The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-10-23
A FEW WORDS TO DIR. ATWOOD
ON HEB. TX, 81, %.

|
ON HEB. TX, 81, %.
Ii DR.. Atwood supposes that l did
not 'look closely" at Heb. x, l, when
said it settled the question, as to ''the
men appointed to die," in Heb tx, 81,
he is simply mistaken. l saw the point
which he makes but that construction
did not appear to me correct. Still
should have noticed and discussed it in
my article, but for two reasons. First,
| did not believe any one would seri-
ously adopt it; and second, 1 feared
making my article too long. Now that
so good a scholar as DR.. Atwood adopts
this construction, regret the omission.
The passage is as follows in the COM
mon version, which is preferable to the
revised edition: "For the law having
a shadow of good things [about] to
come, and not the very image of the
things, can never, with those sacrifices
which they offered, year by year, con-
tinually, make the corners thereunto
perfect" Heb. x, l.
Both the common version and the
revision omit the word about, which is
necessary to express the exact meaning
of the original. The word offered, in
the common version, is offer in the re-
vision. The latter is probably correct.
The meaning of the whole passage is
the same in both but it is brought out
a trifle better in the old version. In
the clause "they Offer" it is claimed
the pronoun they has for antecedent
the ''comers thereunto," called in the
next verse, "worshipers. This is a
possible construction and with a not
very great change in the order of the
sentence, it might have been the true
one. Had the principal words come in
the following order: 1.-THE law (. !.
can never make perfect the worshipers
with those sacrifices which they offer
year by year continually" the construc-
ton of my critic would have been plaus-
ible, to say the least. Even then there
would have been this objection, which
would have had force, namely, the
worshipers were not the ones that Of
| fered the sacrifices. But had it been
the intention to so represent, the author
certainly would have given his words
| in the above order.
If this construction is correct, with
the order of words as they are, the au-
thor uses the pronoun before he does
the noun for which it stands. 1t is so
common to mention the noun first, that
it is called the antecedent, going before.
But here the pronoun is antecedent to
the noun; this is allowable sometimes :;
but it should not be so when it can be
prevented; and here surely there was
nothing to hinder. Then let it be OBJ
served, that this using of the pronoun
| first, and the antecedent after it, is
without parallel in this book of He
brews, if not in the whole New Tesla
ment. [ do not recall an instance.
| Hebrews is alike without a parallel in
making the worshipers offer sacrifices,
though the subject is mentioned many
times. OF course the worshipers fur
nished the sacrifices, and in that sense
offered them. But this is not the usage
of the people, nor of the time. Then
we must remember that the author has
direct reference to the annual atone
ment, as is evident from the clause,
year by year." If ever the people are
spoken of as offering sacrifices, that is
not the occasion for such usage. 1t
would be more likely to occur when
individuals came to the temple and
brought their sacrifices with them. To
these reasons, Il that it is unparalleled
with the author of Hebrews to use the
pronoun before he does the antecedent;
and ~ that it is equally unparalleled
for him to speak Of the people as offer
ing sacrifices, / will add others, as
favoring my construction of Heb. K, l.
| tOI IL was ollOWD III lnO
Quarterly, independent of this passage,
that the men appointed to die were the
high priests. The same was done by
the venerated father of our church,
fifty years ago; and he evidently came
to this conclusion, by studying the con-
text that precedes, without any aid
from that which follows. But the first
pronoun that follows, stands naturally
for the high priests, and for the same
occasion, the annual atonement. What
conclusion, then, can we come to, but
that this pronoun "they" relates to the
only possible anteeedent, the men ap-
pointed to die? If my critic had shown
by fair argument, that the "men ap-
pointed to die" we're not the high
priests, and that the occasion was not the
annual atOnement, he would have done
something to settle the question of the
reference of the prOnoun, in the passage