 356). Of quite
an opposite kind is the Lehrbuch der Biblischen Geschichte Alten
Testamentes, by Aug. Kohler (Zweite Hilfte, I. Theil, Erlangen:
pp. 473. [In the year 1884, only the pp. 267 ff. appeared ; pp. 1-
266 were published in 1877 and 1881; the first half bears the date
1875]). Kohler, as professor of Theology in Erlangen (successor
of. Franz Delitzsch, when the latter removed to Leipzig), occupies
a strictly positive standpoint. He goes to work, however, with
such thoroughness, and avails himself to such an extent of all
existing aids, that even his radical opponents acknowledge his
book as at least a thankworthy collection of materials. May the
author, who in ten years has brought us only to the Division of
BEd
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. 155
the Kingdom, not make us wait much longer for the completion
of his work! Prof. Gust. Baur has dealt briefly, but well, with
Education among the Israelites, in K. A. Schmid’s Geschichte
der Erziehung, vol. i. (Stuttgart). A piece of diligent workman-
ship by Allen Page Bissell, The Law of Asylum in Israel, histori-
cally and critically examined (Leipzig: pp. 86), may be mentioned
here, because the author, an American, completed his studies in
Germany.
The Geschichte des Alterthwms by Eduard Meyer (vol. i. con-
tains the history of the East till the foundation of the Persian
rule; Stuttgart: pp. xix. 647), is valuable, because the author is
not only an historian but likewise possesses oriental lore. The
presentation of the history of Israel, however, has suffered greatly,
owing to the hypercritical attitude which E. Meyer assumes to-
wards the historic documents of the Old Testament. A. Wiede-
mann’s Aegyptische Geschichte (Gotha: pp. xii. 765), is a very
thorough work, adapted more for reference than for perusal.
How greatly is it to be deplored that this people of remote an-
tiquity has preserved to us only very few notices concerning its
earlier history which can be turned to account. Heinrich Brugsch
published Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter. 1. Halfte.
Leipzig: pp. vii. 280. Finally, two writings of Assyriologists may
yet be mentioned: 1. Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Sprache der Kossiier.
Leipzig: pp. vi. 75; and 2. D. G. Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s
nach den Originalen new herausgegeben, wmschrieben,
iibersetzt und erklért. Leipzig: pp. xvi. 93.
The Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, which is con-
ducted in a manner once more to be commended to English
readers, furnishes (pp. 231-262) a report, embracing 233 titles of
works, of new publications in the domain of Palestine literature
during the year 1873, by Prof. A. Socin. Palaestina in Wort und
Bild, edited by G. Ebers and H. Guthe, is now completed (Stutt-
gart: pp. 474 fol.). The work of Lortet, La Syrie @aujourd hui.
Voyages dans la Phénicie, le Inban et la Judée. Paris: pp. 675 4to
(364 illustr., 9 maps), is of great value for our knowledge of the
natural constitution of Syria.
In the province of Bisiica, Tueonocy I have on this occasion
three works to mention: 1. The brief outline by F. W. Schultz
in Zockler’s Handbuch, second edition, vol. i. pp. 328-380; 2.
R. Smend, On the Importance of the Jerusalem Temple in the Old
156 BREVIA.
Testament Religion, in T'heologische Studien und Kritiken, pp. 689-
740 (it is to be regretted that the author is an adherent of
Wellhausen) ; 3. Friedrich Eduard Konig, Die Hawptprobleme der
altisraelitischen Religionsgeschichte gegeniiber den Entwicklungs-
theoretikern. Leipzig: pp. iv. 108. I would willingly speak more
at large on this interesting and suggestive book; but the space at
my disposal for this article is already exhausted.
Berlin. Hermann L. Srrack.
BREVIA.
Textual Criticism of The Two Ways.—The first
section (Chapters I-VI.) of the Teaching of the Apostles forms
a whole by itself, as is witnessed by its internal completeness as
well as by the express declaration of VII. 1. For purposes of
textual criticism, it also stands apart from the rest of the treatise
on account of the comparatively great wealth of material that
exists for reconstructing its text. If we agree that Barnabas de-
pends on the “Teaching,” and not vice versa, we have the following
sources of information as to the text of the section on The Two
Ways. (1) The Constantinople MS. (2) The fragment of the
Latin translation brought to light by v. Gebhardt, covering I.-II.
6. (9) The reworking in Barnabas, which draws from I. 1, 2;
II. 2, 3, 4, 6; III. 7-10; IV. 1-14; V. 1, 2[VI.2?]. (4) The
reworking in the Ecclesiastical Canons, including great part of
the text up to IV. 8. (5) The Apostolical Constitutions which
incorporates great part of the whole text. (6) We may add a few
patristic citations, especially in the Sibyllines, Hermas and Clement
of Alexandria, and, for the Latin version, Lactantius.
A careful examination of the mutual relations of these wit-
nesses acquaints us with the fact they part into two well-marked
types: the Apostolical Constitutions and Constantinople MS. on
the one side, with the Latin version, Barnabas and Ecclesiastical
Canons on the other. The relation of Barnabas to the Latin
version is, however, closer than that of either with the Canons.
With the one exception that the author of the Canons knew and
BREVIA. 157
apparently was affected by Barnabas, each witness is entirely
independent of the rest. We may, thus, construct a genealogical
table, as follows :—
“ ΤῊΒ Two Ways.”
|
| |
(Egyptian text.) (Syrian text.)
Latin Version. Barnabas.
(Lactantius.) ice ad
Ecclesiastical Apostolical Constantinople
Canons. Constitutions. MS.
A glance at this table will inform us what combinations, on
genealogical principles, are apt to be strong, and what are apt to
be weak.
Internal evidence of groups thoroughly supports the conclusions
at which we should arrive on genealogical considerations, except
that the combination of the Constantinople MS. and the Apos-
tolical Constitutions proves somewhat better, and that of the
Constitutions and Canons somewhat worse than we should have
anticipated on genealogical grounds. Most of the readings of the
first pair are, however, only apparently supported by it alone, the
opposing readings being usually singular readings of Barnabas or
the Canons, the other documents failing. Whenever two or more
witnesses oppose this group, it fails to approve itself. So when
we subtract from the readings of the group, Constitutions plus
Canons, those that appear to be accidental, nothing is left to
suggest a closer relationship between the two documents than the
table allows. Internal evidence of groups approves quaternary and
all trinary groups, and especially gives its seal to such binary
groups as the Constantinople MS. plus the Canons, the Constanti-
nople MS. plus Barnabas, the Constitutions plus Barnabas. The
Latin version is, so far as we may judge from the meagre frag-
ment that has been preserved for us, full of individualisms, but
of the highest value in conjunction with other witnesses.
In the light of these investigations, I have gone very carefully
over the text of The Two Ways, and have to suggest the following
emendations of the Constantinople MS. It will go without
saying that the internal evidence has been very closely scrutinized
158 BREVIA.
in each case. I cite the document according to the chapters and
verses of Harnack’s edition.
Title. Omit δώδεκα and possibly bracket τῶν.
Omit second title entire.
I. 2. Read θέλῃς for θελήσῃς.
Read ποιήσεις for ποίει.
I.3.—II. 1. Omit the entire section from εὐλογεῖτε to 11. 1
inclusive.
II. 5. Reverse the order of ψευδής and κενός.
Omit ἀλλὰ μεμεστωμένος πράξει.
II. 7. Insert ovs δὲ ἐλεήσεις after ἐλέγξεις.
Ill. 4. Read plural, εἰδωλολατρείαι γεννῶνται.
Place πρός in the margin opposite εἴς.
II. 5. Place zpos in the margin opposite εἴς.
III. 9. Instead of οὐ κολληθήσεται ἡ ψυχή cov read οὐδὲ κολληθήσῃ
ἐκ ψυχῆς σου with the present reading in the margin.
IV. I. Instead of τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι, read τὸν λαλοῦντά σοι, and
insert δοξάσεις after Θεοῦ, putting the present reading in
the margin.
Add [αὐτοῦ] after μνησθήσῃ with “add [de]” opposite in the
margin.
Put in the margin opposite Θεοῦ, “add [καὶ παραίτιόν σοι
γινόμενον τῆς Cus |.”
ἱ
͵
[
i.
IV.2. Put éravaravy in the margin opposite Tans.
IV. 3. Read ποιήσεις instead of ποθήσεις. ᾿
IV. 6. Insert, [ἵνα ἐργάσῃ εἴς] between δώσεις and λύτρωσιν.
IV. 7. Read 6 instead of 7.
IV.8. Place “omit” in the margin opposite τὸν (before év-
δεόμενον) ; and the same opposite the ovy- in συγκοινωνήσεις. 4
IV.9. Place τῆς in the margin before νεότητος and “omit ”
opposite the τὸν before φόβον.
IV. 10. Insert [cov] after παιδίσκῃ. |
Place brackets around μή.
Place, “or ὅτι ἦλθεν od” in the margin opposite οὐ yap ἔρχεται.
1V.11. Insert οἱ before δούλοι.
Read ὑμῶν instead of ἡμῶν.
IV. 14. Transfer ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ to the margin.
Read ἁμαρτήματα instead of παραπτώματα, with the latter in the .
margin, |
Bracket καί.
4
BREVIA. 159
V.1. Add at end of the verse, ἀφοβία [Θεοῦ].
VI. 3. Read φεύγετε with λίαν πρόσεχε in the margin.
The text of the treatise is the gainer from all of these changes.
Especially does the long omission in the latter portion of Chapter
I., which is demanded on external and internal grounds alike,
relieve it of many difficulties.
Allegheny. ὁ. ΒΕΝΙΑΜΙΝ B. WARFIELD.
Mr. Brown’s Life of Bunyan.!—The Rev. John
Brown, B.A., Minister of the Church at Bunyan Meeting, Bed-
ford, has given to the world what will long be regarded as the
standard Life of Bunyan. Ever since the appearance of that
invaluable collection, Mr. Wylie’s Book of the Bunyan Festival, to
which a paper was contributed by Mr. Brown, students have looked
to him as the fittest biographer of the Dreamer. He has spent
years in the examination of the national records, of all available
literature, of his own Church books—in the collecting and sifting
of traditions, in the patient arrangement of his materials, and the
result is a sound and thorough piece of work, which will—and we
can conceive of no higher reward—permanently associate his name
with that of Bunyan. There was obviously danger that Mr.
Brown’s painstaking labours should merely result in his furnish-
ing material on which a more expert writer might work; but
this peril has been to a considerable extent overcome. Mr. Brown
is no mean literary craftsman, and his book has been made
additionally attractive by many beautiful illustrations. The
main fault of the work is due to the writer’s excessive modesty.
He has taken great pains in compiling lists of editions, criticisms,
and the rest, but he has to a large extent forborne to use his well-
earned right to pass judgment on them. This is seriously to
the loss of his readers. We miss a clear account of the sources,
of the trustworthiness of the various editions and biographies,
such as the greatest Bunyan scholar of the time could have given
with authority. Reading between the lines, it is true, one may
learn something. Students of literary history will find further
illustration of Lord Macaulay’s wonderful accuracy, and of Mr.
Froude’s scandalous ignorance and carelessness; of the latter
1 London: Isbister.
160 BREVIA.
more examples might easily have been given. But scant justice
is done, for example to Offor, whose title to commemoration is
much clearer than that of Bunyan’s successors.
After all Mr. Brown’s labours, it remains true that we know
little about Bunyan which he has not told us himself. The
standing enigmas of his history are not, and never can be, com-
pletely solved. But Mr. Brown has given us a singularly clear
and consistent account of his position as a theologian. An able
writer has speculated on how Bunyan’s faith bore the trial of
witnessing, first the overthrow of tyranny in England, and then
its insolent revival. He solves his problem by saying that to
Bunyan, as to all mystics of the highest order, the chances of
the time counted for nothing. It is questionable, however,
whether Bunyan regarded these events as much affecting the real
progress of the kingdom of God—a progress which to him was
the conversion of individual souls, not the outward prosperity of
churches, and still less the favour the church found with the
world. With the great idea of the church he had no sympathy ;
he was, as Macaulay said, the least sacramentarian of all theo-
logians. Mr. Brown shows that, though he seems to have inclined
to Baptist views, his children were baptized at the parish church,
and that he regarded the controversy with scornful iadifference.
Denominationalism he abhorred; it came “neither from Jerusalem
nor Antioch, but from hell and Babylon,” and he looked forward to
the day when it would cease. Additions to the church, whether
from a superficial revivalism or a compliance with fashion, he
would have considered worthless. Whoever might chance to
be on the throne, the world and the lust thereof were still the °
reigning powers. In the cloudy and dark day, sooner than in
the sunshine, the soul might seek and find its Rest; and thus, and
thus only, the kingdom of God came.
None of Bunyan’s words can be suffered to fall to the ground ;
in the least notable of his writings there is “something of that
jasper in which the Heavenly City descends.” A full and
thorough edition is a great desideratum, and for this pious labour
Mr. Brown is very plainly marked out.
EDITOR.
THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
Tre resurrection of our Lord has a bearing upon the
problems of science and philosophy, the history of matter,
and the history of mind, as well as upon the personal
pe of the individual soul. In other words it is a theo-
ogical, as well as a religious truth; and intimately as the
two are connected, they must still be kept apart in the
mind. For the common tendency which there is to con-
fuse them is responsible for many of the intellectual diffi-
culties which now, as of old, are hindering the acceptance
of the faith. Now, as of old, the religious missionary whose
whole being is devoted to track moral evil to its hideous
haunts, and there fight it in its grosser forms—to rescue
and renew and guide the souls of sinners Godward—natu-
rally tends to emphasize the undreamed, unhoped, uncalled-
for, miraculous character of Christian grace; the strange-
ness of our salvation, so far beyond all we looked for. And
so the Incarnation comes to be regarded as an isolated
exception to the order of the world, a Divine afterthought,
if we may say so reverently, consequent upon human sins.
But the age is scientific as well as practical, and science
knows nothing of isolated exceptions. It is not possible
that men whose bias is to view things from the intellectual
side, should not be alienated from the Christian message,
the Christian life, the Christian hope, by the popular tra-
vesties of Christian theology, to which the insulation of a
few doctrines, for homiletic purposes, and the dispropor-
tionate insistance on them, has gradually given rise.
We cannot therefore, in the present day, recur too often
VOL. Ill. M
162 THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
to, or dwell too strongly on, those portions of the teaching
of St. Paul and of St. John which exhibit the Incarnation
as the predestined, and in that sense as the natural sum-
mary and climax of the material creation,
* Cent’ring in Himself complete what truth
Is elsewhere scattered, partial, and afar.”
“ By Him all things were made’’—the atoms, which we
call ultimate ; the myriad modes and forms and fashions
into which the atoms are transmuted and built up; heat
and light and electricity; the world of colour and the
world of sound; the courses of the stars, the strength of
the mountains, the raiment of the lilies, the beauty and the
wonder of bird and insect life, the uncouth animals, the
mind of man—‘ and without Him was not anything made
that was made.” So far all Theists are agreed. But mere
Theism does not satisfy the mind. The closer we look into
the material world, with its resistless, omnipresent, inex-
tinguishable energies of life, the more we feel that we are
in the presence chamber of a power that is Divine. Nature
does not bear the stamp of a machine created by a far-off
God, and then left to its own working. Theism, if it would
not shrink up into Deism, must go forward into Pantheism ;
and yet, to be consistent with itself, it cannot. But the
Christian creed continues, ‘““In Him was life.’ The
Creator of the world has not deserted it. He sustains it.
He indwells it. And the forces that have gathered suns
and stars out of the formless mist, and shaped them for
use and habitation, and peopled them with life, and sup-
ported and sustained that life through all its gradual de-
velopment, ‘‘till at the last arose the man,” are part of
the working hitherto of Him who is the life.
And that Life was the light of men. Above all other
forms of energy towers the thought of man—slowly building
up societies; evoking, as we say, a moral consciousness; re-
THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD. 163
fining age by age upon the moral ideals of its past; issuing,
as leisure increases, in art, philosophy, and science; cul-
minating in the pangs of martyrs and the ecstasy of saints.
And through all this process we believe that that Life has
been the light of men. The inventor has been explaining
his own machinery, the artist exhibiting his own pictures,
the author re-reading his own book; the Creator leading
men, by slow degrees, to learn the meaning of His own
creation, by teaching them first to discover and then to
co-operate with its laws. ‘‘He left not Himself without
witness,” says St.Paul. Socrates and Plato, not less than
Moses and Isaiah, dimly descried personalities beyond the
horizon of authentic history, such as were the Buddha,
Confucius, Zarathustra, and all the unknown, unhonoured
pioneers of early thought, among those through whom “at
sundry times, in divers manners, God spake in times past
unto the fathers;’’ and all the legitimate developments
of art, all the verified discoveries of science, all the yearn-
ings of our race for iarger liberty or lovelier life, are mani-
festations of the Life that was the light of men—ways in
which for ever He is coming to His own.
Finally, ‘‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among
us.” The thought is presented by St. John as a climax.
Matter in its successive gradations, from the conflict of
atoms to the body of the saint, had been expressing with
increasing clearness the character and attributes of its
Creator. Reason had been yearning to reduce its material
embodiment from stubborn resistance to obedient freedom,
and at length in the fulness of time the two currents
coalesce. Matter becomes at last an adequate expression
of its Creator. God is at last revealed to His creation in
material form. And the Incarnation, once accomplished,
throws a ‘supplementary reflux of light” upon all the
ascending stages of the world’s antecedent evolution.
For the fact of the Resurrection as attested, preached;
164 THE INCARNATION OF THE HTERNAL WORD.
appealed to, by St. Paul, is too plain an event of history to
be possibly ignored, and the Resurrection, once accepted,
proves the Incarnation to have been a reality; indepen-
dently of the undoubted truth that our more sympathetic
modern criticism tends increasingly towards the conviction,
that no combination of, or refinement upon, the thoughts of
antecedent thinkers could have invented the Incarnation if
it had not actually happened. Here, as in all other cases,
philosophy is the interpreter of history ; it never has been,
it never can be, its creator. But if we thus view the Incar-
nation as no interruption of previous development, but as
the climax, the summary, the fulfilment of all nature’s dim
auguries, of all philosophic aspirations, of all that prophet
and king had desired to see, and had not seen ; predestined,
we may well believe with the Franciscan theologians, inde-
pendently of human sin; secular thought and the secular
world, as it is called, assume for us a new significance. Our
Lord did not cease to appeal to the teaching of the lilies, and
the corn, and the sunrise, as if its need were superseded
by His being the very truth. He only reveals it to be more
nearly one with Him than men had before suspected, by
such phrases as “1 am the Vine,” ‘‘I am the Shepherd,”
““T am the Bread of Life.” He does not abrogate the
Roman law, but only points to its emanation from above.
He says expressly of the drift of previous Hebrew history,
“Think not that Iam come to destroy, I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil.”’
So that on whatever side of us we look, we see in Christ-
ianity not so much a circumference within which is truth,
and outside which falsehood, as a centre of attraction
towards which all that is lovely and of good report is for
ever drawing nearer, till approximation becomes prophecy.
Thus the face of external nature, with its loveliness of form
and colour, and all its endless harmony of action and repose,
speaks to us, not only of an artist who designed it, but also
THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD. 165
of an indwelling Spirit which sustains and animates its
every part, and is revealed with increasing clearness as we
ascend in the scale of creation, from the mystery of the
mountains, to the life of the trees that clothe them, and
the motions of the beasts that haunt them, and the senses,
the hearts, the brains of the men that look upon them
and love them; as sculptured expression is surpassed by
painting, and painting again by music, and music when
it can rise no higher, bursts as in Beethoven’s great last
symphony, articulate into song. And we cannot but feel
in the presence of such a fact as this, that all the forms of
nature-worship which we find among savage races, much
more the refined Pantheism of later days, point to a truth
which professing Christians are often apt to underrate.
They cannot be summarised and set aside as the merely
fanciful creations of a superstitious or poetic temperament.
They are only the inadequate expressions of a legitimate
human instinct whose natural satisfaction is the doctrine
of the ‘“‘ Word made flesh.”’ Our judgment of the modern
Pantheist will vary with the nature of the causes which
withhold him from his allegiance to the faith “as it is in
Christ.”” But we must remember that there is an element
of Divine truth which we believe in common, and an ele-
ment which we are unfaithful to our Master’s teaching if
we overlook. Or again, if we look below the surface, from
nature’s aspect to her operations, we see more there than
the contrivance of a mighty machinist. For the great
machinery lives, throbs, pulses with an energy which is
ever at work controlling, transforming, quickening the
stubborn atoms into versatile, obedient ministers to the
free activity of man. Can we wonder if the miracle of
matter hides all else from its too eager student, and he
stops short in some form or other of materialistic creed.
We may pity him, with humility, for all the hope he loses ;
but before we blame him, we who have not blanched our
166 THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
cheeks or bleared our eyes in the dark mine, we must ask
ourselves severely what use we have made of his life’s
labours. The more we learn of the importunate reality of
matter and of its intimate connexion with the things we
are accustomed to call spiritual, the more necessity we see
for the Incarnation, if religion is ever to be adequate to
human life in its entirety; and the more reasonableness
in its sacramental application to our souls. This much at
least the materialist ought to have taught us about God’s
world, and he can only have taught it by patient obedience
to God’s law of learning. We are bound to accept his
teaching with thankfulness as seeing in it more than he
ever dreamed of, but with trembling for the account of
it we must one day give as representing the life of our
brother laid down for our enlightenment. Physical science
for the Christian means nothing less than a fresh flood of
light. It is at our peril that we eee treat it as
if it were only one more foe.
So, too, with the civilization by which we are surrounded.
It does not follow because we deny that Christianity could
ever have been evolved out of the mere action of those
complex forces which go to make up what we call secular
civilization, that it is not largely indebted to those forces
in every age, as beyond question was the case when it first
began to overspread the world. We are familiar with the
thought that the Roman roads, and the Roman law, and
the universal language were part of a providential, “ pre-
paratio evangelica;’’ but many to whom this is a common-
place, shrink from the more important fact that the ideas
which paved the way for, and the phrases which embodied
the very cardinal truths of, our theology in early ages, were
prepared in the schools of Athens for the work they were
afterwards to do. But for that theology, which men have
not scrupled to represent as a paganized corruption of the
simplicity of the Gospel, the Gospel would never have been
THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD. 167
preserved in its primitive integrity to after ages. For that
theology was nothing more than the intellectual insistance
upon the reality of the fact that “the Word was made
flesh.” And its authors were sustained and emboldened
in their work by the conviction that it was the point to
which the same eternal Word had in all philosophy and
prophecy been guiding the minds of men.
But if the eternal Word was working in the thinkers of
the early world, He cannot be less present among secular
movements now. We often hear men speak as if with the
advent of Christianity, the Spirit of God had retired from
the extra-Christian world. But the very thought is a con-
tradiction in terms. ‘True, it is impossible in a complex age
like ours to disentangle the different forces that are at work
within society; and many a movement that seems extra-
Christian, may have come from a Christian source ; but even
if this were not so, the principle would still remain that
every good gift and every perfect gift cometh from above.
The increase of political liberty, with all the opportunities
for development and discipline of character, which self-
government involves, the humaneness of modern law, the
spread of sanitary science, with its consequent moral
blessings, the mitigations of war, and increasing amity of
nations, the extension of intellectual culture and the re-
cognition of its value, all are due, through whatever agency
they seem to come about, ‘ to the Light that lighteth every
man coming into the world.”
This view of the Incarnation as the climax to which
all life and thought lead up, has naturally found its most
emphatic expression in intellectual ages, and at the Ephesus
or Alexandria, the intellectual centres of their age. At
times when thought was not, and the vital energies of the
Christian Church were concentrated in a death struggle with
the moral evil of the world, her speculative mission would
lie in comparative abeyance. But never perhaps before has
168 THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
it more needed reassertion, than in an age which looks at
all things in the light of their evolution.
Our Lord Jesus Christ stands forth as the head and
summary of that material creation, through whose gradual ’
development He had all along been preparing for Himself
a body—man made at last in the image of God. He stands
forth as the final utterance of those eternal verities which
philosophy had all along been struggling to express with
stammering tongue and lisping lips—the Word made flesh.
He stands as the goal in which all human progress finds its
possibility, its meaning and its end—the way, the truth and
the life. He is immanent, as we say, in all creation; but
none the less He is its creator, and as such not only through
all, but above all, God for ever. As long as we hold this
truth firmly we cannot over-estimate the reality of His
partial presence in materialism, in Pantheism, in secular
civilization, and in all the various imperfect forms of
moral conduct and religious creed. And it is our duty as
Christians never to under-estimate that presence, not only
because no part of God’s revelation of Himself to men can,
in the long run, be ever neglected with impunity ; but also
because it is only by these less direct methods of approach
that many souls are capable of being led to Him at all.
While on the other hand we may never rest content, till
we have done all we can to lead men forward from the
lesser to the larger light, from the vision through a glass
darkly, to the vision face to face.
For what our Incarnate Lord is to the universe con-
sidered as a whole, and to humanity in the mass, He
is also to the individual persons of which humanity con-
sists. And the special mission of the Christian, as distinct
from all other teachers, is to bring men one by one into
personal relation with their Lord. For “‘ personality” is the
highest mode of existence known to our experience. The
material of our bodies, and the thoughts of our minds, drift
THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD. 169
through us like a stream, and are gone we know not where ;
but the personality, the I, within us, remains from the
cradle to the grave, self-identical, self-conscious, independ-
ent, irresponsible, alone; the one supreme reality of which
we are completely certain, and of which any solution of
the universe, that is to satisfy, must take account. It
is nothing to us to know that God dwells in matter, and
moves in thought, and moulds the varying purposes of
men to his own ends, unless He is in some relation to
these ‘‘ personalities”’ of ours, with their importunate claim
to be ends in themselves, not instruments used and thrown
aside. But persons can only really be united to a person,
as we see in our daily life. It is not in the amusements,
or the business, or even in the duties, which occupy our
bodies, or brains, or wills, that we really live; but in
the contact which they involve, and the response that
they call out from our fellows, our friends and dear ones,
persons, like ourselves.
Hence the solitary significance of the Incarnation. On
the one side it was a revelation, fuller only in degree, of
the God who had been working hitherto in the material,
the intellectual, the moral world. But on the other it
was a revelation, different in kind, that God was not
merely an impersonal ‘‘drift of tendency,” nor supra-
personal, in such sense as to obliterate His personality, but
a Person, and as such, One in community with whom
all human persons were destined to find the satisfaction
of their complex being. This it is which differentiates
Christianity from other creeds. It is not only obedience
to a law, or even following an example, but union with a
Person.
Now the point in which persons touch is the will. We
may think like others, or act like others, without being
really one with them. We are only one with them, when
we will what they will, and because they will it. And
170 THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
so the end and object of the Christian’s will is to be
conformed to the will of Christ. In the early stages of
our life-long development, that will of Christ may only
appear to us as an inexorable moral law, convincing us
of sin; but as we struggle on, the commands of the
law melt into the accents of a voice within us, more
and more articulate, the more they are obeyed; and duties
are done easily, and sanctions become needless, for it is
God that worketh in us, both to will and to do of His
good pleasure. And therefore Christian holiness is no
less attainable than the more limited aims of conduct which
we are so often advised to pursue; because we believe that
the Holy Spirit dwells within us, to quicken us into living
manifestations of Himself.
And from this follows our much-controverted Christian
doctrine, that the intellectual is dependent upon the moral
and spiritual life. Particular branches of knowledge may
be successfully acquired, apart from the general character
of the individual man who pursues them. But if the com-
plete illumination of the intellect is only to be found in
union with Him who is at once its Author, its object and
its light—and personal holiness is the necessary condition
of that union—it follows that only he who “ doeth the will
shall know of the doctrine,” despite of the familiar fact
that many a distinguished thinker is actively anti-Christian
either in conduct or in creed, while many a sincere
Christian lives and dies in intellectual ignorance. For what
is the secret of scientific success? Humility, the man of
science will be the first to tell you, in receiving the revela-
tion of nature’s laws; obedience to those laws as one by
one they are revealed to him; patience in the face of failure;
perseverance to the end. But all these are moral qualities
of God’s ordaining, and precisely as he observes them the
man of science will become to us a discoverer and teacher
of the truth of God, and worthy of all the reverence which
THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD. 171
God’s instruments deserve. It is only when such an one
stops short of, or denies, what we as Christians must believe
to be the legitimate end and issue of his message, that we
follow him no longer. He has taught us much which we
lesser men should never have learned without him, and it
is not for us to pry into the hidden causes of his further
failure. Our Master’s call is plain to us. What is that
to thee? Follow thou Me. But diffident as we are, and
ought to be, in maintaining our position against intellectual
superiors, when we think what moral effort that superiority
has cost; it is far otherwise when we face the misbelief of
the average world. For one man, such as has been de-
scribed, there are ten thousand misbelievers, who are what
they are simply because they ‘‘do not the will.’’ Pride,
sloth, self-seeking, above all, sins of the flesh, in whatever
shape or form, blind the eye, dull the ear, deaden the
understanding to the things of God. And when men plead
intellectual uncertainty, in defence of immoral life, they
will find if they only look within, that they are mistaking
effect for cause, and the source of all their malady is an
evil heart of unbelief. Sin keeps them far away from the
Person of Jesus Christ, and therefore from the Truth which
is His thought embodied in the world. On the other hand
the Christian, however ignorant he may seem of things
external, is only beginning the process of his knowledge at
the other end; from centre to circumference, instead of
circumference to centre. He feels his personal nearness to
the mind of Christ, and studies first to learn the dealings of
that mind with his own soul. For there he sees the mean-
ing of the bright ideals of his early life, and of all the joys
and sorrows that have chequered his career, the bereave-
ments, the frustrate purposes, the slow detachment from
the world; the strangely occurrent whispers of consolation
and of warning, the deepening insight, the increasing peace;
till he can read through his whole history the special provi-
172 THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
dence of One who loves him, and whose character and
ways of working are revealed in that love. There is an
indifference to earthly knowledge which only comes of in-
dolence; but there is an indifference which belongs to those
who have chosen the part of Mary, and cannot for a
moment be away from Him they love. So the great poli-
tician, or philosopher, or poet, is known to the outer world
by the work that he has done; but his child, his wife,
his friend, who know the human heart within him, are
content in that great knowledge to leave all else alone.
It is this interior knowledge of the mind of Christ that
the Christian, in proportion to his progress, feels himself
to possess; and once possessed, it must thereafter give a
new bias to his life. He will sympathize intensely with
all the secular schemes and systems which in any way
throw light on life and further the well-being of his fellow-
men. But his own mission is to bear witness, at whatever
risk of misconstruction, to the existence of the more ex-
cellent way. He welcomes the signs of progress in the
dark places of the earth; but progress is slow, and time is
short, and souls are dying every day; and “the one thing
needful” is to bring them to the knowledge of the love of
God, declared to us by Christ His Son.
But there remains yet another constituent of our human
personality, beside our reason and our will—the body that
is the instrument of all our thought and action, the won-
drous garment interwoven with the very fibres of our soul,
the messenger for good and evil between us and the world
that is without. The more we learn in these modern days
of the mystery of matter, of the ethereal subtlety of its
elemental structure and its infinite capacity for spiritual
expression, the more instinctively we feel that it is not
destined to be done away. It is too wonderful, too beauti-
ful, too real to have been created but for waste, by One
who bids us gather up fragments that nothing may be lost.
THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD. 173
And what are these bodies of ours, but the very flower of
the material creation, adequate to every impulse of their
animating soul. Is there no greater fate for them than
meets the eye? So far nature leads us; but if we look
then to the Word made flesh, we feel that our natural
instinct is more than justified—for we see there a human
body become the dwelling-place of God, and exhibiting, as
a matter of history, in the few glimpses of its risen life,
those infinite new capacities of our dim prophetic dreams.
And the wisdom of the early Church becomes apparent
in the grim tenacity with which, when philosophy meant
idealism, and the secrets of matter were all unexplored, she
clung to the reality of the human nature of her Lord. For
only through the reality of that human nature can this last
element of our personality, the body, rise to communion
with the Eternal Word. There is a solidarity in the world
of matter, linking its particles each to all; and individual
things in their seeming distinctness are, when viewed from
the material side, only the ripples of an ocean upon which
they rise and fall. Each partial movement thrills the
whole of it, and to touch it in a point is to touch it all.
To this fact we owe much of the dark moral taint that
we inherit from the days of old; but all the efficacy of
its Christian antidote. For the leaven of the Incarnation
leavened the whole lump. And in taking flesh upon Him,
and transfiguring it by dying, the Word came into new
contact, not only with the few in Palestine, whom He
breathed upon, and sighed over, and healed by the trailing
of His garment and the imposition of His hand; but with
the human body everywhere, and its modes of material
affection—sanctifying water to the mystical washing away
of sin, consecrating bread and wine to holier purposes of
sustenance, hallowing symbolic and ceremonial teaching,
deepening the parables of nature and the significance of
art. Yes; by His Incarnation, we are all brought nearer
174 THE INCARNATION OF THE ETERNAL WORD.
to Himself—but contact is not communion. Many may
touch and yet few be healed. Of bodily as of mental union
with Him, the gateway is the will. For the will and not
the body is the source and seat of sin. If the will is
unholy, our nearness cannot but increase our alienation, as
discord in a family is worse than with foreign foes. But if
the will is holy, light and life and love flow into us through
a thousand sacramental avenues from the risen body of
our Lord.
By every channel, therefore, through which our person-
ality radiates, we are called into communion with the
Person of the Word made flesh—and the climax and
completion of that communion is love. For love is not
a function of part of our being, but of the whole. All
other relations between men are in a measure abstract—
they are concerned, that is, with their actions, or their
thoughts, or their utility, as partners, colleagues, fellow-
workers, employers, masters, slaves—with reference to some
object that lies outside themselves. But if we love men
it is for their own sake—because they are what they are.
For love, and love alone, rests in its object as an end.
In appealing to our love, therefore, God appeals to our
whole personality: and in revealing Himself as Love, He
reveals His presence, along the ages, in all the yearnings
of the human heart; to guide men to the one home in
which alone they could find rest.
‘To comprehend with all saints what is the breadth
and length and depth and height, and to know the love of
Christ which passeth knowledge,” is the privilege only of
personal religion,—a vision to elect souls in pilgrimage
among desert places of the unitive way. The humbler
province of our theology is to tell those who have not seen
it, that for them, too, the vision waits.
_ In the deepest, in the fullest sense, seeing only is be-
lieving ; but in an age like ours, of keen inquiry, we may
LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 1%
lead many to come and see, by showing them that Christi-
anity includes and finds a place for the affirmative assertions
of all the other creeds; while by rejecting their negations,
their exclusion that is, of it and of each other, it is more
comprehensive, as a theory of the world, and therefore
presumably more true. And in doing this we are not
acting in any spirit of extorted concession; but reasserting
the primitive doctrine, that the Eternal Word who created
all things has been present from the beginning in the
material world; in the course of philosophic thought; in
the secular progress of mankind; in the wills, in the minds,
in the bodies, in the whole persons of His saints; revealing
more fully, in each new stage of universal evolution, ‘‘ the
mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been
hid in God—Who created all things by Christ Jesus, to the
intent that now unto the principalities and powers in
heavenly places might be known by the Church the mani-
fold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which
He purposed in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
J. Β. ILLINGWORTH.
LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
II. GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES.
2. Heresy. In his seventh proposition, Lightfoot main-
tained that the types of false doctrine which Ignatius
combated, afford an evidence of the genuineness of the
Epistles. In vol. 1. pp. 359-368, he has carefully examined
the statements in the Epistles regarding heresy,’ and has
reached the conclusion, that Ignatius has considered only
one class of heretics, namely, Judaistic Doketists. Since
now such heretics have been combated also in the Epistle
1 See also pp. 3868-375.
176 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
to the Colossians and in the Pastoral Epistles, while they
do not appear at a later period, there is found in this
a sure proof of the extreme antiquity of the Ignatian
Epistles.
Lightfoot is certainly right in calling attention to the
absence of any polemic against Basilides, Valentinus, and
Marcion as a negative sign of the genuineness.? But from
the characteristics of the heretics no positive argument can
be obtained for the genuineness of the Epistles; for the
statement that Ignatius combats the Judaistic Doketists
in the Epistles is in my opinion incorrect. His polemic
against the Judaists and his polemic against the Doketists
should not be mixed up together. Since Lightfoot, how-
ever, can appeal on behalf of the contrary opinion to the
consensus of most scholars of modern times,® this point
demands a more careful examination.‘
In two of the seven Epistles—in the Epistle to Polycarp
and in that to the Romans—generally speaking there is no
delineation of the heretics.’ This is explained in the former
case, by Ignatius having dealt very fully with heresy in the
Epistle to the members of the Church of Smyrna, written
about the same time; and in the latter case, from the
fact that there was no heresy then existing in Rome.®
Nevertheless, he employs even in these Epistles formule
and expressions which show clearly that he has constructed
1 See vol. i. p. 368. ‘The strongly marked type of Doketism assailed in
these letters, so far from being a difficulty is rather an indication of an early
date.”
* The very trace of a polemic against Valentinus vanishes when the correct
text in Magnes. chap. viii. has been restored : λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών.
5. Pre-eminently to Zahn (Ignatius von Antiochien, p. 856 sq.) ; and also to
Lipsius, Uhlhorn, and others.
* Hilgenfeld (Apostol. Viiter, S. 231 sq.) is in agreement with my view to
which I had already given expression in my work, Die Zeit des Ignatius, S. 2.
> In the Epistle to Polycarp (chap. iii.) there is to be found only the following
general exhortation :—oi δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπιστοι elvar καὶ ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες μή
σε καταπλησσέτωσαν.
δ See the Address of the Epistle to the Romans in which Ignatius congratu:
lates the Church on its being free from all strange doctrines.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 177
his own system of theology in opposition to Doketism.!
The confession regarding the reality of the historical ap-
pearing of Christ, His suffering, death, and resurrection,
is with Ignatius the fundamental Christian confession, not
only in opposition to heresy, but also in and for itself. All
blessings, which the Christian possesses, spring from ‘‘ the
suffering of our God;”’ the flesh of Christ, ‘‘ who is of the
seed of David,’ is our meat, etc. Since Ignatius also uses
such formule in the Epistle to the Romans, it is evident
that one must not conclude from the employment of them in
the Epistles, that in the Churches addressed Doketists were
actually present. Only in cases where Ignatius expressly
warns against them can the existence of such Doketists
be regarded as proved. Just as the preaching of justification
by faith alone in a Protestant Church does not prove the
presence in that Church of crypto-catholics—because this
preaching can be opposed to all heresies, and because it
must ever be repeated apart altogether from heresies—even
so the anti-Doketic propositions of Ignatius in and by
themselves do not prove that Doketism existed in the
Churches to which he wrote.* After this indispensable
preliminary remark, we proceed to consider the Epistles
to the Ephesians, Trallians, Smyrneans, Magnesians, and
Philadelphians. Lightfoot’s most important service consists
in his having brought out distinctly the individuality of the
several Epistles. But in his treatment of the question of
heresy, he has not remained faithful to the method which
otherwise he has so successfully employed.
In the most comprehensive and most carefully elaborated
1 See Polye. chap. iii.: προσδόκα τὸν ἄχρονον, τὸν ἀόρατον, τὸν δ ἡμᾶς ὁρατόν,
τὸν ἁψηλάφητον, τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς παθητόν, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον δι ἡμᾶς
ὑπομείναντα. Rom. chap. vi.: ἐκεῖνον ζητῶ, τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα, ἐκεῖνον
θέλω, τὸν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀναστάντα... ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ
μου. Chap. νυἱῖ. : ἄρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος
Δαυείδ, καὶ πόμα θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος.
2. Ignatius would first meet with and learn to abhor Doketic Christology, not
in Asia Minor, but in Syria.
VOL. ΠῚ. N
178 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN HPISTLES.
Epistle, that to the Ephesians, Ignatius appeals to the
testimony of the Ephesian bishop, that no heresy existed in
the church, and that they refused to listen to false teachers.!
Εἰώθασιν yap twes—he continues in the seventh chapter—
δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες
ἀνάξια Θεῦδυ" ods δεῖ ὑμᾶς ὡς θηρία ἐκκλίνειν" εἰσὶν γὰρ κύνες
λυσσῶντες λαθροδῆκται, οὺς δεῖ ὑμᾶς φυλάσσεσθαι ὄντας
δυσθεραπεύτους. This exhortation is repeated four times in
the Epistle,” for he warns against κακοδιδασκαλία, and, 6.0.
in chap. ix. at the beginning, he expressly points to false
teachers who had been passing through Ephesus.* But
this is all that we here learn of the heretics. Ignatius says
nothing in any single passage regarding the nature of their
false teaching. But he does give expression in several
passages in the most decided way to the anti-Doketic con-
fession,* and since, once, in chap. ix., the warning against
heresy follows immediately, it may be conjectured that here
at least he has the Doketists in view. Still this conclusion
is not quite certain, since an anti-Doketic confession stands
in chapter xx. without having in this connexion any
reference to heretics. Faith in the reality of the historical
appearing of “our God,” together with subordination to
the bishop, appears to Ignatius as the means of salvation
from all evil, and as the source of all blessings. But it is
deserving of special notice that there is not a single word
about Judaists, or any warning against Judaism.
The state of matters in the Epistle to the Trallians is
quite clear. This Church is warned against Doketists, and
against them only. Ignatius wishes by this warning to
1 See chap. vi.
2 See chap. viil., beginning; chap. ix., beginning; chap. xvi.; and chap. xvii.,
beginning. ‘
3 Ἔγνων παραδεύσαντάς Twas ἐκεῖθεν, ἔχοντας κακὴν διδαχήν. What place is to
be understood by ἐκεῖθεν is uncertain.
4 See especially, chaps. ix., xviii., and xx.
5 See chaps. ‘vi.-xi., espec. chap. x.: εἰ δέ, ὥσπερ τινὲς ἄθεοι ὄντες, τουτέστιν
ἄπιστοι, λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν πεπονθέναι αὐτόν, K.T.D.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 179
prevent a possible seduction. He says expressly that
‘hitherto the Church has continued pure. Here again there
is not the slightest reference to Jews or Judaists.
From the Epistle to the Smyrneans it seems that this
Church was most severely threatened with danger from the
seductions of heretics, but had hitherto shown itself valiant.
In this Epistle Ignatius begins immediately with a polemic
against the heretics, and continues it down to the seventh
chapter. That these were Doketists admits of no doubt,!
but we discover in this Epistle other characteristics of these
heretics. They are people puffed up with pride, carried
away by their heavenly knowledge, and despising faith
in the blood of Christ. In regard to this, he says: περὶ
ἀγάπης οὐ μέλει αὐτοῖς, ov περὶ χήρας, οὐ περὶ ὀρφανοῦ, ov
περὶ θλιβομένου, οὐ περὶ δεδεμένου ἢ λελυμένου, οὐ περὶ
πεινώντος ἢ διχῶντος" εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται
διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν,
ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν. Here we have the
picture of the Gnostics with which we are familiar in
Treneus and Tertullian; they are the assembly of the
knowing ones, and they put out of sight the practical
tasks of Christianity. There is nowhere any reference
to Judaisers.”
The conclusions to be drawn from what we have seen are
these: in the Epistles to the Trallians and to the Smyr-
nans, and probably also in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
Doketic Gnostics are combated; in the Epistle to the
Smyrneans, these are most distinctly characterised. There
were teachers gathering about who sought to found a sect
within the Churches; and for them Ignatius can only give
1 See chap. ii.; ἀληθῶς ἔπαθεν, ὡς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀνέστησεν ἑαυτόν" οὐ ὥσπερ ἀπιστοί
elves λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτον πεπονθέναι, αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ὄντες.
3 The words (chap. v.): ods οὐκ ἔπεισαν αἱ προφητεῖαι οὐ δὲ ὁ νόμος Μωσέως,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μέχρι νῦν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (see also chap. vii. p. 308)—might be uttered
against any heresy.
180 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
expression to the deepest abhorrence:' they ought not
to be received, yea, wherever possible, one should not
even once meet with them. There is not the slightest
intercourse between them and Ignatius. That they
reconvmend the observance of the law of Moses, and are
connected with the Jews, is affirmed in no single passage,
or even hinted at. Least of all in the Epistle to the
Smyrneans, in which the heretics are so carefully deline-
ated, would their Judaism have been overlooked, if they
had been Judaists.
An entirely different picture is preserved in the Epistle to
the Magnesians. In chapters 1. to vil. and xu. to xv. there
is no allusion made to any sort of heretics. On the other
hand the section embracing the 8th, 9th, and 10th chapters
begins with the words: Μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις μηδὲ
μυθεύμασιν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελέσιν οὖσιν᾽ εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν
κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰχηφέναι, and
ends with the words: Ἄτοπον ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν λαλεῖν
καὶ ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν' ὁ yap Χριστιανισμὸς οὐκ εἰς ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸν
ἐπίστευσεν, ἀλλ’ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸς εἰς Χριστιανισμὸν, ᾧ πᾶσα
γλῶσσα πιστεύσασα εἰς Θεὸν συνήχθη. The subject treated
of here is the danger of falling back into the Jewish mode
of life in respect of the ceremonial law. Hence we find in
this section clear notions which one would seek for in vain
in the Epistles to the Ephesians, Trallians, and Smyrneans,
namely : μυθεύματα τὰ παλαία (chap. ν111.), παλαία πράγματα
(chap. 1x.), ἡ κακὴ ζύμη, ἡ παλοωθεῖσα καὶ ἐνοξίσασα
(chap. ix.), νέα ζύμη (chap. x.), καινότης ἐλπίδος (chap. 1Χ.),
σαββατίζειν (chap. 1x.), κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες (chap. 1Χ.), κατὰ
Χριστιανισμὸν ζήν (chap. x.), ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν (chap. x.), etc. It
is further said, that the Old Testament Prophets themselves
1 Eph. chap. vii. θηρία, κύνες λυσσώντες, λαθροδῆκται, δυσθεράπευται. Chap.
XVii. δυσώδια THs διδασκαλίας τού ἄρχοντος τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. Trall. vi. θανάσιμον
φάρμακον. Chap. vill. αἱ ἐνέδραι τοῦ διαβόλου. Chap. xi. καρπὸς θανατηφόρος.
Chap. x. ἄθεοι, ἄπιστοι. Smyrn. chap. ii. ἄπιστοι, ὄντες δαιμονικοί. Chap. iy.
θηρία τὰ ἀνθροπομόρφα. Chap. v. συνήγοροι τοῦ θανάτου, ete.
GHENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 181
lived after Christ Jesus (chap. viii.), that they were disciples
of Christ and waited for Him (chap. ix.), that Jesus Christ
is not merely a man, such as we are, but the Son of God and
the Logos of God ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών (chap. vill.). From
this it follows that Ignatius here combats a tendency to
fall back into Ebionitism. In this connexion it is to be
observed: (1) that he warns emphatically not against a
false doctrine but against a false life ; (2) that he here utters
no word of abhorrence and revolt, but in a calm, fatherly,
friendly address combats the Judaizing, and (3) that he does
not speak of false teachers who press into the Church from
without, but of a danger that can happen to a Church only
as proceeding from the bosom of the Church itself! We
have here a totally different picture from that presented to
us ὧν the Epistle previously examined. But are there not
here certain features, which show that this Ebionitism
was associated with Doketism? Lightfoot affirms this, but
wrongly. He appeals, first of all, to this that Ignatius speaks
of πλανᾶσθαι, ἑτεροδοξίαι, κενοδοξία, as in the other Epistles ;
but it is difficult to understand why the Judaistic danger
should not be so indicated, particularly as to ἑτεροδοξίαις is
added μυθεύμασι τοῖς παλαιοῖς. Lightfoot thinks, secondly,
that in chap. ix. (p. 130, 1 sq.), an allusion to Doketism
must be admitted. But, (1) the true reading is not ὅν τίνες
ἀρνοῦνται, but ὅ τινες apv.; so that it will refer to the
whole preceding sentence ; (2) Zahn has already correctly
perceived that 6 τινες is the beginning of a parenthesis
of Ignatius which extends to p. 134, 4; it can therefore
scarcely be made use of as indicating a characteristic of the
danger. But even apart from this, that which Ignatius has
here said, may very well be said of Judaists. There is
therefore absolutely no ground for the assertion that in the
Magnesian Epistle, Ignatius has uttered a warning against
1 See chap. xi; ταῦτα δὲ οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τινὰς ἐξ ὑμῶν οὕτως ἔχοντας ἀλλ᾽ ὡς
μικρότερος ὑμῶν θέλω προφυλάσσεισθαι ὑμᾶς.
182 DLIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
Judaistic Doketism.! He has uttered a warning against
Judaism and has combated it by reference to a Pauline
thought (chap. viii. p. 124, 2sq.), by maintaining that already
the Prophets had lived after Jesus Christ, and by the
reminder that Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of the
one God (υἱὸς τοῦ Θεδυ ὅς ἐστιν αὐτδυ λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελ-
θών). These arguments have absolutely nothing to do with
Doketism. The Judaists, then, in the Epistle to the
Magnesians were certainly not Doketists, and the Doketists
described in the Epistles to the Ephesians, Trallians, and
Smyrneans were not Judaists.
This fact would indeed be misunderstood by no one, if
the Epistles of Ignatius had come to us without the
HKpistle to the Philadelphians. It is in fact this Epistle
which has led scholars astray. It is the least calm and the
worst arranged of all the seven Epistles: The news which
Ignatius, while upon his journey, had received at Troas,
from Philadelphia, were in part painful to him. He
wrote the letter in haste, and this accounts for its abrupt-
ness in many passages. Still even here it may be shown
that there is no foundation for the idea that Ignatius com-
bats Judaistic Doketists. Chapter 11. 4, contains quite
general warnings against heretical and schismatical in-
trigues.”. A new section evidently begins with chapter v.
1 Lightfoot still appeals to chap. xi. (p. 135, 10 sq). From the confession of
Ignatius it follows that even in Magnesia the danger of Doketice error was
present. But what has been observed above should here be taken into account,
that nothing can be concluded from the anti-Doketic confessions of Ignatius.
Just as in the present day, at German Pastoral Conferences, the discussion of
the various forms of modern theological systems is regularly concluded by the
recitation of the Apostles’ Creed, so too Ignatius is ever repeating in season
and out of season his ἀληθῶς πραχθέντα. Moreover in regard to chap. xi. in
particular it is still to be observed,—(1) that the anti-Doketic element in this
Confession does not bulk very largely (see on the other hand, e.g. Eph. vii. and
Smyrn. i.), and (2) that}Ignatius has already in chap. x. ended the description
of the peril that. threatened the Church.
5 Lightfoot wishes to conclude from the greeting that Ignatius refers to
Doketists. I dissent from this. See above.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 183
which reaches down to chapter vi. (p. 265, 8). It is in
thorough agreement with Magnes. chap. viii.-x. Here there
is a warning against Judaism and against nothing else.
Even Lightfoot has not been able to discover in this section
any traces of Doketism. Chapter vi. (p. 265, 8-12) brings
forward quite suddenly a personal remark, with which is
joined a self justification of Ignatius which is somewhat
dark to us. It deals with the attempt of some schismatics,
who are not more particularly designated, to win over
Ignatius to their side. This had happened at the time
when he was in Philadelphia. He did not allow himself
to be talked over by them, but had his answers ready
for them: τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερέῳ καὶ
διακόνοις (chap. vii.). After his departure, however, some one
represented it as if he had not been sufficiently decided in
opposition to these people. How can any one suppose that
these were the same Doketists whom he combated in the
Kpistle to the Smyrneans! How very differently had he
spoken against these, from what we find in the seventh
chapter! No, they were enthusiasts, separating from the
fellowship of the Church, who sought to win him over.
They were neither Judaists, nor Doketists, nor Judaistic
Doketists. The unity of the Philadelphian Church was
thus threatened, (1) by Judaism, (2) by enthusiastic schis-
matics. But yet a third danger was present; and this
forms the subject of a section in chapters vill. and ix. (p. 269,
13, to p. 276, 4. There were contentious people! in the
Church who would on no account set up the Jewish man-
ner of life,—it is not such that are referred to—but who,
like the Apologists in later times, made their faith in the
gospel dependent upon the Old Testament prophecy. They
1 Consider the introduction of the section: παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς μηδὲν κατ᾽
ἐριθείαν πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Χριστομαθίαν. Here the question is not about
heretics or schismatics in the strict sense of the word, but about theologians
who underestimated the supremacy of the gospel over against the Old
Testament,
184 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
would only believe that which had been prophesied in the
Old Testament.1 In regard to this Ignatius admits, on
the one hand, that everything is written down in the Old
Testament, that has been fulfilled in the gospel; but he
confesses, on the other hand, that the supreme authority is
Jesus Christ Himself, His cross, His death, His resurrection,
and that the men of God of the Old Testament are in no
particular over Christ, but had need of Him as the door
of entrance to God. There is absolutely no reference to
Doketism.
From the Epistle to the Philadelphians then we obtain
a much more complicated picture of the Church, than from
the Epistles to the Ephesians, Trallians and Magnesians.
Ignatius here combated very different errors, and shows us
a Church which is agitated by different movements. This
is not surprising, if Ignatius was acquainted with the Church
at Philadelphia from personal knowledge, but not so with
those others.
To gather up the results thus reached: the identification
of the Judaists and the Gnostics in the Ignatian Epistles is
quite inadmissible. Ignatius combats the Doketists in the
Epistles to the Ephesians, the Trallians, and Smyrneans,
while in the Epistles to the Magnesians and Philadelphians
he warns against the Ebionistic danger. In the last named
Hpistle especially he warns against other tendencies which
threatened the unity of the Church.
When Lightfoot affirms that ‘‘the earliest forms of
Christian Gnosticism were Judaic,’ I will not contradict
him.? The Ignatian Epistles, however, do not show us those
1 Such cultured Christians were numerous in the second century. Augustine
in a well known passage has said; evangelio non crederem, nisi me commoveret
ecclesie catholice auctoritas. In regard to those Christians, especially in
regard to the Apologists, the words may be used in an altered form: evangelio
non crederem, nisi me commoveret Veteris Testamenti auctoritas. Itis this view
that Ignatius combats.
2 Lightfoot refers to the errors combated in the Epistle to the Colossians,
and in the Pastoral Epistles.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 185
earliest forms, but the usual Gentile forms of Christian
Gnosticism. Therefore, an argument for the genuineness of
the Epistles can no more be obtained here than from the
delineation of the Episcopate.
1. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLES.
The Epistles of Ignatius and the Epistle of Polycarp are
no forgeries; they are written by the men by whom they
profess to have been written,—by an Antiochian Bishop
Ignatius, and by the Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, of whom
Irenzus, Polycrates, and Tertullian have spoken with great
respect, whose martyrdom has been described to us by
eye-witnesses. But when were these Epistles composed ?
Lightfoot answers, in the age of Trajan (A.D. 100-118), for
he regards a more exact determination of the date as im-
possible. He reaches this conclusion on the ground of
researches, which in regard to scholarship must awaken the
astonishment and admiration of all.!' I feel specially called
upon to thank him for the painstaking consideration he has
given to my work, Die Zeit des Ignatius.”
But is this judgment pronounced by Lightfoot with such
confidence one that can stand the test? I believe that it
cannot; and further, I think the admittedly profound learn-
ing of Lightfoot has contributed little or nothing to the
main question, and that he has not rightly comprehended
the problem. After he has convinced himself and his
readers of the genuineness of the Epistle of Polycarp, Light-
foot seeks immediately to clear away the objections, which
are brought against assigning the Epistle to the age of
Trajan. But this is not the proper method. In the entire
Ignatian controversy, the Epistle of Polycarp is the one
1 See vol. ii. pp. 433-470.
? Leipzig, 1878. See also my Article in the Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 1884. No. 6.
186 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
fixed point. From it, therefore, without reference to the
Ignatian Epistles, we must proceed in determining the
chronological question.1
1. What does the external evidence tell us of the date of
the Epistle of Polycarp? It tells us absolutely nothing.
No ecclesiastical writer has mentioned the Emperor during
whose reign the Epistle was written, or has otherwise given
any indication of its date. So the letter may have been
written any time between A.p. 100-155.
2. What does the Epistle itself say about the time of its
composition? Directly it says nothing at all. The state of
matters in Philippi, which it presupposes, may have existed
just as well in A.D. 150 as in 100. But certain indications
are yet discernible. (1) Polycarp has freely used all the
Pauline Epistles with the exception of Colossians, Phile-
mon, lst Thessalonians, and Titus, and likewise the Epistle
of Clement of Rome, written about the year A.D. 96, and
also, though without naming the authors, lst Peter and
Ist John. It may be assumed with great probability that
Polycarp had before him the thirteen Pauline Epistles.
It is certainly possible that these Epistles had been al-
ready collected by the years a.p. 100, but there is no
probability in favour of this view. The use of the First
Kpistle of Clement also proves this opinion. (2) Polycarp
writes in chap. vil.: Πῶς yap ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντιχριστός ἐστιν᾽ καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ
ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν" καὶ
ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύη τὰ λόγια τοῦ κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας,
καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε κρίσιν, οὗτος πρωτότοκος ἐστι
τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Whoever considers these words without refer-
ence to the Ignatian Epistles, will regard them as pointing
1 Lightfoot proceeds by the directly opposite method. See, for example, his
treatment of Polyc. chap. vii. ‘The passage in the Epistle, if genuine, must
have been written before a.p. 118.” Why? Lightfoot answers: ‘‘ Because the
Epistles of Ignatius were certainly written before 118.” But this is just the
question.
GHENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 187
not to the time of Trajan, but to that of Hadrian and
Antoninus Pius. Of “ Judaic-Christian Gnosis,’ there is
no mention here at all. We have rather the repudiation of
the most important characteristics of cultured, Gentile-
Christian Gnosticism, the Doketism from ‘which proceeded
the evaporating of the redeeming work of Christ, and the
corrections for a purpose (¢endenzios) of the traditional
words of the Lord;regarding the resurrection of the body
and the dramatic judgment of the world. With some pro-
bability, we may here even take a step further. These
words suit no one better than Marcion, who must have
been already working in Asia Minor in a.p. 180-140.
Yea, so far as we know, the description of full-blown
Doketism in combination with the μεθοδεύειν τὰ λόγια TOD
κυρίου, applies to him only in Asia Minor. Of him also the
strong expressions—avtixpiotos, υἱὸς τοῦ διαβόλου, πρωτό-
τοκὸς τοῦ Satava—can be appropriately used. Justin, too,
the earliest opponent of Marcion known to us, designates
Marcion alongside of Simon Magus and Menander, as a
messenger of the demons.t Now we know on abundant
testimony that Polycarp calls Marcion πρωτότοκος τοῦ
Σατανᾶ.3 Polycarp certainly in his long life may have
applied this expression to other heretics, but we have no
instance of this. If it be regarded not as a mere general
abusive term, but as one to be taken in its strict sense, only
one can be the first-born of Satan.* Lightfoot, however,
seeks by two arguments to demonstrate the impossibility of
1 See Apol., i. 26.
2 See Irenaeus iii. 3, 4: καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ἸΤολύκαρπος Μαρκίωνι ποτὲ εἰς ὄψιν αὐτῷ
ἐλθόντι καὶ φήσαντι, ἐπιγινώσκεις ἡμᾶς; ἀπεκρίθη" ἐπιγινώσκω σε τὸν πρωτότοκον
τοῦ Σατανᾶ.
3 Lightfoot shelters himself under the following possibility ; he says (vol. i.
p. 572), ‘‘Ireneus, as he tells us in the context, was acquainted with the
Epistle, and it is quite possible that in repeating the story of Polycarp’s inter-
view with Marcion he inadvertently imported into it the expression which he
had read in the Epistle.” Fortunately Lightfoot himself regards this desperate
expedient as not very probable.
188 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
referring the expression in chap. vil. to Marcion.! In the
first place, Marcion was a rigid ascetic; hence Polycarp
cannot say of him, that he alters the words of the Lord
“according to his own carnal lust.’ In the second place,
it is not true of Marcion, that he denied the Judgment, for
according to Marcion, the God of the Jews is the Judge.
I regret that Lightfoot should have brought forward these
two arguments. Why should πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας be
understood in a carnal sense? In many places ἐπιθυμία
means the wilful, evil affections of the heart, without any
idea of fleshly lusts being present. I refer only to 2 Tim.
lv. 3: ἔσται yap καιρὸς ὅτε τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ
ἀνέξονται, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισωρεύ-
σουσιν διδασκάλους. As regards the Judgment, we may
compare Tertull. adv. Marc., 1. 27: ‘‘Marcionite interrogati,
quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abjici illum
quasi ab oculis.”” This aljectio they expressly distinguished
from the Judgment. Hence Tertullian in a long discussion
shows that there must be a judgment, and that Marcion
involves himself in self-contradictions. The Jewish God
is certainly judicialis according to Marcion, but that is not
the point here in question. The matter under discussion
here is whether Marcion denied that great final Judgment
which Jesus and the apostles had preached. Thus the
words of Polycarp, λέγη μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε κρίσιν, are
thoroughly applicable to Marcion, who struck out or ex-
plained away all the passages of Luke’s Gospel which
referred to the resurrection of the body, and to the Judg-
ment day of the Father of Jesus Christ.
The result of what we have said is this: There are no
arguments of undoubted certainty to show that Polycarp’s
Epistle was written after 130, but all indications of time
point to this date, and make it very probable that the Epistle
1 See vol. i. p. 570 sq.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 189
was not composed earlier! On the other hand, not even a
single observation can be quoted which recommends the assign-
ing of the Epistle to the period between A.D. 100-130, on still
less, between 100 and 118.?
We pass now to the Ignatian Epistles. These must—and
here we agree with Lightfoot—have been written some
time before the Epistle of Polycarp. But has Lightfoot
brought forth any argument from the Epistles themselves
on behalf of the opinion that they originated between A.D.
100 and 118? In his large work I have not found one.
The Epistles do not name any emperor, any pro-consul,
any year. They leave us, therefore, at perfect liberty to
bring them down to the first half of the second century,
Where we can best understand them. There will still be
always present in them an element enigmatical enough,
wherever we place them ; but the direction which Polycarp’s
Epistle affords us is still very helpful. No one can deny
that the Ignatian Epistles correspond better with what
we know of the earliest Church history if we assign it to
- the year 130 rather than to an earlier date. We find it
more conceivable that at that time the monarchical epis-
copate had already obtained a firm footing in Asia Minor ;
the sentence—oi ἐπίσκοποι of κατὰ Ta πέρατα ὁρισθέντες
(Eph. iii.)—is less difficult; that the Gnostic Doketism
was already so widely spread is more easily comprehended.
That Ignatius did not speak of the Apostle John in the
Hpistle to the Ephesians is less of a stumbling block, if it
was written about A.D. 130-140, than if it had been written
about A.D. 100. That Ignatius wrote of the λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς
προελθών, and combated those Christian teachers who would
put faith in the Gospel only on the ground of the au-
1 T do not believe it would have occurred to any one to assign the Epistle of
Polycarp to the age of Trajan, if the Ignatian Epistles had not existed.
* Even Lightfoot has not been able to quote any single passage from Poly-
carp’s Epistle, which would make it probable that this Epistle was written be
tween the years 100 and 118.
190 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
thority of the Old Testament, is more in accordance with
the age of the Apologists than with that of Trajan. In a
word, the indications of time which have led us to assign
the Hpistle of Polycarp to the year 130, are confirmed by
the Ignatian Epistles, while no single passage in the seven
Kpistles of Ignatius can be pointed to as supporting the
view that they could not have been written later than the
age of Trajan.
If, however, we should convince ourselves that the
Hpistles were composed in the age of Trajan, we should
take the more difficult step, and assign the Epistles of
Ignatius and Polycarp to the age of John, because a
hundred years later Origen named Ignatius as the second
bishop of Antioch after Peter, and because two hundred
years later Husebius asserted that Ignatius had suffered
martyrdom under Trajan.
I have shown in my work on the Age of Ignatius that
we do not possess other authorities for the date of Ignatius’
martyrdom, and Lightfoot has acknowledged this. Setting
aside what is disputed,' let us estimate the value of these
two witnesses.
(1) Before Eusebius, that is, before the beginning of
the fourth century, no one, so far as we know, associated
Ignatius with Trajan. From the statement of Origen
it can only be concluded that he possessed a list of Anti-
ochian bishops in which Ignatius was named as the second
bishop after Peter.2. When Origen says that Ignatius
fought ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ at Rome with wild. beasts, this
naturally is no independent statement, but is taken from
1 It is possible that Hort is right in his modification of my hypothesis as to
the relations of the Antiochian and Roman lists of bishops (see vol. il. p.
461 sq.). I shall not here enter further into the question, but shall assume
Hort and Lightfoot’s standpoint that Eusebius was acquainted with the fact
that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan. I shall even set aside Julius
Africanus, as I have not found time to work up the whole subject.
> According to Athanasius, however (de Synod. Arimini et Seleucia, 47),
Ignatius is ὁ μετὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐν Αντιοχείᾳ κατασταθεὶς ἐπίσκοπος.
GENUINENESS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 191
the Epistles of Ignatius.1 The chronological statements
regarding Ignatius therefore begin, not with an account of
the date of his martyrdom, but with a statement of his
position in the record of Antiochian bishops. But such
statements deserve no credence in and by themselves, but
must first prove their credibility. A cautious critic will
be just as slow to accept the chronology of a list of Anti-
ochian bishops first appearing in the third century, as to
admit that Linus was the first bishop of Rome. The truth
of the statement that Ignatius was the second bishop of
Antioch, we have no means of sifting.
(2) Eusebius in his Church History has not expressly
said that it was under Trajan that Ignatius suffered mar-
tyrdom. He has not placed Ignatius in any distinct
connexion with Trajan. He has indeed appealed to vague
tradition about Ignatius in connexion with the Epistles; ὃ
but he has not in his Church History founded any chrono-
logical result upon this tradition.
(3) In his Chronicle—I take the most favourable instance
—Eusebius, on the ground of a tradition that had reached
him (not on account of an arbitrary arrangement), placed
in the time of Trajan the martyrdom of Ignatius, whom
he reckons, as in the Church History, the second of the
Antiochian bishops, and this notice is the source of all
later assertions of the same date. Even if we were not in
the position to gainsay this statement, ought we to suspend
by spider’s thread of a fourth century Adyos the weight of
a decision, which sets for us a hundred questions? Should
we give no consideration to all internal grounds? Still it
is possible to traverse this position. First of all, the report
is demonstrable that Ignatius was the second of the
1 Tn opposition to Lightfoot who regards himself as justified in concluding
from this expression that Origen puts the martyrdom of Ignatius, either under
Domitian, or under Trajan.
2 Hist. Eccles., iii. 36,3: Λόγος δ᾽ ἔχει τοῦτον ἀπὸ Συρίας ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων
πόλιν ἀναπεμφθέντα θηρίων γενέσθαι βορὰν τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν.
192 LIGHTFOOT ON THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
bishops of Antioch; then, a hundred years later, comes
the report that he died in the persecution under Trajan.
Now where but in the time of Trajan should chronologists
of the third century place the death of the second bishop
of Antioch? The time of Domitian was too early and that
of Hadrian or of Antoninus Pius was too late. In the two
propositions, that Ignatius suffered martyrdom in a perse-
cution, and that he was the second bishop of Antioch, we
have the premisses of Eusebius’ declaration that he suffered
death under Trajan.
To sum up my judgment :—The Epistles of Ignatius and
Polycarp were probably written after the year A.D. 130;
that they had been composed so early as A.D. 100 or 118,
ws ὦ mere possibility, which is highly improbable, because
it is not supported by any word in the Epistles, and because
vt rests only wpon a late and very problematic witness.
I here conclude my notes on this work. If I have
allowed expressions of dissent to bulk more largely than
indications of agreement, it is not because the former are
in excess of the latter. But just because on so many
points I agree with the author, I have felt under obligation
to examine fully those questions, on which he has not con-
vinced me. I close with the expression of my heartiest
thanks for the pleasure which I have obtained from the
study of this admirable work.
Giessen. A. HARNACK.
193
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
HY. Tee Kine Priest.
‘Having then a great High Priest, who hath passed through the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a High
Priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that
hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us there-
fore draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy,
and may find grace to help us in time of need.’’— Hes. iv. 14-16 (Rey. Vers.) ;
Wit 90: Vill. 1.
No thoughtful person can seriously regard the circum-
stances of his life without feeling the need of forgiveness
and the need of strengthening. He looks back upon the
past and he sees not only failures, but unnecessary failures.
“He has done what he ought not to have done, and he has
not done what he ought to have done.” He looks forward
to the future, and he sees that while the difficulties of duty
do not grow less with added years, the freshness of en-
thusiasm fades away, and the temptation to accept a lower
standard of action grows more powerful. Perhaps in the
words of Hood’s most touching lyric, he thinks ‘he’s
farther off from heaven Than when he was a boy.” At
any rate, he does feel that in himself he has not reached
and cannot reach that for which he was born, that which
the spirit of divine discontent within him, a discontent
made keener by temporal success, still marks as his one
goal of peace. For when Augustine said, Tw nos fecisti
ad te, Domine, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat
im te, he proclaimed a fact to which every soul bears
witness in the silence of its self-communings. We know
that we were made for God; we know that we have been
separated from God; we know that we cannot acquiesce in
the desolation of that divorce.
We know, I say, that we have been separated from God.
The sense of this separation makes itself felt in two ways.
VOL. III. [9
194 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR :
When we reflect what God is and what we are we shrink
from His presence; and we confess that we are unworthy
to do Him service. At the same time, by a splendid con-
tradiction, we still’seek instinctively for some way of access
by which we may draw near to Him, and for some channel
of grace through which our sin-stained tribute may be
brought before His throne.
So it has been that men in every age have made priests
for themselves, to stand between them and their God, to
offer in some acceptable form the sacrifices which are the
acknowledgment of sin, and the gifts which are the symbol
of devotion. The institution of the priesthood has been
misused, degraded, overlaid with terrible superstitions, but
in its essence it corresponds with the necessities of our
nature. Therefore it has been interpreted and fulfilled in
the Bible. And we can yet learn much from the figures of
the Levitical system in which the priesthood of this world
was fashioned by the Spirit of God in a form of marvellous
significance and beauty. The law of the priestly service in
the Old Testament is indeed a vivid parable of the needs,
the aim, the benediction of human life. Day by day,
morning and evening, the broad lessons of atonement and
consecration were read with simple and solemn emphasis ;
and once in the year, on the Great Day of Atonement, “‘ the
Day,’’ as it was called, the lessons were set forth in detail
with every accessory of majestic ritual, so that the simplest
worshipper could hardly fail to take to himself with intelli-
gent faith the warnings and the consolations of the august
ceremonial. On that day, as will be remembered, the High
Priest, after elaborate cleansings, for himself, for his family,
and for the people, arrayed in white robes, entered, in the
virtue of a surrendered life, into the dark chamber, which
God was pleased to make His dwelling place, and offered
incense in the golden censer, and sprinkled the blood, and
uttered aloud, according to tradition, on that occasion only,
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 195
the most sacred Name; and then, after completing the
purification of the whole Temple, he dismissed into the
wilderness the scape-goat on which he had laid the sins of
the people. On that day, though but for a passing moment,
Israel in their representative appeared before the revealed
presence of the Lord their God. On that day they received
from Him most directly the assurance of forgiveness and
blessing—mercy and grace to help in time of need.
Now we can, I think, all understand what must have
been the consolation, the strength, the joy, with which that
service inspired the faithful Jew. How it must have spoken
peace in the name of Jehovah to the troubled conscience,
and brought vigour to the trembling; how, as the passing
weeks added weight to the burden of remembered sins, the
people must have looked forward to the message brought
again from the innermost sanctuary of Truth, that the
divine compassion was as vast as their distress ; how in the
power of that visible pardon they would, within a few days,
join in the Feast of Tabernacles, ‘‘ the holiest and greatest ”’
of all their festivals, and show for a brief space the gladness
of social life fulfilled by the gift and in the sight of God.
We can understand all this; and therefore, when we
make the effort, we can understand what the Hebrew
Christians must have felt when they found themselves at last
excluded from all share in this consolation, this strength,
this joy, which they had known from their childhood.
Here was a trial which reached to the very foundation of
their spiritual life. It was not only that they were con-
demned to suffering; that might be a beneficent chastening
of sons. But they seemed to be bereft of the appointed
assurance, given in a form suited to the conditions of earth,
that God was accessible to man.
This was a distress which called for a deep-reaching
remedy ; and the writer of the Epistle meets it as he meets
all distress. He does not direct his readers as he might
196 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
have done, and the fact calls for careful thought, to the
outward institutions of the Christian society ; he does not
show how provision had been made by the love of God
to bring the power of the Gospel to bear on the whole
range of human life, outward and inward; he does not
point out how sacraments as revelations of the eternal go
immeasurably beyond types which are prophecies of the
future. He leads the Hebrews in their forlorn loneliness
at once to Christ, to Jesus, the Son of God. He recognises
with tender sympathy, he alone we must notice of the
apostolic writers, the grace and the splendour of the old
order; he dwells with reverent memory on the significance
of the ritual which he had known; and then he shows how
to the Christian every symbol had become a truth, every
shadow a reality, every imaged hope a fact in a perfect
human life; he shows how the sacrifice of Christ was
efficacious for ever, ‘‘ one act at once;’’ how the humanity
of Christ was a new and living way to the Father; how
on the divine throne placed above the opened heavens, was
seated One who was Priest according to the power of an
indissoluble life.
In doing this he carries forward the line of revelation
which we have already considered. The work of Christ on
earth was the preparation for His work in heaven.
He who fulfilled the destiny of man, under the condi-
tions of the present world; He who interpreted the disci-
pline of suffering; He who bore humanity through death
to the presence of God—not as one man of men, but as
the Head of the whole race; did all this that He might
be a merciful and faithful High Priest, and that He might
apply to those whom He was not ashamed to call brethren,
the virtue of His Life and Passion, and reconcile in a
final harmony the inexorable claims of law, and the in-
finite yearnings of love, a Priest and yet a King.
For indeed at first and at last the kingly and princely
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 197
offices cannot be kept apart. He who makes atonement
must direct action. He who demands the complete ser-
vice of every power must hallow the powers of which He
claims the ministry. The ruler who consecrates, the
priest who rules, must, in the words already quoted, be
merciful and faithful; He must have absolute authority
and perfect sympathy; authority that He may represent
God to man, sympathy that He may represent man to God.
And such is Christ made known to us, King and Priest,
Priest after the order of Melchisedek, in whose mysterious
person the old world on the edge of a new dispensation
met and blessed the father of the faithful. Therefore the
writer of the Epistle once again is able to appeal to the
human conscience to justify the Gospel. Therefore he
can say, when he has shown what Christ is, able to save
to the uttermost with royal power, ever living to make inter-
cession with priestly compassion ; such a High Priest became
us—we with our poor faculties can see how He answers
to our wants—holy in Himself, guileless among men, wi-
defiled in a corrupt world, separated from sinners in the
conflict of this visible order, and made higher than the
heavens . . . ὦ Son perfected for evermore.
Yes, the apostolic words are true for us, true while
there is one sin to vex the overburdened conscience, one
struggle to strain the feeble will, swch a High Priest became
us. And it is well for us to turn again and again with
reverent devotion to Him as we know, and that we may
know better, our faults and our weakness.
We need not dwell long upon His authority. Son of
God in His own essential nature, He vindicated His Son-
ship among men. He brought humanity at each stage of
His advancing life into perfect fellowship with God, offer-
ing a perfect service as well as a perfect sacrifice, and then
at last—most marvellous paradox—He offered Himself in
death upon the cross, and living through death, His earthly
198 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
work ended, He entered on the glory of His eternal priest-
hood, and sat down on the right hand of God.
That single phrase “sat down on the right hand of
God,’ on which the writer of the Epistle dwells with
solemn emphasis, marks the unique dignity of the ascended
Christ. Priests stand in their ministry; angels stand
or fall prostrate before the Divine Majesty; but the Son
shares the Father’s throne. As Priest, as Intercessor, He
reigns still, reigns in His glorified manhood.
There is our reassurance. Our Priest is King, and our
King is Priest. The Son of God is also Jesus, the Son of
man. His tender compassion is infinite even as His author-
ity. We know now that what Ezekiel saw in a vision has
become for us a fact. We see by faith upon the sapphire
throne not the shadowy likeness of a man, but One who
is true man; One who was made m all things like unto
His brethren; One who was tempted in all things after
our likeness; One who has known the bitterness of every
human trial, and who knows the secret of their use; One
whose sympathy goes out to every suffering creature as if
he were alone the object of His regard; One whose love
kindles to responsive warmth the faintest spark of faith.
We can feel then how the Hebrews through their ap-
parent loss were brought to an immeasurable gain, and
how we may learn a little better through their example
what our King-Priest is for us.
If human priests compassed with infirmity could inspire
confidence in the worshipper, then Christ, if we will lift
our eyes to Him, a thousandfold more. Their compassion
was necessarily limited by their experience, but His experi-
ence covers the whole field of life; their gentle bearing was
tempered by the consciousness of personal failure, but His
breathes the invigorating spirit of perfect holiness. They
knew the power of temptation in part by the sad lessons
of failure; He knew it to the uttermost by perfect victory.
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 199
They could see dimly through earth-born mists something
of the real hideousness of evil; He saw it in the undimmed
light of the Divine purity. And He is tenderest, not who
has sinned, as is sometimes vainly thought, but who has
known best the power of sin by overcoming it. His love
is most watchful who has seen what wrong is in the eyes
of God.
Can we not then boldly proclaim that here also the
Gospel covers the facts of life, of our life? that in the
prospect of the conflicts and defeats which sadden us, and
which we dare not disguise or extenuate, such a High
Priest became us, strong with the strength of God, compas-
sionate with the affection of a friend ?
We must cling to both these truths, and wrestle with
them, and win their blessing from them. We need the
revelation of Christ’s Majesty, and we need the revelation
of Christ’s Tenderness. We need more, I think, than we
know, to come each one of us into the presence of the
glorified Lord and rest in His light.
In this individual approach to the throne of grace lies for
us severally the promise of the fulfilment of our destiny ;
But ‘“‘earth’s children cling to earth,’ and there are many
among us who feel keenly the very trials which the
Hebrews felt ; who long for some visible system which shall
‘bring all heaven before their eyes,” for some path to the
divine presence along which they can walk by sight, for
recurrent words of personal absolution from some human
minister, for that which shall localise their centre of wor-
ship; who labour, often unconsciously, to make the earthly
the measure of the spiritual ; who shrink from the ennobling
responsibility of striving with untiring effort to hold com-
munion with the unseen and eternal; who turn back with
regretful looks to the discipline and the helps of a childly
age, when they are required to accept the graver duties of
maturity; required to listen, as it were, like Elijah on
200 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
the lonely mountain, when the thunder of the earthquake
is stilled and the violence of the fire is spent, for the stall
small voice.
These are not, I know, imaginary temptations; but if
we are tried and disquieted by their assaults, the writer of
the Epistle enables us to face them. He brings Christ near
to us and he bring us near to Christ. He discloses the
privileges to which we are all admitted by the ascended
Saviour. He gives an abiding application to the Lord’s
words, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. And
he does this without hiding one dark trait in the prospect
of life. The connexion in which the text stands gives it a
startling force. The apostolic author has recalled without
reserve, the sad history of Israel’s failure. He has painted
a vivid picture of the penetrating severity of the Divine
judgment, and then, drawing an unexpected conclusion
from this revelation of unbelief and weakness and retri-
bution, he continues: Having therefore a great High Priest
who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God,
let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a High
Priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infir-
mities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like
as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near
with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive
mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.
ivery word must go to the heart of those who have
known what life is, an inexorable order capable of being
transfigured by love. Every word has a practical force.
Never was the charge to hold fast our confession more
urgently needed. Never was the encouragement to come
directly to Christ more fitted to still the griefs of failure,
and to nerve the misgivings of weakness. Never was the
twofold necessity of rising out of themselves without losing
themselves more impressingly forced upon men by the
contrast between their ideal and their attainment, their
THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 201
destiny and their position; never was the Spirit more
openly claiming acceptance for growing Truth.
As then we have known a little of the power of our
Faith ; as we have felt the want of forgiveness and the
want of support; as we have learnt a little more clearly
with advancing years the grievousness of sin and the perils
of life, Jet ws, each in our place, hold fast our confession.
Let us draw near with boldness to the throne of grace—
giving utterance to every feeling and every wish—that we
may receive mercy—receive it as humble suppliants from
the Lord’s free love—and may jind—find as unwearied
searchers—grace to help in time of need.
That access is ever open to the foot of faith. That
mercy is unfailing to the cry of penitence. That grace is
inexhaustible to the servant who offers himself wholly to
the Master’s use.
Brooke Foss WEsrcort.
THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL.
Tur Books of Samuel present serious difficulties to the
translator, and it is scarcely possible to study them
without coming to the conclusion that in a large number
of cases these difficulties arise from the corrupt state of
the Massoretic text. The examination of the parallel
passages in the Books of Chronicles and the Psalter con-
firm this conclusion ; and when we turn to the Septuagint,
we find that a multitude of its renderings can hardly be
explained except on the hypothesis that the translators
had before them a Hebrew text differing very considerably
from the Massoretic text. The oldest form of the LXX.
is found in the Vatican MS. known as B: the Alexandrine
202 THH REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
MS. known as A has been extensively revised to bring it
into agreement with the Massoretic text; the Sinaitic MS.
unfortunately does not contain the Books of Samuel.
That the LXX. frequently misunderstood the Hebrew,
and that numerous glosses, duplicate renderings, and
corruptions have made their way into the text, is clear
enough; but it is equally clear that this version, and in
a less degree the other ancient versions, represent read-
ings which solve difficulties in the Hebrew text, and have
every appearance of being the true readings. To decide
between the rival readings is often a matter of extreme
delicacy and difficulty; in the absence of a variety of
ancient evidence the subjective judgment of the critic comes
largely into play, and conclusions will necessarily differ.
The Revisers have adopted a cautious course of action.
They have placed a considerable number of various read-
ings from the LXX. and other ancient versions in the
margin, and they have occasionally, though rarely, intro-
duced them into the text. They have recognised an
important principle by so doing; but it is questionable
whether they have been quite so bold as could be wished.
Some of the readings given in the margin are very dis-
tinctly superior to those of the text; and there are not
a few other readings which appear to have at least an
equal claim to be admitted to the margin with those
which are to be found there. Still, the Revisers have
recognised the imperfection of the Massoretic text, and
warned the reader that in cases where there is a doubt
as to the true reading, the passage must not be used in
argument without further investigation, such as is required
where there is a doubt as to the true rendering; and more-
over, that some of the apparent difficulties and discrepancies
in the Received Text are not due to the sacred writers
themselves, but to the accidental blunders or mistaken
zeal of copyists.
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 203
The First Book of Samuel. It will be noted that the
alternative title The First Book of the Kings, derived from
the Vulgate (Liber primus Regum), has been dropped. It
was at one time the more familiar name, and in Cover-
dale’s version the title runs: ‘‘ The first boke of the kynges,
otherwyse called the jirst boke of Samuel.”
1. Ephraimite for Ephrathite. The same Hebrew word
‘NIDN denotes both Ephraimite (Jud. xii. 5; 1 Kings xi.
26) and Ephrathite, i.e. native of Ephrath or Beth-lehem
(Ruth i. 2; 1 Sam. xvii. 12); but it is convenient to observe
the distinction in translation.
5. A double portion. This rendering gives an excellent
sense. Elkanah marked his love for his childless wife in
the same way as Joseph showed his affection for Benjamin
(Gen. xliii. 34). It is found in the Syriac version and
adopted by Gesenius, Keil, etc. But it is very doubtful
whether D'SX DON ΠΣ can be so rendered. The expres-
sion ὦ portion, one of two persons, for a double portion:
is very strange; and the sense of two persons for DYDN 15
unsupported. - Other renderings which have been proposed
are still more objectionable. A worthy portion of the A.V.
comes through the Jewish commentators from the Targum,
which renders one choice portion. But this explanation
rests on no philological basis. The Vulgate has ¢ristis ;
and so Coverdale, unto Anna he gave one deale hevely ;
but again this sense of DDN (lit. i sorrow) is unsupported
by satisfactory analogy. The Revisers have consequently
placed the reading of the LXX. in the margin. The words
‘because she had no child,’ may be merely an explana-
tory gloss; but howbeit (πλήν) points to a reading DDN for
DDN, which would get rid of the grammatical and lexical
difficulty. The clause ‘‘ howbeit Elkanah loved Hannah,”
was intended to make it clear that although he gave her
only a single portion, it was not from any want of love.
6. wal. See Prof. Driver’s note on Lev. xviii. 18,
204 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
where iT7¥ is shown to have been a technical term for a
rival or fellow-wife.
9. For, and after they had drunk, the Sept. reads, and
presented herself before the Lord. This reading, which is
approved by Thenius, Wellhausen and others, at least de-
served a place in the margin, as giving a connexion with
the following verses.
15. From the analogy of similar phrases, 6.0. ΞΡ Twp
Ezek. 11. 7, 717 NWP should mean obstinate not sorrowful,
and the reading attested by the LXX., DY NWP, whose lot
(lit. day) is hard (cf. Job xxx. 25), has strong claims to
consideration, and should have been placed in the margin.
16. Provocation, for grief; assimilation to v. 6, where
provoked her sore, is literally provoked her with provocation.
24. The reading of LXX. and Syr., a bullock of three
years old (cf. Gen. xv. 9), involves a very slight change in the
Hebrew text, Wow 7D for MWow OND; and appears to be
required by the reference to “‘ the bullock,” in v. 25, where
the A.V. wrongly gives ‘“‘a bullock.” The argument in
defence of the Hebrew text, that an ephah of flour implies
three animals, as three-tenths of an ephah was the pre-
scribed meal-offering for each bullock (Num. xv. 9), does
not go far, as meal-offerimgs were offered separately (Lev.
11.).. Still the def. article may denote “the one which
they had brought for the purpose,’ and the marg. reading
cannot be said to be certain.
28. Granted, for lent. Neither here, nor in Ex. xii. 36,
the only other passage in which the Hiphil of 9Xw occurs,
does it necessarily mean lend. Hannah does not surrender
Samuel with any intention of reclaiming him.
1.3. And by him, Heb. 1), is the K’ri, or tradition-
ally authorised reading. It is ‘distinctly preferable to the
C’thib ND), and not, which is rendered in the margin, though
actions be not weighed, i.e. though men do not reflect what
they are doing in their arrogance.
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 20
14. Therewith. So the Heb. text. The margin and
A.V. follow the reading of the LXX., Vulg., Syr., and
Targ., which seems preferable.
22. The women that did service at the door of the tent
of meeting. The same expression is found in Ex. xxxvill.
8. The verb ΝΙΝ, which is used of military service, is also
used of the service of the Levites in Num. iv. 23; vii. 24.
Here and in Exod., J.c., there appears to be a reference
to the regular employment of women in the service of the
Tabernacle ; probably in washing and needlework, and simi-
lar feminine occupations, not, as some have supposed, in
spiritual services of fasting and prayer.
25. God, for the judge. It is a disputed point whether
Elohim can mean judges. It certainly cannot mean judges
absolutely, but only in respect of their office as the re-
presentatives of God, pronouncing the judgment which
proceeds from Him. Cf. Ex. xxi. 6; xxii.8,9; Deut.1. 17.
Whichever rendering be adopted, the sense of the passage,
which as Ewald (Hist., 11. 412) suggests, may be an ancient
proverb, remains the same. When man offends against
man, there is a third superior authority, namely God, who
can intervene, either by Himself or by His authorised
representatives, to arbitrate between the parties: but when
Jehovah is the offended party, there is no one with
authority to mediate. The rendering judge is however
liable to obscure the ancient conception of judicial deci-
sions as proceeding from God.
28. To go up unto mine altar, i.e. to officiate thereat ;
taking ΠῚ), as infin. Kal. So LXX., Vulg., Syr. Cf.
Ex. xx. 26. But it may also be taken as a syncopated
infin. Hiphil for NVyN?, and rendered as in the marg.
and in A. V. There is a similar ambiguity in 1 Kings
mile 02,0.
11. 8. The R.V. follows the order of the Heb. The
A.V. transposes and Samuel was laid down to sleep, to
Οτ
206 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
the end of the verse, apparently to avoid the possible
inference that Samuel was sleeping in the actual sanctuary.
But 2°, temple, included the buildings which had been
raised round the Tabernacle (i. 9), in one of the chambers
of which Samuel was sleeping. ‘The Genevan translators
were more faithful to the text. ‘‘ And yer the light of God
went out, Samuel slept in the Temple of the Lord, where
the Arke of God was.”
11. 1 will do. Lit. 1 am doing. It is a pity that the
Revisers did not express this idiomatic use of the present
participle to denote the certainty of an event, which though
still future to the eyes of men, is already begun in the
Divine purpose. Cf. Gen. vi. 17; and see Prof. Driver’s
Tenses, § 135, 3.
iv. 1. It is certainly right, with Vulg. and Syr., to treat
the clause, And the word of Samuel came to all Israel, as
the conclusion of the preceding section, and not as the
introduction to what follows. The sense of the words is,
that Samuel communicated to all the people the revelation
which he had himself received; and not, as their position
in the Heb. text at the head of chap. iv. implies, that
Samuel summoned the people to commence the war which
ended so disastrously, and in connexion with which his
name is nowhere mentioned.
Now Israel went out. Before these words the LXX. and
Vulg. insert a clause which certainly deserved a place in
the margin. It not only relieves the abruptness of this
beginning, but explains the word against, lit. to meet
(ANP), which implies that the Philistines were the ag-
oressors. Tt runs: ‘“‘And it came to pass in those days, that
the Philistines gathered together to fight against Israel.”
8. Plagues. The marginal smiting should be noticed. It
is the same word as that translated slaughter in v.10. The
reference is not to the plagues, but to the overthrow of
Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, the shores of which
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 207
are called wilderness in Ex. xiv. 3. The consternation
produced among the Philistines by this disaster is referred
to in Ex. xv. 14; and Rahab speaks of it as inspiring the
Canaanites with terror (Josh. ii. 9 ff.).
- 18, By the way side watching. The Massoretic text can
hardly be sound. ‘JJ, way, requires the article; and the
way would naturally mean the road leading into the city.
But it is evident from what follows that the messenger did
not pass Eli as he entered the city, but came to him after
he had told his tidings there. The reading of the LXX.
given in the margin is certainly more probable. Eli was
sitting on his seat beside the gate of the outer court of
the Tabernacle (1. 9; cf. v. 18 of this chapter), with some
attendant beside him, watching the road by which the
messenger would arrive.
v.6; vi. 1. The additions in the LXX. state what the
Heb. text does not mention until vi. 5,6. They may be
merely an inference from vi. 5, 6, but there are many other
indications that the translators had a text before them in
these chapters differmg very considerably from the Mas-
soretic text.
vi. 6. When he had wrought wonderfully. There seems
to be no sufficient ground for departing here and in Ex.
x. 2 from the usual sense of ΟΡ ΠΤ, which is that given
in the margin. See Num. xxii. 29 : is Sam. xx 4: 96 Ὲ:
Xxxvill. 19. So LXX. ἐνέπαιξεν. The expression finds a
parallel in Ps. 11. 4.
vi. 18. Hven unto the great stone. The Heb. text is cer-
tainly corrupt, and J2N must be read with the LXX. and
Targum for D1N. But this is not the only corruption.
What is the meaning of even unto the great stone? and what
construction of the clause is possible? To supply which
stone remaineth is at least as violent an expedient as to
emend by reading (1) 1), or (2) 3), or (3) omitting Ty)
altogether; and rendering (1) and the great stone is a
208 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
witness . . ., or (2) and still the great stone remaineth,
or (8) and the great stone remaineth, etc.
19. Much has been written about this verse; and the
structure of it, as well as the curious variation of the LXX.,
make it all but certain that the text is corrupt. It seems
incredible that 50,070 men should have perished in a country
village; and the unexampled collocation seventy men, fifty
thousand men, without any copula, indicates that the larger
number is a gloss which has made its way into the text.
Possibly the number was originally expressed by a letter
used as a numerical sign, and explained once rightly and
once wrongly in marginal notes, both of which were eventu-
ally incorporated in the text. The Revisers might surely
have gone so far as to place the words fifty thousand men
in brackets. None of the attempts to explain the number
are satisfactory.
vill. 38. Lucre. Why should not Y83 be rendered unjust
gain, as in the description of the qualifications of a judge
in Ex. xviii. 21?
ix. 5. Take thought, i.e. be anxious. This archaism
retained here and introduced in x. 2, is not in this case
actually misleading, as it was in Matt. vi. 25; but it hardly
conveys to the ordinary reader the full sense of N77.
8, 16. The readings of the LXX. in v. 8, “that shalt
thow give,” for ‘that will J give,’ and in v. 16, “1 have
looked upon the afflictions of my people”’ (cf. Ex. 111. 7),
deserved mention in the margin.
x. 27. But he held his peace. The objection to this ren-
dering is that it does not explain the 5 prefixed to WM).
Why should it be said “‘he was as one holding his peace”? "
The objection to the marginal rendering is that the Hiphil
of WIN nowhere means to be deaf, though this sense may be
supported by the use of the Kal in Micah vi. 16. Thenius’
criticism moreover is sound, that in place of %") we should
expect to find the subject expressed, to mark the contrast
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 209
between Saul and his detractors. The reading of the LXX.,
found also in the ordinary text of the Vulgate in combina-
tion with that of the Massoretic text, has strong claims
to consideration. It gets rid of the difficulties, and forms
a suitable introduction to the next chapter, which otherwise
opens very abruptly. The change required in the con-
sonants is extremely slight, ΠΩ 4) for 29. VN, and
for the form of expression Gen. xxxviii. 24 may be com-
pared.
xii. 3. The various reading of the LXX. given in the
margin is of remarkable interest on this ground if on no
other, that it is at least as old as the Greek translation of
Eeclesiasticus, which was made not later than 130 B.c. In
ch. xlvi. 19 we read, ‘‘ And before his long sleep [Samuel]
made protestations in the sight of the Lord and His
anointed, I have not taken any man’s goods, so much as
a shoe (χρήματα καὶ ἕως ὑποδημάτων) : and no man did
accuse him.’’ But the complete incorporation of the sense
in the text makes it exceedingly probable that the reading
existed in the Hebrew original of Ecclesiasticus, for it is
not the kind of quotation which a translator might be
tempted to alter to agree with the version with which he
was familiar; and if so, the reading existed in the Hebrew
text of Samuel which the author of Ecclesiasticus used. It
is easy to see how °2 YY DY might be corrupted into
12 PY DON). As regards the intrinsic merits of the read-
ing, though DYN, even a pair of shoes, comes in somewhat
awkwardly, Δ VY, answer against me, 15. a great improve-
ment before DWN). A paw of shoes was a proverbial
expression for a mere trifle. Cf. Amos 11. 6; vill. 6.
ΧΙ]. 1. This verse is one of the clearest cases of the
imperfection of the Massoretic text. The words are the
formula commonly used to denote the age of a king at his
accession, and the length of his reign.! They cannot be
1 Cf. 2 Sam. ii. 10; v. 4, and frequently in the Books of Kings.
VOL, ILI. Ρ
210 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
rendered as in the A.V. They are entirely omitted by the
original LXX. (Cod. B); and the most probable account
of them is that they were introduced by a scribe who
thought it a convenient point for inserting the usual notice
of a king’s age and the length of his reign. But he left the
numerals blank; thirty, which is found in a later recension
of the LXX., is not improbable, for Saul was in the prime
of life when he was made king; but most likely it rests on
conjecture only. Two, however, cannot possibly be right.
The events of Saul’s reign must have occupied more than
two years, and the deterioration of his character presumes
a much longer period. Nor can two years be explained of
the time which had now passed since his accession. Apart
from the regular meaning of the formula, Jonathan appears
as a stalwart warrior, and if Saul was thirty at his acces-
sion, much more than two years, at least ten or fifteen
years, must have passed before the events recorded in this
chapter took place. Though two stands in the Hebrew
text, the Revisers ought certainly to have placed it in
brackets.1
xi. 21. Yet they had a file for the mattocks, etc. A most
difficult passage. OD M857 is rendered by the Targum,
which the Jewish commentators Kimchi and Rashi follow,
by ΝΒ, a file, lit. edge-sharpener; and Aquila’s barbarous
rendering, ἡ προσβόλωσις στόματα (προσβολή = point or
edge), represents the same meaning. In this case the
meaning will be that while for forge-work (Δ, v. 20=to
sharpen by forging) the Israelites had to go down to the
Philistines, they had files for ordinary use. But the root
corresponding to 185 appears in Arabic to bear the mean-
It is generally supposed that the numerals have fallen out, and that ‘NW is
the remains of the second, so that the original reading was perhaps ‘ twenty
and two” or “ thirty and two”; but Wellhausen conjectures with much proba-
bility that both numerals were originally left blank, and that ’N is only a
corruption of the initial letters of O'3v’, first accidentally repedted as ‘IY’ and
then changed for the sake of grammar to *NY.
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 211
ing to notch or blunt an edge; and the rendering of the
margin is very probably right. This sense was adopted
by Jerome, though he construed the sentence differently :
retuse itaque erant acies vomerum. And to set the
goads depends on went down.
xiv. 18,19. The Ark was sometimes carried out to the
field of battle; and it is hardly fair to say that the historian
must have mentioned its transportation from Kiriath Jearim
to Saul’s camp, if it was really there. But it is clear from
the context that Saul wished to consult the oracle whether
he should order an attack or not. And the Ephod which
contained the Urim and Thummim, not the Ark, was the
proper instrument for ascertaining the Divine will: and
bring hither is a term used of the Ephod, but not of the
Ark. See chaps. xxiii. 9; xxx. 7. Moreover, withdraw
thine hand, i.e. desist, would be quite inappropriate if he
was ordering Ahiah to get ready the Ark to be carried out
to battle. It seems certain that we should follow the LXX.,
and read, as in the margin, ephod for ark of God: and
he wore the ephod at that time before Israel, for the ark of
God was there at that time with the children of Israel. In
any case 32) must be corrupt, for it means and, not with
the children, and cannot be translated. A reminiscence of
the true reading is perhaps preserved in the Targum of
v. 19, which substitutes NTION AMD), bring near the ephod,
for withdraw thine hand.
51. The true reading of this verse is important, as
determining the relationship of Saul to Abner. Sauil’s
uncle in v. 50 may refer either to Abner or to Ner, but
more probably to the latter. Josephus expressly states
that Kish and Ner were brothers, and sons of Abiel, and
so attests the reading ONIN ‘12 for ‘8 13. Saul accord-
ingly was Abner’s first cousin, which agrees with the
general impression produced by the history, that they were
about of the same age, It is true that the genealogies
212 THE REVISHD VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
in 1 Chron. viii. 33; ix. 89, make Ner the father of Kish,
and consequently Abner Saul’s uncle; but Ner is not
mentioned among Saul’s ancestors in 1 Sam. ix. 1; and
as in 1 Chron. ix. 86, Kish and Ner appear as brothers,
Bertheau proposes to read in the other passages Ner begat
Abner, instead of Ner begat Kish.
xv. 12. Monwment for place. The Hebrew word 1’, lit.
hand, is applied in 2 Sam. xviii. 18 to Absalom’s pillar, and
similarly used in Isa. lvi. 5 for ὦ memorial; as it were an
outstretched hand to arrest attention. Here some kind
of a trophy or memorial of the victory is meant. Vulg.
fornicem triumphalem; and according to Jerome it was
an arch of myrtle palms and olives. Coverdale rightly : had
set him up a pillar; the A. V. place is the rendering of
Munster and Pagninus, and comes originally from the
Targum, which has a place to divide the spoil.
xvil. 2. The slight change of vale for valley should be
noticed. piv denotes the broad open vale ;* 83, valley,
denotes the depressed bed of the stream in the middle
of the vale. The opposing armies were encamped on the
mountain, i.e. the slopes on either side of the vale.
6. Javelin. The A. V. target follows the LXX. and
Vulg., and A. V. marg. gorget is derived from Kimchi; but
it is clear from Josh. viii. 18, 26 that some kind of a spear
is meant by })7°D.
12. The Revisers have justly noted in the margin that
vv. 12-31 and 55—chap. xviii. 5 are omitted in the
LXX. They are absent from B and some other MSS. ;?
though they are contained in A it is clear that at least
vv. 12-381 were absent from some ancestor of the MS., for
v. 12 begins with καὶ εἶπεν, the opening words of_v. 82,
which the scribe was actually beginning to copy, when he
stopped to incorporate the missing section. The Greek
version moreover differs in character from the LXX., and
τ Compare our Vale of White Horse and the like. * See Field's Hexapla.
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 213
is assigned by Dr. Field to Theodotion.! The result of
these omissions is a straightforward and consistent narra-
tive. David, who had become Saul’s armour-bearer (xvi.
21), accompanied him to battle; and when Goliath defied
Israel, David resolved to encounter him. Observe how
naturally v. 32 follows upon v. 11, and xvii. 6 upon
xvil. 54.
The Hebrew text, on the other hand, presents, as is
well known, the most serious difficulties. How came David,
if he was Saul’s armour-bearer, to be absent from his
side in the campaign? how was it that he was wholly
unaccustomed to the use of weapons? how could he be un-
known to the king and to Abner? Various explanations
of these and other difficulties have been proposed by the
defenders of the integrity of the Massoretic text; but
they cannot be regarded as really satisfactory. Apart from
the evidence of the LXX. the Hebrew text shows evident
signs of having been pieced together at v. 12 ff.; and
the most natural conclusion and the most reasonable
solution of the difficulties is to suppose that the original
form of the narrative has been preserved in the LXX., while
the Hebrew text has been interpolated from some other
source either documentary or oral. These additions, taken
perhaps from some popular story of David’s life, certainly
do not harmonise with the rest of the narrative in their
present position. Possibly if we had the whole story
before us, we might see that the difficulties only arise
from the displacement of the different events from their
proper order; as it is, the difficulties must be candidly
acknowledged.
52. Gat, for the valley. Heb. 8'} as in v. 8, but without
the definite article. It seems most probable that Gaz is
a copyist’s error for Gath.
1 Note for example ἀνὴρ ὁ μεσσαῖος, v. 23, for dSuvaris, τ. 4; φυλιστιαῖος for
ἀλλόφυλος, ib. 3 ἐστηλώθη, v. 16.
214 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
xviii. 8. It is not easy to see why the Revisers did not
notice the further omissions of the LXX. in this chapter.
They are as follows. From, and what can he have more,
». 8, to the end of v. 11, vv. 17-19, 21 6, 29 6, 30. The
narrative gains very distinctly by these omissions. ᾿ Saul
was wroth at David’s popularity, v. 8; and was afraid of
him, v.12, and removed him from his presence. When he
saw his power increasing he stood in awe of him, and
schemed how he might get rid of him indirectly. Failing
in this, he was yet more afraid of David, v. 29, and at
last, throwing off all disguise, openly expressed his wish for
David’s death, xix. 1. Three stages in the development of
Saul’s enmity are clearly marked; and while it cannot be
pronounced impossible that Saul should have threatened
David’s life in a fit of madness the very day after their
triumphal return, the narrative as given by the LXX.
has the advantage of naturalness.
98. For, Michal Saul’s daughter, the LXX., has that all
Israel, © reading which certainly deserved a place in the
margin, for it supplies the motive of Saul’s increasing
fear of David mentioned in v. 29.
xix. 22. The absence of the article with 12 is sus-
picious, and points towards the reading pan 2 pre-
served by the LXX. Secw is unknown, and the reading of
the LXX. is ἐν τῷ edi, 1.6. NWA, in Shephi, or on the hill.
xx. 19,41. For Nm yan xn, by the stone Hzel, the
Sept. reads παρὰ τὸ Ἐργὰβ ἐκεῖνο ; and for 1337 END, out
of a place toward the south, ἀπὸ τοῦ Apya8. In both
cases the reading of the LXX. preserves the original word
AMIN, which the translators failed to understand. It sur-
vives only in the name Argob, but means ὦ mound or
cairn of stones. The mention of the place previously
agreed upon is required in v. 41, and IND, from beside,
could hardly be joined with 2337 which denotes a quarter
of the compass, or a district.
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 915
xxll. 6. Saul was sitting, etc. A vivid picture of the
king sitting in state under the well-known ancient tree,
with his spear, the emblem of royalty, in his hand, and
his retainers standing round him.
9. Stood by, for was set over. This rendering seems to
be required by the use of the phrase in vv. 6, 7, and else-
where in Samuel. The rendering in the margin and A.V.
is that of Vulg., Targ., Syr. The Sept. has, ‘“‘ who was set
over Saul’s mules.” Cf. xxi. 7.
xxv. 6. To him that liveth in prosperity. In default of any
certain explanation of the obscure vay, the A. V. has been
retained in the text. It seems, however, hardly justifiable
to read in prosperity into the simple word to the living
one; and the marginal explanation, which regards ‘MN as a
form of greeting, All hail! lit. for life ! is preferable to this.
But it is very questionable whether ‘7 can be thus used
in the singular. The rendering of the LXX. is εἰς ὥρας, i.e.
for the coming season! a new year’s greeting, apparently
interpreting the word by 7 Nyd which is rendered εἰς
ὥρας in Gen. xvii. 14; but this cannot stand as an explan-
ation of the word. The Vulg. has fratribus meis, regard-
ing the word as a contraction for TINY. This can hardly
be right, but it points to Wellhausen’s conjecture that we
should read Jay) as a contraction for WN), to my brother.
This is perhaps the best solution. David’s brotherly
greeting is intentionally contrasted with Nabal’s surly re-
joinder.
22. The enemies of David. We should expect David, and
this, as is noted in the margin, is the reading of the LXX.
Kimchi says that the enemies of David is a euphemism
(23) for David, and it is possible that the scribes substi-
tuted it in the text in view of the non-fulfilment of the
oath. Cf. xx. 16.
xxvil. 8. Guirzites. So the C’thib. It has been conjec-
tured that the tribe here mentioned at one time wandered
216 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
northwards, and gave its name to Mount Gerizim, as their
neighbours the Amalekites left traces of their migration in
the name ‘hill country of the Amalekites”’’ in the terri-
tory of Ephraim (Jud. xii. 15). The A.V. Gezrites follows
the K’ri, but Gezer was far distant from the locality of
David's operations.
The Revisers have placed in the margin the reading of
some MSS. of the LXX., from Telam, because (1) it 1s not
easy to see why of old should be inserted, unless the words
are an addition made long after the time of David; and (2)
even unto the land of Egypt implies that some terminus ex
quo has preceded. 'T'elem, perhaps the same as Telaim (xv.
4), was on the southern border of Judah (Josh. xv. 24).
xxvill. 18. A god for gods. A.V. follows LXX., Vulg.,
Syr., in rendering gods; but Targ. has the angel of the
Lord, and it is clear from v. 14 that only a single figure
appeared. Hlohim here signifies a supernatural, non-earthly,
being.
16. And is become thine adversary. ‘The true reading of
this passage is a matter of importance from a theological
point of view. If the Massoretic text is sound, it must
apparently be translated thus. But the word rendered thine
adversary is JY, and W=8 is not a pure Hebrew but
an Aramaic word, occurring in the O. T. only in Ps. cxxxix.
20,1} a psalm full of Aramaisms, and Dan. iv. 16 (Aram. H.V.
19). And when we turn to the ancient versions, still more
suspicion is cast on the reading. The LXX. and Syr. read
“ig on the side of thy neighbour,”’ 1.6. Wr? or FY) OY;
the Targum paraphrases, and has become the help of a
man who is thine enemy ; similarly the Vulg.: transierit ad
emulum tuum, has passed over to thy rival. Aquila and
Theodotion have κατά σου-- FY, against thee ; Symmachus
alone renders ἀντίζηλός σου (the word which he uses in
Ps. exxxix.), thine adversary. It seems on the whole best
1 ven there Hupfeld and others question the correctness of the reading.
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 217
to follow the reading of the LXX.; and this accords ex-
cellently with the natural rendering of the first clause of
v. 17, and the Lord hath done unto him.
xxx. 2. And all, supplied from the LXX., is clearly
necessary.
20. It is hard to see what sense this verse makes as it
stands, and the reading of the Vulg., with which that of
the LXX. in the main agrees, might have been given in the
margin: ‘‘And he took all the flocks and the herds, and
drove them before him; and they said, This is David’s
spoil.”’ David not only recovered his own property, but
took a rich booty besides.
xxxl. 9. The house of their idols should surely be the
houses of their idols. See Ewald’s Gr., ὃ 210. But LXX.
and 1 Chron. omit 3, the house of.
ν A. F. ΚΙΠΚΡΑΤΕΤΟΚ:
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
XIV.
THE CROSS THE DEATH OF LAW AND THE TRIUMPH
OVER EVIL POWERS.
“ Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; and having
spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing
over them in it.’’—Cot. ii. 14, 15.
THE same double reference to the two characteristic errors
of the Colossians which we have already met so frequently,
presents itself here. This whole section vibrates con-
tinually between warnings against the Judaising enforce-
ment of the Mosaic law on Gentile Christians, and against
the Oriental figments about a crowd of angelic beings
filling the space betwixt man and God, betwixt pure spirit
218 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and gross matter. One great fact is here opposed to these
strangely associated errors. The cross of Christ is the
abrogation of the Law; the cross of Christ is the victory
over principalities and powers. If we hold fast by it, we
are under no subjection to the former, and have neither
to fear nor reverence the latter.
I. The Cross of Christ is the death of Law.
The law is a written document. It has an antagonistic
aspect to us all, Gentiles as well as Jews. Christ has
blotted it out. More than that, He has taken it out of
the way, as if 1t were an obstacle lying right in the middle
of our path. More than that, it is ‘nailed to the cross.”
That phrase has been explained by an alleged custom
of repealing laws and cancelling bonds by driving a nail
into them, and fixing them up in public, but proof of
the practice is said to be wanting. The thought seems
to be deeper than that. This antagonistic “law” is
conceived of as being, like “‘the world,” crucified in the
crucifixion of our Lord. The nails which fastened Him
to the cross fastened it, and in His death it was done to
death. We are free from it, ‘that being dead in which
we were held.”
We have first, then, to consider the ‘‘ handwriting,” or,
as some would render the word, ‘‘ the bond.’’ Of course,
by law here is primarily meant the Mosaic ceremonial
law, which was being pressed upon the Colossians. It is
so completely dead for us, that we have difficulty in
realising what a fight for life and death raged round the
question of its observance by the primitive Church. It
is always harder to change customs than creeds, and re-
ligious observances live on, as every maypole on a village
sreen tells us, long after the beliefs which animated them
are forgotten. So there was a strong body among the
early believers to whom it was flat blasphemy to speak of
allowing the Gentile Christians to come into the Church,
THH CROSS THE DEATH OF LAW. 219
but through the old doorway of circumcision, and to whom
the outward ceremonial of Judaism was the only visible
religion. That is the point directly at issue between Paul
and these teachers.
But the modern distinction between moral and cere-
monial law had no existence in Paul’s mind, any more
than it has in the Old Testament, where precepts of the
highest morality and regulations of the merest ceremonial
are interstratified in a way most surprising to us moderns.
To him the law was a homogeneous whole, however
diverse its commands, because it was all the revelation
of the will of God for the guidance of man. It is the
law as a whole, in all its aspects and parts, that is here
spoken of, whether as enjoining morality, or external ob-
servances, or as an accuser fastening guilt on the con-
science, or as a stern prophet of retribution and punishment.
Further, we must give a still wider extension to the
thought. The principles laid down are true not only in
regard to ‘‘the law,” but about all law, whether it be
written on the tables of stone, or on ‘‘ the fleshy tables
of the heart’’ or conscience, or in the systems of ethics,
or in the customs of society. Law, as such, howsoever
enacted and whatever the bases of its rule, is dealt with
by Christianity in precisely the same way as the venerable
and God-given code of the Old Testament. When we
recognise that fact, these discussions in Paul’s Epistles
flash up into startling vitality and interest. It has long
since been settled that Jewish ritual is nothing to us. But
it ever remains a burning question for each of us, What
Christianity does for us in relation to the solemn law
of duty under which we are all placed, and which we
have all broken ?
The antagonism of law is the next point that these words
present. Twice, to add to the emphasis, Paul tells us
that the law is against us. It stands opposite us fronting
220 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
us and frowning at us, and barring our road. Is “law”
then become our ‘‘enemy because it tells us the truth” ?
Surely this conception of law is a strange contrast to and
descent from the rapturous delight of psalmists and pro-
phets in the “law of the Lord.” Surely God’s greatest
sift to man is the knowledge of His will, and law is
beneficent, a ight and a guide to men, and even its strokes
are merciful. Paul believed all that too. But nevertheless
the antagonism is very real. As with God, so with law,
if we be against Him, He cannot but be against us. We
may make Him our dearest friend or our foe. ‘“ They
rebelled . . . therefore He was turned to be their
enemy and fought against them.’ The revelation of duty
to which we are not inclined is ever unwelcome. Law is
against us, because it comes lke a taskmaster, bidding us
do, but neither putting the inclination into our hearts,
nor the power into our hands. And law is against us,
because the revelation of unfulfilled duty is the accusation
of the defaulter and a revelation to him of his guilt. And
law is against us, because it comes with threatenings and
foretastes of penalty and pain. Thus as standard, accuser
and avenger, 1t is—sad perversion of its nature and function
though such an attitude be—against us.
We all know that. Strange and tragic it is, but alas!
it is true, that God’s law presents itself before us as an
enemy. Each of us has seen that apparition, severe in
beauty, like the sword-bearing angel, that Balaam saw
‘standing in the way’’ between the vineyards, blocking
our path when we wanted to ‘‘go frowardly in the way
of our heart.’ Each of us knows what it is to see our
sentence in the stern face. The law of the Lord should
be to us ‘‘ sweeter than honey and the, honeycomb,” but
the corruption of the best is the worst, and we can make
it poison. Obeyed, it is as the chariot of fire to bear us
heavenward. Disobeyed, it is an iron car that goes crash-
THE CkROSS THE DEATH OF LAW. 221
ing on its way, crushing all who set themselves against
it. To know what we ought to be and to love and try
to be it, is blessedness, but to know it and to refuse to be
it, is misery. In herself she ‘‘ wears the Godhead’s most
benignant grace,”’ but if we turn against her, Law, the eldest
daughter of God, gathers frowns upon her face and her
beauty becomes stern and threatening.
But the great principle here asserted is—the destruc-
tion of law in the cross of Christ. The cross ends the
law’s power of punishment. Paul believed that the whole
burden and penalty of sin had been laid on Jesus Christ
and borne by Him on His cross. In deep, mysterious, but
most real identification of Himself with the whole race of
man, He not only Himself took our infirmities and bare
our sicknesses, by the might of His sympathy and the
reality of His manhood, but ‘‘the Lord made to meet upon
Him the iniquity of us all”’; and He, the Lamb of God,
willingly accepted the load, and bare away our sins by
bearing their penalty.
To philosophise on that teaching of Scripture is not my
business here. It is my business to assert it. We can never
penetrate to a full understanding of the rationale of Christ’s
bearing the world’s sins, but that has nothing to do with
the earnestness of our belief in the fact. Enough for us
that in His person he willingly made experience of all the
bitterness of sin; that when He agonised in the dark on the
cross, and when from out of the darkness came that awful
cry, so strangely compact of wistful confidence and utter
isolation, ‘‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me?” it was something deeper than physical pain or
shrinking from physical death that found utterance,—even
the sin-laden consciousness of Him who in that awful hour
gathered into His own breast the spear-points of a world’s
punishment. The cross of Christ is the endurance of the
penalty of sin, and therefore is the unloosing of the grip of
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
no
bo
bo
the law upon us, in so far as threatening and punishment
are concerned. It is not enough that we should only in-
tellectually recognise that as a principle—it is the very
heart of the Gospel, the very life of our souls. Trusting
ourselves to that great sacrifice, the dread of punishment
will fade from our hearts, and the thunder-clouds melt out
of the sky, and the sense of guilt will not be a sting, but
an occasion for lowly thankfulness, and Law will have to
draw the bolts of her τι τῶν -house and let our captive
souls go free.
Christ’s cross is the end of law as ceremonial. The whole
elaborate ritual of the Jew had sacrifice for its vital centre,
and the prediction of the Great Sacrifice for its highest
purpose. Without these principles being admitted, Paul’s
position is unintelligible, for he holds, as in this context,
that Christ’s coming puts the whole system out of date,
because it fulfils it all. When the fruit has set, there is
no more need for petals; or, as the Apostle himself puts
it, ‘when that which is perfect is come, that which is in
part is done away.”’ We have the reality, and do not need
the shadow. There is but one temple for the Christian soul
—the ‘“‘temple of His body.”’ Local sanctity is at an end,
for it was never more than an external picture of that spirit-
ual fact which is realised in the Incarnation. Christ is the
dwelling-place of Deity, the meeting-place of God and man,
the place of sacrifice; and, builded on Him, we in Him
become a spiritual house. There are none other temples
than these. Christ is the great priest, and in His presence
all human priesthood loses its consecration, for it could offer
only external sacrifice, and secure a local approach to a
‘worldly sanctuary.” He is the real Aaron, and we in
Him become a royal priesthood. There are/ none other
priests than these. Christ is the true sacrifice. Huis death
is the real propitiation for sin, and we in Him become
thank-offerings, moved by His mercies to present ourselves
THE CROSS THE DEATH OF LAW.
bo
bo
eo
living sacrifices. There are none other offerings than these.
So all law as a code of ceremonial worship is done to death
in the cross, and, like the temple vail, is torn in two from
the top to the bottom.
Christ’s cross is the end of law as moral rule. Nothing
in Paul’s writings warrants the restriction to the ceremonial
law of the strong assertion in the text, and its many par-
allels. Of course, such words do not mean that Christian
men are freed from the obligations of morality, but they do
mean that we are not bound to do the ‘‘ things contained
in the law” because they are there. Duty is duty now
because we see the pattern of conduct and character in
Christ. Conscience is not our standard, nor is the Old
Testament conception of the perfect ideal of manhood. We
have neither to read law in the fleshy tables of the heart,
nor in the tables graven by God’s own finger, nor in men’s
parchments and prescriptions. Our law is the perfect life
and death of Christ, who is at once the ideal of humanity
and the reality of Deity.
The weakness of all law is that it merely commands, but
has no power to get its commandments obeyed. Like a
discrowned king, it posts its proclamations, but has no
army at its back to execute them. But Christ puts His
own power within us, and His love in our hearts; and
50 we pass from under the dominion of an external com-
mandment into the liberty of an inward spirit. He is to
His followers both ‘law and impulse.’ He gives not the
“law of a carnal commandment, but the power of an end-
less life.” The long schism between inclination and duty
is at an end, in so far as we are under the influence of
Christ’s cross. The great promise is fulfilled, “1 will put
My law into their minds and write it in their hearts” ;
and so, glad obedience with the whole power of the new
life, for the sake of the love of the dear Lord who has
bought us by His death, supersedes the constrained sub-
224, THE HPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
mission to outward precept. A higher morality ought to
characterise the partakers of the life of Christ, who have
His example for their code, and His love for their motive.
The tender voice that says, ‘‘If ye love Me, keep My com-
mandments,’’ wins us to purer and more self-sacrificing
goodness than the stern accents that could only say, ‘‘ Thou
shalt—or else!’’ could ever enforce. He came “not to
destroy, but to fulfil.” The fulfilment was destruction in
order to reconstruction in higher form. Law died with
Christ on the cross in order that it might rise and reign
with Him in our inmost hearts.
11. The Cross is the triumph over all the powers of evil.
There are considerable difficulties in the interpretation
of verse 15; the main question being the meaning of the
word rendered in the Authorized Version ‘‘ spoiled,” and in
the R. V. “having put off from Himself.” It is the same
word as is used in 111. 9, and is there rendered ‘‘ have put
off’; while a cognate noun is found in verse 11 of this
chapter, and is there translated ‘‘ the putting off.’ The
form here must either mean ‘‘having put off from one-
self,” or ‘‘having stripped (others) for oneself.” The
former meaning is adopted by many commentators, as
well as by the R.V., and is explained to mean that Christ
having assumed our humanity, was, as it were, wrapped
about and invested with Satanic temptations, which He
finally flung from Him for ever in His death, which was
His triumph over the powers of evil. The figure seems
far-fetched and obscure, and the rendering necessitates the
supposition of a change in the person spoken of, which
must be God in the earlier part of the period, and Christ
in the latter.
But if we adopt the other meaning, which has equal
warrant in the Greek form, ‘‘ having stripped for Himself,”
we get the thought that in the cross, God has, for His
greater glory, stripped principalities and powers. ‘Taking
pr?
THE CROSS THE TRIUMPH OVER EVIL POWERS. 225
this meaning, we avoid the necessity of supposing with
Bishop Lightfoot that there is a change of subject from God
to Christ at some point in the period including verses 13
to 15,—an expedient which is made necessary by the im-
possibility of supposing that God “divested Himself of
ΟΠ principalities or powers, ’—or the other necessity of referring
the whole period to Christ, which is also a way out of
that impossibility. We thereby obtain a more satisfactory
meaning than that Christ in assuming humanity was
assailed by temptations from the powers of evil which
were, as it were, a poisoned garment clinging to Him,
and which He stripped off from Himself in His death.
Farther, such a meaning as that which we adopt makes
the whole verse a consistent metaphor in three stages,
whereas the other introduces an utterly incongruous and
irrelevant figure. What connexion has the figure of
stripping off a garment with that of a conqueror in his
triumphal procession? But if we read ‘“‘ spoiled for Him-
self principalities and powers,’ we see the whole process
before our eyes—the victor stripping his foes of arms and
ornaments and dress, then parading them as his captives,
and then dragging them at the wheels of his triumphal
car.
The words point us into dim regions of which we know
nothing more than Scripture tells us. These dreamers at
Colossee had much to say about a crowd of beings, bad
and good, which linked men and matter with spirit and
God. We have heard already the emphasis with which
Paul has claimed for his Master the sovereign authority
of Creator over all orders of being, the headship over all
principality and power. He has declared, too, that from
Christ’s cross a magnetic influence streams out upwards
‘as well as earthwards, binding all things together in the
great reconciliation—and now he tells us that from that
same cross shoot downwards darts of conquering power
VOL. III. Q
226 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
which subdue and despoil reluctant foes of other realms
and regions than ours, in so far as they work among
men.
That there are such seems plainly enough asserted in
Christ’s own words. However much discredit has been
brought on the thought by monastic and Puritan exag-
gerations, it is clearly the teaching of Scripture; and
however it may be ridiculed or set aside, it can never be
disproved.
But the position which Christianity takes in reference
to the whole matter is to maintain that Christ has con-
quered the banded kingdom of evil, and that no man owes
it fear or obedience, if he will only hold fast by his Lord.
In the cross is the judgment of this world, and by it is
the prince of this world cast out. He has taken away
the power of these Powers who were so mighty amongst
men. They held men captive by temptations too strong to
be overcome, but He has conquered the lesser temptations
of the wilderness and the sorer of the cross, and therein
has made us more than conquerors. They held men cap-
tive by ignorance of God, and the cross reveals Him ; by
the lie that sin was a trifle, but the cross teaches us its
gravity and power; by the opposite lie that sin was unfor-
givable, but the cross brings pardon for every transgression
and cleansing for every stain. By the cross the world is
a redeemed world, and, as our Lord said in words which
may have suggested the figure of our text, the strong man
is bound, and his house spoiled of all his armour wherein
he trusted. The prey is taken from the mighty and men
delivered from the dominion of evil. So that dark kingdom
is robbed of its subjects and its rulers impoverished and
restrained. The devout imagination of the monk-painter
drew on the wall of the cell in his convent the conquering
Christ with white banner bearing a blood-red cross, before |
whose glad coming the heavy doors of the prison-house
THE CROSS THE TRIUMPH OVER EVIL POWERS. 227
fell from their hinges, crushing beneath their weight the
demon jailer, while the long file of eager captives, from
Adam onwards through ages of patriarchs and psalmists
and prophets hurried forward with outstretched hands
to meet the Deliverer, who came bearing his own atmo-
sphere of radiance and joy. Christ has conquered. His
cross is His victory; and in that victory God has conquered.
As the long files of the triumphal procession swept upwards
to the temple with incense and music, before the gazing
eyes of a gathered glad nation, while the conquered trooped
chained behind the chariot, that all men might see their
fierce eyes gleaming beneath their matted hair, and breathe
more freely for the chains on their hostile wrists, so in the
world-wide issues of the work of Christ, God triumphs
before the universe, and enhances His glory in that He
has rent the prey from the mighty and won men back to
Himself.
So we learn to think of evil as conquered, and for our-
selves in our own conflicts with the world, the flesh, and
the devil, as well as for the whole race of man, to be of
good cheer. True the victory is but slowly being realised
in all its consequences, and often it seems as if no territory
had been won. But the main position has been carried,
and though the struggle is still obstinate, it can end only
in one way. The brute dies hard, but the naked heel of
our Christ bas bruised his head, and though still the dragon
“‘ Swings the scaly horror of his folded tail,”
his death will come sooner or later. The regenerating
power is lodged in the heart of humanity, and the centre
from which it flows is the cross. The history of the world
thenceforward is but the history of its more or less rapid
assimilation of that power and consequent deliverance from
the bondage in which it has been held. The end can only
be the entire and universal manifestation of the victory
228 THOUGHTS.
which was won when He bowed His head and died.
Christ’s cross is God’s throne of triumph.
Let us see that we have our own personal share in that
victory. Holding to Christ, and drawing from Him by
faith a share in His new life, we shall no longer be under
the yoke of law, but enfranchised into the obedience of love,
which is liberty. We shall no longer be slaves of evil, but
sons and servants of our conquering God, who woos and
wins us by showing us all His love in Christ, and by giving
us His own Son on the Cross, our peace-offering. If we
let Him overcome, His victory will be life, not death. He
will strip us of nothing but rags, and clothe us in garments
of purity ; He will so breathe beauty into us that He will
show us openly to the universe as examples of His trans-
forming power, and He will bind us glad captives to His
chariot wheels, partakers of His victory as well as trophies
of His all-conquering love. ‘‘ Now thanks be unto God,
which always triumphs over us in Jesus Christ.”
ALEXANDER MACLAREN.
THOUGHTS:
1. Shame on account of God’s Displeasure with
us.—The story told in the 12th chapter of Numbers, and
especially the striking words ascribed to God in the 10th verse
(“If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed
seven days?”) startle us out of the easy mind with which we
accept the pardon of sin. We stand rebuked for having less
shame at meriting the displeasure of the just and loving God,
than at exciting the contempt or incurring the condemnation of
men like ourselves. God demands that the shame we feei on ac-
count of sin shall have the same blush and burning in it that we
should have, did some one on just cause show his reprobation of our
conduct by spitting in our face. Shame before God must betray
something of the poignancy and agitation, something of the heart-
felt humiliation of our shame before men. It is not to be of a
THOUGHTS. 229
sublimated fictitious kind. Seven days would have been all too
little to ease Miriam’s heart of the shock and anguish of shame had
her father expressed his displeasure by spitting in her face; she
would have felt that a brand well-nigh indelible had been fixed
upon her. But God had more emphatically signified His dis-
pleasure and yet she is pursued by no such enduring and crushing
shame. Something infinitely more expressive than a mere outward
mark of disapprobation had been visible upon her; out from her
very self there had grown a manifestation of her diseased nature ;
and yet no sooner is the outward appearance removed than she
with an easy mind resumes her place and her usual ways.
What a theme for conscience. If in any minute point of conduct
we have erred and injured a friend, if we have even been guilty of
a mere awkwardness, we know how sensible a shame pursues us,
and how hard we find it to wipe out the sense of inferiority and
degradation that stains our self-complacency. But there is a very
climax of ignominy in having excited in the unerringly just mind
of God feelings of anger against us. One might have reasonably
supposed that a man would die of shame were he conscious of
haying merited the displeasure and condemnation of such a Being
as God is; but the coldness of a friend gives us more thought
and the contempt of men as contemptible as ourselves affects us
with a more genuine confusion.
2. Religion’s Childhood and Maturity.—
Few of Paul’s converts seem at once to have apprehended, as he
himself did, what was meant by religion. Again and again, with
a keen pang of disappointment, he exclaimed: “Iam afraid of you,
lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain—lest after all my
teaching you should suppose that the observance of days and
months and times and years is the ultimate spiritual condition
and highest felicity of the human soul.” ΑἸ] the commandments
and ordinances with which his converts were familiar were meant
for the childhood-stage of religion. They were the pedagogue
and school requisite for the child, unsuitable for the man. Their
very function was to make the child a man, independent of them.
There is no merit in any training except in so far as it raises
us above it. It proves its own weakness by requiring prolonged
attendance of the pupil. To suppose that by adhering to external
observances we please God is to show that these observances have
not effected their purpose. We cannot show our religion, our
230 THOUGHTS.
love to God, by attendance on these, any more than a son who is
now a grown man can show his love for his father by goimg back
to the infant school to learn spelling, or by refusing to go along
the street without a pedagogue to lead him.
How much are we to discard as an old school-book? The
ceremonial washings, the sacrifices, the elaborate dresses of the
priests, the scrupulously adhered-to ritual—these, no doubt—but
what more? Perhaps the best rule for the individual is to see
that he escapes the dangers of either extreme.
Ist. Of leaving school too soon. A man says, Religion does
not consist in going to Church, in reading the Bible, in being
grave and quiet and sleepy all Sunday. Religion is union with
God, life as it ought to be. I am tired of rules, of watching, of
hedging my natural path with considerations; this is no life
at all. I wish freedom, spontaneity, to live from inward impulse.
But this man is really the foolish truant who rebels against the
drudgery of school, or the boy who apes manhood and snatches
at a liberty he has not yet grown up to. To be master of our
life we must submit to authority and learn by obedience to rule.
For all of us, first the law and then the spirit.
2nd. But there is an opposite danger, the danger of staying at
school too long, of never growing past dependence on elaborate
forms of worship, ritualistic service, the outward garnishings of
religion. Many confound means and end, the ordinances which
are meant to lead us to religion with religion itself. They read
the Bible as an end in itself, not as a means; as a duty to be done
for its own sake, not as valuable only for the effect it produces.
It were Indicrous to see a man of forty going to school with his
bag of books as if schooling were an excellent thing irrespective
of age. Some Christians present the same spectacle.
ΜΕ:
|
a. eS ae TO ΨΥ τ᾿
ὅν- - ° “=
231
SURVEY OF RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
TextuaL Criticism.—The stars in their courses fight against the
‘enthusiast who sacrifices his talent to the rehabilitation of exploded
theories. Mr. Miller,! had he been content to narrate the history
and exhibit the material and principles of Textual Criticism,
might have produced a useful manual. But the reader quickly
apprehends that the motive of his book is not scientific but con-
troversial ; and it cannot be disguised that the prefatory history of
the science is hurried through in order that the writer may reach
the more congenial task of assailing the method of Drs. Westcott
and Hort. Mr. Miller is a follower of Dean Burgon. He has
more modesty and less of what he euphemistically speaks of as
“natural impetuosity” of style, than his master; and he makes
no pretension to his great learning, though he writes with intelli-
gence and lucidity. But it might have been expected of a scholar
who is at least fairly well read in his subject, to understand that
mere hole-picking is not the kind of criticism which it is seemly
to apply to such a work as Drs. Westcott and Hort have accom-
plished. That their theory should be canvassed and sifted is
inevitable and desirable. Their method must be appraised if
Textual Criticism is to claim a place among the sciences. But
this appraisement can be made only by critics competent to weigh
their method as a whole, and to apprehend its strong points as
well as its difficulties, learned enough to check their distribution
of MSS. by first-hand acquaintance with them, and sufficiently
imbued with the scientific spirit to carry an unbiassed mind
through the investigation. The character of Mr. Miller’s criticism
may be recognised from the following instances. His first eriti-
cism is, that too little stress is laid upon Internal Evidence, and
with this criticism many scholars will be disposed to agree; but
in substantiation of this criticism he goes on to say that in
Westcott and Hort’s text “we are told that the Lord’s side was
pierced before death.” Mr. Miller does not inform his readers
that the clause alluded to is in Westcott and Hort’s Greek
Testament enclosed within double brackets, and that these double
_ brackets signify that this is one of the passages in which the
1 4 Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. By Edward Miller,
M.A., Rector of Bucknell, Oxon. London: George Bell & Sons, 1886.
232 SURVEY OF RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE
original record has, in the judgment of the editors, suffered in-
terpolation in all extant Non-Western texts. Next we find Mr.
Miller charging Drs. Westcott and Hort with “a lofty disregard
of the obvious truth that generations might be propagated as fast
as the pens of scribes would admit ’—an accusation which proves
that Mr. Miller has not fully grasped the genealogical method, and
also that he has disregarded explicit statements of the scholars
he criticizes, as when they say, that “the exemplar from which
a MS. was copied may have been only a little older than itself.”
Other criticisms advanced in this volume are equally futile, and
we can only wonder with what eyes Mr. Miller has read the
history of Christianity when he clenches his argument by asking :
“Ts it indeed possible that the great King of the new kingdom, who
has promised to be with His subjects ‘alway even unto the end
of the world,’ should have allowed the true text of the written
laws of His kinedom to lurk in obscurity for nearly fifteen hundred
years, and a text vitiated in many important particulars to have
been handed down and venerated as the genuine form of the
Word of God?” If Mr. Miller’s book reaches a second edition the
proofs should be more carefully corrected; misprints occur with
abnormal plentifulness, as e.g. on pp. 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, many of
them in the spelling of proper names. Such expressions as “an in-
valuable Prolegomena” might also with advantage be avoided.
Mr. Scott has done admirable service in gathering up all the
material available for presenting an intelligible account of
Ulfilas,| his church and his work. The original sources are
not oppressively ample, but by a judicious use of these, together
with a full and careful study of the modern authorities, a suffi-
ciently clear and connected narrative has been achieved. Mr.
Scott exhibits in this essay not only a most commendable
diligence, but decided aptitude for historical studies. The reader
feels himself brought into the presence of real people and stir-
ring events; and this without any disquieting suspicion that
the vividness of the picture is due to a lively fancy rather than
to true historical imagination reproducing the actual past. The
chapter which may be supposed to have most interest to readers
of this Magazine, that upon the Gothic version of Scripture, is
1 Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths. By Charles A. Anderson Scott, B.A., Naden
Divinity Student at St. John’s College, Cambridge. Cambridge: Macmillan &
Bowes, 1885.
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233
intelligently written, but contains little that does not already
lie to our hand in Scrivener, Reuss, or Schaff. Mr. Scott could
not do better than pursue his Gothic studies and produce a full
monograph on this monument to the greatness of Ulfilas. [On
Ῥ. 128 should not 1736 be 1756; and why depart from the
received spelling of Bobbio ἢ]
Brsuicatn Tarotoay.—A book of marked ability and of consi-
derable importance appears from the pen of a new writer, Mr.
Robert Mackintosh.t. The subject is Christ and the Jewish
Law, and as an exegetical monograph it has no superior in the
English language. To students of Biblical Theology this may
seem to be no very high praise, for monographs of this kind
may be counted on the fingers of one hand. But it is the very
paucity of such essays which lends increased importance to every
addition to their number, and very special importance to an
addition so vigorous and thoroughgoing as the present volume.
In the German language it is easy enough to find master-pieces
in this department of literature, works in which a subject is
handled from the stand-point of the most rigorous and advanced
exegesis, and in which each passage that has a bearing upon
the theme is submitted to searching analysis. But even in Ger-
many there are few treatises in Biblical Theology which will
compare with this-for profound and decisive interpretation of
Scripture, for comprehensiveness of view, for combined boldness
and sobriety of thought, for robust reason, fineness of discern-
ment, and a masculine and caustic wit. And when we find in
our own language a treatise which uses German methods with
German thoroughness and more than German judgment, we re-
cognise that a new departure is being made in theological science
—a departure in which, however, we fear that few may be found
competent to follow Mr. Mackintosh.
The attitude which Christ assumed and maintained towards
the Jewish Law is of course a subject of cardinal importance.
Our conception of the sense in which Christ was the founder
of a new religion, and of the sense in which He claimed to be
the ultimate revelation of God and authoritative, must be deter-
mined largely by His attitude towards previous revelations. And
1 Christ and the Jewish Law. By Robert Mackintosh, B.D.; formerly Cun-
ningham Scholar, New College, Edinburgh. London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1886.
234 SURVEY OF RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE
this can be ascertained by His own explicit statement of the
relation He bore to the law, by the manner in which He acted
in His outward life, by the contents of His ethical teaching,
by the judgment He pronounced upon ceremonies and _ tradi-
tions, by the manner in which He comported Himself towards
questions of politics and statesmanship, and by the claims to
authority He made. Lach of these points is carefully dealt with
by Mr. Mackintosh. The passages from the Gospels which have
any bearing upon them are grouped and analysed in presence of
recent German criticism. In this part of his task Mr. Mackin-
tosh exhibits very unusual exegetical capacity; his accurate
determination of the literal sense being equalled by his profound
insight into the deeper meanings and connexions of Christ’s
words and conduct. So that even when the results are not
surprisingly or suspiciously novel, the process by which they
are reached is always original and so full of what is luminous
and far-reaching that the effect of the old truth upon the mind
is similar to the thrill of discovery. Indeed the treatise as a
whole has the effect of a powerful apologetic, and he must be
a well instructed reader indeed, or more probably an ill-instructed
reader, who does not feel that it has given him a clearer view of
Christ’s purpose and a more intelligent hold of the substance of
His work.
For detailed criticism there is here no space; but Mr. Mackin-
tosh will pardon the suggestion that the distinction between his
own view of Matt. v. 17, and Bleek’s view, should not have been
so summarily dismissed; that his dismissal of ‘‘ the traditional
Protestant exegesis,” which understands that in the Sermon on
the Mount Christ is removing the dross that had gathered about
the Moral Law, is hardly consistent with his own admission on
p- 54; that the difficulties he finds in interpreting the narrative
which tells of the disciples plucking the ears of corn on the
Sabbath partake somewhat of the “much ado about nothing”
style of criticism; and that he should either have said less or
more regarding Paul’s view of the Atonement. We quite agree
with him in thinking that when Christ said: ‘I came not to
destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfil,” He claimed “to
fulfil the Law considered as a prediction of Himself ”’—a meaning,
it may be said in passing, which receives strong verbal support
from Paul’s use of the same word “fulfil” in Rom. xiii. 8 and 10.
|
;
Ἰ
~~
a
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235
But as Mr. Mackintosh reasonably holds that Christ’s morality is
beyond the morality of the Law, that the very centre of Christ’s
originality was the originality of His ethical teaching, and that
His revelation was an essential advance on the Old Testament, it
_ would have been quite worth his while to exhibit distinctly, as he
could very easily have done, the reconciliation of two positions
which some eminent scholars have considered irreconcilable.
“ What Christ really does is, first, to re-affirm the Law ; secondly,
to give a new teaching.” Yes; but how many questions are
stirred which this bare indication of a solution does not answer.
On the whole Mr. Mackintosh packs his thought too tightly.
The reader is in general the gainer by this compression, but
occasionally the expression is a little obscure.
We should like to quote one or two passages in justification of
our praise of this book; but it must suffice to point to what the
author has to say on the term ‘“ Covenant,” on the raison d’étre of
the New Testament Canon, on the Establishment Principle; to
the firm seat and clear eye with which he enters the lists against
the champions of the Tiibingen theory, to the glimpses he inci-
dentally affords into the rationale of Christianity and the central
apologetic truths, and above all to the exquisite passage on Jesus’
conception of the Messiahship. Yet it is not by selected passages
this book can be fully appreciated. Its excellence is the excellence
of uniform, free, unstrained ability. From the first word to the
last it is alive. The writer never nods, and even in handling the
most worn topics, he is never commonplace. He cannot help
himself ; he hits hard because he is strong, he is original because
nature has made him so. His knowledge is not a barren scraping
together of facts, but the knowledge which serious thought attains,
the knowledge of opinions and of schools of thought, of their rela-
tions to one another and of their consequences.
Had Mark Pattison’s Sermons! appeared before his Memoirs
they would have received a much more distinct and cordial
recognition. The Memoirs have in some minds quenched all
avidity to read the Sermons, while they have led others to accept
the Sermons merely as a fresh instrument for measuring the
development of the author’s opinions and for noting the arrested
development of his character. Intrinsically however they are of
1 Sermons, by Mark Pattison, late Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.
London: Macmillan, 1885.
236 SURVEY OF RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE
great value, although their special value is so little of that kind
which we look for in sermons that the reader is tempted to think
they might more appropriately have been termed Essays. The
public, however, has already been informed that the manner of
the preacher partly removed this impression ; that “the impassive
attitude, the grim figure, the fleeting sardonic smile, even the
formal black gloves—the distinct, sepulchral, almost croaking
voice—the contemptuous absence of oratorical art—the biting,
grinding, unvarying rhythm of the argument, as it were the pulse
the mental tension excited
from the first and equally maintained to the end, without rising
of an infallible teaching machine
or falling,” all conspired at any rate to convey the strong
personal influence of the preacher. The volume as it stands,
apart from the fascinating or oppressive presence of the author,
is a master-piece of English prose, and is the most complete and
philosophical defence of education as opposed to indoctrination.
“That the intellect and the character have a health, a beauty, a
perfection of their own, and that the attainment of this perfection
is the scope of a liberal education, and that this mental cultivation
is a thing quite distinct from the acquisition of information, or
the inculeation of truth, or the reception of certain opinions ;”
and “that not the promotion of truth but the cultivation of the
individual, is the end at which we have to aim; that our business
in this place is to form the mind, to enlarge, to correct, to refine
it—to qualify it to know, not to give it knowledge ”—these are
the central points from which the whole wide survey taken by
the writer is viewed, these are the themes to which the author’s
characteristic ripeness of knowledge and keen historical insight
here make their weighty contributions. Hach sermon presents
some particular aspect of the subject, or pursues some related line
of thought. Those of us who used to watch in the magazines for
one or two paragraphs of his always just and informative criticism,
have here the satisfaction of listening to him on the problems to
which his mind habitually recurred: the reconciliation of thought
and action in the life of man, the justification of devotion to
intellectual pursuits, the ascetic element in philosophical educa-
tion, the contrasted methods of the individualistic and social
theories of education, the perfect harmony between Christianity
and the highest intellectual culture, the attitude of philosophy
and science towards Christianity at the present day. Throughout
ny
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237
the volume there occur passages which by their masculine reason-
ing and felicitous and final expression must become classical ;
while there are others, such as that on the dangers and oppor-
tunities of life at Oxford, and that on the high calling of Oxford
- dons to lead in self-improvement and be examples to immortals,
which must have provoked much comment both amusing and not
amusing. The tone of the book is one in which regret and hope
_ strive for the mastery ; and in which his own noble conceptions
of life and aspirations that persisted through all failure are un-
consciously extended to Oxford, of which he was so great a part,
and to the Church of England, to which he was more loyal than
he knew. Thus while he does not hesitate to declare that Oxford
has forfeited her position as intellectual guide of England by
misconceiving her true function and attempting impracticable
compromises, he at the same time believes in her recuperative
power to renounce competition with technical schools and become
once more a true gymnasium for the man. And thus also while
boldly affirming that “the Church of England has ceased to be
an intellectual power in England,” he declares with equal boldness
that, “it seems to be the business of the English Church especi-
ally, a Church which has never yet broken with reason or pro-
scribed education, to fairly face these questions, to resume the
natural theology of the past age, and to re-establish the synthesis
of science and faith.”
Miscettangeous.—Principal Tulloch has chosen for the St. Giles’
Lectures! a subject which cannot fail to attract, and which is at the
same time in keeping with his previous studies and suited to his
genius. His faculty is critical rather than historical. His hand is
surer when he is analysing a character than when he is tracing a
movement. In the present volume there is much acute and sound
criticism of the leaders of religious thought, but little help is
furnished towards the difficult task of finding the nexus between
the various movements of thought. Indeed, the reader finds that
even in tracing individual currents he is not always taken to the
very source. He is not brought into the presence of the inevit-
able force which is urging on the movement, so that it must roll
on till like a wave it breaks and dissipates to recur in a new
1 Movements of Religious Thought in Britain during the Nineteenth Century.
By John Tulloch, D.D., LL.D., Senior Principal in the University of St.
Andrews. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1885.
238 SURVEY OF RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE
form, or till like a tree it fructifies and seeds for the lasting
good of men. Even in dealing with the growth of opinion in the
leaders of thought, essential steps are sometimes unnoticed. The
amount of space given to Erskine, Scott, Campbell, and Irving,
and the position assigned to them, will be attributed by the
candid reader, to the pardonable personal predilections of the
Author, but will scarcely advance his reputation as a historian.
On the other hand, the Oxford movement deserved more care and
truer sympathy than Principal Tulloch has spent upon it ; while
there will not be wanting Evangelicals to affirm that his Broad-
Churchism shows its narrowness in his inability to discover that
they too have at times some “thought” mingling with their
religion. Notwithstanding all drawbacks, the book is full of
pleasant reading, the tone is good, and the point of view firmly
and distinctively Christian, and as a first sketch of the period
nothing better can be expected or desired.
The writers who accumulate material for the historian deserve
well of their country, and among these serviceable writers Mr.
Overton has already won for himself a place. His present work!
partakes rather too much of the character of a book of reference
or collection of materials. The first part gives an account of the
lay and clerical members of the Church of England who lived
during the period dealt with, and forms in fact a biographical
dictionary of the period. In the remainder of the volume the
growth of philanthropical and religious societies, the finance, the
ritual, the services of the Church, and its relation to civil society
are dealt with. Those who are familiar with Mr. Overton’s pre
vious writings do not need to be told that in his present volume
they will find a great deal of painstaking research, the fullest
sympathy with everything good, and consequently much sound
reflection and criticism. The book should be a favourite in
English households, and will be valued by the clergy.
To criticise a volume which is strictly apologetic scarcely falls
within our province. But a slight notice of Mr. Tymms’ book 3
might be justified, if necessary, by the fact that it enounces
a theory of Scripture. Of that theory we can only say that it
1 Life in the English Church (1660-1714).. By J. H. Overton, M.A., Rector of
Epworth. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1885.
2 The Mystery of God. A Consideration of some Intellectual Hindrances to
Faith. By T. Vincent Tymms. London: Elliot Stock, 1885.
δ ΥῪ
a
;
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239
looks in the right direction, but that its author will move on
to a much safer position if he weighs with due judgment what
has been advanced by the late Frederic Myers and by the present
Bishop of Ripon. The little shilling volume of the last-named
writer is worth a ton of the current treatises on Inspiration. But
in Mr. Tymms’ chapters on Materialism, Pantheism, Theism, and
the Person of Christ, there is much that is valuable; and on the
whole the book is one of the most successful attempts to popularise
the arguments in favour of Christian Theism. The reasoning is
vigorous and occasionally original, the style is lucid and pleasant,
and the good taste and temper with which he speaks of his antag-
onists is to be commended and recommended. We do not know
a better introduction to the study of the authoritative writers on
both sides of the enduring controversy.
We have received a Fourth, carefully revised edition of Dr. Donald
Fraser’s Synoptical Lectures on the Books of Holy Scriptwre (James
Nisbet & Co., 1886).
Marcus Dops.
Tus modest volume of memorial sermons, by the late Rev. W.
G. Forbes, of Edinburgh,! discloses a singularly attractive per-
sonality, and will make many share in the regret of his friends
at their author’s early decease. It is not that the greater thoughts
—if we may so describe them—stand out very conspicuously from
the average of what would be found in contemporary sermons of
the better quality, but the lesser thoughts have a quiet and chas-
tened refinement which is peculiar to them, and they are clothed
in language of exceptional purity and beauty.
The reader shall judge for himself from one or two short
extracts, which we should have liked to make longer :—
“They stand there, each in his appointed place, in the blissful
order of a perfect righteousness. . . . There is no description
given of the glory of the King upon the Throne, save what is seen in
the veiled faces of these seraphim. Hven these burning ones, as their
name implies, had to veil their faces from its brightness.
Are there indeed such revelations made of God in the upper wor ld
that His creatures, not only in lowly reverence, but in self-pro-
1 Memorials of a Brief Ministry : Sermons by the Late Rev. William G. Forbes.
Edinburgh ; Elliott, 1885.
240 SURVEY OF RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE.
tection, have to cover their faces, and seek the darkness of an over-
shadowing wing? Will the conditions of this present life be so
completely reversed?” (The Vision of Isaiah, p. 83.)
Again, after a happily worded paraphrase of the desc of
spring in the Song of Solomon 11. 11-13 :—
“Although these are not altogether our associations with spring- —
time, the whole description is one into the meaning and feeling of
which we can enter. It has the true and simple inspiration of
nature, and, like all poetry so inspired, wakens up the soul to feel
with it. The writer inspires us with his own delicate joys. The _
breath of spring still breathes through his words. Its scents, its —
‘fresh moist greenness, the old hopeful spring notes heard in the
woods again, are all here.” (Spiritual Spring-time, p. 147.)
Or this, in a slightly different key :—
“A meek and quiet spirit has deep fountains of calm within it,
and beneath its gentleness a tranquil courage which outward fears”
cannot disturb.” (A Meek and Quiet Spirit, p. 125.)
If we are not mistaken in our judgment, there is a fineness of —
touch in these extracts which would be worthy of Cardinal N ew-
man, but tempered with something of constitutional meditativeness
and Northern gravity.
W. Sanpay.
Correction.—In Professor Delitzsch’s article in the Expositor
for January, 1886, “The Bible and Wine,” p. 67, lines 1 and 2,
for “ Thus it was unfermented wine, too, which Jesus handed to the
disciples at His parting meal,” read, “Thus it was fermented wine,”
etc. This unfortunate error was caused by a mistake in the
original German. Professor Delitzsch will probably return to the
subject in our pages,
Eprror.
4
7
PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
WHEREVER St. Paul founded a Church, he was careful to
give the spiritual edifice as solid a foundation of Christ-
ian teaching as the circumstances permitted. We are
told that at Ephesus, where he made a long sojourn,
he held religious discussions every day for two years in
the school of one Tyrannus, “so that all they which dwelt
in Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts xix. 9, 10).
We may be quite certain that what Paul thus gave was
not a discursive, but a consecutive course of religious in-
struction. His mind was so logical that it could not fail
to set its impress on his teaching.
The instructions which the Apostle thus gave in the
Churches which he founded, extended over a very wide
area, embracing even points which are often neglected by
pastors in the preparation of their catechumens. Thus
Paul reminds the Thessalonians that he had spoken to
them, during his stay with them, of the coming of Anti-
christ, which was to precede the return of the Lord; or
rather of the existence of a power, the fall of which was
to prepare the way for the manifestation of Antichrist.
‘Remember ye not that when I was yet with you, I told
you these things?” (2 Thess. ii. 5).
Elsewhere he reminds them in detail of the practical
duties which he had enjoined upon them. ‘“‘ Ye know what
charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess.
iv. 2). At the commencement of chap. v. of the same
Epistle he writes to them, that they do not need to be
taught about the time of the return of Christ; for they
VOL. UI. 2: R
242 PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
know themselves that ‘ the day of the Lord so cometh as
a thief in the night.’’ He had, therefore, quoted to them
the Lord’s words on this subject, and had made these the
text of his teachings.
In 1 Cor. vi., he says, as speaking to them of some-
thing of which they cannot be ignorant, ‘‘ Know ye not
that the saints shall judge the world?” ‘‘ Know ye not
that we shall judge angels?”’ This teaching which he
had given them, he repeats in chap. xv. 24, 25, where he
speaks of a time coming when Christ shall reign, and all
enemies shall be put under His feet.
These indications show how thorough and minute was
the instruction given by the Apostle to these young
Churches.
How was it then with the Church at Rome, the capital
of [the Gentile world? The Gospel had reached there
before the coming of the Apostle to the Gentiles. The
message had gone before the messenger. Other lips had
brought it from Asia and from Greece, where it had already
made its way. Little groups of believers had been gathered
by the preaching of the Gospel, elementary as it no doubt
was, and these believing companies were scattered about
in different quarters of the great city. One of these little
flocks met in the house of Aquila and Priscilla; another
in that of Asyncritus and Phlegon; a third in that of
Philologus and Julia (Rom. xvi. 4, 14,15). These simple
hearts had received with joy the good news of salvation,
but they still needed such a solid course of instruction as
the Apostle was able to give them. This, if I mistake not,
was the real motive which led him to address to them this
letter, which is altogether different in character from the
rest of his Epistles, except perhaps, in some respects, the
Epistle to the Ephesians. He was anxious, if possible, to
settle the young Church upon stronger and deeper founda-
tions than those yet laid. He gives the Romans by letter
Oe ν᾿
“ok
PAUL'S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 243
the Gospel which he had not been able (and let us thank
God that it was so) to give them by word of mouth. After
the death of a father or mother, the children are thankful
for the occasional separations that had come between them
and those beloved parents, for to this circumstance they
owe the letters from them which are such treasured
memorials. In the same way we rejoice that the Apostle
was prevented from coming sooner to Rome, for to this
delay we owe the Epistle to the Romans.
This motive which seems to me to have prompted the
writing of this Epistle, is far from being generally recog-
nised. From a very remote period, and still more since
the time of Baur, this Epistle has been regarded as a piece
of ecclesiastical strategy. Paul (we are told) was desirous
to free this Church from the Judaising spirit, more or
less pronounced, which characterised it. Those who hold
this view, suppose that Christianity had been brought to
Rome by some Jewish pilgrims returning from Palestine,
or by messengers from the Church at Jerusalem. We know
that the Roman Catholic Church speaks of St. Peter as
having come to Rome in very early times, to set up there
the standard of the cross. According to the Tubingen
school, Paul endeavoured to make himself master of this
alien, or hostile position, in order to secure in the West,
whither he meant to carry the Gospel, a standpoint cor-
responding to that which he found in the Church at
Antioch for his work in the East. But more recent in-
vestigation has brought out so distinctly the pagano-
Christian composition of the Church of Rome, that this
idea of the Hpistle to the Romans is no longer tenable,
and is now supported by very few writers.' The idea now
is rather that the Apostle’s object was to resist a Judaising
invasion from the East, which seriously threatened the
Church of Rome. The same troublesome party which had
1 Mangold, for example.
244. PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
followed Paul into Galatia and Achaia, trying to bring
these Churches into the bondage of legalism, had come to
Rome also, and had stirred up some to oppose the spiritual
teaching of Paul. The Apostle writes this Epistle in order
to meet this difficulty. This is Weizsicker’s opinion.
But it appears to me that a comparison of the Hpistle to
the Galatians with this Epistle to the Romans, suffices to
make us distrust it. The polemical tone of the Epistle to
the Galatians, written, as it is supposed by Weizsiicker,
under circumstances analogous to those which prompted
the Epistle to the Romans, is in such strong contrast with
the calm didactic strain of the latter, that is is difficult to
suppose the two were composed under similar conditions,
or for the same ends. We may observe again, that in
arguing with the Galatians, Paul takes as his starting
point the person of Abraham and the patriarchal origin of
the Jewish covenant; while in the Epistle to the Romans,
he goes back to the very beginning of the race, to Adam
and his fall, as the occasion of the universal reign of sin
and death. These two lines of argument bear the same
relation to each other as the two genealogies of Matthew
and Luke. So little is it the object of the Apostle in the
Epistle to the Romans to emphasise the contrast between
Judeo-Christian legalism and his Gospel, that he begins
with a description of the corruption of the pagan world,
which would be altogether irrelevant on such a supposition.
Tt is not, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, the powerless-
ness of the law to save man, which is the prevailing thought
in the Epistle to the Romans, though that comes in inci-
dentally. It is the powerlessness of man, as such, to save
himself, whether with or without the law, and the necessity
of salvation by Christ, which is the great theme of the
Epistle to the Romans.
But why then, we hear some one ask, are there so many
passages dwelling emphatically on the incompetence of the
a «es
ay
PAUL'S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 245
law either to justify or sanctify? We reply: It must be
borne in mind that even in treating of mankind at large,
the Apostle could not omit the Jewish nation, and that in
dealing with the question of salvation, he was under the
necessity of paying particular attention to this people. Was
it not the only nation with which the Lord had entered
into covenant, and to which He had given the means ol
grace? the only nation, therefore, which had anything that
could be added to or contrasted with the salvation which
Paul preached ? the only nation which could urge its peculiar
claims in face of, and even in the midst of, the Church ?
It is none the less true that this antithesis holds only a
secondary place in the Epistle. It is the man, whether
Jew or Gentile, and not the Jew, whom Paul has in view.
Hence he begins with a picture of the corruption of the
Gentile world on the one hand, and of the Jewish nation
on the other, that he may justify the sentence of universal
condemnation which he then pronounces as the verdict of
Scripture. And hence it is that in opposition to this uni-
versal condemnation, he lays such stress (chap. 111. 22) on
the universality of the salvation offered in Christ. There-
fore also, in concluding the history of salvation, he uses
these words: “‘God hath shut up all unto disobedience,
that He might have mercy upon all” (chap. xi. 32).
This then is no controversy between Judaising and
Pauline Christians. Paul is contrasting Christianity itself
with the old pagan and Jewish religions, that he may show
forth in Christ the one true and perfect salvation for the
human race, lost as it was in its father Adam. The anti-
thesis here is not, as in the Epistle to the Galatians,
between Christ and Moses, but between Christ and Adam.
As de Wette observes, it was fitting that the Church of the
world’s metropolis should receive the Apostle’s teaching
upon so great a subject.
It seems to us probable that this grand conception of
210 PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
the Gospel formed the theme of the Apostle in his two
years’ course of religious instruction given at Ephesus, and
that the Epistle to the Romans presents to us a summary
of that teaching. The date at which this Epistle was
written agrees with this supposition. It is evident from
the Epistle itself, that the third mission of the Apostle to
the East, his ministry in Asia Minor, was finished. He
says so distinctly (chap. xv. 19-24): ‘‘So that from Jerusa-
lem, and round about to Illyricum, I have fully preached
the Gospel of Christ. . . . Now having no more place
in these regions, and having these many years a longing
to come unto you, whensoever I go into Spain, I hope to
see you on my journey.” Only before going thither he has
to go again to Jerusalem, to take leave of the Church, and
to hand over to it the collection which he had made on its
behalf among the Gentile Churches. This definitely fixes
the date of the letter. It was written at the close of his
stay in Ephesus, and after the conclusion of the conflict
with the Church of Corinth. Now at length Paul could
make that stay in Achaia which he had so long planned
(see Ist and 2nd Epistles to Corinthians), and enjoy three
months’ rest at Corinth (Acts xx. 3). This resting-time
was fruitful of great results. It produced the greatest
master-piece which the human mind had ever conceived
and realised, the first reasonable exposition of the work
of God in Christ for the salvation of the world.
It has often been asked, how it is that if this is the
true character of the Epistle to the Romans, it contains
absolutely no reference to Christology and Christian escha-
tology ? We reply, in the first place, that this is not exactly
the case. The humanity and divinity of the Saviour, though
they are not treated directly, are evidently implied; the
former in chap. v. 15, as well as in the whole parallel
with Adam; the latter in chap. viii. 3, 32, and ix. 5.
As to the eschatology, it is sufficiently and appropriately
PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 247
referred to in chap. xiii. 11, 12, But the main reason is
this. Neither the doctrine of the personality of Christ nor
of His second advent, formed the subject of the special
revelation granted to Paul on his conversion. Jesus Christ
“taught him by revelation” (Gal. i. 11, 12) that which he
twice calls in this Epistle his Gospel, and that which he
describes (Eph. iii. 2, 3) as his part in the general apostolic
revelation. Now it is this personal part, this Gospel en-
trusted specially to him, that Paul hands down in this
Epistle. The work is worthy of the occasion which called
it forth. The situation was a solemn one. The evangel-
isation of the West was about to follow that of the East.
This Epistle, addressed from Greece to Italy, was like a
bridge connecting the two parts of the ancient world, the
link between the two great works of the Apostle of the
Gentiles.
The general plan of the Epistle to the Romans may be
traced in various ways. Not indeed that it is wanting in
clearness. The ideas follow each other in close logical
sequence, each one the legitimate offspring of its antece-
dent and parent of what follows. The great divisions of
the Epistle are clearly marked. It is rather the grouping
of the parts which is somewhat doubtful. Let us notice
first, the series of well marked divisions.
(1) We have the epistolary preamble (chap. 1. 1-15), in
which Paul reminds the Christians of Rome that as the
_ Apostle of the Gentiles, he is also their apostle, and that
if he has not yet been to see them, it has been simply
᾿ς because he has been prevented by his work in the East.
(2) The second division contains only the description of
the subject about to be treated—the Gospel as the true
and only way of salvation for mankind, whether Jew or
Gentile (v. 16, 17).
(3) The third division comprises the treatment of the
1 This expression occurs again in 2 Tim. ii. 8.
248 PAUL'S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
first part of the subject indicated ; it extends from chap. i.
18, to the end of chap. v. It includes three sections. In
the first (chap. i. 18-iii. 28) Paul shows the lost condition
of man without the Gospel; Ist, of the Gentiles (chap. 1.
18-32) ; 2nd, of the Jews (chap. il. 1-11. 8); 3rd, of all, on
the testimony of the Old Testament itself (chap 11. 9-20).
The second forms the artithesis of the first. In the
midst of this darkness of fallen humanity a ray of light
suddenly breaks forth. This is free pardon, justification
by faith, offered to all as a means of salvation, based upon
the work of Christ (iii. 21-v. 11). First of all, the work of
Christ is set forth as consisting in a manifestation of the
Divine righteousness, so that he who consents to appro-
priate it by faith, thus becomes righteous before God, and
this grace, being completely free, is placed within the reach
of Gentiles as well as Jews (iii. 23-31). 2nd, This method
of God’s dealing in the Gospel is altogether in harmony with
the great example of justification in the Old Testament—
the example of Abraham ; for that patriarch obtained every-
thing by faith—justification, his inheritance, posterity (chap.
iv.). 8rd, This justification which the Christian obtains
by faith is assured to him not only for the time present,
but for the day of judgment, and consequently for ever.
For it is accompanied by another grace which renders it
permanent, the grace of sanctification (chap. v. 1-11).
Before describing this new gift however, which makes
the first immutably secure, the Apostle asks in a third
section, if the work of One like Jesus Christ can really
extend its influence over many to such an extent as to
justify all mankind. By a bold line of argument, he ad-
duces in proof of this power, the fatal influence which the
one sin of Adam has exerted. If this sin of Adam’s has
been powerful enough in its effects to bring death upon all
men, how much more shall the far mightier work of Christ
bring in eternal life. This concludes the first division of
a teerit ν΄...
PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 249
the subject, that which deals with the fundamental fact
of salvation, justification by faith. This part resembles
the first day of creation, in the first chapter of Genesis.
“There was evening,” the long night of condemnation on
Jew and Gentile; and “ there was morning,’ the manifes-
tation of Christ and of salvation. This was the first day.
This first act is to be followed by many others, designed
to complete the salvation of God.
The fourth division is not less clearly defined than the
foregoing. It extends from chaps. vi.—viil. In this the
Apostle works out the theme indicated in ver. 9, 10 of chap.
v., when, after having spoken of reconciliation by the death
of Christ, he adds the further gift of participation in His
life. Having become by faith in the atoning sacrifice, one
with Jesus Christ, the believer shares at once in His death
and in His risen life. The believer dies to the sin for which
Christ died, and he lives to God for whom alone Jesus
lives in. His resurrection life (chap. vi. 1-13). This effect
of faith is produced in him by a moral necessity such that
if he sought to evade it, he could only do so by denying
the faith, and falling back under the old power of death
under the law (chap. vi. 14-23). Being thus legitimately
delivered by the death of Christ from the bondage of the
law under which he was incessantly sinning, he is
henceforward free to live in the new union with the risen
Christ, a union in which he brings forth fruit unto God
(vii. 1-6). Paul is here giving his own actual experience.
He had himself lived under the law, and he knew that
when the law came in contact with his moral life, it con-
demned it, and thus gave a sense of separation from God,
and of spiritual death. In this state he was constantly
striving to satisfy the requirements of the law, and to re-
gain the favour of God. He did not succeed, and the
result of all this fruitless struggle was an agonised cry: “Ὁ
wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the
250 PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
body of thisdeath!”” . . . ‘‘ With the mind I serve the
law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” By his
manner of expressing himself here, the Apostle gives the
impression that it would still be so with him at the very
moment when he is speaking, if he were left to himself and
separated from the salvation he had received (chap. vii. 14-
25). But this state of condemnation and powerlessness is
no longer his. The spirit of Christ by the imparting to
him the holy life of the Lord, has delivered him from
spiritual death, and made him capable of fulfilling the law
spiritually, as Christ Himself fulfilled it; and this new life
is to him the pledge of future victory even over the death
of the body (chap. viii. 1-11). For just as eternal death
is certain for those who live after the flesh, so the Divine
heritage of eternal life is assured to the children of God
who live after the spirit (ver. 12-17). The Apostle sets
forth here the final issues of salvation—glory manifest-
ing itself even in the outward, corporeal and material
domain. A threefold sigh goes up after this universal
renovation ; the sighing of nature itself, of the redeemed,
and of the Holy Spirit ; and this sighing will be heard, for
it is in harmony with the will of God, according to which
those whom God has foreknown as believers are predestin-
ated to bear the glorious likeness of His Son (ver. 17-30).
Having reached this culminating point, the Apostle strikes
the keynote of the grand song of salvation. God is for us,
therefore nothing which is against us can break the bond
formed between Him and us by faith in Christ (ver. 31-39).
This fourth division sets before us, therefore, the destruc-
tion of sin and the restoration of holiness, thus completing
the work of justification, and preparing the way for our
glorification. This is the second day in the Divine work of
salvation, Christ in us carrying on and consummating the
work of Christ for us.
Here the fifth division begins, as it appears at first, some-
PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 251
what abruptly. This division takes in chaps. ix.-xi. The
Apostle has just been magnifying the grace enjoyed by the
Church ; but Israel, the chosen people, remains without,
and shares in none of these high privileges. Is this
possible? is it just? What end can be answered by it?
If the salvation proclaimed by the Gospel is of God, ought
it not to be, first of all, the portion of the chosen people?
The Gospel which sets this great problem, must surely, if
true, furnish its solution. This solution the Apostle gives
us in these chapters (ix.—xi.).
And first of all, however real the prerogative of Israel
as the chosen people, it cannot be of force to bind God
against His will, or to make void His word. Now Scrip-
ture shows, by the example of Ishmael and Hsau, both
true sons of Abraham, and yet rejected, that to be de-
scended from that patriarch, which is Israel’s boast,
is not in itself an assurance of salvation. There are
spiritual conditions of salvation, failing which a man, even
though an Israelite, is rejected and condignly visited with
that punishment of having his heart hardened, which
fell upon Pharaoh. But if these conditions are fulfilled,
even by a Gentile, they qualify the man to become the
subject of the infinite mercy of God, like Moses himself.
It belongs to God only to try the heart. Consequently
He has the right to exercise His Almighty power freely
and without human control; to harden whom He would
punish, to bless whom He is pleased to save, for what
seems good to such a Being must be good. Just so the
potter, discerning the nature of the clay he has to fashion,
sets apart some for honourable and the rest for vile uses.
That which was then taking place, the rejection of the
Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, had been so clearly
foretold by the prophets, that none should be stumbled at it
(chap. ix. 1-29). Not only then was the rejection of Israel
possible, but it ought to have been expected according to
252 PAUL'S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
the Scriptures. But is it just? Were there sufficient
reasons for so severe a measure? Yes, assuredly ; for not-
withstanding its zeal for God, Israel had persisted in re-
sisting the Divine plan. With the coming of Christ, the
reign of the Law, and consequently the monopoly of Israel,
was to cease. Israel was obstinately bent on perpetuating
both. The work of Christ inaugurated the era of a free
salvation, by which the Gentiles were placed on the same
level as Israel. Moses himself had clearly foreshadowed
this revolution, when he represented salvation as the gift
of God, and not as the reward of human effort. But
Israel was unwilling to give up its position of privilege,
and was bent upon maintaining it at all costs against the
whole world. It everywhere set itself against the pro-
clamation of salvation to the Gentiles. It never grasped
the meaning of the warnings of the prophets, of Moses,
and particularly of Isaiah, who all foretold the coming
rejection of Israel and the calling in of the Gentiles to
take its place (chap. ix. 80-x. 21). Was then that glorious
vision of a kingdom of Messiah of which Israel should be
the centre, to vanish away for ever? Were the promises of
God to this people to be entirely and for ever annulled?
Nay, this could not be. In the first place, there were be-
lievers in Israel, as the example of Paul himself proves ;
and if the mass of the people was visited by a judgment
of hardening for its pride, there was yet a faithful ‘“ remnant
according to the election of grace”’ (xi. 1-10).
Nay, more; the great body of the nation was itself one
day to return and be reinstated in that kingdom of God
from which for the moment it was shut out. Here the
Apostle opens before us a long vista in the purposes of
God. Israel, with its Pharisaic tendencies, could not have
accepted Messiah without endeavouring to introduce into
the new dispensation a strong leaven of legalism. Now
salvation preached to the Gentiles under this Judaised
PAUL'S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 253
form would infallibly have been rejected by them. It
was necessary then that Israel, since it was incorrigible
in these forms of error, should be blinded so as not to
recognise Jesus as the Messiah at all, that so the Gospel,
freed from all alloy of legalism, might make its way
throughout the whole world. But what is the depth of
the mercies of God! This salvation, once realised among
the Gentiles, will one day stir the rejected Jews to holy
emulation, so that they will covet a share in the rich
blessings enjoyed by the Gentiles, and will in the end
receive the Christ by whom the Gentiles have been so
blessed. And not only so, but this entering of believing
Israel into the Church will be the signal for a spiritual
revival and new fruitfulness throughout Christendom.
Thus, as the casting away of the Jews led to the con-
version of the Gentiles, so the conversion of the Gentiles
will in its turn lead to that of the Jews. And this restor-
ation of Israel will not be so hard of accomplishment as
it might seem; for there is still holy sap in that rejected
vine, so that it will be grafted in again upon the tree of
the Divine covenant more readily than the Gentiles them-
selves were grafted in. Nay, it might even happen that if
the Gentiles indulge in proud boasting against the Jews,
they may be for a time rejected as were the Jews.
As the final issue, we see all humbled, each in his turn
by a term of disobedience, but all at last gathered in by
the all-embracing arms of the Father’s love. And as at
the close of chap. viii. the Apostle burst into a jubilant
hymn of praise over the assurance of salvation, so now he
magnifies, in one adoring exclamation, the depth of the
wisdom of God’s ways with man.
With chap. xii. a new division begins. The opening words,
“ T beseech you then,” fitly introduce its contents, which are
the practical consequences which ought to follow in the
lives of believers from the Divine works, the mercies of God
254 PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
just set forth. These consequences bear on their conduct,
first, as members of the Christian community (chap. x1i.),
then as belonging to the great human family (chap. xii.).
Beside these two general applications of Christian princi-
ples, the Apostle makes one particular application to a
difficulty existing in the Church at the time when he was
writing (chap. xiv. 1-xv. 13). The section of the Hpistle
which we are now considering, extends therefore from chap.
xii. 1 to xv. 138. Paul begins by laying down in the first
two verses of chap. xu. the basis of Christian activity. This
he represents to be the complete sacrifice of self made by
virtue of a renewed mind which has become quick to discern,
[ἢ every case, the will of God. He next shows the twofold
form in which this sacrifice is to be presented—first, as a
member of the Church, by the faithful administration of the
cift received, whatever it may be, with no ambition beyond
its simple and conscientious use in all humility (ver. 3-8) ;
next, by loving service of the brethren in all the relations
of life, whether with the faithful or with the enemies and
persecutors of the faith, so that all evil shall be overcome
of good, that is, of love (ver. 9-21). To this sacrifice of self
in all humility and charity the believer is to add, as a
member of the state, respect for the rights of others in all
civil relations, whether by submission to authority of every
kind, or by just dealing towards all fellow-citizens; and
- this duty of fair dealing with all men the Apostle sums up
as naturally implied in the bond of love (chap. xiii. 1-10).
The Apostle concludes this exposition of the duties of the
believer as a Christian and a citizen, by reminding him
of the supreme motive by which he is ever to be sus-
tained in his daily walk—the looking for the Saviour
who is coming again, and for whose appearing the believer
ought to be ever arrayed in pure garments, ‘putting
on the Lord Jesus Christ”? Himself (ver. 11-14). What
follows relates to the relations of the Church with one
PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 255
particular group of believers who thought it their duty
to abstain from meat and from wine. The Apostle
urges the obligation of mutual forbearance. Those who
abstain ought not to judge those who believe they have
a right to use the things which others:deny themselves ;
and those who use them ought not to look with contempt
on those who abstain, since in such matters every one is
to be guided by his own conscience (chap. xiv.). That
the strong should support the weak is a sacred duty laid
upon them by the example of Christ Himself, and is it not
the only means of realising the union in one spiritual body
of believing Jews and Gentiles—those believing Jews to
whom God has so amply vindicated His faithfulness to His
promises, and those believing Gentiles whom He has freely
loaded with His benefits (xv. 1-13)? The Apostle closes
his summary of Christian duty with this thought of the
spiritual union between the two great families of mankind
in the Church, The close of his teaching is thus fully in
accord with its commencement (chap. i. 16, 17), in which
Paul dwelt on the salvation offered by faith alike to Jew
and Gentile. The Apostle anticipates in prayerful desire
the harmonious hymn of praise which is to rise from the
whole Christian community to the glory of the redeeming
work he has been describing.
The seventh and last division consists of concluding
words corresponding to the preamble (chap. i. 1-15). After
excusing himself for offering such teaching to this com-
munity which possesses within itself so many means of
Christian instruction, but which nevertheless comes within
his sphere as Apostle to the Gentiles, he tells the Christians
of Rome how he is placed at the moment. His work in
the East is finished; he is purposing to go shortly into
Spain, and-hopes to take this opportunity of visiting Rome.
Lastly, he tells them of his approaching visit to Jerusalem,
to hand over to the Churches the collection made for them
256 PAUL'S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
among the Gentile Christians, and thus to seal the bond of
friendship between them and the mother-Church (chap. xy.
94-33). He commends the deaconess Phoebe, the bearer
of the letter, to the kindly care of the Church; he sends
ereetings to the various Christian workers whom he knew
personally, having met them in the Hast, and who were
now labouring for the spread of the Gospel in the capital
of the world. Then he warns the various groups of Christ-
ians against the Judaising agitators who have been so busy
troubling one after another the Churches founded by him,
and who will be sure to come to Rome as soon as they hear
that there are Christian communities there. He concludes
with greetings from the workers who are with him, and
with a solemn prayer to God for this important Church, that
it may be stablished in the truth of the Gospel ‘‘ now made
known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith.”
Such is the Epistle to the Romans—this sublime effort
of the human intellect to apprehend the thought of God
in the salvation of mankind, and to give to the world its
first clear exposition. How shall we distinguish, in this
deep meditation on the things of God, the element of
direct revelation given by Christ Himself, of which Paul
speaks (Gal.i.11, 12), from the natural workings of that rare
intellect to which the Lord had been pleased to commit
such a treasure? May we say that the substance was
given by revelation, the form produced by reflection? It
would be difficult to separate the two in this way. It would
be better to say that Paul placed his intellect wholly at the
service of Christ, to grasp and reproduce the Divine revel-
ation. However this may be, we fail to find one gap in
this great work, one break in its continuity. Everything
is worked out in perfect order in this exposition of the
Divine idea, as though by a law of inward necessity.
But we note at the same time, very distinct divisions in
it. We have enumerated seven, the first and the last
PAUL'S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 257
being of an epistolary character which marks them off
from the rest; so that they are like the envelope which
contains the letter itself. The interesting question with
regard to these five intermediate sections is, how to group
them ; that is to say, what is really the plan of the Epistle,
as conceived in the mind of the Apostle. Various answers
may be given to this question. We may divide the body
of the letter, as I have done in the first edition of my
Commentary, into a doctrinal part (chap. i. 16-xi.) and a
practical part (xii. 1-xv. 18) ; subdividing the first part into
three sections—the one fundamental (i. 16-v.), explaining
justification by faith; the two others supplementary, in-
tended, the one (vi.—viii.) to set forth the holiness of the
justified believer ; the other (ix.-xi.) to explain the history
of salvation from this standpoint. Or, as I have tried to
do in my second edition, we may, while maintaining this
great division into doctrinal and practical, subdivide the
former into two sections, the one comprising chap. i. 16—viil.,
that is to say the whole exposition of salvation in its three
essential phases—justification (i.—v.), sanctification (vi.—vill.
17), and the future and certain glorification of believers
(viii. 18-39); the second setting forth the historical pro-
gress of salvation among mankind (chap. ix.-xi.)._ Thereis,
however, a third mode of division, perhaps preferable, and
which I think I should adopt if I were required to bring
out a third edition. This would be to divide the whole
matter contained in the five middle sections into three
parts: first, chap. i—viii., salvation; second, chap. ix.—xi.,
the history of salvation; third, xii-xv. 13, the salvation-
life. These three parts would be like the central block
of a grand building, the two epistolary sections forming
the two wings. Of course the only interest of such a
question arises out of the desire to understand what was
the idea present to the mind of the Apostle when he
wrote the Epistle.
VOL. III. 8
258 PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS.
And now let us pause for a moment before this great
structure, and try to count up some of the treasures it con-
tains. I do not speak here of the light which flashes from
it into the dark places of the heart of man, showing his
corruption, his powerlessness for all that is good, and reveal-
ing at the same time the one way of salvation set before
him, by which he may climb again the heavenly heights.
I am speaking now of the intellectual treasures contained
in these sixteen chapters, and which enrich with added
treasure those who have already found the kingdom of God
and His righteousness. In chap. i. we have a philosophy
of paganism which searches to the very depths that great
historical phenomenon, unveiling its hidden cause, and
explaining its fearful consequences. In chap. iii. we have
an explanation of the mystery of the cross which, better
understood, would have prevented many misconceptions and
removed many intellectual stumbling-blocks. In chap. v.
we have a rapid survey of the history of humanity based
upon the two opposite principles of life which regu-
late the whole development of the race. In chap. vi. we
have the outlines of a moral philosophy which admirably
combines the two elements of liberty and necessity. In
chap. vil. we have an inimitable psychological analysis of
the condition of unregenerate man, both as to what remains
of good in him and as to his inability to realise his good
intentions. In chap. viii. we have a philosophy of nature,
which recognises the abnormal and transitory character of
creation as it is, and which in this painful phase of its ex-
istence, corresponding to the fallen estate of man, discerns
the pledge of a future renewal of all nature corresponding
to man’s glorious restoration. In chaps. ix.-xi. we have a
philosophy of history which sets forth the great contrast
between Israel and the Gentile nations as the key which
can alone explain the strange vicissitudes of national life,
and unlock the mystery of their final issues. In chap. xiii.
PAUL’S GOSPEL TO THE ROMANS. 959
we have a system of political philosophy, which assigns
to the State a basis no less Divine than that of the Church,
“the powers that be being ordained of God’”’ but, at the
same time marks most distinctly the difference between the
two societies, by the difference between the love which is
the soul of the one (chap. xii.), and the justice which is the
mainspring of the other. What we admire here is not
so much this clear distinction between the State and the
Church, since the Apostle would be naturally led to this by
the hostility of the State to the Christian community at that
time ; but rather his recognition of the possibility of a moral
union between the two resulting from this very distinction.
For what opposition could there possibly be between the
two equally Divine principles of justice and charity? or
between two communities based the one on one of these
principles, the other on the other. As to an administrative
union between Church and State, Paul never dreamed of it,
because of this very distinction. Justice is something due.
The State may exact it by coercion. But with love it is
not so. Itis the free surrender of oneself under the con-
straining power of faith. The State cannot claim it. The
Church alone can call it forth. Hach of these two institu-
tions has its proper sphere, and its special methods adapted
for the work it has to do. ‘This relation which even the
nineteenth century so signally fails to comprehend, Paul
places on its true basis.
Was not Coleridge right when he called the Epistle to
the Romans, ‘‘ the most profound writing extant”? It is
amine which the Church has been working for more than
eighteen centuries, and from which it will go on drawing
ever fresh treasures till it is raised at length from faith to
perfect knowledge.
FREDERIC GODET:
260
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
THE first attempt in modern times to translate any part
of the New Testament into Hebrew was made by Shem
Tob ben Shaprut, a Jew of Tudela in Castile, who, for
polemical purposes, prepared a Hebrew version of St.
Matthew’s Gospel, which he completed in 1385. This
version remained in MS. till it was published (with textual
alterations) by Sebastian Munster, under the title NWN
Mw, Hvangelium secundum Mattheum in Lingua He-
braica, cum versione Latina atque succinctis annotationibus,
Basile, 1537.1 This was reprinted in 1557 by the same
scholar, together with a Hebrew version of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Other portions were translated by succeed-
ing scholars, and the whole was finally completed by Elias
Hutter, the entire version being included in the Polyglott
New Testament, in twelve languages, issued by him in
1599. Khas Hutter, says Delitzsch, shows a command
of Hebrew rarely found among Christians, and is often
felicitous in his renderings. In 1809 was founded the
London Society for Promoting Christianity among the
Jews. Dissatisfied with the existing translations, this
Society found itself before long with the task of revision
upon its hands. The first revision, begun in 1813, was
completed in 1817; and was reprinted subsequently in
1821, 1831, and 1835. A second revision followed in
1837-8, the joint work of the well-known Hebraist
Alexander McCaul, J. C. Reichardt, an experienced mis-
sionary, §. Hoga, the translator into Hebrew of Pilgrim’s
Progress, and M. S. Alexander, who became in 1841 the
first Bishop of the newly established see of Jerusalem.
A third revision, undertaken by J. C. Reichardt, with
1 Tt has been re-edited recently, from MSS., by Dr. Adolf Herbst (Géttingen,
1879), who in his Introduction collects particulars illustrative of its history and
character.
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS. 261
the assistance of Dr. J. H. R. Biesenthal, an accomplished
Rabbinical scholar,’ and of Mr. Ezekiel Margoliouth, a
missionary resident in London, and intimately acquainted
with Jewish literature and learning, was completed in 1866.”
Meanwhile Professor Delitzsch, who amongst living
Christian scholars is perhaps the most profoundly read
in post-Biblical Jewish literature, and who throughout
his life has felt the liveliest interest in everything affect-
ing the welfare of the Jews,’ had directed his attention
to the subject, and was induced ultimately, at the re-
quest of the Society of Friends of the Jews in Bavaria,
Saxony and Norway, to take in hand an independent
revision himself. The firstfruits of his labour was the
translation into Hebrew of the Epistle to the Romans,
with an Introduction and explanations from the Talmud
and Midrash, which appeared at Leipzig in 1870.
In the Introduction, after reviewing the history of past
translations, and exemplifying the faults of style and ex-
pression, under which even the last revision of the
London Society still laboured, Professor Delitzsch states
the principles and motives of his own work. His aim is
primarily a practical one—to bring home, namely, to the
διασπορὰ of Israel the words of the Gospel, by presenting
them in a form in which their force and meaning would be
directly apparent to a Jewish reader. But in the attain-
ment of this practical aim, other important ends are also
secured. Not only does it demand, as the condition of
success, an accurate exegesis of the New Testament itself,
1 Author, amongst other works, of an edition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
in Hebrew, with philological and other explanatory notes. (Das Trostschreiben
des Apostels Paulus an die Hebriier, Leipzig, 1878.)
~ 3 Further details will be found in the Introduction to Delitzsch’s Brief an
die Rimer, mentioned subsequently,
3 His emphatic and repeated protests against the charges falsely brought
against the Jews by agitators in Germany and Austria, may be quoted as a
recent illustration of this.
bo
6s
bo
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
but the re-translation of the Greek text into the language
from which much of its characteristic terminology was
immediately borrowed, is often a means of materially aiding
the work of interpretation. Thus, if properly executed,
such a translation, besides subserving the practical aim
which is its first object, is at the same time a valuable
positive aid in the theological study of the New Testament.
Very interesting examples of this are given by Professor
Delitzsch in the work referred to; showing, for instance,
how the Apostle’s thought, even where it is most distinc-
tively Hellenic or Christian, nevertheless finds expression
in forms, and particularly in forms of reasoning, peculiar
to the synagogue. Professor Delitzsch did not rest here,
however; he continued his labours, taking naturally the
London edition as the basis of his work, but subjecting it
uniformly to correction and revision; and in 1877 the first
edition of his complete New Testament, consisting of 2,500
copies, was published by the British and Foreign Bible
Society. The edition was soon exhausted; a second and
third, each of the same number, followed in 1878 and 1880;
a fourth and fifth, of 5,000 each, in 1881 and 1883, and a
sixth and seventh, the latter in large 8vo size, both also
of 5,000 copies, in 1885. None of these editions are mere
reprints of the preceding one; not only has the learned
author himself laboured continuously to improve his own
work, but especially in the third and following editions he
has made considerable use of contributions and suggestions
offered to him by competent. Hebrew scholars in different
parts of the world. The 8vo edition of 1885 (which has
been more thoroughly revised than the 32mo edition of
the same year') exhibits thus the maturest results of the
author’s studies; and it will be apparent, even from the
1 The latter was printed from the electrotype plates of the previous edition,
—not, however, without the introduction into them of many improyed render-
ings. The price of these two editions is, respectively, 1s.6d. and Is.
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS. 263
preceding rapid survey, what an amount of pains and
thought is represented by it.
The past year has, however, seen another Hebrew version
of the New Testament offered to the public. Isaac
‘Salkinson, a missionary whose sphere of labour was among
the Jews of Austria, had long been acknowledged as a
master of Hebrew style. In temperament he was a poet:
and his translations into Hebrew of Tiedge’s Urania, of
Shakespeare’s Othello and Romeo and Juliet, and of Milton’s
Paradise Lost, show him to have possessed a rare genius
for Hebrew composition, and a rare power of casting the
thought of a modern poet into felicitously chosen Hebrew
form. He was known to have been for some time past
engaged upon the New Testament, but he was prevented
from bringing his work to a conclusion himself by his prema-
ture death in June, 1883. It is understood that a consider-
able part was left by him in a practically complete form, but
that the MS. of the rest was imperfect, and had to be
completed and prepared for publication by the editor. The
task of editing the whole was undertaken by his friend, Dr.
C. D. Ginsburg; and the result, published by the Trini-
tarian Bible Society, London, is now before us. The work
invites, and indeed, challenges, comparison with the version
of Prof. Delitzsch, which was, so to ‘speak, in possession of
the field, and had been most favourably received by those
1 See further a brochure, written in English by Professor Delitzsch, The
IIebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society: a contribution
to Hebrew Philology (Leipzig, 1882), in which reasons are stated for some of
the changes introduced into the fifth edition, and which contains at the end
(pp. 35-7) a list of papers and articles connected with the subject, by the same
author (in particular, twelve papers in the Lutherische Zeitschrift, 1876-8,
entitled Hore Hebraice et Talmudice, supplementary to Lightfoot and
Schoettgen).
In many parts of the Continent, for instance in Germany and Italy, Hebrew
is practically little known among the Jews; but elsewhere, especially in Austria
and Russia, they are more familiar with it; and in those countries a con-
siderable number of copies of the different editions of Delitzsch’s yersion
have been disposed of for missionary purposes.
264 TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
best qualified to judge of its merits. Does it then sustain
the comparison with the new version ? or must our verdict
be that the latter is its superior, either in fidelity, or in
chasteness of style, and deserves to supplant it in the con-
fidence of the public ?
There can be no doubt as to the answer which these
questions must receive. We desire to say nothing in dis-
paragement of a work which, we may be sure, was under-
taken as a labour of love, and the author of which can
make no reply to the criticisms which may be passed
upon it. But we cannot abstain from instituting the com-
parison which, by its publication, his work challenges. It
is at once evident that its execution is uneven,—a circum-
stance due, it may be supposed, to the imperfect state in
which the MS. was left at its author’s death. In the best
parts—for instance in the Gospels—his style is flowing and
easy, his expressions are classical and well chosen; the
pen of the ‘‘ready’’ and able writer has left its mark upon
the pages. Ability, skill, delicacy of touch, must be frankly
and gratefully acknowledged. The author shows that he
can reach a high level of excellence; and probably, had he
been spared to complete and revise his work continuously,
the same qualities would have been visible throughout.
But this, as we shall see, is not the case.
It should be premised that both translators have the
same aim, to represent the N. T., namely, not in the
more modern Hebrew found in the Mishnah (2nd cent.
A.D.), and such as was probably spoken in the schools
in the time of Christ; but, as far as possible, in the
original language of the O. T., only admitting later terms,
or forms of expression, where the use of them could not
be avoided. The number of ideas occurring in the N. T.
for which there is no equivalent in the O. T. is consider-
able. ΤῸ say nothing of specific theological terms, such as
adoption, regeneration, baptism, farth, godhead; ideas such
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS. 265
as nature, freedom, promise, conscience, patience, danger,’
doubt, worthy, ἔξεστι, μέλλει, δοκεῖ, δεῖ, and even such ap-
parently simple expressions as not only . . . but also, or
straightway, have no distinctive equivalent in the O. T.;
and in these cases recourse must of course be had to the
more abundant Hebrew vocabulary of a later age.? But
with exceptions such as these, particularly in the Gospels,
Acts, and Revelation, it is the aim of both translators
to employ as classical an idiom as possible.
Further, of the two, that of Salkinson affects more
entirely the classical style. Thus in Matt. ii., in place of
Dw, which occurs in the Talmud, and is employed by
Delitzsch to represent the Greek Mayor, Salkinson uses
p’2355 ὙΠ, an expression suggested by Isaiah xlvii. 13.
Doubtless the expression is more classical than that of
Delitzsch ; but it must not be forgotten that by its use
the distinctive sense conveyed by the Greek is entirely lost.
In 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, the renderings bread of heaven and rock
of salvation, for spiritual meat and spiritual rock, are un-
doubtedly clever; but they seriously obscure the drift of
the Apostle’s argument. It is a law of language that new
words must sometimes be found in order to give expression
to new ideas.
Let us then proceed with our comparison of the two
translations, which for brevity may be referred to by
the letters D. and S. respectively. In the first place, we
} The verb endanger occurs once, but not before Eccl. x. 9.
? Thus, to express ἀληθινὸς distinctly, HN is often required (e.g. John i. 9;
iv. 23, 37; vi. 32 Del.; compare in medieval Hebrew such expressions as
ΓΝ nae, true unity ; ΠΡῸΣ Miya, real opinions, &c.). Similarly, ἴον
the sake of definiteness, it is necessary to use special adjectives to express such
ideas as ah a, carnal, eternal. See Rom. i. 20; xii. 1; 1 Cor. ii. 14; x. 4;
xy. 44; Col. iii. 16 in Delitzsch’s translation. The ἢν τς of Hebrew
which meets us in the Mishnah is analysed in Strack and Siegfried’s Lehrbuch
der Neuhebriiischen Sprache (1884). The intermediate link between the normal
classical Hebrew of the O. T. and the language of the Mishnah is afforded by the
Hebrew of Ecclesiastes: see the list of idioms in the Introduction to Delitzsch’s
Koheleth, or in C. H. H. Wright’s Ecclesiastes (1883), p. 488 ff.
266 TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
notice a number of passages in which, though the render-
ings slightly vary, each is correct and appropriate, and a
preference on either side can hardly be expressed. Se-
condly, we notice passages in which sometimes one some-
times the other has found the happier or more idiomatic
expression. Instances in which §. appears to us to have
been successful in the choice of phrases are Matt. 1. 18;
19 (BY AIT); ii. 5D (7D); 7D; 9b; 17a; iii, 12; viii, 24
(from TY); ix. 83; x. 19 (the rendering of τί ἢ πῶς) ; ΧΧΥΙ.
42 ΟΠ Φ ON 53); xxvii. 18. Luke 1.9.5; 20-(rom ayy
1: 266; xv. 27; xvii: οὖ»; Acts: 11; 249 vil. 44.4 Onathe
other hand, we prefer D. in Matt. ii. 13 (D977 DN, an ex-
pressive idiom, used by the choicest writers of the O. T.);
il. 15 (7MII—more suitable here); iv. 2d (Ὁ HN) ; vii. 8
ΟΝ 30, οἵ. Gen. xxix. 19—why the cireumlocution in 8. aes
29 end; 1x. 32a; Luke ui. 110; xvii. 4b (Deut. xxviii. 50);
xxill. 23b; 28; John 11.9; 10; xiii. 22 (where the expres-
sions in §. are inappropriate).
Thus passages of considerable length may be found, the
style of which, speaking generally, is equally excellent,
and in which there is no decided superiority on either
side. But we have not to read far to find that this is
not uniformly the case. It cannot be doubted that the
Sermon on the Mount is better rendered in D. than in
5S. Not to lay stress here upon the imperfect syntax and
incorrect forms prominent in Matt. v. 19; vi. 8b; 210;
28; vil. 11, the style in D. is more flowing, and the ex-
pressions are better chosen. And elsewhere, for instance in
parts of the Acts, the style of S. deteriorates still more ;
Paul’s speech at Athens, and the account of the tumult
at Ephesus (not to instance more) are simply barbarous
Hebrew. In the Prologue of St. John, the sense is
several times very imperfectly rendered, even if it be not
distorted." In such parts of the Epistles as we have ex-
1 Τὴ John i. 1 myn (both times) should be 77; and 831) before 72°15 is more
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS. 267
amined we seldom find anything which is superior to D.,
and often that which is decidedly the reverse. Thus com-
paring the two translations in their broader and more
general features, our verdict must be that S., though in parts
it is excellent and shows the hand of a master, must be pro-
nounced, as a whole, to be unquestionably inferior to D.
This opinion is strengthened when we come to examine
details. Here (1), the method of translation followed by
S. is open to criticism. In fact, he is not sufficiently faith-
ful. Thus, in particular, instead of rendering a passage
literally, he is apt to substitute for it a phrase borrowed,
and often borrowed unsuitably, from the O. T. This
practice is to be altogether deprecated. Τὸ be sure, in the
translation of a modern poem into Hebrew, the adaptation
of a phrase from the O. T. is permissible, and indeed is
counted an elegance; but in such a work a strictly literal
rendering is of small moment, a telling poetical equivalent
is all that is required, and the original connexion or mean-
ing of the borrowed phrase is unimportant. But in a
translation of the N.'T’., both these matters are of serious
importance. Moreover, the N. 'T. writers were not less
familiar with the O. T. Scriptures than the modern trans-
lator ; where they borrowed a phrase, or based their language
upon a particular passage, this is always reflected distinctly
in the Greek; in translating therefore the N. T. into
Hebrew, it becomes a questionable liberty to adopt phrases,
often rare or peculiar ones, from parts of the O. T. which
there is no indication that the original writer had in his
mind. Examples of such phrases, borrowed without suf-
ficient reason, are Matt. 11. 3d (Isa. νἱῖ. 2); ii. 7 (DDWD) by
than superfluous. In v. 6 N32 is an intrusion, the intended meaning of which
is far from clear. In v. 14 the words which correspond to καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ
ἐγένετο are scarcely intelligible, and in any case do not represent the sense of
the Greek; in particular, the participle expresses not an event (ἐγένετο), but a
state. In v. 11 the distinction of τὰ ἴδια and οἱ ἴδιοι is obliterated; and the ren-
dering of οὐ κατέλαβον suggests. an inappropriate idea.
268 TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
gratuitously inserted from Gen. xix. 17); v. 24;! 28 (where
the rendering of D. preserves rightly the term used in
the tenth commandment); 41 (YIN 715); vi. 6 (cf. Ps.
xvi: ID) xh 13 (bn?) ; 82 (a recondite adaptation of Deut.
xxvl. 17, 18, but a very considerable deviation from the
Greek); xii. δά (Ps. xlviil. 6); xxv. 84 (7IDW transcribed
mechanically from Exod. ix. 18, the pronoun here having
no antecedent! repeated strangely, John xvu. 24; 1 Pet. i.
20, and elsewhere) ; xxvil. 13 (Job xxxv. 16); 50 end (cf.
Ps. xxxi. 6; but here no translation of the Greek, though
suitable in Luke xxii. 46. In support of D.’s rendering, see
Gen. xxxv. 18 LXX.); 516 (the introduction of fragments
of poetry ἀσυνδέτως is quite alien to the prose style of the
O.T.); 525; Mark ix. 60 (ΠῚ Ν--- form unheard of in
prose, but recurring elsewhere, e.g. 1 Cor. xii. 6, my) ;
24 (an incongruous phrase from Ps. Ixxx. 6); Luke i. 21
(Δ Ty—an arbitrary addition); 11. 40) (Ps. xlv. 8);
ry. 40: (Isa. lin. 3); xvin. 1;:8 end?; xxi. 10 and.14 Gok
mxxvi. £9 -and «xxv. 14. [50 1 Cor= mim. 5] -sbothiiwes
suitable); John vil. 43 (Isa. Iya... 19); xa.. - 27 sends. mow
(7783, from Exod. xv. 6, at the end of a verse!); Acts
xvi. 26 and xvu. 10 (again unsuitable poetical remini-
scences) ; Gal. v. 1 (Josh. ii. 17, in a very different con-
nexion):- Jas, 4. .5.(Jud.:xwii.-7) ¢ Rew. πὶ 17 ΡΣ. πεῖ
25) ; xvi. Τὸ (in spite of Isa. xlvu. 8, Sy2w is ποὺ-- πένθος) ;
L7 and.21.(Ps.° lxxi. 19 and? Isa.: liv. 8). .In dact, suehi
examples occur on nearly every page, and often several
times in the same page.
Sometimes, in addition, the phrase thus borrowed is one
of which the original meaning is uncertain, a precarious
sense being arbitrarily affixed to it; at other times it is one
which suggests a misleading or doubtful association. Thus
(a) Matt. viii. 9 and Luke 11. 51 (in Luke especially the
1 Reading of course, 11) (Prov. vi. 3).
Ξ by (here and elsewhere) is only poetical.
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS. 269
application of the phrase 1 Sam. xxii. 14 is inappropriate);
x. 28, xxvi. 61 and elsewhere (a most questionable adaptation
of the phrase in Deut. xxxiii. 7 in the sense of be able or
sufficient); Acts ix. 22 and xv. 24 (JODD); xii. 21 and xx.
7 (Deut. xxxiii. 3b) ; and (8), Matt. 11. 4 (the phrase ...°5 ONw
is used of asking for direction as to a course of action, not
of asking for mere information); v. 21 (Ὁ 58 : D. uses
the later technical expression); xii. 18 (Exod. xiv. 27);
xiv. 31 and xxviii. 17 (D. is certainly right in using the post-
Biblical term for διστάζειν) ; xxi. 32b (the sense expressed
is merely that of take to heart, not repent, 1W); xxv. 46
ΟΝ ΤΥ [wrongly pointed] is no rendering of κόλασιν) ;
Mark ν. 2b (borrowed from 1 Sam. xvi. 15, but at the cost
of obliterating the distinctive ἀκάθαρτον); ix. 120 (the
quotation from Isa. 111]. 4, 5, 8, is unwarranted, and no
translation of ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενωθῇ) ; 23 ὦν wv
TT); 41 (Exod. xii. 4); Luke i. 22 (Ps. xxii. 8, etc.) ; 1. 660
(the phrase used denotes regularly to be seized by the
prophetic impulse ; Ezek. i. 3; iii. 22; 2 Kings 11. 15) ; 111. 8
(3) WN); John xi. 18 (1 Sam. xiv. 14); xii. 811 (Ps. exl. 12) ;
Acts xiii. 45) (2 Chron. xxxvi. 16 and Ps. lvi. 6: but no
rendering of the Greek) ; xx. 9 (Ps. Ixxvi. 6: but the entire
verse is in fact a torso of phrases from the O. T., suggesting
the most incongruous associations). Sometimes indeed the
text is glossed so as seriously to alter the sense: thus Rev.
xiy. 13, the words ‘‘ That they may rest from their labours ;
for their works follow with them,’ are transformed, without
the smallest necessity or excuse, into “‘ There the weary are
at rest; and the work of their righteousness goeth before
them,” from Job iii. 17 and Isa. Iviii. 8, with a reminiscence
of Isa. xxxii. 17 (APIS Mwy).
It cannot, indeed, be denied that freedom such as this,
where it is consistent with idiom, enables a translator to
15M) moreover means to hasten, both in late Biblical Hebrew, and in the
Midrash (Levy, s. v.).
270 TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
secure sometimes a grace of style which is beyond the reach
of one who makes fidelity his guiding principle. Thus in
Matt. ii. 180, S. has undoubtedly the advantage over Ὁ. ;
but it is gained at the cost of identifying the phrase with
that in v. 20, where the Greek is different. Similarly,
Matt. xxvi. 12, MP8’ is better than MD5W:; but the Greek
here is βαλοῦσα, a stronger word; and ΓΝ) is the equivalent
in v. 7 for κατέχεεν. So again Luke xv. 25a, but at the
expense of introducing something not expressed in the
Greek. In Matt. xxviii. 7 on the contrary a word, going,
is omitted. This may often be noticed. The question
which the translator is called upon to meet is this: Within
what limits is a deviation from the Greek permissible, for
the sake of securing an idiomatic Hebrew sentence, free
from stiffness? Possibly D. might have allowed himself
rather greater liberty in this respect than he has done,!
and have given thereby additional finish to his version; but
there can be no doubt that §. has taken it much too freely,
and without always gaining what was aimed at. More per-
missible adaptations are Matt. iii. 11 (ΣΡ, cf. Gen. xxxii.
11) ; xii. 2 (Τῶν ND, cf. Lev. iv. 2); xxvi. 58d (Ruth iii. 18).
But sufficient examples will have been adduced to show
that an aptitude which is a merit and distinction in a trans-
1 Phrases such as And when he had said this, he . . ., at the close
of a speech, are notin the style of the O. T. narrative, and are difficult to re-
produce in classical idiom. Luke xxiii. 46; xxiv. 40 (in both §. and D.) are
indeed exact, but not elegant. Recourse must be had to a cireumlocution,
the nature of which will vary with the character of the passage. In these
two cases we would venture to suggest 1W5J 5) “ΣῚΡ ὙΠ}525 79) and
ον DONT DDI ΠΝ ἼΔῚ WN. Elsewhere, 7299 152 ἽΝ, construed
as in Gen. xviii. 33, might be appropriate. So Matt. xii. 24 DSWINDN Δ) ))
STON; Mark xv. 35 ION") (or yyy) Dy ayn ἸὉ DIN iyo
MND too, in the best style, is only used in exceptional cases. In writing
Hebrew, the particles require to be handled with great delicacy. Matt.
Exvii. 23, TY ΠΝ ΤΠ 3 would be both closer to the Greek and more idiomatic
(1 Sam. xxix. 8; 1 Kings xi. 22; 1 Sam.xx. 10; xxvi. 18) than the rendering of
either D. or 5.
2 Ὁ. here and inv. 4 has the technical expressions continually occurring
in similar discussions in the Mishnah, and in this connexion more suitable.
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS. 271
lator of Romeo, may become a snare to a translator of the
the New Testament.
Secondly, S. in spite of the classical style affected in it,
displays serious faults of grammar. Constructions occur
frequently which are unknown to the O.T.; particles are
used incorrectly, and false forms are of constant occurrence.
feat. 1.°20: ix. 18). NT Hy. DM Hy occurs mm
the O.T. and ‘3X8 TW once or twice in late books; but
NVI TW never. The form used is always ITY.
ili. 7, 11 and often, JN. ἽΝ is restrictive, not adver-
sative; in 8. it is continually used in the latter sense.
In classical Hebrew, the contrast between two clauses in
all ordinary cases, where it is not very marked, is suffi-
ciently indicated by their juxtaposition with the inter-
posed }. So D. here rightly.
iii. 8; x. 82; xviii. 23 and constantly, NYDN. The use of
this particle, again, is in S. quite unclassical. In the O.T’.
it is rare, and restricted to special cases (especially with an
imperative, or 3); in S. it becomes a general particle of
inference, usurping the place of 129, Ty, or simply of ἢ.
ἽΝ Tw? [sic]. It is difficult to conjecture what this
is intended to represent.
iv. 4, N71. NWT here gives a false emphasis to the
Greek ὁ δέ...
iv. 17, NT ΤῊ (cf. xvi. 21; xxvii. 15; Luke xvi. 10).
The solitary Mic. vii. 11 does not justify the omission of
the article before a substantive followed by N77. In Acts
ii. 40; xix. 26 occur instances of the opposite error, ΠῚΠ
after a proper name (see Exod. xxxii. 1).
vi. 30; 21; xviii. 18; Luke xviii. 4. The jussive mood
in these verses is ungrammatical and expresses an incorrect
sense.
vi. 20; ix. 84; xi. 22 and elsewhere, DDN is another
particle of very limited use in the O.'T., and not here in
place.
272 TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
vii. 11. The syntax of this verse defies analysis.!
Matt. viii. 20; Mark ix. 6; Luke xxii. 2; Acts xix. 36;
xxv. 27 end; also Matt. xxvi. 18; Luke xvii. 5; 1 Cor:
x. 33. Though analogies may be cited for the use of
the infinitive and 2 in these passages, it is a very
questionable extension of what actually occurs in the
O.T., even including the peculiar constructions used by
the Chronicler.
ix. 4, 11; xiii. 10; xv. 3 andrepeatedly, M YIT3. Contrary
to idiom. M799 is common in the -O.T.; ΠῚ ΨΥ occurs
never. YT) is sometimes used in a question expressing
surprise.
xi. 23, ΠῚ»). Where 19 stands in the protasis, it is
contrary to usage to introduce the apodosis by the perf.
with waw ‘‘conversive.”* D.rightly Ty 52.
xu. 4 and elsewhere, WS TON for those who. An in-
elegancy which should be avoided wherever possible. See
D. and 2 Sam. xvi. 12.
xii. 5, WA [sic] ; Acts i. 2 23. Frequent as V9, Wry
are—at least in poetry—v2 for D2 never occurs.
xil. 10; xiii. 55; xviii. 12, 21 and constantly, ONT. This
occurs twice in the O. T.; the sense attaching to it is
doubtful (see the Commentators on Job vi. 19) ; probably
it has the force of an emphatic num? It is a total misuse
of it to make it the ordinary term for expressing a simple
interrogation.
Kis 263 xiv.) 24 > xix: 28; Kxivs 10> Duke 4-dOs eee
use of tN in these passages is unidiomatic, and in no way
increases the distinctness of the Hebrew.
xill. 29; xxi. 23; Luke iii. 15; xxiv. 41, 44 and else-
where. The use of T\ya followed by the finite verb can
only be characterised as barbarous.
1 Mic. ii. 11 is an example not to be imitated.
? Contrast the classical idioms of D. (1 Kings viii. 27; Job xxv. 5f.; also.
Deut. xvi. 17).
TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS. 273
xxvi. 74, the later Heb. expression 79) 15 preferable to the
doubtful Tt yj).
evil Lo: Acts ix. 13, 72D TW. Unclassical.
Luke 11. 41; the frequentative Vy) (see 1 Sam. i. 8) 15
desiderated.
i. 49; Acts v.15, ὉΠ DINN. A questionable extension
of the O. T. use of the plural of INN.
ii. 62, after VON? the direct narration is indispensable.
xvi. 4. A temporal within a final clause gives rise to
an involyed sentence contrary to the genius of classical
Hebrew. We must vary the construction in some such
way as the following; “Δ Ἰ2Ὶ0 NYT N20 WN) NNN
or 0 ΠΤ (WN) AM OTN? ON oMDON WN WD.
XV. 22; xxiii. 28, ΝΕ DY 737 in the Ὁ. T. (except
of course where } is separated from the verb) is always fol-
lowed by the perfect with the so-called waw ‘‘conversive.”’
xxiii. 15; John ii. 9, 929 followed by the infinitive is
an inelegant construction which might be readily avoided.
John i. 22, 927 should follow IN>w MN.
i. 33, DN before ‘2 is as questionable as it is unnecessary.
Acts xx. 1, ὉΠῚΝ 13723). An impossible construction.
(0) Incorrect forms are of frequent occurrence. Some of
these may indeed be mere misprints; but others recur too
persistently to be explained as printer’s errors. A few of
those which we have noted will be found in the following
verses: Matt. mi. 15; v. 19 (7D); vi. 28 end; viii. 21
(three) ; x. 5; 14; 21 end (so xiv. 110; xvii. 16, 17; Luke
ΠῚ ΠΟΙ 62 % xix. 31s) xx. 28 > Rome 15. 29;
x. 9; Eph. i. 20; 1 Pet. i. 21—all instances of the form
DWNT) ; xvii. 13; xxv. 7b (Qal for Hifil, giving no sense) ;
45 and 46 (absol. for constr.); xxvii. 29; Mark ix. 9 (inf,
abs. for inf. cstr.; so Luke i. 10; xxi. 14; Acts xvii. 2);
27 end; Luke i. 21 end; 22; 240; 80 b (masc. for fem.) ; 45a
(see Kecl. x. 17); 450; 46 (is great for doth magnify) ; xi. 25;
Dd; xix. 27 6; 300; xxi. 14 end; John i. 5 end; 14 end;
VOL, Ill. ft
bo
“JT
4 TWO HEBREW NEW TESTAMENTS.
48 (NIP); vill. 87 end; viii. 28 (NX, me, an error for WN,
him);). Acts 11.31 6; ix. 12; xvi. 381°Qwin)); xix. 25; 268
(passive for active); 27 (see Jer. 11. 24); 86; 38; xx. 3l
(so xxvill. 21); xxvu. 1 (was chastised for was delivered) ; 3
(OVA); Rom. viii. 85. In Col. iv. 5, by a similar but, if
possible, still more extraordinary error, the Apostle is made
to exhort the Colossians to sell the time, instead of redeem-
ing it; and in Acts i. 5, we read, not less strangely, ye shall
baptize instead of ye shall be baptized.?
It may be affirmed confidently that, except through
an isolated misprint, errors of punctuation and grammar,
such as those which have been indicated, are not to be
found in the whole of Prof. Delitzsch’s version.® Certainly
both these and other faults may be rectified without any
ereat difficulty by a qualified scholar, already familiar with
the Greek; but the question forces itself upon us: What
will be the impression produced upon a reader of the class
for whom the translation is chiefly designed, and who may
make his first acquaintance with the New Testament
through a version in which they occur ?
Enough will have been written for the purpose of de-
claring our judgment on the two works before us. We
1 Or was the translator imitating Gen. xxx. 20?
2 1 Cor. x. 15, a word, as, is out of place, making the verse untranslateable.
In Luke xxiii. 2, is another strange and perplexing error, which however a
reader who recalls Exod. v. 5, may be able to correct.
35. The charge which has been brought against a version which, though not
named, is evidently that of Prof. Delitzsch, of containing the absurd rendering;
“they ill-treated him, they beheaded him, and sent him away ashamed” (Mark
xii. 4), is unjust, and cannot be sustained. The phrase employed is borrowed
from Judges v. 26, the verb PMD occurring nowhere else in O.T. It is true
that David Kimchi understands the phrase as meaning took off his head; but
great as is the value of Kimchi’s exegetical writings, he is not infallible, and is
sometimes demonstrably in error. Here, as Gesenius pointed out, the meaning
assigned is altogether inappropriate, and not only is there no indication in the
narrative that Jael beheaded Sisera, but either a ‘‘ hammer,” or a “nail,”
would be unsuitable for the purpose. There is no reason for supposing that the
phrase expresses more than smote his head severely which is apparently just the.
sense of the dz. Ney. ἐκεφαλαίωσαν in the Gospel.
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
find that Salkinson’s work, iz parts, possesses high merits ;
but its excellence is not sustained. Passages may be
pointed to in which it is not inferior to Prof. Delitzsch’s
work, or which contain even a happier turn or phrase ;
but far more frequently its inferiority is evident; it is
too often a torso of heterogeneous phrases, culled indis-
criminately from the most dissimilar parts of the O. T.,
and strung together without regard to unity of style; and
it is throughout sadly disfigured by unidiomatic construc-
tions and ungrammatical forms. In fairness to its author,
it ought of course to be recollected that it did not receive
his final revision. We are grateful to Mr. Salkinson for
what he has done; we are grateful to Dr. Ginsburg for
the pains which he has bestowed upon the completion
and publication of his friend’s work. The labour spent
_ upon it will not have been in vain. In spite of the defects
which it has been our duty to point out, it contains
much both to interest and instruct; but it does not re-
present with accuracy the text of the New Testament, and
it has no claim to supersede the version of Prof. Delitzsch.
5S. R. DRIver.
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
IV. THE UNIVERSAL -SOCIETY.
“Ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general
assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God
the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the
mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh
better than that of Abel.” —Hexs. xii. 22-24 (Rev. Ver.).
WE have seen that the solemn and consolatory lessons
of the priestly service of the Old Testament, which
were brought together in their highest form on the Day of
276 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
Atonement, obtained their fulfilment in the work of Christ.
We have seen that Christ realised in the victorious progress
of a perfect life that absolute holiness, of which ceremonial
cleansings were a figure ; that He, uniting in one Person the
offices of priest and victim, through the eternal spirit, offered
the humanity which he had taken to Himself, a sacrifice
well-pleasing to God upon the altar of the Cross, not for the
nation only, but for the world; that through the grave, and
through the heavens, He bore His own blood, the virtue of
His Manhood given for men, to the immediate presence of
God, pleading on our behalf for ever; that going infinitely
beyond the privilege of intercession by that one entrance,
He sat down as Divine King on the Father’s throne,
crowning the ministry of priestly compassion with the glory
of universal sovereignty.
So far the types of the Day of Atonement have been ful-
filled, and far more than fulfilled; but the last scene in the
august ceremonial of the day has not at present found its
counterpart. Our High Priest has not yet returned from
the heavenly sanctuary to reveal on earth the completeness
of His work in visible triumph. Our position therefore is,
in one sense, like that of the congregation of Israel gathered
round the Holy Place, waiting with eager and beating
hearts till their representative should come forth to bring
again before their sight the fact of forgiveness and accep-
tance. We too are in an attitude of expectancy. We 866
not yet all things subjected to our Redeemer. Clouds and
darkness are over the world which is His inheritance; and
we look for Him, in the words of the Epistle, when He
shall appear a second time apart from sin, to them that
wart for Him, unto salvation.
This, I say, is one aspect of our position. We are in an
attitude of expectancy ; and in this respect it is of the ut-
most importance that we should keep our brightest hopes
fresh, and neither dissemble the sorrows of life, nor surren-
ΩΣ ἐγ
THE UNIVERSAL SOUIETY. 277
der the least of the Divine promises. We walk by faith, not
by sight. But the reality, the intensity, of our expectancy
must not hide from us the reality of our attainment. If
the appearance of Christ is future, fellowship with Him and
with His people is present. Ye are come, the author of the
Epistle writes, to men troubled by doubts, by divisions, by
losses, by sufferings, as grievous as any which we have to
bear, by shamelessness of triumphant vice to which Christ-
endom offers no parallel, Ye are come, and not, “Ye shall
come,’ unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem. . . . and to Jesus the
Mediator of a new covenant. . . . He writes, I repeat,
“Ve are come,” and not, ‘“‘ Ye shall come,” and no blind-
ness, no faithlessness, can alter the fact.
The Hebrews were, as we remember, in danger of for-
setting the grandeur of their privilege under the stress
of temporal affliction, and so the Apostle recalls the most
memorable scene in their sacred history. He contrasts the
beginnings of Judaism, and the beginnings of Christianity ;
the character of the old kingdom of God imaged in the cir-
cumstances of its foundation, and the character of the new
kingdom made clear in its spiritual glory through tribula-
tions and chastenings, that they might see what the Gospel
was not as well as what it was. Ye are not come, he says
unto a palpable and kindled fire, and unto blackness, and
darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the
voice of words. . . . Ye are not come, that is, like your
forefathers, to an outward, earthly, elemental manifestation
of the Divine Majesty, which appealed to the senses, and
even where it was most intelligible and most human, struck
those to whom it was given with overwhelming dread; but
ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of
angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn
who are enrolled in heaven. . . . Ye are come, come
?
278 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
already, come even if God seems to hide Himself, to a
Divine Presence nearer and more pervading than Moses
knew, to an abiding communion realised in vital energy
and not to a passing vision shown in material forces, to
a revelation marked, as the Apostle goes on to show, not
by threatening commands, but by means of reconciliation,
inspiring not fear but love.
Now when we reflect upon the contrast, we shall be led
to perceive that it could not fail to suggest thoughts of re-
assurance to the Hebrews. ‘They were, it is true, shut out,
irrevocably shut out, from the courts of the Temple, deprived
of the friendship of those who claimed to be the children of
the patriarchs and the prophets, outcasts from the visible
commonwealth of God. But what then? When they lost
these earthly privileges which ‘gave a transient satisfaction
to their souls, they were taught even through their grief to
gain a larger vision of the Divine action and of the Divine
presence; to see through the typical splendours of the
vanishing sanctuary, the city that hath the foundations, ot
which every institution of earth is a partial shadow; to
see about them the great cloud of witnesses who proclaim
that not one aspiration of faith has ever failed of attain-
ment; to see on the right hand of the Father—that right
hand which is everywhere—Him in whom all creation finds
its unity and its life, Jesus, Son of man and Son of God,
accessible to each believer; to see that Christianity is not
an etherialised Judaism, but its spiritual antitype ; that the
heavenly Jerusalem is no material locality, but the realm
of eternal truth ; that the Christian society is not in essence
an external organization, but a manifestation of the powers
of the new life.
And for us this teaching has, I think, a still wider appli-
cation. The spectacle of divided and rival Churches is as
sad and far vaster than the spectacle of unbelieving Israel.
It is hard for us to bear the prospect of Christendom rent
THE UNIVERSAL SOCIETY. 279
into hostile fragments as it was hard for the Hebrews to
bear the anathema of their countrymen. It is hard to look
for peace, and to find a sword; to look for the concentration
of every force of those who bear Christ’s name in a common
assault upon evil, and to find energies of thought and feel-
ing and action weakened and wasted in misunderstandings,
jealousies, and schisms; to look for the beauty of a visible
unity of the faithful which shall strike even those who
are without with reverent awe, and to find our divisions
a commonplace with mocking adversaries. It is hard; and
if what we see were all, the trial would be intolerable.
But what we see is not all: what we see is not even the
dim image of that which is. The life which we feel, the
life which we share, is more than the earthly materials
by which it is at present sustained, more than the earthly
vestures through which it is at present manifested. That is
not most real which can be touched and measured, but that
which struggles, as it were, to find imperfect expression
through the veil of sense: that which to the All-seeing Eye
gilds with the light of self-devotion acts that to us appear
self-willed and miscalculated; that which to the All-hearing
Ear joinsin a full harmony words that to us sound fretful
and impatient; that which fills our poor dull hearts with
a love and sympathy towards all the creatures of God,
deeper than just hatred of sin, deeper than right condemna-
tion of error, deeper than the circumstances of birth and
place and temperament which kindle the friendships and
sharpen the animosities of human intercourse.
Yes, the unseen and the eternal is for all of us who
confess Christ come, Christ coming in flesh, the ruling
thought of life. To us also the words are spoken—Ye
are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of
angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn
who are enrolled in heaven; and to the God of all as Judge,
280 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
and to the spirits of gust men made perfect, and to Jesus the
Mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling
which speaketh better than that of Abel.
Ye are come, that is, come though your way seems to be
barred by inevitable obstacles, though your prospect seems
to be closed by impenetrable gloom, to a scene of worship
and a company of fellow-worshippers which no eye hath
seen nor can see; ye are come to powers of the spiritual
order which are able to bring assurance in the midst of the
confusions, the uncertainties, the failures, by which you are
wearied and perplexed; ye are come, in a word, to a “ dis-
pensation,’’ not earthly but heavenly, to a dispensation, not
of terror but of grace.
Each of these two characteristics of the Divine order to
which we are admitted, that it 1s heavenly, and that it
is gracious, has for us, as for the Hebrews, a message of
encouragement.
If the outward were the measure of the Church of Christ,
we might, as we have seen, well despair. But side by side
with us, when we fondly think, ike Elijah, that we stand
alone, are countless multitudes whom we know not, angels
whom we have no power to discern, children of God whom
we have not learnt to recognise. We have come to the
kingdom of God, peopled with armies of angels and men
working for us and with us because they are working for
Him. And though we cannot grasp the fulness of the
truth, and free ourselves from the fetters of sense, yet we
can, in the light of the Incarnation, feel the fact of this
unseen fellowship; we can feel that heaven has been re-
opened to us by Christ ; that the hosts who were separated
from Israel at Sinai by the fire and the darkness are now
joined with us under our Saviour King, ascending and de-
scending wpon the Son of man; that no external tests are
final in spiritual things; that while we are separated one
from another by barriers which we dare not overpass, by
THE UNIVERSAL SOCIETY. 281
differences of opinion which we dare not conceal or extenu-
ate, there still may be a deeper-lying bond in righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, the apostolic notes of
the kingdom of God, which nothing that is of earth can
for ever overpower.
Such convictions are sufficient to bring a calm to the be-
liever in the sad conflicts of a restless age, widely different
from the blind complacency which is able to forget the
larger sorrows of the world in the confidence of selfish
security, and from the superficial indifference which regards
diversities as trivial which for good or evil modify the tem-
poral workings of faith. They enable us to preserve a true
balance between the elements of our life. They teach us to
maintain the grave, if limited, issues of the forms in which
men receive the truth, and to vindicate for the Spirit perfect
freedom and absolute sovereignty. They guard us from
that deceitful impatience which is eager to anticipate the
last results of the discipline of the world and gain outward
unity by compromise, which is hasty to abandon treasures
of our inheritance because we have forgotten or misunder-
stood their use. They inspire us with the ennobling hope
that in the wisdom of God we shall become one, not by
narrowing and defining the Faith which is committed to us,
but by rising, through the help of the Spirit, to a worthier
sense of its immeasurable grandeur.
And yet more than this: they quicken our common life
with a vital apprehension of the powers of the unseen
order; they break the tyranny of a one-sided materialism ;
they proclaim that a belief in natural law is essentially a
belief in a present God; they take possession of a region of
being which answers to the capacities of the soul; they
encourage us to bring our ordinary thoughts and feelings
into the light of our eternal destiny, and add to them that
idea of incalculable issues which must belong to all that
is human.
282 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
At the same time there is an element of awe in this
revelation of the fulness of spiritual force active about
us, of this association with invisible fellow-workers, of this
communion with Him who is ὦ consuming fire. And the
writer of the Epistle does not shrink from dwelling on the
sterner aspect of his teaching. He insists on the heavier
responsibility which attaches to those who have larger
knowledge. He calls for the exertion, the courage, the
thoughtful endurance, the watchful purity, which corre-
spond with the truths that he has laid open.
Life indeed is filled with awe. Its solemnity grows
upon us. We may wish to remain children always, but we.
cannot. And here the Gospel meets the fears which spring
out of the larger vision of our state. It is heavenly and
it is gracious too. We have come not only to an order
glorious with spiritual realities, but also to an order
rich in provisions of mercy: to the God of all as Judge,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus
the Mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of
sprinkling which speaketh better than that of Abel. The
words teach us to look backward and to look forward,
and to draw from the past and from the present the in-
spiration of faith. We look to those whose work is over,
we see that judgment is a deliverance for surrendered
souls, and that the work of Christ has brought perfection
to His servants through the sufferings of earth. We look
to those who are still pressed in the fight, and we see with
them Jesus the Son of man, showing in His own Person
that God is their support, and applying to each the virtue
of His life.
Once again then we are brought to Him, when our
thoughts are turned to the widest mysteries of life. When
we behold the depths of heaven opened about us, and the
veil lifted from the living fulness of earth, He stands before
our face—stands as He appeared to His first martyr—to
THE UNIVERSAL SOCIETY. 283
welcome those who follow Him in hope within the sanctuary
of the Divine Presence.
Once again He is revealed to us as bringing the help
which we need in view of the questions which are forced
upon us by the circumstances in which we are placed. We
have seen already that He has transfigured suffering by
showing that it is through suffering humanity is perfected.
We have seen that He has consecrated a new and living
way for us to God, by bearing our manhood to the throne
of heaven. We see now that, when we regard the innu-
merable forms of being which crowd the spiritual temple,
He is with us still, to assure us that there is a place for
us in that august company and to prepare us for taking it.
Once again He is revealed to us as communicating to His
people of His own glory for the accomplishment of their
destiny. He is the Firstborn, and He gathers round Him
a Church of the firstborn, in which Divine family each
member shares the highest privilege. ‘‘Cum pluribus,”
wrote an early commentator from the solitude of his French
convent, ‘‘major erit beatitudo; ubi unusquisque de alio
gaudebit sicut de seipso.”’ Yes: “The bliss will be greater
when more share it. In heaven each one will rejoice for
his fellow as for himself.”’
Once again He is revealed to us as the Fulfiller—Christus
Consummator—gathering into one and reconciling all things
by the will of God.
And let no one think that such a revelation is fitted only
to fill the fancy with splendid dreams. It is, I believe,
intensely practical. He who leaves the unseen out of
account deals as it were with a soulless world, with a
mechanical structure of matter and force. But for the
Christian all is law, and 118, and love. He has come unto
mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to
the general assembly and Church of the firstborn who are
284, RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
enrolled in heaven . . . and to Jesus the Mediator of a
mew covenant.
For him the wilderness, desolate to the bodily eye, is
thronged with joyous ministers of God’s will. For him no
differences of earth can destroy the sense of kindred which
springs from a common spiritual destiny.
What then, we are constrained to ask, is this revelation,
what are these facts to us? Do they not meet the loneli-
ness which has depressed us, the weakness which has often
marred our efforts ?
It must be so if God, in His love, open our eyes to
behold the armies of light by which we are encircled; if
He open our hearts to feel the strength of fellowship with
every citizen of His kingdom.
Brooke Foss WESTcoTT.
RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF THE FIRST CHAPTER
OF GENESIS.
It would be a strange phenomenon in the intellectual life
of our time that some of our ablest men should be found
contending earnestly as to the meaning and validity of a
document so old as the proem to Genesis, were it not that,
as Mr. Gladstone has so well put the matter,! this consti-
tutes the opening section of a book in which is conveyed
special knowledge to meet ‘‘ the special need everywhere
so palpable in the state and history of our race.’’ In face
of this special need it is true that questions of cosmogony,
or of the origin of the lower animals, become small and
unimportant. Yet these bulk more largely in our estima-
tion when we find them to be subsidiary in even a small
measure to the greater questions that relate to the early
1 Nineteenth Century, January, 1886.
7:
ΠΥ ὙΠ Ὁ
τὰν ἐς ἔρος
bo
ΟΌ
we
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS.
history and destiny of man. The present writer is not a
theologian, or a divine, but simply a naturalist, whose
specialities have lain in some departments of paleontology,
and who has studied the Hebrew sacred writings partly as
a means of knowing something of Semitic language and
literature, and partly because of their practical connexion
with Christianity. He has consequently been led to regard
these ancient writings and the modern historical criticisms
applied to them, as well as their relations to natural science,
somewhat differently from the aspect in which they are
ordinarily presented, and to compare them more closely
than is usual with scientific and philosophical ideas at
present prevalent.
At the outset it would seem that reasonable men should
attach very little importance, except under considerable
limitations, to the conclusions of those schools of criticism
which regard the Pentateuch as of late date, and as made
up of several documents. The earlier parts of Genesis,
with which we are at present concerned, are undoubtedly
intensely archaic in their style and manner, even in com-
parison with most of the other Hebrew books. They are
not specially Palestinian and local, but have features in
common with the earliest fragments of Chaldean and
Egyptian literature. They have no special reference to the
institutions of the Hebrew commonwealth, and have a sim-
plicity in their subjects, and the mode of treating them,
which speaks of the dawn of civilization. There is nothing
in their texture to prevent them from being even more
ancient than the time of Moses, and belonging to a period
before the Hebrew race had separated from the main
Turanian and Semitic stocks. The probability of this is
strengthened by their connexion as to the matter of their
statements with the primitive Chaldean documents recently
discovered, and even with the remnants of the creation
myths of American races.
286 RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
These statements apply to the so-called Jahvist as well as
to the Elohist portions of Genesis. Indeed, as Schrader
has shown, in some instances, as in the history of the
Flood, the Jahvist portion is nearer to the ancient Chaldean
legend than the Elohist passages, and therefore if there is
any difference, is apparently older! The attempt to sepa-
rate these old records into distinct documents, even if it
were not greatly discredited by the extreme differences of
its upholders among themselves, does not commend itself
to a scientific student. We are familiar in paleontology
with animals and plants of very generalized structure, but
instead of regarding this as evidence that they are com-
posite creatures artificially put together, we rather consider
it as proving their primitive and unspecialized character.
The oldest air-breathing vertebrates known to us are cer-
tain reptilian or semi-reptilian creatures of the Carbonifer-
ous age, to which the almost Homeric name of Stegoce-
phala has been given. Now if I find that one of these
animals has a head resembling that of a frog, vertebree like
those of a fish, and scales and limbs resembling those of a
lizard, I do not separate these into distinct portions and
place them in separate cases of my collection, and invent an
hypothesis that they are of different ages. I recognise in
the apparently composite and undifferentiated character of
the remains, evidence that they belong to a very primitive
animal. I believe this is the really scientific view to take
of the Pentateuch, except in so far as it is probable that the
earlier portions of it consist of old records of the Abramidee
existing anterior to the Exodus. In any case we must
regard the first chapter of Genesis as one homogeneous
document, and the evidence as to its age will develop itself
as we proceed.
1 The Book of Genesis undoubtedly represents the name Jahveh as in use in
antediluvian times (Gen. iv. 1 and iy. 26). And the statement of Réville, that
Exodus vi. 2, 3, contradicts this, is altogether superficial and inaccurate, as
might easily be shown were there time to state the arguments in the case.
alla nalinaiil
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 2
(08)
«ἢ
A second point on which I would insist, as essential to
the interpretation of Genesis i. is, that its writer intended,
and his successors in Hebrew literature understood, that the
creative days are days of God, or Divine ages—Olanwm as
they are elsewhere called—or, which amounts to the same
thing, that they represent such periods of time. It may be
worth while shortly to mention the evidence of this, as I
find it is doubted or denied by Huxley and Réville.! The
writer of Genesis i. obviously sees no incongruity in those
early days which passed before there were any arrange-
ments for natural days; ‘‘ dies ineffabiles,” as Augustine
calls them; nor in the fact that the day in which the
Creator rests goes on until now without any termination ;
nor in the statement that the whole work could be compre-
hended in one day, “‘ the day when Jahveh-Elohim made the
earth and the heavens;”’ and if this be called later and
Jahvistic, it will have the additional value of being the
comment of an editor who may be supposed to have under-
stood the documents he had to do with.
If we are to attribute the decalogue to a later period than
Genesis, which even M. Réville seems to admit, the argu-
ment is rendered conclusive by the position of the fourth
commandment in the midst of the ‘‘ ten words,” and by the
reason attached to it, the whole of which would otherwise
be inexplicable and even trifling. A later writer, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. iv.), explains this. When
God entered into His rest He gave that rest also as an
immortal rest to man in Eden. But man fell and lost the
perpetual or olamic sabbatism. There remained to him
in the weekly sabbath a memento of the lost rest and an
anticipation of its recovery by a Redeemer in the future:
1 Nineteenth Century, December, 1885, and January, 1886.
2 Réville’s commentary on this and on the ““ Firmament,” in the Nineteenth
Century, Jan., 1886, is remarkable as coming from a man who should have at
least a popular notion of the contents of the Bible.
288 RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
Hence the Sabbath was not only the central point of the
moral law, but of all religion, the pledge and the commem-
oration of the Divine promise, and the means of keeping
it before men’s minds from age to age till the promised
Redeemer should come. It is this that causes the Sabbath
to be insisted on as the most essential point of religion by
the Hebrew prophets, and this is the reason of its con-
nexion with the days of creation. This also caused the
necessity of its change by Christians to the Lord’s Day
without any new enactment, for on this day Christ arose to
enter on His sabbatism ‘‘as God did into His.”” The Lord’s
Day now has the same significance to Christians as the type
of the rest into which the Saviour has entered, and which
has continued for 1800 years, and of that eternal Sabbath
which remains to the people of God. In truth, indepen-
dently of all considerations of cosmogony, the long seventh
day of Creation and the long heavenly rest of the Saviour
constitute the only valid reasons either for the Jewish or
Christian Sabbath. That Jesus Himself held this view
we learn from His answer to the Pharisees who accused
Him of breaking the Sabbath. ‘‘ My Father worketh until
now and I work.’’! That the apostolic Church had the same
view of the creative days and the Creator’s rest we learn
from the Pauline use of the words avén and aidnios with
reference to God’s ages of working, and from the passages
in the Epistle to the Hebrews already referred to.”
The creative days are the “antiquities of the earth”
spoken of in Proverbs viii. They are the Olamim or ages
noticed as equal to God’s creative days in Psalm xc., for
which even the Revised Version retains the unmeaning
“from everlasting to everlasting.” This Psalm too is a
1 John νυ. 17 (Revised Version).
21 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 9; 1 Tim.i.17; John i. 2, etc.; Heb. i. 2; iv. 4 to
12. In some of these passages the sense is obscured in our yersion by the
use of the term ‘ world,’ which is an incorrect translation unless understood in
the sense of time-worlds.
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 289
very archaic one, resembling in its diction the songs attri-
buted to Moses in Deuteronomy. © Psalm civ. is a poetical
version of Genesis i., and in it the work marches on in
slow and solemn grandeur without any reference to days.
Again there is not anywhere in the Bible a hint that the
work of creation was remarkable as being done in a short
time. Some of us have no doubt been taught in childhood
that God’s power was wonderfully shown by His creating
the world in the short space of six days, but there is nothing
of this in the Old or New Testament.
Lastly, the idea of long prehuman periods exists in nearly
all the traditions of ancient nations, and is contained in the
Chaldean record, though it wants the division into days,
Yet the Chaldeans had a week of seven days, and regarded
the seventh as unlucky with reference to work, and as a
day of rest.
I have insisted on this point, because though essential
to the understanding of the record, it has been so much
overlooked in popular religious teaching that even men of
education may be excused for ignorance of it.
I propose now, without waiting to examine the physical
_ cosmogony of the earlier days of creation, to notice shortly
the actual statements of the author of Genesis respecting
the introduction of plants and animals, taking these state-
ments in their most literal sense.
Here at the outset we are met by an apparent discrepancy
between the record in Genesis and what we have learned of
the history of creation from the study of the earth’s crust.
Our author informs us that vegetation was introduced on
the day preceding the final arrangements of the solar
system, and two days before the inswarming of animals on
the fifth day. This vegetation also included the higher
kinds of plants, for while it was first Deshe, or seedless
plants (not grass as in the Authorized Version), it also
contained herbs bearing seed, and trees bearing fruit. In
VOL. IIL. U
290 RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
so far as geological discovery has yet reached into the older
layers of the earth’s crust, it has found abundant remains of
animals as low as the Lower Cambrian; but below this
there is a vast thickness of both crystalline and fragmental
rock, in which Eozoon of the Laurentian stands out as the
sole representative of animal life; and its claim to be an
animal is still in question. But land plants are not known
to reach so far back. None are known so old as the Lower
Cambrian, so that marine animals, and probably marine
plants, appear to have existed long before land plants. Yet
the geologist cannot safely deny the existence of land
vegetation even in the old Laurentian period. We know
that there was land at that time; and in the middle of the
Laurentian series, there exist in Canada immense bedded
deposits of carbon, in the form of graphite and of ores of
iron, which cannot be accounted for on any known principles
of chemical geology, except by supposing the existence of
abundant vegetation. It is true that EKozoon exists in these
beds, but it is in any case a mere precursor or foreshadowing
of animal life, while the quantity of Laurentian carbon
which it would seem must owe its accumulation to the
deoxidising agency of plants, is enormous. Whether we
shall ever find Laurentian rocks in a condition to yield up
the actual forms and structures of this old vegetation is
uncertain ; but we know, as certainly as we can know any-
thing inferentially, that it existed. Of its character and
quality we have no information except the record in Genesis.
If it was given to the primitive prophet of creation to see
in his vision the forms of Laurentian vegetation, he saw
what no geologist has yet seen, but what some geologist of
the future may possibly see. In any case, he has to thank
the discoveries of Sir William Logan and his con/freres in
Canada, for establishing at least a probability on scientific
srounds that he was right ; and until these discoveries were
made, the fact of pre-Cambrian vegetation rested on his sole
i a
MA
7.
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 291
authority. It may be said that such vegetation would be
useless; but the same remark may be made as to the lower
animals which existed so long before man, or as to the
exuberant vegetation of some oceanic islands untenanted
by the higher animals.
In the geological record the lower animals swarm upon
the stage in countless multitudes and vast variety of form
and organization, in the Cambrian age; and it is on this,
and the subsequent succession of life, that discussion has
centred in the recent controversies. Here, fortunately, we
have ample material for comparison of the two records, and
if they do not agree, it is here that their divergence must
appear. But to give fair play to the old historian, it will
be necessary to examine his method and to weigh well his
words.
The method of the writer of Genesis in describing the
work of the fifth and sixth days is similar to that employed
in reference to the previous periods, but in some respects
more complex, as befits the higher theme. He states first
the Divine purpose or decree under the formula ‘“ God
said ’’; next the actual production of the objects intended—
“ God created’’; next the contemplation of the work and
its subsequent development—‘‘ God saw.” Let us put
down these stages in order, as given for the fifth day.
(1) ‘‘God said, ‘ Let the waters swarm swarmers having
life (animal life), and let fowl! fly over the earth on the
surface of the expanse of heaven.’ ”
(2) ‘God created great reptiles,’ and every living moving
animal with which the waters swarmed after their kind,
and every winged animal after its kind.”
(3) ‘God saw that it was good, and God blessed them,
saying, ‘ Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the
sea, and let fowl multiply in the earth.’ ”’
This is, I think, a sufficiently literal rendering of the
1 Used in old sense of flying animal. 2 Tanninim, that is crocodiles.
292 RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
record as it stands in the Hebrew text, so far as the English
tongue suffices to represent its words; but some of these
terms require consideration. ‘The word sheretz used for the
first group of creatures, literally ‘‘swarmers’”’ or swarming
animals, is precisely defined in the law respecting animal
food in Leviticus xi. There it is used as a comprehensive
term, to include all the lower animals of the waters with
the fishes and batrachians, as well as certain animals of the
land, viz. the land snails, insects, spiders and scorpions,
along with small reptiles, and perhaps, though this last is
not quite certain, some small quadrupeds usually regarded
as vermin. The precise definition given in the law respect-
ing unclean animals leaves no doubt as to the meaning of
the word. We thus learn that the creation of the fifth day
included all the marine invertebrates, and the fishes and
batrachians, with the insects and their allies, or at least all
such as could be held to be produced from the waters.
The link of connexion which binds all these creatures
under this comprehensive word is their teeming oviparous
reproduction, which entitles them to be called swarming
animals, in connexion with their habitat or origin in the
waters. Thus this one word covers all the animals known
in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods of geology, with three
notable exceptions—the birds, the true reptiles, and the
marsupial mammals. But singularly, and as if to complete
his record, this old narrator adds two of these groups, as if
they had specially attracted his attention. The word Oph,
“fowl, bird, or winged animal,’’ is the usual word for birds
in general, though in Leviticus it includes the winged
insects, and the bats, which are winged mammals. As it
is a very primitive and widely diffused word, and probably
onomatopoetic and derived from the sound of wings, it may
in early times have served to denote all things that fly,
though applied to birds chiefly. The second group specially
singled out is designated by the word Tannin, which, like
sy τ"
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 29%
oph, is a very old and generally diffused word,! denoting
primitively any animal long and extended. In the Hebrew
Bible it is, however, used in almost every place where it
occurs, either for the crocodile” or for the larger serpents.
In Exod. vu. 9, the next place where it appears, it repre-
sents the great serpent produced from the rod of Moses.
There is no warrant for the rendering ‘‘ great whales,”
borrowed from the Septuagint, and still less for the “ great
sea monsters’’ of the Revised Version.*? If we ask what
animals the writer can have meant by tanninim, the answer
must be either crocodiles or large serpents or creatures
resembling them. Thus our author does not, as both
Mr. Gladstone and Prof. Huxley seem to suppose, over-
look altogether the ‘‘age of reptiles.” There are, however,
known to us in the Mesozoic period a few small marsupial
mammals, humble and insignificant precursors of the age of
mammala. These our author has apparently overlooked ;
but he has an excuse for this in the fact that such creatures
do not occur in modern times, except in Australia or
America, and even if known to him, he had no special word
by which they could be designated.
Eyen with the above deduction, it must be confessed
that this history of the fifth creative day presents a marvel-
lous approximation to the two earlier periods of animal life
as known to geologists, the ages of invertebrates and fishes
and the age of reptiles. With the above explanation, which
is in no respect forced, but quite literal, I think Prof.
Huxley should be ready frankly to accept this, and all the
1 Sanse., Tan; Greek, Teino; Latin, Tendo, ete.
2 See, for example, Ezek. xxix. 3 and xxxii. 2. Jeremiah compares the
king of Babylon to a Tannin, and may refer to a Euphratean crocodile, now
apparently extinct (Jer. li. 34).
8 The word is usually rendered in the Sept. Drakén; but another word, Tan,
aname apparently of the jackal, has been confounded with it in that version.
When the later Hebrew writers had occasion to refer to the whales, they used
the word Leviathan, though in earlier writers this a'so is applied to the croco-
dile. Compare Ps. οἷν. 26 and Job xli.
294. RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
more that he has been specially distinguished for the
advocacy of views of animal classification akin to those of
Genesis. No one has more insisted on the affinity of the
batrachians with the fishes and that of the birds with the
true reptiles. In like manner this ancient writer, if he had
the batrachians before his mind, includes them with the
fishes, and singles out the birds and the higher reptiles as
companion groups, at the summit of the animal kingdom
in their day. It may be somewhat unfair to test so popular
and general a statement by such details; but if an author
who lived so long before the dawn of modern science is
to be tested at all by our present systems, it is proper at
least to give him the benefit of the consummate skill
which he shows in avoiding all inaccuracy in the few
bold touches with which he sketches the introduction of
animal life.
The argument in favour of the writer of Genesis might
perhaps be closed here, without fear as to the verdict of
reasonable men. But there is a positive side as well as a
negative to this vindication, and we must not rest content
with a bare verdict of ‘‘ Not guilty,’’ lest we should fall
into the condemnation of being mere ‘‘reconcilers.” Our
ancient author has something to say respecting that for-
midable word evolution so constantly ringing in our ears,
and which Prof. Huxley affirms is opposed to Genesis,
while Mr. Gladstone somewhat hesitatingly believes in its
consistency at least with the argument of design. With
reference to the origin and becoming of things, legitimate
science 1s conversant with two ideas, that of causation and
that of development. Causation may either be primary as
proceeding from a creative will, or secondary as referring
to natural laws and energies. Development may be direct,
asin that of a chick from the egg, or indirect, as in the
production of varieties of animals by human agency. Now
it so happens that by the school of Spencer and Darwin
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 295
the word evolution is used as covering all these kinds of
causation and development; and by what Mr. Gladstone
calls a “‘ fallacy of substitution,” or what I have elsewhere
termed a scientific sleight-of-hand or jugglery, we are car-
ried from one to the other almost without perceiving it,
until we can scarcely distinguish between a causal evo-
lution, which is a mere figure of speech, and a modal
evolution, which may be an actual process going on
under ascertained laws and known forces. So difficult
has the discrimination of these things become, that it is
a serious question whether sober men of science should
not discard altogether the term evolution, and insist on
the use of causation and development each in its proper
place.
These questions were living issues in the time when
Genesis was written. It was then a grave question whether
one God had made all things, or whether they had arisen
spontaneously, or were the work of a conflicting pantheon
of deities. How does our ancient authority stand in rela-
tion to this great question? He recognises causation in
the one creative will—‘‘ God said,’ ‘‘God created ;’’ and
thereby affirms a first cause and the unity of nature.
Secondary causes he also notices in the agency of the
waters, the atmosphere and the land, and in the law of
continuity implied in the words ‘after their species.”
Development he sees in one form in the progress of the
creative plan, in another in the power of fruitfulness and
multiplication. Yet these several ideas are distinctly and
clearly defined in his mind, and each is kept in its proper
place relatively to the end which he has in view. It is not
too much to say, that any plain man reading and pondering
these statements may obtain clearer and more correct views
as to the origin and history of animal life, than it would be
possible to reach by any amount of study of our modern
popular evolutionary philosophy. How did this ancient
296 RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
writer escape the mental confusion which clouds the minds
of so many clever men in our time? It may be said it was
because he knew less of scientific detail, but possibly he
had a higher source of enlightenment.
It is also interesting to note the strangely unerring
instinct with which he seizes the relative importance of
different kinds of creative work. He had selected the word
Bara, ‘‘ create,” ! to express the most absolute and original
kind of making in the production of the materials of the
heavens and the earth. He is content with the less em-
phatic Asa, ‘made,’ when he speaks of the expanse, the
great lights and even the later animals. But he signalises
the first appearance of animal life by a repetition of
‘create,’ as if to affirm the great gulf which we know
separates the animal from dead matter. In lhke manner he
repeats this great word when he has to deal with the new
fact of the rational and moral nature of man. Should man
ever be able to produce a new living animal from dead
matter, or should the spontaneous development of the
higher nature of man from the instinct of the brute become
a proved fact of science, we may doubt his wisdom in the
selection of terms, but not till then.
Observe also how, without in the least derogating from
this idea of creation, in the words, ‘“‘God said, Let the
waters swarm swarming animals, after their kinds” he
combines the primary Almighty fiat with the prepared envi-
ronment and its material and laws, the reproductive power
and the unity and diversity of type. Here again he proves
himself not only a terse writer but an accurate, and, may
we not add, scientific thinker.
I have left little space for the consideration of the Sixth
day, but what has been already said will render less-com-
1 This statement is sufficient to vindicate the translation ‘ create,” for
Bara, but it could be confirmed, if necessary, by citing every passage in which
the word occurs in the Hebrew books, whether in literal or figurative appli-
cations.
“ a >
\
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 297
ment necessary. Here the statement is longer, as befits
the introduction of man, and the day is divided into two
separate portions, in each of which occurs the threefold
fiat, act and development. It is interesting in this con-
nexion to note that while man is introduced in the same
creative day with the higher animals nearest to him in
structure, his greater importance is recognised by giving
him a distinct half-day to himself.
The land is here commanded to bring forth its special
animals, but these are no longer sherdtzim, birds and
reptiles, but the mammalian quadrupeds. The three terms
used to denote these creatures are translated even in the
Revised Version by the notably incorrect words—“ cattle,
creeping things and beasts of the earth.” It requires no
special scholarship, but only the industry to use a Hebrew
concordance, to discover the simple and familiar use of these
words inthe Old Testament. Behemah, though including
“cattle,” is a general name for all the larger herbivorous
quadrupeds, and in Job the hippopotamus is characterised
as the chief of the group. These animals appropriately
take the lead as culminating first in the age of mammals,
which is also the geological fact. Remes, ‘‘creeping things,”’
is applied in a very indiscriminate way to all small quad-
rupeds, whether mammalian or reptilian, and may here be
taken to represent the smaller quadrupeds of the land.
The compound word Haytho-eretz, ‘“‘beast of the land,”
though very general in sense, is employed everywhere to de-
signate what we would call ‘‘ wild beasts,’’ and especially
the larger carnivora. This first half of the sixth day is
therefore occupied in the introduction of the mammalia of
the land. This completes the animal population of the
world with the exception of the whales and their allies,
which strangely are not included in the narrative. Perhaps
it was this apparent omission that induced the Septuagint
translators to insert these marine mammals instead of the
298 RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
crocodile as a representative of the tanninim.!. The omission Ὁ
has, however, a curious significance, in connexion with the |
probability that this creation document originated before
the removal of men from their primitive abodes in interior
Asia, and when the whales, as well as the marsupial
mammals already referred to, must have been unknown
to them. That the Septuagint translators, living on the
borders of the Mediterranean, should regard the omission of
whales as a defect in the record was most natural; but if
the original narrator and his audience were inland people,
dwelling perhaps in the plain of Shinar, they may have
been ignorant of whales or of any name for such creatures,
and it is in such a case as this that we may legitimately
apply the doctrine, that the Bible was not intended to teach
science.
It is remarkable that the animals of the sixth day are
said to have been ‘‘ made,” not created, as if after the first
peopling of the world with lower creatures, the introduction
of the higher forms of life was an easier process. The
modern evolutionist may take this much of comfort from
our ancient authority.
The second half of the work of the sixth day, though
the more important, has not entered into the controversies
which have prompted this article. Its distinctive features
may be shortly stated as follows. Man was ‘‘ created,”
and this in the image and likeness of God, and with godlike
power in subduing the earth and in ruling its animal in-
habitants, among which, however, in accordance with an
intimation in the special record of man in the second
chapter, the “wild beasts’”’ are not included. Thus the
1 The use made of this mistranslation by Prof. Huxley in his argument is
almost ludicrous in its perversity. There is a passage in the Authorised Version
of the Bible which seems to give countenance to the mammalian idea of this
word: ‘‘Hven the sea-monsters draw out the breast’’ (Lam. iy. 3). But the
correct reading here is understood to be not tannin, but tanim, ‘ jackals,” in-
stead of ‘‘sea monsters,’ and the word is so rendered in the Revised Version.
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 299
rational and moral elevation of man on a plane higher than
that of the animal kingdom is recognised, and he is made
the vicegerent of God on the earth. A certain limitation as
to food is also imposed upon him. He is not to be carni-
yorous, but to subsist on the better and more nutritious
kinds of vegetable food—seeds and fruits. These intima-
tions all point to a direct relation of man to his Maker and
to a supremacy over the lower creatures, conditions which
are more fully specified, in perfect harmony with the eazlier
statements, in the more detailed account of man and his
relations to God and external nature in the sequel of the
book (chaps. 11. etc.).
It may be well here to notice the essential differences
between the Hebrew and the Chaldean Genesis, or the
fragments of the latter which remain. Unfortunately we
have only as yet a passage in which ‘the gods in their
assembly created” living creatures, and these living crea-
tures are specified as ‘“‘animals of the field, great beasts of
the field, and creeping things.” So far as this goes, it would
seem to indicate a classification of animals lke that in
Genesis, but a polytheistic belief as to their creation. This
polytheistic element is indeed the distinctive feature of the
Chaldean record, and raises questions as to the relative ages
and religious tendencies of the documents. With respect to
the former, it seems certain that the originals of the Nineveh
tablets may have been very ancient. They are, however, so
mixed up with the history of a Chaldean hero, known as
Isdubar, as to give reason for the supposition that there
may have been still older creation legends. Again, is it true,
as many seem to suppose, that polytheism is older than
monotheism? Is it not likely that the simpler belief is
older than the more complex; that which required no priests’
ritual or temple, older than that with which all these things
were necessarily associated? Further, there is no example
of any polytheistic people, spontaneously and without some
300 RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF
impulse from abroad, laying aside its many gods. On the
contrary, the Jewish history shows us how easy it is to
lapse into polytheism, and we have seen how, in compara-
tively modern times, the simplicity of primitive Christianity
has grown into a complex pantheon of saints. These
considerations would entitle the Hebrew record to the
earliest place among all the religious traditions of our race,
and render still more remarkable its clear, consistent and
natural statements.
With respect to the tendencies of the two documents, it
is certain that the Hebrew Genesis is in every way to be
preferred. It avoids all the superstitions certain to result
from breaking up the unity of nature and deifying its
powers, and cuts away the roots of every form of debasing .
nature-worship. In its doctrine of creative unity and of
developed plan, it lays a secure basis for science, while it
leaves the way open for all legitimate study of nature.
These are great merits which science should ever be ready
to acknowledge. It is in this grand general tendency of
the Biblical record that the real relations of revelation and
science are to be found; and if it is necessary to enter
more into detail, this is not for the sake of a so-called
“reconciliation,” which must necessarily be incomplete,
though on the supposition of a real revelation and a true
science, ever improving in exactness; but merely because
imperfect views of revelation and of nature have been
raising up apparent contradictions which do not exist, and
which may tend alike to the injury of science and religion.
With reference to the religious aspect of the question,
one cannot better illustrate this than by turning to the
beautiful passage quoted by Prof. Huxley from the pro-
phet Micah: “What does Jehovah require of thee -but
to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with
thy God?” Micah’s religion, it is to be observed, begins
and ends with God, and his God is not the God of the
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 301
agnostic who cannot be known; nor the god of the mere
_ pantheist, everywhere and yet nowhere; nor one of the
many gods of the polytheist. His God is the Almighty
Personal Will, the Creator of heaven and earth, a God
who reveals Himself and ‘ requires’? something at our
hands, and Micah himself is a prophet who affirms that
the ‘‘word of Jehovah came” to him, giving this very
precept. Further, He is a God who Himself loves both
justice and mercy, and who invites His fallen children to
“walk’’ with Him, but ‘‘ humbly,” as befits a redeemed
people. Such a religion requires an intelligent knowledge
of God, and to be intelligent it must be founded on just
such teaching as that of the first chapter of Genesis.
Such was the religion of Job, who though a good man,
doing justly and loving mercy, yet fancied himself a very
deserving person, until God showed him his littleness and
infirmity, by referring him to His own great creative works
in physical and animal nature; and then Job humbles
himself, and ‘‘repents in dust and ashes.”’ Such was the
religion of Paul, when he mildly reproves the people of
Athens for being ‘“‘ somewhat superstitious’ in adding to
their many gods an altar to the ‘Unknown God,” and
points them to “‘the God that made the world and all
things therein.’”’ There may be a superstitious or senti-
mental or emotional religion, without such knowledge of
God, but there cannot be a rational religion without that
belief in a Creator, which is expressed in the words ‘‘ God
created the heavens and the earth,’ and there cannot be a
saving religion without the belief in a Redeemer fulfilling
God’s old promise in Genesis, that ‘‘ the seed of the woman
shall bruise the head of the serpent.”
J. Wm. Dawson.
μὲ
os
’
302
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ΧΥ.
WARNINGS AGAINST TWIN CHIEF ERRORS, BASED ΡΟΝ
PREVIOUS POSITIVE TEACHING.
“Tet no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the
things to come; but the body is Christ’s. Let no man rob you of your
prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the
things which he hath seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not
holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit to-
gether through the joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God.”—
Cot, ii. 16-19 (Rev. Ver.).
“TET no man therefore judge you.” That “ therefore”
sends us back to what the Apostle has been saying in the
previous verses, in order to find there the ground of these
earnest warnings. That ground is the whole of the fore-
going exposition of the Christian relation to Christ, as far
back as verse 9, but especially the great truths contained
in the immediately preceding verses, that the cross of
Christ is the death of law, and God’s triumph over all
the powers of evil. Because it is so, the Colossian Christ-
ians are exhorted to claim and use their emancipation from
both. Thus we have here the very heart and centre of
the practical counsels of the Epistle—the double blasts of
the trumpet warning against the two most pressing dangers
besetting the Church. They are the same two which we
have often met already—on the one hand, a narrow Juda-
ising enforcement of ceremonial and punctilios of out-
ward observance; on the other hand, a dreamy Oriental
absorption in imaginations of a crowd of angelic mediators
obscuring the one gracious presence of Christ our Tnter-
cessor.
I. Here then we have first, the claim for Christian
liberty, with the great truth on which it is built. :
The points in regard to which that liberty is to be exer-
ἜΝ Hay
&
wie) ee A ge ee Δ
> νΝ
-
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 303
cised are specified. They are no doubt those, in addition
to circumcision, which were principally in question then
and there. ‘‘ Meat and drink” refers to restrictions in
diet, such as the prohibition of ‘‘ unclean” things in the
Mosaic law, and the question of the lawfulness of eating
meat offered to idols; perhaps also, such as the Nazarite
vow. There were few regulations as to “drink” in Juda-
ism, so that probably other ascetic practices besides the
Mosaic regulations were in question, but these must have
been unimportant, else Paul could not have spoken of the
whole as being a ‘‘ shadow of things to come.” The other
class of outward observances is that of the sacred seasons
of Judaism, the annual festivals, the monthly feast of the
new moon, the weekly Sabbath.
The relation of the Gentile converts to these and the
other observances of Judaism was an all-important ques-
tion for the early Church. It was really the question
whether Christianity was to be more than a Jewish sect—
and the main force which, under God, settled the contest,
was the vehemence and logic of the Apostle Paul.
Here he lays down the ground on which that whole
question about diet and days, and all such matters, is to
be settled. They ‘‘are a shadow of things to come, but the
body is of Christ.” ‘‘Coming events cast their shadows
before.’ That great work of Divine love, the mission of
Christ, whose ‘‘ goings forth have been from everlasting,”
_ may be thought of as having set out from the Throne as
soon as time was, travelling in the greatness of its strength,
like the beams of some far-off star that have not yet reached
a dark world. The light from the Throne is behind Him
as He advances across the centuries, and the shadow is
thrown far in front.
Now that involves two thoughts about the Mosaic law
and whole system. First, the purely prophetic and sym-
bolic character of the Old Testament order, and especially
304 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
of the Old Testament worship. The absurd extravagance
of many attempts to “spiritualize”’ the ritual and ceremo-
nies of Judaism should not blind us to the truth which
they caricature. Nor, on the other hand, should we be so
taken with new attempts to reconstruct our notions of
Jewish history and the dates of Old Testament books,
as to forget that, though the New Testament is com-
mitted to no theory on these points, it is committed to
the Divine origin and prophetic purpose of the Mosaic law
and Levitical worship. We should thankfully accept all
teaching which free criticism and scholarship can give us
as to the process by which, and the time when, that great
symbolic system of acted prophecy was built up; but we
shall be further away than ever from understanding the
Old Testament if we have gained critical knowledge of its
genesis, and have lost the belief that its symbols were
given by God to prophesy of His Son. That is the key
to both Testaments; and I cannot but believe that the
uncritical reader who reads his book of the law and the
prophets with that conviction, has got nearer the very
marrow of the book, than the critic, if he have parted
with it, can ever come.
Sacrifice, altar, priest, temple spake of Him. The dis-
tinctions of meats were meant, among other purposes, to
familiarize men with the conceptions of purity and im-
purity, and so, by stimulating conscience, to wake the
sense of need of a Purifier. The feasts of the Passover,
and the others, set forth various aspects of the great work
which Christ does, and the Sabbath showed in outward
form the rest into which He leads those who cease from
their own works and wear His yoke. All these observances,
and the whole system to which they belong, are like out-
riders who precede a prince on his progress, and as they
gallop through sleeping villages, rouse them with the cry,
“The king is coming!”
WARNINGS AGAINST TWIN CHIEF ERRORS. 305
And when the King has come, where are the heralds?
and when the reality has come, who wants symbols? and
if that which threw the shadow forwards through the ages
has arrived, how shall the shadow be visible too? 'There-
fore the second principle here laid down, namely the cessa-
tion of all these observances, and their like, is really in-
volved in the first, namely their prophetic character.
The practical conclusion drawn is very noteworthy, be-
cause it seems much narrower than the premises warrant.
Paul does not say—therefore let no man observe any of
these any more; but takes up the much more modest
ground—let no man judge you about them. He claims
a wide liberty of variation, and all that he repels is the
right of anybody to dragoon Christian men into ceremonial
observances on the ground that they are necessary. He
does not quarrel with the rites, but with men insisting on
the necessity of the rites.
In his own practice he gave the best commentary on his
meaning. When they said to him, ‘‘ You must circumcise
Titus,” he said; ‘‘ Then I will ποὺ. When nobody tried to
compel him, he took Timothy, and of his own accord
circumcised him to avoid scandals. When it was needful
as a protest, he rode right over all the prescriptions of the
law, and ‘‘ did eat with Gentiles.”” When it was advisable
as a demonstration that he himself ‘‘ walked orderly and
kept the law,’ he performed the rites of purification and
united in the temple worship.
In times of transition wise supporters of the new will
not be in a hurry to break with the old. “1 will lead
on softly, according as the flock and the children be able
to endure,” said Jacob, and so says every good shepherd.
The brown sheaths remain on the twig after the tender
green leaf has burst from within them, but there is no need
to pull them off, for they will drop presently. “1 will wear
three surplices if they like,” said Luther once. ‘ Neither if
VOL. III. x
306 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the
worse,” said Paul. Such is the spirit of the words here.
It is a plea for Christian liberty. If not insisted on as
necessary, the outward observances may be allowed. If
they are regarded as helps, or as seemly adjuncts or the
like, there is plenty of room for difference of opinion and for
variety of practice, according to temperament and taste and
usage. ‘There are principles which should regulate even
these diversities of practice, and Paul has set these forth,
in the great chapter about meats in the Epistle to the
Romans. But it is a different thing altogether when any
external observances are insisted on as essential, either
from the old Jewish or from the modern sacramentarian
point of view. If a man comes saying, ‘‘ Except ye be
circumcised, ye cannot be saved,”’ the only right answer is,
Then I will not be circumcised, and if yow are, because
you believe that you cannot be saved without it, “ Christ
is become of none effect to you.’ Nothing is necessary
but union to Him, and that comes through no outward
observance, but through the faith which worketh by love.
Therefore, let no man judge you, but repel all such attempts
at thrusting any ceremonial ritual observances on you, on
the plea of necessity, with the emancipating truth that the
cross of Christ is the death of law.
A few words may be said here on the bearing of the
principles laid down in these verses on the religious obser-
vance of Sunday. The obligation of the Jewish sabbath has
passed away as much as sacrifices and circumcision. That
seems unmistakably the teaching here. But the insti-
tution of a weekly day of rest is distinctly put in Scripture
as independent of, and prior to, the special form and mean-
ing given to the institution in the Mosaic law. That is
the natural conclusion from the narrative of the creative
rest in Genesis, and from our Lord’s emphatic declaration
that the sabbath was made for ‘“‘man’’—that is to say, for
WARNINGS AGAINST TWIN CHIEF ERRORS. 307
the race. Many traces of the pre-Mosaic sabbath have been
adduced, and among others we may recall the fact that
recent researches show it to have been observed by the
Accadians, the early inhabitants of Assyria. It is a physical
and moral necessity, and that is a sadly mistaken benevo-
lence which on the plea of culture or amusement for the
many, compels the labour of the few, and breaks down the
distinction between the Sunday and the rest of the week.
The religious observance of the first day of the week
rests on no recorded command, but has a higher origin,
inasmuch as it is the outcome of a felt want. The early
disciples naturally gathered together for worship on the
day which had become so sacred to them. At first, no
doubt, they observed the Jewish sabbath, and only gra-
dually came to the practice which we almost see growing
before our eyes in the Acts of the Apostles, in the
mention of the disciples at Troas coming together on
the first day of the week to break bread, and which we
gather, from the Apostle’s instructions as to weekly setting
apart money for charitable purposes, to have existed in the
Church at Corinth; as we know, that even in his lonely
island prison far away from the company of his brethren,
the Apostle John was in a condition of high religious con-
templation on the Lord’s day, ere yet he heard the solemn
voice and saw “‘ the things which are.”
This gradual growing up of the practice is in accordance
with the whole spirit of the New Covenant, which has
- next to nothing to say about the externals of worship, and
leaves the new life to shape itself. Judaism gave prescrip-
tions and minute regulations; Christianity, the religion of
the spirit, gives principles. The necessity, for the nourish-
ment of the Divine life, of the religious observance of the
day of rest is certainly not less now than at first. In the
hurry and drive of our modern life, with the world forcing
itself on us at every moment, we cannot keep up the
908 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
warmth of devotion unless we use this day, not merely for
physical rest, and family enjoyment, but for worship. They
who know their own slothfulness of spirit, and are in
earnest in seeking after a deeper, fuller Christian life, will
thankfully own ‘‘the week were dark but for its light.”
I distrust the spirituality which professes that all life is a
sabbath, and therefore holds itself absolved from special
seasons of worship. If the stream of devout communion
is to flow through all our days, there must be frequent
reservoirs along the road, or it will be lost in the sand, like
the rivers of higher Asia. It is a poor thing to say, keep
the day as a day of worship because it is a commandment.
Better to think of it as a great gift for the highest purposes ;
and not let it be merely a day of rest for jaded bodies,
but make it one of refreshment for cumbered spirits, and
rekindle the smouldering flame by drawing near to Christ
in public and in private. So shall we gather stores that |
may help us to go in the strength of that meat for some
more marches on the dusty road of life.
II. The Apostle passes on to his second peal of warning,
—that against the teaching about angel mediators, which
would rob the Colossian Christians of their prize,—and
draws a rapid portrait of the teachers of whom they are
to beware.
‘Tet no man rob you of your prize.’’ The metaphor is
the familiar one of the race or the wrestling ground, the
umpire or judge is Christ, the reward is that incorruptible
crown of glory, of righteousness, woven not of fading bay
leaves, but of sprays from the ‘tree of life,” which dower
with undying blessedness the brows round which they are
wreathed. Certain people are trying to rob them of their
prize—not consciously, for that would be inconceivable,
but such is the tendency of their teaching. No names
will be mentioned, but he draws a portrait of the robber
with swift firm hand, as if he had said, If you want to know
Ke
WARNINGS AGAINST TWIN CHIEF ERRORS. 309
whom I mean, here he is. Four clauses, like four rapid
strokes of the pencil do it, marked in the Greek by four
participles, the first of which is obscured in the Authorized
Version. ‘‘ Delighting in humility and the worshipping of
angels.” So probably the first clause should be rendered.
The first words are almost contradictory, and are meant to
suggest that the humility has not the genuine ring about
it. Self-conscious humility in which a man takes delight is
not the real thing. A man who knows that he is humble,
and is self complacent about it, glancing out of the corners
of his downcast eyes at any mirror where he can see
himself, is not humble at all. ‘‘ The devil’s darling vice
is the pride which apes humility.”
So very humble were these people that they would
not venture to pray to God! There was humility indeed.
So far beneath did they feel themselves, that the utmost
they could do was to lay hold of the lowest link of a long
chain of angel mediators, in hope that the vibration might
run upwards through all the links, and perhaps reach the
throne at last. Such fantastic abasement which would not
take God at His word, nor draw near to Him in His Son,
was really the very height of pride.
Then follows a second descriptive clause, of which no
altogether satisfactory interpretation has yet been given.
Possibly, as has been suggested, we have here an early error
in the text, which has affected all the manuscripts, and
cannot now be corrected. Perhaps on the whole, the trans-
lation adopted by the Revised Version presents the least
difficulty—‘‘ dwelling in the things which he hath seen.”
In that case the seeing would be not by. the senses, but by
visions and pretended revelations, and the charge against
the false teachers would be that they “walked in a vain
show” of unreal imaginations and visionary hallucinations,
whose many-coloured misleading lights they followed rather
than the plain sunshine of revealed facts in Jesus Christ.
310 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
“Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” is the next
feature in the portrait. The self-conscious humility was
only skin deep, and covered the utmost intellectual arro-
gance. The heretic teacher was swollen with what after
all was only wind, like a blown bladder; he was dropsical
from conceit of ‘‘ mind,” or, as we should say, “ intellectual
ability,” which after all was only the instrument and organ
of the ‘‘ flesh,” the sinful self. And, of course, being all
these things, he would have no firm grip of Christ, from
whom such tempers and views were sure to detach him.
Therefore the damning last clause of the indictment is ‘‘ not
holding the Head.’’ How could he? And the slackness
of his grasp of the Lord Jesus would make all these errors
and faults ten times worse.
Now the special forms of these errors which are here
dealt with are all gone past recall. But the tendencies
which underlay these special forms are as rampant as
ever, and work unceasingly to loosen our hold of our dear
Lord. The worship of angels is dead, but we are still
often tempted to think that we are too lowly and sinful
to claim our portion of the faithful promises of God. The
spurious humility is by no means out of date, which knows
better than God does, whether He can forgive us our
sins, and bend over us in love. We do not slip in angel
mediators between ourselves and Him, but the tendency
to put the sole work of Jesus Christ ‘“‘into commission,”
is not dead. We are all tempted to grasp at others as well
as at Him, for our love, and trust, and obedience, and we
all need the reminder that to lay hold of any other props
is to lose hold of Him, and that he who does not cleave
to Christ alone, does not cleave to Christ at all.
We do not see visions and dream dreams any more,
except here and there some one led astray by a so-called
“spiritualism,” but plenty of us attach more importance
to our own subjective fancies or speculations about the ob-
WARNINGS AGAINST TWIN CHIEF ERRORS. 311
scurer parts of Christianity than to the clear revelation of
God in Christ. The ‘unseen world” has for many minds
an unwholesome attraction. The Gnostic spirit is still in
full force among us, which despises the foundation facts
and truths of the Gospel as ‘‘milk for babes,’ and values
its own baseless artificial speculations about subordinate
matters, which are unrevealed because they are subordinate,
and fascinating to some minds because unrevealed, far above
the truths which are clear because they are vital, and in-
sipid because they are clear. We need to be reminded that
Christianity is not for speculation, but to make us good,
and that ‘‘ He who has fashioned their hearts alike,’ has
made us all to live by the same air, to be nourished by the
same bread from heaven, to be saved and purified by the
same truth. That in the Gospel which the little child can
understand, of which the outcast and the barbarian can
get some kind of hold, which the failing spirit groping in
the darkness of death can dimly see as its light in the valley
—that is the all-important part of the Gospel. What needs
special training and capacity to understand is no essential
portion of the truth that is meant for the world.
And a swollen self-conceit is of all things the most certain
to keep a man away from Christ. We must feel our utter
helplessness and need, before we shall lay hold on Him, and
if ever that wholesome lowly sense of our own emptiness is
clouded over, that moment will our fingers relax their
tension, and that moment will the flow of life into our
deadness run slow and pause. Whatever slackens our hold
of Christ tends to rob us of the final prize, that crown of
life which He gives.
Hence the solemn earnestness of these warnings. It
was not only a doctrine, more or less, that was at stake,
but it was their eternal life. Certain truths believed
would increase the firmness of their hold on their Lord,
and thereby would secure the prize. JDisbelieved, the
312 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
disbelief would slacken their grasp of Him, and_ thereby
would deprive them of it. We are often told that the
Gospel gives heaven for right belief, and that that is
unjust. But if a man does not believe a thing, he cannot
have in his character or feelings the influence which the
belief of it would produce. If he does not believe that
Christ died for his sins, and that all his hopes are built on
that great Saviour, he will not cleave to Him in love and
dependence. If he does not cleave to Him so, he will not
draw from Him the life which would mould his character
and stir him to run the race. If he do not run the race
he will never win or wear the crown. That crown is the
reward and issue of character and conduct, made possible
by the communication of strength and new nature from
Jesus, which again is made possible through our faith
laying hold of Him as revealed in certain truths, and of
these truths as revealing Him. Therefore, intellectual error
may loose our hold on Christ, and if we slacken that, we
shall forfeit the prize. Matters of curious interest belong-
ing to the less plainly revealed corners of Christian truth
may, and often do, act in paralysing the limbs of the Christ-
ian athlete. ‘‘ Ye did run well, what hath hindered you,”
has to be asked of many whom a spirit akin to this described
in our text has made languid in the race. To us all, know-
ing in some measure how the whole sum of influences
around us work to detach us from our Lord, and so to rob
us of the crown which is inseparable from His presence,
the solemn exhortation which He speaks from heaven may
well come, ‘‘ Hold fast that thou hast; let no man take thy
crown.”
III. The source and manner of all true growth is next set
forth, in order to enforce the warning, and to emphasize the
need of holding the Head.
Christ, as Head, is not merely supreme and sovereign.
The metaphor goes much deeper, and points to Him as the
WARNINGS AGAINST TWIN CHIEF ERRORS. 313
source of areal spiritual life, from Him communicated to
all the members of the true Church, and constituting it an
organic whole. We have found the same expression twice
already in the Epistle, once as applied to His relation to
‘the body, the Church”’ (i. 18), and once in reference to the
‘principalities and powers.’”’ The errors in the Colossian
Church derogated from Christ’s sole sovereign place as foun-
tain of all life natural and spiritual for all orders of beings,
and hence the emphasis of the Apostle’s proclamation of
the counter truth. That life which flows from the head
is diffused through the whole body by the various and har-
monious action of all the parts. It is ‘‘ supplied and knit
together,’”’ or in other words, the functions of nutrition and
compaction into a whole are performed by the “‘joints and
bands,’ in which last word are included muscles, nerves,
tendons, and any of the ‘‘ connecting bands which strap the
body together.”’ Their action is the condition of growth ;
but the Head is the source of all which the action of the
members transmits to the body. Christ is the source of
all nourishment. From Him flows the life-blood which
feeds the whole, and by which every form of supply is
ministered whereby the body grows. Christ is the source
of all unity. Churches have been bound together by other
bonds, such as creeds, polity, or even nationality ; but that
external bond is only like a rope round a bundle of fagots,
while the true, inward unity springing from common posses-
sion of the life of Christ, is as the unity of some great tree,
through which the same sap circulates from massive bole
to the tiniest leaf that flutters at the tip of the farthest
branch.
These blessed results of supply and unity are effected
through the action of the various parts. If each organ 15
in healthy action, the body grows. There is diversity in
offices; the same life is light in the eyes, beauty in the
cheek, strength in the hand, thought in the brain. The
911 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
more you rise in the scale of life the more the body is differ-
entiated, from the simple sac that can be turned inside out
and has no division of parts or offices, up to man. So in
the Church. The effect of Christianity is to heighten in-
dividuality, and to give each man his own proper “ gift from
God,’ and therefore each man his office, ‘‘ one after this
manner and another after that.’’ Therefore is there need
for the freest possible unfolding of each man’s idiosyncrasy,
heightened and hallowed by an indwelling Christ, lest the
body should be the poorer if any member’s activity be sup-
pressed, or any one man be warped from his own work
wherein he is strong, to become a feeble copy of another’s.
The perfect light is the blending of all colours.
A community where each member thus holds firmly by
the Head, and each ministers in his degree to the nourish-
ment and compaction of the members, will, says Paul, in-
crease with the increase of God. The increase will come
from Him, will be pleasing to Him, will be essentially the
growth of His own life in the body. There is an increase
not of God. These heretical teachers were swollen with
dropsical self-conceit ; but this is wholesome, solid growth.
For individuals and communities of professing Christians
the lesson is always seasonable, that it is very easy to get
an increase of the other kind. The individual may increase
in apparent knowledge, in volubility, in visions and specula-
lations, in so-called Christian work ; the Church may increase
in members, in wealth, in culture, in influence in the world,
in apparent activities, in subscription lists, and the like—
and it may all be not sound growth, but proud flesh, which
needs the knife. One way only there is by which we may
increase with the increase of God, and that is that we keep
fast hold of Jesus Christ, and “let Him not go, for He is
our life.’ The one exhortation which includes all that is
needful, and which being obeyed, all ceremonies and all
speculations will drop into their right place, and become
‘e
i ὙΨῚ Ψ,
THOUGHTS. 315
helps, not snares, is the exhortation which Barnabas gave to
the new Gentile converts at Antioch—that ‘‘ with purpose
of heart they should cleave unto the Lord.”’
ALEXANDER MACLAREN.
THOUGHTS.
1. The Word.—There are many languages and many
tongues, and one Voice sounds through all. ‘“ The floods lift up
their voice, the heavens declare the glory of God. Day unto
day poureth forth speech. . . . It is not a language, neither
are they words, the voice whereof cannot be heard . . . their
sound is gone out through all the earth and their words to the
end of the world.”
Colour, sound, form, are each a language. And some speak
through the one and some through the other, and some through
two or all three. And the sculptor cannot speak through colour
or sound, or the musician through form or colour; but the
painter speaks through colour and form and not through sound.
And the poet without either speaks in all, and calls each into his
service.
But if we will we may know an inward Word of Life which
expresses that which gives colour, sound and form their glory,
their truth, their being. Thus likewise the elements are a lan-
guage. And we may know as one that Voice which sounds
through air and cries in fire and murmurs in water and whispers
through earth.
The Word is the meaning and the meeting-place of all words;
the whole of which each language is a part. All true utterance
is therein, the Spoken Thought of God; including in the range of
expression all that we know as consciousness and will, as reason
and personality, all that we need as a Way, as a Truth, as a Life;
showing us that from which our fatherhoods are named, endowing
us with the very desire for Truth which some blindly think that
Christ cannot satisfy ; the witness of that Unity from which all
true fact springs.
316 BREVIA.
2. Deafness and Blindness.— God maketh a _ great
silence, that we may hear distinctly the softest whisper of the
still, small Voice. And He maketh a great darkness, that we
may be able to discern the least and farthest of His stars of
truth.
3. Pain to Refuse and Pain to Accept.:— Two
kinds of pain contrasted; the one a note of warning that we are
leaving God, the other an assurance that we are drawing nearer
to Him; the one a monitor and the othera pledge.
(1) The thrill of suffering which means a slight and else uncon-
scious waver from the true line of the will for us; or the pang
which might be felt by the keen blade in the angel’s hand, when
blunted and jagged and thus no longer swift to cleave asunder
barriers or penetrate disguises, or stab the serpent lie to the heart
for God. Or the pain of the sensitive eye or ear of the spirit
roughly touched and bruised, and so losing their power to discern
the way of God.
(2) The awful and precious pain which is the very warrant and
sign of our nearness to and oneness with the Sufferer and the
Sacrifice; and the pain of our dulness, blindness, crookedness, in
being sharpened to strike, wnveiled to see, straightened to will with
Him!
For His sake let us flee the first touch of the one: let us thank
our own Lord for the other. The first is the signal to stop, on
_ peril of measureless ill; the second beckons us forward, revealing
the Cross and the Crown.
VicrortA WELBY-GREGORY.
BREVIA.
The Didaché and Barnabas.—lIt was assumed by the
first commentators on the newly discovered Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, that the Epistle of Barnabas was one of the sources of
the manual. Many now think that Barnabas drew from the
Teaching ; and there is a third view, that both drew from a
common source. An argument (in its own sphere decisive)
against the first view may .be drawn from the grammatical
structure of chap. v., on the way of death.
BREVIA. 317
Of this “way” it says: “First of all it is evil and full of
eurse. Murders, adulteries . . , boastfulness. Persecutors
of the good, etc.” The abruptness with which the series of
nominatives, Murders, etc., is introduced, and the suddenness of
the transition to evil men, Persecutors of the good, etc., are
quite in keeping with the Hebraic character of the Teaching ;
but a writer of idiomatic Greek would be tempted to improve
upon such syntax,
The description in Apost. Const., vii., accordingly runs as fol-
lows: “ But the way of death is exhibited in evil deeds. For in it
is ignorance of God and superinduction of many gods, through whom
are: Murders, etc., persecution of the good, . . . For the doers
of these things cleave not to good, etc.” The new patches on
the old garment are not hard to recognise.
Turning now from this confessedly later redactor, to Barnabas,
we find him likewise mending the grammar of the Didaché, thus :
“But the way of blackness (?) is crooked and full of curse.
For it is a way of death eternal with punishment, in which are the
things that destroy men’s life. Idolatry, etc.” He agrees with the
Teaching in its sudden transition to “ Persecutors of the good,”
which completes the proof that he is a copyist, from whatever
source. In his description of the evil way he must have copied,
if not from the Teaching, from an original of which it has pre-
served the true form. There is something to be said for the
view that he had the complete Teaching before him, but the
coincidences do not all lie so near the surface.
In the Greek the descriptions in the Teaching and Barnabas
respectively run as follows :—
Ἢ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ὁδός ἐστιν αὕτη. Πρῶτον πάντων πονηρά ἐστι Kal
κατάρας μεστή. Φόνοι κ.τ.λΧ. ἀλαζονεία. Διῶκται ἀγαθῶν κ.τ.λ.
Ἡ δὲ τοῦ μέλανος ὁδὸς σκολιά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή. “Odds γάρ
ἐστι θανάτου αἰωνίου μετὰ τιμωρίας, ἐν ἣ ἐστι τὰ ἀπολλύντα τὴν ψυχὴν
αὐτῶν. HidwAodarpeta x.t.X. Διῶκται τῶν ἀγαθῶν κ.τ.λ.
Barnabas (quoting from memory) upsets the order of the
Teaching. The late redactor preserves it, copying closely, except
where he deliberately improves the construction.
C. Taytor.
318 BREVIA.
Martensen’s Jacob Bohme.!—Jacob Bohme, shoe-
maker, theosophist, Teutonic philosopher, was one of those strange
combinations of simplicity and profundity, ignorance and genius,
attractiveness to some and repulsiveness to others, which appear
at intervals to puzzle mankind. Those who would dismiss his
“stupendous reveries” with a contemptuous smile can hardly
have taken into account how many powerful minds and pious
souls have been profoundly impressed by his teaching. Besides
the great German thinkers, such names as those of Sir Isaac
Newton, King Charles I., William Blake, John Byrom, and above
all, William Law, all of whom were, more or less, admirers of
Boéhme, are enough to show that his writings at least deserve
respectful consideration. We therefore give a cordial welcome
to the English translation of Bishop Martensen’s Studies of this
extraordinary man’s life and writings. Only those who have
attempted to grapple with Bdéhme’s full works, either in the
original or in the English translation, can appreciate the debt of
gratitude which we owe to Dr. Martensen for his clear, thoughtful
and appreciative summary and criticism of the theosophist’s life
and writings. Nor must we forget to thank the translator who
has given us the great prelate’s valuable work in an English
dress. Mr. Evans, by the way, has fallen into the common error
of attributing the Knglish translation of Béhme’s works to
William Law. It is true that the translation is described as
his; but as a matter of fact, he had nothing whatever to do
with it, and he would certainly never have allowed it to be
printed, for he always regarded Béhme as “ caviare to the general.”
The real translator was probably a Mr. Ward, and it was pub-
lished, some time after Law’s death, at the sole expense of his
disciple, Mrs. Hutcheson. It is obviously impossible within our
limits to give even the briefest sketch of Dr. Martensen’s work.
He has wisely given only 16 out of 344 pages to the “ Life;”
for it is the writings, not the life, of Bohme which are the best
subjects of “study,” and in those writings he has picked out,
with wonderful acumen, just those points which are most salient _
and interesting. We would only caution the reader not to be
discouraged by the fact that he will find a hard nut to crack at
1 Jacob Bihme: His Life and Teaching; or Studies in Theosophy. By the
late Dr. Hans Martensen, Metropolitan of Denmark. Translated from the
Danish by T. Rhys Evans. Hodder and Stoughton, 1885.
BREVIA. 319
first. The most difficult to understand, and, in our opinion, the
least interesting part of the Studies, is the first section: ‘‘God and
the Uncreated Heaven.”” When we come to the second section,
“God and the Created World,” we enter upon a subject which
is not only more intelligible in itself, but also one in which
Boéhme gives us more valuable and tenable suggestions. ‘No
philosopher,” writes Dr. Martensen, “has given a truer and more
profound explanation of evil than Béhme ;” and few have written
more suggestively on the Fall, the Atonement, the Wrath of
God, and other kindred topics to which no thoughtful person
can be indifferent.
J. H. Overton.
Note on The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
Chapter xi.—I venture to suggest an emendation in a clause
of acknowledged difficulty. The whole passage runs thus: πᾶς
δὲ προφήτης διδάσκων τὴν ἀλήθειαν, εἰ ἃ διδάσκει οὐ ποιεῖ, Wevdorpo-
φήτης ἐστί. πᾶς δὲ προφήτης δεδοκιμασμένος, ἀληθινός, ποιῶν F εἰς
μυστήριον κοσμικὸν t ἐκκλησίας, μὴ διδάσκων δὲ ποιεῖν ὅσα αὐτὸς
ποιεῖ, οὐ κριθήσεται ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν: μετὰ Θεοῦ γὰρ ἔχει τὴν κρίσιν: ὡσάυτως
γὰρ ἐποίησαν καὶ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται.
For the words marked Ὁ. . . +t I would conjecture
τὰ (?) εἰς μαρτύριον κόσμιον. In support of this conjecture, the
following points seem worth considering :—(1) It is in general
harmony with the context. Two types of prophetic character are
presented which are evidently intended to be contrasted. The
first prophet teaches well, but his actions give the lie to his
teaching. The second orders his own actions, that the Church
may have an honest report, but his teaching fails in practical
effect. The former is self-condemned ; the latter is left to God’s
1 Readers of the Expostror (May, 1885, p. 397) may emember Dr. Marcus
Dods’ interpretation of this clause. He supposes the reference to be to ‘the
declaration of future and as yet hidden historical movements. . . . A
prophet calls the Christian people together that he may indulge in apocalyptic
_thapsodies.”” This very ingenious and attractive interpretation appears open
to some objections. (1) The connexion of clauses is not satisfactory. We
should have expected ποιῶν δὲ . . . καὶ μὴ διδάσκων. (2) ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ
is left without anything in the previous context to refer to, δεδοκιμασμένος and
ἀληθινός pointing to official and not personal character. (3) ποιῶν, though
somewhat prominent in the sentence, is in sense divorced from οὐ ποιεῖ
in the preceding and from ποιεῖν ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ in the succeeding context,
320 BREVIA.
judgment. (2) In particular it gives a natural meaning to the
clause, “‘ For thus also did the ancient prophets.” Eli, Samuel
(1 Sam. vii. 1-3), David and Elisha (2 Kings v. 20 sq.) are
cases in point. (3) The passage so read may be thought to
underlie some parts of the Apostolic Constitutions. There, how-
ever, discipline takes the place of teaching. Thus, “ὑπ Bishop
must not only be blameless, but also no respecter of persons,
in kindness chastening those who sin. . . He :
who does not execute judgment, but spares ΠΡ who desermes
punishment, as Saul spared Agag, and Eli his sons who
knew not the Lord, thereby profanes his own good name
and the Church of God which is in his diocese” (ii. 9, 10).
Again, “but thou, O Bishop, must neither overlook the sins of
the people nor turn away from those who repent, that so thou
mayest not, as one unskilled, destroy the Lord’s flock, nor bring
a slight upon the new name laid upon the people, and thyself
suffer rebuke like the shepherds of old time (οἱ παλαιοὶ ποίμενες),
concerning whom Jeremiah spake (xii. 10, comp. Zech. x. 3;
Mal. i. 6)” (i. 15). Again in vii. 31, where there is nothing —
parallel to the phrase, eis μυστήριον κοσμικόν, or the context which
it dominates, one or two expressions recall the passage of the
Teaching as I would emend it. (4) The passage so read is seen
to contain a series of words and thoughts found also in 1 Tim. 111.
ἀνεπίλημπτον, κόσμιον, διδακτικόν (ver. 2), μαρτυρίαν καλὴν.
ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἴ (ver. 7). (5) Lastly, the change which I propose
is easy. Transcriptional probability favours it. Thus μαρτύριον
has been altered to μυστήριον, in e.g. 1 Cor, ii. 1, Polye. ad Philip.,
vii., Constit. Apost., i. 25 (p. 51, 1. 3, ed. Lagarde). In the Teaching,
as in the last of these passages, the juxtaposition of the word
ἐκκλησία may well have suggested the change. Or perhaps the
phrase τράπεζαν ἐν πνεύματι immediately above facilitated an
alteration which supplied an apparently antithetical expression.
Cambridge. Frep. H. Cuase.
1 Perhaps κοσμικόν should be retained as equivalent to ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν.
THE ENGLISH EXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SOCIN,
Havine recently returned from South Africa, I have only
just had the opportunity of reading Prof. Socin’s criti-
cism, in the Exposiror for October, 1885, of the work of
the Palestine Exploration Fund. The criticism, though at
times severe, is that of a fairly competent witness, who
does not fail also to point out the good work of the Society.
It would therefore be impossible to let it pass without no-
tice; and, indeed, there is much that Prof. Socin says with
which I, for one, thoroughly concur. At the same time the
general result of such an article would, as I hope to be able
to show, be to give an impression unintentionally quite false
as to the published work of the Society; and I fear that
in some of his criticisms Prof. Socin, who is perhaps best
known as the compiler of a useful Handbook to Syria, will
not escape the recoil upon himself of those charges of in-
sufficient acquaintance with the results of modern critical
or antiquarian research which he brings against those who
have laboured in the field of Palestine exploration.
I should myself be the last to claim that any work
of mine was free from errors and imperfections. I have
taken occasion to say so in the Jerusalem Chamber in
1880; and I hope that since I first went to Syria, in 1872,
I have been able to learn a great deal, and have shown
myself willing to acknowledge any errors which have been
pointed out to me.! At the risk, however, of being charged
1 The task of criticising other men’s work appears to me to be a less useful
expenditure of energy than that of endeavouring to learn for oneself. At the
same time I am tempted to ask, whether Prof. Socin is aware that even his own
VOL. ΠῚ. 321 Υ
322 THE ENGLISH PXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
with ‘abusing the plaintiff,’ I have ventured in a note
to remark that there are reasons why Prof. Socin should
extend to his brother students in the field the charity
which ought to exist between those who wish to do service
to science. A review like that of Prof. Socin is, I feel,
very healthy. It clears the air, and is quite a relief after
fourteen years of rejoicings, in some of which I have never
felt able to join with much heartiness.
There are three questions in the review which have
perhaps hardly been sufficiently distinguished. 1st, That
of the permanent Map and Memoirs by which the Society
must be judged. 2nd, Their more ephemeral or speculative
publications, the Quarterly Statement, and the Old Testa-
ment and New Testament Maps, with their popular books.
8rd, Works not published by the Society at all, such as
valuable Handbook is open to criticism which might be made entirely mislead-
ing, if the errors were exposed, while no notice was taken of the sound results
contained in the book? Prof. Socin is presumably well acquainted with the
distinction between Nahu, or grammarian’s Arabic, and Hakki, or the vulgar
(often ungrammatical) speech of daily life. His book contains, however, no
warning to the traveller that the expressions and sentences which occur in the
vocabulary bristle with vulgarisms such as are used, indeed, by dragomans
and muleteers, but not by educated Syrians. Awam for Kawam, Abl for Kabl,
Ana bakul, Addeish for Kad ei shi, Nuss el leil for Nusf el Leil, are but a few
instances of these vulgar phrases. I cannot but suppose that Prof. Socin knows
the word Mueddhin, why then does he spell it Mueddin? Still more curious
is the fact that he occasionally confuses the gutturals Ό and Ὁ: an error which
is indeed common enough among the German residents in Palestine, but
which one would scarcely expect of Prof. Socin. For instance, he writes Dohn
for ges “millet” (p. 45), not to speak of Kharbaj for Herbaj, and Sikh for
Sih. Probably ’Arbain for “forty”? is a slip of the pen for Arbain ὧδ δ BY)
but why is Jebel et Tor translated (p. 217) ‘‘ mountain of light”? Surely the
Aramaic word 1) means a hilltop? Again we are told that ure’ Means
Ksau rather than Jesus (p. 93); but in Palestine, Esau is known as orn
and never as ’Aisa. Why again are we told that Muntdar is the name of a
Moslem saint? (p. 309) It is generally supposed to mean ‘“‘ watch-tower,” and
the saint’s name in this case was “Aly. I should be sorry to say that Prof.
Socin was little acquainted with Italian, but why does he write Foresteria for
Yorestiera? 1 should not presume to doubt his knowledge of Hebrew, but it is
not evident why (p. 400) he connects Harra with the Hebrew Charezim. As to
the names in his Handbook, many are wrong, e.g. Yafufa (Yahfufa), Jedra
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SOCIN. 323
my Handbook and Primer, and Mr. Henderson’s Hand-
book, for which the Society are in nowise responsible.
It is only fair to the committee of the Society to re-
member, that library scholars and the conductors of ex-
ploration parties are not made always of the same stuff.
The committee choose the commander; they ask him for
a professional report, whereby he must be judged; and if
he choose to add the results of his own literary studies,
and if they publish these always with the caution that for
such suggestions the author is responsible, it is, I think,
clear that they have fulfilled at once their duty to the
public and to the explorer. This is what the Society have
always done. It is a question then: Ist, As to the pro-
fessional report ; 2nd, As to the explorer’s opinions; but in
both cases a question between the explorer and the critic,
not between the committee and the critic. I think that
within the limits at his disposal, Prof. Socin might have
(Jidru), Sedeideh (Jedeideh), Yasir (Teiasir), ete. etc., but I feel convinced that
these are printer’s errors. There are, however, other points where such explan-
ation is of no avail. The Maronites were reconciled to Rome in 1182, not
‘about 1600” (p. 88). Again we are told that Syria (4) 12) is derived from
Assyria (WN), p. 39. These are instances picked at random from many other
minor blemishes in Prof. Socin’s work. Even in matters of modern topography
there might be improvements. Why, I may ask, in publishing a bad copy of
my Survey of Carmel, has Prof. Socin written Khan to every ruin? was he mis-
led by the abbreviation Kh. for Kharbeh on my map, or does he really think
every ruin on Carmel is a Khan? Again, Sarona (p. 131) is not in Jaffa, but
a distinct colony. The north gate of Jerusalem is called Bab ez Zahrah, not
Sahrah (the old title); the Lacus Germanus was not named from a Germanus,
but because constructed by knights of the German hospice. There is only
one inscription at Arak el Emir (p. 308), and no philologist would agree with
Prof. Socin that this is written in ancient Hebrew. WJleazar and Abishuah at
*Awertah (p. 328) are not known as ‘‘ two famous teachers of the Talmud,” but
as the immediate descendants of Aaron. When Prof. Socin says that ‘ the
Arabic characters have been developed from the Syriac’’ (p. 104), he lays him-
self open to the charge of being only very slightly acquainted with the history
of Semitic alphabets. There are many similar criticisms which I might add,
but these are sufficient to show that even so careful and comparatively simple
a work as that of the compiled Handbook bearing Prof. Socin’s name, cannot be
made quite perfect all at once. I again call attention, however, to the fact that
it is by far the best yet written. But I am tempted to add, ‘‘ People who live
in glass houses, ete.”
324 THE ENGLISH EXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
said more than he has about the professional reports—as
to the physical description of the country, the minute ac-
counts with plans and photographic drawings of the ruins,
the legends and notes as to population, the inscriptions,
and other details tending to establish date or historical
sequence, the accounts of masonry dressing and other
distinguishing peculiarities. Prof. Socin has, however,
preferred to confine his notice to picking holes in the re-
sults which have been published outside this professional
report on Palestine, which forms the main material of
the Memoirs, and the most solid basis of the reputation
which the Palestine Exploration Fund enjoys, at all events
in England; and with his criticisms, therefore, we are now
more immediately concerned.
As regards Prof. Socin’s preference for the work of
Guerin,’ over the trigonometrical survey, I can only say
that I am prepared to show that the methods and results
of our professional work in Palestine are correct. There
are small ruins not shown on my map which appear on
the sketch maps made by various travellers. In some cases
I know that those sketch maps are, in this respect, incorrect,
special inquiry having been made at the time. In other
cases the alternative name will be found in the Memoir.
In others, the evidence did not appear sufficient to justify
placing the name on the map. It is curious that Prof.
Socin, who objects to a supposed “apologetic tendency”
in the work of the Palestine Exploration Fund, has raised
no such objection to the orthodox Romanism of M. Guerin,
which, from an English point of view, detracts from the
scientific value of his work.
1 Some of the objections are very trivial. Taiyibeh (G. Thayibeh) is spelt
dnb. Deir es Surian (G. Deir Sirian) the survey spelling is clearly the more
probable. δα) for Raj is the well-known French transliteration dj for Θ
As to position, I see no reason why Guerin’s sketch should be more correct than
a survey.
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SOCIN. 325
As regards the enumeration of my published works,
I presume Heth and Moab is omitted as not treating of
Western Palestine. I hope, however, that in this work
Prof. Socin may recognise an advance on earlier attempts
in Tent Work in Palestine, which was pointed out by my
English reviewers. I regret that he has not thought well
to mention this later publication, which is, I hope, an
improvement on former publications of the Society bearing
my name.
Respecting the arrangement of the Memoirs, I agree with
Prof. Socin, that it is clumsy. The committee adopted it,
I believe,on the model of the Memoirs of the Ordnance
Survey of Great Britain. I always objected to the arrange-
ment, and they allowed me to choose my own arrangement
in writing the Memoir of the Eastern Survey (as yet
unpublished), which arrangement will, I trust, be found
more concise and easier for reference. As regards the
proposed paper on the Siloam text, 1 may suggest to Prof.
Socin that the volume of special papers was published
before this inscription was discovered. A full account of the
text occurs in the Jerusalem volume. Again, the suggestion
that a treatise on physical geography is wanted, seems to
leave out of sight the fact that each sheet of the Memoir
commences with an account of the orography, hydrography,
and topography of the sheet, and of the cultivation of the
district. In this Prof. Socin will find the account of the
water supply, which he seems to have vainly sought among
the special papers. I have, however, no doubt that a
clear abstract of these detailed accounts of physical geo-
graphy would give a better result than that which Mr.
Trelawny Saunders attained, before the publication of the
Memoir, by simply describing in detail on paper the fea-
tures which any intelligent student can trace for himself on
the map.
Another point where Prof. Socin seems to assume
326 THE ENGLISH EXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
ignorance on the part of the authors of the Memoir, is
that of Biblical criticism. Can he point to any statement
of mine to the effect that I refer the list of desert stations
to Moses, or the statistics of the division of Palestine to
Joshua? He seems himself to see that my paper on
Samaritan Topography tells a different tale. I may how-
ever say, that I agree with Prof. Socin in thinking the
Levitical division of the land to represent a late condition
of society. On the other hand, I think that Prof. Socin
speaks far too confidently as to ‘‘ different documents,”
and I regard the German views as to the distinction of
such documents as being much too speculative. A school
of more sober criticism, which acknowledges our inability
to dogmatise as to the exact date and tendency of every
episode of Old Testament books, is fast arising, and I look
to see the fashionable views of Wellhausen and others
pass into the limbo of former theories, as being the work
of men far too self-satisfied concerning their infallibility
and keen acumen as exegetical critics.
I am not aware that the permanent publications of the
Palestine Exploration Fund can justly be said to have
an ‘‘apologetic tendency.’ Survey and the description
of ruins have no tendency at all; they represent the —
collection of facts on which the reader may put any con-
struction he pleases. The strength of the Society lies in
the fact that officially it recognises no views, only dealing
with ascertained facts. It is clear, from Prof. Socin’s mis-
construction of my views on Biblical criticism, that there
can have been nothing in the Survey Memoirs to allow
of his knowing what those views are.
As regards the identification of the Akkadians with
Mongols, I am not sure what Prof. Socin’s objection can
be. Perhaps I should have written Finns or Uralo-Altaic
races, but this is a very slight alteration. I can hardly
believe that Prof. Socin is ignorant of the results of philo-
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SOCIN. 327
logy in this case. The labours of Lenormant have proved
beyond doubt that the old non-Semitic speech of Meso-
potamia of the Akkadians, Sumerians, early Elamites and
Cosseans, was closely akin to the Finnic language, and
(according to the ordinary use of the word) was therefore
Turanian.! Again, as regards the Amorites, Prof. Socin
says, “It is the name in a particular document for the
Canaanites in general.’”’ I presume he is referring to one
of the hypothetical documents into which some German
scholars divide the Pentateuch; but considering how various
are the views as to these components, no ordinary student
is as yet bound to accept any one among them in par-
ticular as belonging to the category of ascertained fact.
Prof. Socin is presumably aware that the Amaur are
mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions, and I may remark in
the known instances that they always appear as inhabit-
ing the “ high lands.”
It is not exactly representing my views to say that I
regard the Nestorians as the Ten Tribes; and as regards
Neby Saleh, I should no doubt have mentioned the story
of his dromedary (found in the Koran), but Neby Saleh
still remains a peculiar figure in Arab folklore not yet
identified with any figure in other systems. Respecting
the Fellah language and the Aramaic of the fourth century,
I must refer Prof. Socin to St. Jerome and to Cyril—or
even to Robinson. The evidence of the Aramaic influence
on Syrian speech is, I think, far too strong to be hastily
set aside by a dictum like that of my critic, that it ‘‘ rests
upon lack of knowledge,’ and far better students than
1 If this ‘‘ makes a very painful impression on a serious German student,”
I can only suppose that the student in question knows very little of Assyriology.
As to the Pheenicians coming from Mesopotamia, the evidence is not only that
of Strabo or Herodotus, but includes philological considerations which seem to
me of great weight, such as the name Akharu,’ the worship of Nergal and
Tammuz, and other indications of a like kind. I am aware that this migration
is doubted by some, but it is accepted by good authorities,
328 THE ENGLISH EXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
myself have remarked upon this peculiarity in the case of
the Nabatheans. I however maintain my original view,
that the Bedawin are very little touched by Islam, often
mere pagans still. Such was my experience at least, after
living among them for a considerable time, and the question
is fully examined in Heth and Moab, to which I refer
Prof. Socin for details.
Prof. Socin again seems to fail in making a point as re-
gards the worship of the Makams, ‘‘a worship,” he says,
‘‘as different from the old idolatry as is the Catholic
image worship.’’ Has he, I would ask, reflected on the
mass of evidence which shows that Catholic image worship
also is directly founded on paganism, and that throughout
Europe pagan deities of the Kelts or Gauls or Germans are
still adored as Christian saints. The parallel is at least
an unfortunate one for the critic.
As to the acceptability of Talmudic tradition in topo-
graphy, there may be differences of opinion. My own belief
is, that the earlier works of the 2nd and 38rd centuries,
included under this general title with others of later date,
are of very high value, as representing indigenous tradition.
Like all other evidence, it cannot of course be accepted
unquestioned. The question of identification is again one
of opinion, but the rules of the interchange of certain letters
which I have always attempted to follow are recognised
by every student. Why Prof. Socin should prefer Talluza
(8 >yhb) to Teiasir (καὶ) as representing Tirzah (7377)
I cannot see; the former word has not a single letter in
common with the Hebrew. !
As regards the Tomb of Rachel, I can only say that I
1 As regards the cases (four out of more than 150) to which Prof. Socin takes
exception —
Hosah = Ezziyah is suggested for topographical reasons.
Hannathon = Kefr ’An&n is also chiefly on account of geographical position,
The Talmudic Caphar Hananiah seems however to give an intermediate stage.
Neiel has the article in the Hebrew, which Prof. Socin seems to neglect.
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SOCIN. 329
have no confidence in Mr. Schick’s supposed discovery.
I investigated the matter carefully on the spot and found
no basis for his assertion, nor has any one since confirmed
the supposed existence of the name at Mr. Schick’s site.
Nor do the passages mentioned by Prof. Socin (1 Sam.
x.2; Jer. xxxi. 15) prove that Rachel’s tomb was ever north
of Jerusalem, while Gen. xxxy. 19, not mentioned by Prof.
Socin, distinctly states that this tomb was near Bethle-
hem (see 16).
Prof. Socin does not believe that the Cities of the
Plain were north of the Dead Sea. Josephus said they
were under it, and the Biblical account may mean the
same, but I can hardly think that any one who has visited
the southern shores of the Dead Sea could believe it had
ever been a district capable of supporting a settled popu-
lation, whereas the plains of Jericho still ave so capable.
This, however, is not a matter in any way affecting the
credit of the survey of Palestine. !
As regards my identifications of Neby Naman with
Micah, and of Neby Mashtk with Melkarth, Prof. Socin
has omitted all reference to the historical evidence on
which alone they rest. Perhaps he has not been able to
find it in the Memoir, but I assure him that it is there
awaiting his perusal. 1 am perhaps to blame for not giving
cross references, but must beg for indulgence, as I was
again exploring in Palestine while the memoirs of my
first survey were being published in England.
I now come to the question of the Arabic name lists,
where I am more in accord with the critic. I cannot,
Tell en Nahl is quite out of the question, but I am not responsible for this rather
wild shot of Mr, Τὶ Saunders.
Chephar Haamonai is also supported by topographical requirements as to
situation.
1 The suggestion that Kasim was Cadmus was made by Prof. Palmer. It
certainly seems unfounded. As to Jisr Mujamid there is a legend attached to
the bridge, of a great gathering which once occurred there.
330 THE ENGLISH EXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
however, think that Prof. Socin can have read my ac-
count in the first volume of the Memoirs of the Method
of Execution of the Survey. It is hardly possible that he
can mean flatly to contradict—without any personal know-
ledge of the survey operations—my direct statement to the
effect that the names were never repeated by the surveyors
to the scribe. Hach surveyor had with him invariably a
local guide. Every name was taken down from the mouth
of that guide in my presence, and in that of the surveyor,
by the scribe. The error, if any, must have been that
of the native guide. I do not, however, note any instances
of such error mentioned by Prof. Socin, and I haye no
doubt that my assurance will induce him not again to
repeat his hasty assertion, which is contrary to fact.?
The grammatical points raised by Prof. Socin do not
show, as he supposes, our ignorance of Arab grammar.
They evince clearly to any one who has for six years’
been living among the Fellahin, writing down their words,
inquiring into the peculiarities of their dialect, and with
the aid of experienced natives and residents examining
the question of nomenclature, that Prof. Socin has him-
self very little knowledge of these dialectic peculiarities.
Had he possessed such knowledge he would not have
prepared a vocabulary of ‘“‘townsman’s Arabic” only, for
his travellers, and he might even be puzzled to understand
a fellah of the outlying districts when he spoke. Thus,
for instance, Burak is no doubt not the proper plural of
Birkeh, but it is certainly a form used by the peasantry,
1 There is one instance in the north where the name Tireh is spelt & oo) δ
yet translated ‘‘fortress,” by Prof. Palmer. I was, I believe, the first to
show how this Aramaic word dy “Ὁ (ΠῚ) survives in Palestine, though its
meaning is lost to the natives. They translate it ‘‘ bird” (xb) and in the
same way Rameh (‘‘ the hill’’), they translate ‘‘ the tank.”
2 I spent the years 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1881, 1882, among Fellahin and
Arabs. I do not know how many years Prof. Socin includes under the term
‘a considerable time,” nor do I know if he actually lived among the peasantry
and conversed with them daily in their own language.
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SOCIN. 991
as is Buwab instead of Abwab for gates. The correct form
was constantly suggested to me by our scribe, but I always
insisted on the fellah form being that written down.
The various sounds of the feminine ending faithfully re-
produce the fellah intonation. Surely Prof. Socin does
not suppose that Prof. Palmer was capable of ignorance
on such an elementary point as that of the status con-
structus, and I may tell the critic, that the list of abbrevia-
tions and explanations for those who could not read Arabic,
was prepared, not by me, but by Prof. Palmer. The
question of transliteration is one of very secondary im-
portance. Robinson’s earlier method was adopted by the
committee because it was familiar in England. It is not
in itself a good system; but no student would rely on the
English lettering when he could find the original Arabic
in the name lists.
The strictures on translation are more justifiable! For
this translation Prof. Palmer is responsible. In my own
opinion he often introduced confusion, by rejecting a
translation obtained on the spot with great care, for one
found in the dictionary. On the other hand, some of my
translations which Prof. Socin calls wild, rest on the
respectable authority of Lane and Freytag. In the case
1 Far from its being true that etymologising has fallen into discredit, many
of our most advanced critics attach high importance to the right translation of
Old Testament names, e.g. Prof. Robertson Smith. It is only in the future
that we shall be able to judge how many of the one hundred and fifty new
Biblical identifications Prof. Socin accepts. Nor has he said anything about
the Byzantine sites and the Crusading places newly identified from the survey,
of which there are very many.
As regards the ‘‘assistance of thorough professional scholars,” I may say
that Prof. Socin’s Handbook seems in want of a scholarly revision which should
prevent the confusion of such words as Syria and Assyria, or the writing of
Dohn for Dokhn. I however agree that an index and a proper abstract
of the Memoirs are wanted. I beg Prof. Socin also clearly to understand,
that I am in no way responsible for Mr. T. Saunders’ Old Testament Map,
which I have had occasion to criticise elsewhere, and which I consider to be
quite unsatisfactory, The new maps of the Bible Society, which I have revised
for their committee, will be found to differ entirely from that of Mr. Saunders.
332 THE ENGLISH EXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
of Neby Duhy, Prof. Socin fails to tell me what I have
discovered since the Memoirs were published—yvyiz. who
this personage was, and where he is mentioned in Moslem
literature.
The critic again objects to the translation of Shem (OW)
as meaning “brown.” It is not, however, my ignorance
which is thus shown. The careful note on this question
by Prof. Sayce in the Proceedings of the Biblical Archao-
logical Society seems to me to leave no doubt on this subject.
This is one of several instances in which I think Prof.
Socin hastily condemns statements as to the foundation
for which he knows nothing.
As regards other writers, it is not my business either to
defend or to condemn. The contributors to the Quarterly
Statements of the Society are of very various calibre. It
is not I think undesirable that, in an ephemeral production
of this kind, all who wish should find room to write,
but the value of their contributions is matter of opinion.
Personally, I should prefer not to see its columns filled
with endless discussions on unimportant points which can
probably never be settled. I should prefer not again to
read therein bad jokes, or personal details of ordinary
travellers’ mishaps; but these are rare and unimportant
details, and no doubt much very valuable information has
been obtained from outsiders through the columns of the
Quarterly Statement.
I would make an exception in the case of the Rev. A.
Henderson to the criticisms of Prof. Socin. This writer
has always been remarkable for moderation, modesty and
freedom from prejudices. We may not always agree with
his views, and I hear, in corresponding with him, that
there are a few slips and printer’s errors in his Handbook,
which he expects to amend in a future edition. I think,
however, that this work—which has, by the bye, nothing
to do with the Palestine Exploration Fund—is generally
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SOCIN. 333
so sound and useful that it cannot fail to be acceptable in
the class for which it is intended.
We have come thus to the end of the Professor's
criticisms.. We must thank him for his expressions of
approval and also for a good many really valuable sug-
gestions and objections, but at the same time we may
fairly expect him to withdraw many others which are
hasty and ill-informed. We may also be allowed to sug-
gest to his consideration, that no work—not even his own
—undertaken by mortal man is perfect, and that it is
necessary to look at the general character in pronouncing
a verdict. The task of exploring 6000 square miles,
and then preparing and publishing the results, is not
a small task. It has fallen mainly on the shoulders of
Mr. W. Besant and of myself, though there have been
many distinguished contributors. I have no doubt Mr.
Besant feels as I do, that we have learned as we went
on. The task of final assimilation of the huge mass of
material is not yet complete. It will probably not be
complete for many years. I hope soon to offer a contri-
bution to such assimilation in a work on which I am still
engaged; but I fully expect to see, even in Prof. Socin’s
future editions of his Handbook, the influence of the work
that has been already done. Prof. Socin’s time is, no
doubt, mainly occupied by original research rather than by
criticism, and we may hope to obtain some results which
may be more valuable even than his critical comments
on the Palestine Exploration Fund, from the labours of
the German Palestine Society. As yet we have had
nothing very striking from them either in the way of
exploration or of literature. The papers by Herr Schick
and his plans are welcomed as the work of an old and
zealous workman, but they are open to criticism far more
severe than that levelled against the English Society.
After all, we have given the public a solid mass of infor-
934 THE ENGLISH EXPLORATIONS IN PALESTINE.
mation, vouched for by professional men, and accepted
by students of a very high class in England. The critical
school is fast being superseded by the historical in England.
The study of monuments and inscriptions, coins, statues
and buildings, gives us more certain results regarding the
vexed questions of Oriental antiquity than any amount
of exegetical criticism can be expected to give. If Prof.
Socin doubts the existence of non-Semitic races in Syria,
his doubt is not shared by those who have studied the
records of Egyptian and Akkadian monuments, and I for
one believe that more is to be learned from such com-
parative study than from any amount of theorising on
“documents,” ‘‘editors,”’ ‘first and second Elohists,”’
and the rest; at the same time it does not follow that
because our line of research leads away from these bitter
controversies to the safer path of contemporary monu-
mental evidence, we are therefore ignorant of what has
been written in these matters. I have studied the works
of Kuenen, Ewald, Colenso, Robertson Smith, and other
critics, and have become generally acquainted with the
views of Hitzig, Wellhausen, and other German critical
writers, and I have read Renan’s great work, as well as
numerous books of Lenormant; but there are many other
branches of study which must yield their contributions
to the study of Syrian antiquity and to which Prof. Socin
does not refer. Such are the publications of the Biblical
Archeological Society, the Records of the Past, the Sacred
Books of the East, the works of Smith, Layard, Raw-
linson, Boscawen, Taylor, Sayce, Chabas, Brugsch, Birch,
Mariette, De Rouge, and many more. There is so much
to do in collating all that these great scholars have
written respecting Syria, that the study might well fill
a lifetime without leaving time for exegetical works. I
think Prof. Socin will agree, that time is better spent in
trying to learn than in trying to pick holes in other men’s
THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH. 335
work. As regards the word already spoken—that is
past. If there has been error or shortcoming, all that
can be done is to amend in the future, and to strive
through the aid of one’s critics to avoid the perpetuation
of error. In the end, the true lives, the false dies away.
All we have a right to require of every writer is, that he
should be honest, well-informed and open to conviction,
conscientious in doing his best, and conscious of his own
fallibility.
Prof. Socin is not the only competent critic who has
reviewed the work of the Palestine Exploration Fund.
Others have done so, and have pronounced it good, recog-
nising that it has no ‘‘ tendency,” but is based on observa-
tion of fact, leaving to others to draw their own inferences,
and embracing the labours of men of very different casts
of thought, united only by a desire to ascertain the truth.
I hope that Prof. Socin will recognise that it is the design
of the English explorers rather to work in friendly emu-
lation than to waste the time by carping at the efforts of
others in the same line of study.
Ο. R. ConDER.
THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
II. Tue FourtH VIision.—ZECcH. iii.
THE object of the fourth vision which was seen by
Zechariah, was to restore the confidence of the people in
_ the priesthood and its ministry. In commencing to rebuild
the Temple the people naturally felt some doubt whether
it was any use doing so. A temple without an inhabiting
God is a mockery. No doubt the preceding vision had
contained the promise, ‘‘I will dwell in the midst of thee.”
But they needed a further assurance. They knew that they
336 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
had sinned, and that their priests had sinned with them.
They felt the justice of Fizekiel’s words (xxi. 26), ‘“‘ Her
priests have violated My law and have profaned My holy
things’; and they were not sure how the services of these
priests would be received by their holy God. In this
feeling of doubt which prevailed among the people the
vision finds its starting point. Joshua the High Priest is
seen standing as the people’s representative before the
Lord; and the guilty fears of the people find a mouth-piece
in Satan, who resists Joshua’s intercession on the ground of
the past transgressions of the people. This scene in the
presence-chamber of Jehovah was the picture sketched by
the conscience-stricken fancy of the thoughtful Jews; and
the vision was designed to remove their fears by showing
that the sin borne by Joshua as their representative was
removed, his ministry accepted, and the priesthood estab-
lished anew. His filthy garments were removed, the mitre
placed on his head, and explicit assurances added that he
was accepted as ruler in God’s house.
This apparently might have closed the vision; but God’s
sraciousness overflows, not only scattering the fears of the
people and reinstating the High Priest, but using the op-
portunity to promise further favours to the people. The
‘Branch’? had now become a recognised title of the
Messiah, and the promise of His coming is here renewed.
And to this promise is added one which to us is obscure but
which no doubt was easily intelligible when first uttered.
“For behold the stone which I have laid before Joshua;
upon one stone seven eyes; behold, I will engrave the
craving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts.” The stone
spoken of was one which the people had seen lying before
Joshua, perhaps the foundation-stone which had been laid
immediately after their return, perhaps a stone still in the
hewer’s shed, selected for its dimensions or designed by its
carving to be the topstone of the building. The “ seven
THE FOURTH VISION. 337
’
eyes” are in the next chapter interpreted as “‘ the eyes of
the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth,”’
and must therefore symbolize the providence or watchful
care of God. This care was to be displayed in connexion
with the stone; God Himself was to carve it, was to defend
and uphold it as if it were His own handiwork.
This vision is full of permanent instruction. It can in-
deed bring encouragement or even interest only to those
who have some anxiety about the reception their services
are likely to meet with. But as it was no empty dream
of an excited timidity which represented to the Jews their
High Priest in filthy garments, so it may be expected that
similar anxieties may be generated now by the reflection of
common sense and by a truthful conscience.
The figure here used to represent the effect of sin upon
us tells its own tale. Filthy garments make a man unplea-
sant company; they make him offensive and disgusting,
perhaps contagious to others; and if he has not lost all
sense of decency they are to himself a source of constant
shame and discomfort. However anxious we may be to
be hospitable and friendly, we cannot sit at table nor
spend hours and days in the close society of one whose
clothes and person are justly termed “filthy.” It is easy
to overcome, or at least it is possible to overcome, the
revulsion and nausea produced by the disagreeable con-
comitants of certain diseases; for here pity and necessity
take the part of the unhappy sufferer; but where the filthi-
ness is not the unavoidable result of disease, but the result
of mere carelessness and low habits and contentment with
dirt, it forms an insuperable barrier to intercourse.
This vision says that sin forms a similar barrier to inter-
course with God. God will not, cannot, ought not to, find
pleasure in intercourse with those who are stained with sin.
Possibly we have ourselves met with persons whose con-
versation was so foul_or whose habits were of such a kind
VOL, III, Z
998 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
that we felt we could not remain in their company. We
have learnt that certain sins are disgusting even to our-
selves. The ancient Germans used to punish certain
criminals by sinking them under a wicker crate in a mud-
hole, recognising that in certain sins there is a foulness
deserving a foul death; a defilement which men cannot
stand and must avenge by a death and burial out of sight
in one. And if we see nothing in ourselves which could
reasonably be supposed to excite similar feelings in a
perfectly pure mind such as that of God, it may be feared
that this can only be because we have not the keen spiritual
discernment of the prophet. This is a theme for the
individual conscience ; it is for each to look upon God as
He is here depicted, not angry, not taking vengeance, but
compelled to turn away from us. Men ought not to be en-
couraged to believe that good and evil are much the same to
God. It is the hope of the world that righteousness will
one day’prevail, and this hope has for its foundation the
fact that God abominates all sin.
The cleansing of Joshua is effected by God. Joshua is
helpless. He has no better garments to clothe himself in.
Had he had clean raiment, he would have put it on before
appearing in God’s presence. He appears as he is, because
he can do no better. It lies with God to take action
regarding his unseemly condition ; either, as Satan recom-
mends, by refusing to have any dealings with one in such
a state, or by making him fit for the Divine presence and
favours. God adopts the latter course.
But what is it in sin that can be thus, suddenly and by
another, removed from the sinner? Obviously, our guilt
may thus be removed by a simple act of pardon. This God
can at any time grant. When we have wronged another
person, it lies with that person to forgive us. We may try
to forgive ourselves, and may persuade ourselves the injury
was slight or done without malice, but this does not prevent
THE FOURTH VISION. 339
the injured person from refusing forgiveness and taking us
tolaw. Our friends may forgive us, but until the injured
party forgives us, we are not clear. This forgiveness may be
granted by a word. It calls for no long process. And thus
our guilt as transgressors of God’s law may at any time be
removed by a momentary act of God.
But that which defiles us in God’s sight is not only our
suilt. We have not only laid ourselves open to punish-
ment, but we have given harbour to wicked imaginings, and
we find in our hearts evil propensities and dispositions
which excite loathing even in ourselves. These defile
us, and make it impossible that a pure God should find
pleasure in intercourse with us. A criminal at the bar
may be acquitted, and may walk out of court free; but he
may, as he goes, use such language regarding the trial,
the judges, the crime and his acquittal, as fills us with a
deeper loathing of his character than if he had been con-
victed. Can then the forgiveness pronounced by God be
thus dissociated from inward purity ? or does this change
of raiment include inward cleansing as well as the removal
of guilt ?
Now the answer is obvious when we consider that the one
condition on which we receive forgiveness is that we desire
it. Joshua did not provide the clean raiment, nor did he
put it on; but he came into God’s presence seeking His
favour. And this carries with it a great deal. It is the man
who wishes forgiveness who gets it. God does not bestow
it on us all. He does not scatter it blindfold and indiscrimi-
nately. He grants it to the man who feels that above all
else he must be reconciled to God. The man who merely
fears consequences may not be pardoned ; but certainly every
man who thirsts for God, and cannot live under His frown,
every man who sincerely seeks friendship with God, receives
God’s forgiveness. But this craving for God’s love, this
feeling that life is lonely and soulless and vain without
91: THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH,
God, this thirst which only reconciliation with God and a
sense of His love can quench, implies that the love of sin
has got its deathblow in us, and that violently as it may
struggle and hideous as may be its contortions, a stronger
power has entered us and will at last prevail. Where God
sees love for Himself He sees the root of all purity. In
every heart that craves His pardon because it prizes His
favour, He sees a cleansing power that will gradually assert
itself throughout our whole nature, and leave no spot nor
stain upon us.
Forgiveness, then, though it cannot be earned by us, and
though it is the act of another, implies that we are in a
certain state of mind. Forgiveness is never a merely exter-
nal and superficial thing, but it involves the supposition
that we are seeking with our whole heart the favour of a
holy God. Forgiven persons are therefore persons who
already have the root of all good in them, whose tastes have
now a purifying element in them, who are clean because
they love God—in a shamefully small degree it may be as
yet, but if that love has even found a root for itself in
their heart, it will grow and ultimately rule.
More than this the fresh clean raiment given in exchange
of the filthy garments can hardly mean. Yet more than
this we naturally crave. We may be freed from guilt, from
hability to punishment, and we may have present purity of
purpose and of inclination ; but there remains the painful
remembrance of past defilement. Life as it passes leaves
indelible traces. It writes itself even on the features of
the face. Suffering does so. There are faces you cannot
look at without thinking of the long experience of bodily
pain or mental anxiety or bereavement which has ploughed
those furrows in them. Trace one of those furrows back
to its first beginnings and what a continuance of suffering
must you pass through. And so it is with vice. It writes
itself on the face; and if you would account for that shame-
πΥΥγ τυ το vane Ὑυσον δον 5:
YS ui bs 8; FOURTE VEILS LN 341
faced look, that wandering averted eye, that loose mouth or
bloated face, that hard, cruel expression, you must pass
through a long series of sins that have stained all the past,
hardening the once reluctant and compunctious sinner into
a reckless profligate, wearing out all strength of will by
self-indulgence, and narrowing the spirit till nothing but
what is sordid and petty can find a place in it.
And deeper than the features of the face has the past
written itself upon us. God assures us we are forgiven, and
we believe Him; but no assurance can make us forget what
we have done and what we have been. Nor can any
present freedom from actual transgression nor any present
superiority to inward evil, make us satisfied with our past.
On the contrary, the more entirely we are possessed by right
ideas and right feelings, the more thoroughly hateful do we
seem to ourselves to have been. And as we begin to esti-
mate more justly the true character of our past life, the
remembrance of it becomes intolerable. The higher we
rise above our past the more clearly do we see its propor-
tions and true bearings. The more entirely dissociated
from it in spirit we become, the more keenly do we feel its
inexhaustible malignity. Let any man give free play to his
memory, and let conscience travel through the contents of
that memory and pronounce upon them; let him fairly
weigh and consider his selfish actions, the cruelty and
meanness of them; let him consider his love of pleasure,
the vileness and wrong-doing it has led him into; let him
think of the persons he has been connected with and had
to do with, how many grave injustices he has unwittingly
done them, how he has let their interests suffer that his own
might thrive, how intercourse with him has lowered their
spiritual tone or even stained them with dark sin, on what
a low level he has lived, and what poor and often vile pur-
poses he has harboured; let him lay out his whole life
before him and pronounce upon it as if it were the life of
942 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
another, and he will feel that until that past be somehow
wiped out he must be pursued by feelings of the profoundest
regret and shame, if not of self-loathing.
But what is to deliver us from this memory? Are we to
forget in heaven, if not in this life, what we have here been ?
Are we to engage so actively and constantly in present
duties that the past shall find no opening to intrude itself ?
We have no right to forget. We have no right to banish
from our minds those who are for all we know still and
for ever suffering from the results of our sin. We have no
right to turn aside from the evil we have done. It is part
of the work of grace to shed a strong light upon our life
and to disclose to us its actual colours and proportions.
And it is only the weakness of a shallow nature or the
artifice of a self-indulgent temperament, to treat the evil
we have done as if it were not and had never been. It is
difficult to see how even in eternity peace of mind can be
perfect. Reparation may be made, the actual injuries we
have done may be amended, but nothing can obliterate
the fact that we did these wrongs, and apparently we must
for ever live under the shame and regret that must and
ought to accompany memories such as ours. Nothing that
can now be done can make it cease to be true that we have
proved ourselves selfish, cruelly thoughtless, shameful and
vile transgressors. The deep abasement which possesses
us in our moments of clearest insight must, for all that
We can see, possess us in eternity as well. Part of the
equipment of a perfected soul must be a perfect candour
which can look steadily at the actual state of matters, and
a perfect justice which will strongly condemn and bewail
wrong-doing.
How then can we promise ourselves happiness if these
memories are to continue with us? Would not many of us
almost prefer annihilation to the prospect of living for ever
with a constantly-increasing sense of the natural weakness
THE FOURTH VISION. 343
and hatefulness of our character? If every increase to our
moral stature and all improvement in our spiritual health
must give us a deepening conviction of our own depravity,
is not this too painful a price to pay? How many of us can
remember hours when we were almost maddened by the
thought of our own folly and wickedness, when we went for
days and weeks with all life made dark and desperate to us
through the consciousness of our own sin. If such hours
are to become more frequent, how can eternity be tolerable,
not to say happy ?
It may be replied that we should in the first place be
content with our prospects if we can look forward to an
amended life in which we shall have ample opportunity to
give proof that we no longer are what we once were. The
shame and burden of the past may to many seem quite
incompatible with happiness; they may feel convinced that
a memory such as they bear carries misery with it insepar-
ably; they may question whether it would not be more
satisfactory to cease altogether than to live on so burdened
and embittered. Still even such persons must acknowledge
that the worthier part to choose is to live on, seeking to do
good as formerly we have done evil, gladly accepting a life
which gives promise of good. Ashamed and cut to the
heart we may be with the memory of the past; for all that
we can see our happiness must be dimmed and disturbed,
but our happiness is not the first consideration, and ends
even more to be desired may yet be achieved by us.
And if memory cannot ever be emptied of its contents,
and if there is nothing that can sweeten these contents and
make them other than most bitter to us, there is at least a
present purity to be found in Christ. ‘‘ Now ye are clean,”’
He says to His disciples ‘‘ through the word that I have
spoken unto you.” Seeking in integrity of heart to be
conformed to the best we know, resolutely turning away
from all evil and setting our faces honestly towards what is
344 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
perfectly pleasing to God, we are filled with the peace and
joy that reconciliation to God and purity of conscience
bring. Present purity of conscience only in part effaces the
shameful past, but if it is all that in the nature of things
can be accomplished, we rest satisfied with this and breathe
a new air, the air of an emancipated and hopeful life.
The reason assigned by God for dismissing Satan’s ac-
cusation of Joshua has caught the ear and the heart and has
become one of the most familiar quotations from this book :
‘‘Ts not this a brand plucked out of the fire?’’ Arising like
other proverbial expressions from the colloquial speech of the
people, it vividly depicts the eagerness with which a valuable
is snatched from imminent destruction, as a man snatches
from the fire the bank-note he had thought was a piece of
waste paper, or the letter from which he had forgotten to
copy an address or an expression. In every such case it is
obvious that the rescued article has a special value to the
rescuer, and is reserved for some further use. ‘The marks of
burning, the unsightly blackened edges, the portions awant-
ing, the ruined and wrecked look of the remaining fragment,
tell us not only of the narrow escape and not at all of the
worthlessness of the article, but rather of its worth to him
who interposed to rescue it from the flames. It tells us of
some purpose the owner means it yet to serve. So here
Satan’s malignant exposure of the marks of fire on Joshua
is out of place. Why is he here at all? says the Lord. Is
it not because I have chosen and rescued him, charred as he
is, that he may serve My purposes ? I have chosen Jeru-
salem.
This then is the conclusion we are to draw if, in surveying
our past life, we cannot but be struck with the narrowness
of our escape from certain dangers. We see that in many
instances things were not allowed to run on to their natural
issues with us, but that we were snatched from consequences
which destroyed other men. Blackened by the smoke,
THE FOURTH VISION. 345
charred by the fire we were, but not consumed. We formed
habits or we were forming habits which we know have
destroyed others. We ventured upon practices or single
acts which in many cases known to ourselves have produced
the most disastrous results. As young men we formed com-
panionships which commonly end in social disgrace, moral
degradation, and a wasted life. In others we have seen the
terrible consequences which often flow from one mistake,
from one unguarded action, from a single day’s folly, from
the reckless passion of an hour; we have been guilty of
similar carelessness, and yet have only partially felt the
consequences. We have been charred but not consumed.
Most thankful should he be who has thus been rescued.
It is true, he finds he is not the man he was. Heistoa
ereater or less extent a wreck. He has introduced into his
character weaknesses which pain and shame him all his
days. He has memories which now and again sting him.
He cannot live the strong, straightforward, fearless life of
the innocent. In every part of his life he meets the stain of
his sin. But when he is dismayed by these traces of the
past, when he finds with what disadvantages he has weighted
himself, when he recognises how much of life he has shut
himself out from, and how many pure and high enjoyments
he is now incapable of, and how many of the highest parts
in life he can never play; when he sees that he is half-
consumed and the remainder blackened and crumbling, he
must yet recognise in the very fact of his rescue evidence
that God designs him yet for some good purpose. When
tempted to put away all hope, he must listen to the voice
of this vision rebuking his accuser: ‘“‘ The Lord that hath
chosen him rebuke thee, O Satan; is he not a brand plucked
from the burning ?”
Marcus Dops.
346
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR:
LESSONS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
V. THe NEw CoveNANT.
“Now hath He obtained a ministry the more excellent, by how much also
He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better
promises.’’— Hes. viii. 6 (Rey. Ver.).
‘““We have an altar, whereof they. have no right to eat which serve the
tabernacle.”—HEs. xiii. 10 (Rey. Ver.).
THE attitude of a Christian is, as we have seen, twofold.
It is an attitude of attainment, and an attitude of ex-
pectancy. He has been admitted to fellowship with the
unseen order in the fulness of its infinite grandeur; and
he is looking for the open manifestation of the victorious
Presence of his Lord. “This inspiring faith, this far-
reaching hope, are bound together for each one of us by
the obligation of personal duty. Each one of us has a
work to do in that infinite kingdom of God which is
opened to our entrance. Each one of us is charged in
his measure to hasten the full revelation of its glory.
- We look through the temporal to the eternal. But for
the present we have to live our little lives under the
conditions of earth. We strive to gain the largest vision
of the Divine counsels, to feel the intense reality of our
connexion with the world about us, to watch in thought
the stream of consequence which flows from our actions ;
and then strengthened and humbled we go back as it
were into the shrine of our own souls, and know that in
that last depth of being we are alone with God. We
are alone, and yet not alone, for there also Christ is with
us, Christ the Fulfiller, to bring to its true perfection the
fragment of service which answer to our powers. He
not only bore His blood, the virtue of His offered life,
into heaven for the salvation of the nature which He
had taken to Himself, but He applies it personally to
CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. 947
each believer on earth, to purify and to sustain, to begin
and to complete that union with Himself for which man
was made.
As the Hebrews grasped this truth which the Apostle
set before them, they could not fail to find that what
they had lost by their exclusion from the commonwealth
of Israel was given back to them in fact, and not in
figure. As Israelites they had rejoiced from early youth
to enter the court of God’s house; as Israelites, they
had known in maturer age every consolation of the
appointed sacrifices. But now, when they entered little
by little into the meaning of the Gospel, they saw that
they were become partakers in a better covenant than
that made with their fathers, in a better sacrifice than
those which the Law established, ‘‘ partakers in Christ,”
“‘nartakers in the Holy Ghost.’ They were indeed, what
Israel was designed to be, a nation of priests. The offer-
ing for the people’s sin was for them given back as the
support of life.
The lessons which were thus taught, taught most im-
pressively through the symbols of the Old Testament, to
men tried by the sorrows of the first age, are for us also.
The individual soul as it turns to God requires to be
assured of the personal right of approach to Him, and
then of the power of continuous fellowship with Him.
This assurance is given to us in a form suited to the
circumstances of our life in the two Sacraments of the
Gospel—the Sacrament of Incorporation, and the Sacra-
ment of Support. In these we have, according to our
need, the revelation of our union with Christ and the
revelation of His impartment of Himself to us.
But we cannot fail to be struck by the way in which
the writer of the Epistle deals with these Sacraments.
We should have expected that he would contrast them
in their significant forms with the typical Levitical rites
348 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
to which they answered; that he would show how even
outwardly the Christian has in them far more sure seals
of God’s grace than the Jew; that he would point out
that what was necessarily limited and local in the old
dispensation had been made universal in the new. As
it is, he barely touches on the external element of the
Christian Sacraments. It lies behind his teaching; but he
strives above all things to fix the thoughts of his readers
upon the ascended Christ who works through the Sacra-
ments, lest they should rest in ritual observances, and
faint or fail in the effort to gain a closer personal fellow-
ship with Him.
There are, however, two remarkable passages which
enable the student to perceive, as I have already indicated,
the deep meaning of the Mystical Washing, and of the
festal meal of the Eucharist. Let ws draw near—near
to the Holy place—the Apostle writes, with a true heart
in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an
evil conscience, and our body washed with pure water.
And again, We have an altar, whereof they have no right
to eat which serve the tabernacle.
The first passage shows that by our covenant rite we are
made not only a people of God, but also priests of God.
The second passage shows that while the sin-offering in
the Day of Atonement was wholly consumed by fire, our
common sin-offering is made our common peace-offering,
our Eucharist, a Feast upon a Sacrifice.
Twice only in the Pentatuch is mention made of the
sprinkling of the blood of sacrifices upon men; once at
the solemn ratification of the covenant when, the people
were united to the Lord; and once when Aaron and his
sons were hallowed for the priesthood. In the latter
case the sprinkling with blood was united with a washing
with water. Here then we have the complete parallel with
the words of the Epistle. To a Jew familiar with the
THE NEW COVENANT. 349
Mosaic record, their meaning was distinct and decisive.
They set forth that the Christian is made, as I said, not
only a citizen of the Divine kingdom, but also a priest
of God; that for him access to heaven is open; that he
has boldness to offer the sacrifices of word and deed; that
he accepts the duty of consecration.
The interpretation of the second passage which I have
quoted has been disputed, but I think that the general
sense is clear. The writer is meeting a difficulty found
in the supposition that Christians had not what the
Jews had. We have, he replies an altar, an altar with
a victim, for the two are not separated, whereof they
have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle. We have,
that is, more, infinitely more, than the Law allowed to
those who ministered to figures of the eternal truth. We
haye Christ crucified, Christ upon the Cross, a victim
and an altar, a victim who suffered for the world with-
out the camp, and who then, marvel of marvels, gave
and gives Himself for ever as the support of His people
in a Holy Eucharist. No priest in old time ever tasted
such an offering. But He who died for us lives for us.
He who bore our sins gives us of the fulness of His
strength. And, to go one step further, on Him and in
Him we can bring to God the sacrifice of ourselves.
So then, we repeat, our covenant rite, our Baptism,
brings us into a personal relation to Christ. No one stands
between the believer and the Lord. Our Sacrificial Feast,
our Eucharist, offers to us the virtue of Christ’s life and
death, His Flesh and Blood, for the strengthening and
cleansing of our bodies and souls.
Let us look at these thoughts a little more closely.
As baptized, confirmed Christians, priests of God, we
can come directly to the Father. No earthly symbol,
no mortal representative, intervenes any longer as_ the
necessary means through which we may draw near.
950 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
As baptized and confirmed Christians, priests of God,
we can offer up to Him a sacrifice of praise and active
love, the natural fruit of hearts touched with His grace.
No fear checks the thanksgiving which is the echo of
His word. No weakness stays the effort which is the
answer to His summons.
As baptized, confirmed Christians, priests of God, we
acknowledge that we are ‘‘ holy, partakers of a heavenly
calling,’ dedicated to God without reserve, bearing branded
upon us, in St. Paul’s vivid image, the marks of Jesus,
as bondmen devoted to His perpetual service.
But while this is so; while nothing can alter the
responsibility which is laid upon each soul, and which we
have voluntarily acknowledged ; while we must severally,
as if there were none other, draw near to God and bring
Him the offering of ourselves, and acknowledge the debt
which is as large as life; our approach, our sacrifice, our
dedication, are all in Christ. Not one step, not one act,
not one confession, can be made without Him. We are
become partakers of Christ. That is the gift of God. And
while the Epistle recognises, as we have seen, the priesthood
of Christians, this human priesthood falls almost out of
sight before the supreme fact of the priesthood of Christ.
Our common priestly work is done only through Him.
Through Him we offer up a sacrifice of praise to God con-
tinually. Our will makes it our own. His co-operation
makes it acceptable.
We are become partakers of Christ, if, it is added, we hold
fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end. A
Divine fact, such is the paradox of life, is made dependent
on human endeavour. We can see then how the institu-
tion of the Eucharist meets the sad sense of infirmity and
failure. Our covenant rite cannot from its nature ever
be repeated. But we know how often and how grievously
we have fallen short of our obligation. Is the covenant
THE NEW COVENANT. 351
then, we are driven to ask, fatally broken? When the
fear rises before us, we recall, almost regretfully, the pro-
visions which men have made, with or without the sanction
of God, to bring, through sacrifice peace to the troubled con-
science. While we do so, the Apostle lifts up our thoughts
to the Lord, Crucified, Risen, Seated at the right hand of
the Father, and in the light of that vision of Jesus Christ,
_ the same yesterday and to-day, yea, and for ever, we can say
triumphantly, We have an altar. All that the consolatory
ceremonial of the Old Dispensation accomplished for Israel,
all that men have sought to make clear to themselves by
vain speculations and worldly forms, is ours in spiritual and
abiding simplicity. We have an altar wherein the truths
which were represented by the sacrificial system of the Law
are realised in a living verity. We have an altar, whereon
we can lay “ourselves, our souls and bodies,” a reasonable
service.
Once again then wé are brought to Christ the Fulfiller
—Christus Consummator—in whom each believer finds
the root and the accomplishment of his individual destiny.
So, we have reached the limit which we set to our-
selves. We have dared to look upon great trials in the
light of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and we have seen
that the help which availed the Hebrews in the first age
is sufficient for us.
We have looked upon suffering, and we have seen that
Ὅν the will of God suffering is for fallen man the way to per-
fection. We cannot indeed, with our feeble sight, discern
how this or that sorrow and shame contributes to the end;
but disciplined in patience, we can leave in the Father’s
hands the fulfilment of His own law which we have re-
cognised, and for our part labour to hasten that issue.
We have looked upon failure and weakness, and we have
seen that Christ, as He accomplished the destiny of man
on earth, pleads the cause of man in heaven with unfailing
352 CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR.
compassion and absolute sovereignty, uniting the offices of
priest and king, perfect man and perfect God.
We have looked upon the sad spectacle of divided Christ-
endom, and we have seen that by the ascension of Christ
we are brought into a spiritual fellowship, in which the
powers of heaven and earth are united, a fellowship tran-
scending every test of sense; and from the contemplation
of notes of that universal communion, we have learnt to
keep hope fresh while we guard with watchful reverence
the convictions which separate us in the sphere of visible
work.
We have looked upon the chequered course of the indi-
vidual life, and we have seen that for each one of us is
provided that objective assurance of our right of approach to
God which is the solid foundation of religion, that objective
assurance of the renewed gift of Christ’s flesh and blood,
which is able to sustain and to purify us in the effort to
reach His likeness.
At every prospect of great trial, as we dwelt patiently
upon it, we have seen the figure of Christ to rise above the
darkness—of Christ the Fulfiller—not only to give comfort,
but to enlarge hope, not only to support the sufferer under
the pressure of transitory affliction, but to show to the
believing soul that, in a world such as this,
“Failure is but a triumph’s evidence
Tor the fulness of the days.”
And we have seen all this, so far as we have been allowed
to see it, by entering a little more closely than is commonly
done into the difficulties of a troubled congregation of the
apostolic times. Thus we have found that the words of the
inspired writer who guided the Hebrews to higher things,
speak to us with the directness and the power of life. We
have found on a narrow field of inquiry what the Bible is:
an interpretation of the eternal, intelligible to every man
THE NEW COVENANT. 303
through all time in the language in which he was born.
We have found that nothing has befallen us which our
fathers have not borne victoriously in other shapes and
made fruitful in blessing. We have found, I think, that to
those who will raise their eyes to Christ the Fulfiller, the
Revelation of the Father, made known to us more com-
pletely from generation to generation by the Holy Spirit,
nothing in human experience can come as an unwelcome
surprise. He, Son of man, Son of God, will bear, He has
borne, though we see it not through the mist of days and
years, all things to their goal, Christus Consummator.
Such thoughts carry with them a grave, a noble responsi-
bility. The character of a generation is moulded by personal
character. And if we have considered some of the tempta-
tions of the first Christians; if we know a little of the
terrible environment of evil by which they were encircled ;
we must not, as we too often do, forget how they conquered
the world. It was not by any despairing withdrawal from
city and market; not by any proud isolation in selfish
security ; not by any impatient violence; but by the win-
ning influence of gracious faith, they mastered the family,
the school, the empire. They were a living Gospel, a mes-
sage of God’s good-will to those with whom they toiled
and suffered. Pure among the self-indulgent, loving among
the factious, tender among the ruthless, meek among the
vainglorious, firm in faith amidst the shaking of nations,
joyous in hope amidst the sorrows of a corrupt society,
they revealed to men their true destiny and showed that it
could be attained. They appealed boldly to the awakened
conscience as the advocate of their claims. They taught
as believing that He who had stirred their heart with a
great desire would assuredly satisfy it.
They offered not in word but in deed, the ideal of spiri-
tual devotion, and ‘‘the soul naturally Christian,” turned
to it as the flower turns to the light, drew from it, as
VOL, III. A A
354 THER REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
the flower draws from the light, the richness of perfect
beauty.
Yes; that was the secret of their success; and it is the
secret of our success. The words are true now as they
were when addressed by Zechariah to the poor remnant
of Jews struggling to rebuild their outward temple: Not
by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the
Lord of hosts. Not first by material change, not by in-
tellectual culture, but by spiritual sympathy will our work
be done. Let us take to ourselves the charge of our
Epistle, the counsel of Divine fellowship—fellowship with
God and man, fellowship with man in God. Let us draw
near unto the throne of grace. . . Let us hold fast the
confession of our hope. . . Let us consider one another to
provoke unto love and good works, and it shall not be long
said that the victories of faith are ended.
BrookE Foss WESTCOTT.
THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL.
. 18. The song of the bow. This, if the text is sound,
15 ΓΕ most probable explanation of the phrase ‘32 ahh
ΠΡ MIM, to teach the children of Judah [the] bow. David’s
elegy was called the bow, from the mention of Jonathan’s
bow in v. 22; and it was to be taught to the people in
order that the memory of Saul and Jonathan might be
handed down to posterity. Cf. Deut. xxxi. 19; Ps. Ix. title.
The A.V. follows the Targum in explaining the phrase to
refer to the practice of archery; but this is improbable, as
the bow was already in general use, and such a direction
would be out of place here. The word τόξον is however
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 355
absent from the Vatican MS. of the LXX., and it is possi-
ble that the word NW? should be struck out, and the clause
read simply ‘‘ and he bade them teach it to the children
of Judah.’’ Wellhausen ingeniously conjectures that the
original reading in v. 6 for DW 5 ya was Ow, that
ΤΡ Oya was written in the margin as an emendation,
to accord with 1 Sam. xxxi. 3, and the text standing
in parallel columns, ya was inserted in v. 6, and NWP in
v. 18. Ewald’s explanation that ΠΡ = DWP, accurately,
and Thenius’ emendation, IW, heedfully, have little to be
said in their favour.
14. ΔΝ may mean glory, or as in the margin, gazelle ;
and Ewald (Hist. iii. 30), adopting the latter rendering,
infers that Jonathan’s ‘‘ personal beauty and swiftness of
foot in attack or retreat had gained for him the name of
The Gazelle.’ Asahel is compared to a gazelle (wild roe)
in chap. 11. 18; cf. Cant. 1. 9; and the figure of the gazelle
stricken by the hunters on its native hills would be an ex-
ceedingly beautiful one. But as the elegy celebrates both
Saul and Jonathan, the opening word should include both,
and the rendering in the text is preferable. It is more-
over supported by the parallelism of “‘ the mighty” in the
second hemistich.
21. Not anointed with oil. The R.V. refers the epithet
yowa mw 2 to Saul’s shield. It describes it as it lay
rusting and uncared for on the fatal field, instead of being
polished and prepared for use. For the practice of
anointing shields, cf. Isa. xxi. 5. But the rendering of the
A.V. which comes down from Coverdale, and is derived
from the Vulg. quast non esset unctus oleo, is still retained
in the margin as worthy of consideration, on the ground
that MW) is elsewhere always applied to a person. It gives
an excellent sense. The shield of the Lord’s anointed is
flung away, as though he had not been distinguished by
any mark of consecration.
356 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
8. Had taken for took. In all probability he had done
it immediately after the battle of Gilboa and before the
events related in vv.1-7.
11. 8. Am I a dog’s head that belongeth to Judah? ie.
utterly despicable and an enemy to your cause. The words
TT? ἼΩΝ are omitted by the LXX., but if genuine, they
must be taken as a definition of 272 VND. M7 can-
not be translated as in A.V. following Coverdale and the
Genevan, against Judah. This rendering is taken from
the Vulg., which however transposes the words from the
relative clause: ‘‘ Numquid caput canis ego sum adversus
Judam hodie qui,” etc.; 1.6. “Am I a worthless defender
of your cause against Judah? ”’
iv. ὦ. And Ishbosheth, Sawl’s son, had two men. A most
obvious example of the way in which scribes tampered with
the text in early times. The name Hsh-baal was, as is well
known, changed to Ish-bosheth, to avoid the scandal of
pronouncing the name of Baal. But here, as in v. 1, and
also in ili. 7, the name was not changed, but struck out
altogether; and in this case it has carried with it the
preposition > which expresses had (lit. ‘‘ there were to
Ishbosheth, . . . OWawNDyT . . . OWIN 1A),
making havoc of the grammar. In all three cases the
name is retained in the LXX.
6. Margin. While it is quite true, as the defenders of
the Massoretic text urge, that it is characteristic of Hebrew
historical writing to state a fact in general terms, and then
to repeat the statement with further details (cf. iii. 22, 28 ;
v. 1, 3), the double account of Ish-bosheth’s murder in vv.
6 and 7, is certainly surprising, and the entirely different
reading of the LXX. casts additional suspicion on the
Hebrew text. The reading of the LXX. can hardly be
mere conjecture or corruption, and it gives a clear explana-
tion how the murderers got in and out unobserved. The
employment of the portress is illustrated by the customs of
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 307
modern Palestine, where women are constantly to be seen
sitting at their doors sifting wheat. See Neil’s Palestine
Explored, p. 246.
v. 6. Except thow take away the blind and the lame,
thow shalt not come in hither. To the present writer the
rendering retained in the text, which has come down from
Matthew’s Bible, z.e. from Tyndale, appears to offer no
satisfactory sense, and to involve serious grammatical
difficulties. ‘J )'Di] must be taken as infin. though it is
pointed as perfect, and DX 3 requires a finite verb. It is
however the rendering of the Vulg. (non ingredieris huc
nist abstuleris cecos et claudos), Syr., and (substantially)
the Targ., and was adopted by Rashi and Kimchi, and
after them by Munster and others. The marginal render-
ing, on the other hand, which is given, though in a loose
form, by the LXX., presents no grammatical difficulty.
The verb preceding its subject stands, as often, in the
singular ; and the perfect tense J1'DiT expresses the con-
fidence of the Jebusites. So secure did they feel in the
natural strength of their fortress, as to boast that a garrison
of blind and lame would be able to repel David’s assault.
So Luther; and probably following him, Coverdale: “Thou
shalt not come hither but the blynde and lame shal drive
γ᾽ awale.”’
8. The A.V. of this most obscure passage, which in-
volves the transposition of the first two clauses, and the
supplement of an apodosis from 1 Chron. xi. 6, is not
defensible. Probably the watercourse was some ravine by
which it was possible to scale the citadel, and David calls
the Jebusite garrison blind and lame, derisively retorting
their own words. That are hated is the K’ri, "Δ: that
hate is the C’thib ΝΣ, which must be taken as a relative
clause.
They say for they said. The imperfect tense ἽΝ᾽ shows
that the words which follow are a proverb in current use.
358 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT,
Cf. 1 Sam. xix. 24. So Coverdale: ‘‘Hereof cometh the
prouerbe.” The rendering of the A.V. appears to follow
the interpretation given by the LXX. and Vulg., that the
house means the Temple, from which the blind and lame
were excluded. But apart from the fact that it is by no
means Clear that they were excluded, this explanation takes
no account of the origin of the proverb. The most pro-
bable meaning of the words as rendered in the R.V. is that
the taunt of the Jebusites came to be used as a proverb
with reference to impregnable strongholds.
21. Took them away. Similarly Coverdale correctly,
carried thé awaye. The A.V. follows the Targum in ren-
dering burned them, in accordance with the different reading
of 1 Chron. xiv. 12; but ONW) cannot bear this meaning,
though some Jewish commentators endeavour to find it in
the word. The rendering probably originated in the fear
lest it should seem that David disobeyed the law of Deut.
vu. 5. But the two statements are not incompatible.
v1. 5. Castanets for cornets. The etymology of D'ply3d
‘shows that it must denote some instrument which was
played by being shaken. Svstra (marg.), ὑ.6. σεῖστρα, is an
exact equivalent for the word, and the instrument may have
been similar to the Egyptian instrument so named, which
consisted of rings hung on iron rods. (See Wilkinson’s.
Ancient Egyptians, vol. 1. p. 497.)
17. Tent. So A.V. rightly for ΠΝ in the parallel pas-
gage 1-Chron. xy.-1.
19. A portion of flesh, marg. of wine. The precise
meaning of ἼΞΨΦΝ, which occurs only here and in 1 Chron.
xvi. 8,is uncertain. It is probably derived from a root
not in use in Hebrew, meaning to measure. The A.V., a
good piece of flesh, connects it with TSW splenduit, but this
is unlikely.
vu. 19. And this too after the manner of men: 1.6. Thou
dost condescend to speak familiarly with me, as man speaks
THE SHCOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 359
to man. This rendering, which is adopted by Gesenius,
Maurer, Thenius, and others, gives a good sense: but
though the analogy of O5Wi) may be quoted, MF) nowhere
else bears this meaning. The literal rendering of the words
is accordingly given in the margin. Cf. Coverdale, Is this
the lawe of men? The emphasis is on man, and the words
are best understood as an expression of humble surprise,
that God has vouchsafed to grant to human beings such as
himself and his posterity, a perpetual dominion. The text
in Chron. is quite different.
23. What one nation, etc. The order of the words is
in favour of the marginal rendering, which lays stronger
emphasis on the uniqueness and separateness of Israel’s
position in the world. MN... may, however, be taken
together as in the text.
It is difficult to believe that the text of the latter part of
the verse is sound. The only tenable explanation of Bae
for you, is that David ‘with oratorical vivacity addresses
the people’; but such an address is out of place in a
prayer; and it seems best either to omit the word alto-
gether, with the LXX., or to read aay, for them, with the
Vulgate. Further, ἀν νυ, for thy land, comes in awk-
wardly, and the government of VAN) Da by repeating
the preposition from ὩΣ ΝΘ is not satisfactory: and the
reading of 1 Chron. xvii. 21 2, together with that of the
LXX. here τοῦ ἐκβαλεῖν ce, points to the substitution of
Tw for JSON), and ΘΥΤΟΝ for YOON. The clause will
‘then run as follows: “To do for them ereat and terrible
- things, in driving out from before thy people which thou
redeemedst to thee out of Egypt, nations and gods.”
27. Marg. been bold. So the Genevan. The literal
rendering is found his heart; and heart in Hebrew, as in
English, frequently denotes courage.
vil. 1. David took the bridle of the mother city out of
the hand of the Philistines: i.e. wrested the control of their
360 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
metropolis from them; a poetical equivalent for the prosaic
statement in 1 Chron. xviii. 1, that David ‘“ took Gath and
her towns out of the hand of the Philistines.’’ This is the
best explanation of an obscure phrase for which numerous
interpretations have been proposed. Though MX does not
occur elsewhere in the sense of mother city, the idea was
a familiar one. Cf. 2 Sam. xx. 19, and the use of nw
daughters, for dependent towns in Chron. 1.0. and commonly.
3. The River, i.e. the Kuphrates. The word 5 is not
in the C’thib or written text, but is inserted in the K’r
or traditional read text, which the A.V. follows.
4. A thousand and seven hundred horsemen. The text as
it stands can mean nothing else. Chariots of A.V. is intro-
duced from 1 Chron. xviii. 4, but this correction leaves the
discrepancy of the numbers untouched, and a larger force
of chariots than of cavalry is most unlikely. The reading
of the LXX. agrees with that of Chron., “ἃ thousand
chariots and seven thousand horsemen,”’ and may perhaps
be right.
13. The Syrians. Note the margin. The text as it
stands cannot be right. For Syrians we must read Hdom-
ites, or else insert from the LXX. after Syrians, “‘ and he
smote the Edomites.”’ DIX, Aram, and DOIN, Hdom, are
constantly confused. The context requires a reference to
Edom; the Valley of Salt was in the neighbourhood of
Edom, not of Syria (2 Kings xiv. 7); 1 Chron. xvii. 11, 12,
and the title of Ps. lx., support the change.
18. Was over the Cherethites. The margin calls atten-
tion to the fact that the words was over must be supplied
from the parallel passages in chap. xx. 23 and 1 Chron.
xvil. 17. The text as it stands gives no sense.
18. Priests for chief rulers. The Hebrew word D’27D
is exactly the same as that applied in v.17 to Zadok and
Ahimelech. Similarly in chap. xx. 26, Ira the Jairite ap-
pears, in addition to the priests Zadok and Abiathar, as
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 361
“ priest (A.V. chief ruler) unto David;” and in the list of
Solomon’s officers in 1 Kings iv. 5, Zabud the son of
Nathan is styled “‘ priest and the king’s friend.” The A.V.
and before it the Genevan in translating chief rulers, fol-
lowed the paraphrase in 1 Chron. xvii. 17, “chief about
the king’’; the version of the LXX., αὐλάρχαι, courtiers ;
the Targum, 202), princes ; and the Syriac, which has the
same word, ~29i03: but the Vulg., Luther and Coverdale
render priests. Coverdale adds a marginal note ‘‘ Some reade:
rulers.’’ Whether the offices were identical, and Well-
hausen’s inference that David “‘ exercised unfettered control
over the appointment of the priests, who were
pansy his officials” (History of Israel, EK. T., p. 182), is
sound, or whether the explanation suggested in Chronicles,
that in certain cases the word DID means ministers in
a civil capacity, is correct, is an exegetical and historical
question which cannot be discussed here.
x.6. The king of Maacah for king Maacah. Though
Maacah was a common man’s name, there is no doubt
that a small Syrian kingdom in the neighbourhood of
Geshur is here meant. The A.V. renders it correctly in
I Chron: ‘xix.6,°7.
Men of Tob for Ish-Tob. Cf. Jud. xi. 3.
xu. 80. Their king, marg. Malcam. Soe can be little
doubt that in Jer. xlix. 1, 8, and Zeph. i. 5, D909, Malcam,
is a variant form of the name of the Dee: god, Molech
or Milcom. And it may be so here. The pronoun their
comes in awkwardly; and the original LXX. probably took
it as a proper name Modyop, though the gloss τοῦ βασιλέως
αὐτῶν was subsequently added. A Jewish tradition, recorded
in the Talmud (Aboda Zara, f. 24a), and in the Questiones
Hebraice in libros Paralipomenon, attributed to Jerome but
certainly spurious (ed. Vallarsi, ili. 873), tells how the crown
was snatched from the idol’s head by Ittai the Gittite, be-
cause a Hebrew might not take spoil from an idol, though
362 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
he might receive it from another man’s hand! It seems,
however, more natural that the king’s crown should have
been placed on David’s head, and the rendering in the text
on the whole deserves the preference.
31. Margin: “‘ put them ἔο saws, and to harrows of iron,
and to axes of iron, and made them labour at (WAyN for
AVN) the brickmould’’: 1.6. condemned them to various
forms of hard labour. It would be a relief if this milder
view of David’s treatment of the Ammonites could be
taken, but the rendering in the text probably gives the right
sense. It is true that 7322 DW" does not strictly mean
put them under saws, but put them on or at saws ; and we
should probably read as in 1 Chron. xx. 3 WW, and he
sawed for DW, with the Targum, Thenius, Wellhausen,
Keil, ete.
xiii. 18. A garment of divers colours, marg. a long gar-
ment with sleeves. The term Ὁ 5 nnd occurs only here
and in Gen. xxxvil. 3, 23. It is explained, (1) from Aram.
DD = piece or patch, to mean a patchwork or variegated
tunic. So the LXX. in Genesis χιτὼν ποικίχος; Vulg.
tunica polymita : or (2) from DD5=palm of the hand or sole —
of the foot, to mean a tunic with sleeves and reaching down
to the feet. So the LXX. here χιτὼν καρπωτός, Vulg.
tunica talaris. 'The latter explanation is adopted by almost
all modern commentators, but seems to have been thought
by the Revisers not sufficiently certain to displace the
rendering in the A.V. It certainly, however, suits the
context best. )
xiv. 14. Neither doth God take away life. So Nw ND)
wd) DTN must be rendered. The woman urges David to
be merciful as God is merciful, who does not immediately
punish the sinner with death, but rather strives to win him
to repentance. There is a pointed allusion to David’s own
case (chap. xu. 13). The older versions of Coverdale and
Matthew rightly, ‘‘and God will not take away the lyfe”:
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 363
Great Bible, ‘‘ neither doth God spare any soule’’: Gene-
van and Bishops’, ‘‘ neither doth God spare any See Ἐξ:
xv. 7. The “ancient authorities’? which read four in-
stead of forty are the LXX. according to Lucian’s re-
- cension (see De Lagarde’s ed.), the Syriac, the Arabic, and
Vule. (ed. Sixt.); Josephus, Ant., vi. 9. 1; Theodoret,
Quest in Reg., p. 483. Internal evidence is strongly in
favour of fowr. The only obvious terminus a quo in the
context is Absalom’s reconciliation to his father ; and forty
years could hardly have passed since then.
12. The marg. sent Ahithophel is the grammatical ren-
dering of the Heb. DBIYONTDN . mw. But what can
this mean? The context seems to require some alteration
of the text which will give the meaning sent for. Vulg.
accersivit. IiXX. (some MSS.) ἀπέστειλε καὶ ἐκάλεσε, sent
and called.
17. Whether Beth-merhak is retained as a proper name,
or translated the Far House, some definite place is meant
outside the city before the road crossed the Kidron; and
the correct rendering brings out one of the graphic details
which abound in this narrative of David’s flight.
28. At the fords of the wilderness, VATS NAY, is the
C’thib; in the plains of the wilderness, VAV3T niaqya, is
the K’ri. There is the same variation in chap. xvii. 16,
where the context is decidedly in favour of the reading
fords ; and some definite place rather than a large district
would naturally have been fixed upon for the messenger to
meet David. All the Versions, however, support the K’ri.
xvi. 10. Because he curseth, and because, etc. The R.V.
renders the C’thib, 3) 2p 3; the A.V. follows the ΚΣ,
3. 95p) ΠΞ,
12. On the wrong done unto me. A.V. affliction, marg.
tears, Heb. eye, following the K’ri, ‘ya. So the Targum.
But such a meaning of }'Y is unsupported. R.V. follows
the C’thib ‘ya, and takes the suffix objectively, as in 2p
364 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
in the second half of the verse. But LXX. |, Vals, ἡ Sy
point to the reading 2}, on my affliction, ἘΣΤῚ is ῬΙῸ-
bably right.
For his cursing of me, reading 2p with the C’thib.
A.V. follows the K’r, inddp. The variation is not recog-
nised in some editions of the Hebrew text.
14. Weary. If D'S is rendered weary, the sentence
is incomplete. The mention of some place, to which
there at the end of the verse may be referred, is required.
Hence the marginal alternative to Ayephim, taking D'}*Y as
the name of a place. So far as the form of the word is
concerned this is quite possible (cf. DYNA, Bahwrim) ; but
no such place is mentioned elsewhere, and it is possible
that the name of the place has fallen out of the text.
xvii. ὃ. The Massoretic text of this verse is suspicious,
and the various reading of the LXX. might well have found
a place in the margin. ‘And I will bring back all the
people unto thee, as a bride returneth to her husband;
thou seekest the life of one man only, and all the people
shall be in peace.”’
17. The A.V. neglects the tenses and unwarrantably
transposes the clauses in this verse. It may be taken as in
the text, as the historian’s parenthetical statement of the
way in which news was conveyed to David ; the verbs ΠΣ ΠῚ,
APM, PIT 122) being regarded as frequentative: wsed to
go and tell them; and they would go and tell, etc. (cf. Prof.
Driver’s Tenses, § 120). In this case the events since
Absalom’s entry must be supposed to have occupied some
days, during which communications were kept up. Or it
may be taken, as in the margin, as a continuation of
Hushai’s words to Zadok and Abiathar.
25. Ithra the Israelite. It is hard to see why Ithra
should be specially designated the Israelite, and the true
reading is probably that given in the margin from 1 Chron.
ii. 17, the Ishmaelite. So the LXX. (cod. A but not cod. B)
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 365
here. Ithra, NIN}, and Jether, WN, are of course only
different forms of the same name. ὁ ᾿Ιεζραηλίτης in com-
mon text which follows B.
Xvili. 18. His life, WD), C’thib: marg. and A.V. my
life, 5), K’ri. Wouldest have stood aloof, marg. wouldest
have set thyself against me. TAN ABT, to stand over
against, may denote an attitude either of indifference, or
of hostility. Cf. Obad. 11.
21. The Cushite for Cushi. The def. article shows that
‘WD is not a personal name, as in Zeph. i. 1, but a gentilic
name. He was an Ethiopian slave in attendance on Joab.
Cf. Jer. xxxviii. 7.
29. The king’s servant, even me thy servant. The epexe-
gesis of 927 ΤΩΡ ΠΝ by ἼΤΩ» ΓΝῚ is meaningless. On
the other hand the reading of the A.V. and marg. and me
thy servant, assumes that Ahimaaz points to the Cushite
approaching in the distance, which is scarcely probable.
The order of the words, moreover, is unusual, and Well-
hausen’s conjecture that 7207 ΤΣ ON was originally a
marginal gloss on ἼΤΩ ON, which has got into the text,
is possibly right ; or the text may be altered so as to yield
the sense given in the Vulg.: ‘‘ when Joab thy servant, O
king, sent me thy servant.”
xix. 25. When he was come to Jerusalem. This is the
most obvious rendering. But ‘“‘came down”’ in τ. 24 (cf.
v. 31), and the position of the narrative, seem to imply that
Mephibosheth came to meet David at the Jordan. Accord-
ingly the marginal rendering, which is grammatically pos-
sible, deserves consideration. Cf. v.15. So Vulg. cwmque
Jerusalem occurrisset regv.
43. The margin, and were not we the first to speak of
bringing back our king ? agrees with vv. 10, 11.
xx. 24. Tribute. Rather as in the marg., and in the
corresponding list of Solomon’s officers in 1 Kings iv. 6,
cf. 1 Kings v. 14, levy. The word is used of the forced
366 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
labour employed in public works. Over the tribute is, how-
ever, the rendering of the LXX. and Vule.
xxl. 4. Neither is it for us to put any man to death wm
Israel. ‘The rendering of the A.V., neither for us shalt thou
put any man to death in Israel, though grammatically pos-
sible, and retained in the margin, does not agree with the
context, for the Gibeonites plainly desired blood for blood,
and the explanation that their quarrel was not with Israel
at large, but only with the house of Saul, has to be read
into the words. The ΤῸΝ. on the other hand gives an
excellent sense. ‘We may not compound this blood feud
for a money ransom (cf. Num. xxxy. 31), nor have we the
right to put any one to death; it rests with you, as king,
to act.’
8. The five sons of Michal. . . . whom she bare to
Adriel. According to 1 Sam. xviii. 19 it was Merab who
was married to Adriel, while the name of Michal’s hus-
band was Palti (1 Sam. xxv. 44) or Paltiel (2 Sam. iii. 15).
The explanation of the A.V., derived from the Targum,
cannot stand, for m7) means bare, not brought wp, and it
is clear that there is an error in the text, and that Merab
must be read in place of Michal. —
10. Was poured, for dropped. The A.V. was misled by
the LXX. and Vulg. But a reference to Exod. ix. 33 de-
cides the sense of the word 72, and it is significant.
Rizpah kept her watch until abundant rain showed that
the curse had been removed.
16. A new sword: marg. new armour. The Heb. text
has only the adjective TWIN, new; and there is nothing
to indicate what substantive should be supphed, whether
sword as in the Vulg. ense novo, or armour. <A third pos-
sibility, however, deserves consideration, that MWUNM is a
corruption of some rare word denoting some specially for-
midable weapon. Cf. the LXX. κορύνη, a mace.
19. The comparison of this verse with the parallel
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 367
passage in 1 Chron. xx. 5 shows that one or both texts are
corrupt. (1) The reading Jair is preferable to Jaare-oregim.
Oregim ὌΝ ΔΝ is the word for weavers in the line below,
inserted here by a careless scribe. The letters of VY, Jair,
were then transposed to give the form of a construct state,
ν᾽, Jaare, before DIN. (2) The words ΓΝ ΠΟΠΠΣ,
the Bethlehemite {slew} Goliath, so closely resemble in form
and sound MINN MNINN, Lahmi the brother of Goliath,
that it is extremely probable that the one reading is a
corruption or correction of the other. Possibly the text of
Chron. was altered by a scribe who stumbled at the state-
ment that Goliath was slain by Elhanan, the form of the
alteration being suggested by the similarity of sound. In
that case the text of Samuel deserves the preference. It
is quite possible that more than one Gittite giant bore the
name of Goliath.
xxl. 6. Cords for sorrows. pan from 22M, to twist,
bind, means both cords and pangs. The parallelism decides
for the first meaning. Cf. LXX. σχοινία, Vulg. funes. The
A.V. follows its predecessors from Coverdale, who was
probably influenced by the rendering of the LXX. in the
Psalter ὠδῖνες, made familiar by the Vulg. dolores infernt,
and by the use of the words in Acts il. 24.
9. The parallelism out of his mouth decides for the
rendering out of (lit. in) his nostrils, though 158A may
mean w his wrath (marg.). But cf. v. 16.
12. Gathering of waters. So the Genevan: even the
gatherings of waters. OW, found here only, is explained
from a cognate Arabic word meaning to assemble. The
A.V. margin bindings, comes from Kimchi, who compares
the root WW), and the rendering dark waters was probably
suggested by the various reading NW in Ps. xviii.
33, 84. Guideth for maketh, deriving 77) from 1.
Marg. setteth free, deriving it from 3, to shake off, loose.
‘‘ His way,” “ his feet,” according to the C’thib 1577, ya
368 THE REVISED VERSION OF THE OLD THSTAMENT.
marg. “my way,” “my feet,” according to the K’ri "51,
797, and LXX., Vulg., Targ., Syr.
46. Shall come trembling, following the text of Ps. xviii.
45,9397’. The text here reads 193M, which in its ordinary
sense of gird themselves does not suit the passage, but
may possibly be explained from the Syr. τς» claudicavit,
come limping.
51. Great deliverance giveth he. So the C’thib, apie
niyw, with Ps. xviii. 50; and all the ancient versions.
The K’ri is Diy 97219, a tower of deliverance.
xxi. 3, 4. The brevity of this oracle (DNJ, v. 1) makes
it difficult to determine the exact construction and sense.
It is possible, as in the text, to regard Dwi as the subject,
and “Pa 74ND) as the predicate introduced by 1, as is some-
times the case when the subject is virtually a protasis
and the predicate an apodosis (when a man rules... he
shall be, etc.) : or, as in the margin, to supply there shall be
in v. 3, and it shall be at the beginning of v. 4. The words
depict the blessings which will attend the rule of a righteous
and God-fearing king. They are an outline sketch of the
ideal king to whom Israel’s hopes were more clearly directed
by subsequent prophecy ; and though partially realized in
the better kings of Judah, find their complete fulfilment
only in Christ. The A.V., he that ruleth over men must
be just, makes it seem that the object of the words is to
describe the necessary characteristics of a ruler, rather than
the result of the rule of one to come, who, it is assumed,
will possess these characteristics.
5. According to the affirmative rendering, verily, given
in the text, David confesses with humiliation that his house
does not correspond to the ideal, and yet rests his hope on
the divine covenant. But the interrogative rendering (ND=
Nom) given in the margin, for is not my house so with God ὃ
. for all my salvation, and all my desire, will he not
make it to grow? is adopted by most modern commenta-
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 369
tors. According to this view, David bases his hope of the
ideal righteous ruler on the covenant relation into which
God has entered with his house.
8. The corruption of the text of this verse is manifest.
(1) NAWA AW one sitting in the seat, can hardly be taken
as a proper name Josheb-basshebeth, and a proper name is
required in its place. Chron. reads OVW", Jashobeam, and
the corruption may have originated in the carelessness of a
transcriber who substituted for OY the word NIWA from the
line above. The reading of the LXX. however, is ᾿Ιεβοσθέ
=Nwaw’, and Wellhausen thinks that OYVIW* in Chron. is a
corruption of Dyaw’ (=9yawN) which he believes the LXX.
had still before them in the text of Chron. (2) For ‘2320
Tahchemonite, should be read plaPlaing the Hachmonite, or
D773, the son of a Hachmonite, as in ‘Chron. (3) The last
clause has neither erammar nor sense. In place of; NT)
IYI ITY, the same was Adino the Eznite, must originally
have stood, as in Chron., the words JIN DX Wy 8D, he
lifted wp his spear (cf. v. 18), or their equivalent.
9. The text of this verse is also corrupt. Not to press
the fact that the construction of 4.7 with Δ is not found
elsewhere, Dv there, implies the previous mention of a
place, and we ‘should probably correct the text from Chron.
by inserting he was with David at Pas-dammim before
when they defied the Philistines.
20. A valiant man. So the Kri 57 WN. Marg. Ish-hai
with the C’thib 7 WN.
The two sons of Ariel. ONIN means lion of God, a title
given by the Arabs and Persians to men of distinguished
bravery. It appears to be a proper name here; and the
Revisers follow the LXX. in inserting ‘22 sons of, which
may easily have fallen out after ‘JW. c
xxiv. 238. All this, O king, doth Araunah, etc. Thus
rendered, the words form the conclusion of Araunah’s
speech. The marg. rendering Araunah the king is gram-
VOL. III, Boe
370 “THSTAMENT” OR “COVENANT?”
matically possible, but it seems hardly probable that so
important a fact as that Araunah was the former king of
Jebus should be only mentioned incidentally. Perhaps
72197 should be omitted altogether, and the words taken as
a remark of the historian, all this did Araunah give (i.e.
offer) wnto the king. So the LXX., and some MSS of the
Vulg.
A. I’. KinKpATRICK.
“TESTAMENT” OR “COVENANT” ?
Ὅπου yap διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου: διαθήκη yap ἐπὶ
νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μή ποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος." --- 88. ix. 16, 17.
It is generally admitted that διαθήκη has in ver. 15 its
ordinary meaning of ‘‘covenant.’’ But a large number of
expositors, including several of the first rank, such as
Chrysostom (who does not hint at any other interpretation),
Calvin, De Wette, Bleek, Delitzsch, think that in vv. 16, 17
the word passes over into the meaning of ““ testament,” or
disposition of property by will. The awkwardness of the
transition from the notion of covenant to that of testament
is more or less fully acknowledged. But we are compelled
to choose the view that offers fewest difficulties. Four
proposed renderings of the passage assume that διαθήκη
means covenant throughout, and all are certainly open to
grave objection.
1. Some have translated διαθέμενος ‘the appointed vic-
tim.”’ It is sufficient to say that in no other passage has
διαθέμενος ἃ passive Meaning.
2. Some have proposed to render διαθέμενος “ the medi-
ating victim.” But διατέθημι does not mean “‘ to mediate.”
3. The view of Ebrard is much more worthy of con-
sideration: When a sinner enters into covenant with the
“THSTAMENT” OR “COVENANT”? 971
holy God, he must first atone for his guilt by death or
offer a substitutionary burnt-offering. The notion of a
substitutionary sacrifice is supposed to be introduced in
the subsequent verses.
Some of the objections taken to this interpretation have
not much force. For instance, it has often been objected
that the writer’s statement is axiomatic and the reference
must be to all covenants. But, as he has been speaking
throughout of the covenant between a sinner and God,
he might very naturally ignore every other covenant in
this passage. Again, it is alleged that, if the writer in-
tended the reference to be to a propitiatory covenant, he
would not have omitted to say which of the contracting
parties must die. The sinner, it is evident, must die. For
the necessity for death arises from the indissoluble con-
nexion between guilt and punishment. The insuperable
objection to Ebrard’s interpretation of the passage is that
Scripture nowhere represents the sinner as proposing to
enter into covenant with God, but always represents God
as offering pardon to the sinner. ‘The sinner does not
find the substitution, but God sends His Son in the likeness
of sinful flesh and for sin. We may conjecture that the
other interpretation, which assigns to διαθήκη the meaning
of ‘‘ testamentary disposition,” arose from the seeming in-
congruity of applying to God’s free and merciful offer of
pardon to sinful man the notion of an agreement entered
into by two independent parties. It is not surprising that
Hofmann should endeavour to fasten on διαθήκη the neutral
meaning of ‘‘ordinance”’ or ‘‘arrangement.”’ The diffi-
culty, however, meets us, that a mere ordinance does not
necessarily involve the death of him who has made it.
4. A new interpretation has been recently suggested by
Rendall in his excellent and too little known edition of
the Epistle. His rendering is this: ‘‘ Where a covenant
is made, death of him that makes it must be the forfeit
372 “THSTAMENT” OR “COVENANT”?
offered. For a covenant is ratified upon dead victims: for
is it strong at a time [reading μὴ τότε] when he that makes
it lives after breaking it?” The objection is that the
analogy fails. According to this interpretation the writer
regards the death of him that makes the covenant as a
penalty for breaking it. In order that the analogy between
the death of him who has made a covenant and the death
of Christ may be sustained and be of any value to the
argument, it is necessary that the death of Christ should
be a penalty which He has to pay for breaking the covenant.
If it be replied to this, that Christ is a substitutionary
sacrifice for the sinner, for whom He pays the penalty,
the interpretation will not then be in harmony with the
undeviating teaching of the New Testament, that the
appointment of a substitutionary sacrifice is part of the
covenant. It is offered, therefore, for the sinner’s previous
guilt, not for the guilt of breaking the covenant itself.
Such are the interpretations of the passage which assume
that διαθήκη means ‘covenant,’ and such the objections
which compel us to seek a view beset by fewer difficulties.
Coming now to the more popular explanation, that διαθήκη
is used in these verses in the sense of “a testamentary
disposition,” and διωθέμενος means “‘a testator,” the argu-
ments in its favour are mainly two.
1. The word διαθήκη has the two meanings elsewhere.
In classical Greek it almost always signifies “ἃ testamentary
disposition of property’’; in hellenistic Greek it means “a
covenant.’ The notion of bequeathing an estate by will
was scarcely known among the Jews. Some expositors
render the word by ‘testament’ in Gal. 11.15. But this
is, to say the least, too doubtful to permit our adducing
the passage in proof. The context tells rather on the other
side. However that may be, the argument from the two
significations of διαθήκη is insufficient to justify an un-
natural transition from the one meaning to the other.
“TESTAMENT” OR “COVENANT”? 373
2. Expositors, therefore, strive to show that the transition
in the present case is not unnatural or, at least, not
intolerable. The reference in ver. 15 to ‘‘the eternal in-
heritance’’ is thought to have suggested to the writer the
classical meaning of διαθήκη, and to have led him to in-
stitute at once a comparison between the heirs of an estate
willed by a testator and those whom God has called to
receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. As the
former cannot enter into possession till after the testator’s
death, so likewise the latter receive not the inheritance
before the death of Christ takes place. Here are two
points of analogy, the inheritance promised and the neces-
sity for the death of him who made the promise. The
resemblance will appear still more natural if we bear in
mind that one purpose of the verses, if not indeed their
main object, is to account for the necessity of Christ’s
death in reference to believers under the Old Dispensation.
God had already brought many sons unto glory. But
heaven was not secured or prepared for them tiil the death
of Christ made them legal, as they were already actual,
possessors of the inheritance.
This reasoning is plausible. But it cannot be considered
satisfactory, unless we are prepared to admit that the
sacred writer can condescend to use a sophistical argument.
De Wette adopts the interpretation now stated, and con-
siders it to be a piece of dialectic. Hven Tholuck grants
that it is, logically considered, inconsequential, and Lune-
mann admits it is logically inaccurate. But it is worse
than inconclusive. It is an inconceivable confusion of
thought. A testamentary disposition of property has no
force until after the testator’s death. Why not? Evidently
the only reason is that the testator may change his mind.
During his lifetime, therefore, it is always possible that he
may alter his will; but, when he has died, it is too late.
Apply the analogy. Christ has made a testamentary dis-
374 “THSTAMENT” OR “COVENANT”?
position of certain blessings to men. But it has no validity
while Christ lives. Why not? Is it because He may
change His mind in His lifetime, but cannot when He has
died? Not to speak of the irreverence and absurdity of
such a notion, it must first be shown, to make the argument
anything better than a childish equivocation, that God’s
promises are, in any real sense, a testamentary disposition.
Christ’s death is necessary, according to the unvarying
representations of the New Testament, in consequence of
man’s guilt, and bears no resemblance of any kind to the
act of a person who makes a bequest of his goods and
chattels to his heirs.
The following considerations may have some force as
subsidiary arguments against this view of the passage.
1. In ver. 15 the necessity of Christ’s death is connected
with the ratification of a covenant. It is natural to expect
that in ver. 16 also the things connected should be the
same. Add to this that in ver. 18 the necessity of the
shedding of blood under the first covenant is inferred (ὅθεν)
from what has been said in vv. 16, 17.
2. The strangeness of the meaning of ‘‘ testament ”’ in the
hellenistic Greek has more weight on the one side than its
familiarity in the classics has on the other. In Philo, De
Nom. Mutatione, vol. i. p. 586 Mang., κλῆρον κατὰ διαθήκας
ἀπολείψειν, the mention of inheritance and the use of the
word ἀπολείψειν have led Mangey and others to render the
word by ‘‘testament.’’ But all that can fairly be inferred
is that Philo speaks of testamentary dispositions as being
one kind of covenant. The subsequent words, θήσω τὴν
διαθήκην μου ava μέσον ἐμοῦ Kat ava μέσον σου... ὥστε
σύμβολον εἶναι διαθήκην χάριτος: ἣν μέσην ἔθηκεν ὁ Θεὸς
ἑαυτοῦ τε ὀρέγοντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου λαμβάνοντος, refer to
mediation, a notion altogether foreign to the idea of a
testament, but essential to his definition of a covenant. If
so, the passage from Philo resembles the verses under
“TESTAMENT” OR “COVENANT”? 375
discussion, in connecting together the notion of an inherit-
ance and that of a covenant, and may have suggested the
thought to the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
3. This interpretation does force, as Rendall observes, to
the meaning of ὅτε, which can signify ‘‘in case,” ‘‘ supposing
that,” but cannot be synonymous with ἕως, ‘‘as long as,”
“ during.”
Is no other interpretation possible? A covenant is an
agreement on oath. Hach of the parties to a covenant
pledges himself to fulfil his part of the conditions at the cost,
if necessary, of his life. Such were the covenants between
Isaac and Abimelech (Gen. xxvi. 31), between Jacob and
Laban (Gen. xxxi. 53), between David and Jonathan (1
Sam. xx. 17), and the writer of this Epistle represents God
as making a covenant with Abraham by confirming his
promise to him with an oath (vi. 13). Now in ver. 15 the
writer has said that the redemptive death of Christ is
necessary to the fulfilment of the promise of the eternal
inheritance. The reason of this is given in ver. 16. God’s
promise is a covenant, and a covenant implies a pledge on
the part of him who has made the promise that he will fulfil
his promise at the cost, if necessary, of his life. This is the
major premise of a syllogism. The minor premise is left to
be supplied by the reader. It is that the new covenant,
which God has made with man for the forgiveness of sin,
is of such a nature that the condition of Christ’s death is
required for the fulfilment of the Divine promise. Christ
now occupies the place of God, as the person who has made
the covenant. No objection can justly be taken to this.
God sends His Son. Christ dies as representative of God,
who has promised and will not repent, though He must
sacrifice His Son and, in His Son, face death, in order to
fulfil His promise.
Ver. 17 will then be a proof of the major premise; first,
from actual fact; second, from the notion of a covenant.
376 “THSTAMENT” OR “COVENANT”?
First, as matter of fact, a covenant based on dead men,
that is, on the condition that the contracting parties will
not shrink from facing death in order to fulfil their engage-
ment, is, for that very reason, well established, and calculated
to inspire men with confidence. The emphasis in this
clause is on βεβαία, and the word refers, not to legal
validity, but to the certitude which such an agreement im-
parts to the interested persons. Cf. vi. 16, εἰς βεβαίωσιν,
“unto certitude.” The words ἐπὶ νεκροῖς should be closely
connected with διαθήκη, and ἐπὶ understood in its usual
meaning of “upon.” The plur. (νεκροῖς) is used, because
a covenant is a sworn agreement between two or more
persons. But in reference to the new covenant (ver. 16),
the sing. is preferred, because it is not a contract into which
two independent and equal parties enter with one another,
but a gracious dispensation of God on behalf of men.
Second, the notion of a covenant implies that its power
with men rests on the solemn pledge of the contracting
parties to fulfil their engagement or die in the attempt;
inasmuch as it has no influence in case he who has made it
lives, and shuns to expose himself to danger of death in
fulfilling its conditions. Μήποτε (if we adopt this reading
in preference to μὴ τότε) refers to the notion of covenant.
If the reference were to the fact of a covenant, οὔποτε would
have been used.
At first sight the word ἴσχυεν appears to be an objection
to this interpretation of the verses. But there is no need
to suppose the word means legal validity. Indeed, this is
not the precise signification that ought to be attached to
the word, even if we adopted the other interpretation, that
the writer is speaking of a testamentary disposition. For
it is not the testator’s death, but his signature or some
other sufficient proof that the document expresses his in-
tention, that constitutes the validity of the will. His death
is only the necessary condition of the transfer of the estate.
“THSTAMENT” OR “COVENANT”? 377
' But ἴσχυεν cannot fairly express this notion. On the other
hand, if the reference is to a covenant, ἔσχυει will bear its
natural meaning of moral influence. Cf. Acts xix. 20; Rev.
xii. 8. This interpretation assigns to ὅτε also its correct
meaning.
A difficult word is φέρεσθαι. It cannot well be synony-
mous with γίγνεσθαι. The meaning “to prove legally”’ is
not found in any of the passages adduced as examples
by expositors ; μάρτυρα φέρειν is quite different. Again,
it is scarcely safe to consider φέρεσθαι synonymous with
ἐμφέρεσθαι, “to introduce.’ But the word bears a meaning
sometimes that fits in well with the interpretation suggested
in this paper. Cf. Thue. iii. 58, ἡγούμενοι τὸ ἴσον μάλιστ᾽ ἂν
φέρεσθαι, ‘thinking we should have justice dealt out to us.”
Any man that makes a covenant has death dealt out to
him as the ultimate condition which he must be prepared
to fulfil, if he will discharge his duty in accordance with
his engagement. The tense is to be noted. Death is
always held before him in prospect.
This view receives some confirmation from the similarity
of the argument here and in Gal. ii. 10-15. In that
passage the necessity of Christ’s death is inferred from the
curse under which men lay. But Christ was made a curse
for us. ‘This is compared to the confirmation of a covenant.
Even in the case of a man’s covenant, if it be once con-
firmed, no one can take from or add a whit to its force.
Here the confirmation of the covenant must mean the oath
by which the contracting parties pledge themselves to die
rather than fall short of the fulfilment of their promise.
Similarly the death of Christ is the confirmation to all be-
lievers of God’s promises. Kup® is used in 2 Cor. 11. 8 in
the sense of convincing a person of another’s love; and
in Gal. 111. 15, the only other passage in the New Test.
in which the word occurs, it may be understood to mean
that the pledge of death begets confidence in the trust-
378 THE HPISTLH TO THE COLOSSIANS.
worthiness of the covenant. Christ did not shrink from
such a pledge, and His death is like a Divine oath, the end
of all unbelief, even unto certitude.
The interpretation now suggested is not free from dif-
ficulties. One is that ἐπὶ νεκροῖς does not naturally yield
the meaning of ‘“‘ based upon the death of the contracting
parties.” The meaning assigned to ἐπὶ is, of course,
frequent with the dat.; and the use of the plur. adj. in the
sense of θάνατος seems to be parallel to the use of ἐκ
νεκρῶν, in Rom. vi. 12, to signify “from a state of death.”
Nothing more is claimed for the view proposed than that it
appears to be surrounded with fewer difficulties than other
interpretations of the passage.
T. C. EDWARDS.
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
XVI.
TWO FINAL TESTS OF THE FALSE TEACHING.
“Tf ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though
living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, Handle not, nor
taste, nor touch (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts
and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-
worship, and humility, and severity to the body; but are not of any value
against the indulgence of the flesh.’’—Cot. ii. 20-3 (Rey. Ver.).
THE polemical part of the Epistle is now coming to an end,
We pass in the next chapter, after a transitional paragraph,
to simple moral precepts which, with personal details, fill
up the remainder of the letter. The antagonist errors
appear for the last time in the words which we have now
to consider. In these the Apostle seems to gather up all
his strength to strike two straight, crashing, final blows,
which pulverize and annihilate the theoretical positions
and practical precepts of the heretical teachers. First, he
puts in the form of an unanswerable demand for the reason
TWO FINAL TESTS OF THE FALSH THACHING. 379
for their teachings, their radical inconsistency with the
Christian’s death with Christ, which is the very secret of
his life. Then, by a contemptuous concession of their
apparent value to people who will not look an inch below
the surface, he makes more emphatic their final condem-
nation as worthless—less than nothing and vanity—for
the suppression of ‘‘the flesh’’—the only aim of all moral
and religious discipline. So we have here two great tests
by their conformity to which we may try all teachings
which assume to regulate life, and all Christian teaching
about the place and necessity for ritual and outward pre-
scriptions of conduct. ‘‘ Ye are dead with Christ.” All
must fit in with that ereat fact. The restraint and con-
quest of ‘‘the flesh’’ is the purpose of all religion and of
all moral teaching—your systems must do that or they
are naught, however fascinating they may be.
I. We have then to consider the great fact of the
Christian’s death with Christ, and to apply it as a touch-
stone.
The language of the Apostle points to a definite time
when the Colossian Christians ‘‘ died’’ with Christ. That
carries us back to former words in the chapter, where, as
we found, the period of their baptism considered as the
symbol and profession of their conversion, was regarded
as the time of their burial. They died with Christ when
they clave with penitent trust to the truth that Christ
died for them. When a man unites himself by faith to
the dying Christ as his Peace, Pardon, and Saviour, then
he too in a very real sense dies with Jesus.
That thought of every Christian being dead with Christ,
runs through the whole of Paul’s teaching. It is no mere
piece of mysticism on his lips, though it has often become
so, when divorced from morality by some Christian teachers.
It is no mere piece of rhetoric, though it has often become
so, when men have lost the true thought of what Christ’s
980 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
death is for the world. But to Paul the cross of Christ
was, first and foremost, the altar of sacrifice on which the
oblation was offered that took away all his guilt and sin;
and then, because it was that, it became the law of his own
life, and the power that assimilated him to his Lord.
The plain English of it all is that, when a man becomes
a Christian by putting his trust in Christ who died, as the
ground of his acceptance and salvation, such a change takes
place upon his whole nature and relationship to externals
as is fairly comparable to a death.
The same illustration is frequent in ordinary speech.
What do we mean when we talk of an old man being dead
to youthful passions or follies or ambitions? We mean
that they have ceased to interest him, that he is separated
from them and insensible to them. Death is the separator.
What an awful gulf there is between that fixed white face
beneath the sheet, and all the things about which he was
so eager an hour ago! How impossible for any cries of
love to passthe chasm. ‘‘ Hissons come to honour, and he
knoweth it not.”” The ‘‘ business”’ which filled his thoughts,
crumbles to pieces, and he cares not. Nothing reaches him
or interests him any more. So, if we have got hold of Christ
as our Saviour, and have found in His cross the anchor of
our souls, that will deaden us to all that was our life, and
the measure in which we are joined to Jesus by our faith
in His great sacrifice, will be the measure in which we are
detached from our former selves, and from old objects of
interest and pursuit. The change may either be called
dying with Christ, or rising with Him. The one phrase
takes hold of it at an earlier stage than the other; the one
puts stress on our ceasing to be what we were, the other
on our beginning to be what we were not. So our text is
followed by a paragraph corresponding in form and sub-
stance, and beginning, ‘If ye then be risen with Christ,”
as this begins, ‘‘ If ye died with Christ!”
TWO FINAL TESTS OF ΤΗΝ FALSE TEACHING. 381
Such detachment from externals and separation from a
former self is not unknown in ordinary life. Strong emotion
of any kind makes us insensible to things around, and even
to physical pain. Many aman with the excitement of the
battle-field boiling in his brain, ‘‘ receives but recks not of
a wound.” Absorption of thought and interest leads to
what is called ‘“‘ absence of mind,” where the surroundings
are entirely unfelt, as in the case of the saint who rode
all day on the banks of the Swiss lake, plunged in theo-
logical converse, and at evening asked where the lake was,
though its waves had been rippling for twenty miles at his
mule’s feet. Higher tastes drive out lower ones, as some
creat stream turned into a new channel will sweep it clear
of mud and rubbish. So, if we are joined to Christ, He
will fill our souls with strong emotions and interests which
will deaden our sensitiveness to things around us, and will
inspire new loves, tastes and desires which will make us
indifferent to much that we used to be eager about, and
hostile to much that we once cherished.
To what shall we die if we are Christians? The Apostle
answers that question in various ways, which we may
profitably group together. ‘‘ Reckon ye also yourselves to
be dead indeed unto sin” (Rom. vi. 11). ‘‘ He died for all,
that they which live should no longer live unto themselves ”’
(2 Cor. v. 14, 15). ‘‘ Ye are become dead to the law”’
(Rom. vii. 6). By the cross of Christ, ‘‘ the world hath
been crucified unto me, and I unto the world.’ So then, to
the whole mass of outward material things, all this present
order which surrounds us—the unrenounced self which has
ruled us so long, and the sin which results from the appeals
of outward things to that evil self—to these, and to the
mere outward letter of a commandment which is impotent
to enforce its own behests or deliver self from the snares of
the world and the burden of sin, we cease to belong in the
measure in which we are Christ’s. The separation is not
382 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
complete; but, if we are Christians at all, it is begun, and
henceforward our life is to be a ‘‘ dying daily.” It must
either be a dying life or a living death. We shall still: be-
long in our outward being—and, alas! far too much in heart
also—to the world and self and sin—but, if we are Christ-
ians at all, there will be a real separation from these in the
inmost heart of our hearts, and the germ of entire deliver-
ance from them all will be in us.
This day needs that truth to be strongly urged. The
whole meaning of the death of Christ is not reached when
it is regarded as the great propitiation for our sins. Is it
the pattern for our lives? has it drawn us away from our
love of the world, from our sinful self, from the temptations
to sin, from cowering before duties which we hate but dare
not neglect ? has it changed the current of our lives, and
lifted us into a new region where we find new interests,
loves and aims, before which the twinkling lights, which
once were stars to us, pale their ineffectual fires? If so,
then, just in as much as it is so, and not one hair’s breadth
the more, may we call ourselves Christians. If not, it is
of no use for us to talk about looking to the cross as the
source of our salvation. Such a look, if it be true and
genuine, will certainly change all a man’s tastes, habits,
aspirations, and relationships. If we know nothing of
dying with Christ, it is to be feared we know as little of
Christ’s dying for us.
This great fact of the Christian’s death with Christ comes
into view here mainly as pointing the contradiction between
the Christian’s position, and subjection to the prescriptions
and prohibitions of a religion which consists chiefly in petty
rules about conduct. We are ‘‘dead’’ says Paul, ‘‘to the
rudiments of the world,’’—a phrase which we have already
heard in verse 8 of this chapter, where we found its
meaning to be “‘ precepts of an elementary character, fit for
babes, not for men in Christ, and moving principally in the
TWO FINAL TESTS OF THE FALSH TEACHING. 383
region of the material.’’ It implies a condemnation of all
such regulation religion on the two grounds, that it is an
anachronism, seeking to perpetuate an earlier stage that has
been left behind, and that it has to do with the outsides
of things, with the material and visible only. To such rudi-
ments we are dead with Christ. Then, queries Paul, with
irresistible triumphant question—why, in the name cf con-
sistency, ‘‘do you subject yourself to ordinances”’ (of which
we have already heard in verse 14 of the chapter) such
as “handle not, nor taste, nor touch’? These three pro-
hibitions are not Paul’s, but are quoted by him as specimens
of the kind of rules and regulations which he is protesting
against. The ascetic teachers kept on vehemently reiterat-
ing their prohibitions, and as the correct rendering of the
word shows, with a constantly increasing intolerance.
“Handle not”’ is a less rigid prohibition than ‘ touch not.”
The first says, Do not lay hold of; the second, Do not touch
with the tip of your finger. So asceticism, like many
another tendency and habit, grows by indulgence, and
demands abstinence ever more rigid and separation ever
more complete. And the whole thing is out of date, and
a misapprehension of the genius of Christianity. Man’s
work in religion is ever to confine it to the surface, to
throw it outward and make it a mere round of things done
and things abstained from. Christ’s work in religion is to
drive it inwards, and to focus all its energy on ‘‘ the hidden
man of the heart,’’ knowing that if that be right, the visible
will come right. It is waste labour to try to stick figs
on the prickles of a thorn bush—as is the tree, so will be
the fruit. There are plenty of pedants and martinets in
religion as well as on the parade ground. There must be
so many buttons on the uniform, and the shoulder belts
must be pipe-clayed, and the rifles on the shoulders sloped
at just such an angle—and then all will be right. Perhaps
so. Disciplined courage is better than courage undisciplined.
984 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
But there is much danger of all the attention being given
to the drill, and then when the parade ground is exchanged
for the battle-field, disaster comes because there is plenty
of etiquette and no dash. Men’s lives are pestered out of
out of them by a religion which tries to tie them down
with as many tiny threads as the Lilliputians fastened
down Gulliver with. But Christianity in its true and
highest forms is not a religion of prescriptions but of
principles. It does not keep perpetually dinning a set
of petty commandments and prohibitions into our ears.
Its language is not a continual ‘‘ Do this, forbear from that,”
—but ‘‘ Love, and thou fulfillest the law.” It works from
the centre outwards to the circumference, first making clean
the inside of the cup and platter, and so ensuring that the
outside shall be clean also. The error with which Paul
fought, and which perpetually crops up anew, having its
roots deep in human nature, begins with the circumference
and wastes effort in burnishing the outside.
The parenthesis which follows in the text, ‘all which
things are to perish with the using,” contains an inci-
dental remark intended to show the mistake of attaching
such importance to regulations about diet and the like,
from the consideration of the perishableness of these meats
and drinks about which so much was said by the false
teachers. ‘They are all destined for corruption, for physical
decomposition—in the very act of consumption.” You
cannot use them without using them up. They are de-
stroyed in the very moment of being used. Is it hke men
who have died with Christ to this fleeting world, to make
so much of its perishable things?
May we not widen this thought beyond its specific
application here, and say that death with Christ to the
world should deliver us from the temptation of making
much of the things which perish with the using, whether
that temptation is presented in the form of attaching ex-
TWO FINAL TESTS OF THE FALSE TEACHING. 385
- aggerated religious importance to ascetic abstinence from
them or in that of exaggerated regard and unbridled use
of them? Asceticism and Sybaritic luxury have in com-
mon an over-estimate of the importance of the material
things. The one is the other turned inside out. Dives
in his purple and fine linen, and the ascetic in his hair
shirt, both make too much of ‘‘ what they shall put on.”
The one with his feasts and the other with his fasts both
think too much of what they shall eat and drink. A man
who lives on high with his Lord puts all these things in
their right place. There are things which do not perish
with the using, but grow with use, like the five loaves
in Christ’s hands. Truth, love, holiness, all Christ-like
eraces and virtues, increase with exercise, and the more
we feed on the bread which comes down from heaven the
more shall we have for our own nourishment and for our
brother’s need. There is a treasure which faileth not,
bags which wax not old, the durable riches and undecay-
ing possessions of the soul that lives on Christ and grows
like Him. These let us seek after; for if our religion be
worth anything at all, it should carry us past all the
fleeting wealth of earth straight into the heart of things,
and give us for our portion that God whom we can never
exhaust, nor outgrow, but possess the more as we use
His sweetness for the solace and His all-sufficient Being
for the good of our souls.
The final inconsistency between the Christian position
and the practical errors in question is glanced at in the
words ‘‘after the commandments and doctrines of men,”’
which refer, of course, to the ordinances of which Paul
is speaking. The expression is a quotation from Isaiah’s
(xxix. 13) denunciation of the Pharisees of his day, and
as used here seems to suggest that the great discourse
of our Lord’s on the worthlessness of the Jewish punc-
tilios about meats and drinks was in the Apostle’s mind,
VOL. III. CC
386 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
since the same words of Isaiah’s occur there in a similar
connexion. It is not fitting that we, who are withdrawn
from dependence on the outward visible order of things
by our union with Christ in His death, should be under
the authority of men. Here is the true democracy of
the Christian society. ‘‘ Ye were redeemed with a price.
Be not the servants of men.”’ Our union to Jesus Christ
is a union of absolute authority and utter submission.
We all have access to the one source of illumination, and
we are bound to take our orders from the one Master.
The protest against the imposition of human authority on
the Christian soul is made not in the interests of self-
will, but from reverence to the only voice that has right
to give autocratic commands and to receive unquestioning
obedience. We are free in proportion as we are dead
to the world with Christ. We are free from men not
that we may please ourselves, but that we may please
Him. ‘Hold your peace, I want to hear what my Master
has to command me,” is the true language of the Christian
freedman, who is free that he may serve, and because he
serves.
II. We have to consider one great purpose of all teaching
and external worship, by its power in attaining which any
system is to be tried.
*“Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-
worship, and humility, and severity to the body, but are
not: of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.”
Here is the conclusion of the whole matter, the parting
summary of the indictment against the whole irritating
tangle of restrictions and prescriptions. From a moral
point of view it is worthless, as having no coercive power
over “‘the flesh.” Therein lies its conclusive condemnation,
for if religious observances do not help a man to subdue
his sinful self, what, in the name of common sense, is the
use of them ?
TWO FINAL TESTS OF THE FALSE TEACHING. 387
The Apostle knows very well that the system which
he was opposing had much which commended it to people,
especially to those who did not look very deep. It had
a ‘“‘show of wisdom’”’ very fascinating on a superficial
elance, and that in three points, all of which caught the
vulgar eye, and all of which turned into the opposite on
- closer examination.
It had the look of being exceeding devotion and zealous
worship. These teachers with their abundant forms im ose
upon the popular imagination, as if they were altogether
given up to devout contemplation and prayer. But if
one looks a little more closely at them, one sees that
their devotion is the indulgence of their own will and
not surrender to God’s. They are not worshipping Him
as He has appointed, but as they have themselves chosen,
and as they are rendering services which He has not
required, they are in a very true sense worshipping their
own wills, and not God at all. By ‘‘ will-worship ” seems
to be meant self-imposed forms of religious service which
are the outcome not of obedience, nor of the instincts of
a devout heart, but of a man’s own will. And the Apostle
implies that such supererogatory and volunteered worship
is no worship. Whether offered in a cathedral or a barn,
whether the worshipper wear a cope or a fustian 780 τοῦ,
such service is not accepted. A prayer which is but the
expression of the worshipper’s own will, instead of being
‘“not my will but Thine be done,’’ reaches no higher than
the lips which utter it. If we are subtly and half uncon-
sciously obeying self even while we seem to be bowing
before God; if we are seeming to pray, and are all the
while burning incense to ourselves, instead of being drawn
out of ourselves by the beauty and the glory of the God
towards whom our spirits yearn, then our devotion is a
mask, and our prayers will be dispersed in empty air.
The deceptive appearance of wisdom in these teachers
388 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and their doctrines is further manifest in the humility
which felt so profoundly the gulf between man and God
that it was fain to fill the void with its fantastic creations
of angel mediators. Humility is a good thing, and it
looked very humble to say, We cannot suppose that such
insignificant flesh-encompassed creatures as we can come
into contact and fellowship with God; but it was a great
deal more humble to take God at His word, and to let
Him lay down the possibilities and conditions of inter-
course, and to tread the way of approach to Him which
He has appointed. If a great king were to say to all
the beggars and ragged losels of his capital, Come to the
palace to-morrow ; which would be the humbler, he who
went, rags and leprosy and all, or he who hung back
because he was so keenly conscious of his squalor? God
says to men, ‘‘Come to My arms through My Son. Never
mind the dirt, come.’’ Which is the humbler, he who
takes God at His word, and runs to hide his face on his
Father’s breast, having access to Him through Christ the
way, or he who will not venture near till he has found
some other mediators besides Christ? A humility so
profound that it cannot think God’s promise and Christ’s
mediation enough for it, has gone so far West that it has
reached the East, and from humility has become pride.
Further, this system has a show of wisdom in “ severity
to the body.” Any asceticism is a great deal more to
men’s taste than abandoning self. They will rather stick
hooks in their backs and do the “ swinging poojah,”’ than
give up their sins or yield up their wills. It is easier to
travel the whole distance from Cape Comorin to the shrine
of Juggernaut, measuring every foot of it by the body
laid prostrate in the dust, than to surrender the heart
to the love of God. In the same manner the milder
forms of putting oneself to pain, hair shirts, scourgings,
abstinence from pleasant things with the notion that
TWO FINAL TESTS OF THE FALSE TEACHING. 389
thereby merit is acquired, or sin atoned for, have a deep
root in human nature, and hence ‘‘a show of wisdom.’’
It is strange, and yet not strange, that people should think
that, somehow or other, they recommend themselves to
God by making themselves uncomfortable, but so it is
that religion presents itself to many minds mainly as a
system of restrictions and injunctions which forbids the
agreeable and commands the unpleasant. So does our
poor human nature vulgarise and travesty Christ’s solemn
command to deny ourselves and take up our cross after
Him.
The conclusive condemnation of all the crowd of punc-
tilious restrictions of which the Apostle has been speaking
lies in the fact that, however they may correspond to
men’s mistaken notions, and so seem to be the dictate
of wisdom, they ‘“‘ are not of any value against the indul-
gence of the flesh.’ This is one great end of all moral
and spiritual discipline, and if practical regulations do not
tend to secure it, they are worthless.
Of course by ‘‘flesh’’ here we are to understand, as
usually in the Pauline Epistles, not merely the body bat
the whole unregenerate personality, the entire unrenewed
self that thinks and feels and wills and desires apart from
God. To indulge and satisfy it is to die, to slay and
suppress it is to live. All these “‘ ordinances’ with which
the heretical teachers were pestering the Colossians, have
no power, Paul thinks, to keep that self down, and
therefore they seem to him so much rubbish. He thus
lifts the whole question up to a higher level and implies
a standard for judging much formal outward Christianity
which would make very short work of it.
A man may be keeping the whole round of them and
seven devils may be in his heart. They distinctly tend
to foster some of the ‘‘ works of the flesh,’’ such as self-
righteousness, uncharitableness, censoriousness, and they
390 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE
as distinctly altogether fail to subdue any of them. A
man may stand on a pillar like Simeon Stylites for years,
and be none the better. Historically, the ascetic tendency
has not been associated with the highest types of real
saintliness except by accident, and has never been their
productive cause. The bones rot as surely inside the
sepulchre though the whitewash on its dome be ever so
thick.
So the world and the flesh are very willing that Christ-
ianity should shrivel into a religion of prohibitions and
ceremonials, because all manner of vices and meannesses
may thrive and breed under these, like scorpions under
stones. There is only one thing that will put the collar
on the neck of the animal within us, and that is the power
of the indwelling Christ. The evil that is in us all is
too strong for every other fetter. Its cry to all these
“commandments and ordinances of men” is, ‘‘ Jesus I
know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?’’ Not in obe-
dience to such but in the reception into our spirits of His
own life is our power of victory over self. ‘‘ This I say,
Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the
flesh.”’
ALEXANDER MACLAREN.
RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE ON THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
THE period which has elapsed since our last summary was
submitted has been more than usually fertile. Each of the great
departments of New Testament Literature has something good
to show. In more than one the contributions which have to be
reported are not only numerous, but of exceptional importance.
The Germans, as usual, have been the great producers. But
French, Swiss, Dutch, Russian and Norwegian scholars have been
by no means idle. We shall confine ourselves, for the most part,
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 391
to publications which fall within the last twelve months. Were
we to attempt anything like a complete account, however, of the
books, monographs and articles which the busy press has issued
within these narrow limits, we should have a formidable list to
present. We select those only which seem to have the best claim
to our immediate attention, and we shall deal with them according
to the particular divisions of our science to which they admit of
being assigned.
I. Texrvan Criricisw.—In the department of the lower criticism
several publications have appeared which make distinct additions
to our materials. One of the most remarkable of these is Pierre
Batiffol’s account of the new manuscript—Codea Beratinus (®).
The discovery of this document in the library of the Albanian
Metropolitan has been already reported in the pages of this Journal.
The discoverer’s. statement, which was given originally in the
Mélanges @archéologie et d'histoire publiés par V Ecole francaise de
Rome, is now to be had in separate form.! The Codex consists
apparently of 190 leaves, and contains the first two Gospels, with
the exception of a few sections. Like the Codex Rossanensis, the
discovery of which excited such interest a few years ago, it is
a purple parchment inscribed with letters of silver. There
seems reason to believe that it exhibits a type of text which
deserves notice. But anything that is said about it at present
must be taken with reserve. Everything is uncertain. It is not
apparent whether it is earlier or later than the Codex Rossanensis,
to which in most respects it presents so curious a parallel. M.
Batiffol dates it about a century earlier than Dr. von Gebhardt
is inclined to admit—the latter ascribing it to the end of the
sixth, or more probably the beginning of the seventh century.
Even the extent of the lacune in the manuscript is left doubtful.
Another monograph of some value is Dr. Oscar Lemm’s
Fragments of the Sahidic Version.2 These fragments are selected
from two manuscripts belonging to the Imperial Library of St.
Petersburg. One of these is a paper manuscript, numbered
DCXXIII. in Dorn’s Catalogue. Material, ink and style all
show it to be of very late date. The other is a parchment
1 Evangeliorum Codex Grecus purpureus Beratinus ®, ete. Rome: Imprimerie
de la Paix de Philippe Cuggiani, 1885.
2 Bruchstiicke der Sahidischen Bibeliibersetzung, etc. Herausgegeben von Dr.
Oscar von Lemm, Conservator am Asiatischen Museum der kaiserl. Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu St. Petersburg. Leipzig, 1885.
392 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE
manuscript, which was brought along with much more spoil from
Egypt by Tischendorf, in 1853, and was described by him in his
Notitia. It consists of five leaves and a number of broken pieces.
The whole is in so miserable a state of preservation that most
men would have shrunk from attempting a reconstruction of the
text. Both decipherment and arrangement must have been
attended with the utmost difficulty. The text, as Dr. Lemm has
restored it for us, gives (in addition to Joshua xy. 7—xvii. 1) parts
of Matthew xxvi., xxvii., xxvili., of Luke xxiv., and of the first
four chapters of John’s Gospel.
The Norwegian scholar, J. Belsheim, of the University of
Christiania, ranks deservedly among the best reproducers of
ancient texts that our century has reared. We owe him much for
his admirable edition of the text of the Gospels contained in the
famous Codex Aureus, the great treasure of the Stockholm Library,
for his publication of the text of Acts and the Apocalypse given
by the scarcely less famous Stockholm Gigas,—the enormous
manuscript which is said to require two or three men to lift it,
and to which the tradition attaches that it was written out in
a single night by an imprisoned monk with Satanic help,—and
for various services of like merit. He has added to his former
excellent work in this branch of sacred science by editing an
interesting Vienna codex, which contains portions of Luke and
Mark in an old Latin version.! He is not indeed the first to bring
this text before the public. So far back as 1791 it was described,
and the Mark section of it was reproduced, in Paulus of Jena’s
Repertorium, and in 1795 three of the Luke fragments were given
in the same editor’s Memorabilia. A collation was also presented
in the edition of the Greek New Testament published in 1787
by F. K. Alter of Vienna. But in these forms it was neither of
convenient access nor very reliable in point of accuracy. Mr.
Belsheim, therefore, visited Vienna in 1884 and 1885, compared
Alter’s text as given in Paulus’s publications with the original,
and put forth an edition which is likely long to meet all needs.
The manuscript itself seems to have been deposited originally in
Naples, whence it was brought in 1717. It belongs to the select
class of purple parchments, with silver and gold letters, and dates,
as Mr. Belsheim thinks, about the end of the seventh century.
1 Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus literis argenteis aureisqu2
scriptus. Antiquissime Evangeliorum Luce et Marci translationis Latine
fragmenta. Edidit J. Belsheim. Cum tabula. Lipsiwe, MDCCCLXXXY.
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 393
Originally it gave the four Gospels, as clearly appears; and in all
probability it followed the order seen in the Itala codices Palat.,
Veron., Vercell., Cantab., Corbei., viz. Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
From the same practised hand we get a monograph on a text
which is found in another very ornate manuscript, of which he is
the first editor—the Codex Theodore Imperatricis purpureus Petro-
politanus.! The Codex is a Greek cursive with gold letters on purple
parchment, and is referred to the ninth century. It was brought
to St. Petersburg from Asia Minor, in 1829, as a gift to the
Emperor Nicholas. The Theodora whose name it bears is supposed
to be the Byzantine image-worshipper, the wife of the Emperor
Theophilus (829-842). Mr. Belsheim has collated the whole
manuscript. In the present volume he gives the full text only
of Mark, but appends (along with a page of the Codex, reproduced
after the beautiful facsimile of Muralt) a comparison of the text
of the other three Gospels with the Textus Receptus.
In this connexion we may mention an edition of the Epistle
to the Galatians, by P. Corssen, giving the Vulgate text according
to the best manuscripts,” and an article in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift,°
by Professor Hagen of Bern, on a fragment of the Itala, which is
recovered by a chemical process from a Bern palimpsest of the
sixth century. The portion so restored gives the beginning of
Mark’s Gospel. Professor Hagen takes it to be a part of the
Itala-text, which exhibits decided affinity with that of the Cam-
bridge Codex, and does not differ so largely from the Vulgate as
is the case with most manuscripts of the Itala.
To this head also belongs Herr Baethgen’s attempt to reproduce
the Greek text underlying the Curetonian Syriac. He recognises
the great difficulty of his task, and admits that in many passages
the unfitness of the Syriac idiom for the expression of the nice
distinctions of the Greek, makes it impossible to say what the
original was. But he thinks that a large measure of success is
nevertheless attainable, and that such a reproduction as he pre-
1 Das Evangelium des Marcus nach dem griechischen Codex Theodore Impera-
tricis purpureus Petropolitanus, etc. Zum ersten Mal herausgegeben von T.
Belsheim, ete. Christiania, 1885.
2 Epistula ad Galatas ad fidem optimorum Codicum Vulgate recognovit,
prolegomenis instruxit, Vulgatam cum antiquioribus versionibus comparavit P.C.
Berlin, 1885.
3 Siebenundzwanzigster Jahrgang. Viertes Heft.
4 Evangelien-Fragmente. Der griechische Text des Cureton’schen Syrers
wiederhergestellt von Friedrich Baethgen. Leipzig, 1885.
994 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE
sents here should be an important contribution to Textual Cri-
ticism. To us the most interesting part of his treatise, how-
ever, is the Introduction, in which he has something to the pur-
pose to say on a number of topics. He severely criticises Mr.
Crowfoot’s partial venture in the same field. He shows how
imperfect a use is made of the Curetonian Syriac even by men
of the rank of Tischendorf and Tregelles, nothwithstanding the
great value they ascribe to that text. He acknowledges traces of
a revising hand or revising hands in it, but is of opinion that it
has not been subjected to more than occasional and partial correc-
tion. He began his work with a strong prepossession in favour
of Zahn’s theory, that the Curetonian Syriac was prior to Tatian’s
Harmony, but he ends with the opposite conclusion. His investiga-
tion has led him to results entirely in harmony, too, with Professor
Hort’s views on the subject of a revision of the old Syriac and
the rise of the Syriac Vulgate.
11. Brsrican Intropuction anp Brerican THEOLOGy.—We place
these together, as several of the books which follow belong in
reality to both departments. The fact that Zockler’s Handbook '
has gone so soon into a second edition speaks for its general merit.
In men like Professors Cremer, Grau, Harnack, Kiibel, Luthardt,
Strack, Volck, Schmidt, and von Scheele, the editor has a body
of collaborateurs whose names should be a guarantee for good
work, and on the whole the project has been well carried out.
In the first edition, however, there were certain sections belonging
to the department of New Testament literature, and specially that
on Textual Criticism, which were of distinctly inferior quality.
It is satisfactory that the opportunity for a revision of these has
come with so little delay. We have to notice, however, the suc-
cessful initiation of another enterprise of a somewhat similar kind,
from which much may be expected. We refer to the Library of
Theological Manuals undertaken by the firm of J. B. Mohr, of
Freiburg in Breisgau. The series is to include New Testament
Introduction, by Professor Holtzmann of Strassburg; Old Testa-
ment Introduction, by Professor Budde of Bonn; New Testa-
ment Theology, by Professor Schiirer of Giessen; Old Testament
Theology, by Professor Smend of Basel; Dogmatics, by Professor
Nitsch of Kiel; Ethics, by Professor Weiss of Tiibingen; History
1 Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften in encyclopddischer Darstellung,
etc. Herausgegeben von Dr. Otto Zéckler. Erster Band. Nordlingen.
2 Sammlung theologischer Lehrbiicher, etc. 1885.
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 595
of Dogma, by Professor Harnack of Giessen, and other subjects.
The first volume has come to hand, namely that by Holtzmann,}!
and it promises well for what shall follow. Unless it be the
veteran Reuss, there is probably no scholar that possesses so
extensive a command of the vast literature of New Testament
Introduction and so minute an acquaintance with all its problems
as Holtzmann. His plan is to take first the History of the Text,
then the History of the Canon, and thereafter the special questions
connected with the Pauline Epistles, the historical books, and the
remaining writings of the New Testament. The volume offers
admirable digests of all that is of importance in all its sections.
But the most interesting undoubtedly is the third. Here we
obtain the results of the author’s life-long studies in the history
and criticism of the New Testament books. Nothing could sur-
pass his historical summaries or his critical statements for brevity
clearness and point.
In an essay of moderate compass, M. Massebieau? gives us a
new discussion of the Old Testament quotations found in the first
Gospel. He investigates first the form and then the spirit of the
quotations, and comes to the conclusion that they fall into several
distinct types, but that there is no unity among them, and that
their phenomena can be accounted for only by the supposition
that a second hand has been at work. Apart from any judgment
which may be pronounced upon its final conclusion, his treatise
will be found to exhibit considerable exegetical skill, and to yield
much that is both independent and suggestive in its way of
handling Matthew’s citations.
Licentiate A. H. Franke’s volume on the Old Testament in the
Writings of St. John® is a contribution of great value in more than
one respect. It betokens a more than usually competent hand.
The author, now promoted, we believe, to an Extraordinary Pro-
fessorship in Halle, examines first of all John’s relation to the Old
Testament people, the Old Testament revelation, and the Old
Testament scriptures; in which part of his work he grapples with
Baur’s view of the Anti-Judaism of the fourth Gospel, offers <.
1 Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament, von
Heinrich Julius Holtzmann. Freiburg i. B., 1885.
3 Examen des Citations de Vancien Testament dans 1 Evangile selon Saint
Matthieu. Par Eugéne Massebieau, etc. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1885.
3 Das alte Testament bei Johannes. Ein Beitrag zur Erklirung und Beur-
theilung der johanneischen Schriften. Von Lic. A. H. Franke. Géttingen, 1885.
396 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE
reasonable explanation of John’s use of the term οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, and
shows that the fourth Gospel indicates that its author held as
clearly as the writers of the Synoptical Gospels by the inner
connexion of the two Revelations. He then investigates the Old
Testament basis of the Johannine form of doctrine. This is the
weightiest part of his work. It contains much which it would be
difficult to put more forcibly on the differences between John and
Philo, and on the necessity of carrying those religious ideas of
John which have some apparent affinity with those of the Alexan-
drian school, back to the soil of the Old Testament revelation.
In the last division of his book he makes a special examination
of John’s way of using Old Testament scripture, the extent to
which he follows the LXX. and the Hebrew respectively, and
his general hermeneutical ideas. The volume will repay study in
these latter points, as well as in the larger questions. Its results
are strongly opposed to the favourite contentions of the Tiibingen
school.
Another volume which demands ampler notice than can be
given it here is Wendt’s Lehre Jesu.1 Dr. H. H. Wendt, formerly
of Géttingen, and now Professor of Theology in Heidelberg, is
favourably known by his Essay on the Biblical Conceptions of
Flesh and Spirit,” to the merits of which the attention of English
scholars has been called by Professor Dickson of Glasgow, in his
Baird Lecture on “St. Paul’s Use of the terms Flesh and Spirit.”
The qualities which distinguish that essay lead us to expect that
a treatise from Dr. Wendt on the great elements in our Lord’s
teaching will form a particularly important contribution to Bibli-
cal Theology. At present he publishes only the first part of his
projected work, and in this he does not approach the doctrinal
exposition. He limits himself to a discussion of the sources,
examining in four successive sections Mark’s Gospel, the λόγια of
Matthew, the first and third Gospels, and John’s Gospel. He
appends a brief discussion of the sayings of Jesus reported outside
the Gospels. Dr. Wendt is a decided advocate of the priority of
Mark. He does not recognise any necessity for supposing an
Ur-Markus distinct from our present form of the Gospel. He
gives his reasons for believing that the phenomena which are most
characteristic of the second Gospel can only be accounted for by
1 Die Lehre Jesu. Von Dr. H. H. Wendt, etc. Erster Theil: Die Evangelischen
Quellenberichte tiber die Lehre Jesu. Gottingen, 1886.
2 Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch, 1878.
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 397
the theory that the writer drew from other sources than those
embraced in the evangelical narrative as we have it now, and he
pronounces strongly in favour of the extraordinary importance of
the second Gospel, notwithstanding the fact that in a certain sense
Mark’s record is only a secondary witness to what Jesus taught.
To these volumes we may add a monograph by K. Walz! on the
Conception of Scripture to be gathered from Scripture itself—a
careful criticism of the dogmatic view of Scripture which has
prevailed in the Church; and a brief but well written essay by
Professor M. Ménégoz,? of Paris, on the Pauline doctrine of Pre-
destination—adverse to the Calvinistic theory in all its forms, both
Infralapsarian and Supralapsarian.
III. Hisroricat.—We need do no more than refer to the re-
issue of Schirer’s Manual of the History of New Testament Times.
The book has been universally recognised as one of capital im-
portance, and its republication has been long looked for. The
title * has been changed in order the better to express the character
of the treatise, and great additions have been made to the original
contents. If valuable before, the book will be greatly more
valuable now. For reasons which the author explains, the second
part is issued first; but we are given to expect the completion
soon. Weare glad to see a good English translation * proceeding
part passu with the publication of the German original.
Professor Beyschlag of Halle is bringing out a new Life of
Jesus,> of which the first part is already completed, and the second
is being rapidly issued in small divisions. The first volume is
occupied with general questions of a preliminary kind. The second
part will give the author’s construction of the history as a whole.
The volume now before us contains much that will richly reward
study, not only in the literary problems touching the origin and
1 Die Lehre der Kirche von der h. Schrift nach der Schrift selbst gepriift, etc.
von K. Walz. Leiden.
2 La Prédestination dans la Théologie Paulinienne. Par E. Ménégoz. Paris:
Fischbacher, 1885.
3 Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Von D. Emil
Schiirer, etc. Zweite neu bearbeitete Auflage des Lehrbuchs der neutestament-
lichen Zeitgeschichte. Zweiter Theil: Die inneren Zustdinde Paldstina’s und des
Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Leipzig, 1886.
4 A History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ, by Emil Schiirer,
D.D., etc. Translated by Sophia Taylor and Rev. Peter Christie. Edinburgh:
T. T. Clark.
5 Das Leben Jesu, von Willibald Beyschlag. Erster, untersuchender Theil.
Halle, 1885,
398 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE.
connexions of the Gospels, thei respective values as sources and
the like, but in such subjects as the due relations of criticism and
faith, of history and revelation, of nature and miracle, the chron-
ology of the Gospels, the self-consciousness of Jesus, His Messianic
vocation, the length of His ministry, His miracles, teaching,
passion and resurrection. Professor Beyschlag has had a life-long
preparation for this work. Many of his minor publications have
been in this direction, and he has already given us some idea of
what a Life of Jesus will mean in his hands, by his article on the
subject in Riehm’s Handworterbuch. It is premature to pronounce
upon his work in its present incompleteness. What we have,
however, excites no ordinary expectations.
Under this head we pause to mention only one book more—a
critical and historical study of John the Baptist; by H. Kohler
of Magdeburg. The volume shows general agreement with
Holzmann and Weiss on the critical questions. It regards John’s
baptism as neither purely symbolical in its intention, nor yet
quite sacramental; and deals with the question sent by the Baptist
to Jesus (Matt. xi. 3) as one prompted by impatience, not by doubt.
IV. Execeticat.—We have to report first of all, and we do so
with great satisfaction, the completion of the third edition of
Godet’s Commentary on John,* the first part of which appeared in
1881. We have also to chronicle further progress with the new
and revised issue of Meyer,? the Gospels of Mark and Luke now
appearing in the seventh edition, the Epistle to the Romans
also in the seventh edition, and the Pastoral Epistles in the fifth.
All these volumes are revised by Professor Weiss on the plan
which has been met with so much criticism in earlier parts. Dr.
W. F. Gess has completed the first part of an exposition of the
Hpistle to the Romans* in the form of Bibel-Stunden. It has a
1 Johannes der Taiifer. Kritisch-theologische Studie, von H. Kohler, Divisions-
pfarrer in Magdeburg. Halle: Niemeyer.
2 Commentaire sur Vévangile de Saint Jean. Par F. Godet, ete. Tome
deuxiéme—-Explication des chapitres ivi. Tome troisi¢éme—Explication des
chapitres viixxi. Neuchatel, 1885.
3 Meyer Dr. H. A. W., Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar tiber das Neue Testa-
ment. I, Abth. 2. Hdlfte. Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas, 7 Auflage,
neu umgearb. von Ob.-Consist.-Rath Prof. Dr. B. Weiss. Géottingen, 1885.
Do., 4 und 11 Abth. Der Brief des Paulus an die Rimer, und die Briefe Pauli
an Timotheus und Titus. Do., 1886.
4 Bibelstunden iiber den Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Rimer, Cap.
i—vili. Von Wolfgang Friedrich Gess. Basel, 1886.
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 399
special interest as being the fruit of the earnest desire of one who
has become incapacitated by bodily suffering for the discharge of
his old vocation, to do something in his retirement for the Church
of God. The book is full of good matter, expressed with some-
thing like French lucidity. Professor Paul Schmidt of Basel, has
issued a Commentary on First Thessalonians,! in which he makes a
sharp defence of the letter against the hypercritical attacks to
which it has recently been subjected. He analyses with special
keenness Steck’s attempt to prove chap. iv. 15 a quotation from
IV Esdras vy. 41, 42, and so to make out the Epistle to be post-
Pauline. He gives an appendix also of some value on the second
Epistle. Keil’s Commentary on the New Testament Books proceeds
with amazing regularity and despatch. We have now the volume
on the [pistle to the Hebrews.” The exposition exhibits the author’s
well-known method, which, though never brilliant, is always
painstaking. Some of the introductory and concluding discus-
sions deserve particular notice, especially those on the Barnabas
authorship, and on the Epistle as addressed to Jewish Christ-
ians in Jerusalem and in the Jewish land. We should also
mention the Exposition of the Apocalypse, by the late Professor
Beck of Tibingen.2 The volume is made up of academic
lectures which Beck delivered some seventeen times between the
years 1866 and 1878. It gives a general view of the whole book,
although the detailed exegesis does not go beyond the first twelve
chapters. Beck holds the Apocalypse to be the work of the
Apostle John, and to have been written after Nero’s persecution,
but before the destruction of Jerusalem. Among much that is
excellent and suggestive he promulgates some characteristic ideas
here, especially on the destiny of Jerusalem to form one day the
seat of a vast imperial-papalism. One more Commentary must
be referred to, and it is one of decided merit—Spitta’s on the
Epistles of Second Peter and Jude.t As the author indicates, the
volume is rather a historical study than a professed exegesis. The
interpretative matter, however, is excellent, while the other lines
1 Der erste Thessalonicherbrief, neu erkldrt, etc., von Prof. Paul Schmidt.
Berlin, 1885.
2 Commentar iiber den Brief an die Hebriéer. Von Carl Friedrich Keil, Dr.
und Prof. der Theologie. Leipzig, 1885.
3 Erklérung der Offenbarung Johannes, cap.i.-xii. Herausgegeben von Jul.
Lindemeyer, Gziitersloh.
4 Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas. Eine geschichtlihce
Untersuchung von Freidrich Spitta. Halle, 1883.
400 BREVIA.
of inquiry are of more than ordinary value. The distinctive
feature is the application of an extensive acquaintance with the
Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical literature of the Old Testament
to the problems presented by these New Testament Epistles.
This is a method too little practised in dealing with the
Apocalypse, as well as with Peter and Jude, and the use which
is made of it by Mr. Spitta shows how much it is capable of
yielding. The volume is a thoroughly fresh and independent
study, which deserves careful attention, apart from the particular
conclusions reached as to the relations and historical value of these
Epistles. |
5. Ὁ. F. Satmonp.
BREVIA.
Current Discussions in Theology.—(Chicago:
Revell.) This volume—the third of a series—is by the Pro-
fessors of Chicago Theological Seminary, and does them much
credit. In plan it somewhat resembles the excellent Theologischer
Jahresbericht, edited for some years by the late Dr. Piinjer of
Jena, and contains a fairly complete summary of recent biblical and
theological literature with descriptive and critical remarks. Two
sections stand out conspicuously—that on the Old Testament, by
our esteemed contributor, Prof. Ives Curtiss, which is characterized
by his accustomed sound scholarship and serious candour; and
that on Church History, by Prof. Scott, which is a highly in-
telligent piece of work, and wonderfully complete for its limits.
Less satisfactory are the sections on the New Testament and
Systematic Theology. The writer of the latter perhaps fails to
perceive the significance of the new movement in America, which
is really an attempt by Christian men of letters to reconstruct
Dogmatic Theology. The editors follow the best German examples
in giving full space to Practical Theology. We should be very
glad to see this spirited publication imitated in England.
Epiror.
THE DIDAOHE AND THE EPISTLE OF
BARNABAS.
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PRIORITY OF THE DIDACHE.
A comparison of the Epistle of Barnabas with the Teach-
ing of the Twelve Apostles, so far as relates to the Way of
Death, has been shown in the Exposrror for April last
(p. 316), to point clearly to the conclusion that Barnabas
drew, if not from the Teaching, from an original of which
it has preserved the true form. This conclusion will be
found to be confirmed by a comparison of the two docu-
ments in their entirety.
It is possible that the nucleus of the extant Teaching was
a separate document on the Two Ways, agreeing substan-
tially with its chapters i.-vi., but that several clauses of
these were not included in the first draft of the manual.
Be this as it may, I shall here simply take the so-called
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles as it stands, and examine
how far the phenomena of the Epistle can be accounted
for on the hypothesis that the writer was acquainted with
the manual or its contents.
Thus far nothing has been said of the character and
peculiarities of Barnabas. It has only been assumed that
he was a writer of passably idiomatic Greek. But we must
now take account of what is known of him, as a means
of judging what sort of use he was likely to make of his
materials.
To begin with, I will give some extracts from Dr.
Donaldson’s Apostolical Fathers, published in 1874, nine
VOL. ΠῚ. (οι DD
402 THE DIDACHE AND
years before Bryennios gave the lost Teaching again to
the world.
“Hirst (writes he), and most remarkable, are the numerous
mistakes and inaccuracies that characterize the writer’s
statements with regard to the facts of Judaism. :
He repeats frequently the same idea, most unnecessarily,
[in chap. xviii. sqg.], though this is rather like himself as
he appears in the first part. . . . He very frequently
misquotes and alters the Old Testament, jwmbles passages
together most unwarrantably, appeals to apocryphal books
using the same introductory formulas as he uses in intro-
ducing the canonical books of the Old Testament, and not
unfrequently quotes as Scripture passages that cannot now
be recognised as similar to any in our Bibles.’ As to the
date of the Epistle, he concludes “ that it must have been
written after the destruction of Jerusalem, that it could not
have been written after the close of the second century,
but that there is no certain way of fixing on any interven-
ing date as the period of its composition.”
Turning next to Mr. Cunningham’s edition of the Epistle,
in which the text and notes are by Mr. Rendall, we read
in the editor’s preliminary Dissertation, that the quotations
from the Old Testament are ‘‘ very numerous and very
inexact, as the sense is frequently given rather than the
actual words. . . . Nor does the author always care
strictly for the sense of the passage from which he quotes
words that suit his purpose. . . . We cansee from
the whole tone of the Epistle that the silence in regard
to the Holy Communion is no accidental omission, but is
in strict accordance with the general vein of his thought.
The religious life which he contemplated was hid in
the recesses of the human heart, and found no expression
in religious ordinances.’”’ Where the ancient rites “ dimly
declare the true way of salvation through Christ, they are
valuable: where no such purpose is served, the object of
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 403
the command was not served by actual performance, but
lay solely in the spiritual significance.”’
A few typical examples of his mode of dealing with the
Old Testament will suffice to illustrate these remarks.
In chap. x. he flatly repudiates the literal sense of the
prohibition of the flesh of swine, birds of prey, and fish
without scales, saying, So then there is no commandment of
God to abstain from eating, but Moses spake in the spirit.
The meaning is, ‘‘ Thou shalt not be joined unto such men
as are like to swine. . . . Thou shalt not be joined,
neither likened to such men as know not how by labour and
sweat to provide for themselves sustenance, but in their
lawlessness make prey of other men’s goods.”’!
According to chap. xi., ‘‘ Esaias saith, The Lord said
τῷ Χριστῷ μου κυρίῳ, etc.,” insteadof . . . unto mine
anointed Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 1), the proper name Κύρῳ being
corrupted into κυρίῳ.
In chap. xv. it is said twice over, that it is written in the
Decalogue, ‘‘ And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with
pure hands and pure heart.” ‘This is a case in which he
‘‘jumbles”’ things together; and not only so, but reads
his own sense into words of Scripture, and then, never
doubting its accuracy, does not hesitate to say that they
were spoken as he interprets them.
We are now in a position to discuss the relation of the
Epistle to the Teaching, with which it so closely agrees
from chap. xvill. onward, not to mention other resem-
blances which only reveal themselves when we look below
the surface.
On the authority chiefly of the Old Latin version of the
Epistle, which breaks off just before chap. xvii., it has
been maintained that the following chapters do not properly
1 This is in the style of the Midrash, which remarks on the words, “ God
seeketh that which is pursued” (Eccl. iii. 15), that He accepts for sacrifice,
not birds and beasts of prey, but the innocent and persecuted ones.
404 THE DIDACHE AND
belong to it. But as von Gebhardt and Harnack remark,
in their edition of 1878, ‘‘ Rendall authentiam horum
capitum bene defendit.’’ Something more, however, re-
mains to be said after the discovery and publication (1883)
of the Teaching ; and this matter of the disputed integrity
of the Epistle is now seen to be one of the cases in which
‘Not second thoughts are best, But first and third, which
are a better first.”
In the original Greek, chap. xvii. ends with the words,
ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως. These lead up to the μεταβῶμεν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ
ἑτέραν γνῶσιν καὶ διδαχήν, with which the following chap-
ter commences. But the Old Latin version of the Epistle
breaks off abruptly with a rendering of the former words,
Hec autem sic sunt, and at once concludes with a doxology,
which is thus introduced: Habes interim de majestate
Christi, quomodo omnia in illum et per illum facta sunt.
Cui sit honor, virtus, gloria, nunc et in seecula seeculorum.
Explicit Epistola Barnabe.
The preamble to the doxology (it should be remarked)
properly belongs to chap. xil., where the discourse of Bar-
nabas on the mystery of the serpent of brass is rounded
off with the words, ἔχεις πάλιν καὶ ἐν τούτοις τὴν δόξαν τοῦ
᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ εἰς αὐτόν, to which there is
nothing that corresponds in the Latin.
This, in its place, would have been rendered, ‘‘ Habes
iterwm”’ (not interim). Compare in the same chapter, Habes
iterum de cruce. . . . Dicit autem iterum in Moyse
Et iterum dicit im alio propheta. . . . Quid
dicit iterwm Moyses? . . . cece iterum Tesus.
Iterum dictt Esavas.
The ending in the Latin is clearly an artificial one; and
now that the Didaché has been discovered, there is no
difficulty in accounting for the premature conclusion of
this version.
Eusebius, writing on the Canon in lib. ui. 25 of his
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 405
Ecclesiastical History, names as books open to objection
or spurious, The Acts of Paul, The Shepherd, and the
Apocalypse of Peter; and then mentions in addition, The
Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the
Apostles. Suppose this pair to have been transcribed, say
in Latin, in one codex, in the order in which he names
them ; and it would not be surprising that the last chap-
ters of the Epistle should be omitted, when it was noticed
that they were merely an indifferent recension of part of
the work following, added indeed to the Epistle by its
author, but not in substance his own.
Now it so happens that we have a fragment of a Latin
version of the Didaché, which was brought to light by
von Gebhardt, and is published in an appendix to Har-
nack’s edition of the manual (1884); and further, that
this version, so far as it goes, corresponds in a remarkable
manner with the description of the Two Ways by Bar-
nabas. or it speaks of them as ways of light and dark-
ness, and adds that there are two angels, one appointed
over each; not to mention its omission of the greater
part of chap. i1., according to the text of Bryennios,
of which omitted matter, whether or not any use was
made by Barnabas, there is certainly at first sight no
‘ trace at all in his Hpistle. And this makes it a not un-
natural hypothesis, that the abbreviated letter of Barnabas
may have been followed in some manuscripts by a Doctrina
Apostolorum, like von Gebhardt’s, which commences:
‘“Viee due sunt in seculo, vitze et mortis, lucis et tene-
brarum. In his constituti sunt Angeli duo, unus equitatis
alter wiquitatis. Distantia autem magna est duarum
viarum. Via ergo vite hec est. ᾿
But in any case we may fairly say that the abbreviator
of the Epistle was acquainted with some form of the
Didaché.
To return to Barnabas, we find him introducing his Two
406 THE DIDACHE AND
Ways as follows: ‘‘ But pass we on to yet another Know-
ledge and Teaching. There are two ways of Teaching and
Authority, that of light and that of darkness. And there
is much difference between the two ways. For over the
one are set φωταγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, and over the
other ἄγγελοι τοῦ catava. And the one is Lord from
ages and unto ages; and the other Prince of this present
season of lawlessness.”’
The Knowledge which he had been previously dilating
upon was a knowledge of the mysteries of the Old Testa-
ment. From this he passes on to another Gnosis,' which is
embodied in simple rules of duty; in both cases doubtless
resting upon an authoritative teaching. This is sufficiently
evident in the matter of the Two Ways, which he calls
ways of teaching and authority (διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας).
At the end of his exposition of them, if the reading ὅσα
γέγραπται in chap. xxi. 1 be correct, he refers to the Di-
daché apparently, or to some part of it, as already written.
This point will be further considered in its place, when
chap. xix. on the way of ‘‘light’”’ has been discussed.
Chap. xix.—l The way then of light is this—whosoever,
as willing to pursue a way to the appointed place, would
be diligent in his works. The Knowledge then that ts given
us to walk therein is on this wise. 2 Thou shalt love Him
that made thee; thou shalt fear Him that formed thee;
thou shalt glorify Him that redeemed thee from death.
Thou shalt be single in heart, and rich in spirit. Thou
shalt not cleave together with them that walk in the way
of death.
A variety of designations of the two ways were current,
and Barnabas uses several of them, more or less at random.
That he should show a leaning towards the names, way
of light, and way of darkness, is in keeping with his ten-
1 Notice the thanksgivings, ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως in chaps. ix. and x. of the
Didaché.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 407
dency to mysticism. But since in this same context (not
to mention chap. xx.) he speaks of the ‘‘ way of death,”
we need not doubt that this essentially simpler designation!
was used in the tradition or writing on which his expo-
sition of the ways is founded.
As in the case of the way of death (p. 316), so here
the grammatical construction points to the Didaché as the
original from which he drew, or at least as a true copy of
it. He again interpolates in such a way as to alter the
syntax, and Apost. Const., vii. 1, after its own fashion, does
likewise, reading: ‘‘ First then is the way of life. And
it zs this, which the law also sets forth, To love (ἀγαπᾷν)
the Lord thy God, from all the heart, and from all the soul,
the One and only one, beside whom there is none other,
and thy neighbour as thyself.”
Notice its ‘first’? (πρώτη) without a second, which is
an unmeaning survival from the balanced statement of the
Didaché: ‘‘The way then of life is this. First (πρῶτον)
thou shalt love God that made thee. Secondly (δεύτερον)
thy neighbour as thyself.”
Barnabas omits the latter precept, and he expands the
former by working into it, in his discursive way, sundry
expressions suggested by his description of the way of
death. ‘Thou shalt fear Him that formed thee,” springs
out of its, οὐκ εἰς φόβον Oeod . . . φθορεῖς πλάσματος
θεοῦ, and, ‘‘ Be single in heart,” out of its διπλοκαρδία,
etc. He lets us know that he is mixing up the two ways
1 What does he mean precisely by the way “οἱ light?’ He combines the
image of a path leading ἐπὶ τὸν ὡρισμένον τόπον with that of ‘ walking in the
light,” and he superadds angelic guides. But if angels are wanted to bring
light to a path, or to bring those who walk in it to the light, what becomes of
it as in itself the ‘way of light?’’ These φωταγωγοί have no proper oppo-
sites in Barnabas; nor yet in Didymus, who writes τοὺς μὲν ἁγίους dwraywyol
φυλάττουσιν ἄγγελοι τοὺς δὲ φαύλους σκοτεινοί (Joan. Damasc., Op., tom. 11. 309,
ed. Lequien, 1712). In Barnabas, Epist. xx., the way of darkness becomes the
way of the Black One. Angels or no angels, the figure of a way ‘of light”’ or
“of darkness”’ is complex, and cannot haye been primary.
408 THE DIDACHE AND
by his express reference by anticipation to the way of
death.
2 Thou shalt hate all that is not pleasing to God, thou
shalt hate all hypocrisy, thow shalt not Pe the com-
mandments of the Lord.
The Teaching adds, But shalt keep what thou didst receive,
neither adding nor taking away, and places the whole
near the end of chap. iv. Whereas Barnabas separates,
Thou shalt not forsake, etc. from Thou shalt keep, etc., and
places the one in chap. xix. 2, and the other in xix. 11.
This ‘‘ remarkable dislocation,’ when once explained, is
convincing testimony to the priority of the Teaching. Its
explanation requires the reading, εἰς τέλος μισήσεις TO πονη-
pov, in chap. xix. 11, instead of the els τέλος μισήσεις τὸν
πονηρόν, Which has so exercised the commentators.
This reading was first arrived at by way of conjectural
emendation, as follows. The precepts, Thow shalt hate all
hypocrisy ; Thou shalt hate all that is not pleasing to God ;
taken in connexion with the phrase, Not cleaving to that
which is good (from the Way of Death), bring to mind the
verse Rom. ΧΙ]. 9: ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος" ἀποστυγοῦντες TO
πονηρόν, κολλώμενοι τῷ ἀγωθῷ, the second clause of which
suggested to me the reading τὸ πονηρόν in chap. xix. of the
Epistle of Barnabas.
The whole saying comes in most appropriately as part of
the peroration to the Way of Life. But it falls in with the
plan of Barnabas to introduce it almost at the beginning.
He altogether omits the saying, Thou shalt love thy neigh-
bour as thyself, and only introduces this topic in § 5. He
writes: Thow shalt love Him that made thee; and then as
soon as he has finished his digression springing out of the
“way of death” and ending, οὐ κολληθήσῃ μετὰ πορευο-
μένων ἐν ὁδῷ Oavatov—he adds, Thou shalt hate all that
ts not pleasing to God, etc. That is to say, he makes this
follow as nearly as may be on the command to love God.
THE HPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 409
The connexion is a not unnatural one. But when he
comes to the end of the ‘way of light,’ he is conscious
that the saying, μισήσεις x.7.r., is wanted again in the
peroration. According he repeats it, in the abbreviated
form, εἰς τέλος μισήσεις TO πονηρόν, and not only so, but he
prefixes to it a fragment of its proper context in the
Didaché, φυλάξεις ἃ παρέλαβες μήτε προσθεὶς μήτε ἀφαιρῶν.
For further confirmation of this hypothesis, see below
on the penultimate section of the chapter.
3 Thow shalt not exalt thyself (but shalt be lowly-
minded in all things. Thow shalt not take glory to thyself.)
Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not allow insolence to thy soul.
“Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbour,”
is a good example of a saying thrust in out of its proper
place. By the words in brackets he further exemplifies his
tendency to reduplicate. For a simple case of this, see in
chap. xx., “‘ Far and at a distance from whom are meek-
ness and patience,” where he expands the ὧν μακράν of
the Didaché, into ὧν μακρὰν καὶ πόρρω.
4. Thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not
commit adultery, thow shalt not corrupt youths. The word
of God shall not go forth from thee among any that are
unclean. Thou shalt not have respect of persons in re-
buking any for a transgression. Thow shalt be meek, thow
shalt be peaceable, thou shalt stand in awe of the words
which thou hast heard. Thow shalt not bear malice against
thy brother.
The commandment, Thow shalé not murder, is omitted
or taken for granted.
Those which next follow are not only stated in simple
terms in this chapter, but are made to be the true and
only meaning of certain prohibitions of unclean meats, on
which he discourses in the manner of the Midrash in
chap. x. The word corrupt-youths (παιδοφθορήσεις) is of
410 THE DIDACHE AND
rare occurrence, and is found first in the Didaché or the
Epistle, whichever be the earlier.
In the above-mentioned chapter he explains, Thou shalt
not eat of the hare, to mean, ‘Thou shalt not become a
corrupter of youths (παιδοφθόρος). And he continues,
“Neither shalt thou eat at all of the hyena, thou shalt
not (saith he) become an adulterer or corrupter.”” Herein
he exemplifies his tendency to repeat, and to spiritualise.
He will not allow that there is any literal meaning at all
in the command not to eat of this or that.
We next come to the saying, which has occasioned some
difficulty, od μή σου ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξέλθῃ ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ
τινῶν. With this compare in chap. x.: ‘“‘ Moreover he hath
rightly abominated the weasel. Thou shalt not (saith he)
become such as those of whom we hear that they prac-
tise lawlessness with their mouth for uncleanness sake
(δι᾿ ἀκαθαρσίαν). . . . For this animal conceives with the
mouth.” Is there anything in the Didaché out of which
he may have evolved the saying, οὐ μή σου ὁ λόγος k.T.r., by
this method ?
The saying at once recalls the familiar text (Matt. vii. 6)
on not casting pearls before swine, etc., a clause of which
is thus introduced in the Didaché: “ But let none eat or
drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized
in the name of the Lord.! For concerning this the Lord
hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs’”’ (chap. ix.).
On this Barnabas would have said: ‘‘ So then there is no
commandment of God with respect to eating, but the Lord
spake in the spirit.”” ‘‘ Man shall not live by bread alone.”
What it is commanded not to impart to the unclean is the
Divine word.
1 The uncircumcised might not eat of the Passover (Exod. xii. 48). These
are joined with the unclean in Isaiah 111. 1. As for such as thought that there
ever was anything in actual circumcision, Barnabas is of opinion that ‘‘a
wicked angel beguiled them ”’ (chap. ix. 4).
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 411
If he had had in mind the saying, But let none eat of
your Eucharist, etc., we may safely say that he would have
spiritualised it into something like, οὐ μή σου ὁ λόγος K.T.X.
It has been noticed above that he deliberately avoids all
direct mention of the Eucharist.
5 Thou shalt not be of doubtful mind whether a thing shall
be or not. Thow shalt not take the name of the Lord in
vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbour above thy life. Thou
shalt not siay a child by abortion, nor again shalt thow put
to death one that is born. Thou shalt not withhold thine
~ hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from youth up
thou shalt teach them the fear of God.
He quotes the Third Commandment as the equivalent
of, Thou shalt not forswear thyself.
His saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour above thy life,
brings out two of his characteristics. He exaggerates, and
he repeats anything that makes an impression upon him.
The Teaching says: ‘‘ Thou shalt hate no man; but some
thou shalt rebuke, and for some thou shalt pray, and some
thou shalt love above thy life.’’ It is in the style of a writer
who describes those whom the Lord chose for His own
apostles as the most abandoned of sinners, ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν
ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους (chap. v.), that he should here throw
aside all limitations, and say generally, Thow shalt love thy
neighbour above thy life. Consistently with this, he does
not condescend to write in its place, after, Love God,
“and thy neighbour as thyself,’ which must have been
included in any manual or ordered scheme of instruction.
He prefers his more rhetorical form of words. And he
writes in chap.i., “1 am utterly constrained to love you
above my life’; and in chap. iv., ‘‘ Furthermore, I beg of
you this also, as being one of your own selves, and loving
you all severally above my life.”
6 Thou shalt not become a luster after the things of thy
~ neighbour. Thou shalt not become one that grasps at gain.
412 THE DIDACHE AND
Neither shalt thow be joined of thy soul’s desire with the
lofty, but with lowly and just men shalt thou converse. The
visitations that befall thee thou shalt accept as good, knowing
that without God nothing comes to pass.
Notice his use of γένῃ, become, to which I shall have
occasion to recur.
It has been pointed out by Professor Thomas 5. Potwin,
in the New York Independent (Jan. 21, 1886), that Origen
(according to the Latin) quotes this saying as Scripture,
thus: ‘ Propterea docet nos Scriptura divina, omnia que
accidunt nobis tanquam a Deo illata suscipere, scientes
quod sine Deo nihil fit.”
It is assumed that Origen’s quotation is from the Teach-
ing; but it may be from Barnabas, who is referred to by
name in the same chapter (De Princip., lib. III. 2).
It is worth while to add in illustration of the saying as
it stands in the Teaching, that a man is said, in the last
chapter of the Mishnah on Berakhoth, to be bound to say a
benediction over what is evil, or calamitous, just as he does
over what is good,
Won oy J. Aw ows Ayo by ΤΊΞ ΕΝ ὙΠ
7 Thou shalt not be double minded, neither double tongued ;
for to be double tongued is a snare of death. Thou shalt
order thyself lowly to masters, as to an image of God, im
shamefastness and fear. Thou shalt not give commandment
to thy bondman or thy maidservant, that hope on the same
God, in litterness, lest they fear not Him that is God over
you both. For He came not to call with respect of persons,
but to them whom the Spirit did prepare io for whom He
prepared the Spirit).
Here the reading, as assumed above, is: . . . οὐδὲ
δίγλωσσος" παγὶς yap θανάτου ἐστιν ἡ διγχωσσία.
Von Gebhardt, in his text of 1878, reads briefly,
οὐδὲ γλωσσώδης. But Harnack, taking into account the
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 419
then unknown Didaché, writes in his commentary upon it
(Prolegom., p. 87), with reference to the text of the Epistle :—
‘Der Text, wie ihn von Gebhardt constituirt hat, erweist
sich als vortrefflich; nur ist c. 19, 7 mit G und Aidayn
(gegen NC), παγὶς yap θανάτου ἐστιν ἡ διγχωσσία, vielleicht
zu halten.”’
Barnabas, in the next paragraph, shows his tendency to
repeat things (to some extent even with the reading of
von Gebhardt), by saying, οὐκ ἔσῃ πρόγλωσσος: παγὶς yap
τὸ στόμα θανάτου.
The clause, For He came not, etc., is not quite free from
ambiguity. Barnabas reads ἦλθεν, instead of ἔρχεται.
Does the one refer to our Lord (Matt. ix. 18), and the
other to such passages as, I will come unto thee, etc. (Exod.
xx. 24)? Compare John xiv. 23.
8 Thou shalt give a share in all things to thy neighbour,
and shalt not say that they are thine own; for 10 ye are
sharers in that which is imperishable, how much more in
the things that are perishable. Thow shalt not be forward
tongued ; for the mouth is a snare of death. So far as thou
art able, thou shalt be pure for thy soul’s sake.
He writes, κοινωνήσεις ἐν πᾶσι τῷ πλησίον σου, instead of
συγκ. πάντα τῷ ἀδελφῶ σου, Which has the appearance of
priority. His construction is that of Gal. vi. 6, where the
command is to ‘‘ communicate unto him that teacheth.”’
The phrase ὅσον δύνασαι, in ὅσον δύνασαι ὑπὲρ THs ψυχῆς
σου ἁγνεύσεις, is quite characteristic of the Didaché, which
teaches: ‘‘ For if indeed thou art able! to bear the whole
yoke of the Lord, thou shalt be perfect. But if thou art
not able, what thou art able, do. And concerning food,
what thou art able, bear. But beware exceedingly of what
is sacrificed to idols, for it is a service of dead gods.”
It cannot be maintained that such teaching, the equivalent
of Acts xv. 28, 29, was suggested by the Epistle. On the
1 εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν κιτ.λ. (Rom. xii. 18).
414 THE DIDACHE AND
other hand, knowing how Barnabas is accustomed to deal
with precepts ‘‘ concerning food,” we can see in it the basis
of his ὅσον δύνασαι κιτιλ. The moderation of this phrase,
naturally interpreted, is quite foreign to his style; but he
may intend it to be taken in the sense, “ΤῸ the uttermost
of thy powers, etc,” ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἐστὶν ἐν july . . . ἀγωνι-
ζώμεθα (chap. v. 11). Compare his exaggeration of the
precept, to love some above one’s life.
9 Become not one that stretches out the hands to receive,
but draws them in when he should give. Thow shalt love
as the apple of thine eye every one that speaketh to thee the
word of the Lord.
Here the Teaching reads: “ My child, him that speaketh
to thee the word of the Lord thou shalt remember night
and day, and thou shalt honour him as the Lord, ὅθεν yap
ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν.
The presumption is entirely in favour of the originality
of this unique saying. The substitute for it in the Hpistle
is commonplace, the phrase ὡς κόρην x.t.r. being such as
any person acquainted with the Old Testament might use
to adorn his discourse. ;
The key to the transformation is the word πάντα, every
one, interpolated by Barnabas. His individualism revolts at
the ascription of high honour to a teacher ez officio; and he
will only admit that any person whatsoever who has the gift
of teaching is to be loved. ‘‘I, then (writes he in chap. 1.),
not as a teacher, but as one of yourselves, will show forth
a few things.” ‘‘ Wishing to write many things, not as
a teacher, but as beseemeth one that loveth, I, your off-
scouring, etc.’’ (chap. iv.). He will not recognise the
Christian prophets as an order, but speaks of ‘‘ Himself
prophesying ὧν us’ (chap. xvi.). The Teaching is for the
“child”; the Epistle for the ἀνὴρ τέλειος. “ Be your own
lawgivers, your own counsellors. . . . Be ye taught of
God” (chap. xxi.)
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 415
Given now, as we have seen (p. 408), that when he has
a bias in favour of a reading κυρίῳ he can see this in the
proper name Κύρῳ, conversely when it is against his prin-
ciples to write ὡς κύριον, what can he do better than (so
to say) change the pointing, more rabbinico, and write ὡς
κόρην Ὁ
10 Thow shalt remember the day of judgment night and
day, and shalt seek out day by day the faces of the saints ;
either by word going on toiling to exhort, and meditating for
to save a soul by the word ; or by thy hands thou shalt work
for ransom of thy sins.
The variation, Remember, not thy teacher, but the day
of judgment, night and day, follows naturally upon his pre-
vious improvements of the Teaching, of which he betrays
a knowledge in its true form in chap. xxi., where he
writes: ‘And be ye taught of God, seeking out what the
Lord seeks of you, and make that ye be found in the day
of judgment. And if there is any remembrance of good,
remember me as ye meditate on these things, that your desire
and watchfulness may turn unto somewhat good.”
His ἀγρυπνία εἴς τε ἀγαθόν is clearly a reminiscence of
ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς TO ἀγαθόν, in chap. v. of the Teaching
(for which he writes, in chap. xx. 2, . . . dyp. οὐκ εἰς φόβον
θεοῦ), and the other words in italics prove that he is think-
ing of the passage which we are discussing, and that he
knows it as it stands in the Teaching ; for he now says,
Remember, not the day of judgment, but me that speak
unto you the word of the Lord.
The remainder of chap xix. 10 springs out of the two
sayings of the Teaching, which he runs together:
(1) “Thou shalt seek out day by day the faces of the
saints, that thou mayest rest thee on their words, ἐπανα-
Tans (sic) τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν.
(2) “Τὶ thou have in thine hands, thou shalt give in
ransom for thy sins.”
416 THE DIDACHE AND
First consider (2), of which the Greek is:
ἐὰν ἔχῃς διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου, δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν
σου.
Write this, with a transposition :
ἐὰν Sut τῶν χειρῶν σου ἔχῃς δώσ- -εἰς [or, as in Apost.
Const., δὸς εἰς] «.T.r.
It is a light thing for Barnabas to transform ἔχῃς δώσ
[or δός] into ἐργάσῃ, and he can do it without doing
violence to the sense; for whereas the original means,
‘‘ Gwe alms for ransom of thy sins,” his saying would mean,
‘* Harn—labour with thy hands, that thou mayest have to
give (Eph. iv. 28)—for ransom of thy 51η5. Two verbs
having been made into one, the syntax requires ἐών to be
changed into 7. This he does, and he gives as an alterna-
tive to a somewhat unspiritual precept: ἢ διὰ λόγου κοπιῶν
Kal πορευόμενος εἰς TO παρακάλεσαι καὶ μελετῶν Els TO σῶσαι
ψυχὴν τῷ λόγῳ, ON which von Gebhardt and Harnack
aptly refer to James v. 19, 20.
Notice that the word λόγος is a connecting link between
this and the saying (1); and further, that he uses the
rather uncommon compound, ἐπαναπαυόμενοι (Rom. ii. 17)
towards the end of his fourth chapter, where it is not
strictly appropriate. —
Thus far all is intelligible. By saving souls, and by
giving alms of the labours of his hands, the man may hope
to ‘hide a multitude of sins.” All difficulty would now
be removed by reading, ‘“‘ Thou shalt seek out day by day
the faces of publicans and sinners,” to exhort and to save
souls by the word. But the reading is saints, not simmers ;
and the catechumen, or person under instruction, is directed
in the Didaché to frequent the company of the saints, that
by their godly counsel he may be kept in the right way.
11 Thou shalt not doubt whether to give, neither shalt
thow grudge when thou givest; but thow shalt know who is
the good recompenser of the reward. Thou shalt keep what
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 417
thou didst receive, neither adding nor taking away. Thou
shalt altogether hate evil. Thou shalt judge righteously.
The saying, εἰς τέλος μισήσεις TO πονηρόν, preceded by
φυλάξεις ἃ παρέλαβες «.7.r., has been explained as one of
the repetitions which are so frequent in the Hpistle. It fits
here into the place of a longer saying of the Didaché, which
Barnabas has already given near the beginning of the
chapter (p. 408). :
The reading τὸ πονηρόν is now confirmed by the Bryen-
nios manuscript, which also gives significance to the fact
that δὲ reads simply πονηρόν, with neither τό nor τόν.
Thus there is no preponderance of documentary evidence
for the reading tov πονηρόν. Neither does this so well
agree with the usage of Barnabas elsewhere. Compare
in chap. iv., φύγωμεν οὖν τελείως ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων
τῆς ἀνομίας , . . καὶ μισήσωμεν τὴν πλανὴν τοῦ νῦν
καιροῦ, and again, φύγωμεν ἀπὸ πάσης ματαιότητος, μισήσω-
μεν τελείως τὰ ἔργα τῆς πονηρᾶς ὁδοῦ.
Notice also in the Way of Death, μισοῦντες ἀλήθειαν...
ἀγρυπνοῦντες . . . εἰς TO πονηρόν.
Considering further how aptly the saying, Thou shalt
altogether hate evil, comes in as part of the peroration to
the Way of Life, we need not hesitate to accept a reading
which, while defensible on documentary grounds, is dis-
tinctly preferable on all others.
It is worth noting that the Coptic ‘‘ Church Order ”’ has
the saying, ‘“‘ Flee from all evil, and hate all evil;” for it
is a document which borrows from Barnabas, as when it
writes, Be ye lawgivers to your own selves ; be ye teachers to
yourselves alone, as God hath taught you.
12 Thou shalt not cause division, but shalt reconcile and
set at peace them that are at strife. Thou shalt not come to
prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light.
The Didaché enjoins confession of sins ‘‘in the congre-
gation,’ while Barnabas writes simply, ἐξομολογήσῃ, in
VOL, III. EE
418 THE DIDACHE AND
accordance with Matt. ii. 6. The word itself implying
open confession, no great stress need be laid on the addition
or omission of ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, but it is perhaps under the
influence of an unconscious reminiscence of the Didaché,
that Barnabas in chap. vi. quotes, as from some Psalm,
but not quite exactly, ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ K.T.X.
Compare Levit. v. 5, 6, and chap. xiv. of the Didaché.
To omit ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, because it seemed to limit the duty
of confession, would have been entirely characteristic of
Barnabas.
We thus see that everything in the ‘‘ way of light’’ may
be explained as a working up of the ‘way of life,” in
accordance with the known characteristics of Barnabas.
There are some things in the latter of which we have as
yet found no trace in the Epistle ; but it will be considered
in due course, whether he does not show signs of an ac-
quaintance with these also.
His ‘‘ way of the Black One,” has been shown (p. 316) to
be a later recension of something identical in form with
the ‘‘ way of death’ according to the Didaché.
The next point to be considered is, whether he was
acquainted with a written form of the Two Ways, if not
of the Teaching as a whole.
The Way of Light was introduced with the words, ἐστὸν
οὗν ἡ δοθεῖσα ἡμῖν γνῶσις τοῦ περιπατεῖν ἐν αὐτῇ τοιαύτη.
At the end of the Two Ways he writes: καλὸν οὖν ἐστὶν
μαθόντα Ta δικαιώματα κυρίου, boa προγεγρωπται (9), ἐν τούτοις
περιπατεῖν ( chap. ΧΧΙ.).
The δικαιώματα κυρίου would primarily be sought in the
Old Testament; but the phrase covers also the ἐντολαὶ τῆς
διδαχῆς, which he joins in chap. xvi. 9 with the σοφία τῶν
δικαιωμάτων. Notice that the Didaché consists of ἐντολαί,
and compare his ὁδοὶ διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας in chap. xvill., and
this with 68. τῆς διδωχῆς in the Didaché (chap. vi).
The impression that in chap. xxi. he is looking back upon
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 419
_the precepts of the Two Ways, is confirmed by the chapter
taken as a whole, which shows that these are still in and
uppermost in his thoughts; as might have been expected,
seeing that they immediately precede.
The following words and phrases of chap. xxi. are plain
proof of this: διὰ τοῦτο ἀνάστασις, διὰ τοῦτο ἀνταπόδομα
y ν᾽ e - > ἃ ᾽ ͵, Ν \ \
ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν εἰς ovs ἐργάσησθε: TO καλὸν μὴ
ἐγκαταλείπητε . . . ἄρατε ἐξ ὑμῶν πᾶσαν ὑπόκρισιν
ἐκζητοῦντες . . . ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσξεως . . . μνημονεύετέ
᾿ς μου μελετῶντες ταῦτα. . . ἀγρυπνία εἴς τι ἀγαθόν
ἐκζητεῖτε . . . σώζεσθε ἀγάπης τέκνα κ.τ.λ.
The Way of Death ends with, Be ye delivered, children,
from all these. Barnabas, in view of the speedy termination
of his Epistle, omits this in its place, and writes at the
end, σώζεσθε τέκνα κ.τ.λ.
It would not be doubted that he includes the teaching of
the Two Ways under his δικαιώματα κυρίου, but for the read-
ing ὅσα γεγράπται, which the latest editors adopt, instead
of ὅσα προγεγράπται. How does this really affect the matter ?
The strong presumption that he is referring to the
Two Ways remaining as before, we must suppose him (un-
less γεγράπται means προγέγρώπται) to include a written
Διδαχή under his ὅσα γέγραπται. If this means that he
classed it in a sense with Holy Scripture, he thereby pre-
pares the way for Clement of Alexandria, who distinctly
quotes one of its sayings as such; not to mention that
Origen quotes a saying common to the Teaching and the
_ Epistle as Scriptura divina (p. 412).
If by his ὅσον δύνασαι x.7.r. and his οὐ μή σου ὁ λόγος
κοτίλ., or either of them, he allegorizes a saying or sayings
of the Teaching (pp. 410, 418), this of itself is to treat it as
he does the Old Testament, and to rank it with Scripture ;
for he must simply have rejected sayings which he utterly
repudiates in their literal sense, if he had not placed them
on a level with Scriptura divina.
420 THE DIDACHE AND
Noticing by the way that his διὰ τοῦτο ἀνάστασις (im-
plying a partial resurrection) may have sprung out of the
ἀνάστασις ἀλλ᾽ ov πάντων of the Didaché, I pass on to con-
sider whether the two apparent gaps in his citations from
chaps. i.—vi. of the manual as we have it can be supplied.
(1) He seems to cite only the beginning of chap. 1., and
to make no use of the probably later additions to it, ont
Bless them that curse you, to the end.
(2) Nothing is (so to say) so original in the Two Ways
as the series of sayings commencing, My child, in chap. ili.
Can he have been unacquainted with these ?
(i.) The most remarkable saying in chap. 1. is, ἱδρωτάτω ἡ
ἐλεημοσύνη σου εἰς Tas χεῖράς gov. In my Two Lectures on
the ΖΔιδαχή I have interpreted this as meaning, Give alms of
thy toil and sweat. Any homily or scheme of instruction on
almsgiving would be incomplete without some such precept.
Compare Acts xx. 35 and Eph. iv. 28. The precept ἱδρω-
TaTw K.T.A. 15 quoted in substance in the Shepherd of Hermas
and in the Apostolical Constitutions, but without the expres-
sion “sweat,” for toul. Barnabas, in chap. xix. 10, combines
the two precepts, Labour to have to give, and Give for
ransom of thy sins, writing, ἢ διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου ἐργάσῃ
εἰς λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σου, and in chap. ΧΧΙ. 2 he writes,
Have with you those, eis ods ἐργάσησθε, saying in effect,
ἱδρωτάτω «.T.r., though not using the word sweat in this
connexion. But whereas the Teaching inculcates the
duty of working for one’s living in the words, ἐργαζέσθω
καὶ φαγέτω (chap. xil.), in this sense he uses the expression
‘toil and sweat’’ (p. 403). Thus, ike the Teaching, he says,
Labour to live, and Labour to give ; and he uses the same
two expressions for “‘ labour,’’ but transposes them.
As the precept ἱδρωτάτω x.7.d. is preceded in the Teaching
by παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντί ce δίδου, so in the Epistle (chap. xix.
11) there is a reading: ‘Thou shalt not doubt (διστάσεις)
whether to give, neither shalt thou grudge when thou givest.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 421
To every one that asketh of thee give.’ This (it should be
remarked) is in close agreement with the words of Hermas
in Mand. 2, . . . μὴ διστάζων tive δῷς ἢ Tie μὴ δῷς
πᾶσι δίδου.
Mr. Rendall, on Barnabas, writes (1877): ‘On the
whole, I incline to retain the words (To every one, etc.).
Whether they should be regarded as an accidental coin-
cidence, or as a quotation from Luke vi. 30, or as an adap-
tation of Matt. v. 42, or as derived from some written or
oral source independent of either Gospel, may be left un-
decided.”
The Bryennios text must now be added to the authorities
for the omission of the words. But his text of the Didaché
is a witness on the other side. The authorities are divided
very much as in the case noticed under chap. xix. 7 (p. 413).
If Barnabas really quotes the contrasted sayings on alms-
giving, Give to every one, etc., and Let thine alms sweat,
etc.; and if, as is quite possible, these were added only at
the final redaction of the Teaching ; the presumption is that
he was acquainted with the whole of it. If, on the con-
trary, he did not quote both or either of them, then it is
only not proven that he knew the Teaching in its latest
and fullest form.
(11.) The most characteristic section in the first part of
the Teaching is the series of sayings on the Commandments
(from the Sixth onward), commencing, My child, flee from
all evil, and from all that is like to it. Become not (μὴ γίνου)
trascible, etc. To this belongs, My child, him that speaketh
unto thee the word of the Lord... thow shalt honour as
the Lord. It springs out of the Fifth Commandment (as
Apost. Const., vii. 9, indicates, by adding οὐχ ὡς γενέσεως
αἴτιον); and the Fifth takes the place of the last in the
second table, as in Matt. xix., Thow shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thow shalt not steal, Thow shalt
not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
422 THE DIDACHE AND
If these sayings form a connected series, and if, as has
been shown, Barnabas knew the last of them, it seems to
follow that he knew the whole series. It was not to be
expected that a writer of his spiritualising turn of mind
would draw the line between evil tendencies and actual
transgressions, as the Teaching does; but he gives us
further reason to think that he was acquainted with its
third chapter when he writes (chap. iv.), ‘‘ Flee we then
completely from all the works of lawlessness. . . . Flee
we from all vanity: let us hate completely the works of
the evil way’; and when in chaps. iv. and x. he reiterates
the caution not to be made like, not even like, to sinners.
Neither is it without significance that he writes, ‘‘ Thou
shalt not become one that lusts after (instead of οὐκ ἐπιθυ-
μήσεις) the things that are thy neighbour’s” (p. 412), the
repeated μὴ γίνου being characteristic of chap. ili. of the
Teaching.
The citations (if such they be) of Barnabas from the
Teaching have now been shown to range over the whole of
chaps. i.vi.; and it remains to compare his Epistle with
the second part of the Teaching, chaps. vil.-xvi.
In his fourth chapter, in which we have found allusions
to the “evil way,” and to chap. 111. of the Teaching, there
is also a well-known passage agreeing with its chap. xvi. on
the last things: ‘‘ Wherefore take we heed in the last days ;
for the whole time of your (life and) faith shall profit you
nothing, except now in the lawless season, and in the
coming offences, as becometh sons of God ye withstand,”
etc. If here the Epistle quotes the Teaching, and not vice
versa, this raises more or less of a presumption that Bar-
nabas knew the whole of it. It may be held to be a
sufficient refutation of this to say that he does not quote
at all from chaps. vii._xv. But, on the other hand, (1) these
are chiefly made up of ordinances relating to the Sacraments
and the Ministry of the Church, which we know that he
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 423
would have passed over in his Epistle if he had them before
him, and (2) he does take up and illustrate the leading ideas
of the second part of the Teaching, and explains those very
sayings in it which have troubled all the commentators, and
which some have thought it necessary to emend.
THE 4idayy7. CHAPTERS VII.-XVI.
Chap. vil. On Baptism. There is nothing in this chapter
that Barnabas would have cited. He has a good deal to
say in a mystic way about baptism, but would not have
dwelt on distinctions between warm and cold water, and
the like.
Chap. villi. He does in effect say, ‘‘ Let not your fasts
be with the hypocrites” (chap. 11.}; but it was certain,
a priort, that he would not write, ‘‘Be careful to fast
every Wednesday and Friday.’’ Neither is there any reason
to think that he would have quoted the complete Lord’s
Prayer, or any other.
Chaps. ix.,x. The Eucharist. We have seen that he
deliberately avoids all mention of the Eucharist, and it was
not to be expected that he would quote forms of prayer
or thanksgiving as such. But there are reasons to think
that he may have been acquainted with both of these
chapters. If he was familiar with the thanksgivings ὑπὲρ
τῆς ζωῆς Kal γνώσεως ἧς ἐγνώρισας, and ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ
πίστεως, this would account for his reading, τῆς ζωῆς καὶ
τῆς πίστεως (instead of τῆς πίστεως), in chap. iv. 9 (p. 422),
and for his use of all those words in chap. 1. 5-7.
Chap. ix. On the saying οὐ μή σου ὁ λόγος K.T.X., See p.
410.
Chap. x. Nothing is more characteristic of Barnabas
than his doctrine that the individual heart is the true
spiritual temple. ‘‘ The one central temple is wholly done
away; the term is preserved only metaphorically ; each
man’s heart became a temple’ (Rendall). This, it may be
424, THE DIDACHE AND
said, is the idea of Eph. iii. 17, κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ
τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, but something more is
wanted to account for his way of putting it; and that is
found only in one of the forms of thanksgiving in the
Didaché.
According to chap. xvi. of the Epistle, ‘It is written,
And it shall be when the week is ending, the temple of God
shall be built gloriously wpon the Name of the Lord. 1 find,
then, that there is a temple. How then it shall be built
upon the Name of the Lord, learn ye. Before that we
believed in God, the habitation of the heart was corrupt
and sickly, a temple truly built with hands: because it was
full of idolatry, and was a house of devils, in that we did
all things contrary unto God. But ἐέ shall be built upon
the Name of the Lord. How? Learn ye. Having received
the remission of sins, and having hoped upon the Name
of the Lord, we became new, being created again from the
beginning ; wherefore in that habitation of ours God truly
dwelleth within us.”’
No one can say in what Scripture this building of the
temple is predicted. Barnabas has been speaking of the
Creation week (chap. xv.), of which he makes each day to
be a thousand years; and he may therefore have evolved
his τῆς ἑβδομάδος συντελουμένης from the συνετέλεσεν of
Gen. ii. 2. In any case it is more than possible that his
Scripture never existed quite as he quotes it, except in his
quotation ; for he makes bold to give even the command
to “sanctify the sabbath,” with his own addition, χερσὶν
καθαραῖς καὶ καρδίᾳ καθαρᾷ. This (as I have said) he does
twice over; and in the second case (chap. xv. 6) ‘ actually
proceeds to build an argument on words which are an
arbitrary addition of his own to the Mosaic enactment”
(Rendall).
1 Compare the θυσία καθαρά appointed for the service of the Lord’s Day, in
chap. xiv. of the Teaching.
THE HPISTLHE OF BARNABAS. 425
A text for his discourse in the passage under discussion
is supplied by chap. x. of the Teaching : ‘‘ We give thanks
to Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy Name which Thou hast
made to dwell in owr hearts.’ The heart is the }3W! or
σκήνωμα (Ps. lxxiv. 7) of the Name; a true ναός or spiritual
temple. But this form of expression is too pronounced
a Hebraism for Barnabas. Accordingly he prefers to say
that ‘‘God”’ dwells in the heart. But he adds and re-
iterates that this temple of the HEART is built upon the
Name of the Lord.
Chaps. xi.-xv. On the Christian Ministry. The indi-
vidualism of Barnabas shows itself in relation to the minis-
try. He feels with Moses: “‘ Would God that all the
Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put
His spirit upon them.’’ Every true Christian should be
a προφήτης or πνευματικός (1 Cor. xiv. 87). ‘‘ Become we
spiritual: become we a perfect temple to God”’ (chap. iv.
11). . . . αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν προφητεύων (chap. xvi. 9). Accord-
ingly he has nothing to say about orders of prophets, and
the like, under the new dispensation. But he has one
point of contact with this section in ‘‘ the prophets of old
time,” οἱ ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται, and he gives an illustration
which shows what is meant by the saying on the “‘ cosmic
mystery.”
The Teaching lays down that a Christian prophet is not
to be judged of men, if he does something, εἰς μυστήριον
ἐκκλησίας, which it is not lawful to do in a private
way and without such reference, for even so likewise did
the prophets of the former dispensation. They did such
things, εἰς μυστήριον Χριστοῦ, as another writer puts it.
But let Barnabas speak for himself.
(1) He says generally that the words and acts of the
prophets had reference to Jesus :
οἱ προφῆται, ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες τὴν χάριν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπροφή-
tevoay (chap. v. 6).
425 THE DIDACHE AND
ἔχεις πάλιν καὶ ἐν τούτοις THY δόξαν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ
πάντα καὶ εἰς αὐτόν (chap. xii. 7).
(2) The latter passage, ἔχεις πάλιν x.7T.r., refers to the
brazen serpent, which Moses made, in defiance of his own
prohibition of images, “that he might show a type of
Jesus,” ἵνα τύπον τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ δείξη. He did something which
he expressly taught others not to do; and his justification
was that he did it εἰς μυστήριον.
This special illustration might be taken to sanction the
use of art and symbolism in religious teaching. But the
principle that “all things were εἰς αὐτόν᾽᾽ is, of course, of
wider application. It was in fact used generally to explain
anomalies in what the ancient ‘“‘prophets’’ taught by word
or deed.
Chap. xvi. On the last things. Difficulties have been
found in two expressions in this chapter. Barnabas ex-
plains both of them.
(1) *‘ Then shall mankind come into the furnace of trial,
and many shall be offended and perish; but they that
endure in their faith shall be saved by the very curse.”
He gives several illustrations of this; but I will notice
only one, which itself was felt to be a difficulty before the
discovery of the Didaché.
Speaking of the red heifer (Num. xix.) he says :—
** But wherefore the wool withal and the hyssop? LBe-
cause . . . he that is sick in the flesh is healed by the
pollution (ῥύπου) of the hyssop ᾿᾿ (chap. viii.).
On-this Mr. Rendall writes: “ῥύπου presents great diffi-
culties. No good emendation to the passage has been pro-
posed.”
The same word ῥῦπος, in chap. xi. 11, means the defile-
ment of sin, which is removed by baptism. That corrup-
tion should be the means of healing is a case of the paradox
of Salvation by the Curse. A volume might be filled with
illustrations of this. The Didaché explains itself by say-
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 427
ing, in chap. il., that visitations (ἐνεργήματα) which are
prima facie evil are to be accepted as good. To them that
continue in faith, ‘All things work together εἰς aya@ov”’
(Rom. viil. 28).
(2) Lastly, the “sign of outspreading (ἐκπετάσεως) in
heaven”’ is explained in chap. xu. of the Epistle by the
application of Isaiah Ixy. 2, ‘All the day long have I spread
out (ἐξεπέτασα) my hands,” etc., to the Crucifixion. For
further illustrations of this, and of the saying on the
μυστήριον κοσμικόν, and of the salvation tm αὐτοῦ τοῦ
καταθέματος, 1 must again refer to my Two Lectures on
the ΖΔιδαχή.
And now, to return to the point from which we started,
Barnabas writes in chap. xx.: ἡ δὲ τοῦ μέλανος ὁδός ἐστιν
σκολιὰ καὶ κατάρας μεστή. ὁδὸς γάρ ἐστιν θανάτου αἰωνίου
μετὰ τιμωρίας, ἐν ἡ ἐστὶν τὰ ἀπολλύντα τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν'
εἰδωλολατρεία K.T.r., ἀφοβία. διῶκται τῶν ἀγαθῶν κ.τ.λ.,
πανθαμάρτητοι.
He omits ῥυσθείητε, τέκνα, ἀπὸ τούτων ἁπάντων, because
he purposes to write shortly after at the end of his Epistle,
σώξεσθε ἀγάπης τέκνα κιτὰ. The curious transition to
διῶκται x.T.r., which is not at al lin his style, raises a dis-
tinct presumption that he is here a copyist; and this is
confirmed by the clause, ὁδὸς yap ἐστιν θανάτου «.7.r., Which
is a palpable addition of his own. On a bare comparison
of the two documents, one can see no reason why the Way
of Death, according to the Didaché, should not be said to
be the archetype of chap. xx. of the Epistle.
The ‘‘ way of light”’ differs much more from the “ way
of life’’; but all the variations are in the proper style of
Barnabas. He reduces order to chaos by his free handling
of his subject matter, his inveterate habit of repetition, and
his purpose of writing not merely for the neophyte but for
the πνευματικός, who is to preach and save souls by the
word, instead of sitting at the feet of the saints.
428 A MISUNDERSTOOD PARABLE.
What remains of the 4i:day does not contain much that
he could have made use of. But he does write as he must
have written if he had the latter part of it (chaps. vul.—xvi.)
also before him. He is impressed by its most striking ideas ;
he explains the very sayings in it which were least trans-
parent ; and he altogether omits little or nothing except
what it might have been safely predicted that he would
omit.
Thus far it does not appear why Barnabas should not
have drawn from the Ζιδαχή in its entirety. Something
might be said on extraneous grounds in favour of a hypo-
thetical common original to which both were indebted; but
as against the view of the earlier editors of the Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles, 1 am disposed to go a step further
than to hold it ‘‘kaum fur glaublich”’ that one of its main
sources should have been the Hpistle of Barnabas.
C. TAYLOR.
A MISUNDERSTOOD PARABLE.
Our Saviour’s parables are not chance similitudes gleaned
from the surface of things; they are living analogies,
drawn from the core of nature. This stamp of Divine
authorship belongs to the figurative language of Scripture
generally ; but it pre-eminently characterises our Lord’s
symbolic lessons. Such images, for example, as the Sower
and the Seed, the Shepherd and the Sheep, the Vine and ~
its Branches, do not flash a momentary lustre and then
vanish. They are fixed stars of wisdom, by whose light we
may always guide our thoughts. The mere poetic simile
is a picture, which must not be touched or taken from its
frame. The true parable is an instrument which yields to
the familiar touch ever fresh music.
A MISUNDERSTOOD PARABLE. 429
Hence the canon, that in order to interpret our Lord's
parables, the first step is to make sure of an accurate
knowledge of the natural fact or facts on which they are
based. We may have this, and yet miss His meaning; but
if we neglect this, we are sure to go astray. Thus, for
instance, no one is prepared to expound the tenth chapter
of St. John’s Gospel who is ignorant of the actual rela-
tions of a Syrian shepherd and his flock. The beauty and
aptness, if not the meaning, of the great parable of the
Sower will be missed, if we do not come to it with such a
vivid picture before our minds of the labours of the Galilean
husbandman as Dr. Thomson or Dean Stanley may furnish
to those who have not been so happy as to visit the Holy
Land. The parable of the Tares will be misread, if we are
not aware that under this name is intended a plant closely
resembling wheat in its earlier growth—of the same genus,
but poisonous.
Of all our Lord’s parables, there is none regarding which
this canon of interpretation has been so signally neglected
as the PARABLE OF THE LEAVEN. The difficulty of the
parable is obvious. Alone among our Lord’s parables it
presents a similitude which seems in the nature of things
unsuitable, as well as inconsistent with the prevailing use
of the same image in Scripture. Leaven is sowr dough—
a piece of dough in that initial stage of decomposition or
putrefaction in which it is capable (like yeast, and some
other substances) of setting up the wonderful chemical
process called ‘‘fermentation” in the fresh dough into
which it is kneaded. Hence, in itself it is an image of
corruption and death. Nothing could seem less fit to
stand as a symbol of the purifying, life-giving power of the
gospel, or of the kingdom of Christ.
Accordingly, in every other instance in which leaven is
symbolically used, either in the Old or New Testament, it
is in an evil sense. The law of Moses contains repeated
430 A MISUNDERSTOOD PARABLE.
prohibitions of the use of leaven in any sacrifice, whether
of animal life or of food (Lev. ii. 11). The exceptions (Lev.
xxiii. 17; vii. 13) were (a) the two wave-loaves, presented
at the Feast of Harvest (Pentecost), as representing the
ordinary daily bread of which God’s harvest-bounty had
provided another year’s supply; and (Ὁ) the leavened cakes
presented with peace-offerings, as part of the feast which
was to follow the sacrifice. But no leaven must be laid on
the altar. The profane disregard of this law is rebuked by
the prophet Amos (iv. 5).
Our Saviour symbolises under this image the hypocrisy
of the Pharisees. St. Paul warns us that “a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump,” and bids the Corinthians
“purge out the old leaven,” and ‘“‘ keep the feast, not with
old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wicked-
ness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”’
We can therefore scarcely be surprised if some able and
learned students of Scripture have maintained that what
is represented in this parable is the corruption, not the
growth, of the kingdom of Christ; the spread, not of life-
giving truth, but of deadly error, through Christendom.
This view, plausible as it may seem, is refuted by the fatal
objection pointed out by Trench, Stier, and other writers,
that in this case the parable would foretell the entire cor-
ruption of the whole kingdom of Christ; for “‘ the whole
was leavened.”” This would be in flat contradiction to the
teaching of the other parables.
Is it then a satisfactory explanation to say, with Dean
Plumptre (in Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary), that the leaven
“here becomes, in the mode of teaching which does not
confine itself within the limits of a traditional and con-
ventional symbolism, the type of influence for good as well
as evil’? Or to say, with Stier and Alford, that the key
to the meaning is in what the latter calls ‘‘ the power which
it possesses of penetrating and assimilating a foreign mass,
A MISUNDERSTOOD PARABLE. 431
till all be taken up into it”? ‘Penetrating’? Yes.
“ Assimilating’”’? No. This word shows we are on a
wrong tack. If the action of the leaven were to transform
the mass into its own likeness, the result would be a large
lump, instead of a small morsel, of sour dough. The
process of fermentation which the leaven sets up consists
in a chemical action by which the sugar in the flour is
converted into alcohol and carbonic acid, both of which
pass away invisibly in the heat of the oven. The notable
thing is, that the leaven, in doing its work, perishes. If
the bread ‘“‘rises’”’ well (as housewives term it), and is well
baked, it comes out of the oven light, wholesome, and
palatable, but with no trace of alcohol, carbonic acid, or
sour leaven. The bitter taste of yeast may sometimes be
discerned in bread; but if so, it is because so far the process
has failed. If the leaven has done its work well it vanishes
into that invisible realm which underlies phenomena.
Does not this give us the key to the true and deep
meaning of the parable? The corruptible leaven, perish-
ing and vanishing, but doing a work which outlasts it, is
the means of satisfying hunger and sustaining life. Even
thus, the AGENCY by which God carries on the great work
of meeting the spiritual hunger and feeding the spiritual
life of mankind, is the ministry of frail men, whose work
is perishable, yet immortal. ‘ We have this treasure in
earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be
of God and not of us.”
In this, as in all else, our Saviour is the great Exemplar.
It was of His own work that He said, ‘ Except a grain of
wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth alone; but if
it die, it beareth much fruit.” Because those He was to
redeem were partakers of flesh and blood, He took the
same dying nature—‘ made in the likeness of sinful flesh.”’
What appeared to friends and foes alike, as they stood
round the Cross, His complete and ignominious failure, was
432 A MISUNDERSTOOD PARABLE.
His supreme victory. By death He became the Author of
life. He disappeared from our world that He might carry
on His work upon earth more effectively than if He had
remained. He vanished from men’s eyes that He might be
enshrined and enthroned in their hearts.
Human ministry obeys the same law, but with the ad-
ditional stamp of moral frailty—error, inconstancy, and sin.
Men die, but their work endures; men err, but they hand
on the torch of truth. Their formulas of thoughts grow
obsolete. Their theology becomes unintelligible. Their
church systems break to pieces, or stiffen into hindrances
to church life and work. The controversies, in which their
own side seemed to them identical with the cause of Christ,
are painfully studied by a handful of students in dead
languages, or in volumes long out of print. Their fiery
watchwords are cold and meaningless to their successors.
But did they live and toil and fight in vain? A thousand
times, No! They sowed the harvest that still feeds the
world. They contended earnestly for the faith once de-
livered to the saints; and that faith cannot perish, though
helm and hauberk, crossbow and matchlock—the weapons
of their warfare—have long been hung up to rust. It is
but the perishing of the corruptible leaven when its work
is done.
We hear much and often of the failure of Christianity ;
the decline of faith, zeal, love, piety ; the decay of religion.
It has always been so. The law of Christ’s kingdom on
earth is, Divine truth brought to bear on men’s hearts and
lives by human ministry. Just because the ministry is
human it bears the stamp of narrowness and defect, and
carries in it the seeds of failure. But so far as it is a
ministry of Christ’s word, ‘‘it liveth and abideth for ever.”
We need not turn for illustration to the religious move-
ments of our own day, or of the last century, or of the
Reformation, though these supply it in abundance. Take
A MISUNDERSTOOD PARABLE. 433
a wider range. The most astounding fact in the history
of the kingdom of Christ on earth is the apostasy of the
Catholic Church, which casts its colossal shadow over long
centuries—dimly and feebly apprehended, for lack of study,
by the mass of modern Christians. More significant and
instructive still, because so close to the fountain-head of
Christianity, is the failure of the Apostolic Churches. Those
who had run well were hindered. Those before whose eyes
Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth, were bewitched
that they should not obey the truth. Paul lived to write
of the scene of his most devoted and successful labours,
“All they who are in Asia are turned away from me.”
Peter and Jude denounce the incoming flood of heresy,
immorality, and ungodliness, whose rising waves were
already breaking over the Church. The Beloved Apostle
survived to see the evil rapidly and, as it seemed, irresistibly
developing, and to be the amanuensis of those terrible
epistles from the Head of the Church to the Churches of
Sardis and Laodicea, which disclose a state of things we
might else have well deemed incredible before the close of
the Apostolic age.
Christianity a failure? Christ’s Church a failure? Christ’s
kingdom a failure? Christian missions a failure? Yes;
in the same sense in which the Apostolic Churches were a
failure, Nicene Christianity a failure, medieval Catholicity
a failure, the Reformation a failure. Man fails. God,
working through man, cannot fail. Forms change. Truth
abides. The corruptible leaven perishes. The incorruptible
Bread of Life is as ready and able to-day, as when Jesus
multiplied the loaves, to meet the deepest craving of souls
that pray, ‘“‘ Lord, evermore give us this bread!”’
Eustace R. Conver.
VOL, ἼΠΙ: ἜΤΕΙ
434
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
XVII.
THE PRESENT CHRISTIAN LIFE, ARISEN LIFE.
« Τῇ then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above,
where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the
things that are above, not on the things that are upon theearth. For ye died,
and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall be
manifested, then shall ye also with Him be manifested in glory.”—Con. iii. 1-4
(Rev. Ver.).
WE have now done with controversy. We hear no more
about heretical teachers. The Apostle has cut his way
through the tangled thickets of error, and has said his say
as to the positive truths with which he would hew them
down. For the remainder of the letter, we have principally
plain practical exhortations, and a number of interesting
personal details.
The paragraph which we have now to consider is the
transition from the controversial to the ethical portion
of the Epistle. It touches the former by its first words,
“Tf ye then were raised together with Christ,’ which
correspond in form and refer in meaning to the beginning
of the previous paragraph, ‘If ye died with Christ.” It
touches the latter because it embodies the broad general
precept, ‘‘Seek the things that are above,” of which the
following practical directions are but varying applications
in different spheres of duty.
In considering these words we must begin by en-
deavouring to put clearly their connexion and substance.
As they flew from Paul’s eager lips, motive and precept,
symbol and fact, the present and future are blended to-
gether. It may conduce to clearness if we try to part these
elements.
There are here two similar exhortations, side by side.
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 435
“Seek the things that are above,” and ‘‘ Set your mind on
the things that are above.’ The first is preceded, and the
second is followed by its reason. So the two laws of conduct
are, as it were, enclosed like a kernel in its shell, or a jewel
in a gold setting, by encompassing motives. These con-
siderations, in which the commandments are imbedded,
are the double thought of union with Christ in His resur-
rection, and in His death, and as consequent thereon,
participation in His present hidden life, and in His future
glorious manifestation. So we have here the present bud-
ding life of the Christian in union with the risen, hidden
Christ; the future consummate flower of the Christian
life in union with the glorious manifested Christ; and the
practical aim and direction which alone is consistent with
either bud or flower.
I. The present budding life of the Christian in union
with the risen, hidden Christ.
Two aspects of this life are set forth in verses 1 and 3—
‘raised with Christ,” and ‘‘ye died, and your life is hid
with Christ.” <A still profounder meaning is in the words
of verse 4, ‘‘ Christ zs our life.’’
We have seen in former papers that Paul believed that,
‘when a man puts his faith in Jesus Christ, he is joined
to Him in such a way that he is separated from his former
self and dead to the world. That great change may be
considered either with reference to what the man has
ceased to be, or with reference to what he becomes. In
the one view, it is a death; in the other, it is a resurrection.
It depends on the point of view whether a semicircle seems
convex or concave. ‘The two thoughts express substantially
the same fact. That great change was brought about in
these Colossian Christians, at a definite time, as the
language shows; and by a definite means—namely, by
union with Christ through faith, which grasps His death
and resurrection as at once the ground of salvation, the
436 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
pattern for life, and the prophecy of glory. So then, the
great truths here are these ; the impartation of life by union
with Christ, which life is truly a resurrection life, and is
moreover, hidden with Christ in God.
Union with Christ by faith is the condition of a real com-
munication of life. ‘‘ In Him was life,’’ says John’s Gospel,
meaning thereby to assert, in the language of our Epistle,
that “ἴῃ Him were all things created, and in Him all
things consist.”’ Life in all its forms is dependent on union
in varying manner with the Divine, and upheld only by
His continual energy. The creature must touch God or
perish. Of that energy the Uncreated Word of God is
the channel—‘‘ with Thee is the fountain of life.” As the
life of the body, so the higher self-conscious life of the
thinking, feeling, striving soul, is also fed and kept alight
by the perpetual operation of a higher Divine energy, im-
parted in like manner by the Divine Word. Therefore, with
deep truth, the psalm just quoted, goes on to say, ‘‘ In Thy
light shall we see light ’’—and therefore, too, John’s Gospel
continues: * And the life was the ight of men.”
But there is a still higher plane on which life may be
manifested, and nobler energies which may accompany it.
The body may live, and mind and heart be dead. There-
fore Scripture speaks of a three-fold life: that of the
animal nature, that of the intellectual and emotional
nature, and that of the Spirit, which lives when it is con-
scious of God, and touches Him by aspiration, hope, and
love. This is the loftiest life. Without it, a man is dead
while he lives. With it, he lives though he dies. And
like the others, it depends on union with the Divine life as
it is stored in Jesus Christ—a conscious union by faith.
If I trust to Him, and am thereby holding firmly by Him,
my union with Him is so real, that, in the measure of
my faith, His fulness passes over into my emptiness, His
righteousness into my sinfulness, His life into my death,
THE PRESENT CHRISTIAN LIFE. 437
as surely as the electric shock thrills my nerves when I
grasp the poles of the battery.
No man can breathe into another’s nostrils the breath
of life. But Christ can and does, and this true miracle
of a communication of spiritual life takes place in every
man who humbly trusts himself to Him. So the question
comes home to each of us—am 1 living by my union with
Christ? do I draw from Him that better being which He
is longing to pour into my withered, dead spirit? It is
not enough to live the animal life; the more it is fed, the
more are the higher lives starved and dwindled. It is not
enough to live the life of intellect and feeling. That may
be in brightest, keenest exercise, and yet we—our best
selves—may be dead—separated from God in Christ, and
therefore dead—and all our activity may be but galvanic
twitching of the muscles in a corpse. Is Christ our life, its
source, its strength, its aim, its motive? Do we live in
Him, by Him, with Him, for Him? If not, we are dead
while we live.
This life from Christ is a resurrection life. ‘‘ The power
of Christ’s resurrection’’ is threefold—as a seal of His
mission and Messiahship, ‘‘ declared to be the Son of God,
by His resurrection from the dead;’’ as a prophecy and
pledge of ours, “πον is Christ risen from the dead, and
become the firstfruits of them that slept ;”’ and as a symbol
and pattern of our new life of Christian consecration, ‘‘ like-
wise reckon ye also yourselves to be indeed dead unto sin.”’
This last use of the resurrection of Christ is a plain witness
of the firm, universal and uncontested belief in the historical
fact, throughout the Churches which Paul addressed. The
fact must have been long familiar and known as un-
doubted, before it could have been thus moulded into a
symbol. But, passing from that, consider that our union
to Christ produces a moral and spiritual change analogous
to His resurrection. After all, it is the moral and not
438 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSFANS.
the mystical side which is the main thing in Paul’s use of
this thought. He would insist, that all true Christianity
operates a death to the old self, to sin and to the whole
present order of things, and endows a man with new tastes,
desires and capacities, like a resurrection to a new being.
These heathen converts—picked from the filthy cesspools
in which many of them had been living, and set on a pure
path, with the astounding light of a Divine love flooding
it, and a bright hope painted on the infinite blackness
ahead—had surely passed into a new life. Many a man
in this day, long familiar with Christian teaching, has found
himself made over again in mature life, when his heart has
grasped Christ. Drunkards, profligates, outcasts, have found
it life from the dead; and even where there has not been
such complete visible revolution as in them, there has been
such deep-seated central alteration that it is no exaggeration
to call it resurrection. The plain fact is that all real Christ-
ianity in a man will produce in him a radical moral change.
If our religion does not do that in us, it is nothing. Cere-
monial and doctrine are all means to an end—making us
better men. The highest purpose of Christ’s work, for
which He both ‘‘ died and rose and revived” is to change
us into the likeness of His own beauty of perfect purity.
That risen life is no mere exaggeration of mystical rhetoric,
but an imperative demand of the highest mortality, and the
plain issue of it is: ‘‘ Let not sin therefore reign in your
mortal body.” 100 1 say that Iam a Christian? The test
by which my claim must be tried is the likeness of my life
here to Him who has died unto sin, and liveth unto God.
But the believing soul is risen with Christ also, inas-
much as our union with Him makes us partakers of His
resurrection as our victory over death. The water in the
reservoir and in the fountain is the same; the sunbeam in
the chamber and in the sky are one. The life which flows
into our spirits from Christ is a life that has conquered
THE PRESENT CHRISTIAN LIFE. 439
death, and makes us victors in that last conflict, even
though we have to go down into the darkness. If Christ
live in us, we can never die. ‘It is not possible that we
should be holden of ἐξέ. The bands which He broke can
never be fastened on our limbs. The gates of death have
been so warped and the locks so spoiled when He burst
them asunder, that they can never be closed again. There
are many arguments for a future life beyond the grave,
but there is only one proof of it—the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ. So, trusting in Him, and with our souls bound
in the bundle of life with our Lord the King, we can
cherish quiet thankfulness of heart, and bless the God and
Father of our Lord who hath begotten us again into a lively
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
This risen life is a hidden life. Its roots are in Him.
He has passed in His ascension into the light which is
inaccessible, and there is hidden in its blaze, bearing with
Him our life, concealed there with Him in God. Faith
stands gazing into heaven, as the cloud, the visible mani-
festation from of old of the Divine presence, hides Him
from sight, and turns away feeling that the best part of
its true self is gone with Him. So here Paul points his
finger upwards to where “Christ is, sitting at the mght
hand of God,’’ and says—We are here in outward seem-
ing, but our true life is there, if we are His. And what
majestic, pregnant words these are! How full, and yet how
empty for a prurient curiosity, and how reverently reticent
even while they are triumphantly confident! How gently
they suggest repose—deep and unbroken, and yet full of
active energy! For if the attitude imply rest, the local-
ity—‘‘at the right hand of God”—expresses not only the
most intimate approach, but also the wielding of the Divine
omnipotence. What is the right hand of God but the activ-
ity of His power? and what less can be ascribed to Christ
here, than His being enthroned in closest union with the
440 THE HPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Father, exercising Divine dominion, and putting forth
Divine power. No doubt the ascended and glorified bodily
manhood of Jesus Christ has a local habitation, but the old
psalm might teach us that wherever space is, even there
“Thy right hand upholds,” and there is our ascended Lord,
sitting as in deepest rest, but working all the work of God.
And it is just because He is at the right hand of God
that He is hid. The light hides. He has been lost to sight
in the glory.
He has gone in thither, bearing with Him the true source
and root of our lives into the secret place of the Most
High. Therefore we no longer belong to this visible order
of things in the midst of which we tarry for a while. The
true spring that feeds our lives lies deep beneath all the
surface waters. These may dry up, but it will flow. These
may be muddied with rain, but it will be limpid as ever.
The things seen do not go deep enough to touch our real
life. They are but as the winds that fret, and the currents
that sway the surface and shallower levels of the ocean,
while the great depths are still. The circumference is all
a whirl; the centre is at rest.
Nor need we leave out of sight, though it be not the
main thought here, that the Christian life is hidden inas-
much as here on earth action ever falls short of thought,
and the love and faith by which a good man lives can
never be fully revealed in his conduct and character. You
cannot carry electricity from the generator to the point
where it is to work without losing two-thirds of it by the
way. Neither word nor deed can adequately set forth a
soul; and the profounder and nobler the emotion, the
more inadequate are the narrow gates of tongue and hand
to give it passage. The deepest love can often only ‘love
and be silent.” So, while every man is truly a mystery
to his neighbour, a life which is rooted in Christ is more
mysterious to the ordinary eye than any other. It is fed
ΟΡ
THE PRESENT CHRISTIAN LIFE. 441
by hidden manna. It is replenished from a hidden source.
It is guided by other than the world’s motives, and follows
unseen aims. ‘‘ Therefore the world knoweth us not, be-
cause it knew Him not.”
II. We have the future consummate flower of the Christ-
ian life in union with the manifested, glorious Christ.
The future personal manifestation of Jesus Christ in
visible glory is, in the teaching of all the New Testament
writers, the last stage in the series of His Divine human
conditions. As surely as the Incarnation led to the cross,
and the cross to the empty grave, and the empty grave
to the throne, so surely does the throne lead to the
coming again in glory. And as with Christ, so with
His servants, the manifestation in glory is the certain
end of all the preceding, as surely as the flower is of the
tiny green leaves that peep above the frost-bound earth in
bleak March days. Nothing in that future, however glori-
ous and wonderful, but has its germ and vital beginning
‘In our union with Christ here by humble faith. The great
hopes which we may cherish are gathered up here into
three words—‘‘ We shall be manifested.” That is far more
than was conveyed by the old translation—“ shall appear.”
The roots of our being shall be disclosed, for He shall come,
‘*‘and every eye shall see Him.”’ We shall be seen for what
we are. The outward life shall correspond to the inward.
The faith and love which often struggled in vain for expres-
sion and were thwarted by the obstinate flesh, as a sculptor
trying to embody his dream might be by a block of marble
with many a flaw and speck, shall then be able to reveal
themselves completely. Whatever is in the heart shall be
fully visible in the life. Stammering words and imperfect
deeds shall vex us no more. ‘‘ His name shall be in their
foreheads’’—no longer only written in fleshly tables of the
heart, and partially visible in the character, but stamped
legibly and completely on life and nature. They shall walk
443 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
in the light, and so shall be seen of all. Here the truest
followers of Christ shine like an intermittent star, seen
through mist and driving cloud: ‘‘ Then shall the right-
eous blaze forth like the sun in the kingdom of My Father.”
But this is not all. The manifestation is to be ‘‘ with
Him.” The union which was here effected by faith, and
marred by many an interposing obstacle of sin and selfish-
ness, of flesh and sense, is to be perfected then. No film of
separation is any more to break its completeness. Here we
often lose our hold of Him amidst the distractions of work,
even when done for His sake; and our life is at best but an
imperfect compromise between contemplation and action ;
but then, according to that great saying, “‘ His servants
shall serve Him, and see His face,” the utmost activity of
consecrated service, though it be far more intense and on
a nobler scale than anything here, will not interfere with
the fixed gaze on His countenance. We shall serve lke
Martha, and yet never remove from sitting with Mary, rapt
and blessed at His feet.
This is the one thought of that solemn future worth
cherishing. Other hopes may feed sentiment, and be
precious sometimes to aching hearts. A reverent longing,
or an irreverent curiosity, may seek to discern something
more in the far-off ight. But it is enough for the heart to
know that ‘‘we shall be ever with the Lord’’; and the
more we have that one hope in its solitary grandeur, the
better. We shall be with Him ‘‘in glory.” That is the
climax of all that Paul would have us hope. ‘‘ Glory””’ is
the splendour and light of the self-revealing God. In the
heart of the blaze stands Christ; the bright cloud enwraps
Him, as it did on the mountain of transfiguration, and into
the dazzling radiance His disciples will pass as His com-
panions did then, nor ‘‘fear as they enter into the cloud.”’
They walk unconcerned in that beneficent fire, because
with them is one like unto a Son of man, through whom
THE PRESENT CHRISTIAN LIFE. 443
they dwell, as in their home, amidst “the everlasting
burning,” which shall not destroy them, but kindle them
into the likeness of its own flashing glory.
Then shall the life which here was but in bud, often
_ unkindly nipt and struggling, burst into the consummate
beauty of the perfect flower ‘‘ which fadeth not away.”’
III. We have the practical aim and direction which
alone is consistent with either stage of the Christian life.
Two injunctions are based upon these considerations—
“seek,” and ‘‘set your mind upon,” the things that are
above. The one points to the outward life of effort and
aim ; the other to the inward life of thought and longing.
Let the things above, then, be the constant mark at which
youaim. ‘There is a vast realm of real existence of which
your risen Lord is the centre and the life. Make it the
point to which you strive. That will not lead to despising
earth and nearer objects. These, so far as they are really
good and worthy, stand right in the line of direction which
our efforts will take if we are seeking the things that are
above, and may all be stages on our journey Christwards.
The lower objects are best secured by those who live for the
higher. No man is so well able to do the smallest duties
here, or to bear the passing troubles of this world of illusion
and change, or to wring the last drop of sweetness out of
swiftly fleeting joys, as he to whom everything on earth
is dwarfed by the eternity beyond, as some hut beside a
palace, and is great because it is like a little window a
foot square through which infinite depths of sky with all
its stars shine in upon him. The true meaning and great-
ness of the present is that it is the vestibule of the august
future. The staircase leading to the presence chamber of
the king may be of poor deal, narrow, crooked, and stowed
away in a dark turret, but it has dignity by reason of that
to which it gives access. So let our aims pass through the
earthly and find in them helps to the things that are above.
’
484 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
We should not fire all our bullets at the short range. Seek
ye first the kingdom of God—the things which are above.
“Set your mind on” these things, says the Apostle
further. Let them occupy mind and heart—and this in
order that we may seek them. The direction of the aims
will follow the set and current of the thoughts. ‘“‘As aman
thinketh in his heart, so is he.’”’ How can we be shaping
our efforts to reach a good which we have not clearly before
our imaginations as desirable ? How should the life of so
many professing Christians be other than a lame creeping
along the low levels of earth, seeing that so seldom do they
look up to ‘‘see the King in His beauty and the land that
is very far off’? John Bunyan’s ‘man with the muck-
rake’ grubbed away so eagerly among the rubbish, because
he never lifted his eyes to the crown that hung above his
head. In many a silent, solitary hour of contemplation,
with the world shut out and Christ brought very near, we
must find the counterpoise to the pressure of earthly aims,
or our efforts after the things that are above will be feeble
and broken. Life goes at such a pace to-day, and the
present is so exacting with most of us, that quiet medita-
tion is, I fear me, almost out of fashion with Christian
people. We must become more familiar with the secret
place of the most High, and more often enter into our
chamber and shut our doors about us, if in the bustle of
our busy days we are to aim truly and strongly at the
only object which saves life from being a waste and a sin,
a madness and a misery—‘‘ the things which are above,
where Christ is.”
‘“Where Christ is.” Yes, that is the only thought which
gives definiteness and solidity to that else vague and nebu-
lous unseen universe; the only thought which draws our
affections thither. Without Him, there is no footing for us
there. Rolling mists of doubt and dim hopes warring with
fears, strangeness and terrors wrap it all. But if He be
THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH. 445
there, it becomes a home for our hearts. ‘‘I go to prepare
a place for you”’—a place where desire and thought may
walk unterrified and undoubting even now, and where we
ourselves may abide when our time comes, nor shrink from
the light nor be oppressed by the glory.
“ My knowledge of that life is small,
The eye of faith is dim,
But ’tis enough that Christ knows all,
And I shall be with Him.”
Into that solemn world we shall all pass. We can choose
whether we shall go to it as to our long-sought home, to
find in it Him who is our life; or whether we shall go re-
luctant and afraid, leaving all for which we have cared, and
going to Him whom we have neglected and that which we
have feared. Christ will be manifested, and we shall see
Him. We can choose whether it will be to us the joy of
beholding the soul of our soul, the friend long-loved when
dimly seen from afar; or whether it shall be the vision of a
face that will stiffen us to stone and stab us with its hght.
We must make our choice, If we give our hearts to Him,
and by faith unite ourselves with Him, then, ‘‘ when He
shall appear, we shall have boldness, and not be ashamed
before Him at His coming.”
ALEXANDER MACLAREN.
THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAR.
III. Vision oF THE CANDLESTICK.—ZECH. iv.
THE preceding vision was meant to convey to the Jews the
assurance that their high priest Joshua was re-instated as
the religious head of the nation; this vision was meant to
give a similar assurance regarding Zerubbabel, their civil
head. The people might well be in doubt and despondency
446 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
regarding him. He was apparently no David. He was not
the man for a great emergency, however he might have
acquitted himself in quiet times as a kind of lay figure on a
throne. Born a captive, the son of a captive, he seemed to
have inherited or acquired something of the craven spirit of
the slave. He had a great opportunity, such an opportunity
as enables a man of force to make a mark in history, but
the opportunity was too great for one of his calibre. And
naturally enough his own feeling of insufficiency infected
the people with timidity and doubtfulness. They began to
wonder whether he was recognised by God as David’s heir ;
whether they could ever prosper under him. The Persian
monarch had recognised his rank, but would God any
longer make use of David’s line as a channel of blessing to
men, after the kings of Judah had so shamefully abused
their position? As yet no success had attended his efforts.
For nearly twenty years he had been baffled even in his
attempt to build the Temple. Ought not this to be inter-
preted as meaning that God had disowned him ?
In these circumstances this vision is given to Zechariah
that Zerubbabel and the people may receive the assurance
that he is as truly God’s anointed king, endowed with
power from God to do His work, as ever any of his fore-
fathers had been. This assurance is conveyed in a twofold
form, by word and by vision.
In express terms Zechariah is assured that failure and
impotence would not throughout characterize the govern-
ment of Zerubbabel. What he had begun, he would also
finish. The great and central task of rebuilding the Temple
would be accomplished. ‘The hands of Zerubbabel have
laid the foundations of this house; his hands shall also finish
it.’ The stone destined to top and complete the build-
ing, and which had probably been lying for years in the
hewer’s shed, would at last be brought forth with shouts of
triumph both from the builders and the assembled crowds.
THE VISION OF THE CANDLESTICK. 447
The enthusiasm of the people would be kindled by seeing
their old temple restored, their fears would all be forgotten,
and the air would ring with invocations of blessing. This
enthusiasm would culminate when Zerubbabel with plum-
met and square, trowel and mallet, fixed in its place the
topstone, and prayed that the seven eyes, representing
God’s perfect providence, would watch over it.
This carried with it a rebuke to those who, as the prophet
says, ‘‘ despised the day of small things,” the people who
cannot believe that a seed will ever become a tree. The
old men who had seen the former temple were not slow to
show their contempt for the new building. With the
pardonable admiration of the institutions and ways of their
youth, which characterizes old men, they tottered round
among the builders and told them what a different kind of
look things had when they were young. They wept over
the fallen state of the Temple. But their weeping was
ill-timed, inconsiderate, and disheartening. The confi-
dence of youth is often blamed, but it is needed to bear up
against the depreciation of the present which is dinned into
their ears by those who can see no good in anything but
that in which they were the chief actors. But to despise
the day of small things is to secure that we shall never
glory in a day of great things. For the path to what is
great lies through what is small. We ourselves do not
come into the world full-grown; neither does anything else.
It is God’s law to produce great things by degrees, by
growth from what is small. And if we throw away the
seed because it is so small, and decline to have anything to
do with what is not great and conspicuous, we lose our
opportunity. It is by doing the little things that lie to our
hand that we sow for ourselves all that is greatest and
happiest in eternity. ‘‘ He that is faithful in that which is
least, is faithful also in much;”’ and will have opportunity
of showing it.
448 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
These assurances were embodied in a vision full of
instruction for all time. Among the various appointments
of the original Tabernacle constructed by Moses, a con-
spicuous place was given to a massive lampstand, which
had seven lamps, not branching out horizontally but rising
in one perpendicular plane. The sanctuary was a tent
without windows, and light was required. But the purpose
of the candlestick was not solely to give light. Like every-
thing else in the Tabernacle it was symbolical. And it is
not difficult to discern what it was meant to symbolise.
Light is the natural emblem of knowledge. We speak of
the mind being enlightened or illuminated. As it is light
which enables the bodily eye to see things clearly, so it
is knowledge or information which enables the mind to
apprehend things. The light which filled the Tabernacle
or house of God was symbolical of the knowledge of God.
And as this knowledge of God is maintained in the world by
the instrumentality of the Church, the Church is symbolized
by the candlestick which serves to hold the lights. When
John in the Apocalypse saw a vision with similar sym-
bolism, it was thus interpreted to him: “ the seven candle-
sticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” It is
the Church which by its purity of life and teaching is to
impart to men the knowledge of God.
But whence is this light derived? The light which
illuminated the Tabernacle, was not a natural but an
artificial light, fed by an oil for which the prescription was
given from above, and which it was sacrilege to use for
ordinary purposes. And this was plainly meant to convey
the idea that the light which served to carry on God’s service
was a light fed from a supernatural source. Some free-
thinking Jew might with much plausibility have said, Why
should not God be worshipped under the glorious canopy of
heaven with the brilliance of His own sun to symbolize
the clear light that He delights in; why are we to worship
THE VISION OF THE CANDLESTICK. 449
Him in a close stifling tent into which no sun ever pene-
trates, and which must be illumined by a hot artificial
light? Let us come out into the free air of heaven and
worship God as He is revealed in nature. But those who
saw more deeply would say, The sun, just because its light
is a part of our natural inheritance, is not an adequate
symbol of a light which certainly does not shine upon all
men alike. It is not that order of nature in which all men
live that teaches them to know God. Nature misleads
quite as often as it suggests right views of God. We see in
nature what might well make us think of God as either
impotent or cruel. “1 have long ago found out,” says a
recent student of nature, “ how little I can discover about
God’s absolute love or absolute righteousness from a
universe in which everything is eternally eating every-
thing else. . . . Infinite creative fancy it reveals, but
nothing else.”’ It is with a sense of unutterable satisfac-
tion we turn from nature to Him who says, “1 am the
Light of the world.” And it is because there is in Christ
that which human nature, as we know it, could not have
produced, that He is a light to men. It is not a natural
but an artificial and supernatural light which best symbol-
izes that which brings to us the power of seeing God.
To a Jewish mind, then, filled with this symbolism, the
vision of the candlestick with its lights fed from a sufficient
source, signified that the Church of God was still to be
maintained in full efficiency, and was to prove a light to
the world and a glory to God. When Zechariah walked
about the ruined town; when he saw the empty houses
with grass growing in the doorways and birds nesting in the
best rooms; when he saw the blackened walls of the old
temple, and the new walls barely above ground and left
now for years without a stone added, pools of water where
the altar should have stood, and the wind blowing through
the space which the holy of holies should occupy, he might
VOL, III, GG
450 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAE.
-π
well think the glory was for ever departed, that the Church
of God had proved a failure, that there was no revelation,
no care of God for men, no true knowledge of the unseen,
but each man left to guess as he could and worship what
he pleased. But when he saw this clear waking vision of
the golden candlestick in all its former splendour, the per-
suasion was ineradicably wrought in his mind that this
vision was from God, and that God therefore saw no reason
to despair of His Church, but was even now providing for
its re-establishment in all its former glory. Zechariah had
shared in the prevailing despondency. He did not see what
good could be accomplished by men of so little pith as
Zerubbabel and the rest. He saw how easily they had been
cowed by the Samaritans. He had watched them narrowly
for years; he had taken their measure, and he despaired
of them as the root or beginning of any noble undertaking
or any fruitful work. Such men could never shine as lights
in the world. Such feeble, incompetent persons could only
bring disgrace upon religion.
But it was now made clear to Zechariah’s mind that he
had been wrong, not perhaps in his judgment of his con-
temporaries, but in forgetting one Contemporary of whom he
had made no account. ‘‘ Not by might, nor by power’’—so
far he was right, there was neither might nor power—“ but
by My Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” He is reminded of
the source of the Church’s light, and it is revealed to him
that the oil which feeds this light—the Spirit, that is, which
produces right action and God-glorifying results in men—
flows from an inexhaustible source beyond the light itself;
so that you cannot ever measure the light by looking at the
wick or at the amount of oil each bowl can contain, but
only by looking at the source whence the oil is supplied.
Now, in this vision, with immense significance, the oil was
seen to be derived from two living olive trees growing be-
side the candlestick—obviously to teach Zechariah that
THE VISION OF THE CANDLESTIOK. 451
though the bowls might be very small, the supply out of
which the bowls could be refilled was inexhaustibly large,
a living fountain of oil.
To complete the vision another essential feature was
added. The prophet’s attention is directed to two tubes or
spouts which communicate between the trees and the lamp-
bowls, and are said to be the two “ oily ones,” or ‘‘ sons of
oil,”’ that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. To a mind
like Zechariah’s, living in a world of symbol, these sons of
oil would at once suggest the two great offices to which
men were consecrated by anointing, the kingly and the
priestly. These offices were at present in a depressed and
despised condition, but assurance was now given that God
still held them in honour, and would through them com-
municate to men all that was needed for a_ brilliantly
effective and exemplary life. Joshua, the high priest, and
Zerubbabel, the king, in the exercise of their high and
influential functions would still be the medium through
which God would bring Himself into human life.
The translation of this vision into terms which show how
closely it concerns ourselves is no difficult task. We need
the vision as much as Zechariah needed it. There is much
open to our consideration which tends to suggest thoughts
as gloomy as those which darkened the hopes of Zechariah.
Learning as we do to take our own measure, we become
convinced of our littleness, of our incapacity to shine, our
inability to remove ignorance, our helplessness in presence
of surrounding and oppressive darkness. We live alongside
of persons whose vices are quite well known to us, and they
seem in no way the better for us, in no way struck by our
virtues. We recognise that if the remainder of our life is
to be as defective in high motive and as unprofitable in
result as the past has been, the image of a brilliant light is
no fit image for our life. The world derides the pretensions
of the Church, makes merry over her decay, mocks her
409 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
small achievements; and however unreasonable it is to do
so, it is still possible.
When discouraged by the ridicule or silent contempt of
men, when we see how little they take the Church’s force
into account, when it is treated as Greece or Montenegro
is treated by the first-rate powers of Europe, and when,
worst of all, we become profoundly convinced of our blun-
dering methods, of our beating the air, of the feeble and
inefficient assaults We make upon the dense masses of evil
around us, of our waste of time in polishing and adorning
weapons which are then carefully hung up as trophies and
are never used in actual warfare, when saddened and dis-
heartened by our own incompetence and futility, this vision
recalls us to a reasonable ground for more hopeful thoughts.
For all the work required from us there is an unfailing
supply of grace. It is not the lamp that has to produce the
oil; it has not to make the most of one supply, but there
is a constant flow into 1t from without. And we are not
called upon to create a holy spirit for ourselves, nor have
we to maintain a loving and serviceable disposition upon
the unused drops of past experience which may yet be
squeezed out by a lively memory. Holiness sufficient for
all moral beings exists in God. There is that in Him which
can sustain in goodness the spirit of each. The Holy Spirit
is equal to all demands that can be made upon Him. The
Holy Spirit is God; so that as there is in God life enough
for all creatures, a strength sufficient to maintain in being
all that is, so there 15 in God a holiness sufficient for the
need of all. There is strength and grace enough in God to —
carry through the whole work that this world requires. In
God there is patience, love, wisdom, sacrifice; in a word,
goodness enough for the overcoming of all evil. And this
goodness is communicable.
This goodness is communicable, and it is through Christ
it is communicated. When we translate into New Testa-
THE VISION OF THE CANDLESTICK. 453
ment language what Zechariah says of the ‘ oily ones,’’ we
gather that the Church now is supplied with oil to burn
and shine withal through the kingly and priestly offices of
Christ. And translating this technical language again into
the language of living fact, we are brought face to face with
the truth that each man receives the spirit of Christ and is
enabled to live as Christ lived in the service of men and to
the glory of God, in so far as He submits himself to Christ’s
rule and is truly reconciled to God through Christ. The
lights of the vision burned brightly when the tubes connect-
ing them with the olive trees were kept clear and clean; and
we receive spirit enough for all that is required of us when
we practically recognise Christ as our King and Priest,
when we keep ourselves in a real and spiritual connexion
with Him. If we wish to shine so as to help and guide
others, if we see the need of being and doing more than
hitherto, then what we must in the first place do, is to
allow ourselves to be so swayed by Christ as to be drawn
into true sympathy with the Father and to be possessed by
Christ’s views of life and by His disposition. In point of
fact it is thus we receive the Spirit of God. Let a man
recognise what life is given him for, let him recognise how
far short his life has been from accomplishing the great
objects of life, let him in the shame of having been found
unworthy of the trust God has given him and in the con-
sciousness of having defiled and unfitted himself for God's
service, turn to God for pardon, cleansing and strength; let
him see the possibilities of good that remain to him, let
the idea of a life spent for God and for good possess him,
and let him believe Christ’s offer to give him such a life ;
and that man will receive the very strength he needs and
will yet shine with the light of Christ.
We may use this subject then, first, for rebuke, and
second, for encouragement, It is for our rebuke, when we
despair of success in any good project; when in view of our
454 THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH.
own deficiencies we reckon on failure even at the very time
when we seem to be aiming at success. Indolence, timidity,
unbelief, selfishness, all shelter themselves under this ac-
knowledged inability. There are malingerers in every good
work as well asin war. We see well enough what needs to
be done, but we are not the people to doit. We have not
position, we have not means, we have not mental capacity,
we have not stability of purpose, we have not presence of
mind, we have not readiness of speech, we have not health,
we have not ability to organize. We look in despair at the
deepseated sores of society, and for all that we do these
sores may deepen daily. It is a pity things are as they are;
it is a pity so many in this prosperous land should starve,
should grow up knowing nothing but vice; the biggest
problems of a healthy social state have yet to be solved; but
what can we do? Our whole past life tells us we are feeble.
‘‘Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit,” this is
the uniform answer to all such apologies, which the Lord
of hosts gives.
There is also encouragement in the vision. God is our
unfailing source of grace. What is right to be done and
ought to be done, God has provided us with the means of
doing. He does not expect lamps to burn without oil. He
sends none of us a warring on his own charges. If it is
our duty to do good, then we can do it, for God is with
us a living source of good purpose and of perseverance.
Many need this encouragement. There are those who
singly or in combination are engaged in some labour or
enterprise, whose object it is, not to make money nor to
bring themselves into good repute, but to improve the
character or condition of some of their fellow-citizens.
Such persons cannot forecast the future without foreseeing
serious obstacles, prejudices, counter-interests, selfish con-
tentment with things as they are, ‘‘ the blind opposition of
the ignorant, the bitter opposition of the vicious;”’ and
ane
THE VISION OF THE CANDLESTICK. 455
above all they foresee the probability of their own patience
failing, or of their wisdom proving insufficient. Or there
are parents who are perplexed by the way their children are
growing up; they feel the extreme difficulty of influencing
them as they would wish, the impossibility of securing that
they shall turn out just as they would desire. Or there are
persons whose domestic life has long been of a distressing
kind, and who are always looking forward to the time when
at leneth their temper must give way, their forbearance
come to an end, their determination to live on the highest
principles fail them. To such persons this vision says:
There is no necessity for any such spiritual catastrophe ;
there will always be grace enough for you. It may be
through weariness and pain, through disappointment and
anxiety your path is to lie, but through it all you can come
victorious. Provision sufficient is already made for you.
All of us, looking forward and seeing how much we have to
pass through before our probation is over, recognising what
an unlimited capacity for blundering and evil-doing there is
in us, may very naturally fear that we shall yet do more
harm than good in the world, and permanently injure those
whom we fain would help. To us all comes this serious
assurance that nothing will be required of us for which
strength will not be given; that between us and the inex-
haustible spring of goodness there is an open communica-
tion; that if it is impossible for God to fail in goodness of
will and of energy, it is as impossible that He should
withhold the communication of this goodness from any
one who is confronted by duty and who is willing to fulfil
God’s purposes by using God’s help,
That there is an ever springing source of goodness, an
ever renewed supply of moral life, this is the gladdening
truth the vision calls us to remember. There is, we know,
a sufficient source of physical life which upholds the universe
and is not burdened; which continually, in every place,
456 FRANZ DELITZSCH.
and exuberantly, brings forth life in inconceivably various
forms; a source of life which seems rather to grow and
expand than to be wearied. So there is a source of spiritual
life, a force sufficient to uphold us all in righteousness of life
and in eternal vigour of spirit ; a force which to all eternity
can give birth to new and varied forms of heroic, godly, and
holy living; a force ever pressing forwards to find utterance
and expression through all moral beings, and capable of
making every human action as perfect, as beautiful, and
infinitely more significant than the forms of physical hfe we
see around us. If the flowers profusely scattered by every
wayside are perfect in beauty, if the frame and constitution
of man and of the animals are continually surprising us by
some newly discovered and exquisite arrangement of parts,
we may reasonably suppose that there is as rich a fountain
of moral and spiritual life. Nay, ‘‘ the youths shall faint
and be weary,’’—the physical life shall fail—‘‘ but they that
wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall
mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not
weary; and they shall walk and not faint.”
Marcus Dons.
FRANZ DELITZSCH.
Ir a brilliant career as an academic teacher, a fertile
literary faculty, and a long life of conspicuous devotion to
Christian work, both practical and scientific, are any title
to honour, the subject of this sketch will be cheerfully
accorded a distinguished place among the men of his time.
Franz Delitzsch is a household name with students of
Scripture all the world over. To many it is a name to
conjure with. The ideal writer, if we accept Joubert’s
definition, is the man whose mind is always loftier than
FRANZ DELITZSCH. 457
his thoughts, and his thoughts loftier than his style. It
may be said with some truth that in Franz Delitzsch the
scholar is higher than the author—so much has he written,
and yet so great are the stores of learning and ideas which
seem to lie behind. Without any qualification it may be
affirmed that in him the man is more than the scholar.
The spell les in his frank, vigorous, sympathetic per-
sonality. He has the strongest religious convictions and
the most pronounced theological opinions, for which he
has always been ready to do manful battle. But there
is a deeper thing in him than these. There is a Johannine
fire of love in his nature, which gleams in his eye and
makes the real mark of the man. This is the open secret
of the magnetic influence which he has carried about him
in his different scenes of labour, through burning contro-
versies, and in all the chances of a period of theological
restlessness and change. Wherever he has settled he has
become the centre of a great circle of devoted friends,
colleagues, and pupils. It has not been with him as it
has been with so many of the notable occupants of the
German Chairs of Theology. These have been doomed to
see the once crowded classes dwindle as years increased
and new voices claimed to be heard. Even an Ewald
could command at last but a handful of auditors. But
after a connexion extending over half a century with the
universities of his fatherland, Franz Delitzsch is still a
chief attraction of one of the largest seats of learning.
There are few theologians, nevertheless, of whom it is so
difficult to form a just estimate. This is due not only to
the variety of his gifts, the subtlety of his speculations, and
the extreme diversity of subject exhibited by his literary
record, but above all else to a personal character, which
goes far to disarm criticism in those who know him
best. In attempting a brief notice of his career we do not
pretend that it shall be critical. Long enjoyment of the
458 FRANZ DELITZSCH.
sreat boon of his friendship, the grateful sense of many
obligations, heartfelt regard for the man himself, forbid it.
Franz Delitzsch is a native of the city in which he is
still a teacher. He was born on the 23rd February, 1813,
the child of parentsin humble condition. His life-long
interest in Israel has sometimes led to its being supposed
that he was himself originally a Jew or the son of converts
from Judaism. But it is not so. He was baptized a
Christian child in the Church of St. Nicholas, Leipsic, on
the 4th March, 1813. He had his education, both elemen-
tary and academic, in the city of his birth. He attended
the Rathsfreischule there, a seminary well abreast of the
times. The methods of Pestalozzi and Lancaster were
making way in Germany, mainly through the influence of
G. F. Dinter, Professor of Theology at Koénigsberg, Presi-
dent of the Board of Education, and author of the Schul-
lehrer-Bibel—a book which excited great attention. In his
first school Franz Delitzsch had the advantage of the
training of men who taught in Dinter’s spirit. He passed
in due time into the Nicolai Gymnasium, and there began
to learn the Hebrew language. On entering the University,
however, he was fascinated by the speculative questions
which were then under discussion, and gave himself with
consuming energy to philosophical studies. The two
teachers who exercised the greatest influence over him
during his university course were Heinroth, the psycho-
logist, and August Hahn, who afterwards became General-
Superintendent in Silesia. Both were men of note. The
position occupied by Hahn in particular was a remarkable
one. He had lost his early faith when a student in Leipsic.
He had found it again in Wittenberg, in the recently estab-
lished Preachers’ Seminary, where Heubner, Schleusner,
and Immanuel Nitzsch were teaching. Receiving a call
to a Professor’s Chair and to the post of preacher in St.
Paul’s Church, he returned to Leipsic in 1826, and at
FRANZ DELITZSCH. 459
once stood forth as the champion of Supranaturalism in face
of the prevailing Rationalism. His energetic antagonism
to the negations of the time created a conflict in the
university which compelled thinking men to reconsider
the claims of the old faith. It was of lasting importance
to the enthusiastic and receptive student that at this
critical period he was brought into close contact with a
man like Hahn, whose ambition was to ally culture with
positive Christian faith, and in whom the Christian spirit
was 50 vivid.
There were others, however, to whom he was indebted
for much in these days of his youth—for more indeed, as he
still recognises in his old age, than to any of his professional
instructors. During his course in the gymnasium he had
been a stranger to the spiritual power of Christian truth.
The Person and the Work of Christ were under the veil to
him. It was in the university, and by the help of a variety
of influences, that he came to see things clearly. Foremost
among these influences was the fellowship of a number of
Christian friends, who had been brought together for a time
in Leipsic, soon to be scattered abroad, not a few of them
to America. He owed much to this little company of
earnest men, and in the dedication of his book on the
Church as the House of God, he has made grateful acknow-
ledgment of his spiritual debt. He became acquainted also
with two missionaries of the London Missionary Society,
Messrs Goldberg and Becker, who were helpful to him in
various ways. ‘They kindled in him the flame which still
burns—zeal for Israel’s evangelisation. They directed his
mind to the literature of the Jews. A change in the bent
of his studies accompanied the change in his personal atti-
tude to religion. The energy which had been spent on
philosophy was given now to Hebrew. The gain of a living
faith, the enthusiasm for the winning of Israel, the choice of
Oriental learning as his vocation in life, came hand in hand.
460 FRANZ DELITZSCH.
The first Rabbinical writing which he mastered was the
tractate Light at Eventide, and he read it with the mis-
sionary Becker. He secured also the instructions of Dr.
Julius Furst, the well-known Hebrew lexicographer, himself
of Jewish extraction. His association with First who, in
spite of his theories as to biliteral roots and the like, was
aman of extensive erudition and a very competent teacher,
was of great use to him. It lasted over ten years, and
made him familiar with the genius of the Jewish writers.
He worked also with First in the preparation of his Con-
cordance, and obtained generous recognition of his services
in that connexion in the Preface to that laborious work.
His academic training being over, he qualified in 1842 as
a university teacher. He had some time to wait before a
suitable appointment was found. But in 1846 he received
a call to a Professorship in Rostock. This was followed, in
1850, by an invitation to Erlangen, and for the next sixteen
years he taught with distinguished success there. This
Bavarian university was then the centre of great theological
activity. It reckoned among its professors an unusual
number of eminent men, some of whom still survive, but
the most are no more. Gottfried Thomasius, the author of
the well-known Christi Person und Werk, and the man who
has perhaps the best title to be regarded as the projector
of the modern Kenotic theory of Christ’s Person, was lectur-
ing on Dogmatics. Spiegel was teaching Arabic and Zend.
Frank, the author of the System der christlichen Gewissheit,
and now one of the foremost men, was beginning to make his
mark. Herzog was toiling at his Real-Encyclopaedie, Karl
von Raumer, the author of Palaestina, in spite of his great
weight of years, was still receiving students and entertain-
ing them with recollections of Schiller and Goethe. A son
of Hegel’s was teaching history, a son of Schelling’s was
teaching jurisprudence. Von Zezschwitz and Ebrard were
in the town or the neighbourhood, the one working at his
FRANZ DELITZSCH. 461
Katechetik, the other preparing his Apologetik, and lecturing
on the history of the Celtic Church of Ireland and Scotland.
And not to mention others, von Hofmann was at the acme
of his influence, drawing around him audiences which it
was difficult to accommodate, opening up new views of
Scripture, and inspiring all with his own great reverence
for the Word of God. These two men, Delitzsch and
Hofmann, above all others, were the life of the university.
They differed in many respects, but they were ever loving
and sympathetic friends, labouring with one mind for the
advancement of Biblical science. Erlangen had held of old
an eminent place in exegetical studies. Hermann Olshausen
and other pioneers of better methods had taught there.
These two men, Delitzsch in the province of the Old Testa-
ment, and von Hofmann in that of the New, raised it to
the front rank of exegetical schools.
Delitzsch’s connexion with Erlangen terminated in 1867.
His departure was a severe loss to the university. He had
done much to make it a rallying point for earnest-minded,
evangelical scholars. One met there not only students of
many nationalities, both European and American, but theo-
logians of note from Britain and the United States as well
as from Norway, Sweden, Russia, and nearer countries.
And the reputation of Franz Delitzsch was one of the great
forces which drew them thither, Since the year named
he has held a Professorship in Leipsic, teaching with his
wonted assiduity, and gathering round him choice youths
from many lands. Honours too numerous to detail have
been conferred upon him, and it may be safely said that
there is no man more revered in town or university. He
has had his own share of family joys and sorrows. One of
his sons, after a distinguished career as a student, obtained
an Extraordinary Professorship in Leipsic, in 1875. But he
died the year after, leaving behind him an unfinished work
of much promise on the Doctrinal System of the Roman
462 FRANZ DELITZSCH.
Catholic Church. Another son, Friedrich, made his mark
at an early age in philological studies, and since 1877 has
held a Chair in the same university. He has won a dis-
tinguished reputation by his contributions to Assyriology,
in which science the mantle of his friend, the late George
Smith of the British Museum, has in large part fallen upon
him.
Tt is natural to think of Franz Delitzsch first and above
all else as a Hebraist. He is much more, however, than
that. His exuberant talent has cut for itself a number of
channels, in each of which it has run to some profit. The
mass of his writings, great and small, is nothing short of
enormous. ‘They evince a rare versatility as well as extra-
ordinary industry and productiveness. The languages, the
interpretation of Scripture, Biblical Introduction, Textual
Criticism, Apologetics, Biblical Psychology, discussions in
dogma, devotional writings, historical studies, popular tales,
have all come under the touch of his active intellect and
untiring pen. His writings have so marked a character
that it is easy to distinguish anything of his among a
hundred others. They bear the unmistakable stamp of a
mind of a distinct and peculiar order—wide in its range,
restless in its movements, quick to take speculative flights,
inspired by poetic feeling and chastened by reverence. The
thought is always Biblical in its foundation, but sometimes
daring, sometimes fanciful, with frequent dashes of poetic
sentiment and theosophic theorising. The style is rich,
vivid, full of life, but also difficult to unravel—difficult not
through lack of shape or structure, but by reason of the
rapid, crowded, imaginative expression which the thought
naturally assumes.
As a Hebraist he stands in the front rank of the scholars
of the day. His right to that position will not be seriously
questioned, or will be challenged only by the prejudiced.
In Arabic he owes much to Fleischer, and he received his
ie
FRANZ DELITZSCH. 463
early nurture in Biblical and Rabbinical Hebrew, as we have
seen, in the school of Furst. That school is identified with
methods and theories which are far from securing general
acceptance. Those who are violently opposed to Furst and
his circle, and those who are wedded to extreme critical
principles, are under a natural temptation to depreciate the
worth of Dr. Delitzsch’s services in the cause of Hebrew
learning. But most who are competent to speak, ungrudg-
ingly recognise him as one of the foremost authorities in
matters relating to the language and literature of the Jews,
both Biblical and Rabbinical. Few will dispute his pre-
eminence at least among the Hebraists who belong to the
ranks of the Evangelical clergy of Germany. His earliest
publications were contributions to the history of Jewish
literature. In his Geschichte der nachbiblischen jiidischen
Poesie, which was published in Leipsic just half a century
ago, he opened up a field of literature of great interest and
almost unknown at that time. But perhaps his greatest
achievement in this direction is his Hebrew version of the
New Testament. This difficult task was undertaken at the
instance of a Society of Friends of the Jews, and in 1870 he
was able to issue the Epistle to the Romans as a first
instalment. Seven years later he had completed the work,
and saw it through the press under the auspices of the
British and Foreign Bible Society. Its superiority to those
which had preceded it, those by Hutter, McCaul, and
Reichardt, was speedily recognised, and edition followed
edition, until in 1885 the seventh was reached, and some
25,000 copies had been sold. Various opinions, as might
have been expected, have been pronounced upon its merits.
It has been regarded by some as stiff and unelastic in style.
But it is universally admitted to excel all others in accu-
racy, and it promises to keep the field against all comers
for a length of time. Last year witnessed the publication
of another version, that by Isaac Salkinson, from which
404 , FRANZ DELITZSOH.
much was expected. But, with occasional advantages in
freedom and felicity of rendering, it is not likely to rival
Delitzsch’s in substantial and enduring qualities. It 15
needless, however, to say more of this. It has been already
discussed in the pages of this Magazine by one who is
well entitled to pronounce. We shall be content with
the opinion expressed by Professor Driver both upon the
Hebrew New Testament and upon Professor Delitzsch
himself, of whom he speaks as ‘amongst living Christian
scholars perhaps the most profoundly read in post-Biblical
Jewish literature.’’}
Much as Dr. Delitzsch has done, however, as a Hebraist,
he has done more as an exegete. It is his exegetical works
that have made him best known outside his own country.
They amount to a considerable number, and have gained
wide acceptance on both sides of the Atlantic. Most of
them have been translated into English. Some of them
are independent works, others form part of the general
Commentary on the Old Testament, known as that of Keil
and Delitzsch. The earliest of them is the Habbakuk,
which was published in 1843, and made a companion
volume to the Obadiah of his early friend, Caspari of
Christiania. In 1852 his Genesis appeared, which reached
its fourth edition in 1872. This was followed by his Psalms
in 1859-60, of which a third edition was demanded in
1873-74. Then came his Jod in 1864, which went into a
second edition in 1876, Proverbs in 1873, Song of Songs
and Heclesiastes in 1875, and Isaiah in 1886, of which last
a third edition was issued in 1879. These commentaries
have all essentially the same characteristics. They are dis-
tinguished by a rich and varied learning which carries us
often into very remote sources—insight into the spiritual
value of the book, patient attention to the grammar and
the structure, vigour and vivacity in reasoned statement.
1 See the Expositor for April, 1886, pp. 260 f.
FRANZ DELITZSCH. 465
Speaking of one of the best known of these works, Kloster-
mann signalises as its choicest qualities the “full stores
of knowledge, the open eye for all that is irregular and
uncommon, the delicate ear for all shades of expression,
reverent enthusiasm for the word of the prophets, un-
remitting toil and conscientious regard to minutize.’’ What
is thus claimed for one, appears more or less in all.
The style of exposition which Professor Delitzsch practises
is that which he names the reproductive as distinguished
from the ordinary glossatorial method. Instead of attach-
ing a series of unconnected notes to the separate verses,
he aims at reproducing in unbroken statement the contents
of each section as a whole, and at giving what he terms
‘the whole mass of the exegetical material in continuous
and living flow,’’—a kind of commentary which demands
more art and a greater faculty for grasping the whole in
the parts than the other, but which, when rightly handled,
eives a truer and better proportioned representation of the
writing. It is hazardous to say which of these numerous
expositions are the best. Different minds will have differ-
ent preferences. But Psalms, Isaiah, and Ecclesiastes will
probably rank highest as the whole. The first two have
won wide acceptance. The Psalms made a great advance
on previous commentaries which had issued from the
Evangelical school, as we may see by comparing it with
Hengstenberg’s slow and arid performance. It may be
inferior to Hupfeld, as Dr. Perowne judges, in grammatical
analysis, and to Ewald in ‘intuitive faculty.” But it
may claim to be superior to either, as the same English
scholar cordially avows, in ‘‘depth and spiritual insight,
as well as the full recognition of the Messianic element.”
As to his Isaiah, it is enough to refer to the opinion ex-
pressed by the latest English interpreter of that prophet,
Professor Cheyne, who, while he thinks it open to some
faults, such as occasional excess of subtlety in grammatical
VOL, Ill. ἘΠῚ ἘΠ
466 FRANZ DELITZSCH.
matters and an over-scrupulous regard for the received text,
declares it the ‘‘most complete and equal’’ commentary
that had been published up to its time, and says, that ‘‘he
who will patiently read and digest the new edition of this
masterly work will receive a training both for head and
heart which he will never forget.”’
His critical standpoint, too, is by no means rigid. He
revolts against the licence and irreverence, although he
recognises the ability, of Wellhausen; and he is far from
allowing himself the liberties even of Ewald. But he
maintains a free attitude to many traditional opinions.
It matters not to him who the author of the second half
of Isaiah is, provided he be a true prophet. On the
Pentateuchal question he adheres in the main to the theory
of late codification of laws. He argues with decision in
favour of the non-Solomonic authorship of Koheleth, and
is disposed to bring the Book of Daniel down to about
168 B.c. His views on a number of critical questions are
seen in summary form in his volume on Messianic Prophecies,
which was published in English in 1880.
He has also ventured into the territory of New Testament
criticism and exegesis. His most important contribution
in this department is his well known Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which appeared in 1857. It was
issued at the time when the controversy excited by von
Hofmann’s theory of the Atonement was at its height—a
controversy which called forth between thirty and forty
publications within eight or nine years. Delitzsch was thus
induced to give more than usual attention to the theology
of the book. Though some of the points then raised have
lost their vitality now, his discussions of doctrinal questions,
especially of the satisfactio vicaria, are of value still. The
commentary has this further element of interest, that it
was the first instance of the application of the reproductive
method of exegesis to one of the larger books of the New
FRANZ DELITZSCH. 467
Testament. It was undoubtedly one of the most valuable
additions made to the interpretation of the Epistle up to
its time, and is far from having lost its importance after
the long lapse of years. He has tried his hand, too, on the
problem of the Gospels, in his Untersuchungen viber die kan-
onischen Evangelien, published in 1853. This, however,
is among his least successful efforts, the idea of a parallel
between the structure of the Pentateuch and that of the
Gospels leading him astray. He has achieved something
better in Textual Criticism. His Studies on the Complu-
tensian Polyglott (1872), and his two publications entitled
Handschriftliche Funde (issued in 1861 and 1862), contain
important matter—especially the notice of the re-discovered
Codex Reuchlint. This manuscript, which was the one
used by Erasmus in 1516 in the construction of his text
of the Apocalypse, had been long lost, and with it the key
to peculiarities and uncertainties in the Hrasmian text.
It was happily re-discovered by Professor Delitzsch in the
library of the Prince of Oettingen-Wallerstein in May-
hingen, in Bavaria. His identification of it, and his col-
lation of its text, are services of no small moment to the
science. The writer had the privilege, now many years
ago, of being with him and our admirable English critic,
Dr. Tregelles (who had made a journey to Hrlangen for
the purpose of examining it), when they were working
together on the Codex, and retains a lively recollection of
the enthusiasm of the two scholars over the unexpected
discovery.
One of Dr. Delitzsch’s most characteristic productions,
however, is one belonging to a totally different line. That
is his System of Biblical Psychology, which was published in
1855, and reached its second edition in 1861. It appeared
at a time when questions of the kind with which it dealt
engaged lively attention, and were taking a new direction
under the influence of the historical view of Revelation.
468 FRANZ DELITZSCH.
It excited great interest In Germany, soon obtained an
extensive circulation in an English translation, and has
continued powerfully to attract a certain class of minds.
It advocates a qualified trichotomy, and finds the key to the
Biblical view of man’s constitution in the position that soul
and spit are of one nature but of distinct substance. It
is still the most comprehensive treatise on these subjects,
although we have completer discussions now of particular
points. It abounds in subtle ideas, fertile and often beauti-
ful suggestions, but also in speculations strange, obscure,
and mystical. Itis so abstruse a book, so full of ‘‘ newly-
coined words and daring ideas,” and both in form and in
substance so ‘elaborately involved,” as the author him-
self describes it, that it is difficult to understand and still
more difficult to render into ordinary English. It dis-
closes certain influences which have powerfully affected
Dr. Delitzsch. One of these is the teaching of Anton
Gunther, the Bohemian philosopher, whose writings, com-
posed in the interest of a reconciliation between Roman
Catholic theology and modern thought, had many ad-
mirers half a century ago. Another is the theosophy of
the pious Wurtemberg school, represented by men like
Oetinger, and in yet larger measure the earlier, more power-
ful and more spontaneous theosophy of Jacob Bohme. In
the remarkable speculations about the Divine Doxa, the
sevenfold manifestation of God, the darkness, the fire, the
light of the Glory, and much else, we see the impress left
upon Dr. Delitzsch’s theology by the writings of that
strange, half-inspired Silesian genius, who has influenced so
many minds, and who has recently been made better known
to English readers by the late Bishop Martensen’s mono-
graph.
He has contributed largely also to the more practical
and devotional literature of theology. One of the most
popular books of this class is his treatise entitled—Das
FRANZ DELITZSCH. 469
Sacrament des wahren Leibes und Blutes Christi, which was
published in 1844, and had reached its sixth edition by 1876.
Another publication of considerable interest, especially for
the insight it gives into his own spiritual history, is his
Wissenschaft, Kunst, Judenthum: Schilderungen und Kri-
tiken, issued in 1838. He is the author, too, of a number
of tales and sketches intended to illustrate Jewish life and
beliefs, ancient and modern. To this class belong such
writings as his Jesus und Hillel (1867; third edition 1879) ;
Jiidisches Handwerkerleben (1868 ; third edition 1879); Hin
Tag in Capernaum (1871; second edition 1873); Durch
Krankheit zur Geneseung (1873); José und Benjamin—a
story of Jerusalem in the time of the Herods, in which he
has given us, as he says, ‘‘a bit of his own life.” They
are written in a lively and interesting style, and have
attracted many readers both in Germany and in our own
country, most of them having been translated into English.
We have given what is far from a complete list of Dr.
Delitzsch’s writings. It is out of the question to attempt to
enumerate the articles, many of them of great value, which
have appeared in the magazines. We are obliged to pass
by even some books, which certainly are not the least im-
portant or characteristic. Among these are his Anecdota
zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Scholastik unter Juden
und Moslemen (1841), and his Die biblisch-prophetische
Theologie. In the latter, which appeared in 1845, he
sketched the development which had taken place in the idea
of Old Testament prophecy since the date of Hengstenberg’s
Christologie, and attempted to draw from the works of C.
A. Crusius, the eminent opponent of the Wolffian philo-
sophy, the materials for a better reading of the theology,
especially the Messianic doctrine, of the prophets. Nor
should we fail at least to mention his System der Christlichen
Apologetik, which was published in 1869, and is probably
less known to English readers than any of his larger works.
4,70 FRANZ DELITZSCH.
Dr. Delitzsch, however, has not been a man merely of
scientific interests, far less a scholar living in learned leisure.
He has taken an active part in the work of his Church, and
above all in the cause of Israel. Since 1863 he has carried
on a quarterly journal, the Saat auf Hoffnung, in the service
of Christian effort among the Jews; in which publication
he has written enormously. Some of his most interesting
contributions, both to the exegesis of the Messianic sections
of the Old Testament and to the theology of the Atone-
ment, have appeared here. He has spent himself freely in |
personal dealing with many Jews. It would be easy to give
instances of the wealth of patience, time, and loving hope-
fulness which it has cost him to follow up individual cases.
Though the burden of years is now on him, he is still busy
at this work of faith. He has been the main instrument
in reviving the idea of the Institutum Jridaicum, which
flourished at Halle in the first half of last century. He
has seen similar institutes planted in Leipsic, Erlangen,
Berlin, and others of the German universities, as well as
away at Christiania, and a new spirit of Christian earnest-
ness evoked thereby among many students.
* In the academic halls and in the busy streets of Leipsic
there has been no figure more familiar or more honoured
for these many years, than that of Franz Delitzsch—the
figure under the medium stature, but full of force and
vitality, with the quick step, the keen eye, the white locks.
He has led a life laborious and useful beyond the ordinary
measure, and he is now of those for whom we expect an
old age—
* Serene and bright,
And lovely as a Lapland night.”
He has been in many a controversy, and has often been
hardly dealt with. But through all he has been able to
maintain the spirit that refuses to return evil for evil. And
perhaps we cannot better conclude this sketch than by re-
RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE. 471
calling one pleasing instance of the recognition which his
Christian gentleness and equanimity have won. A criticism
of his Commentary on the Psalms had appeared from the
pen of Hupfeld, expressed in harsh and disparaging terms.
In an article on the text of the Old Testament, which he
wrote for a journal, Dr. Delitzsch spoke in pained, but
courteous language of this attack. The paper came under
Hupfeld’s eye, and at once drew from him a letter which
is given in the preface to the second edition of Delitzsch’s
Psalms. It was to this effect: “1 have only just seen your
complaint of my judgment at the close of my work on the
Psalms. The complaint is so gentle in its tone, it partakes
so little of the bitterness of my verdict, and, at the same
time, so strikes chords which are not yet deadened within
me, and which have not yet forgotten how to bring back
the echo of happier times of common research, and to revive
the feeling of gratitude for faithful companionship, that it
has touched my heart and conscience.”’
5. Ὁ. F. Saumonp.
RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE ON THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
Proressor StrRAck’s name is a guarantee of accurate and careful
work. His Elementary Hebrew Grammar! has met with a very —
favourable reception in Germany, and the second edition, from
which the English translation has been made, was called for
within a comparatively short time. The grammar is arranged
under the heads of: (i.) Orthography and Phonology; (11.) Morpho-
logy: (a) The Pronoun, (0) The Noun, (c) Particles, (4) The
Verb; (jii.) Remarks on Syntax: (a) Syntax of the Individual
Parts of Speech, (b) The Sentence in General, (6) Particular
1 Hebrew Grammar, with Exercises, Literature, and Vocabulary. By Her-
mann L. Strack, Ph.D., D.D., Professor Extraordinarius of Theology in Berlin.
Translated from the second German edition. (London: Williams & Norgate,
1886.)
472 RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE
Kinds of Sentences. Paradigms, a conspectus of literature, and
a Chrestomathy and .Vocabulary are appended. The work is
almost exclusively the outcome of the author’s own experience as
an instructor—the only way in which a satisfactory elementary
grammar can possibly be produced—and in the hands of a careful
teacher it will serve as a useful manual of instruction. So much
information, however, is packed into a few pages, that the be-
ginner will find it difficult to make his way without constant
guidance, especially where information is given which can hardly
be understood until further progress has been made. The peculiar
arrangement of the paradigms of the weak verbs, though adopted
with the excellent object of rendering a mechanical learning by
rote impossible, will, it is to be feared, be a stumbling-block; and
the absence of exercises for translation into Hebrew is a serious
defect. Such exercises are indispensable for fixing rules in the
learner’s mind and for relieving the monotony of elementary
study.
The translation, by Mr. Archibald Kennedy, is well done,
though some of the transliterations, e.g. j=y, will be puzzling
at first.
Another volume of the Porta Linguarum Orientalium which has
lately appeared in an English dress may be here mentioned by
the way, though it lies somewhat outside the scope of the present
notice. Dr. Socin’s Elementary Arabic Grammar! supplies a
distinct want, and will be extremely useful to the beginner, who
is naturally daunted by a work of such magnitude as Prof.
Wright’s exhaustive Grammar.
Two of the Essays in the excellent volume of Studia Biblica?
(which has been already noticed in these pages) relate to the Old
Testament, and a third bears indirectly upon it.
Professor Driver contributes an Essay on [ecent Theories on the
Origin and Nature of the Tetragrammaton. He begins by giving
a summary of the arguments by which Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch
endeavours to prove the foreign origin of the forms Yahu and Yah,
which he believes to have been current among the people, and of
' Arabic Grammar, Paradigms, Literature, Chrestcmathy, and Glossary. By
Dr. A. Socin, Professor in the University of Tiibingen. (London: Williams & .
Norgate, 1885.)
5 Studia Biblica: Essays in Biblical Archeology and Criticism, and Kindred
Subjects. By Members of the University of Oxford. (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1885.)
Ἐν
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. 473
which Yahweh was a significant and distinctively Hebrew modifica-
tion. F. A. Philippi’s refutation of Delitzsch’s view is next stated,
and the conclusion is reached that the theory of an Accadian
origin for 117’ breaks down. Next the Greek Ἰάω is shown to be
“everywhere dependent on the Hebrew 17’ ”’; and the theories
of Hittite or Phoenician origin are also dismissed as at present
“not proven,” though some evidence in their favour exists. The
meaning of the Name is next investigated, and the interpretation
He that causes to be, which has recently found considerable favour,
is shown to be untenable. The explanation of it given in Exod.
iii. 14 may still hold, not however in the sense of The Eternal or
The Self-existent (ὃ dv), but of He who gives evidence of being by
entering into personal relations with His worshippers. <A brief
abstract like the present can give but an imperfect idea of the
great value of such a critical and dispassionate survey of the
question, written with full knowledge and sound judgment.
“Mr. F. H. Woods discusses The Light thrown by the Septuagint
Version on the Books of Samuel. He shows how that version not.
only preserves the true reading in many cases where the Mas-
soretic Text is corrupt, but throws light on the way in which
historical books such as Samuel were compiled by the juxta-
position of different narratives, not by their fusion into a new
whole. That the difficulties of 1 Sam. xvii., xviii. are to be ex-
plained thus is pretty certain; and Mr. Woods finds traces of the
same process elsewhere in the text of the LXX.
Dr. Neubauer’s paper On Some Recently Discovered Temanite and.
Nabatcean Inscriptions gives an account of some of the Aramaic
and Nabatean inscriptions discovered by Mr. Doughty, Dr. Euting,
and M. Huber. These are of interest and value not only as an
addition to our knowledge of Aramaic epigraphy and philology,
but on account of the light which they throw on many of the
proper names of the Old Testament.
In the Journal of Philology, No. 27, Prof. Robertson Smith
completes his investigation of the various forms of divination and
magic mentioned in the Old Testament. He sums up the net
result thus: A. Divination proper. (1) Oracle or other divination
by the sacra of a god, gesem. (2) Mantic inspiration, “onén. (8)
Divination by natural omens and presages, nahash. B. Magic and
Magical Divination. (1) a, by magical appliances, késhaphim ;
δ, by incantations, habdrim. (2) a, by the subterranean 6b; ὦ, by
a familiar sprit, yid‘on? ; c, by ghosts in general.
474, RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE
Canon Fausset’s aim in his Commentary on the Book of Judges}
is threefold: ‘First, to examine critically the original Hebrew,
and to give to the English reader the result of reverent modern
scholarship, so that he may know accurately the meaning of the
sacred text. Secondly, to give the fruits of modern research in
relation to the topographical, historical, and chronological refer-
ences in the book. Thirdly, to endeavour, in dependence on the
Holy Spirit, to draw forth from the narrative and the inspired
Word the spiritual lessons designed by the Divine Author.”
Exposition however overshadows criticism ; e.g. there is no note
on the text of 11. 3, certainly a passage in which the original
Hebrew requires comment; the incorrect translation of the A.V.
in vy. 1] is passed over without remark; ‘‘ Marchers with the
staff of the musterer-general”’ is hardly the most probable ex-
planation in vy. 14; and, in general, the student must not look for
such a discussion of critical difficulties which will enable him to
form an opinion in cases of doubt. The Introduction is brief. Halt
a page suffices to fix the date of authorship in the reign of Saul
er early in that of David. The complicated question of the
chronology—not by any means unimportant for the just apprecia-
tion of this phase of the discipline of Israel—is almost entirely
passed over, though it is set down as ‘‘ probably from 430 to 450
years”’; nor is there any attempt to present a clear picture—gso
necessary for the reader who is to study the book historically—
of the state of Israel during the period. The historical problems
of the period are of less interest to the author than the spiritual
lessons which may be drawn from the narrative, and it is to the
preacher that the work will be most helpful.
The same author’s volume of Studies in the CL. Psalms? has
reached a second edition. He has collected many interesting
coincidences of thought and language between the Psalms and the
Historical Books, but how many of them deserve to be called wn-
designed coincidences in the sense of Paley and Blunt? ‘“ The
genuineness of the titles may,” he thinks, “be assumed” (p. 2) ;
“nor is there any trace,” in the first book, “of any other author
1 4 Critical and Expository Commentary on the Book of Judges. By Rev.
A. R. Fausset, M.A., Sometime Scholar and Gold Medallist in Classics, Trin.
‘Col. Dublin. (London: J, Nisbet & Co., 1885.)
2 Hore Psalmice. Studies inthe CL. Psalms. Their Undesigned Coincidences
with the Independent Scripture Histories Confirming and Illustrating both. [By
the same author.} Second edition. (London: J. Nisbet and Co., 1885.)
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. 47
than David” (p. 80). Granted that the authority of the titles
has been somewhat recklessly disregarded, there are few critical
students of the Psalter who will be able to go to this length. The
work must be read with discrimination; but so read may prove
interesting and helpful.
Archdeacon Perowne’s Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah,}
which forms a new volume of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges, may be heartily recommended as a scholarly, sound, and
thorough exposition of these prophets. The preliminary remarks
in chapter ii. of the Introduction to Zechariah on “The Unity of
the Book of Zechariah,” are admirable. ‘In dealing with this
and similar Biblical questions,” he says, ‘it is important clearly
to understand that they are purely critical in their character, and
must be discussed and decided on grounds of scholarship alone.
It is a mistake to suppose that the higher question of the inspira-
tion and authority of the Bible is involved in them.” Such lan-
guage, from such a writer, will reassure many; and though he
comes to the conclusion that the arguments for a plurality of
authors are not decisive, he is open to conviction if fresh evidence
should be brought forward. Some points in the Introduction and
Notes are of course open to question. Recent discoveries have
made it very doubtful whether Cyrus was a monotheist (p. 11),
and not rather a polytheist and idolater. Surely the explanation
that Ahasuerus is Cambyses and Artaxerxes is Smerdis in Ezra
iv. (p. 16) must be abandoned, and the episodes related there
referred to the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I. But as a whole
the book is excellent.
The Dean of Westminster’s Lectures on Ecclesiastes? are designed
“to facilitate for the general reader, and for those who have little
leisure for more methodical study, the acquisition of some acquaint-
ance with the contents and general teaching of one of the most
interesting and instructive, yet most obscure of the writers of
the Old Testament.” In this object he has succeeded admirably.
‘The lectures, which attracted a large audience in the Abbey, will
1 The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Haggai and Zechariah.
With Notes and Introduction. By the Ven. T. T. Perowne, B.D., Archdeacon
‘of Norwich, late Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. (Cambridge: at
the University Press, 1886.)
2 Lectures on Ecclesiastes, delivered in Westminster Abbey, by the Very
Rev. George Granyille Bradley, D.D., Dean of Westminster. (Oxford: at the
‘Clarendon Press, 1885.)
476 RECENT ENGLISH LITERATURE.
interest a much wider circle of readers. No book of the Old
Testament has been so variously and so violently interpreted as
Ecclesiastes by commentators whose preconceived ideas as to the
necessary character of an inspired book have warped their judg-
ment; and it is refreshing to meet with an exposition at once
candid, judicious, and reverent. The Dean endeavours, and with
good success, “to let the author speak for himself.” To see how
he does so, the lectures must be read; it is enough to say here
that he sees in the author of the book ‘“‘one raised up to preserve
to us the record of the working of the heart of the Jewish people
at a time when God was leading them in their onward pilgrimage
through a moral and spiritual wilderness which had its own fiery
serpents, its own terrors. It was a time when the light that had
illuminated their past course was ‘ fluttering, faint, and low,’ all
but extinguished; and the dayspring that was yet to rise upon
their path was still below the horizon, barely touching from afar
one or other of the heavy clouds that hung above them. It is as
studied in this sense, it seems to me, and in this sense only, that
these strange and mingled utterances, which by turns attract,
repel, bewilder, and instruct, will render up their true meaning,
and assert their place within the covers of our Bibles. It is only
so that we can see that these things also ‘were written for our
instruction.’”” The book does not of course take the place of a
critical commentary, but it will be read with interest by many
who would never open a commentary, or would speedily lay it
down. It shows a just appreciation of what can be included, and
what must of necessity be omitted, in lectures of the kind.
A. F. Kirkpatrick.
INDEX.
Rev. Fred. H. Chase, M.A.
Note on the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, oe mer
Captain C. R. Conder, R.E.
The English Explorations in Palestine. A Reply to
Professor Socin :
Rev. Eustace R. Conder, D.D.
A Misunderstood Parable .
Rev. Professor 5. Ives Curtiss, D.D., Ph.D.
Professor Julius Wellhausen and his Theory of the Penta-
teuch ; , ‘ ς : 3
Principal Sir J. W. Dawson, LL.D., F.R.S.
The Probable Physical Causes of the Destruction of the
Cities of the Plain .
Recent Discussions of the First Giants: of Gases :
Rev. Professor Franz Delitzsch, D.D.
The Bible and Wine .
Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.
The Book of Zechariah :—
16 The First Three Visions
1. The Fourth Vision :
III. Vision of the Candlestick .
Recent English Literature on the New Testament
Rev. Professor 5. R. Driver, D.D.
The Cosmogony of Genesis
Two Hebrew New Testaments .
477
PAGE
319
81
478 INDEX.
PAGE
M. D.
Thoughts . : : Σ ὲ 5 : 2 ; . 228
Rev. Principal T. C. Edwards, M.A.
“Testament” or “ Covenant” ἢ. 5 : Ἰ Ἶ = do
Rev. Professor F. Godet, D.D.
Paul’s Gospel to the Romans. : : ; τ}
Rev. Professor A. Harnack, D.D., Ph.D.
Bishop Lightfoot on the Ignatian Epistles :—
II. Genuineness and Date of the Epistles. i 9,175
Rev. J. R. Illingworth, M.A.
The Incarnation of the Eternal Word : : A τ 10}
Rev. Professor A. F. Kirkpatrick, M.A.
The Revised Version of the Old Testament :—
The Books of Judges and Ruth . 5 : : Bora) Ὁ)
The First Book of Samuel . ’ Ἶ ; 3 - 201
The Second Book of Samuel J ὃ : τς 9594.
Recent English Literature on the Old Reshanteut : 2 AGE
Rev. Alexander Maclaren, D.D.
The Epistle to the Colossians :—
XT The Bane and the Antidote . : ; Ἐπ |
XIU. The True Circumcision . : 98
XIV. The Cross, the Death of Law and the Er ate
over Evil Powers : : ΕΘ
XV. Warnings against Twin Chiet Errors, Based
upon Previous Positive Teaching : . 302
XVI. Two Final Tests of the False Teaching . . 378
XVII. The Present Christian Life a Risen Life . 494
Rev..J..H. Overton, M.A.
Martensen’s Jacob Bohme. ο. : j 3 : eo 79
Rev. Professor S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.
Recent Foreign Literature on the New Testament. . 390
Professor Franz Delitzsch . : : : A : . 457
INDEX.
Rev. Professor W. Sanday, D.D.
Recent English Literature on the New Testament
Rev. Professor G. T. Stokes, M.A.
The Discovery of a New Bible Manuscript
kev. Protessor, H: i. Strack, D:D.; Ph.D.
Recent Foreign Literature on the Old Testament
A. M. S.
Thoughts .
Rey. GC. Traylor, D:D;
The Didaché and Barnabas ¢
An Argument for the Priority of the Didaché
Rev. Professor B. B. Warfield, D.D.
Textual Criticism of the Two Ways .
Hon. Lady Welby-Gregory.
Thoughts .
Rev. Professor B. F. Westcott, D.D., D.C.L.
Christus Consummator: Lessons from the Epistle to the
Hebrews :—
18 The Trials of a New Life .
1. The Destiny of Man fulfilled by Christ eee
Suffering
Ill. The King Priest
IV. The Universal Society
V. The New Covenant
The Editor.
Brown’s Life of Bunyan
Current Discussions in Theology
“1
10.9)
149
146
Genesisi. .
1. 1-31
ii. 1-3
Xvill., xix.
shor ΠΣ
ἘΠῚ πῚ 9...
Numbers xii. 10.
Deuteronomy viii. 7-9
Judges 5 >
v. 7
Valo
vi. 13
xs ἡ
xiv. 15
Xvili. 7
xviil. 30 .
RIX. 22
xxi, 16
Ruth .
1 Samuel
1: ts
rh, DY 3
vii. 19
le oles
πὶ. Ἐς
χινν 18,19. -
xvii. 12
xvill. 8
Xxvili. 16
2Samuel . 0
v. 6
Vil. 23.
viii. 18
Psalm xix. 3, 4
lpe:otly aay
ἴχχς, 5 ς
Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.
480
INDEX OF TEXTS.
Psalm civ. 15
Song of Solomon ii. 11-138.
ii. 15
Isaiah v.1.
vi. 2
xvi. 9
Jeremiah xxxv. 2
Joel i. 9
Zechariah i. ii. .
lil.
1V.i ον
viii. 12
Matthew xiii. 33
Luke iv. 18
xxii. 18
John i, 1-14
V1. 37
vi. 63
viil. 6
Ve
Romans
Galatians iv. 11.
Colossians ii. 8-10
ii. 11-13
li. 14-15
li. 16-19
li. 20-23
11. 1-4
Hebrews ii. 5-10
iv. 14-16; vii. 26
rs
axon Gs,
xli, 22-24
ΣΙ. 27
xiii. 10; viii. 6
Revelation xiy. 13
PAGE
64
240
63
60
239
64
66
65
136
335
445
59
428
147
67
161
146
148
148
7
"
ΓΝ
ΔΩ
ὦ
bia.
= 2
--ν P22
aes a» 5.
;
ΤΗΣ
RIA eet
ah
nal,
nee!
Pas Rote
Exe
its}
a,
ἣν ie
τῷ
ed
We
υ
ΠΝ
a
ΠΡ Α NE t/iWe
Le
τα
ss
Ἧ
eo
as ine
ee
Δα ΤΊΣ
ahi
τ
τ
Ὧι WEE rane Ai
alte)
ont τινες
Ἐν
ἘΣ
ἫΝ
re
ΤΣ
ΡΟΝ
ΠΤ ΗῚ ΤῊΣ
ra BY Nae OF:
setae
aa
30 None
Oe
Hone
44 " /:
pide:
tees
ΠΑ
ΙΕ:
ΠΗ͂Σ) Ὡς: is
ΤῊ ἀἐταλ}ῖ
ent
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11