John 8:46, Wahl takes duaoria at once in the Hellenistic sense of sin; Bretschneider just as decidedly in that of error; without either of them thinking, as it would seem, of the other interpretation.

In other respects, both lexicographers stand about alike as to exegetical tact. In John 8: 43, both take lalia as equivalent to Aóyos, sermo, narratio; although even the ancient versions express here the difference, which is founded in the language and is here required also by the connexion; see Tittmann de Synonym. p. 79. Wahl in particular, with his philological axoißeca, ought to have paid more regard to the synonymes, than he seems to have done.-Eira to téλos 1 Cor. 15: 24, both explain by ultima mortuorum pars. For Telos 2 Cor. 3: 13, Bretschneider adopts without reason the special meaning, summa dignitas.-Inowμa Wahl explains more after the classical usage, copia cultorum Dei; Bretschneider better, comparing the idea of the Shechinah, Christi quasi templum, in quo habitat, quod regit ut anima corpus. This interpretation certainly better suits the connexion of the passages and the different applications, in which the word occurs.-Col. 1: 24 is explained by Wahl under voréonua, calamitates propter Christum tolerandae, which assuredly is the easier interpretation. Bretschneider has it, Christi loco, quippe qui nunc in coelis versatur, ego jam ab adversariis vexar; which interpretation, so expressed, seems a strange one; but still, if we look deeper into the reasons, it would seem perhaps to be most in accordance with Paul's usual mode of thinking; since according to him, Christ who dwells in believers, suffers the same things as the historical Christ.-On the other hand, it betrays little exegetical fact, when Bretschneider explains the μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ 1 Tim. 3: 2, 12. Tit. 1: 6, they must be husbands of a wife, i. e. married! (See against this, Winer p. 99.) Bretschneider explains also ἐν Ηλία Rom. 11: 2, per Eliam. Ὁ ἐν Χριστῷ he makes also to mean a Christian; although Winer had already, in his Commentary on Galatians and in his Grammar, declared against this superficial interpretation. In respect to the use of the prepositions, both Wahl and Bretschneider may still derive much profit from the booty, which Winer exhibits in the third edition of his Grammar.

It is a matter of importance, in the last place, in a lexicon of the New Testament, how the peculiar ideas of the christian religion are developed. Some of these are of such a kind,

that christian experience and deeper contemplation leads directly to the correct apprehension of them; so the phrase above mentioned εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ, ποιεῖν ἐν θεῷ, etc. Other religious ideas of the New Testament-such as kingdom of God, world, Christ, Antichrist, flesh, spirit, Son of man, Son of God,-have a foundation in the Old Testament; i. e. all these religious ideas, though in a lower degree, are already contained and prefigured in the Old Testament. In connexion with the christian dispensation they are all surrounded with new light, and advanced to a higher sense. The lexicographer of the New Testament has, therefore, first of all to make the Old Testament idea the object of his research, and to express it exactly; then, by a careful comparison of the parallel passages and from the consciousness of christian feeling, to obtain a clear view of the christian signification; and, finally, to point out what is the point of connexion between the idea of the New Testament and that of the Old.

The investigation of the Old Testament ideas, which thus constitute the basis of similar ones in the New, has occupied the attention of interpreters and theologians, ever since Semler. In the province of lexicography we find these researches after Pasor and Schoettgen, under the guidance of Lightfoot, had already often arrived at correct results at the lowest point in Teller and Lange, who seem rather to wander and grope about at random. E. g. Teller says the word xóouos signifies "the Jews," and adds in support of his assertion (Wörterb. des N. T. p. 476): "Since it is not unknown to the readers of Philo's writings, that this author not unfrequently represents the Jewish constitution as an image of the whole world, Moses as a citizen of the world, the temple and even the garments of the high priest as a figure of the whole world." Lange says correctly, that no regard is here to be paid to Philo's allegories: "There is nothing more common or natural, than to call other men the world, and especially those who are distinct and separate from us." The good man did not bear in mind, that this mode of speaking comes from the New Testament itself. Meantime he insisted, that xóouos should not simply be taken to mean the Jewish republic, but chiefly the heathen.

But even when the theologians of that age had thus apprehended any such biblical idea, they nevertheless did not strictly look after any point of connexion between it and that which they gave out as the christian meaning; they only, without far

ther ado, put down this superficial sense as the biblical one, which they themselves connected with the biblical words. According to Teller, world means simply "the Jews;" end of the world or of the age is "the end of the Jewish state;" Christ the Lord is "Christ the most perfect teacher;" kingdom of heaven, "the new dispensation of religion;" children of light, "happy people;" the state of being a child of God, "the preeminence of a Christian in respect to his profession of a better religion," or in a word, "Christianity," etc.

66

Schleusner has advanced farther in his investigation of the Jewish basis. He makes special use, as is proper, of the Rabbins for this purpose. Yet, with all his materials, he does not know what to do further. Without cause or connexion, he places the definitions of Teller by the side of those Old Testament termini. Basıλɛia ræv ovpavav means: "1) interdum simpliciter religio Christiana. 2) futura Christianorum felicitas in coelo. 3) propagatio religionis Christianae in terris." In like manner Schwarz had already unconnectedly given: "1) regnum gratiae Matt. 6: 10, 33. Luke 18:29. 2) regnum gratiae, quatenus hujus majestas et utilitas potissimum spectatur, Mark 9: 1. Matt. 12: 28. 3) regnum Messiae, Luke 17: 20, 21. 4) regnum gloriae, i. e. beatitudo exquisitissima, etc."-In Wahl, and yet more in Bretschneider, we find a still more accurate acquaintance with the Old Testament basis of the New Testament ideas. In fact, Bertholdt, Keil, Ammon, and many others, have in this respect done very much to prepare the way. But in regard to the relation of these Old Testament ideas to the sense of the words in the New Testament, these writers do not seem to have formed for themselves any definite notion. Sometimes they go back to the Old Testament basis; and sometimes also not; compare in Bretschneider the words xóoμος, υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. But even when they do fall back upon the Old Testament basis, still they do this, and especially Bretschneider, without any definite plan. In Bretschneider xóouos means "incolae telluris; et quidem de seculo quale erat temporibus Jesu apostolorumque vitioso, the world corrupted by sin. Notandum vero in pluribus horum locorum xóouov ita dici, ut homines non emendatos, the not Christian, the unreformed world, indicare videatur."-Under Baoilɛia rou ou we find at first a copious account of the common Jewish view; but why does he pass over, in making out the Jewish idea of the Messiah's kingdom, the traits which the more religious Israelites

connected with it? Compare the song of Zacharias, Luke I. Afterwards he adds: "In evangeliis, ubi vel discipuli Jesu vel Judaei loquuntur, βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ haud dubie secundum Judaeorum sententiam est intelligenda, ut etiam adeoque Servator ipse, ubi loquitur cum Judaeis, haud rare ex eorum sententia loquitur; Matt. 8: 11. Luke 22:29, 30. Matt. 5: 5, 10. 19: 28. 20: 21-23. In aliis autem locis certo definiri nequit, quonam sensu Jesus ßaoilsiav dixerit, ut Matt. 4: 17. 5: 10, 19, 20. 7:21. 16: 19, 28. 18: 3, 4, 23. 12: 28. et passim. Certum vero est, Jesum ETIAM regnum sive felicitatem Christianorum post mortuorum resurrectionem hoc nomine significasse.” Now it is very strange, first, that Bretschneider should suppose, when Christ says, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," or "Not every one who saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven," that in these and the other passages quoted, we cannot know at all what Christ means by BaoAεía τav ovoαvav! And secondly, he needs to be set right when he says that Christ speaks several times of the Messiah's kingdom, er sententia Judaeorum. With the passages which he cites in support of this assertion the case is just the same as in all other passages, where the Redeemer speaks of unearthly things; he speaks every where in certain typical, figurative expressions, a sort of costume,-which rest on an Old Testament basis. Or, when in order to describe the common enjoyment of eternal bliss, the figure of a feast with the patriarchs is employed, is this any thing more, than when future woe is represented as a fire and as a worm? or where it is said that God sits in heaven, sits upon a throne? In all this the Redeemer does not so much condescend ad sententiam Judaeorum, as to the feeble powers of human conception in general; just as we all even to the present day, without such corporeal figures, should be unable to comprehend eternal truth.

But on what then can the assertion rest,-when it has not yet been at all determined, what Christ himself understood by the kingdom of heaven,-the assertion: "It is however certain that Christ has also called the future happiness of Christians Baohsia"? What is then with Jesus the fundamental idea? How does it hang together, that he has also called the future state of happiness by this name? A New Testament groundidea has not been specified at all; for now follows still a caeterum. "Caeterum autem facilɛia rov do dicitur in Nov. Test. a) de re Christiana, quatenus per christianam

doctrinam et ecclesiam colliguntur cives divini. b) de vocatione ad hoc regnum. c) de imperio, quod Jesus dominus hujus regni exercet. d) de auctore regni Christo." Of all these, which are brought forward merely as subordinate significations, that under a, somewhat modified, should have been given as the fundamental idea of the phrase in the New Testament. Modified it must be certainly; for what is the res christiana, if it is neither doctrine nor church, but is first by means of these collected? The meaning d we never expected to find again in a second edition. The passages referred to it are Luke 17: 21. Mark 11: 10. But who would believe, when Christ says "The kingdom of God is among you," that he means merely:"auctor hujus regni adest!" In this auctor regni the very regnum itself had appeared. Still more strange is another meaning of Baoilɛia adduced from Matt. 11: 12, "The kingdom of God suffereth violence," where faoilsia is made to mean, nuntii regni divini."

66

The article under consideration is unquestionably composed upon a better plan in Wahl. He prefixes a definition of the Messiah's kingdom according to the Jewish notion; but immediately subjoins, that from the words of Jesus it is evident, that he did not in any way look upon himself as a Messiah in the low Jewish sense; and consequently, under the kingdom of the Messiah he must also have understood something of higher import, viz. the peace, felicity, of his followers in this and the future life. This definition, however, does not exhaust the subject; and we also miss the point of connexion with the Old Testament idea. The true definition would have been: 'Christ designates by βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν the community of those, who, united through his Spirit under him as their Head, rejoice in the truth and enjoy a holy and blissful life; all of which is effected through communion with him." The article, as it already stands in Pasor and Schoettgen, is good.-The article xóouos is also treated better in Wahl. He begins with the definition of ὁ κόσμος οὗτος, e. g. ὁ αἰων οὗτος; explains this correctly on the basis of the Jewish notions, though without pointing them out; then makes the subdivisions plene and minus plene; and takes κόσμος in the same sense as ὁ κόσμος οὗτος. He needed only to have gone on consistently, and derived the subordinate bad sense which xóoμos has in the New Testament from the circumstance, that xóoμos denotes what does not belong to the Messiah's kingdom, and consequently that which is not chris