YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

NOTES

ON

PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT,

THE RELATION [ ,,i'i'
BETVTBEN ^-~.. ";

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY,

ILLUSTBAIED IN

NOTES

PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

CONTAINING

QUOTATIONS FROM, OR REFERENCES TO, THE OLD,

By JOHN GORHAM PALFREY, D.D., LL.D.

Non enim me cuiquam mancipavi ; nullius nomen fero ; multum magnorura virorum judicio
credo, aliquid et meo vindico; nam illi quoque non inventa, sed quaerenda, nobis reliquerunt ;
el invenissent forsitan necessaria, nisi et superflua quseaiseenl. Seneca, Spist. xiv.

BOSTON:
CROSBY, NICHOLS, AND COMPANY,
111 Washington Street.
1854,

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
John Goeham Palfket,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

OAUBEIDGE:
METOA-LP AND COMPANT, PEINIEK3 TO THE UNrfERSITY.

TO THE FEIEND,
TO WHOM HE IS INDEBTED FOR THE PUBLICATION
OF THE LAST TWO VOLUMES
OF HIS LECTURES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT,
THE AUTHOR
RESPECTFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBES
THIS WORK.

PEEFACE,

The follovnng pages make a sequel to my " Lec
tures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities," a
large portion of their contents being a requisite com
plement to the leading argument of that work.
Independently of the inherent interest which be
longs to the Jewish Scriptures, demanding diligent
care for their correct exposition, I have chiefly aimed,
in the series of comments now brought to a close, to
make a contribution to the Evidences of Christianity,
From the earliest to the latest times, from the con
temporaries of the Apostles to Voltaire and Thomas
Paine, the Old Testament has been used as an arsenal
for assaults upon Christianity, The Jews, who were
addressed by our Lord and his first ministers, said
that he did not correspond to the idea which their
Prophets, venerated by them as unerring guides, had
presented of the Messiah. The Pagan writers, as
Celsus, Porphyry, and the Emperor Julian, adopted
the same reasoning; and it has been repeated in
modern times by Anthony Collins, and other able
men. Physical science, as it has advanced, has sup-

vill PREFACE.

plied indisputable contradictions to the account of the
Creation, and other related statements, in the Book of
Genesis, — statements for whose correctness the advo
cates of Christianity had acknowledged that religion
to be responsible. The writings of Jews later than
the time of Moses, especially the historical books, are
represented to contain accounts of persons and trans
actions, now contradictory and essentially incredible,
now unworthy of God to approve or direct ; and such
as are sufficient to refute the claims of Christianity,
if they are to be taken as part and parcel of it.
There is no doubt of the exceedingly ofiensive
spirit and language in which these objections have
been urged ; "but it has never seemed to me, since I
began to think upon the subject, that they have been
effectually answered, I do not think that Jerome
made a satisfactory reply to Porphyry, or Bishop
Chandler to Collins, or Bishop Watson to Voltaire
and Paine, I was a boy in college when our coun
tryman, Mr, George B. English, published his book,
entitled, " The Grounds of Christianity examined by
comparing the New Testament with the Old," In
the strictures which it drew out, Mr, English was
abundantly convicted of plagiarism; but I did not
think then that his argument was disposed of, nor do
I think so now. Other parts of the Evidences of
Christianity may overpower any adverse inference from
this class of considerations. But, allow the Jews and
Pagans of the first Christian centuries, — allow the
moderns, Bolingbroke, Collins, Morgan, and Voltaire,

PREFACE. IX
— their premises, and I find myself compelled to own,
that, as to this topic, they have the best of the dis
pute, I deny their premises. If the expositions of the
Old Testament, which I have set forth in this series
of volumes, are correct, those opponents of Chris
tianity have no ground to stand upon.
First, by a detailed examination of the Old Tes
tament books in my " Lectures on the Jewish Scrip
tures and Antiquities " ; and now, by an examination
of passages in the New Testament which quote from,
or refer to, the Old, with a view to show that the New
Testament never puts upon the Old a sense different
from what I had ascribed to it, — I have aimed to
establish the following propositions, viz, : —
1, That the Pentateuch (with the exception of some
later interpolations) was written by Moses, the di
vinely authorized revealer of the Jewish religion,
2. That the history, in the last four books of the
Pentateuch, of the ministry of Moses, and of his pro
mulgation of the Jewish Law and miraculous ad
ministration of the Jewish people, contains nothing
incredible, or dishonorable to God ; but that its con
tents are eminently of the opposite character.
3. That, as author of the Book of Genesis, Moses
nowhere lays claim to the character of an inspired
historian ; that his object, in its composition, was to
confirm the revelations and provisions of his Law, to
which it is a preface ; that its last thirty-nine chap
ters contain family traditions, sometimes more, some-

X PREFACE.
times less credible, — sometimes incredible, by reason
of contradictions, and otherwise ; and that the earlier
portion, evidently proceeding originally from diverse
sources, and embracing irreconcilable statements, was
collected and preserved by Moses, not because of
its having any warrant of historical truth, but mainly
because of its being evidence of a state of opinion, in
times anterior to his own, accordant with doctrines
and practices inculcated by his religion.
4. That the revelation of Judaism, and all miracu
lous administration of the Jewish nation, terminated
with the age of Moses.
5. That the historical books after the time of Moses
have no other authority than that of works of other
historical Avriters of a rude age ; that their authors
do not lay claim to supernatural inspiration, nor is
that claim asserted for them by any authorized wit
ness ; that they are to be taken, like other such com
positions, as containing a basis and outline of truth,
but with a large mixture of unfounded, self-contra
dictory, and incredible narrations ; and that, espe
cially, Christianity neither makes itself, nor is in any
way rightfully made, responsible for the accuracy of
their contents.
6. That neither the Old Testament, nor the New,
teaches, that, from the time of Moses to the time of
Jesus, there was any man supernaturally informed
of any future event whatever ; that the word prophet,
in the Biblical use, did not denote a predicter 'of
future events ; that the office of a prophet was not

PREFACE. Xl
that of a foreteller ; that the anticipations expressed
by the prophets often differed from events as they
subsequently occurred; that their conception of the
coming Messiah was to a great extent incorrect, and,
as far as it was correct, was founded on a declaration
of Moses, connected with earlier revelations to the
patriarchs ; and that there is no evidence of any ful
filment of an anticipation of theirs, of a nature to
show the anticipation to have been supernaturally
suggested to their minds.
7, That the miscellaneous writings of the later
Jews, including devotional and ethical compositions
(like the Books of Psalms and Proverbs), while they
are such as to bear testim2,ny to the improving culture
exerted through the Law, are not the productions of
men miraculously endowed and commissioned ; that,
interesting and profitable as any of them may be, they
are destitute of any peculiar authority ; and that, in
the composition of some, as the books of Jonah and
Judith, nothing more was contemplated than a fic
titious narrative, with or without a moral.
These, I repeat, are conclusions which I have un
dertaken to maintain, not upon any grounds of ab
stract reasoning, but upon an examination, in detail,
of the Old Testament itself, and of those texts of the
New Testament which bear upon the Old, Few,
perhaps, will take up my books prepared to agree
with me. But it may not be too much to ask of can
did persons Avho dissent, that they will consider what
are the texts of Scripture on which their own dif-
h

Xll PREFACE.
ferent opinion rests, and then turn to the comments
which I have made on those texts respectively. In
tentionally, I am sure, I have not omitted any passage
pertaining to the question, or done injustice to-^the ar
gument which it may be thought by others to uphold.
In respect to every passage which I have treated, I
have honestly endeavored to ascertain the sense which
the writer or speaker had in his mind, and intended
to express.
The quotations from the Old Testament in the New,
have, of course, had a principal share of my attention.
In many of these, it has been the opinion of Christian
scholars, that Jesus and tiJie Apostles and Evange
lists ascribed supernatural foreknowledge to the post-
Mosaic writers of the Old Testament, and even repre
sented as supernatural predictions passages which do
not seem naturally to bear that character in their orig
inal use and connection. From an early age of Chris
tianity to the present time, it has been the self-im
posed task of commentators to maintain that this
supposed representation, by Evangelists and Apostles,
of the sense of the Old Testament writers, was a cor
rect representation. In this argument, I am un-
doubtingly of the opinion, that Collins and other in
fidels were right in saying that such commentators
have failed. Christianity needs, in this particular, a
different defence from what has been made,
William Whiston, the associate and the succes
sor of Sir Isaac Newton as Mathematical Profes-

PREFACE. xiii
sor at Cambridge, made a deplorably lame reply to
Collins, in his treatises, entitled, " The Literal Accom
plishment of the Scripture Prophecies," and " A Sup
plement to the Literal Accomplishment of the Scrip
ture Prophecies." He assented to both the postulates
of his opponent ; namely, first, that the New Testa
ment writers had applied the Old Testament passages
in question to the proof of Christianity ; and, sec
ondly, that, in point of fact, those passages, as they
now stand, are inapplicable to that use. But he as
sumed the utterly indefensible position, that the Old
Testament had, in those passages, been corrupted by
the Jews since the Apostles' time, for the very pur
pose of invalidating their argument ; that, as those
passages originally stood in the Hebrew Bible, and
as they stood at the period when the Apostles quoted
them, they were exact descriptions of Jesus, his re
ligion, and his times, and received in him and his
Gospel their literal fulfilment ; and that it was only
by the perfidious tampering of unbelievers with the
records, in the second century, that this correspond
ence had been made to vanish. I do not know that
Whiston's reasoning ever satisfied any wise man, ex
cept himself.*
My very able and learned predecessor and successor
in the chair of Biblical Literature at our University
have presented a different view of the subject. Ac
ceding to the prevailing opinion, that, when an Evan-
* See my " Lowell Lectures," Vol. IL pp. 215, 316.

xiv PREFACE.
gelist or Apostle made a quotation from the Old Tes
tament with such a form of introduction as " All this
was done that it might be fulfilled," &c., he often meant
to represent the original writer as having uttered a
prediction now accomplished, they hold that the Evan
gelist or Apostle was in error in his interpretation of
the language quoted by him. They urge that the
commission of the Apostles and Evangelists to preach
Christianity does not imply their being divinely se
cured against mistakes on all related subjects ; and
that they might be perfectly well qualified to convey
to us the miraculous evidence of the doctrine of Je
sus, without being disabused of the false theories in
which they had been educated, and made competent
expositors of the Jewish Scriptures,
An hypothesis which has such advocates is not to
be lightly dismissed.* I have given it the best con-

* Mr. Norton has lately passed away from the circle of friends who re
vered and loved him with a singular devotion.
" My tliread of life has eyen run ¦with his
For many a lustre."
The first time that, then a child, I heard his name, I was with Mr. Buek
minster, who stopped to accost him. What a conjunction ! Since that day,
the thought of one has been scarcely separated from that of the other in
my mind. From the moment of my entering on professional studies, I
was honored with Mr. Norton's friendship, and, through the many happy
years which followed, it made one of the chief joys of my life. I always
lived near him afterwards, and eventually, for almost the whole of the last
quarter of a century, our homes were side by side. No one who had such
opportunities as mine to know the rare extent and thoroughness of his learn
ing, his religious love of truth, and the punctilious accuracy of his habits
of study and of reasoning, could dissent from him without great self-distrust.
If there was any man I have known to whom I could feel safe in implicitly
submitting my own judgment, it would be he. I differed from him widely
on some points of Scriptural, criticism, as, the external history of the Pen-

PREFACE. XV
sideration of which I am capable, and cannot find
reason to accept it. It appears to me, that, if there
was any subject on which the disciples of Jesus —
Matthew, John, and Peter, his personal companions
and Apostles, — Mark and Luke, intimate and con
fidential friends of Apostles, — Paul, fully instructed
by Jesus himself in the long seclusion which followed
his conversion (Gal. i. 11-19) — may be presumed
to have been correctly informed, it was that of the
evidences of the religion which they were to publish
tp the world. It is even particularly recorded, that
their Lord, in an appearance to two disciples after
his resurrection, " beginning at Moses and all the
prophets, expounded unto them in all the Scriptures
tateuch, and the use made ofthe Old Testament by the writers of the New ;
but it was with such diffidence as only the most careful and often -repeated
revisal of my views would have enabled me to overcome. I know of no
theological scholar, who has brought the resources and charms of so various
and elegant accomplishments in general learning to be subsidiary to such a
rich fund of Scriptural knowledge. His great work on the " Genuineness
of the Gospels " — a magnificent monument of erudition, logic, and taste —
exhausts the argument, "Supersedes all that before had been written upon it
in modern times, and establishes on an immovable basis that cardinal fact
in the Evidences of Christianity. His Translation of the Gospels, with
Notes, announced as being now in the printers' hands, is awaited with ear
nest expectation, as a work which may prove not inferior in importance to
any that has seen the light since the time of the Reformers. It is greatly
to be hoped that it may be followed by such translations and expositions of
portions of the Epistles, as he is understood to have left in a state of prep
aration for the press.
The void which has been left by the death of this illustrious Christian
scholar will not be filled in our age. Surrounded by every thing that could
make life desirable, enriching it day by day with dignified employment and
benignant kindness, enjoying it for himself and using it for others to the
last, he resigned it in sacred peace.
" Multis ille bonis flebilis occicUt ;
NuUi flebilior quam mihi."
^ b*

XVI PREFACE.
the things concerning himself" (Luke xxiv. 27).
But what is decisive with me is, that, on a careful
review of references to the Jewish Scriptures by
Evangelists and Apostles, I cannot find an instance
of what appears to me misinterpretation on their part.
I am not called upon to reconcile their authority as
Christian teachers with their misconceptions of the
Old Testament, because I do not see that they ever
misconceived it. I am persuaded that expositions of
that collection of writings, some current in the time
of our Saviour, and others, more numerous, in our
day, are founded in error; but I am also persuaded
that it is error in which the Apostles and Evangelists
did not share.
The reception of my theory of the Book of Gene
sis, expounded in the " Academical Lectures on the
Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities " (Vol. II. pp. 1 -
122), has afforded me great satisfaction. Though well
satisfied of its truth, I considered it a novelty, as
little likely to find favor as any thing which I had
proposed. If substantiated, it puts an end to a world
of cavil. A friendly critic in the " Christian Exam
iner " (Vol. LIII. p. T), while he dissents from other
views maintained by me, pronounces this to be " pre
eminently satisfactory," as well as " original," and to
" invest the book with a greater interest and higher
value than can be assigned to it on any other hy
pothesis"; and I have been much gratified to ob
serve a tacit adoption of this feature of my scheme in
other authoritative quarters.

PREFACE. xvii
My argument in the present work (pp. 5-16), that
the descent of our Lord from King David was no
peculiarity, but a fact equally predicable of the gen
erality of his Jewish contemporaries, will strike read
ers at first with surprise. But it is only a different
application of what Jews and Christians unanimously
recognize in another case. The time between David
and Jesus was somewhat more than a thousand years.
The time between Jacob and David was a century less.
(See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. IL pp, 130, 131.) But
everybody understands the millions of Jews in Da
vid's time to have been all descended from Jacob.
I desire it may be remembered that my reasoning
(pp. 233 - 237) from the construction of the Hebrew
word corresponding to the word " justify " in the New
Testament, is an independent passage, and may be
thrown out without invalidating the rest of the argu
ment. It seems, however, that, with equal fidelity to
the Hebrew original, the Greek translators might have
used some word corresponding to rectify, instead of
"justify"; and that, had they done so, while the tech
nical character of the expression would have been
made manifest, an entirely different direction would
have been given to theological speculation.
When, for brevity's sake, I have used the expres
sion, " the pseudo-Isaiah" (e. g. p. 172), I must not
be understood as implying that the author of the
writings erroneously imputed to Isaiah (xl. - Ixvi.)

XVIU PREFACE.
designed to pass them off as productions of that
prophet. The contrary is apparent. It was a sub
sequent compiler who arranged with the works of
Isaiah those compositions from a later hand. (" Lec
tures," &c.. Vol. III. pp. 180, 181.)
I have a few times referred, in the following pages,
to my " Lowell Lectures on the Evidences of Chris
tianity." But the frequent references to " Lectures,
8fc." are always intended to indicate a different work ;
namely, the " Academical Lectures on the Jewish
Scriptures and Antiquities."
The texts commented upon are printed so as to
represent the readings of Griesbach's Critical Edition,
being copied from my edition, in 1830, of the " New
Testament in the Common Version, conformed to
Griesbach's Standard Greek Text."
If, in many instances, I have seemed but to encum
ber the page, by reprinting, with a simple reference
to another place, some text which, with or without
some verbal difference, had occurred and been dis
cussed in a previous part of the book, I have con
sidered this method to be necessary for the reader's
convenience, who might have his attention turned to
the same sentence, as it was presented in one or
another portion of the New Testament. He might,
for instance, look for a comment on Mark i. 11 in its
place, and he should either find it there, or else be

PREFACE. XIX
referred for it, as he is (p. 129), to the remarks on
the corresponding passage in Matthew iii. 17.
Some of the views and arguments which I present
are original with me, and the illustrations the fruits
of my own reading in the authors quoted. Others
are drawn from the common stock of earlier criticisms,
of which the later commentator freely avails himself,
with more or less change, or without change, in the
application. For others yet, I am specially indebted
to this or that writer. And there remains a por
tion, of which I am now entirely unable to trace the
source, so as to refer them to one or another of the
classes above defined, I have framed most of these
notes out of memoranda accumulated through a course
of years, during which I was lecturing on the New
Testament, and was used to set down all that occurred
as suited to my purpose, generally without noting
the source whence it was derived, whether from other
commentaries, or from my independent reflections and
investigations. Under these circumstances, it would
not be possible for me with any completeness to indi
cate respectively the origin of the remarks which I
have brought together; and I have thought it best
wholly to decline an attempt so impracticable for my
self, and so fruitless for the reader. I am little con
cerned, whether more or less of what I propose shall
be found novel. Enough for me, should it prove
true and useful.
" How well I have succeeded in my design, the

XX PREFACE.
reader is now to judge. Perhaps it may be thought
that I have mistaken the meaning of some passages
of Scripture. All that I can say for myself is this
only ; — that in the explication of so many, it is well
if I have not ; that I have sincerely endeavored to
follow truth, being very little solicitous where it led
me ; that, if I have failed, yet this I am sure of, that
my intentions were good and upright. But if I have
made it appear, that the writers of the New Testament
argue strictly and very rationally, even in those points
where our adversaries represent them as arguing very
weakly and absurdly, I hope I have done no disservice
to the cause of Christ." (Preface to Sykes's " Essay
on the Truth of the Christian Religion.")
Cambridge, Massachusetts, April Ath, 1854.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Gospel of Matthew  1
Gospel of Mark  128
Gospel of Luke  136
Gospel of John  166
Acts of the Apostles  187
Epistle to the Romans  225
First Epistle to the Corinthians  266
Second EpiStle to the Corinthians  279
Epistle to the Galatians  282
Epistle to the Ephesians ....... 290
*EpisTLE to the Philippians.
Epistle to tee Colossians  294
?First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians  2^4
First Epistle to Timothy  295
Second Epistle to Timothy  296
Epistle to Titus  302
*Epistle to Philemon.
Epistle to the Hebrews  311
Epistle of James  331
First Epistle of Peter  303
Second Epistle of Peter ........ 334
First Epistle of John  310
•Second Epistle of John.
*Third Epistle of John.
Epistle of Jtidb  . . ¦ . . 339
Revelation of St. John the Divine  343

* These books contain no such reference to the Old Testament as to
bring them within the plan of the present work.

NOTES

PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT,

PAET I,
NARRATIVE BOOKS.
SECTION L
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
L 1.*
Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
These titles, applied to Jesus, the founder of our
religion, refer to the Old Testament, and must be ex
plained from it,
1, Jesus is surnamed Christ. The Greek word
Christ (^ptcTTo?) and the Hebrew word Messiah
(n^B'P) are equivalent, (John i, 41.) They both
mean anointed. Part of the ceremony of inductiag
the Jewish kings into their office consisted in pouring
a perfumed oil upon their heads. (Judges ix. 8 ; 1 Sam.
* I shall not treat the question respecting the genuineness pf the first
two chapters of Matthew's Gospel. The external evidence against theSi
consists in a statement of Epiphanius (A. D. circ. 360) that they were
wanting from the copies in the hands of the Ebionites (" Sanct. Epiph.
Opp.," "Adv.Haer.," cap. xxx. § 13, Tom. I. p. 138, edit. Petav.), a statement
thought to derive confirmation frora a notice by Eusebius ("Hist. Eccles.,"
Lib. iii. cap. 27), as well as by earlier fathers, of the disbelief of some of
the Jewish Christians in the doctrine of the miraculous conception. The
internal evidence, which resolves itself mainly into the question of a recon
ciliation of the passage with the introduction to Luke's Gospel, is dis
cussed by Mr. Norton (" Evidences ofthe Genuineness of the Gospels," Vol.
L, Additional Notes, pp. Iiii. -Ixii.) with his characteristic eminent ability.
1

2 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE II. 1.
ix. 16; X. 1; xvi. 13; 2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3; xix. 10;
1 Kings i. 39 ; Ps. ii. 2 ; xx. 6.)
Now the "prophet" who had been predicted by
the founder of the Jewish institutions, and described
by Moses as "like unto himself" (Deut. xviii. IS
IS), had, in the course of time, come to be conceived
of by the nation under the different character of a
king. (Comp. John i. 41, 45, 49.) How this concep
tion grew up, I have explained at large in another
work, to which I refer, instead of here going again
over the same groimd. (" Lectures on the Jewish Scrip
tures and Antiquities," Vol. IL pp. 377-386; IIL
18 - 21 ; IV. 306, 307.) From the age of David down,
the advent of that illustrious personage, of David's
blood, who was to exalt his country to a vast domin
ion, and make Jerusalem, his capital, the admiration
and delight of the whole earth, was the darling hope
of every Jew. In their times of prosperity, they had
looked for the speedy fulfilment of that hope. In
their depression and distress, it had been their re
source against despair. It was not only, as some
writers seem to suppose, at the era of the first Caesars,
that they were expecting their royal hero. They were
looking for him in every period from that of the
foundation of their monarchy, and especially in every
period when the aspect of 'public affairs seemed so
doleful that no help, short of his, would avail.
As this person, according to their erroneous concep
tion, was to be a king in the common acceptation of
i that word, a fit name for him was the anointed (comp.
e. g, 2 Sam, ii. 7; iii. 39), the Christ, the Messiah.
This particular name, it is true, does not appear to
have been ever applied to him by any Old Testament
writer, unless we understand him to be designated by
the word in a Psalm probably written by David. (Ps..

I. 1.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 3
ii. 2; comp, "Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures," &c..
Vol. IV. p. 317.) But no fact is more familiar to a
reader of the New Testament, than that, in the time
of Jesus, the word was in constant use among the
Jews in the application which I have described.
Erroneous as was the apprehension entertained by
the Jews concerning the illustrious personage who, in
God's good time, was to appear among them, it was,
however, founded upon a basis of truth. It had had
its origin in the revelation, which, fifteen centuries
before, Moses had been inspired to utter, that God
would send to them " a prophet," or teacher, to be,
like Moses, the publisher of new truth, and the found
er of new institutions. In the ages after Moses, the
genuine idea expressed in his words had, through
natural tendencies of the human mind, been obscured,
and its prime element had been made secondary. It
was still believed that God's new messenger would be
a "prophet," that is, a teacher. But it was believed
that he would execute this office, that he would extend
the truth, chiefly by his victorious arms ; and the
attributes of the religious reformer were subordinated
in the popular thought to those of the powerful and
magnificent sovereign,
Jesus was the personage whom Moses had predicted.
The Jews of the time of Jesus were looking for the
personage predicted by Moses, though, like their an
cestors from a time at least as far back as that of Da
vid, they so greatly misconceived his character. It
was the personage foretold by Moses, ill as they un
derstood him, that they had in view when they spoke
of the Messiah, or Christ. Jesus, therefore, when the
time came for him to assert his claims distinctly (Matt.
xvi. 13-17), rightly claimed to be the person denoted
by that title. (" Lectures," &c,, Vol, IL pp, 382 - 384.)

4 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 2-6.
Matthew, in the verse before us, omitting the defi
nite article, uses the word Christ like a proper name.
He does not say " Jesus the Christ," but " Jesus Christ."
The explanation of this is, that, after Jesus had come
to be fully recognized by his disciples as the Messiah
who had been expected, his proper name and his
official name became to them equivalent. During his
stay on earth, the word Christ does not appear ever to
have been applied to him except in the sense of the
official designation. After his ascension, it almost, in
the use of his disciples, superseded that of Jesus as
his proper appellative, an effect to which, as Dr.
Campbell well remarks, the commonness of the name
Jesus among the Jews may have contributed. (" The
Four Gospels Translated," &c.. Vol. I. p. 225.)
I. 2-6.
Abraham begat Isaac  and Jesse begat David the king.
From Judah, great-grandson of Abraham, to King
David, the genealogy recorded by Matthew is, with
slight differences in the forms of some names, the
same as that in two passages of the Old Testament,
which were probably his authority for it, (Ruth iv.
18-22, and 1 Chron. ii. 4-12.) The tracing of the
parentage of Jesus through Jacob and Isaac up to
Abraham, connects him with the promises to those
patriarchs recorded in the book of Genesis (xxii. 18;
xxvi. 4; xxviii. 14). I. 6-12.
David the king begat Solomon  and Salathiel begat Zo-
robabel.
This is nearly the same genealogy as that in the First
Book of Chronicles (iii. 10-19). Three names and de-

I. 13 - 16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 5
scents, however, contained in that list as belonging to
the time between Solomon and the Captivity, are here
omitted; namely, the names of Joash, Amaziah, and
Azariah. (Comp. 1 Chron. iii. 11,12.) As the reigns
of these three kings had been treated at length in the
historical books, they cannot be supposed to have been
unknown to the compiler of Matthew's genealogy, and
the omission must be explained as a device to favor
the Jewish conceit by which the time between Abra
ham and Jesus is distributed into equal periods, con
sisting of twice seven generations each, (Comp. Matt.
i. 17,) In the same way it seems that we are to ex
plain the omission of the names of Jehoiakim and
Pedaiah, (With Matt. i. 11, 12, comp. 1 Chron. iii. 15
-19.) And it appears to have been as a further ac
commodation to this plan, and an additional aid to
the memory, that David and Josiah are both counted
twice ;_ that is, each, once at the beginning, and once
at the end, of a series of fourteen names,
I. 13-16.
Zorobabel begat Abiud  and Jacob begat Joseph the hus
band of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called
Christ.
The Old Testament nowhere traces the royal line of
David further down than Zerubbabel, except in a dis-^
jointed and unintelligible list of names in the First
Book of Chronicles (1 Chron. iiL 19-24), in which
the name of Abiud (son of Zerubbabel, according to
Matt. i. 13) does not occur, nor that of any one of
Abiud's descendants. From what source Matthew
obtained his information, whether from public or fam
ily registers, he has not told us, and we have no means
of ascertaining.
Whatever may be one's views of Matthew's inspira-
1*

6 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 13-16.
tion, it is entirely foreign from the purpose to say that
Matthew had this list of names by supernatural illu-
mination. The person who affirms this (unless he can
show that Luke did not intend to give the genealogy
of the putative father of Jesus) will have to maintain
that another Evangelist (comp. Luke iii. 23 - 31) was
at the same time made acquainted, in the same super
natural way, with an account of the parentage of Jo
seph, very different from that revealed to Matthew.
But I do not now dwell upon this. What I have
to say is, that inspiration is in the present instance out
of the question. However material in other cases, it
cannot possibly be in this case an element in the ar
gument, for the reason that the kind of proof here
undertaken by Matthew is one to which, of its proper
nature, supernatural illumination does not correspond,
and to which it can afford no help. For some reason,
Matthew undertook to represent to his readers that
Joseph, husband of Mary the mother of Jesus, was
descended from David. In the nature of things there
was only one satisfactory way to do this ; namely, by
appealing to the documentary, or (wanting this) the
oral, traditionary evidence which went to show that
such was the fact. Had there been ancient records
containing an opposite representation, it would have
been in vain that Matthew would have contradicted
them on the ground of alleged supernatural illumina
tion. What he said by such illumination would of
course have been true, but how could he have shown
it to be so 1 If there had been no records relating to
the question, it would have been a question which
there would have been no occasion for him to touch,
and which, in their absence, he could not have treated
to any advantage. It would be preposterous to repre
sent the Evangelist as proposing to bring the clauns of

I. 13-16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 7
Jesus to the test of a correspondence of his actual
descent with a genealogical list which to him (Mat
thew) was only known by inspiration, and so could
only be known to his readers on his authority. If
there were records existing which represented Joseph
as descended from David, then, and then only, was
there something pertinent for Matthew to say upon
the subject. But, on that supposition, it is plain that
his apostolical authority was in no sort responsible for
the correctness of the list. He took it as he found it
in the hands of his countrymen, and merely called
their attention to it. The very nature of the argu
ment precluded him from presenting on his own re
sponsibility the facts with which he invited his coun
trymen to compare the circumstances of his Master's
appearance. If they were not already in possession of
the facts from sources other than his statement, there
could be no place for the argument which he holds.
In my " Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures," &c., I
have reasoned at large that the ancient Jews had no
divine authority whatever for the opinion, which, from
the time of David, prevailed among them, that the
" Prophet " predicted by Moses, the personage ideal
ized by them as the " Messiah," was to be the de
scendant, representative, successor, and heir of David.
But, it will be asked, if the ancient Jewish writers
(the Psalmists and Prophets) were not supernaturally
apprised of the fact that the Christ was to be the son,
the descendant, of David, how came it to pass that
Jesus, the Christ, actually was David's descendant?
Does not the fact that the Christ, when he came, ac
tually turned out to be one of David's lineage, prove
that those who, centuries before, had described him as
of David's lineage, were divinely inspired ?
I reply,—

8 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 13-16,
1. How do we know that Jesus was of David's lin
eage 1 Do we know it from Matthew ¦? Matthew says
nothing of the sort. He says that Joseph, the hus
band of Jesus's mother, was descended from David.
But he says positively and circumstantially (if the first
two chapters of his Gospel are genuine) that Jesus
was not Joseph's son ; that he had no human father ;
that, in short, he had no relation whatever to the line
traced up from Joseph to David.
2. But now let us suppose that Jesus was in some
sense the son of Joseph, though MattheAV (i. 16, 18 -
25) appears very distinctly to deny to him that parent
age ; and that Joseph was shown by the genealogical
registers to be one of the posterity of David. Or rather,
independently of the genealogy of Matthew, let us as
sume, what I think the Apostles understood to be the
fact (Acts xiii. 23 ; Rom. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8), that Jesus
was a descendant from David (that is, through Mary,
his only earthly parent). How far will any consider
ate person maintain that this goes towards proving the
supernatural knowledge of those ancient writers who
looked for a descendant of David in the Messiah]
Was there any thing peculiar in being a descendant of
David 'i Were there so few descendants of David in
Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus, that, when
Jesus appeared to combine the two characters of the
Christ and a son of David, the writers who had identi
fied the Christ with one of David's blood must be held
to have been divinely inspired 1
On the contrary, it is probable that at the time of
the birth of Jesus there were in his country extremely
few native Jews who were not of David's blood, though
whether they would be able to prove that descent
would depend on the condition of the ancient records.
If the Messiah was to be a Palestine Jew, it could

L 13-16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 9
scarcely be that the second king of Israel would not
be one of his ancestors ; — in other words, his ances
tor, for the glory of David would overshadow all other
ancestral dignity.
This, may seem extraordinary, but it is as certain as
the evidence of figures. The time between David and
Jesus was a little more than a thousand years. A
thousand years, according to the common way of reck
oning, are equivalent to thirty generations, though
twenty-five years are not a short time for population to
double in, under favorable circumstances, and this
would give forty duplications in ten centuries. The pas
sage before us distributes (i. 17) the thousand years
between David and Jesus into twenty-eight generations,
which very evidently is an inaccurate statement on
the side of brevity, because four names are omitted,
while only one is repeated.
We will, however, assume the number of twenty-
eight generations. There were twenty-eight persons
in the series, each of whom lived long enough to have
children. Now, if a man has two children, and if his
descendants, taken one with another, have two chil
dren each, and if his posterity do not in any instance
intermarry with each other, his posterity in the twenty-
eighth generation will be two hundred and sixty-eight
millions and a half in number ; considerably more
than a quarter part of the present estimated popula
tion of the globe.*
But, though a low ratio of increase is here assumed,
this vast multiplication of individuals from one parent
stock will not in fact take place, because, at different
removes, descendants from one and the same parent
* If any one doubts about the correctness of this statement, let him look
at the following table, in which the first column represents the successive

10 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 13-16.
stock will intermarry with each other, and, as often as
that takes place, the duplication of its posterity is ar
rested for that generation ; that is to say, when David's
great-grandson marries David's great-granddaughter,
the children of this union, whatever be their number,
will constitute no larger a number of descendants from
David than if only one of the parents had been of
David's lineage. Allowance is to be made for this,
and it will of course cause the number of descendants
from one pair to fall very far below what it would he,
if those descendants had uniformly contracted matri
mony with persons of different ancestry.
Another allowance is to be made. The Jewish gene
alogies scarcely admitted the names of females. With
them, a man was represented as descended from another
man, only when he was descended from him in an un
broken male line. Such is the construction of. both
the genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament. Ac-
generations from the first to the twenty-eighth, and the second the increase
within that tirae, by duplication from a single pair : —
1 2
2 4
3 8
4 16
5 32
6 64
7 128
8 256
9 512
10 1024
11 2048
12 4096
13 8192
14 16384
See the article Consanguiniti/ in the " Encyclopaedia Britannica," if these
principles do not appear too simple to require further elucidation. You and
I, reader, have had more than a thousand millions of progenitors since the
time of the Saxon heptarchy. Whoever you are, it is extremely probable
that the blood of Egbert of England, and of Egbert's meanest menial,
runs in the veins of both of us.

15

32768

16

65536

17

131072

18

262144

19

524288

20

1048576

21

2097152

22

4194304

23

8388608

24

16777216

25

33554432

26

67108864

27

134217728

28

268435456

I. 13-16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 11
cording to the Jewish view, then, the " sons of David "
in the time of Jesus were only as many persons as
were connected with David by a line of sons and fa
thers. No account was made of daughters and moth
ers in this heraldry. According to our modern usages,
by which the wife takes the husband's name at mar
riage, that class of descendants which bears the fam
ily name exactly corresponds to that of which alone
the Jews took notice in their genealogies.*
Again ; by no means all the posterity of David lived
in Judea at the time of our Saviour's birth. Some
fifty thousand persons only, a mere fraction of the de
scendants of those who had been carried away at the
captivity, returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra. (Ez. ii,
64, 65 ; viii. 1-14.) Still those who did return were
of the tribes of Judah (David's tribe) and Benjamin,
and principally of the former. And it may be pre
sumed that, among the exiles who returned, one class
preponderated, namely, that of the families whose head
could trace his descent in the male line from David.
The opinion had then for centuries been rooted in the
national mind, that the male line of David was des
tined to give a magnificent monarch to Israel. Of
course, they who knew themselves to be within the
range of that distinction might be expected to be most
forward to avail themselves of the Persian king's per
mission to return to the theatre of their past and fu
ture greatness. In other words, for this special reason,
as well as on the more general basis of calculation, it
may be fairly presumed, that of the returning exiles
who repossessed and repeopled Judea, and were the
* The occasional incidental mention of women in genealogies (i. e. Gen.
xxv. 1 ; xxxv. 23 - 26 ; Matt. i. 3, 5, 6) constitutes no exception to this re
mark. Names of men are always given as constituting the links in the
chain ; names of women, never.

12 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 13-16.
progenitors of the Jews contemporary with our Lord,
a very large portion were of the male line of David.
Make what allowances we will for such reasons as
have been suggested, still, so many scores of mil
lions are to be thrown away from the rough computa
tion of the number of David's posterity at the end of
a thousand years, before we come down to the actual
population of Palestine at that time, that we may be
strongly inclined to the opinion, that a very large por
tion of the population at that time was descended in
the male line from David, and that not to belong to
that lineage was rather the exception than the rule,
And it is further to be remembered, in confirmation of
this view, that in the earliest steps of the succession,
where, from the nature of geometrical increase, the
number of sons would have a more important effect
than at any other place in the series on the number
at the end of the line, we happen to be informed that
the number of sons was considerable, David is re
lated to have had by his wives no fewer than nineteen
(1 Chron. iii. 1-9), and his grandson, Rehoboam,
twenty-eight (2 Chron. xi. 21). These instances, if
taken into the calculation, would increase immensely
the probable number of David's posterity in the male
line at the end of twenty-eight generations. Num
bers might belong to that line without knowing it,
or without the existence of any evidence to establish
their title. And it would be a palpable mistake to
suppose that, when the title " Son of David " was oc
casionally applied to our Lord (e. g. Matt, ix, 27), it
was done by those who had investigated his genealogy,
and who regarded the mere fact of being descended
from David as a distinction. He was addressed, in
such instances, as the particular son of David, who it
was hoped would assume his ancestor's royal preroga-

L 13-16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 13
tive. He was greeted not merely as one who had
David's blood in his veins, for in that an indefinite
number of persons might compete with him ; but as
that son who it was hoped would ascend David's throne.
In other words, a synonyme of the title Messiah was
used. But if these views are correct, why, it will be asked,
should Evangelists think it worth while to show the
descent of Jesus from David, supposing that Matthew
has undertaken in some sense to do so ?
I reply, in the first place, that the descent of a dis
tinguished person is always an object of curiosity, and
always a fit subject for his biographer. Had the gene
alogical lists represented Jesus, not as a descendant
from David, but as having some origin less dignified,
it would have been suitable for the author of a memoir
of his life and ministry to record the result of his
inquiries upon that point. Still more was the topic
an interesting one, if the lists were found to represent
Jesus as connected with the greatest of Jewish kings
by a line running through Zerubbabel, the restorer of
the nation after its great overthrow. But if the' object
was to point out circumstantially the descent of Jesus
from David, in order to show that in him were fulfilled
supernatural predictions uttered ages before, how
comes it that we never, in the Gospels or Acts, find
that argument presented for the conviction of unbe
lievers % Of all the characters in which the expected
Messiah, as erroneously understood, is set forth by the
ancient writers, none is more prominent than that of
David's son. If, as the common interpretation sup
poses, his being David's descendant was a distinguish
ing fact, revealed ages before, to the end that, when he
should come, the conformity of his lineage with that
declaration should be one means of establishing his
2

14 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 13-16.
claim, how, I repeat the question, could it fail to be
continually appealed to by Jesus and his Apostles for
that purpose, when they called the attention of their
countrymen to that claim] By both Jesus and his
ministers, after he had announced himself as the Mes
siah, no argument could have been more fit to be
urged with emphasis and repetition. But Jesus never,
once appealed to his extraction in corroboration of his
claim. So far from it, that he once used language
(Matt. xxii. 41 - 45 ; Mark xii. 35 - 37 ; Luke xx. 41 -
44) which it would have been not at all surprising if
his hearers had interpreted as an intimation that they
were wrong in supposing that the Messiah would be
one of David's posterity. Certainly, it had no ten
dency to make them regard that pedigree as a sign of
the Messiah, And though Peter and Paul, the for
mer in one instance, the latter in three (Acts ii. 29 -
32 ; xiii. 23 ; Rom. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8), refer to the descent
of Jesus from David, this is by no means presenting
the topic with such frequency as, supposing it to be
of the nature commonly imagined, we should expect,
nor does either of these Apostles give such a statement
of the genealogy of Jesus as would have been neces
sary to complete the argument on the common under
standing of it. Paul never calls Jesus expressly the
" son of David." In the three passages in which he
refers to his descent, he speaks of him as " of the seed
of David." Does not this peculiarity of expression
denote that, having no human father, Paul did not
think Jesus a " son of David " in the sense of the Old
Testament writers of and after David's time, though
he was of the posterity of David through Mary \ *
* May the suggestion be permitted, that the nativity of the Messiah as
the son of David's daughter was the only nativity which would neither
confirm, on the one hand, nor positively contradict, on the other, the un
founded expectation of the Jews ?

113-16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 15
Still, I think that, supposing the passage under our
notice to have been an original part of Matthew's
Gospel, a reason with him for its insertion may have
been to remove from the minds of his countrymen a
prejudice against Jesus, by showing them that, if their
genealogical registers spoke the truth, his descent
(supposing him to be a son of Joseph, as well as of
Joseph's wife) was actually such as to correspond with
an arbitrary standard by which they were resolved to
try the Messiah's claims. " Shall Christ come out of
Galilee 1 " asked some of them ; " hath not the Scrip
ture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and
out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was 1" ^
(John vii. 41, 42.) They were in error. They fell
into the error through ascribing supernatural au
thority to writings which did not possess it. God
had instructed his people that in good time he would
" raise up unto them a prophet like unto Moses." He
had not instructed them that that prophet should be
a descendant from David. Still, so prevalent was that
idea among the contemporaries of Jesus and Matthew,
especially among those of them who adhered to the
sect of the Pharisees, that from many minds a great
stumbling-block in the way of a reception of Jesus
would be removed by an appeal to records which de
clared that King David was a progenitor of Jesus,
And if such registers were known by Matthew to
exist, it was much more in the way of his duty to pro
duce them and so to satisfy a prejudice, than it would
have been to delay, in any quarter, the reception of
the Gospel with which he was charged, till such time
as he should be able to clear away from the minds of
dull and unlearned Jews the mistakes entertained by
them concerning the sense and authority of ancient
writings. Supposing this suggestion to be well found-

16 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 19.
ed, we shall understand Matthew to be addressing
them thus : You expect the Messiah to be a son of
David, because you think that authorized messengers
of God have so declared. By this you mean, accord
ing to the established force of such language among
you, that the Messiah is to be a descendant from David
in the male line. In that sense, however, Jesus was
not a son of David, or of any man. He was miracu
lously born of only a feraale earthly parent. But if
any of you deny this, and think he was a son of Jo-
seph, then, on your own grounds, you may receive him
for the Messiah, for Joseph was David's son,
L 19.
Joseph  was minded to put her away privily.
For the law of divorce among the Jews, see " Lec
tures," &c,. Vol, I, pp. 471, 472.
I. 21.
Thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people
from their sins.
The name Jesus (^Irja-ovs:) is but the Greek form of
the Hebrew Joshua (J^luiH*), which means deliverer
or saviour, being derived from the verb (i^^I) signify
ing he saved. It appears to have been a not uncom
mon name among the Jews, at any period. The New
Testament uses it in reference to the ancient contem
porary of Moses, and to a contemporary of the Apos
tles (Acts vii. 45 ; Heb. iv. 8 ; Col. iv. 11) ; and accord
ing to several manuscripts (see Griesbach, " Nov.
Test." ad loe.) the question of Pilate (Matt, xxvii. 17)
should read, " Which will you that I release to you,
Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus called Christ % " Origen says
(" Opp.," Tom. III. p. 918, edit, Delarue) that in many

122,23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 17
manuscripts of his day the name Jesus was omitted
before Barabbas ; and " perhaps," he adds, " correctly,
the name Jesus being inappropriate to a wicked man."
I. 22, 23.
Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be
with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his
name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us.
In the first place, what is the Evangelist's meaning
when he says that the words which he quotes from
Isaiah (vii. 14) were words " spoken of the Lord by v
the prophet " % They are said to be " spoken of the
Lord," because they are part of the discourse Avhich
Isaiah, in the poetical form in which he has cast the
remonstrance addressed by himself to Ahaz, has rep
resented the Lord as speaking ; they are part of the
discourse which Isaiah has (so to speak) put into the
mouth of the Lord (Is. vii. 10, 14; comp. "Lectures,"
&c.. Vol. IL pp, 415-417). — "By the prophet"
(Sta TOO irpojiTiTov). Rather, in the prophet ; that is,
in the prophecy, (Comp. "Lectures," IL 387; IV.
414, note §.) Aia, says Bretschneider (" Lexicon in
Lib. N, T." ad voc), " is freely used by the Septuagint
translators in rendering the prefixes 5 («>*) and p."
(For instances of Sta signifying in, see also Rom. iv.
11 ; 1 Tim. ii. 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20.) But it is quite im
material, for the explanation of the text before us, to
put this meaning upon Sta. The words were spoken
hy the prophet, because they are words of his com
position ; at the same time that they may properly be
said to have been spoken of, that is, hy the Lord, in
the sense above expounded.
The question respecting the purpose with which
passages of the Old Testament are quoted and applied
2*

18 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [122,23.
by the writers of the New Testament, and by Jesus,
their Master, in words of his reported by them, so far
as that purpose is to be inferred from the form of lan
guage with which a quotation is introduced, is fully
presented by this text. I shall, therefore, here treat
the subject at some length, with statements and argu-
ments to be referred to in the criticism of other texts,
of the same description, which will come under our
notice as we proceed,
I will, in the first place, state my general views
concerning the objects and force of those quotations
in the New Testament from the Old, which give rise
to questions of interpretation. In this respect I class
them under four heads, which I will specify in lan
guage used by me in an earlier work.
1. "To the first head belong those passages, which
really were supernatural predictions, and really are
referred to as such. For instance, when our Lord
says, that Moses wrote of him (John v. 46), I under
stand him to refer to the supernaturally conveyed
knowledge possessed by Moses of his future advent
and character ; a knowledge naturally incident to
Moses's office as minister of the preparatory dispensa
tion, and expressed by him, for example, in that
prophecy appealed to by Peter in an address to his
countrymen (Acts iii. 22) : ' A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like
unto me ; him shall ye hear in all things ' (Deut. xviii.
15) ; as well as in Moses's record of the promise made
to the first three Hebrew patriarchs, that in their pos
terity should ' all the kingdoms of the earth be blessed.'
(Gen, xii. 3 ; xviii, 18 ; xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4.)
" And on this class of references, being to real proof
texts, — supernatural predictions fulfilled, — I find
occasion for two remarks. The first is, that they pre-

L 22, 23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 19
sent no difficulty whatever in their application. The
use of them in the New Testament does not strike the
reader as foreign to their original sense. On the con
trary, it is the sense which he would naturally put
upon them as they stand in their original connection.
Secondly, I consider every instance of this class of
references to be to the Law, the Pentateuch, the five
books of the supernaturally endowed lawgiver Moses ;
and not to any other part of Old Testament Scripture,"
(" Lowell Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity,"
Vol, IL pp, 237, 238.)
2. In the second class of these quotations, " nothing
but a legitimate rhetorical accommodation is designed.
They are taken, as from their nature they may well
be, indifferently from 'all parts of the Old Testament
collection." (Ibid. p. 239.)
3. " The third class of the texts in question consists
of those, which are produced as references to, or proof
of, the opinions entertained in ancient times concern
ing the Messiah who was eventually to appear ; and,
when produced from any other part of the Old Testa
ment except the Pentateuch, they leave it an open
question, as far as the mention of the Messiah is con
cerned, whether the authors of the language quoted
possessed any supernatural information concerning
him. That a great prophet was to come after himself,
could be a fact known to Moses only through a direct
divine communication. There was no other source
whence he could derive it. They who came after him,
however, knew it from his own recorded declaration ;
and, for a series of ages, every Jew, on Moses's au
thority, without any new inspiration of his own on
the subject, confidently and joyfully recognized the
fact. Sometimes this last class of texts, indicative
of the opinions of times between Moses and Jesus

20 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 22, 23.
respecting the coming Messiah, the nature of his
office, the extent of his kingdom, and the spirit of his
faith, are used by the Apostles in argument with the
Jews of their own day. But there is no instance of
this kind, where the argument used implies an asser
tion, on the part of the New Testament writers, of
supernatural authority possessed by the authors of the
Old Testament language which they quote." (Ibid.
p. 241 ; comp. Acts xv. 15 - 18 ; Rom. ix. 26.)
4. " The remaining class of the texts in question,
akin to that last mentioned, does not so commonly
comprehend particular quotations, but consists rather
of references to the general tenor of the Old Testa
ment, showing to the Jews, that, on their own princi
ples of interpretation, without ^arguing the question
whether those principles were correct or not. Old Tes
tament Scripture did not supply them with those ob
jections to the faith of Jesus which they imagined."
(Ibid. pp. 242, 243 ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.)
The quotation before us belongs, in my opinion, to
the second of the classes above specified. The nature
of such quotations as I consider to be exemplified by
this text, I am now to illustrate.
It is a common habit of writers, to give vivacity and
variety to their compositions, by adopting from other
well-known writers language which, either in its origi
nal sense, or in a sense which it is capable of expres
sing, is applicable to the case in hand. The more
famous and the more familiar an author is, the more
will he be quoted from in this way. Daniel Heinsius,
the editor of Homer, says that there is scarcely a line
of that poet, which has not been used by some ancient,
in a sense difierent from that of the original. (Mich.
" Introduction to the N. T.," Part I. chap. V. § 1.) It
is a tendency of the mind, of the same nature as that

I. 22, 23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 21
which leads a speaker or writer to apply to the subject
which he is treating, the terms of that branch of
knowledge or practice with which he is conversant.
Thus, the clergyman is often found employing his
scriptural or theological vocabulary in his conversation
about common things ; and the lawyer and the physi
cian, the farmer and the sailor, the chemist and the
mechanic, convey and illustrate their ideas by phrase
ology supplied by the terms of their respective sciences
and arts.
If to any subject which they treated, native Jews,
like other men, were to apply language of which their
memory was full, of what language would they avail
themselves but that of their Scriptures 1 If, like
other men, native Jews, for the common purposes of
style and expression, were to quote freely from es
teemed and familiar writers, from what writers should
they quote except from those of the Old Testament 1
That collection comprehended almost the whole of
their literature ; it comprehended all of their litera
ture which was of considerable antiquity and esti
mation. Their memories were so crowded with the
language of the lawgiver and the old chroniclers and
poets of the nation, that it would perpetually pre
sent itself unbidden, as often as any thing occurred
which it would fitly describe ; and the allusions which
it embodied were not only of a character dignified and
exciting to the reader, but of a character of peculiar
dignity and sacredness. How natural, and to a Jew
how graceful, to embellish a narrative or description
by the remark, " This reminds us of what we read of
in such or such a place in Old Testament history " ; or,
" This might be well described by language used on a
difierent occasion by this or that ancient prophet,"
It would be easy, but it would be unprofitable, to

22 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 22, 23.
crowd these pages with examples from Pagan, Chris
tian, and Jewish writers, of the kind of quotation of
which I speak. The correctness of the general state
ment which alone I have made thus far, will not be
disputed in any quarter. But, it will be said, the
stress of the question lies in the form of words by
which a quotation is occasionally introduced by a New
Testament writer. In particular, when Matthew says,
in the text now before us, " All this was done that it
might he fulfilled,'" &c., must he not be understood as
saying, that events were supernaturally ordered so as
to bring about an accomplishment of what had been
supernaturally foreknown by Isaiah seven or eight
centuries earlier, and declared by him in the passage
which Matthew proceeds to quote 1
I will draw no argument from the original meaning
of the passage in Isaiah ; because, on the one hand, we
may misunderstand it, and, on the other hand, it is in
a certain sense a supposable case that Matthew may
have misunderstood it, though I believe nothing of
that kind. But I answer, —
1. Looking no further than to Matthew's own
representation in this case, is it possible to under
stand him as declaring any thing of the kind sup
posed ¦? What does he say 1 He says that part of
the prediction (if prediction it had been) was as fol
lows : " They shall call his name Emmanuel (which
is, being interpreted, ' God with us ')." Did they call
his name Emmanuel ? By no means. Matthew him
self declares just the contrary, in the next verse but
one (i, 25). He says that Joseph " called his name
Jesus.'" And he says, further, that this was done agree
ably to a direction given to Joseph in a dream ; name
ly, " thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save
his people from their sins " (i. 21), It is impossible

I. 22, 23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 23
to understand Matthew as representing Isaiah's lan
guage to be a prediction of Jesus, when Matthew
himself declares that in one particular, which, sup
posing a prediction, was a substantive part of it as
much as any other, it was actually contradicted by
the event.
2. There are four other instances in the New Testa
ment of a quotation being introduced, or a reference
being made, by the same or a similar form of words
(Matt. xxi. 4 ; xxvi. 56 ; John xv. 25 ; xix. 36). I
shall treat of them in their respective places. At
present I only ask whether any careful reader, be he
Christian or infidel, really supposes John to have im
agined that the direction to the Israelites (in Exod.
xii. 46) not to break the bones of the lamb eaten at
the annual Paschal feast, so as to taste the marrow,
was a prediction of the proceeding of the Roman sol
diers when they dealt with the body of Jesus difi"er-
ently from the bodies of the thieves crucified with him,
(John xix, 36.) Common sense has some claims, and
it has only one answer to such a question. And if we
will not undertake to maintain that John, when he
used the words, " These things were done, that the
Scripture should be fulfilled," &c., must be understood
as indicating a literal prediction, then clearly we are
in every other instance precluded from doing so by
arguments drawn from the mere form of the language,
3. From the nature of the argument, it is essential
that, when an instance of supernatural foreknowledge
is alleged, the precise words of the alleged prediction
should be produced, to be compared with the actual
event. But, in the present instance, this is not done.
The variation from both the Hebrew and the Septua
gint in Matthew's word corresponding to they shall call,
may be unimportant except as showing that Matthew

24 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [1. 22, 23.
was not quoting with that scrupulous exactness which
belongs to the kind of argument (erroneously, as I
,thiiik) attributed to him in the present instance. But
this it does show ; and this is a fact material to the
inquiry in which we are engaged. A more significant
fact is the rendering of the Hebrew word (tlQlV),
which means a young woman, married or unmarried,
by a word which so limits its sense as to denote only
an unmarried female ; a freedom of translation on
which Matthew (though countenanced by the Septua
gint) could not fairly have ventured, had he intended
any thing more than mere rhetorical accommodation.
Had he designed the argument commonly attributed
to him, the maiden condition of Mary was its main
circumstance ; this is an idea which the original He
brew does not convey, whoever was the young woman
that it spoke of; and accordingly Matthew would have
been producing an argument, the very basis of which
was a mistranslation of the passage quoted. I do not
forget the probability that Matthew wrote in Hebrew,
that is, the vernacular Hebrew of his day, and that
his Gospel, as we have it, is a translation ; and I have
framed my statements above accordingly. But whether
Matthew's original preserved the exact sense of Isaiah's
word (nD7j/), in which case the variation contained
in the Greek version (jrapOivo'i) is due to his trans
lator, or whether (as is in my view more probable)
Matthew, intending only rhetorical accommodation,
himself used a word corresponding to the Septuagint
version, to make that accommodation more exact, in
either case my argument is substantially the same.
That is, either Matthew himself translated the He
brew word accurately, and then he could not pretend
that there was any remarkable correspondence between
the language of the passage and the circumstances of

L 22, 23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 25
the birth of Jesus; or he translated it inaccurately,
which he might do with perfect propriety, if only rhe
torical embellishment was intended, but which he could
not fairly do for the sake of producing an argument
such as the original did not justify, and which, even if
unfairly disposed, he could not have attempted to any
purpose, through a misrepresentation of the meaning
of so common a word.
These considerations go to show that the common
view of Matthew's purpose in using the words, " All
this was done that it might be fulfilled," &c., is unten
able. I now proceed to explain and vindicate the
interpretation which I think ought to be put upon
them, " That it might be fulfilled " (tW ifKrjpmQy). What
do these words mean in this connection ?
In its primitive sense, the verb (77X17/300)) here ren
dered I fulfil, signifies I fill, or I fill out. Such also
is its common New Testament use (see, instar omnium.
Matt, xiii, 48 ; Luke iii. 5 ; John xii. 3 ; xvi, 6 ; Acts
ii. 2 ; V. 28 ; 2 Tim. i. 4). In such connections as
that before us, it is impossible to maintain that, merely
ex vi termini, the accomplishment of a supernatural
prediction is intimated. The filling out, or fulfilling,
or verification spoken of, is the same that we have in
mind when we say, in the use of a scarcely different
phraseology. The old saying was made good. It is of
the same kind that the writer of the Second Epistle
of Peter had in view, when he said (ii. 22), " It is hap
pened unto them according to the true proverb, ' The
dog is tumed to his own vomit again ' ; and, ' The sow
that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.' " In
repeated instances in which the word fulfil is used in
connection with a sentence quoted, it seems impossible
to doubt whether they refute the idea that that word
3

26 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 22, 23.
must be taken to import the accomplishment of a su
pernatural prediction. (See, e. g. Matt. xiii. 14, 35 ;
John xviii. 9 ; James ii. 23.) Matthew (viii. 16, 17)
says persons diseased in mind and body were cured by
Jesus, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by Esaias the prophet, saying, ' Himself took our in
firmities, and bare our sicknesses.' " But Peter (1 Pet
ii. 24) and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(ix, 28) make a very difl'erent application of Isaiah's
words. Which was right, on the common hypothesis ?
Or — one understanding Isaiah to have meant one
thing, and the others another thing — were they all
right, agreeably to some theory of douhle senses of the
prophetical writings 1 Or, finally, were they all right
(as I believe), because they were all making a mere
accommodation of Isaiah's language to a different oc
casion from that in reference to which he had used iti
" That it might be fulfilled." The other material word
in the clause is the conjunction that (tW), Does not
this indicate design % Does it not necessarily denote
that the events previously related took place in order
to create a correspondence with the language of a
writer of the eighth century before %
I assume that in our Greek Gospel of Matthew the
form of the sentence is correctly translated from Mat
thew's original, supposing that original to have been
in the vernacular language of Palestine. It belongs
to a class of expressions equivalent to each other, and
which there is no nicety in translating. Whether we
say to fulfil (et? to irXr^povv), or that it might he fulfilled
(wa, or oTTtu? TrXnpaOy), the sense of the expressions,
and of a literal rendering of them nito all languages,
will be the same.
To do a thing ; that a thing may be done ; — in the
common and authorized use of all languages, do these

L 22, 23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 27
forms of expression necessarily denote design 1 De
ploring the fate of my friend lost at sea, I say, " He
left his country ouly to meet his fate," or " that he
might meet his fate," Is there any thing extraordinary
in this expression ; or will it cause any one to under
stand me as meaning that my friend left his country
intending to rush on his death % Is there any danger
that I shall be supposed to refer to a design enter
tained by him % Will not every one see that it is only
the event that I have in view \ So the Psalmist says
(li. 4) : " Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and
done this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justi
fied when thou speakest," &c. So Jeremiah (xxvii.-'
15) represents Jehovah as speaking : " They prophesy
a lie in my name, that I might drive you out, and that
ye might perish." So the disciples in their question to
Jesus (John ix. 2) : " Master, who did sin, this man, or
his parents, that he was [rather, that he should he'] born
blind % " So Paul (Rom. i. 20) : " The invisible things
of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen,  so that they are [rather, that they may he~\
without excuse." So John (1 John ii. 19): "They
went out from us  that they might be made mani
fest that they were not all of us." In such cases, taken
from Scripture, though the form of expression belongs
alike to all writings and languages, who dreams that
the phraseology is intended to indicate design ? Who
does not see that the result is what is referred to %
(For other Scriptural examples, if desired, see Exod. xi.
9; xvii. 3; Numb, xxxii. 14; Jer. vii. 18; Amos ii.
7; Matt, xxiii. 33, 34; xxvi. 12.)
Accordingly, that is, or should be, a familiar princi
ple of interpretation which is laid down by Glass where
he makes a distinction between the " that indicating
the design " (the 'iva alnoXoyiKou'), and the " that indi-

28 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 22, 23.
eating the result " (the 'Iva sK^ariKov), and says (" Phi-
lologia Sacra," Lib. I, "Tract. VII. Canon 19), « The
causal conjunction (fi?0?, 'iva, ut), and the equivalent
expressions, do not always denote the final cause of a
thing, but frequently the event."
From this brief philological analysis, let us now
pass to the usus loquendi, the practice of writers, which
is the surest criterion of the meaning of words and
combinations of words ; and, by a few examples from
other sources, enable ourselves to judge what is the
received and authorized force of such expressions as
that in question.
.^lian (" Hist. Var.," Lib. III. cap. 29) says that Dioge
nes the Cynic used to say, " that he fulfilled (e/cirXripol)
and endured in himself all the curses of tragedy, for
he was a vagabond," «&c. Olympiodorus, in his Life
of Plato, applying to him a line of Homer, says : " The
bees came and filled his mouth with honey-comb, that
it might be true of him, that ' song sweeter than honey
flowed from his tongue.' " Cicero in his Oration for
Publius Sextius (§ 57), referring to some lines, which,
when recited, had been thought by the audience to be
applicable to himself, says : " Of me the elegant poet
wrote." Again, in his Oration for Cneius Plancius
(§ 24), he quotes two lines which he says were ad
dressed to his sons by " a poet of eminence and talent,"
and then proceeds, " which lines their author wrote
not to stimulate those royal youth to toil and honor,
but to stimulate us and our children," Jerome (" Epist.
103 ad Paulin.") uses this language: "In us is that
Socratic saying fulfiUed, ' This little I know, that I
know nothing.' " (" Opp.," Tom. IV. Pars II. p. 574,
ed. Martianay.) Commenting on the clause, " and
babes shall rule over them" (Is. iii. 4), he applies it to
the leaders of the Jews in his own day, and says that

L 22, 23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 29
in them " the prophecy is fulfilled." (" Opp.," Tom.
III. p. 36.) And again, on the words, " The child
shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and
the base against the honorable " (Is. iii. 5), he says
(" Opp.," Tom. III. p. 37) that when this takes place,
" that apostolic saying will be fulfilled, ' They shall
bite one another, and be devoured by one another.' "
(Comp. Gal. v. 15.) Plutarch, quoting a line in which
Homer describes ^Agamemnon, says (" De Fortun.
Alexand.," Tom. VII. p. 310, edit. Reisk.) that " Homer,
in the same verse, set forth the greatness of Agamem
non, and uttered a prophecy of Alexander " (/xe/iaz^rew-
Tai). Epiphanius (" Opp.," Tom. I. p. 125, edit. Petav.)
says that " in Ebion is fulfilled what is written, ' I was
almost in all evil.' " (Comp, Prov, v. 14.) Eusebius
(" Hist. Eccles.," Lib. II, cap. 1), referring to the con
version of the Ethiopian officer by Philip (comp. Acts
viii. 27 - 32), says : " So that the prophecy obtained its
fulfilment in him, ' Ethiopia stretchetb forth her hands
to God.' " (Comp. Ps. Ixviii. 31.) Again (Ibid., cap,
23), in a passage quoted from Hegesippus, relating to
the martyrdom of James the Just : " They fulfilled
that which is written in Isaiah (Is. iii. 11), 'Let us
take away the just, because he is a reproach to us, for
they shall eat the fruit of their doings.' " In a letter
from the churches of Lyons and Vienne to those of
Asia, preserved by the same writer (Ibid., Lib. V. cap.
1), after a relation of some persecutions experienced
by the former churches, it is said, " Then was fulfilled
the declaration of our Lord, ' The day will come, when
every one that slayeth you will think that he doth
God service.' " (Comp, John xvi, 2,) And again
(Ibid,) : " The madness both of the governor and of
the people, as of some savage beast, blazed forth so
much the more, to show the same wicked hatred to
3*

30 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 22, 23.
us, that the Scriptures might he fulfiUed, ' He that
is unjust, let him be unjust still, and he that is
righteous, let him be righteous still,' " (Com|), Apoc.
xxii. 11.)
A few specimens from the Syriac may be thought
to have a peculiar weight, from the fact that the Syriac
language was all but the same as that which was the
vernacular tongue of Matthew and John. That is to
say, the Syriac and Chal(^ee languages, though Avritten
in a different character, have the closest resemblance in
other respects, — in grammar, vocabulary, and idiom ;
and the language spoken in Palestine in the time of
Jesus and his Apostles was a dialect between the two,
called thence by scholars the Syro-Chaldee, and in the
New Testament sometimes named the Hebrew. (John
V. 2 ; Acts xxi. 40 ; comp. " Lectures," &c., Vol. I. p.
4, note.) It was this dialect which MatthcAV and
John used as their native tongue, and it was in this
Hebrew, probably, that Matthew composed his Gospel,
if the early statements of his having written in He
brew are to be received.
In an anonymous life of St. Ephrem the Syrian,
written in Syriac, (Asseman. " Biblioth. Orient.," Tom.
I. p. 35,) an angel is represented as charging him :
" Take heed lest that Scripture be fulfilled in thee,
' Ephraim is as an heifer that is taught and loveth to
tread out the corn,' " &c. (Comp. Hosea x. 11, and
observe the important resemblance between this case
and Matt. ii. 23, in respect to the paronomasia of the
name.) In a more full life of that father, also in
Syriac, prefixed to the collection of his works extant
in that language, we find the following : " In him was
fulfilled the word which was spoken concerning Paul
to Ananias (Acts ix. 15), ' He is a chosen vessel unto
me.' " (Sanct. Ephrem, "Opp. Syriace et Latine," Tom.

1-22,23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 31
III. p. xxiv.*) Again, in the same work (Tom. HI. p,
xlviii.), it is related that St. Basil said of him : " This
is he of whom Christ in the Gospel speaks, ' I came
to cast fire upon the earth.' " (Comp. Luke xii. 49.)
Ephrem himself, the oldest of the writers in the Syriac
language, whose works are extant, says of Aristotle
("Opp,," Tom, II, pp. 317, 318): "He exactly fulfilled
that which was written concerning Solomon the wise,
that ' of those who were before or after, there has not
been his equal in wisdom.' " (Comp. 1 Kings iii. 12.)
Again, he says (Ibid., Tom. II. p. 513, Serm. xxxiii.
" Advers. Haeres.") : " Infatuated men hate and reject
what is good for them, as it is written, ' The Lord
awoke, like one who slept,' " (Comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 65.)
The following sentence (Ibid., Tom. Ill, p, xxv,) pre
sents an example of reference to words not found in
Scripture, illustrating in a peculiar way the freedom
and inexactness with which such allusions were made :
" The love and peace of Christ began to be diffused in
the hearts of clergy and of believers, agreeably to what
the Lord says in the Gospel, ' Blessed is that servant,
by whom the name of his Lord shall be glorified,' "
Let us glance at the Jewish writers, though what
we have been speaking of belongs to a habit, not of
the Jewish, or the Oriental, but of the human mind,
and ..^lian, Cicero, Plutarch, Eusebius, and Jerome
might serve us sufficiently, without reference to Syriac
or Hebrew authorities.
In the Book of Tobit, we read (ii, 5 - 7) : "I re
turned, and washed myself, and ate my meat in heavi
ness, remembering that prophecy of Amos, as he said
* The reader must be careful to observe that the collection of St.
Ephrem's works, in six volumes, is divided into two parts, of three volumes
each ; Greek and Latin, and Syriac and Latin. The reference here is to
the sixth volume of the series, but the third ofthe Syriac portion.

32 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [1.22,23.
(comp. Amos viii. 10), ' Your feasts shall be turned
into mourning, and all your mirth into lamentation ' ;
therefore I wept." In the First Book of the Macca
bees (vii. 16, 17) it is said of one of the Syrian gen
erals : "He took threescore men, and slew them in
one day, according to the words which he wrote (comp.
Ps. Ixxix. 2, 3), ' The flesh of thy saints have they
cast out, and their blood have they shed round about
Jerusalem, and there was none to bury them,' " In
tbe book Berachoth (" Talmud. Babylon.," edit. Marin.,
Tom. I. fol. 57, foot of p. 2*) it is said that a certain
Mar, on entering Babylon, took up earth, and threw
it beyond the Babylonish border, to fulfil that which
is said, " I will sweep it with the besom of destruc
tion." (Comp. Is. xiv. 23.) Again: "Abai said that a
stormy wind does not last more than two hours, to
fulfil what is said (Nahum i. 9), ' Affliction shall not
rise up the second time.' " (" Talmud. Babylon.," Tom.
I. fol. 59, p. 1-, a little below the middle.*) In the
book Kiddushin (" Mischna Surenhus.," Tom. III. p.
367) we read: "Whosoever is versed in Scripture, in
the Mischna, and in the ways of the world, will not
speedily sin, as it is said, 'A threefold cord is not easily
broken.'" (Comp. Eccles. iv. 12.) Again (" Mischna
Surenhus.," II. 266) : "Rabbi Eleazar said, 'Whosoever
has not eaten on the night of the first day of the feast,
should do it on the night of the last day of the feast.
But the wise men say, there is no compensation in the
matter ; of this it is said, ' That which is crooked can
not be made straight, and that which is wanting can-
* I am thus particular in these references, to save the reader, who may
wish to refer to the passages quoted, the trouble which I have had of finding
them without aid, in solid folio pages of the Talmudical dialect, without
index, version, or typographical facility of any kind. He may find yet
others of the same sort cited in Surenhusius's Bi'/SXoy KaToKKa-yfis, par
ticularly under Theses II. and III. of the First Book.

n. 3-6.J GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 33
not be numbered.' " (Comp. Eccles. i. 15.) Again
(" Mischna Surenhus.," II. 374) : " What shall I do to
thee, who enjoyest thyself before the face of God, who
does to thee according to thy wish ¦? Thou art like a
son rejoicing before ^his father, and doing to him ac
cording to his wish. Of thee the Scripture saith (comp.
Prov. xxiii. 25), ' Thy father and thy mother shall be
glad, and she that bare thee shall rejoice.' " These
are but a few out of numerous examples of this form
of expression which occur in the Mischna. I have
not access to a copy of the Jerusalem Talmud. In an
extract from it in Schaaf's " Opus Aramseum" (" Selec-
ta Targum," &c., pp. 372, 373) is the following sen
tence : " When Rabbi Amun came before the king, he
turned his head ; some came desiring to kill him,
but they saw two fiery sparks proceeding from his
neck, and let him go, to fulfil that which is said
(comp. Deut. xxviii. 10), ' And all the nations of the
earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the
Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee.' "
The result to which I would lead the reader by
these remarks is, that Matthew, in the quotation
which he introduces from Isaiah, merely meant to say,
in the use of a customary device of rhetoric, that
words, used by that ancient writer in an entirely dif
ferent application, might be adopted as applicable to
those circumstances of the birth of Jesus which he,
Matthew, was now describing, II. 3-6.
When Herod the king  had gathered all the chief priests
and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them
where Christ should be born. And they said unto bim, "In
Bethlehem of Judea ; for thus it is written by the prophet,
' And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the
least among the princes of Juda, for out of thee shall come
a governor, that shall rule my people Israel.' "

34 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [H. 3-6.
The words here quoted are from the prophet Micah
(v. 2). It is not the Evangelist Matthew who ap
plies them to the circumstances of the Messiah's birth.
He relates that the application was made by " the chief
priests and scribes of the people," without intimating
what he himself thought of its correctness. A strictly
literal translation of the words, as they stand in the
original Hebrew, is as follows : —
" And [or, butj thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, little to
be among the thousands of Judah ; from thee shall go
forth to me to be a ruler in Israel."
Which Dr. Noyes in his version correctly expresses
thus : — " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
Who art too small to be among the thousands of Judah,
Out of thee shall come forth for me a ruler of Israel."
The quotations in Matthew's Gospel, as in the other
New Testament books, are generally from the Septua
gint version. But the Septuagint reading of this pas
sage literally follows the Hebrew, except that for
" Bethlehem Ephratah " it has Bethlehem, house of
Ephratah ; so that the New Testament quotation dif
fers equally from both.
Perhaps the reference in the original (see " Lec
tures," &c.. Vol. III. p. 283) was not at all to the
place of the Messiah's birth, but to that of the origin
of h-is family, made so illustrious in the person of
David and of his royal descendants. Such is a natural
signification of the verb rendered shall come forth
(KV.'), when used in this connection ; and in what fol
lows (" whose origin is from the ancient age, from the
days of old "), the word rendered " whose origin," or
^vhose going forth (VriNVlQ), is from the same root.
(Comp. Gen. xvii. 6.) David, the founder of the royal
family of Judah, was born at Bethlehem (1 Sam. xvi. 1),

H. 3 - 6.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 35
which was otherwise named in ancient times Ephrath
(Gen. xxxv. 19), and was thus distinguished from
another Bethlehem in the territory of Zebulun (Josh.
xix. 15). Possessed, in common with all of his nation
and time, with the idea that a royal descendant of
David was to restore empire and greatness to Judah
("Lectures," &c.. Vol. IL pp. 377-379, IV. 276-
281), and cherishing that hope the more fondly on
account of the calamitous circumstances under which
he wrote, Micah gave form to his glad anticipations in
the passage of which the words before us make a part.
He said that from the stock of royalty planted ages
ago in Bethlehem Ephratah, there should spring a
hero, who shoiild cause his people to " dwell in se
curity " from the Assyrian oppressors, and by his seven
or eight generals " devour the land of Assyria with
the sword, the land of Nimrod within her gates."
(Mic. V. 2-6, et seq. ; " Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. pp.
278-280,282, 283.)
But whether this was the whole force of Micah's
language, or whether (as I think, on the whole, more
probable) he supposed that David's birthplace would
be also that of his great descendant, it appears that,
among the punctilious and puerile interpretations of
their ancient write/s which prevailed among the Jews
in the time of our Lord, and which he so often re
buked, this was one, — that Micah's language authori
tatively pointed out Bethlehem as the place which
was to be honored by the personal " going forth " from
it (in some sense) of the Messiah. We learn this from
another text, in which the Evangelist John, recording
a conversation which took place thirty years after that
related by Matthew, writes as follows : " Many of
the people  said, ' Of a truth this is the prophet ' ;
others said, ' This is the Christ ' ; but some said, ' Shall

36 NOTES ON PASSAGES EST THE [H. 3-6.
Christ come out of Galilee 1 hath not the Scripture
said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out
of the town of Bethlehem, where David was 1 ' " (John
vii. 40 - 42.)
Upon this I remark, in the first place, —
That it does not clearly show that the persons here
described as referring to Micah's words understood
them as meaning, by the Messiah's " coming out of the
town of Bethlehem," his birth at that place. It does
not appear that inquiry had been made about his birth
place. If that had been the question, and the truth
had been told, the objection would have been done
away. What they knew was, that he had " come out
of Galilee," when he appeared at Jerusalem, and as
sumed to be a public teacher; and this is what they
seem to have considered as the inconsistency with
Micah's description. They may have thought that his
public manifestation was due, and that the prophet
had declared it to be due, to that place where his great
ancestor, the founder of his house, had received the
royal unction from Samuel (1 Samuel xvi. 1, 13);
that from that place he ought to issue when he came
to Jerusalem to take possession of his throne. Now,
supposing this to have been really the meaning of
Micah's words (which I by no mejms think it was),
then Jesus did" not fulfil them ; his birth at Bethlehem
was nothing to the purpose, for his childhood and
manhood had been passed in Galilee, and when he
came to Jerusalem, he came from that province. Sup
posing that those who used the words erroneously
thought that this was their sense, then the birth of
Jesus at Bethlehem was no sign to them, and the
prophet's language, even if really intended to desig
nate the Messiah's birthplace, had been too equivocal
to be appealed to in the way of proof.

11. 3-d.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 37
But, though I have thought proper to suggest this
view, I now waive it altogether, and, in what I am-
further to say, I proceed on the supposition that the
persons whom John describes as referring to Micah's
words had the same idea of their sense as " the chief
priests and scribes," according to Matthew, had com
municated, thirty years before, to Herdd. NoW an in
terpretation, and an opinion founded upon it, so diffused!
atnong the people, and so permanent, that they lived"
through generation to generation, were of course known'
to Joseph and Mary. In process of time, it also be
came known to them that Mary was to be the mother
of him who was to " save his people from their sins.""
Under such circumstances, what were they to do %
Bethlehem Was sixty or seventy miles from Nazarethv
the place of their residence. (Luke ii. 4.) Does any'
one imagine that, if, like their countrymen, they be
lieved (however erroneously) ancient prophecy to have
declared that Bethlehem would be the Messiah's birth-
pliace, she who knew herself to be the destined mother
of the Messiah would remain at sixty or seventy miles'
distance from Bethlehem, to await his birth at Naza
reth, and refute the prediction ? Of course, she would
go to Bethlehem in anticipation of that event, and
thus the erroneous interpretation of language of an
ancient writer, as containing a supernatural oracle,
Would bring about an event corresponding to that lan
guage in the mistaken sense which had been put upon
it. (See « Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. p. 337.)
But were not Joseph and Mary better Critics of the
Old Testament than their countrymen and neighbors ?
I see no reason to imagine it. But suppose they were,
what then ? Suppose that, while " the chief priests'
and scribes " were informing the king that Micah had
announced Bethlehem as the Messiah's birthplace, and
4

38 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [II. 3-6.
while such was the opinion that everywhere prevailed,
Joseph and Mary had read Micah's prophecy with
better judgment, and put a truer construction upon
his words. What should they do then ] Were they
causelessly and wilfully to outrage the common opin
ion, and erect an obstacle to the reception of the future
claims of Jesus at the very outset 1 Luke says (ii. 3, 4)
th?it, to be enrolled, — to give his name to the census,
— Joseph had to go to Bethlehem, " because he was
of the house and lineage of David." But he was to
go thither only for the transaction of a business which
would be very briefiy despatched. It was not necessary
that he should make any stay at Bethlehem for that
purpose. It was a place within six miles of Jerusalem,
to which he might immediately have returned when
his interview with the enrolling officer was over, and
his duty in respect to the census done ; and it was a
small suburb, perhaps with only one inn (Luke ii. 7),
and such as could not have accommodated, so much
as for a single night, any considerable portion of those
who were of " the house and lineage of David." And
though Luke says that it was necessary for Joseph to
repair to Bethlehem, and gives the reason, he does not
say or imply that it was necessary for Mary to accom
pany him. He was there to give an account of him
self and his family, which he could do alone as fully,
as credibly, and as responsibly as if he brought them
with him. It would be preposterous to suppose that,
either for the reason of any convenience in taking the
census (an operation expensive enough without any
such useless addition), or by force of any arbitrary
rule, whole families, through the whole circuit of a
nation, men, women, and children, old and young, sick
and healthy, were obliged to make journeys from their
homes to the respective places where their ancestors
had settled on the first partition of the lands.

IL 3-6.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 39
But Mary desired that, since her son was to be the
Messiah, he should be born at Bethlehem, because
such was the expectation of the people, and, whether
she shared in their view of Micah's words or not, it
was not fit that ,she should interpose any obstacle to
the success of her son's future pretensions, by giving
birth to him in some other place. Her husband had oc
casion to go to Bethlehem, to make his report there to
an enrolling officer, agreeably to the imperial decree.
It is probable that he might have chosen his time out
of many weeks, br even out of several months ; for the
taking of a census was a long process. (Prideaux's
"Connection," Part IL Book IX. pp. 505-507, edit.
1718.) It is probable that, had no other object than that
of his enrolment been in contemplation, he would have
made his short residence at the capital city, five or six
miles off, instead of at the poor village of Bethlehem.
But the time when the birth of Mary's son approached
was the time that was chosen, in order that she too
might make the journey, and that Bethlehem might be
his birthplace, agreeably to the common expectation
of the Messiah,
Let any one who supposes that the birth of Jesus
at Bethlehem was divinely designed as a token of the
Messiah, and was accordingly predicted as such many
centuries beforehand, consider how unsuitable such an
event would have been to such a use. How many
children of inhabitants of Bethlehem were born there
from age to age ; and how easy would it have been for
any Jewish mother to gain for her child the advantage
of a false claim to be the Messiah, through a true
claim to be a person in whose favor the prediction had
been fulfilled !
I began my comments on this text by remarking on
two particulars of the want of precision in Micah's

40 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE PJ. 14, 15.
language, which rendered it unsuitable to yield satis
faction as to the correspondence of an event with it.
I will suggest yet another. From Herod's course in
putting to death all the children of Bethlehem under
;two years old (Matt, ii. 16), it may be inferred that his
advisers, " the chief priests and scribes of the people,"
understood Micah to have meant that the Messiah's
parents would be residents, and not chance sojourners,
in Bethlehem, But if so, the fact did not correspond
with their interpretation of Micah's words,
II. 14, 15.
When lie arose, he took the young child and his mother by
night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until the death
of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, " Out of Egypt have I called my
son."
The reference is to the prophecy of Hosea (xi. 1),
>vhere we read as follows : " When Israel was a child,
then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." The
words are part of a discourse which, by the rhetorical
device so common with the prophets (" Lectures," &c.,
Vol. II. pp. 415 - 417), and not uncommon with other
writers, Jehovah is represented as uttering. It is
therefore with strict propriety that the Evangelist
quotes them as " spoken of the Lord by [or in] the
prophet." It is perfectly evident that by the original words
Hosea intended no prediction whatever. The Septua
gint text reads, " Out of Egypt have I called his [Is
rael's] children." But that is immaterial. Whether
Jehovah's son or Israel's children, nothing can be clearer
than that it is the Jewish people that is here signified
(comp. Ex. iv. 22, 23), and that its past conduct and
fortunes, and not any future events, are the subject of

n. 14,15.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 41
the passage. In the infancy of the nation, Jehovah,
through his love for them, led them out of Egypt by
the ministry of Moses. (Hos. xi. 1.) They strayed
into idolatrous practices (ibid. 2), yet he did not re
nounce them, but dealt forbearingly and tenderly with
them (ibid. 4) ; and so on. There is not a word here
which it is possible to understand as spoken by Hosea
of the future Messiah, in any sense. Whatever we
may think of Matthew's capacity and authority as an
interpreter of the Old Testament, — whether we as
cribe to him infallible knowledge, or only the most
limited knowledge compatible with the smallest degree
of common sense, — it is impossible to imagine that he
could understand Hosea as speaking here of the future
Messiah. So clear is this case, that I consider the text as hav
ing the highest importance in its bearing on the gen
eral argument respecting the force of quotations from
the Old Testament in the New. If Matthew, calling
to mind u passage of Hosea, in which, in terms so
plain that Matthew could not misunderstand them,
the exodus of the people was referred to historically,
could quote the words in reference to an event seven
or eight hundred years subsequent to the quoted writer,
then it is as certain as any thing of the kind can be,
that Matthew did not intend to represent that event
as accomplishing a prediction contained in those words,
And if, in such a case as this, when the supposition of
prediction accomplished is absolutely preposterous and
out of the question, the Evangelist could introduce
his quotation with the formal words, " that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,"
then it follows, that in no case whatever does the for
mality of that introduction permit us to infer that the
Evangelist points to the words which he quotes as
4*

42 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IL 16-18.
containing a prediction, of which events have brought
about the accomplishment.
Matthew simply suggests, in reference to the return
of Jesus in his childhood from Egypt to Palestiiie,
that God, in accomplishing the second great deliver
ance for his people, may be said to have done what
the prophet had said he did in accomplishing the first;
that is, to have called his son out of Egypt. And this
is the nature of quotations of this kind, of which such
a great mystery and perplexity has been made,
II. 16-18. ,
Then Herod  sent forth, and slew all the children that
were in Bethlehem  Then was fulfilled that which was
spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, " In Rama was there
a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourn
ing, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be com
forted, because they are not."
The quotation is from Jeremiah (xxxi. 15 ; comp,
" Lectures," &c., Vol. III. p. 362). In the passage of
which it makes part, Jeremiah is referring to the deso
lation of the northern kingdom. Of that kingdom,
Ephraim, of which Rachel was the ancestress (Gen.
xlvi. 19, 20), was the chief tribe, and Ramah was one
of its cities (1 Sam. i. 1). Accordingly, the poet, in
the genuine spirit and style of his art, represents Ra
chel as weeping among the ruins of Ramah, and re
fusing consolation because her children were not there.
Six hundred years after this, another slaughter takes
place. It is true it takes place, not in Ramah, but in
Bethlehem ; and Rachel has no concern with it, be
cause Bethlehem is in Judah, and that tribe is de
scended, not from her, but from her sister Leah (Gen.
xxxv. 23). There was no occasion for weeping in
Ramah, when the children of Bethlehem were put to

II. 23.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 43
death. There would have been no propriety in repre
senting Rachel as bereaved on that occasion, for the
children of Bethlehem were no children of hers. And
her lamentation described by the ancient prophet was
on account of a state of things existing in his own
time, and not of an event contemplated by him as
future. All this Matthew knew and understood, quite
as well as we. And it is impossible that he should
have intended to say that there was a prediction of
Jeremiah, where every intelligent reader sees that there
was none ; that there was a prediction of weeping
in Ramah of Ephraim, which was fulfilled by a weep
ing in Bethlehem of Judah ; and that a prediction of
Rachel's sorrow for her children was fulfilled in the
death of children who were not of her blood. — We
have to trifle very absurdly with words, in the attempt
to prove that Matthew trifled with them, if possible,
more absurdly still. If we will dismiss such idle and
unauthorized refinements, and bring to his Gospel the
good senpe which we should not refuse to any other
book but the Bible, we shall see that the language
simply expresses the plain and pertinent meaning ; —
the sharp and comfortless distress of bereaved mothers
at Bethlehem, at this time, might be well described in
language used anciently by Jeremiah when he was
speaking of the desolation of Ramah and Ephraim.
II. 23.
He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, " He shall be
called a Nazarene."
Here we get new light, from a different side, on the
force, or rather the no-force, (that is, of any such kind
as has been commonly ascribed to it,) of this very for
mal manner of quotation. Nowhere in the Old Testa-

44 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [U. 23.
ment can we find the words said by Matthew to be
" spoken by [or in] the prophets, ' He shall be called
a Nazarene.' " What then did he refer to 1 I have
very little doubt that it was to a text in the Book of
Judges (xiii. 5), where it is said of Samson that " he
shall be a Nazarite." It is true that Matthew's word
(Na^o}paio<;) is not the same as that (va^lp) by which the
Hebrew (Tf^) is rendered in the Vatican copy of the
Septuagint. But in the Alexandrian copy (Judges xiii,
5), in the Vatican copy (Lam. iv. 7), and in Josephus
(" Antiq. Jud.," Lib. IV. cap. iv. § 4), we find Greek
forms of the same word (ya^tpaloi and va^eipalot) all
but identical with that of Matthew, and therefore it
may be presumed that this latter form was in quite as
familiar use as the former.
Again, let us apply to this case the probable opin
ion that Matthew wrote in his vernacular tongue.
Whether we call it Hebrew or Syro-Chaldee (see above,
p. 30) is immaterial ; it bore a close resemblance to
the Syriac. If he meant, as I have supposed, to refer
to Judges (xiii. 5), he would adopt the Hebrew word
Cn^fJ) with as little alteration as the structure of the
dialect in which he was writing would permit. Now
in the Syriac version of his Gospel we find an an
swering word, which I express as nearly as it can be
in Hebrew letters, since where I print we have no
Syriac types (Nn?J). This form, or something close
ly resembling it, it is likely that Matthew, in his origi
nal, used as the rendering of the word (TfJ) in Judges
(xiii. 5). And of this form, when in the translator's
hands it came to be transferred to the Greek of our
present Gospel, the word {Na^wpato';) which we find,
would be an easy and natural expression.
Matthew says that he is making a quotation; "that
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by [or in] the

H.!23^ iGQSPEL OF MATTHEW. 45
prophets, ' He shall be called a Nazarene.' " Except
that which I have suggested, I know no account of
his quotation whieh has the smallest probability. But
supposing this account to be correct, it throws impor
tant light on the purport of this large class of quota
tions made from the Old Testament in the New. They
are not assertions of prediction fulfilled. They are
easy and natural rhetorical embellishments, — adapta
tions, accommodations, applications (of a kind recog
nized by all nations, and in almost all sorts of compo
sition), of expressions in common use, or expressions
of some well-known writer, to some original sentiment,
some passing event, or some habit or opinion which
attracts notice. Between Samson, " a Nazarite unto
God from the womb," and Jesus, whose mother " came
and dwelt in a city called Nazareth," there was no
actual, real resemblance because of those facts, —
nothing, certainly, that made the residence of Jesus at
Nazareth a literal fulfilment of any prediction that
had been uttered respecting Samson's ascetic habits.
But an ambiguous word (Na^apalo'i) signified either a
Nasarite, which Samson was, or a Nazarene, which
Jesus was ; and Matthew, struck with the ambiguity,
takes occasion from it, by a sort of conceit (I must use
that word, for want of a more dignified one, to convey
the idea), to apply, to the latter, Words used by an Old
Testament writer conceming the former. Could he
have anticipated what a race of critics would arise in
after times, and what would be the cost of his indul
gences, in this way, of a writer's natural taste, it may
be presumed that he would have scrupulously ab
stained from its gratification.

46 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IU. 1, 2.
III. 1,2.
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilder
ness of Judea, and saying, " Repent ye, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand."
When John the Baptist spoke of the " kingdom of
heaven," he evidently used a form of_ words not new
to those whom he was addressing. It is plain that it
was of something which they were expecting that he
spoke, when he told them that it was near at hand.
The " kingdom of heaven," the " kingdom of God "
(Matt. vi. 33), and the " kingdom of the Son of man"
(xiii. 41), are equivalent expressions. In my work on
the Old Testament (e. g. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. II. pp.
377 - 384 ; IV. 276 - 279), I have explained repeatedly
and at length the nature and the origin of the concep
tions which those phrases were intended to convey.
God designed in good time to follow and supersede
the institutions of Moses with a religious dispensation
more complete ; and accordingly the lawgiver was au
thorized to announce to his people, " The Lord thy
God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst
of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me." (Deut. xviii.
15.) It was also recorded in traditions preserved by
Moses, that Abraham had received promises frora Je
hovah of a royal issue from his stock. (Gen. xvii. 6,
16 ; xxxv. 11 ; comp. xii. 3 ; xviii. 18 ; xxii. 18; xxvi.
4 ; xxviii. 14.) As early as the institution of the
monarchy, — as early, at all events, as the time of
David, — these two ideas came to be combined; and a
royal prophet, or propagator of divine truth, — a hero
of irresistible martial prowess, of venerable wisdom,
of splendid talents for administration, and of burning
zeal for the Law, — became the hope of the nation.
Under his conduct, their country should rise to a
height of unprecedented glory. " Kings should see

III. 1, 2.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 47
them and stand up, yea, princes, and do them homage " ;
and all the glories so emulously described in the books
of the Psalms, the prophets, and others, were to clus
ter around Jerusalem and Zion, The Messiah (equiv
alent to the Christ in Greek and the Anointed in Eng
lish) became the special name of the fancied sovereign,
and the phrases " the kingdom of heaven " and " the
kingdom of God " designated the Jewish empire which
was to be established. So, for instance, Micah (iv. 7)
spoke of it while the first Jewish kingdom yet stood :
" I will make the halting a remnant, and the far-scat
tered a strong nation." And the author of the Book
of Daniel (ii- 44), after it had fallen : " In the days of
those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom
which shall never be destroyed ; and the kingdom
shall be left to no other people ; but it shall break in
pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall
stand for ever " ; and again (vii, 13, 14) : "I saw in the
night visions, and behold, one like a son of man came
with the clouds of heaven, and came to the aged per
son, and they brought him near before him ; and there
was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,
that all people, nations, and languages should serve
him ; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which
shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be
destroyed," (Comp, Dan. vii, 27.)
Such were the anticipation and the hope transmitted
from generation to generation of the Jews, and which
prevailed among them at the time when Jesus appeared.
Such was the expectation of the " kingdom of heaven "
or " kingdom of God," cherished at that time with
even more interest than at some others, because of the
depression to which the nation was then reduced.
And when "in those days came John the Baptist,
preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying.

48^ NOTES 01^ PASSAGES IN THE [III. 3.
' Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,' "
such as has been described was, without doubt, the
new state of things, the establishment of which he
was understood by his hearers to announce. That he'
himself had any more correct idea of the nature of
the revolution about to take place, there is no reason
whatever to suppose. He calls on his countrymen tO'
repent, or reform, by way of preparation for a share in
the benefits of the coming kingdom, because, according
to the established opinion, the " Redeemer who was to
come to Zion " was to " turn away ungodliness from
Jacob," and establish a society free from all injustice,
dissension, and offence. (Is. xi. 1-13; lix. 20; Ix.
21 ; Ezek. xx. 43 ; Mal. iv. 1 - 6.)
ni. 3.
This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying,
" The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ' Prepare ye
the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.' "
The words quoted are taken from the book of Isaiah'
(xl. 3), with one slight variation from the Septuagint
text, and two frora the Hebrew. The original writer,
in the time of Cyrus, encouraging himself that the
time is close at hand for his countrymen to be released
from their captivity at Babylon and restored to their
home, expresses his exulting hope under the image of
hearing a voice command the construction of a straight
and level road through the intervening wilderness, for
the people, marshalled by their guardian God, to travel
back and repossess their ancient domain. (" Lectures,"
&c.. Vol. IIL pp. 237 - 239.) In point of fact, this>
language, and the occasion to which it relates, have^
nothing to do with the appearance of our Lord's her
ald, John the Baptist, " in the wilderness of Judea,"
But the words applied by the ancient writer to the

in. 3.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 49
one case admitted of an easy and graceful application
to the othei"; and that application, in the use of a
common device of rhetoric, Matthew makes.
" This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esai
as." Is there any thing in that phrase to refute the
above explanation % Suppose we were recommending
a candidate for office, should we have any hesitation
in saying, " You have often heard descriptions of the
man needed for this place ; here is the very man so
described " % Yet literally it was not true that the
description had been drawn from that man ; the de
scription had been made independently of him, and
afterwards he was observed to correspond with it. In
the Epistle of Jude (14) we find these words : " Enoch
also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, say
ing, ' Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of
his saints, to execute judgraent upon all, and to con
vince all that are ungodly among them of all their
ungodly deeds,' " &c. Who understands the writer
as meaning that his own contemporaries were the per
sons whom the antediluvian Enoch (or whoever had
assumed his name) had in view, when he uttered these
words of warning ] Who does not naturally and in
stinctively perceive the sense to be, that the sinners of
the writer's time might be aptly rebuked in words
which he quotes as Enoch's, anciently used on a dif
ferent occasion, and respecting different persons ? (See
above, pp. 28 - 31.)
" This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias."
Has this language any material bearing on the ques
tion whether Isaiah was the author of the fortieth
chapter of the book which goes by his name ? On
the contrary, it is our custom to refer to a composition
by its common title, whatever may be our opinion of
the correctness of that title. We speak of " the poems
5

50 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IIL 17.
of Ossian," instead of using so inconvenient a periph
rasis as " the poems of Macpherson, pretended by
him to have been written by an ancient bard, named
Ossian." A scholar quotes a fable " of ^sop," and
an ode " of Anacreon," while he is satisfied in his own
mind that they are pieces which did not proceed from
the writers so named. (See, on this subject, "Lec
tures," &c.. Vol. IIL pp. 180, 181, 235, 236.)
III. 17.
And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, " This is my beloved
son, in whom I am well pleased."
This text presents the important question of the
sense in which the title " Son of God " is given to
Jesus in the New Testament.
The origin and explanation of the title are to be
found in an idiom of the Old Testament ; and that is
the circumstance which brings it within the scope of
our present investigation. A common form of speech
among the Jews was, to call by the name of son of
any person or thing, whatever was connected with that
person or thing, whatever resembled it, or resulted from
it. Thus a " son of Belial " (1 Sam. ii. 12) is a bad
man ; a " son of a murderer" (2 Kings vi. 32Jis a san
guinary person ; " son of perdition " (John xvii. 12),
one that deserves perdition ; " son of man " (Ps. viii.
4), a human being ; " son of peace " (Luke x. 6), a
peaceable individual ; " sons of flame " (Job v. 7),
sparks; "son of the morning" (Is. xiv. 12), Lucifer,
or the morning star. In like manner those who re
semble God, or are regarded as acting with his au
thority, or otherwise signalized by his favor, are called
his sons. God is represented as saying to David con
cerning Solomon (2 Sam. vii. 14), " I will be his fa
ther, and he shall be my son " ; and again (1 Chron.

rn. 17.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 51
xxviii. 6), " Solomon shall build my house and my
courts, for I have chosen him to be ray son." " Thus
saith the Lord," said Moses to Pharaoh (Exod. iv. 22,
23), " Israel is my son, even my first-born ; and I say
unto thee, let my son go, that he may serve rae."
"When Israel was a child," Hosea (xi. 1) represents
Jehovah as saying, " then I loved him, and called my
son out of Egypt." The conception and phraseology
in question appear equally in the New Testament.
Paul writes to the Galatians (iii. 26), " Ye are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus " ; to the
Corinthians (2 Cor. vi. 17, 18), " ' I will receive you, and
be a father to you, and ye shall be my sons and daugh
ters,' saith the Lord Almighty " ; to the Romans (viii.
14), " As many as are led by the spirit of God, they
are the sons of God." St. John writes (1 John iii.
1, 2), " Behold what raanner of love the Father hath
bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons
of God ;  beloved, now are we the sons of God."
Such being the settled use to which the Jews put
the title, they would of course apply it, by erainence,
to their expected Messiah. Favored of God above all
others, he especially would be entitled to be called
God's son. If the narae was suitable to rulers, then
especially to him to whom were to be given " domin
ion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations,
and languages should serve him." If it was descrip
tive of righteous men, and of men efficient in ac
complishing God's purposes, then eminently of that
" righteous servant " of God who " by his knowledge "
was to "justify raany."
Thus it was, — it could not have been otherwise, —
that, at the time of the appearance of Jesus, among
the names commonly applied to the expected deliverer,
(as " King of Israel," expressive of his office, as that

52 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IIL 17.
was understood, " Son of David," indicative of his de
scent, and " Messiah," or Christ, denoting the form of
induction to the royal dignity,) was that of " Son of
God," implying the divine favor extended and the di
vine authority delegated to hira. These titles, and
others, were used as signifying the same office, — the
same person, — and were used indifferently. '
Thus John the Baptist, " looking upon Jesus as he
walked, saith, ' Behold the Lamb of God.' " (John i,
36.) " Andrew, who heard this, said to his brother Si
mon, 'We have found the Messias.' " (Ibid. 41.) Phil
ip, their neighbor, " findeth Nathanael, and saith unto
him, ' We have found him of whom Moses in the Law
and the prophets did write.' " (Ibid. 45.) And Na
thanael, in his turn, on coming to Jesus, said, " Rabbi,
thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel."
(Ibid. 49.) In short, the several titles, though taking
their different forras from the respective aspects in
which the expected hero was viewed, were, in their
application, equivalent. The demoniacs whom Jesus
cured at Capernaum cried out, " saying, ' Thou art
Christ, the Son of God.' " (Luke iv. 41.) The council
who examined him before he was carried before Pilate,
asked him, "Art thou the Christ?" (Luke xxii. 67.)
And when they repeated the question, it was in the
words, " Art thou then the Son of God f " (Ibid. 70.)
By Matthew (xvi. 16) near Cesarea Philippi, Peter is
related to have said to Jesus, " Thou art the Christ,
the son of the living God " ,• and the profession was of
that extreme importance, that it is difficult to sup
pose that either Evangelist would have omitted either
of the two phrases, if he had recognized any difference
in their meaning. Yet by Mark (viii. 29) we find
Peter only related to have said, " Thou art the Christ,"
and by Luke (ix. 20), "The Christ of God"; and

in. 17.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 53
after Peter's declaration our Lord is recorded (Matt.
xvi. 20) to have " charged his disciples that they
should tell no man that he, Jesus, was the Christ,"
which was not all nor the chief of what he would
have forbidden them to disclose, if there had been a
separate meaning in the phrase Son of God. " Is it
not written in your Law," said Jesus (John x. 34 - 36),
" ' I said. Ye are gods %' If he called thera gods unto
whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can
not be broken), say ye of him whom the Father hath
sanctified and sent into the world, ' Thou blasphemest,'
because I said, ' I am the Son of God ' I " His being
sanctified and sent into the world by God, — in other
words, his being the Christ, the legate of God, — is the
reason he himself assigns for calling himself God's
son ; and this, in an express and formal justification of
the propriety of his assumption of the title.
If the reasoning above is correct, then no mystical
conception of the metaphysical nature of Jesus was
intended to be expressed in the Scripture phrase, Son
of God. In whatever is peculiar of its application to
him, it is simply a title of office, equivalent to, and
interchangeable with, the title of Messiah. The
" voice from heaven," which, after his baptism by John,
hailed hira as God's well pleasing and " beloved son,"
was neither more nor less than a recognition of- hira
in the character of that great reforraer and deliverer,
whom (with whatever degree of misapprehension of
his true office) the chosen people had been expecting
from age to age, on the authority of their great law^
giver's promise (Deut. xviii. 15), that " a prophet would
the Lord their God raise up unto them of their breth
ren, like unto himself." 5*

54 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 13-16,
IV. 13-16.
Leaving Nazareth, he carae and dwelt in Capernaum, which is
upon the sea-coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephtha-
lim ; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias
the prophet, saying, " The land of Zabulon, and the land of
Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee
of the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness, saw great
light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of
death, light is sprung up."
In the book of Isaiah (ix. 1, 2) we read, according
to the Hebrew : * "Of old he brought the land of
Zebulon and the land of Naphtali into contempt.
In future times shall he bring the land of the sea be
yond Jordan, the circle of the Gentiles, into honor.
The people that walk in darkness behold a great light ;
they who dwell in the land of death-like shade, upon
them a light shineth."
Of the Septuagint Greek a literal translation is as
follows, viz, : " Make haste tbe land of Zebulon,
the land of Nephthalim, and other inhabitants of the
sea-coast, and Galilee of the Gentiles beyond the Jor
dan. Thou people that walkest in darkness, behold a
great light ; ye who dwell in a region [which is] a
shadow of death, light shall shine upon you." f
* That is, if we change the division between the eighth and ninth chap
ters, which in the Hebrew occurs at the beginning of the last period of tlie
passage quoted, so that the ninth chapter begins " The people," &c. If
we regard the Hebrew division, of course the discrepance between the origi
nal and Matthew's quotation is greatly increased.
f The text stands thus in the Chaldee : " Formerly Zebulun and Naph
tali emigrated, and those of them who remained shall be led by a mighty
king into captivity, because they did not remember the power which was
manifested at the Red Sea, and the miracles at Jordan, and the war of llie
cities of the nations. The people of the house of Israel, which walked in
Egypt as in darkness, came forth to see a great light ; upon those who
dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, light has arisen." The Syriac
varies the reading materially, in a still different way. In such an un
certainty ofthe text, it is impossible to frame that argument from supernatu
ral prediction, of which an ascertained text must be the basis.

IT. 13-16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 55
It is plain that Matthew has followed neither the
one nor the other. It is plain that he has merely
availed himself of a portion of the words and the
general structure of the sentences, as no writer could
think of doing if he meant to point to a supernatural
prediction accomplished. If, in such a case as this,
the quotation could be introduced by the words, " He
came and dwelt in Capernaum, &c., that it might be
fulfilled," &c., how is it possible in any case to argue
that the essential force of that expression requires the
reader to understand it as indicating a prediction
brought to pass 1
In the original connection of the passage, as I in
terpret it (see " Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. pp. 195, 196),
Isaiah had expressed the sense that the disasters ex
perienced by the northern tribes from the Assyrian
inroad would not be permanent, but that the victories
of the expected Son of David would restore to them
freedom and prosperity, Isaiah had, it is true, referred
to the Messiah, but to the Messiah very erroneously un
derstood ; nor can his words be construed as contain
ing any allusion to a residence of the Messiah in the
territory of Zebulon and Naphtali, Matthew, too,
knew much more familiarly than we, that to dwell at
Capernaum would not be the fulfilment of a predic
tion of dwelling " beyond Jordan," inasmuch as Ca
pernaum was not on the side of the river denoted by
the use of those words. He had no idea of represent
ing the residence of Jesus at Capernaum as the accora
plishment of a prediction. He had no idea that Isaiah
had predicted a residence of the Messiah at that or at
any other place. Isaiah had spoken of an illumina
tion of the northern territory by the dawn of a politi
cal deliverance, Matthew takes part of his words,
and applies them to the appearance, in that country,
of a light of very different nature.

56 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 17.
IV. 17.
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, " Repent, for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
The ideas associated by the Jews with this expres
sion were, as we have seen (above, pp. 46 - 48), quite
erroneous. " They expected a new Jewish empire to
be established on a more stable and glorious footing
than the old. It was to be established and administered
under heavenly protection by the Son of David, the
Messiah. He was to be a valiant, politic, and mag
nificent prince, successful in his wars, and exalting his
subjects to a temporal supremacy over the nations.
The humble Jesus of Nazareth was no such prince.
His office was to establish no such dominion. His
was to be not a worldly, but a spiritual sway. Yet,
because he came to set up a kingdom, a kingdom
under heavenly protection, the only kingdom which
was to be looked for, and the very authority which
had been pointed at by Moses in words which later
ages had misunderstood, he did not hesitate to begin
his ministry with the declaration, ' The kingdora of
heaven is at hand,' and to repeat the same and similar
language through its whole course. ' The kingdom
of heaven ' was at hand, though in a sense different
from what had been understood, and in one which it
remained for him to explain." (" Lectures," «&c., Vol.
IL p. 383.) V. 2-10.
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, " Blessed
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteous
ness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Flere we have the first recorded attempt of Jesus
to disabuse hi^ Jewish hearers of the errors which,

V. 2-10.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 57
through false habits of thought, they had derived from
their Scriptures. Here he begins to explain to them
that there was to be no such " kingdom of heaven "
as they had been looking for, but that Heaven was
about to establish a dominion over men, and a society
among men, of a very different kind.
The people, from whom Jesus had now collected an
audience, were anxiously expecting, like their fathers
before them, a " kingdom of heaven." They were
right in their expectation of such a dominion, but they
greatly misconceived its nature. The ancient sages of
their nation, — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, and the
rest, — adopting, from age to age, the notions of their
time, had greatly misconceived it. Jesus had an
nounced its approach to delighted ears (iv. 17, 23).
Now he first proceeds to explain in what it would
consist. It was to be an empire over the human soul.
It would collect, form, and rule over a community of
humble, meek, raerciful raen, men pure in heart, stu
dious of peace, schooled by trial, hungering and thirst
ing for goodness.
Let us endeavor to place ourselves in the midst of
that assembly to which Jesus made his first long
address. How must the heart of every Jew have
swelled with pride and hope to hear the announce
ment, that that great revolution was near which he
expected would make Jerusalem the seat of a splendid
empire, — the Son of David, the conqueror, the glory
and delight of all nations, — and the meanest Israelite
an object of the trerabling veneration of subdued and
humbled Gentiles ! How greedily must his selfishness
have fed itself on the anticipation of a share in the
authority and magnificence of the kingdom about to
be established ! And, indignant as he was at the bur
dens, and still more at the insolence, of a Roman

58 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [V. 2-10.
domination, how must he have exulted in the thought
that the time, not only for his emancipation, but for
his revenge, was close at hand ! When multitudes
frora all the districts of the Holy Land had collected
about him who had uttered this long and anxiously
expected summons, and drawn the eyes of all to him
by wonderful works of power and mercy, and when,
as if to take advantage of their enthusiasm, and place
himself at their head, he was seen, surrounded by his
special attendants, to go up into a mountain, and dis
pose himself into an attitude to address the crowd,
with what an intensely excited expectation must every
bosom have throbbed ! With what a painful curiosity
must the first words he should utter have been awaited !
And what must have been the surprise and disappoint
ment which succeeded, when those first words were
heard : " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven " !
Yet, while giving such a shock to their fixed pre
possessions and ambitious hopes, — while revolting all
their notions of a heavenly kingdom, drawn from the
revered writings of " them of old time," — I think we
may see that Jesus designed to break the force of the
blow, by hinting that the view Avhich he was present
ing was not without warrant from those same Old
Testament Scriptures which it seemed to oppose. To
this end, not a little of the phraseology employed by
him on this occasion appears to have been framed.
(For instances, comp. Matt. v. 3 with Ps. li. 17, Is.
Ixi. 1, Ixvi. 2 ; Matt. v. 4 with Ps. cxxvi. 5, Prov.
xiv. 13, Eccles. ii. 2, iii. 4, Is. xxii. 12, 13, xxxv.
10, Ivii. 10, 18, Ixi. 2; Matt. v. 5 with Ps. xxxvii. 11,
Ixxvi. 9, cxlix. 4, Is. Ivii. 13 ; Matt, v, 6 with Ps.
xvii. 15, xxxvii. 25, xlii. 2, Ixiii, 1, Is. Iv. 1, Ixv.
13 ; Matt. v. 7 with Ps. xxxvii. 25, 26, xii. 1, Prov.

V. 17.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 59
xiv. 21, xix, 17; Matt, v. 8 with Ps. xxiv. 3, 4,
Ixxiii. 1, Is. xxxiii. 15, 16.) V. 17.
Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets ;
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
A caution very necessary, after what Jesus had been
saying of the nature of that institution which was
about to be set up in the world, so different from that
military and magnificent " kingdom of heaven " which
his hearers had been expecting. In every age, he who
explains the Scriptures in their right sense, and ex
hibits them in their true position, exposes himself to
the charge of aiming to " destroy," instead of to " ful
fil" them. Reasoning unskilfully upon the contents
of their sacred books, the Jews appealed to them in
support of very pernicious errors. When Jesus an
nounced great truths which contradicted those errors,
he knew that in the rainds of his hearers he incurred
a suspicion, which he repelled in the words quoted
above. He came, he said, not, as (frora the freedom
with which he had spoken) might be supposed, to de
ride, relax, or annul the ancient Scriptures, but, on
the contrary, to fulfil, to coraplete, to carry out their
object. The great object of their inspired lawgiver,
Moses, had been, to introduce into the world right
conceptions of the character and authority of God,
and the principles of virtuous conduct. The object of
those wise and good (if not supernaturally inspired)
men, the prophets, had been, in their day and gen
eration, to serve the sarae great cause of truth and
righteousness. His aira was identical with theirs.
His raission was to accomplish their proposed object,
far more effectually and thoroughly than they had
succeeded in doing, or had so much as attempted to

60 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [V. 22.
do (v. 18 - 20). He was not their opponent, but their
more powerful co-worker, — their successor, rather, in
a much higher sphere of the same labor. And, for
present samples of the way in which it would be his
office to " fulfil " the ancient teachers, by extending
their narrow, and deepening their superficial discipline,
he shows how his system of morality, in respect to
the angry passions (ibid. 21-26), to the animal ap
petites (ibid. 27 - 30), to conjugal faith (ibid. 31, 32),
to religious reverence (ibid. 33-37), and to the mag
nanimity of gentleness, the obligations of human
brotherhood (ibid. 38-48, vii. 12), transcended and
matured the best rules with which the devotees of the
Law and the prophets were acquainted.
It is obvious to remark, that, if Jesus had come to
fulfil " the prophets " in the erroneous popular sense
in which the Messiah was then, as now, expected to
fulfil them, this was the time and place to declare it.
V. 22.
I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother with
out a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment : and who
soever shall say to his brother, " Raca," shall be in danger
of the council : but whosoever shall say, " Thou fool," shall
be in danger of hell-fire.
'¦'¦ Hell fire." Literally, the gehenna of fire, or the
fiery gehenna. Gehenna [yeewa) is merely a represen
tation in Greek letters of two Hebrew words, signify
ing " the valley of Hinnom " (DiH K^J), a valley
under Mount Zion and the southern wall of the city
of Jerusalem. We first read of it in the Book of
Joshua (xv. 8), In the times of the kings it became the
scene of the idolatrous worship of Moloch, (1 Kings
xi, 7 ; 2 Kings xvi. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxviii, 3 ; xxxiii. 6 ;
Jer. xix. 2; xxxii. 35.) Josiah desecrated the place

V. 22.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 61
(2 Kings xxiii. 10, 13), after which tirae it became a
receptacle for the filth of the city, and the dead bodies
of animals and of executed malefactors were thrown
there. The worms and other reptiles, bred in this
putrid matter, added to the loathsome aspect of the
place, and from time to time fires were kindled to keep
the nuisance in check, which would smoulder as long
as the combustible substance lasted. So its " worm
died not," and its " fire was not quenched."
By the judgment (kpIo-k) indicated in the words
"shall be in danger of the judgment" (v. 21), was
indicated the local tribunal of inferior magistrates,
seven in number, according to Josephus ("Antiq. Jud.,"
Lib. IV. cap. viii. § 14 ; comp. 2 Chron. xix. 5 - 7),
established in each city. Our Lord, commenting upon
the rules which he quotes, takes this "judgment" for
the lowest term of the climax by which he illustrates
the truth, that not only are raen responsible for their
acts, but also for their words and even their feelings,
and that their responsibility will rise from less to
greater in proportion to the aggravation of their of
fence. The "judgment" was the local magistracy.
The " council," or Sanhedrim (o-vveBplov), was the au
gust central court at Jerusalem, composed of the high-
priest and seventy assessors (" Antiq. Jud.," Lib. IX.
cap. i. § 1 ; comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. p. 342,
note t ; 2 Chron. xix. 8-11), and charged with the
more important functions of judicature. The " fiery
Gehenna " was the odious grave to which the victims
of capital execution were consigned. Our Lord cer
tainly did not mean to say literally, that whoever
should harbor a vindictive thought would be punished
by the municipal magistrates (for how would those
magistrates find it out 1) ; or that he who should use
harsh language of reproach should be dealt with by
6

62 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [VH. 21,
the supreme council. No more did he mean to declare,
that he who should be carried so far by his anger as
to insult his brother with yet more offensive taunts,
should be condemned to the Gehenna of fire, in any
literal sense of that phrase. He meant to announce
that raen were responsible for all their offences, of
feeling and speech as well as action, in the measure of
the aggravation of those offences respectively; and
this sentiment he clothed in figurative language, drawn
naturally from the phraseology of that doctrine on
which he was commenting. (Comp. Wetsten. " Nov.
Test.," Tom. L p. 299.) VII. 21.
Not every one that saith unto me, " Lord, Lord," shall enter into
the kingdora of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Fa
ther which is in heaven.
Another step of progress in the exposition of the
nature of the new institution about to be established
under Divine auspices. Its subjects were not to be
such as should merely be willing to hail Jesus as their
commander, but such as should be disposed to devote
themselves to a life of universal obedience to God's
will. VIII. 4.
Jesus saith unto him, " See thou tell no man ; but go thy way,
show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift, that Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them."
The Mosaic Law was not yet superseded, and Jesus
turned the grateful feelings of the cured leper into a
religious channel, by bidding hira remember the re
ligious acknowledgment which that Law prescribed.
(Lev. xiv. 1-32; comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. pp.
275 - 277.) A further object probably was, that, by
the official declaration of the priest, all doubt might

vin. 16, 17.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 63
be silenced as to the reality and corapleteness of the
cure ; and the direction, " See thou tell no raan, but
go thy way," was given lest the priests, hearing of the
miracle which had been wrought, and wishing to dis
credit it, should be disinclined to do the leper justice,
and declare him cleansed. The direction, " See thou
tell no man," was perhaps further designed to guard
against inconvenience, to which Jesus was sometimes
exposed, from the curiosity of crowds. (Comp. Mark
i. 45.) VIII. 11, 12.
Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down
with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of
heaven ; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out
into outer darkness.
Still another step in the exj)lanation of the nature
of the new institution about to be introduced. Under
the figure of admission to and exclusion from a festive
entertainment, Jesus declares that the privileges of
the coming kingdom are by no means to belong to
God's anciently chosen people as such, according to
the churlish doctrine of their bigoted nationality ;
that not only were the despised and hated Gentiles,
from all quarters of the world, to be invited into it on
an equality with the revered patriarchs of their own
race, but that even the (so esteemed) natural heirs,
men of Jewish blood, would be denied a place if they
brought no better title to admission than that founded
on their ancestry. While the illuminated festivity
was proceeding within, they would be left in the damp
and cold darkness outside. VIII. 16, 17.
He cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were
sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias

64 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [Vm. 16, 17.
the prophet, saying, " Himself took our infirmities, and bare
our sicknesses."
The sense of the Hebrew of this passage (Is Iiii. 4),
as correctly rendered by Dr. Noyes, is, " He bore our
diseases, and carried our pains." The English of the
corresponding Septuagint Greek is, " He bears our
sins, and is pained for us." Our translation of the
words, in the quoted form, scarcely represents the force
of the last verb. One of the meanings of Matthew's
word rendered " bare " (e^aa-raa-e) is took away, re-
moved ; and there can be no doubt, from the connection,
that this was the sense which Matthew had in view,
and that he made his translation to accoramodate that
sense. The corresponding Hebrew word (75p) will
indifferently bear to have that sense put upon it, any
where. But even if it will, nothing can be clearer
than that, in the connection in which it stands in the
passage quoted from Isaiah, it has no such significa
tion. In short, the passage, understood agreeably to
its context as it stands in the work from which it is
extracted, — that is, understood in its true meaning,
— adraitted of no application of any kind to the case
to which Matthew applies it. To raake it susceptible
of such an application, he gave a new turn to it by a
peculiar translation ; — a course quite unexceptionable
if it was only rhetorical embellishment that was in
tended, but quite inconsistent with the supposition of
Matthew's having intended to assert, in the words
" that it might be fulfilled," that the writer of the
passage quoted had a supernatural prescience of the
proceedings of Jesus.
Another remark very important to be made upon
this passage is, that another Apostle (1 Pet. ii. 24) re
fers to the same words which are here quoted by Mat
thew, and uses them in a wholly different sense. If

vin. 20.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 65
Matthew meant to represent them as containing a su
pernatural prediction of the works of healing done by
Jesus, was he right in that interpretation, or was Peter
right, who put them to an entirely different use 1 Both
were right ; but they can only be shown to be so, by
rejecting the preposterous comraon theory of quota
tions. Neither intended to adduce the words as con
taining supernatural prediction which in time had
been verified. Both meant to make an accommodation
of them, in the way of a well-authorized and familiar
ornament of style. One made one accomraodation of
them ; the other, another. Each put the words to his
own use ; both did it with equal propriety ; and there
is no contradiction between thera, as there would have
been a most palpable one, if one had designed to say
that the words in their original sense related to one
event, and the other that they related to another.
VIII. 20.
The Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
The phrase Son of man occurs not far frora seventy
times in the Gospels, being, in every instance except
one (John xii. 34), used by Jesus respecting himself ;
and this one does not in fact constitute an exception,
since it is merely a repetition of the words of Jesus
by those with whom he is conversing. The text before
us, being the first in which the title occurs, presents
the question respecting its import.
The phrase son of man, as used in the Old Testa
ment, is commonly equivalent to man simply. So it is
used by Elihu in the Book of Job (xxxv. 8) : " Thy
wickedness may hurt a man as thou art, and thy right
eousness may profit the son of man." So by the
Psalmist (viii. 4) : " What is man, that thou art mind
ful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him \ "
6*

66 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [VHI. 20.
(Comp. instar omnium, Prov. viii. 4; Is. li. 12; Jer, li.
43,) There is, however, an occasional antithesis be
tween two forms of the Hebrew (t^'^N 'J? and DIN 'J^),
both rendered literally, in English, sons of men, cor
responding to the distinction between the two words
signifying man (tJ"N and DIN), in respect to the
greater dignity implied by the former. In a Psalm
(xlix, 2) this is expressed in our version by the words
" low " and " high," (Corap, Ps, Ixxxii. 7 ; Is. ii. 9 ;
V, 15.) The form here rendered "high" (ST'N |5)
is very rarely found ; the other (DIK f5) occurs
very frequently, especially in the Book of Ezekiel,
where it is the constantly repeated form of address
to that prophet. (See Ezek. ii. 1 ; iii. 1 ; iv. 1 ; v.
1, &c.)
Agreeably to this, it has been a common opinion of
critics, that Jesus, in habitually applying the title to
hiraself, intended to call himself a man, or a man i'n
humble condition ; and there have been other explana
tions, which I pass over, such as that son of [the] man
means son of Adam, or second Adam, or son of David, or
second David. 1 regard the phrase as having, as used
by Jesus, a more specific meaning, and as containing
a reference to a form of conception and of speech de
rived from (or at least according with) a passage in
the Book of Daniel (vii. 13, 14), where it is said, "I
saw in the night visions, and behold, one like a [or
the] son of man came with the clouds of heaven," &c.
In these words the subject in the writer's contempla
tion was the coming of the Messiah to establish the
kingdom of heaven. Occurring in a passage of such
brilliancy, the phrase son of man, though by no means
sufficiently specific in its meaning to be restricted into
a designation of the Messiah, yet was likely to take a
place among those titles which might properly be ap-

Vni 20.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 67
plied to him. And the probability that such was our
Lord's reference, when he used it, is greatly strength
ened by his allusions, in connection with it, to parts of
the context in Daniel's prophecy. Thus to Caiaphas
Jesus said, " Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sit
ting on the right hand of power, and coming in the
clouds of heaven." (With Daniel vii. 13, 14, comp.
Matt, xxv. 31, 32, Luke ix. 26 ; also. Acts vii. 56,
Apoc. xiv. 14.)
But supposing this to be well founded, the question
occurs. How could Jesus, from an early period of his
ministry, use a title suitable to the office of Messiah,
when he did not distinctly present himself even to his
Apostles in that character, till a time not long preced
ing his crucifixion % I answer, that the title Son of
man, though, for the reasons which have been pre
sented, suitable to be applie4 to the Messiah, was not
confined to that use, was not appropriated, was not
peculiar to the Messiah ; and therefore did not neces
sarily imply any pretensions, on the part of him who
assumed it, to that character. That it admitted of
being understood as synonymous with the title Christ,
appears clearly from such a text as this (John xii. 34) :
" We have heard out of the Law that Christ abideth
for ever, and how sayest thou, ' The Son of man must
be lifted up ' *? " But that, on the other hand, it did
not require to be so understood, seeras to be recognized
in the question which Jesus put to his disciples (Matt.
xvi. 13), "Whom do raen say that I, the Son of man,
ara ¦? " leaving it undeterrained what character was de
noted by the title. On the whole, the truth appears
to be, that the same reasons which dictated the reserve
maintained in other respects by Jesus, as to an assump
tion of the character of Messiah, till a late period of
his ministry, made it fit that, in the selection of a title.

68 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [IX. 13.
he should avoid such as would preraaturely provoke
the hostility of his countryraen by a too plain annun
ciation of his claim, while, on the other hand, it should
be such, that, after his crucifixion, his disciples, re
calling his language to their minds, raight see that that
claim had, frora the first to the last, been consistently,
though not offensively, put forward. The designation
Son of man suited both these objects, and it was the
only one which suited them. It was a fit title of the
Messiah ; but in Scripture and in common life it was
familiarly used in a less definite sense. They who be
lieved Jesus to be that personage would understand
him as giving an intimation to that effect, as often as
he called himself the Son of man ; while his negligent
or unbelieving hearers would attribute no peculiar
force to the expression, to the seditiously disposed so
indefinite a phrase would not sound as a fit watch
word of rebellion, and his adversaries, on the eager
watch for some proof to convict him of disloyal de
signs, would have no pretence for founding upon it a
charge against him. Possibly the title may have been
further recommended to his use, as being the most
modest and humble among those open to his election.
IX. is".
Go ye and learn what that meaneth, " I will have mercy, and
not sacrifice."
Hosea (vi. 6) had in the words here quoted repre
sented Jehovah as declaring his preference of humane
dispositions over ritual observances. Jesus presents
that sound principle, as announced in the authoritative
words of the prophet, to the consideration of those
Pharisees who had cavilled at his benevolent concern
for publicans and sinners. I submit that we should
understand Jesus as conveying a rebuke to the Phari-

X. 25.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 69
sees, as well as justifying himself As to the self-
justification, that benevolence which had prompted his
intercourse with men whom others despised, was de
clared, in the text quoted, to be approved by God above
external worship. As to the rebuke of the Pharisees,
it is as if he had said : When you corae to understand
the force of Hosea's words, you will see that, attentive
as you are to " sacrifice," your censorious question con
victs you of failure in that " mercy " which in God's
sight is better. X. 15.
It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Go
morrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
The use of- a proverbial expression like this cannot
be considered as any voucher for the truth of the an
cient relations (Gen. xviii. 20, xix. 24) of the guilt
and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When I
say that a place is " as dark as Erebus," I do not mean
to answer for the existence of Erebus.
X. 23.
Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son
of man be come. »
This text, I think, confirms beyond reasonable ques
tion the account given above (see pp. 65 - 68) of the
origin and import of the title, Son of man. I suppose
this expression of his coming cannot be well explained
on any other hypothesis. What is meant by the com
ing of the Messiah, I shall endeavor to show hereafter.
(See below, pp. 88 - 91.) X. 25.
If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub.
A name of vague but fierce reproach, which the

70 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [X. 35, 36.
Jews borrowed from an idol of the Philistines. (Comp.
2 Kings i. 2, 16.) X. 35, 36.
I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes shall be they of
his own household.
In declaring what he foresaw as an immediate con
sequence of the introduction of his Gospel, Jesus
availed himself of words of the prophet Micah (vii.
6), originally used by that writer in a connection and
sense altogether different. The turn of phrase in
which he announces the effect, not the design, of his
preaching, (" I am come to set a man at variance," &c.,)
illustrates the import of such forms of language, as
explained above. (See pp. 26 - 28.)
XL 2-6.
When John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he
sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, " Art thou he
that should come, or do we look for another } " Jesus an
swered and said unto them, " Go and show John again those
things which ye do hear and see : the blind receive their
sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the
Gospel preached to them ; and blessed is he whosoever shall
not be offended in me."
That Jesus was " he that should come " (comp. John
vi. 14), John had already the fullest assurance (John i.
29 - 34). His message to Jesus was not one of in
quiry, but of remonstrance. Respecting the character
and office of hira " that should corae,"" John shared in
the erroneous views of his countrymen, views from
which even the daily companions of Jesus had not yet
escaped. He heard of " the works of Christ" and he

XI. 2-6.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 71
argued from them that Jesus was intending presently
to assume the magnificence and power which belonged
to that exalted dignity. He heard of them " in the
prison," from which he regarded them as a promise of
speedy release for hiraself, as one of the triumphant
Messiah's friends. But no Messiah was yet manifested
in his overpowering greatness. The prison doors of
John were not yet thrown open. And he became im
patient, perplexed, scandalized, as Jesus himself im
plies (Matt. xi. 6). His raessage I consider as equiva
lent to "this: Being the Messiah, as you are, how is it
that you do not forthwith assert your prerogatives and
protect your suffering friends 1 how is it that you so
conduct yourself as might tempt one to think that
after all the Messiah is not yet born 1
Jesus did not give a categorical answer. He could not
give such an answer to the messengers of John, without
casting off that reserve, as to a proclamation of himself
in the character of the Messiah, to which he adhered
nearly down to the time of his last journey to Jeru
salera. His reply was, in effect : Observe these mira
cles of mine, and report them to John ; and then let
John and his disciples judge for themselves who I am,
and whether I can be trusted to mark out my own
course, without prompting or animadversion from him.
If I do not yet testify of myself, these mighty works
which I am doing testify of me. If I do not yet pro
claim what cliaracter 1 bear, let John judge, when he
hears of them, whether it is fear, or want of power,
that restrains me. Let him consider whether they do
not show me competent to determine on my own
method of proceeding, and whether he will not do
well to be more modest and patient, and to cease being
" offended in me,"
Expressions in the reply of Jesus to John's disci-

72 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XI. 10.
pies have a certain similarity to what occur in different
passages of the Book of Isaiah (xxxv. 5, 6, xlii. 7,
Ixi. 1), where the subject is the return of the people
from captivity. (Comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. III.
pp. 230, 242, 267.) But the language of Jesus needs
no other explanation, than that it was naturally and
properly descriptive of his deeds ; nor do I think it
by any raeans clear, that he was in any way referring
to those passages. If there was such a reference, it
was only in the way of a combination of words, which
naturally arose in the memory from familiarity with
the language of old Scripture, or at most was an ac
commodation, of the kind of which we have already
seen several instances, of words that had been used
by a well-known writer in one sense, to another sense
in which they might be correctly applied.
XI. 10.
This is he of whom it is written, " Behold, I send my messen
ger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before
thee."
These words are quoted (not exactly, but with ad
ditions and changes) from the prophecy of Malachi
(iii. 1 ; comp. "Lectures," &c.. Vol. IIL p. 501). It
is quite remarkable that those Christian expositors
who are the most earnest for the theory of the super
natural foreknowledge of the Jewish prophets are in
the habit of interpreting this passage as a prediction
by Malachi of Jesus hiraself, as the " messenger of the
covenant," and not as a prediction of John, his fore
runner, though the latter is what the language of
Jesus, if taken with the literalness usually contended
for, would declare it to be. I think it is plain enough
that Malachi, when he used the words, had in view the
expected Messiah, according to that conception which

XI. 13.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 73
was current in his time, and that Jesus applied the
words to John in the same way of accommodation, in
which Matthew, using almost the same form of intro
duction (" This is he that was spoken of," Matt. iii. 3),
had applied to John certain words of Isaiah, which in
their original sense had no relation to him. (See above,
p. 48.) John was a messenger, sent to prepare the
Lord's way, and, so far, words originally used as descrip
tive of the Messiah were applicable to John. I here
repeat the remark, for it is of leading importance, that,
had the intention been to refer, in the text quoted, to
supernatural prediction fulfilled, the quotation would
have been made with exactness, instead of with the
variations which we actually find. Otherwise, the
standard of comparison of the event with the predic
tion would be wanting. XI. \SS
All the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
I pause upon this text, in order to ask attention to
a necessary remark on the meaning of the word
prophesy (irpotprjrevei.v) in the New Testament. It some
times means simply to look forward, to contemplate the
future, without at all involving the idea of the fore
sight in question being of a supernatural kind. In
this sense, I may be said with perfect propriety to
prophesy that it will be fair or foul weather to-morrow,
when I have no other knowledge on the subject than
any one may have from observing the temperature of
the air, and the face of the sky. So Cicero said
(" Epist. ad Divers.," Lib. VI. Epist. 6) : " Nothing
unfortunate happened in that war, without my having
predicted it " (non prsedicente me) ; and again (" De
Senectute," § 14), " How did it delight Gallus to pre
dict (praedicere) eclipses of the sun and moon!" I
7

74 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XI. U.
understand our Lord here to say: As the divinely
revealed Law of Moses had reference to that better
institution, the future kingdom of heaven, so the
wise men who lived and wrote under it, with whatever
intermingled errors, also constantly contemplated that
great coming revolution in human affairs. The tirae
for looking forward to the kingdom of heaven is now
at an end. The kingdom of heaven is at hand, and
John has been its forerunner, XI. 14.
If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come.
If this declaration of Jesus were all our informa
tion upon the subject, those interpreters who have for
the most part been the guides of Christians would
have' insisted that there had been a metempsychosis,
by which Elijah had reappeared in the person of John
the Baptist. Frora that conclusion we are saved by
John's own recorded declaration : " They asked him,
' What then 1 art thou Elias 1 ' and he saith, ' I am
not,' " (John i, 21,) Jesus refers in the text before us
to an opinion entertained by his countrymen. Whether
Malachi hiraself supposed or not that there would be
a personal appearance of Elijah preceding that of the
Messiah, when he represented Jehovah as saying
(iv. 5), " Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet,"
&c., it was thus that the Jews understood him, and on
those words of his they grounded their own expecta
tion of such an apparition, Jesus tells them that
John was the only Elijah that was to come ; in other
words, that no Elijah at all was to come, but that John
was to him what they erroneously supposed that Eli
jah would be to the Messiah, " If ye will receive it,"
said he, according to our English translation. He ap
proached them with great caution, to contradict one

xn. 3, 4.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 75
out of the endless variety of their mistakes drawn
from their dull and superstitious views of the Old
Testament. If they had been prepared to " receive
it," if they had been " able to bear it " (corap. John
xvi. 12 ; 1 Cor. iii. 2), if their rainds had been in such
a state that he could have instructed them further con
cerning their Scriptures without altogether repelling
them, it may be presumed that he would have refuted
many of those errors which have been transmitted
from those Jewish trifiers to our day, to be the distress,
the hinderance, and the shame of Christians.
Or we may change the pronoun supplied in the ver
sion, and render the words, " If ye will receive him."
In this case they will import. If ye wish to receive
Elijah, if ye wish to welcome the Messiah's forerunner
whom ye look for, recognize that forerunner in John ;
no other will you see. XI. 23.
If the mighty works which have been done in thee had been
done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
I have indicated what I understand by references
of this kind. (Comp. p. 69.) When I say that one or
another is not the person to bend the bow of Ulysses
or solve the riddle of the Sphinx, I do not expect to
make myself answerable for the truth of the fables of
Homer and Sophocles. XII. 3, 4.
He said unto them, " Have ye not read what David did when
he was an hungred, and they that were with him ; how he
entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew-bread,
which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which
were with him, but only for the priests ? "
I call attention to this passage, merely as containing
a clear instance of an argumentum ad hominem, and

76 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XIL 7.
showing that this was a kind of argument which Je
sus did in fact use. Taking the question raised by
the Jews as an abstract question of religion and mo
rality, Jesus might have justified his disciples on much
higher grounds than that of David's example, (Comp.
1 Sam. xxi. 1-6.) He did not need the example of
David for his or their justification. The argument
which he used was only suitable to silence cavil, and
to that end it was eminently suitable. If Jesus might
properly use such a line of argument in this case,
so he might in others ; as we shall see that he ac
tually did. XII. 7,
If ye had known what this meaneth, " I will have mercy, and
not sacrifice," ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
See above, p. 68. The application which Jesus
appears here to make of the quotation is this : Those
whom you accuse do no more than transgress against
the ritual ; you, who condemn those guiltless persons,
sin against mercy, which Hosea, in so many words,
places above the ritual. XII. 17.
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by [or tra] Esaias
the prophet.
I suppose Isaiah not to have been the author of the
passage quoted (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. pp. 237,
238) ; a fact which I esteem to be perfectly consistent
with the use of his name in such a reference as is here
made. (See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. pp. 235, 236 ;
Vol. IV. pp. 258, 259, 414.)

xn. 18-21.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 77
Xn. 18-21.
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen ; my beloved, in whom
my soul is well pleased : I will put my spirit upon him, and
he shall show judgment to the Gentiles ; he shall not strive,
nor cry ; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he
not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in
his name shall the Gentiles trust.
This quotation from the prophecy of Isaiah (xlii.
1-4) accords precisely with neither the Hebrew nor
the Septuagint. It differs from both in omitting two
clauses before the last clause of the original, and in
substituting the words " beloved " and " victory" (Matt.
xii. 18, 20) for « elect" and " truth" (Is. xlii. 3). With
the Septuagint it differs from the Hebrew in reading
" his narae " instead of " his law " in the last clause.
(Comp. Is. xlii. 4 with Matt. xii. 21.) And with the
Hebrew it differs from the Septuagint in the first of
the verses quoted, where the latter reads, " Jacob, my
servant, I will uphold him, Israel, my chosen, my soul
hath adopted him."
The Septuagint translators here allowed themselves
in too free a rendering ; but I conceive that they had
a right apprehension of the purport of the passage.
I think that the context clearly shows the original
writer (as those translators understood hira) to have
here intended by the titles "ray servant" and "ray
chosen," not the expected Messiah, but the chosen
people of Israel. (See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. p.
241.) In a sense different from the original sens^
parts of the passage are applicable to the office, and
part to the temporary forbearance and reserve, of
Jesus ; and to these, accordingly, Matthew makes a
graceful application of them, never dreaming that he
should come to be understood as declaring that an
7*

78 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN TEE [XU. 32.
ancient writer had intended to describe a particular
feature of Christ's conduct, and that in words suited
to describe it at best very vaguely.
XII. 32.
Neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
World I take to be an altogether erroneous trans
lation of the Greek word (alcov) which it here repre
sents. For want of a better English representative,
that word may be -rendered time, or age, or period.
But its meaning, in Jewish use, is specific. The word
dispensation, not at all its equivalent etymologically,
is in signification, for the raost part, convertible with
it. In the Jewish acceptation, if I understand it,
the present age (o ala>v ovto<;, nill D/I^n) means the
tirae antecedent to the expected Messiah's advent, and
the future age (o alav fieXXmv, KSH D 7iyn) means
the coming time (the tirae which, till the Christian
era, was future) of the Messiah's reign. These two
periods, that which was passing, and that which was to
come, comprehended all time but what was past ; and
accordingly, to say, in this sense, " Neither in this age,
neither in the age to come," was the same as to say,
" Never, at any tirae." The tirae erabraced in the two
periods they called " the ages " (ot alS)ve<;), or " the
times of the ages " (^povoi, alavioi). The time preced
ing both periods was " the time before the ages " (tt/jo
TOiv al(ova>v, or "rrpo ¦x^povav almvleov) ; or the latter form
(xpovoi alwvioi, quasi " the dispensation times ") may de
note the times of the. Jewish dispensation. (By its
etymology, the word 0^')^, derived from Dl^, be con
cealed, appears to denote an unascertained, indefinite
tirae. The priraitive meaning of alcov, in classical
Greek, is a space, or period of time. See Liddell and
Scott's Lexicon, ad verb. For its Scriptural use, and

xn. 40, 41.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 79
that of its derivatives, as above defined, observe the
connections in which they occur in Tob. xiv. 5 ; Acts
iii. 21; Rora. xvi. 25; 1 Cor. ii. 7, x. 11; Eph. iii.
9, 11 ; Col. i. 26; 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2; Heb. ix. 26.
And for further illustration of the phrases see Bret
schneider, " Lex, N, T." in voc. ala>v (§ 3) ; Schottgen.
" Dissert. II. De Sec. Hoc et Fut." in " Hor. Hebraic,"
&c.. Vol. L pp. 1153-1158; Buxtorf. "Lex, Chal
daic, Talmudic, et Rabbinic." ad voc. ; Bertholdt's
" Christologia," §11; Koppe, "Nov. Test.," Tom.
VL pp. 138 et seq.) XII. 38.
Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered,
saying, " Master, we would see a sign from thee."
" A sign from heaven," as it is elsewhere more fully
expressed (Matt. xvi. 1 ; Mark viii. 11 ; Luke xi. 16),
was what the Jews of our Lord's time had fixed in
their minds as that proof of his claim which the Messi
ah ought to exhibit ; just as they read that Moses, the
giver of the Law, had shown a " sign from heaven "
in the supply of manna (Exod. xvi. 15 ; comp. John
vi. 30, 31), and Elijah, the restorer of the Law, in the
fire that consumed his sacrifice (1 Kings xviii. 38),
and that protected him when assailed (2 Kings i. 10,
12 ; comp. Luke ix. 54). In the Book of Daniel, too,
the Son of raan was represented (vii. 13 ; corap. Matt.
xxiv. 3, 30) as coming " with the clouds of heaven."
XII. 40, 41.
As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly,
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in
judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it ; because
they repented at the preaching of Jonas, and, behold, a greater
than Jonas is here.

80 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XIH. 13-15.
I have argued (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. pp. 464 -
474) that the Book of Jonah contains a fictitious his
tory. In opposition to this view of it, " some stress has
been laid upon our Lord's illustration of his entomb
ment during three days, by the confinement of Jonah
in the fish's body. Would Jesus, it is asked, have
made such a reference to what was not a real event 1
I ask, in return, Why not"? Who will maintain in
terms any such principle of interpretation as what
that argument rests upon 1 Who will pretend that,
consistently with all the uses of language, illustrations
may not be, and are not constantly, drawn from well-
known fictions, just as from well-known facts'? If,
even in the solemnity of pulpit discourse, a speaker
should exhort his audience to copy the kindness of
the Good Samaritan, or to avoid the reckless courses of
the Prodigal Son, would any one have a right to argue
that he considered what was on record of the Good
Samaritan and the Prodigal Son as historically true 1
Jesus bade his hearers imitate the Good Samaritan
(Luke X. 37 ; comp, xviii, 6) in language quite as
strong as that in which he compared his three days'
burial to Jonah's." (" Lectures," &c. Vol, IIL
p, 473.) Xin. 13-15.
They seeing, see not ; and hearing, they hear not ; neither do
they understand. And in thera is fulfilled the prophecy of
Esaias, which saith, " By hearing ye shall hear, and shall
not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not per
ceive ; for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears
are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed ; lest at
any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and shpuld understand with their heart, and should be
converted, and I should heal them."
" In them is fulfilled." For specimens of this and

xm. 34, 35.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 81
similar forms of introducing a quotation in the way of
accommodation, see above, pp. 28 et seq.
The following version of Dr. Noyes represents the
Hebrew original of the passage here quoted from
Isaiah (vi, 9, 10): —
" He [Jehovah] said,
' Go, and say thou to this people.
Hear ye indeed, but understand not.
See ye indeed, but perceive not ;
Make the heart of this people gross ;
Make their ears dull, and blind their eyes ;
That they may not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears.
Nor perceive with their hearts, and turn and be healed.' "
Judging from the connection in which they stand
in the Book of Isaiah (see " Lectures," &c., Vol. III.
p, 188), these words are in no possible sense a predic
tion of the state of mind of those hearers to whom
the Messiah would address himself They relate
solely to Isaiah and his contemporaries. But the
dulness and obduracy of the hearers of Jesus resem
bled the stupidity of the contemporaries of Isaiah,
Couched in the phrases of an old prophet, the rebuke
of them would fall with the more solemnity and force.
Jesus naturally avails himself of that resource for
impression. He says that the reproof uttered ages
ago is fulfilled, — that the description implied in it js
met, — in the inattentive Jews before him. His words,
as Matthew reports them, are almost precisely those of
the Septuagint version, which gives the passage in a
form better adapted than the Hebrew to the use dic
tated by the occasion. XIII. 34, 35.
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables, and
without a parable spake he not unto them ; that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, " I will

82 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XHL 34, 35.
open my mouth in parables, I will utter things which have
been kept secret from the foundation of the world."
The introduction to the words quoted is here in
form very precise. Jesus addressed the multitudes in
parables, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by an ancient writer when he said : " I will open my
mouth in parables," &c. If the accomplishment of
supernatural prediction is in any case to be inferred
from the mere force of such language, it would seem
that it must be inferred in the present instance. If,
in the present instance, other considerations forbid -us
to draw that argument frora it, then of course we
must give up the idea of founding it, in any instance,
upon such forms of introducing a quotation.
Jesus quotes certain words, declaring their author's
intention to " open his mouth in parables." He calls
their author a prophet. And he says that his own
speaking " in parables " /"w/^Wec^ the prophet's words. —
In what sense 1
We look for the passage quoted, and we find it in
one of the Psalras (Ixxviii. 2). Very clearly that
Psalm consists not at all of prediction, but, from first
to last, of history. The writer says that he means to
" utter dark sayings of old," and he proceeds with a
recapitulation of the principal events in the .Jewish
annals, from the Exodus to the age of David, He
does not at all appear as a prophet, in the sense in
which that word is now coraraonly understood by
readers of Scripture, He was a " prophet " in the
wider sense, the true Scriptural sense, which I have
explained elsewhere (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. II. pp,
368 - 371). He was a prophet, in the sense of being
an instructor of the people. As the writer of this
Psalm, he was a prophet, in the sense of being a poet,
Jesus taught in parables, and this he called a ful-

XV. 4.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 83
filment of the Psalraist's declaration of his own pur
pose to " open his mouth in parables." But the word
which the Psalmist actually used (Wq) is of a much
broader sense than parable. It raeans apothegm, prov
erb, and poem, as rauch as parable, " I will open my
mouth in a, poem," is Dr. Noyes's correct translation of
the clause ; and, in fact, throughout the psalra, there
is not a single instance of that particular form of com
position, the parable, which Matthew reports Jesus to
have repeatedly resorted to on this occasion, and which
he illustrates our Lord's use of by the language quoted
from the Psalmist, Who does not see that this is
simply rhetorical accommodation '? that it would be
merely preposterous to interpret Matthew as produ
cing the Psalmist's words for prediction, and declaring
them to be in that sense fulfilled 1 But if it be im
possible to take that view in the present instance,
where the quotation is introduced in terms so strong
and explicit, how is it possible in any case to found
that argument on the strength of such terms alone 1
XIII. 43.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun, in the kingdom
of their Father.
I think it probable that Jesus here had in raind lan
guage of the Book of Daniel (xii. 3), and used it in
accomraodation to his present purpose.
XV. 4.
God commanded, saying, " Honor thy father and mother."
The reference is to the fifth coraraandraent (Exod.
XX. 12), which is declared to have proceeded from
God, affirming, so far, the divine origin of the Law of
Moses.

84 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XV. 7-9.
XV. 7-9.
Well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, " This people honor-
eth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me ; but in
vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the com
mandments of men."
This is the rebuke of Jesus to certain " Scribes and
Pharisees, who were of Jerusalem" (Matt. xv. 1).
The passage referred to by him is from the prophecy
of Isaiah (xxix. 13). And it is worthy of remark, that
though the representation of Isaiah, literally taken,
would make it to be God that prophesied, Jesus says,
" Well did Esaias prophesy of you." This is dis
tinct confirmation, on our Lord's own authority, of
the explanation which I have given elsewhere of that
form of representation, by which the prophets exhibit
Jehovah as speaking. (See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. II.
pp, 391,415-417,)
" Therefore saith the Lord :
' Since this people draweth near to me with their mouth.
And honoreth me with their lips.
While their heart is far from me.
And their worship of me is according to the commandments of men.' "
It is plain that Isaiah had not here in view the con
temporaries of Jesus. He was not " prophesying " at
all in the sense of predicting. In the use of a well-
authorized device of poetry, he was rebuking his own
contemporaries by putting reproofs of them into the
mouth of Jehovah. (See " Lectures," &c., Vol. III.
p. 222.) Our Lord adopts his language, with omis
sions and alterations, and tells the hypocrites whom
he is addressing, that of thera Isaiah " prophesied "
when he used it ; — meaning clearly this, and no more,
that to them might be justly applied that writer's re
proachful comment on the dishonest pretenders of his
own time. The words used by Jesus more nearly re-

XVI. 13, 14.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 85
semble the Septuagint version than the Hebrew ; but
that circumstance in the present instance is imma
terial. XVI. 1.
The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting,
desired him that he would show them a sign from heaven.
In all their vagaries of opinion respecting their ex
pected Messiah, the Jews hS,d never entirely lost sight
of the original prediction of Moses concerning him,
that he should be " a prophet like unto himself" And
one particular of this likeness to Moses which they
expected to see was his exhibiting some " sign from
heaven," as they understood Moses to have done in the
supplies of manna (Exod. xvi. 4), at the giving of the
Law (ibid. xix. 18), at the manifestation to the elders
(ibid. xxiv. 9, 10), and at the consecration of the tab
ernacle (ibid. xl. 34). XVI. 4.
The sign of the prophet Jonas,
See above, p, 80,
XVL 13, 14.
When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he asked
his disciples, saying, " Whom do men say that I, the Son of
man, am .' " And they said, " Some say that thou art John
the Baptist ; some, Elias ; and others, Jeremias, or one of
the prophets."
Partly through a natural impulse of the imagination,
seeking to connect every circumstance of sacredness
and magnificence with the Messiah's advent, — partly
on the ground of intimations, worse or better under
stood, in their old Scriptures, — the opinion prevailed
among the Jews at the time of Jesus, that one or more
8

86 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVL 16.
of the ancient prophets would reappear as the Mes
siah's precursor. Malachi had said (iv. 5 ; comp.
Ecclus. xlviii. 10) that Jehovah would send "Elijah
the prophet before the coming of the great and dread
ful day of the Lord " ; and this statement they had not
only adopted literally, but had proceeded to improve
upon it in their usual style of embellishment. (See
Bertholdt, " Christolog. Jud.," § 15.) It was related
in the Second Book of Maccabees (ii. 1 - 8 ; comp. xv.
13-16), that, upon the demolition of the temple by
the Babylonians, Jeremiah had conveyed away and
buried " the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of
incense"; and the expectation was, that, as prepara
tory to the Messiah's reign, he would reappear to bring
them to light. From a text in the Book of Isaiah
(lii, 7) which speaks of "him (1.) that publisheth
peace, (2.) that bringeth good tidings of good, (3.) that
publisheth salvation," it seems to have been inferred
by some punctilious interpreters, that the Messiah's
governraent would have three heralds ; and from an
intimation in the more recent Second Book of Esdras
(ii. 18), it is probable that Isaiah himself was expected
to be one of them. XVL 16.
And Simon Peter answered and said, " Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said unto
him, " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona."
To US Jesus is properly the Christ in Peter's later
sense of being " anointed with the Holy Ghost and with
power " (Acts x, 38). But in the minds of the Jews,
and in that of Peter among the rest, at this time, the
word Christ stood for an idea to whieh the true char
acter and office of Jesus, the spiritual Saviour of
men, did not correspond. Yet Jesus, by approving

XVI. 16.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 87
the declaration of Peter, avowed himself to be the
Christ. The case here was the same as that of " the kins-
dom of heaven." The true kingdom of heaven had
come, though those who had expected it had misun
derstood its nature, and Jesus had a hard task to set
them right. So the expected benefactor had corae,
though those who expected hira had misconceived his
character. Erroneously as they had thought of hira,
" still it was of the illustrious individual in whom, the
patriarchs had been told, all nations of the earth should
be blessed, — of the pro'phet like unto himself, whom
Moses had foretold, — that they intended to speak.
Him, and no other, they had in their minds, however
imperfectly or incorrectly they apprehended him ; and
that person, and no other, Jesus was. As in the former
case, relating to his institution, so in the latter, relating
to himself, there was perfect propriety in his assertion
that what God had been expected to send was at length
sent, though in both cases the expectations which had
been entertained needed to be rectified  The Later
Prophets spoke of a great personage to corae under a
divine patronage, and, araong his other offices, they
described him as destined to extend the knowledge of
God, and advance the well-being of men ; and so far
they were right. Their imaginations had wrongly de
picted him as accomplishing these objects by the arts
of war and polity ; but this circumstance by no means
precluded the propriety of our Lord's declaring hira
self to be the person whora, however mistaken in their
description, they had in good faith intended to de
scribe." ("Lectures," &c, Vol, IL pp, 382-384;
comp. Vol, IV. pp. 276 - 278.)
That, through all the blinding prejudices of his own
times, sustained and consecrated as they were by the

88 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XVI. 21, 22.
erroneous representations of ancient venerated teachers
of the nation, Peter should have been able to see, in
the lowly Jesus, the prophet like unto himself of whom
Moses had spoken, was soraething to call for the burst
of commendation with which Jesus immediately ad
dressed him. " Flesh and blood " had not revealed to
him the truth which he proclaimed. The teachings
of flesh and blood in former ages, as well as in the
present, from the pen of David and Isaiah, no less
than from the lips of Scribes and Pharisees, had been
of a different tenor. It was no less than God's own
inspiration that had enlightened him to see through
the mists that had been raised to hide the great idea,
XVI. 21, 22.
From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and sufier many things
of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed,
and be raised again the third day ; then Peter took hira, and
began to rebuke him, saying, " Be it far from thee. Lord :
this shall not be unto thee."
When Peter was thus horrified by the information
that Jesus was to suffer and die, Jesus had just avowed
himself to be the Messiah (Matt. xvi. 17). It seems
to follow indubitably, that Peter did not, with modern
commentators, regard the language of Isaiah's prophecy
(lii. 13 -Iiii. 12) as an authorized prediction of a suf
fering and dying Messiah. XVI. 27, 28.
The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with
his angels, and then shall he reward every man according to
his works ; verily I say unto you, there be some standing
here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom.
This imagery I take to be derived from the Book of

XVI. 27, 28.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 89
Daniel (vii. 13, 14); or rather from the popular phrase
ology of the time, into which the Book of Daniel may
have originally introduced it, though it is quite as
likely that that book itself only adopted language
already in currency. It was necessary that Jesus, to
be understood by those to whom he offered his revela
tion, should address thera in forras of speech to which
they were accustoraed. Without announcing hiraself
on this occasion as the Messiah, which he was not as
yet prepared to do, he tells them, in the context, that
the kingdom, which, agreeably to their expectation, was
about to be set up by the Son of raan, was to be, differ
ently from their expectation, siraply a moral govern
ment ; that, instead of offering indulgence to ambition
and luxury, it would be of a nature to impose the se
verest self-denials, and the most unreserved self-sacri
fice; and that, from the time of its establishment in
the world, God would dispense retribution to men ac
cording to their works, and to nothing else. It would
not be descent from Abraham, as they thought, — it
would not be ceremonial observances, — that would
gain God's favor in the kingdora of his Son. The
times of past ignorance he overlooked (Acts xvii. 30).
But now the principles of a strict moral administra
tion were to be made known to men, and by those
principles all to whom the knowledge of thera should
corae were to control theraselves, and to be disposed
of by their Heavenly Judge. Such would be the king
dora in which the Son of man would come, the king
dom which the Son of man would found.
And, he adds, " there be some standing here which
shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom." There is a vague sense in
which the Son of man may be said to have come, the
kingdom of God to be set up, in the world, from the
8*

90 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XVI. 27, 28.
time that Jesus began to preach. But evidently there
is some stricter designation of time that is meant when
it is said that some of his present audience shall see
the Messiah's kingdom coming. To what point of
time does this language refer ¦?
In my opinion, to the time of the destruction of the
temple of Jerusalem. Such is the sense which we
seem obliged to gather from the connection of the
phrase in several other contexts, and such is the sense
often put upon the phrase by the commentators, though
I have not met with any satisfactory attempt to show
the propriety of this application of it, — or, in other
words, to show the identity or affinity between the two
ideas of the coraing of the Son of man, on the one
hand, and the destruction of the teraple of Jerusalem,
on the other.
The case I take to have been this : Judaism was to
be superseded by Christianity ; the religion of Moses
by the religion of Jesus. The substitution of the
Gospel for the Law was the establishment of " the
kingdom of heaven," the " coming of the Son of man."
The introduction of the Gospel was gradual. It began
when " Jesus began to preach," and it was continued
step by step with the labors of his Apostles. Still,
there was one definite time to be regarded as that when
Judaism was withdrawn and brought to an end, and
Christianity took its place ; and this I take to have
been the precise point of time when the legal sacrifices
finally ceased to be offered at the temple of Jerusalem,
that is, when that edifice was demolished by the Ro
mans. Judaism was then no more, for the ritual then
abolished was essential to it. Judaism from that mo
ment existed no longer, to obstruct, by the stupidity
and violence of its blind votaries, the progress of that
better faith for which it had been designed to prepare

XVn. 2, 3.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 91
the way. From that moraent, the kingdora of heaven
had come, though as yet only entering on its triumphs.
At that moment, Judaism being " taken out of the way"
(2 Thess. ii. 7), the Gospel being installed in its place
as God's method of religious adrainistration, the Son
of man came in his kingdom. Some, standing in
Jesus's presence at the time of the discourse now com
mented on, may well have seen that coraing of his
before they tasted of death, for it took place less than
forty years after. XVII. 2, 3.
And his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as
the light ; and behold, there appeared unto them Moses and
Elias, talking with him.
To understand the phenomenon called the Trans
figuration, it is necessary to observe the position of
Jesus and his Apostles at the time of its occurrence.
The Apostles had been attracted to Jesus by his mira
cles, and had come to indulge the hope that he would
prove to be the magnificent prince and soldier for
whom their nation had been looking. The longer
they had been associated with him, the raore confident
grew that hope, till at length the irapetuous Peter, in
reply to his Master's inquiry as to the character which
he was reputed to bear, announced his own persuasion
that verily Jesus was the Messiah (xvi. 16). Jesus
accepted the title, but immediately followed the avow
al with what appeared the most extraordinary contra
diction of it. Instead of declaring himself destined
to the height of earthly glory, which the Messiah's
dignity was thought by his disciples to imply, he de
clared that rejection, suffering, and death were to be
his lot (21) ; and that his followers must prepare them
selves for self-denial and raartyrdom, and not for the
honors of empire (24, 25).

92 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVIL 2, 3.
The declaration was to the last degree perplexing
and dispiriting to them. They needed to have their
minds cleared, enlightened, and reassured. The glori
ous associations which in their minds had hitherto
gathered about the idea of the Messiah being now
violently withdrawn, another class of honorable asso
ciations, and one which corresponded to the truth,
needed to be introduced to fill up the void. If their
conception of the Messiah had been a correct one, it
might have been fit that it should be confirmed and
exalted by some vision of Jesus in the company of the
captains and kings of old Jewish story, — of Joshua
and David. As it was, to exhibit him, in visionary
representation, in company with Moses, the giver, and
Elijah, the restorer of the Law (xvii. 3), was to re
invest him with associations which were at once of a
dignified character, and a character suitable to his true
office of a religious teacher, which Moses and Elijah
had been. The luminous appearance of his face and
form (xvii. 2) appears to have been intended to liken
him to Moses, whose " face shone " when he came down
from the mountain where he had received the Law
(Exod. xxxiv. 29 - 35).
Does the text declare that Moses and Elias, dead
many centuries before, now actually descended to the
earth, and in bodily presence conversed with Jesus 1
Such is the common opinion, and it is thought that
the object of their comraunication was to prepare and
encourage him for his future labors and sufferings.
But I do not view the transaction in this light. As I
regard it, it was not Jesus that needed illumination
and excitement at this time, but his disciples, whom
he had just astonished and distressed by his contradic
tion of their expectations concerning the Messiah. It
was fit that they should be instructed and re-awakened

XVn. 5.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 93
by a glorious vision, presenting to them their Master,
not with the environments of regal pomp, but as the
equal associate of the venerated ancient teachers of
their faith. And such being the case, I understand
further, that the presence of Moses and Eljah was
visionary, and not real ; that it was not Moses and
Elijah actually conversing with Jesus that the Apostles
saw, but that a vision of such a scene was presented
to their view. This interpretation, I conceive, meets
the full force of the Evangelist's language, " There
appeared unto them " (S^Orjaav), or " There was a
vision to them of," or, "They seemed to see." (See
Acts ii. 3 ; xvi. 9.) And let it be remarked, in con
firmation of this view, that Jesus himself calls the
scene a " vision " (Matt. xvii. 9),
The question may arise. How could the three Apos
tles recognize the visionary forms as representations of
Moses and Elijah 1 I reply : All nations have their
traditionary representations of eminent persons of an
cient times. The Jews no doubt had theirs of the
giver and the restorer of the Law, — the former per
haps bearing his " two tables of testimony " (Exod.
xxxiv. 29), the latter in that dress which John the Bap
tist appears to have imitated (2 Kings i. 8 ; Matt. iii.
4), — and to these conventional patterns the images
presented to the view of the Apostles would, of course,
be made to conform.
The author of the Second Epistle of Peter (i. 16 -
19) appears to have taken the view which I propose
of this transaction, as having been designed to affect
the mind, not of Jesus, but of his disciples.
XVII. 5.
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them ;
and behold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, " This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; hear ye him."

94 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVII. 10-13.
Here again I find a reference to that all-iraportant
prediction of Moses (Deut. xviii. 15, 19), which, raore
than any thing else in the Old Testaraent, connects
the Jewish dispensation with the Christian. At the
baptism of Jesus (Matt. iii. 17) a voice from heaven
had declared him to be God's beloved Son, the ex
pected Messiah. Now a second time that announce
ment was made. To it was now added the charge,
" Hear ye him," in evident allusion, as I think, to what
Moses had said of the prophet whom he foretold : " To
him shall ye hearken." And when from the cloud
which wrapped the visionary forms of Moses and Elias
there came this voice, the proclamation was made
which the Apostles needed, in their hitherto misguided
state of mind respecting the Messiah's office ; they
were taught that he was not to be another David,
as their worldly fancies had depicted him, but a teacher
of religion, such as the toil-worn Moses and the per
secuted Elijah had been ; — not the warlike king,
whom the later writers of the nation had erringly sup
posed, but the very '¦'¦prophet like unto himself" fore
seen in the inspired vision of the ancient lawgiver;
and that therefore, when Jesus told them of the oppo
sition and sufferings he was to undergo in the prose
cution of his work, it ought not to scandalize them
(xvi. 21 - 23) as if it were something inconsistent with
his office. XVIL 10-13,
And his disciples asked him, saying, " Why then say the scribes
that Elias must first come .? " And Jesus answered and said
unto them, " Elias truly shall first come, and restore all
things; but I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and
they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they
listed ; likewise also shall the Son of man suffer of them."
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of
John the Baptist.

XVn. 10-13.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 95
The Apostles questioned with theraselves respecting
the relation borne by the visionary appearance of
Elijah, which they had just witnessed, to the doctrine
inculcated by the teachers of the Law, that a raanifes-
tation of Elijah was to precede that of the Messiah.
Their words may be differently rendered ; either,
" How fitly then [as appears from what we have
seen] do the scribes say that Elias must first
come ! " or,
" What then is this ? [t/ oZv ;] The scribes say,"
&c. ; or,
" What then do the scribes say [Xeyouo-tK] 1 is it that
Elias raust first come ] " or,
" Why may we not tell the vision % (Comp. 9.) The
scribes say," «&c. ; so the vision of Elias is but an ac
complishraent of their word, and if we proclaim it, it
should win them to the Messiah's cause.
The Apostles referred to that current opinion on
which I have remarked above (pp. 74, 86), and Jesus,
in his reply, repeats what he had said on a former
occasion (xi. 14), that John the Baptist was the only
Elias, the only herald of the kingdom of heaven, who
would appear; adding that, as John, contrary to what
they expected of Elijah, had been unrecognized, per
secuted, and slain, so would it be with his greater
follower (xvii. 12 ; comp. xvi. 21). John, the Mes
siah's precursor, was not literally Elijah, nor did the
true Saviour of the world correspond to that idea in
their minds to which they gave the name Messiah.
But there was a true sense in which he might assume
the narae Messiah to himself as he had done (xvi. 16,
17), and in a similar sense he might give Elijah's name
to John.

96 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVm. 1.
XVIII. 1.
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, " Who
is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven .'' "
The text illustrates the merely worldly views enter
tained by all Jews of our Saviour's time, and inherited
by them from their ancestors, respecting the nature of
the institution which their expected King of the Jews
was to establish. Recognizing him in that character,
the disciples desired to know which of them he pro
posed to promote to be his prime-minister. In oppo
sition to the doctrine of their ancient kings and sages,
Jesus informs them in his reply (2 - 4), that they must
disengage their minds from all such views before they
will be fit for even the lowest place among his follow
ers, and that the exaltation which he is to confer is
such only as will follow upon becoming humble, do
cile, simple, and unselfish. XIX. 4, 5.
He answered and said unto them, " Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning, made them male and fe
male, and said, ' For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be
one flesh ' .? "
According to both accounts preserved by Moses of
the origin of the human race (Gen. i. 27, ii. 21 -23 ;
corap. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. II. pp. 31, 35), " he which
made them at the beginning, made them male and
female " ; and to one of the accounts (ii. 24) is sub
joined the rule of conjugal duty, which our Lord
quotes : " For this cause," &c. The quotation pre
cisely follows the Septuagint, except in the omission of
the pronoun before " father " and " mother," and in
an unimportant change of the syntax after the words
" shall cleave " ; and the Septuagint exactly represents

XIX. 7, 8.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 97
the Hebrew, except in the insertion of the words " the
two." Whether the rule quoted, "For this cause,"
&c., is ascribed in the original narrative to Adam or to
Moses as its author, may admit of question, I incline
to think that we are to regard Moses as speaking
therein, in the way of an inference frora the ancient
account which he was repeating of the creation of
woman. If so, instead of " and said " (Matt, xix, 5),
which erroneous translation of our Lord's words makes
him refer the words quoted to God, contrary to the
statement in the Old Testament narrative, we ought
to read " and he [or, and Moses] said,"
XIX. 7, 8.
They say unto him, " Why did Moses then command to give a
writing of divorcement, and to put her away ? " He saith
unto them, " Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
suffered you to put away your wives ; but from the begin
ning it was not so."
The reference of the questioners was to the law of
divorce in Deuteronomy (xxiv. 1 - 4), In his reply,
our Lord describes the spirit of the Mosaic legislation
in one of its important characteristics. Some of its
apparent precepts were only permissions, allowances,
concessions to the low state of thought and morality
among the people whom it had undertaken to educate,
and whom it could only educate by taking them up at
the low stage of improvement at which they were,
adapting its discipline to their existing condition, and
gradually raising them to a capacity for better things,
(See " Lectures," &c. Vol, L pp. 97-100, 178 - 181,
471.) Let it be observed, also, that our Lord's language
and reasoning here attribute the Law to Moses.
9

98 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XIX. 28.
XIX. 28.
Jesus said unto them, " Verily I say unto you, that ye which
have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man
shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
What I understand to be the origin and sense of the
expression " the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of
his glory," I have fully explained above (pp. 66, 88 et
seq.). The words " in the regeneration " we may either
connect with the clause which follows them, and then
we shall understand them to refer to the time when,
after the establishment of Christ's religion, its regener
ating influences shall be in full action on the world ; —
or we raay connect them with the preceding words, as
our translators have done, and then by " ye who have
followed me in the regeneration " we shall understand,
ye that have been associated with me in my labors
for the introduction of the proposed reform. The
imagery is continued to the close of the verse. As,
adopting the phraseology in Daniel (vii. 13, 14), Jesus
calls his establishment in a moral dominion, a sitting
upon " the throne of his glory," so he tells his Apos
tles, who were to be the agents and representatives of
his spiritual administration, that they too shall sit
on thrones. And the figure is still further carried out.
There were as many Apostles as there had been Jewish
tribes ; and this coincidence is brought to view in the
language in which they are told that they are to have
spiritual rule over God's people. The word judge
here, as often in Scripture (comp. 1 Sam. viii. 5, Is.
xl. 23), means simply to govern, to exercise sway ; not
to administer law, but to give, to promulgate it, which
latter function belonged strictly to the Apostolic office.
The twelve Apostles together were to give law to
collective Israel. Nothing is said of any such distri
bution of power as that each Apostle should have a

^^^I- 4. 5] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 99
tribe for his separate jurisdiction. One name of Is
rael regarded collectively was the twelve tribes [htoheica-
if>v\ov), or the twelve-tribed nation. (Comp. Acts xxvi. 7.)
XXI. 4, 5.
All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the prophet, saying, "Tell ye the daughter of Zion,
' Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon
an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.' "
The passage from Zechariah (ix, 9), which is here
quoted, reads, according to the Hebrew (which the
Septuagint also follows very nearly) : —
" Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion !
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem !
Behold, thy King cometh to thee.
He is just and victorious.
Mild, and riding upon an ass.
Even upon a colt, the foal of an ass."
The prefatory words in Matthew, "Tell ye the
daughter of Zion," appear to be taken from another
prophet (Is. Ixii. 11).
In commenting upon the passage as it stands in its
original connection, I expressed the opinion (" Lec
tures," &c.. Vol. III. p. 489) that the writer was but
clothing in poetical language his conception of the
Messiah as of a prince returning from successful for
eign expeditions, and, seated no longer on his war-
horse, but on the animal appropriate to festal proces
sions, entering his shouting capital in the stately
pageantry of peace (corap, Zech. ix. 10). Many read
ers, however, entertain the opinion that Matthew rep
resents the words as containing a supernatural predic
tion, in which their original writer, Zechariah, in the
sixth century before Jesus, described an act of Jesus
so precisely, as at once to prove his own miraculous
foreknowledge, and to furnish an evidence, through

100 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXI. 4, 5.
the correspondence of the event with the prophecy, of
the Messiahship of our Lord. I ask the attention of
such readers to the following considerations.
1. The introductory language, " All this was done
that it might be fulfilled," &c., proves nothing of that
kind. For the true meaning of that phraseology, I
refer to my reraarks upon it in another place. (See
above, pp. 25 - 33.)
2. If Matthew had raeant to put the meaning sup
posed upon Zechariah's words and their fulfilment, he
would have been careful to quote those words pre
cisely. Otherwise his argument would have no force.
Clearly it would be utterly irrelevant to say, " These
words of an ancient prophet, uttered centuries before,
were a miraculous prediction of an act of Jesus," and
then to go on to quote, as words of that prophet, some
which in fact he had not written. (See " Lectures,"
&c.. Vol. III. p. 336.) But such a precise quotation
Matthew has not made. This alone is sufficient to
prove that his design was not that which has been as
cribed to him.
3. In no sense of Zechariah's words does the pro
ceeding recorded by Matthew circumstantially corre
spond with thera. Zechariah spoke of " an ass, even
a colt, an ass's foal " ; Matthew, of a young ass, and
its dam. Zechariah spoke of the King of Zion as
coming " victorious " (l^tifii, comp. Deut. xxxiii. 29,
Ps. xxxiii. 16, Zech. x. 6), a particular which does
not apply to Jesus.
4. The proceeding was one incapable, from its
nature, of being an attestation to the Messiah's mis
sion. For what was there to prevent a false pretender
to that character from giving the same sign 1 A frau
dulent claimant to the dignity of the Messiah might
have ridden into Jerusalem upon an ass ; and then,

XXL 9.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 101
according to the argument, he would have proved him
self the true claimant.
Whether Jesus, in this proceeding, intended any
reference whatever to this language applied to it by
his Apostle, when relating it many years after, admits
of a question. Jesus undoubtedly intended, by a con
spicuous act, to attract the attention of the city to
himself, as the great personage looked for from ancient
tiraes. The manner of his public entry, on an ass and
not on a war-horse, rebuked the error which repre
sented the Messiah as a warlike chief If, still further,
he intended his act to have a reference to Zechariah's
words, we may understand his meaning to have been
the same as if he had said : You have expected to
see, in the Messiah, a sanguinary hero ; I have corae
as a peaceful teacher, and therefore you are disposed
to reject my claim ; but let what I now do remind you
that, if your ancient sages, your prophets, have often
given that representation of him which you adopt,
one, at least, has invested him with the associations of
gentleness and peace. Do not refuse to listen to me
because I do not come, as one writer has represented
the Messiah, with garments rolled in blood (Is. Ixiii.
1 - 6) ; remember that another pictured him as the
benignant leader that I now appear,
Mark (xi, 1-8) and Luke (xix. 29 - 36) relate also
the entrance of Jesus into the holy city, riding upon
an ass. But they do not appear to have ascribed any
part of the interest of that incident to its correspond
ence with the language of Zechariah, for they have not
alluded to that correspondence. XXL 9,
And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried,
saying, " Hosanna to the Son of David ! Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest ! "
9*

102 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXI. 13.
According to its etymology, Hosanna (XJ i^'^'lfl)
means simply, " Save now, I pray ! " or " Be propi
tious." (Comp. Ps. cxviii. 25.) It came to be used
in a general way for a mere salutation of honor, in
the vague sense of sorae English interjections which
are but the indefinite utterances of excitement and en
thusiasm. " In the highest," added to " Hosanna,"
seems but to have an intensive sense, such as " all "
has, when prefixed to " hail." (Comp. Ps. cxlviii. 1 ;
Luke ii. 14.) The words, " Blessed is he that cometh
in the name of the Lord," are taken from a Psalm
(cxviii. 26), the writer of which does not appear to
have had the Messiah in view according to any con
ception of his office. It is said that this Psalm was
familiar to the Jews, from being recited by them at
the Feast of Tabernacles and other festivals. Whether
this was so or not, the language of this verse well
answered their purpose when they intended to salute
Jesus as the Christ coming in Jehovah's name.
XXI. 13.
And said unto them, " It is written, ' My house shall be called
the house of prayer ; but ye have made it a den of thieves.' "
The pseudo-Isaiah, imagining a time when numerous
proselytes shall be made to the Jewish faith, represents
Jehovah as saying (lvi. 7), "Mine house shall be
called a house of prayer for all people." Jesus natu
rally adopts part of these words to declare the purpose
to which the temple ought to be devoted, to the exclu
sion of every other use. These words only I under
stand Jesus to have quoted, with the preface, " It is
written." But, in the antithesis which he presents in
the next clause, he appears to have reference to Jere
miah's language (vii. 11), "Is this house, which is
called by my name, become a den of robbers in your
eyes 1 "

XXL 42.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 103
XXI. 16.
Jesus saith unto them, " Yea ; have ye never read. Out of the
mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise ? "
This sentence is taken from a Psalm (viii. 2) in
which the author sets forth the goodness of Jehovah in
making raan the chief among his works. Jesus, with
out any intimation of its containing prediction of any
sort, which it evidently does not, makes a natural ap
plication of its language, as being suitable to describe
the welcome with which he was received by children
in the temple. The Septuagint version is followed,
which has a word corresponding to "praise" (alvov),
where the original Hebrew has " strength " (f^ ), Per
haps, however, the Hebrew word will bear the mean
ing of the Greek, XXI. 42.
Jesus saith unto them, " Did ye never read in the Scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become
the head of the corner ; this is the Lord's doing, and it is
marvellous in our eyes } "
The quotation is frora a Psalm (cxviii. 22, 23 ; comp.
Is. viii. 14, xxviii. 16), the occasion, date, and author
of which are alike unknown. It celebrates a deliver
ance, through Jehovah's favor, from distress and hos
tility. By the natural figure of a stone, rejected at
first as unfit for use, but afterwards selected to be the
very corner-stone and fundamental support of a build
ing, the writer illustrates his owii transfer from a de
pressed and assailed to a conspicuous and honored
position. Jesus had uttered a parable (xxi, 33 - 39 ;
comp. Is, V, 1 - 7) in which he had intimated'his own
rejection by the Jewish people. Assured of the future
triumph of his cause, he obscurely expressed that con
fidence of his by recalling the words of that ancient

104 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXIL 24.
worthy, who, frora being cast -by with contumely, had
" become the head of the corner."
XXII. 24.
Moses said, "If a man die, having no children, his brother
shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."
These words are not precisely quoted, but their sub
stance is found in the Book of Deuteronomy (xxv. 5 ;
comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. p. 470),
XXII. 31, 32.
As touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, " I am the God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob " .'
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
The reference is to a passage in Exodus (iii. 6),
where Jehovah is related to have manifested himself
to Moses in Midian.
Does Jesus declare that the doctrine of the resur
rection of the dead is disclosed in this passage of the
Pentateuch ¦? And if so, what is that interpretation
of the passage by which he makes it yield this sense 1
To say of one party that he bears a relation to
another, is not to declare that both are living. We
raay say that A is the grandson of B, without meaning
that B survives. We may call Soult one of Napole
on's marshals, without betraying an ignorance of the
fact that Napoleon is long ago dead. " We are Abra
ham's children " (John viii. 33), is an expression which
has no reference to a continued life of Abraham. Jesus
could not have raeant to argue in this way from the
words which he quotes.
This appears still more certain, when we consider
that the only word in the translated sentence, from
which such an argument as is supposed could possibly

XXIL 31, 32.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 105
be derived, is not in the sentence as written by Moses.
The copula (am), according to Hebrew use, is not ex
pressed, but left to be understood. In a translation,
the past form (was) might be introduced instead of the
present. The only basis for the supposed argument is
found in the form of a translation, and not in the
original. In other words, it does not exist.
The narrative of Matthew does not contain all that
Jesus said on this occasion. Had it done so, it is to
be presumed that we should better understand how he
meant to treat the subject. That the account is in
complete, appears from its being given in an extended
form by Luke (xx, 37, 38), whose own relation may
have been imperfect, as well as that of Matthew,
It appears to me that the sense of Jesus was this :
According to the comraon acceptation of language, in
calling hiraself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
Jehovah announced those patriarchs as his favorites,
and himself as their ffiend, (Corap, Gen, xvii, 8 ;
xxvi, 3 ; xxxv, 12 ; Exod, iii. 6 - 8 ; Jer. vii. 23 ; Heb.
xi, 16.) But whomsoever Jehovah distingu shes by
his love and favor, he will not suffer to perish. The
cherished of Jehovah he will not let die. " All live
to him " ; rather, all his, all belonging to him, all dear
to him, live. Life is his to bestow, and to those whom
he loves he will assuredly give it.
We are to reraeraber further, that, in the series of
discourses here collected, Jesus was arguing with the
mistaken and conceited Pharisees and Sadducees, with
a view not so much to convince as to perplex, con
found, and hurable them. For this purpose it was
suitable that he should assail them with their own
weapons, showing them that their own methods of in
terpretation would overthrow, or leave unsustained,
their own conclusions. The Pharisees had taken

106 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXIL 40.
"counsel how they might entangle him in his talk "
(xxii. 15). They tried to do it, and failed ; his an
swer to their insidious sophistry was such, " that they
marvelled and left him, and went their way" (22),
The Sadducees tried next (23), " and when the multi
tude heard " how he replied lo them, " they were
astonished at his doctrine " (33), " When the Phari
sees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to si
lence," they repeated the experiment (34); and with
so little success, that " no man was able to answer him
a word, neither durst any man, from that day forth,
ask him any more questions " (46). The object im
mediately in hand was to silence these troublesome
and arrogant doctors of Judaism, and divest them of
that influence over the people's rainds which they
used so subtly for the hinderance of the Gospel. Their
incorapetency was best exposed, when arguments such
as those to which they were themselves accustomed
were employed for their defeat and confusion. To dis
arm and silence an adverse disputant, his own opinions
and methods of argument, even though they be erro
neous, may be legitimately turned against him,
XXII. 40.
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Proph
ets.
Of the two coraraandraents to which Jesus refers,
one is found in the Book of Leviticus (xix. 18), the
other in that of Deuteronomy (vi, 5), In right and
earnest affections towards God and man, says Jesus,
in a piety and benevolence which enlist and occupy the
whole being, all religion consists and is suraraed up.
Religion is not ceremony, though forms of worship
may suitably express it ; it is not speculation, though
divine truth is its fit sustenance and excitement ; it is

XXIL 41-45.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 107
not moral observance, though a sober, righteous, and
useful life will be sure to be its fruit. It is strictly
the state of that heart which abounds and overflows
with devotion towards God, and good-will to man.
And such religion, says Jesus, it was God's ultimate
purpose in the Law (greatly as the objects of that dis
pensation have beeu misunderstood) to create, estab
lish, and extend araong men. (See " Lectures," &c.,
Vol. L pp. 91-100, 176-181.) And in their ten-
dency to excite and diffuse such a spirit consists the
value of the writings of those revered raen whora you
call your prophets. Creed and ritual, temple and
priest, separate nationality and holy days, all that
Moses authoritatively enjoined, and all that good raen
in the ages since have celebrated, have just as much
value (and no more) as they have efficacy to promote
in the huraan heart and spread through the huraan
race the love of God and the love of man (corap.
Matt. V. 17, 18). XXIL 41-45.
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
saying, " What think ye of [the] Christ ? whose son is he .' "
They say unto him, " The son of David." He saith unto
them, " How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
' The ,Lord said unto my Lord, " Sit thou on my right hand,
till I make thine enemies thy footstool " ' ? If David then call
him Lord, how is he his son .' "
The quotation is from a Psalm (ex. 1) in which, if
I understand it correctly (see " Lectures," &c.. Vol. IV.
pp. 314- 316), the expected Messiah was referred to,
and described agreeably to the erroneous conceptions
of that personage which prevailed in the tirae of the
writer. King David (comp. Mark xii. 36 ; Luke xx. 42),
At first view, looking only at the shape of the ar
gument, the purpose of Jesus might seem to be to

108 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXH. 41-45.
prove to the Pharisees, with whom he was conversing,
that they were wrong in supposing that the Messiah
whom they were expecting would be of David's pos
terity. — The Messiah is David's " lord " ; David him
self has called him so ; but is not that fact inconsis
tent with his being David's son 1 is not the son the
parent's inferior instead of his " lord " ?
But alike from the terms of the conversation and
frora its context, I infer that the object of Jesus was
not to prove or disprove any thing, but siraply to per
plex the Pharisees, and show to the by-standers what
incompetent teachers they were, and what shallow and
unskilful interpreters of the Old Testaraent Scriptures,
The Pharisees, on a fundaraental article, held two
opinions, which, with all their pretensions to wisdom
and authority, they did not know how to reconcile.
Jesus but exposed this fact, without saying whether
they were right or wrong in their conception of the
expected Messiah as a " son of David." His purpose
was answered when " no man was able to answer him
a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask
him any more questions." He had confounded the
Sadducees (xxii. 23 et seq.) as to the interpretation of
a passage in the Pentateuch ; he now perplexed the
Pharisees as to the interpretation of a Psalm ; thus
addressing hiraself to both sects with references to
parts of the Old Testament to which they respectively
attributed authority, (See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. II.
pp. 139-141.)
" How then doth David in spirit call him Lord 1 "
asked Jesus ; and this expression has been hastily
understood as importing that our Lord imputed a
special inspiration, a miraculous illumination, to Da
vid, aiding him in the composition of the hundred and
tenth Psalm. The least that such a supernatural in-

XXHL 13.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 109
spiration, had David possessed it, might have been ex
pected to do, would be to keep him from describing
the future Messiah, the meek and peaceful Jesus of
Nazareth, as a furious soldier who should " strike
through kings," and pile up heaps of bloody and head
less corpses, and slay till he should be exhausted with
weariness and thirst (Ps. ex. 5 - 7). But the truth is,
the words " in spirit " (iv irvewpbaTi) have no such nar
row meaning, David spoke of the Messiah " in spirit,"
because he referred to him in spiritual contemplation,
under a devout impulse, when musing of him in a re
ligious state of raind. In the Scriptural sense of the
phrase, a person is " in the spirit," or is " filled with
the spirit," when he is occupied with religious thoughts,
when he experiences a spiritual excitement and eleva
tion, when he is in a pious frame of mind, when he is
operated upon by spiritual motives. When Jesus
spoke of David as having been " in spirit," he no more
declared that David was inspired, according to the
technical sense of that word, than he iraputed inspira
tion to all true worshippers in the coming ages of his
Church. (John iv. 23 ; comp. Acts iv. 8 ; vi. 3 ; vii.
55 ; xiii. 52; xviii. 25 ; Rom. i. 9; viii. 13 ; xii. 11 ;
1 Cor. xii. 3 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; Gal. v, 5, 16, 17, 18, 25 ;
Eph, V, 18; vi. 18; Phil, i, 19; iii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 12.)
XXIII. 13.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ; for ye shut
up the kingdora of heaven against men ; for ye neither go in
yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
To the company of disciples of that pure faith
which he was about to establish, Jesus gave that name
of " kingdom of heaven " which had long been in use
as denoting the Messiah's expected reign. In that
company the scribes and Pharisees would not enroll
10

110 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XXIH. 35.
themselves, nor suffer it to be enlarged by the acces
sion of any whom they could influence and restrain.
They would keep the door shut, and the fold empty.
" Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men."
A more literal translation would better represent the
imagery : " Ye shut the kingdom of heaven in the face
of men." XXIII. 35.
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of
Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the
temple and the altar.
In the Second Book of Chronicles (xxiv. 20, 21) we
read of a Zechariah, who is related to have been stoned
to death " in the courts of the house of the Lord."
But he is said to have been " the son of Jehoiada the
priest." On the other hand, Zechariah, author of a
book in the Old Testament collection, is called " the
son of Barachiah " (Zech. i. 1). It is true that Jehoia
da, father of that Zechariah whose tragical death is
recorded in the history, may have been otherwise
named Barachiah ; or that the name Jehoiada may
have been erroneously given him in the history, and
that Jesus, in his allusion, raay have restored his true
name ; or that Zechariah, the author of the book in
the collection of the Minor Prophets, may have been
slain " between the teraple and the altar," though Old
Testament history has not preserved the record of that
fact. But neither of these suppositions appears so
probable, as that, by a lapse of raeraory on the part of
Matthew, the Zechariah whose death is recorded in
the Book of Chronicles was confounded with the more
famous prophet of the same name.
Our Lord is saying that, by their cruelty to his dis
ciples, the Jews should provoke Divine judgments, so

XXIV. 15.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Ill
heavy that it might seera as if all the murders recorded
in the Old Testament, from the earliest to the latest
age, were avenged in their persons. In its whole cast
the language is so figurative that it would be out of
the question to think of inferring from it the historical
truth of any such narrative as that of the murder of
Abel by Cain. XXIV. 3.
The disciples came unto him privately, saying, " Tell us, when
shall these things be > and what shall be the sign of thy
coming, and of the end of the world .' "
Instead of " the end of the world," I render, the end
of the age, meaning by the age the sarae as is denoted
by the more full expression this age in distinction from
the age to come ; namely, the age of the Jewish dis
pensation, the ante-Messianic period. The Messiah's
" coming," and " the end of the age," concerning which
the disciples inquired, I conceive to have been but two
expressions for the same thing, or rather expressions
indicating two events necessarily coincident in point of
time. In the parallel passages, Mark (xiii. 4) and
Luke (xxi. 7) say nothing about " the end of the
world," from which we infer that the question con
cerning it was not an independent question, but prac
tically equivalent to the preceding one, respecting the
" coming " of Christ. What the questioners desired
to know was, the time when the preparatory Mosaic
institution should terminate, and the Messiah's reign
begin. For ray view of the origin and force of the
phraseology, I refer to reraarks on previous passages
of this book (pp. 78, 79). XXIV. 15.
When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place
(whoso readeth, let him understand).

112 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXIV. 29.
Looking forward to that desecration of the temple
by the Roman invaders, which was to take place forty
years after his time, Jesus referred to it as what might
be well described by language used (Dan. ix. 26, 27)
respecting another event, in the book called that of
Daniel the prophet. (See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. II. p.
387 ; IV. p. 414 ; see also above, pp. 49, 50.) Luke
(xxi. 20), in his record of the same discourse, recites
no reference to Daniel, as it may be supposed that he
would have done had that reference made a substan
tive part of our Lord's statement.
" Whoso readeth, let him understand." These pa
renthetical words I consider to be words of Matthew,
and not of Jesus, whom we should rather expect
to find saying, " Whoso heareth, let him understand."
Matthew wrote before the events predicted by Jesus
took place. He recorded the prediction as he remem
bered to have heard it uttered by his Master, But he
did not pretend hiraself to understand its precise im
port, nor could he expect it to be understood, at pres
ent, by the reader of his narrative.
XXIV. 29.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be
darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the
stars shall fall frora heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken.
Language figuratively descriptive of a great moral
revolution, after the manner of that poetical phraseol
ogy with which the hearers of Jesus were familiar, as
used by the prophets in the same sense, (Comp.
" Lectures," «&c.. Vol. IL pp. 328 - 330.)
XXIV. 30.
Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven ; and
then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall

xxv. 31-33.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 113
see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory.
Since the time when the Book of Daniel was written,
and very probably from an earlier period, the Jews had
been in the habit of using this language (Dan. vii. 13,
14, xii. 1, 2) in relation to the expected appearance
of their Messiah. This language, so familiar to them,
and so expressive, Jesus, their true Messiah, God's
anointed messenger to thera, adopted in announcing
his speedy assuraption of his spiritual authority. To
use this language was siraply to say, in a form accom
modated to their conceptions. The Messiah then shall
set up his dominion among you and in the world.
(See above, pp. 66, 88, 98 etseq.)
XXIV. 38.
As in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and
drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that
Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came,
and took them all away, dsc.
No one, from this language of Jesus, can infer the
historical credit of the account of the deluge in the
Pentateuch (Gen. vi. 13 et seq.), unless he is prepared
to maintain that illustrations cannot as properly be
drawn frora fictitious narrative as from true. We are
in the habit of deriving lessons from the stories of the
benevolent Samaritan and the prodigal son, and Jesus
derived one from that of the unjust judge, going so
far, in relation to this, as to use the language, " Hear
what the unjust judge saith" (Luke xviii. 6).
XXV. 31-33.
When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his
glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations ; and he
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth
10*

114 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXV. 31-33.
his sheep from the goats, and he shall set the sheep on his
right hand, but the goats on the left.
With these all-important words, and those which,
extending to the end of the chapter, follow out and
complete their meaning, Jesus closes this long dis
course, the last which he is recorded to have uttered
before that paschal supper with the twelve, from which
he went to be betrayed to his death. These words are
the climax of his instructions. In language familiar
to his hearers, he had before declared that the Mes
siah's advent was at hand ; that the prophet, ages before
announced by Moses, and indicated, though with a
large mixture of erroneous conceptions, by the line of
later Jewish sages, was about to assume his office,
" The Son of Man " he had said (xxiv. 30) was " com
ing in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory," Now at last he proceeded to declare in what
sense he employed those magnificent expressions. He
proceeded to explain, that what he meant by them was
the establishment of a moral erapire, of a religious
administration. The Messiah would institute a rule
which would distinguish not at all between the Jew
and the Gentile, but siraply between the wicked and
the good. Here at length was developed the whole
plan of the government of which he was to be th6
head. " When the Son of Man shall corae in his glory, and
all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory, and before him shall be gath
ered all nations." And what then 1 How will he
exercise this universal sway ¦? What sort of a dorain
ion will be this glorious throne of his 1 Will he op
press the subject heathen 1 Will he exalt to wealth
and grandeur his brethren of the stock of Abraham,
and distinguish with peculiar honors the companions

xxv. 31-33.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 115
of his day of small things, the faithful men who had
been " with him in the regeneration " ? — Nothing of
all this. He would apply the principles of a moral
retribution. He would govern raen as raoral agents.
The everlasting distinctions between right and wrong,
between righteousness and inhuraanity, between love
and selfishness, would be all that his dominion would
recognize. His august power would be used to en
courage and reward those who delighted to succor
and serve the needy, the helpless, the oppressed, the
forsaken of their fellow-men, while to be indifferent to
their sorrows would be to provoke the retributions of
his unbending law of equity.
According to this understanding of the passage,
which the text and context appear to me absolutely to
require, it evidently lends no authority to the common
opinion of a simultaneous judgraent of all men at the
tirae of a future second coming of Christ. That opin
ion I take to be alike destitute of support from reason
and frora Scripture. What Jesus here refers to is
siraply the office which his religion is to discharge in
the world, — the principles of that adrainistration
which Christianity is to establish among men. The
coming of the Son of Man of which he speaks, is sira
ply the establishment of that religion. " When the
Son of Man shall have come (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54) in
his glory, and all the holy angels with him," — i. e.
when that institution of the Messiah's dominion shall
have taken place, which an ancient writer has indi
cated in these words, — " then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered
all nationa, and he shall separate them one from
another," &c. That is, thenceforward shall he admin
ister a moral government upon those rules and princi
ples of moral adrainistration which the rest of the

116 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXV. 31-33.
passage proceeds to specify. The erroneous, current
exposition of the passage depends mainly, perhaps,
upon a particular force unjustifiably attributed to the
particles when and then, as if they could only import
a reference to a point of tirae, — an assumption than
which none could be more unfounded. If I say that,
when I come into possession of an estate which I am
expecting, then I will be liberal, no one understands
rae to raean that my liberality is to be confined to the
hour or the day when I acquire its resources, but that
I will be liberal then and thenceforward, — that, having
come into a certain condition, I will not only begin,
but continue to conduct myself accordingly. So in
the case before us. When, says Jesus, the Messiah's
kingdom is set up, — when his religion has taken its
permanent place among the infiuences by which God
acts on man, — then and thenceforward retributions will
be dispensed according to its distinctive principles, and
(for any thing this text says to the contrary) dispensed
to every man iraraediately, as every man leaves this
probationary world. No doubt, before Christianity
was revealed, raen were judged according to the same
essential principles of rectitude which Christiamty
recognizes ; but it is agreeable to those principles that
men should be judged more or less strictly, according
as, while living, they had been in possession of more
or less light. Before the Christian revelation, men
could not rightfully be judged by the law of Chris
tianity, so far as that was distinct from, being an im
provement upon, the law of natural reason. When the
Christian revelation was made, — that is, from and
after the time of its being made, — they who had come
into the possession of it were rightfully judged by it.
The object of the passage is to develop and pro
claim the character of the Messiah's kingdom, as being

XXVL 24.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 117
a moral government. The Jews, and among them the
Jewish disciples of Jesus, looked for a Son of Man,
who, when he should sit on the throne of his glory,
establishing a political administration, would gather
Jews around him, to lead them to victory, vengeance,
and spoils. Jesus, using almost his last opportunity
to rectify his disciples' still faint and erroneous views
concerning the nature of his erapire, told them that,
on the contrary, when he should sit on the throne of
his glory, all nations alike would be gathered before
him as subjects of his administration, and that that
administration would be of a spiritual character, ex
erting itself in the adjudging of retributions agreea
bly to the principles of a moral discrimination. All
nations would be his subjects, and the question con
cerning them would be, not of whom they were born,
of Abraham or of some other parentage, but how
they had done their duty in life. He now expands
the doctrine which in part of the same words he had
briefly announced on a former occasion, (Comp, xvi.
27, 28.) XXVI. 24.
The Son of Man goeth, as it is written of him.
Suppose Jesus, when he says " The Son of Man
goeth," to refer to his death (which has been denied
by some commentators, but I think without reason),
what did he mean by saying that he was about to die,
as it was written f Where was it written that he
should die? Nowhere in the Old Testament Scrip
tures, if I interpret them correctly. It was written,
so to speak, in the book of the Divine purposes. It
was so determined and arranged by God's providence.
The figure is a simple one, and is in frequent Scrip
tural use. (See Job xiii. 26; Ps. cxxxix. 16; cxlix.

118 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXVI 31.
9 ; Prov. viii. 15 ; Is. x. 1 ; Ixv. 6.) Luke evidently
understood this to be our Lord's meaning ; for in the
parallel passage (xxii. 22) he reports Jesus as having
said, " The Son of Man goeth as it was determined '*
(ajpiajievov). XXVI. 31.
Then saith Jesus unto them, " All ye shall be offended because
of me this night ; for it is written, ' I will smite the Shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.' "
In the prophecy of Zechariah (xiii. 7) we read, ac
cording to the Hebrew text : —
" Awake, O sword, against my shepherd.
Even against my fellow, saith Jehovah of hosts ;
Smite the shepherd, and let the sheep be scattered."
The Alexandrine version has shepherds for " shep
herd " in both instances ; and for the last clause it
reads, " and pluck away the sheep."
In the original passage, Zechariah, after the usual
manner of the writers of his class, " forebodes great
national calamities, to be succeeded by as signal pub
lic prosperity and glory. Jehovah, he says, designs to
smite the shepherd of his people, and scatter the sheep,
and turn his hand against the lambs. Two thirds of
the whole nation shall be cut off and die, and only a
third part survive," &c. (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. HI.
p. 494.) It seems scarcely possible to do greater vio
lence to language, than by that interpretation which
supposes our Lord to have found here a prediction of
the circurastances of his arrest by the Jews. He does
but refer to language originally used in respect to one
occasion, and apply it to another which the terms
were suitable to describe, in the manner of which we
have already seen nuraerous instances. If the case
did not already appear too clear for argument, I might

XXVI. 53, 54.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 119
add, that, if John, who heard what Jesus said, had
understood him to be pointing out a prediction ful
filled, he would scarcely have omitted to notice so im
portant a fact. But in the parallel passage (John xvi.
32) he has left it entirely out of sight.
XXVI. 53, 54.
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he
shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels ?
But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it
must be .'
There is no necessity for so interpreting these words
of Jesus as to make them declare (contrary to what,
on independent grounds, appears to be the fact) that
there are passages of the Old Testament foretelling
the circumstances of affiiction and loneliness in which
he was now placed. That whole plan of Providence
for the spiritual redemption of the world, which had
been introduced and entered on in the mission of Moses
recorded in the Jewish Scriptures, was to be completed,
accomplished, " fulfilled," in the mission of Jesus,
(Comp. V. 17, 18.) But Jesus knew that, in order to
carry into effect the objects of his mission, it was
necessary that he should suffer and die. His suffer
ings and death made an essential part of that instru
mentality by which it pleased God to infiuence the
minds of men in order to their reforraation and salva
tion. The Scriptures, and the divine purpose to which
they related, could not be fulfilled, unless the object of
Christ's raission were fulfilled ; and that was only to
be through the agency of his sufferings and death. It
is in this natural sense that I understand the sentence,
which, I conceive, is rightly pointed in the edition of
Griesbach, and which, with that punctuation, reads as
follows : " Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to

120 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXVL 56.
my father, and he will presently give rae raore than
twelve legions of angels ] How then shall the Scrip
tures be fulfilled 'i for thus it must be " ; i. e. " thus,"
in this way and no other, through my sufferings and
by no easier method, is the consummation, to which
the Scriptures point, to be brought about.
XXVI. 56.
All this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might
be fulfilled.
" All " what 1 Does Matthew mean to say, that all
the incidents of the scene in the garden, detailed by
himself in the preceding ten verses, had been specially
foretold in " the Scriptures of the prophets " 1 It is
quite obvious that so strict an interpretation must be
abandoned, and that the raost the words can be under
stood to mean is, that the fate of Jesus, in its general
character of being one of suffering, corresponded with
ancient predictions. But I am satisfied that they do
not mean so much as that ; and after departing from
that strictest construction of the words which it is im
possible to maintain on any grounds, the question of the
degree of closeness of that correspondence which the
Evangelist intended to point out between the words of
ancient Scripture and the events that had passed be
neath his eye, becomes one to be determined by a free
consideration of the manner in which he may be sup
posed to have viewed the subject.
My own understanding of the matter is this. At
the time when Matthew wrote, as in earlier times, the
idea of a suffering Messiah was one to the last degree
repulsive to his unconverted countrymen. " Christ
crucified " was " to the Jews a stumbling-block." The
notion of such a person they understood as being in
plain contradiction to the whole tenor of the Old

XXVL 63, 64.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 121
Testament Scriptures, where the coming Messiah had
been referred to. Matthew had the best reason to
know this. In telling the story of his master's deser
tion and hurailiation, it could not fail to rise to his
mind. And he naturally and appositely throws in the
declaration, that what he was relating took place, not
in opposition to old Scripture, rightly understood, but,
on the contrary, in order to its fulfilment. Of the
" Scriptures of the prophets," or teachers, the writings
of the great prophet, Moses, made incomparably the
most authoritative part ; and what he had said of the
" prophet like unto " himself, and the benefactor in
whom all the nations of the earth were to " be blessed,"
was put in its proper train' to be "fulfilled" by the
transactions which Matthew was now relating. And if
the writers who had come after Moses had much mis
conceived the character of the coming prophet, and had
overlaid the conception of his spiritual office with the
trappings of worldly greatness, still it was the teacher
foretold by Moses that they had intended to describe,
and it was in fact through a painful earthly experience
that that highly fated being was to fulfil his destiny.
Such was the voluntary self-sacrifice of Jesus, — we
may understand Matthew as saying, — to accomplish
those Divine purposes to which the ancient dispensa
tion related, and opened the way.
I have commented on these words as words of Mat
thew. If we prefer to ascribe them to Jesus, the ap
plication of my remarks to that view is easy.
XXVI. 63, 64.
The high-priest answered and said unto him, " I adjure thee by
the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ,
the Son of God." Jesus saith unto him, " Thou hast said ;
nevertheless, I say unto you. Hereafter shall ye see the Son
of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven." 11

122 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXVIL 9, 10.
Jesus makes the same avowal to the high-priest
which he had made to his Apostles by " the coasts of
Caesarea Philippi" (xvi. 16, 17) ; and adds, in a refer
ence, which the high-priest could not understand, to
that spiritual authority which he was presently to as
sume through the establishment of his Gospel : Mean
and powerless as I seem to stand before you, I shall
before long be manifested in that sovereignty which
the Psalmist and the author of Daniel intended to ex
tol, when they spoke of the coming Messiah as ad
vanced to a seat on God's right hand (Ps. ex. 1), and
as " coming with the clouds of heaven" (Dan. vii. 13).
XXVII. 9, 10.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the proph
et, saying, " And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the
price of him that was valued, whora they of the children of
Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the
Lord appointed me."
The text affords valuable illustration of the sense
in whieh the New Testament writers connect events of
their own time with language of the Old Testament,
declaring that one has " fulfilled " the other. Matthew
has related that Judas, having received thirty pieces of
money as his reward for betraying his raaster, was
struck with remorse when he saw that Jesus was sen
tenced to death, "and went and hanged himself";
and that " the chief priests," taking the money from
the teraple floor, where he had thrown it, and reflect
ing that, after the use which it had served, it ought
not to be put into the treasury (corap. Deut. xxiii. 18),
concluded to buy with it a burial-place for strangers.
And " then was fulfilled," he says, the saying which
he proceeds to quote, " spoken by Jereray the prophet."
But he quoted from memory, and incorrectly, which

XXVIL 9, 10.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 123
it is quite impossible to suppose that he would do, if
he meant to direct the reader's attention to a super
natural prediction uttered by an ancient seer, and now
brought to pass in an event which he was himself re
cording. No language resembling that recited by
Matthew occurs in the prophecy of Jeremiah, as it
has come down to us. Similar language does occur
in the book known by the narae of Zechariah. (Corap.
« Lectures," &c. Vol. Ill, pp. 487, 488.) The ^writer
relates (Zech. xi, 12, 13; compare "Lectures," &c,.
Vol, III, pp. 491, 492) that, having asked a recom
pense of his public service, he was insulted with a
mean donation, which, indignant at the disrespect
shown both to himself and to Jehovah, whose will he
had declared, he threw back into the public treasury.
The text, according to the Hebrew, reads thus : —
" Then I said to them, ' If it seem good in your eyes,
give me ray wages ; if not, keep them,' And they
weighed for my wages thirty shekels of silver. And
Jehovah said to rae, ' Cast it into the treasury, the
goodly price at which I was valued by them ! ' And I
took the thirty shekels of silver, and cast them into
the house of Jehovah, into the treasury."
For " treasury," which is a rendering well sustained
by the etymology, as well as by the connection and by
ancient versions, the Septuagint reads " foundery." The
Hebrew word ("iVi') is also the present participle of a
verb signifying he formed, or fashioned, as a potter
does his Avare. And by putting this sense upon it,
Matthew has prepared the passage for the application
which he makes, (See above, p, 45.)
Such I take to be the true explanation of the facts.
If it is so, Matthew, when he prefaced his quotation
with the words, " Then was fulfllled," &c., had no idea
of indicating that it contained a supernatural predic-

124 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXVU. 9, IK
tion ; nor is it possible for a sober interpreter so to
regard it, for not only is it a narrative of a past trans
action, but there is no similarity between it and the
supposed result, except a similarity partly slight and
verbal, and partly factitious. As to the reference of
the words quoted to Jereraiah as their author, it is not
iraprobable that passages were ascribed to hira in Mat
thew's tirae, which subsequently were incorporated
into our prophecy of Zechariah; or perhaps all the
books of the Later Prophets were cited as the " Book
of Jereraiah," his book being placed first araong them
in some collections. (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. pp.
303, 337 ; comp. p. 236.) To the statement of Jerome
(Tom. IV. p. 134, edit. Martianay), that in a Hebrew
copy of an apocryphal Jeremiah, lent him by a Naza
rene Jew, he had found the passage word for word as
quoted by Matthew, I attach no importance. The
fact may well have been so ; but the natural explana
tion of it would be, that Matthew's words had been
interpolated into the copy of the ancient prophet
shown to Jerome. One old raanuscript, collated by
Griesbach, reads " Zechariah " for Jeremiah, and two,
with the Syriac version, orait the prophet's name.
But, quite obviously, these are but expedients to save
the Evangelist's plenary inspiration. Some critics
have been disposed to have recourse to the passage in
Jeremiah, which relates his purchase of certain land
from Hanameel (Jer. xxxii. 7-14). And so much as
this may be true, that the Evangelist, confusing the
two narratives in his recollection, had taken some
words of Zechariah, the author of one, and referred
them to Jereraiah, the author of the other. But such
a supposition is obviously quite inconsistent with the
theory of his having designed to quote a supernatural
prediction, and point out its accomplishment.

XXVn. 35.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. _ 125
XXVII. 35.
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots ;-*
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
" They parted my garments araong them, and upon my ves
ture did they cast lots."
The quotation is from a poem which has with prob
ability been ascribed to David (Ps. xxii. 18). The
writer, whoever he was, is called in this text a " proph
et," by no means in the sense of a foreteller of future
events, which is but a modern and indefensible inter
pretation of the word as used in Scripture ; but simply
in the sense of a writer, or, more specifically, a poet.
(See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. II. pp. 368 - 370 ; comp.
Tit. i. 12.) It would seera that no conclusion, relat
ing to the construction of language, could be clearer
or raore unquestionable, than that the Psalraist is treat
ing of his own sorrows, and not of those of any other
person in a distant future age. Confining his atten
tion to the piece itself, it is irapossible that a reader
should dream of any other sense. Whether the Evan
gelist, in taking a sentence from it, and prefacing his
quotation with the words " that it might be fulfilled,"
&c., meant to put upon it an interpretation so entirely
different as has been supposed, is a question which a
reader will be prepared to answer, according to the
view which he may have seen cause to take of my
arguraent on this class of expressions in the preceding
pages. (See pp. 25 - 33, et al) I understand the
Evangelist as siraply pointing out the striking coinci
dence through which an incident of the crucifixion of
his Master might be aptly described in the Psalmist's
words. I have thus treated this passage, as if written by
Matthew, because English readers will look for a note
upon it in its place. But it was not written by Mat-
11*

126 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XXVIL 46.
thew. The whole latter part of the verse, as given in
^our common editions, beginning with the words "that
it might be fulfilled," is spurious, and as such is elimi
nated in Griesbach's edition. In other words, Mat
thew made no allusion to the words of the Psalmist
in this connection. Nor did Mark (xv. 24). Nor did
Luke (xxiii. 34). John did (xix. 24), in the sense
which I have above explained.
The fact is remarkable. If the words of the Psalm
ist, with their peculiar verbal coincidence, had in fact
been a prediction of a circumstance attending the cru*
cifixion of Jesus, is it supposable that Mark and Luke
would have neglected to put them to their proper
use ] Especially, can it be supposed that Matthew
would have neglected to do so, who is so fond of en
livening his narrative with references to the Old Tes
tament Scriptures 1 XXVII. 46.
Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, " Eli, Eli, lama sabach-
thani > " that is to say, " My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me .? "
These words are taken from the same composition
as the quotation last commented upon (Ps. xxii. 1).
They are in the original Hebrew, except the verb
(" hast thou forsaken "), which is Syriac, the sentence
being constructed in that mixed dialect which was in
use in Judea in the Evangelist's time. (See " Lec
tures," &c.. Vol. L p. 4, note *.)
We easily clothe our thoughts and emotions in lan
guage supplied by memory, even when we should be
unwilling to admit that our state of mind was the
same as that by which the language was originally
prompted. (Matt, xxvii. 43 ; comp. Ps. xxii. 8.) At
all events, nothing is more natural or common than to

XXVIL 46.] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 127
express an emotion of one's own in language which,
under similar circumstances, has been used by sorae
other person. And that Jesus should have so used
the language of the Psalmist, if for the raoraent his
soul had been overshadowed, like the Psalmist's, by a
sense of wretchedness and desertion, would be a fact
requiring no further explanation. But as I do not
think that this was the state of mind of Jesus at this
time, I do not regard this as the right explanation of
his quotation from the Psalm. I believe that, in utter
ing the first sentence of that composition, he did not
mean to adopt that sentence alone as an expression of
his feelings, but that he intended so to adopt the com
position taken as a whole. It begins, it is true, with
a wail of raisery (Ps. xxii. 1-18). But it passes into
a strain of confiding supplication (19- 21), and ends
with an exulting shout of triuraph (22-31). As Je
sus hung upon the cross, his revilers had raocked him
in language taken frora one of its verses (Matt, xxvii,
43). Possibly their allusion rerainded hira of it, and
caused him to ponder its whole sense, so suitable to
his circumstances . of apparent abandonraent by his
Father, but of real glory and close and blissful com
munion with him. And, in uttering its first words,
he at once recalls to his own mind its animating sense,
and intimates to the by-standers that if in appearance
his outward affliction, so too his inward joys, were
like those of that ancient sufferer, beloved of God,
who had closed his lament with such words as these :
" All the ends of the world shall remember and turn
unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the nations
shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the
Lord's, and he is the Govemor among the nations,
 They shall come and shall declare his right
eousness unto a people that shall be born, that he
hath done this." (Ps. xxii. 27-31.)

128 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XXVm. 20.
XXVIII. 20.
Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
" The end of the world," or of the age, (-n a-wreKeia
TOV alaivoi,) is the sarae phrase which was used by the
disciples of Jesus when they asked him (Matt. xxiv. 3)
respecting the tokens of his " coraing, and of the end
of the world," and is to be understood here in the
sarae sense. (See above, pp. 78, 111.) The end of the
age is the winding up of the Jewish dispensation.
Jesus proraises his Apostles his presence, encourage
ment, and support in their labors to bring the old
order of things to a close, and to introduce the new one.

SECTION II.
GOSPEL OF MARK.

L 1.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
See above, pp. 1, 50-53. L 2.
As it is written in the Prophets, " Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, which shall prepare thy way ; the voice
of one crying in the wilderness, ' Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make his paths straight.' "
The first part of this quotation is inexactly taken
from Malachi (iii. 1) ; the second from the pseudo-
Isaiah (xl. 3). To raeet this fact, the later manu
scripts, followed by the earlier printed editions, appear
to have corrupted the Evangelist's text. According
to the best evidence which we have (see Griesbach's

1.43,44.] GOSPEL OF MAEK. 129
critical edition, ad loe), Mark wrote, not " as it is
written in the prophets," but " as it is written in
Isaiah the prophet." His memory deceived him, and
he supposed the whole of what he quoted to be taken
from Isaiah, There is nothing extraordinary in this,
if rhetorical embellishment, as I maintain, was the
object in such quotations. But if the Evangelist had
intended any thing so important as a reference to a
supernatural prediction fulfilled, is it possible to con
ceive that he would have allowed himself in such a
negligence ] Is it possible to imagine him to have
argued that an ancient writer, by supernatural fore
sight, had used certain words, which the event had
now fulfilled, when he had not ascertained that that
writer had used those words, and when, in fact, he had
not used them 1
For remarks on the quotations, which are also sepa
rately made by Matthew, see above, pp. 48, 49, 72, 73,
L n.
There came a voice from heaven, saying, " Thou art my be
loved Son, in whora Lam well pleased."
See above, pp. 50-53. I. 14, 15.
Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom
of God, and saying, " The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God is at hand : repent ye, and believe the gospel."
See above, pp. 46 - 48, 56.
I. 43, 44.
He straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away ; and
saith unto hira, " See thou say nothing to any raan : but go
Ihy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleans
ing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony
unto them."
See above, p. 62.

130 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [IL 10.
II. 10.
The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.
For reraarks on the origin and force of the phrase
Son of man, see above, pp. 65 - 68.
II. 26.
In the days of Abiathar the high-priest.
See above, p. 75. — According to the history
(1 Sam. xxi. 1-6) this transaction took place in the
high-priesthood of Abimelech, Abiathar's father. Per
haps Mark's memory was in fault ; perhaps, instead of
" in the days," we should render in the presence, of
Abiathar ; perhaps we should understand Mark as
using a form of reference, as if he had said, " in that
passage of the history which relates to Abiathar."
So our Saviour, when he says, " Moses at the hush "
(Mark xii. 26, Luke xx. 37), is understood as referring,
under that phraseology, to those passages of Scripture
where the incident of " The Bush " is treated of See
Michaelis's " Introduction," &c.. Part I. chap. iv. § 5.
IV. 11, 12.
Unto them that are without, all these things are done in para
bles ; that seeing they may see, and not perceive, &c.
Who can doubt that Matthew and Mark meant to
raake the same application of the language of old
Scripture 1 Yet when Matthew uses the words (xiii.
14, 15), it is with the apparently formal introduction,
" In them is fulfllled the prophecy of Esaias, which
saith." See above, pp. 80, 81.
VI. 15.
Others said, that it is Elias ; and others said, that it is a prophet,
or as one of the prophets.
See above, pp. 85, 86.

Vni. 27-29.] GOSPEL OF MARK. 131
VII. 6.
Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites.
See above, p. 84. VII. 10.
Moses said, " Honor thy father and thy mother."
See above, p. 83. — For " Moses said," we read in
the parallel passjage in Matthew, " God coramanded,"
VIII. 11.
The Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him,
seeking of him a sign from heaven.
See above, pp, 79, 80. — Mark omits our Lord's
reference, reported by Matthew (xii. 40, 41, xvi. 1 - 4),
to " the sign of the prophet Jonas." This fact sug
gests the observation, applicable to numerous other
cases, that, as the Evangelists wrote independently of
each other, and for different readers, it may be pre
sumed that, if references made to the Old Testament
by any one Evangelist had been adduced by him as
in the nature of proof, and not raerely of illustration,
the same references would have been found also in the
other Evangelists, when the same connection, whether
of narrative or of discourse, made it suitable.
vm. 27-29.
He asked his disciples, saying unto them, " Whom do men say
that I am .? "  And Peter answereth and saith unto him,
" Thou art the Christ."
See above, pp, 1-4. — I have already remarked
(p. 52) that Mark omits from Peter's declaration the
phrase " Son of the living God," recorded by Matthew,
which it is scarcely credible that he should have done,
if, instead of being merely equivalent to Messiah, it

132 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [VHI. 38-IX. 1.
meant so much more than that title as has been com
monly supposed, VIII. 38 -IX. 1.
Of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh
in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels  There
be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of
death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with
power.

See above, pp. 88-91,

IX. 4.
There appeared unto them Elias, with Moses ; and they were
talking with Jesus.
See above, pp, 91-93. IX. 7.
This is my beloved Son ; hear hira.
See above, p. 94. IX. 12, 13.
He answered and told them, " Elias verily cometh firet, and
restoreth all things ; and how it is written of the Son of Man,
that he must suffer many things, and be set at naught. But
I say unto you, that Elias is indeed come, and they have
done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of
hira."
See above, p. 95. — "It is ivritten ofthe Son of
Man," &c. For the meaning of this language, see
above, pp. 117, 118, where " it is written" is shown to
be equivalent to " it is determined " (Luke xxii. 22).
So in the text of Mark before us, our Lord, referring
to the death of John, says, " They have done unto him
whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him." But
where else than in the counsels of God was it ever
" written " in what manner John should die 1

XI. 7.] GOSPEL OF MARK 133
IX. 43, 44.
The fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched.
See above, pp, 60, 61.
X, 3,
He answered and said unto them, " What did Moses command
you ? "
See above, pp. 96, 97. X. 47.
He began to cry out, and say, " Jesus, thou Son of David,
have mercy on me."
For the origin of the idea prevalent among the Jews
that the Messiah, the prophet like unto Moses (Deut.
xviii. 15), would be one of King David's posterity, see
"Lectures," &c. Vol. IL pp. 377-386; Vol. IIL pp.
18 - 21 ; Vol. IV. pp. 306, 307. But Mark nowhere
says, either in his own person or in that of his Master,
that Jesus was a descendant from David. (Comp.
above, pp. 5 et seq.) •XL 7.
They brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him,
and he sat upon him.
See above, pp. 99-101. — In relating this incident,
Matthew and John (xii. 14-16) embellish their nar
rative with a quotation from Zechariah. Neither
Mark nor Luke (xix, 29 et seq.) does so. It is to the
last degree difficult to suppose that they would have
omitted the quotation, had they regarded it as having
the prophetical signiflcance imagined by later inter
preters, 12

134 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XI. 9.
XL 9.
They that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying,
" Hosanna ! blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord."
See above, p. 102. XL 17.
He taught, saying unto them, " Is it not written, ' My house
shall be called of all nations the house of prayer ' .' But ye
have made it a den of thieves."
See above, p. 102. XIL 10, 11.
Have ye not read this Scripture, " The stone which the builders
rejected is become the head of the corner ; this was the
Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes " }
See above, pp. 103, 104.
XII. 26, 27.
Have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God
spake unto him, &c.
See above, pp. 104-106. Comp. Rom. xi. 2, where
the true translation is " in Elias " (ev 'Hkia) ; and Jahn,
" Einleit. in das A. T.," § 102.
XII. 31.
There is none other commandment greater than these.
See above, p. 106. XII. 35,
How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David .'
See above, pp. 107 - 109, XIII. 14.
When ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing where
it ought not (let him that readeth understand).
See above, pp. 111, 112,

XV. 28.] GOSPEL OF MARK. 135
Xin. 24-26.
In those days  shall they see the Son of Man coming in
the clouds.
See above, pp. 112, 113. XIV. 21.
The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of him.
See above, pp. 117, 118. XIV. 27.
It is written, " I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall
be -scattered."
See above, pp. 118, 119. XIV. 49.
The Scriptures must be fulfilled.
See above, pp. 119, 120.
XIV. 61, 62.
The high-priest asked him, and said unto him, " Art thou the
Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? " And Jesus said, " I am " :
and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
See above, pp. 121, 122. — The passage illustrates
the equivalence of the three titles, Christ, Son of the
Blessed (that is. Son of God), and Son of Man. See
above, pp. 50-53, 65 - 68.
XV. 28.
And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, " And he was num
bered with the transgressors."
The reference is to Isaiah Iiii, 12, (See above, pp,
17 et seq., and comp, Luke xxii. 37.) Neither Matthew
nor John makes this quotation.

136 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XV. 34.
XV. 34.
Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, " Eloi, Eloi, lama sa-
bachthani ? "
See above, pp. 126, 1 27, Mark reports Jesus as using
a Syriac form for " My God." Eli (in Matthew) is pure
Hebrew. Eloi occurs in the Septuagint (Judges v. 5).

SECTION III.
GOSPEL OF LUKE.

L 5.
A certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia.
See 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, 10.
L 17.
He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn
the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient
to the wisdom of the just ; to make ready a people prepared
for the Lord.
Mourning over the sinful practices of his time,
Malachi had said (iv. 6) that it seemed as if Jehovah
would have to send another Elijah, another restorer of
the Law, to " turn the heart of the fathers to the chil
dren, and the heart of the children to their fathers."
The angel who spoke with Zechariah is here repre
sented as applying the words, in an inaccurate quota
tion of them (comp. Mal. iii. 1), to John, the forerun
ner of the new Christian dispensation. John, with a
spirit and power like that of the great ancient reform
er, was to be the Lord's herald in introducing the com
ing kingdom, (See above, pp. 74, 75, and comp.
" Lectures," &c, Vol, IIL p. 502.)

I- 19] GOSPEL OF LtnCE, 137
L 19.
The angel answering said unto him, " I am Gabriel, that stand
in the presence of God, and am sent to speak unto thee, and
to show thee these glad tidings."
" The mythology of a divine council of seven angels
is believed to have had its origin in the attendance with
which the Persian king, Darius Hystaspis, surrounded
his throne. (Eich. ' Einleit. in die Apokryph. Schrift.,'
s. 408, Anm. h.) But however this might be, it was a
doctrine of the Persians (Bertholdt, ' Einleit.,' § 582 ;
Corrodi, ' Versuch,' Band I. ss. 89-91), with which
people the Jews had no intimate relations till the tirae
of the capture of Babylon by Cyrus ; and several
generations must be supposed to have passed before
the Jews incorporated into their own popular faith an
article so peculiar, and so foreign to their national the
ology." ("Lectures," &c.. Vol. IV. p. 363.) The
Jews brought with them from Babylon the names of
the seven chief angels (comp. Apoc. viii. 2), on their
return frora the captivity. So testify the Rabbins with
one accord. (See Wetsten. " Nov. Test." in Luc. i.
19.) The later Jewish books present the naraes of
four of them ; viz. Gabriel (Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21),
Michael (Dan. x. 13, 21, xii. 1 ; corap. Jude 9, Apoc.
xii. 7), Raphael (Tobit iii. 17, v. 4, viii. 2, ix, 1, 5,
xii, 15), and Uriel (2 Esd. iv, 1, v. 20),
And now, in his narrative of events connected with
the birth of Jesus, the Evangelist Luke relates that
the miraculous apparition which foretold to Zacharias
the birth of his son " said unto him, ' I am Gabriel,
that stand in the presence of God,' " How are we to
understand this % Are we to take it as corroborative
of the truth of that doctrine concerning angels which
the Jews, in the feeble days of their exile, had imbibed
from a Pagan source 1 Are we to consider God as
12*

138 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [1.191
here conflrming the dreams of the Persians 1 Does
the language of Luke convert the speculations of the
times of and after Darius Hystaspis into articles of
Christian faith, and establish the doctrine that there is
a superhuman being, privileged to " stand in the pres
ence of God," and bearing the name of Gabriel f
We naturally think, in the first place, of the evi
dence upon which the knowledge of this transaction,
with all its particulars, has reached us. Zacharias
was the only eye and ear witness to it ; and him it is
not in the slightest degree probable that Luke ever
saw. At the time to which it belongs, Zacharias was
already " well stricken in years " (Luke i. 7), so as to
have given up the hope of posterity. It was thirty
years after that, before Jesus began to call disciples,
and we do not know even that Luke became a disciple
during his personal ministry. (Comp. Luke i. 1, 2.)
The account must have been transmitted from Zacha
rias to him through intermediate hands (comp. Luke
i. 65) ; and we can scarcely rely so confidently on its
having been transmitted with verbal exactness, as to
feel certain that the words " I am Gabriel " were ac
tually used by the supernatural appearance, when that
part of the narrative would, in the course of trans
mission, be so likely to take such a form, from the
current superstition respecting the hierarchy of angels.
And this idea gains strength, when we remember that
the Evangelist Matthew, who may be supposed to have
been better acquainted than Luke with the mother of
Jesus, does not name Gabriel in his account of these
transactions, (Matt, i, 20, 24; ii. 13.) Luke says
(i. 65, 66) that " all these sayings were noised abroad
throughout all the hill-country of Judea ; and all they
that heard them laid them up in their hearts." May
we not understand him as here indicating the source

I. 19] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 139
of his information ; viz. common report, which always
improves upon a story 1
But let us suppose the words, after floating in tra
dition for more than half a century, to have been at
length recorded by Luke precisely as they had been
spoken to Zacharias, what inference is it necessary to
deduce from them in respect to the existence of a su
perhuman being, named Gabriel 1 Undoubtedly, it
would be altogether extraordinary, and contrary to the
doctrine of chances, that a heathen or even a Jewish
speculation should have hit so exactly right as to guess
that very name of a superhuraan being which revela
tion afterwards declared to be his true narae. Very
clear and strong evidence would seem to be requisite
to establish a fact so singular.
I take it to be quite unnecessary to resort to so vio
lent an interpretation of the words, even supposing
them to be recorded precisely as they were spoken by
the supernatural messenger. Eoo vi termini, in the
Old and New Testament sense, an angel meant siraply
a messenger, an errand-bearer, any mediura of coramu-
nication or action whatever, and this equally between
man and man or between God and raan. Such is the
meaning of the corresponding Hebrew and Greek
words (TInSd and aryyeXo^). The angel, or instru
mentality, may be inanimate, sentient, or huraan, or
it raay be a superhuman manifestation or creation,
whether temporary or permanent. (See "Lectures,"
&c.. Vol. I. p. 104.) In the case before us, a super
human messenger bore God's errand ; and, taking the
words " I am Gabriel " to have been used by him just
as they are recorded, I understand the natural con
struction of them to be, that he used a language sig
nificant to Zacharias, as being borrowed from the cur
rent conceptions of the time. When he said, " I am

140 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [L 26.
Gabriel (or a Gabriel), that stand in the presence of
God," it is as if he had said, I am what you under
stand Gabriel to be ; I ara a highly trusted minister
(comp. 1 Kings x. 8, xii. 6, Job ii. 1, Dan. vii. 10)
to raake known and execute God's declaration and
will. The words " that stand in the presence of God "
(¦irapeaTi]Ka><;), I would rather render " that have stood,"
&c. ; signifying, " that have just corae from God, and
have my instructions directly from him." — Gabriel
means the power of God. " This is Elias which was
for to come," said our Lord of John the Baptist (Matt.
xi. 14), because John was performing the office as
signed by the popular belief to Elias. So this mani
festation was Gabriel, because it bore God's message,
as a being called Gabriel was supposed to do.
L 26.
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God
unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth.
It is not related that the apparition to Mary called
itself by the narae of Gabriel, as that to Zacharias had
done. But the Evangelist, or those frora whom he
derived the account, associating the two events to
gether, naturally gave to one appearance the name
said to have been clairaed by the other. This would
the raore readily be done, as the angel that spoke to
Mary also informed her of the condition of the wife
of Zacharias (i. 36). — " The angel Gabriel was sent
from God" to Mary; that is, there was an appear
ance to Mary like what there had been to Zacharias
(11-19).
I. 32.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest ;
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father

I- 35.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 141
David ; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever ;
and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
With our knowledge of the office and authority of
Jesus, as he afterwards disclosed them, we perceive
that they are not accurately described in these words.
But it was the only kind of description of them which
Mary, entertaining the current views of the expected
Messiah, would at this time have understood, and
therefore the fittest to be addressed to her ; — • if, in
deed, we are not to suppose the language of the angel
to have suffered some change, conforming it to the
current opinions, in its transmission through many
years, and perhaps through many hands, from Mary
to Luke. I. 35.
Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be
called the Son [rather, a son] of God.
The angel, if correctly reported, may seem here to
have indicated the miraculous conception of Jesus as
a reason for his beiug called Son of God(c<yca^. iii. 38),
additional to that which, with the Jews, had raade that
title equivalent to Messiah. (See above, pp. 50-53.)
Matthew (i. 18-21) gives no such explanation of the
narae. It may have been more suitable to be com
municated to Luke's Gentile readers (who were accus
tomed to divine generations in their own mythology)
than to the Jews for whom Matthew wrote. On the
other hand, there were instances of supernatural birth
in Jewish history (Gen. xvii, 17 ; Judges xiii. 2, 24 ;
1 Sam. i. 5, 20), without the appellation Son of God
being made consequent upon it.
On the whole, however, I think it is a mistake to
suppose that the angel was here referring to, and giv
ing an additional explanation of, the peculiar title,

142 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 46-55.
Son of God, by which Jesus, as Messiah, was after
wards to be known. I suppose that he was not allud
ing to that title, but merely answering the question of
Mary. Mary asks. How can I have a son, who will
be a son of no man (i. 34) % The angel replies, Your
son will be a son of God, who by supernatural power
creates hira, " He shall be called " (/cXij^Tja-erat) often
means simply he shall be (Is, lvi. 7 ; Matt. v. 9, 19 ;
Luke ii. 23 ; xv. 19 ; 1 Cor, xv, 9), But waving this,
we raay render the word (still regarding it as an an
swer to the question of Mary) he may he called, you
may properly call him a son of God, since he is to be
no son of a man. L 46-55,
Mary said, " My soul doth magnify the Lord  As he
spake to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed, for ever."
Mary's hymn of thanksgiving is in great part a
collection of expressions from the Old Testament Scrip
tures, which she applies to herself. (Comp. 1 Sam
ii. 1, 3; Ps. xxxiv. 3; xxxv. 9; Gen. xxx. 13; Judg,
V. 24 ; 1 Sara. i. 11 ; 2 Kings xiv, 26 ; Ps, xxv, 18
cii. 17; cxi, 9; cxxvi, 2; Gen. xvii. 7; Exod. xx
6; Ps. ciii. 17; xxxiii. 10; Ixxvii. 15; Ixxxvi. 13
xcviii. 1; Is. xl. 10; lii. 10; 1 Sam. ii. 7, 8; Job v
11; xii. 18; Ps. cxiii. 7; Is. Ixvi. 2; Ps. xcviii. 3;
Is. xxx. 18 ; Iv, 5 ; Jer. xxxi. 3, 20.) The fact is
important in connection with the inquiry in which we
are now engaged concerning the use made in the New
Testament of the Old Testament writers ; as it shows
how natural it was to a pious Jew to give utterance
and illustration to his own thoughts in language bor
rowed from the worthies of ancient times.

n. 22-24.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 143
I. 70.
As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have
been since the world began.
By the " world " (alwv) I understand the time of the
Jewish dispensation. (See above, pp. 78, 79.) Zacha
rias correctly interpreted the language of " the holy
prophets " of the post-Mosaic period, when he under
stood them, in their imperfect apprehension of the office
of the coming " prophet," as expressing the expectation
that, by the agency of a descendant of David (i. 69),
the people would be saved from their eneraies, and
from the hand of all them that hated them (71).
L 73-75.
The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would
grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of
our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and
righteousness before him, all our days.
The reference appears to be to Genesis xxii. 17.
I. 76.
Thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.
Here language of Malachi (iii. 1 ; comp. " Lec
tures," &c.. Vol, IIL p, 501, note), which appears to
have originally denoted the Messiah, is applied to
John the Baptist, (Comp, Matt, xi. 10 ; Mark i. 2 ;
Luke vii. 27.) IL 22-24.
And when the days of their purification, according to the Law
of Moses, were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem,
to present him to the Lord ; (as it is written in the Law of
the Lord, " Every male that openeth the womb shall be called
holy to the Lord " ;) and to offer a sacrifice according to that
which is said in the Law of the Lord, A pair of turtle-doves,
or two young pigeons."

144 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [HI. 4-6.
The regulations here referred to are found in dif
ferent parts of the Mosaic code. (Comp. Exod. xiii.
2; xxii. 29; xxxiv. 19; Numb. iii. 13; viii. 16, 17;
Lev. xii. 2, 6, 8.) IIL 4-6.
As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet,
saying, " The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ' Pre
pare ye the way ofthe Lord, make his paths straight. Every
valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be
brought low ; and the crooked shall be made straight, and
the rough ways shall be made smooth ; and all flesh shall see
the salvation of God. "
Luke extends the quotation from Isaiah (xl. 3-5)
further than had been done by Matthew (iii. 3) or by
Mark (i. 3), and in the last clause he follows the Sep
tuagint version. For remarks on the quotation, and
the import of its application to the case of John, see
above, pp. 48, 49. In respect to that part of it which
is added by Luke (iii. 5), it is especially plain that he
could only have intended to make a rhetorical accom
modation of the words of the pseudo-Isaiah, and by
no means to adduce them as a prediction fulfilled in
John. What improveraent of the highways was made
in the time, and at the bidding, of the Baptist 1
III. 22.
A voice came from heaven, which said, " Thou art my beloved
Son ; in thee I am well pleased."
See above, pp. 50-53. in. 23-38.
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli,  which was the son of Adam, which was the son
of God.

rn. 23-38.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 145
For my views of the purpose of Luke, as well as
pf Matthew, in recording the genealogies of Jesus, or
;rather of his mother's husband, see above, pp. 5-16.
Matthew (i. 2) has traced the line only from Abraham.
Luke (iii. 34 - 38), transcribing from Genesis (v. 3 -
32, xi. lOr-26), deduces it from the origin of the
human race. But what is more material is, that in
two thirds of that portion of the genealogy which
covers the same ground (for in what relates to the
period from Abraham to David they agree), the ac
counts of the two Evangelists are at irreconcilable
variance. Matthew says (i. 12, 16) that Joseph was
the son of one Jacob, and through him descended from
Zerubbabel, the prince of the Jews in the tirae of Cy
rus. (Corap. Ez. iii. 2.) Luke (iii. 23 - 27) agrees that
he was of the posterity of Zerubbabel, but through a
line of ancestors so entirely different frora that speci
fied by Matthew, that in no one instance do the two
Evangelists give the sarae name. From Salathiel,
father of Zerubbabel, to King David, they diverge
again. The line of descent, according to Matthew
(i, 6-12), was the royal line, through Solomon and
his successors on the Jewish throne, ending with Je
choniah, whom he represents as Salathiel's father ;
while Luke (iii. 27-31) declares Salathiel to have
been son of one Neri, and through him descended, by
a parentage of otherwise unknown names, not from
Solomon, but frora Nathan, another son of David and
Bathsheba, (2 Sara, v, 14; 1 Chron, iii, 5.)
The commentators have thought it necessary to har
monize the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. The
most approved way of doing this has been to repre
sent Luke (iii. 27-31) as giving, from David, the
natural descent of Salathiel, and Matthew (i. 6-11) as
tra,cing the lineage of Jechoniah, who is supposed to
13

146 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [HL 23-38.
have taken Salathiel (i. 12; comp. 1 Chron. iii. 17,
19, Jer. xxii. 30) for his adopted son ; while, from
Salathiel's son, Zerubbabel, down, it is proposed to
understand Matthew (i. 13-16) as stating the parent
age of Joseph, and Luke (iii. 23 - 27) that of Mary,
it being thought that Joseph might be called the son
of Eli (23) as having married his daughter.
If this hypothesis is correct, — if Jesus was no
otherwise a son of David than as being a descendant
from him through a Jewish mother, — then he was
scarcely a son of David in the sense of the Old Testa
ment writers who are relied on for that representa
tion. I formerly thought (see " Lowell Lectures,"
&c., Vol. II. p. 361) that this exposition of Luke's
genealogy might be maintained, though plainly subject
to the objection of having been constructed to meet
the supposed difficulties of the case. On more full
reflection, however, the conjectures which it involves
appear to me to be too violent. I will not say that
the objections to the scheme are conclusive. But the
arguments for it fall short of satisfying my mind.
And the reader of what I have written on Matthew's
genealogy has observed that I find no difficulty in
leaving the two passages unreconciled.
Though the Jews of the age of the publication of
the Gospel expected their Messiah to be of the pos
terity of King David, the Evangelists Mark and John
did not esteem it worth their while to say any thing
of the raanner in which he might be considered to
sustain that relation. For some reason, as, perhaps, to
rid themselves of a cavil of unbelieving Jews, Matthew
and Luke looked at the extant genealogies with refer
ence to that point. Matthew found one in which was
traced from King David the descent of " Joseph, the
husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus " (Matt.

in. 23-38.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 147
i. 16). Luke found another, in which was traced in
a different way the descent from David of Joseph, the
" supposed " (Luke iii. 23) father of Jesus, But both
the Evangelists tell us, at the same time, distinctly
and circumstantially, that of that Joseph, son of David,
Jesus, their master, was not the son. If any for whom
they wrote believed otherwise, rejecting the narrative
of the miraculous conception (as some of the early
Christians did), for such persons an account of the
parentage of Joseph (so far as it appeared credible)
would be interesting, as being equally an account of
the parentage of Jesus, But whosoever believed what
we find in Matthew (i, 18-25) and Luke (i. 26-38)
of the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, to hira it
would be a matter of less concern how or whether
Joseph, his mother's betrothed, was descended from
the ancient kings.
As I view the case, God had never raade known
that the coming Messiah, the " Prophet," should be of
the posterity of David ; and therefore, whether Jesus
was in fact descended from that monarch or not, it
was not requisite to the proof of Jesus's Messiahship
to show that he was thus descended, Matthew and
Luke, however, through a natural curiosity respecting
the origin of that faraily of Joseph, of which their
master had been a raeraber, and very probably for
more special reasons, such as I have hinted at, sought
for genealogies of Mary's husband. They raade their
search, as they wrote their Gospels, independently of
each other. They found two lists, as it is not at all
surprising that they should, which did not agree to
gether. And such as they found them, they set them
down ; — in good faith, but, not improbably, Avith
small assurance in their own minds of the absolute
correctness of documents so ancient. Such as they

148 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 17-21.
were, those interested in the history of Jesus might
conveniently find them in their narratives, to serve
such use as might be thought fit.
IV. 17-2L
He found the place where it was written, " The spirit of the
Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the
Gospel to the poor ; he hath sent me to heal the broken
hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering
of sight to the blind ; to set at liberty therti that are bruised ;
to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." ..... And he
began to say unto them, " This day is this Scripture fulfilled
in your ears."
The quotation is from the pseudo-Isaiah (IxL 1, 2),
though not made with exactness. The words " to
heal the broken-hearted," appear not to have beeii
written by Luke. (See Griesbach, " Nov. Test." ad
he.) The clause, " and recovering of sight to the
blind," is in the Septuagint version, but not in the
Hebrew. The word " bruised," or oppressed (D'Vllf"?))
for hound, seems to be taken from the similar passage
in the third preceding chapter (Is. Iviii. 6). The He*
brew, "he hath anointed rae" ('riJ< HB'O), might be
strictly rendered, he hath made me a Messiah, and thei
Greek (expire /ne), he hath made me a Christ.
When our Saviour, after reading these words, saidj
" This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears," h6
did not mean to declare that the writer, from whom
he quoted them, had predicted in them his a,dvent and
ministry. Any one who will -look at them in their'
original connection will see that they have no mean
ing of that kind. It is clear that the writer is speak
ing of himself, and of himself alone. (See " Lec
tures," &c., Vol. III. pp. 266j 267.) Nor does Jesus
put any different construction upon his language.
What Jesus says is, that the words which the ancient

IV. 17-21.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 149
writer used respecting his own labors, he, Jesus, may
properly apply to himself That Scripture, originally
descriptive of another person, was now " fulfilled,"
filled out, (comp. John iv. 37,) in him who was about
to offer a remedy for every moral evil.
A criticism of Dr. Sykes upon this passage is so
well expressed, as to tempt me to transcribe it at length.
The fact that that learned writer (erroneously, as I
think, see " Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. pp. 235 - 238)
—supposes Isaiah to have been the author of the words
quoted, makes no difference as to the bearing of his
argument on the point now in question.
" The Scripture of Isaiah was that day fulfilled no
otherwise than as Jesus in fact did preach the accepta
ble year of the Lord in one sense, as Isaiah had done
before him in another sense. Not that our Saviour
meant any douhle completion of prophecies ; but he
applied or accommodated the words of Isaiah to the
present occasion ; and they were equally true in both
instances, in that which the prophet used thera, and
in that which Jesus used them : and consequently the
term fulfilled does not signify a designed event ac
complished, or that The Messiah was in the intention
of Providence to preach upon these words in the syna
gogue at Nazareth, but only this, that the words of
Isaiah are this day verified.
" The reason why I conclude this to be a mere ac
commodation only is, that Isaiah speaks of such a
day, wherein the Jews were to build up the old wastes,
to raise up the former devastations, to repair the waste
cities, the desolations of many generations, ch. Ixi. 4.
What has this to do with the appearance of another
sort of liberty ; with a freedom from captivity to
which the repairs of cities that have long lain waste
can have no manner of relation % Jesus preached up
13*

150 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 25-27.
a kingdom of a spiritual nature ; a kingdom which
was not of this world ; and consequently such a one
in which there was no need of fenced cities and walled
towns for the security of his subjects. The deliver
ance which he preached, was to such as were captives
to sin and death ; and the acceptable year was that
in which the Redeemer was to arise to the people of
God. The words of Isaiah were very proper to make
the subject of his discourse upon, because they suited
the present purpose : and he used them not by way
of argument or proof that he was designed in thos^
words, but only took occasion to speak to the point
he had in view from those words." (" Essay on
the Truth of the Christian Religion," edit. 2d, pp.
263-265.) IV. 25-27.
Many widows were in Israel in the days of Ellas, when the
heaven was shut up three years and six raonths  And
many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the proph
et, and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaraan the
Syrian.
Probably some tradition authorized this reckoning
of three years and a half for the drought in the time
of Elijah, as we find it also in the Epistle of Jame^
(v. 17). According to the history, there was a fall of
rain in the third year (1 Kings xviii. 1, 45). — To illus
trate a principle and habit of character and action
(viz. that a prophet's sphere is not apt to be about his
own home), Jesus alludes to two familiar anecdotes in
an ancient Jewish book. The illustrations were equally
forcible, whatever might be the authority of that book
as a trustworthy record of facts. To maintain the
contrary, would be to say that our Lord could not
properly draw conclusions from the stories of the
Prodigal Son, the Unjust Judge, the Penitent Publi
can, or the man who hired laborers into his vineyard.

VIL St.] &OSPEL OF LUKE. 151
IV. 41.
Devils also catne but of many, crying out, and saying, " Thou
art the Son of God." And he, rebuking them, suffered them
not to speak : for they knew that he was Christ.
Here the phrases " Son of God " and " Christ " ap
pear as synonymous and convertible. (See above, pp.
50-53.) V. 14.
He charged him to tell no man ; but go and shew thyself to the
priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses com
manded, for a testimony unto them.
See above, p. 62. VI. 3, 4.
Jesus, answering them, said, " Have ye not read so much as
this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and
they which were with him ; how he went into the house of
God, and did take and eat the shew-bread, and gave also to
them that were with him ; which is not lawful to eat but
for the priests alone } "
See above, p. 75. VI. 20.
He lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, " Blessed be
ye poor ; for yours is the kingdom of God."
See above, p. 56. VII. 22.
Then Jesus, answering, said unto them, " Go your way, and tell
John what things ye have seen and heard ; how that the blind
see, the larae walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear,
the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached."
See above, p. 70, VII. 27,
This is he of whom it is written, " Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."
See above, p, 72.

152 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [Vm. 10.
VIII. 10.
Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
God : but to others in parables ; that seeing they might not
see, and hearing they might not understand.

See above, p. 80.

IX. 7, 8, 19.

It was said of some, that John was risen from the dead ; and of
some, that Elias had appeared ; and of others, that one of
the old prophets was risen again.
They, answering, said, " John the Baptist : but some say, Elias ;
and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again."
See above, p. 85. IX. 20,
He said unto them, " But whom say ye that I am ? " Peter,
answering, said, " The Christ of God."
See above, pp. 86, 131. If the expression, "the
Son of the living God," recorded by Matthew as having
been used by our Lord on this occasion, had had a
meaning, additional to that of " the Christ," so peculiar
and iraportant as is commonly supposed, one is quite
at a loss for a reason for its omission by Luke. Sup
posing the expressions to be substantially equivalent,
that question does not arise.
IX. 26, 27.
Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, of him
shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he shall come in
his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of
God.
See above, p. 88.

^- Sl-i GOSPEL Of LUKE. 153
IX. 30, 31.
And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses
and Elias ; who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease,
which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
See above, p. 91. IX. 35.
There came a voice out of the cloud, s&ying, " This is my be
loved Son ; hear him."
See above, p. 50. IX. 54.
They said, "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come
down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did .? "
See 2 Kings i. lO, 12.
X. 12.
It shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that
city.
See above, p. 75. XI. 29-32,
He began to Say, " This is an evil generEttfori : they seek a sigh ;
and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas,
Por as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also
the Son of Man be to this generation  The men
of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this gen
eration, and shall condemn it : for they repented at the
preaching of Jonas : and, behold, a greater than Jonas isS
here."
See above, pp. 79, 80. XL 5L
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, whieh
perished between the altar and the temple.
See above, p, 110.

154 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVI. 16.
XVI. 16.
The Law and the Prophets were until John : since that time the
kingdom of God is preached.
See above, p. 73, XVII. 26 - 29, 32.
As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of
the Son of Man. They did eat, they drank, they married
wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe
entered into the ark ; and the flood came and destroyed th§m
all  Remember Lot's wife.
See above, p, 113, XVIIL 31-33.
He took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, " Behold, we
go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the
prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished ;
for he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be
mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on ; and they
shall scourge hira, and put him to death, and the third day he
shall rise again."
Careless readers of this text have understood our
Lord as declaring that somewhere in the prophetical
writings of the Old Testament were contained pre
dictions of the various events here specified. If he
did so declare, we can find those predictions. Where
are they ¦? Where can it be pretended that any Old
Testament writer has foretold the following things, or
any one of them, concerning the Messiah, or the Son
of Man : that he should be delivered to the Gentiles ;
that he should be mocked, spit upon, and scourged;
and that, after dying, he should have a resurrection on
the third day "? We search in vain for declarations of
this tenor.
Matthew (xx, 17-19) and Mark (x, 32-34), as
well as Luke, have, with great particularity, related

XVm. 31-33.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 155
this important conversation. Both of them, like him,
give in detail the declaration of Jesus respecting his
approaching sufferings, death, and resurrection. But
neither of them has any intimation to the effect of
these events being among " things written by the
prophets." Can this fact be reconciled with the sup
position that those Evangelists considered the events
specified to have taken place in fulfilment of super
natural prediction ? Had they entertained that opin
ion on a matter so exceedingly singular and important,
is it possible to suppose that they would have omitted
all reference to it 1 Especially, is it possible to enter
tain this supposition concerning Mattliew, the only
one of the three, as far as we know, or have reason to
suppose, who himself heard this discourse of Jesus 1
This consideration acquires still greater force when we
remember that on another occasion when Jesus ex
pressed himself to the sarae effect, though less fully,
in terras recorded by the same three Evangelists (Matt,
xvii. 22, 23 ; Mark ix. 30 - 32 ; Luke ix. 43-45), no
one of them gives any hint of ancient prediction being
accomplished. When Jesus had thus declared what should befall
him, his disciples, says the Evangelist in the next sen
tence (xviii, 34), " understood none of these things ;
and this saying was hid frora them, neither knew they
the things which were spoken," How was this, if
those sufferings of Jesus, to be followed by his death
and resurrection, of which he had just been speaking,
were foretold of the Messiah in the prophetical books 1
The disciples knew Jesus to be the Messiah, and if in
their ancient Scriptures it was predicted that the Mes
siah would be delivered to Gentiles, mocked, spitted
on, scourged, put to death, and restored to life, how
could they fail to understand, how could the saying

156 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVIU. 31-33.
have been " hid frop them," how could they not know
" the things which were spoken," when their Master
declared that thus it was to be with him 1 The cause
of their perplexity was of just the opposite kind. It
was because such things were not written by their
prophets respecting the Messiah, that they were astour
ished and bewildered that Jesus, whom they believed
to be the Messiah, should announce that such was to
be his lot. Had it been " written by the prophets
concerning the Son of Man " that he would be subr
jected to such indignities, what Jesus said of himself
would have been plain enough. It was simply be
cause his disciples were unable to reconcile it with
the idea which the prophets presented of the Messiah,
as a magnificent prince, triuraphant over Gentile foes,
that " this saying was hid from them, neither knew
they the things which were spoken."
The construction, in the original, of the clause ren
dered in our version, " all things that are written by
[or in] the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall
be accomplished," is peculiar and anomalous. The
peculiarity consists in the syntax of the dative of the
person (rw vim), aud it is equally observable, whether
we understand the sentence as has been done by our
translators, or render it, "all things that are written
by [or in] the prophets shall be accomplished in the
Son of Man."
The word out of which the misapprehension of the
sentence arises, is that rendered " shall be accom
plished" (i-eXeaO-ria-eTai). The noun from which it is
derived (re'Xo?) signifies simply an end, and the verb
(reXefu), J bring to an end. Founding themselves on
an assurance given by their great lawgiver, the writers
called Prophets had spoken largely of a future dispen
sation, which acquired the name of the kingdom of

XVlIL 31-33.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 157
God. It is true that they greatly misunderstood its
nature, but still that kingdom of God, which they had
intended to foreshadow, was established when Jesus of
Nazareth, the Son of Man, introduced his religion
among men. In that just and important sense, when
Christianity was published, all things written by the
prophets concerning the Son of Man were accom
plished (or wrought out to their end) ; or, all things
written by the prophets were accomplished (or wrought
out to their end) in the Son of Man,
But how ? By entirely unexpected methods. And
Jesus, as the circumstances demanded, presents the
truth in the form of what to his hearers was a para
dox. So far from coming into possession of his king
dom through splendid conquest, he was to arrive at it
through an experience of suffering, and (as the world
estimates such things) defeat and sharae. The proph
ets had written of a future establishment of the domin
ion of the Son of Man. In a better sense than they un
derstood, his dominion was to be established. What
they had written concerning him was to be brought to
pass. But it was to be brought to pass in a way of
which they had not dreamed. The Messiah's kingdom
was to be founded when he should have risen again
after being treated with insult and cruelty, and put
to death.
With these reraarks, I present the following para
phrase as bringing out the true sense of the passage : —
" He took to hiraself the twelve Apostles, and said
to them. Behold, we are now going up to Jerusalem,
and there that kingdom of the Son of Man, spoken of
by the ancient writers, is to be set up. It will be
-through an instrumentality expected neither by them
nor by you. For the Son of Man will first be betrayed
to Gentiles, who will treat him with indignity and
14

158 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XIX. 35.
violence, and at length put him to death. But, not
withstanding all this, victorious over such reverses,
three days only will pass before he will rise again, to
establish himself in that office of which the great
lawgiver wrote (Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18, xxvi.
4, xxviii. 14 ; Deut. xviii. 15), and to which the line
of later sages constantly looked forward, though they
so imperfectly understood its nature."
XIX. 35.
They cast their garraents upon the colt, and they set Jesus
thereon.
See above, p. 99, and observe that neither Mark nor
Luke refers, like Matthew, to the passage in Zech
ariah. XIX. 38.
Blessed be the King that coraeth in the name of the Lord ;
peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
See above, pp. 101, 102. XIX. 46.
It is written, " My house is the house of prayer " ; but ye have
made it a den of thieves.

See above, p. 102.

XX. 17.

What is this then that is written : " The stone which the build
ers rejected, the same is become the head of the corner".?

See above, p, 103.

XX. 38.

He is not a God of the dead, but of the living ; for all live
unto him.
To the account of the reasoning of Jesus on this

^^- 22.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 159
occasion, as given by Matthew and Mark, Luke adds
the clause, " for all live unto him." I would rather
render the words, for all belonging to him live. So
understood, they sustain the view which above (pp,
104-106) I have presented of the passage as it stands
in the other Evangelists, "All belonging to him live,"
That is, those whom he recognizes as his own, in the
sense of being objects of his favor, he will not suffer
to die. In the text of the Law referred to, he recog
nized Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as his own, in the
sense of being objects of his favor. It may be inferred,
then, that he would not permit them to perish,
XX. 42,43.
David himself saith, in the book of Psalms, " The Lord said
unto my Lord, ' Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool.' "
See above, pp, 107 - 109,XXI. 22,
These be the days of vengeance, that all things which are writ
ten may be fulfilled.
" Written" where % In the book of God's decrees ;
in the counsels of Divine Providence. (See above, pp,
117, 118, and comp. Ps. cxxxix, 16,) Or we raay
understand our Lord as referring to the threats uttered
by Moses (Lev, xxvi, 14-39; Deut. xxviii. 15-68)
of punishraents to be incurred by the people, should
they be rebellious and perverse, and declaring that a
retribution, of even such severity as that, was what
the people of his age had incurred, and were about to
experience.

160 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXL 27.
XXI. 27.
Then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with
power and great glory.
See above, pp. 112, 113, XXII. 30.
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdora ; and ye
shall sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
See above, pp. 98, 99. XXII. 37.
I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accora
plished in me, " And he was reckoned among the trans
gressors."
The quotation is from the pseudo-Isaiah (Iiii. 12).
Of whomsoever the words might have been originally
spoken, nothing could be raore natural, or raore con
formable to the established uses of language, than for
our Lord to say that they were accoraplished in him,
when he was in circumstances which they correctly
described. In point of fact, I think that by the origi
nal writer they were used in reference to the Messiah,
though in a different sense frora that in which the
application is made of them by Jesus. See " Lec
tures," &c. Vol. IIL pp. 252-259.
XXII. 69.
Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the
power of God.
See above, pp. 121, 122. XXIII. 46.
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, " Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit."
He expressed his emotion in language of the Psalm
ist (xxxi. 5 ; comp. Wisdom iii. 1).

XXIV. 25-27.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 161
XXIV. 25-27.
He said unto them, " O fools, and slow of heart to believe all
that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suf
fered these things, and to enter into his glory ? " And begin
ning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them
in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
In reading this text, I have often doubted whether
we have the correct version of the first clause. The
phraseology rendered by our translation " believe all "
(iruTTeveiv eir), iraa-iv), is a peculiar Construction, The
use of the preposition (e-n-l) after this verb (iriaTeveiv),
and preceding a dative of the subject, occurs, I believe,
in only three (or, in effect, two) other places in the
New Testament (1 Tim. i. 16 ; Rom. ix. 33 ; corap.
1 Pet. ii. 6); and there in constructions much less
harsh. It might, perhaps, admit a question, whether
we ought not to render, " O fools, and slow of
heart to believe (that is, in me), after all that the
prophets have said ! " or, " O fools, and slow of heart,
to believe (in me), upon (that is, founding your slow
ness to believe, your prejudices and objections, upon)
the representations of the prophets ! "
But, passing by this, " all that the prophets have
spoken" is the representation of the prophets taken
"together, taken as a whole. The representation of
the prophets (that is, of the teachers of old time) had
included the idea that the Messiah should be a great
deliverer ; and accepting that representation of the
Messiah, and believing for a time that he had at length
come in the person of " Jesus of Nazareth, which was
a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all
the people" (xxiv. 19), the disciples had "trusted
that it had been he which should have redeemed
Israel." But events had come to pass which shook
their faith. Contrary to what they expected, differ-
14*

162 NOTES' ON PASSAGES IN THE [XXIV. 25-27.
ently frora any thing they had been prepared for by
the ancient sages who had written of the Messiah,
Jesus had been betrayed, condemned, and crucified.
They were amazed, perplexed, and desponding ; and
Jesus rebukes them for being dull of understanding
(under the pressure of this disappointment and dis
trust) to believe that he could be the person whom the
disclosures in the Old Testaraent had in view,
" Ought not " — was it unfit that the Christ should
" enter into his glory " through a course of suffering,
as Jesus had done ] The disciples thought it was
utterly unfit ; they found no such representation in
their prophets, from whom their ideas had been drawn ;
and because they had seen their Master a sufferer, they
could not any longer see how he could be the Messiah,
Jesus showed them that, on the contrary, it was fit.
He did not show that it was fit in the sense of being
a suitable fulfilment of ancient predictions declaring
that the Messiah was to be a sufferer. This was not
to be shown, for there were no such predictions. But
he showed them that it was fit in itself, — fit as part
of the plan of God's providence and grace, — and that,
taking " all that the prophets had spoken" together,
looking at their representation in its various stages,
tracing their conception to its source, and making
allowance for the causes of the erroneous views which
they had associated with it, there was no reason why
the fact of Jesus having been a sufferer should forbid
his being acknowledged as God's anointed.
And how did Jesus show this ¦? Precisely in the
way which would have been necessary, on the sup
position that my theory of the subject is true, " Be
ginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded
unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
himself" From Moses' Law he showed how, in God's

XXIV. 25-27.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 163
original disclosure, through Moses, of the future com
ing of a " prophet like unto hiraself" (Deut. xviii. 15),
the idea of a Messiah had its germ and standard.
Then, from the series of later writers, he showed how
that idea had been corrupted, and ideas of merely
worldly pomp and conquest had been connected with
it, until it had become irreconcilable in the rainds of
readers with the idea of one who should suffer and
die, (See " Lectures," &c,, Vol, II, p. 381 et seq. ;
Vol. IV, p, 304 et seq.)
By the authority which the disciples (in common
with great part of their nation at this period) errone
ously attributed to the writers called by them the
Later Prophets, the disciples were misled into such a
conception of the Messiah as made thera ready to give
up their Master's pretensions to that character when
they saw him suffer and die. Under this influence,
they became slow of understanding to believe that
Jesus could set up a kingdom. The account given
by Luke of his Master's correction of their error, is
extremely brief But it accords entirely with what
ray views of the Old Testament lead me to believe to
have been the truth of the case. They thought it was
utterly unfit that the expected benefactor, on his way
to his greatness, should be a sufferer, " He expounded
unto thera in all the things concerning himself" He
showed how much, in ancient descriptions of the Mes
siah, was well founded, and how much was erroneous.
" Beginning at Moses," he developed the idea of the
Messiah as having been originally, according to God's
own oracle, that of a " prophet," a teacher, the head
of a moral empire ; an office with which the idea of a
previous discipline of suffering was by no means in
consistent, but the contrary. And then, glancing at
the later writers, he showed how that primitive con-

164 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XXIV. 44-47.
ception had from age to age been corrupted in their
hands, in a way to create those very prepossessions,
unfavorable to an acknowledgment of the claims of
Jesus, by which these simple disciples were now em
barrassed, XXIV, 44-47.
And he said unto them, " These are the words which I spake
unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the
Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Then opened
he their understanding, that they might understand the Scrip
tures, and said unto them, " Thus it is written, and thus it
behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third
day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name araong all nations, beginning at Je
rusalera."
The sense of the first clause in the declaration of
Jesus here recorded, is perhaps better brought out, in
translating, by a little different collocation of the words,
equally accordant with the original : " All things which
were written in the Law, &c. must be fulfilled con
cerning me" ; — that is, concerning me and no one
else; I, and I alone, am the Messiah to whom they
pointed, Moses, by supernatural instruction, and therefore, of
course, with exact correctness, had spoken of a " proph
et like unto himself" Jesus was that prophet, and so
the words of Moses were fulfilled in him. The writers
who came after Moses, the Prophets and Psalmists,
without supernatural instruction, and therefore with
liability to human error, had had the same personage
in view in what they had written, however they had
deviated from a correct description of hira. Whatever,
therefore, they had written concerning the Messiah,
was to have its completion in Jesus, and in no other

XXIV. 44-47.] GOSPEL OF LUKE. 165
person. To him, authorized or mistaken, exact or in
exact, it all related. Its subject and aim was his as
suraption of a divinely bestowed office. Its mistakes
were mistakes respecting the nature of that office.
" These are the words," he says, " which I spake unto
you while I was yet with you." This is what he had
in effect told them, when he declared himself to be
the Christ.
This was difficult for them to believe, for in the Scrip
tures which they reverenced there were parts which
they could not at all reconcile with the idea of a suf
fering Messiah. " Then opened he their understanding,
that they might understand the Scriptures," discerning
the different degrees of authority belonging to those
writings, their relations to each other, and so the just
inferences to be deduced from the whole. " And said
unto them, ' Thus it is written, and thus it behooved
Christ to suffer,' " &c. " It behoved " (eiSet), it was fit ;
the same word which is used in the question (xxiv. 26)
" Ought not Christ to have suffered these things % " &c.
The asserted fitness by no means arose out of what
had been " written in the Prophets and in the Psalms,"
but out of the nature of things, and of the office of a
moral reformer which Jesus was to fulfil. (Comp. Luke
ix. 22.) The sufferings of Christ were fit, notwith
standing what was there written. " Thus," on the
one hand, says Jesus, " it is written," by the Prophets
and Psalmists, " yet thus," on the other hand, it was
and is fit, for the fulfilment of God's high purposes,
that the Christ should suffer and die (xxiv, 46). When
allowance was made for the errors of the Prophets and
Psalmists, and when, from those errors, their concep
tion was traced back to its priraitive source, it would
appear that, notwithstanding their representations,
there was no unfitness in the Messiah's sufferings.

166 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 21.
" That repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations," was a view
of the main purpose of his commission as foreign from
the popular conception of it, as that he should be a
sufferer.

SECTION IV.
GOSPEL OF JOHN.

L 21.
They asked him, " What then ? Art thou Elias .? " And he
saith, " I ara not." " Art thou that prophet .' " And he an
swered, " No."

See above, pp. 85, 86.

I. 23.

He said, " I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,
' Make straight the way of the Lord,' as said the prophet
Esaias."
See above, pp. 48 - 50, 144, What is further to be
remarked here, however, is, that John the Baptist says
that he is " the voice," &c. ; and that, instead of the
word corresponding to " prepare," which is used by
the Septuagint translators and by the other Evange
lists, John has " make straight." It is plain that the
Baptist, or the Evangelist who records his saying,
was not studious of exactness in the quotation.
I. 34.
I saw and bare record, that this is the Son of God.
See above, pp. 50-53,

I- 51.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 167
L 36-49.
Looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, " Behold the Larab
of God ! "  Nathanael answered and saith unto hira,
" Rabbi, thou art the Son of God ; thou art the King of Is
rael."
This passage illustrates the meaning of the phrase
Son of God, showing it to be, as I have argued, equiva
lent to Messiah. John declares Jesus to be the Lamb
of God (i. 36). One of his two disciples, who hear
him, says to his brother, " We have found the Messias,
which is, being interpreted, the Christ" (41). — Again,
Philip says to Nathanael, "We have found him of
whom Moses in the Law, and the prophets did write "
(45) ; and Nathanael, being convinced, in an interview
with Jesus, of the correctness of Philip's opinion, ex
presses his conviction in the avowal, " Rabbi, thou art
the Son of God ; thou art the King of Israel " (49).
" Rabbi," means Doctor, or Teacher. " Son of God,"
in my opinion, is equivalent to Messiah ; and this being
so, there is no hardness in the collocation. But others
think that it means God the Son, one of the persons
of the Divine Trinity, the infinite Majesty of heaven
and earth. How will the sentence read on thaf sup
position % " Teacher, thou art  ," I cannot ven
ture to make the substitution. L 51,
Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God as
cending and descending upon the Son of Man.
See above, pp. 65 - 68. I think there is here an al
lusion to the passage in Genesis (xxviii, 12), where it
is related that Jacob saw " the angels of God ascend
ing and descending," in his dream at Bethel ; and our
Lord's sense, conveyed in this figurative language, is,
You shall see that I have direct intercourse with
heaven, (Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 7, xci. 11, 12.)

168 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [H. 17.
II. 17.
His disciples reraerabered that it was written, " The zeal of
thy house eateth me up."
It is so written by one of the writers of the Psalms
(Ixix. 9). But that writer is clearly speaking of him
self, without any reference to Jesus, or to any other
person. And he uses the words respecting himself in
an application entirely different from that which the
disciples make of thera to their Master. The words
eraployed by the Psalmist in reference to himself in
one sense, are susceptible of being referred to Jesus in
another sense. And in this latter the disciples adopt
them. " His disciples remembered that it was written" ;
or, as we might phrase it. They were forcibly reminded
of that expression. (Comp. xii. 16.)
IL 18-22.
Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, " What sign shew
est thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things .? " Jesus
answered and said unto thera, " Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up."  But he spake of the
temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen from the
dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this ; and
they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had
said.
See above, p. 79. -In order to rise from the dead, Jesus
must first die. But before his death and resurrection
actually took place, his disciples had found it impossi
ble to reconcile their conception of the Messiah, as
they had derived it from the Scriptures, with that of
his being removed by a violent death (Matthew xvi. 22 ;
Mark ix. 32; Luke ix. 45, xviii. 34). They could not,
at the sarae tirae, " believe the Scripture, and the word
which Jesus had said," But "when he was risen
frora the dead," their minds were more enlightened.
"They believed the word which Jesus had said,"

ni. 14, 15.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 169
because now the fact had illustriously confirmed it.
And, with the new light which had broken on their
minds respecting his character and office, now also
"they believed the Scripture." They looked at the
Scripture through a different medium from what they
had heretofore done. They applied to it truer methods
of interpretation. Those representations of the Mes
siah which had forbidden them to conceive of him as a
sufferer, they now saw to be representations made by
uninspired men. The radical Scriptural idea of the
Messiah they traced to Moses's conception of him as
" a prophet," a teacher, and holding to this, and using
it as the key to what was said by the later writers,
of inferior authority, they were able at once to " be
lieve the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had
said." See above, pp. 161-166.
IIL 14, 15,
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of Man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Clearly a figurative illustration, drawn from the ac
count in the Book of Numbers (xxi. 6 - 9) of the cure
effected through the instrumentality of the " fiery
serpent " made by Moses. As by the lifting up of the
serpent men's bodies were cured, so men's souls will
be by the lifting up of the Son of Man. As in the
former case men did not perish, but had life, so in the
latter case they will have better, even " eternal life,"
Of the same description is the comparison of the res
urrection of Jesus (Matthew xii. 40) to the reappear
ance of Jonah, as related in the book which bears his
name. 15

170 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 5.
IV. 5.
Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar,
near to the parcel of ground which Jacob gave to his son
Joseph.
See Josh. xx. 7, xxiv. 32 ; Judg, ix. 7 ; also. Gen
esis xlix. 22 - 26 ; and comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. IL
pp. 113, 114, 119, 120. IV. 20.
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain.
See " Lectures," &c., Vol. I. p. 492, note.
IV. 25.
The woman saith unto hira, " I know that Messias cometh
(which is called Christ) ; when he is come, he will tell us all
things."
From this text (with which comp. iv. 29, 39 - 42) it
would appear that the Samaritans, who did not pos
sess the writings of the Prophets, but only the Law
(see " Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. p. 73, Vol. II. p. 138),
retained better than the Jews the primitive idea of the
Messiah as a teacher (Deut. xviii. 15).
V. 39, 40.
Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal
life ; and they are they which testify of me ; and ye will
not come to me, that ye might have life.
There existed in our Saviour's time, among the Jews,
an expectation of an " eternal life " after death. (See
Matt. xxii. 23 et seq. ; Luke xiv. 14 ; John xi. 24 ; Acts
xxiii. 8.) Whencesoever derived, and however shaped
by communications with their Babylonian, Persian,
and Greek masters, it was not a doctrine taught in
their ancient Scriptures. They, however, with whom
Jesus was now conversing, erroneously supposed that

¦^•30,31.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 171
it was so taught. I understand him as saying to them.
You imagine that in your Scriptures you have dis
closures of a life to come, and therefore you do not
need me to raake it known. But examine them, and
see whether it is so. They no further reveal that doc
trine, than as they speak of me, who am appointed to
bring it to light ; of me, to whom you'are unwilling
to listen. — Why should he have bid them search the
Scriptures for that doctrine, if the opinion already
confidently entertained by them, that it was taught in
those writings, was well founded 1
V. 46, 47.
Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me ; for he wrote
of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye be
lieve my words }
If ye are not moved by his writings, whom ye pro
fess so to reverence, how can it be expected that ye
will be by my words, whom you professedly contemn 1
— " He wrote of me " ; the particular reference, I
suppose, is constantly to the promise by Moses of a
"prophet like unto himself" (Deut. xviii. 15).
VI. 14, 15.
Those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did,
said, " This is of a truth that Prophet that should corae into
the world." When Jesus, therefore, perceived that they
would corae and take him by force, to make hira a king, &c.
The text bears witness to the popular confusion of
ideas between the " prophet " predicted by Moses, and
a secular "king." VL 30, 31.
They said therefore unto him, " What sign showest thou, then,
that we may see and believe thee ? What dost thou work ?
Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written,
' He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "

172 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [VI. 45.
The quotation is from a Psalm (Ixxviii. 24). When
the Jews asked, as they often did, for " a sign," and
" a sign from heaven," as the proper authentication of
the mission of Jesus (see above, pp. 79, 85, 131),
they seem to have had in view such Old Testament
relations as those of the sending of manna, and of
the descent of flame upon Mount Sinai (Exod. xix. 18 ;
comp. John vi. 49, 58), upon the sacrifice of Elijah
(1 Kings xviii. 38), and upon the soldiers sent to appre
hend him (2 Kings i. 10, 12), according to their in
terpretation of those narratives. — The miracle which
Jesus had just performed in feeding the multitudes
(John vi. 11), bore a resemblance to the provision of
manna, but not in the particular, supposed to have be
longed to that phenomenon, of a shower from the sky.
The Jews seem to invite Jesus, if he intends an imi
tation of the act of Moses, to make it complete.
VI. 45.
It is written in the Prophets, " And they shall be all taught of
God."
By the pseudo-Isaiah, describing that glory and fe
licity which he anticipated for his countrymen returned
from their exile, it was said (liv. 13 ; comp. " Lectures,"
&c.. Vol. III. pp. 259, 260), " And all thy children
shall be taught of the Lord." This language, says
Jesus, may well be applied to the present state of
things. God is now teaching you by rae ; and, as he
continues in the same verse, " Every man that hath
heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto
me."
VII. 37, 38.
Jesus stood and cried, saying, " If any man thirst, let him come
unto me, and drink ; he that believeth on me, as the Scrip
ture hath said, ' Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water.' "

"^ni- 17.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 173
In " the Scripture " we find such language as this :
" With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of
salvation " (Is. xii. 3) ; "I will pour water upon him
that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground " (Is.
xliv. 3) ; " Thou shalt be like a watered garden, and
like a spring of water, whose waters fail not" (Is.
Iviii. 11). These texts bear a very faint resemblance
to those expressions of our Lord which he compared
with what " the Scripture hath said." Yet none, I
believe, have been or can be pointed out as more likely
to have been had in view by him. Such an instance
shows plainly that the expression, " as the Scripture
hath said," and such like, will not bear to be strictly
interpreted, and that it is out of the question to con
sider them as indicating a reference to a supernatural
prediction fulfilled. VII. 40-42,52.
* Many of the people, therefore, when they heard this saying,
said, " Of a truth this is the Prophet." Others said, " This
is the Christ." But some said, " Shall Christ come out of
Galilee .' Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ com
eth of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem,
where David was ? "
" Search and look : for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet."
See above, pp. 35, 171. These prejudiced persons
perhaps made rather too broad a generalization, when
they said that from Galilee had arisen " no prophet."
Of the ancient prophets, it is likely that Nahum, at
least, was a native of that province. (Corap. " Lec
tures," &c. Vol. III. p. 285.)
VIII. 17.
It is also written in your law, " The testimony of two men
is true." 15*

174 NOTES ON PASSAGES m THE [VIIL 56.
" At the raouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth
of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."
(Deut. xix. 15.) VIII. 56.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day ; and he saw it,
and was glad.
The vision of the Messiah's day, which, indistinct as
it was, reasonably caused Abraham to rejoice, was that
related to have been disclosed on Mount Moriah (Gen.
xxii. 18; comp. xii. 3). X. 22.
And it was at Jerusalem the Feast of the Dedication, and it was
winter.
See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. IV. p. 144.
X. 34, 35.
Jesus answered them, " Is it not written in your Law, ' I said.
Ye are gods ' .?  and the Scripture cannot be broken."
The words quoted by our Lord as the basis of his
argument occur in a Psalm (Ixxxii. 6). — " The Scrip
ture cannot be broken " ; that is, " There is no blot
ting those words out of Scripture."
XI. 27.
I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should
come into the world.
I would translate, " he who is to come into the
world," each of the three clauses containing, in my
view, one of the equivalent titles of the Messiah. See
above, pp. 50-53, 70,171. XL 49-52.
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high-priest that

XI. 49-52.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 175
same year, said unto them, " Ye know nothing at all, nor
consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die
for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." And
this spake he not of himself : but being high-priest that year,
he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation ; and not
for that nation only, but that also he should gather together
in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Caiaphas had said nothing (50) of any effect of the
death of Jesus to " gather together in one the chil
dren of God that were scattered abroad." We must
accordingly translate John's words, with equal literal
ness, " Being high-priest that year [or, high-priest as
he was that year], he spoke prophetically ; for \otC\
Jesus was [in fact] to die for that nation [as Caiaphas,
using those words in a different sense, had said], and
not for that nation only [was he to die], but also
[which Caiaphas had not said] that he might gather
together in one the children of God that were scattered
abroad " [that is, araong the Gentile nations].
But in what sense is it meant that Caiaphas, " high-
priest as he was that year, spoke prophetically " \ It
is difficult to imagine that John intended to affirm
Caiaphas to have been endowed by God with the su
pernatural power of predicting the future, and that
too respecting an office of Jesus which even the dis
ciples of Jesus did not yet understand. Nor was it
any part of the high-priest's function under the Law
to foretell coming events, (See " Lectures," &c.. Vol. I.
pp. 211, 212.) It is simply the same vivid language
— but language never misunderstood, in common dis
course — which we use, when, remarking on some
striking coincidence (whether actual, or merely fanci
ful or verbal) between something which has occurred
and something which had previously been said, we
say, " The man did not speak of himself ; uncon
sciously to himself, he foretold the future " ; — " He

176 NOTES ON PASSAGES EST THE [XI. 49-52.
uttered prophetic words, so that one might imagine
him inspired " ; — " The event marked his utterance
for providential, so exactly was it fulfilled." (Comp.
Tit. i. 12, 13.)
This is one of the cases in which examples are more
satisfactory than analysis and discussion. Shakespeare
says : — " Every flower
Did, as a prophet, weep what it foresaiv.
In Hector's wrath."
And again : —
"Jesters often prove prophets."
Dryden says : — " He loved so fast.
As if he feared each day would be her last ;
Tuo true a prophet to foresee the fate,
That should so soon divide their happy state."
Is it objected that these examples are from poets ?
A speech is under my eye, in which the following lan
guage is used : " When I found the Senate of the
United States throwing theraselves into the breach,
that body, which Martin Van Buren, in 1828, in
a spirit of prophecy, foretold to be the only obsta
cle to Executive encroachraents," &c. A newspaper
paragraph, which just now falls in my way, speak
ing of the Rev. Dr. Stillman's sermon. for the Boston
Female Asylum, says, that when he agreed to perform
that service, " he declared that he doubted not that an
institution founded on the benevolent affections, would,
like the snow-ball, accumulate in its progress, and be
come of extensive utility." And the writer adds:
" This was prophecy, — and it has been fulfilled." These
persons did not mean to declare that Dr. Stillman and
President Van Buren had literally supernatural pre
science. Nor did John mean to pronounce the same

xn. 14-16.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 177
thing of the high-priest Caiaphas. It would be use
less to multiply illustrations of this sort. Everybody
uses such expressions freely, and no one using them
doubts of being understood. See above, pp. 29, 73.
XII. 13.
Hosanna ! Blessed is the King of Israel, that cometh in the
name of the Lord !
See above, pp. 101, 102.
XIL 14-16.
Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon ; as it is writ
ten, " Fear not, daughter of Sion ; behold, thy King coraeth,
sitting on an ass's colt." These things understood not his
disciples at the first ; but when Jesus was glorified, then re
raembered they that these things were written of hira, and
that they had done these things unto him."
See above, pp. 99 - 101. John's quotation from
Zechariah is very inexact, even more so than that of
Matthew ; and this in a case where, if the Evangelists
had designed to point out a fulfilment of supernatural
prediction, a precise citation of the words was all-im
portant. — " These things understood not his disciples " ;
this literal accordance of a transaction in the last days
of Jesus with certain language used in another sense
by an ancient writer, in a poetical representation of the
Messiah, was not contemplated, perceived, or attended
to by the disciples of Jesus at the time ; but after
wards, " when Jesus was glorified," the coincidence
was remarked, as having a sort of curiosity and inter
est ; and it was the more striking, as the disciples,
when they made the arrangement, had nothing of the
kind in view. " Then remembered they that these
things were written of him [that is, of the Messiah],
and that they had done these things unto hira [that is,

178 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XIL 34.
to Jesus, who was the Messiah]." And Matthew and
John, in their histories, call the attention of their read
ers to that coincidence. (Comp. ii. 17.) But Mark (xi. 7)
and Luke (xix. 35), though they relate the occurrence
at length, have not thought it worth while to notice any
resemblance borne by it to language of Zechariah, as
it would seem that they could scarcely have failed to
do, had they regarded it in the singularly iraportant
light of the accomplishment of a prediction made six
or seven centuries before. XII. 34.
The people answered hira, " We have heard out of the Law,
that Christ abideth for ever ; and how sayest thou, ' The Son
of Man must be lifted up ' ? "
" The Law " is used for the Scripture, in the same
loose sense as in a text just remarked upon (x. 34).
Not Moses, but ancient writers who had succeeded
him, had used language which it was not unnatural
to interpret as indicating their belief that the Messiah
would be immortal (Ps. Ixxxix. 36, 37, ex. 4 ; Is. ix.
7), And such in fact has been the construction put
upon that language by more recent Jewish writers.
(See Bertholdt, " Christol, Jud." § 28.)
This text is a clear confirmation of the argument
maintained above (see pp. 65 - 68), that the titles
Christ and Son of Man were subject to be used as
equivalent and convertible, xn. 37, 38.
Though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they
believed not on him ; that the saying of Esaias the prophet
might be fulfilled, which he spake, " Lord, who hath believed
our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been re
vealed .? "
The words quoted are from the pseudo-Isaiah (Iiii.

XIL 39-41.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 179
1), It is perfectly plain that in them the writer is not
predicting the incredulity with which the declarations
of the Messiah would be listened to, but is complain
ing of the incredulity which would attend what he
himself says concerning the person described in the
following passage. By orthodox commentators that
person is understood to be the Messiah, supernaturally
foreknown by Isaiah, I also think that the writer is
speaking of the Messiah, though without any super
natural foreknowledge. (" Lectures," &c., Vol. III. pp.
256-259.) But whoever understands the Messiah
to be the subject of the passage must needs regard
the introductory words, quoted by John, as the writer's
remark on the reluctant reception, by his own contem
poraries, of what he was about to say, and not as any
prediction of the aversion which would attend the
teaching of any future person. It would seem that
nothing could be clearer than this. And yet, if it be
so, there is an end of the question respecting the in
ference supposed to be deducible from the emphatic
form, " that the saying might be fulfilled." If in this
case all that can possibly be meant by it is, that the
words quoted well accord with, and describe, the inci
dent to which they are applied, then nothing more can
be inferred, ex vi termini, from its use in any other
case. XIL 39-41.
Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
" He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart ; that
they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their
heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." These
things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
The quotation, which is from the Book of Isaiah
(vi. 10 ; comp. pp. 80, 81, 130), is very inexactly

180 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XIIL 18.
made. The language which introduces it, " because
that Esaias said," is quite strong ; but from the con
text (Is. vi. 5, 8) nothing can possibly be clearer than
that Isaiah is speaking of his own ministry, and the
insensibility which it had to encounter on the part of
his own contemporaries. The words well described
the dulness of those whom Jesus addressed, and as
such John applied them. It is as if he had said,
" They would not believe," — the truth could not reach
thera, — because their senses were obtuse, and their
hearts hard, just as Isaiah said was the case with the
men of his own time. The words (" These things said
Esaias," &c.) subjoined to the quotation, I understand
to be John's reference to the place in Isaiah's book
from which the quotation was taken : — I quote these
words, he raeans to say, from that part of Isaiah's
writings where he poetically describes a vision of the
Divine glory (Is. vi. 1 et seq. ; " Lectures," &c.. Vol.
IIL pp. 186 - 188). " When he saw his glory " ; that
is, the glory of him who in the words quoted is intro
duced (John xii. 40) speaking of himself as willing
to "heal." XIII. 18.
I speak not of you all ; I know whom I have chosen ; but, that
the Scripture may be fulfilled, " He that eateth bread with
me hath lifted up his heel against me."
The Psalmist (xii. 9 ; comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol.
IV. p. 323), speaking of the cruel ingratitude of which
he was himself the object, had said : " Yea, mine own
familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of
my bread, hath lifted up his heel against mc" Our
Lord quotes the words in application to the treachery
of Judas, changing, however, " did eat of my bread,"
to " eateth bread with me." If any one chooses to

XVTL 12.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 181
entertain the fancy, that the words of the Psalm were
prophetical of the conduct of the false disciple, he of
course supposes the writer to have spoken in the per
son of Jesus. Let him consider how he will reconcile
that hypothesis with another part of the Psalm : " I
said, ' Lord, be merciful unto me ; heal my soul ; for
I have sinned against thee ' " (xii. 4).
XV. 25.
This cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is
written in their Law : " They hated me without a cause."
" That is written in their Law " ; see above, p. 178.
The words quoted occur in two of the Psalms (xxxv.
19, Ixix. 4 ; comp. cix. 3), where quite plainly the writer
is expressing his sense of personal injury. They belong
to thaTt very small nuraber of poems in the Psalter, so
painful to the feelings of the Christian reader, which
express the bitterest vindictiveness. To suppose that
they are words used by inspiration concerning the
future experiences of Jesus, involves the impossibility
of attributing to him language the most directly op
posed to the humane and forgiving spirit of his relig
ion. The fulfilment, in this case, of " the word written
in their Law," consisted simply in the fact that Jesus
was hated without a cause, as the writer of the Psalms
referred to complained that he himself had been.
XVII. 12.
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name ;
those that Thou gavest rae I have kept, and none of them is
lost but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be
fulfilled.
I think that the Old Testament will be searched in
vain for any Scripture which can with any probability
be interpreted as referring to the apostasy of Judas.
16

182 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVIIL 8, 9.
I think that the fulfilment of Scripture here brought
to view refers, not to the loss of the son of perdition,
but to the keeping of the other disciples of Jesus ; a
sense which will disclose itself if we throw the last
clause but one into a parenthesis, thus : " Those that
Thou gavest rae I have kept faithful (so that no one of
them is lost, except that son of perdition), that the
Scripture might be fulfilled." The Scripture was to
be fulfilled through the triumphant establishment of
the Messiah's kingdom in the world ; and the Mes
siah's kingdora was to be established through the
faithful adherence and service of his chosen followers.
Thus it was that Jesus had kept his followers faithful
(with one only exception), " that the Scripture might
be fulfilled." XVIII. 8,9.
Jesus answered, " I have told you that I am he ; if, therefore,
ye seek me, let these go their way " ; that the saying might
be fulfilled which he spake, " Of them which Thou gavest me
have I lost none."
The quotation here is not from the Old Testament ;
but being introduced with the same form of words
which often precedes Old Testament quotations, it
furnishes an illustration of the import of that phrase
ology. When Jesus had used the language here quoted
(see John xvii. 12), it is as certain frora the context as
any thing can be, that he had not been predicting any
future incident whatever, but had been referring to
his past watch over his disciples, and its success evinced
in their fidelity. Yet the Evangelist, who could not
but have understood his Master as he has caused his
Master to be understood by us, now declares that Jesus
subsequently interceded with the Jewish officers for
the release of his followers, to the end that those Avords

XIX. 24.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 183
" might be fulfilled." It seeras to be placed beyond a
doubt by this instance alone, that the fulfilment so
often pointed out in connection with quotations in the
New Testament means simply the suitableness of an
accommodation to one event, of language originally
applied to some other event. Jesus at this time (xviii.
8) interposed to protect his disciples, agreeably to that
superintendence of them which in another sense he
had spoken of at another time (xvii. 12).
XIX. 7.
The Jews answered him : " We have a Law, and by our Law
he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."
In this text I find further proof that the title Son of
God is simply equivalent to Messiah. Nowhere in the
Law is death made the penalty of professing one's self
the Son of God in those terms, but it is expressly de
nounced against the false assumption of the character
of the prophet like unto Moses, afterwards called the
Messiah. (Deut. xviii. 18, 20.)
XIX. 24.
That the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith, " They parted
my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast
lots,"
The Scripture here quoted is from a Psalm (xxii, 18),
in which, if there is any meaning in language, the
writer is setting forth his own wrongs and sorrows,
and by no means bewailing those of any future sufferer,
(See « Lectures," &c.. Vol. IV. p. 322.) He says in
effect : So confident are my enemies of my ruin and
my fall, that even now they are planning for the dis
tribution of ray effects araong theraselves. The Evan
gelist, when he said that the soldiers made a partition
of the garments of .Jesus, " that the Scripture might

184 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XIX. 28.
be fulfilled," meant simply that the incident might be
described in the same language as had been used by
an ancient sufferer. So plain is this, that it seems
quite superfluous to add, that John is the only one of
the Evangelists who has pointed out the correspond
ence, though all four (comp. Matt, xxvii. 35 ; Mark
XV. 24 ; Luke xxiii. 34) have related the occurrence ;
a fact scarcely to be reconciled with the supposition of
a supernatural prediction fulfilled by it.
XIX. 28.
After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accoraplished,
that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, " I thirst."
Under a wrong impression, as I conceive, of the
true construction of this sentence, commentators have
searched for the words " I thirst " in Jewish Scrip
ture, and have found, not those words, but the words
" in my thirst " (Ps. Ixix. 21). I understand the mean
ing of the Evangelist to be that which to a careful
reader is disclosed by the following punctuation, cor
responding to what is exhibited in Griesbach's manual
edition of the original Greek ; viz. " Jesus, knowing
that all things were now accomplished that the Scrip
ture might be fulfilled, saith, " I thirst," That is,
Jesus, knowing that he had now acquitted himself of his
whole task in establishing his kingdom, — that every
thing to the last had now been done by hini that was
to be done for the accomplishraent of his work as Mes
siah, and accordingly for the fulfilment of Scripture,
which had spoken of that work, — now permitted his
mind for the first time to turn to his own sufferings,
and to breathe out in a single word the agony of his
mortal fever. He did not say, " I thirst," for the pur
pose of fulfilling any Scripture. But, knowing that
nothing was left to be done of that work by which he

XIX. 36.] GOSPEL OF JOHN. 185
was to fulfil Scripture, he was at liberty to spend one
thought upon himself XIX. 36.
These things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled :
" A bone of him shall not be broken."
Nothing can be more express than this language, if
we insist on interpreting it without regard to idiom
and usage. The words of the Old Testament, " Nei
ther shall ye break a bone thereof," were " fulfilled" by
the forbearance of the soldiers to break the legs of
Jesus ; ahd not only so, but the forbearance of the
soldiers to break the legs of Jesus was to the very end
" that the Scripture should be fulfilled." If ever there
was a case in which the reductio ad absurdum was
conclusive, it is so in the present instance to show
that the popular interpretation of the phraseology re
lating to a fulfilment of Scripture cannot be sustained.
The ceremony of the Paschal Feast was designed to
commemorate the hasty departure of the Israelites
from Egypt. It was accordingly full of indications
and symbols of haste. " Thus shall ye eat it ; with
your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your
staff in your hand ; and ye shall eat it in haste." (Ex.
xii. 11.) They were not even to stop to break the
bones of the lamb, so as to taste the marrow. (Ibid.
46; corap. Numb. ix. 12; "Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. p.
138.) And this direction, relating to a subject so en
tirely different, is said by the Evangelist to be " ful
filled " in the omission of the guard to break the legs
of Jesus as he hung dead upon the cross. It is palpa
ble to sense that his only meaning was, that the words,
transferred from their original signification, might be
applied to what he was relating.
16*

186 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XEJC. 37.
XIX. 37.
And again another Scripture saith, " They shall look on him
whom they pierced."
In the prophecy of Zechariah, God is represented
as declaring that his unraerited clemency will melt his
people to repentance and contrition. Self-conderaned
and abased, he says, they will turn back to the Divine
Benefactor whom they have grieved and wounded by
their impieties ; " they shall look upon me, whora they
have pierced." (Zech. xii. 10; comp. " Lectures," «&c..
Vol. III. p. 493.) This had nothing whatever to do,
nor did the Evangelist iraagine it to have any thing to
do, with the stabbing of the side of Jesus by the spear
of a Roman soldier. But the words occurred to his
memory as he wrote, and he set them down, as a rhe
torical accommodation, not as a mystical criticism.
XX. 9.
As yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again
from the dead.
No wonder if they did not understand the Scripture
as declaring that the Messiah was to rise again from
the dead. For nowhere had the Old Testaraent Scrip
ture so declared. But this was not the Apostle's
raeaning. What he meant was, that they hitherto so
interpreted the Scriptures, as to make it incredible to
them that the Messiah should suffer and die, which
death was indispensable to his rising again. Like
others of the most religious part of their countrymen
at that period, they erroneously ascribed to the later
writers of their nation, the Psalmists and the Prophets,
an authority sirailar to that of the original revelation
erabodied in the Law of Moses. The Psalmists and
Prophets had erroneously spoken of the Messiah as a

L 15-22.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 187
magnificent, and soraetimes, perhaps, as an iraraortal
prince, in such terms as to misguide the opinions of
simple men, of the class to which John and Peter be
longed. Possessed with these views of the authority
and interpretation of the national writings later than
Moses, — their minds occupied with incorrect concep
tions of the Messiah drawn from those writings, — " as
yet they knoAV not the Scripture " in such a manner
as to allow thera to entertain the idea " that he raust
rise again from the dead." They had not learned to
reconcile the Scripture with that idea. It was not
that Scripture had declared that he would so rise. It
had declared nothing of the kind. But they supposed
that it had authoritatively declared the contrary. And
this confounded them. (Comp. Mark ix. 32.) After
wards they knew better. (Also with ypoc^Tj comp. ye-
ypafj,fj,evov, as explained above, p. 117.)

SECTION V.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

L 15-22.
In those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and
said,  " Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs
have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of
David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to
them that took Jesus  For it is written in the book of
Psalms, ' Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell
therein ' ; and ' His bishopric let another take.' Wherefore
of these men  must one be ordained to be a witness
with us of his resurrection."
Peter quoted on this occasion from two of the vitu
perative Psalms (Ixix., cix.). Nothing more is necessary

188 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 15-22.
than to read them, to be satisfied that in neither had the
writer any reference to Judas, or to any future person,
but that both, on the contrary, contained the expression
of personal resentraent against personal enemies. In
one, the quotation is by no means exact ; so far from it,
that, instead of a single person being spoken of, — a
point most material for the comraon explanation, — the
language of the original is, " Let their habitation be
desolate, and let none dwell in their tents." In both,
if Judas was intended at all, he was intended through
out, for the same person or persons are spoken of from
the beginning to the end of the compositions respec
tively. What harm had Judas done to the writer of
these poems ] Yet the persons of whom it is wished
that their " habitation " raay " be desolate " (Ixix. 25),
and that another may " take their office " (cix. 8), are
the same who had given to one writer " gall for his
meat," and " vinegar to drink " in his thirst (Ixix. 21),
and who had opened against the other " the mouth of
the deceitful," and spoken against him " with a lying
tdngue " (cix. 2).
But the case is too plain for argument. All that is
requisite, in order to be satisfied what the original
writers intended, is to read their poems with an un
biased mind. As to Peter's purpose in quoting from
them, I think it is somewhat lost sight of in conse
quence of incorrect punctuation and translation of his
words, as recorded by Luke. I would represent the
first of the sentences containing Peter's proposal thus :
" Men and brethren, the Scripture which the Holy
Spirit by the mouth of David anciently spoke, must
needs be fulfilled concerning Judas [raust have a ful
filment in Judas], who was guide to them that took
Jesus." What was this Scripture] It consisted in
periods which he quotes, relating to vacating a place,

IL 14-21.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 189
and being superseded in it by another : " Let his hab
itation be desolate," and, " His bishopric let another
take." And how was that Scripture to be fulfilled ?
By proceeding, as Peter proposes, to an election to fill
the vacant office : " Of these men  must one be
ordained to be a witness with us."
" This Scripture  must needs be fulfilled con
cerning Judas," &c. Rather, it is fit, or it has become
fit, that the words should be verified in the case of Ju
das ; that is, by the filling of his office. The word
rendered " must needs," is the sarae common word
(ehei) which in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians
(ii. 3), for instance, is rendered, " I ought to rejoice,"
or it is fit that I should rejoice.
" This Scripture  which the Holy Ghost by
the mouth , of David spake before." Spake before
(¦n-poelire) signifies spoke formerly or anciently. (See
2 Cor. vii. 3 ; Gal. i. 9, v. 21 ; 1 Thes. iv. 6 ; Heb. x.
15.) — The Holy Ghost spake hy the mouth of David ;
that is, the spirit of holy indignation in David's heart
gave itself utterance in these words of his. We say,
a patriotic, a devout, a selfish, a treacherous spirit
spoke by a man, meaning that the man gave utterance
to such a spirit, that he spoke in such a frame of mind.
We say, " There spoke the spirit of martyrdom " ;
" There was the utterance of the spirit of '76."
IL 14-21.
Peter, standing up with the eleven, lift up his voice, and said
unto them, " Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Je
rusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words :
for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the
third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by
the prophet Joel : " And it shall come to pass in the last days,
(saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh : and
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young

190 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IL 14-21.
raen shall see visions, and your old raen shall dream dreams :
and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out
in those days of ray Spirit ; and they shall prophesy : and I
will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth
beneath ; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke : the sun
shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before
that great and notable day of the Lord come : and it shall
corae to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be saved."
Peter's quotation from the prophecy of Joel (ii. 28
- 32), for the raost part, follows the original. The
principal deviations are the addition of the words,
" and they shall prophesy" (Acts ii. 18), and the trans
position of two clauses at the end of the next preced
ing verse.
After the effusion of the spirit on the day of Pente
cost, the disciples " began to speak with other tongues "
(Ibid. 4). " This," said Peter, " is that which was
spoken by the prophet Joel."
What was his raeaning in this 1 Did he mean that
Joel, by supernatural foresight, had predicted the
events of that day, and that his prediction had come
to pass ] How could that be 1 What " young men "
appeared to have " seen visions," and " old men " to
have " dreamed dreams " ? Where were the " wonders
in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath " ?
Where the "blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke"?
When had the sun been " turned into darkness, and
the moon into blood " ¦?
Nothing of this sort was Peter's meaning. Had
Joel's language been supernatural prediction, it must
have been exact and infallible, and it must have been
precisely fulfilled. Had there been any such precise
fulfilment ? The narrative answers that question.
The fact siraply was, that Joel, referring to the ad
vent of the future Messiah, of whose character and

IL 14-21.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 191
office he had but iraperfect and erroneous conceptions,
had indulged hiraself in a pomp and prodigality of
poetical imagery. But still what he had intended to
speak of was the Messiah's advent. So Peter cor
rectly understood him. Now the Messiah's advent had
actually taken place. And it was for Peter, on the
day of Pentecost, to announce that it had taken place.
And when, the attention of the crowd having been
fixed by the manifest miracle, he came forward and
declared, " This is that which was spoken by the
prophet Joel," what he meant to say, and all that he
meant to say, was this : Behold, that time of the Mes
siah at length has come, which every Jew has for ages
been expecting, and of which Joel, with his obscure
conception of it, spoke thus in his boldly figurative
language, eight centuries ago.
In or before Hezekiah's time, Joel, having no more
knowledge on the subject than his contemporaries, but
speaking the comraon sense of the nation, anticipated
the Messiah's coming, and, in the use of a comraon
expedient of the poetical art, represented God as pre-
announcing it. (Joelii. 19e^se^.; comp. " Lectures," &c..
Vol. II. pp. 433, 434.) In the same vein of poetical
amplification, he depicted it as destined to be attended
with certain striking physical phenomena (Joel ii.
30, 31 ; corap. " Lectures," &c, Vol. IL pp. 328 - 330) ;
phenomena which nobody pretends to have in fact oc
curred coincidently with the appearance of Jesus. To
the multitude at Jerusalera, seven or eight hundred
years after Joel, Peter declared that the event referred
to by Joel had taken place. But he did not pretend
to prove what he said by showing that a supernatural
prediction had been fulfilled. Considered as super
natural prediction, the words of Joel had by no means
been fulfilled. We cannot look at them — Peter

192 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IL 25-32.
could not have looked at them — in that light ; for,
taken literally, we must own that they had been falsi
fied (Acts ii. 19, 20). Peter's proof of what he has
announced is not at all of that sort. Having declared,
in the use of the passage frora Joel, that the Messiah
had come, — " this is that which was spoken by the
prophet Joel" (ii. 16), — he goes on to establish it
(ii. 22, 24, 40) by quite other kinds of proof than
by appeals to prophecy ; viz. by pointing to Christ's
supernatural works (" Jesus of Nazareth, a man ap
proved of God among you by miracles, and wonders,
and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you,
as ye yourselves do know ") ; by bearing witness to his
resurrection from the grave (" whom God hath raised
up, having loosed the pains of death ") ; and by meth
ods of conviction which are not specified in the record
(" with many other words did he testify ").
In connection with these first specimens of the
preaching of Apostles to unbelievers, after the death
of their Master, I submit this question : If the Apos
tles believed that the evidence from predictions of the
Jewish prophets made part of the evidence of Chris
tianity, why did they not more frequently adduce it 1
why did they not call attention to more of those
numerous passages, which, to later commentators,
have seemed so important ] for though miracles
might safely be left to speak for themselves, prophe
cies would be but too likely to escape attention, unless
pointed out. IL 25-32.
David speaketh concerning him, " I foresaw the Lord always
before my face ; for he is on my right hand, that I should
not be moved : therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue
was glad : moreover, also, my flesh shall rest in hope ; be-

11.25-32,] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 193
cause thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou
suflTer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made
known to me the ways of life ; thou shalt make rae full of
joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely
speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead
and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins one should
sit on his throne ; he, seeing this before, spake of the res
urrection of Christ, that he was not left in hell, neither his
flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up,
whereof we all are witnesses."
Peter quotes from a Psalm (xvi. 8-11). I think
that he understood the passage to have referred, in its
original meaning, to the Messiah, and that he was right
in so understanding it. I do not suppose that Peter
regarded the writer of that Psalm as having possessed
any knowledge respecting the Messiah's resurrection
from the grave, or any knowledge concerning him not
generally possessed by his countrymen in the same
age, or any supernatural knowledge on any subject.
Elsewhere (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. IV. pp. 319, 320)
I have used the following language : —
" I conceive that in this Psalm we have an expression
of the sentiments, purposes, and hopes of David, and
that he speaks not at all in the person of the Messiah,
but in his own person. At the sarae time, I think
that in the latter part of the Psalm he had in view
the expected advent of his greater successor, and
that accordingly the Apostles Peter and Paul put the
natural and correct construction upon his words in
their original raeaning, when they declared him to
have referred therein to the "raising up" of the
future Messiah. I take the case to have been this.
Possessed with the opinion, current in his nation, that
the splendid fortunes understood to await it were to
be enjoyed through the instrumentality of an iUusitri-
17

194 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IL 25-32.
OUS monarch of his own line, David, in expressing his
grateful sense of the various goodness of God which
had distinguished him, is led especially to rejoice that
his glory is not to pass away with his life ; but that
he is to enjoy a virtual immortality in his greater
offspring. Recognizing Jehovah as being on his right
hand, his imraovable champion, he feels that his pros
perity is perennial and secure. His heart is glad,
and his spirit rejoices, in the thought, that death, the
universal leveller, cannot prostrate him. He will lay
down his body to its last rest in hope, for he knows
that he is not to lie down to nothingness and oblivion.
He will not be wholly abandoned to the grave ; the
greatness of David will not be all swallowed in the
pit. He will revive in his magnificent son ; a living
branch will be made to spring from the dead root;
and thus, though corapelled, like others, to undergo in
his own person the sentence of mortality, God will
lead him, in the person of his descendant and repre
sentative, along the ways of life and action. Full,
therefore, shall be his joy in Him who is thus present
with him at all times ; endless his satisfactions in the
Divine Protector for ever at his right hand. This con
ception (by no raeans violent, or transcending very
narrow liraits of the license of poetry) of life renewed
and prolonged in one's descendants, is the same which
has been already remarked upon as expressed in other
Psalms." (Corap. "Lectures," &c. Vol. IV. pp. 311,
318 ; also 2 Sara. vii. 12 - 16 ; 1 Kings xi. 36 ; 2 Kings
viii. 19.)
I. suppose that this is the correct construction of
this ode, and that it was the construction put upon it
by Peter. That Apostle, I conceive, argued to the fol
lowing effect : —
" David was speaking (Acts ii. 25) concerning him

IL 25-32.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 195
[with reference to the future Christ, when he said],
' I foresaw the Lord,' " &c. The royal poet could not
have been speaking of hiraself with strict individual
reference ; for, as we all know, he was raortal ; " he is
both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto
this day " (29). When David said that he was not to
die, he raust have meant that he was to have a con
tinued life in his offspring. He was persuaded that
from his posterity God would raise up Christ to " sit
on his throne " (30), and when he rejoiced that God
would not give him up to the grave, nor suffer hira to
see the pit, he must be understood to have been speak
ing " of the resurrection [rather, of the raising up] of
Christ" (31). "This Jesus hath God raised up [that
is. This Christ, even Jesus, hath God now raised up,
or. This Christ hath God now raised up. in the person
of Jesus], whereof we all are witnesses " (32).
Such I take to have been Peter's exposition of the
passage which he quotes, — a correct exposition of
the sense which David, the writer of the Psalm, in
tended to express. And if so, Peter does not ascribe
to David any supernatural knowledge concerning the
resurrection of Jesus, nor any knowledge or opinion
whatever respecting the future Christ, which was not
shared by David's contemporaries.
"David speaketh concerning him" (ii. 25) ; that is,
with reference to the Messiah's advent, as I have ren
dered it above, in conformity with the comraon version.
If, instead of " concerning him " (et? avrov), we should
read concerning himself (eU avrov), we should then un
derstand Peter as saying that David applied the words
quoted to himself, in reference to the immortality
which awaited him in his offspring.
" My flesh shall rest in hope (Iir eXirlSi, H^S 7) >
because (on, '3) thou wilt not leave my soul (i. e. me)

196 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [H. 25-32.
in the pit," &c. (26, 27). I am much inclined to ren
der these words thus : " My flesh shall rest (or, repose)
upo7i the hope, that thou wilt not leave," &c.
" Neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see cor
ruption" (27; comp. Deut. xvii. 20; Ps. xxxvii. 28).
On my interpretation, David calls himself God's " holy
one," or saint. There was no singularity in his giving
himself that title (comp. Deut. xxxiii. 8 ; 2 Chron.
vi. 41 ; Ps. xxx. 4, xx^^vii. 28, Ixxxvi. 2, Ixxxix. 19),
though in fact the genuine original of the Hebrew
was probably in the plural number, " thy holy ones."
" Therefore, being a prophet" (30). The Old Testa
ment history nowhere represents David as possessing
supernatural foreknowledge, or any supernatural en
dowment or prerogative. On the contrary, it repre
sents the prophet Nathan as ths ir.sdium of Divine
communications to him (2 Sam. vii. 4 et seq.), and
where the strongest encomium is passed upon him, no
such character is attributed (ibid, xxiii. 1). David is
said to speak as " a prophet," in the sense that in the
words quoted he spoke, not (as at first view might
seem) of present time, but (not supernaturally, how
ever) of future. (See above, pp. 73, 174-177.) The
very clause refers to what (if we credit the history) he
did not become acquainted with by inspiration of his
own, but by a raessage through Nathan (2 Sam. vii.
11, 12).
" Knowing that God had SAvorn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ, to sit on his throne," &c. (30).
The genuine reading here is, " that of the fruit of
his loins one should sit on his throne," or " that of
the fruit of his loins He (God) would seat one on his
throne," The Greek answering to the intervening
words in the received text is spurious, (Comp. Gries-

n. 25-32.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 197
bach, "Nov. Test.," ad loe). — The word rendered
" knowing " (etS&j?) sometimes raeans no raore than
being persuaded, Vfithovit implying any thing respecting
the correctness of the persuasion (comp. ol^a. Acts xx,
25), — " Knowing (or persuaded) that God had sworn
with an oath to him " ; that is, persuaded, like his con
temporaries, that it was God's solemn and fixed pur
pose concerning him. The phraseology in which this
purpose is represented as taking the form of an oath
is derived from one of the Psalms (cxxxii. 11 ; comp.
ex. 4 ; also, " Lectures," &c. Vol. IV. pp. 310, 315).
— Peter's sense is conveyed, I suppose, in the follow
ing paraphrase : David, speaking, in the Psalra quoted,
of the future, and persuaded that it was the Divine
purpose that the Messiah should be his descendant
(since, in his raind, the prophet predicted by Moses
was identified with a raonarch of his own race), had
in view the coraing of that Christ whose actual com
ing I and my fellow- Apostles now announce,
" He, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of
Christ" (31). The Greek word (avaaraai's) is not, I
suppose, correctly translated here " resurrection." Its
primitive meaning — raising up — is equally applica
ble to a revival from the dead (or resurrection), and to
a being brought into the world, or elevated to sorae
conspicuous service (comp. Judges ii. 16, 18, iii. 15 ;
Acts xiii. 22, et al. h. m.). The context, I think, de
termines the latter to be the true sense in the present
instance. " The Lord thy God," Moses had said
(Deut. xviii. 15), " will raise up unto thee a prophet
from the midst of thee ;  unto him ye shall
hearken." " This Jesus hath God raised up," now says
Peter (Acts ii, 32), " whereof we all are witnesses,"
It was not a resurrection of the Messiah from the grave
that Moses spoke of, or that Peter spoke of, taking up
17*

198 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IL 25-32.
Moses's words, but the Messiah's coming into the world,
and assuming his office (corap. iii. 22, 26). And to
this raising up, this coming of the Messiah, and not
his resurrection, it is quite evident to rae that Peter
declared David to have referred in the words quoted
by Peter frora David's Psalm (ii. 30, 31).
This, which I do not remember to have seen else
where stated, seems to me certain. One part of the
context may appear to the reader to confiict with it,
" Hira  ye have taken," it is said, " and by wicked
hands have crucified and slain, whom God hath raised
up, having loosed the pains of death" (ii, 23, 24),
Here, it may be urged, the raising up spoken of is speci
fied as being from the grave. I answer, — 1. Suppose
it is so, how does that fact control the interpretation of
the rest of the passage ¦? Jesus was raised up as the
Messiah, and he had a resurrection from the grave;
and the word used by Peter (avea-rrjcre) is equally appli
cable to both. That the respective contexts should
determine the word to have the one signification in one
verse, and the other in another, is nothing surprising.
But, 2. I am by no means certain that the fact is as
assumed. I do not know but that Peter, when he said
that God had "raised up" Jesus, "having loosed the
pains of death," meant to refer to him as being raised
up in the sense which I have given to the expression
in the following verses. Jesus had been put to death ;
" by wicked hands " he had been " crucified and slain."
If God meant to raise him up in the office and dignity
of Messiah, it could only be by " loosing the pains of
death " for him. And accordingly there would be noth
ing unnatural in construing the words raised up in this
verse precisely as in those on which I have reraarked
at length. Jesus, says the Apostle, " by wicked hands "
was " crucified and slain." But God has restored him

XL 34-36.] ACTS OF THB APOSTLES. 199
to life, and so, in despite of the murderous malice of
his enemies, has fulfilled the promise made to Moses,
of raising up the Messiah. It is true he was crucified.
But that did not put an end to his claira. God raised
him to the office of Messiah, notwithstanding,
n. 34-36.
David is not ascended into the heavens : but he saith himself,
" The Lord said unto my Lord, ' Sit thou on my right hand,
until I make thy foes thy footstool.' " Therefore let all the
house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that
same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
The quotation is from a Psalm, in which I under-
s-tand David to have referred to the exaltation of his
great expected successor. (See Ps. ex. 1 ; above, p,
107; "Lectures," &c. Vol, IV, pp, 314-316,) I
paraphrase Peter's words as follows : —
" Being by the right hand of God exalted," I say
(ii, 33) ; for he is exalted by God to be the medium of
his spiritual coraraunications to raen ; and to him ac
cordingly raay be fitly applied those words of David,
" The Lord said unto my Lord, ' Sit thou on my right
hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool,' " Those
words, indeed, originally, — though in a lower sense,
— raust be understood to have been spoken by David
concerning the Messiah whom he looked for. It is
impossible to suppose that he had himself in view, for
he was merely a great monarch; nor in any sense
naturally conveyed by the words can he be said to have
ascended into heaven, or to have sat down at God's right
hand (34, 35). In view, then, of the miracle now
wrought before your eyes (2-4, 33), and of the other
supernatural works of Jesus to which I have called
your attention (22), let all the nation of Israel be as
suredly persuaded that that Jesus, whom they have just

200 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [HL 18.
put to death by crucifixion, was no other than the
august personage whom under the name of Christ
(31) and of Lord (34) their fathers and they have for
ages been looking for (36). III. 18.
Those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of
all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
The word here translated " suffer " does not neces
sarily signify painful experience. It denotes simply
experience of whichsoever kind. The prophets (or
preachers) had spoken of the coming of Christ, ac
cording to their conceptions of him. In part (so far
as they relied on and reproduced the revelation by
Moses) they had spoken correctly, in part they had
spoken incorrectly, of the future Christ's experiences,
— of his position, office, and agency. So far as they
had spoken correctly, God "had showed by their
mouth," because he had showed by the mouth of
Moses, whose representation their representations did
but repeat. They had not represented the Christ as
destined to be outraged and put to a violent death, as
Jesus was. Such was by no raeans their idea of him.
What they had said of his greatness and exaltation, of
the things " that Christ should experience," and the
erapire he should attain, God had now brought to pass
in a way which they had by no means looked for.
Their anticipations of a dorainion for their hero, says
Peter, God " hath so fulfilled," fulfilled in this unex
pected way, allotting a life of hardship to his, beloved
Son, and a cruel death to " the Prince of Life" (15).
III. 21.
Whom the heaven must receive, until the times of restitution
of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his
holy prophets, since the world began.

m. 22-26.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 201
" Whom the heaven must receive." He is no earthly
ruler, as has been thought (comp. Acts i. 6). He has
been taken to heaven, and is invisible there. Nor
will he any more be made manifest, except in that
establishment of his kingdom which will take place
when his religion supersedes Judaism. For " restitu
tion " (airoKaTaa-Taa-i(;) I would rather read accomplish
ment, or consummation (see, however. Matt. xvii. 11,
and corap. Mal. iv. 5, 6). — " God hath spoken by the
mouth of his holy prophets." I have remarked on the
same expression above (p. 200). — " Since the world
(alwv) began." The " world " here spoken of, I take
to be the age of the Jewish dispensation (see above,
p. 78). IIL 22-26.
Moses truly said unto the fathers, " A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto
me ; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say
unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which
will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among
the people." Yea, and all the prophets frora Sarauel,
and those that follow after, as raany as have spoken, have
likewise told of these days. Ye are the children of the
prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our
fathers, saying unto Abraham, " And in thy seed shall all the
kindreds of the earth be blessed." Unto you first, God, hav
ing raised up his Son, sent him to bless you, in turning
away every one of you from his iniquities.
I regard this passage as very expressly confirming
that view which I have taken repeated occasion to
state and maintain, respecting the promise through
Moses of a " prophet " (or teacher) to be " raised up "
in future time (Deut. xviii. 15), as being the foundation
and germ of the Jewish conception of the Messiah,
entertained through the series of later ages.
I have spoken, says Peter, of the state of things

202 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [IV. 11.
now opening, as the accomplishment of what your
teachers have had in view " since the world began "
(21), — ever since the institution of the Jewish pecu
liarity ; since the age began, I say, for Moses himself,
who laid its foundations, " said to the fathers " of the
race, " A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto
you," &c. (22, 23). And that same event which Moses
thus foretold has (with whatever mixture of error
with his truth) been had in view, on his authority, by
the whole succession of teachers of our nation since
his time ; " as many as have spoken have likewise
foretold of these days " ,• this advent of Jesus, and
nothing different or future, fulfils whatever has been
truly anticipated respecting the setting up of the Mes
siah's reign (24). To you, successors of the teachers
and of the patriarchs, is it granted now to experience
the fulfilment of that other promise made by God to
the founder of your race, when he said, " In thy seed
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." God
promised by Moses that he would " raise up a prophet "
(Deut. xviii. 15) ; he hath done so, " having raised up
his Son," Jesus. He promised to Abraham, " In thy
seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed"
(Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18). He hath made this promise
good, in that he hath sent a spiritual deliverer, a bearer
of the richest of all blessings, — in that, " having
raised up his Son (Jesus), he hath sent him to bless
you." To " bless you," how "? He defines the way,
left undefined in the original promise. It was, by
" turning away every one of you from his iniquities."
IV. 11.
This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders,
which is become the head of the corner.
See above, p. 103. To Jesus, says Peter, well may
the language of the Psalraist (cxviii. 22) be applied.

IV. 24-28.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 203
IV. 24-28.
They lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said,
'.' Lord, thou art God, which hast raade heaven, and earth,
and the sea, and all that in thera is ; who by the mouth of
thy servant David hast said, ' Why did the heathen rage,
and the people imagine vain things ? The kings of the
earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against
the Lord, and against his Christ.' For of a truth, against thy
holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and
Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel
were gathered together in this city, for to do whatsoever thy
hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."
Peter and John first glorify in their own language
the power of God, which had now rescued thera from
danger, and on which they relied for protection for the
future : " Lord, thou art God," &c. (24). They next
(25, 26) glorify it in the language used by David in
one of his Psalms (ii. 1, 2; comp. "Lectures," &c..
Vol. IV. pp. 316-318). And they show how that
language is applicable to the event to which they
apply it. " By the mouth of his servant David "
God had said [David had poetically exhibited God as
saying], " Why do the heathen rage, and the people
imagine vain things \ " so now, say the Apostles (Acts
iv. 27), " the Gentiles and the people of Israel were
gathered together." "The kings of the earth stood
up," said the Psalmist, " and the rulers were gathered
together " ; " both Herod and Pontius Pilate," say the
Apostles (ibid.), — the first a king, the second a gov
ernor, — have now been "gathered together." They
conspired, said the Psalmist, " against the Lord and
against his anointed " ,• here, again, say the Apostles
(27), David's words are precisely in point ; for king
and ruler, heathen and people, have combined against
God's holy anointed child [or, servant] Jesus. — And
then, to guard against any such unfavorable conclusion

204 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [VIL 2,3.
as the Jews were wont to draw from Jesus's having
been punished as a malefactor, they add that this ex
traordinary catastrophe was in accordance with God's
mysterious purposes ; — " for to do whatsoever thy
hand and thy counsel determined before to be done "
(28 ; comp. ii. 23). VII. 2, 3.
The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he
was in Mesopotaraia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said
unto him, " Get thee out of thy country, and frora thy kin
dred, and corae into the land which I shall show thee."
The discourse of Stephen, in this chapter, contains
a recital of raany of the raost prominent events of the
early Jewish history, with frequent quotations, more or
less formal, of the language of the early writers.
Several of them I shall pass over, as not affording
occasion for any special remark. Some of the quota
tions differ from the original, either in the way of ad
dition, omission, or change ; and some of the state
ments of fact vary from the corresponding ones made
by the Old Testament writer. We have no means of
determining whether these inaccuracies are to be re
ferred to Stephen, to Luke, who undertook to record
his words, or to the person, whoever he was, who
heard and reported them to Luke. But the necessary
inference from them appears to be, that, at least in
some stage of the transmission, there was not that
precise regard to the language of the Old Testament
writers, which would have been inseparable from the
opinion, had it existed, that that language was dictated
by unerring inspiration.
In the text above, it is in contradiction to the his
tory (Gen.xi. 31 -xii. 1), that the Divine summons is
said to have been addressed to Abraham, " when he

vn. 14.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 205
was in Mesopotaraia, before he dwelt in Charran " ;
and in the quotation, the words of the original, " and
from thy father's house," are omitted, and the words
" and come " are inserted in the last clause, in their
place. VII. 4.
Frora thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into
this land.
But, according to the statement in the history, Abra
ham was born when Terah, his father, was seventy
years old (Gen. xi. 26), or thereabouts, and he left Ha
ran when himself " seventy and five years old " (ibid.
xii. 4) ; when Terah, therefore, had about reached his
one hundred and forty-fifth year. But Terah lived to
be two hundred and five years old (ibid. xi. 32). It
was not, therefore, according to the history, after Te-
rah's death, but not far from sixty years before it, that
Abraham migrated to Canaan. VIL 6,7.
And God spake on this wise : that his seed should sojourn in a
strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage,
and entreat them evil four hundred years. " And the nation to
whom they shall be in bondage will I judge," said God ; " and
after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place."
The quotation is from Genesis (xv. 13, 14), where we
read " with great substance," instead of " and serve
rae in this place," which latter words seera to be taken
from the account of the commission to Moses (Exod.
iii. 12). Corap. Exod. xii. 40, 41 ; " Lectures," &c.
Vol. L p. 140. VII. 14.
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all
his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
18

206 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [VTL 16.
In the history (Gen. xlvi. 27) the whole faraily of
Jacob, including Joseph with his wife and sons, is
reckoned to have been seventy in nuraber. But the
Septuagint version of the same passage gives Joseph
nine sons, and, with Stephen, calls the whole number
seventy-five. VII. 16.
The sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money ofthe
sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.
Here is a confusion of two facts recorded in the
history. It was Jacob, not Abraham, who " bought a
parcel of a field  at the hand of the children of
Hamor, Shechem's father," and that not for a tomb,
but for an altar (Gen. xxxiii. 19, 20). The sepulchre
in which Jacob directed that his body should be laid
was that of " Machpelah, which is before Mamre,"
bought by Abraham of Ephron, the Hittite (Gen. xlix.
29, 30 ; comp. xxiii. 3 - 20, 1. 12, 13). On the other
hand, according to the record in the Book of Joshua
(xxiv. 32), Joseph was actually buried in the place
which the discourse of Stephen indicates,
VII. 26.
Sirs, ye are brethren ; why do ye wrong one to another ?
The language of Moses, as recorded in the history,
was, " Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow ] " (Exod.
ii. 13.) VII. 37.
This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, " A
prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you of your breth
ren, like unto me ; him shall ye hear." *
Another express instance of that fact which I con
sider to be vital to a correct explanation of the rela-

vn. 48-50.] ACTS OF THB APOSTLES. 207
tion of the New Testaraent to the Old, naraely, the
identification, in the rainds of tbe early disciples, of the
Prophet proraised by Moses with that Messiah whom
they declared Jesus to be.
VII. 42, 43.
Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of
heaven ; as it is written in the book of the prophets, " O ye
house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts, and sacri
fices, by the space of forty years in the wilderness } Yea,
ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your
god Reraphan, figures which ye made, to worship them : and
I will carry you away beyond Babylon."
The quotation, from the prophet Amos (v. 25 - 27),
is made, like so many others in the New Testaraent,
with a want of exactness quite inconsistent with the
supposition of such a sanctity being attached to the
words, as would have belonged to them had they been
regarded as words uttered by Divine inspiration or
suggestion. In " Reraphan " (Acts vii. 43), corapared
with " Chiun " (Amos v. 26), the popular comraenta-
tors have been forced by their own principles to recog
nize a troublesome problem ; the former reading has
a near resemblance to that of the Septuagint. " Be
yond Babylon " (Acts vii. 43), instead of " beyond Da
mascus " (Araos V. 27), is a very raaterial alteration
of the prophet's words. (Corap. " Lectures," &c.. Vol.
IL p. 401.) VIL 48-50.
The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands ; as
saith the prophet, " Heaven is my throne, and earth is my
footstool : what house will ye build rae } saith the Lord ; or,
what is the place of my rest ? Hath not my hand made all
these things .' "
The words are quoted from the pseudo-Isaiah (Ixvi.
1, 2), with no important change.

208 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [VU. 52.
VII. 52.
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted .' and
they have slain thera which showed before of the coming of
the Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and
murderers.
We see here the exaggerated representation of strong
eraotion. Regarded as a precise statement of fact, it
would not be borne out by the Old Testament records.
VIII. 32-35.
The place of the Scripture which he read was this : " He was
led as a sheep to the slaughter ; and like a lamb dumb before
his shearer, so opened he not his mouth : in his humiliation
his judgment was taken away : and who shall declare his
generation ? for his life is taken from the earth." And the
eunuch answered Philip, and said, "I pray thee, of whom
speaketh the prophet this ? of himself, or of some other
man .' " Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the
sarae Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
The quotation is from the prophecy of Isaiah (Iiii.
7, 8). I have elsewhere expressed my opinion (" Lec
tures," &c.. Vol. III. pp. 255 - 259) that, in the pas
sage to which it belongs, the writer, without any su
pernatural knowledge whatever respecting the future
condition of Jesus of Nazareth, was referring to the
expected Messiah in terms according with the concep
tion entertained of that personage by himself in com
mon with his contemporaries. When the Ethiopian
officer asked Philip, " Of whom speaketh the prophet
this 1 " Philip, we are told, " opened his mouth, and
began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him
Jesus." That is, I presume, Philip explained the
passage in the way that I have done. Believing that
to be the true exposition, I raust needs suppose it to
have been Philip's, if he was a correct interpreter.
Philip, I suppose, replied to the Ethiopian, " The proph-

X. 43.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 209
et is speaking, not by any rairaculous foresight, but as
any of his conteraporaries raight have spoken, of that
illustrious personage called by our nation the Messiah,
who was predicted by our lawgiver Moses, and who was
expected by every Jew in this writer's tirae." Philip
seized the happy occasion to irapress the Ethiopian
courtier's mind. He " preached unto him Jesus."
" At last," said he, " in this age of ours, has appeared,
in the person of Jesus, that Messiah of whom the an
cient prophet spoke." " He began at the same Scrip
ture " the discourse with which he undertook to en
force that truth. It was a Scripture that afforded a
good opening and introduction to such a discourse.
How the discourse proceeded, what topics it embraced,
what methods of conviction it employed, we are not
told; but only that it was so satisfactory and persua
sive as to bring the officer to desire to be baptized in
token of his faith in Jesus (36).
X. 14.
Peter said,  "I have never eaten any thing that is cora
mon or unclean."
See Lev. xi., xx. 25 ; comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol.
Lpp. 266-273.
X. 43.
To him give all the prophets witness, that, through his name,
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
With that reign of the Messiah which they looked
for, the ancient writers of the nation had constantly
connected the idea of a moral reformation, and conse
quent Divine forgiveness and favor. (See, e. g.. Is. lix.
20; Jer. xxxi. 34; Dan. ix. 24; Mic vii. 18; Zech.
xiii. 1 ; Mal. iv. 2 ; comp. Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17 ; Acts
xi. 18.) That Messiah, whose followers they repre-
18*

* 210 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [Xm. 20.
sented as having their sins remitted, has appeared,
says Peter, in the person of Jesus, whom we preach ;
but that remission of sins, he adds, is only to be ob
tained by any one, by believing in Jesus and becoming
his disciple. XIII. 2Q.
He gave unto them judges, about the space of four hundred and
fifty years, until Sarauel the prophet.
Comp. "Lectures," &c. Vol. IL p. 130.
XIII. 22,
He raised up unto them David to be their king ; to whom also
he gave testimony, and said, "I have found David the son
of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all
my will."
Paul would never have quoted so inaccurately from
the Old Testament writings, if he had entertained that
opinion respecting their authority, which has been
held by Christian comraentators. (See 1 Sam. xiii.
14 ; Ps. Ixxxix. 20, 21 ; and comp. " Lectures," &c..
Vol. IIL pp. 41-43.) XIII. 23.
Of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise, brought
unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.
God had proraised to raise unto Israel a Saviour
(Deut. xviii. 15), and a Saviour, as Paul says, he had
now sent in the person of Jesus. He had raised him
up, Paul adds, among the descendants of David ; but
this is no part of what he had promised, or of what
Paul says that he had proraised. — " Of this man's
seed." I have remarked elsewhere (see above, p. 14)
on Paul's avoidance of the expression " Son of David,"

xm. 32,33.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 211
XIII. 27.
They that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they
knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are
read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in con
demning him.
How did the condemnation of Jesus fulfil the proph
ets ¦? Not because those writers foretold his condem
nation. It is impossible to find such a prediction in
their writings. But they had expatiated on the glories
of a coming kingdom of the Messiah ; and as to the
reality of that dominion they had spoken correctly,
though they misunderstood its nature. The Messiah's
kingdom had at length been established. Its estab
lishment had been brought about by a means which
they had no conception of, naraely, the condemnation
and death of Jesus, In this sense that condemnation
had fulfilled " the voices of the prophets," which voices
the Jewish contemporaries of Paul " knew not " in
any such raanner as to discern the basis of truth that
lay in them. They embraced the erroneous accident,
and overlooked the essential substance.
XIII, 29,
When they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took
him down from the tree, and laid hira in a sepulchre.
For the meaning which, on the whole, I think
should be put upon the word " written," in this place,
see above, p. 117, The sentence may be explained,
however, in the same manner as the text last com
mented upon, XIII. 32, 33.
The promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath ful
filled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised
up Jesus again ; as it is also written in the first Psalm,
" Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

212 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XIII. 32, 33.
" The proraise which was made unto the fathers," I
take to be that made through Moses, " A prophet
shall the Lord your God raise up," &c. (Deut, xviii. 15),
" God hath fulfilled the same," says Paul, " unto us
their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus " ; that
is, sent him into the world. The word " again," in our
version, indicating that it is the resurrection of Jesus
frora the dead to which Paul refers, is not in the origi
nal, but is superfluous and raisleading. (Comp. Acts
xiii. 23, 24,) The raising of Jesus "from the dead"
was a different thing, of which Paul proceeds to speak
in the next verse,
"As it is also written in the first Psalra (ii, 7), ' Thou
art ray Son, this day have I begotten thee ' [or, ' this
day have I made thee so ']." David may have intended
in this Psalm " to represent the expected prince as
speaking, and using language which would be suitable
for him, supposing the conceptions entertained by his
nation respecting his character and office to have been
correct." (" Lectures," &c., Vol. IV. p. 317.) On that
interpretation, the words were originally used by the
writer of the poem in the same application which is
made of them by Paul : " Thou art my Son, my chosen
and beloved messenger to men ; I have constituted
thee to that office," If, however, we prefer the other
construction, and consider David as referring to him
self, and representing Jehovah as saying to him, " Thou
[David] art my son," «&c, (ibid,), we shall then under
stand Paul as quoting words originally used in refer
ence to David, and applying them to Jesus agreeably
to the same principles and usages of composition which
have already been treated so much at length. We
shall understand hira as saying, " The words of the
first Psalra (" Thou art ray Son," &c,), originally
used respecting the elevation of David to the regal

XIIL 34-37.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 213
dignity, may be fitly applied to that institution of
Jesus in the office of Messiah, which took place when
God fulfilled in his person " the promise which was
made unto the fathers." XIIL 34-37.
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now
no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise : " I will
give you the sure mercies of David." Wherefore he saith
also in another Psalm, " Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy
One to see corruption." For David, after he had served his
own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was
laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption : but he whom God
raised again saw no corruption.
By " the sure mercies of David," I understand the
pseudo-Isaiah (Iv. 3 ; comp. " Lectures," &c., Vol. IIL
p. 260), frora whora Paul appears to have borrowed
the phrase, to have meant the crowning mercies con
nected with the establishment of the Messiah's king
dom ; these the prophet calls " the sure raercies of
David " (comp. Ps. Ixxxix. 1 - 4), either because David
had so often expressed his expectation of them, or be
cause the Messiah, according to this writer's concep
tion of him, was to be David's son. " The sure mer
cies of David," says Paul, God at last, after so many
ages of hope deferred, has " given to you" ; — that event,
of the establishment of the Messiah's reign, to which
(with however imperfect knowledge) the prophet re
ferred when he used those words, was brought to pass
when God " raised him up from the dead, now no
more to return to corruption," agreeably to the lan
guage used in another Old Testament passage. (Acts
xiii. 34, 35 ; comp. Ps. xvi. 10.) David, in that pas
sage, speaks in the first person : " Thou wilt not give
me up to the grave," &c. But, argues Paul, it is im
possible to apply the words, in a strictly literal sense.

214 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XIIL 34-37.
to that prince, for we know that he, " having served
the will of God in his own generation [or, in his own
individual life], fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fa
thers, and saw corruption " ; but the words are appli
cable to that Messiah whom I and ray associates an
nounce. David did not expect to be iraraortal in his
own person ; he expected to revive in the Messiah, his
descendant ; and behold, the Messiah is now come.
This exposition of Paul accords entirely with the
view which I have taken of the Psalm in question.
("Lectures," &c. Vol. IV. pp. 318-320.) I have
maintained, not simply that the words of that Psalm
are applicable, in the way of accommodation, to the
Messiah, but that the author had the Messiah in mind
when he wrote them, and used them in reference to
him ; and this not with any supernatural knowledge of
the Messiah, but as any Jew of his time might have
done. My only doubt is in respect to a minor point,
which is somewhat subtle, but which at all events does
not affect the raain scheme of the interpretation.
When Paul says, " he raised him up from the dead,"
and " he whom God raised again saw no corruption,"
the obvious construction is thought to be that which
raakes he and him represent Jesus. I shall not con
trovert this. It accords very well with ray conception
of the Psalra, and of Paul's purpose in quoting from
it. Paul might well say that David's expectation of
his OAvn continued life in his race would not be real
ized in the Messiah unless the Messiah were immortal,
which Jesus would be, now that God had " raised him
up from the dead, now no more to return to corrup
tion." But perhaps it would be following out more
consistently the idea which I understand to pervade
the Psalm, and at the same time be doing no violence
to Paul's language, to regard him as applying the

xin. 46, 47.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 215
words directly to David, and not to Jesus. Jesus was
the Messiah, David had in view the sending of the
Messiah (his own revival in his offspring) when he
said of himself " thou wilt not leave me in the grave,
nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption" ; and Paul
may have meant to pursue precisely that idea when
he said, that though David, regarded merely as one
who in his own tirae had served God's will, had wholly
passed away and seen corruption, yet that David, re
garded as the ^Messiah's predecessor, had seen no cor
ruption, David being revived in that personage.
XIII. 40, 41.
Beware, therefore, lest that corae upon you which is spoken of
in the prophets : " Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and
perish : for I work a work in your days, a work which ye
shall in no wise believe, though a raan declare it unto you."
This text requires no explanation. Paul raerely
uses language of Habakkuk (i. 5) to enforce a remon
strance which the words well and earnestly conveyed,
XIII. 46, 47.
Lo, we turn to the Gentiles : for so hath tbe Lord coramanded
us, saying, " I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles,
that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the
earth."
I think that the " light to the Gentiles," intended
by the pseudo-Isaiah (xlix. 6 ; comp. " Lectures," &c..
Vol. HI. p. 248) in the words here quoted by Paul, is
the people of Israel (comp. Is. xlix. 3, 5). " So hath
the Lord comraanded us," says the Apostle, " saying,
' I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles,' " &c.
If by " us " we understand Paul and his fellow-preach
ers, we shall then regard hira as saying : The Lord
hath given us a commission which may be fitly ex-

216 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XV. 13-17.
pressed in these words of an ancient prophet. If we
take " us " to raean, in Paul's quotation, what it did
in the prophet's o'riginal words, then we shall interpret
Paul thus : It was long ago said that the Jewish peo
ple was to be a " light of the Gentiles," and " for sal
vation unto the ends of the earth." We, apostles of
Jesus, are about to make it so, when " we turn to the
Gentiles," and publish to them a doctrine which had
its birth in the bosora of the Jewish race.
Other coraraentators, with not so much reason, as it
seems to me, consider the " light to the Gentiles "
spoken of to be the prophet hiraself; and others yet,
with still less probability, to be the expected Messiah.
If the forraer of these constructions is correct, then
Paul says, in the words quoted : The Lord has given
to rae and Barnabas a like trust to what he was an
ciently represented as having given to his prophet. If
the latter, then he addresses the Jewish cavillers as
follows : My companion and myself " turn to the
Gentiles " with our proclamation of Jesus, the Mes
siah, agreeably to that ancient conception of the Mes
siah, whereby he was represented as no monopoly of
the race of Abraham, but " a light of the Gentiles,"
and " for salvation unto the ends of the earth."
XV. 13-17.
James answered, saying,  " Simeon hath declared how
God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a
people for his name. And to this agree the words of the
prophets; as it is written, 'After this I will return, and will
build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ;
and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up.
That the residue of raen raight seek after the Lord, and all
the Gentiles, upon whora my name is called, saith the Lord,
who doeth these things.' "
James's quotation is from the prophecy of Amos

XV. 13-17.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 217
(ix. 11, 12), In our common version James is repre
sented as proceeding thus (18): "Known unto God
are all his works from the beginning of the world,"
But this clause is spurious. (See Griesbach, "Nov.
Test," ad loe.) The true reading is : "All the Gentiles,
upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doth
these things, known from the beginning." The words
" known from the beginning " do not occur at the end
of the passage quoted by Jaraes from Araos (ix, 12);
but perhaps (for the quotation is in no part accurately
made) they correspond to the words of Amos in the
previous verse (ix, 11), " as in the days of old," which
words James (Acts xv, 16) omits from their proper
place in the passage quoted. In the way in which he
arranged them, he perhaps intended them to contain
his comment on that adoption of the Gentiles which
was now taking place, his words being equivalent to
these : " Saith the Lord, who is making these things
to be such as they were anciently recognized,"
Amos, when he wrote these words, was referring to
the Messiah's reign (" Lectures," &c.. Vol, II, pp, 404,
405), which, like all other Jews, he expected, though
with an imperfect apprehension of its nature. And
James merely states, that when Peter " declared how
God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of
them a people for his name " (Acts xv, 14), he declared
no hitherto unheard of principle of Divine adrainistra
tion ; that, on the contrary, however unpalatable to
his Jewish contemporaries, the ancient writers of the
nation had recognized it in some sense, and that, at all
events, it harmonized with their language, " To this
agree the words of the prophets," he says ; and, to es
tablish this point, he quotes a passage from Amos, un
questionably referring to the Messiah's reign, and not
restricting its benefits to Jews, but (in the form in
19

218 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XV. 20 (29).
which James recites them) distinctly naming, as one
of the concomitant circumstances, " that the residue
of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles
upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord,"
It must not be overlooked, that these last important
words, on which rests the argument of the Apostle
James, are not correctly quoted from Amos, who (in
the Hebrew text) says in the place of them, " that
they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the
heathen which are called by my name, saith the Lord."
Perhaps the Hebrew words of Amos, where he speaks of
the heathen called by the Lord's name, are quite as much
to James's purpose as those which he has substituted
for them. But I think it altogether unquestionable,
that, had he regarded them as containing supernatural
prediction, it is not in this careless and inexact way
that he would have appealed to thera. James's quota
tion follows the Septuagint version much more nearly
than the Hebrew, But his quotation, as reported by
Luke, by no means represents that version exactly ;
for instance, the Septuagint translators have nothing
corresponding to the important words, "the Lord,"
after " seek," XV. 20 (29).
That they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication,
and from things strangled, and from blood.
See Exod. xxxiv, 15, 16; Lev. vii. 26, xvii. 10-14,
XVII. 2, 3.
Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-
days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures ; opening and
alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again
from the dead ; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you,
is Christ.

XVIL 2, 3.] ACTS OF THB APOSTLES. 219
Could Paul have shown by the testimony of the Old
Testament Scriptures, " that Christ must needs have
suffered " ? I think not. I can find no such testi
mony. Could he have shown that the Christ " must
needs have  risen 'again from the dead " 1 Cer
tainly not. The Old Testament says nothing of the
kind. What, then, was the nature of Paul's argument and
exposition ?
He had to deal with Jews prepossessed with the
same erroneous views of the Old Testament writings
as those which prevail among Christians at the present
day. The assembly which he addressed in the syna
gogue of Thessalonica imagined, like the great ma
jority of Christians now, that those Old Testament
writers called the Psalmists and the Prophets were
supernaturally inspired, and of course infallible teach
ers of religious truth ; and when they found those
writers describing the future Messiah as a splendid
monarch and victorious soldier, they were satisfied that
such alone was the Messiah they were to look for.
But the poor Galilean peasant, Jesus, was no magnifi
cent prince, and no triumphant warrior. They turned
a deaf ear to Paul, therefore, when he said, " This
Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ."
Paul's task then was to show that it was fit (eSei)
that Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead
(rendered in our version, " that Christ must needs have
suffered," &c,). It would not have been fit, if divine
inspiration had in ancient times declared that the Mes
siah's course was to be one of brilliant earthly success
and glory, as the Jews with whom Paul was reasoning,
in consequence of their erroneous estimate of the au
thority of the Psalmists and Prophets, believed. It
was necessary for him to show them their error in this

220 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XVH. 11.
respect. Before they could recognize the Messiah in
an obscure sufferer, like Jesus of Nazareth, it was
necessary for them to be satisfied that the writers, from
whom they had derived conceptions of the Messiah so
inconsistent with that supposition, were not authorita
tive guides. This, I have no doubt, was the view
which Paul was " opening," when " three Sabbath-
days he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures."
" This Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is the Christ,"
Paul said, notwithstanding he has suffered, and been
put to a malefactor's death. " It is fit," — there is
nothing unsuitable or incredible in the fact, — that
he should " have suffered, and risen again from the
dead " to fulfil his office. If you should rely on the
Psalmists and Prophets as infallible oracles on the
subject, you would, it is true, conclude that it was not
fit. For such is not their representation. But their
representation, so far as as it differs from, or adds to,
the original Mosaic revelation on which it is founded
(Deut. xviii. 15), is of no authority to determine your
belief What is " fit " in itself is not less so by reason
of any thing that they have said, for they are not au
thoritative guides upon that question. And he " rea
soned out of the Scriptures, opening" and expound
ing them in maintenance of this view,
XVII. 11.
They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched
the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
The investigation which occupied the Bereans, I
understand to have been the same in which I have
endeavored to aid the readers of these comments, and of
my work on the Old Testament ; namely, to ascertain
the authority and sense of different parts of the Jew
ish Scriptures, and their bearing on the mission and

XXIV. 14, 15.] ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 221
office of Jesus, and on the Christian revelation in
general, XVIIL 18.
Having shorn his head in Cenchrea ; for he had a vow.
See Numb. vi. 1-21 ; and comp. Acts xxi. 23, 24,
26 ; « Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. pp. 330 - 332.
XVIII. 28.
He mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by
the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
The argument used by Apollos I understand to have
been of the same tenor as that which I have above
(pp. 218-220) ascribed to Paul.
XXI. 25.
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and
concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that
they keep themselves from things oflTered to idols, and from
blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

See above, p. 218.

xxni. 5.

It is written, " Thou shalt not speak evH of the ruler of thy
people,"
Comp, Exod, xxii. 28.
XXIV, 14, 15.
This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call
heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all
things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets ; and
have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow,
that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the
just and unjust.
Paul said that he not only agreed with the Phari-
19*

222 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [XXVL 22, 23.
sees in receiving the doctrine of the resurrection,
which the Sadducees rejected (Acts xxiii. 8), but that
he also believed in the Prophets as well as the Law ;
— though he believed in Law and Prophets not ac
cording to the current Jewish opinions of their au
thority and sense, but according to a construction of
his own and of his fellow-Christians ; " after the way
which " the Jews called " heresy."
XXVI. 22, 23.
I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great,
saying none other things than those which the Prophets and
Moses did say should come ; that Christ should suffer, and
that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and
should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles,
Moses had said (Deut, xviii, 15) that a prophet,
called in later times the Christ, should " show light
unto the people," and the Prophets (in unison with the
promises to the patriarchs. Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii.
18, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14) had added (Is. ix. 2, Ix. \-Z, et
al. h. m.), that he should enlighten "the Gentiles,"
But (independently of the question whether either of
them had in any way left it on record " that Christ
should suffer") certain it is that no such declaration
as that he " should rise from the dead, and show light
unto the people," &c., is to be found in their writings.
It is merely by a mistranslation of his words, that
Paul is made responsible for that erroneous assertion.
The particle (el, if) represented here by " that" (" that
Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first,"
&c.), will, it is true, in a peculiar Attic construction,
bear that rendering, though the occasions for it are in
frequent. Buttman says (" Grammar," § 149), "When
el follows OavpA^co [/ wonder], and some other verbs
expressing emotions of the mind, it ought strictly to

XXVI. 22, 23.] ACTS OF THB APOSTLES. 223
signify if, when, and to be used raerely of things which
are uncertain ; e, g, ^ if or when thou dost not per
ceive this, I wonder at it,' The Attic custom, how
ever, of avoiding a tone of decision in discourse, has
been the occasion that el is used of things not only
highly probable, but even entirely certain ; and conse
quently stands for ort \thai]" &c. There are a few
New Testament examples of this use, (Comp. Mark xv,
44 ; Acts xxvi, 8 ; 2 Cor, xi. 15 ; 1 John iii. 13,) But
" testifying " (p.aptvpovp.evo'i), the word prefixed in the
present instance, is a word apparently as far as possi
ble out of the range of those verbs expressive of
" emotion " which admit this peculiar translation of
the particle after them.
But the correct interpretation of the passage does
not mainly turn on the rendering of this conjunction.
Indeed, understand the words " when I say " before
" that," and the true sense will be sufficiently ex
pressed. Another word in the sentence requires more
particular remark. It is that rendered " other than "
(eieTo<i). It is often equivalent, as our translators here
understood it to be, to except, beside, additional to. But
such is not precisely its primitive meaning. Derived
from the preposition (e'/c) which means " from," it sig
nifies literally out of, without, outside. (Comp. Matt.
xxiii, 26 ; 1 Cor, vi, 18 ; 2 Cor, xii, 2, 3,) That which
is without is strange, foreign, alien. (1 Cor, v, 12, 13 ;
Col. iv. 5 ; 1 Tim, iii, 7.) Sophocles (" Antigone," v.
330) has this sense of the word (e«To? iXirlSoi, for
contrary to expectation). So I understand Paul to use
it. My doctrine, he says, concerning the Christ as a
universal enlightener is not foreign, alien, contrary, to
the doctrine of our ancient Scriptures.
So that, in short, I understand his declaration to be
to this effect : When I proclaim a Christ, the enlight-

224 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE ACTS, &o. [XXVIH. 23.
ener of Jews and Gentiles, I testify nothing foreign,
nothing opposed, to what " the Prophets and Moses
did say should come," even if [or, when I declare that]
the Christ whom I preach is a sufferer, and was first
to rise from the dead, and then " to show light," &c.
Agrippa, and the Jews about his tribunal, had no
notion of a suffering, dying, and risen Messiah. Paul
declares that the idea of the Messiah which they en
tertained, so far as it was of one who, as Moses and
the Prophets had declared, should " show light unto
the people and to the Gentiles," was his own also, and
that he in no way contradicted it, nor declared any thing
inconsistent with it, wh'en he further averred that it
was God's will that the Messiah should first suffer,
die, and rise, as Jesus had done.
XXVIII. 23.
There came many to hira into his lodging ; to whom he ex
pounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them
concerning Jesus, both out of the Law of Moses, and out of
the Prophets, from morning till evening.
See above, pp. 161 - 164, 208, 209.
XXVIII. 25-27.
When they agreed not among theraselves they departed, after
that Paul had spoken one word, " Well spake the Holy Ghost
by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, ' Go unto this
people and say. Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not un
derstand ; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive : for the
heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
hearing, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand
with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal
them.' "
See above, pp. 80, 81.

PART II,
APOSTOLICAL EPISTLES,
SECTION I,
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THB ROMANS.
I. 6, 7.
The called of Jesus Christ ;  beloved of God, called to
be saints.
The Epistles of Paul, especially the controversial
parts, abound in the use of a vocabulary drawn from
the Old Testament, and requiring a reference to its
original use in that collection of writings, in order to
a correct interpretation of it where it occurs in the
Christian Scriptures, Himself a Jew, like the rest of
the Apostles, St, Paul of course employed words
agreeably to Jewish usage. Especially when he dis
cussed questions raised by Jews out of the technical
phraseology of their sacred writings, it was unavoidable
that he should use that phraseology in its accepted
technical sense.
The family of Abraham occupied a peculiar position,
from the time when they were selected by Divine wis
dom to be recipients of revelations of religious truth.
That position was expressed in the Old Testament by
various titles and epithets.
They were entitled in very numerous passages, " the
Congregation of the Lord " (e. g. Numb, xvi, 3, xxvii.
17, xxxi, 16 ; Deut, xxiii, 3 ; Josh. xxii. 17; 1 Chron,
xxviii, 8 ; Mic, ii, 5) ; a word equivalent to Church.
As God had invited them to the possession of a true

226 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 6, 7.
theology, and the enjoyment of corresponding privi
leges, they were said to be his called. " Hearken unto
me, O Jacob, and Israel, my called." (Is, xlviii, 12;
comp. xii. 9, li. 2; Hos, xi, 1,)
The Israelites collectively, by reason of this relation,
were God's chosen, or what is the same thing, his elect.
" Ye seed of Israel, his servant ; ye children of Jacob,
his chosen ones," (1 Chron. xvi. 13.) " For Jacob my
servant's sake, and Israel mine elect." (Is. xiv. 4 ; comp,
Deut, iv, 37, vii, 6, x, 15 ; 1 Kings iii, 8 ; Ps. xxxiii.
12, cv. 6, 43, cvi. 5, cxxxv. 4; Is. xii. 8, 9, xliii. 20,
xliv. 1, 2; Ezek. xx. 5.)
They were his saved, or delivered (Deut. xxxiii. 29) ;
his purchased (Exod. xv. 16); his redeemed (2 Sam.
vii. 23) ; his ransomed (Is. xxxv. 10, li. 10).
They were his children (Deut. xiv. 1) ; his sons (Is.
xliii. 6) ; his people (Exod. v. 1); his inheritance (DevA,.
ix. 26) ; his servants (Lev. xxv. 55) ; his beloved (Jer.
xii. 7) ; his holy ones, or saints (Deut. vii. 6 ; Ps. cxlviii.
14 ; 1 Mac i. 46).
These expressions, and others of similar tenor, it is
to be carefully remembered, have no reference what
ever to the particular character or position of indi
viduals. They relate to the people of Israel collec
tively, comprising, as it did, characters of every degree
of goodness and wickedness, from Moses to Nadab,
from Elijah to Jezebel. They relate to that people
collectively as the Church of God ; in other words, as
that portion of mankind on whom God had bestowed
the privileges of a revealed religion. All Gentiles,
indiscriminately, are " strangers," " aliens," " afar off,"
" not a people." All Jews, good or bad, on account of
the nation's having the oracles of God in its keeping,
are comprehended in the class of the " called," the
" elect," the " purchased, " the household," and so on.

I. 6, 7.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 227
This is plainly the case in respect to those titles which
to our minds suggest most naturally something of a
moral significance. To the whole congregation of the
descendants of Jacob it is said, " Thou art an holy
people" (Deut. vii. 6, xxvi. 19, xxviii. 9). "He ex
alteth," says the Psalmist (cxlviii. 14), " the praise of
all his saints " ; an honorable title ; and to whom
applied % He explains : " the praise of all his saints,
even of the children of Israel." Even the phrase chil
dren of God, in this connection, implies no favorable
testimony in respect to character; for he is himself
represented as saying (Is. i. 2), "I have nourished and
brought up children, and they have rebelled against
mc" Herein we have a key to the sense of a large por
tion of the Apostolical Epistles of the New Testament.
Certain expressions were in common use with the Jew
ish writers before our Saviour's time, and consequently
in the coramon colloquial use of the Jews in his time,
when they spoke of the subjects to which the ancient
writers had applied those expressions. Those expres
sions had been applied to the Jewish nation as a body,
— not to single persons, nor with any reference to
moral desert. They had denoted no more nor less
than the state of religious privilege which the Jewish
nation, as such, enjoyed, in being the possessors of a
revelation with its attendant distinctions and advan
tages ; — in short, as being the covenant people, the
visible Church of God. We know from the Acts of
the Apostles (x. 1 -xi. 18, xv. 1 - 31), that, at an early
period of the preaching of Christianity, the question
began to be moved, whether the descendants of Abra
ham were still to continue what they had been, — the
only covenant people, the exclusive visible Church, of
Godj — or whether Gentiles were now to be permitted

228 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [I. 17.
to share their privileges. It was natural — not to say
unavoidable — that the question should be discussed
by Jews in the use of those terms by which Jews had
been accustomed to designate their superiority ; — un
avoidable, because this was their vocabulary conse
crated to that use, and they had no other. In short,
the great dispute of the infant Church, whether the
benefits of the Jewish Messiah's mission were designed
for Jews only, or for Gentiles also, was, according to
the phraseology of the time, a dispute whether Jews
were still to possess exclusively, or henceforward to
share with Gentiles, a right to the titles of a called,
elect, saved, redeemed people, and such like.
It is in reference to that controversy, which he treats
at large in his Epistle to the Romans, that Paul, taking,
as he always did, the liberal side, addresses himself, in
the beginning of that Epistle, to the whole Church of
Rome alike, composed of both Jewish and Pagan con
verts, as " the called of Jesus Christ," and the " beloved
of God." As he viewed the case, all who gave " obe
dience to th,e faith among all nations " (i. 5) were " the
called of Jesus Christ " (6), as much as the Jews had
been the called of Moses. As much as the Jewish
nation had formerly been, so much all, Jews or Gen
tiles, who were now willing to accept the Gospel of
Jesus as the message of God, were " beloved of God,
called to be saints " (7). L 17.
Therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith ;
as it is written, " The just by faith shall live."
In the latter clause of this verse (in which, after
Griesbach, I adopt the verbal arrangement necessary
to bring out the Apostle's meaning), language used by
an ancient writer (Hab. ii. 4) in a different sense and

I. 17.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 229
application (comp. " Lectures," «&:c.. Vol. III. p. 289)
is employed by way of accommodation to St. Paul's
doctrine, which it well expresses. The sense of the for
mer clause, I think, is correctly represented in this
paraphrase : " In the Gospel of Christ God's method
of justification is revealed as resting upon faith from
first to last." Or it may be rendered: "Therein, for
the foundation of faith, God's method of justification
by faith is revealed."
The subject of justification hy faith, so rauch dis
cussed in the Epistles of Paul, particularly in those
to the Romans and Galatians, is here introduced.
The doctrine is more fully and exactly set forth in
passages a little further on, where it is said, " A man
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law"
(iii. 28 ; comp. 20, 22, iv. 2) ; and again (iv. 5 ; comp.
Gal, ii, 16), " To hira that worketh not, but believeth
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted
for righteousness [rather, for justification]"
What is the meaning of these propositions ] It de
pends on the signification of the terms, "justification,"
" faith," and " works " or " deeds of the law."
The strictly orthodox sense (so called) of the doctrine,
I may exemplify in the definitions of the Westminster
Catechism and Confession, according to which, —
" Justification is an act of God's free grace unto
sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sin, accepteth
and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight,
not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,
but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction
of Christ, by God iraputed to them, and received by
faith alone." (" Larger Catechism," Quest. 70.)
"Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in
the heart of a sinner by the spirit and word of God,
whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery,
20

230 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 17.
and of the disability of himself and all other creatures
to recover him out of his lost condition, not only
assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel,
but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his right
eousness therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for
the accepting and accounting of his person righteous
in the sight of God for salvation." (Ibid. Quest. 72.)
" Good works are only such as God hath commanded
in his holy word, and not such as, without the warrant
thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon
any pretence of good intention. These good works,
done in obedience to God's coraraandraents, are the
fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith, and by
them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen
their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profes
sion of the Gospel, stop the mouths of adversaries,
and glorify God." (" Confession," &c., chap. xvi. §§ 1,
2.) In short, good works are acts of Christian obedi
ence, from Christian principles and motives.
That which may perhaps be regarded as the prevail
ing scheme among liberal commentators of the present
day represents justification as meaning " absolution
from sin, and assurance of the heavenly happiness " ;
faith, " the whole teraper and character of a Christian" ;
and works, or deeds of the law, " observance of the
Jewish ritual." (Corap. " Test. Nov. Haramond. et
Cler." ad Rom. iii. 4 ; Locke, " Paraphrase and Notes,"
&c. on Rom. iv. 25.) And on this basis the proposi
tion will signify : " A man obtains assurance of final
salvation, not in consequence of observing the cere
raonies of the Jewish Law, but of having becorae pos
sessed of the Christian spirit and character,"
Objections to this exposition are, —
1. That it ascribes an unauthorized sense to the
word faith ; a sense not justified by its etymology.

i. 17.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 231
nor (as I think) by tbe practice of the sacred writers,
Jewish or Christian, but merely devised to meet a sup
posed exigency. " Faith in Jesus Christ " means belief
that Jesus is the Christ. It is that act of the mind by
which the mind recognizes Jesus in the character of
the Messiah. I know what " dispositions of the heart "
means, but the " faith of the heart," of which I some
times hear from the pulpit, has no more meaning for
me than the passions, affections, or appetites of the
understanding. It is true that we read, " With the
heart raan believed unto righteousness." (Rora. x. 10.)
But it is a Jew who uses the language ; and in the
usage of his nation the heart (13?) raeans not raore the
seat of the affections, than the mind or understanding.
(Comp. Judg. xvi. 17; 1 Kings x. 2, 24; 1 Chron.
xxix. 18 ; Job ix. 4, xii. 3, xxxiv. 10, xxxvi. 5 ; Prov.
vii. 7, ix. 4 ; Is. vi. 10, x. 7.)
2. That it unjustifiably liraits the sense of the word
works, in making it refer to the Jewish Law, instead
of standing for universal religious obedience. (Comp.
Rom. iv. 5, ix. 11 ; Tit. iii. 3-5.) I
3. That it represents justification as a thing future
to Christians, whereas the Apostle speaks of it as a
thing passed. (Comp. Rom. v. 1, 9 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; Tit.
iii. 7.) Nor can it be shown that the words justifica
tion diXidi justify, or their equivalents in Greek, ever, in
the New Testament, denote admittance to, or assurance
of, final salvation. I do not deny that they are used
in connections where final salvation is the subject
(as, perhaps, in Rora. ii. 13), but that they ever them-.
selves express that sense. The distinction between
sense and signification is a familiar one.
4. That it represents Paul as defending an insignifi
cant proposition ; for whoever should regard the works
of the Jewish Law as obligatory, would be prompted

232 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 17.
to perform them by that very principle of obedience
assumed to be denoted by the word faith. In such a
case the ivorks and the faith which Paul places in
such precise opposition would coincide,
I take faith and works in their comraon acceptation,
understanding, by the one, belief, and by the other,
obedience in general ; and justification I interpret as
importing admission to the present privileges of the
Christian community ; in other words, admission into
the visible Church, the society of Christians, the com
pany of the covenant people of God, On this basis,
the proposition will read as follows : — A man is in
troduced into the Christian community siraply on the
condition of recognizing the authority of Jesus, its
head, and not on any condition of previous obedience
rendered by hira, of whatever kind.
The doctrine here expressed, more largely stated,
will be this : — Christianity freely offers its enlighten
ing and sanctifying influences to whosoever will avail
hiraself of thera. He who believes that it is from God,
is in a condition to avail himself of them, which no
person who does not believe can be, from the nature
of the case. All who are ready to be benefited by it,
then, it adopts. No such person does it reject, on ac
count of previous disobedience, greater or less. Every
believer in its divine original it receives, so far as to
regard him as a meraber of the visible Church, free to
enjoy and use all the privileges it holds out, which
privileges he then remains at liberty to use or misuse
,at his option and his peril ; and according to his use
or abuse of them will be his final lot.
According to this view, St. Paul meets the plea of
the Jewish converts — viz. that in order to be a member
of the Christian community, which, in their apprehen
sion, was but an improved continuation of the Jewish,

I- 17.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 233
it was necessary first to comply with the Jewish ritual
— by declaring that, so far from any particular form
of works (" deeds of the law ") being requisite for
initiation, no performance of works whatever, no past
obedience, was the ground of admission to the name and
opportunities of discipleship. (Comp. Acts viii. 36, 37.)
This rendering of the proposition in question, be
sides being in striking accordance with the liberal
spirit of Christianity, has the advantage of harmoniz
ing with our knowledge of the state of the controversy
in the Apostolic age throughout, and with the uniform
tenor of St. Paul's reasonings, illustrations, and phrase
ology, when, in different places, he presents the argu
ment. Whatever difficulty belongs to it consists in
finding authority for explaining the words justify and
justification in the manner proposed. For the other two
words are taken in their plainest and commonest sense.
Accordingly, I inquire what is the sense of the words
justify and justification in the technical use of Scrip
ture, And the inquiry brings me to this conclusion ;
that they belong to that class of terms, lately com
mented on (see pp. 225 - 228), which relate to recep
tion into the visible Christian Church. A man is justi
fied when he becomes a member of the corapany of
believers ; and his justification is his transfer into that
new position.
Words are arbitrary signs. Usage fixes their sense,
and the satisfactory way to ascertain their sense is to
observe their use. But I will premise an etymological
view of the Words in question, which possibly may de
serve sorae attention, as accounting for their use.
The Greek words (BiKaioo) and hiKauoavvri) rendered
in our version of the New Testaraent justify and right
eousness, occur frequently in the Septuagint translation
of the Old Testaraent, from which the Evangelists and
20*

234 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [I- 17,
Apostles have borrowed much of their phraseology.
In the Septuagint they correspond respectively to a
Hebrew verb and Hebrew nouns, all from one root
(pnVn, plV' ^"^^ '"^plV)- Accordingly, by ascertain
ing the meaning of these Hebrew words, we ascertain
the sense which the corresponding Greek words had
in Hellenistic use ; that is, in the use of the Septu
agint version and the New Testament.
Now the Hebrew words are derivatives from a root
(piy), the primitive meaning of which appears to be,
in the infinitive, to be straight, or erect. In the Hiphil
form, the verb will of course mean to cause to be erect or
to set up, and the noun, an erect posture. But in a sec
ondary sense of the word, akin to that by which in
English we use uprightness and rectitude for a moral
quality, the radical verb (pIV) Is used in Hebrew for
he stood morally erect, or he was innocent ; and its Hiphil
form accordingly denotes to cause or esteem a person
to he morally erect or innocent, that is, to justify a per
son, and the derived noun stands for moral erectness or
uprightness, as well as for the condition of being physi
cally upright.
But there is clearly no reason for deserting the
primitive meaning of a word in a given case, when the
secondary will not in that "case give us so good a sense.
Let us keep to the primitive sense in this instance, and
see whither it will lead us. On the text, " Abraham
believed God, and it was counted unto him for right
eousness " (Gen. XV. 6), St. Paul founds much of the
argument in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians,
thus directing attention to it as the source of his pe
culiar phraseology. If, instead of rendering the last
word ('nT>'}'%) righteousness, we give it the primitive
meaning of a setting up, or an establishment, we obtain
a sense which, besides being more literal, much better

I- 17.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 235
suits the context. We shall then understand the Old
Testament writer as saying, that Abraham's belief was
counted to hira, not for righteousness, or personal raerit
(which it is not directly to his purpose to speak of),
but for the ground of his being set up, the ground of
his establishment, as the head of the covenant people
of God. The text, thus understood, is precisely to
the sacred writer's purpose, for he is treating of the
origin of the privileges possessed by the Jews in that
character. And, on this construction, it is also emi
nently to the Apostle's purpose to quote the text, in
the connection in which his quotation of it occurs ;
his object being to show that the ground of the estab
lishment of Christians in the character of God's cove
nant people was the same ground — namely, that of
faith — on which had rested Abraham's previous es
tablishment in the same relation.
Now if we ought to adopt this sense for the Hebrew
word (nplV) in the Old Testament passage just com
mented on, we raust (if we admit the translation into
Greek to be faithful in this instance) attribute the same
sense to the corresponding Greek word (BiKaioavvrj) in
the Septuagint version. And if, in the Septuagint
version, the Greek noun is used to denote an establish
ment in the condition of God's peculiar people, God's
Church, it further follows that the same sense naturally
attaches to the word when it occurs in the same con
nection in the New Testament. The verb (St/catofu),
the root of the noun in question, will then also mean
to establish in this relation. And the representation
of Paul, in such passages, is elucidated by etymological
analysis. I should have less confidence in an argument belong
ing to Hebrew philology, and going to attach to a
word a sense not set down in the lexicons (natural as

236 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 17.
the derivation seems to me), but that I think it strongly
corroborated by a comparison of two other passages
of the Old Testament. In a Psalm we read, " Then
stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment, and so the
plague was stayed ; and that was counted unto him
for righteousness (Hp^V?) unto all generations for
evermore." (Ps. cvi. 30, 31.) This refers to a transac
tion recorded in the history. (Numb. xxv. 11-13.)
We turn to it, and what do we find \ An account of
the establishment of Phinehas and his family in the
hereditary dignity of the office of high-priest, or, as it
is there expressed, of his having, " and his seed after
him," God's " covenant of peace," " even the covenant
of an everlasting priesthood." Phinehas's act " was
counted unto him for righteousness unto all genera
tions for evermore," — that is, for establishment in a
perraanent transmissible pontificate. The words " unto
all generations," &c. have no sense, without torture, on
the interpretation which supposes a personal quali
ty of Phinehas to be referred to under the name of
his " righteousness." As Phinehas's devout zeal was
counted to him for the establishment of himself and
his posterity in the sacerdotal office, so Abraham's
faith was counted to hira for establishment and confir-
raation of himself and his descendants in the privi
leges of God's people, adopted for the reception of his
Law ; and the belief of Christians (so Paul asserts)
was counted to them in like manner for a like estab
lishment in a church state.
It must be superfluous to say, that I by no means
propose, as a conclusion from the above remarks, to
change the long-accustomed nomenclature on this sub
ject, by substituting the word establishment, or any
other, for the technical justification to which we are
used. All technical words are but jargon as long

I- 17] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 237
as they are new, and it is better to attempt to define
and fix the sense of an old one, than to supersede it.
I have but aimed to trace a process of thought by
which phraseology of an ancient language has come
to be used in a very peculiar and strictly technical
sense, — a sense by no means represented by our word
justification interpreted by its coraraon use. And now,
though I have ventured to submit this philological in
vestigation, I am quite content to throw it all aside,
and reach the same result by another process. Whether
or not the word rendered ^ms^j/^/ sometimes means to es
tablish, unquestionably it often raeans to deliver, set free,
redeem. It has been sufficiently shown (p. 226) that
the words salvation, redemption, and others equivalent,
denote, in frequent Scriptural use, the transfer from the
condition of " aliens," " strangers," " not a people," &c
(to use the Jewish vocabulary appropriated to the case),
to the condition of God's " children," " inheritance,"
and " saints " ; — that is, the condition of merabers of
God's visible Church, entitled to the use of its means
of edification. If, then, it further appears that the
Greek or Hebrew word rendered righteousness or
justification is used in Scripture as convertible with
those translated deliverance, redemption, &c. when the
latter are employed in their most unrestricted sense, of
rescue from any evil whatever, we may reasonably con
clude that it is convertible with them also when used
in this specific technical application. Now, that those
Greek and Hebrew words are used as equivalent to
those which stand for " deliverance," &c. in a general
sense, — without consideration of the nature of the
»evil delivered frora, — no careful reader of Scripture
can fail to have observed. (See Acts xiii. 39 ; Rora.
vi. 7 ; comp. Ps. Ixxi. 15, iv. 1, xxiv. 5, li. 14, xcviii.
2; Is. xii. 10, xiv. 8, 24, xlvi. 13, xlviii. 18, li. 5, lvi.
1, Iviii. 8, Ixii. 1, 2 ; Dan. viii. 14.)

238 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 17.
There is no raore satisfactory way to ascertain the
sense of words used by Christians, in the Apostolic
age, in the discussion of questions growing out of
Jewish opinions, than to observe what sense the words
had in Jewish writings of the same period, if there
are any such to which we may have access. The
apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon lends
important confirmation to the view which I have taken
of the phraseology now under investigation. Its au
thor appears to have lived not far from the time of St.
Paul, if he was not St. Paul's contemporary, (" Lec
tures," &c.. Vol. IV. pp. 351, 352.) The Jewish com
munity and church, as such, without regard to the
moral condition of the whole or a part, he designates
as " the righteous " (see Wisdom x. 15 - 20), as well as
" the saints " (xviii. 1, 5). " Of thy people," he says,
referring to the exodus from Egypt, "was accepted
the salvation of the righteous, and destruction of the
eneraies" (xviii. 7), The qualification, " the righteous,"
is clearly intended to denote the Jewish people at large,
without regard to the moral attributes of all or any.
The point is put beyond doubt by a later verse, " Ihe
tasting of death touched the righteous also, and there
was a destruction of the multitude in the wilderness "
(xviii. 20). Who were those " righteous " whom " the
tasting of death touched " I We turn to the history
(Numb, xvi.), and we find that they were the wicked
men who experienced a severe visitation of the Divine
displeasure for their share in the conspiracy of Korah
and his company.
The opinion that the words on which I am com
menting should always be taken to denote a raoral
quality, and never to import a mere external condition
or change, can no more be maintained on the less safe
ground of etymological theory, than on the ground of

I- 17.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 239
fact and usage. More plausibly might it be argued
from etymology, that, between the two simplest senses
of the verb in question, in the different languages, —
namely, to make just, on the one hand, and to hold just,
or to clear, on the other, — the former ought always
to be preferred. But in fact this would give a render
ing which according to use, which settles such things,
the Hebrew verb will scarcely bear (possibly Isaiah
Iiii. 11 may be an instance), and the Greek and Eng
lish verb not at all. It so happens, that, between the
two meanings of made just, and held just, acquitted
(to which latter meaning the sense of deliverance in
general is analogous, so that the same word would
naturally corae to be used for both), use, which is the
sovereign arbiter, has given the one to the verb, and
the other, prevailingly, to the noun derived frora it ;
sb that by justify (p'lVH, St/tatow) we raean, not to
make just, but to hold ju§t ; while, on the contrary, by
righteousness (p'ilVs BtKatoavvr]) we raean, not the state
of him who is held just (that is acquittal, deliverance),
but the state of him who is made just (that is, inno
cence, purity, uprightness). Undoubtedly such is the
classical use of the Greek noun. But it is clear that
the derivation is at least equally in favor of the other
sense, which my argument demands, and I have before
shown that the Scripture use approves that sense.
The scherae of interpretation which I maintain may
be thought liable to the objection of requiring two
quite different senses to be put upon the word justify,
when occurring in the sarae argument as conducted by
two different New Testament writers ; and this was
the opinion of John Taylor, whose otherwise judicious
treatise upon this subject was formerly held in great
consideration. He supposed (" Key to the Apostolic
Writings," Chaps. XIL, XVII.) that it was necessary to

240 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [L 17.
distinguish between what he called a " first " and a
" full and final " justification. By the " first justifi
cation" he understood that spoken of by St. Paul,
namely, admission to the present privileges of believ
ers ; by the " full and final," an admission to heavenly
rewards, treated of in the Epistle of James. I cannot
adrait that there is any good ground for this distinc
tion. In my opinion, the word is used by both writ
ers in the sense in which I have argued that it is used
by Paul. The writer of the Epistle of James does not
affirm that obedience (works), and not faith, is the
ground and condition of that justification of which
he speaks ; in which case, it is true, we should have
to understand him either as contradicting Paul, or as
treating of some other justification. His aim is to
show how that faith is to be raanifested and discerned,
which, whenever it exists in an individual, is, as Paul
says, the ground of that individual's justification, or
admission among Christians, — how that justifying
faith, if possessed, will be made known and evinced.
And he says it is to be made known and proved, not
by professions merely, but by corresponding actions ;
and that thus it was that the justifying faith of Abra
ham and others was in fact made known. (Jaraes ii. 14
- 26.) His therae is : If actions contradict the wordy
profession of that faith, which, if it existed, would
alone justify, or entitle its possessor to a Christian
welcorae, then it is to be held not to exist, and the
ground of justification fails. " Faith without works
is dead " ; that is, it is no faith at all. None of the
virtue of faith resides in a pretended faith of that
description. Faith ] No, it is not faith. It is pre
tence. — And this is unquestionable, and is no incon
sistency with the doctrine of Paul, supposing both
writers to have meant the same thing by justification.

I- 17.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 241
If I construe the language in James's Epistle correctly,
the technical use of the word justify in the New Tes
tament is uniform.
Instead of remarking specially on every text,
which would involve rauch repetition, I invite the
reader to try the correctness of the exposition I have
been defending, by reading in connection the first chap
ters of the Epistle to the Romans, with a substitution
oi justification, or method of justification, for righteous
ness,* and understanding justify and justification as
having the reference which I have pointed out, to the
great deliverance frora Gentile darkness to the light of
revealed truth. He will find, if I mistake not, that
what may have hitherto perplexed him is a connected
and cogent affirmative arguraent on the question, wheth
er Gentiles, in consequence of merely believing in the
Messiah, might be received on an equal footing with
Israelites into the community endowed by the Divine
mercy with the privileges of a revealed religion ; —
the great question this of the Apostolic times, and the
question to which the raost careless reader cannot fail
to see that a great part of the Apostle's reasoning cer
tainly relates, and that, too, the part in which the
words under consideration constantly occur. St. Paul
first meets in this Epistle the Jewish claim to be ex
clusively the recognized people of God, by affirming
that Jews and Gentiles are alike guilty before hira, so
that neither can raake that claira on any ground of
merit. This topic is pressed in the first three chapters,
after which he argues, in the fourth, that Abraham,
from whom, as by inheritance, his descendants sup
posed their privilege to be derived, himself obtained it
* Righteousness, in ii. 26, is on every account a false translation, and
does not enter into the argument. Here, as in v. 18, the word is not 8i-
KOLOcrvvr], nor StKaimo-ty, but SiKmajia.
21

242 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [U. 24.
in the sarae manner in which Gentile converts had
sought it now, — that is, by belief Thus he estab
lishes the truth, that the mere faith of Gentiles is
" counted to them for righteousness," — for justifica
tion ; that no other condition of admittance into
the Christian community is imposed, except a belief
in .Jesus, its head.
So he asserts against narrow-minded .Jews the most
catholic principles in relation to the name and pre
rogatives of discipleship. He teaches that " God is
no respecter of persons " ; that neither descent from
Abraham, nor ancient privileges attached to that line
age, constitute, under the Christian dispensation, any
exclusive title to any expressions of his gracious re
gard ; that, the use of the Jewish peculiarity having
ceased, — a use in which, though the Jews supposed
otherwise, the ultimate benefit of all mankind had
been as much contemplated as their own, — it was
thenceforth abolished, and all, of whatever race, were
admitted to the full advantages of Divine revelation,
who, by belief in him through whom the revelation
was raade, were rendered capable of appropriating its
advantages. Faith is the condition, and the sole con
dition, of the enjoyment of the privileges offered by
the Gospel. In the nature of things, those privileges
cannot be enjoyed by any who do not believe in the
divine authority of their giver ; and from no one who
does believe in it, and who thus becomes receptive
of them, does the Divine mercy permit them to be
withheld. II. 24.
The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through
you, as it is written.
The reference may be to expressions of Isaiah (lii.
5) and of Ezekiel (xxxvi. 20, 23).

IIL 9-22.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 243
III.- 4.
Let God be true, but every man a liar ; as it is written, " That
thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest over
come when thou art judged."
The words are found in one of the Psalms (li. 4).
They are adopted simply as well expressing the senti
ment which Paul was urging on his own part.
IIL 9-22.
We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are
all under sin ; as it is written, " There is none righteous, no,
not one : there is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they
are together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth
good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; with
their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of asps is
under their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood ; destruction and misery are
in their ways ; and the way of peace have they not known :
there is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know
that what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them who
are under the Law ; that every mouth may be stopped, and
all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by
the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his
sight : for by the Law is the knowledge of sin. But now the
righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being
witnessed by the Law and the Prophets ; even the righteous
ness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and
upon all them that believe.
The passages here quoted occur in the Psalms and
Prophets. (Ps. xiv. 3, Iiii. 2, 3, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7 ; Jer.
iv. 22 ; Ps. xxxvi, 1 ; Is. lix. 7, 8,) They contain ani
madversions, by the writers of those books, on the
moral delinquency of the men of their own nation
and times. The phrase "the Law" (19) is used, as
sometiraes elsewhere (see John x. 34, xii. 34), for the
Old Testament Scriptures in general. Paul's argument
is, that, on the ground of nioral desert, the Jews have

244 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [III. 24.
no claim above the Gentiles to the possession of God's
gift in Christianity, To prove this, he quotes several
reproving sentences from their ancient writers ; and
he argues that those animadversions, found in "the
Law," must be understood as having been applied to
Jews, because " whatsoever things the Law saith, it
saith to them that are under the Law," It does not
speak for those who have it not. It does not contain
descriptions of those with whom it has no concern,
and who will not read it. — The last period of the
passage under our notice, I would paraphrase as fol
lows : " Now is manifested [that is, in the Gospel]
God's method of justification independent of the Law,
a method approved by the testimony of both Law and
Prophets ; even that method of justification which
rests upon mere belief in Jesus Christ, and extends
its benefits to all who entertain that belief" God's
justifying on the ground of faith alone was " witnessed
by the Law " in a text (Gen, xv, 6) on which Paul is
presently going to argue at length (Rom. iv. 1-25).
And it was " witnessed by the Prophets," in such re
marks of theirs as he had just been quoting, showing,
as they did, that, on the ground of desert, the Jews
could set up no claira to an exclusive justification.
III. 24.
Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that
is in Christ Jesus.
The Greek original (a-TroXoTpwavi), like redemption,
the English word which here represents it, means, in
its primitive sense, to rescue hy the payment of a price.
But in the Scriptural use, the idea of a price, or equiv
alent, is often lost sight of, and the word denotes rescue,
deliverance, in general, by whatever means obtained.
Thus God is said to " redeem with a stretched-out

in. 25.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 245
arm." (Exod. vi. 6 ; corap. Is. 1. 2 ; Deut. vii. 8, ix.
26; 1 Chron. xvii. 21.) "Through the rederaption
that is in Christ Jesus," through the deliverance which
Jesus wrought, his disciples were brought, by God's
free goodness, into a justified, a church, a covenant
state. See above, pp. 225 - 242.
III. 25.
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in
his blood, to declare his righteousness.
For " a propitiation," I suppose we should read a
mercy-seat. So the word (IXaa-Tripiov) is properly ren
dered in the only other place where it occurs in the
New Testament (Heb. ix. 5). It had been used in
this sense by the Septuagint translators in rendering
the Hebrew n^lSD (Exod. xxv. 17- 22 ; comp. Lev. xvi.
13, and numerous other texts of that book ; Ezek,
xliii, 14, 17, 20 ; Amos ix, 1), It was through the
mercy-seat that God was approached, under the old
dispensation ; so, in the new, he had now publicly set
forth (irpoedero) Christ, as a mercy-seat^ through which
believers in Christ's death (" through faith in his
blood") might approach him. It may be observed,
however, that the words " through faith " are of doubt
ful authenticity. Omitting them, and accordingly
reading the clause, " whom God hath set forth a mer
cy-seat in his blood," we shall understand the Apostle
to represent Jesus as consecrated to that service by his
own blood, as the mercy-seat of old was by the blood
of a victim, (See Lev, xvi, 14.) By " righteousness,"
in the last clause, I understand method of justifi
cation.

21

246 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [HI. 28.
III. 28,
We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds
of the Law.
See above, pp. 228-242. IV. 2, 3.
If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory,
but not before God. For what saith the Scripture ? " Abra
ham believed God, and it was counted unto him for right
eousness."
The sense of the text may be expressed as follows,
viz. : — If Abraham had been justified as a reward for
his works, he might have had something to boast of
(Comp. ii. 17, iii. 27.) But no; it was not so, I caU
God to witness (aXX' ov, irph^ rov 6eov). For what does
the Scripture say ? It says, that Abraham believed
God, and that belief, a state of mind in which there is
no raerit and no cause for self-coraplacency, was reck
oned to him as his ground of justification. (See above,
pp. 234, 236, 241, 247.) IV. 6-8.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness Of the man unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying,
" Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose
sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whora the Lord will
not impute sin."
The quotation is frora a Psalm (xxxii. 1, 2). All
that the Psalmist meant was to speak of the happiness
of having one's sins forgiven. But the expression
" the Lord will not impute sin " was so much to the
purpose of the argument which the Apostle was hold
ing, to the effect that past sins would not exclude from
that justification which was now offered to the believer
in Christ, that he quotes them in an accommodation
to that sentiment.

V. 1,2.] EPISTLE TO THB EOMATO. 247
IV. 9,10.
We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision,
or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in uncir
cumcision.
The Jews of Paul's time imagined that observance
of that rite, which was the seal of the ancient cove
nant, was a necessary preliminary to a place araong
the justified people of God. Paul tells them that so
far was this from the truth, that Abraham himself, the
father of their church and nation, was justified before
he was circumcised (comp. Gen. xv. 6, xvii. 11, 24),
— received into a covenant state, when he had only
believed. IV. 17, 18.
As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations ;
 according to that which was spoken. So shall thy
seed be.
In obtaining justification through his belief, says
the Apostle, Abraham became the precursor, not only
of the Jews, his natural descendants, but of all, of
whatever lineage, Jewish or Gentile, who, in this re
spect, should walk in his steps ; thus fulfilling, in an
unexpected sense, those words which had spoken of
him as the head of a numerous and a various line,
V, 1,2,
Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith
into this grace wherein we stand.
What was that " peace with God," of which the
Apostle here speaks l It was the reconciliation with
him which took place, when, by their faith in Jesus, the
converts were transferred from the condition of " stran-

248 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [V. 12-19.
gers," " aliens," " afar off," to that of God's " children,"
his " chosen," his " saints," &c What does the Apos
tle mean by " this grace wherein we stand," and to
which " we have access by faith " 1 Clearly, the privi
leges of Christian discipleship. The text strongly
confirms the view presented above (pp. 225 - 242) of
the doctrine of justification by faith.
V. 12-19.
Wherefore, as by one raan sin entered into the world, and death
by sin ; and so death passed upon all raen, for that all have
sinned ; (For until the Law sin was in the world : but sin is
not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is
the figure of him that was to come. But not as the oifence, so
also is the free gift. For if through the oifence of one many
be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace-,
which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift ; for the
judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of
many offences unto justification. For if by one man's of
fence death reigned by one ; much more they which receive
abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall
reign in life by one, Jesus Christ :) therefore, as by the of
fence of one judgment carae upon all raeti to condemnation ;
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon
all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's dis
obedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous.
Every considerate reader sees that, of themselves,
these words convey no sense. They are a rude trans
lation of a passage to which it is quite plain that the
translators did not themselves attach any clear mean
ing. It is a passage which greatly perplexes the in
terpreter, as well on account of its very elliptical char
acter, as on account of its dealing (like much of the
rest of the Epistle) with the conceptions and terms of

V. 12-19.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 249
a controversy long ago obsolete. The ideas which
English readers are apt to suppose to be conveyed by
the words, are ideas attached to those words in the
technics of modern theological metaphysics. They
are ideas not expressed in those words, and altogether
unknown to St. Paul.
I am not now composing a commentary on the New
Testament, but only attempting to explain the references
therein to the Old. The question raised, under this
category, by the passage before us, is, what the writer
meant by his reference therein to Adam ; and in par
ticular, whether he meant to say or imply that the ac
count in Genesis of Adam, and of his eating the for
bidden apple, was genuine history, and that that offence
of his had some influence on the condition of the hu
man race, his posterity.
In order to provide a reply to these questions, I find
it necessary to set down a paraphrase of the vs'hole
passage, according to what appears to me, on the
whole, to be its import.
Let it be remembered, that the passage occurs in the
midst of a long argument, drawn from various prem
ises, to show that the Jews were no better entitled than
the Gentiles to justification, that is, to participate in
the benefits of the Christian revelation. Justification
through Jesus Christ, Paul maintains, was offered
alike to every believer in him, of whatever race or
past profession. The Gentiles could not claim the
boon on any ground of merit, for they had been griev
ous sinners (i. 18 - 32). Nor could the Jews any
more, for they had added to a like sinfulness the guilt
of higher privileges abused (ii. 1 - 29) ; a fact which
their own sages in every age had testified against them
(iii. 1 - 20). So all, Jew and Gentile alike, must be
content to receive the Gospel gratuitously, on no other

250 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [V. 12-19.
condition than that of believing in it as God's truth
(iii. 21-31). The Jews ought not to account this any
new doctrine, for it was precisely on this ground, that
their ancestor, Abraham, from whom they derived their
own claim, had hiraself received justification (iv. 1-25).
In their own similar justification, the gracious, un
merited gift of God, all Christians ought to rejoice
and triumph (v. 1-11); and so far from grudging
to men of heathen race an equality of privilege with
themselves, and so far from wishing that justification
should be limited to themselves, or limited in any way,
the Jews ought to exult and be grateful that justifica
tion was henceforward the universal inheritance of
every human being who would accept it, as much as
that mortality had been which was introduced into the
world by the first man.
"Accordingly," says Paul (v. 12), "as sin was intro
duced into the world by one individual, and death was
introduced into the world by means, or as a conse
quence, of sin, just so the reason why death has proved
the universal lot of man is, that all men have been
sinners." If, in the case of the man who was the first
to sin and the first to die, death is to be attributed to
sin as its cause, the same must hold good as to other
men. All other raen must have sinned, because we
know that all other men have died. — And thus the
Apostle reaches, in another way of argument, the con
clusion that all men alike, Jews as much as Gentiles,
must owe their justification, their enjoyment of Chris
tianity, not to any desert, but to God's unconditioned
goodness. (Comp. iii. 9, 23.)
(13, 14.) " For it is thus shown that sin was present
in the world from the time of the first man down to
the tirae of the giving of the Law of Moses. You
will say that a transgression cannot be charged where

V. 12-19.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 251
there is no law to transgress, and you will remind me
of my own assertion to that effect. (Comp. iv. 15.) But
it is certain that death held sway in the world from
the time of Adam to the time of Moses, and this too
over such as had not transgressed a special express
command, as Adam did, who, in this matter of the
connection between sinning and dying, was a repre
sentation, a type, of what was to come after ; that is,
of the human race, his posterity."
(15.) Having thus argued the disease to be univer
sal, the Apostle goes on to urge that it may be expect
ed, from God's goodness, that the remedy will be so
too. " But will not God's favor," he proceeds, " be as
comprehensive as the exigency which calls for it, viz.
sin 'i (Ov-^ o)? TO irapairTW/jia, ovra Kal to 'xapia-/j,a ;)
Yes, indeed (yap) ; if, sharing in the sinfulness intro
duced by one person (that is, sinning as he had done),
the many, like that person, have been condemned to
die, still raore assurance may we feel that the goodness
of God, and his gracious gift brought by another
person, Jesus Christ, were designed to be extended to
the many ; to Jews and Gentiles alike ; to the whole
human race."
(16.) The Apostle repeats his question and reply.
" Let me ask again. Will not God's bounty be as com
prehensive as was the loss which began with that one
sinner? Yes, indeed; a condemning judgment (judg
ment to condemnation, Kptp,a eU KaraKpip^) originated
with one sin (e^ evo^, with Trapairrw/iaTo^ understood,
comp. 18); but God's gift of justification (to 'xapia-p.a
et? Biicalco/Ma) is SO large as to follow upon many sins."
(17-19.) He repeats and expands them yet further.
" Yes ; if, originating with the sin of one person, death
began with that one person its universal reign, much
more assurance may we feel that receivers of an abun-

252 NOTES QN PASSAGES IN THB [V. 12-19.
dantly gracious [a universally offered] gift of justifica
tion will reign in the life obtained through that other
one, Jesus Christ. So then, as, introduced by one sin,
God's sentence of condemnation to death took effect
upon all men ; in like manner, introduced by one obe
dience, God's purpose of a life-giving justification has
taken effect for all men. Yes ; as, beginning with the
disobedience of one man, the many (Jews and Gentiles
alike) became sinners, falling into like disobedience, so
too the goodness of God will take care that the many
(Gentiles and Jews alike) shall share in the justifica
tion offered by him who was the first to avoid sin."
I shall not presume that I have given a correct para
phrase of a passage which has tasked the ingenuity of
Scriptural commentators from Origen to the present day.
From various causes, among which are its relations
to forgotten opinions and controversies, and its singu
larly elliptical structure, there is not a more intricate
passage in the New Testaraent ; and I cannot fitly ex
press ray astonishment at the confidence of those in
terpreters who are sure of understanding it, when they
draw from it that extraordinary system of theology
which includes the doctrines of " imputed sin " and
" imputed righteousness," — doctrines whose statement
is a mere contradiction in terms. My business, how
ever, at present, I repeat, is not that of a comraenta-
tor upon the New Testaraent, but only upon such por
tions of it as put a sense upon language of the Old
Testament. The argument before us evidently relates
to the account of the disobedience of Adara in the
first book of Moses (Gen, iii. 1-19). According to
my view of that narrative, it is merely a fiction. (See
" Lectures," &c. Vol. II, pp. 40 - 43,) The question
for our present consideration is, whether Paul appears,
from the passage before us, to have regarded it in a

V. 12-19.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 253
different light ; — whether he has argued from it as
genuine history.
If Paul, in this passage, affirms any thing bearing
on the authority and sense of the Old Testament nar
rative, it is, that there was one progenitor of the
human race ; that his narae was Adara ; and that
he died in consequence of sinning. He either affirms
this, or he affirms nothing on the subject. As I un
derstand him, he affirms nothing on the subject.
I am struck by his language where he speaks of
Adara (14) as a " type " (tvitoi}), a representation, a
figure, an emblem, a symbol. I know very well that
a being or thing, possessing an actual, independent
existence, may be a type, or emblem, of some other
being or thing. But still I cannot but remark that
Paul here represents that " Adara " of the narrative in
Genesis, who transgressed and died, in no other light
than as a " figure of what was to be afterwards " ; lan
guage altogether suitable, had he understood the of
fending and sentenced Adam to be merely a creation
of the ancient philosopher's fancy.*
But, it will properly be asked, if Paul's argument
does not imply and mean that the disobedience of
Adam, as related in Genesis, and his jdeath in conse
quence of that disobedience, were historical facts, what
does it raean ]
I answer, Paul is using, in this instance, the kind of
argument called by the logicians argumentum ad homi
nem, or argumentum ex concessis ; that is, where one
confutes an opponent by reasonings drawn from prem
ises which the opponent, whether correctly or not, ad
mits. This kind of argument is perfectly legitimate
* According to the Son of Sirach (Ecclus. xxv. 24), as much a learned
Jew as St. Paul, it was not of Adam, the man, but " of the woman came
the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."
22

254 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [V. 12,-19.
and well authorized. It pervades the Socratic dispu
tations throughout. It is as suitable to be used in
Scripture, as elsewhere. And nowhere could it possi
bly be used with more appropriateness than in a case
like the present. When St. Paul was combating an
error drawn by the Jews from an erroneous interpre
tation of their Scriptures, (viz. the error that they
alone were entitled, under the Christ's reign, to the
privileges of God's justified people,) what more suita
ble than that he should confound them by showing the
inconsistency of that opinion with another opinion
derived by them from those same Scriptures, without
intending to imply, on his own part, the correctness of
this latter opinion 1
Now the Jews of the age of the Christian revelation
were miserable interpreters of their ancient records, a
fact which, to adduce no other proof, our Lord's con
versations with them constantly imply and expose.
They supposed the narratives at the beginning of
the Book of Genesis to be revealed truth. They sup
posed it to be matter of fact that Adam and his wife,
the first man and woman, were divinely condemned to
death, and to various hardships on the way thither, in
consequence of having eaten of fruit which had been
forbidden to their use. They perhaps supposed, though
nothing of that kind does the narrative in Genesis de
clare, that, in consequence of the delinquency of the
first pair, death became also the lot of their posterity.
(Ecclus. xxv. 24.)
Paul uses this error of theirs to dispossess their
minds of a different, and, practically, far more hurtful
error. He reasons with them on their own premises.
On the ground, he says, of being God's sanctified people
(Exod, xxxi, 13 ; Lev, xx, 8, xxi, 8, xxii. 9, 16, 32 ;
Ezek. XX, 12, xxxvii. 28), God's holy people (Exod. xix. 6 ;

IX. 6-17.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 255
Deut. vii, 6, xiv, 2, xxvi, 19), God's saints (Deut. xxxiii.
3 ; 2 Chron. vi. 41 ; Ps. xxxiv. 9, 1. 5, Ixix. 2, cxlviii. 14),
you set up a claim of desert to a monopoly of the
privileges of Christianity. But you are not saints in
any such sense as you suppose. You are sinners.
That you are so, you must needs infer from another
doctrine which you hold. You are of opinion that
the death of Adam was, by divine appointment, the
consequence of his having sinned. Death you regard
as the punishment and the token of sin. If so, you
and all other men have sinned, for death, you well
know, is, and has been, the lot of all raen alike. And
then he goes on to argue from God's goodness, that if,
in respect to death, and to that sinfulness which the
Jews understood it to indicate, all raen were on a level,
God would not fail to place all men also on a level in
respect to those Christian privileges by which the
means were afforded of escape from sin.
Here is nothing to authorize the theory of imputed
sin, &c. So far frora it, that the arguraent, borrowed
by Paul from his opponents, that a raan's subjection to
the sentence of death proves that man's own personal
sinfulness, looks in precisely the opposite direction.
VIII. 36.
As it is written, " For thy sake we are killed all the day long ;
we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
Every reader sees that this is but an accommodation
which the Apostle makes to himself and his fellow-
Christians of language used by the author of a Psalm
(xliv. 22). IX. 6-17.
They are not all Israel, which are of Israel : neither, because
they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children : but. In

256 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [EX. 6-17.
Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the
children of the flesh, these are not the children of God : but
the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For
this is the word of promise, " At this tirae will I come, and
Sarah shall have a son." And not only this, but when Re
becca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac ;
(for the children being not yet born, neither having done
any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to elec
tion might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ;) it
was said unto her, " The elder shall serve the younger." As
it is written, " Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
What shall we say, then > Is there unrighteousness with God .'
God forbid. For he saith to Moses, " I will have mercy on
whora I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom
I will have compassion." So then it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, " Even for this same
purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power
in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all
the earth."
Abraham had other children than Isaac, but in
the line of Isaac alone were the promises made to
Abrahara fulfilled. (Gen. xxi. 12.) Isaac was born in
accoraplishment of a promise made to Sarah (Gen.
xviii. 10, 14) ; and being so born, it was fit that he
should be reckoned as the posterity to whom the
proraise applied. Of the two sons of Isaac, it was
deterrained, before their birth, that only one, and he
the younger, should enjoy and transmit the privileges
designed by God for his chosen family, (Gen. xxv. 23 ;
Mal. i. 2, 3.) Through Moses (that very Moses who
gave them those proraises from God on which they
rested their overbearing claims) God had declared his
unrestricted sovereignty, and bis purpose not to limit
his favors, or give to any claimant a monopoly of the
prize. (Exod. ix. 16, xxxiii, 19.) Of these facts the
Apostle avails himself to show to the Jews that God,
in now adopting Gentiles into his family, was proceed-

IX. 31-33.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 257
ing on no other principles than what had been applied
in the case of the Jews theraselves, and recognized in
their own Scriptures. IX. 25-29.
As he saith also in Osee, " I will call them my people, which
were not my people ; and her beloved, which was not be
loved." And it shall come to pass, that in the place where
it was said unto them, " Ye are not my people," there shall
they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also
crieth concerning Israel, " Though the number of the chil
dren of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be
saved." For he will finish the work and cut it short in right
eousness : because a short work will the Lord make upon the
earth. And as Esaias said before, " Except the Lord of
Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been
made like unto Goraorrha."
That prerogative of God to adopt whom he would
into his family, and that diminution of the compara
tive importance of the chosen people, which were such
a surprise and scandal to Jews of his day, the Apostle
says were matters recognized by their own ancient
writers (Hosea i. 10, ii. 23; Is. x. 22, i. 9); so that
they could be no cause of offence to such as professed
to reverence the Scriptures, IX, 31-33,
Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not
attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore } Because
they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the
law. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone. As it is
written, " Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock
of ofiehce : and whosoever believeth on him shall not be
asharaed."
The first of these verses I would render (agreeably
to the criticism on pp. 228 - 242), " Israel, though pro
fessedly adhering to the rule of justification, did not ar-
22*

258 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [X. 5-8.
rive at a true apprehension of that rule." After which
the Apostle goes on to say, that when the Israelites of
his time had stumbled at the true doctrine concerning
Christ and the terms of merabership of his Church, it
was a blindness and perversity not different from what
their ancestors had displayed, according to the testi
mony of the holy men who had witnessed their aber
rations, and reproved their want of that faith which
would have given thera a happy confidence. (Is. viii.
14, 15, xxviii. 16 ; in which latter text Paul's quota
tion follows the Septuagint version,)
X. 5-8.
Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, that
the raan which doeth those things shall live by them. But
the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise :
" Say not in thine heart, ' Who shall ascend into heaven } '
(that is, to bring Christ down from above ;) or, ' Who shall de
scend into the deep ? ' (that is, to bring up Christ again from
the dead.) " But what saith it ? " The word is nigh thee, even
in thy mouth, and in thy heart" : that is, the word of faith
which we preach.
The Apostle's reasoning I understand to be as fol
lows : If you would claira Christian justification —
that is, a place in the Christian coraraunity — as your
right on the ground of your obedience to the Jewish
law, you raust be able to show that you have rendered
a perfect obedience, agreeably to a strict interpretation
of that principle laid down by Moses (Lev. xviii. 5).
But this no man can show. It concerns all men, then,
to approve and admit that simple method of justifica
tion, whose only condition is belief. So easy and ac
cessible and attainable is it, as to admit of a natural
application to it of that language in which Moses de
clares how freely his Law offers itself and its benefits
to the well-disposed mind. Of that Law, says Paul,

X. 15-21.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS, 259
Moses affirms (Deut, xxx, 11-14) that it is not ne
cessary to explore the sky or the deep in search of it,
for it is close at hand to every seeker. So' it is, the
Apostle adds, with Christ and his justification. They
need not to be sought in the heaven, whither Christ is
gone, nor in the abodes of the dead. They are to be
had by whosoever will believe and profess ; and this,
he says yet further (Rora, x, 11, 13), is a doctrine
which may be expressed in words of Isaiah (xxviii.
16) and of Joel (ii. 32).
X, 11-13.
The Scripture saith, " Whosoever believeth on him shall not
be ashamed  Whosoever shall call upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved."
See Is, xlix. 23 ; Joel ii, 32 ; also the Septuagint
version of Is, xxviii, 16, where, however, the Hebrew
reads, " shall not make haste,"
X, 15-21.
How shall they preach except they be sent.? As it is written,
" How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel
of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things ! " But they
have not all obeyed the Gospel : for Esaias saith, " Lord,
who hath believed our report ? " So then faith cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say. Have
they not heard ! Yes, verily, their sound went into all the
earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I
say. Did not Israel know ? First Moses saith, " I will pro
voke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a
foolish nation I will anger you." But Esaias is very bold,
and saith, " I was found of thera that sought me not ; I was
raade raanifest unto thera that asked not after rae." But to
Israel he saith, " All day long I have stretched forth my hands
unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."
In this passage is a succession of quotations from
the Old Testament, which it is plain that Paul merely

260 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [X. 15-21.
accommodates to the present uses of his argument
with the Judaizing Christians. He vindicates his own
preaching to the Gentiles. To the bearer of such a
message as that which he publishes raay be well ap
plied, he says, that language which the Old Testament
writer used (Is. lii. 7) of the herald of the return of
the tribes from their captivity in Babylon. " Does any
wonder that my preaching, if intended by Divine Prov
idence to be addressed to the Gentiles, is not univer
sally effectual ? It is no greater failure than was com
plained of by the ancient sage. (Is. Iiii. 1.) And the
very words of his question, ' Who hath believed our
message ? ' import that it is through hearing such in
struction as I diffuse, that faith is produced. And
as to a small nuraber of believers having been gathered,
it is not so. On the contrary, I rejoice to ask, have
they not listened, as well as heard ? Yes, verily ; the
diffusion of the Gospel doctrine raay already be de
scribed in that language which the Psalmist uses (xix,
4) of the universal proclamation of the heavenly lumi
naries. And has not Israel all along known, that
God's favor might be extended to Gentiles ? Yes, as
long ago as the time of Moses, God said that (in
another sense, it is true) he would so favor the heathen,
as that his people would be raoved to angry jealousy.
(Deut. xxxii. 21.) And elsewhere in the Old Testa
ment, very bold and strong language was used, raore
pertinent still to the case in hand, where it was said (Is.
Ixv. 1, 2), 'I was found of them that sought me not;
I was made manifest unto them that asked not after
me.' While the perversity of the Jews of the present
day is well described in the same passage, where, con
cerning the Jews of that ancient time, God is repre
sented as saying, ' All day long I have stretched forth
my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people' "

XI. 7-10.] EPISTLE TO THB EOMANS. 261
XL 2-4.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot
ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias ? how he maketh
intercession to God against Israel, "Lord, they have killed
thy prophets, and digged down thine altars ; and I am
left alone, and they seek my life." But what saith the an
swer of God unto him } " I have reserved to myself seven
thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of
Baal."
To the cavilling question, " Hath God cast away
the people forraerly known by him [acknowledged as
his chosen] 1 " as if an exclusion of them were in
volved in an admission of believing Gentiles to equal
privileges, Paul replies, in a use of Old Testament lan
guage, and in allusion to a fact of Scriptural history.
By no raeans all Jews, he says, are left out frora Christ's
Church. Many are members of it ; and none are exi-
eluded from it, but by their own fault. It is now even
as it was in ancient tiraes, when Elijah is related to
have complained that Jehovah's service was univer
sally deserted, and to have been told that he still had
many worshippers, (1 Kings xix. 14, 18.) — "What
the Scripture saith of Elias " ; literally, in Elias: See
above, pp. 130, 134, XI. 7 - 10.
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for ; but the elec
tion hath obtained it ; and the rest were blinded (according
as it is written, " God hath given them the spirit of slumber,
eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not
hear ") unto this day. And David saith, " Let their table
be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a
recompense unto them : let their eyes be darkened, that they
may not see, and bow down their back alway."
The Israelites, as a body, were formerly God's fa
vored, chosen, " elect " people. They would be so still,
but for their own blindness, which, Paul says, may

262 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XL 26,27.
well be described in language applied by ancient writ
ers (Is. xxix. 10 ; Deut. xxix. 4 ; Ps. Ixix. 22, 23) to
the stupidity and perverseness of men of their own
times. XI. 26, 27.
So all Israel shall be saved : as it is written, " There shall come
out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness
from Jacob : for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall
take away their sins."
The force of this quotation appears from attention
to the emphatic words of the clauses by which it is
introduced, " So," says the Apostle, " all Israel shall
be saved " (that is, all Israel that is saved at all). So
it shall be saved. How ? By a process which words
of ancient Scripture well describe. (Is. lix. 20, 21.)
"As it is written"; that is, by the Deliverer's "turn
ing away ungodliness from Jacob," and by " the taking
away of their sins." Through this " ungodliness,"
through these " sins," they incurred that blindness by
which they kept theraselves out of the communion of
Christians. When their moral incapacities were taken
away, the blindness which raade them unbelievers
would be dispelled, and the way into Christ's fold,
through faith, would be unimpeded,
XI. 34.
Who hath known the mind of the Lord f or who hath been his
counsellor ?
Without the form of quotation, the Apostle here
clothes his thought in the Avords of Old Testament
Scripture (Is, xl, 13, 14,)
XII. 19, 20.
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place
unto wrath : for it is written, " Vengeance is mine ; I will

XV. 3.] EPISTLE TO THB EOMANS. 263
repay, saith the Lord." Therefore, if thine enemy hunger,
feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink : for in so doing thou
shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
The purport of these quotations (from Deut. xxxii.
35 and Prov. xxv. 21, 22) is too plain to demand any
comment. XIII. 8-10.
He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law, For this. Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not
steal. Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other com
mandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, name
ly. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh
no ill to his neighbor : therefore love is the fulfilling of the
Law.
" The Law " of social duty, expressed in the com
mandments of the second table (Exod. xx, 12-17;
comp. Rom. xiii. 9), consists, with one exception (Exod.
XX. 12), of prohibitions of different kinds of " ill " to
our " neighbor." But " love " — the principle of the
command, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself "
 " worketh no ill to his neighbor." The whole com
prehends every part ; and so " love is the fulfilling
of the Law." XIV. 11-13.
It is written, "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow
to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." So then
every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let
us not, therefore, judge one another any more.
A natural application of words in which an ancient
writer (Is, xiv, 23) expresses his hope of a future uni
versal worship of Jehovah,
XV, 3.
For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, "The
reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me."

264 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XV. 4.
The quotation is from a Psalm (Ixix. 9 ; comp.
" Lectures," &c. Vol. IV. p. 323) in which it is alto
gether unquestionable that the writer was speaking of
himself He addresses hiraself to God, and says,
" The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up " ; and then
follow the words which Paul adopts. This language,
the Apostle says, raay well be applied to Christ, who,
in the service of God, exposed himself to the insults
of God's enemies. XV. 4.
Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our
learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scrip
tures might have hope.
" Whatsoever things were written aforetime were
written for our instruction," just as every thing is
done for our profit, that we actually profit by. Pro
vided we derive a hopeful spirit of resignation and
tranquillity from the Scriptures, then it turns out
that they were written, " that we, through patience
and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope."
Csesar was not slain with any view to discourage the
arabitious scheraes of Napoleon. But if Napoleon
had been deterred by reading the record of that deed,
it would have been done and recorded for his adraoni-
tion. Such is the unquestionable use of language.
(See above, p. 26 et seq.) And thus it is that Paul,
having applied to Christ language used by a writer
who, in ancient times, had been persecuted for his re
ligious loyalty, says, that " whatsoever things were
written aforetime " may be put to the use of instruct
ing men in later days.
XV. 8-12.
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision
for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the

XV. 20, 21.] EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS, 265
fathers ; and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his
mercy ; as it is written, " For this cause I will confess to
thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name." And
again he saith, " Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people."
And again, " Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles ; and laud him,
all ye people." And again Esaias saith, " There shall be a
root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gen
tiles ; in him shall the Gentiles trust,"
Jesus Christ, says Paul, " was a minister of the cir
cumcision," — that is, born of, or commissioned to, the
covenant race, — to bring about (not to contravene, as
it was pretended that indulgence to the Gentiles would
do) the true purpose of God, and to fulfil an expecta
tion raised by the very fathers of the Jewish line ;
viz. that the Gentiles should have occasion to " glorify
God for his mercy." And this point he establishes by
quotations from ancient Scripture, in which the heathen
are spoken of as future worshippers of Jehovah, and
destined to share in the blessings of the Messiah's reign.
(Ps. xviii. 49 ; Deut. xxxii. 43 ; Ps. cxvii. 1 ; Is. xi.
10 ; comp. Gen. xviii. 18, xxii. 18, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14.)
XV. 20,21.
Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ
was named, lest I should build upon another man's founda
tion : but,_as it is written, " To whom he was not spoken of,
they shall see : and they that have not heard shall under
stand."
Who can for a moment doubt that these words (from
Is. lii. 15), used by the original writer in an en^rely
different sense, are here applied by St. Paul, in the
way of mere rhetorical accommodation, to the plan
which he declares himself to have pursued, of carry-'
ing the message of Christianity to regions where no
preacher had preceded him 'i
23

266 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XVI. 25, 26.
XVI. 25, 26.
The mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but
now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets,
according to the coraraandraent of the everlasting God, made
known to all nations for the obedience of faith.
The " raystery " — the hitherto unknown truth of
the Gospel — " kept secret since the world (6 alwv)
began," — from the very beginning of that dispensa
tion which the Gospel was to succeed, — was now
" made known to all nations." And it was made
known " by the Scriptures of the prophets," because
those writers had from time to time expressed their
expectation that " all nations " would ultimately in
some w;ay have a place in God's benignant regard.
(See, e. g., the texts quoted on the last page.)

SECTION II.
FIEST EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS.
The quotations in this Epistle are all of that kind
which present no difficulty to the interpreter who
adopts the principles on which I have proceeded ;
while most of them would be explained on those prin
ciples, by critics of any school whatever. They are
instances of accommodation by Paul, to his own uses,
of language used by writers of the Old Testament,
without any intimation that the application made of
the words by the Apostle had been in the mind of
the original writer. Having made this remark once
for all, I need scarcely do more than set down Paul's
words, with references to the passages from which they
respectively quote.

IL 9, 10.] EIEST EPISTLE TO THB COEINTHIANS. 267
I. 2.
To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.
They were " sanctified " and " saints " collectively,
as constituting a community of believers in Christ's
religion. (See above, pp. 225 - 228.)
L 19.
It is written, " I will destroy the wisdotn of the wise, and will
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Rebuking the presumption of his contemporaries,
Isaiah (xxix. 14 ; comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. III. p.
222) had represented Jehovah as using this threat
concerning them. Paul appropriately applies the lan
guage to the ambitious marplots of his own day. In
part of the following verse, " Where is the wise ?
where is the scribe 1 " Paul seems to have had in mind
an expression of Isaiah in a different place (xxxiii. 18).
L 31.
According as it is written, " He that glorieth, let him glory in
the Lord."
An inaccurate citation from the Book of Jeremiah
(ix. 24). II. 9, 10.
As it is written, " Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed
thera unto us by his Spirit."
An ancient writer (Is. Ixiv. 4 ; comp. " Lectures,"
&c.. Vol, IIL p, 270) had made this remark concerning
the marvellous providences of God, Paul applies it,
without verbal exactness, to that token of God's gra
cious providence, given in the revelation of Chris
tianity.

268 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [H. 16.
II. 16.
Who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct
hira.?
Without formal quotation, Paul seems to be using
Old Testament language. (See Isaiah xl. 13.)
IIL 19,20.
The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
written, " He taketh the %vise in their own craftiness." And
again, " The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that
they are vain."
The sentences quoted are from the Books of Job
(v. 13) and the Psalms (xciv. 11).
V. 7, 8.
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us : therefore let
us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven
of malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth.
Language strongly figurative, but quite intelligible,
if we do not undertake to refine too far. The Jews,
when the paschal lamb was slain, feasted upon it with
unleavened bread. (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. p. 137.)
" Our passover, too, is slain for us, even Christ," says
the Apostle (such is the exact rendering of the words).
By his death a feast is spread for us, — the feast of
God's grace. Let us gladly keep the offered festivity ;
and, instead of a " leaven of malice and wickedness,"
— a fermenting element of angry passions, — let our
unleavened bread be a spirit of sincerity and truth.
VI. 16.
What ! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one
body } for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
To a hasty view, the form of Paul's argument here
is that of an appeal to Scriptural authority. But he

X. 1 - 5.] EIEST EPISTLE TO THB COEINTHLA.NS. 269
could have intended no more than such an illustration
as any book, without authority, would afford. For the
passage to which he re:^rs (Gen. ii. 24) relates pro
fessedly and solely to the conjugal relation, and not at
all to the relation of which he is speaking.
IX. 9, 10.
It is written in the Law of Moses, " Thou shalt not muzzle the
mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." Doth God take
care for oxen .> or saith he it altogether for our sakes .' for
our sakes, no doubt, this is written.
Nothing can be clearer than that the provision of
the Mosaic Law here referred to (Deut. xxv. 4) was
intended to have a merely literal interpretation. St.
Paul, urging the rightful claim of preachers of the
Gospel to a support, quotes the words as embodying a
principle which demanded a much wider application
than that originally designed. " Is God careful for
oxen 1 " he asks (that is, for oxen alone) ; " or is he as
suredly saying it for our benefit 1 For our sakes, no
doubt, this is written." It was written for them, not
at all as having originally had them in view, but as
susceptible of a useful application to their case. It is
a result, and not a design, that Paul indicates (the e'/e-
^aTiKov, as distinguished from the alnoXoyiKov. See
above, pp. 27, 28 ; also Rom. xv, 4; 1 Cor, x, 6, 11).
X. 1-5.
For, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how
that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed
through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual meat ;
and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of
that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was
Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased ;
for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
23*

270 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [X. 1-5.
The point which St. Paul is urging is, that justified
persons, persons who have been received into the com
munity of believers, the Christian Church, may, after
all, through misconduct, fail of the Divine favor and
acceptance. And this point he illustrates by allusions
to Jewish history. The signs of a place in the Chris
tian brotherhood were baptism, and eating and drink
ing the elements of the Lord's Supper. So it might
be said that the Jews, at their Exodus, were " baptized
unto Moses " by the spray of the Red Sea through
which they passed, and the guiding cloud which went
before them in their marches, and that they kept a
Eucharist together when they refreshed themselves on
the manna and the water supernaturally provided in
the wilderness. Yet, after all, " with many of them
God was not well pleased " ; the proof of which was,
that " they were overthrown in the wilderness" (Numb.
xiv. 37, xxv. 11). And so it might be with Christians ;
they, like those Jews, might be faithless to their privi
leges, and fall away from God's favor. — " They drank
of the spiritual Rock that foUowed them " (x. 4). Illus
trations of this expression have been drawn from an
alleged legend of the Jews to the effect that a run of
water accorapanied their fathers in the raarch through
the wilderness. (See Schottgen ad loe.) But I appre
hend it to be in consonance with common use, to un
derstand the word " follow " as denoting simply re
peated occurrence. The rock foUowed them, because
they drank from it at different times (Exod. xvii. 6 ;
Numb. XX, 11 ; comp. Ps. Ixviii. 9, xxiii, 6). — "And
the rock was Christ " (ibid,) ; that is. Just as I have
made of the passage through the Red Sea an emblem
of Christian baptism, and of the supply of manna an
emblem of the Christian eucharist, so by the rock
from which our fathers drank in the wilderness, I

X. 11.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS. 271
symbolize Christ, the source of our souls' refresh
ment, X, 6,
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should
not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
The narratives referred to "were our examples"
(ov rather, warnings), because capable of imparting to
us instruction, (See above, pp, 264, 269.)
X. 9.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and
were destroyed of serpents.
As in the two next preceding verses (comp. Exod.
xxxii. 6 ; Numb. xxv. 9), and in the next following
(comp. Numb. xiv. 2, 35), so in this, the Apostle refers
to a narrative in the Law (Numb. xxi. 5, 6). The word
" Christ " is of doubtful authenticity. In its place,
some of the best authorities (manuscripts and versions)
read Lord, and others, God. If we accept Christ as
the true reading, we shall then understand an ellipsis
after the second " tempted " (" as some of them also
tempted [God]," &c.), or we shall understand Christ, in
this place, as a descriptive title, applicable to Moses
as well as Jesus, and not as a proper name (" Neither
let us tempt our anointed leader, as some of them did
theirs "). X. 11.
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples : and
they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of
the world are come.
The same exposition is here required as in the
statement to the same effect, a few verses back (1 Cor.
x. 6).

272 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [X. 20, 26.
X. 20, 26.
They sacrifice to devils, and not to God.
The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
The Apostle seems to be interweaving sentences
of old Scripture into his discourse (Deut. xxxii. 17;
Ps. xxiv. 1). XI. 8, 9.
For the man is not of the woman ; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the raan created for the woman ; but the woman
for the man.
It has been thought that here are references to the
account of the creation of Eve, in Genesis (ii. 18, 21).
But this is uncertain ; Paul says nothing expressly to
that effect ; and it becomes less probable when we con
sider that the same Old Testament book contains a
different account of the origin of the human race
(Gen. i. 26, 27 ; comp, " Lectures," &c. Vol, II, p, 35),
Quite independently of any allusion to the first Book
of Moses, Paul might say that woman belonged to
man, and was created for his benefit. But supposing
that there was such an allusion, it would not imply
any certificate on Paul's part of the historical correct
ness of that account. It would be more naturally in
terpreted as simply an argumentum ad hominem.
XIV. 21, 22.
In the Law it is written, " With raen of other tongues and other
lips will I speak unto this people ; and yet for all that will
they not hear me, saith the Lord." Wherefore tongues are
for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe
not.
" In the Law it is written " (21). Here, as in some
other places, the word Law stands for the whole vol
ume of Old Testaraent Scriptures, (Comp, John x, 34,

XIV. 21,22.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS. 273
XV, 25,) Paul's reference, made evidently from mem
ory, is a loose and inexact one to two disconnected
passages of the Prophets Isaiah (xxviii, 11, 12) and
Jeremiah (v, 14, 15), Isaiah says, " With stammering
lips, and another tongue, will he speak to this people ;
 yet they would not hear " ; which Lowth (note
ad loe), with sufficient correctness, paraphrases thus :
" Ye shall be taught, by a strange tongue, and a stam
mering lip, in a strange country ; ye shall be carried
into captivity by a people whose language shall be un
intelligible to you, and which ye shall be forced to
learn like children," Jeremiah's language (which
Paul may be thought to have had especially in view,
when in his quoted words he represents God as speak
ing, which the passage in Isaiah does not) is, " Where
fore, thus saith the Lord of hosts :  ' Lo, I will
bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel,'
saith the Lord ; ' it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient
nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not,
neither understandest what they say.' " Here, too, the
sole meaning evidently is that God's vengeance should
be visited upon Israel through the agency of invaders,
of foreign race and speech. It is simply in the way
of a rhetorical application, that St, Paul uses the an
cient writer's words. Not to say that their tenor and
purpose were quite aside from those of his argument,
he would, at least, had he intended to use them in the
way of argument, have felt bound to use them with
some precision. His statement is simply equivalent to
the following : When God, of old, permitted alien in
vaders to execute his ^dgments on his people, he was
said to have spoken to his people " by other tongues
and other lips." It was the disobedient, and not the
faithful, whom he then addressed. The same is true
now, in a different sense. Now, too, when he employs

274 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XIV. 34.
instruments speaking foreign languages, he appeals
thereby " not to them that believe, but to them that
believe not." XIV. 34.
They are comraanded to be under obedience, as also saith the
Law.
See Gen. iii. 16, The words they are commanded,
are supplied by our translators. Nothing correspond
ing to them was written by Paul, nor does he give any
intimation that a rule is binding on the conscience of
believers, by force of being found recorded in the Book
of Genesis. He says that it belongs to women "to
be under obedience," a position also assigned to the
women for whom he wrote by the Law which they
revered. He says that it is their place, and that, in so
declaring, he declares no more than a rule of behavior
which they own. (Comp. below, p. 295.)
XV. 3, 4.
I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and
that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day ac
cording to the Scriptures.
What does Paul mean here by " the Scriptures " %
In the Second Epistle of Peter (iii. 16) we find Paul's
writings referred to as Scriptures. Did Paul here use
the phrase in the same way, as indicating writings of
his Christian associates 1 I do not suppose that he
could allude to either of our Four Gospels, for I
understand them all to have been composed later than
Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, But other works
of the same sort were earlier in circulation (Luke i,
1, 2) ; and it is supposable that it was one or more of
them that Paul had in view when he said that what

XV. 3, 4.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS. 275
he orally delivered was according to what others had
written. So the author of the Epistle of James quotes
as " Scripture " some book not belonging to the collec
tion which we call by that narae (iv, 5),
If, however, by " the Scriptures," he meant the
books of the Old Testament, in what sense was it that
he declared Christ to have died, to have been buried,
and to have risen " again the third day, according to
the Scriptures " 1 For whoever may suppose that he
finds Christ's death and burial alluded to in the Jewish
books, no one will pretend that they speak of Christ's
rising, still less of his rising on the third day. My ex
planation of this, provided we suppose the " Scrip
tures " of the Old Testament to be referred to, depends
on the force of the word rendered " according to "
(KaTo). I think that, by rules both of etymology and
common sense, the accordance here indicated may be
understood as merely absence of contradiction. Con
trariety and consistency exhaust the relations between
a fact and a written statement connected with it.
When there is not contrariety, there is a sort of ac
cord. Entertaining those entirely incorrect views
which the Jews of Paul's time did entertain concern
ing the coming Messiah, they imagined the alleged
facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to
be fatal to the pretensions of Jesus to be the Messiah,
inasmuch as they were contradicted by the whole tenor
of ancient Scripture, Paul, on the contrary, held, and
here declares, that those Scriptures, when rightly esti
mated as to their authority, and rightly interpreted as
to their sense, did not contradict his declarations
respecting Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. In
the sense of being reconcilable with, not contradictory
to, the true original idea of the Christ, as presented in
the Old Testament books, tliose facts were " according

276 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XV. 20.
to the Scriptures," The accordance here indicated is
the converse of the opposition referred to by Paul in a
similar connection in the words (Acts xxvi. 22, 23),
" saying none other things than those which the Proph
ets and Moses did say should come, that Christ should
suffer," &c (See above, pp. 20, 223.)
XV. 20,
Now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that
slept.
The metaphor of " first fruits " is drawn from the
Law, The word used here (airap^i]) appears to denote
prime fruit, fruit first in point of excellence, while
another word (irpa)Toyevv>]/j,a) means fruit first in point
of time. So Origen says (" Opp,," Tom, IV. p. 4, edit.
Delarue), " One would not err  in calling the Law
of Moses the earliest fruit (irpcoToyevvrj/xa), and the Gospel
the prime fruit (airapxn)" The distinction is observed
in the Septuagint, though overlooked in our English
version. Christ was not the " first fruits of them that
slept," in the sense of having been restored to life
before any other, but in the sense of being the most
excellent, the chief, the leader, the head, of them that
have slept and risen. XV. 22.
As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
By the phrase " all in Adam," every one under
stands, all mankind, just as to speak of a person as
" in Christ " (comp. Rom. xvi. 7) is to describe him as
a Christian. Into such forms of expression every
writer and speaker naturally slides. It would be alto
gether unsafe at this day to argue from a person's
using the phrase " every son of Adam " in the sense

XV. 25-27.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS. 277
of the whole human race, that he believed in what is
related of Adam in the beginning of Genesis as his
torical fact. Equally unjust would it be to Paul to
frame such an argument from his words. By force of
ancient usage, founded originally in error, we naturally
speak of the rising and setting of the sun. Must every
one who uses those forms of expression be held as de
claring his belief in the false natural philosophy which
they imply % We speak of certain physical affections
under the names of St. Vitus' s dance, and St. Anthony's
fire. By the use of this phraseology, do we pledge
ourselves to any theory of disease ?
If by the language " as in Adam all die," we see
cause rather to understand " as all men die with [or,
like] Adam " (comp. 1 Cor. iv, 21 ; Heb, ix, 25 ;
2 Cor. xiii, 4 ; Col. ii. 6), the reasoning as to the question
in hand will be the same. In the mention of Adam
as the person with whom that universal mortality be
gan which was the only thing to his purpose, and
which was well known by experience, Paul will be
understood as employing a form of expression, or of
thought, familiar to his countrymen, without proposing
to vouch for the correctness of the traditionary opin
ion in which it had its origin,
XV. 25-27.
He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath
put all things under his feet.
In expressing his conviction of the future universal
empire of his Master, Paul does but advert to the lan
guage of a writer of former days who had no higher
conception of the Messiah than as a splendid earthly
sovereign, at whose feet Jehovah, his patron, would
24

278 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [XV. 32.
strike down all his foes. (Ps. ex. 1 ; comp. " Lectures,"
&c.. Vol. IV. pp. 314-316.) XV. 32.
< If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die.
Paul remembers words of an ancient writer (Is. xxii.
13) which forcibly express his thought, and adopts
them accordingly. XV. 45.
And so it is written, " The first man Adam was made a living
soul ; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Where is this " written " 1 The first clause, or rather
what is very like the first clause, in the Book of Gen
esis (ii. 7) ; the latter clause, in no book that we are
acquainted with. XV. 54, 55.
When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this
mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought
to pass the saying that is written, " Death is swallowed up in
victory. O death, where is thy sting .' O grave, where is
thy victory .' "
There is in these verses a certain resemblance to
two passages of the prophetical writings (Is. xxv. 8 ;
Hosea xiii. 14) ; but no otherwise than in the way of
verbal accommodation.

L 1.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS. 279
SECTION IIL
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS.
Most of the references to the Old Testament in this
Epistle consist of quotations such as are used by all
writers to give liveliness to a discourse, and raise no
question as to the construction put upon the Jewish
Scriptures by the author of the book. See 2 Corinthi
ans iv. 13 (comp. Ps. cxvi. 10) ; vi. 2 (corap. Is. xlix. 8) ;
vi. 16-18 (comp. Lev. xxvi. 11, 12, Is. lii. 11, 12,
2 Sam. vii. 14); viii. 15 (comp. Exod. xvi. 18); ix. 6
(comp. Prov. xi. 24, xxii. 8) ; ix. 9 (comp. Ps. cxii. 9) ;
xiii. 1 (comp, Deut, xix, 15), In most of these instan
ces, the words quoted are applied in their original sense ;
in some, as in the last specified, where the Apostle
speaks of his three journeys as three "witnesses" to
the conduct of his Corinthian converts, the reader sees
an example of the habit of the New Testament writers
to accommodate Old Testament language to meanings
and uses of their own.
In one chapter of this Epistle (iii, 7-16), a fanciful
application is made, in different ways, of the relation
(Exod, xxxiv, 29, 30, 33-35) that when Moses came
dovm from Mount Sinai, after receiving the elementary
Law, his face was radiant, and he covered it with a
veil. Having only a rhetorical embellishment in view,
Paul adopted that interpretation of this narrative which
was current in his time, as it is in ours, though its
correctness is by no means unquestionable. (See
« Lectures," &c. Vol. L p. 229, note)
L 1.
All the saints which are in all Achaia.

280 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [m. 7, 8.
That is, the receivers of Christianity. (See above,
pp. 225-228.) III. 7,8.
If the ministration of death in letters, engraven in stones,
was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stead
fastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his counte
nance, which glory was to be done away ; how shall not the
ministration of the spirit be rather glorious ?
Paul's ministry was a " ministration of the spirit "
(comp. iii. 6), because it imparted rich spiritual privi
leges, hitherto unenjoyed. The ministry of Moses
was a " ministration of death," because it dealt largely
in denunciations of death ; capital punishment was its
great penalty. It was for the most part a code of
hard and rigid law, having appropriately its elemen
tary doctrines "written and engraven in stones" (comp.
Exod. xxxi. 18) ; yet, in all its inferiority to the Gospel,
so " glorious " was it, that the face of its bearer Moses
was suffused with a transitory, indeed, but an intolera
ble brightness. How intensely glorious, then, must
be the superior " ministration of the spirit " ! Every
judicious reader sees here, not argument (which was
not intended), but the natural use of an historical
statement in the way of poetical illustration of a glow
ing thought, III. 13 - 15.
Not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children
of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which
is abolished : but their minds were blinded ; for until this day
remaineth the same veil in the reading of the Old Testa
ment ; it not being revealed that it is done away in Christ,
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is
upon their heart.
Entirely changing the application of the circum
stances of the same narrative, Paul now represents

XI. 3.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS. 281
the veil as dravm over the hearts of his countrymen,
to blind them " in the reading of the Old Testament,"
and only to be removed by Christ. How can any re
flecting person attend to such language as this, and
continue to maintain that, whenever the New Testa
ment writers use a passage from the Old, they intend
to adduce it in its original sense, and make it, as such,
a basis for their argument ?
VII. 15.
What concord hath Christ with Beliar .'
By its etymology, Belial (7j;^' '75, of which Beliar is
the Syriac form) means worthlessness. In the Old
Testament the word only appears in combination with
"children" (Deut, xiii, 13), "sons" (Judges xix,
22), "daughter" (1 Sam, i, 16), and "man" (1 Sam,
xxv, 25), XL 3,
I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through
his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ,
Nothing can possibly be inferred from this language
as to Paul's opinion of the fabulous or historical char
acter of the history, in Genesis, of the serpent and
Eve, Should I say, " I fear you will be tantalized as
Tantalus was, when the water for which he thirsted
would go no further than his lips," by no sound prin
ciple of interpretation could my words be shown to
imply that I recognized the story of Tantalus as the
record of a fact.

24^

282 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [n. 16.
SECTION IV.
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
II. 16.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the Law ; for by the works of the
Law shall no flesh be justified.
The sense of these words, and the import of the
doctrine they express, have been fully discussed in my
remarks on the corresponding statement in the Epistle
to the Romans. (See above, pp. 228-242.)
III. 6, 7.
Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for right
eousness. Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith,
the same are the children of Abraham.
The Apostle here makes the same use of a state
ment in Genesis (xv. 6) as he makes in his Epistle to
the Romans. (See above, pp. 234, 246.) Belief in
God, he says here, was, according to the ancient rec
ord, Abraham's sole title to *" righteousness " ; that is,
to justification. And it is so, he argues, with all men,
as much as with Abraham. Faith is the only princi
ple and condition of admittance to the privileges con
veyed by God's revealed truth. Not the descendants
of Abrahara by birth are his spiritual heirs, as the
Jews raaintained, nor those who, like that patriarch,
observed the rite of circumcision, but those who, like
him, believed ; " they which are of faith, the same are
the children of Abraham,"

m. 10-12.] EPISTLE TO THB GALATIANS. 283
III. 8, 9,
The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham,
saying, " In thee shall all nations be blessed." So then they
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Paul here adopts the obvious sense of the Divine
promise anciently made to Abraham (Gen. xviii. 18,
xxii. 18), as indicating that other nations, besides that
of which he was to be the progenitor, were to receive
benefits through him ; a promise which was, in the
fulness of time, to be accomplished by the agency of
Jesus, his descendant. But how could " the heathen,"
" all nations," be blessed in Abrahara, " with faithful
Abraham " % Clearly, by the terras of the case, it
could not be by virtue of any hereditary transmission
of the blessing in his custody, for the Gentiles were
aliens from his blood. That " all nations" were to be
blessed in him. Scripture had declared. They could
not be blessed in him by virtue of being his posterity ;
for his posterity they were not. There was but one
other way ; and this, Paul argued, was the true way.
They must come to be blessed in Abraham, by the
same means by which Abraham hiraself had ob
tained the blessing. They raust be justified by believ
ing, even as Abraham had been justified,
m. 10-12.
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the
curse : for it is written, " Cursed is every one that continueth
not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to
do them." But that no man is justified by the Law in the
sight of God, it is evident : for, " The just by faith shall live."
And the Law is not of faith : but, " He that doeth them shall
live in them."
Paul meets these punctilious Jewish reasoners on
their own ground. When you undertake, he says, so

284 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IH. 13, 14.
to exalt the authority of the Law, consider what that
authority declares. Before you presume to rely for
your justification on your observance of the Law, and
to exclude from justification those who do not keep
the Law, observe that, by its own terms, your preten
sions will be overthrown. What blessing can it give
you, on the ground you assume, when, on the contrary,
it expressly denounces a curse (Deut. xxvii, 26) against
whoever does not perseveringly obey every one of its
requisitions, which you very well know that no one
of you does, and when the life it promises, according
to its own language in another place, is only for those
who keep its " statutes and judgments " (Lev. xviii. 5) ;
while, according to another Old Testament writer
(Hab. ii. 4), whose language well expresses the doc
trine insisted on by Paul, the spiritual life of the jus
tified is that which they attain to, not by means of
keeping the Law, but by means of faith ?
III. 13, 14,
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, (being
made a curse for us, for it is written, " Cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree,") that the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, tbat we
might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
" The curse of the Law " here spoken of, I take to
be the imprecation quoted, just above (Gal, iii. 10), by
Paul. Christ had redeemed, or relieved, us from it, by
bringing believers under a different dispensation of
religion from that to which this language related.
The quotation which follows (from Deut, xxi, 23) I
have placed, with its introduction, in a parenthesis, to
indicate the relation which, in my view, the sentence
so constituted bears to the context. There is, I pre
sume, no imaginable sense in which Paul could have

in. 15, 17.] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 285
intended to assert, as a substantial verity, that his
Master was " made a curse." The passage which he
quotes, relating to a matter as remote as possible from
theological doctrine, prescribes a speedy burial of male
factors. (Comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. p. 482, note ||.)
As Paul writes, and repeats freely the words blessing
and curse, a passage in which the latter word is used
occurs to his memory ; along with it, an idea presents
itself, such as, in the profane writers, we are accus
tomed to call a conceit ; a vague resemblance strikes
him between the crucifixion of Jesus, and the ancient
exposure of the dead bodies of criminals by " hanging
on a tree " ; by one of those rapid strokes, which in
all writers give spirit to a coraposition without con
tributing to the main texture of discourse, he throws
out the allusion in a brief parenthesis, and then passes
on with his argument. It needs scarcely be added,
that by " the blessing of Abraham " we are to under
stand the blessings to be conveyed through him to all
nations, and by " the promise of the spirit " to be ob
tained " through faith," the spiritual privileges which
were assured to the believer. IIL 16, 17.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (he
saith not, " and to seeds," as of many, but as of one, " and
to thy seed," which is Christ) ; and this I say, that the
covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the
Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none efiect.
Here, again, I think that, by throwing a clause into
a parenthesis, the relation of the different parts of the
passage to each other is better exhibited, I understand
the Apostle as making in it a passing suggestion, not
belonging to the main thread of the argument, to this

286 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 21-27.
effect : Mark, by the way, that the Old Testament
text (Gen. xvii, 7) speaks of one posterity, and not of
several, as if designing to intimate the unity of a
Church, which being one in Jesus its head (comp. Gal,
iii, 28, 29) recognizes no distinction between Jew and
Gentile, Paul's argument in the next verse is, that, according
to the well-established principles of all contracts, the
Mosaic Law, on which the Jews founded their exclu
sive claims, could not abrogate or change the condi
tions of that covenant with Abraham, " confirmed of
God before as to Christ," in which it had been prom
ised that to all nations Abraham's posterity should
impart blessings, to be secured by faith in their giver,
— " The Law, which was four hundred and thirty
years after," Four hundred and thirty years after
what ¦? After the covenant with Abraham, spoken of
immediately before "i There was, I suppose, an interval
of six hundred and forty-five .years between those two
events. (Gen. xv. 13; Exod. xii, 41; Acts vil 6; comp,
" Lectures," &c.. Vol, I, p, 140,) The reading of the
Septuagint version, however, which was in the hands
of Paul's Galatian friends, represented the interval as
being but four hundred and thirty years ; and as his
argument was equally good whether the time was
longer or shorter, there was no reason why he should
raise an irrelevant question by correcting the received
computation. Or we may reconcile the figures by
translating Paul's words (though the definite article is
not expressed), " after the four hundred and thirty
years " ; that is, the memorable four hundred and thirty
years of African servitude, (Comp, Exod, xii, 41,)
IV. 21-27.
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the

IV. 21-27.] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 287
Law ? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one
by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was
of the bondwoman was born after the flesh ; but he of the
freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory :
for these are the two covenants ; the one from the Mount
Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this
Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
which now is, for she is in bondage with her children. But
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother.
For it is written, " Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not ;
break forth and cry, thou that travailest not ; for the desolate
hath many more children than she which hath an husband."
The sense of this passage is utterly obscured in our
common version by a mistranslation of three Greek
words (arwa eaTiv a,XX7jyopovp.eva). The rendering
"which things are an allegory" represents Paul as
saying precisely what he did not mean to say. The
history of the births of Ishmael and Isaac was not an
allegory ; nor did the Apostle so understand it ; nor
does the grammatical construction of his words admit
of such a version. We should read, "Which things
[which historical facts] are allegorized" (that is, by
Paul, in the manner which he goes on to state) ; or,
" which things, when allegorized, are [or, stand] thus ;
namely, these [the mothers of Abraham's sons] are
[or, represent] the two covenants," &c. To allegorize
is to frame an allegory ; and an allegory is often
framed on a basis of historical facts ; and that is what
Paul declares himself to be doing in the present in
stance. In this and another instance or two, he is a
constructer of allegory, but an allegorical interpreter
(who, of course, supposes allegory to exist before he
proceeds to interpret on that supposition) I apprehend
that Paul never is. (Comp. " Lectures," &c. Vol. II.
pp. 333, 334.)
Paul recites with precision the narrative which he

288 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 28-31.
proposes to allegorize. " Abraham had Cwo sons.
 He who was of the bondwoman was born after
the flesh " ; — there was nothing supernatural in the
circumstances of Ishmael's birth. (Gen. xvi. 15.) " But
he of the freewoman was by promise " ; — Isaac was
miraculously bom, agreeably to a promise of Jehovah,
after his mother had passed the age of child-bearing.
(Gen. xviii. 10.) Taken as materials for an allegory,
the mothers represent " the two covenants " ; Hagar,
the Jewish; Sarah, the Christian. Hagar, a slave,
represents " the one from [the covenant given from]
the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage " ; " for
this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia " [Mount Sinai
goes in Arabia by the very name of Hagar (see Koppe,
" Test. Nov.," Vol. V. pp. 136, 137)] ; and [in my
allegory] she corresponds " to .Jerusalem which now
is, and is in bondage with her children [to the exist
ing Jewish institution, whose adherents render a slav
ish service]." But the superior [here I would change
the punctuation, and read, 'H Se ava, 'lepovcaXruj, eXevdepa
ecTTLv, and translate. She that is above (for this ren
dering see John viii. 23 ; Phil. iii. 14 ; Col. iii. 1, 2),
the superior, that is, Sarah] is, or corresponds to, the
free Jerusalem, the free Christian Church, " which
is our mother," which nurabers as its children us
free Christians, as the free man Isaac was the son of
the free woman, Sarah. And to us, in view of the
growth to which the Christian Church is destined,
may be applied what was said by the prophet (Is. liv. 1)
to Sarah's posterity of old : " Rejoice, thou barren, that
bearest not," &c. (Comp. " Lectures," &c. Vol. III.
p. 259.) IV. 28-31.
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted hira

V. 13, 14.] EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 289
that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Neverthe
less, what saith the Scripture ? " Cast out the bondwoman
and her son : for the son of the bondwoman shall not be
heir with the son of the free woman." So then, brethren,
we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Paul pursues the allegorical application of the his
tory : As Isaac was a child of promise, being born
according to the promise to Abraham (Gen. xviii. 10),
so we are children of promise, being born, as it were,
into the Christian Church, agreeably to another prom
ise to Chat patriarch (Gen. xii. 3). Ishmael, "born
after the flesh, persecuted [with insult] him [Isaac]
that was born after the spirit." (Gen. xxi. 9.) So we,
the spiritual children of Abraham, are persecuted by
his carnal children. But God's purpose of giving us
Christians the inheritance of his grace is similar to
his purpose for Isaac, expressed in ancient Scripture,
where it said, " Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with
the son of the free woman." (Gen. xxi. 10.) In short,
brethren, in our origin and our privileges we answer
to him of old who was son of the free woman, and
not to him who was son of the slave.
V. 13, 14.
By love serve one another ; for all the Law is fulfilled in one
word, even in this : " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself."
That is ; if you will be tenacious of the Law, show
your attachment to it, not by observing circumcision
(v. 1) or any other particular of its temporary ritual,
but by the practice of that mutual charity which was
its comprehensive rule (Lev. xix. 18), and is a rule of
perpetual obligation. 25

290 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IV. 7-10.
SECTION V.
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
IV. 7-10.
Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure
of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, " When he as
cended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts
unto men." (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he
also descended into the lower parts of the earth .? He
that descended is the same also that ascended up far above
all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
The Apostle quotes here from a Psalm (Ixviii. 18),
where, according to the most approved translation, we
read as follows, viz. : —
" Thou hast ascended on high ;
Thou hast led captive the vanquished ;
Thou hast received gifts from men."
The Psalm appears to be a triumphal ode on the
occasion of the reconveyance of the ark to its place
after some victory obtained by the Israelites over their
neighbors on the northeastern frontier (Ixviii. 15, 22).
It is Jehovah who is addressed by the Psalmist in the
quoted words. If the Apostle had intended to repre
sent them as having originally had any relation to the
subject which he was treating, of course he would
have taken care to quote them exactly, instead of
changing the structure of the sentence as he has done,
and making the material alteration of " gave " for " re
ceived." Nothing to the contrary of this remark can
be inferred from the introductory words rendered
" Wherefore he saith " (Aib Xeyei). They may be briefly
rendered, " As to which the Scripture saith " ; meaning
simply. The Scripture uses language which I may

IV. 7-10.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 291
apply to this matter. (Comp. Eph. v. 14 ; Jaraes iv.
6 ; texts which are decisive as to this interpretation.)
Paul had been reminding his Ephesian converts of
the great exaltation they had attained in being " made
to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. ii. 6,
i. 3.) He subjoins the exhortation to do credit, by
an humble walk, to the dignity of their calling : " I
therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that
ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are
called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-
suffering, forbearing one another in love" (iv. 1, 2).
It is to this topic, I think, that he means his quotation
to apply. According to my view, his train of thought
might be thus expressed : Be humble, that you may be
exalted. Descend, that you may ascend. (Comp. Luke
xiv. 10.) Do what God himself is represented to have
done in that choral burst of triumph, in which he is
said to have led captive his enemies, and to have " as
cended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all
things." Observe that he is said to have " ascended."
One can only ascend from a lower level ; and the word
implies that God, not jealously adhering to the abode
of his majesty, " descended first into the lower parts
of the earth " (that is, " these lower regions," viz,
the earthly, the terrestrial regions ; not any " parts "
which are " lower " in relation to the earth's surface,
but the earth's surface itself, which is " lower " in re
lation to "heaven"). If God could first descend so
that he might ascend to his greatness, so may you. —
" Gave gifts unto men," instead of " received gifts from
men," the Apostle perhaps wrote by an error of mem
ory. Perhaps he may have had authority for it, as
the reading now appears in the Chaldee and Syriac
versions. At all events, having done so, he makes a
further application of the words accordingly. As,

292 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [V. 14.
according to these quoted words, God anciently " gave
gifts unto men," so, he says, God is giving them now ;
to some he gives gifts to be Apostles ; to sorae, to be
prophets, &c. (iv. 11). V. 14.
Wherefore he saith, " Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from
the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."
Rather, "it saith." But who or what saith] It
has been customary with the commentators, but with
little show of probability, to understand the Apostle
as referring to some language of Isaiah (xxvi. 19, Ix. 1).
I suppose the words are simply a fragment of one of
those sacred lyrics which it seems (Eph. v. 19) that
the Ephesians used in their worship. They nearly fall
into lines in one of the Anacreontic measures : —
*Eyctpf d KadfvSaiv,
Kai dvacrra ck rav veKpav,
'ETTifpaia-ei <roi 6 Xptirrdy.
I think we hear people introduce a quotation "with
the words " It says," when the quotation is from some
well-known coraposition, of some degree of authority,
greater or less ; — it raay be, the Bible ; it raay be,
the catechism or the hymn-book. It seems sufliciently
clear, from this instance, that it is not safe to maintain
that the use of the form always implies a reference to
some book of Scripture. V. 31, 32.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great raystery : but I speak concerning Christ and
the Church.
No intelligent reader can doubt that these words, in
their original use (Gen. ii. 24), were applied to the

VI. 2, 3.] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 293
conjugal relation, and to that alone. Paul says that
he turns them into a significant emblem or symbol
(fivarripiov, comp. Apoc i. 20, xvii, 5, 7), by making an
application of them to the union subsisting between
Christ and his Church. (Comp. " Lectures," «&c.. Vol.
IL p. 334.) VI. 2, 3.
Honor thy father and mother (which is the first coraraandraent
with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou
mayest live long on the earth).
By the first clause inclosed in the parenthesis, I
understand the Apostle to be calling attention to the
fact, that this command is sanctioned by an encour
aging promise (comp. Exod. xx. 12), while those which
precede it all bear the form of prohibition. And his
words which follow, " that it may be well with thee,"
&c (Eph. vi. 3), are merely a recital of that promise,
and by no means his own declaration that long life is
to be expected as the reward of filial obedience.
(Comp. "Lectures," &c. Vol. I. p. 173, note; Ps,
xxxvii. 27, 29.) Paul simply describes the command
ment to which he refers as being " the first command
ment which, in the Decalogue, was accompanied by a
promise ; viz. the promise, ' That it may be well with
thee,' " &c.

25*

294 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [H. 16, 17.
SECTION VI.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. »
IL 16, 17.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sab
bath days ; which are a shadow of things to come ; but the
body is of Christ.
The ritual Law, in comparison with that of Christ's
religion, is as unsubstantial and ineffective as a shadow
compared with a substance. Or, possibly, the idea is
that the ritual of Moses prepared for the spiritual
discipline of Christ's religion, as the shadow, thrown
forward, is the precursor and herald of the substance.
It is in vain to pretend to find here any such doctrine
as that the old dispensation was typical of the new,
in the technical sense held by divines.

SECTION VII.
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
II. 3, 4.
Let no raan deceive you by any means : for that day shall not
come, except there corae a 'falling away first, and that raan
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition ; who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is wor
shipped ; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing
hiraself that he is God.
It does not belong to my plan to inquire whom St.
Paul means here by the " man of sin." In describing

V. lY, 18.] EIEST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 295
his impious pretensions, Paul appears to have had in
mind, in one clause, language used in the Book of
Daniel of the Syrian scourge of God's people, Anti
ochus Epiphanes. Of that prince it had been said,
" He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above .
every God." (Dan. xi. 36 ; comp. " Lectures," &c..
Vol. IV. pp. 404, 451.) It is probable that Paul ac
commodates these words where he says that the man
of sin " opposeth and exalteth himself above all that
is called God," though the resemblance of phrase may
be merely accidental.

SECTION VIII.
FIEST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
II. 12 - 14.

I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
raan, but to be in silence. For Adara was first formed, then
Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being
deceived, was in the transgression.
This was a very sufiicient and appropriate argument
for Jewish women. (Comp. Gen. ii. 18, 22, iii. 6.)
Zealous, like their teachers, for the Law, it was suita
ble to silence them by an appeal drawn from the letter
of the Law. The Epistle had especial regard to Ju
daizing teachers and persons under their influence.
(1 Tim. i. 5 - 11 ; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 6.) To turn their
own weapons against them was a way of reasoning
always recognized as legitimate.
V. 17, 18.
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor.

296 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 9.
especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. For the
Scripture saith, " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth
out the corn," and, " The laborer is worthy of his reward."
In the former of these instances (Deut. xxv. 4), old
. Scripture directs one application of a general principle
of justice, of which the Apostle commands another.
The general statement of that principle, which, in the
last clause, Paul appears also to refer to Scripture, is
nowhere found therein in the words specified, though
it is in sense. (Lev. xix, 13 ; Deut, xxiv. 14, 15.)

SECTION IX.
SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
L 9.
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not ac
cording to our works, but according to his own purpose and
grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world
began.
God " hath saved us and called us with an holy
calling " ; that is, he hath made us his covenant people,
and invited us to the privileges of a revealed religion,
(See above, pp. 225 - 228.) And this he hath done,
" not according to our works " (see above, pp. 228 -
242), but according to a purpose which (to be fulfilled,
in good ' time, by the agency of Jesus) he entertained
" before the world began " (irpb -x^povwv almvlav), that is,
which he entertained so early as before the time of the
introduction of Judaism (see above, p. 78), and even
announced before that time to the patriarchs, (Gen,
xii, 3, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14.)

HL 15, 16.] SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 297
II. 8.
Jesus Christ, of the seed of David.
See above, p, 14; also, Rom. i. 3 and Gal. iv. 4.
II. 19.
The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, " The
Lord knoweth them that are his."
" The Lord will show who are his," Moses had said,
at the time of the rebellion of Korah, (Numb. xvi. 5.)
Paul appears to apply the words to God's recognition
of his children in Christ. III. 8.
As Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist
the truth,
Jannes and Jambres were the names given by the
Targumists and Talmudists to two sons of Balaam,
and to two Egyptian magicians, who, araong other
misdeeds, opposed the application of Moses (Exod, vii,
11 etseq.) to Pharaoh. (See Wetsten, "Nov. Test,"
Tom. II. p. 362.) Paul's reference, in this instance,
confirms what I have repeatedly said, in the course of
these comments, of the legitimacy of drawing illustra
tions from fabulous characters and events. (See above,
pp. 80, 113, &c)
III. 15, 16.
From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is
in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness.
It will not fail to be observed that in the common
version the word- is, which constitutes the copula of the
propositions in the latter verse, is in Italic letters, indi-

298 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IH. 15, 16.
eating that there is no word corresponding to it in the
Greek original. Every proposition consists of a sub
ject, a predicate, and a copula expressed or understood
to connect the two. In the Greek of this passage the
copula is understood. The question is, where it is to
be understood, and where, accordingly, in a translation,
it is to be inserted. With fidelity to the original at
least equal to that of our English translation, the
Syriac and Vulgate, the earliest versions, as well as
Clement, Origen, TertuUian, and others of the earliest
Fathers, insert the copula further on, so as to represent
the following collocation : All Scripture [or, every
writing] given by inspiration of God is also profitable,
&c. ; — thus merely afiirming that whatever writings
are so given are useful for teaching, &c., and not
touching the question what particular writings are so
given. But another question, not less important, relates
to the force of the single word (6eoirvev(TTo<i) rendered
by our translators, " given by inspiration of God," It
is compounded of the two very common words signify
ing God, and hreath or spirit. Qeov irvevfia is God's
spirit, or a divine, religious spirit ; and 6eoirveva-To<;, by
etymological analogy, is an epithet signifying prompted,
dictated, animated, by a religious spirit.
The sentence accordingly will read. Every writing
dictated by a religious spirit is useful for teaching, &c
Timothy, " from a child," had been acquainted with
that collection of Old Testament writings known by
the name of " Holy Scriptures," With some composi
tions of inferior value, it contained others to which
the word 6eo'n-veva-To<; deserved to be applied; among
them the inspired communications of the great law
giver himself, to which that word was applicable in its
highest sense. By the light they shed on the plan

m. 15, 16.] SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 299
which the Divine wisdom had been pursuing frora the
earliest separation of the Jewish race, and had now
consuramated in the revelation of the Gospel, they
were able to make the reader " wise unto salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus."
In further illustration of this interesting passage, I
copy at length a note appended by Mr. Norton to
his publication (in 1820) of " Locke's Essay for the
Understanding of St. Paul's Epistles ; and Le Clerc on
Inspiration " : —
" Before any thing can be inferred from this passage,
it is necessary to determine the true meaning of the
word de6irveva-To<;, rendered given by inspiration of God.
If this term does not necessarily imply any thing mi
raculous, then the text affords no evidence in favor of
the opinion which it is quoted to support.
" The word occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures ;
and I have seen but one example produced of its use
by any profane author.* As, however, we know the
words of which it is compounded, and as analogous
expressions are very comraon, there seeras little diffi
culty in deterraining its raeaning,
" The force of the expression, then, I believe, is pre
cisely the same as if the writings spoken of had been
said to be composed ev irvevfiaTi Qeov, by the spirit of
God. Now every one acquainted with the phraseolo
gy of the Scriptures knows that many things are as
cribed to the spirit, or the holy spirit, or the spirit of
God, when no miraculous operation is supposed by the
writer. The spirit of God is a term used in the
Scriptures to denote (among other meanings) all in
fluences upon, and communications to, the human mind.

* Phocylides, in the following Une : —
Tns 8e. SeoTTveva-TOV a-ocj)lrjs Xoyos ea-rlv aptaros.

300 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [in. 15, 16.
which the writer refers to God as their author ; whether
they are considered as proceeding from him directly or
remotely ; whether as miraculous, or as regulated by
the ordinary laws of the physical and moral world ;
whether they are to be referred immediately to an act
of his power, or are the immediate consequence and
result of means and motives, and the operation of
other agents. The term is as often used to denote
influences and communications not regarded as mirac
ulous, as to denote those which are thus regarded.
All the means and motives which God employs to
bring men to goodness, are referred to the Spirit of
God ; and he who is affected by these means, and acts
under the influence of these motives, is said to be
actuated by the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God.
Abundant evidence of what has just been stated may
be found by consulting the lexicons and concordances
of the Old and New Testaments, and especially
Schleusner's article on the word irvevfia, a translation
of which, by Mr. Buekminster, is contained in the
first volume of the General Repository,
" Having settled the sense of the term Spirit of
God, we may determine that of the word BeoirvevcrTo^.
This is to be understood in a similar latitude of signi
fication. It is equivalent, as has been said, to the
words, ivritten hy the Spirit of God ; and these words
denote nothing more than written under those influences
which proceed from God, whether miraculous or not.
The writings thus characterized may have been the
works of prophets, who received direct miraculous
communications from God; or they may have been
nothing more than the works of men, whose minds
were acted upon by the motives which he presents,
and who had that sense of religion and duty, which
his dispensations to the Jewish nation were adapted

ni. 15, 16.] SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 301
to produce. In the present case, the term is, I con
ceive, applied to writings of both these classes.
" In the text in question, the rendering of the
words iraa-a ypa(j>-q by the words all Scripture, is in
correct. They should be translated every writing.
Allowing the common reading and construction to be
correct, the following rendering will, it is believed,
express the true sense of the text, as nearly as it can
be expressed in our language : —
" Every writing (that is, of the Old Testament, the
lepa ypafjLfiaTa, the Holy Scriptures, mentioned in the
preceding verse) was composed under those influences
which are from God, and is profitable, &c.
" If this mode of reading and constructing the verse
is correct, it may be regarded as a general proposition,
not to be understood strictly and universally ; since it
is at least doubtful whether the Apostle would have
ascribed the Song of Solomon in any sense to divine
influence, "But the text may be otherwise understood and
thus rendered : —
" Every writing, composed under those influences which
are from God, is profitable. Sec.
" The account which has been given of the terms
Spirit, Holy Spirit, and Spirit of God, will serve to
explain other passages, which are usually quoted in
defence of the doctrine of the inspiration of the whole
of the Old and New Testaments."

26

302 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 1-3.
SECTION X.
EPISTLE TO TITUS.
L 1-3.
The faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth
which is after godliness (in hope of eternal life), which God,
that cannot lie, promised before the world begau ; but hath
in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is
committed unto me.
I have inclosed in a parenthesis the words " in hope
of eternal life," which I understand to be equivalent
to " resting on a hope of eternal life," and to be added
as a description of " the truth which is after godliness,"
that is, which is productive of godliness. According
to this simple arrangement, it is not " eternal life," or
" the hope of eternal life," which is declared by the
Apostle to have been " promised " by God " before the
world began " (irpo -xpovav alcovlcov) ; that is, before the
times of the Jewish dispensation. (Comp. above, p.
78.) We have no knowledge that eternal life, or the
hope of it, was promised thus early ; but the contrary.
What the Apostle truly declares to have been promised
thus early (Gen, xii, 3, xviii, 18, xxii, 18, xxvi. 4,
xxviii. 14 ; Deut. xviii, 15) was, that " truth " after
godliness, which, Paul adds, was " in due times mani
fested " through Jesus, and made known to the world
" through preaching," in which Paul was employed,
II, 14.
A peculiar people.
The disciples of Jesus, says Paul, sustain a special
relation to God, as did the disciples of Moses of old,
(See Exod, xix, 5 ; Deut, vii, 6, xiv. 2, xxvi, 18 ; and
comp, above, pp, 225 - 228.)

L 9-12.1 FIEST EPISTLE OF PETEE. 303
SECTION XI.
FIEST EPISTLE OF PETEE.
L 9-12.
Keceiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your
souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and
searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should
come unto you ; searching what, or what manner of time
the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not
unto themselves, but unto you, they did minister the things
which are now reported unto you by them that have preached
the Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven ; which things the angels desire to look into.
From these words, Peter appears to me to have un
derstood the case of the ancient writers called Proph
ets, just as I have represented it. They were not
inspired, or supernaturally instructed men. Ou the
contrary, they had very imperfect apprehensions —
apprehensions unsatisfactory to themselves — of that
" grace that should come," to which they referred in
vague language, founded on the promises made to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen, xii, 3, xxvi, 4, xxviii,
14), and on the promise made by Moses (Deut, xviii,
15), They testified, indeed, through "the spirit of
Christ which was in them " ; that is, a spirit, an im
pulse, which led them to speak of Christ, But as to
what it " did signify," — what in particular was im
ported by the general language which Moses, their great
authority on the subject, had used in relation to the
coming teacher, — respecting this they were at a loss ;
respecting this " they inquired and searched diligently " ;
and, as appears from what they have written upon it,

304 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [L 9 - 12.
they inquired and searched with only partial success,
arriving at conclusions very materially erroneous. The
general terms in which Moses had foretold the com
ing " prophet like unto himself," had reference to, and
ultimately had their fulfilment in, " the sufferings of
Christ, and the glory that should follow." The proph
ets of the later ages had meant their representation of
the expected Christ to be a repetition and araplifica-
tion of the idea presented by Moses, and therefore
they might properly be said to " testify beforehand the
sufferings [or experiences] of Christ, and the glory
that should follow," because these were the true im
port of the promise of Moses, and it was the promise
of Moses which (distorted and incorrect as was in
fact the image they gave of it) the prophets had de
signed to repeat. (Comp. Luke x. 24.) And much,
in relation to the subject and to the " manner of time "
of its occurrence, as they were ignorant of, this they
knew, — " it was revealed " — it was obvious to them
— that the hope of the Messiah's coming was not
accomplished in their day, but remained to be accom
plished subsequently, and accordingly was accom
plished, as Peter says, in the time of those to whom
he was writing. " Unto whora it was revealed that
not unto themselves, but unto you [unto a future time,
— unto your time, as it turns out] they did minister
the things which are now reported unto you by them
that have preached the Gospel unto you with the Holy
Ghost sent down frora heaven ; which things the angels
desire to look into [things, so far from being subject
to be comprehended by the old Jewish sages, with their
imperfect hints derived from Moses, that still, even
after the great fact of the Messiah's mission has taken
place, they are matter for the scrutiny of higher intel
ligences]."

L 18, 19.] FIEST EPISTLE OF PETEE. 305
I have founded part of the above remarks on the
coramon translation, " the sufferings of Christ and the
glory that should follow " (i. 11). But I doubt whether
the Greek will any way bear this rendering. The
literal sense of the words (to eh Xpia-Tov iraO-rmaTa) is,
the sufferings to Christ ; that is, the sufferings down
to Christ's time. Whose sufferings \ Who did " the
prophets " expect would " suffer " till the time of
Christ's appearance, and then have suffering succeeded
by " glory " ? They expected precisely this respecting
the nation to which they belonged, I propose, there
fore, instead of " the sufferings of Christ and the glory
which should follow " (which is not a correct repre
sentation of Peter's words), to read, " the [national]
sufferings till the Messiah's time, and the glory fated
then to be disclosed." I. 15, 16.
As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all man
ner of conversation ; because it is written, " Be ye holy, for
I am holy."
Here Peter simply casts his own exhortation into
the form of a command recorded to have been anciently
given by God (Lev, xi, 44), and fortifies his precept by
a repetition of that command. I, 18, 19.
Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and
gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from
your fathers ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a
lamb without blemish and without spot.
They had been " redeemed " from a " vain conversa
tion " ; that is, they had been rescued from an irrelig
ious life. They had been rescued by the " blood of
Christ," because Christ's death had been the needful
26*

306 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 23-2.5, IL 4-10.
attestation to that Gospel of his which was the instru
ment of their moral renovation. (Comp. John i. 29 ;
1 Cor. vi. 19, 20 ; Tit. ii. 14.) His blood was « pre
cious," because it was the blood of one innocent as a
lamb ; resembling, in his freedom from moral defect,
the physical perfection of those victims, which the
ritual required to be " without blemish."
L 23-25, IL 4-10.
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorrupti
ble, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth. For
all flesh is as grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of
grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof faileth
away ; but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And
this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.
To whom coraing, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of
men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively
stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to
offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Because it is contained in the Scripture, " Behold, I lay in
Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious ; and he that be
lieveth on him shall not be confounded." Unto you, there
fore, which believe, he is precious ; but unto them which be
disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same
is raade the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and
a rock pf offence, even to them which stumble, being disobe
dient to the word : whereunto also they were appointed. But
ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy na
tion, a peculiar people ; that ye should show forth the praises
of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvel
lous light ; which in time past were not a people, but are now
the people of God ; which had not obtained mercy, but now
have obtained mercy.
In these two passages, it is quite clear, that, to ex
press his own sentiments with the greater liveliness
and effect, the Apostle does but cull sentences and ex
pressions from different parts of old Scripture, and
transfer them from their original meaning, with free

ra. 10-12,14,15.] FIEST EPISTLE OF PETEE. 307
alterations to suit the purpose to which he applies them.
(Comp. Is, xl. 6, xxviii. 16 ; Ps. cxviii. 22; Is. viii. 14;
Jer. vi. 21 ; Exod. xix. 6 ; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2 ; Hos.
ii. 23 ; also above, pp. 225 - 228.)
II. 22, 24.
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth ; 
by whose stripes ye were healed.
Here is another instance of precisely the same kind
as the last two. The Apostle, in speaking of his
Master, adopts language which had been employed
in the Old Testament with a different application.
(Is. Iiii, 9, 5 ; comp, " Lectures," &c.. Vol. IIL pp. 252
- 259.) No one can argue that, by merely applying to
Jesus language borrowed from an ancient writer, Peter
meant to imply that, in using that language, that
writer had described Jesus, unless he is prepared to
maintain that, when the same Apostle (1 Peter ii. 9, 10)
calls " the strangers scattered throughout Pontus," &c
(ibid. i. 1) "a royal priesthood," and "a people which
had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy,"
those " strangers " were the persons whom Moses and
Hosea had designated when they first used those ex
pressions. The interpretation of this passage of Peter's Epistle
is the more important, as it contains the only reference
in the Epistles of the New Testaraent to what has been
considered the most striking prediction of Jesus in the
Old. (See above, p. 64.)
IIL 10-12,14,15.
He that will love life and see good days, let him refrain his
tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile ; let
him eschew evil, and do good ; let him seek peace and ensue
it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his

308 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB [HI. 18-20.
ears are open unto their prayers ; but the face of the Lord is
against them that do evil  And be not afraid of their
terror, neither be troubled ; but sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts.
Here again the Apostle does but clothe his senti
ments and injunctions in words of old Scripture, as a
preacher of the present day would do. (Comp. Ps.
xxxiv. 12-16; Is. viii. 12, 13.)
IIL 18-20.
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God ; being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit ; by which also he went and
preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime were
disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein fevf,
that is, eight souls, were saved by water.
Our English translation of these verses I take to
convey an altogether erroneous idea. As they stand
in the printed editions of the Greek, the sentence is
very incompact, and its import, accordingly, obscure.
It has probably suffered violence in transcription, —
a fact which is inciicated by some variety of reading in
the manuscripts. Taking the text as it is printed, by
" the spirits in prison (ev <f>v'XaK^), which sometime were
disobedient," I understand the disobedient spirits once
imprisoned in the bondage of iniquity (comp. Isaiah xlii.
7), 'or (preferably) the spirits, once disobedient, now
in safety. (Corap. l^-uXa^e, " saved," 2 Pet. ii. 5.) For
" when the long-suffering of God waited," I propose,
by an easy and perfectly allowable change (o, re for ore),
to read " which also the long-suffering of God awaited."
We shall then understand the Apostle as saying, that
Christ, by that holy spirit which dwelt in him, and
which was but quickened into higher life when he
died, had gone forth [during his earthly ministry] and

IV. 8.] FIEST EPISTLE OF PETEE. 309
preached to benighted minds, once disobedient, now
saved ; which also [that is, the like of which, — preach
ing efficacious to men's salvation] God's long-suffering
mercy was awaiting, all the time that, in Noah's days,
that ark was in preparation, wherein eventually eight
persons were saved in the flood of water ; which also
[that is, water, applied in baptism] doth also now save
us, &c.
But this explanation of a difficult passage, right or
wrong, is something aside from my purpose. The only
question presented by it, in connection with the argu
ment I now am treating, is, whether Peter could thus
refer to Noah and his ark, unless he believed the ac
count of them in Genesis to be historically true. And
upon this point I have nothing to add to what I have
already said in different places, of the perfect rhetori
cal and logical legitimacy of allusions of this kind to
fabulous narrations. (Comp. above, pp. 80, 113, 297.)
In saying that, in the ministry of Jesus, God's long-
suffering raercy waited for men to betake themselves
to the ark of refuge, just as he put off the flood all
the time that the ark was building, Peter presented a
lively image to readers to whom the narrative of that
proceeding was familiar ; but by no recognized rules of
the interpretation of language can he be understood
to vouch for the narrative as true.
IV. 8.
Above all things have fervent charity among yourselves ; for
charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
In the original use of the words here quoted, their
meaning appears from the antithesis in the context
(Prov. X. 12) to have been, that charity conceals a
neighbor's faults. It is not clear, nor is it material,
whether the Apostle meant to repeat them in this

310 NOTES ON PASSAGES, &o. [IV. 18, V. 5.
sense, or with the different import that charity is a virtue
so excellent that it will atone for, and, as it were, blot
out, faults in its possessor. IV, 18, V, 5,
If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and
the sinner appear ?
God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Quotations from the Book of Proverbs (xi. 31, iii.
34, the former, however, not from the Hebrew, but
from the Septuagint) are here naturally introduced,
after the manner coramon with all writers.

SECTION XII.
FIEST BPISTLB OF JOHN.

IIL 11, 12.
We should love one another ; not as Cain, who was of that
wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he
him ? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's
righteous.
Am I asked, whether St. John, exhorting his disci
ples to mutual love, could refer to the story of Cain
(Gen. iv, 8) unless he regarded it as true history 1 I
ask in return, whether I am precluded from advising
a young friend to adopt for himself the choice of Her
cules, unless I am ready to maintain the truth of the'
story in the Memorabilia; or whether I may not
enforce my exhortation to join effort to prayer, by re
ferring to the tale of Hercules and the Wagoner,
without making myself responsible for the existence
of Hercules and the wagoner as real persons, (See
above, pp, 80, 113, 297, 309 ; also, below, p, 341,)

PART III.
BOOKS OF DISPUTED AUTHENTICITY.
SECTION I,
EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS.
The New Testament books on which I have re
marked, with others which contain no reference to the
Old Testament calling for comment (viz, the Epis
tles to the Philippians and to Philemon, and the
First Epistle to the Thessalonians), complete the list
of those whose authenticity was unquestioned in the
primitive Church (ofioXoyovfieva). The others found
in the received collection were anciently called spuri
ous or disputed (v60a or avTiXeyofieva). These names
are taken from Eusebius, who states the distinction in
different places. (" Hist, Eccles.," Lib. II. Cap. 23,
IIL 3, 25, 31, VL 20.)
In my remarks on the acknowledged books, it has
been my aim to show, that in no case presented by them
does Jesus, or any Apostle or Evangelist, attribute to
the Old Testament, or to any passage in it, any sense
different from that which in my work on the Old Tes
tament I have set forth as the true one. The case
stands thus. Confining our attention to the Old
Testament, and applying to it the established rules for
interpreting language, we conclude that it, and its
several parts, convey such and such a meaning. But
the question arises, whether Jesus and his Apostles
have ascribed to it any meaning different from this, on

312 NOTES ON THB AUTHOESHIP OF
any of the numerous occasions on which they have
referred to it, I am persuaded that they have not;
and this opinion I have endeavored to maintain in the
comments contained in the previous pages of this
volume. But I cannot say the same of the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. That composition contains
numerous allegorical interpretations of the Old Testa
ment ; interpretations, in my opinion, altogether in
correct, and proceeding on an exegetical theory inde
fensible, unsound, and delusive. (See " Lectures," &c..
Vol. IL pp. 333 - 352.)
This fact would exceedingly perplex me, if I sup
posed the Epistle to the Hebrews to be the work of
Paul, or of some other divinely authorized expounder
of the Christian religion. But I do not so suppose.
The common notion of its having been written by
P.^ul, I take to be not only unsupported by evidence,
but to be opposed by a convincing weight of evidence.
To present an outline of the argument on this subject
is all that is consistent with my limits or my plan.
The evidence in respect to the authorship of this
book, as of others, is of two kinds ; external and
internal. Under the head of the external evidence, champions
of the Pauline origin of the work have found a topic
of argument in another book of the New Testament
collection. A recent writer says : " The first evidence
to be adduced on --this subject, though of a nature
somewhat indirect and uncertain, is worthy of our
close attention, on the ground of its antiquity and au
thority. It is the testimony of the Apostle Peter, who,
in his Second Epistle (iii. 14-16), writes as follows:
' Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such
things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in

THB EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 313
peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that
the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as
our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom
given unto him, hath written unto you ; as also in all
his Epistles, speaking in them of these things ; in
which are some things hard to be understood, which
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do
also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.' "
(Gurney's " Canonical Authority of the Epistle to the
Hebrews." *) And he proceeds to argue, (1.) that this
Epistle was addressed to the same persons to whom
Paul had, on some occasion, written (iii. 15), and that it
was addressed to Jewish Christians only (iii. 1 ; comp.
1 Pet. i. 1), as no letter of Paul was, unless he wrote
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; (2.) that the reference in
the context (2 Pet. iii. 10 - 13) must be to the Epistle
to the Hebrews (ix. 27, 28, x. 19-37, xii. 1, 14, 15,
25 - 29).
No part of this argument is good.
1. The Second Epistle of Peter (so called) cannot
be shown to contain " testimony of the Apostle Peter."
It was probably not written by that Apostle. (See
below, p. 334.) Still it appears to have been a com
position of the first century, and as such would have
"weight in relation to the authorship of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, provided it in fact referred to that work.
2, The Second Epistle of Peter purports to have been
written (2 Pet. iii. 1 ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 1), if to any Jew
ish Christians, to those dispersed through Asia Minor,
whereas even the author of the argument which I am
refuting allows that the Epistle to the Hebrews " was
probably addressed to the Jewish Christians of Pales
tine." The reasoning, therefore, as far as it is founded

* The copy of this traet which I use is in the second volume (p. 409 et
seq.) of the Andover " Biblical Repository."
27

314 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
on the language, " even as our beloved brother Paul
also  hath written unto you," falls to the ground.
3. It is not necessary to suppose that the reference in
the Second Epistle of Peter was to any epistle of Paul
now extant. It is by no means probable that all the
letters of Paul have survived the chances of time.
But supposing otherwise, the reference in question
does not so naturally point to any part of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, as to one or more of Paul's acknowl
edged Epistles ; as that to the Romans (ii. 4-10), ad
dressed mainly to Jewish Christians, or that to the Gala
tians (v. 13-26, vi. 9), or that to the Ephesians (v. 27),
both addressed to Christians (the. former to Jewish
Christians) of Asia Minor; or (if the reference be
thought to be from the whole passage which treats of
a consummation of earthly things, 2 Pet. iii. 8-14)
to the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xv. 12-58),
or the Epistles to the Thessalonians (1 Thes. iv. 13-
V. 3 ; 2 Thes. i. 6 - 10).
Such reasoning as this is easily dismissed. The most
important testimony to be appealed to for the Pau
line origin of the Epistle, is that of the eminent Greek
Father, Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius (" Hist.
Eccles.," Lib. VI. Cap. 14), speaking of a work of
Clement, extant in his day, but now lost, says : " The
Epistle to the Hebrews he [Clement] asserts was writ
ten by Paul to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue ;
but that Luke carefully translated it, and published
it among the Greeks. Whence also one finds the
same character of style and of phraseology in the
Epistle as in the Acts. But it is probable that the
title Paul the Apostle was not prefixed to it ; for, as
he wrote to the Hebrews, who had conceived preju
dices against him and suspected him, he Avisely guards
against diverting them from the perusal by giving his

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 315
name A little after this, he [Clement] remarks:
' But now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, since
the Lord, who was the Apostle of the Almighty, was
sent to the Hebrews, Paul, by reason of his inferiority,
as if sent to the Gentiles, did not entitle himself an
Apostle to the Hebrews, both out of reverence to the
Lord, and because he wrote of his abundance to the
Hebrews, as a herald and Apostle of the Gentiles.' "
Clement flourished at the close of the second cen
tury of our era. He has been supposed, in the last
passage quoted from him by Eusebius, to have ma
terially fortified his own testimony by declaring that
his opinion concerning the origin of the Epistle to the
Hebrews was also held by " the blessed presbyter," or
elder. By this title he sometiraes designates Pan-
tsenus, his predecessor as head of the Alexandrian
school, and is understood to do so in this place, I
think it highly probable that such is the fact. But
I see no evidence (though every writer whom I have
consulted makes the adraission) that Clement meant to
represent " the blessed elder " as referring to the Epis
tle to the Hebrews in any way whatever. The ques
tion treated by " the blessed elder " appears to have
been simply, why Paul, a descendant from the Jewish
patriarchs, " a Hebrew of the Hebrews," who loved so
well his " kinsmen according to the fiesh," in all that
he had written to expose errors incident to their pride
of parentage, never called himself " the Apostle to the
Hebrews," but always " an Apostle of the Gentiles."
(Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7 ; 2 Tim. i. 11.) It is by no means
clear that the last clause, containing the reference to
what Paul " wrote of his abundance to the Hebrews,"
is to be comprised within what Clement ascribed to
" the blessed elder."
Was Clement's alleged belief in the Pauline origin

316 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
of this Epistle an opinion founded on evidence, better
or worse 1 Was it an opinion of any kind, in the true
sense of that word 1 or was it only an idea taken up
from unexamined report 1 * or was it only a guess ?
Clement was a credulous man, and his fondness for
allegorical interpretations (see " Lectures," &c.. Vol,
II. p. 338) would have especially disposed him to value
this work, which abounds in them, and to attribute to
it an Apostolic authorship.
Further-;- that Clement was little acquainted with
its history, appears from this, that he calls it a trans
lation from the Hebrew, which it almost certainly was
not. There are paronomasice, which, being founded
on forras of Greek words, strongly indicate a Greek
origin. (Comp. Heb. v. 8, 14, vii. 7, ix. 10, xi. 37,
xiii. 14.) There are reasonings founded on the Greek
of the Septuagint version, where that text is erro
neous. (Heb. i. 6, comp. Deut. xxxii. 43; Heb. x. 5,
comp. Ps. xl. 6.) To adduce no other argument to
this point, there is a passage (ix. 15-18) the whole
structure of which depends on a twofold meaning of
the Greek word (Biad-rjicr]) which signifies both covenant
and testament. There is no equivalent word in He
brew, and the passage could not be coraposed in that
language. Nor is this reasoning rebutted by saying
that there is such a word in Syriac, and that the Syriac
may have been the Hebrew which Clement meant.
For that Syriac word is merely the Greek (BmOt^kt}) in
Syriac letters, adopted and transferred into the Syriac
versioij of the Bible as untranslatable, just as the au-
* Le Clerc says of Clement (" Biblioth. Univers.," Tom. X. p. 231) :
' ' The extensive reading of this learned man had not formed his taste ; for
it is not necessary to be much of a connoisseur to perceive that what he has
cited as written by the Apostles Peter and Paul neither bears the stamp of
their style, nor conforms to their doctrines."

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 317
thors Of our version have adopted and Anglicized the
Hebrew Messiah, and the Greek Christ, or as the
Douay translators have used the Hebrew Pasch, for
what we call the Passover. Michaelis says (" Intro
duction," Chap. XXIV. § 12) that the Syriac word is
" used both in the sense of covenant and that of testa
ment, as Castell and Schaaf have cleariy shown from
many passages of the Syriac version." But, in point
of fact, these lexicographers have produced no instance
of the latter signification, except from the version of
the Epistle to the Hebrews.*
Origen, Clement's pupil and successor at Alexandria,
and the most learned raan of Christian antiquity, is
commonly referred to as an authority for the Pauline
origin of this Epistle. He might well be biased in
its favor, for he Avas even more of an allegorical inter
preter than his master. (" Lectures," &c.. Vol. II. p.
339.) But, in point of fact, Eusebius's statement of
Origen's opinion on the subject is as follows : —
" Respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews, he [Ori
gen], in his homilies thereupon, expresses himself thus:
that ' the complexion of the style of the Epistle enti-
* A notable specimen of the carelessness with which subjects of this
nature are often treated appears in the tract of Gurney, quoted above, " On
the Canonical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews." He says : " Pan-
taenus was succeeded in the school of Alexandria by Clement (A. D. 192),
whose testimony to the Pauline origin of this Epistle is also preserved by
Eusebius, and is quite explicit." And for this " quite explich " testimony
of Clement of Alexandria, he refers to a passage of Eusebius (Lib. III.
Cap. 38) which does not treat of Clement of Alexandria at all, but of Clem
ent of Rome. And Eusebius does not quote or allege any opinion of this
Father upon the subject, but merely reasons in his own behalf, from certain
resemblances of language between one of the Epistles ascribed to Clement
and the Epistle to the Hebrews, " that this work is by no means a late pro
duction ; whence it is probable that it was also numbered with the other
writings of the Apostles ; for, as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the
language of his country, some say that the Evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the Epistle."
27*

318 NOTES ON THB AUTHOESHIP OF
tied To the Hebrews, does not exhibit that rudeness
which belongs to the Apostle, who acknowledges him
self to be unskilful in speech, that is, in style. (2 Cor.
X. 10.) But that the Epistle is composed in somewhat
pure Greek, every one capable of discerning differences
in style will own.' And again, ' that the thoughts of
the Epistle are admirable, and not inferior to those of
the Apostle's acknowledged writings, this too would
be admitted as true by any one familiar with those
writings.' Afterwards Origen says further : ' To give
my own opinion, I would say that the thoughts are
the Apostle's, but the diction and composition those of
some one who recorded the Apostle's discourses, and,
as it were, made notes of what the teacher uttered.
If, then, any church holds this Epistle to be Paul's, let
it be commended for so doing ; for it was not without
cause that the ancient men delivered it as Paul's. But •
the truth as to who wrote the Epistle [t/s Se o ypof<^a<s
T-riv eiTiaToX-riv], God knows. Accouuts have reached us
from some who say that Clement, Bishop of Rome,
wrote the Epistle, and others who say it was written
by Luke, the same who wrote [6 y/sai/ra?] the Gospel
and the Acts.' " (Euseb., " Hist. Eccles.," Lib. VL
Cap. 25.)
If this is testimony to Paul's being the author of
this Epistle, in any proper sense of those words, what
would be testimony against it 1 Origen liked the sen
timents of the Epistle. As was natural for him, fond
of allegorical interpretation as he was, he thought
them admirable, and eminently worthy of Paul. This
favorable prepossession of his is no help to us in deter
mining the actual origin of the composition, but it
inclined him to lay stress on the representation of
those ancient raen (ol ap^aloi, avBpe<}, perhaps Pantaenus
and Clement, his predecessors at Alexandria) who had

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 319
somehow connected the Epistle with Paul's name, and
to consider any church which received it as his, as
worthy of commendation. Still, Origen was a compe
tent judge of composition. He discerned the differ
ences in Greek style, and he was familiar with the
style of Paul ; and being so, he saw that Paul could
not have been, in the comraon and pertinent sense of the
words, the writer of this treatise. Whether the writer
was Cleraent of Rome, or Luke who wrote the Gospel
and the Acts, or some one else, " God knew." But the
style was so different from the well-known style of
Paul as to forbid the idea of its having proceeded from
him in any other sense than as being the work of some
one who had adopted that Apostle's thoughts, and set
them down in his own language. In other words,
Origen had no evidence that Paul was the writer of
the Epistle ; he saw, from its style, that Paul could
not have been its writer ; and the rest of his comment
upon the subject is but the speculation of a prejudiced
man, and destitute of critical value. I may add, that
Origen manifestly understood the Epistle, in Greek, to
be in his hands in its original form, and not in a
translation from the Hebrew ; and his difference of
opinion, in this respect, from his master Clement, shows
how little its history was known. Origen and Clement
both saw that the Greek style was not Paul's, and to
connect it with Paul's narae, notwithstanding this raa
terial fact, they resorted to different hypotheses. One
suggested that it was a translation by Luke from an
original by Paul; the other, that it was a sort of
comraentary, made up from his oral discourses.
The homily from which the extract just remarked
upon was made by Eusebius, was written when Origen
was more than sixty years of age, and may be supposed
to express the result of his most mature reflections on

320 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
the subject. Lardner suggests ("Credibility," &c..
Chap. XXXVIII. § 10 (8)) that it may be the fulfil
ment of a purpose referred to in a letter several years
before, wherein, after quoting from the Epistle to the
Hebrews, he says (" Opp.," Tom. I. p. 20, edit. La Rue) :
" Possibly sorae one, pressed with this reasoning, will
take refuge in the opinion of those who reject this
Epistle as not written by Paul ; for whom we need
to prepare another argument to show that it was
Paul's." At any rate, we do well to recur to this full
exposition of his opinion as to the sense in which the
Epistle could be ascribed to Paul, when we find him,
as we do in different places, quoting from it as a work
of that Apostle.
Dionysius, who became Bishop of Alexandria in the
year 247 or 248, naturally succeeded to that partiality
to the Epistle to the Hebrews which had been enter
tained by his eminent predecessors in that city. Eu
sebius (" Hist. Eccles.," Lib. VI. Cap. 41) quotes him
as having written thus : " The brethren withdrew and
gave way, and, like those whom Paul commends, ' took
joyfully the spoiling of their goods.' " The allusion
appears to be to Heb. x. 34.
Theognostus, who flourished about A. D. 280, is one
of the Greek Fathers who have been supposed to
vouch for the Pauline origin of this composition. But
I do not find that he has given any opinion on the
subject. His supposed testimony is contained in the
following words of Athanasius : " They both [Athana
sius is speaking of Origen and Theognostus] treat this
subject, saying that this is the blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, when they who have been favored with
the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism return to sin ;
therefore, say they, such shall receive no remission,
agreeably to what Paul also says in the Epistle to the

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 321
Hebrews: 'For it is impossible for those who were
once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,
and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the
world to come, if they fall away, to renew them again
unto repentance,' (Heb. vi, 4 - 6,) This they alike
say," (St. Athanas. " Opp.," Epist. IV. ad Serapion.
§ 9.) It is not improbable that the comment, " ac
cording to what Paul also says," &c., is Athanasius's
own remark, and not part of his quotation from The
ognostus, which quotation ends with the words, " such
receive no remission." The opinion of Athanasius, in
the fourth century, concerning the authorship of this
Epistle, is of much less consequence than the opin
ion of Theognostus in the third.
Methodius, a few years later than Theognostus, is
referred to, to the same effect. He has frequently used
language resembling that of the Epistle to the He
brews ; but this of course he might do, to the extent
even of showing that he was acquainted with that
work, and still there would be no evidence respecting
his opinion as to its author. In one piece of his, this
language occurs : " Ye will obtain unspeakable renown,
if ye shall overcorae, and seize the seven crowns, for
the sake of which the race and combat is set before
us, according to the master, Paul." Here has been
thought to be a reference to an expression in the Epis
tle to the Hebrews (xii. 1). But the allusion may
equally well be to the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
(vi. 12 et seq.; comp, 1 Cor, ix, 24), At all events, it
is too vague to be the foundation of any argument.
Another piece ascribed to Methodius, called the "Hom
ily concerning Simeon and Anna," contains the follow
ing comment : " God took on him the seed of Abra-
ham, according to the most divine Paul," (Comp. Heb,

322 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
ii. 16.) But the treatise is probably spurious, and from
a later hand. Both the works cited are extant, but
not within my reach. I quote them from Lardner,
(" Credibility," &c., Chap. LVII. § 8.)
A work ascribed to Archelaus, who lived about the
same time, uses language, in two places, resembling
language found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But
such a fact has no bearing on the question in hand.
There is no mention of the Epistle, nor of Paul in
connection with it. And the authorship and date of
the work itself are very doubtful, (Lardner, " Credi
bility," &c, Chap. LXII.)
Some of the Fathers, in controversy with the Ma-
nichees, quoted this Epistle, from which it has been
inferred that the Manichees regarded it as, in some
sort, a work of authority. (Ibid. Chap. LXIII. § 6
(4.)) But whether as a composition of Paul or not,
is a question which this fact leaves altogether un
touched. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, in the beginning
of the fourth century, ascribed this Epistle to Paul.
(Socrat. " Hist. Eccles.," Lib. I. Cap. vi. p. 13 ; The
odor. " Hist. Eccles., Lib. I. Cap. iv. p. 14.) So did
Maxirain, the Arian, about the sarae time. (St.
Augustin. " Opp.," Tom. VI. p. 694, edit. Basil.) But
Theodoret says, that those afflicted with Arianism
" rejected it, and judged it to be spurious " (" Opp.,"
Tom. III. p. 393, edit. Paris.); and Epiphanius tes
tifies to the same effect : " They reject the Epistle to
the Hebrews, saying that it is not the Apostle's,"
(Epiph. " Hffires." LXIX. Cap. 37.)
If the testimony of the Greek Fathers for a Pauline
origin of this Epistle is defective and inadequate, that
of the Latin Fathers is altogether in the opposite di
rection. Lardner says of them (" Supplement," &c..

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 323
Chap. XII. § 14 (3)) : " Concerning the Latin writers,
it is obvious to remark, that this Epistle is not ex
pressly quoted as Paul's, by any of them, in the first
three centuries."
Our two great authorities for the authorship of the
New Testament books, besides Cleraent of Alexandria,
are his contemporaries, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertul-
lian of Carthage. TertuUian wrote in Latin. The
work of Irenseus was composed in Greek, but, except
some quotations by the Greek Fathers, is now extant
only in a Latin translation.
Irenseus very frequently quotes the acknowledged
Epistles of Paul, but no intimation has been found in
his writings of his considering the Epistle to the He
brews as being Paul's work, or of its being so consid
ered by Christians in or before his time.
TertuUian once quotes the Epistle, but expressly
ascribes it to Barnabas. " There is an Epistle of Bar
nabas," he says, " inscribed to the Hebrews " (" De
Pudicit." Cap. XX.) ; and its identity with the work
under our consideration is proved by the passage which
he goes on to cite (Heb. vi. 1, 4-8). The connection
in which he refers to the work is such as would have
biased him in favor of quoting it as Paul's, if he had
supposed himself to have any authority for so doing.
Tertullian's testimony against its Pauline origin much
more than balances that of Cleraent in its favor, en
cumbered as the latter is by Clement's perception of
the want of similarity in the style to thut of Paul's
acknowledged writings. And when Clement's testi
mony is rebutted, what remains of the evidence on
that side is of little consideration.
The Latin Father, Cains, of Rome, is assigned to
the year 210, some twenty years before Origen, Of
three or four books written by him, only some frag-

324 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
ments remain. Our information respecting their con
tents is chiefly through statements of Eusebius, Je
rome, and Photius, Eusebius says (" Hist, Eccles,,"
Lib. VI. Cap. 20) : " Caius, a most eloquent man, 
makes mention of but thirteen Epistles of the holy
Apostle, not reckoning that to the Hebrews with the
rest ; and, indeed, to this very time [A. D. circ. 320],
by some of the Romans, this Epistle is not thought to
be the Apostle's." Jerome's testimony is : " Reckoning
up only thirteen Epistles of Paul, he [Caius] says the
fourteenth, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not
his ; and with the Romans, to this day, it is not looked
upon as Paul's." (" De Vir. lUus.," Cap. LIX.) And
that of Photius : " He [Caius] enumerates only thirteen
Epistles of Paul, not reckoning that to the Hebrews."
(" Biblioth.," p. 38, edit. Schott.)
Of St. Hippolytus, ten years later, Photius says that
he was a disciple of Irenaeus, and adds : " Neverthe
less, he advances some things which are not right ;
especially, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the
Apostle Paul's." (Ibid. p. 302.)
Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of the third
century, is a very important authority, for one not
among the earliest, both on account of the extent of
his writings, and the frequency of his Scriptural quo
tations. There are quotations in Cyprian's works from
every Epistle of Paul except the short one to Phile
mon. But he has nowhere quoted from, or alluded
to, the Epistle to the Hebrews. He further repeatedly
makes the remark, that Paul had addressed Epistles to
" seven churches " (" Testimon.," Lib. I. Cap. 20 ; " De
Exhort. Mart.," Cap. 11); which number is made up
by the churches of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus,
Philippi, Colosse, and Thessalonica, It would have
been eight, had Cyprian supposed Paul to have written
to the Hebrews.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS, 325
Perhaps Lactantius (" Instit.," Lib, IV, Capp, 13, 14,
20, 22) received the Epistle to the Hebrews as a work
of the Apostle Paul, But he belongs to the beginning
of the fourth century ; a time too late for his opin
ion to have any original authority. And the Arnobius
who is quoted to the same effect was not his contem
porary, but another writer of the same name who lived
in the latter part of the fifth century. (Lardner, " Cred
ibility," Chap. LXIV. § 1.)
The earliest translation of the New Testament was
that into the Syriac language, called the Syriac Peschito,.
or exact. In the collection of books contained in this
version, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not originally
included, though at a later period a Syriac version of
that book was inserted. This fact cannot be explained
consistently with the supposition, that the persons by
and for whom the version in question was made re
garded the Epistle to the Hebrews as a work of Paul.
If the believers in the Pauline origin of this Epistle
in the third and fourth centuries had been much more
numerous than they were, still we are carefully to re
member that the question is not of a nature to be
settled by a mere counting of votes. What we con
sult later writers for, is simply their testimony to the
established opinion of the Church in the first two cen
turies. What TertuUian, Irenseus, Caius, Hippolytus,
and others at the end of the second century, did not
know respecting the canonical authority of a book, it
is impossible that Eusebius or Jerome should have
known afterwards. What we seek to learn respecting
a book of the New Testament is, whether it had un
disputed acceptance in the Church at the earliest pe
riod at which we can obtain evidence upon the subject.
If it had not such acceptance at that time, no opinion
of after-times can cure that fatal fiaw in its claim.
28

326 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
Had the work been really Paul's, it would be ex
tremely difficult to explain how its true authorship
should have ever been doubted in any quarter. It
is a long composition, of great elaborateness, and, con
sidered as frora Paul's hand, would have been a work
of singular curiosity and importance, particularly as
establishing, on the great Apostle's authority, an ex
tremely peculiar system of interpretation of the Old
Testament. Had it been Paul's, it seems that it would
have been sure to attract an attention which would
for ever have precluded all doubt of its being so.
On the other hand, it is easy to explain how, not
being Paul's work, it should have come, in some quar
ters, to be ascribed to him. Its affluence of Rabbini
cal learning would suggest a reference of it to the
erainent pupil of Gamaliel; and those converts from
Judaism with whom lingered an attachment to the
allegorical method of interpreting their ancient Scrip
tures, and those Gentile recruits, who, in their philo
sophical schools, had been largely exercised in this
kind of trifling, would delight in any pretence for sus
taining themselves by the authority of such a name.
The concluding salutations, and the reference to Tim
othy (Heb. xiii. 23 - 25), bear a resemblance to pas
sages in Paul's acknowledged writings, which would
naturally suggest his name to a person investigating
the authorship of an anonymous composition.
Proceeding from the external to the internal evi
dence, we find occasion for the following remarks : —
1. There are several favorite forms of language fre
quently used by Paul in his acknowledged Epistles,
but never once occurring in the Epistle to the He
brews, where the connection equally calls for their use.
The phrase " in Christ " (ev XpicrTm), commonly used
for the condition of a Christian believer, is found in

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS. 327
Paul's acknowledged Epistles seventy-five tiraes ; the
" Lord Jesus Christ " (6 Kvpio<; 'Itjo-ov? Xpia-To^), eighty-
three times ; " the Gospel " (to eCayye'Xiov), fifty-nine
times. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not present
a single instance of either. In the acknowledged
Epistles, Paul calls God by the title of our " Father "
thirty-six times. The Epistle to the Hebrews never
refers to him by this title, but it once (xii. 9) gives him
the peculiar designation of " the Father of spirits,"
unknown to the acknowledged Epistles. In all these
Epistles, except that to Philemon, is found the title
"Apostle," indicative of an authorized messenger of
Jesus. The Epistle to the Hebrews presents but one
instance of the use of the word (iii. 1), and that is in
an application to Jesus himself, a use which it never
once has in the other Epistles. In two cases, the Epis
tle to the Hebrews uses the word church (eKKXrjcria) ;
but in one of thera (ii. 12 ; comp. Ps. xxii. 22) it re
fers, in a quotation from a Psalm, to the congregation
of the Jews, and in the other (xii. 23), to the society
of the blessed in a future state ; while it presents no
instance of that application of the name, so common
in the Epistles of Paul, to the community of Christian
believers. 2. Nothing is more remarkable in the acknowledged
writings of St. Paul, than the prominence with which
he places hiraself before the reader. His argument
always presents the hue of his own mind. His per
sonal peculiarities appear upon his page. No writer
was ever more spontaneous, more individual and self-
demonstrative. From the aspects of the writer one
could draw the portraiture of the raan. The Epistle
to the Hebrews, cold, abstract, simply argumentative,
has a character singularly the reverse of all this. An
algebraic demonstration would present as much indi
cation of its author.

328 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
3. The rhetoric of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
altogether unlike that of the acknowledged Epistles,
in its general tone and spirit. From the force of his
character, his understanding, and his feelings, Paul
wrote with great vigor, but never with any appearance
of study or art. He pours forth without premedita
tion such a sweeping torrent of burning thoughts and
words, that it is often extremely difflcult to discern his
method. Constantly a collateral view strikes him, and
he rushes off in a parenthesis, of which he is at no
pains to mark the end, nor to point out to the reader
where he resumes the thread of discourse. His sen
tences are often involved ; his expressions harsh ; his
constructions bold, to the very limits of license in
style. Entirely the opposite of all this, the Epistle to
the Hebrews is uniformly methodical, elaborate, and
ornate. The writer was evidently a person who care
fully affected the rhetorician. To an alraost weari-
sorae degree, he displays himself as an artist and a
precisian in style.
4. He deals throughout in a description of argu
ment, which Paul in no one instance uses in his ac
knowledged works. From first to last, he presents
allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament. They
make the staple of his speculations. They raark the
peculiar training of his mind, and a distinctive char
acter of his convictions and his tastes. No person
who could write as he did in this particular, could
possibly have written as Paul has done in his acknowl
edged Epistles, with an absolute omission of all such
matter. For I repeat, that, not only has not Paul gen
erally written in this strain, as the author of the Epis
tle to the Hebrews could not have failed to do, but he
has nowhere presented so much as a single specimen
of that kind of writing. (See above, pp. 286, 292,

THE EPISTLE TO THB HEBEEWS. 329
and comp. " Lectures," &c., Vol. II. pp. 333 - 335.)
It is impossible, I conceive, to explain this fact con
sistently with the idea that the Epistle to the Hebrews
was his work.
5. There is, finally, a more general view of the trea
tise, as to the bearing and force of which every reader
must answer for himself It relates to what is matter
not for argument, but for intuition. Different persons
have different styles in composition, as they have differ
ent countenances, different voices, and a different chi-
rography. We distinguish different styles as we do
different handwritings, — with perfect assurance for
ourselves, and yet on grounds which we cannot explain
or vindicate to another mind. If I am familiar with
Gibbon's rhetoric, it is in vain for any one to place
before rae a chapter of Hurae's History, and tell me
that Gibbon wrote it. I know better, as soon as I look
at it. From the first sentences I read, I see that the
thing could not be. So of Paul's acknowledged Epis
tles, as compared with the Epistle to the Hebrews. I
cannot speak for others, nor argue with others, if they
dissent from rae ; — as to intuitions, every one is a
rule to himself, and no man can correct or explain
alleged opposite convictions on the part of any other
man. But for myself, I need only a little inspection,
to be completely and indisputably satisfied that the
Epistle to the Hebrews did not proceed from the
same pen Avith the thirteen Epistles of Paul. The
first known advocate of the Pauline origin of the
former, Clement of Alexandria, saw this difficulty, as
it has been seen in later times, and was fain to escape
from it by the supposition that the work was composed
by Paul in Hebrew, and translated by another hand
into Greek, This supposition we have seen to be with
out probability ; had it been correct, it would not have
28*

330 NOTES ON THE AUTHOESHIP OF
removed the difficulty felt by Clement ; that difficulty
remains in its unabated and insuperable force.
In denying that the composition can have proceeded
from St. Paul, we imply no imputation whatever upon
its author. He has nowhere assumed that Apostle's
name. He has rather implied (ii. 3, 4) that he was one
of those who had received the Gospel at second-hand
from those endowed with miraculous powers to publish
it. It is an ancient work, and, however destitute of
Apostolical authority, and however radically erroneous
in its scheme of Old Testament interpretation, there
is no reason to doubt that it was written by an honest
man, and for an honest purpose,
I have thus briefly explained why I follow sorae of
the foremost champions of orthodoxy, — including the
greatest names araong the Reformers, Luther, Calvin,
Erasmus, Melancthon, Beza, and others, — in denying
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was a work of the
Apostle Paul. But if not written by that Apostle, it
is simply an anonymous work of early Christian an
tiquity, and the fact of the peculiar interpretation
which it puts upon passages of the Old Testament
ceases to be an important fact to the Christian inter
preter of the present day. Had Paul, or any other
divinely commissioned expounder of Christianity, de
clared that the Old Testament required or would bear
such interpretations as are indicated by this writer,
such a fact, and the conclusions to which it would
lead, would doubtless be of great curiosity and interest.
But there is no such fact. Paul did not write the
book. There is no evidence that the book was written
by any other divinely commissioned teacher of our
faith. It was the work of some good man in early
times, rauch raore ingenious than wise, — a friend to
a system of Old Testament interpretation, which never

THB EPISTLE OF JAMES. 331
had any thing reasonable to be said in its behalf It
is of no authority whatever to guide or restrain us in
our study of the Old Testaraent. We are to study
the Old Testament for ourselves, altogether indepen
dently of any constructions put upon it by the author
of this book, — with no more bias towards the fanciful
and arbitrary system of allegorical interpretation than
if this book had never been written.
Entertaining these views of its want of authority,
and regarding the system of allegorical interpretation,
which it exemplifies, as altogether visionary and delu
sive, I am discharged from subjecting it to further
consideration. It explains the Old Testament in a
way inconsistent with expositions presented by me
elsewhere ; but its explanations demand no further
attention, when it has been shown to be itself destitute
of authority.

SECTION II,
EPISTLJ; of JAMES.

This Epistle is of doubtful authenticity. I regard
it as probably a genuine work of James, the Apostle,
distinguished from his associate James, son of Zebedee
(Matt. x. 2 ; Mark iii. 17 ; Luke vi, 14 ; Acts i. 13,
xii. 2), by the surname of the Less. He was the
son of Alpheus, or Cleophas (Matt. x. 3 ; Mark iii. 18 ;
Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i, 13), and was probably the same
who is called the " brother " of Jesus (Matt, xiii, 55 ;
comp, Mark xv, 40 ; John xix. 25 ; Gal. i. 19), in the
Jewish sense of being his cousin, or near kinsman.
He appears to have had a sort of precedency in the

332 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IL 8.
church of Jerusalem (Acts xii, 17, xv, 13, xxi. 18;
Gal. ii. 9, 12), and by some of the early writers is
called its bishop.
But for my present purpose it is unnecessary to go
into the question of the authenticity of this Epistle,
inasmuch as the few references to the Old Testament
which it contains raise no questions of interpretation
different from those with which we have become fa
miliar in our examination of the preceding books. As
to raost of those references, it will suffice merely to
designate them. II. 8.
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," ye do well.
Comp. Lev. xix. 18. II. 21-26.
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had
ofiered Isaac his son upon the altar .' Seest thou how faith
wrought with his works, and by works was faith made per
fect ^ And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, " Abra
ham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for right
eousness " ; and he was called the friend of God. See ye
how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.'
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works,
when she had received the messengers, and had sent them
out another way .' For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.
Corap. Gen. xv. 6, xxii. 1-10, 17, 18; Is. xii. 8;
also see above, pp, 239 - 241. How was " Rahab the
harlot justified by works'"? She was justified, ac
cording to the meaning of that word which I have
explained above (pp. 228 - 242). It is impossible to
imagine any other justification in the case. She was
adopted into the Jewish nation, — into the community
of God's chosen people. She was justified in the way
of which we read in the history : " She dwelleth in

V. 17, 18.] EPISTLE OF JAMES. 333
Israel even unto this day, because she hid the messen
gers which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho " (Josh, vi,
25) ; and by raarriage she was further adopted into the
Jewish family (Matt. i. 5). IV. 5.
Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, " The spirit that
dwelleth in us lusteth to envy " .?
We find no such sentence in " the Scripture " as
that which is here recited. Griesbach would substitute
a punctuation such as to make the verse read : " Do
ye think that the Scripture speaketh in vain 1 Doth
the spirit that dwelleth in us lust to envy % " But such
a use of the verb (Xeyei, with a suppression of the sub
ject, the thing spoken), if not inadmissible, is at least
unusual and awkward, IV. 6.
He giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, " God resisteth
the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."
Comp. Prov. iii. 34. V. 11.
Ye have heard of the patience of Job.
See above, p. 310.
V. 17, 18.
Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he
prayed earnestly that it might not rain : and it rained not on
the earth by the space of three years and six months. And
he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth
brought forth her fruit.
Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 41 -45 ; where, however,
it is not said that either the drought or the rain fol
lowed a prayar of Elijah, That circumstance was
probably a traditional gloss upon 1 Kings xviii. 42,
Comp, also above, p. 310,

334 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THB

SECTION III.
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETEE.
This Epistle is not contained in the Syriac version,
though, if genuine, it raust have been written before
that version was made ; and it must have been of ear
lier date than the Gospel of John, or Paul's Second
Epistle to Timothy, both of which books are contained
in that version, and the latter may be supposed to have
corae more slowly into circulation, having been ad
dressed to an individual, while the Second Epistle of
Peter professes (iii. 1, comp. 1 Pet. i. 1) to have had a
general destination.
Origen is the earliest writer known to have men
tioned this Epistle. For the fact of his having done
so, Eusebius is our authority. According to that
writer (" Hist. Eccles.," Lib. VI. Cap. 25), Origen re
ferred to it in the following terms : " Peter, on whom
the Church of Christ is built,  has left one Epistle
undisputed ; let it be granted also that he wrote a
second, for this is doubted." Eusebius himself (Ibid.,
Lib. III. Cap. 3), after speaking of Peter's First Epis
tle as " an undoubted work of the Apostle," says :
" That which is called the Second, we have been in
formed, has not been received into the New Testa
ment; nevertheless, appearing to raany to be useful,
it has been carefully studied with the other Scrip
tures." Jerome, though in one place (" De Vir. lllust.,"
Tom. IV. Pars. ii. p. 101, edit. Martianay) he says
that it " is denied by many to be Peter's, because of
the difference of style from the former Epistle," in
another has referred to it as genuine (" Epist. ad Pau
lin.," Tom. IV- Pars ii. p. 574) ; and it has been re-

L 17-21.] SECOND EPISTLE OF PETEE. 335
ceived as such from the fourth century down. But
no unanimity in this late period can compensate the
deficiency of early testimony.
An argument in favor of the Apostolic origin of
this composition has been drawn from an alleged re
semblance of its style to that of the First Epistle,
But this is certainly no greater than was within the
reach of one, who, if he was not the Apostle, obviously
designed an imitation of him. (2 Peter i. 1, 17, 18,
iii, 1,) On the other hand, an alleged dissimilarity of
style, both of thought and language, particularly in
the second chapter, has been made the foundation of
an opposite argument ; and that so early, as we have
seen, as the time of Jerome.
On the whole, it would appear to be quite unsafe to
reason from this Epistle, as if it declared or intimated
the opinions of the Apostle Peter on any subject,
though, as the work of a Christian writer of an early
time, it has its curiosity and interest.
I. 17-21.
He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there
came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, " This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And this
voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with
him in the holy mount, and have the word of prophecy more
sure ; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto
a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and
the day-star arise in your hearts. Knowing this first, that no
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ;
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost. ,
The second sentence above I conceive should be
understood : "And this voice which came from heaven
we heard, when we were with him in the holy raount,
and have the word of prophecy confirmed." It was con-

336 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [L 17-21. «
firmed by its fulfilment. " The word of prophecy," in
the present instance, was that which in early times had
foretold the advent of a great benefactor to the world.
(Gen, xviii, 18, xxii. 18, xxvi. 4, Scxviii. 14; Deut,
xviii. 15.) That "word of prophecy" was fulfilled
and " confirmed," when Jesus the Messiah appeared,
and " when there came such a voice to him from the
excellent glory, ' This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased.' " Down to that time, men had been
in error as to what they were to look for ; and, build
ing a fabric of their own upon the general hints
which had been given, they had adopted the concep
tion of a deliverer quite different from the spiritual
deliverer whom God had designed to send. For, as
the writer very correctly remarks, " no prophecy of
Scripture explains itself" conveys its own full meaning
(iS/a? eirCXvaeax;, — not " is of any private interpreta
tion " ; that is a rendering without pertinency, and, in
deed, without significance, except for such as suppose
that Scriptural prophecy is to be interpreted by some
public authority). However precise a prediction may
be, should it even specify the height, complexion, and
features of some future raan, such is the imperfection
of language that we never get the coraplete idea till
the man appears whose correspondence with the pre
diction we are to discern. This being so, " until the
day dawn," and discover all, we " do well " to " take
heed " to supernatural prediction, " as unto a light that
shineth in a dark place," and not — by indulging our im
aginations, as the Jews had done in filling up the out
line of their portraiture of the Messiah, so as to make
all definite and full-sized — take the risk of falling
into error like them. The arbitrary human expositions
which had been given of prophecy were not to be re
garded as of authority. To expound a prediction by

n. 4-9.] SECOND EPISTLE OF PETEE. 337
making it more definite than the original, — by con
necting new ideas with it, — was the same as to make
a new prediction, a thing not within the compass of un
assisted reason, " For prophecy came not in old tirae
by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost," So far as God's
holy spirit had authorized any to declare the future,
so far had they declared it. Only so far did man's
function respecting the future extend. To attempt
to enlarge " by the will of man " on any revelation of
God, or to make that specific which he had left general
and indistinct, was to fall into just that vicious style
of speculation, by which tbe Jews, misinterpreting the
general intimations in Genesis and Deuteronomy of
the future Messiah, had disqualified themselves for a
ready reception of Jesus in that character,
II, 4-9,
If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down
to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be re
served unto judgment ; and spared not the old world, but
saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness,
bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly ; and,
turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, con
demned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample
unto those that after should live ungodly ; and delivered just
Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked ; (for
that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hear
ing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their un
lawful deeds ;) the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly
out of temptations.
In the first of these verses, the writer has been un
derstood to refer to a fable in the composition called
the Book of Enoch. (See below, p, 342,) Possibly
he refers to some traditional gloss on that passage in
the history, which relates that the messengers (the
" angels," see above, p, 139) of Moses returned with a
29

338 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE [IL 15, 16.
discouraging report from their exploration of Canaan
[" kept not their first estate, but left their own habita
tion " (see Jude 6, and comp. Nurabers xiii. 25 - 33)].
At all events, he refers to soraething nowhere found in
the Old Testament. And he refers to it in terms pre
cisely equivalent to those in which, in the rest of the
passage, he refers to certain narratives in Genesis (vii,
17-24, xix. 4-25). The correct inference appears
to be, that no more in the one case than in the other
can it be maintained from his language that he ex
presses his belief in historical facts.
II. 15, 16.
They have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, follow
ing the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages
of unrighteousness, but was rebuked for his iniquity : the
dumb ass, speaking with man's voice, forbade the madness of
the prophet.
Another reference of the same class as those last re
marked upon. (See Numb. xxii. 7, 21 - 33 ; and
comp. " Lectures," &c.. Vol. I. pp. 381 - 384.)
II. 22.
It is happened unto them according to the true proverb, " The
dog is turned to his own vomit again ; and the sow that was
washed, to her wallowing in the mire."
A form of language common in all times, and dis
tinctly illustrative of more formal verbal accommoda
tions. (See above, pp. 20 et seq.)
III. 5-8.
This they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God
the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the
water and in the water ; whereby the world that then was,
being overflowed with water, perished ; but the heavens and
the earth which are now, by his word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition

rn. 13.] EPISTLE OF JUDE. 339
of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one
thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and
a thousand years as one day.
In opposition to some who maintained (comp. 4)
that all earthly things were permanent, \he writer says
that the earth had once been destroyed by water, and
would again be destroyed by fire. The latter opinion
he certainly did not derive from Old Testament Scrip
ture. Whether he drew the former from that, or some
other source, he does not say. In the last verse is a
sort of quotation from a Psalm (xc. 4).
III. 13.
We, according to his promise, look for new heavens, and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
The phraseology in which the promised blessing
(comp. iii. 4, 9) is described, appears to be borrowed
from the book of Isaiah (Ixv. 17, Ixvi. 22).

SECTION IV.
EPISTLE OF JUDE.

The Epistle of Jude bears so strong a resemblance,
not only in topics, but in language, to the second chap
ter of the Second Epistle of Peter, as to suggest the
idea of their having been but different copies of the
same work, which, having circulated foir a time without
a fixed character as to authorship, finally took the
names respectively of those two disciples, the one re
maining as a distinct piece, the other being inserted
into the midst of a coraposition of different origin.
The .Epistle professes to have been written by a

340 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE
Jude, " the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of
James " (1). These titles have been differently under
stood to indicate the Apostle Judas, otherwise called
Lebbeus, and also surnamed Thaddeus (Matt. x. 3 ;
Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 16; John xiv. 22; Acts i. 13),
or Judas, called, with James, Joses, and Simon, the
" brother " of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3).
The main defect in the historical evidence of the
genuineness of this Epistle is its absence from the
Syriac version. Of the three great early authorities
on such questions, Irenseus does not appear to have
referred to it (Lardner, " Supplement," &c.. Chap.
XXL § 2); but TertuUian (alluding to Jude 14)
says ("De Cult. Femin.," Lib. I. Cap. iii. p. 151, edit.
Rigalt.), "Enoch is quoted by the Apostle Jude";
and Clement of Alexandria distinctly quotes from it
two or three times (" Psed.," Lib. III. Cap. viii. ; " Stro-
mat.," Lib. III. Cap. ii. sub fin.), and calls it a work
of Jude. It is repeatedly quoted by Origen, who also
said of it (" Coraraent. in Mat.," p. 463, edit. Delarue),
" Jude wrote an Epistle, of few lines indeed, but full
of the powerful words of the heavenly grace, who at
the beginning says, ' Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ
and brother of James.' " He however said in another
place (ibid. p. 814), " If any one receives also the
Epistle of Jude, let hira consider what will follow
from what is there said," &c. As late as the tirae
of Eusebius, after which there could be no testimony
to settle the question, the genuineness of the work
was still contested. "Among the disputed books,"
says he (Lib. III. Cap. 25), " though approved by
many, is reckoned that called the Epistle of 
Jude." Supposing the work to have originated in the Apos
tolic age, there would still remain the important ques-

EPISTLE OF JUDE. 341
tion respecting its authority, whether it was written
by the Apostle Jude, which it does not declare itself
to have been, or by one of those " brethren " of Jesus
who had no such commission to speak in his name,
and who, down to a late period of his ministry, at
least, had taken no part in his work. (John vii. 5.)
And this is a question which antiquity has not trans
mitted to us sufficient means for solving.

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew
this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the
land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
See above, p. 270. 6,7.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under
darkness, unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sod
om and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,
giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange
flesh, are set forth for an example, suflering the vengeance
of eternal fire.
See above, p. 337.

Michael the archangel, when, contending with the Devil, he dis
puted about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a
railing accusation, but said, " The Lord rebuke thee."
There is no more than a partial verbal similarity
between this passage and one in the prophecy of Zech
ariah (iii. 1, 2). The writer is evidently referring to a
popular legend, from which, agreeably to a well-author
ized practice of all times, he draws a moral. Origen
(" De Princip.," Lib. III. Cap. 2, sub init.) refers for
the fable to a book called the " Ascension of Moses."

342 NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE
11.
They have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the
error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying
of Core.
That is, they have shown a malignity like that dis
played in the legendary history of Cain (Gen. iv. 8),
and a rapacity and an intractable spirit like those of
ancient adversaries of Moses^ and rebels against Jeho
vah. (Numb. xvi. 32, xxii. 7.)
14, 15.
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these,
saying, " Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his
saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all
that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds
which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard ,
speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
Referring to this text, TertuUian says, in the pas
sage quoted above (p. 340), that Jude quoted from the
Book of Enoch, a book which, I suppose, no toler
ably informed person, whether Jew or Christian,
of the Apostolic age, esteemed as a writing of au
thority. The material remark to which the text gives rise
relates to the raanner in which the word " prophesied "
is used, consonant to what I have argued at large to
be a farailiar and well-authorized application of such
phraseology. (See above, pp. 28, 49.) The writer
rebukes contemporaries of his own, and proceeds to
say, " Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied
of these." It is impossible to imagine hira to have
meant that the author of the words which he then
quotes as prophesying " of these," had " these " in his
mind when he so " prophesied." The sense of Jude
clearly was, that the words ivere applicable to " these."

EEVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE. 343
We cannot help admitting that such was the purport
of the form of quotation in this place. And if such
an interpretation is unavoidable here, equally natural
and equally fit is it in relation to passages involving
forms of quotation no raore expressly significant (for
more expressly significant it is impossible that any
form should be) of prophecy fulfilled.

SECTION V.
EEVELATION OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE.
The Apocalypse presents numerous applications
of the imagery and language of the Old Testament,
especially of those of the Books of Ezekiel and
Daniel. It adopts, for instance (i. 7), from the
prophet Zechariah (xii. 10, 12) words used by that
writer respecting God, and applies them to Jesus. On
the other hand (ii. 27), it adopts language commonly
thought to relate to the Messiah in its original use
(Ps. ii. 9), and applies, them to faithful Christian men.
The following list of passages, in some way pointing
to the Old Testament, may deserve the reader's atten
tion, viz.: ii. 14 (comp. Numb. xxv. 1, 2, xxxi. 16);
X. 9 (comp, Ezek, ii, 8 -iii. 3) ; xi. 1 (comp. Ezek. xl. -
xliii.); xiv, 20, xix, 13-15 (comp. Is. Ixiii. 1-3);
xxi, 1 (comp. Is, Ixv, 17, Ixvi. 22) ; xxi, 2 (comp. Lev,
xxvi, 11, 12; Ezek, xliii. 7); xxi. 15 (comp. Ezek, xl,
3-5); xxii, 2 (comp, Ezek, xlvii. 12; Gen. ii. 9);
xxii, 18 (comp, Deut, iv, 2, xii, 32). But there is no
express quotation from the Jewish Scriptures, nor
any reference to them of a nature to throw light

344 notes ON PASSAGES, &o.
upon the inquiry which I have been pursuing in
the preceding pages. This being so, it would con
tribute nothing to the execution of my present plan,
to discuss the question of the authenticity of the
book.

the end.