death, and shall in no wise find it." "The men"= those "not having the seal of God on their foreheads;" and as in No. 78. 81. Revelation ix. 10: "In their tails is their power to hurt the men five months." As in No. 78. 82. Revelation ix. 15: "The four angels were loosed, who had been prepared for the hour and the day and the month and the year, that they might kill the third part of the men." in No. 78. As 83. Revelation ix. 18: "By these three plagues was the third part of the men killed." As in No. 78. 84. Revelation ix. 20: "The rest of the men, who were not killed by these plagues, repented not of the works of their hands." As in No. 78. The Revisers translate "the men,' mankind. For this there is no warrant. The whole race was not involved in these judgments (Matthew xxiv.). The Common Version is right in this case. 85. Revelation xiii. 13: "He doeth great signs, that he should even make fire come down out of heaven upon the land in the sight of the men." "The men the dwellers in the land. 86. Revelation xiv. 4: "These were purchased from among the men, the first-fruits to God and the Lamb." "The men the people of the land of Israel. = 87. Revelation xvi. 2: "There came a noisome and grievous sore upon the men who had the mark of the beasts." Specially defined, and the Article rendered in the versions. 88, 89. Revelation xvi. 8, 9: "The fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to him to scorch the men with fire. And the men were scorched with great heat." In both instances, "the men" those" who had the mark of the beast." 90, 91. Revelation xvi. 21: "Great hail. cometh down out of heaven upon the men, and the men blasphemed God be cause of the plague of the hail." As in Nos. 88, 89. 92. Revelation xxi. 3: "The tabernacle of God is with the men." "The men" the residents of the heavenly city, New Jerusalem. = We have considered, it is believed, every case in which hoi1 anthrōpoi occurs in the New Testament, save one. We have seen that in each instance the writer had a "definite conception" in his mind, whether or not that definiteness is expressible in English idiom. In many cases in which it is omitted, the rendering of the Article would undoubtedly add clearness and force to the Versions. Are we to suppose that, in the remaining instance of its use, "the men" all mankind? or even "men" indefinitely? men in general? Let us see: 93. Hebrews ix. 27, 28: "Inasmuch as it is laid up for the men once to die, but after this a judgment, so also the Christ once was offered to bear the sins of many." "The men": what men? "The men" already spoken of: the high-priests, evidently (verses 7, 25). Though previously spoken of in the singular, the text has in view the succession of high-priests. The whole chapter, clearly, is a running comparison of the sacrifices offered on the Israelite Day of Atonement with that, of the Christ. The "definite conception" of the writer of the Epistle does not depend upon any interpretation of the details of the comparison of the text. Even if the exegete is constrained to interpret the verb "to die" as signifying the death which is the lot of all organized being, it does not fol low that the writer referred to all mankind as "the men." We may affirm of one, that he must die, bodily: why not of a definite few, though true of all mankind? Other considerations, however, confirm the inference from the context. The comparison of the text may thus be shown: The emphasis, it may be said, is upon the last particular. The other particulars are minor, and lead to the special point for which the present comparison is made. Using the implications of the first term of the comparison, we would read "between the lines" thus: "It is laid up for the men once to die, to bear the sins of the Israelite people; but after this they would be seen a second time, by the waiting people, with a judgment of ceremonial cleansing and forgiveness." Thus the parallel would be complete, as we suppose it ran in the writer's mind. : = It will be seen that "to die" must be sacrificially interpreted, or the comparison fails. The point of the second term is not that the Christ died bodily, but that he was offered in sacrifice. To sustain the similitude, the death of "the men" must be connected with the system of Hebrew sacrifices a point to be considered farther on. "The men" is not all mankind, because then the similitude would be lost in identity. The phrase would include the Christ, and the first term of the comparison must be exclusive of him. In view of the fact that throughout the chapter, as we have already noted, and beyond, the writer is comparing the priesthood, and sacrifices, and worship of the Temple, with the priestly sacrifice of Jesus, would it not seem impossible that he would suddenly dart from those to the common lot of man, and as suddenly return to his former theme? In chapter x., verse 1, immediately succeeding verse 28 of chapter ix., we have the pronoun "they" twice. In the first instance the reading appears to be doubtful: in the second, the evident antecedent is "the men" of verse 27: "They offer sacrifices continually year by year," with which "it," the law, or" they," the men, can never" make perfect them that draw nigh." A difficulty in interpretation, it must be conceded, occurs from the use of the word hapax, " once," in both of the terms of comparison. It is true that sometimes this word has emphatic force: "once for all;" ""once and no more." It is so in verse 26, and in 1 Peter iii. 18. In verses 25, 26, immedi ately in context, there is contrast on this point. Attention is called to the fact that "the high priest entereth yearly into the holy place with blood not his own," while Christ" once, at the consummation of the ages," hath "been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." The writer in this particular had thus already emphasized the "onceness" of the Christian sacrifice: he now sets forth and emphasizes the superior nature and efficacy of the "judgment," or decision, ensuing upon it. Would it be strange if the next particular so filled his mind, that he was not thoughtful of the precise form of words employed in the minor terms? Or is it not possible that, having set forth the superiority of the great High Priest who offered the Christian sacrifice of atonement, over every high-priest who served in the holy place, he now masses them all as upon one great day, and all their sacrifices as one great sacrifice once offered, and affirms the supremacy of the Christian sacrifice and High Priest over them all? The death of the Christ was his entry into the greater and more perfect Tabernacle, with the offering of his own blood: that of "the men" was, by the necessity of the parallel, their entry into the minor and less perfect tabernacle, with the offering of blood not their own. The latter were, however, to re-appear with the "judgment" following their grand ceremonial. The effect of this had been noted (verse 13) as sanctification "unto the cleanness of the flesh," and (verse 15) "redemption of transgressions under the first covenant." It was a judgment of forgiveness of the sins into which the Israelites had fallen during the year, announced to the assembly, waiting for its typical expression. The "judgment" following the death of the Christ, and his appearance a second time, is the salvation of "many " nations, the cleansing and forgiveness of the sins of the world. Is it presumptuous to affirm that "the men" can only refer to the long succession of the high-priests of Israel? G. L. Demarest, D.D. ARTICLE XIX. On the Kelto Saxon. DURING the immediate past and the present generation great progress has been made in our knowledge concerning the various types of mankind. These investigations should be of as much interest to the theologian as to the ethnologist. Among wild tribes the experiences and observations of the missionaries have been of incalculable service in reaching certain def inite conclusions, which have been fully recognized by the anthropologist. In order to make progress in the dissemination of his tenets the theologian is forced to approach such points as are most vulnerable. If certain races or types are the result of mixture, then the combination which enters this amalgamation must be understood by those who may endeavor to become thoroughly informed. The so-called Anglo-Saxon must have been a striking puzzle to many an intelligent mind. If this race is simply a combination of Saxons, Angles and Jutes (according to the usual acceptation of those terms) then we must expect to find elements which belong only to these three various types. But these types are Teutons, and if Teutons, then the so-called Anglo-Saxon or English must be characterized, like the German, by slowness, steady purpose, accuracy, providence, patient labor, silence and reserve, adventure and aristocratic tendencies. A casual observer could not help noticing that the English have more than this, notably clearness of percep tion, powers of combination, imagination, wit, humor, generosity, reverence, independence, sociability, sentiment of home, and respect for woman, all of which, last enumerated, are essential elements that enter into the character of the Kelts. The origin of the English people has rested, according to many authorities, wholly upon historical grounds. Barring 1 Modern Germany has produced poets and philosophers, but they have no particular share in the creative art of English people. |