Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

way, and had even frequently gone too far in the opposite direction, by denying a direct Messianic allusion, even where it rests upon the surest foundation. But the Lutheran and Reformed theologians are superior to the Fathers in this respect, that they entirely renounce the allegorical interpretation, or at least keep it within more limited bounds, and that they have not only a great dread of mere caprice, but impose upon themselves the task of thorough demonstration.

Of the works which give the results of the church-theology in a condensed form, the most important is the Nucleus prophetiae of Anton Hulsius (Leiden 1683. 4), in which the Jewish interpretations are diligently collected and carefully refuted. Of much less worth are the two works of the Cocceian Abr. Gulich, theologia prophetica (Amsterdam 1675. 4 Ed. 2, 1690. 4), and Nicol. Gürtler, Systema theologia proph. (Amsterdam 1702. Ed. 2, Frankfort 1724). Professor Oporin, of Göttingen, (in his work "die Kette der in den Büchern des A. T. befindlichen Sorherverkündigungen von dem Heilande, Göttingen 1745), neoposes to trace the connexion between the four "solemn premctions" in Gen. iii. 15, Gen. xii., Deut. xviii., and 2 Sam. vii. 11⁄2d all the other prophecies, and to point out the constancy with

T

1 That Calvin was influenced by his dislike of forced explanations, and not by any rationalistic tendencies, is everywhere apparent. Thus, for example, after quoting the opinion of those who understand by the seed of the woman (in Gen. iii. 15) Christ, he says: "Eorum sententiam libenter meo suffragio approbarem, nisi quod verbum seminis nimis violenter ab illis torqueri video. Quis enim concedet, nomen collectivum de uno tantum homine accipi?" In opposition to such as suppose the expression in Jer. xxxi. 22 (see vol. ii. p. 426), "a woman shall compass a man," to refer to the birth of Christ from Mary, he observes, "meritò hoc ridetur a Judæis." And again, on Is. liii., "Hoc caput violenter torserunt Christiani, quasi ad Christum hæc pertinerent: cum propheta simpliciter de ipso deo pronuntiet: atque finxerunt hic rubicundum Christum, quod sanguine proprio madidus esset, quem in cruce fuderit." He opposes the interpretation of Hag. ii. 7 as alluding to a personal Messiah on this ground: "Quia statim subjungitur: meum argentum et meum aurum, ideo simplicior erit sensus, venturas gentes et quidem instructas omnibus divitiis, ut se et sua omnia offerant Deo in sacrificium." The work of Aug. Hunnius, entitled Calvinus judaizans (Wittenberg 1595), must be regarded as in the main incorrect. In most cases in which Calvin differs from the current interpretation he is in the right, and when he goes too far, the fault is not so much his own as that of the orthodox party, whose dogmatic narrow-mindedness and arbitrary exposititions excited a wellgrounded mistrust in his mind. It is impossible to hit the true medium in every case, when such errors as these render a thorough revision and reform imperatively necessary.

which references to the earlier prophecies occur in those of a later date.

It could not possibly be expected that this mode of interpretation would remain without opposition. And it was also a very natural thing, as one extreme produces another, that it should not make its way without exaggeration. In the early church Eusebius of Emesa first attempted to sift the passages, which were supposed to refer to the Messiah, and to distinguish those which could only be made to apply to him by means of allegorical interpretation, from those which literally referred to him, (Hieronymus catal. script. eccles. c. 119). Diodorus of Tarsus trode in his footsteps, and set down many passages which were applied by others exclusively to Christ, as only admitting of being so applied in a higher sense. He also maintained that there were very few passages which referred directly to Christ, μóvov kai κυρίως, κατὰ ῥητὸν and καθ ̓ ἱστοριών. Theodorus of Mopsuestia, the pupil of Diodorus, who wrote a book against those who followed Origen's method of interpretation, went further still. His own method was pronounced heretical, and condemned. It found therefore but few adherents, who went so far as he. One of these was Cosmas Indicopleustes, who divested of their meaning even the most obvious of the Messianic prophecies, such, for example, as Zech. ix. 9, 10, which he referred primarily to Zerubbabel. Theodoret and Chrysostom attempted to discover a middle way, which should combine all that was true in these two opposite systems.1 Grotius went far beyond all his predecessors in the early church. It was not quite honest on his part to state, as he did in his preface to the Old Testament, that he had referred "a few passages" (locos nonnullos) which are usually supposed to apply to Christ, to events which were nearer to the prophets' own times. For there are only six or seven passages, more especially Gen. xlix. 10, Dan. ix. 24, Hag. ii. 7, 8, Mal. iii. 1, in which he finds any direct and literal allusion to Christ. Not a single passage of Isaiah is regarded by him as, strictly speaking, Messianic. The hostile attitude which he thus

1 For a fuller account see Ernesti's learned narratio critica de interpretatione prophetiarum Messianarum, in Ecclesia christiana in his Opuscul. p. 495 8q9.

assumed to the New Testament he endeavoured to cover by the hypothesis, that many declarations, which referred primarily and literally to nearer events and persons, relate, in a higher sense, to New Testament times, a supposition which, in his case, is obviously merely a loophole, and which by no means does justice to the authority of the New Testament. For example, if Ps. cx. is not to be regarded as directly Messianic, the whole of the argument employed by the Lord himself in Matt. xxii. is utterly without foundation. A similar system of interpretation to that of Grotius was also adopted by Hammond, Clericus (particularly in his earlier period), Limborch, and the Socinians, some of whom preceded Grotius.' This method of interpretation is evidently not traceable solely to the same cause, as that which led Calvin in many instances to deviate from the current explanation, even when it rested upon a sure foundation, viz., to a reaction from the opposite extreme. Other causes must have co-operated with this. One of the principal reasons was a strong impulse towards a historical interpretation, and, at the same time, a want of acquaintance with the nature of the prophetic intuition. It was difficult to explain, how the anticipations of the Messianic salvation, in the case of the prophets, should be so closely connected in many cases with declarations, which indisputably referred to their own times and the immediate future. Grotius himself observes that it was this which chiefly determined his own method of interpretation: "feci autem hoc, quod viderem male cohaerere verborum rerumque apud prophetas seriem, quae caeteroquin pulcherrima est." His cold prosaic mind unfitted him for comprehending such intuitions, as far transcend the limits of ordinary experience. Moreover, just as love to Christ and firm faith in him had led the adherents of the opposite method to resort to many a forced interpretation, so, on the other hand, is it impossible to overlook the fact, that want of love and weakness of faith were among the determining causes here. The very persons, who refer the clearest passages of the Old Testament to any other subject rather than to their Lord and Saviour, when they come to interpret the New Testament, manifest a similar disposition to resort to a superficial, jejune, and spiritless expo

1 For details see Reuss, opusc. theol. ii., p. 118, sqq.

sition, and we are certainly not wrong in referring both to the

same source.

The venerable Leipzig theologian Chr. Aug. Crusius (in his hypomnemata ad theologiam propheticam, 3 vols., Leipzig 1764, sqq.) endeavoured to avoid both by-paths. Although in the main he took the side of the orthodox theology, in opposition to Grotius and his supporters; yet he spoke against the "praecipitantia de Christo interpretandi quae et quatenus de isto non agunt, quo fit, ut suspecta etiam reddantur, quae de illo recte intelliguntur." There are some general treatises in this work, in which we meet with very striking thoughts.2 In many respects it furnishes the clue to new and correct ideas, especially with reference to the nature of prophetic intuition.3 At the same time it is very evident, that Delitzsch has considerably overrated both the man and his work. Whoever passes from Delitszch to the work itself, will very soon be undeceived. The labours of Crusius, in connexion with the Old Testament, cannot by any means be compared with what Bengel has done for the

1 Vol. i. p. 113.

2 Thus, for example, we find in his work the correct explanation of the idea of Israel, which so many are now inclined to distort in a thoroughly Judaizing manner. Although he rejects-and quite properly so-the distinction between the natural and the spiritual Israel, he finds the legitimate continuation of Israel in the whole Christian Church, in which he follows the apostle Paul, who speaks of the Christian Church as the Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16), and says, with reference to all the true members of the Christian Church, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, "we are the circumcision" (Phil. iii. 3). In Part i. p. 173, Crusius says "Omnes veri Christiani accensentur Israeli, non tamen eo modo ac si Israel vetus, proprie dictus, typus sit Israelis spiritualis, improprie dicti. Vetus Dei Israel etiam, antequam Christus venit, proselytas sinu suo excipere potuit, qui deinde partem gentis faciebant. Multo magis vi fœderis et promissionis, postquam Christus venit, cujus fide verus Israel etiam antea coram deo censebatur, et a maculis gentis (Deut. xxxiii. 5) discernebatur, gentibus quam plurimis secum coalescentibus jamjam amplificatus est, et postremum omnem omnino terram possidendam accipiet. Totum hoc ecclesiae corpus, cujus basis fuit pars fidelis Israelitarum secundum carnem, aliquando reliquias posterorum partis degeneris itidem in sinum suum recipiet." Compare with this our own remarks in Vol. i. p. 210 sqq., and Vol. iv. p. 56, also the Commentary on Rev. vii. 4 and xi.

3 For example, Part i. p. 621, "Res, quas prophetae praedicunt, plerumque sistuntur complexe, ita ut in universo ambitu summatim spectentur, vel karà Tò àñоTÉλεσμа, h. e. secundum id, quod res erit, ubi ad fastigium suum pertigerit, non item adduntur partes singulae, nec successiva graduum consecutio, aut periodorum temporis distinctio, etiam ubi de remotis, vel per tempora longe dissita divisis dicitur.

4" Die bibl. prophetische Theologie ihre Fortbildung durch Crusius Leipz. 45. 2 A

VOL. IV.

New. (Bengel directed but little attention to the Old Testament, and his merits in this respect, which are so highly celebrated by Delitzsch, viz., in the introduction of chiliasm, &c., are of a very questionable character). The very things for which Bengel is so distinguished, his spirit of submission to the Scriptures, and his microscopic observation, are those in which Crusius is very deficient. He has spun out for himself a philosophical system, and with this he approaches the Bible. His merits are altogether restricted to general points of view. Whenever he enters into the details of criticism, he is quite unprofitable. For historical interpretation his mind is but little adapted. You may read, for example, through the whole of the long section on Balaam, without finding a single remark which really helps you forward.

Hitherto the conviction had been so universally entertained, that the Old Testament contained in general a genuine revelation from God, and, in particular, predictions of the Messiah, dictated by His spirit, that the disputes had been restricted to details alone. It is since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, that a complete division of opinion has gradually taken place with reference to the fundamental view itself. Starting with the doctrinal premises, that nature forms a complete and independent whole, upon which God will not and cannot operate, either by inspiration from within or miracles from without, a totally new attitude was of necessity assumed in relation to the Messianic prophecies. Their very nature was destroyed. C. F. Ammon, who was the first to enter into an elaborate treatment of the subject from this point of view, in his "Entwurf einer Christologie des A. T." (Erl. 94), describes the purport of his work in these terms: "it seeks to prove, that by means of the entire history of the mental culture of the Jews, and even by means of the patriotic desires of the prophets, the way was indisputably prepared by providence for the coming of Jesus; but that there is nothing in the oracles of the Hebrew seers, to shew that they had any clear and distinct view of the person and career of the divine founder of our religion." We see here, that even in this

1 If consistency in itself and under all circumstances be really an honour, this honour must be awarded to Ammon in connection with this subject. In his " Weltreligion," which appeared a generation later, and in which he has compressed the attitude of his life into a single word, he writes exactly

to the same effect.

« ForrigeFortsæt »