Divine Right-Dysentery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY REFERENCE CYCLOPEDIA of BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL and ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE Divine Right - Dysentery by James Strong & John McClintock To the Students of the Words, Works and Ways of God: Welcome to the AGES Digital Library. We trust your experience with this and other volumes in the Library fulfills our motto and vision which is our commitment to you: MAKING THE WORDS OF THE WISE AVAILABLE TO ALL — INEXPENSIVELY. AGES Software Rio, WI USA Version 1.0 © 2000 2 Divine Right (1) in politics, the claim of sovereigns to unlimited obedience, on the ground that the sovereign power is derived directly from God. (2) In ecclesiastical polity, the divine right (jus divinum) has been claimed for certain forms of Church government, and for certain classes of persons as administering it; e.g. bishops in the Roman Church long claimed divine right to exercise authority in their dioceses, while the Pope claims that their right is not directly divine, but mediately through him. This controversy has never been authoritatively settled. It was largely discussed in the Council of Trent (q.v.). (3) In the Protestant churches generally, the claim of divine light on the part of the clergy to govern is generally abandoned, and where it is held the right is maintained as a mediate one, derived through the Scriptures, so far as they give principles and laws for Church government. SEE ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. Divinity a term sometimes used to designate the science of theology. SEE THEOLOGY. Divinity Of Christ SEE CHRISTOLOGY; SEE INCARNATION; SEE TRINITY. Divisions, Church. SEE SCHISM. Division the rendering of the following words: 1. hQ;luj}, chalukkah’, <143505>2 Chronicles 35:5, or tq,loj}mi, machalo'keth, <061123>Joshua 11:23; 12:7; 18:10; <132401>1 Chronicles 24:1; 26:1, 12, 19; <161136>Nehemiah 11:36; a regular distribution (e.g. the sacerdotal "courses" or sections). 3 2. hG;luP], peluggah', <143505>2 Chronicles 35:5, or Chald. aG;luP], pelugga', <150618>Ezra 6:18, a partition (likewise applied to the priestly ranks), but, tWdP], pelaggah', <070515>Judges 5:15, 16, streamlets ("rivers," <182017>Job 20:17). 3. tWdP, peduth', a distinction, <020823>Exodus 8:23 (elsewhere "redemption"). 4. diamerismo>v, disunion, <421221>Luke 12:21; dicostasi>a, variance, <451617>Romans 16:17; <460303>1 Corinthians 3:3; <480520>Galatians 5:20; sci>sma, a split, <430743>John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19 ("rent," <400916>Matthew 9:16; <410221>Mark 2:21). Divisions In The Church At Corinth (sci>smata, <460110>1 Corinthians 1:10; 11:18, schisms, as rendered <461225>1 Corinthians 12:25), i.e., parties or factions leading to altercation (e]riv, "contention" <460111>1 Corinthians 1:11). The existence in many of the early churches of a strong tendency towards the ingrafting of Judaism upon Christianity is a fact well known to every reader of the N.T.; and though the Church at Corinth was founded by Paul and afterwards .instructed by Apollos, yet it is extremely probable that, as in the churches of Galatia, so in those of Achaiai, this tendency may have been strongly manifested, and that a party may have arisen in the Church at Corinth opposed to the liberal and spiritual system of Paul, and more inclined to one which aimed at fettering, Christianity with the restrictions and outward ritual of the Mosaic dispensation. The leaders of this party probably came with letters of commendation (<470301>2 Corinthians 3:1) to the Corinthian Church, and it is possible that they may have had these from Peter; but that the party itself received any countenance from that apostle cannot for a moment be supposed. Rather must we believe that they took the name of the apostle of "the circumcision" as the designation of their party for the sake of gaining greater authority to their position; at any rate, they seem to have used Peter's acknowledged place among the apostles to the disparagement of Paul, and hence his retort (<471105>2 Corinthians 11:5). The vehement opposition of this party to Paul, and their pointed attack upon his claims to the apostolic office, would naturally lead those who had been Paul's converts, and who probably formed the major part of the Church, to rally round his pretensions, and the doctrines of a pure and spiritual Christianity which he taught. Closely allied with this party, and in some respects only a subdivision of it, was that of Apollos. This distinguished teacher was not only the friend of Paul, but had followed up Paul's teaching at Corinth in a congenial spirit and to a harmonious result (<470305>2 Corinthians 3:5, etc.). 4 Between the party, therefore, assuming his name, and that ranking itself under the name of the apostle, there could be no substantial ground of difference. Perhaps, as Apollos had the advantage of Paul in some respects, especially in facility in public speaking (<441824>Acts 18:24; conmp. <471010>2 Corinthians 10:10), the sole ground on which his party may have preferred him was the higher gratification he afforded by his addresses to their educated taste than was derived from the "simple statenments of the apostle concerning" Christ "and him crucified." Thus far all, though almost purely conjectural, is easy and probable; but in relation to the fourth party — that which said "I am of Christ" — it has been found extremely difficult to determine by what peculiar sentiments they we're distinguished. (See the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, 1.) The simplest hypothesis is that of Augustine ("alii qui nolebant aedificari super Petrum, sed super petram. [dicebant] Ego autem, sum Christi," De verb. Dom. Serm. 13), whom Eichhorn (Einleit. 3:107), Schott (Isagoge in N.T. page 233), Pott (N.T. Koppian. volume 5, part 1, page 25), Bleek (Einl. page 397), and others follow, viz. that this party was composed of the better sort in the Church, who stood neutral, and, declining to follow any mere human leader, declared themselves to belong only to Christ, the common Lord and the Leader of all. This opinion is chiefly based on <460322>1 Corinthians 3:22, 23, where it is supposed the four parties are alluded to, and that of Christ alone commended. But this seems a forced and improbable interpretation of that passage of the words uJmei~v de< Cristou~, "and ye are Christ's, being much more naturally understood as applying to all the Corinthians, than as describing only a part of them. This opinion, moreover, hardly tallies with the language of the apostle concerning the Christ-party, in <460107>1 Corinthians 1:7, 12, and <471007>2 Corinthians 10:7, where he evidently speaks of them in terms of censure, and as guilty of dividing Christ. Another hypothesis is that suggested by Storr (Notitiae Historicae epistoll. ad Cor. interpretationi servientes. Acad. 2:242), and which has been followed, among others, by Hug (Introd. page 524, Fosdick's tranls., Bertholdt (Einleit. page 3320), and Krause (Pauli ad Cor. Epistolae Graece. etc. Proleg. page 35), viz. that the Christ-party was one which, professing to follow James and the other brethren of the Lord as its heads, claimed to itself, in consequence of this relationship, the title oiJ tou~ Cristou~, those of Christ, by way of eminence. To this it has been objected that, had the party in question designed, by the name they assumed, to express the relationship of their leader to Jesus Christ, they would have employed the words oiJ tou~ Kuri>ou, those of the Lord, not oiJ tou~ Cristou~, the former being more 5 correctly descriptive of a personal, and the latter of an official, relationship. Besides, as Olshausen remarks, "the party of James could not be precisely distinguished from that of Peter; both must have been composed of strenuous Jew-Christians. In fine, there is a total absence of all positive grounds for this hypothesis. The mere naming of 'the brethren of the Lord' in <460905>1 Corinthians 9:5, and of James in <461507>1 Corinthians 15:7, can prove nothing, as this is not in connection with any strictures on the Christ- party, or indeed on any party, but entirely incidental; and the expression ginw>skein Cristo<n kata< sa>rka, 'know Christ after the flesh,' (<470516>2 Corinthians 5:16), refers to something quite different from the family- relations of the Savior: it is designed to contrast the purely human aspect of his existence with his eternal heavenly essence" (Biblische Comment. III, 1:457; comp. Bilroth Commentary on the Corinthians, 1:11). In an able treatise which appeared in the Tubingen Zeitschrift für Theelogie for 1831 (part 4, page 61), Baur has suggested that, properly speaking, there were only two parties in the Corinthian Church — the Pauline and the Petrine; and that, as that, of Apollos was a subdivision of the former, that of Christ was a subdivision of the latter. This. subdivision, he supposes, arose from the opposition offered by the Petrine party to Paul, which led some of them to call in question the right of the latter to the apostleship, and to claim for themselves, as followers of Peter, a closer spiritual relationship to the Savior, the honor of being the alone genuine and apostolically-designated disciples of Christ. This opinion is followed by Billroth, and has much in its favor; but the remark of Neander, that "according to it the Christ-party would be discriminated from the Petrine only in name, which is not in keeping with the relation of this party- appellation to the preceding party-names," has considerable weight as an objection to it.