II. CORINTHIANS 3, 18. 79

is the more unnatural here because in the immediately pre- ceding verse the apostle had said to irvevfjia Kvptov, /Spirit of the Lord ; he would therefore hardly express the same idea in the same connection by Kv^iiov Trvci'/xaros. Others render the words the Lord Spirit^ i. e. the Spirit who is Lord. We have in tlie Old Testament and in the apocalypse the familiar phrase, " the Lord God;" but this is only the translation of d^pVx rnh^. Je- hovah Elohim, Jehovah who is God, which the Septuagint ren- der Kvpio<i 6 ^€os, the Vulgate Dominus Deus, and the English, " Lord God." More analogous to the passage in the text is the Hebrew nin.-j •'biN, which the Septuagint render Kvptos Kvptos, the Vulgate Doniinus Deus, and the English Lord God. In Joshua 22, 22, we have the imusual combination, n^rr^ c^^p^Ji?. Vx; Septuagint, 6 Se6<; Seos kvpl6<; ian ; and immediately after 6 ^eos Seos ; Vulgate, Fortissimus Deus Dominus ; the English, "The Lord God of gods." As then in Hebrew nin-^ "^i-tN, in Greek Kvpto? Kuptos (or Kvptos 6 ^^cos)^ in Latin, Dominus Deus, and in English, Lord God, all meaning God icho is Lord^ so Kvpio<i TTvcvfjia may mean the Spirit icho is Lord, i. e. the divine Spirit. Tliis is the explanation adopted by Chrysostom, The- odoret and some of the moderns, in accordance with the in- terpretation which they give of the first clause of v. 17, which, as stated above, they understand to mean, the Spirit is Lord, Trpo? TO Ylvevfxa imaTpeffnov, Trpos Kt'ptov CTTicrrpec^ciS /ct'ptos yap to Uvevjxay Kol ofMod^povov, oiw7rpo(TKvvy]TOv kol ofjcoovcrtov llarpl kol vtoJ. But as in v. 17 Paul does not say the Spirit is the Lord, but on the contrary that the Lord is the Spirit, so it would be unnatural to make him here say we are transformed by the Spirit icho is the Lord. 1£ Lord is the subject in the one case, it must be in the other. According to otliers, the phrase in question should be rendered Xorc? of the Spirit, i. e. Christ, who may be said to be Lord of the Spirit, in a sense analogous to that in which God is said to be the God of Christ. That is, as God sent Christ, and was revealed by him, so Christ sends the Spirit and is revealed by him. This is the interpre- tation of Billroth, Olshausen, Meyer and otliers. But the " Lord of the Spirit " is an expression without any scriptural authority or analogy. It is only of the incarnate Son of God that the Father is said to be his God. There is no grammati- cal necessity for this interpretation, and it does not accord with V. 17. Luther, Beza and others render the phrase ctTro KvpLov TTvivfjiaTos, the Lord toho is the Spirit. In favour of this interpretation is, first, the analogy of such expressions as airb 4*