« PreviousContinue »
is not elsewhere found in this sense, the only material question is, whether the Apostle would use a word in a single instance in a sense different from the usual signification, where the sense would be easily understood. On either interpretation, this must be admitted, for Professor Stuart admiis that the word does not occur in the Scriptures elsewhere in the sense in which he uses it here. If these remarks are well founded, then the word may be properly regarded as referring to the victim that was slain, in order to ratify a covenant with God. In the old “arrangement,” this was the animal offered in sacrifice; in the new, it was the Lamb of God. It may be added here, that the authority of Michaelis, Macknight, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Steudel, and the late Dr. James P. Wilson, all of whom assign this meaning to the word, is a sufficient proof that such an interpretation cannot be a very serious departure from the proper use of a Greek word.
(3.) The third objection of Professor Stuart to this interpretation is this :-"Nexgois means only dead men, but men surely were not sacrificed by the Jews, as a mediating sacrifice in order to confirm a covenant.” Of the fact here affirmed, that men were not sacrificed by the Jews to confirm a covenant,” there will be no difference of opinion. The only question is, whether the other point of ihe affirmation be equally clear—that "vexgôis means only dead men.” Of this fact, Professor Stuart has adduced no proof, nor has he referred to any sources from which the evidence is derived. It is evident, therefore, that he regarded it as so seuiled in classical and Scripture usage that vexgôi meant only dead men, that it was not even a matter of question among the learned. Yet it is not improper to ask what is the evidence that the word vexgós involves of necessity the conclusion that that which is affirmed to be dead was a man? It cannot be that nothing else died so far as the knowledge of the Greeks extended, for it is to be presumed that they were not ignorant of the fact that vegetables and animals were subject to death well
In no other language, so far as known, is the idea necessarily incorporated into a word that refers to death, that it is the death of a man, nor is one word used to denote such a death, and another 10 express the death of a vəgetable or animal. No one can deny that language might be so philosophically constructed as to express with entire
accuracy these shades of thought, but in the languages in common use in the world, it has not been deemed necessary to mark this distinction by the use of different words, and what is the evidence that even the subtle and philosophic Greeks did it? What gave rise to the distinction, if it did exist among them? On these points, Professor Stuart has given us no information, and it is not unfair, therefore, lo enquire respectfully whether it is an undisputed and unequivocal matter of fact that the Greeks made this distinction, and that the word “vexgcis means only dead men.” There are some considerations, however, which may lead us to doubt whether this remark respecting the meaning of the word vɛxgós is as universally true as is affirmed by Professor Stuart, or whether the word may not be used here in reference to the bodies of victims slain in sacrifice. It is true, that the signification usually given in the Lexicons is one that confines it to the bodies of dead men. Thus Passow defines it as meaning der todte Leib, der Leichnam, die Leiche, and remarks that it is used by Homer exclusively of the bodies of dead men-vom menschlichen Leichnam. The same definition is given substantially by Robinson Lex. N. T. This limitation of meaning is not, however, marked by Bretschneider, or by Schleusner. In regard to its use here, we may remark (1.) that it is scarcely necessary to observe that the word men is not in the original, unless it be supposed to be involved of necessity in the word vexpôts. It is simply “upon” or “over the dead"-¿Ti vexpois. °(2.) It is to be presumed, unless there is positive proof to the contrary, that the Hebrews and Greeks used the word dead as it is used hy other people, as applicable lo any thing when the life was extinct. A sacrifice that had been slain was dead ; a tree that had fallen was dead ; an animal that had been slain by other wild animals was dead. It would be desirable to be able to express the condition of such objects when life was extinct, and there was doubtless some word that would convey such an idea. It is possible, indeed, as has been suggested, to conceive that a language may be so subile in its distinctions as to have one term to denole a dead oak, another a dead cypress, another a dead lion, another a dead elephant, another a dead man, and so on throngh the whole range of objects where there has been organic or animal life. But what is the evidence that the Hebrews or the Greeks had
such separate terms ? What term was used in Greek besides vexpós to denote that an animal was dead? (3.) What is the meaning of this word vexpós in such passages as the following where it is applied to works, if it never refers to any thing but dead men? Heb. vi:1;ix : 14. And what is its meaning in James ii : 17, 20, 26, where it is applied to faith, and in Eph. ii : 1,5; and Rev. iii: 1, where it is applied to those who are spiritually dead? (4.) In Eccl. is: 4, an instance occurs where the word cannot be applied to dead men—for it is applied expressly to a dead lion-adv déovta Tòv vexpóv. In Isa. xiv : 19, it is a translation of 73 a branch, a broken, rejected, dead limb. These instances show, at least, that there are cases where the word is used to denote something else than dead men.
To these considerations respecting the use of the word vexgts we may add that the translation of tri vexpõis by "after men are dead,” can be arrived at only by a much forced use of language. Independently of all the difficulties suggested by the connexion, it may be obscrved that it is impossible to reach this signification without giving to the word vexpôrs the force of a participle, in the sense of “ when men are dead”
they having died.” This idea is not properly in the Greek. It is that of a dead body, a carcase, a corpse, without special reference to the fact of its having died. The attention is confined by the word simply to the fact that it is dead, without having the mind turned particularly to the fact that it was once alive, or that the thing to be done or secured depends on that fact. The dead body is in the eye ; not the fact that it was once living. To this it may be added, also, that the proper use of tzi is not after, but upon, or over, and it may
be doubted whether an unequivocal instance can be found in which the word is used in the sense of after.
If the suggestion contained, therefore, in this article be well-founded, the following paraphrase will express the true sense of the passage : "For where an arrangement subsists between God and men, there must of necessity be the death of the victim by which it is ratified and confirmed. For such an arrangement is ratified over dead sacrifices, seeing it is never of force, while the victim set apart for its ratification is still living. Whence it was (odsv) ihat the first covenant was not ratified without blood, for when Moses had spoken all the commandments to the people, according to the law, he
took the blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and
hyssop, and sprinkled the book and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined unto you.'
THE TRAINING OF THE PREACHER.
By Rev. Henry N. Day, Prof. of Sac. Rhet. Western Reserve College, Hudson, Ohio.
The ambassador of God occupies the loftiest station of dignity and responsibility on earth. The source of his commission, the nature of his duties, and the infinite consequences connected with his labors, unite to show how exalted are his character and functions, how responsible is his trust. Clothed with the authority of the Sovereign of the universe, representing his divine person and acting in his name; engaged in the prosecution of an enterprise in which God has enlisted his brightest attributes, in which infinite power, and wisdom, and love shine in their divinest forms, in which too, the dearest interests of his boundless kingdom are vitally concerned; sent upon a mission on the success of which are hanging the destinies of immortality to deathless spirits, where on earth can be find a competitor in momentousness of trust or sacredness of function?
Vast as are the responsibilities which attach to every part of the Christian minister's office, however, it is in the attitude of a preacher of the gospel of salvation, that he appears transcendently interesting. It is when he is speaking in the name of the majesty of heaven, and proclaiming the messages of infinite authority and grace, that he is peculiarly savor of life unto life, or of death unto death.” However important and sacred, however engaging and delightful may be the other duties of his ministry, yet “his pulpit is,” emphatically, “his joy and his throne.” There is the seat of his authority, the place of his power and dignity, and there, if he be true and faithful to his high calling, will he find the
purest joys of his service, the richest fruits of his labors. With his soul awed by the majesty of a present God, whose eye pierces his inmost thoughts and motives, and whose finger he sees writing down the record for the last dread account, with a heart burning with desire for the salvation of the company of immortals before him, and with a message on his tongue, every word of which is fraught with life or death, how must he tremble under the sense of his responsibility; while, at the same time, he rejoices that he may be the instrument of life to some that otherwise must perish! How, too, must he look upon all other departments of his office as entirely subordinaie, and unworthy of comparison, when he thus stands breaking the bread of life to the starving and perishing multitude; and, in circumstances most favorable, is urging with all the authority and love of the gospel, the grace of a pardoning God! If there be joy in heaven over the recovery of one sheep, lost from the fold of God, over the conversion of one sinner that repenteth, with what intense interest and solicitude must the cloud of spiritual witnesses that hover over our heads regard the ambassador of Christ persuading congregated sinners to repertance ! One shaft of truth successfully hurled, one warning, one entreaty successfully urged, and ihe courts of heaven ring with new anthems of joy and praise. What a position does he occupy in whose hand balances that shaft, upon whose tongue trembles that word of persuasion !
It is the design of the following essay to set forth the work and training assigned to the ambassador of God in his character as a preacher.
Confining our view to this one object-the minister of Christ in the attitude of a preacher--we designedly shut out the full consideration of certain points that it might otherwise be deemed essential to discuss. There are, for instance, certain indispensable requisites in the preacher, which not being exclusively or peculiarly his, the design now proposed does not require should be distinctly considered. It is rather for the purpose of preventing misapprehension--that I may not be thought to underrate these high qualifications, essential but not peculiar—than because strictly required by my subject, that I barely refer here to the necessity of a thorough discipline, of extended knowledge, and particularly of a profound and systematic acquaintance with theological science,