rock the apostle discerned the immediate presence of the ever-living God, and types (Túπol, ver. 6; TUπikās, ver. 11) of spiritual things which were full of suggestion and admonition for himself and for those to whom he was writing. In such typical and spiritual significance he might say "the rock was Christ." For every such manifestation of God's presence and power in Israel's history was a figure of what Christ is and does in his abiding presence with those who truly participate in the communion of the blood and of the body of Christ (vers. 15-17). Accordingly, Paul, might with equal propriety have said that the pillar of cloud and the manna were Christ. The rock was Christ in much the same sense that "Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia," and Sarah, the freewoman, is "the Jerusalem that is above, which is our mother" (Gal. iv, 25, 26). The statement made twice over in the context that these events of Old Testament story have a figurative significance for us justifies the above interpretation, and removes the passage in 1 Cor. x, 4, from the list of texts which teach the real preëxistence of Christ.

(3) First Corinthians xv, 45-49. Another passage is in 1 Cor. xv, 45-49, where the first man Adam is contrasted with the last Adam, who is called "a life-giving spirit," and "the second man from heaven." The first man is said to be en yns xoïkós, from earth, earthy, in allusion to Gen. ii, 7. The earthly origin and nature of his body are here affirmed, for the apostle could hardly have intended to affirm that the soul of the first Adam was from the earth. That was from the breath of God and so far heavenly. In what specific sense, then, is Christ from heaven' and heavenly? He, too, possessed a owua vxikóv, natural body, as well as the first man. He died and was buried. A reference to the heavenly preëxistence of Christ and to his incarnation as the earthly manifestation of the last Adam would suit the words well enough, but has no relevancy to the context. Emphasis is placed in verse 45 on what each of these contrasted Adams became (èyévero ei5), and the next verse calls attention to the fact that the spiritual does not precede but follows the natural. The heavenly origin and nature of the second man, accordingly, are here thought of in reference to what he became as a life-giving spirit by his resurrection from the dead, not to what he was before he came into

The words clearly denote some sort of heavenly origin or derivation, but not necessarily personal preexistence. So the baptism of John was from heaven (Matt. xxi, 25). But in this argument of Paul touching the resurrection Meyer well says that the phrase from heaven "applies to the glorification of the body of Christ originating from heaven, i. e., wrought by God (comp. 2 Cor. v, 2, 3), in which glorified body he is in heaven, and will appear at his parousia (comp. Phil. iii, 20). Referring from heaven back to the incarnation is contrary to the context and mixes up things that differ."-Exegetical Handbook, in loco.

the world. Hence it is shown that "we, who have borne the image of the earthy, shall also bear the image of the heavenly." There is, therefore, no necessary reference to the personal preëxistence of Christ in this Pauline argument for the resurrection.

(4) Second Corinthians viii, 9. The preexistence of Christ is clearly in accord with the language found in 2 Cor. viii, 9, where "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" is extolled in the fact "that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich." Accepting or assuming the doctrine of Christ's preëxistence, these words may be regarded as a simple and natural reference to his voluntary relinquishing of the riches of his heavenly glory and living the life of poverty in which he appeared among men. The aorist tense of πrwxεvσe, ἐπτώχευσε, became poor, is deemed quite decisive of the definite reference to the once-occurring event of his entering upon the state of earthly poverty, and most naturally implies the preëxistent state of heavenly glory, out of which he came forth in order to become incarnate. And yet it must in all fairness be conceded that these statements may be explained by facts which belonged to the historical life of Jesus Christ on earth. In this same epistle (vi, 10) it is affirmed of all the true ministers of God that they commend themselves "as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.' According to Eph. iii, 8, Paul preached to the Gentiles "the unsearchable riches of Christ," by which he certainly did not mean the riches of his preëxistence, and when further on (ver. 16) he speaks of "the riches of his glory" he refers to the risen and glorified Christ rather than to any preexistent riches of glory. The being rich and becoming poor, in 2 Cor. viii, 9, are not mutually exclusive opposites, nor are the words rich and poor to be understood alike literally; for while the poverty was outward and manifest, the riches were essentially an inalienable possession and of a spiritual kind. So it was that the Master and Lord could humble himself to wash the disciples' feet and yet remain their Lord and Master. In like manner in the days of his flesh our Lord was both rich and poor; for he was unspeakably rich in heavenly gifts and power, the Son of God and heir of all things, and yet had not where to lay his head. The apostle, writing long after the glorification of Jesus, conceived and spoke of one and all of these facts of the self-humiliation of Christ in the definite aorist tense, for his manifestation in the flesh was then a fact of the past.

12. Pauline Texts which Call Christ God. A study of the Pauline Christology requires us further to examine those texts

which have been supposed to speak of Christ as God. Most of these have been appealed to as proof-texts for the deity of Christ, for it has seemed to many that they speak of the Saviour in a form of language which attributes the highest divine title to him. A more minute study of the Greek manuscripts, however, has largely deprived these texts of the dogmatic value they once seemed to possess.

(1) First Timothy iii, 16. The reading in 1 Tim. iii, 16, "God was manifested in the flesh," has been proven to be an error. There is no trace of it to be found previous to the fourth century. The oldest manuscripts do not read deós, God, but 85, who, and this is now accepted in all critical editions of the Greek Testament, in all the recent and revised versions, and by all the leading interpreters. The margin of the Anglo-American Revision informs the reader that the word God in this passage "rests on no sufficient ancient evidence." It has been argued, however, that the reading os presents a grammatical difficulty in having no masculine antecedent. This consideration probably led to the ancient correction which some manuscripts contain in the reading 8, which, so as to make the relative agree with the preceding тò μvoтýpiov, the mystery. But as Christ himself is called, in Col. ii, 2, "the mystery of God," the grammatical inaccuracy furnishes no decisive argument. It is clear that Christ is not here called God, but here as elsewhere in the Pauline writings he is called the mystery of God.

1

(2) Titus ii, 13. Another text is Titus ii, 13, where the reference of the words "the great God" turns upon a question of grammatical construction. On this question distinguished interpreters have long disagreed. Shall we read, "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," or "the appearing of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ"? The arguments put forth on each side of this question seem to be quite evenly balanced, and leave us, therefore, without positive result. That the language may be legitimately construed so as to make "the great God" an appellative of Christ ought in all fairness to be conceded; but equal fairness of judgment seems to demand that the arguments for this view be not held as decisive. Here, therefore, as in other cases where learned and deliberate opinions are in open conflict, and the opposing arguments are so evenly bal

The following comment of Hort is worthy of note: “Oɛó is not a word likely to be chosen deliberately to stand at the head of this series of six clauses, though it might seem to harmonize with the first of the six.... The concurrence of three independent data, óμoλoyovμévw5, 85, and the form of the six clauses, suggests that these clauses were a quotation from an early Christian hymn; and, if so, the proper and original antecedent would doubtless have been found in the preceding context which is not quoted."-Notes on Select Readings, p. 134.

anced, we cannot adduce the text in question as fairly determining any doctrine of importance.

(3) Romans ix, 5. We are obliged to express the same judgment on the much-disputed construction of Rom. ix, 5, where a very strong argument can be made to show that the words who is over all, God blessed forever, refer to the Christ mentioned immediately before. These words, expressive of the exaltation and divinity of Christ, come in as an appropriate contrast to the preceding phrase according to the flesh, after the manner of the similar contrast in Rom. i, 3, 4. The other interpretation, which puts a full stop after the word flesh and translates the following words as a doxology to God,' is open to strong objection for the reason that the word evλoyntós, blessed, occupies a wrong position in the sentence to be thus construed (comp. Luke i, 68; 2 Cor. i, 3; Eph. i, 3; 1 Pet. i, 3). Similar ascriptions of blessing and praise to the Lord Jesus Christ appear in 2 Tim. iv, 18; 2 Pet. iii, 18; Rev. i, 6; v, 13, and possibly in 1 Pet. iv, 11. On the other hand, it is strenuously urged that Paul commonly distinguishes so definitely between Christ and God that we should naturally hesitate in the presence of such a sentence as the closing portion of Rom. ix, 5, and adopt, if reasonable, any construction which goes to make the apostle consistent with himself. In Rom. i, 25; xi, 36; 2 Cor. xi, 31; Gal. i, 5; Eph. iii, 21; Phil. iv, 20, and 1 Tim. i, 17, we find similar doxologies to the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. After weighing all the arguments, on both sides, we are compelled to acknowledge that either construction is possible, and about as much can be said in favor of one interpretation as the other.

(4) Ephesians v, 5. The phrase kingdom of the Christ and of God (TOй XPLOTOυ kai dɛov), in Eph. v, 5, is too incidental to be made the ground of an argument for the deity of Christ on the plea that the words Christ and God are here construed as two different titles of the same person. There is nothing in the context to make such a dogmatic construction plausible,' and the phrase kingdom of God is so common as not to call for a repetition of the article (comp. Gal. v, 21; 1 Cor. vi, 9, 10; xv, 50). The kingdom

Thus: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh. He who is over all, God, be blessed forever." This punctuation is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, and appears in the margin of Westcott and Hort and of the American Revisers' Version. A most comprehensive and thorough discussion of both sides of this question, by Timothy Dwight, who refers the doxology to Christ, and Ezra Abbott, who refers it to God, may be found in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, for 1881, pp. 22-55 and 87-154.

'Some of the older polemical writers contended that the absence of the article before cou is a proof that Christ is here called God. But this plea is set aside by such Trinitarian exegetes as Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, and Beet. It may be here noticed that the common reference of ỏ ɛ65, in Heb. i, 8, to Christ as a vocative appellative is also disputed by high Trinitarian authorities, as will be shown in the next chapter.

of heaven is both Christ's and God's, and this placing of the two names together here, as often elsewhere, is an exaltation of Christ in the glory of God the Father.

(5) Acts xx, 28. The language of Acts xx, 28, should also be noticed in this connection, since it is reported as a part of Paul's address to the Ephesian elders. The question is whether we should read "church of God, which he purchased with his own blood," or "church of the Lord" (kvpíov). Ancient and excellent evidence for each reading exists, and critics of acknowledged ability and learning have taken opposite sides in the discussion.' It is certainly a strange thing to speak of the blood of God, and any rational explanation of such language would seem to require an assumption of the fleshly human nature of Jesus as implied in the passage. In that case it is the blood of the Son of God, the human Christ, and not God's blood in any strict sense of the words. For God is a Spirit, and cannot be flesh and blood. According to Paul, in Rom. viii, 32, "God spared not his own Son (idíov viov), but delivered him up for us all," and we are saved "through faith in his blood" (Rom. iii, 25; v, 9), that is, the blood of Jesus Christ. In view of the conflicting testimony of the oldest documentary evidence for the readings in Acts xx, 28, it is probable that the text is here corrupt,' and because of such conflicting testimony and the high authorities which may be cited in support of each reading, no party is at liberty to employ this scripture as decisive of a doctrinal issue. It ought to be apparent to every unbiased expounder of the apostolic writings that no doctrine of religion can be permanently helped by what has any appearance of dogmatic persistence in the face of strong textual evidence to the contrary. A doctrine of genuine importance ought not to depend on precarious grounds or arguments of doubtful value.

For the reading cov stand the great uncials N and B, the Greek texts of Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, and the English Revisers. For kupiov are the uncials A, C, D, and E, the Greek texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the American Revisers. For a very discriminating discussion of the subject see Ezra Abbott's article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1876, pp. 318-352.

2 Instead of dia rov idíov aiμaros, through his own blood, which is not well supported by ancient evidence, N, A, B, C, D, E, and the texts of Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort read dià rov aiμaros rov idiov, through the blood of his own, and Hort suggests that the word viov, son, may have dropped out of the original text "at some very early transcription, thus affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind."-Notes on Select Readings, p. 99. Thus emended the revised text would read: "Church of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.”