Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

AND

THEOLOGICAL REVIEW.

NO. XI.-SEPTEMBER, 1836.

ART. I. EXEGESIS OF ROMANS, 9: 2, 3.

By REV. HENRY MILLS, D.D. Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theological Seminary, Auburn, N. Y.

... ὅτι λυπή μοι ἐστὶ μεγάλη, και αδιάλειπτος ὀδύνη τη καρδία μου,— ηὐχόμην γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου, τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα.

"that I have great sorrow, and my heart unceasing anxiety, (for I myself did [once] wish to be anathema from Christ,) for my brethren, my natural kindred:"

*

ACCORDING to this version and pointing, the apostle, to obviate if possible the strong aversion of the Jews to himself and doctrine, most solemnly declares his deep and abiding solicitude on their behalf. He saw that, by their blind opposition to the gospel, they were excluding themselves from the salvation of Jesus their promised Messiah. He felt for them as brethren, and the more, as he was no stranger to the violent prejudices by which they were governed; he had himself been subject to their sway. He could sympathize in view of the awful ruin that awaited them; for he had been exposed to the same, and was snatched as a brand from the burning.

The words in parenthesis assign a special reason for Paul's peculiar solicitude.

It is no part of this interpretation that Paul, before his conversion, had wished to be anathema for his brethren : it simply exhibits the solemn declaration of his present anxiety on their account, and alleges a cause which must naturally deepen such anxiety.

Thus much to secure a right understanding of the exegesis proposed.

VOL. III.

43

The method of construction we have adopted has long been thought by many to be the only one that is sustained by the laws of the Greek language and by the connexion; and to furnish an easy and natural exposition of what is otherwise usually regarded a passage peculiarly difficult. But three late expositors* who have, in our own country, furnished each a volume on the Epistle to the Romans, have united, however they may differ in other respects, in pronouncing any view that regards nuxóun as an ordinary imperfect, utterly untenable. But they do not condemn without assigning their reasons,—and these it shall be our next business to consider.

With regard to nixóun, the three expositors to whom we have referred, agree in saying that it cannot mean "I did wish," &c.

1. Because it is the apostle's design here to shew his present love to the Jews; not what was past, which no one doubted, and the declaration of which would be perfectly irrelevant.

That Paul in the context strongly expresses an affectionate concern for the Jews we admit and maintain. Whether in the words " ηὐχόμην . . . Χριστοῦ” such present affection is declared, or rather a cause of his solicitude assigned, is the question to be settled. On this point, the objection, so far as it affects ourselves, is a mere petitio principii.

The rendering, "I did wish," we do not regard as any way connected with Paul's past love of his Jewish brethren; nor are we at all concerned in the inquiry, whether the profession of his past love would have been any thing to his purpose. But it surely is not irrelevant for Paul to allude to his former resemblance to his brethern in their prejudices and dangers, as a ground of his present sympathy and sorrow on their behalf. It is a principle of feeling and of action familiar to all in every age,

"Non ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco;"

The Rev. Professors Stuart and Hodge, and the Rev. Mr. Barnes. + None of them, however, seems to have been apprized of any scheme of exposition that adopts the parenthesis: and hence their principal objections are levelled at those (whoever they may be,) who suppose the apostle to mean that he once wished to be anathema for his brethren. This seems the more surprising, as the interpretation we here attempt to sustain has been long before our religious public, recommended by the names of Drs. Dwight and Mason, and extensively received,-whilst none in this country, so far as we know, have maintained the particular point to which the objections are chiefly opposed. [See Dwights Theol., Serm. 95.]

and one to which the apostle frequently alludes. See Acts 22: 3, 4. Rom. 11: 1. Titus 3:3. Gal. 4: 12, in the Greek, &c. Comp. Heb. 4: 15, &c.

2. This rendering, it is in effect said, would teach what is clearly opposed to fact and common sense. "Paul, before his conversion, never could have wished himself cut off from Christ, with whom he was never joined."* "Neither he, nor any unbelieving Jew could have expressed his hatred to Jesus Christ, or indifference to his favours, by wishing himself accursed from him; for this would recognize the power of Christ to injure, and the great evil of his displeasure." Or, if with Mr. Barnes we take Christ here to mean the Messiah, "Neither Paul, nor any unconverted Jew could have wished to be accursed by the Messiah, however much he might have hated Jesus, regarded as an impostor." To this objection, on all its varied grounds, it may be replied, that it has no bearing against the exposition we propose. We regard Paul as speaking according to his present convictions of the tendency of the conduct of the unbelieving Jews, the same conduct that himself had exhibited before his conversion. His own and their unbelief and prejudice, and their consequent opposition to Jesus, clearly indicated their choice of a course which he now saw was leading to misery, and must forever separate all who persevered in it from the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom. True, they did not directly choose the dreadful result; but they did choose the course that would make the result inevitable. This the apostle now saw:-and seems it strange that he should speak of choosing the fearful end, instead of choosing the means that would certainly produce it? It ought hardly to seem strange to any familiar with scripture language, with that of Paul himself. When Moses would urge on Israel obedience to Jehovah as the means of happiness, and warn them against idolatry and disobedience as leading to inevitable ruin, he does it in this striking language:-"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life." (Duet. 30; 19.) So also we read, "All they that hate me, love death,"

* Does the objector really suppose that all, who at last shall be dvábua ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ, were once joined with Christ!

(Prov. 8:36,) and again, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son" (13: 24), &c.* Now, is it indeed strange that one, like Paul, conversant with such thought and language, should speak of his own rejection of the only Saviour from divine wrath, as a choosing of perdition,-as a wishing to be anathema from Christ? On a certain occasion when Paul and Barnabas found the Jews filled with envy, resisting their doctrine, contradicting and blaspheming, they waxed bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46.) Now in regard to the last particular in the conduct ascribed to the Jews, on the principles of the above objection, we might reason thus: "The statement is evidently opposed to fact and common sense. The Jews, above all others deemed themselves worthy of eternal life, and had they really judged themselves unworthy, they would have rejoiced in the glad tidings of the gospel." In explaining this passage, Mr. Barnes, as every expositor must, answers fully all objection to our method of exegesis.

3. Again it is objected that nixóny does not admit of being rendered "I did wish."

This is not explicitly said by Professor Stuart. He only informs us that "he does not render it 'I did wish,' because nuxóun, as here employed 'I could wish,' implies that whatever his desires may be, after all the thing wished for is impossible, which is doubtless the very shade of thought that the writer would design to express." That is, having somehow ascertained beyond all doubt the very shade of the writer's thought, he uses this previous knowledge as a guide to explain his words. Others, however, are left to derive the Apostle's meaning, as well as they can, from the language he uses.

Mr. Barnes, indeed, roundly asserts that "the proper grammatical construction of the word used here is not "I did wish," but I could desire, i. e. if the thing were possible. It is not I do wish, or did wish, but I could desire (Huxóunv), implying that he was willing now to He gives repeated assertion, 'tis true, but no

endure it."

On these, with similar and analogous forms, peculiarly frequent among early Hebrews and later Jews, see Glass, Dathe's ed. pp. 240 ss, 832 ss.

« ZurückWeiter »