123
from the grief of Paul, that there is no doxology in this passage : Part I. cap. 42 ; but at the same time he along with his associates contends, that Paul wrote uv 6 hrl Kavruv, Qebg, x.r.X. So that there may be denoted in the passage this privilege of the Israel- ites, that the Lord is their God ; and he interprets the clause, 6 ski kuvtuv, thus : that this privilege is the greatest of all the honours conferred upon Israel. But such an interpretation of the 6 ski kuvtu v, with which comp. Eph. iv. 6 (that we may remove this out of our way in the first place), implies a meaning, which owes its birth merely to the support of an hypothesis, and which requires to be expressed rather by a phrase of this sort ; to dfi KavTOJv iLifCpv. The conjecture itself, wv 6, carries with it an open violation of the text. For I. it dissevers to yard <sd%xa from the antithetic member of the sentence, yard k\ isv/jou,1 which is usually everywhere mentioned [expressed]. II. It at the same time divides the last member of the enumeration [of the cata- logue of privileges], before which xa /, and, is suitably placed, tlcli ig wv, x.r.X. into two members, and in the second of these the conjunction is by it harshly suppressed.
Artemonius objects : I. Christ is nowhere in the sacred Scrip- tures expressly called God. Ans. Nowhere ? Doubtless because Artemonius endeavours to get rid of all those passages either by proposing a different reading, or by a different mode of interpreta- tion. He himself admits, that too many proofs of one thing ought not to be demanded, page 225. In regard to the rest, see note on John i. 1. He objects, II. If Paul wrote 6 u)v, he omitted the principal privilege of the Israelites, that God, who is the Best and Greatest of all, was their God. Ans. The adoption and the glory had consisted in that very circumstance ; therefore he did not omit it ; nor is that idea, the Lord is the God of Israel , ever expressed in these words, Thine , 0 Israel , is God blessed for ever. He urges further ; Christ is included even in the covenants , and yet Paul presently after makes mention of Christ ; how much more would he be likely to make mention of God the Father Himself? Ans. The reason in the case of Christ for His being mentioned does not equally hold good in the case of God. Paul
1 i.e., according to His divine nature. The words 6 ski kcovtuv Bsog are equivalent to koctoc kvs v/ax, and form a plain antithesis to to kovtoL ad^x.a. ~ His human nature. — Ed.
124.