Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

I will give thee all this authority, and the glory of these provinces, for it is delivered to me, and I give it to whomsoever I please: if then thou dost homage in my presence, all shall be thine. Jesus anwered: Withdraw, adversary; for it is written: Thou shalt reverence the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou worship. Then the adversary, having ended every trial, departed from him for a season; and the angels of God came and ministered to him.

and erroneous interpretation. It has been made a weapon in the hands of infidelity, to wound the Christian cause and excite the ridicule of the scornful. The business of a translator, is to give the peculiar sense in which a word or phrase is used by his author, in that particular place, and not any, nor even the most commonly received, sense of the term. Michaelis very reasonably supposes, that Matthew wrote: cal mamelecoth hazebi, all the provinces of renown, and the Greek translator very closely copying the Hebrew original, says, racas ras Baochsias Tov xooμ:v: for Zebi in Hebrew, and kosmos, in Greek, signify beauty, glory, ornament or renown; and Judea had been called by the prophets: The glory of all lands, or the land of glory; Ezek. xx. 6, 15; Dan. viii. 8, and xi. 16, 41.

This interpretation is confirmed by Luke, who says, the kingdoms, aixou evov, of the inhabited land. This term was used by the proud sovereigns of the world to denote the honor or majesty of their kingdoms. The Roman Empire is so called, Luke ii. 1. The Grecian State; Demos, de Coron. and the Kingdom of Judea, Joseph Antiq. viii. 3. See Glassii Philologia Sacra, Leigh's Critica Sacra, Stockii Clavis Linquæ Sanctæ, and Marsh's Michælis, vol. 3. p. 155. Glass strictly limits the meaning of the term, to the Land of Canaan, and Leigh correctly says, that the word translated kingdom, denotes also the provinces and principalities of which a state may be composed. On these data, I found the translation which I have given in the text. Judea was divided into four provinces: Judea proper, Samaria, Galilee, and Perea; and governed by Arehelaus, Antipas, and Philip, sons of Herod the Great, who were called kings and their principalities, kingdoms. Matth. ii. 22, and xiv. 9. Now according to Deut. xxxiv. 1-3, and the testimony of the famous travellers Mariti and Maundrel, all the kingdoms or provinces of Judea, could be seen from the top of Nebo or Quarantania. See Clarke, Campbell, McKnight, and Townsend, on this passage.

If this interpretation be admitted, there seems no necessity for the interference of the ancient Ahriman or modern Satan, nor does there appear either piety or consistency in the supposition, that the Spirit of God should carry the Saviour of the world into the wilderness, to be tempted of a rebel foe to God and man, who had been

SECTION SEVENTH.

THE SECOND TESTIMONY OF JOHN.

This is the testimony of John. When the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him : Who art thou? he denied not, but confessed: I am 'not the Christ. And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elijah? And he said: I am not.* Art thou the Prophet? and he answered: No.† Then they' said to him: Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them who sent us. What sayest thou of thy

ejected from the presence of the Lord. The very thought is too horrible to obtain utterance, and pregnant with mischief to the Christian cause. See this subject fully discussed in my 66 Systematical Theology," Lect. 7, and Balfour's second Inquiry.,

* There is here an apparent contradiction to Matt. xi. 14, and xvii. 12, where our Lord says of John: This is Elijah, who was to come. But the intention of our Master was to inform his disciples, that John was Elijah, in the sense of Malachi, because he came in the power and spirit of that ancient prophet. From Matt. xvii. 10, it appears the Scribes taught, Elijah would come before the Messiah; and founded this opinion on a literal construction of Mal. iv. 5, and as they believed in the doctrine of transmigration, John rightly understood them to ask: Whether he were the prophet Elijah, returned to dwell personally, on earth again? This question, therefore, could not be answered by John in the affirmative, without equivocation: and truth required him to answer according to the sense of the interrogation.

† Almost all the translators have erred in this place, except Wakefield and Campbel. Indeed, the common translation: Art thou that prophet? is a violation of the English idiom; seeing the pronoun that, has no antecedent in the sentence. The translations of Doddridge, Luther, Beausobre, and De Sacy, involve contradiction between John and Christ: for had John been asked: Art thou a prophet? he could not have answered: No, for Jesus affirms, there had not arisen among men a greater prophet than the Baptist. Mat xi 11. But the interrogation of the messengers was: Art thou the prophet ? meaning either the prophet predicted by Moses, Deut. xviii. 15, or Jeremiah, whom they expected to return in the days of the Messiah, to restore the pot of manna, and the Ark of the Covenant, Accordingly, some supposed Christ to be Jeremiah. Mat. xvii. 14. Hence, there was a general expectation of some great prophet, besides Elijah and the Messiah, whom they particularly distinguished by the definite appellation, The Prophet.

self? He said: I am the voice of a cryer in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the Prophet Isaiah. Now the messengers were Pharisees and they asked him: Why then dost thou baptize,† if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? John answered them, saying: I baptize

* The Pharisees were strict religionists, and derived their name from Pharash, to separate; because they not only separated themselves from all Pagans, but also from Jews, who did not comply with their peculiarities. Being great lovers of tradition, they encumbered religion with many frivolous observances; and thereby assumed high pretensions to piety and strictness of discipline. They were very peculiar in their dress, loved many washings, fastings, and public prayer; and manifested great reverence for the Law, Sabbath, and traditions of the Elders. But however noble, holy, and pure their motives might have been at first, their religion degenerated into superstition, and their mighty zeal into intolerable bigotry. Reverenced by the common people, and dreaded by the nobility, they possessed great influence, and often executed, in the name of religion, the most pernicious designs. Hence, it is easy to account for the severity of John's address to them, when they came to his baptism: for Luke informs us, chap. vii. 30, that the Pharisees and Lawyers, rejecting the counsel of God, were not baptized of John. It is therefore, very probable, that when the Pharisees came to the Baptist, their object was rather to cavil, object, and dissuade the people, than to comply with the admonitions of the preacher. Hence, John calls them, Offspring of the Serpent.

The Messengers from Jerusalem did not question the authority of Baptism, but of the Baptist: for the Jews believed in the divine appointment of the ceremony, but it had been only practised in the admission of proselytes, and in the presence of three magistrates commissioned by the Sanhedrim. The authority of administering the rite without an appointment, and the baptism of Jews, were considered exclusively the prerogative of the Messiah or his precursors, who, they admitted, might baptize even Jews, for the purpose of forming a more select society. We ought not therefore to be surprised, that the great mass of the nation should rush forward, with one consent, to be baptized by John, believing him to be either the Messiah or one of his forerunners.

Danzius in a valuable Treatise, on the Baptism of proselytes, extant, in Meuschen's Nov. Test. ex Talmude, has undertaken to prove, that Baptism was appointed of God, and long practised in the Jewish Church; and that the Baptism of John was essentially the same, as that which had been so long practised by divine appointment. See the Commentaries of Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Townsend, and Clarket

in water, but there stood one, in the midst of you, whom ye know not. He, coming after me, is before me, whose shoe-string* I am unworthy to loose. These things were done in Bethabara,† on the Jor-. dan, where John was baptizing.

On the next day, he sees Jesus coming to him, and says: Behold the Lamb of God, which bears away

*To bear or loose the shoes of another, implies great disparity. In visits among the great men of the East, the sandals were taken off at the door, and either left there, or given to a servant to carry. Hence, to loose or carry shoes, was the office of an inferior domestic. From this phrase and the preceding one: He is before me, some have inferred the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence; but whether that doctrine be true or not, there is nothing in the testimony of the Baptist, that either teaches or implies such an opinion. The word

goo0v, properly signifies before, or in the presence of. Matt. v. 24; xxiii. 13, Acts xviii. 17; 2 Cor. v. 10; but it also frequently in the Septuagint version and New Testament, indicates preference or superiority. Gen. xlviii. 10, and John i. 27, compared with John iii. 31; Mat. iii. 11; Mark i. 7. In the two last passages, Matthew and Mark use the word, oxvgorfos, more mighty, which must be the sense intended by John: and Chrysostom the most eminent Grecian among the fathers, gives the sense by Evriuwregos, more honorable. The term, newros, according to derivation, signifies priority, and hence frequently superiority. Indeed Leigh well says: It does not so much indicate order of time as of dignity. Accordingly, King James' translators render it by the word chief: Mark vi. 21; Luke xix. 47; Acts xxv. 2, and xxviii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. i. 15; by the word first Mat. xxii. 38; Mark xii. 28, 29, 30: by best, Luke xv. 22: by chiefly, Rom. iii. 2; Wakefield renders the phrase, pazos Mov, greater than I; and justifies his translation by referring to John xv. 18; Col. i. 15. Stockius and Hammond say, we must understand the word in the comparative degree, John xv. 18, and xx. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47. Now the sum of the whole matter is this: John says Jesus, who came after him, should be preferred to him, because, as the Messiah, he was more excellent or greater than he for Jesus had received a more exalted commission, and a greater portion of the divine spirit. See the Lecture on the preexistence of Christ, in my "SYSTEMATICAL THEOLOGY."

+ Though most of the Mss. and versions read Bethany, yet I choose to retain Bethabara. It is found in the Armenian, Ethio. pic, and Philoxenian versions; and in C. K. and many other Mss. It is the reading preferred by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome: and both Origen and Jerome relate, that tradition until their day, still pointed out Bethabara, as the place where John Baptized.

the sin of the world!* This is he of whom I said: After me comes a man, who is preferred to me, for he is my superior. And I knew him not, but for this purpose came I baptizing with this water that he may be manifested to Israel. Moreover, John bear witness, saying: 1 saw the spirit descend from heaven, like a dove, and remain on him. But 1 should not have

*In the opinion of Lightfoot, John could not have selected a more characteristic expression, than that adopted in allusion to the lamb which was offered at Jerusalem every morning and evening. 1 He addresses Priests and Levites, whose chief employment was to make a sacrifice of that lamb. 2 It was about the time of offering the sacrifice, when John saw Jesus coming to him, and used these words. 3 The lamb declared the innocence of Christ, as being without spot; and pointed out the death of Christ, in being offered. 4. It was pertinent to the doctrine of John, who had spoken of remission of sin; and when Christ came near, he intimated, in what manner, the sin of the penitent should be forgiven, by the sacrifice of this lamb, who should bear away the sin of the world.

To bear away sin, is an allusion to Isaiah liii. 7, and the usual practice of the offering of the lamb, Lev. i. 4, iii. 2. and iv. 4: for when the sacrifice was offered, he that brought it, laid his hands on the head of the victim, according to the command of God, and confessed his sins, which were considered as thereby transferred to the victim, which carried them away. Dr. Clarke observes that in three essential things, Christ differed from the lamb in the daily offering. 1. He was the lamb of God the most valuable. 2. He carries away sin in reality, other lambs only representatively. 3. He carries away the sin of the world, whereas the usual lamb was offered, only, on behalf of the Jewish people.

How far the rites of the Jewish worship were representative, and in what sense they were types, or shadows of good things to come, Heb. x. 1, are subjects of much litigation among Christians, and are not likely to be easily determined. But as all Christians agree, that Jesus, the Christ, is anointed of God, a Prince and a Saviour, and made of God for us, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, we ought firmly to believe, that in his own good time, he will finish transgression, make an end of sins, and establish everlasting righteousness. Thus will the Lamb of God bear away the sins of the world. But thrice happy the man, who, having heard and learned of the Father, comes to Christ, in cheerful and devoted obedience; for he shall find a happy entrance administered to him, into the kingdom of God and of Christ. Reader, much has been done; say not: It is finished, till thy mind be enlightened, and thy soul reconciled.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »