Newspaper Page Text
November xo, 1909. TI
| Contributed j
"THE CHRIST."
By Rev. Luther Link.
It has become something of a fad in
newspaper articles ana in tne pulpit to
use the phrase, "The Christ," instead
of the simple name "Christ." Without
knowing just where it took its origin,
the writer has been convinced that it is
the outcome of pedantry rather than of
real scholarship. Attention was forcibly
directed to this matter on a recent Sabbath
morning, when the writer heard read
from a prominent Baptist pulpit, a passage
in Colossians from the Twentieth
Century New Testament in which this
phrase was conspicuous on account of
its variation from the familiar translations.
Upon the first opportunity, the
Revisers text was consulted, together
with that of Wescott and Hort, to ascertain
the cause of the variation. With
reeret- we found that Weseott and Hort
have given countenance to this pedantry
by writing, "christos" without a capital,
whenever it is preceded by the article;
showing that it is in such situation regarded
as equivalent to "the Messiah."
Under the impression that this must be
a hastily formed and unjustifiable explanation
of the use of the article in certain
cases, we set out to ascertain the
real explanation by a direct appeal to
usage. It was not long before we seemed
to be rewarded for our pains by the
ability to anticipate the use or omission
of the article by the very form of expression
as given in the Concordance.
Galatians was first taken up because
of the early date of this epistle. In
order to ascertain whether Paul's style
had undergone any change as compared
with his later epistles. We found the
same phenomina confronting us in Galatians
as in Colossians, which speedily
excluded the supposition of change. Several
cases were found in each epistle of
tl:e employment of the article, and it was
noticed that in almost every case a noun
with an article had preceded. Before
pursuing the matter further we then turned
to Winer's Grammar of the New
Testament, to see whether he had not
noticed so remarkable a fact. It was a
gratification to find that he had noticed
this fact, and had asserted the invariable
use of the article, when the word is
dependent upon a preceding noun. Winer
quotes Gersdorf as having pointed out
the difference in the use of the article
in the evangelists and in the epistles; and
then sayB: "In the epistles, however,
those cases must be excepted, where a
noun on which christos depends precedes
. . . since with this noun the article
iii never wanting." He should have said,
when It Is preceded by a noun with the
article it is never wanting. But this does
not cover the whole case, and he adds:
Elsewhere too Paul not infrequently employs
the Article before Christos, not
merely when accompanied by a preposlL
tion but even when in the Nom., as in
IE PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SO
Rom. 15: 3, 7, etc. But it will be observed
that this also does not account
for these latter exceptions.
We think that an inspection of the
cases will serve to convince any one
that there is a reason for the use or omission
in every case, and that in the case
where Chrislos is dependent upon a noun
with the article, euphony demands the
repetition of the article with the noun
in tne uenitive. The reason is therefore
strictly grammatical and rhetorical,
and does not at all indicate that the word
is used appelatively, rather than as a,
proper name. We believe ifto be true
that Paul uses Christos not as "more of
a proper name," but that he uses it invariably
as a proper name. It is a matter
of congratulation, therefore, that neither
form of the Revised Version has followed
the fad of inserting the article, where
it is really out of place in English, because
misleading.
It only remains now to examine the
rare cases of the use of the article with
Christos, which do not come under the
rule given above.
In Gal. 5: 24, the article occurs with
Christos in the Genitive when It io
dependent upon a preceding noun. But
fortunately the critical text adds: "Iesu"
to Christou, showing beyond a doubt that
it is a proper name. Despite this fact
Westcott and Hort write "Christou" with
a small letter, although nothing could
more signally demonstrate the absurdity
of such a rule as that which they laid
down for themselves. The explanation
of the use of the article is not far to
seek. It is manifest from the context
that it is employed to give emphasis,
because of the contrast, which is here introduced
with the Spirit of whom the
apostle had been speaking.
Two or three cases in Colossians, require
notice. The first is that in Ch. 1:7;
"Who is a faithful minister of Christ on
our behalf." Here the phrase "on our behalf"
Ihuner hArnnn) la Inoortod hatwacn
the adjective and its noun, and serves to
render it definite, taking the place of an
article, so that the employment of the
article with Christou following, cocoes under
the spirit of the above rule. In Ch.
3: 1, the article before Christo is evidently
the article of repeated mention,
referring back to verse 20 preceding,
where Christo is used without the article
according to the revised text. The article
with the Nominative in the same sentence
is obviously of the same character.
The same explanation will apply in verses
three and four, although euphony may
have its weight in verse three, making
the nhrases "with P.hriat" o?#i "ir, rs?.a?
uniform.
Now while it is true that in the gospels
the simple "Christ" is usually found
with the article, and that the effect is to
mark it as an appellation with special
reference to the Messiah, it does not
follow that this rule is invariable, or
that the evangelists might not have employed
Christos as a name, had they
nioueu to uu so, ior iney aid use the
compound name. Dr. Warfleld in his
book on the names of Christ, points out
* 4-1
UTH. 15
that in only one passage in Mark, does
Christos appear without the article. He
adds: "And therefore, it has been frequently
supposed to be employed there,
not as an appellation, but as a proper
name, and therefore, again to be out of
place on Jesus' lips and to be accordingly
an intrusion into the text from the
latter point of view of his followers."
He thinks there is no reason why ChrisTos
may not be taken as an appellation, citing
Luke 23: 2, as an instance. While this
may be true, it is certainly more natural
to take it as a name, and why feel any
necessity to make it out an appellation.
Did not Christ know his own name? Since
"my" is left out of the text it reads, "In
the name that ye are Christ's." In accordance
with the idea that Christ is to
be taken as appelative. Dr. Warfleld interprets
this to mean, "On the ground
that they are servants of the Messiah."
But in the name that ye are Christ's
may also be taken to mean, "Upon the
credit of the name of Christ," which ye
bear by reason of your profession. This
will account for the use of "name" as
wen as Christos without the article, and
it suits the context perfectly, for the
following verse makes it clear that profession
of Christ's name is implied. It
is precisely those who "believe on him"
that are "Christ's."
There is no reason to hunt for excuses
for an appellative sense, as if the evangelists
did not know the Saviour by the
name of Christ. But there is a reason
for their frequent use of the phrase, the
Christ," and it must have been because
the people, for whom they wrote, needed
to have it hammered into them that he
was the promised Messiah. Later in the
history, the idea was too common to reouire
this mnaion* ? J "
v3?.i1,ua.aj?, it LIU me
accepted fact became wrapped up in the
name "Christ." To use the term, "the
Christ," now goes back to the days before
Peter and Paul, and is the most disgusting
of pedantries.
I have read somewhere the story of a
poor woman who looked longingly at the
flowers in the king's garden, wishing to
buy some for her sick daughter. She
was angrily repelled by the king's gardener,
who rudely told her, "The king's
flowers are not for sale"! But the king,
chancing to pass, plucked a bouquet and
gave it to the wistful woman saying,
"The king does not sell his flowers; he
gives them away." Our King does not
sell eternal life; He gives it.
Dr. Judson Swift, the secretary of the
American Tract Society, said on a recent
warm afternoon: "Our army of colporteurs
will soon be taking their vacations.
They will return to work refreshed. They
will labor with increased zeal. I am a believer
in the vacation. And I have no patience
with those who say to the vacationist
as the old lady said to her pas
lor as ne set out for a fortnight in the
mountains: 'Satan never takes a vacation,
Mr. Steenthly.' 'Well, my dear Mrs.
Jones,' the pastor answered, 'I never did
beiieve in imitating Satan.'