, ε ‘4 pela,’ καὶ at ἐπαγγελίαι," 5. ὧν ot πατέρες," καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστος τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, 6 Oy ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς ! εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἁμήν. i Ch. i 23; 2 Cor. xi. 31.
the natural reference may not in any given case be precluded. Many scholars think it is precluded here. Meyer, for instance, argues that ‘‘ Paul has never used the express θεὸς of Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the Alex- andrian form of conceiving and setting forth the Divine essence of Christ, but has adhered to the popular concrete, strictly monotheistic terminology, not modified by philosophical speculation even for the designation of Christ; and he always accurately distinguishes God and Christ’. To this he adds the more dubious reasons that in the genuine apostolic writings (he excludes 2 Tim. iv. 18, 2 Pet. iii. 18, Heb. xiii. 21, and Rev.) there is no doxology to Christ in the form usual in doxologies referring to God, and that by ἐπὶ πάντων the Son’s subordination is denied. To these last arguments it may be answered that if the words in question do apply to Christ they are not a doxology at all (Gifford), but a declaration of deity, like 2 Cor. xi. 31, and that Christ’s subordination is not affected by His being described as 6 ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων any more than by His own claim to have all authority in heaven and on earth. But the first of Meyer’s argu- ments has a weight which it is impossible not to feel, and it becomes the more decisive the more we realise Paul’s whole habit of thought and speech. To say with Dr. Gifford, ‘‘ When we review the history of the interpretation it cannot but be regarded as a remarkable fact that every objection urged against the ancient interpretation rests ultimately on dog- matic presuppositions,” hardly covers such a position as Meyer represents. For the ‘‘ dogmatic presuppositions” are not arbitrary, but merely sum up the whole impression made on the mind by the study of Paul’s writings, an im- pression by which we cannot but be influenced, especially in deciding delicate and dubious questions like this. If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, would express his sense of Christ’s greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to me almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an assertion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle’s writ- ings; and though there is some irregu- larity in the grammar, and perhaps some
2-9
6. Οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν " ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. οἱ ἐξ Ισραήλ, οὗτοι Ισραήλ Ἰ. οὐδ ὅτι εἰσὶ oméppa' ᾽Αβραάμ,