[«miLE«¥MWHli^U"ir¥« 1 ° iLmaKABgy « BENGEL'S GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. A NEW TRANSLATION, EDITED by CHARLTON T. LEWIS, M. A.9 JOHN ALBERT BENGEL'S GNOMON of THE NEW TESTAMENT. POINTING OUT FROM THE NATURAL FORCE OF THE WORDS, THE SIMPLICITY, DEPTH, HARMONY AND SAVING POWER OF ITS DIVINE THOUGHTS. A NEW TRANSLATION, BY CHARLTON T. LEWIS, M.A., AND MARVIN R. VINCENT, M. A., PROCESSORS IN TROY UNIVERSITY. VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: PEEKINPINE & HIGGINS, 830 ARCH STREET. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by PEEKINPINE & HIGGINS, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Penn- sylvan ia. WILLIAM W. HARDING, STEREOTYPED. PRINTED BY SHERMAN ft CO. PREFACE. Bengel's- principles of interpretation are essentially those which are most approved by the church of Christ in this country. His method is, avoiding long discussions, to point the reader to the text its'elf ; and, by directing his thoughts, and suggesting points of view, to enable him to grasp its full meaning. Hence his work has been the delight of four generations of Christian scholars. Eut being in Latin, it has never reached the mass of the people. Wesley, indeed, translated many of its valuable notes, and introduced them, with en thusiastic eulogy, to the English public. His work, though it gives but a small part of the Gnomon, is still widely read. It may seem strange that a faithful rendering of the whole has not long since been published. But the attempt is full of difficulty. A translation of Bengel's Latin, without revision, would be of little value, save to scholars, who already have access to the original. For, not to speak of mere deficiencies, it contains too many acknowledged errors, both of criticism and exposition, to be safely put in the hands of students. It was written one hundred and twenty years ago ; and more mind and toil have been given to these subjects since, than in all time before. Their outlines, indeed, have only been drawn more clearly ; but many lesser views have been changed, many discoveries made. These often supplement Bengel, sometimes contradict him. And though in his style of exposition, his .profound and suggestive anatomy of words and thoughts, he still stands unrivalled ; though he anticipated the best general features of the latest commentaries ; yet he could not anticipate the detailed results of a century's research and discussion. j On the other hand, to rewrite the Gnomon, to reproduce it for to day, related to the scholarship of A. D., 1860, as the original was to that of A. D., 1742 — he were bold, indeed, who should attempt this. He must unite in himself De Wette's critic sharpness, Tholuck's vast (5) PREFACE. reading, Olshausen's comprehensiveness of view, and Stier or Nean- der's spiritual insight. Meyer, more than any other, unites all these qualifications, except the last; the want of which is sometimes pain fully prominent in him. He is great, and ever grows greater, as his successive editions show; but, although his work is, on the whole, and in most of its parts, the best scientific commentary ever written, yet the student whose simple aim is to " sink deep in the word, that the word may sink deep in him," will prefer the old Gnomon still. But one course remains for the editor of Bengel. He must trans late Bengel's text as it is, connecting with it such extracts from other writers as will guard the reader against views now refuted; and will further give some hints of the results of more modern criticism and exegesis. If less were done, the work would be very imperfect ; if more were attempted, it would become rather a new book than an edition of Bengel. The present translation has been made from, the last Edition of the Gnomon, published under the care of John Steudel, Tubingen, 1855, which is but a reprint of that of 1835, edited by J. C. Steudel. Both retain the text of the standard (third) edition, carefully edited in 1773, by Ernest Bengel, the author's son. We have followed the Latin rather more closely than is usual with translators, but wherever a literal rendering would be obscure, we have paraphrased it. We have freely used the English translation published by Messrs. Clarke, Edinburgh, 1854, and the German translation by Werner, Stuttgart, 1853, which, though less literal, is far more accurate than the former. To the English work our obligations are very great, and we would gladly entitle this a revised reprint of it, but that such a title would misre present our book, and thus be unjust to both. We have translated directly from the Latin throughout, adopting the language of that book only where we could not improve it. A collation will show greater differences than two renderings of the same work often present. The chief value of the Gnomon is in its expositions of Scripture. I have striven to increase its value, by adding, in the most condensed form, such of the most valuable remarks of the best modern commen tators as the plan of the Gnomon admits ; those which open the force of the words of Scripture. These are chiefly taken from books not accessible to the student who reads only English ; but I have also made use of works which have been translated, and others first writ ten in English, whenever it seemed essential. A list of the authors and works most frequently quoted will be found at the end of this Preface ; when others are referred to, their names are usually given at length. Very many have been quoted at second hand, for want PREFACE. 7 of leisure or else of opportunity to search the originals. But, not desiring to display borrowed learning, nor to be responsible for the mistakes of others, I have always given the double reference. Thus [August, in Mey.~\ means that what precedes is quoted by Meyer from Augustine ; and so of the rest. In quotations, from whatever source, the language is usually my own, and much condensed. Sometimes a line or two states the main point of a long discussion. Only thus could the work be brought within its present limits. Where Bengel's exposition is clearly erroneous, it is corrected from the same sources. But I have not mutilated the work by omitting his views, but have inserted them, with those which have superseded them; sometimes, however, abridging arguments on controversies of his day, now obsolete. In the critical part of the Gnomon, more radical revision has been necessary. Bengel's honored labors gave almost the first impulse to a course of investigation which has, since his death, revolutionized New Testament criticism, and placed it on a firm basis. The vast accumulations of manuscript evidence, which more recent students, especially S. P. Tregelles and C. Tischendorf, have brought to esta blish the text, have rendered many of Bengel's discussions, based on fewer and less reliable witnesses, worthless, save as illustrations of method, and facts in the History of Criticism. I have, therefore, reserved the most important of them, to answer these ends, and omitted the rest. In their place, I have revised the New Testament Text throughout, comparing that from which the English version was made with the now generally received text of Tischendorf (Last Edition, Leipsic, 1859,) and have noted in the Gnomon, every varia tion which can be expressed in a translation, stating the precise change necessary in our English version to make it correspond with the authentic text of the original. And since Alford has thoroughly and with great judgment revised Tischendorf's text, changing it only in a few places, where his authority deserves attention, I have noted also his reading, wherever there is a variation affecting the sense. Thus this work will serve the English reader as a Critical English Testament. And by comparing this work with the authorized English version, the student will be able, without any knowledge of Greek, to understand the precise results of modern criticism, in revising the, Text of the New Testament. It seems strange that the English language has been, until now, without a book containing this information. All additions are in brackets, that Bengel may not be held respon sible for any thing not his. Believing that all worth saying ought to 8 PREFACE. be in the text, I have tried to avoid foot-notes. To make room for the additions, I have omitted nothing which could be of interest or value to any student ; nothing but references to books never known in this country, and superseded in their own ; a few remarks on Greek etymology, intelligible only to Greek scholars, who will find better ones in any recent Greek Lexicon ; and a very few more, perhaps five, chiefly on modern miracles, and now valueless. Wherever a technical term of Rhetoric is used by Bengel, we have briefly in dicated its meaning and force. The' Appendix to Vol. II. (trans lated from Steudel's edition) will contain fuller explanations, with examples. An attempt has been made to render the whole book intelligible to those who have no knowledge of the learned languages, by remov ing all difficulties not really inherent in the subject or the thought. As two names appear on the title-page, it is proper to state our respective shares in preparing the work. Prof. Vincent has trans lated that part of the text of Bengel contained in pages 317 to 374, 395 to 533, 564 to 707, and 769 to the end of this volume. The remainder of the translation, and the additions in brackets throughout the book, as well as the plan and general responsibility for the whole, are mine. Deeply conscious of its imperfections, we send it out upon its errand, wishing to all who read it as much profit and delight as its preparation has given us. In this new form, may the great work of Bengel fulfil again the chief aim of his life, by introducing many to a thorough, abiding knowledge of THE WORD, tha"t they may be disciples indeed. CHARLTON T. LEWIS. Troy University, July 25, 1860. LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL BOOKS QUOTED IN THE EDITOR'S ADDITIONAL NOTES IN THIS VOLUME. (with the abbreviations used in the references.) Alford, Henry — " The Greek Testament ; with a critically revised Text," etc., etc. Vol. I., 3d ed., 1856. Vol. II., 2d ed., 1855. Bruckner, B. B. — Additions to De Wette's Commentary on John 'a Gospel ; see De Wette. [Br. in De IF.] Calvin, John — "In Novum Testamentum Commentarii," etc. Cura- vit A. Tholuck; Vol. I. and II., 2d ed., Berlin, 1838; Vol. Ill and IV., 1st ed., 1833. [Oalv.J Dorner, Dr. J. A. — " Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Per son Christi," etc. 2d ed., Berlin, 1851-6. [Dorner.'] De Wette, Dr. W. M. L. — " Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch," etc., Leipsic. Matthew, 4th ed., 1857 ; Luke and Mark, 3d ed., 1846; John, 4th ed., (greatly enlarged and improved by the edi tor, B. Bruno Bruckner,) 1852 ; Acts, 3d ed., 1848. [De W.J Ford, Rev. James — " The Acts of the Apostles, illustrated (chiefly in the doctrinal and moral sense) from Ancient and Modern Au thors." London, 1856. [F.J Lampe, Frid. Adolphus — "Commentarius Analytico-exegeticus," etc. " Evangelii secundum Joannem," etc. 3 vols., 4to., Amsterdam, 1724-6. [LampeJ. Lucke, Dr. F. — " Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes." 2 vols., 2d ed., Bonn, 1833. (I was not able to obtain the third edition, Bonn, 1840, in time.) [L.~] 2 (») 10 LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL BOOKS QUOTED. Meter, Dr. Heinrich A. W. — " Kritisch Exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament." Gbttingen, Matthew, 4th ed., 1858; Mark and Luke, 3d ed., 1855, (the fourth was issued too late for use in this work ;) John, 3d ed., 1856 ; Acts, 2d ed., 1854. [Mey.~\ Neander, Augustus — " The Life of Jesus Christ," etc., translated from the fourth German edition, by Professors McClintock and Blumenthal, New York, 1855. " History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church," etc. Translated from the third edition, by J. E. Ryland, London, 1851. [Neand.J Olshausen, Dr. Hermann — "Biblical Commentary on the New Tes tament." Translated for Clark's Library; revised after the fourth edition, by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. Vol. I., II., III., New York, 1858. [Ols.J Quesnel, Pasquier — " The Gospels, with Moral Reflections on each verse," etc., etc. Philadelphia, 1855. [Q.J Stier, Rudolf — " The Words of the Lord Jesus." Translated from the second edition, by Rev. William B. Pope. 8 vols., 8vo, Edin burgh, 1855-8. [Stier.J Tholuck, Dr. A. — " Philologisch-theologische Auslegung der Berg- predigt Christi," etc. 2d ed., Hamburg, 1835. " Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis." 7th ed., Gotha, 1857. (On the first two chapters some quotations are made from the 6th ed., as translated by Charles P. Krauth, D.D., Philadelphia, 1859.) [TholJ Tischendorf, C. — "Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Septima Critica Minor." Leipsic, 1859. [Tisch.J Trench, R. C. — "Notes on the Parables of our Lord." 2d Ame rican ed., New York, 1854. Also, "Notes on the Miracles of our Lord." 2d American ed., New York, 1854. [Trench.] Winer, Dr. G. B.— " Biblisches Realworterbuch," etc. 3d ed., Leip sic, 2 vols, 1847-8. [Winer, i. or ii.] Also, " A Grammar of the New Testament Diction," etc. Translated from the sixth ed., by Edward Masson, Philadelphia, 1859. [ Winer.J The sentences marked [V. G.] are quoted in Steudel's Edition, from Bengel's Ger. man Version of the New Testament, with practical annotations : and are often a valuable supplement to the Gnomon. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. WRITTEN AT THE COLLEGE OF HERBRECHTINGEN, 20TH MARCH A.D. 1742, AND AFTERWARDS REVISED. SUMMARY. I. The Word of God, written in the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the greatest of all his gifts. II. It should be rightly handled. III. Commentaries were not necessary in primitive times. IV. How far they are useful in later times. V. The several ages of Scriptural Exegesis distinguished. VI. The origin of the present work. VII. The title, " Gnomon Novi Testamenti," explained ; and the author's design. VIII. Suggestions how to distinguish the genuine Text of the New Testament, and to combine it prudently with the Textus Receptus. IX. The criticism of Gerard von Maestricht examined. X. The Text carefully revised, the foundation of the present Exegesis. XI. And divided into Sections, and correctly punctuated. XII. The Style of the Apostles vindicated. XIII. The Books of the New Testament reduced to Synoptical Tables. XIV. The inherent force of Words considered ; especially of the Greek words, and that with due regard to Hebraism. XV. The Style of the Sacred Writings considered as expressive of holy feelings and character. XVI. Hence there are various methods of Annotation. XVII. Previous writers seldom cited in the present work. XVIII. What is here done towards elucidating each of the Gospeh. XIX. What for the Acts and Epistles. XX. The Apocalypse again treated of: Dr. Joachim Lange's views : the author's Ordo Temporum. XXI. The Author's Orthodoxy. Xii THE AUTHORS PREFACE. XXII. His desire to assist those also, who are not learning Greek. XXIII. The Language of the present work. XXIV. The Technical Terms introduced. XXV. The usefulness and moderate size of the Gnomon. XXVI. Announcement respecting the German version of the New Testament. XXVII. An exhortation to the constant study of Holy Scripture. GRACE AND PEACE BE MULTIPLIED TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. I. The word of the living God, which had governed the primitive patriarchs, was committed to writing in the age of Moses, who was followed by the other prophets. Subsequently, those things which the Son of God preached, and the Paraclete spake through the apos tles, were written down by the apostles and evangelists. These writings, taken together, are termed uHoly Scripture ;" and, bearing this title, they are themselves their own best eulogy. For it is because they contain God's words and are the Lord's Book, that they are called uHoly Scripture." " The word of our God," exclaims the prophet, "shall stand for' ever." — (Isaiah xl. 8.) "Verily, I say unto you," says the Saviour Himself, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." — (Mat. v. 18.) And again, "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My words shall not pass away." — (Mat. xxiv. 35.) The Scriptures, therefore, of the Old and New Testaments, form a most reliable and precious system of Divine testimonies. For not only are the various writings, when considered separately, worthy of God, but they together exhibit one complete and harmonious body, unimpaired by excess or defects. They are the fountain of wisdom; which is preferred by those who have tasted it to all the compositions of other men, however holy, experienced, devout, or wise. [We may add : They who have not tasted it, prefer to it all com positions of mere men, however profane, vain, wanton, or foolish.- — (Ps. liii. 2.) Hence their opposition to it. E. B.] II. It follows that those who have been intrusted with so great a gift, should use it properly. Scripture teaches its own use, which consists in action. To act it, we must understand it, and this under standing is open to all the upright of heart. (Comp. Ps. xxv. 14 ; Mat. xi. 25 ; John vii. 17 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14. For not one of the upright in heart will allow the saving power of those passages to be snatched from him by any hermeneutic arts whatever.) III. Myriads of annotations were not written in the Church of the Old Testament, although the light was more scanty then ; nor did learned men think that the Church of the New Testament required THE AUTHOR S PREFACE. Xlll to be immediately laden with such helps. Every book, when first published by a prophet or an apostle, bore in itself its own interpre tation, as it referred to the existing state of things. The text, which was continually in the mouths of all, and diligently read by all, kept itself pure and intelligible. The saints were not busy with selecting the berries, as if the other parts were to be pruned away ; nor with accumulating cumbrous commentaries. They had the Scriptures. Those who were learned in the Old and New Testaments were at hand to teach the unlearned. IV. The purposes which can be attained by commentaries are chiefly the following : to preserve, restore, or defend the purity of the text ; to exhibit the exact force of the language employed by any sacred writer ; to explain the circumstances to which any passage refers ; to remove errors or abuses which have arisen in later times. The first hearers needed none of these. Now, however, it is the office of commentaries to effect and supply them in some measure, so that the hearer of to-day, with their aid, may be like the hearer in those times who had no such assistance. Our late age has one advan tage ; it can interpret the prophecies more clearly by the event. Whatever things, of every kind, readers draw from the Scrip ture, they can, and ought all to share with each other ; chiefly by word of mouth, but also by written compositions ; in such a manner, however, as neither to lessen nor supersede the perpetual use of Scripture itself. V. Scripture is the life of the Church : the Church is the guardian of Scripture. When the Church is strong, Scripture shines abroad ; when the Church is sick, Scripture is imprisoned. Thus Scripture and the Church exhibit together the appearance of health, or else of sickness; so that the treatment of Scripture corresponds with the state of the Church. That treatment has had various ages, from the earliest times down to the present day. The first may be called Native or natural ; the second, Moral ; the third, Dry ; the fourth, Revived ; the fifth, Polemic, Dogmatic, Topical ; the sixth, Critical, Polyglott, Antiquarian, Homiletic. That exposition and understanding of Scripture which is at hand in Scripture itself has not yet pre vailed in the Church. This is clear from our abundant discrepancies of opinion, and our dullness of sight in interpreting prophecy. We are called upon to advance further to such a proficiency in the Scrip tures as is worthy of men and of kings, and answers nearly enough to the perfection of Scripture. But men must be prepared for this by passing through trials. ( Whatever else some of the learned may think, who, relying on their own powers alone, suppose that nothing is effected towards the understanding of Scripture by trial and by prayer, but all by mere study ; It is trouble that gives under standing.) The history and description of those ages would furnish fitting matter for a judicious and useful treatise ; but other things are more needed here. VI. Whosoever desires to render any help in interpreting Scrip ture, should examine himself, to know by Avhat right he does it. As far as I am concerned, I did not apply my mind to writing commenta- XIV THEAUTHORSPREFACE. ries from any previous confidence in myself; but under Divine guid ance I was led into it unexpectedly, by little and little. The nature of my public duties, which required me, for more than twenty-seven years, to expound the Greek New Testament to students, first in duced me to make some notes. As their number increased, I began to commit them to paper, and at the suggestion of a certain venera ble Prelate, [ Christopher Zeller, Prelate of Lorch] to put the finishing hand to them. Exegesis was accompanied by revision of the text ; in revising the text for the interpretation of the Apoca lypse, I was led on to examine a number of various readings. The " Harmony of the Evangelists" commenced in the mean time, and the " Commentary on the Apocalypse" gave, rise to the " Ordo Tem- porum."* Now all these having been in turn carefully examined, are corrected, filled up, and blended together in one Exegesis of the New Testament. I must here, therefore, repeat some things said else where, and add some new remarks, so that my work, now reduced to a single whole, may be crowned, and, as it were, helmeted with this preface. VII. I have long since given the name of Gnomon, a modest, as I think, and appropriate title to these explanatory notes, which per form only the office of an Index ; [i. e. an Index, in the sense of a pointer or indicator, as of a sun-dial ;] and I should have chosen the title Index, but that most persons would then think of a Registry or Table of Contents. The intention is briefly to point out the full force of words and sentences in the New Testament, which, though really and inherently belonging to them, is not always observed by all at first sight, so that the reader, introduced directly into the text, may pasture as richly as possible. The Gnomon points the way well enough. If you are wise, the text itself teaches you everything. VIII. Human selections of sayings and examples, taken from Scripture, have their use ; the study, however, of the Sacred Volume should not end here ; for it should be thoroughly understood as a whole, especially by teachers. In order fully to accomplish this, we ought to distinguish the clearly genuine words of the Sacred Text from those which various readings render doubtful, so as neither to pass by the words of apostles without profit, nor to expound the words of copyists for those of apostles. I have endeavored to furnish such a text, with all care and fidelity, in my larger edition of the Greek New Testament, published at Tubingen, and in the smaller one pub lished at Stuttgard. Both appeared in 1734 : and the small one was republished, with a new prologue in 1738, and lastly, entirely revised, in 1753. For, I considered it my duty not to suppress, but, on the contrary, publish before my death,^ those things which the ex perience of a long intervening period had supplied. Those who de sire either to know, or to state, what my Revision contains, on any passage, must refer to one of these editions, and not to any other. * See the Essay on the Life and Writings of Bengel, p. xiii. t During his last illness he was occupied in correcting the proof-sheets of his German Version of the New Testament, and the preface he had written for the Old Testament Gnomon of his son-in-law, Ph. D. Burk. — (I. B.) THEAUTHOR'SPREFACE. XT He who has been accustomed to the first of the smaller editions, will easily, and advantageously note in it the changes of the later edition. The New Testament, as revised by me, has come to be considered as one edition with this Gnomon, just as if they had been published in one volume. This will appear more clearly in the progress of the present preface. (See § XI.) My recension has obtained the ap proval of many ; some of whom have partially adopted it in transla tions.* It has, however, met with some impugners, especially two : for the preface of f Andreas Buttigius agrees for the ' most part with my views, and, where it differs, I have given the explanation in the Prologue, just mentioned. The remarks of others upon certain read ings, are examined in their proper places. Against those two, there fore, (whose names I need not mention J,) I have put forth two Defences. One was printed in German, with the Harmony of the Evangelists, A. D. 1736, at Tiibingen, and afterwards, in a separate and more convenient form, in Latin, with some additions, A. D. 1737, at Leyden. In this, I showed that I had not acted timidly. The other was written in answer to an attack very prejudicial to the truth among the ignorant, inserted A. D. 1739, in the New Tii bingen Miscellany, and reprinted in a separate form the same year, and again at Ulm, A. D. 1745 ; and in this I proved that I had not acted rashly. The former defence has become now nearly obsolete : for the author has now conformed his critical notes § so far as he has corrected them, entirely to my views ; and the learned Lilienthal states^ (i11 his Bibliotheca Exegetica, pp. 1263, 1264,) what is the opinion entertained by others, of the matters in dispute between us. So much the more, therefore, do I wish that they who desire at once to avoid rashness, and to understand the subject, would carefully ex amine my second Defence. All, at least, by whom I know that pam phlet to have been read, acknowledge that I strive religiously for a pure text of the New Testament. And that very society, in whose name my censor acted, has not, so far as I know, though repeatedly challenged by me, brought forward in " || The Early Gathered Fruits" one single instance, in which I have altered by innovation even a *In 1745 when the authorized Danish Version was revised by order of the King of Denmark, the text of Bengel was preferred as the standard, for that purpose. — (I. B.) t Andreas Buttigius brought out a critical edition of the Greek New Testament in 1737. Le Long adds it to his list of the Editions of Bengel; and remarks that the text is but a repetition of Bengel's, as indeed the editor acknowledges in the preface, though Bengel's name is not mentioned in the title. The various readings and parallel refer. ences, too, are taken from Bengel's larger edition. Le Long, BMiolh. Sac, Part i, Ch. ii. Sec. i. §62. No. 7.— (I. B.I t The first of these was J. J. Wetstein, Bengel's great critical rival — the other an anonymous writer, probably John George Hager, si. a. of Leipsic, whose attack was in serted in " Early Gathered Fruits." — (I. B.) §" Crisis Mastrichtiana," so called from the editor, Gerard of the town of Maestricht on the Meuse. || The following remarks had occurred in a journal bearing that name : (No. 4 of the year 1738:) " If every bookmaker is to take into his head to treat the New Testament in this man. ner, we shall soon get a Greek text totally different from the received one. The auda. city is really too great for us not to notice it, especially as such vast importance, it seems, is attached to this edition. Scarcely n chapter of it has not something either omitted, of inserted, or altered, or transposed. The audacity is unprecedented " — (I. B.) XVJ THE AUTHORS PREFACE. syllable of the Sacred Text.* This is the desired proof of admitted truth. Part of my Defence is reprinted in the present work, at the commencement of my notes on the Apocalypse. Most learned men shun the spirit, and, consequently, do not treat even thef letter rightly. Hence it arises, that up to the present time, •the most confused and contradictory opinions prevail as to the mode of deciding between conflicting readings, and of combining such deci sion with the 'Received Text. One relies on the antiquity, another on the number of Manuscripts, nay, even to such an extent, as to exaggerate their number: one man adduces the Latin, another the Oriental Versions : one quotes the Greek Scholiasts, another the more ancient Fathers : one so far relies upon the context, (which is truly the surest evidence,) that he adopts universally the easier and fuller reading : another expunges, if so inclined, whatever has been once omitted by a single Ethiopic— I will not say translator, but — copyist : one is always eager to condemn the more received: reading, another defends it in every instance. Not every one who owns a harp can play upon it.% We are convinced, after long and careful consi deration, that every various reading may be distinguished and clas sified, by due attention to the following admonitions :§ 1. By far the greatest part of the Sacred Text (thank God) labors under no important variety of reading. 2. This part contains the whole scheme of salvation, fully estab lished. 3. Every various reading may and ought to be referred to thes'e por tions as a standard ; and judged by them. 4. The Text and Various Readings of the New Testament are found in Manuscripts, and in Books printed from Manuscripts, whether Greek, Latin, Grseco-Latin (concerning which I have expressed the •With some exceptions, in the Apocalypse, the received text of which is more cor rupt than that of any other book, he had not admitted into the text a single syllable, which had not been already given in some printed edition. This is accounted for, and explained afterwards. Sec Section X. of this preface. — (I. B.) t'fhe famous Michaelis seems to have perceived the force of this remark ; for he says, (in his Einleitung or Introduction to the N. T.t vol. i. p. 731,) " In fact, he whose desire to find the genuine reading is a matter of conscience will be more zealous in gathering the means of'judging, and will use them more impartially and successfully, and, as it were, more spiritually, than lie who criticises the New Testament merely as a profession, or to gain a critic's reputation, or to fill his learned leisure agreeably," &.c. Yet the next page seems to shew that he did not ascribe any critical value to the spiritual insight, in the thsological sense. For he remarks that Bengel supposed "the true reading to be sometimes distinguishable from all human additions, by a sort of inward grace or taste. But I do not know where God has promised any such critical grace, and I fear that they who follow it will find it speaking differently to different persons." It would certainly he [jreat and dangerous folly to suppose that all varieties of reading are most justly es timated by a spiritual taste. But there seems to be no need of discussing the question whether, in thuse passages which are considered to be corrupt, and which seem to re quire the aid of critical conjecture, the judgment of a man who hates spiritual things, and grasps at those which are common, should outweigh that of one imbued with the spirit of the very writings in question. But Bengel is so cautious (see admonition 6 below,) as to repudiate all mere conjectural emendations. ( E. B.) X This proverb is of very ancient date. It is quoted by Varro, who died b. c. 28. See his treatise de Re Ruslica, lib. II, cap. 1. — (I. B.) § Steudel remarks, in his edition of the Gnomon, that he preserves these admonitions, with the following discussions of Wetstcin's critical views (§ix. x.) so as not to deprive the unlearned reader of this furetaste of sacred criticism. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. XVH same opinion in my Apparatus Criticus,* pp. 387, 642, Second Edition, pp. 20, 319, 320, as Ludolf Kuster has of the Boernerian,f the most important of them, in his preface to the New Testament), Syriac, etc., Latinizing Greek, or other languages; in the direct quotations of Irenoeus, etc.; according as Divine Providence dispenses its bounty to each generation. We include all these under the title of Codices, sometimes used comprehensively. 5. These codices, however, have been diffused through Churches of all ages and countries, and approach so near to the original auto graphs, that, taken together, in all the multitude of their varieties, they exhibit the genuine text. 6. No conjecture is ever to be regarded. It is safer to bracket any portion of the text, which may seem inexplicable. 7. The whole body of codices form the standard by which each separately is to be judged. 8. Greek manuscripts so ancient as to date before the varieties of reading themselves are very few : the rest are very numerous. 9. Although versions and fathers are of little weight where they differ from the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament ; yet where the Greek Manuscripts vary, those have the greatest authority, with which versions and fathers agree. 10. The text of the Latin Vulgate, J where supported by the con sent of the Latin Fathers, or even of other competent witnesses, de serves the utmost consideration, on account of its high antiquity ; in which it stands alone. 11. The Number of witnesses, who support each reading of every passage, ought to be carefully examined : and to that end, in so doing, we should separate those Codices which contain only the Gospels, from those which contain the Acts and the Epistles, with or without the Apocalypse, or those which contain that book alone ; those which are entire, from those which have been mutilated ; those which have been collated for the edition of Stephens from those which have been col lated for the Complutensian, or the Elzevir, or any obscure edition ; those which are known to have been carefully collated, as, for in stance, the Alexandrine, from those which are not known to have been carefully collated, or which are known to have been carelessly collated, as for instance the Vatican manuscript, which, otherwise, would scarcely have an equal. [This Codex, B. of the New Testa ment, has no equal. It has recently been published in Rome, Lon- *" Britain is their native oountry," p. 20. t The Boernerian Manuscript derives its name from Dr. Christian Frederic Boer- nek, to whom it one" belonged ; it is now deposited in the royal library at Dresden. It contains St. Paul's Epislles, with the exception of that to the Hebrews, and is written in Greek and Latin; the L.itin, or old Italic version being interlined between the Greek, and written over the text, of which it is a translation. Both versions seem to be written by the same hand ; and must be referred to the eighth or ninth century, A. D. The text of this MS., was published by Matthaei at Meissen in Saxony, in 1791, and reprinted at the same place in 1818 4to. It is referred to by Tischendorff as tG. of Paul's Epistles.— (I. B.) IThe Lntin Vulgate was corrected with the help of ancient Greek MSS , then in exis. tence, by Jerome, in the fourth century, from a version known as the Itala, or old Italic supposed to have been executed in the second oentury. — (I. B.) 3 jrviii THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. don, and New York, 1859, and its readings are as accurately known as those of any other manuscript.] 12. And so, in fine, more witnesses are to be preferred to fewer ; and, which is more important, witnesses which differ in country, age, and language, to those which are closely connected with each other ; and, most important of all, ancient witnesses to modern ones. For, since the original autographs (which were in Greek) can alone claim to be the Fountain-head, the highest value belongs to those streams which are least removed from it ; that is, to the most ancient codices, in Greek, Latin, &c. 13. A reading which does not allure by too great facility, but shines by its native dignity, is always to be preferred to that which may fairly be supposed to owe its origin to either the carelessness or the injudicious care of copyists. 14. Thus, a corrupted text is often betrayed by alliteration, paral lelism, a modification for the beginning or end of a church lesson. The recurrence ©f the same words suggests an omission; too great facility, a gloss. Where various readings are many, the middle read ing is the best. 15. There are, therefore, ./roe principal means of judging the Text The Antiquity of witnesses, the Diversity of their extraction, and their. Multitude ; the Origin of the corrupt reading, and the Native appear ance of the genuine. 16. Where these concur, none can doubt but a sceptic. 17. When, however, it happens that some of these favor one read ing, and some another, the critic may be drawn now in this, now in that direction ; or, even should he decide, others may be slow to agree with him. When one man has a keener eye than another, either in body or mind, discussion is vain. One man can force no view on another, nor take the views of another from him, unless, indeed, the original autograph Scriptures some day come to light. 18. It is not the best criticism, which sums up the subject thus — "Erasmus, the Stephenses, and almost all the .printers, have printed it thus: thus, therefore, to a jot, it must remain, even to the end of time. Ancient records as far as they support this reading, are to be admitted; as far as they call it in question, with whatever unanimity, they ought to be rejected." We must speak the truth : this is sum mary criticism, worthy of boys. It encourages an obstinate and credulous attachment to the more received text, and makes men per versely jealous of ancient documents. They who declare that without such support the safety of those passages which are free from varied readings, and consequently of Scripture and religion itself, would be endangered, are themselves dangerous thinkers, and know not the power of faith. We have recorded in our Apparatus (p. 401 ; i. e., Ed. ii., p. 35, Obs. xix.) the most just judgment of Calovius,* far * Abraham Calovius, a celebrated Lutheran divine, one of the ablest opponents of the Socinians, who died at Wiltemberg in 1686. He says: "In assertingthe integrity of the modern Greek text of the New Testament, I do not mean the text as given by this or tltat modern editor; but the whole body of codices, including manuscripts and printed editions." THEAUTHORSPREFACE. xix removed from the typographical superstition of some at the present day. Even before the invention of printing, Scripture was entire; nor has the Divine providence, which watches over Holy Scripture, bound itself down to the typography of the sixteenth century, the era within whose limits the text defended by these zealots was wholly collected. 19. We maintain, however, the purity and integrity of nearly the whole of the printed text, not because it has gained authority by usage, but because it excels in meeting the tests which we have here laid down ; and at this we rejoice. 20. The text of the Greek New Testament which was printed by Froben* and after Luther's death by the Stephenses and Elzevirs, differs frequently from Luther's version ; as may be seen by referring to the table of passages from the New Testament, added to the Hebrew, Greek, and German Bibles, published at Ziillichau. Yet we may embrace the genuine text with delight, wherever it agrees with that of Luther! We ought, indeed, laying aside all party feel ing, to seek for an entire and unadulterated text; which many, how ever, disgraceful though it be, care for less than a patched glove. 21. It would be highly desirable to produce an edition of the Greek Testament, in which the text itself should in every instance clearly exhibit the genuine reading, and leave not a single passage in dispute. Our age, however, cannot attain this; and the more nearly any one of us has approached to primitive genuineness, the less does he obtain the assent of the multitude. 22. I have determined, therefore, in the meanwhile, ( until a fuller measure of light be vouchsafed to the Church,) to construct as gen uine a text as possible, by a judicious selection from approved editions. In the Apocalypse alone [see Section x.] I have introduced some readings here and there from manuscripts, and I have frequently stated the reason. 23. Some very few passages, however, of the "Received Text," I have separated by brackets from the rest of the text, as either doubt ful or corrupt ; and thus they are marked as such in the text itself, without any injury to truth. 24. Except these passages which, for a while, as it were, are set apart, even the unlearned may rely firmly, and for his salvation, upon the whole of the rest of the text. 25. On the other hand, some most precious readings, drawn out from their previous obscurity, are recognized as genuine, to the increase of truth. 26. Readings, which are genuine, or as probable as the Received Text, but are not found in it, should not be introduced immediately into the text itself, but indicated in the margin, especially if they are not supported by many codices. 27. This method of indicating readings may be accurately employed, if the various marginal readings be divided into classes. For every * Froben was a famous German printer. He was a great friend of Erasmus, and printed his works, as also some of the fathers, Jerome, Augustin, etc. — (I. B.) XX THE AUTHORS PREFACE. various reading, sosfar as can be determined at any particular time, must be either equal, superior, or inferior to other readings, and thia again, with either a greater or less amount of marked difference. All readings, therefore, firm, plausible, or doubtful, — whether" placed in the text or the margin, — may be classed in five grades, though just as the magnitudes of the stars, or the degrees of cold, they are,, strictly speaking, innumerable. I have therefore denoted those degrees by the Greek letters, a, /9, y, d, e. No one, I conceive, can be so hostile or so devoted to the more received text, as to object to these admonitions. Some of them are more fully explained hereafter, with the addition of examples, in various parts of the epistle to the Romans, that of James, and the Apocalypse. I do not, however, advance anything new. I long ago entertained and expressed the same views. Theophilus a Veritate* says that the warnings which the learned have found it necessary to give against my edition of the New Testament, are well knoivn. — ( See his Beleuchtung, p. 27.) I suppose he means those learned men, to whom I replied in my Second Defence. I wish, therefore, that he would weigh it carefully, and also examine my edition with regard to those charges which he brings against me in p. 58, and at the end of p. 64. Pie will, then discard the exception, which he employed in declaring his candor towards me. I do not think that I need or ought to defend myself laboriously for the future, lest I should seem to prize inadequately the support of those men, distinguished by their piety, zeal, orthodoxy, and literary eminence, who defend me by their well-known judgments and vindications, and repel and vanquish those who are otherwise disposed, whilst I remain quiescent. And now I will rather proceed to show the real value of those guides whom most men follow. IX. In the year 1711, there appeared at Amsterdam, together with the Greek New Testament,! the Crisis of Gerard von Maestricht, in which he undertook to decide every various reading by Forty-three Critical Canons. This Crisis received the highest tributes of praise from the learned, not only in Germany, as from J. G. Baier, in his Dissertation on the Use and Abuse of the Various Readings of the New Testament, ( p. 18, etc.,) but also in other countries, as from the Englishman, Anthony Blackwall, in his " Sacred Classics Defended and Illustrated," — (pp. 6, 17, etc.) I have shown, however, in my Apparatus, (pp. 440, 441, 442. Ed. ii., pp. 76, 77, 78,) that the Crisis, taken as a whole, is far removed from the truth ; and when, in the year 1735,_that same Crisis reappeared at Amsterdam with a few alterations, I instituted a second examination of it in my former Defence, already mentioned. (Sections xxvi., xxx., xxxiii., xxxvii.) It is right that they who place reliance on the Crisis, should examine * Count Zinxcndorf had made a translation of the New Testament, and had issued printed specimens of it, in which he acknowledges thai he had availed himself of Ben- gel's revised Greek text as his principal standard for the work. This acknowledgment provoked a great outcry against the Count's new version, especially through a publication entitled Theophili a Veritate, or Biblical Scandal, given by Zinzcndorf.— ( I. B.) tThis was an edition of the New Testament in Greek and Latin, with various reading! and parallel references It follows the text of the Elzevir editions. tub author's preface. xxi my Apparatus and Defence. In that Defence, published in Latin, I added these words : " We shall at a future time examine those forty- three famous Canons of Gerard von Maestricht, singly, in order, becomingly, and truly." I now almost repent of my promise, and would gladly be spared the trouble of such an examination at the present day, as I know that there are some who will like this work of mine the more, the less that it contains of the Crisis. But since many are still caught by those Canons, and I cannot expect a more suitable place for discussing them than the present, I will do so at once, quoting the Canons themselves in full. [Bengel here proceeds to review these Critical Canons severally. As his remarks, though acute and generally sound, are chiefly directed against the edition of Maestricht, now forgotten, and against principles of criticism now generally abandoned, they are omitted. He sums up the discussion as follows :] Nothing ought to be more severely examined than Rules; for all other things depend upon them. This Crisis, then, which we have been examining, (1) rests upon an utterly false enumeration of Manu scripts; (2) passes by most important witnesses to the genuine Text; (3) applies its Canons to passages where they are not applicable, and neglects to apply them where they are of the most value, etc. I do not wish to injure the reputation of a distinguished man : his Crisis is, however, "an unsatisfactory defence of the more received text, where sound, and a vast hindrance to its purification, where corrupt." Oh that they who follow this Crisis like an unreasoning herd, would at length awake to use their own eyes ! They who treat all critical labors with contempt, provided it is not from contempt -of the Divine Word itself, are far more endurable than those who esteem them highly, yet both practice them improperly, and keep other men in error, or lead them into error. Here also "overweening confidence is the chief defence and reinforcement of a bad cause." Daniel Whitby * also has laid down certain Rules in his examina tion of the Various Readings of Mill (Preface, fol. 8), quoted by J. G. Carpsov\ in his preface to the critical commentary of Rumpaeus.J As far as these rules treat of the value of ancient authorities, they are excellent : but the author does not always decide rightly in the case of particular passages. He frequently blames Mill with justice, but often falls himself into the opposite extreme. From not observing this distinction, many who admire Whitby make a bad use of him. To use him rightly you should always hear the other side, i. e. Mill. * Daniel Whitby, o. o., was born a. n. 1638, at Rushden or Rusden, in Northampton- shire; admitted at Trinity College, Oxford, 1653, elected Scholar 1655, a.nd Fellow 1664. He became Prebendary of Salisbury in 1688, and Precentor in 1672. He obtained also the Rectory oi'St. Edmund's Church, Salisbury. He died 1726. He was a man of great learning and untiring industry. In his last days he became an Arian. He wrote numerous works, among others " A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament," in the first volume of which is to be found his discussion of Mill's various readings to the New Testament.— (I. B.) t John Gi.ttlob Curpzuv (known also as J. G. Carpzovius), was born at Dresden 1679 and died 1767— (I. B.) tRumpacus, and Hoffman, and Pritz, who are mentioned in this paragraph, were learned divines of the Lutheran Church. xxii THE AUTHOR S PREFACE. We have made some remarks also on Whitby in our Apparatus, pp 443, 787, 788, (Ed. ii., pp. 79, 498, 499,) and in our Second Defence. Very lately, Charles Gottlob Hoffman has published eight Canons of considerable merit, on Pritz's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, cap. 29. The substance of these Canons, as well as that of others by different authors, is contained in the admonitions which we have given in Section VIII. X. All good men will, I trust, acknowledge the principles of my re vision to be unassailable. And though, in some of the most difficult passages, different conclusions may be drawn from those principles, yet in the case of by far the greater number of various readings, they make the decision easy and certain. For although I have reserved to myself the liberty of changing my opinion, it has seldom been ne cessary. Some such instances will be easily found in this Gnomon by those who think it their interest to find them. Most of the Bea dings, however, which we approved formerly, we still maintain. The Text of my Revision, as I must again and again assert in opposition to un founded suspicions, adheres, without the change of a single letter, in the Apocalypse to the most and best Manuscripts, in the other Books to the best printed editions. But the Exegesis, which is the subject at present principally under consideration, is properly based upon the genuine Reading, as far as it can be ascertained up to the present time, whether I have placed that Reading in the Text or the Margin : which was what I undertook to show in Sections VIII. and IX. On the other hand, a true Exegesis will show, that the compilation of an edition of the Greek New Testament, with a text correctly revised, is not a work of mere curiosity. XI. There is great advantage in distinguishing, without dividing, the text into greater and smaller sections, as has been especially no ticed by Anthony Blackwall and his laborious editor, Christopher Wollius. (See his Sacred Classics, Vol. II. Part ii., chap, i.) With that view, I have, in my edition, distinctly marked the beginnings of the greater Sections, whilst leaving the Sections themselves continu ous, and unbroken. I have revised with great care th'e full stops, colons, commas, accents, and breathings, (concerning which see some very essential remarks in the notes to Rev. i. 5,) according to the meaning of the words themselves. Many editors promise these things, few perform them. Hence it arises, I suppose, that no credit is now given even to one, who aflirms it with truth. He who has fairly ob served, in the daily use of my edition, the greater and lesser divisions, (examples of which are to be found in the sixth section of the Preface to my small edition of the Greek New Testament), will perceive that this statement has not been made without reason, and will, I trust, derive thence no little advantage. We scarcely ever give a new punctuation in the present work : sometimes, however, we have done so, and drawn attention to the fact, as in the remarkable passage Rom. viii. 31. XII. For properly commenting on the New Testament, especial attention to the style of its authors is requisite. Certainly the wis dom of God employs a style worthy of God, even when through His THE AITHOR'S PREFACE. XXlii instruments He accommo lates Himself to our grossness. And that which is worthy of God, it is not our part arrogantly to define, but humbly to believe. (Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, and xiv. 21.) The holy men of God, both in the Old and New Testaments, exhibit, not only an exact knowledge of the Truth, but also a systematic arrangement of their subject, a precise expression of their meaning, and a genuine strength of feeling. Beyond these three characteristics nothing need be desired. The result of these was, that the writers of the New Testament, however unlearned, wrote always in a style becoming their subject, and, raised far above the technical rules of Greek Rhe toricians, produced an eloquence truly natural, and that without effort. We shall describe these characteristics one by one, shewing at the same time what has been observed concerning them in the present work. XIII. The arrangement of subjects in each book, is exhibited in a Table, in which an outline is given, not merely to assist the reader's memory, but also to show the plan of the sacred writer as accurately as possible. Any one, by impressing those tables upon his mind, will perceive their utility. No one would have wished for an argument of each chapter at its commencement. The division of the New Tes tament into chapters now in use, was made in the dark ages, after the selection of portions for ecclesiastical readings, which frequently therefore run on from chapter to chapter. That division frequently divides what is closely connected, and joins things really distinct. The heads of the subjects therefore, are more rightly to be sought for in the tables, which do not preserve that division. Where the divisions given in the tables are rather large, subdivisions, but not too minute, are supplied in the notes. The tables at once utterly confute the ig norance, in some cases impious, of those who maintain that the Apos tles poured forth without plan whatever occurred to their minds. In the Works of God, even to the smallest plant, there is the most entire symmetry : in the Words of God there is the most finished harmony, even to a letter. XIV. It is the especial office of every interpretation to exhibit adequately the force and significance of the words which the text contains, so as to express every thing which the author intended, and to introduce nothing which he did not intend. The merits of a good style are two, depth and ease. They are seldom combined in human iiujthors : and as each man writes, so do others seem to him to write. He who himself weighs every word, will find in the work of another a meaning unknown even to the author; he who writes with less precision himself, interprets the words of others too vaguely. In the Divine Scriptures, however, the greatest depth is combined with the greatest ease ; we should take care, therefore, in interpreting them, not to force their meaning to our own standard ; nor, because the sacred writers shew no marks of laborious care, to treat their words as if employed without due consideration. The Divine language very far surpasses all human elegances of courtly style. God, not as man, but as God, utters words worthy of himself. Lofty are His thoughts : hence words of inexhaustible force. His Xxiv THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. interpreters, too, though not taught by men, use the most exact lan guage. The expression of their words corresponds exactly with the impression of the things in their minds ; and it is so far from being beneath the comprehension of those who hear it, that they seldom attain, rather, to its entire meaning. The Apostles frequently deduce conclusions, more weighty than the world itself, from an epithet, from a grammatical agreement, or even an adverb, as we have shown in our Apparatus, Part I., Section I. Chrysostom interprets with em phatic precision the particle xae. and, in the writings of Paul, and he, as well as other fathers, renders many things in a similar manner. It is right to follow these traces. In this spirit Luther says, The science of theology is nothing else but Grammar, applied to the words of the Holy Spirit ; a sentiment which has often been repeated by other theologians. This observation implies the study of emphatic language, in which the original signification of the words is sometimes intensi fied, sometimes modified. The Greek vernacular had many modes of emphasis which are not found in the German ; [and other modern languages ;] as, for example, the use or omission of the personal pro nouns, seldom omitted by us, frequently by the ' Greeks ; middle verbs, too, which are unknown in German or Latin ; and verbs simple or compound, such as yivcu'.y in Luke iii. 1. Also that John wrote before the destruc tion of Jerusalem, from John v. 2, where he speaks as if the city still stood. Harm. p. 37. But the order in which the Gospels were written remains very uncertain. Many still hold Bengel's view as above ; Meyer aud De Wette place Luke before Mark. With good reason, Alford supposes the first three Gospels to have been written independently,:. no one writer using another, but all resting on a common basis of Apostolic oral teaching.] Matthew wrote especially to show the fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures, and to convince the Jews. Mark produced an abridgement of Matthew, adding many remarkable * It is a priceless gift of God, that the deeds and words of the Saviour, while on earth, were recorded by chosen men, and that then Gospel or testimony is still preserved.* The Evangelists, from the earliest days of Christianity, were reckoned to be four; very many pseudo-evangelists, whose writings were not in consonance with the pure faith, having been rejected. An Evangb:list, if you desire an exact definition, is a holy manot Gon, who publicly, and with an irrefr gablo testimony, sets forth to men a history of Jesua Christ, either by word of mouth or in writing Harm. Ev.. Ed. ii., p. 34, etc. (44) INTRODUCTIONS MATTHEW. 45 things omitted by him, and paying particular attention to the noviciate of the apostles. Luke composed a narrative distinctly historical, chiefly upon the office of Christ. John refuted the impugners of his divinity. All recorded as such by these Four, were truly the deeds and words of Jesus Christ. But each drew from a common treasury those particulars, of which he had the fullest knowledge, which cor responded to his own spiritual character, and which were best suited to the time when he wrote, and to the persons whom he primarily addressed. Chrysostom, at the commencement of his second homily on the Epistle to the Romans, says, — " Moses has nowhere given his name to his books. Nor has Matthew, John, Luke, nor Mark. Why so f They wrote for those who were with them and knew them ; who did not need to have them pointed out." The term Gospel means : (1.) The Good News itself concerning Jesus Christ, which Jesus Christ himself, and His forerunner, His apostles, and the other witnesses, brought first to the Jews, then to the whole human race. (2.) The whole office and system of proclaim ing that News, either by preaching or writing : in which sense, for example, Paul speaks of "my Gospel," in 2 Timothy ii. 8. Hence the word is ¦ easily transferred to the writings in which the Gospel narrative is recorded. If you wish, in Greek, to name at once the four books, which Tertullian styles the Gospel Document, you ought in strictness to make use of the singular number, and say, the Gos pel according to the four Evangelists, not in the plural, the Gospels etc., except perhaps for the sake of brevity. For there is a single design in all ; though treated in one manner according to Matthew, that is, as to Matthew's part, by Mattheio, as Matthew treated it ; in another manner according to Mark ; etc. (Comp. the use of xavd, over against, Acts xxvii. 7, at the end. Nevertheless, as in Genesis, the first word which occurs is Bereshith, which afterwards became the title of the book in Hebrew ; so the first word written by Matthew was the Book, (Gr. /9//3^oc) ; by Mark the Beginning (Gr. dp%y) and so on. The appellation Gospel however, is given to the book itself by the most ancient fathers. By the same authorities, Matthew is said to have written his Gospel in Hebrew. Why may he not have written the same work in Greek as well as in Hebrew, with the same contents, even though he did not, strictly speaking, translate it from the one language into the other ? Comp. Jeremiah li. 63, xxxvi. 28. [It is now generally held by orthodox commentators that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew ; and his book was afterwards rewritten by himself in Greek, or else translated under apostolic authority. The former is Olshausen's view, the latter Meyer's.] SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK. The a. b. c. d. ( I The Nativity, and the following events. The Genealogy: The Birth: The Magi: - The Flight and Return. II. Our Lord's Entrance on His Ministry. a. John the Baptist: - b. The Baptism of Jesus : c. His Temptation and Victory. III. The deeds and words, by which Jesus proved that he was Christ. At Capernaum : - 1. His Preaching, - 2. The call of Peter and Andrew, James and John, - - - - 3. His Preaching and Healing, the gath ering of Multitudes, 4. The Sermon on the Mount, 5. The Leper, ... 6. The Centurion and his servant, - 7. Peter's mother-in-law, - i 8. Many sick persons. - b. | The voyage across the sea ; two men taught I concerning following Christ; command ] exercised over the wind and the sea: - (^Devils migrating from men into swine. - Ch. in. iv. 1-17 18-25 1-12 13-23 1-12 13-17 1-11 12-16 17 18-22 23-25 .—vii. viii. 1-4 5-13 14,1516,17 18-2728-34 c. (40) 'Again at Capernaum, 1. The Paralytic, 2. The call of Matthew, Intercourse with Sinners defended, ... 3. Fasting,. - 4. The girl dead, and, after healing of one with an issue of blood, restored to life, 5. The Two Blind Men, - 6. The Demoniac, - 7. Our Lord goes through the cities and villages, and commands prayer for la borers, - - ... 8. He sends and instructs laborers, and preaches Himself: - ix. 1-8 9, 10-13 14-17 18-26 27-31 32-34 x. xi. 35-38 1-42 ] SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK 47 d. 9. 10. 11. 12.13.14. 15. 16. 17. At At 1. 9. John's message: - Our Lord praises John, denounces woe against the refractory cities, in vites those that labor: The ears of corn rubbed : The withered hand healed : The Pharisees lay snares: Jesus de parts: The Demoniac is healed: the people are amazed : the Pharisees blaspheme : Jesus refutes them, - He rebukes those who demand a sign, He declares who are His, He teaches by Parables, Nazareth, - other places, Herod, after the murder of John, hear ing of Jesus, is perplexed : Jesus de parts, and is sought by the people, fie heals ; and feeds five thousand : - The sea voyage, and cures in the land of Gennesareth, - Unwashen hands; - The woman of Canaan; - Many sick healed; - Four thousand fed ; - In the coasts of Majrdala, those who demand a sign are refuted ; The warning concerning leaven. Ch. xi. 2-6 xii. 7-30 1-8 9-13 14-21 22-37 38-45 46-50 1-52 53-58 1-13 14-21 22-36 1-20 21-28 29-31 32-38 39-xvi. 4 5-12 Xlll. XIV. IV. Our Lord's Predictions of His Passion and Re surrection. a. The First Prediction. '1. The preparation by confirming the fundamental doctrine, that Jesus is the Christ: - 2. The Prediction itself delivered; and the interference of Peter rejected. The Second Prediction. C\. The Transfiguration on the Mount; silence enjoined; .... xvii 2. The Lunatic healed; - 3. The Prediction itself; 4. The Tribute-Money paid ; - 5. Who is the greatest? - - -xviii. 6. The duty of forgiving injuries. - c. The Third Prediction. '1. The Departure from Galilee; - xix. 1, 2 2. The question concerning Divorce; - 3-12 3. Kindness to little children, - - 13-15 \ 13-30 21-28 1-13 14-21 22, 23 24-27 1-20 21-35 48 SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK, Ch. xix. 16-22 S XX. XXI, 23-26 27-30 1-16 17-19 20-28 1-11 12-17 18-22 c. 4. The Rich Man turning back ; And thereupon discourses, On the Salvation of the Rich, - On the Rewards of following Christ. t On the Last and the First. - 5. The Prediction itself; 6. The request of the sons of Zebedee; humility enjoined. - - - - V. '7. The two Blind Men cured. V. The Events at Jerusalem immediately before the Passion. Sunday: 1. The Regal Entry, - . - 2. The Cleansing of the Temple; - Mondav: The Fig-tree. Tuesday. Occurrences — 'A. In the Temple: 1. The Interference of the Chief Priests, i. Repulsed, a. By a Question on John's Bap tism, - b. By Parables : (i) The Two Sons, (2) The Vineyard, ii. They proceed to lay snares for Him. 2. The Parable of the Marriage Feast: xxii. .3. The Questions of Adversaries — i. Concerning Tribute, - - - ii. the Resurrection, - iii. the Great Commandment : 4. Our Saviour's question in return concerning David's Lord, - His warning concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, ... xxiii. His denunciation against them, And against the city itself: — B. Without the Temple. Discourse on the Destruction of the Temple and the World. - - xxiv. xxv. VI. The Passion and Resurrection. A. The Passion, Death, and Burial. a. Wednesday. a. Our Lord's Prediction, - - xxvi. 6. The Deliberation of the Chief Priests, - c. The agreement of Judas, offended at the anointing of our Lord, to be tray Him. - 23-2728-32 33-44 45-46 1-14 15-2223-33 34-40 41-46 1-12 13-36 37-39 1,2 3-5 6-16 SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK. 49 Thursday a. By Day ; The Passover prepared. b. At Evening. 1. The Betrayal indicated, - 2. The Lord's Supper. By Night, Ch. xxvi. c. 1. 2. 3. B. The offence of Peter und the Disciples foretold; - The Agony in Gethsemane; - Jesus is taken, forbids the em ployment of the sword, rebukes the crowd, is deserted by His Disciples: - - - 4. Is led to Caiaphas: false wit nesses are unsuccessful: con fesses Himself to be the Son of God: is condemned to die: is mocked. - 5. Peter denies ; and weeps. c. Friday. a. The Passion consummated. In the Morning. 1. Jesus is delivered to Pilate. 2. The death of Judas. The kingdom of Jesus: His silence. - Pilate, warned in vain by his wife, releases Barabbas, and delivers Jesus to be crucified. - Jesus is mocked and led forth. : The Third Hour. The Vinegar and Gall : the Cross : the Garments divided: the In scription on the Cross: the two Thieves: Blasphemies. m. From the Sixth to the Ninth hour: Darkness: Desertion. The Death. - - The Vail Rent, and the great Earthquake. - The Centurion wonders: the Wo men behold. - The Burial. .... d.~ Saturday. The Sepulchre guarded, - The Resurrection: a. Announced to the Women. 1. By an Angel, - 2. By the Lord Himself, Denied by His Enemies, Manifested to His Disciples 3. 4. 5. 17-1920-25 26-29 30-35 36-46 47-56 57-d869-75 xxvii. 1, 2 3-10 11-14 15-26 27-32 XXVlll, b. c. 33-44 45-49 50 51-53 54-5657-61 62-66 .1-8 9,10 11-1516-20 50 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. CHAPTER I. The Book of the Generation— A phrase employed in the Septu agint, Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1. [Comp. Gen. vi. 9, xi. 10. The phrase originally meant table of genealogy ; but as history among the Hebrews grew out of genealogical records, it came to mean the history itself, Gen. xxv. 19, xxxvii. 2.] For those books of the New Testament which were written earliest most abound with Hebraisms: and Divine Wisdom provided that a language eminently fitted to express the , teachings of the New Testament, should be prepared by the Greek version of the Old. This title, however, the genealogy, strictly refers to what immediately follows (as appears from the remainder of the first verse), though its force extends also to the whole book, which is designed to lead men to recognize in Jesus the Christ, the Son of David, etc., [in whom, as being the promised Messiah, the prophecies of the Old Testament are accomplished. Hence the evangelist fre- qmntly repeats the formula, "That it might be fulfilled." — V. G.] Ver. 20, ch. ix. 27, etc. For Scripture is wont to combine with genealogies the reasons for introducing them. See Gen. v. 1 and vi. 9. Of Jesus Christ — The compound appellation, Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, and more simply Christ, [the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Mashiah or Messiah, anointed,] (the official for the per sonal name,) grew into use after the coming of the Comforter. The four Gospels, therefore, use it only at the beginning or end, the other writings everywhere. [Our Lord calls himself Jesus Christ, John xvii. 3.] — See Notes on Rom. iii. 24 and Gal. ii. 16. Comp. ver. 16 be low. The Son of David, the Son of Abraham — Our Lord is called Son of David and Son of Abraham, because He was promised to both. Abraham was the first man, David the last, to whom that promise was made; whence He is called the Son of David, as though David had been His immediate father. Both of these patriarchs received the announcement with faith and joy. John viii. 56 ; Matt. xxii. 43. Each man in this list knew of those who preceded, but not of those who followed him. Oh, with what delight would they have read this intro duction of Matthew, in which we take so little interest ! An allusion is here made by anticipation to the three Fourteens (verse 17th), of which the first is distinguished by the name of Abraham, the second by that of David, whilst the third, commencing, not like the others with a proper name, but with the Babylonian Captivity, is crowned with the M A T T H E W 1 . 5 . 51 name of Jesus Christ Himself: for the first and the second Fourteen have a promise, the third, its fulfilment. The narration, however, in the first verse goes backward from Christ to David, from David to Abraham. / And so much the more conveniently is Abraham put here in the second place, because he is mentioned immediately again in the following verse. Mark, however, in the opening of his Gospel, calls Jesus Son, not of David, but of GOD, because he begins with the baptism of John, by whom our Lord was pointed out as the Son of God. Thus each of these evangelists indicates the scope of his work in the title. The former part of this verse contains the sum of the New Testament — the latter part, the recapitulation of the Old. 2. Abraham — Matthew descends in his enumeration, though in ver. 1, he also ascended ; and begins not from Adam, but from Abraham ; without however excluding the Gentiles (Comp. ch. xxviii. 19), for in Abraham all nations are blessed. And his brethren — Their brethren, though they had them, are not named with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but only with Judah. The promises belonged to the family of Israel. 3. And Zara — a twin-brother. Of Thamar — Matthew mentions in this list such women as were connected with the race of Abraham [and the ancestry of Jesus] by any peculiar circumstance. Thamar was to be the wife of Shelah (Gen. xxxviii. 11, 26), and Judah became by her the father of Pharez and Zara : Rahab, though a Canaanitess, became the wife of Salmon : Ruth was a Moabitess, yet Boaz mar ried her. Uriah's wife became David's. 4. Naasson — Contemporary with Moses. The silence regarding Moses observed throughout this series is remarkable. 5. Boaz of Rahab — Some think the immediate ancestors of Boaz are omitted here ; but it stands thus also in Ruth iv. 21 : nor can the first Fourteen, the standard of the others, admit of an hiatus. Others more correctly account for such a length of time, by supposing the pa rents very old at their children's birth. The definite article, prefixed in the Greek to the name of Rahab, shows that Rahab of Jericho is meant ; nor does the spelling interfere with this view, for both Raab or Rahab (Greek lPo.a$, as the Sept. in Josh. vi. 24, etc.) and Rahab (Gr. Pa%dj3 as here,) are written for the Hebrew Rahab. Rahab was young when she hid the spies (Josh. vi. 23) : but outlived Joshua and the elders (Ibid. xxiv. 29, 30) ; and her marriage with Salmon must have taken place still later, as it is not mentioned in that book, though it is recorded that she dwelt in Israel (Josh. vi. 25). In Ruth i. 1, the earliest times of the Judges seem to be meant, so that the verb ruled, which might otherwise be supposed redundant, may have an inceptive 62 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. force, as in like manner fmmalak, he reigned, often signifies he began to reign [as 2 Sam. xv. 10, xvi. 8,] : and Naomi must have gone into Moab, before the Moabite domination mentioned in Judges iii. 12, etc. Thus Rahab could be, as she actually was, the mother of Boaz. He married Ruth when far advanced in life (Ruth iii. 10) ; and their grandson, Jesse, when very old (see 1 Sam. xvii. 12, 14), became the father of David. Compare on Jehoiada, .2 Chron. xxiv. 15. 6. But David the King — The title the King has been omitted here by some early editors; [Tisch. omits it; the authorities are almost equally balanced ;] but David's royalty is twice mentioned here, as is the Babylonian captivity afterwards. The same title is implied after the names of Solomon and his successors, as far as ver. 11. David is, however, called especially the King, not only because he is the first king in this series, but also because his throne is given to Mes siah. See Luke i. 32. 7. Begat — Bad men, even though useless to themselves while living, do not exist in vain ; since through them even the elect arc born. 8. But Joram begat Ozias — Ahaziah (who is the same as the Joahaz of 2 Chron. xxi. 17, and xxii. 1), Jaash, and Amaziah (1 Chron. iii. 11, 12), are here passed over : so that the word begat must be under stood mediately, like the word son, in the first verse. So too six generations are left out in Ezra vii. 3, between Azariah and Meraiotu. Comp. 1 Chron. vi. 7, 8, 9. Matthew omitted these three, not be cause he was ignorant of them, since the whole context proves the contrary, but because they were well known to all : nor did he do it fraudulently, since, by increasing the number of generations, he would have strengthened the proof that the Messiah must already have ap peared. Nor did he omit them on account of their, impiety, for he has mentioned other impious men, as Jechonias, whom indeed he no tices particularly, and he has passed over pious men. But, as hi de scribing roads and ways, especial care is needed where forks occur, whereas a straight road may be found of itself, so does Matthev/ in this genealogy point out particularly those who had brothers, and who, in preference to them, became ancestors of Messiah. He has carried this so far that, having reason not to name Jehoiakim, he as signs his brothers to his only son [see 1 Chron. iii. 15, 16. Comp. Jer. xxii. 30] ; whilst he passes quietly over Joash, who was the only link of his race, together with his father and son. Furthermore, as in geography the distances of places are, without any violence to truth, described sometimes by longer, sometimes by shorter stages, bo with the steps of generations in a genealogy ; among the Hebrew, MATTHEW I. 11. 53 as well as others. The language of the New Testament usually ra ther implies than asserts matters already well known from the Old Testament, and not liable to be mistaken, with a brevity suited to its earnest spirit, (see Acts vii. 16,) as well as desirable on other grounds. [Some suppose that these three kings were omitted, because descended from the heathen Athaliah ; by marrying whom Jehoram corrupted his race to the third and fourth generation. Ebrard.] Oziah was previously called Azariah, but by the omission of one Hebrew letter h, R) his name becomes Oziah. 11. But Josias begat Jechonias — Many transcribers ancient and modern, principally Greeks, have inserted Jehoiachim here, both be cause the Old Testament had it, and because the number of fourteen generations, from David to the Babylonian captivity, given by Matthew, seemed to require it. Jehoiachim however must not be inserted: for history would not suffer Jehoiachim who had brothers to be named without them, and brothers to be thus given to Jechonias, who had none. Some have sought for Jehoiachim in Matthew's first mention of Jechonias ; Jerome especially, in answering Porphyry's objections to this verse on the ground of the hiatus. No transforma tion, however, will make Jechonias and Jehoiachim one and the same name: nor can we any more suppose that Jehoiachim and Jechonias are intended by naming Jehoiachim twice, than that two Isaacs are intended by repeating Isaac's name ; and so with the other names. The same Jechonias is twice introduced under his own name: he was descended from Josiah through Jehoiachim, whose name is omitted. Matthew calls Jechoniah's uncles his brothers (Comp. Gen. xiii. 8), and taat with great felicity ; for Zedekiah succeeded Jechoniah on the throne after the commencement of the captivity, to the exclusion of the son of Jechoniah, who, though his nephew, was born eight years before him. The brothers, therefore, of Jehoiachim are appro priately mentioned after Jechoniah as his brothers. The chief of these was Zedekiah, who is expressly called the brother in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, and 2 Kings xxiv. 17, instead of the uncle of Jechoniah. About the time of the migration — The preposition im, at or about, which is contrasted with psxa, after, in the twelfth verse, is also employed sometimes to indicate that one event occurred about the time of another. (See Note on Mark ii. 26. So a is prefixed, Gen. x. 25.) The birth of Jechoniah was speedily followed by the captivity ; — • which is called by the Sept. both dnotxeala, emigration, and ysToexeaia removal ; the former with reference to Palestine, the latter to Babylon. BafiuXcovos, literally, the migration of Babylon — i. e. to Babylon. In like manner uthe way of Egypt" in Jer. ii. 18, signifies the way into 54 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Egypt. [Greatness, power, and human wisdom appear among the ancestors of the Son of God; bwt he will not enter the family till all those are first gone out. Q.] 12. After — after he had migrated to Babylon. But Salathiel begat Zorobabel — Pedaiah intervening. Luke (iii. 27) mentions another Sala thiel and Zorobabel, father and son, who must have lived about the same time with these. 13. Begat Abiud— This is the same as Hodaiah, who also was de scended from Zorobabel, through several intervening ancestors; (1 Chron. iii. 19, 24), as Hiller shows that the Jews supposed the genealogy in this passage to be that of Messiah: nor indeed was there need of bringing down any other genealogy than his. There can therefore be no doubt that the passage in question was particu larly well known to the Jews; and there was thus the less need that Matthew should repeat it at length. In this generation then the scripture of the Old Testament ends. The remainder was sup plied by Matthew from trustworthy documents of a later date, and no doubt Of a public character. 16. The husband of Mary — This turn of the genealogical line is pe culiar ; and here several remarks are necessary. I. Messias or Christ is the Son of David. This is admitted by all. — Matt. xxii. 42. Acts ii. 30. II. In their genealogies both Matthew and Luke teach that Jesufis the Christ. This is clear from Matt. i. 16, and Luke iii. 22. III. When Matthew and Luke wrote, the descent of Jesus from David had been placed beyond doubt. Matthew and Luke wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem, when the genealogy of the house of David could be copied entire from the public records; and adversaries never objected, when Jesds was so fre quently hailed as the Son of David. IV. The genealogy in Matthew from Abraham, and that in Luke from the creation to Joseph the husband of Mary, is deduced, not through mothers but fathers, and those natural fathers. This is evident in the case of all those ancestors whose names Matthew and Luke repeat from the Old Testament. Thus it is not said whether Ruth had been the wife of Mahlon or Chilion ; but Obed is simply said to be the son of Boaz by Ruth [though his legal father was Mahlon. — See Ruth iv. 10, etc.] From Abraham to David the same ancestors are evidently mentioned by both Matthew and Luke ; bo that there can be no doubt but that both Evangelists intend, not mothers, but fathers, and those actual fathers, from David to Joseph. MATTHEW I. 16. 55 Thus, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, whenever the mother of a king is mentioned alone, it is a sign that he whom her son is said to have immediately succeeded was his natural father. V. The genealogy in Matthew from Solomon, and that in Luke from Nathan, are brought down to Joseph, not by the same, but ly different ways. This is clear from the preceding section. VI. Jesus Christ was the Son of Mary, but not of her husband Joseph. This is evident from Matt. i. 16. VII. It was necessary that the genealogy of Mary should be drawn out. Without the genealogy of Mary, the descent of Jesus from David could not be proved, as follows from what has just been said. VIII. Joseph was for some time reputed to be the father of the Lord Jesus. The mystery of the Redeemer's birth from a virgin was not made known at once, but by degrees ; and, in the meanwhile, the honorable title of marriage was required as a protection. Jesus, therefore, was believed to be the Son of Joseph : for instance, after His baptism by Philip (John i. 45) ; in the time of His public preaching, by the Na- zarenes (Luke iv. 22 ; Matt. xiii. 55), and only a year before His Passion by the Jews (John vi. 42). Many still clung to this opinion even after our Lord's Ascension, and up to the time, a few years later, when Matthew wrote. IX. It was therefore necessary, meanwhile, that the genealogy of Joseph also should be given. It was necessary that all those who believed Jesus to be the Son of Joseph should be convinced that Joseph was descended from David. Otherwise they could not have acknowledged Jesus as the Son of David, nor consequently as Christ. When therefore the angel first appeared to Joseph, and commanded him to take unto him his wife, he called him (ver. 20) the son of David: because the Son of Mary would for a time bear that name as if derived from Joseph. In like manner, not only was Jesus in truth the first-born (Luke ii. 7, 23) of His mother, but it was proper that he should be reputed to be the first-born of Joseph : those, therefore, who are called the brethren of Jesus, were His first cousins, not His half-brothers. It is needless to attempt, with some, to prove the consanguinity of Joseph and Mary from their marriage : for even if David be their nearest common an cestor, Matthew's object is attained. Matthew therefore furnishes Joseph's genealogy, but still so as to do no violence to truth. For 56 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. he does not say that Jesus is the Son of Joseph, but he does say that He was the Son of Mary ; and in this very sixteenth verse he inti mates that this genealogy of Joseph, which had its use for a time, would afterwards become obsolete. Mary's descent from David was equally well known at that time, as appears from Luke. X. Either Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary, and Luke that of Joseph ; or Matthew that of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. This clearly follows from the preceding sections. XI. The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph ; in Luke, that of Mary. Matthew traces the line of descent from Abraham to Jacob : he expressly states that Jacob begat Joseph, and expressly calls Joseph the husband of Mary. Joseph therefore is here regarded as the de scendant of those who are enumerated, not on Mary's account, but on his own. Matthew, indeed, expressly declares that Jacob was the father, not of Mary, but of Mary's husband, Joseph ; but Luke less explicitly simply places Heli (Luke iii. 23) after Joseph. Since then Joseph is described in Matthew as actually the son of Jacob, Luke cannot mean to represent him as actually the son of Heli. We must therefore conclude that he is Heli's son by a rela tionship, not direct, but through another, and that other his wife. Mary then is the daughter of Heli. The Jewish writers mention a certain Mary, daughter of Heli, whom they describe as suffering ex treme torments in the lower world. (See Lightfoot on Luke iii. 23.) Luke does not however name Mary in the genealogy ; for it would have sounded ill, especially to Jewish ears, had he written "Jesus was the son of Mary, of Heli, of Matthat," etc. Hence he names the husband of Mary, yet so that all may understand, from the whole of his first and second chapters, that Joseph's name stands for Mary's. XII. That in Luke is the primary, that in Matthew the secondary genealogy. When genealogy is traced through female as well as male ancestors, descent may be deduced in many ways from one root ; whereas a pedigree, traced simply from father to son, must consist of a single line. In the genealogy however of Jesus Christ, Mary, his mother, is reckoned with his male ancestors, by a claim of incomparable pre cedence. In ordinary tables of descent, the male line is always pre ferred to the female. Mary however enters this genealogy with a peculiar and unrivaled claim, above that of any father in the whole human race ; for whatever Jesus derived by descent from man — from Abraham, or David — that He derived entirely from His mother. This MATTHEWI.16. 57 is the One Seed of Woman without man. Other children owe their being partly to the father, partly to the mother. The genealogy of Mary, therefore, which is given in Luke, is the primary one. Nor can that of Joseph, in Matthew, be considered otherwise than secondary, and merely employed for the time, until all should be fully convinced that Jesus was the Son of Mary, but not of Joseph. Matthew mentions Jechoniah, although he is passed by in the pri mary genealogy. — ( Jer. xxii. 30 ; Comp. Luke i. 32, 33.) XIII. Whatever difficulty yet remains in the whole matter, so far from weakening, should rather confirm our faith. The house of David had, in the time of Jesus of Nazareth, dwindled down to so small a number (see Rev. xxii. 16), that on this ground also the appellation Son of David was used as a proper name for The Messiah. And that family consisted so exclusively of Jesus and His relatives, that any one who knew Him to belong to it could not fail, even without the light of faith, to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, since the time for His coming had arrived, and no other member of the family could rival the claim of Jesus. Our Lord's descent, therefore, from David, as well as His birth at Bethlehem, were less publicly known ; nay, rather He was in some degree veiled, as it were, by the name Nazarene, that faith might keep its price. — John vii. 27, 41, 42. And men, having been first induced on other grounds to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, concluded, on the same grounds, that He must be the Son of David. — Matt. xii. 23. The neces sary public documents, too, were in existence ; hence the chief priests, though opposing Jesus in every way, never called in question His descent. Nay, even the Romans received much information on His descent from David. Luke ii. 4. Of old the facility with which his descent could be traced showed Jesus to be the Son of David ; now the very difficulty of so doing, since Jerusalem and its public records were destroyed, affords a proof, against the Jews at least, that the Messiah must have come. Should they acknowledge any other as the Messiah, they must ascertain his descent from David just as we do that of Jesus of Nazareth. The relations of this question have greatly changed, with the increase of light. Formerly Jesus was called The Son of David, by the multitude (ch. xii. 23. xxi. 9), by children (xxi. 15), by the blind men (ix. 27, xx. 30), by the woman of Canaan (xv. 22): but He never declared, to His disciples that lie was the Son of David, and they, in confessing him, called Him not The Son of David, but The Son of God. He invited also those who called Him the Son of David, to advance further. — Matt. xxii. 42, 43, ix. 28. At first our Lord's descent from David was rather a ground 8 58 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. of faith, afterwards it became rather an object of faith. No difficulty can now hinder the believing.— See 2 Cor. v. 16. Jesus is the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. [Rev. xxii. 16.] XIV. Matthew and Luke comhine further advantages with, the gene alogy itself. If the Evangelists had merely wished to show that Mary and Joseph were descended from David, it would have been sufficient, taking the genealogies in the Old Testament for granted, to commence where these ' end, namely, with Zorobabel, or certainly with David himself, and trace the line through Nathan or Solomon .to Jesus Christ. Matthew, however, begins further back, namely, with Abra ham, and descends through David and Solomon. Luke ascends to Nathan and David, and thence beyond Abraham to the beginning of the human race. Each of them, therefore, must have had at the same time some further object. Luke, as is evident at first sight, makes a full recapitulation and summary of the lineage of the human race, and exhibits with that lineage the Saviour's consanguinity to all, even Gentiles. Matthew, writing for Hebrews, begins with Abraham, thus reminding them of the promise. Again, Luke simply enumerates the whole series, through more than seventy names : whereas Matthew, besides several remarkable observations which he adds in particular cases concerning their wives and brothers, and the Babylonian Captivity, divides the whole series into three periods ; and, as we shall presently consider, , enumerates in each of these periods fourteen generations!, Hence also we perceive the convenience of the descent in Matthew and the ascent in Luke : for thus the former conveniently introduced his observations and divisions ; the latter, to avoid the stricter word begat, and take advantage of the formula, as was supposed, and in an exqui site manner to end the whole series in God. Matthew deals with the Jew, who is to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ, by such means as His genealogy. And he often expresses and proves what the other Evangelists assume. The force of the name Christ recalls espe cially the promise to David concerning Messiah's Kingdom : and the force of the name Jesus recalls especially the promise to Abraham concerning the Blessing.* * Christ — the Greek XpurrSj, or Messiah — the Hebrew rWD means Anointed, i. c, King. Jesus is the proper name of our Lord; Christ is a surname, implying his office. The ancients were expecting the Christ, before the birth of Jesus : when Jesus had been bom, it was proved that he was the Christ; and when that proof subsequently became widely known, the appellation Jems Christ became the prevalent one. — V. G. MATTHEW I. U. 59 [We retain the above argument entire, because it gives Bengel's 'mature view, is in itself as plausible as any other attempt to explain these lists, and even where it is unsatisfactory often contains valuable suggestions. Olshausen and Ebrard also maintain that the genealogy given by Luke is that of Mary, but Alford, Meyer and others more correctly reject this as an unfair wresting of Luke's words. Alford, on Luke iii. 23, well says that every attempt to reconcile the two genealogies has violated either ingenuousness or common sense; not because they are contradictory, but because the means of explaining them are lost. Luke may, like Matthew, have omitted many ; the same man often bore two or more names ; the children of a levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 5. Matt. xxii. 24) might be accounted to either husband. "With all these elements of confusion, it is quite as presumptuous to pronounce the genealogies discrepant, as it is over curious and uncritical to attempt to reconcile them," p. 427.] 17. So all the generations, etc. — An important summing up, the force of which we exhibit by the following positions : I. Matthew introduced this clause4or an important purpose. The Messiah was descended from David through Nathan : but Matthew descends from David through Solomon to Joseph. Those- therefore who already knew that Jesus was not the Son of Joseph, paid little heed to Joseph's genealogy; Matthew, therefore, for the benefit of all who either believed that Jesus was the Son of Mary, but not of Joseph, or thought that He was the Son of Joseph also, so sets it forth as to lead both classes to Christ, the Son of David. II. Matthew makes three fourteens. We exhibit them in the fol lowing table: 1. Abraham. David. Jechoniah. 2. Isaac. Solomon. Salathiel. 3. Jacob. Rehoboam. Zorobabel. 4. Judah. Abia. Abiud. 5. Pharez. Asa. Eliakim. 6. Hezrom. Jehoshaphat. Azor. 7. Aram. Jehoram. Sadoc. 8. Aminadab. Ahaziah. Achim. 9. Naasson. Jotham. Eliud. 10. Salmon. Ahaz. Eleazar. 11. Boaz. Hezekiah. Matthan. 12. Obed. Manasseh. Jacob. 13. Jesse. Amon. Joseph. 14. David. Josiah. Jesus, who is called Chris' 60 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. III. Matthew, therefore, lays down three periods. Luke enumerates every step, ascending even to God. Yet so far from counting the steps in each period, he does not make periods at all : Matthew, however, distinguishes three periods,— from Abraham ' to David, from David to the captivity, from the captivity to Christ ; and in each, as we shall presently see, there are fourteen steps. IV. Matthew reduces each period to fourteen generations. Matthew does not mention all the ancestors, and yet he reduces those whom he does mention to a set number. Some seek here a division into sevens; but the Evangelist does not mention sevens, but fourteens. Again, he does not collect these fourteens into a sum, for he does not say, that they amount in all to 40, 41, or 42: nor is it our business to do so. In the reigns of the kings of Israel, one and the same year is often reckoned both as the last year of one king, and as the first. year of his successor. Now it seems beyond question that Matthew has acted on the same principle. Thus David is both the last of the first fourteen, and the "first of the second fourteen. He is reckoned in the first; for it would otherwise comprise only thirteen generations. He is reckoned in the second, because as the first be gins with Abraham and includes him, and the third with Jechoniah and includes him, so must the second begin with David and include him. Jechoniah however is not reckoned in the same manner as the last of the second fourteen, because fourteen generations are reckoned from David, not to Jechoniah, but to the Babylonian captivity. Vallesius (p. 454) thinks Jechoniah, as it were, a twofold person ; but this might more properly be said of David. V. In each case, his object was to prove that Jesus was truly called, and was, the Christ. He proceeds in a marked manner from the name Jesus to the sur name Christ, in verses 16, 17, 18; and he marks the dissimilarity in the character of the periods, and the equality in the number of the generations. That dissimilarity and that equality both severally and together relate to the one great theme of Jesus the Christ, as we shall immediately perceive. VI. The three periods are dissimilar to each other. If Matthew had merely intended to compose a genealogy, he might have omitted this summing up entirely, or at least have confined him self to the mention of proper names, and said, "From Abraham to David," "from David to Jechoniah," "from Jechoniah to Jesus." Instead of so doing, however, after the other matters preceding, he says, "to the Captivity;" and again, "Fr.rm the Captivity to Christ." MATTHEW I. 17 61 The end, limit or station of the first period therefore is David, of the second the Captivity, of the third Christ. The first period is one of Patriarchs; the second, of Kings; the third, for the most part, of private men. VII. This dissimilarity strikingly proves that Jesus is the Christ. The different heads under which Matthew reduces the three periods, show that the^time at which Jesus was born was the time for Christ's coming, and that Jesus Himself was the Christ. The first and the second fourteen have an illustrious commencement ; the third has one, as it were, blind and nameless. Thus not only are we led to expect as the end and goal of the third and of all the periods, the name of Christ, but when it does appear, it shines in unrivaled splendor. The first period is that of promise, for the first in it is Abraham, and the last David, to each of whom the promise was given ; the second is that of foreshadowing by means of David's kingdom, and the fact that it embraced fewer years than the first or third furnishes ground for expecting that the kingdom of David in Christ will be far more glo rious and more lasting. Luke i. 32. The third period is that of wait ing. The chief persons in the first period are the first and the last, Abraham and David. The chief person in the second period is the same David, who is first. The first in the third period is the chained Jechoniah, named 1 Chron. iii. 17, to whom no heir of his throne was promised; nay, further, against whom [under his other name Coniah,] as against his uncle and father, all other woes were denounced (Jer. xxii. 11, 18, 24), so that, though certainly not without offspring, ye,t; as a warning to posterity, he was called "inj,» childless, Jer. xxii. 28, 30, that is without an heir to his throne ; and with reference to these three kings the earth was invoked thrice, " 0 earth, earth, earth," (Ibid. ver. 29). Hence in stating the boundary between the second and third fourteens, Matthew does not name Jechoniah ; but mentions in stead the Babylonish Captivity. Jeremiah strongly confirms this view ; for in the time of Moses, midway between Abraham and David, a covenant was made with the people of Israel, which was abrogated about the time of the captivity of Jechoniah. Deut. xxix. 1 ; Jer. xxxi. 31 ; Heb. viii. 8, 13. In the times of Abraham and David, Christ was promised ; after David's time, his kingdom which was overthrown at the Captivity lasted a still shorter time. Then a new covenant was promised, whose surety was Christ. The condition of the people after the Captivity therefore was that in which the Christ must come. In the Psalms, and other prophecies given during the time of the Kings, the future is usually compared with the present; but after 62 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. the Babylonish Captivity, it is contrasted with it, and the future ia viewed as ever drawing nearer. VIII. Matthew makes the three periods equal with each other. This is evident from his repeating the number fourteen three times. See Section IV. IX. He makes up both the third and second Fourteens by omitting several ancestors : in the first, however, he omits none. In the second period, after Jehoram, he passes over Ahaziah, Jo- ash, and Amaziah, and, after Josiah, Jehoiakim : in the third period, after Salathiel, he omits Pedaiah. Nor, indeed, was Zorobabel [i. e. Zerubbabel] the immediate father of Abiud ; for his sons are Meshul- lam, Hananiah, 1 Chron. iii. 19, each of which names differs from Abiud. Hiller enumerates nine links omitted after Zorobabel, and shows that Hodaiah and Abiud are the same. The descendants of David from Solomon to Hodaiah are enumerated in 1 Chron. iii. 5, 10-24. Now, since neither the second nor the third Fourteen con sists in itself of fourteen generations, the first must necessarily have that number: otherwise the number Fourteen, by which the three periods are made parallel would be without foundation, and the fifteen, or some greater number, must take its place. Fourteen gene rations are clearly enumerated in the Old Testament from Abraham to David. 1 Chron. i. 34, ii. 1, 4-15. Whence Rabbi Bechai says that King David was the fourteenth from Abraham, according to the number of the letters of the name David ill, which makes four teen.* The earlier the period, the later in life men became fathers. Hence the first Fourteen stands on its own foundation, the second is produced by a less, the third by a greater omission. And though some generations which are known from the Old Testament, are in Matthew left to be understood, yet none is omitted in the New Testa ment after those which can be supplied from the Old : and in the Oil Testament, none is omitted. The first Fourteen, therefore, is so in fact, the second and third are so in form. X. The number of generations which Matthew omits, accords with the numbers which both he and Luke mention. Between Jehoram and Abiud, Matthew omits in all fourteen gene rations, see Sect. IX. ; and though he only mentions three Fourteens, to correspond with the three periods, he nevertheless implies four. In this way Matthew has by implication, from Abraham to the birth of Christ, fifty-five generations. Luke expressly enumerates fifty-six * For, in the Hebrew reckoning, -\ = 4, i = 6, i = 4 : therefore i -|- i + -| = M- 'There were two Rabbis of the name of Bechai ; one flourished about 1100, the other i>bout I2t)0; both were natives of Spain. — I. B.) MATTHEW I. 17. 63 generations to the time when Jesus was thirty years of age. Thus they agree. XI. The true equality of the periods of fourteen does not consist in containing the same number of generations. The Talmudists are fond of reducing different things to systems of parallel numbers. Lightfoot has collected examples of this in illus tration of the present passage, and they afford a satisfactory reply to Jews, who sneer at the Fourteens of Matthew. He defends however somewhat too slackly the actual truth of the Fourteens. James Rhen- ford adduces a fact more to the purpose, viz., that the fifteen genera tions before Solomon, and the fifteen after him, were associated by the Jews with the days of the waxing a;id waning moon. But this explanation too is somewhat weak. Matthew is not here furnishing an artificial or masoretic * aid to the memory, or anything else of the kindl For what great purpose could it serve to retain in the memory the names and number of these ancestors, in preference to the rest, or by a new method never before employed in the many genealogies and other important chapters of the Old Testament, to impress them more fully on the minds of the Jews, who already remembered them well enough ? But if he had wished to secure the integrity of this enumeration by a kind of Masora, it would have been better to make one sum of all the generations. In the last place, it would have ill suited the grave character of an apostle and evangelist, first to name generations at his own pleasure, and then admire the equality of his Fourteens. The number Fourteen is not mentioned for its own sake, but for the sake of something else : it is not an end, but a means to obtain an end of greater importance. XII. The Equality here intended is Chronological. The apostles, looking back from the New to the Old Testament, have great regard to the fullness of time; and the Jews are wont to describe the chief divisions of chronology by numbers of generations, as, for example, in Seder Olam.f Matthew therefore skillfully fur nishes the reader with a Chronology under the form of a Genealogy, combining both in this summary. The particle so (Gr. ow, therefore) has an inferential, and the article the (Gr. at) a relative force, indi cating that those very generations are intended, which have been enumerated in the preceding verses. Each clause moreover of this * Masora means tradition. The Masoretes continued the lubors of the Talmudists, whom they imitated in counting the words and letters of the Old Testament, finding ima ginary mysteries in the very letters as well as words of Scripture ; stating also such minute particulars as which was the central word and letter of the whole, etc., etc. They flourished from the 6th to the 11th century. A. R. F. t A chronological work of high reputation amongst the Jews. 64 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. verse has the word generations, both in the subject and predicate. In the subject it corresponds with the Hebrew mSn, [generations] as in Genesis xxv. 12 ; but in the predicate it corresponds with the He brew in, [a generation, i. e. an age] and has a chronological force, as is evident from the addition of the numeral fourteen; — Comp. Gen. xv. 16. Thus the same Greek word answers to two Hebrew words, by Antanaclasis; so that we may paraphrase the verse thus — All those genealogical generations, therefore, reduced for the sake of method to fourteen, are actually fourteen chronological generations, — from Abra ham to David, etc. Such being the case, we perceive a sufficient rea son why Matthew reduces to such numbers the genealogy, which would have been in itself much plainer without an enumeration thus constructed. Well does Chrysostom say, that Matthew enumerates generations, times, years, and lays them before the hearer to be stu died. See Chrys. Horn. iv. on Matthew. Let us however consider wherein the chronological equality consists. It does not con sist in the number Fourteen which is employed in all the three periods for the sake of method ; see Sect. XI. : nor in the years of generations in the Fourteens taken separately ; for in the first Four teen the generations are for the most part much longer than in the second and third : but it consists in the periods themselves. Consi der the following scheme : — YEAR OF THE WORLD 1946 Birth of Abraham. 2016 The Promise, I. 2121 Death of Abraham. 2852 Birth of David. 2882 David becomes King, II. 2923 Death of David. 3327 Birth of Jechoniah. 3345 Jechoniah Bound, III. 3939 Birth'of Christ. 3969 Baptism of Christ. Now, first, the sum of the years in each period of Fourteen, divided by fourteen, which is the number of generations, gives the mean length of a generation for that period : so that in the first period a generation contained sixty-two years, in the second thirty-three, and in the third forty-two. The mean length will be about forty-six years : this, how ever, I will not press. Secondly, take, which is more to the purpose, the nineteen hundred and twenty-three years from the promise given MATTHEW I. 17. (55 to Abraham till the birth of Christ, and divide them by three, which is the number of periods: the mean length of the periods will be less than that of the first, will exceed that of the second, but will agree admirably with that of the third. The third therefore stands as the primary period (to which the two others are subservient) between the excess of the first and the defect of the second which mutually com pensate each other. And the Evangelist has acted as geographers do, when in expressing the distance between two cities, they reckon the intermediate stations by adding to one stage the paces they take from another, and thus produce more conveniently the real total with out any violence to truth. In fact, the Evangelist has done that, which is usual in chronologies, the years being so reckoned in the tables that excesses or defect of months and days are absorbed and balance one another. In short, the years of the first and second period, taken together, are double those of the third period. On the same principle, Moses has reduced the times of Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses, which might have exhibited more or fewer genealogical genera tions in this or that family, to four chronological generations, or four centuries, by simply omitting those years in which Levi, Kohath, and Amram became parents. It is difficult to represent in words the de sign of Moses or Matthew; nor can an interpretation of such a matter appear, at first, other than crude and harsh ; but by frequent reflection, it will lose this character. XIII. The chronological equality of the three periods is a proof that Jesus is the Christ. There is always an analogy between periods of time, defined by Divine Wisdom ; and these three most important periods correspond remarkably with each other. From the Captivity to Christ, are Fourteen generations, says Matthew; just as Gabriel, in announcing to Daniel the Seventy Weeks, reckoned from the commandment to build the city unto Messiah the Prince. — Dan. ix. 25. And Matthew had that method of reckoning in his mind. The Captivity, the reve lation which was given to Daniel, the Return, the actual commence ment of the Seventy Weeks, are separated by short but remarkable intervals. From that point downwards, the Seventy Weeks, through out their long course, accompany this, the last period of Fourteen, until Christ completes both, the Fourteen generations before the Seventy Weeks. The Seventy Weeks consist of less than 560 years, as I have shown in the Ordo Temporum, and comprise about twelve generations, each (as observed in Section IX.) of about forty-six years. Christ was to come within the Seventy Weeks; the expectation 66 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. of Israel, therefore, could not be delayed for more than fourteen gen erations after the Captivity. XIV. The dissimilarity of the three periods and the equality of the Fourteens, taken together, afford cumulative proof of this important conclusion. If any one will compare together and combine what we have said in the Seventh and Thirteenth Sections, he will perceive that these two arguments reciprocally strengthen each other. The first and second periods were far more glorious than the third, which could not therefore fail to have the conclusion most desired, after so long a ces sation of both the Promise and the Kingdom. [The views above expressed were attacked by S. I. Baumgarten, in a "Treatise on Christ's Genealogy," Halle, 1749, and were elaborately dt-fended by Bengel in the second edition. The controversy adds no strength to arguments already adduced in favor of Bengel's views. Baumgarten well objects to his scheme that it is purely arbitrary, and does great violence to the obvious meaning of the text. Yet he sug gests no better view. Instead, therefore, of reproducing this obsolete discussion, we collect, in the following remarks, the results of the best modern criticism on this difficult passage. 1. Bengel's arrangement of the periods of fourteen, by repeating David's name, etc. is almost certainly that intended by the Evan gelist. (So Alfi, De W., Fritzsche, Delitzsch, and many others.) 2. The correspondence between the three periods of fourteen is in the number of generations alone, and not in duration. (De W.) But the omission of several names shows that the number fourteen is not to be pressed as important; (Ols. and others;) and it is now impossible to determine whether it is mentioned simply as an aid to the memory, (Michaelis, Eichhorn, and many,) or to suggest a development of God's purposes by measured periods (Olsl) or for some unknown reason. The word all, (Gr. naaai) at the beginning of the 17th verse, probably refers only to the first period, as some names are omitted from the other. (See Mey.) 3. The origin of this list is unknown ; but it may have come from the family of Joseph. The preservation of such a record through so many ages is unparalleled in any other nation, and is due to the constant expectation of Messiah in David's house. (Ols.) This, with the paramount character of the family institution among the Jews, made them the most careful genealogists ever known. ^ 4. This genealogy is that of Joseph; the reputed but not the real father of Jesus. Hence it seems to have been designed chiefly as an MATTHEW I. 18. 67 answer to Jews, who might deny that Jesus was of David's house ; and who would of course recognize no claim derived through a female. But that Jesus was himself, that is through his mother Mary, de scended from David, is plain from other passages. Rom. i. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Heb. vii. 14; John vii. 41 ; Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16. (See Mey.) 5. All difficulties remaining in this passage may be solved by any one of many suppositions, between which, however, we have no suffi cient means of deciding. Alf. See note on v. 16 above.] 18. Now the birth of Christ — [not of Jesus Christ, for the word Jesus is properly rejected by Bengel. So Tisch.] By this most ancient read ing the text refers to ver. 17, and the advent of Messiah, the expec tation of so many generations, is distinctly affirmed. So too the word birth [Gr. yevtotz, the true reading; Tisch. not ykvvqatz, genera- Hon, with Beng. and Rec. T.] refers to the words was born in v. 16, as is shewn by the particle now (de). In like manner, the name Jesus is repeated in ch. ii. 1, from ch. i. 25. In later ages, most of the Greek copyists added Jesus before Christ, so that the expres sion might refer to either the first or sixteenth verse. This injures its force. It was the Christ whom Mary had in her womb by the Holy Ghost, and whom Joseph, afterwards, by command of the angel, called Jesus. Elegantly, and in accordance with the order of events, the name Jesus is reserved till ver. 21, 25. Comp. note on Luke ii. 11. The word birth or origin, Gr. ysvsatc,, in this verse, includes both the conception and the nativity of Christ. For this verse intro duces the subject of the following passage, to chap. ii. " On this wise" or thus, Gr. ounot;, refers to all these eight verses. The particle for, Gr. rap, [omitted in the English version,] begins the treatment of the subject, uNow Christ's birth was as follows: for his mother Mary" etc. Comp. the use of for, yap, in Heb. ii. 8. The particle thus outwc cautions us not to suppose, on account of the preceding genealogy, that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus. For after his mother Mary had been betrothed — The Sept. renders the Hebrew tjnx, to betroth, by yvfjaTzuoyai in Deut. xx. 7, etc. Before they came together — Joseph had not yet even brought Mary home (see ver. 20) ; but here the consummation of the marriage is expressly, and therefore more cer tainly, denied in order to assert the miraculous conception. Nor - does the word before imply that they came together after our Lord's birth. [But the phrase '¦'•before they came together" rather means before he took her to his own house. De W., Alf. and many. Af ter betrothal the bride remained in her father's house, often a long time, until the bridegroom took her home. Deut. xx. 7. Alf] She was found with child of the Holy Ghost—No doubt Mary disclosed to 68 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Joseph the sacred pregnancy, which she had concealed from every one else. Of— The expression of the Holy Ghost (ix IJvEU'yaroc; lJyiou) occurs again at ver. 20. See also John iii. 6. 19. Just, — Gr. dixacoz. It is disputed in what sense this epithet is applied to Joseph. The thing is clear. Joseph wished to put away Mary, and that secretly. The Evangelist indicates the cause of both wishes. Why did he wish to do it secretly ? Because he was unwill ing to publish the matter, and exact the penalty which the law per mitted in the case of women guilty, or suspected, of adultery, and thus to make an example of one in whose piety everything else had led him to confide. But why did he wish to put her away at all? We learn from the context. Because he yr&sjust, and did not think it consistent with his character to retain as his wife one who appeared ; to have broken her conjugal faith. His thoughts were many and conflicting ; his mind was in doubt. This is well expressed by the ambiguous brevity of the passage ; for the participle not being willing, (Gr. prj &ehov) may mean either although he was unwilling, because he was unwilling, or since he did not wish. [Better the sense is, " al though a just man, i. e. a strict observer of the> law, yet was unwilling to disgrace her in public, and determined," etc. De W., Alf. See Mey.] Elsewhere just, dixacoz, sometimes means yielding and kind, as the Latin injustus, unjust or unrighteous, sometimes means severe. To make an example of. — Gr. napadeiypdriaai. The same word used by the Sept. in Numb. xxv. 4, Make an example of them to the Lord before the sun : said of persons executed by hanging. The simple form, deiyya- zl^eiu, to make a show of, occurs in Col. ii. 15 : for both dsTyya and Tuapddecypa [from which the verbs are respectively derived] denote that which is exhibited as a public spectacle. Privily — i. e. without a public trial, without even a record of the reason on the writing of divorcement. Two witnesses were sufficient. To put her away — Fearing to take her. 20. Behold — He was not left long in doubt. (At the proper time, God shews his own what to do. V. G.) In a dream — Dreams are men tioned also in Acts ii. 17, in a quotation from the Old Testament. With this exception, Matthew alone in the New Testament has re corded dreams; viz., one of Pilate's wife, ch. xxvii. 19; one of -the Magi, ch. ii. 12; others of Joseph, in this passage; and in ch. ii. 13, 19, and 22. This kind of guidance agreed with the methods of rev elation, in the first age of the New Testament. (Afterwards the oracles of Christ were uttered by men; then Christ in person revealed them. V. G.) To him— First Gabriel was sent to Mary, afterwards ; the remaining particulars were revealed to Joseph. Thus all was MATTHEW I. 21. 69 made sure to both. [The announcement was made to Mary openly, but to Joseph in a dream ; for in her case faith and concurrence were necessary; and the communication was of a higher kind. Gen. xx. 3. Alf. J Joseph — In visions, those to whom they come are generally addressed by name, as acquaintances. Acts ix. 4, 10, x. 3, 13. , To take unto thee — To the companionship of life and board, under the name of wedlock : hence the words thy wife are added. Mary — Gr. Mapiay.. This form was more usual in early times (from the example af the Hebrew and the Sept.) than the true Greek form Mapia, which toon however prevailed. Matthew therefore uses the former here, in the angel's address, for tbe name of our Lord's mother ; but the latter when speaking of her (ver. 16, 18) in his own person ; and when men^ tioning other women of the same name. And Luke doesjnostly the same. Miriam, according to Hiller, signifies Rebellion, that is of the Israelites in Egypt. Scripture teaches us to look to the etymplogy of the name, not of Mary, but of Jesus. That which — The child yet unborn, is usually spoken of in the neuter gender. — See Luke i. 35. Note. 21. Shall bring forth — Not to thee, as is said to Zacharias, Luke i. 13. Thou shalt call — The second person. Thus the office of a father is committed to Joseph. Matthew speaks most of Joseph ; afterwards when the truth was generally known the first place was given to Mary. (Comp. Luke i. 31.) Jesus — Gr. ' Iqoobv. Many names of Messiah were announced in the Old Testament; but the proper name Jesus was not expressly announced. The meaning and force of it are however proclaimed everywhere, namely. Salvation; and the name itself was divinely foretold in this passage before our Lord's birth, and in huzj i. 31, even before his conception. The namejnB" Jeshua, which oc curs in Neh. viii. 17, is the same as jnenrr Jehoshua, commonly called Joshua: both of which are rendered '/yaouz, Jesus, by the Sept. And so far, learned men have been right in declaring that the name Jesus contains the Tetragrammaton, or ineffable name of God. Hiller in terprets the name of Jesus thus, He who is is Salvation: yes, the angel interprets it ATT 01' 2' SI EI He shall save, where Abrbc, He corresponds with the Divine Name. — See note on Heb. i. 12. Nor does the name Jehoshua differ from the original Hoshea (Num. xiii. 16) in anything else, except the addition of the Divine Name, which , transforms the name from a prayer, Save, into an affirmation, Jehovah Salvation. And since the name Emmanuel mentions God most ex pressly together with Salvation, the name Jesus itself, the force of which, the Evangelist of the Old Testament, Isaiah (whose own name signifies the same thing) clearly indicates by the synonym Emmanuel, 70 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. must certainly be understood in the same way, for Emmanuel and i Jesus are exact synonyms.— See notes on vv. 22, 23. Nay, even if the ' in yvrv [ i. e. the prefix Je, in Jehoshua, which Bengel properly derives from Jah, or Jehovah,] be considered as merely the sign of the third person, still, as is frequently the case with Hebrew names, "God" must be understood, and here with especial force. He — Gr. auzbz, which in the nominative is always emphatic; here it is pecu liarly so. [He alone, Mey., Alf. J In the other cases it is frequently a mere relative. Shall save — As often, therefore, as we hear Christ re ferred to by such phrases as Saviour, to save, salvation, etc., we shall think we hear the name of Jesus. His people — Israel, and those who shall te added to them. [For the gathering in of the Gentiles was then a mystery even -to the angels, V. G.J His people — and God's. — ch. ii. 6. 22. All this was done — The same phrase occurs in ch. xxvi. 56. There are many particulars in which Matthew observes that the event announced by the angel corresponded exactly with the prediction of Isaiah. (1.) A virgin bearing a child; (2.) A male child (Comp. P>ev. xii. 5); (3.) The naming of the child; (4.) The interpretation of the name. That it might be fulfilled — So ch. ii. 15, 17, 23, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35, xxi. 4, xxvii. 9, 35. Prophecies relating to Jesus were fulfilled, not only in his own acts, some of which might seem to unbelievers to be open to suspicion, but in events which oc curred to him without his agency. Wherever this phrase occurs, that it might be fulfilled, we are bound to recognize the authority of the Evangelists, and (however dull our own perception may be) to believe that the event they mention does not merely chance to correspond with some ancient form of speech, but was one which had been pre dicted, and which the divine truth was pledged to bring to pass, at the commencement of the New Dispensation. [This phrase, that it might be fulfilled, passed into a common formula with the Evangelists, (esp. Matt.) implying that the prophecy and the event were in each case parts, closely linked together, of the great scheme in the divine mind, each of which implied the other. Mey., Ols.J The Evangelists however frequently quote prophecies, which must when first deliv ered have been interpreted of things then present, and that too ac cording to the Divine purpose. But the same Divine purpose looking ^ forward so framed the language of prophecy, that it should apply with still greater force to the times of the Messiah. And this hidden purpose (something of which, the learned observe, was perceived even by the Jews) the apostles and evangelists, themselves divinely taught, teach us: and the correspondence between the bredictions and the MATTHEW I. 23. 7] events should make us teachable. This is enough for the defence of the Evangelists, until any one is led to acknowledge their authority on other grounds. Their sincerity is clearly evidenced by the fact, that they have increased, as far as possible, the number of prophecies relating to the Messiah, and therefore the burden of proof (precious burden !) that Jesus is the Christ. The Jews on the other hand en deavor as eagerly to apply to something else everything which is said of Messiah, so that it is wonderful that they still believe that there is, or will be, a Messiah. By the prophet — Matthew quotes the prophets with especial frequency, to show the agreement between the prophecies and the events ; the other Evangelists rather presuppose that agreement. Saying — This word belongs to prophet ; ch. ii. 17. Isaiah is not mentioned by name. The ancients were studious read ers ; there was less need therefore to cite books and chapters. 23. Behold the virgin (fj napdevoz) shall conceive and bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. — The Sept. renders Isaiah vii. 14, thus — Behold the virgin shall conceive in her womb a Son, and thou shalt call, etc. Behold ! — a particle especially adapted for pointing out a Sign. Isa. vii. 14, The virgin — [In the Hebrew, the word is almahmhp which means young woman, being simply the feminine of elem nSy, a young man, and is wrongly translated virgin by the Sept. ; the Hebrew having the special word bethulah, n^ru, for virgin. Gesenius. Bengel's view, that almah properly means vir gin is now generally abandoned, Alf, Mey., and many.] The definite article the found in both the Hebrew and Greek ( concerning which comp. note on ch. xviii. 17) points out a particular individual as seen by the divine foreknowledge. For the prophet is speaking of a Sign, and introduces it by the word " Behold," and then immediately addresses the Virgin herself, with the words, Thou shalt call, etc. Isaiah indicates, in the first instance, some woman who though then a virgin, whose fertility was of course considered doubtful, was to be come mother of a son : she however, as the sublimity of the prophet's words clearly show, was a type of that Virgin, who still a virgin was to bear the Messiah ; so that the force of the Sign was twofold, ap plying to the near and to the remote. [This prophecy seems to be referred to in Isa. ix. 6 ; Micah v. 3. Alf. J The virginity of our Lord's Mother is not fully proved by the words of the prophet taken alone ; but the manifestation of its fulfillment casts a radiance back on the prophecy, and discloses its full meaning. A Son — the Messiah, to whom the land belongs. Isa. viii. 8. They shall call (Gr. xatioooai) Both the Hebrew and the Sept. have " Thou shalt call," i. e. " Thou Virgin-Mother" " Thou shalt call," occurs also in ver. 21, addressed 72 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. to Joseph : whence is now substituted " They shall call," i. e., all, thenceforth. The angel, says to Mary, in Luke i. 28, The Lord is with thee. Not one or the other of His parents however, but all who ' call upon His name say, "with us." Comp. Luke i. 54. These words deserve particular attention in which the writers of the New Testament differ from the Sept. or from the Hebrew. Name — This does not mean the name actually given at circumcision, but yet the the true name (Comp. Isa. ix. 6), the proper name by which he is called, even by his parents (Comp. Isa. viii. 8), and which is espe cially proper to Him, inasmuch as it is a synonym of Jesus. See an example of synonymous names in the note on ver. 8. Many of the faithful actually address the Saviour by the name of Emmanuel, as a proper name, though.it would have been less suitable in Jesus to call him self God with ms. Which is, being interpreted, God with us — This inter pretation of a Hebrew name shows that Matthew wrote in Greek. [But see note at the beginning of Mat. p. 45.] Such interpretations subjoined to Hebrew words show that the writers of the New Testament do not absolutely require that the reader of Holy Scripture should be ac quainted with Hebrew. The Son of Sirach also uses the same word interpret, pedepyeveuaat, in his preface. The name Emmanuel may be understood as an assertion, God is with us ; and then is not neces sarily a divine name. It was therefore given also to a boy who was born in the time of Isaiah ; and the same is the case with the name Jesus : but in the sense in which each of them applies exclusively to Christ, it signifies God-Man. [Yet Hengstenberg, in his Christology on this passage, ably argues that the prophecy had no reference to any contemporary virgin, but referred God's people forward to Messiah directly. But this view has obtained few adherents.] For the union ,. of the Divine and human natures in Christ is the foundation of the union of God with men, nor can the latter be supposed apart from the former, especially when treating of the birth of Christ. 24. Did — Withoutdelay. As — Hence the command of theangeland the conduct of Joseph are described in the same words in this passage, and in ch. ii. 13, 14, and 20, 21. Took unto him his wife — With the same appearance to those without, as though they lived together in the usual manner. 25. And — "and," not " but." He took her, and knew her not: both by the command of the angel. Knew her not until — It does not follow that he did so afterwards. It is sufficient however that her virginity be established up to the time of her delivery. As to the sequel the reader is left to form his own opinion. Joseph was not expressly forbidden to have conjugal intercourse with her : but he MATTHEW I. 26. 73 perceived such a command to be implied by the nature of the case. Until she brought forth the Son — Gr. rov ulbv. A very old Egyptian version has only these words, without the addition of her first-born : according to this reading, the address of the angel, the declaration of the prophet, and the conduct of Joseph, exactly correspond. She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. — She shall bring forth a Son and they shall call his name Jesus. — She brought forth the Son (tw ulbv ) and he called His name Jesus. The article the, Gr. rbv, has a relative value here, and refers to ver. 21, "until she brought forth the Son," i. e., the son before promised. The same reading is found in the Vatican manuscript, and was cer tainly that of the old Latin Version. For Helvidius, and Jerome in the commencement of his book against him, thus quote the words of Matthew — and he knew her not till she brought forth her Son; but more commonly they quote thus : until she brought forth a Son, with out either her or first-born ; nor can it be argued that they have in these instances abridged the text, since Jerome in one place thus quotes the passage in full : But on rising from sleep, he received his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth a Son; and he called his name Jesus. The words, " her first-born," appear to have been introduced into Matthew from Luke ; and the very idea of the Son of a Virgin, implies that he must have been pre-eminently the first-born. [ The oldest and best authorities give the reading "until she brought forth a ton," srsxsv uf.dv, which Tisch. adopts. The phrase first-born son, so familiar in this connection, was naturally introduced by copyists.] In some passages my criticism is different from that which I once gave. Yet no one can fairly accuse me of inconsistency; for I do not betake myself to those views which have gained acceptance by long usage (though I do not reject these if sustained by truth) ; but I am gradually advancing in the work of drawing forth those things which have been buried. Hz called — that is, Joseph, ver. 21. 10 74 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. CHAPTER II. In Bethlehem of Judaea. Thus distinguished from Bethlehem of Zebulon. Josh. xix. 15. Of Herod — The Great, a native of Ascalon, a foreigner, for the sceptre was already departing from Judah. Among his sons were Archelaus, ver. 22, the Herods Antipas and Philip, Matt. xiv. and Luke xxiii., and Aristobulus, father of Herod Agrippa, Acts xii.* Behold — This particle frequently points to a thing unexpected. The arrival of the Magi at Jerusalem had not been announced. [Magi from the East, i. e., Eastern Magi; not came from the East, as the order of the Greek shows. DeW., etc.] Wise men — Or Magi. Mdyoz occurs frequently in the Septuagint version of Daniel for Heb. Assaph f\wa Magician, and signifies with the Persians wise man or philosopher [by profession.] Matthew considers it suffi cient to denote them by their rank ; he omits details as to their dignity and number, nor tells us whether they had ever practised curious arts, nor from what part of the East they came, thus implying that salva tion is not restricted. Magus is an equivocal word, which may mean * The following genealogy of the Herodian Family, extracted from Lewin's Life of St. Paul, will be useful to the student : — ' THE FAMILY OF HF.EODS. Antipater m. Cyprus, d. B. C. 43. Phasael. II IS ROD 1 H E G K B AT. Joseph. Pheroras. Salome. d. B. C 4. Married. ter &of°f *ABTei ^T'08 "erod; 2. Antipas. P d. A. D. 44. | ' / A. ]_ Aristobulus, Bernicius, Hyrcanus. Drusius, AGUIPPA II. n,.,.,i,.o ™ . • -\ ..young, kingofTr.chonUis, »•!& , , fiZSSSZ, Jffli., Agrippa, d. A.D.79. (I.B.1 MATTHEW II. 2. 75 either wise man or magician : and is widely used in the East. These appear to have been descendants of Abraham, but not of Jacob ; for the name Magi does not apply to Jews, and the mention of gold and frankincense refers us to Isa. Ix. 6, where the gathering of the Gentiles is spoken of, so that in this place already it is intimated that Messiah will be embraced more gladly by the Gentiles than by his own people. [Thus often we shall find those near Christ not to know him, while the distant seek and worship him. Q. Comp. ch. viii. 11, 12. The Church has always regarded these Magi as the first-fruit of the Gen tiles coming to Christ, comp. Isa. Ix. 3 ; and an early tradition makes them three kings. Ols. De W.J (Luke iv. 26, etc.) King of the Jews, they say, not our king. If you make two classes of men, those who have, and those who have not embraced Christ, and notice their different characteristics, you will make useful applications of passages from the whole New Testament. From the East — See ch. viii. 11. (as here, di/orokiov.) Came — After he had received the name of "Jesus," ch. i. 25, and consequently after His circumcision. [Nay even we have no reason to doubt that the arrival of the Magi, and the flight into Egypt, which was intimately connected with it, took place after His 7tapdoraai~, presentation, as recorded in Luke ii. 22, 23. Thus the poverty of Jesus' parents (a fact which is proved by their sacrifice in accordance with the law, Lev. xii. 6, 8, concerning those unable to make the more costly offering) was relieved by the Fatherly provi dence of God, through the gifts of the Magi, so that they were thereby , supplied with the means of livelihood during their exile. Harm. p. 53, 56.] Jerusalem — Surely at the metropolis it ought to be possible to learn the truth ; and no doubt they supposed that the king had been born in that very city. 2. Where — They are so sure of the event and the time, that they only ask where f The Scribes only knew the place. It was their duty to learn the time from the Magi, or to embrace the occasion for investi gating it. Knowledge of both time and place ought to go together. Born king — They affirm that he is already born, and at the same time, that he is heir to the kingdom; a fact terrible beyond their con ception to Herod. One is said to be born king, who from His very birth is king. As 1 Chron. vii. 21 ; who were born in the land. (Sept. ol T£%d-evres iv rjj yfj). Of the Jews — After the Captivity, the name Jews, as opposed to Greeks or Gentiles, embraced all Israelites; hence it is given even to Galileans. Luke vii. 3 ; John ii. 6 ; Acts x. 28, etc. The Jews however or Israelites called Christ King of Israel, the Gentiles called him King of the Jews. Ch. xxvii. 29, 37, 42 ; John i. 50, xii. 13, xviii. 33. For — Omens both true and false are especially frequent 76 THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. in connection with nativities. His star — His exclusively. The better the Magi knew the ordinary course of the stars, the more easily did they reach the meaning of the extraordinary phenomenon, and the reference of the star they saw to the new-born King. What their method was, who can now decide ? The star was either in itself new, or in a new situation, or endued with a new or perhaps even an irregu lar motion. Whether it still exists or be destined to appear again, who knows ? [The favorite modern theory of this star identifies it with the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which, accord ing to careful astronomical calculations, first made by Kepler, more accurately by Schubert and Ideler, took place in the year of Rome, 747, or 5 before the common era ; first on May 20th, and again Oct. 27th and Nov. 12th. During the interval of some six months, the planets remained very near together. The coincidence of this most rare and brilliant phenomenon with the probable date of Christ's birth is striking. There are indications that the Jews expected a sign in heaven of Messiah's birth, Numb. xxiv. 17, and that the quarter of the sky in which this conjunction took place, the Fishes, was supposed in the East to be connected with the Jews. Hence Wieseler, Ebrard, ¦ Alf., Win., and with less confidence Ols. and Nean., conclude that this was Messiah's star ; but Mey. and De Wet. object to this verse 9, which certainly shows that Matthew was not thinking of a conjunc tion of planets. The speculation is beautiful, but unproved. See esp. Win. ii. 523—526. Alf; De W.J They undoubtedly had either an ancient revelation from the prophecies of Balaam, Daniel, etc., or a new one by a dream. Comp. ver. 12. [The form of a divine communi cation is often a secret to all but the receiver. V. G.J The Magi are led to Christ by a star : the fishermen by fishes. In the East — i. e., We, when in the East, saw it ; for the Greek article shows that the East is here a region of country, not a quarter of the sky. While yet in the east they had seen the star to the westward, over the region of Palestine. See ver. 9. To worship Him — rtpoaxuvziv (to worship) in the New Testament as with profane authors, governs mostly a dative, sometimes an accusative. The Magi own the King of Grace, and their Lord. Luke i. 43. These first words throw light on the whole narrative. It was certainly not for political reasons, that after so arduous a journey, and on the eve of returning home, they wor shiped a remote and infant King ; and yet did not worship Herod, Nor surely was it political homage that Herod promised, (v. 8.) They worshiped him. v. 11. 3. Was troubled — The king, now seventy years old, might be trou bled all the more easily, because the Pharisees a short time before had MATTHEW II. 6. 77 foretold (see Jos. Ant. xvii. 3) that the kingdom was about to be taken from the family of Herod. The trouble of the king is a testimony against the carelessness of the people. If Herod fears, why do not the Jews inquire ? why not believe ? All — Gr. Ttuaa agreeing with nbh