Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

ye know, and the way ye know;" Thomas replies: "We know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way?" John xiv. 1-5. In our history, his doubts go as far as they well can. He will not trust the testimony of ten people, whose integrity he has long known, nay, not even his own sight. He conceives, he may either be deceived, or that he may deceive himself. Sight and hearing are not sufficient. He must call to his aid the third sense of feeling, and examine with minuteness, before he ventures to believe. We may be almost tempted to enquire, why the other evangelists have omitted such a remarkable history? The question does not affect Matthew and Mark; for Matthew had not related the first appearance of Jesus, to which this refers, and Mark had not completed his gospel : it affects Luke only, and the answer is ready. Luke did not insert it, because he had not heard it. But John introduces it, according to his custom, because no other evangelist mentions it.

24. "Called Didymus."] This would, in our language, be a very unnecessary observation; but in Greek it is not so. In a book of history we admit all names, although some are not so

easy or so pleasant to retain as others; but the Greek has a species of horror at a barbarous name: hence the frequent translation of names from another tongue into language more congenial with the Greek. They gave their own names to Egyptian cities, although these cities had, at the time, and retained their own name afterwards, in many cases even more pleasing than the Greek one: thus, On (the sun) was changed by the Greeks into a long word of five syllables, Heliopolis; and this was the case with almost all the Egyptian cities. John, who wrote at Ephesus, from deference to the Grecian ear, gives both names, as Luke (Acts ix. 36) translates Tabitha, which of the two I think sounds the best, into Dorcas.

27. "And behold."] Take, as you have desired, both fingers to your assistance; feel whether there is any cavity; see with your eyes whether there are any marks of nails.

28. "My Lord and my God."] This has generally been considered an exclamation, and the words seem to admit it; but to me the sense appears to be, "Yes! he is truly my Lord and my God." The exclamation is a recognition of Jesus. I will not go so far as to conclude from these words, that he actually

recognized, at the time, the divine nature of Christ, of which we have no trace amongst the apostles, previous to the effusion of the Holy Ghost; at least it was not the common doctrine of the Jewish theology. But he rather names him in a figurative sense, as one risen from the dead-" His God," whom he will always honour and adore in the same way as Virgil, in his first eclogue, only still stronger, addresses Augustus-" For he shall always be my God; the tender lamb from our folds shall often stain his altar."

Others have been inclined to consider it as a mere expression of surprise, just as we say, in many modern languages, "My God;" "Good God." The first person who broached this opinion was Theodorus of Mopsuestia, a learned and a clever man; and he was anathematized for it. Wetstein relates the passage. He did not deserve the anathema; but I do not consider his illustration as correct, for it is not borne out by the custom of the Greek or the Hebrew language. "My Lord" is certainly not an exclamation of surprise, but the name by which his disciples addressed Jesus. Even the Socinian Schlichting has rejected the illus

tration of Theodorus, and observes, that Thomas in using it addresses himself to Jesus.

29. "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."] The belief which arises from the direct evidence of our senses, cannot fail of being complete, and is certainly true belief. But it is not, for that reason, worthy of reward. All cannot see, unless God multiplied miracles to infinity, and those who do not see, should believe the authentic and approved testimony of others. But this faith, which arises from careful examination and cool reflection, is the result of labour and anxiety, and is on that account noble, and worthy of record.

30." Signs."] This does not signify "signs," by which Jesus was recognized as being actually risen; such as showing the marks of the nails, which would, in fact, be only "testimonies" or "vouchers;" and indeed the expression, "did signs" does not apply to this: it applies to the miracles which Jesus performed, and of which John has quoted the most important in his gospel. As John omits almost all the miracles of Jesus, which we find related in the first three evangelists, such an explanation, at the end of his own gospel, is very appropriate, and shows, that if the reader becomes acquainted

with the other miracles of Jesus, either through the other evangelists, or through other credible

d authentic witnesses, the silence of John is ot, in this case, to be considered a contradiction. John did not wish to relate all the miracles of Jesus.

"In the presence of his disciples."] Jesus, it is true, did these signs before the world, but John states, that they were performed in the presence of the disciples, and that consequently the disciples themselves saw with their own eyes, the things that were done. It is in reference to this, that John xxi. 24, quotes himself as an eyewitness.

31. John conceives, that the few, but striking miracles which he relates in detail, will be sufficient to convince the reader of the truth, that " Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

« ÎnapoiContinuă »