PACK iNEX s 097 S31 METAPHYSICAL DISSERTATION BEARING OX NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM, . II. CRITICAL DISSERTATION ON S ITS LOGICAL SEQUENCE. . I. flDetapb^sical SMssertation BEARING ON IRew {Testament Criticism, JULY 1889. Re-written from a PLEA FOR A NEW ENGLISH VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES, 1864. Spirit TTvevfio, nil THROUGHOUT the New Testament the noun Trvev/jia (from Trvelv to blow or breathe) occurs above 380 times, and is used with much variety of scope and meaning. Yet as its Latin and English representative, spiritus, spirit, has similar latitude of signification, spirit may, in most instances, adequately represent Trvevfia. It is highly important to distinguish Trvev^a from ^rv^rj soul, and 0)77 life. Life is that active principle of which the opposite is death. N A11 life, accord- ing to Scripture/ says Delitzsch in his Biblical Psychology, ^ is activity and operation of the spirit/ With God is the fountain of life : his only-begotten Son is The Life ; and life comes, in the Scriptural usage of the word, to denote the highest blessedness. N In the way of righteousness is life." "* He that findeth me," says Wisdom, s findeth life." "* To be spiritually minded is life and peace." It is with A 21 17438 2 Soul and Spirit. similar import that the word life is used in these well-known and richly significant phrases, Prince of Life, Bread of Life, Water of Life, Tree of Life, Book of Life, Crown of Life. The soul is said, by Delitzsch, to be ^the product or manifestation of the spirit* and to H include the intellectual nature, the desires and affections, that part of man which, so . to speak, is turned towards the flesh and the world. 1 ' Hence the -fyvyjucos avOpwiros or natural man is man unsanctified by divine grace, who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, they being foolishness to him ; ''neither*' says the Apostle Paul, "* can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned 1 ' (i Corinthians 2. 14). The spirit is, as it were, the mainspring of the soul, animating, ruling, guiding it: it is one's personality, one's very self, acting through the soul upon the body, and giving to one's actions their character and their energy. Hence it has been observed that while, in the Scriptures, it is common for a man to address his sou/, there is no instance of a man addressing his spirit. The spirit is (so to speak) the mover and regulator, and the giver of the address to the soul. The spirit within the man is that which knoweth the things of the man. An ungodly man is unrenewed in the spirit of his mind. The spirit by which he is influenced is the spirit of the world. Hence the things of the world and of the flesh are the objects of his chief attention, leading him to speak in this fashion to his soul, N Soul, thou hast many goods laid up for many years : take thine ease; eat; drink; be merry/ But when the spirit is The Spiritual Man. 3 renewed in accordance with Ezekiel 36. 26, X A new heart will I give you ; and a new spirit will I put within you/ then the soul receives new principles of action, and thus moves and works in a direction the opposite of that in which it formerly acted, the language of the renewed spirit being of this kind, N Bless the LORD, O my soul/ " Return unto thy rest, O my soul, for the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee." Accordingly the sou/ of the Virgin Mary magnified the Lord when her spirit rejoiced in God her Saviour. The soul renewed and sanctified through the renewal and sanctification of the spirit uses the members of the body in the service of their Creator, and thus the Apostle Paul prays for the Thessalonian brethren that their whole spirit, and soul, and body may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The true .Christian is a spiritual man (TrvevfiariKos}. No longer carnally minded, he is spiritually minded : his circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit : he serves in newness of spirit, and exemplifies the first of the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount, N Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." The New Testament discloses a most intimate connection between the Holy Spirit and the renewed spirit of the Christian. N The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8. 16). "'They were all filled with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 2. 4). "* Ye are God's temple ; and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you." '" Your body is the Temple of 4 Yielding up the Spirit. the Holy Spirit in you " (i Corinthians 3. 16 ; 6. 19). x If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit'' (Galatians 5. 25). Similarly, Ezekiel 36. 26-27, Mark I. 8, Luke i. 15, 41, 67, Acts 4. 8, 31, Romans 8. 9, 11, and i John 3. 24 ; 4. 13. In the Authorised Version of the New Testa- ment uniformity of translation is appropriately adhered to in dealing with the word Tn/eO/m in a large majority of the passages containing it, the English equivalent spirit being used. In one passage, however, namely, Revelation 13. 15, Tn/eu/ia is translated life. " He had power to give life unto the image of the beast/ In the Revised Version of 1881 breath is preferable; but there seems to be no sufficient reason for not adhering to the usual rendering spirit the giving of spirit to an image being as good English as the giving of life (Isaiah 42. 5). In Matthew 27. 50 and John 19. 30, the words, yielded up the ghost, and gave up the ghost, come far short of expressing the deep meaning of the original, aev/xa spirit in the beginning as well as in the end of the verse, pre- serves all that is contained in the verse as it stands in the versions of 1611 and 1881, and is at the same time far more richly expressive. It does not exclude the reference to the wind, but includes it in its fullest extent, while it at the same time directs the reader beyond the wind to Him whose voice the wind is, and who ^bringeth the wind out of his treasuries/ Men hear the wind, and ascertain its course, and see its consequences ; but He who gives forth His voice in the wind continues enshrined in unsearchable glory. His way is in the sea : His path is in many waters : His foot- steps are unknown. Men, therefore, know not H whence he cometh, or whither he goeth." s Lo he goeth by me/ says Job (9. 1 1), x but I see not ; and he passeth on, but I perceive him not." Soul It is essential to accuracy that ^t%^ soul should be pointedly distinguished, not only from TTvevpa spirit, which it invariably is throughout the Authorised Version, but also from 0)77 life. Yet, while "fyv%y is correctly translated soul above fifty times, there are about forty instances in which it is translated life, to the obscuring of the important psychological distinction between life and soul, as illustrated by such passages as Psalm 66. 9, N Who holdeth our soul E?BJ in life D"n." 1 2 Soul and Body. In Matthew 16. 25-26, Mark 8. 35-37, Luke 12. 19-23, 1^1^77 is translated both j0/ and life, the reasoning and the force of the argument being (as in John 3. 8) destroyed thereby : Matt. 1 6. 25-26. Whosoever will save his life shall lose it ; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it : for what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? Luke 12. 19-23. Soul, . . . take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. . . . Fool ! this night thy soul shall be required of thee. . . . Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, neither for the body what ye shall put on : the life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. This misleading diversity is left unaltered in the Revised Version of Luke 12. 19-23, where also the important relation of soul to body is thus obliterated. In the two other passages the trans- lating of tywxr) diversely life and soul is indeed obviated. Yet the selection of life rather than soul to represent ^v^rj weakens the force of the Saviour's words about losing one's soul, and, be- sides obliterating the important connection between this and other passages where soul occurs, extends the false uniformity between this passage and a Soul and Life. 1 3 multitude of others in which life correctly repre- sents, not ^1^77, but ^wrj. In Matthew 16. 26 and Mark 8. 36, forfeit Jits life is surely a poor substitute for lose his soul', and it is less true to the original. The substitution of life for soul in certain passages referring to Christ, besides not being required by the English idiom, fails to do justice to the human aspect of His mediatorial nature on the one hand and to those divine attributes of His which are included in the deeply expressive term far) life on the other, as where He is called The Life, the Bread of Life, the Prince of Life. By an anthropomorphism the Hebrew K>SJ soul is sometimes used even of God, as in Jeremiah 9. 8 (9), and Amos 6. 8. Yet when the corresponding Greek 'fyvyj) is used of the divine Redeemer, it involves such an essential reference to His humanity as requires it to be carefully distinguished from co?7 D^n, which it cannot be if translated life. This inaccurate translation also obscures the important connection between some passages and others in their common reference to the sufferings and death of the Messiah, or in their relation to one another in this particular thus, Exodus 30. 12. Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD. Mark 10. 45. The Son of Man came ... to give his life a ransom for many. 1 4 The Soul of the Good Shepherd. Psalms 35. 4, 40. 14. . . . that seek after my soul. Psalm 38. 12. . . . that seek after my life. Isaiah 53. 11. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. 12. He hath poured out his soul unto death. Matthew 26. 38. My soul is exceeding sorrow- ful even unto death. John 12. 27. Now is my soul troubled. r John 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 1 7. I lay down my life that I might take it again. i John 3. 16. He laid down his life for us. How much more clearly would an English reader perceive and appreciate the psychology of the Scriptures if the distinction between far) D"n life and -Jfvxh K'SU sou ^ were represented with uniform accuracy throughout the English Version ! ''Jehovah Elohim formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living soul/ Genesis 2. 7. ^So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul : the last Adam became a life-giving spirit/ i Corinthians 15. 45. Covenant. 1 5 II. Critical Dissertation on S to, #77/0? with its Logical Sequence. Covenant THE noun SiaQijfcr), which occurs thirty-three times in the New Testament, is translated covenant twenty, and testament thirteen times. Covenant Luke i. 72 to remember his holy covenant. Acts 3. 25 the covenant which God made with our fathers. Acts 7. 8 the covenant of circumcision. Romans 9. 4 the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law. Romans u. 27 this is my covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins. Ephesians 2. 12 strangers from the covenants of promise. Hebrews 12. 24 Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. Hebrews 13. 20 the blood of the everlasting covenant. Gal. 3. 15, 17 4 .24 Heb. 8. 6, 8, 9 twice, 10 9. 4 twice 10. 16,29. Testament Matthew 26. 28 ) TIT i 94. f my blood of the new testament. 1 6 Testament and Covenant. > the new testament in my blood. Luke 22. 20 1 Cor. II. 25 2 Cor. 3. 6 ministers of the new testament. 14 the reading of the old testament. Hebrews 7. 22 ; 9. 15 twice, 16, 17, 20. Revelation n. 19 the ark of his testament. An attentive examination of these passages and of the biblical use of SiaOrj/cr) may show that this variation is unnecessary and inaccurate, and that it obscures the scope and import of the original, and the relation of some passages containing SiaOr/Kiy to others. The arbitrariness of the variation appears on comparing, for instance, Hebrews 9. 4 and Revelation n. 19 with each other. As the meaning of Siadij/crj in both passages is obviously the same, BtaO^Kij ought to be translated the same in both. Yet they stand diversely thus, Hebrews 9. 4 the ark of the covenant. Revelation n. 19 the ark of his testament. There is a similarly arbitrary variation in dealing with the phrase TO alpa TT}? Siadijtcr)? : Hebrews 9. 20 the blood of the testament. 10. 29 the blood of the covenant. So likewise the Kpelrrovos Bia&rJK'r)*; of Hebrews 7. 22 is clearly identical with the Kpeirrovos ^iadr)K^{pea0ai rov 8ta.0efi.frov. . . . Only when we recur to sense (i), that of a testa- ment, can it be true, that where a SiaBriK-rj is, there must of neces- sity be death, and that, the death roD Scafe/u^cov, of him who has made the testament I believe then it will be found that we must at all hazards accept the meaning testament here, as being the only one which will in any way meet the plain requirements of the verse It is much disputed how the logic of this passage can cohere : seeing that, how properly soever the latter SiaGriK-r) may be spoken of and argued on as being a testament, the former one could have no such character, and consequently cannot be thus argued on. . . . The matter seems to stand thus. The word diaBrjKT) has the double sense of a covenant and a testament. Both these senses may be applied to both 8ia.0iJKai : to the latter more properly belongs the testamentary sense, but to the former also in as far as it was typical of and foreshadowed the other. . . . The testator was im- perfectly, but still was formally represented by the animals slain in sacrifice : there was a death, there was a sprinkling of and The Inheritance. 23 sealing by blood. ... In both cases there is an inheritance, and in both it is the same. In both it is bequeathed : in the latter actually by One who has come in person and died : in the former, only typically, by the same One ceremonially present." Here however the word bequeathed in its testa- mentary sense is incompatible with the actual circumstances of the case. Jesus indeed, in Luke 22. 29, says to his disciples, Kayon Biarldefjuai, vfj.lv, Ka0(i><$ Siedero fj,oi 6 irarrfp fjiov, ftacrC\.iav. Yet so far is the idea of death from entering into the conception of this appointment, that it is positively excluded both by the fact that Jesus attributes the act expressed by the verb SiarWevai to God the Father as well as to himself, and by the other fact that he speaks of himself in such a way as to show that he is referring, not to the sufferings and death of his first advent, but to the deathless glory of his second advent. So far was the idea of a bequest taking effect at death from entering into the case, that the promised inheritance was a kingdom in which the receivers of it would sit with their divine Master at his table in his king- dom a circumstance utterly incompatible with the idea of a bequest accruing through the death of the testator. Further, the Father gives the inheritance in the sense of ^iariOevat,, as fully and really as the Son gives it, so that N the death of the testator" in this connection also is simply impos- sible. Indeed, the bestowing of the inheritance is primarily and pre-eminently, though not exclu- sively, the act of the Father, i Peter I. 3-4, Acts 20. 32; 26.18, Ephesians I. 3-12, Colossians 1.12-13; 24 Testators and Beqiiests. and it is through an essentially different connec- tion that the death of the Son is brought in. It is thus brought in, not as the death of a testator, but as the death of a sacrificial victim, loving the church and giving himself for her not that he may thereby bequeath an inheritance to her, but that, in ^the power of an endless life," he may redeem her to tiimse/f (Ephesians 5. 25-27). Indeed, the idea of the death of a testator as essential to the constituting or ratifying or giving validity to a SiaOij/cr), and thus making it /3e/3aia, is foreign to the Scriptural use of the word ^LadriKT], The BiaOrj/cat spoken of in the Septuagint and in the New Testament in connection with death were covenants in the making or sealing of which sacrifices were offered ; and the deaths w r ere, not deaths of testators, but the deaths of the sacrificial victims. Although in classical usage SiaO^/cy sometimes denotes, as expressed in the Lexicon of Liddell and Scott, "* a disposition of property by will, a will and testament* this meaning is (as already shown in page 20) impossible and absurd in Hebrews 9. 15-20. Alford's statement that the testator was represented by the animals slain in sacrifice, so far from giving even plausibility to the testamentary theory, does but illustrate how strained and incongruous the theory is. Not even ""typically" was there a bequest in the sacri- ficial inauguration of the ancient BiaOiJK'r). Nor yet was there a bequest in the sacrificial inauguration of the new Siadrj/cr), the Saviour's death being the The Testamentary theory. 25 death not of a testator but of One who was both the priest and the sacrificial victim, giving his soul to God as His people's ransom, and thus, not bequeathing an inheritance to them, but redeeming them to himself and. to the Father. The testamentary theory, as explaining Hebrews 9. 16-17, is alien to the usage of the Septuagint and the New Testament. Where a testament, or something akin to a testament in the testamentary sense of the word, is referred to, it is not called either 8ia6)JKrj or ms- Thus, for instance, the word iva or Bia0jJKr) is not used to designate Isaac's blessing of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27 and 28, or Jacob's blessing of Joseph and his sons in 48, or his own sons in 49, or Joseph's charge to his brethren and the relative oath which he exacted from them in 50. 24-25, or David's dying charge to Solomon in i Kings 2. And although Joshua, on the eve of his death, made a nn2 with the people, 24. 25, it had not the nature of a testament, and the validity of it was in no \vay dependent on his death. Conversely, where death is associated with a BiadiJK^ or jvo, the death is invariably the death of a sacrificial victim or victims, and in no case the death of a testator. Further, the death spoken of in Hebrews 9. 16-17 is not any kind of death, but specifically and exclusively death by the shedding of blood : N Where a BiadrJKr] is, there must of necessity be brought in the death of the SiaOefjLevos. . . . Wherefore even the first [Siadtj/crj] was not inaugurated without blood." Now the unten- 26 The Speaker s Commentary. ableness of the rendering in the revised version of this passage is surely apparent at a glance : s there must of necessity be the death of him that made it." Who made the first StadiJKr] ? Only one answer is possible : Jehovah made it, and He made it in circumstances which preclude the very idea of N the death of him that made it" The absurdity cannot be got rid of by pointing to the death of the beasts slain in the relative sacrifice. They were in no sense of the word makers of the covenant ; nor yet did they typically represent s him that made it/ They represented, not the maker or author, but the /ieo-iV?;? or mediator and sacrificial victim of the new covenant. Dr. Kay, in the Speaker's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, thus shows briefly and cogently the ineptitude of the testamentary theory, Mt is evident from x. 15-17 that the passage which has been quoted from Jeremiah dominates the whole discussion in chapters viii x. The use of the term "Mediator" of itself shews that we have here to do with the Hebrew idea of a "covenant," not with the Roman idea of a " testament." A mediator is the proper guardian of a covenant (Galatians iii. 15-20), but has no place in regard to a testament. Neither again does the death of a testator possess any of the sacrificial character which is referred to in verses 15-22. . . . To speak of "transgressions under a testa- ment " (verse 15) 'is to join together incongruous ideas : whereas Israel is often said to have "transgressed" God's "covenant." Deuteronomy xvii. 2, Jeremiah xxxiv. 18, Hosea vi. 7, viii. I/ The use of SiaOtj/cij throughout the New Testament as equivalent to rvna of the Old Testament is amply sufficient to explain the scope and signification of Stad-ij/crj and its cognate Covenants. 2 7 6 Siadefievos in Hebrews 9. 16-17, and the precise import of the writer's argument. Besides personal, social, and secular covenants between man and man, such, for instance, as the covenant between Joshua (9. 6-15) and the Gibeonites, and the covenant between King Solomon and Hiram, King of Tyre (i Kings 5. 12 (Hebrew Bible 26), Amos i. 9), there might be even religious or divinely enjoined covenants, such as Circumcision (Genesis 17, Acts 7. 8), without the shedding of sacrificial blood, or the offering of a sacrificial victim. Often however and pre-eminently in such covenants between God and His people as that of Exodus 24, referred to in Hebrews 9. 18-20 the making of the covenant was intimately associated with sacrifice. The very first passage where rv~Q, and in the Septuagint SiadiJKij, occurs is the narrative of God's covenant with Noah, as described in Genesis 8-9. It was when Noah built an altar, and sacrificed burnt-offerings on it, and Jehovah smelled a savour of rest that He said, "* Behold, I establish my covenant with you." Still more explicit in its sacrificial details is Genesis 15, where the Lord makes a covenant with Abram, and, in so doing, causes a lamp of fire, apparently the Shekinah, representing the divine presence, to pass between the pieces into which the sacrificial victims had been divided. This has a remarkable counterpart in Jeremiah 34. 18, where the Lord refers to transgressors against his covenant, who had not performed the words of the covenant which they made before him H when they cut the 28 Sacrificial Blood. calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof. Now it may be specially observed in connection with such prominent passages as these, in which JVna covenant is closely associated with sacrifice, that the only covenants mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews are the new and better covenant, of which Jesus is the mediator, and the old Mosaic covenant, which was the type and pioneer of the new. One of the essentials of each of these covenants was the shedding of sacrificial blood, and the offering of the relative sacrifice. What gave importance and value to the shedding of the blood and the offering of the sacrifices in the inauguration of the old covenant was the divine greatness of the covenant, and the still greater greatness of the new covenant of which the old covenant was the pioneer and emblem, and by which it should afterwards be superseded. The death of the sacrificial victims in the 24th ot Exodus was thus notable because it symbolised or typified the death of Him who should be both priest and victim, bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, and thus putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself. His death was essential to his work as Redeemer, Mediator, Saviour ; and it was with primary reference to his one great sacrifice, and to the shedding of His Blood of the new covenant as the price of His people's redemp- tion, that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews declared, s where a StaOijKrj is, there must of necessity be brought in the death of the Stade- The Blood of the Covenant, 29 yu,ei/o? : for a Siadrffcr) is of force eVt, i/epot? (over dead ones), whereas it availeth nothing while the Sia0efj,vo<; liveth." This is not asserted, in a ^general axiomatic sense," of all SiaOrjKat in the testa- mentary meaning of the word, or in any meaning of it. The words OTTOV yap Sia6i]fcr) no more refer to every SiaOrj/cij than do the words OTTOV TO o-co/zo. in Luke I/. 37 refer to every