« PreviousContinue »
I formerly thought that our translators were wrong, in taking τον with χρηματίζοντα, and that τον επί γης, τον απ' ουρανών were to be separated from the participle ; róv being the subject of επί γης όντα, απ' ουρανών όντα, and the participle indicating the action in which the two persons were engaged when they were or might be rejected. The prepositions and genitives would then denote the origin of the persons, ini yñs being equivalent to łniyalov terrestrial, of earthly origin. The sense would be, “if they escaped not when they rejected the earthly one, when he spake, much more (shall not) we escape who turn away from him that is from heaven, when he speaketh.” The reasons for this change in the translation seemed to be, 1. and : especially, that the participle of the Aorist was needed, if nóv and zenuaricovia were taken together in the first clause. A matter of history, the rejection of Moses by the Jews, is the subject of thought; the rejectors are spoken of in the historical tense, nugaitnodnevoi, quyov; and there seemed to be no assignable reason why the imperfect participle should be used of the person rejected; as the mere fact was insisted upon. 2. Moses and Christ are before contrasted in regard to their origin or official dignity. (See c. 3, c. 10 u. s.) 3. There seemed to be something frigid, and rhetorical, in comparing them as to the place from which their communications to man were given forth, especially as those of Christ were equally made on earth. 4. The separation of χρηματίζοντα, by παραιτησάμενος, from its clause, seemed to add some little weight to these reasons. But the other construction produced a sense so natural for the writer, so true and elegant, as to commend itself, without much weight of argument. On looking into Kuinoel, I find the same view adopted by him, and ascribed to Cramer, Storr, and Böhm. He calls the explanation that arises from taking Tove. y. xonu. together, 'frigidam paene ab reliquâ oratione ornatâ et vividâ alienam ;' he has no hesitation in explaining ini yis (övra) to be the same as iniyalov, but does not seem to feel the argument derived from the tense of the participle.
But, notwithstanding this sanction of a critic respectable for his knowledge both of classical and Hellenistic Greek, the opinion must, I think, be abandoned as untenable. For first : common as are phrases consisting of the article éní and a genitive with üv understood (e. g. ó éni toŰ xottuvos, Acts 12: 20. ó ini návrov, Ephes. 4: 6.) I know of no example like the present, in which ini and a genitive may be resolved into an
adjective consisting of the same elements, and yet such that the proper sense of the preposition out of composition is departed from. In other words, granting that övra is understood, the phrase must still mean who was on earth, and not who was of earth. Secondly, where Christ's heavenly origin is spoken of, he is said to come, not úr', but is ovqavov. This I believe is altogether true, though the argument itself is rather calculated to throw suspicion on an explanation otherwise doubtful, than to produce any independent conviction. Thirdly, the participle with róv in such a case as this, can be used substantively with the exclusion of the idea of time, so that the sense here is, the maker of divine communications.' I believe Winer, in his grammar, explains it thus. But the whole context seems necessarily to require us to regard it as expressing time, i. e. as not laying aside its participial power. Or the participle may have an imperfect force, and denote a person not speaking' historically considered, but engaged in a series of acts of this kind. And there was this additional reason for using it, that the present participle being understood after oupavwv, must have been in the writer's mind. It is perhaps separated from its company by an intervening word, in order to throw emphasis upon éni ms. But, fourthly, the preceding context requires us to think of Cbrist as addressing his communications from heaven. And this leads to the consideration of the inanner in which this context is related to the verse before us.
In the former parts of the epistle, the writer recurs more frequently perhaps to the ascension of Christ to heaven, than to anything else. (See 1: 3. 7: 26. 8: 1. 10: 12.) But especially does he speak of Christ in heaven, when he compares him with the Jewish bigh priest. “ If he were on earth, he could not be a high priest” (8: 4); but he has “passed through the heavens” (4:14), which are the more noble tabernacle (9:11), not made by hands but fashioned by God himself, and bearing his offering of blood with him, (δια του ιδίου αίματος), has entered the most holy place above the heavens (7: 26), now to appear in the presence of God for us. And in the present chapter, he is thought of as in heaven. In v. 18–24 we have the earthly dispensation of terror compared in a sublime strain with the spiritual one of hope and joy. Ye have come, says the writer, not to earthly scenes, but to amazing heavenly realities; and among the rest, to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood sprinkled in heaven that higher most holy place, which blood by opening the way there to believers (10: 19), speaks better things than were spoken by Abel, that is, by Abel's blood. The scene here is wholly laid in heaven, and ibe writer now makes use of these sublime strains to inculcate the danger of rejecting Christ. It is not a Saviour ascended to heaven only that the Hebrews were liable to turn away from, but one, whose blood spoke to them; one who by bis blood made divine communications to them, as being by it the founder of Christianity. Nor is there any thing frigid, as Kuinoel thinks, in the contrast of earth and heaven bere as the places whence the words of Moses and Christ came. For with the idea of speaking on earth, is connected, in the writer's mind, that of an earthly system and its earthly founder; and with that of speaking from heaven, the idea of Christ's exalted dignity at the right band of God. Thus it seems to be shown that the interpretation advocated in these remarks arises most happily out of the context.
A word ought to be added in regard to the ensuing context. If Christ is clearly meant at the close of the 25th verse, he must unquestionably be the subject of the next verse also. Now here in tóre we have an obvious reference to v. 19. Hence this verse contains one of the inost illustrious testimonies in the New Testament in favor of the exalted nature of Christ ; for both the transactions on Mt. Sinai and those prophesied of by Haggai are ascribed to him. And hence it appears to be taught by the author of this epistle, not only that God “made the worlds” by his Son, but also that all divine manifestations under the Jewish system were made by him.
A remark or two upon particular words and phrases shall close what we have to say concerning this verse.
Oux i quyor. Here we have ou and not uń after the conditional, a usage which is so common in the New Testament that some one has remarked that si un is seldom found except in the sense of nisi. Winer lays it down ($ 59. 5.) that či ov are used where the emphasis is on the negative. A special reason here perhaps is, that the condition is only a rhetorical one; a matter of fact being put into that form. They did not escape; much less then shall we escape.
"Eqvyox, come otjunpunished. Some commentators, as Prof. Stuart, supply dixriv after this word. It is obviously more true to say, that nothing is understood. The context limits the meaning, and the verb is used without an object.
ErionsThis is the best reading. Respecting the use and
omission of the article with this word in the sense of the earth, and with ovqavós, where the insertion of the article is not necessary to avoid ambiguity, no general rules can be laid down. On the whole, I suspect that the Nominative, and Accusative, as the object, incline to take the article in prose, and that the cases, at least of yñ after a preposition incline to omit it. Thus we have φαεθων-τα επί γης ξυνέκαυσε, (Plat. Timaeus, 22. c.) and a little below, των επί γης φθορά. And yet on the next page we have των υπό τον ουρανόν. With us the article is never needed when heaven in its monadic sense is spoken of, but is freely added or left out in prose with earth : yet in such expressions as who on earth, no one on earth,' it is perhaps better suppressed. And yet we must always say the world, the sun, when those words are used in their monadic sense, except in exclamations. There are, perhaps, reasons for all this
may be ascertained ; but such instances show the necessity of considering each of such words by itself, and the folly of reasoning from one language respecting the article to another.
Xonuarisovra. Perhaps the translation of this word in our version is unfortunate, as it is far from meaning speaking in general, and as that is remote from its original sense. It denotes more exactly making cominunications. In the Septuagint it occurs several times almost solely in Jeremiah, and answers to 197 in every instance, I believe, except one. It is used of God both in the Septuagint and New Testament, except in one passage of Jeremiah, which I cannot at this moment find. Its common meaning in profane Greek, to do business (especially of a public nature, as an ambassador, president of an assembly, etc.), may be illustrated by the word negotior, which, in Latin, is limited, I believe to the act of trading, but the derivative of which, negotiate, is almost technically applied to certain actions of ambassadors.
By Rev. R. W. Landis, Jeffersonville, Pa.
“Our country is full of pretended reformers, who never read the Bible, and who, animated by a blind impulse, vainly imagine they are turning the world upside down; while in fact, they are only turning upside down in the world.”—Clouga's DISCOURSES.
By Campbellism I mean the system of theology promulgated by Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Brooke County, Virginia. But inasmuch as the followers of this gentleman reject this designation as offensive, we disclaim all intention of employing it as a term of reproach. It is used simply to avoid circumlocution, in discriminating this sect of religionists from other professors of Christianity. It is as foreign from our wishes to offend the Campbellites by this appellation, as it is from theirs to offend others by using the terms Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, and Papist, for a similar purpose.
Mr. Campbell was born, and educated with a view to the Presbyterian ministry, in Ireland. He subsequently, with his father, (who was a preacher in the same denomination) being in straitened circumstances, emigrated to America ; and arriving in the western part of Pennsylvania, it was found necessary to attempt something for their relief. Contributions were made by a number of Presbyterian churches for this purpose. We mean this as no reflection upon Mr. Campbell, but we desire to obviate the influence of some of his statements upon the minds of his followers. He has often asserted that in emigrating to America, he voluntarily relinquished many advantages not to be here enjoyed, and turned his back upon brighter and more attracting prospects than this country afforded. The proof of disinterested benevolence in this case is by no means so clear as to be satisfactory.
Soon after arriving in this country, Mr. Campbell forsook the communion of the Presbyterian church, and united himself with that of the anti-paedo-Baptists. He still professes to be a Baptist, but (as will appear hereafter) it would be doing the greatest injustice to that intelligent and evangelical community to identify