« AnteriorContinuar »
vekpwv. The inaccuracy is accounted for, though not excused, by my considering that the insertion or omission of the article is, in this case, not essential to the argument.
In such matters the strictest accuracy of quotation ought to be observed; I must therefore admit my fault; but Pbilanastasius has unjustly, though I believe undesignedly, exaggerated it. It is true that the expression αναστασις εκ των νεκρων does not occur in the New Testament; but we have one which I conceive to be equivalent to it, Phil. iii. 11, εžavaotaolS TWV vekpwv. And with regard to avaoTaois TWV vekpwv, Philanastasius is in error; for the expression does occur,
1 Cor. xv. 42. So that, in fact, instead of our always having,” as he asserts, “ αναστασις εκ νεκρων or αναστασις νεκρων, » we have these four expressions :
ɛčavaotaolS TWV vekowy, as in Phil. iii. 11.
avaoTaois verpwv, as in 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21. But, to come more directly to Philanastasius's objection : The force of it entirely depends on the accuracy of the canon which he wishes to establish—namely, That, wherever the preposition ex occurs in the sense of " separation,” it uniformly requires to be followed by the article prefixed to the noun specifying the object from which the separation is made. But this rule will not, on examination, be found to hold good. We have clear instances of es being used in this sense, without being followed by the article.
Acts XV. 14: ο θεος επεσκέψατο λαβειν εξ εθνων λαον επι τω ονοματι åvrov: “God did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.”
Acts xv. 23 : adeApois tous ££ £Ovwv: “ to the brethren out of the Gentiles."
Rom. ix. 24: ους εκαλεσαν ημας ου μονον εξ Ιουδαιων αλλα και εξ Ovwv : “whom he hath called, not out of the Jews only, but also out of the Gentiles.”
: πας γαρ αρχιερευς εξ ανθρωπων : “ for every High Priest taken from among men.
These passages are obviously destructive of Philanastasius's canon, and take away the whole force of his first objection, which is grounded on the assumption that ek verpwv does not admit of the rendering “from out of the dead."
I would observe further, that I very much doubt whether εκ νεκρών
admits of the meaning which he would attach to itnamely, “ from the state of death.” Had such been the Apostle's meaning, I think he would have written, not ek verpwv, nor, as Philanastasius suggests, εκ νεκρου, but εκ του θανάτου, which expression we thus find used in a figurative sense 1 John iii. 14. The instances which Philanastasius adduces in support of his
translation are clearly not to the point. Rom. vi. 13 I should translate, “ As alive from out of the dead,” predicated of the election of grace—some being raised to spiritual life, leaving others in spiritual death. Rom. xi. 15 is, as I conceive, “ life from the dead ones," whether it be applied nationally to the Jews, or, as some commentators contend, to the first resurrection.
Philanastasius observes, that in either of these cases the article would not be admissible, in the sense in which he understands them. I
I suppose he argues from the context in which they occur, when he so unhesitatingly asserts that they refer to a resurrection “from the state of death.” Now, in Ephes. v. 14 we have a passage strictly parallel with these, which, to be consistent, Philanastasius must maintain applies to a resurrection from a state of death. But in this passage the article is used:“Arise from the dead :” αναστα εκ των νεκρων.
If Philanastasius would render this “ from the state of death," it militates against his own rule. If he would render it “ from dead ones,” then I think he must admit, that, so far as any argument is to be drawn from the context, the passages in Romans admit of a similar rendering; and then his objection falls to the ground. The comparison of these passages strongly confirms me in the opinion, that the introduction or omission of the article is not essential to the argument *
A similar remark would apply to the quotation from Sophocles. I should have no difficulty in producing instances from the profane authors, establishing the use of the preposition for which I am contending ; but I purposely refrain, thinking it better that the question should be determined by the usage of the New-Testament writers. Essential as is a knowledge of the classics to an interpreter of the New Testament, great caution is necessary in the application of profane criticism to the Sacred Writings. The language of the New Testament is so much a language sui generis, that much injury has been done to it by the hypercriticism of the mere scholar. Much soundness of
* In further proof that the omission or introduction of the article is not essential to the point under discussion, the reader is requested to compare the following passages.
Matt. xiv. 2: “This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead :" autos nyepon απο των νεκρών. .
Here with the article. Mark vi. 16: “It is John, whom I beheaded; he is risen from the dead :" αυτος ηγερθη εκ νεκρων. Here without the article.
Matt. xxviii. 7: “Go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead." Here the article is inserted : nyepon ATO TW vexpwr.
John xx. 9: "For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” Here the article is omitted: ότι δει αυτον εκ νεκρων αναστήναι.
Again, Col. ii. 12: “God, who hath raised him from the dead." Here with the article : του εγειραντος αυτον εκ των νεκρων.
1 Thess. i. 10:“Whom he (God) raised from the dead." Here without the article : ον ηγειρεν εκ νεκρών.
judgment, as well as a correct knowledge of the original, is essential to the character of a useful interpreter.
Were we, however, to concede that avaotaoIS Ek verpwv might fairly admit of being rendered “ a resurrection from the state of death,” it does not follow that such would be the true rendering in the passages before us. Were this the only phrase employed, it might be more questionable ; but we find another expression (αναστασις νεκρων) which must be translated consistently with the former. Philanastasius conceives that the expressions are perfectly synonymous; yet in so interpreting them he is obliged to attach a different meaning to the word vekpwr: which in the one case he translates “ the state of death;" in the other, “ dead persons.” Is it not much more easy and natural to suppose that the same writer means the same thing by the same expression ? that if St. Paul writes avaotaois verpwv, meaning thereby a "resurrection of dead persons; when he writes αναστασις εκ νεκρων, he means a resurrection from dead persons ?”. It does also appear somewhat extraordinary, if we receive Philanastasius's view of the expressions being synonymous, that they are always used in the places where the distinction, which I have contended for, would require them to be used. In no one instance do we find
where we should expect vekpwv, nor vice versa.
I may here also mention an additional argument in favour of the rendering of ek verpwv, to be deduced from Luke xvi. 30, 31. When Dives speaks of sending one from the dead, ato verpwv, it will be admitted that he means “from those who were dead;" and this is expressed in Abraham's answer, in the next verse, by εκ νεκρων. .
The reasons given by Philanastasius for the remarkable language employed by our Lord, Luke xx. 27, &c., seem to me to be quite inadequate. AWV EKELVOS, I agree with him, refers to the dispensation of the Millennium; but upon his rule of interpretation I cannot perceive how “ the addition of the words TNS EK vekpwv, ' that from the state of death,' shews that the resurrection which shall synchronize with the opening of this dispensation will be positively a literal resurrection :” for every resurrection, whether literal or spiritual, must be from a state of death, a phrase which implies no speciality. Neither can I admit that there is any ambiguity at all in the word avaoraois. Through the whole of the New Testament it is never once used but in a sense strictly literal.
2. The next objection of Philanastasius is taken from the interpretation given to exavaoTaois. As the argument does not depend upon its being written in one word or two, I will not here enter upon the discussion of that point. Let it be taken either way, and in my view it supports the proposed distinction,
VOL. I.NO. ITI.
I admit that the two passages, Acts xxvi. 23, and Rom. i. 4, may be translated, as Philanastasius proposes, by “a resurrection of dead,” i. e. of dead persons. But how does this translation suit the sense of the passages? How, for instance, was Jesus declared or defined oplo evros, to be the Son of God with power, by a resurrection of dead persons ? Perhaps it may be answercd, that it refers to those who came out of their graves after his resurrection (Matt. xxvii. 52, 53). To this I should not very much object; but I greatly prefer the rendering which our own translators have given, who consider the passages as referring to the resurrection of Jesus alone, and which the original unquestionably admits; the ex before verpwy being omitted for the sake of the euphonism.
Philanastasius's translation of Phil. iii. 11, ELS TNV eðavaotaolv των νεκρών,
“ unto the resurrection of the dead out of—” is very questionable in a critical point of view; but a still more fatal objection to it is, that it destroys the whole force of the passage. What does the Apostle say, according to this rendering? “ If by any means I might attain to a resurrection of the dead out of their graves :" that is, it makes him guilty of the absurdity of striving with all his might to attain an object which it was physically impossible for him to avoid ; for St. Paul well knew that every individual descendant of Adam must be raised up from a state of death. The rendering proposed in my former paper, and which Philanastasius seems to admit may be the true one, gives a perfectly good and worthy sense to the passage. There is a resurrection of the saints at Christ's coming, which is their peculiar privilege : to the attainment of which St. Paul laboured, “ lest, after having preached to others, he himself should become a cast-away." By Philanastasius's quere he appears to think that St. Paul, being one of the elect, and on that ground assured of a participation in the first resurrection, had no need to labour for it. But this is an abuse of the doctrine of election : we are chosen to the means as well as to the end. Therefore, while it is abstractedly true that St. Paul, as one of the elect, was certain of a part in the first resurrection, it is no less practically true that he could not attain to it without a holy fear of apostasy, and constant effort to make his calling and election sure.' By these remarks it will appear, that, in reference to Philanastasius's quere, I consider that all the saints i.e. the whole mystical body of Christ--will be raised at the commencement of the Millennium. The following passages appear to me decisive' on this point: 1 Cor. xv. 22, 23; 1 Thess. iv. 14–18; Rev. xi. 15—18. In these passages the terms are quite general, excluding, as I think, the idea of any exception :
They that are Christ's”—“ them which sleep in Jesus"“ the dead in Christ”—“ to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, small and great."
3. The next observation of Philanastasius is upon Dan. xii. 2. It will be remembered that I referred to that passage
my former paper, in order to obviate an objection which might be deduced from the apparent discrepancy between it and John v.28, 29. If Philanastasius's criticism will stand, the difficulty is more satisfactorily cleared, and in the harmony of the Prophet and Apostle the argument in favour of two resurrections is strengthened. I should feel disposed to agree to his rendering of Wap" from out of those sleeping ;” giving the same force to a in Hebrew, which I would give to ex in Greek. But his interpretation of the two relatives, 287x, is much more questionable. The passage is certainly one of considerable difficulty.
In reply to Philanastasius's second quere, I would observe, that John v. 28, 29, does not, in my view, give any countenance to the idea of a partial resurrection of the wicked along with the righteous. Our Lord merely mentions a life-resurrection and a condemnation-resurrection, without specification of time. Rev. xx. 5, absolutely forbids the supposition : “ They (the saints) lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years : but the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.”
4. I would not lay much stress on the use of the double copulative, Acts xxiv. 15, 21 ; nor did I intend to deny that our translation was correct according to the Greek idiom. In fact, there is no difference of meaning between“ both of just and unjust;" and of the just, and also of the unjust.”. The design of the remark was merely to convey to the English reader that the distinction between the resurrection of just and unjust is rather more marked than if it had been written δικαιων και αδικων. . The observation, however, is of little importance, and quite collateral to the main argument.
I beg here to observe, not so much in reference to what has fallen from Philanastasius as to what has appeared elsewhere, that it was never intended to prove the truth of the whole doctrine of the Millennium by the use of a Greek preposition. It is not probable that any great leading truth of our religion should rest for its main support on verbal criticism. I have been accused by a writer in the Christian Observer, who styles himself an unprejudiced inquirer into prophetical truth,“ of retailing other's arguments,” and, to use his own elegant language, “jumping to conclusions, and then seeking for arguments to support them.” In replying to his observations, I thought it unnecessary to notice an accusation so perfectly gratuitous. But I would here observe, that the proper office of Scripture criticism