every creature, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." (4.) The moral effects of the doctrine of the unity of mankind, upon the peace and welfare of nations, cannot be too highly estimated nor too dearly prized. Who can calculate the effects of such a conviction-WE ARE ALL BRETHREN-the influence it would exert on the well-being of states and empires, extending the spirit of love and of life to all classes of men-freemen, claiming their rights and privi leges in the common inheritance, as children of the universal Father-a spectacle to the world and to the angels, than which none is more sublime or pleasing to God; a generation of the world's population taking up the confession of unity, fraternity, and equality, uttering it boldly, and proclaiming it from nation to nation, and around the globe; inaugurating the era of a congress of nations, and giving assurance of the peace of the world. ART. IV.-CRITICAL THOUGHTS ON NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS. By HOWARD CROSBY, D.D., New Brunswick, N. J. 1. Perhaps the most perplexing and most discussed passage in the New Testament is that found in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. ix, verses 16 and 17. In our English version the words run thus; "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." In the Greek the passage has this form ; Ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου. Διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία. ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος. The difficulty is not in the words as they stand in these verses by themselves, but in is their meaning as related to the context. Considered apart from the connection, the passage presents a statement just in itself, and fully supported in both vocabulary and syntax by the Greek. The statement affirms that the death of a testator necessary before a will or testament can have an efficient force. This is sufficiently clear in itself, but it is difficult to apply the figure to Christ. A testator's death gives efficiency to his will, simply by taking him out of the way, thus allowing the benefits of property, which terminated in him, while he was alive, to flow on to the heirs for their enjoyment. The death causes a transfer of the property. Such is the characteristic of a testator's death as regards his testament. But there is nothing analogous to this in Christ's death. His death is a purchase of property for us, a property which by the very nature of the case he never did and never could himself enjoy. That property is our salvation. But besides this inapplicability of the figure to Christ, it is inapplicable to the preceding and succeeding verses. The preceding verses treat of Christ as the sacrifice for sin, thus; "if the blood of bulls and goats sanctifieth, etc., how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience?" (ver. 13, 14). The 15th verse speaks again of his death as a means of redemption, whereby the promise of an eternal inheritance may be received by the called. This use of the word "inheritance" is the only thing which agrees with the idea of a testament and a testator. For the word twice translated "testament" in the 15th verse cannot refer to a testament, because a mediator of the testament is mentioned, and how can there be a mediator to a man's last will? And, again, the Mosaic dispensation is called "the first testament," in which there is acknowledged to be no likeness whatever to a will. The Greek word dia0nkη (the word used in these passages) means both "covenant" and "testament." It occurs in the New Testament thirty-three times, and is translated in our version by "testament" thirteen times and by "covenant" twenty times. It occurs seventeen times in this Epistle to the Hebrews, and is translated of these six times as "testament" and eleven times as "covenants." Moreover, the phrase "mediator of a covenant” is found in chap. viii, 6, and in chap. xii, 24, where its correctness is evident; and the Mosaic dispensation is called a "covenant" most properly in chap. viii, 9. Hence we see conclusively that the word twice translated "testament" in verse 15 of the chapter before us should be rendered "covenant" in both cases. A covenant, made good by the sacrifice of Christ, is therefore the leading thought in the context immediately preceding our passage. The succeeding verses (18-22) show, that the blood of sacri fices had to be used in all the Mosaic service. And then verse 23 points us to Christ's blood, as used in the same manner in our spiritual service. As the argument proceeds, this blood of Christ is again mentioned as the basis of a covenant (chap. x, 1619). A covenant, made good by the sacrifice of Christ, is therefore the leading thought in the context immediately succeed ing our passage. Now, are we to suppose that two short verses, comprising our passage (and using the same important word with the context), are thrust in between two parts of a regular discussion of Christ's sacrifice, with a meaning totally different? The contexts refer, as we have seen, to a covenant made good by the sacrifice of Christ, but this passage inserted is alleged to refer to a testament, put into force by the demies of Christ. The manifold interpreters of this disputed passage may be classed under three heads. First are those who take the English version as it is, and say, that the apostle intended to mingle the two notions of covenant and testament, and that he turns on the word "inheritance" (in ver. 15.) from the former to the latter. The reply to these commentators is that such a transference of meaning is unnecessary and harsh, and hence the interpretation is contrary to the received rules of exegesis. It is unnecessary, because by preserving the notions of covenant and sacrifice, we can make a meaning equally good upon the whole with theirs. It is harsh, because the beautiful ar gument regarding the sacrifice is abruptly suspended, and then as abruptly resumed. This The second and larger class of interpreters, especially the later ones, acknowledge the translation of dialкη in all this chapter to be "covenant," and then read the disputed passage thus; "for where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of the victim; for a covenant is of force over dead victims; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the victim liveth.” reads smoothly enough in English and satisfies the context. But there are several objections to this use of the Greek. Only one however seems really unanswerable. It is this. The word translated "victim " never has that meaning, and by all analogy cannot have it. It occurs in the New Testament five times (besides this passage), and is uniformly referred to the maker of the covenant. In the classical writers it occurs in the same invariable sense, as the maker of the covenant or will. Scholefield acknowledges this difficulty, and yet boldly calls it here an arraš λeyóuevov, and rides over it. Yet no one. can read his four pages upon this matter, without perceiving that he feels very uneasy in his bold riding. The third class of interpreters, like the first, take the English version as correct, but would have dia0nkη rendered "testament" everywhere. This class show such a blind disregard for propriety in rhetoric that we shall consider it enough to mention them. If the second interpretation could avoid the difficulty with the word dialéμevos, which its advocates translate "victim" or "mediating sacrifice," it would probably be received by all good critics. We propose to remove that difficulty by a translation which preserves to diabéuevos its well-acknowledged meaning, while the general signification of the passage remains in accordance with the second interpretation. We repeat the Greek and under it our suggested rendering. Όπου γὰρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου. Διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμevos. For where there is a covenant, it is necessary for a death to be brought by the covenant-maker; for a covenant is firm over dead victims, since never has the covenant-maker power while the victims live. In the former clause, Tov diabeμévov is regarded as equivalent to ȧò тov dialɛμévov, the omission being familiar to every scholar. The only harshness is in giving, in the latter clauses, ισχύει a nominative (ὁ διαθέμενος), which seems naturally to belong to . This can be explained by supposing the writer to have finished his sentence before he wrote the last word, (ó dialéuevos), having the covenant-maker in his mind as the nominative to ioxía, from the necessity of the argument, thus: "the covenant-maker must introduce a death, since the covenant-maker has no power without a death." But feeling that the interposed sentence (διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς BeBaía) might prevent the reader from supposing the right nominative to ισχύει, he adds ὁ διαθέμενος at the end of the whole, the S naturally being associated with the veкpois. 2. There remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God, for he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his. Heb. iv, 9, 10. *Αρα ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ γὰρ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς κατέπαυσεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ, ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁ Θεός. The trouble in this passage is to account for the "for" (yap). We should have expected "and" (kal), as it only introduces an additional fact and not a reason. There remains a rest for God's people-that is one fact. Moreover, this rest is like God's rest--that is another fact. A careful translation will bring out the force of the "for," and correct our English non sequitur. The writer has just shown that the rest promised by God (through David) to his people could not be the rest which Joshua found for Israel in Canaan. This rest which God promises, the writer constantly calls xaτáπavow. The conclusion in the 9th verse would thus naturally be "there remaineth, therefore, a kатáñavois to the people of God." Instead of that the Apostle writes "there remaineth, therefore, a oaßßariouòs to the people of God." The objection would promptly arise-why a oaßßarioμòs and not a Karáлavois? The answer is in the 10th verse "for he that is entered into his Karáлavois hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." The 10th verse is thus a reason for using oaßßariouòs in the 9th verse. The English might, therefore, σαββατισμὸς read thus: "There remaineth, therefore, a Sabbath-rest to the people of God, for he that is entered into his rest hath likewise rested |