.... resurrection from the dead. Having thus given vent to the feelings of reverence with which the mention of the Son of God had inspired him, he resumes his theme by the words 'Inoou ἡμῶν, which are in apposition with τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in ver. 3. The words τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν again suggest another train of thought, which the writer stops to utter, viz. di où .... Xporou after which he resumes his theme, and finishes the sentence by яãσɩ тоiç.... Xpɩтou, ver. 7. The greater part, then, of this apparently involved sentence, might be included in parenthesis; and then the simple sentence would run thus: Παῦλος . . . . ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ .... Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν . . . . πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν κ. τ. 入. If the reader now will take special notice of this characteristic in the writings of Paul, it will help to unravel many a sentence which would otherwise seem perplexed and perhaps even irrelevant. To understand well the writings of this apostle, something more than a knowledge of grammar and of words is necessary. We must be able to enter into the feelings and sympathies of the writer, and to trace his modes of thought and expression in cases that seem obscure, as well as in cases which are plain. Tevouévov, descended, born.-'Ek σTéoμarоs, of the posterity, of the lineage.-Karà oápka, in respect to his human nature, or in respect to his incarnate state, his fleshly existence. Záp denotes literally flesh, i. e. the flesh of a living, animated being, in distinction from that of a dead one, which is κρέας. It denotes body also; not in the sense of ouμa, which has reference to the compacting of the whole of the parts into one mass, but in the sense of body as distinguished from mind, the visible part as distinguished from the invisible one. Hence it is very often used, both in the Old Testament and the New, for our animal nature, the animal man (so to speak). Frail, perishable man, also, and man with carnal appetites and passions, are often designated by it, as every lexicon will shew. As kindred with this, it often means man as living in his present fleshly and dying or transitory state, in distinction from another and different condition in a future world; so Gal. ii. 20. Phil. i. 22, 24. Heb. v. 7. applied to Christ, 1 Pet. iv. 2, 2 Cor. x. 3. This I take to be the shade of sense, which it has in the passage before us. Christ, as to his outward and transitory man, or as to his human nature or condition, descended from the royal progeny of David; and therefore, even in respect to his lower nature, he was of exalted origin. In other words, Christ, as to his incarnate condition, i, e. as to that nature which dwelt on earth (¿okýrwoev ¿v iμìv, John i. 14), and was capable of suffering and dying, was of regal descent. Such was Christ even in his state of humiliation. But what was he in his exalted and glorified state? If, as to his fleshly or transitory nature and state, he was David's son, what was he in his exalted condition, his pneumatic state? The answer is, 'The Son of God;' and not simply this neither, for he was the Son of God while έv aapki but in his exalted state, he was the Son of God év dvváμa, i. e. he was “Lord over all," "Head over all things to his church, ápxù tñs kriσew τοῦ θεοῦ.” .... Such I take to be the general idea of τοῦ ὁρισθέντος . . . . ἁγιωσύνης. The illustration of particular words is attended with no small difficulty. (4) 'Opolévтoc has been rendered decreed, constituted, ordained; so Clavius, Erasmus, Faber, and others. So also the oldest Latin interpreters, qui prædestinatus est; as appears from the Latin interpretation. of Irenæus, III. 18, 32; from Ruffin's version of Origen, and Hilary De Trinitate, VII. To the same purpose some recent interpreters have rendered opio0évToç' and this accords with the meaning of the word in Heb. iv. 7. Acts xi. 29. ii. 23. x. 42. xvii. 26, 31. Luke xxii. 22. and these are all the instances in which it is used in the New Testament, excepting the case before us. But this sense of the word is alleged, by some critics, not to accord with the design of the passage. In order to prove this, they suppose the passage (by way of illustration) to be construed thus: Ordained to be the Son of God with power, karà πvɛõμa åyɩwovvns, i. e. by the miraculous gifts which the Spirit conferred upon him, or by the miracles which the Spirit enabled him to perform;' and then ask, how the miraculous gifts or deeds of Jesus ordained or constituted him to be the Son of God? He possessed these gifts, or performed these miracles, as they justly aver, because he was the Son of God; he was not made so by the possession of his gifts or the performance of his deeds. Grotius, in order to relieve this difficulty with respect to opolévτos, construes the passage thus: "The regal dignity of Jesus, as Son of God, was predestinated or prefigured, when he wrought signs and wonders in his incarnate state.' But how predestinating or constituting can be made to mean prefiguring, I am not aware. Others construe thus: 'Ordained to be the powerful Son of God, in his pneumatic condition [or state of exaltation], by his resurrection. from the dead.' But in this case we are compelled to ask: How could his resurrection decree or ordain his exalted state? It might be the consequence of a decree that he should be exalted; it was so; but in what manner the resurrection could ordain, or constitute, or decree his exaltation, it would be difficult indeed to explain. There is yet one other sense, however, in which the passage before us may be taken, viz. Constituted the Son of God with power, in his pneumatic condition, after his resurrection from the dead.' For although he was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was not the Son of God év dvváμɛ, in the sense here meant, until after his ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high. I hesitate between this sense and the one given by Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, Ecumenius, the Syriac version, and the great majority of modern critics; viz. όρισθέντος· δειχθέντος, ἀποφθέντος, κριθέντος, ὁμολογηθέντος, shewn, demonstrated, exhibited, declared. Of this meaning of opiw, it is true, no example can be found in the New Testament, nor in the classics, which seems to be exactly in point. Passow gives no sense of this kind to opiw, in his lexicon. I find only one example (if indeed this be one) in the instances produced by Elsner, which will stand the test of scrutiny; this is : “A patron of what is just, δικαστὴν ὁρίζομεν γνήσιον, we call a true judge, or we declare to be a judge worthy of the name." But even here, the sense of deciding, determining, defining, is altogether a good one for opioμev; and this agrees with the usual meaning of the word. Still, as ópíu (from öpoç) means literally to prescribe the boundaries or limits of any thing, and thus, by defining it, to distinguish it from other things; so the secondary meaning given by Chrysostom, viz. dux@évTOS, dлоplévτos, declared, shown, is not an unnatural one, although destitute (so far as I can discover) of any definite usus loquendi to support it. The lexicon of Zonaras gives the same gloss to the word: opiσbévτos ἀποδειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος. It is a safe rule, not to adopt the sense of a word, which is not supported by the usus loquendi, when another meaning which is supported by it, can be given, that will make good sense. And in the case before us, it is as good sense to say, that Christ was constituted the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from the dead,' as to say, that 'Christ was shown to be the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from the dead.' For after the resurrection, he was advanced to an elevation which, as Messiah, he did not before possess; comp. Phil. ii. 9-11. Heb. ii. 9. xii. 2. Rev. iii. 21. Matt. xix. 28. Heb. i. 3. Nay, I may say that the more energetic meaning of the word is to be found in constituted. As an instance of this nature exactly in point, see Acts x. 42, where Christ is said to be ó proμέvoc ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, the constituted judge of the living and the dead; an example quite in point as to the sentiment, as well as the language. See also the same sense of the word in Acts xvii. 31, pure sc. kpɩthy, i. e. he [God] hath constituted him [Christ] the judge, &c.; comp. xvii. 26, ópíoaç.... Karpovç. If we should construe the phrase thus, as some do: Declared to be the Son of God with power, by the Holy Spirit, on account of (by) his resurrection from the dead;' one might then ask: How could the resurrection declare, in any special manner, that Christ was the Son of God? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? Were not others raised from the dead, by Christ, by the apostles, by Elijah, and by the bones of Elisha? And yet was their resurrection proof, that they were the Sons of God? God did indeed prepare the way for universal dominion to be given to Christ, by raising him from the dead. To the like purpose is the apostle's assertion in Acts xvii. 31. But how an event common to him, to Lazarus, and to many others, could of itself demonstrate him to be the Son of God év dvváμe-remains yet to be shewn. These questions appear to me so forcible, that I must go back to the more simple and unembarrassed meaning: 'Constituted the Son of God with power, in respect to his pneumatic state or condition, after his resurrection from the dead.' The sequel will exhibit additional considerations, in respect to this subject. The phrase vio Oɛou is still more difficult of interpretation. In order to be as brief as possible, I begin with the generic idea. Υἱὸς Oɛo any rational being may be called, who is formed in the image of God, i. e. possesses by his gift a moral and intellectual nature like his own. The original idea of viós, is that of derivation. The secondary one (which is often employed), is that of resemblance. The third gradation of meaning is, that of being regarded or treated as a son, occupying the place of a son, viz. having distinguished gifts, favours, or blessings bestowed on any one. To one or the other of these classes of meaning, may all the instances be traced, in which the phrase son or sons of God is applied, in the Old Testament or the New. In It is superfluous here to shew that viós, in its primary and literal sense, as applied to the relations of men, means a masculine descendant of any one; or that it means offspring, posterity, near or remote. regard to the phrase viòc Oɛou, it is applied, (1) To Adam, as proceeding immediately from the hand of the Creator, Luke iii. 38. (2) To those who are regenerated, or born of the Spirit of God, John i. 12, 13. Rom. viii. 15, 17. 1 John iii. 1, 2, et sæpe alibi. Connected with this, is the usage of calling all true worshippers of God his sons; e. g. Matt. v. 9, 45. Luke vi. 35. xx. 36. Rom. viii. 14, 19. 2 Cor. vi. 18. Gal. iii. 26. Heb. xii. 6. Rev. xxi. 7. et alibi. (3) The same appellation is sometimes given to such as are treated with special kindness; e. g. Rom. ix. 26. Hos. i. 10. xi. 1. Deut. xxxii. 5, 19. Is. i. 2. xliii. 6. Jer. xxxi. 9. 2 Cor. vi. 18. God, as the common father and benefactor of all men, good and bad, in reference to this relation, often calls himself a father, and styles them his children ; "If I be a father, where is mine honour?" "I have nourished and brought up children, but they have rebelled against me." Moreover, as all men are made in his image, i. e. have an intellectual, rational, and moral nature like his own; on this account also they may be styled his children; but more specially does this apply to those who are regenerated, and in whom the image of God that had been in part defaced, is restored. (4) As bearing some resemblance to the Supreme Ruler of the universe in respect to authority, or as having office by his special favour, kings are sometimes named sons of God; e. g. Ps. lxxxii. 6 (1). 2 Sam. vii. 14. So in Homer, dioyevne Bariλevç, II. I. 279. II. 196. (5) Angels are called sons of God, for the like reason that men are, viz. because God is their creator and benefactor; and specially, because they bear a high resemblance to God; see Job i. 6. ii. 1. Xxxviii. 7. Dan. iii. 25. It is evident from inspecting these examples, that men and angels may be called sons of God for more than one reason; nay, that in some cases all the reasons for giving this appellation are united. E. g. a pious Israelite might be called a son of God, because God was his creator; because of the special favours and blessings bestowed upon him, i. e. because of his being treated as a son; because he was born again by the power of the Holy Spirit; and because he bore a special resemblance to his heavenly Father. For each or for any one of these reasons, it is obvious we might, agreeably to Scripture usage, call any one a son of God, who is truly pious; and for all of them combined, or for any part of them, we might in like manner bestow on him the same appellation. I mention this here, because it is of no small importance in rightly estimating the force of ó viòc rou Oɛou, as applied to Christ. We come now to consider this last phrase, as applied in this manner. (a) It designates Jesus as produced in the womb of the virgin Mary, by the miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit, Luke i. 32 (comp. Luke iii. 38). Perhaps the same sense belongs to it in Mark i. 1. The words of the centurion, in Matt. xxvii. 54 and Mark xv. 39, seem, in the mouth of a Roman, to have the like sense, although perhaps it is not altogether the same. (b) It means Jesus as the constituted King or Messiah. Matt. xvi. 16. xxvi. 63. Mark xiv. 61. Luke xxii. 70. E. g. John i. 49. |