ページの画像
PDF
ePub

48 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, 29 dè

28. ἅπαντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς.

baptism had become so definitely fixed at this early date, that such an allusion would speak for itself. The metaphor in fact is very common in the LXX, e.g. Job viii. 22 (αἰσχύνην), xxix. 14 (δικαιοσύνην), xxxix. 19 (φόβον), Ps. xxxiv. 26 (αἰσχύνην καὶ ἐντροπήν), scii. 1 (εὐπρέ πειαν, δύναμιν), ciii. 1, etc. ; comp. ἐγκομε Bovodai 1 Pet. v. 5. See also Schöttgen on Rom. xiii. 14. On the other hand in the context of the passage of Justin quoted below (ver. 28) there is apparently an allusion to the baptismal robes.

28, 29. 'In Christ ye are all sons, all free. Every barrier is swept away. No special claims, no special disabilities exist in Him, none can exist. The conventional distinctions of religious caste or of social rank, even the natural distinction of sex, are banished hence. One heart beats in all: one mind guides all one life is lived by all. Ye are all one man, for ye are members of Christ. And as members of Christ ye are Abraham's seed, ye claim the inheritance by virtue of a promise, which no law can set aside.'

ovk ev] 'there is no room for, no place for,' negativing not the fact only, but the possibility, as James i. 17 παρ ̓ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγή. The right account of en seems to be given by Winer S xiv. p. 96. It is not a contraction of eveori, but the preposition év, éví, strengthened by a more vigorous accent, like mi, rápa, and used with an ellipsis of the substantive verb. "EXA] See the note ii. 3.

ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ] The connecting par ticle is perhaps changed in the third clause, because the distinction now mentioned is different in kind, no longer social but physical. There may

be an allusion to Gen. i. 27 apσev kai θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, and if so, this clause will form a climax: 'even the primeval distinction of sex has ceased.' Comp. Col. iii. 11.

Either on this passage, or on some unrecorded saying of our Lord similar in import (comp. Luke xx. 35), may have been founded the mystical language attributed to our Lord in the apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 553, ed. Potter). Being asked by Salome when His kingdom should come, He is reported to have answered, 'When the two shall be one, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.' These obscure words were much discussed in early times and diversely interpreted, e.g. by the Ophites (Hippol. Haer. v. 7), by the Pseudo-Clement of Rome (Epist. 2, § 12), by Cassianus (Clem. Alex. Lc.), and by Theodotus (Clem. Alex. p. 985). Comp. also the remarks of Clement of Alexandria himself, pp. 532, 539 sq, besides the passage first cited. See the note on Clem. Rom.1.c. For another coincidence of St Paul's language with a saying attributed to our Lord, but not found in the Gospels, see I Thess. v. 21.

eis éoré] are one man. Comp. Ephes. ii. 15 τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, and Justin Dial. § 116, p. 344 Β οὕτως ἡμεῖς οἱ διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὀνόματος ὡς εἰς ἄνθρωπος πιστεύο σαντες...τὰ ῥυπαρὰ ἱμάτια ἀπημφιεσ μένοι κ.τ.λ., which seems to be a reminiscence of this passage of St Paul. The neuter v, found in some texts, destroys the point of the expression, the oneness as a conscious agent.

29. Xploroû] 'are part of Christ, are members of Christ,' not merely

ἄρα τοῦ ̓Αβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ ̓ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι.

Gare the property of Christ, are servants of Christ.' The argument turns on the entire identity of the Christian brotherhood with Christ.

ἄρα τοῦ ̓Αβραάμ] then being one with Christ, ye are Abraham's seed';

for He is that seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was given. See the note on ver. 16.

κατ ̓ ἐπαγγελίαν] emphatic; heirs indeed, but heirs by promise, not by law. See ver. 18.

Ambiguity of the Hebrew.

Two ren-
derings.
(i) LXX and
St Paul.

(ii) Judaic writers.

The interpretation of Deut. xxi. 23.

This passage occupied an important place in the early controversies between the Christians and the Jews. Partly owing to this circumstance, and partly from the ambiguity of the Hebrew, it was variously interpreted and applied.

for (the) curse of* כי קללת אלהים תלוי The words of the original are

God (is) he that is hanged.' The ambiguity arises out of the construction of, since the case attached to np may denote either the person who pronounces the curse, as Judges ix. 57 (on nbsp) and 2 Sam. xvi. 12 (np in the Q'ri), or the person against whom the curse is pronounced, as Gen. xxvii. 13 (7лbhp); in other words, it represents either a subjective or an objective genitive. As we assign one or other sense therefore to the dependent case, we get two distinct interpretations.

1. He that is hanged is accursed in the sight of God.' This is the rendering of the LXX, Kekatηpaμévos úñò toû coû, adopted in substance, it would appear, by St Paul; and seems to have obtained the suffrages of most recent commentators whatever their opinions. It is certainly supported by a more exact parallel (Judges ix. 57) than the alternative rendering, and seems to suit the context better, for the sense will then be, 'Do not let the body hang after sunset; for the hanging body (of a malefactor) defiles the land, since the curse of God rests upon it.'

2. The other rendering is, 'He that hangeth is a contempt of, a reproach or insult to God.' This seems to have been the popular Jewish interpretation (shared therefore by Jewish Christians) at all events from the second century of the Christian era. The passage was so taken by the Jewish or Ebionite translators, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus1. It is explained in this way in the ancient Jewish commentary on Deuteronomy, Siphri', and in the so-called Targum of Jonathan3. This rendering appeared also in the Ebionite Gospel. And in one of the earliest Christian apologies, a Jewish interlocutor brought forward this text, quoting it in the form, 'He that hangeth is a reviling of God.' It is found more

1 Aquila and Theodotion rendered it κατάρα Θεοῦ κρεμάμενος ; see Field's Hexapla I. p. 304. The rendering of Symmachus, as given in Latin by Jerome, was,' quia propter blasphemiam Dei suspensus est.'

2 Qua de causa iste suspenditur? Quia maledixit nomini (Dei)': see Ugolin. Thes. xv. p. 766.

קילותא קדם אלהא למצלוב 3

, it is contempt before God to hang a man.'

4 At least so I understand the language of Jerome, 1.c., ' Haec verba Ebion ille haeresiarches semichristianus et semijudaeus ita interpretatus est, öri ößpis Θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος, id est, quia injuria Dei est suspensus.'

5 Hieron. 1.c., 'Memini me in altercatione Iasonis et Papisci quae Graeco sermone conscripta est ita reperisse, λοιδορία Θεοῦ ὁ κρεμάμενος, id est, maledictio Dei qui appensus est.' See below, p. 153, note 5.

over in the Peshito Syriac1. The same also would seem to be the interpretation adopted in the older Targum', where the passage runs, 'Since for what he sinned before God he was hanged,' but the paraphrastic freedom of this rendering leaves room for some doubt. Though these writers differ widely from each other as to the meaning to be put upon the words, they agree in their rendering so far as to take on as the object, not the sub

.קללת ject, of

It may be conjectured that this rendering obtained currency at first owing to the untoward circumstances of the times. Jewish patriots were impaled or crucified as rebels by their masters whether Syrians or Romans. The thought was intolerable that the curse of God should attach to these. The spirit of the passage indeed implies nothing of this kind, but the letter was all powerful in the schools of the day: and a rendering, which not only warded off the reproach but even, if dexterously used, turned it against the persecutor, would be gladly welcomed. An interpretation started in this way would at length become traditional".

the Jews

But it was especially in controversies with the Christians, as I have The text mentioned, that the Jews availed themselves of this passage. In whatever used by way interpreted, it would seem to them equally available for their purpose. against The 'offence of the cross' took its stand upon the letter of the lawgiver's Chrislanguage, and counted its position impregnable. Again and again doubt- tians, less, as he argued in the synagogues, St Paul must have had these words cast in his teeth, 'accursed of God,' or 'an insult to God,' or 'a blasphemer of God, is he that is hanged on the tree.' More than once the early Christian apologists meet and refute this inference, when writing against the Jews. This is the case with Ariston of Pella, with Justin Martyr", with Tertullian'. In Jerome's time the same argument was brought by the Jews against the leading fact on which the faith of a Christian rests; and later literature shows that Christ crucified did not cease to be 'to the Jews a stumblingblock.'

1 'Because whosoever blasphemeth pretation of a learned rabbi of our own God shall be hanged.'

2 So it may be inferred from a comparison with the translations of Symmachus, of the Peshito, and of the Ebionite Gospel. Otherwise the same meaning might be got from the other rendering,' accursed of God,' and so 'a sinner in the sight of God.'

• Thus the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, after rendering the passage as given above, p. 152, note 3, adds 'unless his sins have occasioned it to him.' It is possible however that this is aimed at Christianity. At all events it presents a curious contrast to the interpretation of the older Targum.

• See the passages quoted in Schöttgen here. The following is the inter

time: 'L'impiccato è (produce) impreca-
zione contro Dio (cioè: il lasciare il ca-
davere esposto lungo tempo alla pub-
blica vista non può che irritare gli
animi, e indurli ad esecrare i giudici e
le leggi) e (oltracciò) non devi rendere
impura la tua terra etc.,' Luzzatto Il
Pentateuco, Trieste 1858.

In the 'Dispute of Jason and Pa-
piscus'; see above, p. 152, note 5, and
Routh Rel. Sacr. I. p. 95.

• Dial. c. Tryph. o. 96, p. 323 0.
7 Adv. Judaeos § 10.

8 Hieron. 1.c. So too in the work
of Evagrius (c. 430 A.D., see Gennad.
Vir. Ill. 50) entitled Altercatio inter
Theophilum Christianum et Simonem Ju-
daeum, Migne's Patr. Lat. xx. p. 1174 B.

and ap plied to death by

crucifixion.

The passage in Deuteronomy, it is true, does not refer directly to crucifixion as a means of execution, but to impaling bodies after death. It has been said indeed that Philo' speaks of the impalement there mentioned as a mode of putting to death, but this seems to be a mistake. Philo says, that Moses would have put such malefactors to death ten thousand times over if it were possible, but not being able to kill them more than once, he adds another penalty, ordering murderers to be gibbeted (rwpiav ädλnv προσδιατάττεται κελεύων τοὺς ἀνελόντας ἀνασκολοπίζεσθαι). Nor, so far as I am aware, is there any evidence to show that the Jews at the time of the Christian era interpreted the passage of death by crucifixion. Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment. The evangelist (Joh. xviii. 32) sees a providence in the delivering over of our Lord to the Romans to be put to death, so that He might die in the manner He himself had foretold. It had been employed occasionally in seasons of tumult by their own princes2, but was regarded as an act of great atrocity. Even the Roman looked upon crucifixion with abhorrence. To the Jew it was especially hateful, owing in part no doubt to the curse attaching to this ignominious exposure of the body in the passage of Deuteronomy. For though this passage did not contemplate death by crucifixion, the application was quite legitimate. It was the hanging, not the death, that brought ignominy on the sufferer and defilement on the land. Hence the Chaldee paraphrase of Deuteronomy employs the same word (by) which is used in several places in the Peshito Syriac to describe the crucifixion of our Lord (e.g. Gal. iii. 1). Hence also later Jews, speaking of Jesus, called Him by the same name of reproach (n, 'the gibbeted one'), which they found in the original text of the lawgiver1. It was not that they mistook the meaning of the word, but that they considered the two punishments essentially the same. No Jew would have questioned the propriety of St Paul's application of the text to our Lord. The curse pronounced in the law was interpreted and strengthened by the national sentiment.

Active and

The words denoting 'Faith.

The Hebrew D, the Greek níoris, the Latin 'fides,' and the English passive 'faith,' hover between two meanings; trustfulness, the frame of mind meanings which relies on another; and trustworthiness, the frame of mind which can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammati

of Faith

1 de Spec. Leg. § 28, II. p. 324 M.
2 Joseph. Ant. xiii. 14. 2, referred
to in Winer Realw. s. v. Kreuzigung.
On this question see Carpzov Appar.
Crit. p. 591. I have not seen the trea-
tise of Bornitius mentioned by Winer,
Diss. de crucenum Ebraeor. suppl. fuerit,
Wittenb. 1644. Those who maintain
that crucifixion was a Jewish punish-

ment rely mainly on this passage of Galatians: see Lange Obs. Sacr. p. 163

sq.

3 Cic. Verr. v. 64 'crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium.'

• Eisenmenger's Entd. Judenth. 1. pp. 88 sq, 287, 496. On the Greek terms σταυροῦν, σκολοπίζειν, etc., see Lipsius de Cruce i. 4 sq (Op. II. p. 769).

« 前へ次へ »