« PrécédentContinuer »
Ogos, when the latter occurs as the preceding Attributive, he refers to two “unquestionable “instances” produced by Dr. Wordsworth :“ the “ one from Gregory of Nyssa, 6 de Oeds rucov xal Κύριος Ι. Χρ. και παρακαλών, &c. ; and another ó
; “ from the Scholiast on Jude, quoted by Mat" thai N. T. vol. vi. p. 235. These examples
[says his Lordship) prove, I think, that Kúpsos may be disjoined from 'Ιησ. Χριστός, and be “identified with a preceding Attributive: but,” -notice the words that follow_" that Kúpios
may be detached from 'Inc. Xp. was already probable from 1 Cor. viï. 6. xai els Kúpos 'In
goûs Xpiotos, and also from Philipp. ii. 11.". These are two (the ist and 2d) of the above six passages; and in these he allows that separation, objected to with respect to the others, is, at least, probable.
But why, in applying the Rule to a passage like 2 Thess. i. 12. is Kúpos said to be," separated from the Proper name?" In such cases there is not a separation from the Proper Name, but an addition made to the prefix; nor, when thus enlarged, do the words become less a title of our Lord than they were before. “Our “ Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ,” and “ Our God “and Lord, Jesus Christ,” are, in every sense, titles as proper to him, as “ Our Lord, Jesus Christ. ' The latter, however, we are told, “is a common “ title of Christ.” Can the greater frequency of this title be, with any propriety, held a good reason for denying him others when given to him by the writers of the New Testament ? Certainly not. It is quite obvious that, had the writer, in this passage, intended two persons, he could have put his meaning beyond all doubt by prefixing the Article to Kυρίου as well as to Θεού. There was nothing in the nature or use of this title lo prevent him, for in other passages we find him employing it with the Article, as in Rom. xiii. 14. and 1 Cor. xvi. 22., tòy Kúpsov 'Ingoûv Xpotòy, “THE LORD JESUS CHRIST;" and, surely, it is begging too much to suppose that where he meant to express two he should, notwithstanding, employ that construction which the rules of the language require for only one person. This consideration seems to have been pressing itself on the mind of the learned author while stating his objection; for, after remarking that “ Κύριος Ιησούς Χριστός collectively
’ “ is a title of our Lord familiar to the Writers “ of the Epistles,” and that " in the present
passage [2 Thess. i. 12.] there is no necessity for « detaching Κυρίου from 'Ιησού Χριστού to couple “it with Ozoû,” he proceeds thus: “It is true « that we find also “Ο Κυριος Ιησούς Χριστός as in “Rom. xiii. 14. and i Cor. xvi. 22., though in “both those places some MSS. after Kúpos add
oqucov, which would make the Article neces
sary. Admitting, however, the title to have “ been sometimes ‘O Kúpos 'I. Xpe, still such is “the ambiguity, that we shall not be obliged to "apply the Canon.” From this manner of speaking one would imagine that Rom. xiii. 14. and 1 Cor. xvi. 22. were almost the only passages in which this title occurs with the Article ; but it is so found also in Acts xi. 17.; XV. 11. ; xvi. 13. ; xxviii. 31.; 1 Cor. xvi. 22. 23. ; 2
; Cor. xiii. 14.; and 2 Tim. iv. 22. Of some of these there are different manuscript readings, but they are sufficiently numerous to show that it was no uncommon thing to prefix the Article to this title.
The reader will also have remarked that his Lordship, in the words last quoted, mentions the effect that would be produced by the presence of the Possessive Pronoun jucõv ;—that this “ would make the Article necessary. The fact being so, it deserves the more notice, that, generally speaking, the Writers of the New Testament have preferred this way of expressing the title, namely, ο Κύριος ημών Ιησούς Χριστός, (C. V. Our Lord Jesus Christ; literally, “ The Lord of “us, Jesus Christ,") to any other that has been
' noticed. It occurs about fifty times: that is, they have most commonly used that form which makes the Article indispensable. This renders
it the more evident that, when they adopted another form which excludes the Article, (as in the passage which has given rise to this digression), they did it for the express purpose of giving to their words that sense which such construction demands.
Bishop Middleton, as I have before had occasion to notice, has “ shown that the Article as “used originally, and even by later writers, was
no other than the Pronoun;" and that it “always indicates the subintellection of the Par
ticiple of Existence, when that Participle is “ not expressed or otherwise implied;" for example,-“'Ovip must signify, He or the Male,
being, or assumed to be a man.” Thus, according to the Doctrine laid down by his Lordship, 2 Thess. i. 12., when the Participle of Existence is supplied, must and can only be rendered, (when translated literally) “ According to the
grace of Him [being or] who is the God of us and “ LORD, Jesus Christ."—With this result before us one may wonder how it could ever be made a question, Whether the Greek embraced one or two persons? which is just the same thing as to doubt Whether“ Him" be singular or plural ?Whether the English words “ Him who is our “ God and LORD, Jesus Christ,” mean one or more than one person? “ The Rule,” as we have seen remarked by Bp. Middleton, “both as it re
spects diversity and identity, has been observed
by the sacred Writers: and” we may again ask, with himself, “ Where is the instance in 66 which it has been violated ?”
In the passages that have been examined (not including 1. Tim. v. 21. and 2 Tim. iv. 1., the readings of which are disputed) the name JESUS stands connected with ó Xplotòs (the Christ, Messiah, or Anointed), with whp (Saviour), with Kúplos (sometimes Lord, sometimes JEHOVAH), and with ó Ocòs (God, or THE OMNIPOTENT), in such a manner, that all of these Nouns are applied to him as names or titles :-in 2 Pet. ii. 10. we have “ THE LORD and “SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST;" in 2 Pet. i. 1. “THE “ God and Saviour of us, Jesus CHRIST;" in Tit. ii. 13. “THE GREAT God and SAVIOUR of “ us, Jesus Christ;" in Eph. v. 5. “the King“ dom of the Messiah and God” (i. e. of him who is the Messiah and God-or the Christ and God-or the Anointed and God); and in 2 Thess. i. 12. “our God and LORD, Jesus Christ.” In none of these instances can the Nouns, thus associated, relate to any other person than the one named, -Jesus CHRIST,-according to the regular rules of the language, and the invariable