Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

seems to have arisen from disregard to the common Rabbinical phrase, which is applied to freedom or exemption from sin, from the law, &c. in the Mishna, and perfectly explains the allusion of the apostle. V. 6. We cannot imagine how the author can paraphrase ἀποθανόντος ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα, “ we having become dead figuratively, and to the law," Heinsius suggests a better version: "Nunc autèm liberati sumus à lege mortuâ, in quâ detinebamur." V.11. In Sohar Gen. f. 97. c. 384. R. Eliezer asserts, in expressions almost consentaneous, that he who

לאו מיתתיה על ידי יצר הרע,endeavours to perform the law

shall not die by the hands of the evil principle, or concupiscence, as the commentators interpret it. V. 21. in its contrast with v. 23. proves St. Paul's reference in the one to have been the law of nature, in the other the law of God: this accords with the opposite principles of the Rabbinists

and

. Palama Gregorius apud Heins, has thus expatiated on the subject. Ὁ δὲ πάνσοφος ̓Απόστολος, ἐναργέστερον διαιρῶν τὸ λογικὸν ἀπὸ τὸ ἀλόγε, τὸ μὲν πνευμα καλεῖ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον· τὸ δὲ, σάρκα, καὶ ἔξω ἄνθρωπον. Εἶτα καὶ τὴν αντίθεσιν τέτων παριστῶν, βλέπω, φησὶν, ἕτερον νόμον, τὸν ἐν τοις μέλεσί με αντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τῇ νοός με, καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας,

Ch. viii, v, 2. Mr. Turner rightly applies vos to the Gospel, because the apostle has here qualified it by the sequel, and restricted it to that definite meaning, V. 3. Schöettgen considers çœpròs åμagrías as a sin-offering, but on no stable grounds: oapós might have been better explained by 1 or W. By this interpretation the force of the verse will be destroyed, which St. Basil has ably elucidated : διὰ τῦτο εἴρηται ἐν ὁμοιώματι γεγενῆσθαι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας· οὐ γὰρ ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς, ὡς τέτοις δοκεί, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας. Ὁμοίωμα is used in a similar sense in other parts of St. Paul's epistles. V. 7. These words: may be retraced in Vayikra Rabba, § 7, where the sins of Israel are called hostilities to their Heavenly Father. V. 19. Krios, as might be proved by many quotations, is a, homines nar oxy: e. g, he, who loves God, loves mankind, (Pirki Aboth) which corresponds to a passage in St. John's epistle. This will be further demonstrated by the

,God Almighty הק"בה יבוא לדין את הבריות following example

(the Messiah) will come to judge the creatures, i, e. all men. Bücher explains anoxapadoxia, as the watchful expectation of friends the vigilance of sentinels looking all around from their posts the expectation of brides, or the anxious hope of prisoners, all which uses of the words will exemplify the energy of the Apostle's meaning. V. 20. Phavorinus renders VATAÍONS→→→ πράγμα ἀνόητον, βολὴ ἀνυπόστατος, V. 26, ἀλαλήταις. This ex

pression has an equivalent periphrasis among the Rabbinical

such as no mortal לא יביל בר נש לפרשא לון בפומיה :authors

can utter. Mr. Turner has a clear comprehension of the doctrinal arguments in this epistle, and forcibly refutes the Calvinistic senses, which many have affixed to certain words, by severing them from their context. His note on v. 28, 29, 30, is exceedingly worthy of observation, not only for its sound criticism, but for its perfect exegesis of the nature of the Gospel, and St. Paul's reasoning against the Jews, who denied the admission of the Gentiles into the covenant. The Sufiistical school in its adoption of the scheme of fatalism, in like manner, has attempted to reconcile it, with Divine Justice: thus, Hafiz.

دلا منال ز بیداد جور یار که یار

ترا نصیب همین کرده است و این داد است

"O my heart, bewail not the unjust oppression of THY BELOVED; for, THY BELOVED is fate, and this is justice." To the understanding of this mysticism, it may be necessary to state, that the Almighty is intended by "THE BELOVED."Wherein does this differ from many of the unsupported excursus in the Institutes of Calvin? The author conceives an idea of affection implied in yvwonw, of which Schleusner has given several examples. In the New Testament, it perfectly answers to YT: hence, he renders the verse paraphrastically, "whom He of old regarded with affection, them He also called (to the enjoyment of the blessings of the Gospel) and whom he called; them He also justified (by the forgiveness of their sins.)" &c. &c. Such is, we are satisfied, the true solution of the passage, and the only one that is not repugnant to the general scheme of Christianity. This verse has, indeed, been wrenched from its merciful purpose to support a theory apparently derogating from the brightest attributes of the Supreme Being; but if it be critically scrutinized and philologically interpreted, it is a splendid exemplification of the UNIVERSALITY of that salvation which Christ offered and ratified to mankind by his death. Every part of the Scriptures must be viewed in its connexion with other parts; if each be severed from those on which it is dependent, it may be adduced in support of doc- · trines against which, as in this instance, in its integral state, it is directed by the writer. V. 33, xλyn here means "that part of the Jewish nation which embraced the Gospel,. thus the word ELECT was used by the earliest Christian writers,' in substantiation of which, respectable references are adduced. But, as Cyril and others certify, ELECT was a term applied both~

to Jews and Christians, whether as Hebrews ixxaλuvais ix Tỡ νόμο, or as Gentiles, ἐκκαλεμένοις ἐκ τῶ κόσμο; and this is demonstrated in these annotations by the contrast between ixλixrWỳ and ἀπίστων. Ἔκλεκτος and ἔκκλητας are synonyms in Hellenistic Greek.

[ocr errors]

has

Ch. ix. v. 1. 'Ev Xgiore has been properly rendered : but critics have erred in considering it an adjuration. many extended senses; among others, it is according to cf, Lev. v.. 15, Numb. xiv. 34, Hos. x. 10, in which case the passage would stand, "I speak the truth, according to Christ." It is sometimes pleonastic, like the Arabic

66

they are not believers," (or among the believers); but the

-ب و ما هم بمومنين

כל מעשהו באמונה,construction most analogous is the following

“all his works are true," v. tenùs, in truth, Ps. xxxiii. 4, 1772 bawa yun na «ZECHARIAH, his Son, a wise counsellor, v. tenùs, a counsellor in wisdom or understanding. So likewise, 2 Sam. iii. 27, "with treachery," i. e. treacherously, if, then, we adopt this, iv Xpíory will signify, "as a Christian," between which and the former, there is no real difference. V. 3. We are of opinion, that Mr. Turner has failed in this instance. Avábɛua is, simply, 2, or, and can only signify accursed, in its remotest sense. Although Rosenmüller, and many besides, have given an optative force to mixóμny sivar, we dispute its validity, and consider av necessary to that interpretation, from other examples in the Hellenistic dialect., Every book in Homer will assist us in ascertaining the purport of the expression, which is, "I have great heaviness and continual sorrow at my heart, for I myself boasted that I was cut off (q. d. an enemy to) from Christ, on account of my brethren," &c. This accords with all that is antecedent and subsequent to it, whereas the other never could without violence, be accounted a religious wish, and this is explained by those persecutions, with which he formerly harassed the Church. Thus, in Il. á v. 90, 91.

[ocr errors]

δ ̓ ἦν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπης, Ὅς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος ἐνὶ στρατῷ εύχεται εἶναι. (boasts himself to be. )

Budæus's foolish speculations on avalua and avanua are. irrelevant to the subject, v. 5. 7 is a common epithet of the Almighty, and there is almost a parallel passage in

ברוך יהוה אלהי ישראל מן העולם ועד העלם .36 .Chron. xvi 1

which only differs from this by being precative or optative. The Socinians absurdly require the introduction of the substantive verb, since we have a similar construction in the LXX,,

and a collateral evidence of the correctness of our version in Rom. i. 25, v. 8. The writer has not illustrated this nor the following verse, where τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς and τέκνα τε Θε answer An:

בני אלהים and בני בשר ודם,to the Jewish phrases

equally strong contrast appears to be maintained between réxvoc τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, or the descendants of Isaac, and σπέρμα Αβραάμ, or those of Ishmael. The latter clause of v. 8, is not unincumbered with difficulty; oi 'Topanλ contrasted with 'Ioganλ may be elliptical, and may, perhaps, apply to the Ishmaelites, as being of the same family as Israel, which version would not violate the context. Supposing to be, as all separate Hebrew prepositions, being virtually nouns, partake of the force of their root, as derived from , in its primitive sense, means the detached part of a thing; e. g. Dyn, Jer. xxxix. 10; D, Lev. iv. 6, 17, 18, &c.; from whence its transition to a privative preposition became easy. It also meant, out of, like (Gen. viii. 19, Prov. iv. 23, &c.); and often in its Hellenistie use included an idea of separation. Ezra x. 8, (áñà LXX), Numb. xvi. 9, (èx LXX), Exod. xii. 19, (ix LXX), seem passages of a similar construction; if so, the ellipsis will

and will imply those of the same stock, who ,נכרתו or נבדלו be

were not incorporated in the covenant: or in the succeeding verse, which connects the idea, and the allegation, d' 'loaan x'. . ., refers the argument to times anterior to Jacob. On the other hand, of Ispanλ may signify those lineally descended from Israel, who were not bonâ fide 'Iopan, because they disregarded the covenant, and the promises which constituted them true Israelites. This idea may be elucidated by Matt. iii. 9, and Luke iii. 8. Even if we adopt the former, the apostle will appear to suggest this inference to the Jews, that they stand in the same comparison to the Gentiles, as the Ishmaelites stood to them, who yet were not admitted into the covenant; for the Gentiles now being incorporated by the advent of the Redeemer, into the true church of God, if they still persist in their rejection of the Messiah, they can institute no longer claims to the character of the true Israel, the covenant with Abraham their father being completed by the incar nation of Christ, and since that time, only extending the promises to those who obey the Gospel, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Those, therefore, who reject it, are to the Gentiles, who claim the sanction of their Scriptures, precisely the same as the children of Ishmael were to them, at the time of the foederal promise: neither are the real Israel. The passage is confess~edly difficult, although the practical deduction from it is obvious, and the same.

V. 11, 12, have reference to Esau and Jacob, as communities; the ixλóyn was made before Esau's birth, and could not, therefore, be the consequence of his alienation of his birth-right. Mr. Turner well remarks, that the prediction was not verified in Esau and Jacob, as individuals; but in them as communities, it had an abundant completion. David first reduced them to slavery, and when under Jehoram they shook off the yoke, the cessation was not long, for the Maccabees again conquered them, and Hyrcanus thoroughly broke their power. The inλóyn had no relation to their future state of being, but to the pools, that the Messiah should be born from the line of Jacob, through whom the Gentiles should be admitted into the true Church of God. V. 13. The passage cited from Genesis is compared with that in Malachi, i. 2, 3, which completely restricts it to the fate of his descendants; "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste, for the dragons of the wilderness."

שנא and אהב. ואהב את יעקב ואת עשו שנאתי

are anthropopathetic terms: the one implies the favour of God, the other is either a usiwais of the former, or expressive of his displeasure. In this passage, the one answers to prætuli, the other to postposui, or posthabui. in Arabic means, to prepare a person for an office, &c., which would elicit no bad sense, in this place; and because N ordinarily is applied to hatred, we find my the general translation of it. In Matt. vi. 24; John xiii. 23, ayanaw is used in the sense of præfero, and in ayanάw, in Apoc. xii. 11, in that of parvi pendere, negligere, and Vorst has proved such to be the force of both. The one is the contrast or the meiosis of the other, and from the preceding example in Matt. vi. 24, where both occur in a similar connexion, as well as from Luke xiv. 26, we are assured that they cannot be interpreted, according to our ideas of love and hatred. We have, moreover, direct evidence that N means, negligere, posthabere, in Gen. xxix. 30, 31, and Prov. xxv. 17. V. 14, 15. The first has reference to God's power and right in the exλoyn, which is proved by the sequel; the inference from which, far from being Calvinistic, is, that there is no poawohndia with God, and that his justice is by no means invaded by the exertion of his fore-knowledge and pódeois. The preceding parts of the chapter relate to the rejection of the families of Ishmael and Esau, with whom the unbelieving Jews are now brought into comparison: the Gentiles, by the advent of Christ, having been made partakers of the covenant, the question is, can the Jews, from the similarity of past events, with

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »