« AnteriorContinuar »
60.] 1 Pet.iii. 19. For Christ also once suffered concerning, wept, sins, (a just person for the good of, væɛρ, the unjust,) that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh (comp. iv. 1) but restored to life by the spirit,' that is, by the miraculous interposition of the power of God. By which spirit,' by the miraculous powers which he was enabled to communicate to his Apostles (Acts ii. 33), having departed to heaven he proclaimed deliverance even to the spirits in prison,' that is, to those who were slaves to sin and ignorance, such persons as the Apostle afterwards (ii. 6) calls the dead; who formerly were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, &c.'-It appears to me clear, that the agency of Jesus here spoken of, was subsequent to his resurrection; that the direct reference of wopeudess, having gone, is to his ascension (see Schleusner); and that therefore this passage is more in point to prove the pre-existence of the spiritual captives to whom Jesus, by his Apostles, proclaimed deliverance, than that of Jesus himself, to which it can have no reference. Peter, however, obviously, does not mean
Ο Εν ᾧ και τοις εν φυλακη πνεύμασι πορευθείς εκήρυξεν. pression strikingly corresponds with that in Luke iv. 19: He hath sent me to proclaim, xngužai, deliverance to the captives ; and also with the Greek of Is. xlii. 7: I have appointed thee -to lead out those who are bound from their bonds, and from the prison-house, axov Quλaxns. In Acts i. 10, 11, wogrvopas is used twice in reference to our Lord's ascension. The Apostle in the use of eupari, spirits, appears to refer to the spiritual bondage of those to whom the glad tidings of the Gospel were delivered. On the whole passage, see the notes in the Improved Version.
that the same individuals, but that the same class of persons, had formerly resisted the divine warning communicated to them by Noah.
Gal. iv. 4, 14. These passages have been already considered in p. 34, 35.
61.] 1 Cor. x. 4. For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was the Christ.' The apostle had just said, they all ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink, obviously meaning food and drink given them in a miraculous manner. For the same reason, probably, he calls the rock spiritual. When he says that rock was the Christ, he cannot be understood literally upon any scheme; and unless " This is my body,' be admitted as a proof of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the expression in question cannot be admitted as a proof of the preexistence. It probably means, this rock " was an emblem and representation of the Christ," for instance, in the rich diffusion of the blessings communicated by him. Compare John iv. 14.
62.] 1 Cor. x. 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them' (the Jews) also tempted.' The true reading of this text is very uncertain. The evidence of Manuscripts and Fathers decidedly favours the Lord, which, however, Griesbach, though he prefixes his mark of high probability, does not introduce into the text. The evidence of the Versions favours the common reading. The Alexandrian MS. has God." If we read Christ," says Archb. Newcome, "the sense is, Nor let us tempt, try, prove, provoke Christ now, as some of them
did God at that time:" and, whatever be meant, from a reading so doubtful no inference could be fairly drawn P.
63.] 1 Cor. xv. 47. The first man was from the earth, earthy; the second man will be [the Lord] from heaven.' One fundamental principle of the Apostle's reasonings (vs. 21, for since by MAN came death, by MAN also cometh the resurrection of the dead,') so plainly implies that Jesus was properly a human being, the same as to nature with him by whom death came, that if he had not been
P For want of opportunity minutely to examine Mr. Simpson's interpretation of 1 Cor. x. 4, 9, I deem it expedient to leave my remarks upon those verses as they stood in the first edition that interpretation, however, appears to me to be probable, and well deserving of minute examination. The substance of Mr. Simpson's deductions is as follows: The spiritual food and spiritual drink mentioned in vs. 3, 4, denote moral and religious instruction; and the spiritual or allegorical rock, from which the Israelites drank this spiritual drink, was Moses, into whom it is said, vs. 2, that they were baptized, and who was divinely commissioned to be their instructor. Moses was the spiritual or figurative rock of the Israelites, that is the foundation of the Jewish church, as Jesus was figuratively the foundation-stone of the Christian church, and as Peter was the figurative rock on which Christ said he would build his church. Further, Moses was the anointed, xerOS, of God (Heb. xi. 26), the mediator through whom the Divine Being communicated the blessings of the old covenant, and who received his commission, his miraculous power, and his extraordinary wisdom immediately from the Most High.Agreeably to these positions, Mr. S. thus translates and explains the passages in question. Vs. 4, And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them,' i. e. imbibed instruction from Moses; ⚫ and that rock was the anointed of God.' Vs. 9, Nor let us try the Anointed,'i. e. the Messiah, (Acts x. 38,)' as some of them also tried the anointed,' i. e. Moses. See Essays on the Language of Scripture, vol. II. p. 119-137.
4 See p. 38, note (").
called MAN in this very passage, I do not see how it could fairly be interpreted to refer to a superior nature. The words the Lord are retained in the text by Griesbach, though with his mark of probable omission; but the evidence against their genuineness is so very strong, that they might justly he left out of view in our interpretation: it would scarcely, however, affect the sense of the following. to retain them.-In Phil. iii. 21, the Apostle declares his expectations that the Lord Jesus Christ would come from heaven, and change our debased body so that it may be like his glorious body. He here declares the same thing; and he obviously refers, not to the pre-existent but to the present state of Jesus, whose bodily system he speaks of in Rom. vi. 9, as now incorruptible. The first man, he says, was formed out of the earth, and is earthy, frail and mortal; the second man, who is now incorruptible and immortal (vs. 42-44), will come from heaven to raise us from the dead, and we shall become like him incorruptible.-The tense of the verb supplied in the Public Version "the second man is [the Lord] from heaven," is the chief if not the only circumstance which misleads the unlearned reader as to the sense of the passage'.
64.] 2 Cor. viii. 9. Respecting this passage see
* In vs. 21, 48, there is a similar error as to the inserted · verbs, (in the original there are none in either verse,) which, though less important, manifests an equal inattention of the Translator to the connexion. Vs. 22 shows that the second verb supplied in vs. 21, should have a future force, either cometh or will come; and the circumstances of the case and vs. 49, require the same in vs. 48, and as is the heavenly, such will they also be that are heavenly.'
p. 42. All that can be allowed as to its weight against Unitarianism, is, that it may be translated as in the Public Version, and that it may be interpreted in reference to a pre-existent state; but no unprejudiced person can deny, that the translations in the page referred to, equally well suit the original. That our Lord led a life of poverty is indisputable; the only question, and indeed the only difficulty on the Unitarian system, is, in what sense he could be rich at the same time. That the expression cannot be understood literally, so as to imply that he was in actual possession of riches, must be admitted even by those who refer it to a pre existent state of glory and happiness: it could not be affirmed, in a strict, literal sense, that a person is rich because he is in such a state. Using the expression figuratively, we may say that the Christian e. g. has riches which the world can neither give nor take away, that he is rich in good works, rich in faith, rich in the favour of God, rich in his hopes and prospects, &c. In some such sense we must upderstand the Apostle, when he speaks (ch. vi. 10) of himself and fellow-labourers in the Gospel,
as POOR, yet making many RICH; as HAVING NOTHING, and yet POSSESSING ALL things;' and in a similar manner we must understand the words of our Lord himself, when he directs his servant' John (Rev. ii. 9) to say to the church at Smyrna,
I know thy [works and] affliction, and POVERTY, (yet thou art RICH.') In this sense, however, the Apostle can scarcely be here understood, since he refers to real privation for the good of men; but if it be admitted that our Saviour, by means of his