non-existent. It is not for us to judge these things; we can only seek to remain faithful to

what God has revealed.

The passages cited by the Apostle in Rom. 15: 9-12 are too important in their

dispensational bearing to be relegated to the close of an article, and we must therefore

leave them for our next study.

We concluded our last article with the assertion that not only did the Saviour come as

a minister of the circumcision "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers", but that

He also included the Gentiles in His work of mercy even though the manifestation of that

mercy was deferred until Israel had been found wanting. The Apostle finds it necessary

to supplement this statement with regard to the Gentiles by three quotations from the

O.T.--one from the Law, one from the Prophets, and one from the Psalms.

The first passage quoted is Psalm 18: 49,  The quotation in Rom. 15: 9 agrees

word for word with the LXX, but it omits the word Kurie, "Lord", which is the

equivalent of the Hebrew "Jehovah". It may be that the Apostle omitted the sacred name

out of deference to the extreme regard that the orthodox Jew had for the tetragammaton

(the "word of four letters", as it was often called). In any case, the Apostle's purpose is

adequately served by the quotation, whatever may be the reason for the omission of the

Divine title.

The second reference is to Deut. 32: 43. The citation agrees word for word with

the LXX, but does not agree strictly with the Hebrew as we have it to-day. Alford says

that in several passages where the Gentiles are spoken of prophetically, the Hebrew text

has apparently been tampered with by the Jews, and refers the reader to Kitto's Journal of

Sacred Literature for January 1852. There is no word for "with" in the Hebrew of

Deut. 32: 43, and the margin recognizes this by putting as an alternative "Praise His

people, ye nations". Turpie, whose excellent work on quotations from the O.T. in the

New, has been referred to before in these pages, gives very sound reasons for believing

that the text is untouched, and that the word "with", though not expressed, is implied.

The words "His people" cannot be in apposition with the "nations" for the former title

undoubtedly designated the Hebrews, while the latter referred to the nations in general.

A copula is obviously not intended, since this would give precedence to the Gentile: "O

His nations and people." If, on the other hand, the copula were translated by "even" it

would merely be expletive:  "O ye Gentiles--even (i.e. possible equivalent to) His

people"--which would certainly not be a possible rendering. If the preposition eth had

been used here, it might have cause some ambiguity, as it not only represents the

preposition "with" but is also a sign of the accusative--which would give us the