תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

apagría iorir ý ávouía, and Rev. 1: 18, and 1 Cor. 14: 32, it connects an explicative sentence, which explains the reason of something which precedes, and might with propriety be translated for, as it is in 1 John 3: 4. 4. There is in this passage an evident play upon the similarity of sound between the two words Пléreos and nérga, which the Greeks called paronomasia. "And I say also unto thee, that thou art é Пérgos," then follows the reason," and (or for) upon raízy Tnérga (this rock) I will build my church." Iérgos signifies a stone or rock, but generally one which is movable; and zerga has a similar meaning, but is generally used when a mass of rock is spoken of which is not moved, or upon which something rests, like an edifice upon an immovable foundation. Our Saviour gave this name to Simon when he first became his disciple, as we learn from John 1: 42. "And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Пérgos, a stone." This word is used for such a stone as belligerents employed in battle, and appears to be a synonym with ivos. So Xenoph. Anab. iv. 7, 10. And in sec. 12, οὐδεὶς πέτρος ἄνωθεν ἠνέχθη. Also 2 Macc. 1: 16, and 4: 41. And in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, chap. 11 4, this sentence occurs, in which aivos and nérga are used synonymously—Καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου ὕδωρ, καὶ ἴαμα δίψης ἐκ λίθου σκληροῦ. See also ls. 8 : 14, Rom. 9:33. It does not appear then from this comparison of terms that there is any more difference between nέrgos and Toa, than there is between the English stone and rock. Hence, when an edifice is reared upon such a solid foundation, we say it is built on a rock, not on a stone. And this corresponds with the Greek usage. See Matt. 7: 24 and 25. But when a foundation or basement is built of stones, then 200s is used more commonly. 1 Kings 6: 7, and 7: 9 and 10. But in Is. 28: 16, we have this peculiar form, Behold, I lay—λίθον πολυτελή, ἐκλεκτόν, ἀκρογωνιαῖον, ἔντιμον, εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς” The figure, then, in the text, of the base or beginning of an edifice, made it more proper to use the feminine termination zirga, than to repeat the mas

culine nérgos; not because the nature of the things signified by the two words differs, but because the one repremass proper for a foundation, and the other a smaller mass to which the figure is not adapted. And the application of the demonstrative pronoun zavrn to the noun nézoa, I think confirms this conclusion. What rock had he spoken of except ò Пléroos? And what is pointed out by zavrn? If a rock was in sight to which he was pointing, or any had been spoken of in the conversation, then Taúzn was intended to demonstrate or point it out. It would in that case accord with the form of a passage in Xenoph. Anab. iv. 7, 4. But here there is nothing for ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρα to point to, unless it be ὁ Πέτρος. Ask the question, Which rock will he build upon? Is there any rock spoken of or any answer to be given but IIérgos? 5. There is one more reason for the interpretation which has been given; and that is the part which Peter performed among his brethren in the propagation of the Christian religion, after the ascension of his Master to heaven. In Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand were added to them, it was through the preaching of Peter. Thus with the keys of the kingdom of heaven which Christ gave him, in the verse following the text, he opened the door of faith to the Jews; and afterwards to the Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius. Acts 10. In Acts 3: 4th and 5th chapters, we find Peter the most prominent preacher and agent, while great multitudes believed, so that the number of the men was about five thou sand. Acts 4: 4. And Paul tells us, Gal. 2: 7, that the gospel of the circumcision was committed unto Peter. Now all this shows that Christ assigned him an important part to act in building up his church. And what could be more natural when likening his church to a building, and considering Peter as a part of it, than to place him in the foundation. He does not say that he was the whole foundation, and that he would build the church on him alone; nor does he say any thing inconsistent with the idea that he him

self was also the chief foundation of support and hope to his church, and his incarnation and atonement the fundamental truth on which that hope and support must rest. All that I understand to be implied in the text, as addressed to Peter, is, that he would make him the beginning of the enlargement of his church under the new commission he gave the apostles in setting up the kingdom of heaven, for which purpose he gave him the keys, to open it both to the Jews and to the Gentiles. It is not, then, a post of authority over his compeers which he assigns him, but a post of toil, opposition and persecution. He did not crown him a Pope, but gave him many souls as his crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord. And though it appears evident from the subsequent history of events, that Peter was a prominent man among the apostles as a teacher and minister, yet it is evident also that they were all, when the church was likened to an edifice, viewed as constituting the foundation, with Christ at the chief place of the corner. The reason for this is found in the fact that they were the little company with Christ at their head, from which the church in its new form or under its new dispensation arose. And by their ministry it grew up into a stately temple of the Lord, as though it were a living building growing out of a living basement. This figure seems to have been in the mind of Peter when he wrote, 1 Pet. 2: 4, 5: "To whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house." And Paul says, Eph. 2: 20-22: "And (ye) are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." Here is plainly the figure of an edifice growing out of its foundation, which is composed of prophets and apostles, with Jesus Christ in the most prominent place, as the chief corner stone. This is not the foundation of the believer's hope and confidence, laid by the apostles in the preaching of the gospel, which

Paul says he laid at Corinth, (1 Cor. 3: 10, 11) because Christ does not here constitute the whole foundation, but is only the chief corner stone in it, and the apostles and prophets the greatest part. It is, therefore, the foundation composed of the apostles and prophets; a genitive of the subject and not of the agent. And this idea corresponds with the vision of the New Jerusalem described by the apostle John, Rev. 21: 10, etc., " And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

The foregoing exposition does not afford any ground for the extravagant claims of the Papacy, or give any authority to Peter over the other Apostles, or constitute him the head of a succession in the government of the church. All the prominence it gives him is, in the more abundant labors of the ministry in the first preaching of the gospel to the Jews and Gentiles, and in gathering the church under the new dispen sation. He was never treated as a superior by the other apostles, but always as an equal, as is evident from Acts, 11th and 15th chapters, and Gal. 2: 7-14. And that he himself thought of no superiority is evident from his own Epistles: 1 Epist. 5: 1-4; 2 Epist. 3: 1 and 2 and 15 and 16. The apostles did not contend for the lordship, but to excel in edifying the church; they strove not who should first put on the tiara and sit at ease on the crimson velvet, but to be in labors more abundant, approving themselves as the ministers of God in much patience, in afflictions, in necessi ties, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, and fastings. 2 Cor. 6: 4, 5, etc.

On the remainder of the verse I must be very brief. The phrase múla adov, in the opinion of good critics, means, both in classic authors and in the sacred Scriptures, the entrance to the region of the dead, or the unseen world of spirits. In Homer, Il. 23: 69–75, the spirit of Patroclus reproaches Achilles for neglecting his funeral rites and honors, without which he could not find admittance to hades, but was compelled to wander about the entrance, excluded from the passing throng of ghosts. With tears he beseeches his friend to help him:

θάπτε με ὅττι τάχιστα, πύλας αίδαο περήσω, line 71. So also in LXX., Is. 38: 10; Wisd. Sol. 16: 13; 3 Macc. 5: 51. A parallel expression, núλai Vavázov (2), is found in Job 38; 17, Ps. 9: 13, and Ps. 107: 18. This then is but a figurative mode of speaking of that invisible region of death, where he reigns over all that fall under his power. But this tyrant will not destroy the church; it will be perpetuated through every generation of this world, and finally raised to glory, when Christ shall destroy the last enemy, death. I Cor. 15: 22-28.

But the devil is said to have the power of death, Heb. 2: 14. And some suppose that the gates of hades imply his power and policy with all his agents, leagued against the church. The common phrase, the powers of darkness, is supposed to convey the idea of the foul spirits of the invisible world; and the gates of it, their place of counsel and concourse, where their hosts are mustered. And it is not in the writer's power to prove that this is not the design of the expression the gates of hades,' in the text.

One thing, however, is plain that Christ designs to assure us of the safety of his church against all, even the most powerful, of her foes. And that neither death nor he that has the power of death shall ever destroy it.

ARTICLE III.

SKETCHES IN GRECIAN PHILOSOPHY.

By Prof. W. S. TYLER, Amherst College, Mass.

THESE sketches are not designed for scholars by profession. Such readers will find in them neither novel theories, nor original discoveries, nor profound researches. They will meet with little that can interest or instruct them. He who has heard the nightingale herself, will not care to listen to the best

« הקודםהמשך »