Those to whom God shews his face, reflect his glory from theirs. And what is here related of Jesus, agrees exactly with what is said by Jesus himself of his own disciples : ἔλαμψε τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, v. 2 ; just like τότε οἱ δίκαιοι ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ὁ ἥλιος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν· c. xiii. 43. And here may be observed how accurately the writers of N. T. attend to the proprieties of the Greek language: for a shining countenance, expressive of happiness, was an old Greek phrase: e. g. ἵν ̓ ὁ ποιητὴς ἀπίῃ χαίρων, κατὰ νοῦν πράξας, φαιδρὸς λάμποντι μετώπῳ. Ar. Eq. 548. λαμπρός τις ἐξελήλυθεν δ' ; ὀλολυγμὸς οὗτός ἐστιν. Anaxandrides, Athen. 242. E. 2. μETEμoppwon] It is painful to witness the absurdity of E. V. here: viz. He was transfigured: using a word which is unintelligible to the unlearned reader, and which conveys no precise meaning to the Scholar. In fact it is a reproduction of the misery of Jerome's Vulgate: transfiguratus est. This is a sample of the way in which the Church has explained Scripture to the people: where the essence of the explanation is to lock up the meaning of Scripture in a hard word. Such is the reward of those who believe in the Holy Catholic Church. 3. Moons kai 'Hλías] The disciples saw Moses and Elias conversing with Jesus. But why is this incident mentioned, and what does it mean? All that we can learn from Matthew is, that Moses was now awake: Elias had never slept. But Luke adds two things which Matthew had not mentioned; first, that Moses and Elias appeared in glory, ix. 23: thus clearly shewing that Moses was now risen from the dead, with a glorified body: secondly, that they conversed with Jesus on the subject of his Exodus, which he was about to fulfil at Jerusalem. This seems to shew that the death, or Exodus, of Jesus, would be the end of the Jewish dispensation, and would fulfil the Law: and also that the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt in order to possess the land of Canaan, was symbolical of the death, or Exodus, of Jesus, out of this life, in order to enter into his glory. 5. νεφέλη φωτεινή] It seems from this expression that the vision was at night; and this will account for the excessive drowsiness of the disciples, mentioned by Luke, ix. 32; and which seems to be alluded to by Matthew in the expression ἐγέρθητε, υ. 7. 10. τί οὖν οἱ γραμματεῖς λέγουσι] The disciples had been taught to expect that another coming of Elias would precede the coming of the Messiah: which in one sense was true: but the disciples were mistaken in supposing that Elias would appear again in his own person; whereas the prophecy of Malachi, iv. 5, was fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist. Matt. xi. 14, Luke i. 17. The disciples had taken literally what ought to have been interpreted symbolically. 11. Ηλίας μὲν ἔρχεται πρῶτον, καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα] i. e. Elias was indeed to come first, and to restore all. This is the meaning of the Greek words, but which is not clearly expressed in E. V. The words ἔρχεται and ἀποκαταστήσει are used in a mixed sense of past and future: like où el ó épxóμevos; Art thou he that was to come? Mat. xi. 3: ó μéλλwv ëрxeσbai, he that was to come, ibid. 14: évóμισαν ὅτι πλείονα λήψονται, thought that they would receive more, xx. 10. There is no difficulty in this construction except to Alford, and to those who, like him, know nothing of Greek. 12. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι Ἠλίας ἤδη ἦλθε] The prophecy of Malachi iv. 5, was fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist, who came before, but not long before, "the coming of the great and dreadful day of JEHOVAH :" i.e. before the destruction of Jerusalem. But this interpretation does not exclude the hypothesis that Elias may have also another antitype in some man or class of men whose appearance shall precede another great and dreadful day of JEHOVAH; which day perhaps is now not far off. As Elias exposed the falsehood of the Priests of Baal, so he seems to have an antitype in the Reformers, who exposed some of the monstrous falsehoods of the Church of Rome. And as Jehu soon afterwards destroyed Baal out of Israel, so we may hope to see the final explosion of Romish Error before long. But there is plenty of Popery still in the Reformed Church of England. 15. nintel els tò Tuρ] The language of E. V. here, does not to modern readers convey the meaning of the Greek text. They say falleth into the fire; but how can falling into the fire be a symptom of lunacy? To fall into the fire, may be the result of accident; but to throw himself into the fire, is the act of a madman. ПTTE here means to fall by his own act, i.e. to throw himself: and such was always the meaning of the word. e. g. αὐτὸς δὲ πρηνὴς ἁλὶ κάππεσε, χεῖρε πετάσσας, νηχέμεναι μεμαώς. ε'. 374. ἐν δ ̓ ἔπεσ ̓ ὑσμίνῃ, ὑπεραέϊ ἶσος ἀέλλῃ, ἥτε καθαλλομένη ἰοειδέα πόντον ὀρίνει. Λ. 297. Fiercely fell into the fight, as a furious hurricane howling Sweeps thro' the welkin aloft, and alow the blue ocean arouses. ἦν γὰρ ἡττηθῶ λέγων σου, περιπεσοῦμαι τῷ ξίφει. Ar. Vesp. 523. ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν Mat. xv. 35, &c. 17. ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη] These words are addressed "to the nine disciples, who, during the absence of Jesus on the mount, had shamefully wavered in their fidelity to him; thus acting over again, and under similar circumstances, the iniquity of the Israelites in the wilderness, Exod. xxxii. 1. But this incident appears to have a prospective meaning also. The unbelief of the disciples is an ominous foreshewing of the unbelief L of future teachers of Christianity. The modern Churchman halts between two opinions, 1 Kings xviii. 21: he professes to believe in God; but he also believes in the Holy Catholic Church, which he considers infallible; herein overlooking the plain and express command of God, that those who worship JEHOVAH must serve him alone. Luke iv. 8. The Church is the antitype of Baal in these days. 24. ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν οὐ τελεῖ] Peter alone of all the disciples seems to have been with Jesus on this occasion, as the others are not mentioned: Jesus acted as paymaster for both. The Siopaxμov appears to have been a sort of Church-rate paid annually by each Jew towards the maintenance of the Temple. This explains the dialogue which follows. On earth, the Royal Family are usually exempt from the payment of taxes: therefore Jesus might claim exemption from a tax which was levied for the maintenance of the temple of JEHOVAH. But it does not appear that any miracle was wrought on this occasion. No miracle was necessary to make a fish bite at a silver coin, which seems to have previously fallen into the lake, and which the fish was unable to swallow. But without any miracle we may recognise the finger of God in this incident. None but the Spirit of JEHOVAH could know that a fish with a stater in his mouth would rise to Peter's hook. The lesson which this incident was intended to convey, seems to be, that God will always provide for the natural wants of those who wait upon him. Matt. vi. 33. XVIII. 1. τίς ἄρα μείζων ἐστιν] The disciples appear to have been talking, as they went, upon the question of precedence among themselves, and to have rejoined Jesus in the midst of this discourse : προσῆλθον τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες. Mark and Luke mention apparently the same incident, but with some variety of detail, all which however is perfectly compatible with Matthew's narrative. The anecdote is instructive, as showing how early the spirit of rivalry began to show itself among the future teachers of Christianity. 3. Yévηobe ¿s тà Taidía] Nothing can be plainer, or more free from ambiguity, than these words. In order for man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, he must become innocent, and pure of heart, as a child. But what GOD has expressed most clearly, the Church has endeavoured to render obscure. There is a wide difference between_Holy Scripture, and the theory of Baptism, as set forth in the Prayer Book of the Church of England. We are there told, that all men are born in sin: which tends to mislead for every child comes into the world perfectly innocent. Then we are told to ask of God, on behalf of an infant child, that he may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration: to ask of God, that he will sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin and then, after dipping the child in water, the Priest says, Seeing now that this child is regenerate, let us give thanks unto Almighty God, for these benefits, &c. All which is a mere illusion. An infant child has no sin to be remitted. He comes perfectly innocent to the Baptismal Font, and undergoes no change there he neither requires, nor at his Baptism receives, any regeneration. There is no mystery at all in the matter. Water does not wash away sin: and in the case of infant baptism, there is no sin to be washed away. But the Prayer Book entirely misrepresents the meaning of Holy Scripture. For according to Scripture, it is not the child that requires to be washed; but the grown up man, whose heart has been defiled with guilt: the child is already, what the man ought to become. Whereas according to the Church, a child comes into the world overburthened with guilt, requires spiritual regeneration, and receives it at his baptism. Such is the ceremony which is gravely performed every day by the Ministers of the Church of England. This is a sample of the leaven of the Holy Catholic Church. 4. ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὡς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο] i. e. will carry himself humbly, ὡς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ταπεινοῖ ἑαυτόν· for Before honour is humility. Prov. xv. 33. 6. μύλος ὀνικός] i. e. μύλος μέγας, Apoc. xviii. 21, which seems to relate to the same subject. In the figurative language of prophecy, the aveрwπоs éκeivos through whom the stumbling block will arise, v. 7, means the Holy Catholic Church, which is elsewhere called ó äv◊ρwños τŷs úμaprías, 2 Thess. ii. 3. 7. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα] This is prophetic. Stumbling blocks certainly will arise: and what will arise according to the foreknowledge of GOD, is said to arise of necessity. The moral government of God, as well as the law of Nature, has its necessary results. Jesus spoke with a melancholy foreboding of the stumbling blocks which would be created by the Holy Catholic Church. 8. καλόν σοί ἐστιν εἰσελθεῖν—ἢ δύο χεῖρας ἔχοντα βληθῆναι] This is like the usage of Homer: βούλομ ̓ ἅπαξ πρὸς κῦμα χανὼν ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι, ἢ δηθὰ στρεύγεσθαι ἐὼν ἐν νήσῳ ἐρήμῃ. μ'. 350. ἀνδρὶ παρ ̓ ἀκλήρῳ, ᾧ μὴ βίοτος πολὺς εἴη, ἢ πᾶσιν νεκύεσσι καταφθιμένοισι ἀνάσσειν. λ'. 487. So Herodotus: οὕτω ὦν ἡμέας δίκαιον ἔχειν τὸ ἕτερον κέρας, ἤπερ Αθηναίους. ix. 26. ὅθεν ἡμῖν πατρώϊόν ἐστι, ἐοῦσι χρηστοῖσι αἰεὶ, πρώτοισι εἶναι ἢ Αρκάσι. ib. 27. 9. povóplaλμov] The use of this word here is most appropriate. But it is amusing to read Alford's note, who has here gone out of his way to shew his learning. He tells us that "Movópaλuos in classical Greek, is, born blind of one eye: here it is used for érepópaλμos. See Herod iii. 116." In other words, Alford knew much better than Matthew, what Matthew ought to have written. But we, the Laity, cannot accept this conclusion. Alford appears to have blundered upon the words of Ammonius, who wrote thus : 'Ετερόφθαλμος καὶ μονόφθαλμος διαφέρουσιν· ἑτερόφθαλμος μὲν γὰρ ὁ κατὰ περίπτωσιν πηρωθεὶς τὸν ἕτερον τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν· μονόφθαλμος δὲ ὁ μόνον ὀφθαλμὸν ἔχων, ὡς ὁ Κύκλωψ. Where it may be observed that Ammonius does not call him μονόφθαλμον who is born blind of one eye, but him who has by nature one eye only, ὡς ὁ Κύκλωψ' who however was not blind of one eye, until Ulysses put it out. The words of Herodotus, to which Alford refers, are these : λέγεται δὲ ὑπ ̓ ἐκ τῶν γρυπῶν ἁρπάζειν ̓Αριμασποὺς, ἄνδρας μουνοφθάλμους. πείθομαι δὲ οὐδὲ τοῦτο, ὅκως μουνόφθαλμοι ἄνδρες φύονται, φύσιν ἔχοντες τὴν ἄλλην ὁμοίην τοῖσι ἄλλοισι ἀνθρώποισι. Where it may be observed that the authority to which Alford refers, entirely fails to make out Alford's proposition: for Herodotus does not call those μουνοφθάλμους who are born blind of one eye, but those who are born with one eye only: which exactly agrees with Ammonius. There is nothing incredible in the hypothesis of a man being born blind of one eye. But Alford, in Greek criticism, is neither μονόφθαλμος nor ἑτερόφθαλμος, but simply τυφλός. He can borrow πανταχόθεν· ἀλλ ̓ ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμῶν ἀπεστερημένος, he cannot see what he touches. So was εἷς μέν γε Νεοκλείδης ὅς ἐστι μὲν τυφλὸς, κλέπτων δὲ τοὺς βλέποντας ὑπερηκόντισεν. Ar. Plut. 665. But now, leaving Alford, it may be observed that the words of Ammonius must not be strained beyond their proper meaning. What he says is true, that ἑτερόφθαλμος means one who has accidentally lost the use of one eye, and μονόφθαλμος means one who naturally has one eye only. But these are not the only meanings of those words: for ἑτερόφθαλμος may also mean one who has two eyes unlike each other; or whose eyes are unlike those of another man; or who, having two eyes, uses only one ; the word ἕτερος does not necessarily imply the loss of the other eye. e.g. ἔτι νῦν τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν παράβαλλ ̓ εἰς Καρίαν τὸν δεξιὸν, τὸν δ ̓ ἕτερον εἰς Καλχηδόνα. Ar. Eq. 173. ὅταν οὖν μὴ δύνηται ἡ φύσις ὁμοίως ἀπαρτίσαι-τότε συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι ἑτερογλαύκους. Arist. Gen. An. v. i. On the other hand μονόφθαλμος may well be said of one, who, having once had two eyes, has now lost one : the word μόνος does not distinguish between original endowment and accidental privation. e.g. Περσίδες δ ̓ ἀκροπενθεῖς, ἑκάστα πόθῳ μᾶντα θοῦρον εἶνα τῆρα προπεμψαμένα, λείπεται μονόζυξ. Aesch. Pers. 135. μονοκοιτοῦμεν διὰ τὰς στρατιάς. Ar. Lys. 592. |