Gambar halaman

stand all things." But in what sense is this universality ascribed to the discernment of the spiritual man to be understood ? To what objects does it apply? And, if a limitation must be assigned to it, how far does such a limitation extend ?

It is clearly manifest that by all things is not to be understood all knowledge; that the spiritual mind qualifies a man to discern the truths of science and the facts of history, or to solve those intricate problems which occur in the intellectual world. The spiritual man has no extraordinary powers of intellect which enable him to penetrate into the mysteries of nature. Even here, however, he may be prevented from being led astray by prejudices, being influenced by a sincere desire to know the truth; but still, there is no superiority of knowledge or discernment of the things of the world to be ascribed to him. The "all things " which he discerns cannot include the facts of science.

Nor does it appear that the spiritual man is possessed of a superior mental enlightenment above his fellow-men. The department of the intellect belongs rather to the psychical than to the spiritual man. The Holy Spirit subdues the power of sin and increases the power of holiness in man. He takes possession of the Tvcûua of man. But there is no necessary improvement in the intellect of a man when he becomes religious. A man by being a recipient of the Holy Spirit does not from being stupid become clever, from being mentally weak become mentally strong. It is true that the elevation of a man's higher or spiritual nature may have a reflex influence on his lower or intellectual nature ; but this is not the direct result of the Spirit's influence. The direct result is the increase of holiness, not the increase of wisdom; the improvement of man's moral nature, rather than the improvement of man's intellectual nature; growth in grace, rather than growth in knowledge; the clearer discernment of the aveva, rather than the clearer discernment of the yuxì. The believer, indeed, adds to his faith knowledge, but it is the knowledge of the things of God, not the knowledge of the things of the world.

The “all things," then, which are the objects of the discernment of the spiritual man must be restricted to those things which belong to the department of the πνεύμα. . There is a spirit of righteousness within him which enables him without any laborious process of reasoning in general to arrive at a correct conclusion on moral questions; he is enabled to discern between good and evil; to see in matters of spiritual dubiety what is the right thing to be done. It is not the reason, but the spirit which discerns; the eye of the spirit, rather than the eye of the soul. There is an internal light in the spiritual man which shows him the way in which he should walk; though it must be confessed that this doctrine of the inner light has been often abused and been the occasion of much extravagance. And so also in many other questions, not precisely spiritual, but matters of prudence and judgment, the spiritual man often comes to a correct determination. His mind is in conformity with the mind of Christ, and he is led by the Spirit of Christ. And, observe this spiritual discernment is the effect of a moral instinct, rather than the result of an intellectual process; just as conscience, the organ of the spirit, judges instinctively without premeditation or deliberation. There is a spirit in man which is higher than the reason, which distinguishes in religious matters the right from the wrong, the true from the false ; a spiritual sense which answers to spiritual realities--an eye to see the things of God, and an ear to hear the voice of God, of which the wisest and most learned men of the world are destitute. Those things which are concealed from the wise and prudent are revealed to the spiritually minded.

But whilst the Apostle ascribes the discernment of all things--that is, of all spiritual things—to the spiritual man, he affirms that the spiritual man himself is discerned of no man (αυτός υπ' ουδενός ανακρινέται). Some restrict the words no man to those who are not spiritual; whereas it is the province of the spiritual to discern all things, and especially to try the spirits whether they are of God (1 John iv. 1); whilst others affirm the universality of the statement that the spiritual man is discerned of no man.

The spiritual and the psychical man look on things from different standpoints. The psychical man cannot form a true estimate of the spiritual man; he is incapable of judging of his motives and principles; he cannot enter into his feelings or explain his actions. Whilst the spiritual man looks upon things in the light of eternity, the psychical man looks upon them in the light of this world; and as they regard things from different points of view, these things must appear differently to them. The actions of the spiritual man must

appear foolishness to the psychical man as the effects of enthusiasm or fanaticism. He may admit the sincerity, and devotion, and earnestness of the spiritual man, but there is something about the spiritual man which is beyond the discernment of the psychical man. The psychical man is destitute of that spiritual sympathy which is the only true foundation of judgment. In like manner, as Chrysostom expresses it, the blind cannot judge of the painter, nor the deaf of the musician. It is only the spiritual who can judge the spiritual. It is not the reason, but the heart that discerns the true motives of action.

But the words are not only true in this restricted sense, they are true universally : he that is spiritual is judged of no man. We are not the judges of our fellow-men; they are not summoned before our tribunal. We cannot see into their hearts; we are ignorant of the motives which actuate them ; we know not the temptations to which they are exposed, nor the disadvantages under which they labour. “ No man," says the Apostle, “knoweth the spirit of a man, but the spirit of man which is in him.” There is such a complication of motives which influence our character and actions that no man can unravel them, no one can point to that which is the determining motive of conduct, the leading principle of a man's life; nay, we ourselves are incapable of self-judgment. Hence, the Apostle, not only repudiates the judgments of his fellow-men, but also asserts that, although conscious of his own integrity, he cannot arrive at a correct discernment of

[ocr errors]

himself. “With me it is a small thing that I should be judged of you or of man's judgment : yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing against myself : yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me is the Lord” (1 Cor. iv. 3, 4). And hence he cautions us against all judging our fellow-men, and exhorts us to leave this to God, who knows our hearts, who can determine our motives and discern our intentions, and who will assign to each man his appropriate place in a future life.

Such, we think, is the meaning of this somewhat difficult passage. The spiritual man is the man in whom the spirit rules, and who is influenced by the Spirit of God; to this spiritual man there is imparted a spiritual discernment-an internal light—which confers on him the power of judging. This judgment is a spiritual insight which embraces all spiritual matters; whilst the spiritual man himself is judged by no man, especially by none who are destitute of spiritual insight, and are unenlightened by the Spirit of God.


By Rev. A. W. STREANE, B.D. The interpretations which have been given of this passage may be arranged under two heads :—I. The first makes the word "one" apply to Abraham, adducing in support of this reference Isaiah li. 2; Ezek. xxxiii. 24. The twofold form which this interpretation may take is thus expressed by Kimchi in his commentary on the passage in question :

“ Abraham, who was one, and the father of all who come after him in his faith, did not do as ye are doing ; for he did not pursue after desire, and he only married even Sarah (herself) in order to have after him a godly seed ; that is to say, as God's command was, Let him be blessed, so as to leave seed, according as he said, Be ye fruitful and multiply.

An exceeding amount of spirit was his, and therefore he did not pursue after desire, and married only with a view to the command, Be ye fruitful and multiply.

“But my lord, my father, may his memory be blessed, explained them as the words of the people to the prophet, and they are words of surprise. They said to him, But Abraham our father, peace be to him, was one, and did he not do as we are doing? For he left his wife and married Hagar his handmaid, although he had an exceeding amount of spirit, and was a prophet. And the prophet answered them, And what (was) the one (doing) ? Seeking a godly seed. That is, in marrying Hagar, he only married her to seek seed, because he had no seed from Sarah his wife. And although it was so, he did not deceive Sarah his wife, but with her approval and goodwill he did the thing ; but do ye guard your spirit, and let none of you deceive the wife of his youth."

II. The other mode of interpreting the passage is that of the Authorized and Revised Versions. Thus dealt with, the argument of the verse is kindred to that of our Lord (Matt. xix. 4-6; Mark x. 6-9). Did not God create the two to be but one, although His creative power—“the residue of the (life-giving) Spirit ”—was without limit? A man and his wife are "one flesh" through God's ordinance, as expressed in the circumstances of their .עַל־מָה 14


creation. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

To the line of interpretation thus suggested by the English Versions there appear to me to be objections both linguistic and otherwise.

1. “Did he not make both one?". In the original Hebrew clause there is no particle of interrogation, whereas everywhere else in this Book the interrogative character of a phrase is not left to be determined by the context, but is always marked by its form (see i. 2, 9, ii. 10, 14, iii. 8). Chap. i. 8 is no exception to this rule, a fact which is recognised by the Revised Version, which changes the expression “is it not evil ?” (bis) of the Authorized Version into “it is not evil!”

2. "Wherefore," "and (*133 799) are familiar words with Malachi, but no elsewhere (see iii. 13, 14) is what ? how ? while “wherefore” is in

. .

3. But further, the sense of the passage seems to constitute an objection to this mode of interpretation. It has been assumed, as I have pointed out above, that the sense of the words, “ Did he not make both one ? " is akin to that of the "one flesh " of Gen. ii. 24. But if the prophet's language in the context be examined, it will, I think, be evident that his point is not the oneness, the identity, of man and wife, but the closeness of their connexion ; or, rather, that woman is a necessary adjunct, and, as such, to be treated with due respect. Before giving the rendering, which I would propose to substitute, I return for a moment to the Jewish interpretations, as given by Kimchi. To the latter of his alternatives there is the objection just now mentioned, viz., that it makes the opening words interrogative; while, although the same does not lie against his earlier explanation, it will, I think, be felt on general grounds that the reference of the words to Abraham can hardly be supported. Dr. Driver, indeed (Introd. to Lit. of 0. T., p. 336), points out a prominent characteristic of Malachi's style, which at first sight seems to favour the second of Kimchi's interpretations. “ First he states briefly the truth which he desires to enforce, then follows the contradiction or objection which it is supposed to provoke, finally there comes the prophet's reply, reasserting and substantiating his original proposition (1, 2 f. 6 ff. 2, 13 f. 17. 3, 7. 8. 13 ff.).” But observe, on the other hand, that in all the cases which Dr. Driver here quotes in support of his statement, with the exception of the passage which we are now considering, the “contradiction or objection " is marked by the insertion of the words " yet ye say," or the like.

May not the passage be interpreted thus? “But he did not make one (only), so that he should have a remainder (i.e., an overplus unused) of the spirit (of life), for how should the one (by himself) seek a godly seed ?”

By rendering thus, (1) we avoid the unauthorized interrogation; (2) we get rid of the "wherefore"; and (3) we gain, I think, a sense more strictly in harmony with the context.

There is, of course, one obvious objection to such a rendering, viz., the

Massoretic accentuation. For the rejection, however, of its division of the clause, we have as early authority as the Targum of Jonathan in loc.

Was not Abraham one, a unique man, from whom the world was created, and what has this one man desired, except a godly seed ?


By W. TAYLOR SMITH, B.A. EVERY Bible student is aware that the word “hour" (üpa) is repeatedly used in the Gospels and Epistles as an indefinite designation of time, corresponding to our words “age," " period," "season.”

season.” The words of Jesus to the woman of Samaria, The hour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father” (John iv. 21), and the words of the Apostle John about the present age of human history “whereby we know that it is the last hour(1 John ii. 18), are illustrations which will occur to most. Less obvious, but not less striking, examples are found in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. He sought to rouse the Roman Christians by the assurance that it was high time (literally “the hour”) to awake out of sleep (Rom. xiii. 11). He regretted that a former Epistle had made the Corinthians sorry, though but for a season (literally" for an hour ") 2 Cor. vii. 8. He suggested to Philemon that perhaps his slave Onesimus had been parted from him for a season (literally “ for an hour ") that he might have him for ever (Philemon v. 15). Is it not possible or even probable that in all these passages, and in others which might be cited, the application of the Greek word ópa has been coloured, so to speak, by the influence of its Aramaic equivalent po (in later Hebrew ope)? This word, found in the Old Testament only in the Aramaic portions of the Book of Daniel, occurs very often in Rabbinic literature in the general sense of "time" or “ period," it being sometimes implied that the period, though not defined, is absolutely or relatively short. The question of Elisha to Gehazi, “Is it a time to receive money?” (2 Kings v. 26) becomes in the Targum “Is it an hour to receive money ?” “One moment(Exod. xxxiii. 5) becomes" one hour." His anger is but for a moment (Ps. xxx. 5) is rendered by “His anger is for an hour.” In the Midrash Rabbah on Genesis mention is made of the hour in which God created Adam (section viii.), of the hour in which Moses wrote the law (do.), of the hour of gladness and the hour of mourning (xxvii.), and of a vineyard cut down in the hour when it becometh unfruitful (xxxviii.).

Again, the use of the word “hour in the sense of “destined time," which occurs in several well-known passages in the fourth Gospel, can be illustrated from Rabbinical literature. Every coal" said the Rabbis, “which is not kindled in its hour (anvua) is not kindled” (Jer. Talmud, Beza ii.). Ben Azai (a rabbi of the second century) said, “ There is not a

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »