.חוג שמים ",upon the circle of the heavens God "prepared the heavens, I was there," his agent and fabricator; yea, even "when he traced out the circle (of the heavens) above the face of the deep." an denotes the circle or orbit of the heavens: thus, in Isaiah, xl. 22, “God sitteth upon the circle of the earth," an by, that is, in the heavens, which surround the earth as with a circle. Also in Job, xxii. 14, "He walketh in the circuit of heaven," or rather, “ In Job, xxvi. 10, an is a verb, and correctly rendered by our translators, "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end," i.e. he hath set them bounds which they shall not pass till the end of the world; but see Schultens on Job. Mr. Good supposes this to be an allusion to the rainbow mentioned Gen. ix. 12, 13, and renders it, "He setteth a bow on the face of the waters," i. e. those waters which constitute the clouds. My reasons for not acquiescing in this interpretation are, 1st. an is a verb, an being the noun. 2d.'' always, I believe, means the sea, or the deep. 3d. The Vulgate renders it "terminum circumdedit aquis;” and the LXX προσταγμα εγύρωσεν επι πроσшжоν vềατоs, which seems erroneously rendered, in the Polyglott Latin version, " præceptum circumdedit super faciem aquæ;" for, as the word πроσrayμа often answers to the Hebrew pn, (see Bielii Thesaur.) it was, no doubt, intended to convey the meaning of pn in this place; and, therefore, the LXX may be rendered "terminum circumdedit aquis, vel super faciem aquæ." However this may be, the version of Symmachus is opov Tepшypayev, “hath circumscribed a limit;" though the Syriac version certainly favours Mr. Good's translation. 66 28. When he strengthened, &c.]-That is, when he rendered them strong, and, as it were, vigorous, by a constant supply of water. "Perennial fountains," says the venerable Clement of Rome, "created for pleasure and health, without ceasing present their breasts to mankind for the support of life."-Ep. ad Cor. § 20. 29. its limits]-The affix in D may refer either to Jehovah, or the sea. I have preferred the latter, agreeably to the Vulgate, &c.-Compare Job, xxxviii. 10; Ps. civ. 9; Jer. v. 22. 30. Then I, the Fabricator, was by him]-This verse must remove all doubt respecting the personality of Wisdom: it can be applied to nothing but a Person, and to no Person but the eternal Son of God. It is admirably descriptive of the divine Logos, the fabricator or creator of the world; but it would be irrational to give this appellation to an attribute. Omnipotent power, influenced by infinite benevolence, and directed by omniscient wisdom, called the heavens and the earth into existence; but it is incorrect to style the attribute of wisdom the fabricator of the world, for that would be to exclude the other attributes of the Deity, which were equally concerned in the work of creation; nay, it would be even to exclude the Son, who is expressly denominated the Maker of all things. (See note to verse 22.) While, however, we maintain, that all things were made by the Son, and that "without him was not anything made that was made," (John, i. 3,) let us not derogate from the priority and preeminence which is due to the Father. Though we acknowledge the Son to be the efficient Cause of all things, yet the Father is primarily Creator. All things are made by the Son, but in conjunction with the Father; and the Father hath made nothing but by the Son.-(1 Cor. viii, 6.) "The Father,” says Dr. Waterland, " is primarily Creator, as the first in Order, the Son secondarily, as second in Order; and They are Both one Creator, as They are One in Nature, in Power, and in Operation. This is the Catholic Faith, which was before Arianism; and will be after it."-Sermon 2d, at Lady Moyer's. See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 1, p. 104, Oxon. 1797. the Fabricator]-This I take to be the proper translation of the word ns, which, in Cant. vii. 2, denotes an artificer, artifex, opifex. As one plain, unequivocal passage in the sacred writings is sufficient to establish a doctrine; so one perspicuous and indubitable application of a word is sufficient to establish the signification attributed to it. It is objected, that is in Cant. vii. 2, is different from s in the verse before us.—(Noldii Annot. et Vind. No. 1884; Michælis, Notæ Uberiores; Gussetii Lex. in voc. Y, Z.) But the root is manifestly the same; and is a participial noun, -a saga ערום,a strong man גבור,merciful רחום and חנון like cious person, a great man, &c. Thus, in ch. vi. 5, the noun wip' a fowler, and in ch. xxx. 1, the proper name 1, are similarly formed; and the participle preterite, or Pahul, has occasionally an active signification; as, "those that dwell," Judg. viii. 11; "he remembereth," Ps. ciii. 14; "he trusteth," Isa. xxvi. 3. "Notant Hebræi participium præteritum passivæ significationis in Kal, quod Paul vocant, si nominascit, activam significationem induere.”—Glassii Phil. Sac. p. 344, ed. Dathe. It is not improbable, that is used in the form of the preterite participle, not Benoni, to indicate the Son's derivation from the Father, being OEOÇ EK OEOV, though he was the efficient cause or maker of the universe. In explaining this word in the sense of fabricator, we are supported by the authority of several ancient versions. The venerable LXX is ημην παρ' αυτω αρμόζουσα, “eram penes illum disponens;" the Vulgate is "cum eo eram cuncta componens;" the Syriac and Arabic coincide with the LXX. As to the kindred dialects, so in Syriac, and ID in Chaldee, denote an artificer, faber, artifex. This interpretation has, likewise, been adopted by some of the most distinguished biblical critics, as Schindler, Geier, Glass, Michalis, Dathe, Schulz. Many commentators, it is true, interpret s by alumna, a nurse-child or foster-child. As these terms, in the literal sense, are neither suitable to the Son nor to an attribute, they must understand them metaphorically for "one well-beloved," a darling," "gestatus in sinu;" implying the being peculiarly beloved, which cannot justly be affirmed of any one of the divine attributes, though very appropriate to "the onlybegotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father."-(John, i. 18.) Nevertheless, this exposition is unsupported by adequate authority; for, except that the root or sometimes denotes the bringing up or nursing, there is no evidence that no means a foster-child or darling. As it occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, it is in vain to appeal to Scripture usage; but the kindred dialects, and all the ancient versions, except that of Aquila, decidedly oppose this interpretation. A different explanation is given in the edition of Simonis, Lex. by Eichhorn, namely, "qui firmam in aliquo fiduciam ponit, vel ejus fidei se committit, dedititius:" but this, like the former one, does not rest upon sufficient authority. -- by him means apud eum, with him, yet with him in such a manner as to denote a distinction of Persons, whatever they may be in Essence. "Hæc vox personalitatem Sapientiæ egregriè declarat, cùm in omnibus locis ubi by juxta occurrit, quæ sunt 62, nè unus est ubi non designatur ejusmodi vicinitas quæ sit inter duo distincta supposita."(Geier.) It exactly corresponds with the Evangelist's declaration, that the Word was in the beginning pos TOV OεOV, with God.-(John, i. 1.) But the Logos in St. John's Gospel cannot be the same Person with whom he was; for, as Epiphanius observes, "if the Logos was with God, the Logos cannot be he with whom he was, nor can he with whom he was be the Logos;" (Heres. 65;) neither can the Wisdom here mentioned be the same Person by or near whom he was. his daily delight]—The root vwvw is employed when mention is made of children, Isaiah, xi. 8, lxvi. 12; Jer. xxxi. 20; but it does not appear to be peculiarly applicable to them, as some imagine, for it is used several times in the 119th Psalm for delighting in the law and ordinances of God. It is a term expressive of great fondness and affection. in his sight]-So is rendered by our translators ch. iv. 3, and it implies a distinction of the persons or things spoken of. A quality cannot be in the sight of or before the substance in which it exists. Wisdom, as an attribute of God, cannot be " in his sight, but 12 in him; it is essential to him, and by no boldness of personification can be said to be "before him," or "in his sight;" for that would imply their being separate and distinct things, which they neither are nor can be. An attribute, however personified, must still be considered in reference to its possessor; and to use such terms as imply their separate existence would violate common sense. It therefore follows, that a Person is meant, and that Person, as appears from the first hemistich, is the Son of God. How suitable the expressions in the latter part of the verse are to the divine Logos will be apparent, when we call to mind the Scriptures in which Christ is represented as the “ only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father;" (John, i. 18;) as "the beloved Son;" (Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5; 2 Pet. i. 17;) as "the beloved;" (John, iii. 35, x. 17; Ephes. i. 6;) as God's "dear Son," or the Son of his love, (Col. i. 13.) But they are wholly incompatible with the notion of an attribute. Can BB |