Page images


nor Can

thy will.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

with only a slight and unimportant on the earth ; the X. 6 who creatomission or two.

visible and

the ed the heaven and

invisible; whether the things in it; “ The Epistle to the Colossians presents thrones, or domi- also the earth and such a torrent of internal evidence of its


or princi- the things in it, having been written later than the palities, or powers: likewise the sea and Apocalypse, that it is wonderful critics

all should not have perceived it ;


the things therein. this be accounted for, but from the power

created by him and

for him : of prejudice and prepossession.


17 And he is be- IV. 11 Yea as basis of the Apostle's topics, arguments fore all things, and they were made, so and illustrations, in his address to this

by him all things also they exist by Asiatic church, are wholly Apocalyptical.

consist: In ch. i, 12, he gives “thanks to the

18 And he is the I. 5 From Jesus Father, who hath made us meet to be

head of the body, Christ. ... the firstpartakers 78 kanpou twv å yıwv EV TV the Church ; who is born from the dead, ownl, of THE inheritance of the saints in

Chief [or Prince, and the Chief [or The light :'-having in his eye what is

APXH], the first. Prince,

, APXAN] declared in Rev. ch. xxi: “ He that over

born from the dead, of the kings of the . cometh kinpovounoel Tavta shall in

that in all things earth. * herit all things." (v.7.) This inheritance

he might be first is represented under the symbol of a city (or Chief]. -the New Jerusalem. This city hath no

In ch. ii, 9, 10, we read, “In him need of the sun or of the moon to shine

· dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead therein ; " for the glory of THE OMNI

bodily; and ye are made complete by * POTENT. even the light (literally the him who is the head of all principality lamp) thereof, THE LAMB, enlightens it;

“ [ [APXHS princeship or government]

] • and the nations of them who are saved

' and power.” That is : to him belongs shall walk in my owri aurns the light POWER, in all its forms and attributes, 'thereof." (v. 23, 24.) No night shall

with all the glory that attaches thereto. be there, nor any need of a lamp, or of

When the reader shall have weighed what sun-light; because " JEHOVAH, the is stated in the Fifth Dissertation, reOMNIPOTENT, φωτιει επ' αυτους will en

specting the radical sense of the word lighten them.(Rev. xxii, 5.)

deòs [Theos] commonly rendered God, v. 13. " Who hath delivered us from

he will probably feel no difficulty in adεξουσιας τα σκοτες the power of THE

mitting that the power, glory, &c. ascribed darkness; and hath translated us into

to the Lamb, in the fifth chapter from the . the kingdom of his dear Son ;'_the

12th verse to the end, and in other parts saints having an inheritance in the light,

of the Apocalypse, explain fully what is are, of course, delivered from darkness;

meant by the fulness της θεότητος but the Apostle presses the contrast :

(Theotetos) of the Godhead, dwelling in they are delivered from the kingdom of him bodily. In this place I need only the beast, which has become EoKoTWflevn remark, that, in the Apocalypse, the radarkened, (Rev. xvi, 10,) and now belong

dical sense of Theos is Power; and that, " to the kingdom of God's dear Son;

in the passage before us, Paul having in yea, they shall reign for ever and ever."

v. 15) stated Christ Jesus to be the image (Rev. xxii, 5.) For the convenience of

of the invisible Godthat is, the image of comparison the following corresponding the invisible Power—informs them here, passages are placed in opposite columus :

that the bodily manifestation of this Power had its fulness in his person ; which is

precisely the same truth stated in other I. 14 Through I. 5 To him who words. whom we have the

hath washed The recurrence of the article, generally redemption, through us from our sins in omitted by translators, in this passage, is his blood (the for- his own blood, v. 9 too striking to be passed without notice : giveness of sins). hast redeemed us to " the inheritance,”—the light,"'-"the

God by thy blood. darkness,”—the redemption,”' &c. refer, 16 For by him IV. 11 For thou emphatically, to matters not now laid be

created all hast created all fore the Colossians for the first time, but things, those in the things.

with which they were already made acheavens, and those

quainted, by Him who is the head of all






APXHE (Arches) even by the APXIN heritance, the light, &c.) does not (Archoon) himself. Is it possible to read, appear to be managed with conwith any attention, such passages as have


In the ninth section been quoted, --recollecting, at the same

the author quotes τον στεφανον time, that they are found in an address to an Asiatic Church, in fellowship with the

ins Swns" the crown of life," from Church at Laodicea, which is also com- James i, 12, and Rev.ii, 9, 10; and manded to read this Epistle,--and not to insists, that, from the expression being perceive the basis on which the Apostle literally the same in both instances, rests his address, and bespeaks, as it were,

it is an incontestable proof, that the the particular attention of those to whom he writes?

Epistle of James was written subThese coincidences are too striking to sequently to the Apocalypse. Here require any acuteness to detect the resem- however he is silent about the defiblance, or argument to establish their cor

nite article urring in both ; respondence; and too numerous to leave

whereas, according to his argument any reasonable doubt as to the cause. Several of the contrasted passages are

concerning the Epistle to the Colosnearly verbatim, or quite so; and where sians, the article ought to be in the there is a verbal difference, as in Col. i, Epistle of James, but not in the 17. and Rev iv, ll, the sentiment is so

Apocalypse. How then,

How then, we ask, precisely similar and so peculiarly marked in the copy, as to render its source not

does John come by the article ? less conspicuous, than if the identical words To what crown does he refer ? of the Apocalypse had been quoted.

Secondly, we can see nothing in That the Apocalypse is the primitive re- the parallel passages, which the cord is manifest from Paul amplifying, in

Author quotes from Colossians, but v. 16, what he takes from Rev. iv, 1l, and x, 6; telling the Colossians that the '- all such ageneralized similarity of meanthings,created by THE SON OF GOD, in- ing, as by no means proves an intenclude the visible and the invisible, whether

tional reference from the one to the thrones, or dominions, &c. &c.

In cases other. Had Paul had the Apocalike this critics find so little difficulty, lypse before him as his exemplar, that a bare statement is sufficient to com

cor, were this the work he remand their assent: to enlarge on the fact would, therefore, be a waste of time.-Nor ferred to when he says of his Gosis this the only fact of the kind presented pel, “I neither received it of man, in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. * neither was I taught it, but by the third chapter he makes the same use of the revelation δί αποκαλυψεως of the 21st chapter of the Apocalypse, that he

Jesus Christ,”—we say, we might does when writing to the Ephesians ; reminding them, that “when Christ our life expect him to quote more literally; 'shall appear, they shall appear with him

as he does when he cites from the ' in glory, and enjoy the things that are other Scriptures. But had Paul the . above, where Christ sitteth on the right

same sentiments as John expressed hand of God ;” and therefore he exhorts

verbatim, it would not necessarily them, (from Rev. xxi, 8, “to mortify their members that are upon the earth ;' follow that Paul had copied John. telling them that covetousness is idolatry: Were their writings merely human,

that is, he performs the office of an such an inference might be insisted expositor, showing them that idolatry in

on with some propriety ; but as they cludes covetousness, as one of the crimes for which i opyn te the wrath of what should prevent the Spirit from

are the dictate of the Holy Spirit, God cometh on the children of disobedience ;" evidently alluding to ý opyn teaching the same truth to two or T8 apvia the wrath of the Lamb. Rev. more individuals ?

What can be vi, 16." P. 88.

more striking than the resemblance The argument drawn in the above between the narrative of the instipassage from the reference to the tution of the Lord's Supper, given use of the definite article (the in- by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi, 23-25;



and the account of the same circum- guage, and of events which had been prestance in Matthew, Mark and Luke?

dicted in the Hebrew Scriptures; and also, The variations between Paul and

that the principal speakers and actors were

Jews. No new terms were invented ; nor Luke are not so great as between

could this be necessary, in showing that Matthew and Luke: and yet we are what was now transacted was simply a assured by St. Paul, that he did not fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies. copy his account, but received it It follows, that, in the Greek Scriptures, immediately of the Lord.

(and this applies to the Septuagint transII. We pass on now to consider lation, so far as it gives a correct version

of the Hebrew,) other ideas, or shades of the verbal language of the Apoca- meaning, attach to many words, than could lypse.

be connected with them, as used by the This portion of Scripture has often heathen writers. To explain them only been charged, by those acquainted be to exclude, in a great degree, the real

by Greek usage, would, on many occasions, with the original, with defectiveness subject which they are employed to eluciin grammar and style : if the Reader

date. The Apostles and Evangelists, howhas been thus inclined to think he ever, when exhibiting Jewish usages and will be startled to find, that the

ceremonies, and scripture theology, in a Author advances it, as his deliberate

new garb, did not arbitrarily impose upon

words meanings foreign to their radical opinion, that the Apocalypse is the

sense : analogy was strictly regarded. They most carefully and grammatically did what good writers are obliged to do written of any book of the New every day,--they extended the primary Testament, insomuch that it was in- sense, so modified as to express or embrace tended to fíxand determine the signi- uniformity of use, in the new application,

the new idea, taking care to maintain that fication of many Greek words in the

which should remove ambiguity and unsacred Writings. We must acknow- certainty." P. 141. ledge ourselves indebted to the Au- He proceeds to maintain, that the thor in this respect; and so far as we general use of the Septuagint, the are enabled to form a judgement, we dispersion of the Jews throughout are disposed to agree in his general the Greek empire, and the practice position, as to the correctness of which had obtained among the the language of the Apocalypse: Elders of addressing the Hellenistic but the absence in the writings of Jews in their Synagogues, and exSt. Paul of such Hebraisms as are pounding the Old Testament in instanced in St. John, and so ably Greek, had already effected certain commented on by Dr. Tilloch, make idiomatic changes in the language, us still more disposed to reject arising from the necessity of exthe particular application of the pressing Hebrew ideas in Greek subject to the question of priority words, and thus in many instances of date. Concerning the former amplifying the ideas associated with point, the Author sets out with those words; and that at last the asserting, that there is more Apocalypse became the elementary intimate connexion between the work, in which the religion of Jesus Greek of the New Testament (and was to be diffused to the world; especially of the Apocalypse) and which circumstance is to account the Hebrew, than is ordinarily for the prevalence of Hebrew idiom imagined. He says:

in it.

Respecting translations of the “ In reading the New Testament it Apocalypse, the Author considers, should be constantly recollected, that, though written in Greek, it is a record of that every attempt to produce a doctrines and precepts delivered originally liberal or free translation of it must in Hebrew, or in a dialect of that lan- fail in giving the true sense.


" When a translator (he says) under- instances by and;" whereas the takes a free version, he assumes that he

Author would have given the word understands his author perfectly,---not

some other interpretation : so that only his facts and statements generally, but his sentiments, and every phrase or

after all it appears to be a case in expression he employs—so as to be able

which the talent of the expositor, to transfuse his very mind and soul into not of the translator, is called into the translation : but who can affirm that

exercise. The great desideratum is he so understands the Apocalypse ? The first of all to retrench the great extranslator who is desirous to make the

uberance of meanings which have unlearned acquainted with its real contents should aim at a version as servilely been imagined to be included in literal as possible, however uncouth it various words; and the consequence may appear.”

of which has been to attach so much We concur in the principle here uncertainty to language, as often advanced, which we are disposed entirely to weaken and set aside to extend to the whole of the New the authority of God's word. Some Testament; but we must confess

men are no sooner pressed with a that there are immense difficulties passage of Scripture which they to be overcome in the application of dislike, than, affecting an air of criit. Of these difficulties the work ticism, they insist upon the possibefore us affords an illustration ; bility of a particle requiring some for if we understand the Author, different rendering from what is we have noticed several instances given, and thus all becomes doubt in which we consider that the trans

and uncertainty. The student who lation he suggests of particular desires to consult the original finds, passages would necessarily lead to that instead of ascending up thereby the subversion of his own principle. nearer to the mind of the Spirit, he For example, at page 153 he asserts is more tortured by the ingenuity of that St. John is often retrospective; man, and in greater perplexity, than (a fact which he considers has been he was before. Let such a one for entirely overlooked by expositors ;) instance open Schleusner's Greek and having quoted some instances Lexicon at this same word kal. in which this is the case, (e. g. How is he to steer his course chap. xi, 19, xvi, 18; &c.) but the through nine columns of interpresense of which has been obscured by tation, in which no less than thirty translating the conjunction kai as four significations are distinguished, the copulativeand," he goes on to with an intimation at the end that observe that it should be variously there are alia significationes hujus rendered, according to the context, particulo! Unskilled

every by the words even, also, yea, more- learner must be, he nevertheless is over, likewise, again ; then, therefore; immediately compelled to exercise when, where, there ; yet, but, so, thus; the functions of a commentator; for it for, &c. &c. Now really, if a trans- is impossible to determine, whenever lator has to chuse his meaning out the word occurs, which meaning to of such an abundance as this, he chuse, and to have the mind upon must still assume, that he under- the alias significationes, without stands his Author perfectly. It hap- launching forth into a sea of conpens, that this conjunction is vari- jectural criticism. ously translated in the New Testa- To come however to the applicament; and yet the translators, who tion of the Author's principles to the presumed they understood their sub- verbal language of the Apocalypse ; ject, rendered the word in these having shewn in the 4th Disserta


tion, by a learned and to us con- “THE BEING, and THE HE WAS, and The vincing series of arguments, that the

COMING ONE." The common version abstract meaning of the word gives the sense of the Greek pretty cor

rectly, " which is, and which was, and ELOHIM, one of the names of the

which is to come;" but the facts connected Deity, is power ;-that it conse- with the present inquiry demand, that the quently signifies THE OMNIPOTENT, translation should be given as literally as and is rendered in the Septuagint possible, however uncouth it may sound most commonly by ó Okos though here employed by John present a transla

In fact the words sometimes ó loxupos ; in the 5th Dis- tion into Greek of the three parts of the sertation he continues :

Hebrew verb, which enter into the com

position of the word [JCHOVAH). But "We have seen that, in the New Testa- Kupios (Kyrios) here stands for JEHOVAH: nient, the word Osos (Theos) represents Why then are these terms added ?-To inthe Hebrew attributive noun Elohim : it is form the reader of the fact -to place it that by which the Evangelists and Apostles beyond the possibility of contradiction. translate Elohim, when quoting the Pro- John writing in Greek, and using the phets. And we have also seen, that this Greek term Kupios, for the Hebrew term Hebrew term means THE OMNIPOTENT, 17974, instantly gives in Greek a definition or ALL-POWERFUL. Let it be also kept of the sense in which the former is to be in recollection, that the word Kupios (Ky- taken, when representing that name which rios), when applied to THE SUPREME, in belongs only to THE SUPREME. These the New Testament, often represents the words then--ο ων, και ο ην, και ερχοHebrew word 717 (JEHOVAH): as in Llevosare no part of those spoken by Matt. iii, 3, Mark i, 3, Luke iii, 4, John Him who says, in the first clause of the i, 23, Prepare ye την οδον Κυριά the verse Εγω ειμι το Α και το Ω, “I am the way of JEHOVAH;". (Is. xl, 3, * 777) Alpha and the Omega," —words which in Mat. iv, 7, Luke iv, 12, “Thou shalt Jolin informs us were spoken by Kuptos not tempt Κυριον τον θεον σου ;-in the • O£os; (that is, by Jehovah Elohim ;) Common Version, "THE LORD thy God;" but are explanatory terms added by the but in Deut. vi, ,

writer, (writing however under Divine and so in many other places. It follows guidance,) defining, as already said, the then, that, whatever be the sense that sense in which the term Kvplos, which he attaches to the name JEHOVAH in the Old had just applied to Him who calls himself Testament, the word Kupios, when repre- the Alpha and the Omega, is to be undersenting that name, must be understood in stood when employed as a name of the the same sense in the New.

Deity. Having thus defined Kuplos, he These things being premised, let us at- instantly defines also ó oeog (the Theos, tend to the words employed by the Apos- commonly translated God) adding ó tle in Rev. 1, 8, Κυριος ο θεος, ο ων, και

TAVTOkparwp, that is, THE OMNIo

ερχόμενος, ο παντοκράτωρ.

POTENT;' which, as has been shown, is The words Κυριος ο θεος here represent the meaning of the word Elohim, when

Jehovah applied to the Supreme in the Hebrew Elohim. The meaning of Elohim we have Scriptures. In proof of this observe farseen, as indicated by its radix. The mean- ther, that John's first three defining terms ing of the word Jehovah may be ascertained (ο ων--ο ην--και ερχομενος are joined toby its etymology. It is compounded of gether by the copulative kai introduced the past, the present, and the future time before and also after the middle term ; of the Hebrew verb of existence 179,7 but having finished his definition of Kv(havah ;) viz. the present participle 99, pios, between which and the attributive followed by the perfect tense 7, and pre- noun Dog there is no conjunction, (nor ceded by the sign of the future, forming could there be, as they represent the words together the word 79,74; which therefore Jehovah Elohim, which are not joined by expresses attributes that belong only to any copula,) so neither does he employ him who is without beginning of days or one to introduce his definition, Ó TAVTOend of years,'-present, past, and future kpatwp.--Nor is it possible to assign any eristence. But this is precisely what is other reason for the absense of the conaffirmed by the three terms which follow junction ka before the last term ; for had Kuping o drog, in the passage before us, the terms employed in these two definitions nanmely, ο ων, και ο ην, και ο ερχομενος, been merely additional epithets, as they

: את־יהוה אלהיכם ,4

[ocr errors]


« PreviousContinue »