Note [D], page 312. Mr. B. refers to Grotius. But that eminent scholar, much as his predilections might have induced a wish to do so, does not venture to give "God is thy throne," as the construction of the passage. He seems anxiously to avoid any construction, contenting himself with saying, “The sense is, God himself is thy perpetual seat." Long before Grotius, the Jew Saadias had advanced a similar gloss; saying that there was an ellipsis of 1, and that the sense is, "God shall establish thy throne." This violent extravagance was, however, disowned by his own nation. None of them, though from the principles of modern Judaism they might have been strongly disposed to it, have dared to follow him. Enjedin says that the words will admit of this explication; "possunt sic commodè explicari." Macey, in his Gr. and Engl. N. T. 1729, and Samuel Crellius, as might be expected, follow Enjedin. But, as one has often occasion to observe that the writers of this school become bolder as they advance, improving wishes into conjectures and conjectures into certainties, we find a writer in the Commentaries and Essays issued from Essex-street, in 1783, under the signature of Elipandus, roundly affirming: "The juster construction and translation of it, is not, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;' but God is thy throne,' i. e. the support of it, for ever and ever.' 6 Dr. Sam. Clarke, in his Reply to Nelson, p. 87, written after his Scripture Doctrine, follows the commonly received construction. So does Mr. Peirce, in his Paraphrase, but in a Note affirming that it is "doubtful," and perhaps intimating a wish in favour of the other rendering. 66 Note [E], page 313. Some interpreters invert the common order of the subject, and predicate in this clause, thus, "the winds his messengers, and the flash of fire his servants." This version would equally support the contrast and the conclusion of the argument. But it appears inadmissible, because (1.) It would not thus be true that this is said concerning the angels," as the Epistle asserts, whether we understand by that term human or superior beings: (2.) The structure of the Hebrew in Ps. civ. 4, most naturally, and of the Greek in the Epistle necessarily, requires the common construction: (3.) The mention of the angelic orders appears eminently proper, as a part of the enumeration describing the created universe in its dependence on Jehovah and its obedience to him; thus corresponding with the 66 sentiment in Ps. ciii. 20. The Chaldee Targum paraphrases the verse; Who maketh his messengers swift as the wind; his servants mighty as the glittering fire." All the Ancient Versions decidedly adhere to the same construction. Mr. B. adopted the interpretation here declined, in a Note which certainly does not pay too much respect to the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. "Another remarkable instance of lax interpretation. The quotation is from Psalm civ. 4, the proper translation of which is, ' He maketh the winds his messengers, and the lightnings his ministers.' It is an assertion in beautiful and poetic language of the sovereign dominion of God over the powers of nature. But this writer avails himself of the ambiguity of the language, and accommodates the words to the authority of the prophets."-P. 207. Note [F], page 314. In the instances almost innumerable of the invocation, O God, which occur in the Book of Psalms, I have not been able, after a close examination, to find a single example of Oɛe, but all are & Oɛós. In the other books of the LXX. I can find Oɛe only in Lev. xvi. 22 ; Deut. iii. 24; Judges xvi. 28; and 2 Kings [Sam.] vii. 25. In the N. T. only in Matt. xxvii. 46. Note [G], page 317. Michaelis maintains, from strong internal characters, that, independently of any elucidation from the New Testament, this Psalm has no relation to Solomon or to any literal marriage-celebration : and he proceeds to remark, "The orientals are much accustomed to represent a state or kingdom as a lady of rank, and its sovereign as a husband or bridegroom. Now in this Psalm, seeing that the person of whom it treats is appointed by God to be the bridegroom, on account of his love to righteousness, (v. 8,) it is manifest that the other persons introduced are not literally beauteous females, but that under this figure are intended the provinces which are annexed to a superior state. In v. 13, 'the daughter of Tyre' is mentioned; but, according to the usual Hebrew phraseology, this is certainly no other than the city of Tyre. Thus, if I were perfectly ignorant of whom the Psalm treats, yet I should be certain that 'the queen' here described, and the other females who are her attendants, were valuable countries which had been subjected to a conqueror. When, therefore, the Epistle to the Hebrews explains the Psalm of the Messiah, I find not the smallest difficulty in believing it, and acquiescing in this explication."-Michaelis Anmerk. 66 Upon the whole, therefore, it appears, that, in the character which the psalmist draws of the king whose marriage is the occasion and the subject of this song, some things are so general, as in a certain sense to be applicable to any great king, of fable or of history, of ancient or of modern times. And these things are, indeed, applicable to Solomon, because he was a great king, but for no other reason. They are no otherwise applicable to him, than to King Priam or Agamemnon, to King Tarquin or King Herod, to a king of Persia or a king of Egypt, a king of Jewry or a king of England. But those circumstances of the description which are properly characteristic, are evidently appropriate to some particular king,— not common to any and to all. Every one of these circumstances, in the psalmist's description of his king, positively exclude King Solomon; being manifestly contradictory to the history of his reign, inconsistent with the tenor of his private life, and not verified in the fortunes of his family. There are, again, other circumstances which clearly exclude every earthly king,-such as the salutation of the king by the title of God, in a manner in which that title never is applied to any created being; and the promise of the endless perpetuity of his kingdom. At the same time, every particular of the description, interpreted according to the usual and established significance of the figured style of prophecy, is applicable to and expressive of some circumstance in the mystical union betwixt Christ and his church. A greater, therefore, than Solomon is here."-Horsley's Serm. vol. i. p. 75. SECTION XV. ADORED BY ANGELS. Psalm xcvii. 7. "Worship him, all ye gods," [q. d. angels.] THAT the Being to whom supreme adoration is here required, is "JEHOVAH, the God of the whole earth," (ver. 1, 5,) none can doubt. But it is doubted whether this is the passage cited in Heb. i. 6, as an attribution of homage by angels to Christ. It is of little importance, whether beings of a superior rank be there intended, or those human messengers of the divine will, the prophets, mentioned in the first verse of the Epistle.' The Epistle reads differently from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint; not indeed as to the sense, but in the form of expression: "Let all the angels of God worship him." Mr. Belsham and the Annotator on the Improved Version (who indeed could not be reckoned two persons,) following Patrick, Whiston, Sykes, and Samuel Crellius, affirm that the quotation is from the Septuagint translation of Deut. xxxii. 43.; a passage of no authenticity, not being found in the Hebrew text, nor in any of the other ancient versions. Its absence from the Arabic affords no faint presumption that it was not in the copy of the Septuagint, from which that version was made; and its variations in the different manuscripts of the Septuagint itself, afford another presumption against its genuineness. All things considered, it appears not improbable, that some reviser or editor of the Greek Pentateuch made the insertion, as his interpretation applied to the calling of the Gentiles; either deriving it from the Psalm before us (as Mr. Peirce suggests,) or, with a mistaken zeal for apostolic accuracy, from the citation in the Epistle. But the Annotator does not scruple to assure us, that the passage "is spoken of the Hebrew nation, and therefore cannot be understood of religious worship." We reply, that the words are NOT "spoken of the Hebrew nation;" but that the antecedent to the relative manifestly is JEHOVAH, and that, therefore, they MUST "be understood of religious worship.' 993 If the quotation were intended to be from the Psalm, as we have the greater reason to believe, the difference in the words is immaterial to the sense, and is not greater than occurs in other instances of passages from the Old Testament introduced into the New.1 The manner in which the citation is adduced seems to be, not at first sight, but on a more intimate inspection, allusive to the scope and purport of the Psalm. "When he introduceth the first-begotten to the world, he saith." Where shall we find any thing corresponding to this? Nothing in the least resembling it is found in the preceding context of the passage in 2 See Note [B], at the end of this Section. |