De Moor I:8: Ectypal Theology: Of Union

Ectypal Theology, according to the rationale of the Subjects, again will be threefold, of Union, of Vision, and of the Race-course:  all are finite, but nevertheless one differs much from the others in the degree of perfection.

              Theology of Union belongs to Christ according to His human nature, by virtue of the personal Union with the person of the Λόγου/ Logos, whence it is called the Theology of Union.  It is also called the Theology of Unction, on account of the Unction of the Spirit intervening here.  But that Union mentioned agrees with Christ alone; while the Unction of the Spirit is common to the faithful with Himself, although it is applicable to Christ in a more excellent degree:  it is established that the Theology of all the truly faithful is to a certain extent able to be called a Theology of Unction; and to that extent the appellation of Theology of Union is more emphatic and distinguishing, and less ambiguous.  Concerning which there must be no error either in excess, or in defect.

              An error in excess would obtain, if we should desire to establish this Theology as altogether Infinite, since human nature, which is always finite, is no more capable of infinite Spiritual Gifts, than of the infinite Attributes or properties of the divine nature:  whence it is certain this Theology of the human nature of Christ is not the very Infinite Wisdom of God.  This matter shall be disputed in more particulars in Chapter XIX, § 22, 24-26.  And so Archetypal and Ectypal Theology come together simultaneously in Christ and come to be distinguished:  the former agrees with Him as the Λόγῷ/Logos, the latter according to the human nature.

              But on the other hand we would err in defect, unless we acknowledge that by virtue of the Union of the human nature of Christ with the person τοῦ Λόγου, of the Logos, His Theology by a great interval of excellence exceeds the Theology of any mere Creature.  The Sacred Scripture goes before, when it teaches that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were conveyed to Him as bountifully as possible, and in a far more abundant measure than to any other; Sacred Scripture teaches this both in the Old Testament and in the New.

              Thus we read in the Old Testament, Psalm 45:7: עַל־כֵּ֤ן׀ מְשָׁחֲךָ֡ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ שֶׁ֥מֶן שָׂשׂ֗וֹן מֵֽחֲבֵרֶֽיךָ׃, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.  The Psalmist here address the Son of God as the incarnate and exalted Mediator, the King and Bridegroom of the Church, by the name Elohim; and he affirms that He was anointed unto this reward of His most ample obedience and untainted holiness demonstrated in His life and death, that is, anointed at the time of His exaltation and sitting at the right hand of God, by God the Father with the oil of gladness above His fellows.  Once and again in his earthly life and death the Mediator was anointed by men with physical oil; see Luke 7:37, 38; John 12:3; 19:39, 40.  But, when He is here said to be anointed by the Father with the oil of gladness as a reward for His obedience offered, the Prophet prophesies, 1.  that the Messiah is to be solemnly established by God the Father as the King of the Church, and to be set at His right hand in glorious state of Authority:  with the expression borrowed from the ancient Anointing of Kings.  2.  That the Messiah is also, after the labors and most grievous sorrow of His own soul, to be translated unto a state of most blessed Joy.[1]  3.  That to Him the gifts of the Spirit are to be conferred by the Father, whereby the Anointing, now granted to Him in this world, might obtain fulfillment, as Peter says that He is anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, Acts 10:38.  Now, the apex of the Excellence of this Anointing is signified, when the Messiah is said to be anointed above His Fellows, מֵחֲבֵרֶיךָ.  It is asked, who then comes to be understood here as the Fellows of Messiah?

1.  There are those devoted to the hypothesis, that explain this passage concerning those called Gods, whom formerly God and Christ considered as associates of the kingdom under the Old Testament, when it was not the mere/pure kingdom of God; but to whom a place under the New Testament is no longer able to be conceded, since now the kingdom of God has been made pure:  see COCCEIUS’ Commentarium in locum, opera, tome 2, page 152a.  But briefly I would wish to be observed:  1.  That all power of creatures with respect to the Church formerly was truly and merely ministerial and subordinate to Christ.  2.  That today that ministerial power either in the republic or in the Church is not less, indeed in certain things it is greater.  3.  That neither Angels, nor Elders, nor Priests as individuals were ever sharers of the external Anointing.

2.  Rather, according to the Dutch Annotations and other great Theologians, by the Fellows of Christ are understood all the faithful most compactly joined to Christ and partaking of His spiritual Anointing mentioned here, equally as of His kingdom and other gifts.  Unless it should please to restrict the phrase to the special ministers of Christ, and the paranymphs of Him, τοὺς φίλους τοῦ νυμφίου, the friends of the bridegroom, John 3:29, as the one Bridegroom of the Church, which ministers, as paranymphs are want to be richly adorned, also are furnished with gifts above the other faithful and are eminent in rewards; yet in such a way that Christ also greatly excels these, by a comparison with John 3:31, which would not be discordant with the genius of this Epithalamium.[2]  Certainly in both these ways, 1.  the same sort of Anointing and Oil is observed in Christ and His Fellows:  2.  and the Fellows with the Anointing of Christ are referred unto the same time also; yet not with the faithful of the other age and the Ministers of the Church excluded.  But, against that exegesis concerning the faithful Members of Christ, the Most Illustrious WESSELIUS, in his Dissertationibus Academicis, Dissertation VIII, observes, that, since the faithful are the subjects of this true King, and are here contemplated as His wife and sharer of His bed; and since the scope of the Psalmist in this Epithalamium is to commend the Royal Bridegroom to the Bride, as the unique object of faith in the case of salvation, and of the highest obedience:  it is more agreeable to the rationale of the Epithalamium that the excellence of the King be proclaimed, not above His own faithful subjects, nor above the Bride herself; but above certain other men, having some other relation, not this closest, to this King, and to whom some faith, honor, and obedience is rendered by mortals:  so that thus the Bride is admonished of her duty, that she always honor this King alone with respect and the highest and absolute obedience.  But these, because Messiah in this Epithalamium is expressly set forth as King, themselves are not Anointed, all the Ancients in general, Prophets, Priests, and Kings, or even the Ministers of the New Testament.

3.  But in particular all worldly Kings:  whom Doctor Ainsworth,[3] by a comparison with Psalm 89:27, had taught to be able to be understood here also.  1.  That in a similar manner Christ is frequently proclaimed as the most excellent King above all earthly powers, notes the Most Illustrious Wesselius, Revelation 19:16; Ephesians 1:21, 22.  2.  He adds that the name of the Anointed, posited absolutely, is given to Kings par excellence.  3.  The gifts of the Spirit, at least the heroic ones, were wont to be granted chiefly to Anointed Kings in Israel; so that Saul, having been Anointed, through those gifts was changed into another man; and the Spirit of Jehovah came upon David, soon after he had been anointed by Samuel, 1 Samuel 10; 16.  Now, thus the Anointing of Messiah above His Fellows shall denote, α.  the Excellency of His Kingdom, β.  the Excellency of His Happiness and Joy, γ.  the Excellency of the Anointing and Oil poured forth, or of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit communicated, in kind, measure, duration, etc.

And thus to that Most Illustrious Man reasons are not wanting, which he would set over against the opinion of the others, and by which he would fortify his own.  With diligence the Reader will be able to examine these opinions varying among themselves, and to judge in the fear of the Lord which one best satisfies the scope of the Holy Spirit.

The other text that our AUTHOR cites is from the New Testament, John 3:34, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure.  While the Spirit is said to have been given οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου, not by measure, not indeed infinite things, which do not at all admit of measure, but the altogether super-abounding gifts of the Spirit are understood, bestowed upon the humanity of Christ:  whether John means that the same are not given according to the measure of other men, to whom as individuals God ἐμέρισε μέτρον, divided a measure, Romans 12:3:  or that with such a large hand are they given, that no measure is used, as it is wont to be done by those giving sparingly, of which matter an example is given in the case of Ezekiel, receiving food and drink by measure, Ezekiel 4:10, 11:  or that the same are given so copiously that no man, not even of those greatly illuminated, attains that greatest measure; just as neither the heavens above are able to be measured, nor the foundations of the earth beneath to be searched out, Jeremiah 31:37 compared with Isaiah 40:12.  And, that thus to Christ, sent by God, speaking the words of God, beloved by the Father, all the while He was dwelling upon this earth, the Spirit was given most copiously, John affirms, above all others that have been made partakers of the Spirit, if we attend to the ἔμφασιν/emphasis of the expression now explained.  I know that in the words cited from John Christ is not mentioned, whether by name expressed, or by a relative pronoun; and that the Most Illustrious COCCEIUS, in his Commentario ad locum, § 97, opera, tome 4, page 127a, denies that these words, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure, are to be taken elliptically, as if the pronoun, to Him, were omitted; who thinks that the same are to be explained of the abundance of the Spirit and of Grace, which comes to the entire Church of the New Testament.  But, 1.  an ellipsis here is altogether necessary, since the donation of the Spirit ought to be terminated upon a certain person or society, and to that extent Cocceius holds it to be necessary to understand the Church.  But it is now certainly preferable to supply the ellipsis by a relative or demonstrative pronoun, than by a new noun not at all found in the context.  2.  Concerning the faithful of the New Testament the Scripture everywhere testifies that they receive the Spirit κατὰ μέτρον, according to a certain measure, Romans 12:3, 6; 1 Corinthians 12:4, 11; Ephesians 4:7:[4]  and to that extent, although it is able to bear an agreeable sense, yet it is not altogether suited to the expression of Scripture, to say of the faithful of the New Testament that they have the Spirit οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου, not by measure.  3.  Christ is treated in the most recent context, from verse 28 unto these words; John next speaks of Christ again in verse 35:  these few intermediate words, therefore, do not appear to be referred to another subject; by which words John most validly proves that He, whom God sent, speaks God’s pure words, received from and commanded by God, because God gives the Spirit to Him οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου, not according to a certain measure, as to the other Prophets.  But the argument will be convoluted and obscure, if from the large effusion of the Spirit, about to follow only after John and Christ Himself, it will be proven that Messiah came, and that Jesus is He above other contemporaries.  Now, it is a familiar Canon of GLASSIUS:  “The relative pronoun, qui, quæ, quod, who, what, which, and likewise ille, ipse, that man, he himself, is not rarely wanting, both in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and in the Greek text of the New.”  Grammaticorum Sacrorum tractatu II, canon 22, pages 211, 212, where, besides other examples, for example, Matthew 21:7, ἐπεκάθισαν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν, they set upon them, that is, Him; Acts 13:3, ἀπέλυσαν, they sent away, that is, them; 1 Corinthians 10:9, καθώς καὶ τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν, as also some of them tempted, namely, Him:  John 3:34 is cited also in this text.  In the same manner the Most Illustrious PASOR, in his Grammatica Græca sacra Novi Testamenti, page 273, takes the matter.

[1] See also Isaiah 53.

[2] That is, Wedding Song.

[3] Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622) was an English Nonconformist, Separatist, and early Congregationalist.  Ainsworth served a group of English Nonconformists in Amsterdam; he held the office of Doctor.  He was one of the great Hebraists of his age, and his annotations upon the Pentateuch, Psalms, and the Song of Solomon demonstrate his command of the Hebrew language and Rabbinical learning and lore.

[4] Ephesians 4:7:  “But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure (κατὰ τὸ μέτρον) of the gift of Christ.”