V *<>,)<'¦/ 1 /<'</ ('//,

/syt

NOTES

Difficult Passages

NEW TESTAMENT

BY ELIAS RIGGS D.D., LLD.
in
MISSIONARY OF THE A. B. C. F. M.

BOSTON AND CHICAGO
GFDngwgatiDrtal StintJag^Scfjonl ana Publtafjfng Soctetg

Copyright, 1889, by
Congregational Sunday-School and Publishing Society.

Me^5o

ElectrotyPed and Printed by Samuel Usher,
lyi Devonshire Street^ Boston.

PREFACE.

The aim of this little work is sufficiently indicated by its
title. No doubt difficulties will often occur to one reader of
the Scriptures which would not occur, or not appear serious,
to another. My aim has been to select those passages and
those only which present special difficulty to ordinary read
ers. In this way I have endeavored to elucidate over a
hundred and twenty passages. A considerable number of
the difficulties here discussed arise from apparent discrep
ancies between the narratives of the four evangelists. I
have a firm persuasion that the inspiration afforded to the
writers of these precious memoirs of our Saviour was such
as to prevent any real discrepancy, and that, if all the circum
stances were known to us, the difficulties would entirely
disappear. A few words in regard to the characteristics of
the different Gospels will not be out of place here.
Matthew seems to have been the first to write down
memoirs of Christ, and his grand object was to present him
as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures.
He wrote in Palestine and with a natural reference to the
feelings and needs of the Christians of that country, nearly
all of whom were Israelites, who would look for the promised
Saviour as the " son of David, the son of Abraham.1' Hence
he commences with the genealogy, which gives the legal
evidence that Jesus was of the lineage of David (see the
first note) ; carefully records that our Lord, although com-

4 PREFACE.
monly called Jesus of Nazareth, was born in Bethlehem, the
city of David, according to the prediction of Micah ; and
throughout his Gospel shows more frequently than the other
evangelists, how, in the life, miracles, and teaching of Christ,
the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled. Hence, too, he
does not give those explanations of names, words, places, and
persons, so frequent in the other Gospels, especially in Luke
and John.
Irenasus, in the second century, and others of the early
fathers, state that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and
for Hebrew Christians. If this be- correct, it would seem
that he must himself have written it out also in Greek (the
language then most widely prevailing all over the Roman
Empire) , for the Greek gospel has in all respects the air of
an original, presenting no indication of being a translation by
another hand.
Mark's Gospel is briefer, omitting any record of the birth
and childhood of Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, and all
the longer discourses of our Lord. At the same time he
gives some things with greater particularity than any of the
other evangelists, and seems to have been specially careful to
preserve the chronological order in his narrative. He
evidently wrote somewhat later than Matthew, and for
readers in general, Jews and Gentiles, hence giving some
explanations which would not have been necessary had he
been writing for Jewish readers only.
Papias and other early Christian writers speak of Mark as
a companion and interpreter of Peter, apparently meaning
that he wrote down in his Gospel what Peter gave in his
discourses on the life of Christ, and Eusebius (Eccl. Hist.

PREFACE. 5
ii. 15) states on the authority of Clement of Alexandria
that, after Mark had written his Gospel, Peter examined and
approved it and sanctioned the reading of it in churches.
Luke wrote his Gospel apparently somewhat later than
Mark, probably at Caesarea, where he was in company with
the apostle Paul during his detention there as a prisoner,
A.D. 58-60. Irenasus and other early Christian writers say
that Luke wrote his Gospel under the guidance of the apostle
Paul. We know that he was a beloved companion and fellow-
laborer of Paul (2 Tim. 4: n), probably of Gentile origin,
for in Col. 4: 14, after having mentioned Mark and others
as his fellow-workers who were " of the circumcision," Paul
goes on to name Epaphras (who was from Colosse) and
" Luke, the beloved physician." The natural inference is
that these two were not " of the circumcision."
The dedication of Luke's Gospel, and of the Acts of the
Apostles, to a friend (named Theophilus) is in accordance
with Greek and Roman usage, but not with that of Hebrew
writers. It is not known who this Theophilus was, but from
the fact that when Luke mentions places in Palestine he
specifies the region in which they were situated, as " Caper
naum, a city of Galilee," " Arimathsea, a city of the Jews,"
" Emmaus, a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem," etc.,
and that when, in relating Paul's voyage to Rome, he men
tions Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli, Appii Forum, and the Three
Taverns, he does so without any explanatory remark, it may
reasonably be inferred that Theophilus was a resident in
Italy, and so all these places were familiar to him.
It thus appears (and this corresponds with early tradition)
that Luke wrote specially for the instruction of Gentile

6 PREFACE.
Christians. In accordance with this design he ga%e his
Gospel more the character of a history than the other
evangelists did, repeatedly giving dates, as in ch. i : 5,
" In the days of King Herod ; " in ch. 2:2," This enrolment
took place when Cyrenius was governor of Syria ; " in ch . 3 : 1 ,
" In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,"
mentioning also the names of the rulers of Judaea and the
neighboring provinces, quite in accordance with the prevailing
usage of Greek and Roman historians.
The apostle John wrote his Gospel many years, probably
not less than twenty-five years, after all the others were pub
lished, and doubtless at Ephesus, where the earliest church
historians state that the last years of his life were spent.
Irenaeus says that John published his Gospel at Ephesus.
Clement of Alexandria and Jerome state that he wrote it in
compliance with a request from Christians of Asia that he
would write more fully than the other evangelists had done
respecting the divinity of Christ and his spiritual utterances,
and internal evidence confirms these statements.
That this Gospel was written away from Palestine and
many years after the events narrated is apparent when
we notice : —
1. That when John speaks of the people he calls them
"the Jews," where the earlier evangelists call them "the
people," or "the multitudes."
2. That he explains Jewish customs or mentions them as
if not well known to all his readers. Thus in ch. ii, in the
account of the marriage in Cana, he says: " There were set
six waterpots of stone, after tMe manner of the purifying of
the Jews."

PREFACE. 7
3. That, in speaking of places at which particular events
occurred, he frequently uses a past tense ; for example, in
ch. n : 18, " Bethany was near Jerusalem," and in ch. 18 : I,
"Jesus went to a place beyond the brook Cedron, where
there was a garden."
That John's Gospel was designed to supplement the others
is manifest from his omitting so many important things
recorded in them. He has no account of the angelic visits
to Zacharias, Mary, and Joseph ; no account of the birth and
childhood of our Saviour, nor of his temptation; mentions
very few of his miracles ; gives none of his narrative parables,
and no record of the institution of the Lord's Supper or of
our Lord's ascension. On the other hand, he gives much
that the others have not, and throughout writes as if his
readers were familiar with the other Gospels. He does not
tell us that Jesus resided at Nazareth, yet mentions (ch. 1 :
45) that Philip spoke of him as "Jesus, the son of Joseph of
Nazareth," and (ch. 18: 5, 7; 19: 19) that he was com
monly called "Jesus of Nazareth." He does not relate the
imprisonment of John the Baptist by Herod, yet says inci
dentally (ch. 3: 24), "John was not yet cast into prison."
He speaks of Bethany (ch. 11 : 1) as " the town of Mary and
her sister Martha," yet had not previously informed his
readers who Mary and Martha were.
But the special distinction of John's Gospel is its clear
presentation of Christ as the Word of God made flesh for our
redemption, a doctrine which some denied even during the
life-time of the apostle (2 John 7-10). This great doctrine
John clearly declares in his Gospel, in his Epistles, and in
the Revelation.

8 PREFACE.
So far as John narrates the facts of the gospel history, he
gives them in the same order with Mark, thus confirming that
order, while Matthew and Luke frequently group together
similar facts, disregarding the order of time.
These remarks will, I trust, aid the careful reader to appre
ciate the attempts made in the following notes to reconcile
apparent discrepancies between the different Gospels.
That these notes may prove helpful to many candid, but
sometimes perplexed, students of the New Testament is my
hope and my prayer to the Author of the divine Word.
ELIAS RIGGS.
Constantinople, September 12, 1888.

NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES

OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

Matthew i : 1-17.
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ.
There is considerable ancient evidence going
to prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel originally
in Hebrew.1 If so, the Hebrew copy is lost.
But there is also internal evidence that the Greek
copy is not a translation, and so we may conclude
that it was in accordance with a divine plan that
Matthew should prepare a Hebrew copy for the
special edification of Hebrew Christians of his
own time, and also a Greek copy for permanent
use among all nations. However this may be, it
is evident that this Gospel was written with a
1 This is affirmed by Papias, Irenseus, Origen, and others, who
wrote in the second, third, and fourth centuries after Christ. By
Hebrew they doubtless meant (as did Luke in Acts 22: 2) that Ara
maic dialect which was the vernacular language of the Jews in the
days of the apostles.

IO NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
special view to the wants of Jewish readers.
Hence in commencing his record of the doings
and teachings of the Messiah, he naturally begins
with showing that He sprung from the race of
Abraham and of David, as had been promised
of old. See Gen. 12: 2, 3 (comp. John 8: 56);
2 Sam. 7: 13; Ps. 2 : 6-9 ; no: 1-4; Is. n : 1.
From these and many other passages of the Old
Testament it was understood among the Jews
that the Messiah (the Anointed One), the great
Deliverer was to spring from the family of David,
and from Micah 5 : 2 that He was to be born in
Bethlehem, the city of David's birth. Compare
Matt. 2:5,6.
Several difficulties arise with reference to this
genealogy. First, the fact that the genealogy
here given is that of Joseph, the husband
of our Saviour's mother, but, as we know, not
his father. In regard to this point we remark : —
1. There is no appearance of concealment here.
The writer plainly declares that he gives the
ancestry of Joseph, the husband of Mary (v. 16),
respecting whom he as plainly declares, in vs. 18
and 20, that he was not the father of Jesus.
2. As the genealogy is traced through the line
of the kings of Judah until the captivity, it seems

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. II
altogether probable that the writer's design was
to show not merely that Jesus was descended from
the family of David, but that He was the heir of
David's royal hottse, as all those kings in succes
sion had been.
3. Inheritance in Israel was in the male line.
When a man died leaving daughters only, they
were to inherit his property on condition that
they married husbands of the same tribe, so that
the land might not pass into the possession of
another tribe. In case a man died without chil
dren his brother or nearest male relative (Ruth
3: 12, 13) was to marry his widow, and the first
son by her was to bear the name and inherit the
property of the deceased (Deut. 25 : 6). Of
course no provision could be made in the law of
Moses for a case like that of our Saviour; but as
Joseph, under divine direction, did not divorce his
wife, Jesus was virtually adopted as his son (see
Luke 3 : 23), and thus became his legal heir and
the heir of the royal line of David.
Another difficulty is presented by the fact that
Matthew and Luke give different genealogies, yet
both apparently genealogies of Joseph, the re
puted, but not real, father of Jesus. Of this fact
three explanations have been proposed : —

12 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
i. That Luke gives the real genealogy of
Mary, and that, Mary being the only child of
her parents, Joseph, her husband, became the
adopted son and legal heir of her father Eli. This
explanation seems to have been accepted by the
majority of commentators, ancient and modern.
2. That suggested by Julius Africanus of the
third century, namely, that Eli, having died child
less, Jacob (having by previous intermarriages
between the two branches of David's descendants,
become the nearest kinsman) married his widow,
and Joseph, his first son, while truly begotten by
him, as stated in Matthew, was legally the son of
Eli, as stated in Luke.
3. That Matthew gives the real genealogy
of Mary, inserting the name of her husband, in
accordance with the usage of the Jewish genea
logical registers, and Luke the real pedigree of
Joseph. It is perhaps impossible for us to decide with
confidence between these modes of explanation.
But whichever we may prefer, there can scarcely
be a doubt that both were copied from public offi
cial registers, and so both would be unimpeach
able, and either one of them would be satisfactory
legal proof to Jewish readers that the family in

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. 13
which Jesus was born belonged to the lineage of
David. We do not read that our Saviour's. claim
to be the Son of David was ever disputed by his
enemies. Another difficulty presented by the genealogy
is the manifest omission of several generations.
Naasson was contemporary with Moses (Num.
1 : 7), and must have died in the wilderness
nearly four hundred years before the birth of
David ; and yet, unless there are omissions in the
register as found in Ruth 4: 20-22 and Matt.
1 : 4-6, only four generations intervene, so that
each father must have been on an average nearly
eighty years of age at the time of his son's birth.
This seems altogether too much to allow for each
generation. A similar remark might be made in
reference to the generations from Phares, son of
Judah, to Naasson (or Nahshon), where, as the
record stands, more than fifty years must be al
lowed for each generation. But whatever may be
the fact in these cases, it is evident that, in verse
8, three generations are omitted between Joram
and Uzziah (namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah),
and in verse n, one (Jehoiakim) between Josiah
and Jechoniah. Some have thought that the omis
sion of the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah

14 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
was on account of their being descended through
Athaliah from the accursed house of Ahab, and
that the omission extended no farther they explain
by saying that in the divine mercy the curse was
not permitted to reach beyond the " third and
fourth generation." But this theory does not
help to account for the omission of Jehoiakim in
verse n, and may therefore be set aside as inad
missible. The following seems to me the most probable
mode of accounting for these abbreviations of the
list. The writer had in mind the division of the
whole period from Abraham to Christ into three
parts, namely, The times before, during, and after
the reigns of the kings of David's line. Finding
fourteen (the double of the sacred number seven)
generations from Abraham to David, including
both, he reduced the remaining generations to
two groups of fourteen each, not only by the
above-mentioned omissions, but also by counting
Jechoniah (Jehoiachin) not with the second
group (as one of the kings), but with the
third. This hypothesis accounts for the extraor
dinary expression, "Jechoniah and his brethren,"
which must include the three sons and one grand
son of Josiah who reigned for brief periods

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. 15
during the troublous times which ended with
the Babylonish captivity. The reckoning Jecho
niah with the third group (by which alone it can
be made to include fourteen names) might be
justified on the ground that he reigned only three
months, and then was carried as a captive to
Babylon, where he spent the greater part of his
life. Thus the whole line from Abraham to Christ
is presented in three groups with fourteen names
in each group. It should be remarked that the
omission of one or more names from such a list,
when the line of descent is preserved, does not
invalidate the proof of that descent which such
a genealogy is designed to give ; also, that similar
abbreviations of genealogical lists are found in
ancient Jewish writings.
Matthew i : 22, 23.
" All this was done, that it might be fulfilled,"
etc. By this we are not to understand that the
only design of God in bringing these events to
pass was the fulfillment of the predictions, but
simply that this was one object, and that the
events recorded took place in such a way as to
constitute a fulfillment of the predictions. Some
times this phrase is used where it can not mean

1 6 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
more than that the event recorded was a partial
fulfillment, or even was such as fitly to be
described by the words of the prophet. For
example, what David in Ps. 41 : 9 says of
Ahithophel, " He that ate of my bread lifted
up his heel against me," is applied by our Lord
himself to the treachery of Judas, and is
introduced by the same formula here used,
namely, " That it might be fulfilled," which
must of course be understood to mean, so that
there was a fulfillment. What Isaiah said of
the Israelites of his time is applied in John 12 :
38 and elsewhere to the unbelieving Jews of
the time of Christ. In many such cases we
must understand the fulfillment to consist in
such a correspondence as renders the words
quoted applicable to the recorded facts, although
originally intended to apply immediately to
others. The prediction here quoted, " Behold, a virgin
shall be with child," etc., is taken from Is. 7:
14. Ahaz, the ungodly king of Judah, was greatly
terrified by the combination of Israel and Syria
against him with the purpose of dethroning him
and putting another in his stead (Is. 7 : 2, 6).
But notwithstanding the many offences of Ahaz

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. I J
and his house, God did not intend to reject the
royal family of David, but to preserve it in ac
cordance with his gracious promise given to
David (2 Sam. 7:15, 16), and to raise up from it
the Messiah, the King who should reign forever.
When therefore Ahaz in unbelief refused to choose
a sign, as God had invited him to do, the prophet
Isaiah said, "The Lord himself shall give you a
sign ; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some
commentators have supposed that such a sign,
namely, a miraculous birth of a child from a virgin,
took place in the prophet's days, and that the
application of the prediction to the birth of Christ
was a secondary application. But it seems in
credible that such an event should have occurred
in Isaiah's days, and yet no mention be made of
the fulfillment of such a wonderful prediction.
Others think that a miracle was not predicted,
but that the prophet simply foretold that a young
woman, then a virgin, should be married and
bear a child, and that, before that child could
learn to say My father and my mother, the
deliverance of the land from the threatened
invasion should take place. But how could this
be a sign to Ahaz ? Especially, how could it be

1 8 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
such a wonderful sign as to justify the strong
language used by the prophet, "Behold, the
Lord himself shall give you a sign " ?
It is better, therefore, to understand the words
of the prophet as meaning, You slight the offer
of God to give you a sign ; but God will never
theless carry out his gracious purpose toward the
house of David. He will preserve it from de
struction, and in due time will make manifest by
a most wonderful sign, an unprecedented miracle,
his love for his people and his faithfulness to his
promises. A virgin shall bear a son, whose
name shall be Immanuel, " God with us." Not
that he should bear no other name, but that this
name should be truly applicable to him and de
scriptive of him. This seems to be the view
taken by the inspired evangelist of the prediction
and of its fulfillment in the miraculous birth of
our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was God made
man and dwelling among men.
[Luke's omission of the visit of the Magi, the
slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem, and the
flight into Egypt, and his apparent statement
that Joseph and his family returned to Nazareth
immediately after the presentation in the temple,
may best be noticed under Luke 2 : 39. J

the temptation of jesus. 1 9
Matthew 4: 1-11.
The Temptation of Jesus.
This passage records one of the most mys
terious events which have occurred in the whole
history of the human race. That our divine
Redeemer should be tempted, or be capable of
being tempted, to sin is a profound mystery. That
Satan should have dared to assault the Holy One
of God, and that he should ever have imagined
the possibility of success in leading him to
commit sin, seems exceedingly strange. Yet
we are plainly told in Heb. 4 : 15 that Jesus was
tempted in all respects as we are, only that he did
not in any instance yield and commit sin. Our
first parents listened to the suggestions of the
tempter and fell, bringing ruin upon their race.
It behooved Him through whom the race was to
be restored, the second Adam, " to be made like
unto his brethren in all things " (Heb. 2 : 17), and
therefore to be tempted as they are tempted,
"that he might be a merciful and faithful high
priest," who, as having passed through the same
trials, could sympathize with them from his own
experience, and who, by setting them an example,
could show them how to overcome the tempter.
As this trial was part of our Saviour's prepara-

20 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
tion for his work, it was fitting that it should take
place just before he commenced his public minis
try. We shall best understand it, and derive
most profit from it, by taking the narrative in its
plainest sense as a truthful statement of actual
occurrences, and not a parable, as some have been
inclined to interpret it. This remark, however,
is not intended to decide the question whether
the tempter appeared to our Saviour in a bodily
form, or simply addressed his suggestions to his
mind. In either way the temptation and the
resistance would be equally real and the victory
over it equally decisive.
Verse i. Led up by the Spirit. It was pre
dicted, Is. 1 1 : 2, that the Spirit of the Lord should
rest upon the Messiah. Here we have the fulfill
ment of this promise. In Luke 4 : i we read that
when Jesus left the Jordan where he was baptized
he was full of the Holy Spirit ; and here we are
informed that he went to his encounter with
Satan, not rashly, but led by the Spirit. The
Spirit of God led him there because this trial
was part of his necessary preparation for his great
work. Verse 2. When he had fasted forty days and
forty nights. Mojses, the lawgiver of Israel, when

THE TEMPTA TION OF JESUS. 2 I
he went up upon Mount Sinai to receive the com
mands of God for Israel, remained there fasting
forty days (Ex. 34: 28). So Elijah, the greatest
reformer who arose between the time of Moses and
that of our Saviour, in the midst of his efforts to
call back the people to the worship of the true
God, made, doubtless by divine direction,2 a
journey to Mount Sinai, where he was to receive
divine communications calculated to aid him in
that important work, and on that journey passed
forty days without food. And now Jesus, when
about to enter upon his public ministry, spends
forty days fasting. In each of these cases it was
a season of abstraction from the world and from
ordinary occupations and unquestionably of inti
mate communion with God, in preparation for a
great, divinely appointed work. In each case life
was sustained by divine power without the ordi
nary means. It is interesting to notice how in
this as in many other instances the experience of
the Saviour corresponds with that of his redeemed
people. Also, to note the fact that Moses and
Elijah, whose particular experience corresponded
so closely with that of Jesus, were the individuals
selected from all the inhabitants of the heavenly
2 This we may infer from the angelic visit and the miraculous supply
of food recorded in 1 Kings 19 : 5-8.

22 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
world to come to our Lord on the mount of trans
figuration and to commune with him in regard to
the sufferings which he was about to undergo.
Notice (v. 3) the apparent slightness of the
transgression to which Jesus was at first tempted,
namely, to use his miraculous power for the sup
ply of his own necessity. So gradual are the
approaches of evil. But Jesus saw that it would
be unbecoming in him, and therefore wrong, to
work a miracle for his own relief. God, who led
out his people into the wilderness, could and did
sustain them there without the ordinary means
and supplies. The same divine power had led
Jesus into a wilderness and had sustained him
there for forty days ; and now should he distrust
the power and wisdom of his Father ? It is
remarkable that our Saviour's wonder-working
power was often used for the relief of the wants
of others, as well as for objects connected with the
accomplishment of his great work, but rarely if
ever for the supply of his personal wants.
The next temptation (v. 5) shows the cunning
craftiness of the enemy. If Jesus shows such
unswerving trust in God, let him manifest it by an
act which may be witnessed by multitudes and
which will bring him credit with the people. And

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 23
since Jesus had appealed to the divine word in
answer to the former temptation, Satan now quotes
from the Scriptures a promise apparently applicable
to the case in hand, but artfully leaves out the
essential condition implied in the words, " to keep
thee in all thy ways," that is, in the path of duty
and obedience to God's will.
But again our Saviour foils the tempter by an
answer taken from God's Word. It is from Deut.
6 : 16, where Moses bade the Israelites to beware
of tempting the Lord their God. He refers to the
instance of their tempting God in Massah (a name
signifying temptation), recorded in Ex. 17 : 2-7.
From this instance we learn that by tempting God
we are to understand putting his power, truth,
and mercy to an unnecessary trial, refusing to
trust him without more evidence than he sees
best to give. Of the same nature is running
into needless danger and expecting unwarranted
interposition. The order of the three recorded temptations is
not the same in Matthew and Luke. But in Luke
there is nothing to fix the order positively, while
from the use of the word then, at the beginning of
verse 5, it would seem that Matthew has given us
the three temptations in their historical order. If

24 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
so, the last was the boldest and most shameless of
all. Satan, failing in his attempts to conceal the
evil of sin under an artful disguise, lays aside all
reserve and proceeds to a most gross and undis
guised proposal. Since the Messiah was to be a
king, Satan offers him universal dominion, impu
dently claiming that he had authority to confer it,
and makes this offer on the single condition of
Jesus' rendering homage to him.
We know but little about the world of spirits,
good or bad, for God has revealed but little. But
it is evident that, under the supreme government
of God, considerable powers and influence are
committed to them, not to the good only, but also
to the evil. This is implied in Satan's being
called " the god of this world " (2 Cor. 4 : 4), as well
as in the language employed in Eph. 6 : 12, to
describe the nature of the Christian conflict, "we
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers," etc. The same
thing is implied in the permission given to Satan
to injure Job (Job 1: 12; 2:6). Still his claim
to have the disposal of the kingdoms and glory of
the whole world was false and impious.
In precisely what way the tempter showed Jesus
the kingdoms and glory of the world we do not

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 25
know. Probably it was similar to the manner in
which Ezekiel and other prophets were carried in
the spirit to distant places and saw prophetic
visions. That Satan should be allowed to exercise
an influence over the imaginations of those whom
he tempts, corresponds with what is said in 2
Thess. 2 : 9, of his working, namely, that it is
"with all power and signs and lying wonders,"
and in 2 Cor. n : 14, of his transforming him
self into an angel of light. In Rev. 12 : 9 he is
spoken of as the deceiver of the whole world ; and
although God will not suffer his chosen people to
be fatally deceived (Matt. 24 : 24), yet he does
permit the attempt to be made.
Here again Jesus was ready with an appropriate
answer from the word of God : " Get thee hence,
Satan : for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
The thought of rendering homage to any creature,
however exalted, was abhorrent to his holy soul.
All Satan's wiles having proved ineffectual, he
departs from Jesus "for a season" (Luke 4: 13),
and at once good angels come and minister to his
necessities. How welcome to him in his exhausted
state must have been their visit, and with what joy
would they hasten, when permitted, to his relief !

26 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
So does God often send to his people comfort after
special trials ; and his angels, though unseen, are
permitted to minister to them (Heb i : 14), as
they did to Jesus.

Matthew 4: 12, 13.
Connexion between the imprisonment of John
the Baptist and the going of Jesus from
Judsea into Galilee.
Matthew here passes over a considerable period
of time, during which occurred the events recorded
in John 1 : 19-3 : 36. At the time of John's
imprisonment Jesus had already been preaching
for some time. But he did not by any movement
of his own take John's work from his hands, but
left that to be done (under the direction of his
Father's all-ruling providence) by the act of Herod
in imprisoning John. The permission of this
interval, during which both Jesus and John were
exercising their ministry, was useful by affording
opportunity for the repeated testimonies borne by
John to Jesus (John 1: 19-36; 3: 25-30), show
ing plainly that there was no antagonism between
the two. " He must increase, but I must decrease."
At the time of John's imprisonment Jesus was

IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN, ETC. 2J
laboring in Judaea, while John was of course in
Herod's dominions. When therefore John was
thrown into prison and thus compelled to cease
from his public labors, our Saviour went into
Galilee and took up in a more full and public
manner the spiritual work which John was com
pelled to lay down. This seems to be the con
nexion between the imprisonment of John and
our Saviour's going into Galilee. Coincident with
this, as a motive for his leaving Judaea, was the
increasing jealousy of the Jewish rulers alluded
to in John 4 : 1-3. He would avoid unnecessary
conflict with them, and not throw himself into
their hands until his time should fully come.
This was probably one reason why the greater
part of his ministry was spent in Galilee.
By leaving Nazareth, which was in the moun
tain region of Galilee, and taking up his abode
in Capernaum, which was on the border of the
Sea of Galilee and close by the boundary be
tween the tribes of Zebulon and Naphtali (both
of which bordered upon that sea), and by causing
the glorious light of his gospel to shine in that
neglected region, Jesus fulfilled the magnificent
prediction in Is. 9 : 1, 2.

28 notes on difficult passages.
Matthew 4: 18-22.
The Call of Simon, Andrew, James, and John
to follow Jesus.
This call was not the beginning of their ac
quaintance with Jesus. That is recorded in John
1:35, etc. John himself seems to have been
one of the two disciples of John the Baptist
mentioned in vs. 35 and 40. The incident there
recorded must have occurred nearly if not quite
a year before the call which we are now consid
ering. In the meantime they had accompanied
Jesus on some of his journeys, but had not so
become his permanent disciples as to give up
their wonted employment as fishermen. Neither
was this call their call to be of the number of
the twelve apostles. This latter occurred some
months later, and is recorded in Matt. 10:
2-4; Mark 3 : 13-19; and Luke 6 : 13-17. The
present call was to follow Jesus with a view to
their becoming "fishers of men"; that is, to
leave their occupation and become his perma
nent disciples, and thus be instructed and
trained for the work of preaching the gospel.
The circumstances of this call are more fully
related by Luke, chap. 5: i-n. Some commen-

CALL OF SIMON, ANDREW, ETC. 29
tators, on account of apparent differences in the
incidents recorded there, regard that as a still dif
ferent and later call. But it seems very difficult
to account for another and later call of essentially
the same character as that recorded in Matthew
and Mark. And on careful examination, we do
not find any thing in the details recorded by
Luke inconsistent with the briefer narratives of
Matthew and Mark. It would seem that at first
both boats had been drawn up upon the beach,
and the fishermen were on shore washing their
nets. After using Simon's boat as a platform
from which to preach to multitudes on the shore,
Jesus directed Simon to push out into the deeper
water and let down his nets. The wonderful
draught of fishes amazed him and his compan
ions. Then Jesus says to him, " Fear not ; from
henceforth thou shalt catch men." Some little
time may have passed in the conversation with
Peter and Andrew, and our Saviour, walking
along on the shore and coming near to the other
boat, finds James and John with their father
Zebedee by that time in the boat engaged in
repairing their nets, as stated by Matthew, ch.
4: 21. From this time forth, all four of the
young men leave their old employment and be
come regular pupils in the school of Christ.

30 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Matthew, chapters 5-7.
The Sermon on the Mount.
This discourse appears to be the same which
we find less fully recorded in Luke 6 : 20-49.
Some have called this in question, partly because
Luke's narrative is so much more brief than
Matthew's, and partly because Matthew speaks of
the discourse as having been delivered on the
mountain, while Luke says that Jesus came down
from the mountain and stood in a "level place."
This level place may, however, have been upon the
mountain, though not so high as the spot to which
our Lord ascended for retirement and prayer. He
would naturally seek a level place for the con
venience of his audience gathering to hear him,
and might descend some distance for this purpose,
while still he might wish to remain in the partial
retirement of the mountain ; and Matthew, who
does not mention the fact of his going higher up
for prayer, might naturally speak of his going up
from the plain to the mountain in connexion with
this discourse. That the one report of this dis
course is fuller than the other need not surprise us,
since both are obviously mere outlines of a dis
course which doubtless occupied hours in the

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 31
delivery, while even Matthew's record cf it can be
read through in a few minutes. This view accounts
sufficiently for some passages being found in the
briefer record which are not found in the longer
one. The form of Luke's narrative shows that this
discourse was delivered immediately after the
appointment of the twelve apostles. Matthew, in
ch. 10 : 2-4, gives the names of the apostles, but
without designating the time of their appointment.
This was a most fitting occasion for such a setting
forth of the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom
and the character of his true followers. The
discourse was specially addressed to his disciples,
but in the hearing of the multitude. This is
implied in the expression, " his disciples came
unto him," v. 1. They came near and formed the
inner circle about him, as being those directly
addressed. Chapter 5, verse 17. Think not that T am
come to destroy the law or the prophets. The
Jews, having confidence in their commonly re
ceived interpretations of the Scriptures, and
seeing that the teachings of Jesus were in many
things opposed to those interpretations, drew the
inference that he was opposed to the law.

32 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Doubtless many of them thought that the
Messiah would bring in a new law and abrogate
the old. But our Saviour declares that there
is no contradiction between his teaching and that
of the " Law and the Prophets," that is, of the
Old Testament.
To fulfill it. Christ fulfills the law : —
i. By declaring its true spiritual meaning and
showing the defects of the prevailing interpreta
tions of it.
2. By exhibiting in his own life a perfect
example of obedience to it.
3. By accomplishing in his work and sufferings
all that was predicted and foreshadowed in the old
dispensation. 4. By redeeming his people from the curse of
the broken law (Rom. 10 : 4), and
5. By bringing them into a vital union with
himself, and through the gift of his Spirit enabling
them to obey all God's commandments.
Verse 20. The scribes, whose occupation was
the copying, study, and interpretation of the
Scriptures, and specially those who were of the
sect of the Pharisees, were the most strict of all
the Jews in their view of what constituted right
eousness. The language of our Saviour was

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 33
therefore very startling. The religion of his
disciples must be stricter still. But the explana
tion of this language is not difficult to find. The
strictness of the scribes and Pharisees related to
outward conduct, while they neglected the state
of the heart. Our Lord directed the attention of
his disciples to the heart as that from which all
outward actions proceed, and as the essential
thing in the sight of God. This is plainly seen
in the interpretations which he gives of the
laws respecting murder, adultery, etc.
Notice that he does not say, Unless your right
eousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall not be great in the kingdom of heaven, but
ye shall not enter it ; ye shall have no portion in it.
Verse 22. In the three expressions, the judg
ment (a general term, which might refer to any
local court), the council (Gr. aovldpun), Hebraized
into Sanhedrin (or, inaccurately, Sanhedrim), mean
ing the great national council, and hellfire, there
is a gradation of increased intensity ; but in the
offences mentioned, namely, being angry, calling a
man raka (worthless), and calling him fool, there
does not appear any such gradation. We must
therefore understand our Saviour as saying, in an
emphatic manner, that for any of these offences,

34 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
if persisted in and not repented of, a man becomes
in the view of God deserving of judgment, of
condemnation, and of hell. We say in the view of
God, because human tribunals can not judge the
feelings of the heart when they are not carried
out in acts.
Verse 25. Agree with thine adversary quickly.
This injunction has been explained by many
interpreters as allegorical, meaning, settle your
controversy with God while there is time ; that is,
before you are summoned to the final judgment,
when it will be too late. Others understand it as
an expansion of the command, " Be reconciled to
thy brother." Our Saviour certainly enjoins it
upon his disciples to avoid lawsuits, even though
in order to this they must sacrifice their rights.
See v. 40. But it seems to me best of all to
understand Him as comprising both these ideas.
Passing on from the injunction, Be reconciled to
thy brother (thy fellow-man) we may understand
Him as here giving the general injunction, Avoid
controversy, and settle disputes in a friendly way,
thus escaping the sad consequences of litigation ;
and above all, settle your controversy with God
while there is time and opportunity, lest you suffer
the awful consequences of being condemned in
the great final judgment.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 35
It is no objection to this interpretation that it
represents God as both adversary and judge. In
the tenth chapter of John, our Saviour, after
saying in v. 2, " He that entereth by the door is
the shepherd of the sheep," says in v. 9, "I am
the door ; " and yet only two verses further on, to
impress another highly important feature of his
relation to his disciples, he says, " I am the good
shepherd." Verse 26. Until thou hast paid the uttermost
farthing. The question has been raised whether
this language does not teach that the sinner may
by his sufferings pay the full penalty of his sins,
and so be entitled to his release. And the Papists
draw from these words a proof for their fond
invention of purgatory. But it is scarcely neces
sary to remark that the word until does not carry
with it any such implication. When in Isaiah 22 :
14, the Lord says to Israel, " Surely this iniquity
shall not be purged from you till ye die," the
meaning is, It will never be purged away, but will
bring you to destruction. So here the meaning is
that the case of a sinner unreconciled to God is
hopeless. He can not pay his debt, and can not
be released until he does pay it.
Verses 29, 30. Must we understand our Lord

36 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
as enjoining or justifying in any case the literal
plucking out of a right eye, or the cutting off of
a right hand ? By no means. The language here
employed should be regarded simply as a strong,
earnest injunction not to cling to any thing, how
ever dear to us, which would lead us into sin. It
is analogous to the declaration in Luke 14 : 26,
"If any man come unto me, and hateth not his
own father and mother, and wife and children, and
brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple."
Verse 34. Swear not at all. The very forms
of the oaths here referred to (being such as a
magistrate would never employ in administering
a judicial oath) prove that our Saviour did not
mean to prohibit a witness giving his testimony
under oath in a court of justice, but the use of
oaths in common conversation, which, it appears,
was fearfully prevalent among the Jews.
That judicial oaths, and oaths on other solemn
occasions, were lawful under the old dispensation,
is manifest from many passages of the Old Testa
ment, being expressly commanded in Ex. 22 : 11,
and the neglect to testify under oath forbidden in
Lev. 5:1; also, from the prohibition of false
swearing (Lev. 19 : 12), and from the injunction to

THE LORD'S PRAYER.

37

swear only by the name of the true God (Deut.
6: 13). That the same principle holds now and
always is evident from the example of God, con
firming his promises and threatenings with an
oath (Gen. 22 : 16 ; Ps. 95 : 1 1 ; 1 10 : 4 ; Heb. 6 :
17, etc.) ; of Christ, who answered under adjura
tion before the Jewish council (Matt. 26 : 63), and
of an inspired writer of the New Testament
(Rom. 9:1; Phil. 1 : 8, etc.).

Matthew 6 : 9-13.
The Lord's Prayer.
After this manner. Certainly our Lord does
not enjoin it upon us to use in prayer the words
following and no others. His own example in
several recorded prayers, and his injunction to his
disciples to agree as to what they will ask of God,
forbid such an interpretation. We must under
stand him as giving an outline of what true prayer
should comprise. This may also be inferred from
the variations which appear in this prayer as given
to the disciples on another occasion recorded in
Luke n: 2-4, where instead of "this day," we
have "day by day," and instead of "debts," we

38 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
have "sins," thus interpreting the term debts
as used here. Regarding the prayer as an out
line, we notice : —
1. That we are instructed to address God as
our heavenly Father. We are called to be his
children (1 John 3 : 1), and he desires that we
should approach him with filial love, reverence,
and confidence.
2. That the first petitions which we offer should
not relate to our personal wants, but to the glory,
kingdom, and will of God. In prayer, as in our
lives, we should "seek first the kingdom of God
and his righteousness."
3. That in what we ask for ourselves in refer
ence to the body we should be content with little.
Give us this day (or day by day) our daily bread
(literally, the bread needed for our subsistence, as
Chrysostom well explains it) ; and
4. That in reference to the Spirit we should
seek the free forgiveness of our past transgres
sions and protection in future from temptation
and from all the forms of evil.
The doxology at the close of this prayer, " For
thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory for ever," is not found in the most ancient
manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. In

HEALING OF A LEPER. 39
later manuscripts it appears in the margin, some
times written with red ink, and in still later copies
incorporated in the text. It seems, therefore,
highly probable that it did not belong to the
prayer as originally given by our Lord, but was
attached to it afterward as an appropriate dox
ology. As such we need not hesitate to use it.
Its sentiment is thoroughly Scriptural, and its
very words are found, though not in the same
order, in a prayer of King David recorded in
1 Chron. 29 : 11, " Thine, O Lord, is the great
ness, and the power, and the glory, . . . thine is
the kingdom, O Lord."

Matthew 8 : 2-4.
Healing of a Leper.
Compare Mark 1 : 40-45 and Luke 5 : 12-16.
Had we only Matthew's Gospel, we should infer
that this miracle was performed after the delivery
of the Sermon on the Mount. But a careful
comparison of the narratives in Mark and Luke
shows that it occurred before that discourse was
delivered.

40 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Matthew appears in general to have grouped
the events which he narrates, rather in reference
to their displaying the power of Jesus and the
evidence of his being the promised Messiah, than
to their chronological order. Luke also fre
quently narrates events without regard to the
order of time. Mark, in his briefer Gospel
(written, as several of the early fathers testify,
under the special instruction of Peter), has much
more carefully preserved the order of time, and
John, in what we may call his supplementary
Gospel, has adhered to the same order. This will
appear if we carefully notice the indications of
time and the succession of events given in many
passages by the writers of the several Gospels.
In regard to the design of the charge in verse
4, " See thou tell no man, but go, show thyself to
the priest," etc., some have thought that our
Saviour's primary object was to show that he did
not neglect or set aside the ceremonial law. But
it seems much more natural to understand that
his aim was (i) to avoid excitement, which might
tend to the rousing of hostility, and thus be a hin
drance to his work ; and (2) to provide for the
legal verification of the cure, which would in the
end be " a testimony unto them " ; that is, not to

' STAFF." 4 1

the priest alone, but to all the people, of his
wonderful power to heal and to save.

Matthew io : 10.
" Nor staff."
Luke 9:3," Neither staff" ; Mark 6:8," Save a staff only.''
Among the directions given by our Lord to the
twelve apostles when he sent them forth on a
temporary mission restricted to the land of Israel,
we find in Matthew and Luke, "nor staff," or
"neither staff," but in Mark, "save a staff only."
The best readings of the text in all three have
staff in the singular, and not staves.
On this apparent discrepancy, we remark : —
1. Matthew was one of those sent out on this
mission, and (aside from the evidence that he
wrote under divine inspiration and guidance)
could not possibly have failed of knowing whether
they, or any of them, carried staves or not. The
same remark applies equally to Peter, whose
disciple and helper Mark was, under whose super
intendence there is good evidence that Mark
prepared his Gospel, and with whose sanction he
published it. It would therefore be rash to

42 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
assume a contradiction between the two state
ments. 2. It is self-evident here, as in the case of the
Sermon on the Mount, that we have only a brief
abstract of our Saviour's instructions, and not the
whole of them. And
3. It is a sufficient reconciliation of the two
directions, if we suppose that our Lord charged
his disciples not to encumber themselves with
luggage on this brief tour, and so not to provide
money or food or garments, mentioning a staff
among the things not necessary to be procured ;
and yet remarked that, if any one had a staff and
was accustomed to use it, he might take it with
him. Peter may have been one of those who
habitually used a staff, and remembered having
used it on this occasion, and may have mentioned
it to Mark as illustrating the extreme simplicity
with which they went, just as they were, on this
tour.

Matthew 10 : 23.

"Ye shall not have gone over [literally, finished]
the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come."
To what coming of the Son of man do these

COMING OF THE SON OF MAN. 43
words refer ? The expression is a general one,
and might be referred to any manifestation of
the Messiah. The Jews seem to have been in
the habit of speaking of the Messiah as the com
ing one. John's disciples asked Jesus, " Art thou
he that should come ? " (literally, " Art thou the
coming one ? " ) Matt. 11:3. Interpreters have
suggested various times of our Saviour's coming
as being referred to in these words addressed to
the disciples. Some have explained them as
referring to the last judgment ; others to the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus ; others to the
resurrection of Christ, or to the day of Pentecost.
From Mark 6 : 30 and Luke 9 : 10, it appears
that the Twelve were not long absent from Jesus
on this first tour. But we must not infer that
during this brief absence they had completed the
work in reference to which these instructions
were given. They probably made many such
excursions ; and at length seventy other disciples
were commissioned on a similar errand, namely,
to go before their Master and prepare the way for
his coming ; preaching, not that the promised
kingdom of the Messiah had fully come, but that
it was at hand. See verse 7. That kingdom did
not fully come until our Lord had finished his

44 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
atoning work on earth and been " received up
into glory."
The most recent commentators generally inter
pret the coming of the Son of man, in the passage
under consideration, as referring to the destruction
of Jerusalem. The objection to this is that this
first mission of the apostles was manifestly a tem
porary one, and the instructions given them by our
Lord correspond to this temporary character.
Among them was the charge not to go among
the Gentiles, nor to any city of the Samaritans,
whereas just as soon as our Lord was glorified
they were to commence their permanent work as
his witnesses, in Judaea, and in Samaria, and to
the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts I : 8), only
waiting a few days, till they should be baptized
with the Holy Spirit, and thus " receive power
from on high " for their great undertaking. The
destruction of Jerusalem occurred about forty
years after this, long after the gospel had
been successfully preached among Samaritans and
among Gentiles. We conclude therefore that the
coming to which our Lord here refers was the
close of his earthly ministry, which would also be
the close of the temporary and the beginning of
the permanent commission of the apostles. I see

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. 45
no need of defining minutely whether it should
be reckoned from the resurrection, as Lightfoot
prefers, referring to Rom. 1:4," declared to be
the Son of God ... by the resurrection," or
from the day of Pentecost, as Poole seems to
prefer, remarking that what occurred on that day
was "an eminent act of God's providence, in
which Christ was showed to the world." It is
enough to understand him as saying that they
would not complete their temporary mission to
the cities of Israel (to proclaim that the kingdom
of heaven was at hand) before he would overtake
them, finish his earthly work, and thus fully
establish that kingdom so long foretold and
expected.

Matthew 12 : 31, 32.
The Unpardonable Sin.
Verse 31. "Every sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven." Here the nature of the case shows
us that we must understand that every kind of
sin may (and in the case of some persons will)
be forgiven ; not that every sin will actually be
forgiven, which would flatly contradict the state
ment immediately following.

46 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Verse 32. " Whosoever shall speak [in Mark
3: 29, and Luke 12: 10, blaspheme] against the
Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither
in this world nor in that which is to come." On
this passage three questions arise, on which many
inquiring minds have felt difficulty.
1. Is it a particular sin to which our Saviour
refers, or rather a degree of' obduracy in sin ?
2. Why is the distinction made between blas
phemy against Christ and blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit ?
3. Does the last clause imply that some sins
not forgiven in this world may be forgiven in the
world to come ?
In regard to the first point we know from our
Saviour's own words that no sin truly repented
of and forsaken is too great to be forgiven.
" Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast
out." This is manifest also from the fact that
the penitent robber on the cross was forgiven,
and also from the charge given by our Lord to
his disciples, to begin at Jerusalem the preaching
of repentance and forgiveness, namely, to those
whom the apostle Peter addresses (Acts 2 : 36)
as guilty of having crucified the Lord Jesus.
Blasphemy against God under the old dispen-

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN.

47

sation was punished with death (Lev. 24: 12-16).
And yet many cases are on record of blasphemers
being converted and becoming devout Christians.
Even Paul the apostle speaks of himself as
having been a blasphemer when he was making
havoc of the Church (1 Tim. 1 : 13).
In Heb. 6: 6 we read of a class of back
sliders from Christianity of whom it is said that
it is impossible to renew them again unto repent
ance. Whether we understand the impossibility
as absolute, or only as indicating extreme
difficulty, in either case it is implied that if
they could be brought to repentance they would
obtain forgiveness. The difficulty was that they
could not be renewed again unto repentance.
The above considerations would lead us to
understand our Saviour in this passage as
referring, not to any particular blasphemy or
other sin, but to a degree of obduracy (indicated
by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit) which
would cut off all hope of repentance and con
sequently of forgiveness. This view is confirmed
by a consideration of the circumstances under
which these words were uttered. The rulers of
the Jews saw the evidence of the wonderful
works of Christ, and yet were determined to

48 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
oppose and crush him. They said among them
selves, " What do we ? This man doeth many
miracles. If we let him alone, every body will
believe on him." So, subsequently, in reference
to a miracle wrought by apostles, they said,
" That a notable miracle has been wrought is
manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem,
and we cannot deny it," implying that, if they
could deny it in a way to persuade the people,
they would. In other words, the national cause
must be maintained, right or wrong. Such men
did violence to their own convictions. They
saw the evidence that the Spirit of God was
working, and yet, before the people, they repre
sented the mighty works of Jesus as performed
by the aid of the prince of demons. It was of
such men that our Saviour said that their sin
would never be forgiven.
We come to the second question. Why the
difference between blasphemy against the Son of
man and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ?
I would answer, simply because the former sin
might be committed without a full knowledge of
the Saviour's divine character and mission. The
latter sin would be much more heinous, because
those who committed it felt in their consciences

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. 49
that the works in question were performed "by
the finger of God," and yet pretended to believe
that they were wrought by the aid of a vile
demon, and denounced them as such before the
people. In reply to the third question we remark, first,
that there is no necessity for regarding it as
implied in the words of Jesus that some sins
not forgiven here may be forgiven hereafter.
The phrase, " neither in this world nor in the
world to come," may well be regarded as a
periphrasis for never. It is said to have been
frequently so employed by the Jews. Bloomfield,
in his note on this passage, refers to his
Recensio Synoptica for Rabbinical citations to
this effect. The question must be decided by
an appeal to the Scriptures, and the uniform
testimony of the Scriptures is that men are to
be judged in the future state according to the
deeds done in the body. There is not the least
hint in them of any extension of probation to
the future state.
The apostle John (i John 5: 16) speaks of a
sin unto death, respecting which he goes on to
say, " I do not say that he shall pray for it."
We may well consider him as alluding to Christ's

50 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
words concerning sin which will never be
forgiven, and concerning which the most benev
olent Christian could not pray in faith that it
might be forgiven.
While therefore we must admit that there is a
degree of obduracy which shuts out all hope of
repentance and pardon, and while this should be
a warning to all sinners not to presume upon
God's mercy, or to continue in sin because grace
is so free, yet since that point in any sinner's
course when he passes beyond hope is wisely
hidden from us, we may, and should, labor to
save all, and may pray for all, even as our Lord
on the cross prayed for his murderers, and as
Stephen prayed for those who were stoning him
to death. Especially may we labor and pray
in hope for any who are distressed by the fear
that they have committed the unpardonable sin ;
for this very fear is an indication that their
consciences are not "seared as with a hot iron,"
and that the Holy Spirit's influences have not
yet been wholly withdrawn from them.

Matthew 16 : 16-20.
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church."

THE ROCK. 51
The principal views advocated by interpreters
of these words, ancient and modern, are three,
namely : —
1. That the rock upon which our Lord declares
that he will build his Church is himself. This
was Augustine's later interpretation. In his
earlier writings he regarded Peter as the rock.
This view would require us to suppose that Jesus,
after saying, Thou art Peter, made some gesture
directing attention to himself as he added, Upon
this rock I will build my Church. But of any
such gesture there is no hint in the text.
The advocates of this view have urged in its
favor the fact that the Greek text exhibits Petros
for Peter (masculine) and petra for rock (femi
nine). To this it is a sufficient answer that petra
is the ordinary Greek term for rock, but that when
employed as the name of a man it must of
necessity take the masculine form. Moreover, the
Syriac version (which probably gives the very
words of our Saviour) has the same term (kipho,
represented in English by Cephas) in both cases.
" Thou art Kipho, and upon this kipho I will build
my church."
If our Saviour intended to say, Upon myself I
will build my church, it seems very difficult to

52 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
account for his introducing the statement by say
ing, Thou art Peter, without plainly adding, But
I am the Rock. Moreover, it seems unnatural for
him in the same sentence to speak of himself as
both the builder of the church and its foundation.
2. A second view advocated by some inter
preters is that the rock was Peter's confession that
Jesus was the Messiah. But this seems remote
and forced, especially after the declaration, " Thou
art Peter." The Church is spoken of as a building,
a glorious temple, of which Jesus Christ is the
corner stone, the apostles and prophets foundation
stones, and all believers living stones (Eph. 2 :
20-22; 1 Peter 2: 5, 6; Rev. 21: 14); but no
where is any confession or profession spoken of
as a foundation of the Church.
3. The simplest and most natural understand
ing of our Saviour's words appears to me to be
that Peter is himself the foundation ; not the sole
foundation, but a portion of it, in common with the
other apostles. This he was, being specially dis
tinguished among the original apostles as the first
to preach the gospel of salvation, to the Jews on
the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles in the
house Of Cornelius.
This view is confirmed by the fact that the

THE ROCK.

53

power of binding and loosing here conferred upon
Peter (in recognition of his promptness in com
ing forward, as the spokesmen of the Twelve, and
distinctly acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah)
was afterward conferred equally upon all the
apostles, and in a certain sense upon all Chris
tians (Matt. 18 : 18 ; John 20: 23). It is in
perfect accord with the representation in Eph. 2 :
20 and Rev. 21 : 14, of the apostles as being
foundation stones in the spiritual temple. It
would probably never have been contested except
for the preposterous claims which Papists found
on this passage of the supremacy of Peter among
the apostles, and of the popes as being his suc
cessors. These claims require a brief notice
here. That they are unfounded and may safely
be rejected by all Christians is evident ; for, —
1. The office of the apostles was such that it
could not be transmitted to successors. It is
spoken of in Acts 1 : 22 as bearing witness to the
resurrection of Christ, — that great crowning fact
of the gospel record, without which the preaching
of the gospel would be vain (1 Cor. 15: 14), —
and thus laying the foundations of the Church.
This they did with power (Acts 2 : 32 ; 5:32;
10 : 39), as Paul also declares that as a wise

54 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
master-builder he had laid the foundation (i Cor.
3 : 10). Thus the apostles could be figuratively,
and yet appropriately, designated as being them
selves foundations in the spiritual temple. In
this capacity it is evident that they could have
no successors.
2. No official superiority over the other Apostles
was conferred upon Peter. " It shall not be so
among you," said our Saviour (Matt. 20 : 26), and
"All ye are brethren" (23: 8). Accordingly
we do not find in the Acts of the Apostles
the slightest trace of any authority being exer
cised by Peter over his brother apostles. He was
present at the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15: 7,
etc.); but evidently did not preside (v. 19), and
when at Antioch he failed in duty, he was openly
rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2 : 11). Neither is there
in Peter's Epistles evidence of his claiming any
such authority.
3. There is no evidence that Peter founded the
Church of Rome, nor is it possible that he can
have been its pastor for twenty-five years as the
Papists claim ; for, —
(1) The best ancient authorities state that
Peter suffered martyrdom during the reign of the
Emperor Nero, and so not later than a.d. 68.

THE ROCK.

55

Paul's Epistle to the Romans, written only ten
years before Peter's death, not merely contains no
salutation to Peter, among the numerous greet
ings addressed in chapter 16 to those who had
been Paul's fellow-laborers in the gospel, nor any
allusion to Peter's having preached the gospel at
Rome, but implies in chapter i: n, 15, that no
apostle had yet labored there, and so Paul (who
would not build on another man's foundation)
was desirous of going to Rome to impart to the
believers there " some spiritual gift " to the end
they might be established.
(2) In Paul's letters written from Rome a.d.
61-63 to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colos-
sians, although mention is made of other fellow-
laborers in the gospel, not a word is said of
Peter. This is inexplicable on the supposition
that Peter was pastor of the church there. The
same inference is naturally drawn from the narra
tive in Acts 28 : 15-31 of Paul's arrival in Rome
(a.d. 61) and of his first interviews there with
both Christians and Jews.
What are we then to understand in verse 19 by
"the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and by
authority to bind and loose f
The Papists and some others maintain that in

56 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
this passage Christ conferred upon Peter, and in
chapter 18: 18 and John 20: 23 upon all the
apostles, authority to forgive the sins of individ
uals, and to grant them an assured title to
admission into heaven when they die. But "the
kingdom of heaven " denotes, not merely the
heavenly state, but also, and usually, the Church
as founded by the Messiah, beginning on earth
and perfected in heaven. The grant of the keys
of this kingdom naturally implies the authority to
decide who shall be admitted to it and who
rejected. This the apostles did by authoritatively
declaring, under the guidance of Gods Spirit, the
conditions of admission, not by pronouncing the
sins of individuals forgiven. This latter Jesus
often did, but the apostles never. When Jesus
pronounced the sins of individuals forgiven, he
was understood by the Jews, and rightly, as
claiming divine authority. Had any such author
ity been committed to the apostles, the exercise of
it would inevitably have been prominent in their
management of the affairs of the Church. In
stead of this, there is not a single instance of it
on record. The claim of pope or priest to forgive
sins must therefore be regarded as a blasphemous
assumption of a divine prerogative.

THE ROCK.

57

On the contrary, the claim of the apostles to
teach infallibly, by divine inspiration, the condi
tions of admission to the kingdom of heaven or
exclusion from it, was founded on the promise
of Christ, and confirmed by the miracles which
they wrought in his name. Paul claimed this
authority when in Rom. 2 : 16 he declared that in
the day of judgment God would judge the secrets
of all men "according to my gospel," that is,
according to the principles of the gospel which
Paul preached. And this illustrates the words of
our Saviour, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." To
bind, in the current language of the Jews (as
illustrated by many examples), was to pronounce
binding or obligatory, and to loose, to pronounce
not obligatory, and this accords with the words of
our Saviour in Matt. 23 : 4, " They [the scribes
and Pharisees] bind heavy burdens and grievous
to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders ; but
they themselves will not move them with one of
their fingers " ; that is, they pronounce obligatory
upon other things which they themselves make
not the slightest effort to perform.
We need not exclude from our interpretation

58 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
of our Saviour's words respecting binding and
loosing, the practical application of the rules and
principles laid down by the apostles to the admis
sion of individuals to the Christian Church and to
their exclusion from it. Only we must bear in
mind that this practical application has to be
made by uninspired and consequently fallible men,
and therefore can not claim an absolutely certain
ratification in heaven of what is done on earth,
while the inspired declaration of the terms of
admission to the kingdom of heaven, being God's
own word, is certain to be ratified in the judgment
of the great day, and it was no presumption for
Paul to say that in that day the secrets of men
would be judged according to the gospel which
he preached.

Matthew 19: 12.

"There are eunuchs who have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."
Instances have occurred in which Christians
have understood these words of our Saviour as
referring to, and by implication commending, the
becoming eunuchs literally, for the sake of the

THE MARRIED RELATION.

59

better serving God, and so have actually mutilated
themselves for this purpose. But, —
I. It is not at all harsh to understand our Lord
as using this language figuratively, as he did the
words in Matt. 5 : 29, 30, about plucking out a
right eye or cutting off a right hand (see note on
that passage), and so saying for substance in this
verse, There are those who from their birth have
been incapable of the married relation, and there
are those who have been made so by others, and
there are those who, for the kingdom of heaven's
sake (for the sake of more efficiently promoting
the kingdom of Christ in the world) have denied
themselves the comforts of the married relation,
and so treated themselves as though incapable of
it. The apostle Paul did this, and perhaps also
John, although most of the apostles were married
(1 Cor. 9 : 5).
2. That this is the true import of our Saviour's
words is confirmed by the fact that they were
uttered in immediate response to the remark of
the disciples that if the responsibilities of the
married state were so great, it was better not to
marry (v. 10).

60 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Matthew 20 : 29.
See note on Luke 18 : 35.

Matthew 21 : 18-20.
The Barren Fig-tree.
Compare Mark n: 12-14; 20-23.
With this chapter we enter upon that portion
of Matthew's Gospel which records the closing
up of our Saviour's ministry on earth. In the
first eleven verses is recorded the manner of his
entry into Jerusalem, designedly fulfilling the
prophecy of Zech. 9 : 9, and thus manifesting
himself as the promised Messiah, the King of
Israel ; also, the enthusiastic greetings of the
multitudes who acknowledged him with shouts of
" Hosanna to the Son of David."
Next we have the exercise of his authority in
casting out from the temple those that sold and
bought in it, and the confirmation of that
authority by miracles of healing wrought in it ;
then the drying up of the fruitless fig-tree, sym
bolizing the rejection of unfruitful Israel ; then
the silencing of the chief priests and elders who
questioned his authority, by the demand that they
should say whether John's baptism was from

THE BARREN FIG-TREE. 6 1
heaven or of men ; and finally two remarkable
parables, the last clearly setting forth the casting
off of unbelieving and unfruitful Israel and the
transferring of their privileges to believing
Gentiles. This general view of the incidents recorded in
connection with the one we are considering is
important as evidencing the symbolical character
of the transaction.
Several difficulties present themselves in con
nection with this narrative : —
I. The order of the events narrated is not the
same in Matthew and Mark. Matthew mentions
the wonder of the disciples and Jesus' reply as if
they had occurred immediately upon his uttering
the words, " Let no fruit grow on thee hencefor
ward for ever." He also records the cleansing of
the temple as if it had occurred immediately after
our Saviour's triumphal entry into Jerusalem ;
whereas it appears from Mark's more exact narra
tive that the cleansing of the temple occurred on
the day after his arrival and the conversation
respecting the drying up of the fig-tree on the
third day. This difference of order must be
referred to that characteristic of Matthew's style
which led him to group together things having

62 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
relation to each other, and so occasionally to dis
regard the order of time. The cleansing of the
temple was a prominent event closely connected
with the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem,
and the conversation about the drying up of the
fig-tree had a natural and close connection with
the event itself, though occurring the day after.
(See note on Matt. 8 : 2-4.)
2. A second difficulty is presented by our
Saviour's appearing to expect fruit where he must
have known that none existed. This must be
referred to the symbolical character of the trans
action. Augustine well observes in his Qucestiones
Evangelicce, book ii, section 51, that "not every
fiction is a falsehood. If it teaches something it
is a figure of truth. Otherwise all parables would
be falsehoods." And this manner of our Saviour
on this occasion confirms the reference of the
curse pronounced upon the barren fig-tree to the
doom then impending over unfruitful Israel.
3. A third difficulty is presented by the con
demnation of the tree for having no fruit, when,
as Mark distinctly says, " the time of figs was not
yet." Some have sought to get rid of this diffi
culty by reading Mark's words interrogatively,
" was it not the time of figs ? " but for this there

THE BARREN FIG-TREE. 63
is not a particle of authority either in manuscripts
or ancient versions. Besides, the facts of natural
history contradict this idea. The time of this
occurrence was early in April. The first ripe figs
in Palestine appear in June. Others have said
that some fruit might have remained on the tree
from the preceding year. But had that been the
ground of expecting any fruit upon this tree,
Mark would not have added, " For the time of
figs was not yet."
But the true explanation is after all very simple.
The fig-tree uniformly puts forth its fruit before
its leaves. This is a well-known fact, and is men
tioned by Pliny in his Natural History. In April
neither leaves nor fruit were ordinarily to be
expected in the vicinity of Jerusalem. But this
tree, by putting forth untimely leaves, seemed to
give promise of equally untimely fruit. The con
demnation was therefore for not having fruit
corresponding with its professions. Precisely this
circumstance renders it a fit emblem of false
professors of religion, and especially of boasting
yet unfruitful Israel, and confirms the symbolical
interpretation of the transaction, in harmony with
the parable at the close of the chapter, which
points out the impending rejection of the Jews
for being unfruitful.

64 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
4. The appearance of passion and unreasonable
vexation in our Lord. This has been cited by
unbelievers as a proof of a defective character.
The impression may have been increased in some
minds by the expression used by Peter, as re
corded in Mark n: 21, "the fig-tree which
thou cursedst." But this impression is entirely
removed if we regard the transaction as symboli
cal. Jesus addressed no reproachful language to
the tree. He simply said, " Let no fruit grow
on thee henceforward for ever." We are bound
therefore to understand the word curse, as used
by Peter, not in the sense of uttering reproaches,
but in that of pronouncing a doom, as in Matt.
25 : 41, " Depart, ye cursed" where the participle
employed is derived from the same verb.
In reply to the sneer of those who would
regard our Saviour's language as indicative of
human weakness, it is enough to ask, Can we
imagine that God would work a miracle to confirm
the words of a weak and passionate man ?
On the other hand, if we understand the trans
action as symbolical, the language of Jesus at
once appears entirely consistent with calmness
and divine dignity.
5. Another difficulty is presented by this narra-

-

THE BARREN FIG-TREE. 65
tive in the fact that our Lord, in answer to Peter's
remark, spoke of the transaction, not with refer
ence to any symbolical meaning, but simply as a
mighty work. The explanation is probably this :
The minds of the disciples were filled with
wonder by the effect produced by a word from
their Lord, even as when he stilled the tempest
or performed other striking miracles. To this
feeling, shared by them all, Peter, as usual, gave
utterance, and Jesus responded to it by assuring
them that faith in God would enable them to
perform still more wonderful works. Meantime,
he left the matter of the drying up of the fruit
less fig-tree, as he did many of his sayings and
doings, for them to treasure up in their memories,
and to understand fully when they should have
the assistance of the Holy Spirit, after his
personal presence should be withdrawn.
A word may properly be added here in regard
to the faith by which our Saviour told his
disciples that they could remove mountains. Our
Lord's utterances were sometimes presented with
out qualifications or limitations, for the sake of
making the deeper impression, where nevertheless
the nature of the case requires us to regard such
limitations as implied. Such maxims as, " Swear

66 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
not at all," " Resist not evil," " If any man will
sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also," are specimens. The
declarations respecting the power of faith belong
to this class. To insist that they must be under
stood absolutely without qualifications would lead,
and has actually led, men in various ages to the
wildest fanaticism. Many have imagined that the
only faith needed was a firm persuasion that what
they desired would come to pass ; and a superficial
reading of our Saviour's words might lead to their
being so understood. But such a persuasion may
exist where there is no faith, and what our Lord
insists on is faith, or, as Mark (ch. 1 1 : 22) calls
it, faith in God. Many a zealous worker says,
" I have faith to believe that this enterprise will
succeed." But has God told him that it is to
succeed ? If not, his persuasion may be not faith
but presumption. Faith in God must rest upon the
word of God, either the written word or a direct
revelation. It is a great mistake to suppose that
a power of working miracles was ever conferred
upon any prophet or apostle to be used at his
discretion and without a divine intimation. Paul
left his beloved and much-needed helper Trophi-
mus sick at Miletum (2 Tim. 4 : 20). Why ?

THE BARREN FIG-TREE, bj
Doubtless because he had no divine intimation on
that occasion that he should heal him. So Paul
prayed earnestly thrice that his thorn in the flesh
might depart from him. It did not depart ; but
the Lord gave him what was better than a cure
of his malady: "My grace is sufficient for thee."
Would Peter have dared to call the deceased
sister Dorcas back to life without a direct intima
tion from the Spirit of God so to do ? I trow not.
When Elijah on Mount Carmel prayed that fire
might descend from heaven and consume his
sacrifice, one thing to be demonstrated by it was
that he had taken every step in that transaction
by divine command. " Let it be known this day
that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy
servant, and that T have done all these things at
thy word" (i Kings 18 : 36). We speak popularly
of a prophet or an apostle as working miracles,
and this is not incorrect. But we read also that
it was God who wrought through them (Acts 19:
1 1). God in every instance wrought the miracle,
and he in like manner ordered every step and
every word connected with it. And yet we can
easily see that a prophet or an apostle, after
receiving by inspiration a direction to go forward
and perform a miracle, might be tempted to falter,

68 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
perhaps on account of the unbelief or hostility of
those about him, and so would stand in need of
the exhortation to have faith in God, and not to
doubt. Especially might this be so with the
apostles in the first stage of their ministry, before
the pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
When Jesus called Peter to come to him walking
upon the water, he ought not for an instant to
have doubted the power or willingness of Jesus
to keep him in perfect safety. Yet when he
looked at the raging of the storm, he faltered, and
earned for himself the rebuke, "O thou of little
faith, wherefore didst thou doubt ? "
When therefore our Saviour bids us believe and
not doubt, he means not merely, believe that what
you desire will come to pass, but, believe what
God has told you respecting it, either in his
written word or by direct revelation. Direct
revelation' in our day no one claims, unless he be
a fanatic or an impostor. There remains to us
therefore only the written word of God as a foun
dation for our faith in prayer. What that word
promises unconditionally, we may and should pray
for unconditionally. What it promises condition
ally we should pray for conditionally. Since that
word declares that the earth shall be filled with

PETER'S THREE DENIALS. 69
the glory of the Lord, we may pray, " Thy king
dom come, thy will be done ! " But when we
descend to particulars, in regard to which it is
only by inference that we can regard them as
included in the divine promise, we should subor
dinate our petitions to God's supreme will and
infinite wisdom, and this is what the beloved
disciple meant when he wrote (1 John 5 : 14), " If
we ask any thing according to his will, he
heareth us."

Matthew 26: 71-74.
Peter's Three Denials.
There is so much difference between the state
ments of the different evangelists in narrating
Peter's second denial, that some have been led to
regard the narratives as inconsistent with each
other. Matthew (v. 71) says, "Another maid
saw him"; Mark (ch. 14: 69), "The maid";
Luke (ch. 22 : 59), " Another man," and John
(ch. 18: 25), "They said." This last expression
affords, probably, the true explanation of the
difference. We may well suppose that the first
maid spoke to her companion and to others
around her concerning Peter's being a disciple of

70 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Jesus. In the prevailing excitement several per
sons may have addressed Peter, among whom the
second female servant and one man from the
crowd may have been prominent. This simple
hypothesis seems to me sufficient to account for
the apparently conflicting statements of the four
evangelists. Mark mentions two cock-crowings, one after
Peter's first denial, probably not long after mid
night, and the other after his third denial, prob
ably near the close of the third watch of the
night, which was called the watch of the cock-
crowing (Mark 13 : 35). The other evangelists
mention only the latter, as they do also where
they narrate how Jesus foretold Peter's denying
him. (See Matt. 26 : 34 ; Luke 22 : 34 ; John
13 : 38.) The difference is simply that Mark,
very likely under the guidance of Peter himself,
is more minute than the other evangelists.

Matthew 27 : 3-8.
Suicide of Judas. — The Field of Blood.
The statement in Acts 1 : 18, 19, is not incon
sistent with that in Matthew, either in respect to
the mode of Judas' death, or to the purchase of

SUICIDE OF JUDAS. 7 1
the field. If Judas hung himself from a tree
on the precipitous slope of the valley of Hinnom,
the breaking of a cord or of a branch might cause
him to fall such a distance as to produce the
result described by Luke. Then if with the
money, which he in his remorse brought back to
the chief priests and elders, the same field was
purchased after his death, he might still be said
to have purchased it with the reward of iniquity.
Language like this would easily and naturally be
used by people who knew all the circumstances, and
would occasion no misunderstanding. That field
would also naturally be called the field of blood.

Matthew 27 : 9, 10.
" Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the
thirty pieces of silver," etc.
The first point requiring attention here is that
in our present Greek text the prophecy referred to
is quoted as if from Jeremiah, while actually it is
found in Zechariah, but not in Jeremiah. Several
ways of accounting for this have been suggested.
One is that since in ancient manuscripts proper
names were usually abridged, a change might

72 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
easily have been made by copyists ; but there is
no evidence to support this conjecture. Another
is that since in ancient Hebrew manuscripts
Jeremiah was placed first among the prophetical
books, a quotation from any of the prophets
might be spoken of as from Jeremiah ; but the
text does not say, " Written in the book of
Jeremiah," but, " Spoken by Jeremiah."
The most probable supposition appears to me
to be that Matthew wrote neither Zechariah nor
Jeremiah, but simply, "the prophet," as in chapter
21 : 4, and elsewhere, and that some very early
copyist added Jeremiah; perhaps having in mind
the eighteenth chapter of Jeremiah, where the
prophet records his visit to a potter ; or chapter
19, in which he relates his being sent to the valley
of the son of Hinnom to perform the symbolical
action of breaking a potter's vessel in the sight
of the elders of Israel. Augustine mentions that
in his day some manuscripts omitted the name
Jeremiah, reading simply the prophet. It is
stated that Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome favored
this reading, and this view is confirmed by the
Syriac Version, made in the second century, which
has simply the prophet, showing that the Greek
text which they had before them (older by at least

SUICIDE OF JUDAS. 73
two centuries than any Greek manuscript which
we now have) had this reading.
We come then to the passage cited from
Zechariah (ch. 11: 12, 13) which Matthew, as
frequently, does not quote literally, but only gives
its general sense. God had directed the prophet
(v. 4) to feed the flock, that is, to do the work of a
pastor for the people. This he did (v. 7), and
invited them, if disposed, to furnish the means for
his support (probably for a year ; compare Judges
17 : 10). They, putting a low estimate upon his
spiritual work, gave him thirty pieces (shekels) of
silver. This the Lord regarded as a dishonor
done to himself, and bade the prophet to cast it
to the potter, who was then " in the house of the
Lord," that is, probably furnishing in the court
of the temple some of his cheap earthenware, for
inferior uses in the temple service.
The application to the events narrated by
Matthew is not difficult, constituting a fulfillment
in the wider sense of that term. Once more
thirty pieces of silver were paid, and that by the
Jewish rulers, as the price of the betrayal of the
Messiah, the Shepherd of Israel, and when
returned by despairing Judas, were again cast to
a potter, paid as the price of a desolate field in

74 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
the valley of the son of Hinnom (probably the
very field in which the traitor hanged himself ; see
Acts i : 1 8, 19), as a burying-place for strangers,
which from the appalling circumstances in which
it was acquired received among the people the
name Aceldama, the field of blood.
In reference to the expression, Then was ful
filled, see note on Matt. 1 : 22, 23.

Matthew 27 : 37.
" This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
Compare Mark 15: 26, "The King of the Jews''; Luke
23: 38, "This is the King of the Jews"; John 19: 19,
"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
The superscription upon the cross of Jesus is
thus given with different degrees of fullness,
Matthew and John giving it more fully, and Mark
and Luke more briefly ; but all mention the
essential fact that Pilate designated Jesus, not as
a robber, or murderer, or exciter of sedition, but
simply as that remarkable person commonly
called the King of the Jews. As the superscrip
tion was written in three languages, — Hebrew,
the peculiar language of the Jews ; Latin, the
language of the Roman governor, and Greek, the

THE APPEARANCES OF JESUS, ETC. 75
common language used by all, — it is not improb
able that it may have been expressed more fully in
the uppermost inscription, and less so in those
that followed.
From these variations, and from the verbal
differences in the mention of the voice which
came from heaven at the time of our Lord's
baptism and in the different narratives of the
institution of the Lord's Supper, we learn that
the sacred writers were more concerned to give
the general sense of utterances which they record
than the exact words.

Matthew 28 : 1-10.
The Appearances of Jesus to his Disciples
After his Resurrection.
In narrating the events connected with the
resurrection of our Lord, no one of them has
undertaken to give a complete history of them all.
Hence we find occasionally an appearance of
disagreement, from which unbelievers have taken
occasion to represent the narratives as not worthy
of confidence. Had it pleased the Holy Spirit to
give us all the details, no doubt those which we

76 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
now have would be seen to be perfectly consistent
with each other.
The following outline of the probable order of
these events may aid the diligent student of the
New Testament in clearing away the difficulties of
the narrative.
The resurrection occurred at or before the
earliest dawn on the first day of the week. Very
early Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James
and Joses, Joanna, Salome, and others, having
prepared spices, hasten to the Saviour's tomb,
with the purpose of anointing the body, in addi
tion to what had been hastily done at the time of
its burial. On their way they inquire among
themselves whom they can find to roll away the
stone from the door of the tomb, evidently having
no knowledge of the sealing of the stone and the
setting of the watch on the preceding day, which
they had religiously kept as a day of rest at their
own dwellings. On arriving at the tomb they find
it open. An angel of the Lord had rolled away
the stone, a being of so glorious an appearance
that the guards were frightened and " became as
dead men." Of this the women had as yet no
knowledge, and so, not finding the body of their
Lord, "they were amazed." Mary Magdalene

THE APPEARANCES OF JESUS, ETC. J J
at once runs to tell Peter and John. The other
women linger there and soon are permitted to see
a vision of angels, who tell them that the Lord is
risen, and bid them go and tell his disciples.
They then go, probably not all together, to tell
other disciples, doubtless knowing that Mary had
gone to tell Peter and John. On the way Jesus
himself meets them, bids them not fear, and gives
them a message to his disciples.
Meantime, Peter and John hasten to visit the
sepulcher. Mary follows them, but not so rapidly,
and when they return to the city she remains
without the sepulcher weeping. Looking in she
sees two angels who speak to her, and then turn
ing around sees Jesus himself. As to the
question whether this appearance of our Lord to
Mary or that to the other women occurred first,
see note on Mark 16:9.
The remaining recorded appearances of our
Lord are : —
1 . To Peter, mentioned by Luke (24 : 34) and
by Paul (1 Cor. 15 : 5). From the former passage
it is evident that the appearance to Peter occurred
before the return of the two disciples from Em-
maus, probably after they left the city going to
Emmaus. See Luke 24 : 22.

78 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
2. To the two disciples going to Emmaus in the
afternoon, mentioned by Mark (16 : 12, 13) and
Luke (24: 13-35).
3. To ten of the apostles (Thomas not being
present) in the evening of the same day, men
tioned by Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.
4. To the eleven apostles a week later (still at
Jerusalem), mentioned by John only (ch. 20 :
26-29). 5. To seven of the apostles on the shore of the
Sea of Galilee, mentioned by John only (ch. 21 :
1-23). 6. To the apostles and about five hundred other
brethren, on a mountain in Galilee, mentioned by
Matthew (ch. 28: 16-20) and Paul (1 Cor. 15 : 6).
7. To James, mentioned by Paul only (1 Cor.
IS: 7)-
8. To the eleven apostles at the time of his
ascension, mentioned by Luke (Acts 1 : 4-1 1) and
by Paul (1 Cor. 15 : 7).
There may have been other appearances during
the forty days intervening between our Lord's
resurrection and his ascension, briefly alluded
to in Acts 1 : 3, but not recorded.

interview of jesus, etc. 79
Matthew 28 : 16, 17.
Interview of Jesus with the Disciples in
Galilee.
Matthew informs us that the eleven disciples
went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus
had designated, and Paul (1 Cor. 15:6) informs
us that after the other recorded appearances Jesus
appeared to more than five hundred brethren at
once. There can scarcely be a doubt that these
two statements refer to the same occasion. Our
Lord's ministry had been mainly in Galilee, and
the number of those who there believed on him
was doubtless greater than in Judaea. We read
that the number of believers who assembled in
Jerusalem for special prayer after the ascension
(doubtless including some from Galilee) was only
about a hundred and twenty (Acts 1 : 15). It
was natural that our Saviour should designate a
place for his last solemn interview with his
disciples in the region where most of them
resided. Matthew's remark also, that on the
mountain in Galilee some doubted, implies the
presence there of others besides the apostles ; for
it is incredible that any of the apostles should
doubt after the interview, when Thomas was
present, a week after the resurrection.

80 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
There were the best of reasons why our
Saviour did not show himself openly to all the
people (thus gratifying their curiosity), but only
to chosen witnesses (Acts 10 : 41). This last
solemn interview on the mountain in Galilee with
the apostles and the multitude of believers to
gether, and the tender farewell words then and
there spoken, must have left an ineffaceable
impression on their minds (although there were
still a few doubters) and have greatly helped and
strengthened them for the carrying out of the
great commission which he then gave, not to the
apostles only, but to all, " Go ye into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature."

Mark 2 : 26.

"In the days of Abiathar the high priest."
In the Old Testament record of the event to
which our Lord here refers (1 Sam. 21), the
high priest who permitted David to take and eat
the show-bread is called Ahimelech, and his son,
who alone escaped when his father and all the
other priests at Nob were slain by command of
Saul, is called Abiathar (ch. 22).
Some have explained this apparent discrepancy

ABIATHAR THE HIGH PRIEST. 8 1
by supposing that the Abiathar mentioned by
our Lord was the son, who almost immediately
became high priest in consequence of his father's
death, joined David and shared his wanderings,
arid continued in office during the whole forty
years of David's reign (sharing the duties of the
high priesthood with Zadok). Becoming thus well
known as a friend of David and high priest
during his reign, and having been present at the
time of the incident referred to (and perhaps
active in giving the sacred loaves to David, by his
father's direction), the incident might be spoken
of as having occurred in his days.
This is a possible explanation. But there is
another which seems to me to be better. On
further examination of the Old Testament rec
ords we find that in the summary notice of the
reign of David in 2 Sam. 8: 15-18, the high priest
during that reign is called Ahimelech, the son of
Abiathar, and in the same brief notice repeated
in 1 Chron. 18: 14-17, Abimelech the son of
Abiathar. In both cases the father (who permit
ted David to take and eat the show-bread) is
called Abiathar, as in the New Testament.
Hence we may fairly conclude that the original
name of both father and son was Abiathar, but

82 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
that both in their later years received the surname
of Ahimelech (brother of the king), the father
as being a friend and companion of Saul, and the
son as the faithful friend and companion of David,
and that thus, in the earlier and contemporary
record (i Sam. 21), the father was called by his
acquired surname Ahimelech, and the son by his
original name Abiathar, while in the later record
of David's reign (2 Sam. 8 : 17), the son is desig
nated by the surname Ahimelech, which he had
acquired as David's friend, and the father by his
original name Abiathar. Thus Abiathar would
remain in use in later times, and would naturally
be employed in the New Testament as the name
of the father. This is far better than to assume
(as some have done) confusion or blundering in
the Old Testament record.
Abimelech in 1 Chron. 18 : 16 may also have
been a surname given to Abiathar II ( meaning
father, that is, friend of the king), or, since, as is
well known, the text of the Chronicles has not
been as accurately preserved as that of the other
books of the Old Testament, it may be the mistake
of an early copyist for Ahimelech.
That the Jews sometimes gave to a son the name
of his father is evident from Luke 1 : 59, where it

"SEEING THFTY MAY SEE." 83
is related that at the circumcision of John the
Baptist the friends and neighbors present desired
to have him called Zacharias, after his father.
This view of the matter has the advantage that
it clears up, not only an apparent discrepancy
between the passage in Mark and the narrative
in 1 Samuel, but also one between different
passages in the Old Testament.

Mark 4: 12.
" That seeing they may see, and not perceive,"
etc. The parallel passage in Luke 8 : 10 resembles
this : " That seeing they may not see, and hearing
they may not understand." But in the correspond
ing passage in Matt. 13: 13 we find, "Because
they seeing see not ; and hearing they hear not,
neither do they understand."
Probably our Saviour used both forms of
expression in answer to the inquiry of his
disciples, " Why speakest thou unto them in par
ables?" reported by all three of the evangelists.
We should ever bear in mind that we have not
our Lord's discourses in full but only brief ab
stracts of them.

84 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
The language in the commission given to Isaiah
( Is. 6 : 9, 10), " Go and tell this people, Hear ye
indeed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed,
but perceive not ; make the heart of this people
fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes," etc., and the corresponding utterances of our
Saviour, as reported by Mark and Luke, have at
first sight a very stern aspect, seeming to imply
that God desires the destruction of sinners, and
sends his messages to them in a manner designed
to bring about that result. But since God has
plainly declared that he has no pleasure in the
destruction of sinners, but desires that they
should turn from their evil ways and live (see
Ezek. 33 : 11, etc.), we are bound to understand
the words addressed to Isaiah as simply a bold
and highly figurative method of saying, " Go,
preach to this people to repent and turn from
their evil ways, but know that they will not
hearken to your solemn message, but will go on
in their sins and perish ; " and this interpreta
tion is confirmed by the prophet's question ( Is.
6: 11), "Lord, how long?" to which the Lord
answers, " Until . . . the land be utterly deso
late ; " that is, such will be their disregard of my
gracious messages.

'• UNTO BETHSAIDA." 85
Now unquestionably we should interpret our
Saviour's words reported by Mark and Luke in the
same way. It is as if he had said, I speak in dark
sayings to test the sincerity and docility of my hear
ers. If they desire to understand them they shall
be further instructed. But if, as is the fact with
the majority, they are indifferent, they shall be left
to go their own chosen way, and to be filled with
the fruits of their own devices.

Mark 6 : 8.
" Save a staff only."
See note on Matt. 10 : 10.

Mark 6 : 45.
"To go before to the other side, unto Beth-
saida, while he sent away the people."
There is an apparent discrepancy between this
statement and that in John 6:15, where it is said
that they entered the boat to go to, or toward,
Capernaum. But this entirely disappears when
we notice the relative position of the several
places. The feeding of the five thousand took

86 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
place not far from Bethsaida (Luke 9 : 10),
probably about three miles south-east from that
town. The disciples wished to return to Caper
naum, where they resided, and in so doing they
would pass by Bethsaida, where Jesus, had he
chosen to do so, could have joined them after
dismissing the multitudes. The storm seems to
have driven them somewhat to the south of
Capernaum, before Jesus rejoined them, and so
they came to land on the western shore of the
lake, in the region called Gennesaret.

Mark 9 : 49.
" Every one shall be salted with fire," etc.
The difficulty in interpreting these words of our
Saviour arises from the fact that fire is employed
in the Scriptures as an emblem of consecration, of
trial and purification, and of punishment. When
the pious Israelite presented the fat of his peace-
offerings to be burned upon the altar, he indicated
the consecration of himself and all that he had to
God. The idea of acceptance of the consecration
was superadded when the Lord by fire from
heaven consumed the sacrifice.
When God by his prophet Zechariah says, "I

"SALTED WITH FIRE." 87
will bring the third part [the remnant of Israel]
through the fire," or by Malachi (ch. 3 : 2) that
the Messiah should be like a refiner's fire, he
indicates in a striking manner the testing and
purifying of his own people, alluding, of course,
to the trying and refining of gold and silver.
And when at the last day the judge shall say to
the wicked, "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire," these words will set forth by a fearful
emblem the punishment of his incorrigible ene
mies. Much of the perplexity of the commentators
seems to me to have arisen from the idea that in
interpreting our Saviour's words our attention must
be confined to only one of the symbolical uses of
fire referred to above. Hence some have explained
the words " salted with fire " solely of future pun
ishment, appealing to the awful declarations in
vs. 44, 46, and 48, that "their worm dieth not and
their fire is not quenched" ; others, of the trials
which must be endured by true Christians, in
order that they may be purged from their dross,
appealing to the preceding exhortation to cut off
an offending right hand, and to pluck out an
offending right eye ; others, of the preservation
of the wicked from annihilation in the midst of

88 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
their punishment, appealing to the familiar use
of salt as preserving from corruption.
But do we not get the best view of our Lord's
meaning by understanding him as alluding, not
to one alone of the symbolical uses of the term
fire, as found in the Scriptures, but to them all
combined? That the idea of the punishment
of the wicked is not to be excluded seems
evident from the words immediately preceding,
"their fire is not quenched." That there is
an allusion to the offering of sacrifices by fire,
and particularly to Lev. 2 : 13, where it is
enjoined that salt should accompany every
offering, is almost equally certain, and is admit
ted even by those who reject the last clause of
this verse, " and every sacrifice shall be salted
with salt." This clause is omitted from the text
of the Revised Version of the English Bible.
But as it is found in the Syriac, Latin Vulgate,
Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavic versions, as well as
in most copies of the Greek, and as, moreover,
the transition to the thought of verse 50, " Salt
is good," etc., is easy and natural with this clause,
but seems abrupt and harsh without it, I think
it should be retained. That the thought of the
purification and preservation of his disciples

"SALTED WITH FIRE."' 89
was present to our Saviour's mind appears from
his going on immediately to say, "Salt is good,"
and " Have salt in yourselves."
We get then, as I apprehend it, our blessed
Saviour's true meaning if we understand him as
saying to his disciples, Deny yourselves every
thing which would lead you into sin ; for " every
one shall be salted with fire." It is a necessary
part of your training for the kingdom of heaven,
that you should pass through fiery trials ; and in
order to your becoming acceptable sacrifices, well
pleasing to God, you must have the salt of divine
grace, as the ancient sacrifices, offered by fire,
were always to be accompanied by " the salt of
the covenant of God." But if you do not so
deny yourselves, and have not the grace symbol
ized by this salt, still "every one shall be salted
with fire." If the baptism with the Holy Ghost
and with fire does not refine and purify you, the
fire of God's holiness and justice will overtake
and consume you in the future world.
To the injunction, "Have salt in yourselves,"
that is, yield yourselves to the gracious influences
of God's Spirit, which he has authorized you to
ask and receive, the Saviour adds, " Have peace
one with another," thus reverting to the subject

90 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
of their dispute as to who should be greatest,
mentioned in verse 34, out of which grew the
whole discourse on self-denial and on the conse
quences of exercising or of neglecting it.

Mark ii : 12-14, 20-23.
The Barren Fig-tree.
See note on Matt. 21 : 18-20.

Mark 13 : 32.
"Neither the Son."
The Revised Version inserts* these words also
in Matt. 24 : 36, noting in the margin that many
authorities omit them. But since they are not
there found in the Syriac Version, the oldest of
our authorities on such points, they should either
have been placed in the margin, or, if in the text,
in brackets. Such a passage seems much more
likely to have been added from Mark than, if
genuine, to have been omitted from so many
manuscripts and versions.
Here in Mark, however, they are undisputed,
and give rise to the question how the Son of God
could be ignorant of the day and hour referred

'NEITHER THE SON."

91

to. Some, as Augustine, have sought to interpret
Christ's words as meaning simply that he did not
wish to reveal the day or the hour of his coming,
and refer us to the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 2 : 2,
" I determined not to know [that is, not to speak
of] anything among you save Jesus Christ, and
him crucified." But in the words of Paul the
force of to know is qualified by the following
words among you. On the contrary, in the
passage under consideration its meaning is
shown to be literal by the strong expressions no
one, not even the angels. It is far better therefore
to accept the statement as literally true of our
Saviour, that even he did not know the day and
the hour. Whether we can understand and ex
plain the limitation of his powers in his state of
humiliation or not, we accept the fact on divine
testimony. As man he grew in wisdom, as
well as in stature (Luke 2 : 52)- He received
from the Father honor and glory (2 Pet. 1 : 17),
was raised by the Father from the dead (Acts
2 : 24 ; Gal. 1 : 1), and exalted to his own right
hand (Acts 5:31; Phil. 2 : 9), designated by the
Father to judge the quick and the dead (John
5 : 22 ; Acts 10 : 42), and what is specially anal
ogous to the passage under consideration, he

92 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
received from the Father the revelation which
through his beloved disciple he communicated to
all his servants (Rev. i : i).

Mark 15 : 25.
See note on John 19 : 14.

Mark 16: 2.

"At the rising of the sun."
This expression at first view seems inconsistent
with that in John 20 : 1, "while it was yet dark."
But Mark himself says in the beginning of the
same verse that it was "very early." Luke also
says, "very early in the morning," and Matthew
says, "as it began to dawn." All four of the
evangelists agree in saying that it was very early.
Now it is clear that the two expressions in the
same verse (Mark 16 : 2) should not be so under
stood as to make them contradict each other.
If therefore the language of Mark was intended
to designate literal sunrise, we must understand
(with West, Benson, and others) that the women
set out from their homes " very early " and

'FIRST TO MARY MAGDALENE."

93

reached the sepulcher about sunrise. Robinson,
however, and others understand by " the rising of
the sun " here the first appearance of the morning
light, and appeal for this meaning to Judges 9 : 33
and Ps. 104 : 22, remarking that an enemy would
not wait for sunrise to make his attack, and that
wild beasts retreat to their lairs at the first appear
ance of morning light.

Mark 16:9.
" He appeared first to Mary Magdalene."
From Matt. 28 : 9 we should naturally infer
that our Lord's first appearance was to the other
women, or to Mary and the others together.
But from John 20 : 2 it is manifest that Mary
left the other women at the sepulcher, and went
alone to tell Peter and John; also, from verse 11,
etc., that she was alone when she saw Jesus.
Some excellent interpreters understand first in
Mark 16 : 9 as meaning not absolutely the first
appearance of the risen Saviour, but the first of
the three appearances recorded by Mark, and so
regard that to the other women as the first and
this to Mary as the second.
But the time occupied by Mary's running to

94 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
tell Peter and John and by their visit to the
sepulcher was evidently very brief. We may
easily suppose the other women to have remained
there until near the time of the visit of Peter
and John, and that they were longer on their
way, perhaps going to more distant parts of the
city, and thus that our Saviour's appearance to
Mary close by the tomb may have preceded that
to the other women. This supposition seems to
give the most simple and natural interpretation
to the language in Mark 16 : 9.

Luke 2 : 39.

The Return to Galilee and Residence in
Nazareth.
Luke here omits any mention of the visit of the
wise men of the East, of the hostility and cruelty
of Herod, and of the flight into Egypt. But so,
on the other hand, does Matthew omit any men
tion of the angelic appearances to Zacharias, to
Mary, and to the shepherds ; of the circumcision
of Jesus ; of his presentation in the temple ; and
of the remarkable utterances of Simeon and
Anna. But neither of them denies or contradicts

THE RETURN TO GALILEE. 95
the statements of the other. Had we only Luke's
Gospel we should infer that the return to Nazareth
immediately succeeded the presentation in the
temple. But Luke does not affirm this. The resi
dence of Joseph and Mary had been at Nazareth
before the birth of Jesus, and the family returned
there, and continued to reside there for some
thirty years. This almost unbroken residence at
the despised Galilaean town Luke records. The
main difficulty arises from his not recording other
important events. In reference to this three
remarks may be offered : —
1. The narratives of all Four Gospels relate
mainly to the time of Christ's public ministry,
containing very little (two of the four, nothing)
concerning his childhood and youth.
2. No one of the evangelists attempted to
record all that Jesus did during his life upon
earth. (See the last verse of John's Gospel.)
Otherwise the first three Gospels would not have
failed to record the raising of Lazarus (one of the
most stupendous of our Saviour's miracles), and
the fourth would not have omitted his temptation
in the wilderness, or the institution of the Lord's
Supper. 3. The Gospels were not discredited by the

96 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
early Church on account of their omissions. All
four were from the beginning received by all
devout Christians as divinely inspired books.

Luke 5 : 1-11.
The Call of Peter, Andrew, James, and
John.
See note on Matt. 4 : 18-22.

Luke 6 : 1.
"The second Sabbath after the first."
The literal rendering of the adjective here used
(and found nowhere else) is second -first. The
Revised Version omits it, but notes in the mar
gin that " many ancient authorities insert second-
first." It would seem much easier to suppose
such a word to have been omitted by some doubt
ing copyist, than to account for its insertion if not
genuine. It probably signifies the -first weekly
Sabbath after the second day of the Passover.
From that second day of the Passover commenced
the reckoning of the seven weeks between the
Passover and Pentecost (Lev. 23 : 15, 16), which

ANOINTING JESUS' FEET. gj
latter festival was also called the Feast of Weeks
(Deut. 16 : 10-16). The weekly Sabbath follow
ing that day might be called second-first, as being
second, reckoning from the first day of the Pass
over festival,1 but first in the reckoning for
Pentecost.

Luke 6 : 20-49.
See note on Matt. 5-7.

Luke 7 : 37, 38.
Anointing Jesus' Feet.
Some have supposed that the anointing here
recorded is the same with that recorded of Mary,
sister of Lazarus, in John 12 : 3-8 (mentioned
also in Matt. 26: 6-13 and Mark 14: 3-9). In
both cases Jesus was sitting at meat, and in both
it is in the house of a man named Simon. But it
is impossible that they can be the same. After
the anointing recorded by Luke, Jesus took a
journey (Luke 8 : 1), but the other anointing
1 This, like other festivals, occurring on fixed days of the month,
was called a Sabbath, as being a day on which no work was to be done.
Compare Lev. 23 : 7, 24, 32.

98 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
occurred during the week preceding his crucifix
ion. Neither is there the slightest ground for
identifying the woman mentioned in Luke 7 : 37
with Mary Magdalene.

Luke 9 : 3.
"Neither staves [a staff]."
See note on Matt. 10 : 10.

Luke 12 : 10.
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit.
See note on Matt. 12 : 31, 32.

Luke 12 : 49.
" I am come to set fire on the earth ; and what
will I, if it be already kindled ? "
The Revised Version renders this verse, " I
came to cast fire upon the earth ; and what will I,
if it is already kindled ? " To cast fire is a literal
rendering of nop fiaXeiv, meaning to set on fire, to
start a conflagration.
Some commentators labor to show that by send-

" TO SET FIRE ON THE EARTH." 99
ing fire our Saviour meant sending the Holy
Spirit with his purifying influences ; but it seems
to me far better (with Calvin, Doddridge, Olshau-
sen, and many others) to understand him as say
ing, I came to start a work in the world, which
will be like setting it on fire, such will be the con
flict which will inevitably result from it. And
with this accord the words following, namely,
" what will I, if it is already kindled ? " The con
flict is already begun. It would seem as if I had
nothing more to do here. But, I have a baptism,
etc. Our Lord's work on earth would not be com
plete until he had endured those sufferings by
which he was to make atonement for the sins of
the world. What anguish this remaining portion
of his work would cost him, both in the anticipa
tion and in the endurance of his sufferings, until
the solemn moment when he could say, " It is
finished ! "
Those who understand the fire as meaning the
influence of the Holy Spirit, generally change the
rendering of the last clause, reading it, " What
will I but that it were already kindled ? " or,
" What do I wish ? Oh, that it were already kin
dled!" But these renderings do violence to
Greek idiom. El with an indicative verb, as here,

IOO NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
almost always signifies, if a thing is actually
done. The interpretation given above accords also
with what follows in verses 51—53 : " Suppose ye
that I am come to send peace on the earth ? " etc.

Luke 16 : 9.
"The mammon of unrighteousness."
Mammon signifies riches as that in which men
are apt to trust, being derived from a Hebrew verb
meaning to trust. " Mammon of unrighteousness,"
by a Hebraism, means unrighteous mammon, not
wealth unjustly acquired, but false riches, worldly
wealth which is not worthy to be called wealth,
an unreliable trust. That this is the meaning of
the phrase is proved by the contrast in verse 1 1
between the false and the true riches. " If ye
have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon
[that is, the false riches], who will commit to
your trust the true riches ? " To bestow ill-gotten
wealth in charity not only would make no atone
ment for the injustice by which it was acquired,
but would be an abomination in the sight of God ;
but to use worldly wealth in accordance with his

"AVENGE HIS OWN ELECT." IOI
will, accounting him as its owner and ourselves as
merely his stewards, will secure (as the Scriptures
of both the Old and the New Testament declare)
a reward, not of merit but of grace. Christ him
self, the Judge, will say, " Inasmuch as ye have
done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye
have done it unto me," and he and his poor disci
ples, whom we have befriended, will bid us a joyful
welcome to everlasting habitations, infinitely supe
rior to those which the unjust steward secured by
his shrewdness.1
More minutely than this it does not seem
necessary to interpret the figurative language
here employed by our Saviour.

Luke 18 : 7.
" And shall not God avenge [vindicate] his
own elect . . . though he bear long with them?"
It is hardly necessary to remark that avenge
!The question is sometimes asked, Why is the unjust steward
represented as releasing the one debtor from half and the other from
only a fifth part of his debt ? The reason for this probably lies in the
fact that twenty cors of wheat would be considerably more valuable than
fifty baths of oil.
It may be worth while to add the remark that Segai in the phrase
" take thy bill " (vs. 6 and 7) is a middle verb, and has the force of
take to thyself, conveying an implication that the debtor in each took back
his bond, and wrote instead another for a less amount.

102 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
does not mean take vengeance, but simply vindi
cate, secure justice for. The principal doubt in the
interpretation of the verse rests on the last clause,
"though he bear long with them," R. V., "and
he is longsuffering over them." This is literal,
but still ambiguous. There is also a difference in
the reading of the Greek, some manuscripts having
an indicative verb and some a participle. I think
the sense is best brought out by rendering the
preposition (which the A. V. renders with, and
the R. V, more literally, over) in regard to, a
meaning which it may well bear. The sense will
then be, though he forbears in reference to them ;
that is, although in the exercise of divine for
bearance he delays for a time to punish their
persecutors, and thus to vindicate his own peo
ple. This delay appears long to the sufferers, but
it is a wise delay, exercising the faith and patience
of believers, and giving their persecutors space for
repentance, and at last it will be seen that it was
not a long delay, but that, all things considered,
the vindication was speedy.

HEALING OF TWO BLIND MEN.

I03

Luke 18 : 3S~43-
Healing of two blind men near Jericho.
Compare Matt. 20 : 29-34 and Mark 10 : 46-52.
Mark and Luke here speak of the restoration of
sight to one blind man ; Matthew speaks of two.
The case is similar to that of the demoniacs of
Gadara. It is more difficult to account satisfactorily for
the statements in respect to the time when the
miracle was performed. Matthew and Mark nar
rate it as having taken place when Jesus was
departing from Jericho, while Luke seems to
describe it as having taken place during his
approach to the city. Several ways of harmon
izing these statements have been proposed.
1. Our Lord may have stayed some days in
Jericho, and during the time may have gone to
places in the vicinity, and this miracle may have
been performed as he was making some such
excursion. Thus in one sense he would be
departing from the city, but if on the east side
of the city, in reference to the main journey
towards Jerusalem, he might be considered as still
approaching it.

IO4 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
2. The Greek word here rendered was come
nigh (or, drew nigh, R. V) has by some been
rendered was near; and those who adopt this
rendering suppose that the miracle was performed
when Jesus was finally leaving Jericho, but was
still near that city. This, however, does not seem
to be a natural interpretation of the word.
3. Lightfoot suggests that Jesus may have
healed one blind man on entering the city, and
another on leaving it. But this supposition fails
entirely to account for the two miracles being
reported as occurring together.
4. Perhaps the best explanation of all may be
found in the supposition that Jesus lodged to the
east of Jericho, out of the city, and so when start
ing to go to Jerusalem had to pass through it, and
that the miracle was performed as he was so
entering the city for the sake of leaving it. This
hypothesis seems to me to be confirmed by the
language of Luke 19 : 1, " Jesus entered and passed
through Jericho." It is true that we must then
suppose that our Saviour did not spend a night at
the house of Zacchaeus, but only a portion of the
clay, and then went on his way towards Jerusalem.
This, however, is entirely consistent with his
language addressed to Zacchseus, " To-day I must
abide [or stop] at thy house."

'GRACE FOR GRACE.'

105

Luke 22 : 54-62.
Peter's Three Denials.
See note on Matt. 26 : 71-75.

John i : 16.

"Grace for grace."
The fullness of which all believers receive is the
fullness of grace mentioned in verse 14 as inhering
in Christ, the fifteenth verse being parenthetic.
The word made flesh is "full of grace." Of this
fullness all believers are made partakers, receiving
grace for grace ; that is, as I understand it, grace
in the believer corresponding to grace in the
Saviour. We are made partakers of his charac
ter. Being joined to him by living faith, we
become partakers of his meekness, humility, love,
devotion, compassion, — all the graces of his holy
character. These are indeed primarily graces or
favors received from God, but also secondarily
graces or beauties of the Christian character. In
both senses we receive them from the fullness of
Christ. For this secondary use of the term see

106. NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
2 Cor. 8 : 6, 7, "this grace also," and 2 Pet. 3 : 18,
" grow in grace."
The principal interpretations of this passage
differing from the above are : —
1. The abounding grace of the new dispensa
tion instead of the partial grace of the old. This
preserves the most usual signification of the prepo
sition dvrt here employed. This was Chrysostom's
interpretation. He probably took his cue from
the following verse, " For the law was given by
Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
But the contrast in verse 17 is not between differ
ing degrees of grace, but between law and grace.
2. Grace upon grace, abounding grace. A pas
sage from a classical writer is quoted in favor of
this interpretation, where " griefs for griefs "
seems to be used in the sense of griefs succeeding
griefs. This is a possible but a very infrequent
use of &m(.
3. That proposed by the learned Hugo Grotius,
namely, grace of mere grace, abounding grace.
But this assumes a use of the preposition for
entirely unsupported by usage, and seems to me
inadmissible. The interpretation which I have preferred above
seems to me to be sustained by those passages

"YE ARE GODS." IO7
which speak of believers as putting on Christ
(Rom. 13: 14; Gal. 3: 27), or, as coming to the
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
(Eph. 4: 13).

John 5 : 3, 4.
I do not attempt to treat this passage, because
the first question relates to its genuineness, and
I have not within reach the means for an original
investigation of this point.

John 10 : 34-36.
" Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods," etc.
Two difficulties have been felt by readers of
this passage : one, that an argument in justifica
tion of Jesus' calling himself the Son of God
seems drawn from a passage in the Old Testament
in which judges are called gods, while the text
quoted, Ps. 82 : 6, does not say, Ye are gods,
but simply, / said, Ye are gods ; the other, that
there seems to be a letting down of his claim to
be the Son of God in the highest sense.
In regard to the first point I remark that what

Io8 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
the Psalmist wrote in Ps. 82 : 6, " I said, Ye are
gods," etc., alluded directly to the language of
verse 1 : " He judgeth among the gods." Here,
as also in Ex. 7 : 1 ; 21 : 6 ; 22 : 8, 9, judges are
called gods.1 The argument of our Saviour then
is that the Jews should not condemn him whom
the Father had sent as his messenger to men, for
calling himself the Son of God, since their own
Scriptures, the supreme authority of which they
recognized, had called gods those to whom the
word of God came, that is, those who were made
the depositories of his law and set to administer
justice in his name.
Viewed in this light the second difficulty dis
appears. There is no waiving of our Saviour's
claims, but simply a comparison. If your own
holy Scriptures (no word of which can be broken
or deprived of its force) call those whom God has
set to administer justice in his name gods and
1 In other words, God, the supreme Judge, and men who act as
^judges are called by the same name. The best lexicographers regard
both }X and n^!*^ as cognate with TO'S. to swear and an oath. See
:¦¦ TT
note at the end of art. ">N in Robinson's Gesenius.
The R. V. in Ex. xxi and xxii render DVDN God; but the use of the
article in the repeated phrase, "shall come before the elohim" is a
strong objection to this, and quite decisive against it is the fact that
in the phrase, " whom the elohim shall condemn," the verb shall
condemn in Hebrew is plural.

THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 109
children of the Most High, how much more may
I, whom the Father has set apart and sent as his
messenger to men, be called his Son !

John 16 : 9-1 1.
The Work of the Holy Spirit.
This is twofold: — (r) To convince men of the
truth in respect to sin, righteousness, and judg
ment, and (2) To work in them by means of the
truth a great moral change. In both these aspects
the Spirit's work relates to three particulars, sin,
righteousness, and judgment.
1. In reference to sin there is no special diffi
culty in interpreting our Saviour's words. The
scribes and priests had charged tlim with sin,
because he did not conform to their traditional
interpretations of the law (John 9 : 24). He
charged them with sin because they rejected him,
whom the Father had sent (John 8 : 24). The
Holy Spirit would convince men, not only of the
great sinfulness of rejecting God's testimony con
cerning Christ, but also that that rejection was the
source of all other sin, and so the ground of
condemnation.

I IO NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
2. The principal difficulty in interpreting this
passage relates to the second particular, right
eousness ; and here two questions arise, namely,
What is the righteousness here referred to ? and
How is the Spirit's convincing the world of right
eousness connected with Christ's going to the
Father- and being no more seen in the world ?
In regard to the nature of the righteousness to
which our Saviour here refers, some commentators
insist that it is solely the righteousness or recti
tude of Christ, which the Spirit would vindicate
by convincing men that his opposers had been
wholly in the wrong and Jesus wholly in the
right. This he would undoubtedly do ; but I am
persuaded that this was not all which our Saviour
meant. If men were convinced that unbelief, the
rejection of the Saviour, was the great sin and
source of sin, then must they go on, and under
the teaching of the Spirit be convinced that faith,
or the acceptance of the Saviour, is the only way
to the attainment of rig/tteousness. The analogy
of what is here said of sin and of righteousness
seems to me to demand that this idea of the right
eousness which is by faith should be included in
our Lord's words concerning the Spirit's convinc
ing men of righteousness.

PETER'S THREE DENIALS. I I I
With this in mind we are prepared to under
stand why this work of the Spirit could not be
performed until Jesus was glorified. He brought
in "everlasting righteousness;" but that right
eousness could not be fully preached nor fully
applied by the Holy Spirit until Christ's work on
earth was done and he seated at the Father's right
hand. Hence it was expedient that he should go
away from his disciples so far as his bodily
presence was concerned, because consistently
with the divine plan the Holy Spirit could not
come and do his all-important work until Jesus
had so withdrawn.
3. Judgment here signifies condemnation. Satan
would be condemned, and of the certainty of this
the Holy Spirit would convince men, and also
that if they yielded to the seductions of Satan
and did his works, they would share in his con
demnation.

John 18 : 16-27.
Peter's Three Denials.
See note on Matt. 26 : 71-75.

112 notes on difficult passages.
John 19: 14.
" The sixth hour."
" It was . . . about the sixth hour," namely,
when Pilate brought Jesus out and said, Behold
your King. But from Mark 15 : 25 we learn that
Jesus was crucified about the third hour. This
has led some commentators to suppose that John
used a different mode of reckoning, and intended
by the sixth hour the sixth hour after midnight,
namely, the hour of sunrise. It is true that the
Romans reckoned the day as beginning and ending
at midnight. Still they reckoned the twelve hours
of the day as beginning at sunrise and ending at
sunset, just as did the Jews, a mode of reckoning
which John himself elsewhere uses (ch. 1 : 39.
See also 4 : 6 and 4 : 52).
The most probable solution of the difficulty
seems to be the supposition that John wrote "the
third hour," not the sixth. Numbers, it is well
known, were expressed in ancient manuscripts by
letters. The characters for three and six (J" and
s'> or f) are nearly alike, and probably some
ancient copyist by mistake wrote s' or F1 , instead
of r. This was the opinion of Eusebius, who
wrote in the fourth century. Dr. S. T. Bloomfield,

'TOUCH ME NOT.'

H3

in his note on this passage, says, " This reading
[the third hour] is found in seven of the best
MSS., some fathers, as Eusebius (who says it was
so written in the autograph), Jerome, Severus,
Ammonius, and Theophylact."
In a matter of so much notoriety as the time of
our Saviour's crucifixion it can not for a moment be
supposed (even aside from the inspiration of the
evangelists) that they should have made a differ
ence of three hours.

John 20 : 17.
" Touch me not ; for I am not yet ascended to
my Father."
Various conjectures have been offered as to the
reason why our Lord addressed these words to
Mary. The other women " held him by the feet
and worshipped him " (Matt. 28 : 9), and he did
not forbid them. To the apostles he said on the
evening of the same day, " Behold my hands and
my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see."
To Thomas, a week later, he said: " Reach hither
thy hand, and thrust it into my side ; and be not
faithless, but believing." Why, then, did he forbid
Mary to touch him ? or rather, to cling to him, for

114 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
the verb is not unitive, as if to forbid a single
touch, but in a form indicating an action repeated
or protracted.
The answer is probably to be found in Mary's
more intense feeling of devotion, which would
lead her to cling to him and not let him go ; to
cling also to those methods of manifesting her
feelings to which she had been accustomed before
his death, not realizing the faet that hereafter the
disciples were to be permitted to enjoy a higher
and more spiritual communion with him than ever
before. Thomas was slow to believe that the Lord
was risen. Jesus, in condescension to his weak
ness, bids him examine his wounds, and so satisfy
himself that his Saviour really stands before him
alive. The weak, but true, disciple's faith is
strengthened, and he cries, My Lord, and my
God ! Mary had no such doubts. She heard his
familiar voice, and saw his dear face; she knew
that her Lord and Saviour stood before her, alive
from the dead. But she needed to be taught that
better things were in store for her and for all
Christ's true disciples. Their dear Lord had not
yet ascended — had not entirely closed his earthly
visit with them, but would give them a few more
precious interviews and then would depart, as to

"AFTER EIGHT DA YS." I I 5
his bodily presence, ascend to his and their Father,
and send the Spirit through whose influence they
might rise to a higher plane of communion, and
fellowship with him, which they and all who
through their word should believe on him would
enjoy to the end of the world. So Jesus cuts short
the present interview, which Mary would have
desired to prolong, and gives her instead an active
service to perform for him, a message to bear to
his discouraged disciples, whom he graciously
styles his brethren, which was at the same time
a lesson of joy and hope for herself.

John 20 : 23.
" Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted,"
etc. See the last part of note on Matt. 16: 16-20.

John 20 : 26.

"After eight days."
If it be asked why the apostles remained a
whole week in Jerusalem after they had seen the
risen Saviour and received his charge to go and

Il6 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
meet ¦ him (with other believers) in Galilee, the
answer is that the solemnities of the passover
might naturally detain them until Friday. Then
followed the Sabbath, on which they would not
travel. They may also have had some reason to
anticipate another visit from the Saviour on the
first day of the week, or may have been prevented
from starting on that day by other considerations.
Shortly after (John 21 : 1), we find them on the
shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Acts 2 : 4
" And began to speak with other tongues, as the
Spirit gave them utterance."
Some interpreters, both ancient and modern,
have fancied that the miracle was wrought, not
upon the speakers, but upon the hearers, so that
while the former spoke in their own language, the
latter heard, each one the sounds of his own
language. But this idea may be at once dis
missed as inconsistent first with our Saviour's
promise in Mark 16: 17, "They shall speak with
new tongues " (that is, with tongues new to them),
and secondly, with its fulfillment as stated here,

"TO SPEAK WITH OTHER TONGUES." Hj
" began to speak with other tongues " (that is,
other than their own), " as the Spirit gave them
utterance," and that, too, before the crowd of
foreign hearers came together, attracted by the
report of the wonderful phenomenon.
A more important question respects the charac
ter and object of the gift then bestowed. Was it
a permanent knowledge of other languages, to
be used in preaching the gospel in foreign lands,
or a temporary inspiration, enabling those who
received it to utter the praises of God in foreign
languages, and intended, like other miracles, chiefly
for making an immediate impression upon those
who witnessed it ?
It is perhaps impossible to give in our day a
positive answer to this question. But that the
latter is the true interpretation seems strongly
probable when we consider : —
(i) That the gift of tongues was conferred on
members of the church at Corinth when there
were no foreign hearers present, so that Paul says
(i Cor. 14: 2), "No man understandeth," and (verse
17) "Thou verily givest thanks well, but the other
is not edified." The gift appears to have consisted
in a rapturous exaltation of spirit and the ability
to utter the praises of God in foreign languages.

I 1 8 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
It would seem that the exercise of this gift was
committed to the discretion of the recipient of it,
and therefore capable of being abused (verse 32),
and so the apostle exhorts them to use it only
when there is an interpreter at hand, or when
the speakers are endowed with the gift of inter
preting. (2) That Paul, although he could say (1 Cor.
14 : 18), " I speak with tongues more than all you,"
yet when at Lystra (Acts 14: 11-18) he, as well
as Barnabas, appears not to have understood what
the people said when they cried out in the Lycao-
nian language, " The gods have come down to us
in the likeness of men." And
(3) That some of the early fathers state that
Titus accompanied Paul on some of his evangel
istic journeys in the capacity of an interpreter.

Acts 7 : 16.
" The sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum
of money of the sons of Emmor."
In Gen. 33 : 19 we read that Jacob, on his return
from Padan Aram, encamped before Shalem, a
city of Shechem, and " bought a parcel of a field

"SEPULCHRE THA T ABRAHAM BOUGHT." I I 9
where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the
children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for a hun
dred pieces of money." It is not said that he
purchased it as a burying-place, but in Josh. 24 :
32 we read that the bones of Joseph were buried
in Shechem, " in a parcel of ground which Jacob
bought of the sons of Hamor the father of She
chem for a hundred pieces of silver."
Of Abraham we do not read that he purchased
land in Shechem, but we do read (Gen. 12 : 6, 7)
of his coming there immediately after entering
the land of Canaan, and of his building there an
altar to Jehovah ; and it is worthy of remark that
in immediate connection with Jacob's purchasing
the lot of ground near Shechem it is recorded
(Gen. 33 : 20) that he built an altar there, while
nothing is there said of the purchased ground
being intended for a burying-place. It was a
natural thing for him to purchase the ground
where he pitched his tent and built an altar for
worship. And it would be equally natural for
Abraham to purchase the land on which he
pitched his tent and built his altar.
Some commentators have supposed, in order
to account for the language here employed by
Stephen, that Abraham originally purchased this

120 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
ground from the Canaanites, that it passed again
into their hands after his departure, and that
Jacob, knowing that it had been the place of his
grandfather's tent and altar, repurchased it, and
built his altar perhaps on the very spot where
Abraham's altar had been. They add that the
purchase being from "Hamor the father of She
chem" need cause no difficulty. Hamor may
easily be supposed to have been the name of the
original patriarch of the Shechemite clan. In
Judges 9 : 28 it seems to be so used, just as in
1 Chron. 2 : 49-5 1 we read of the father of Gibea,
the father of Kirjath-jearim, the father of Beth
lehem, etc., meaning the patriarchs of the clans
dwelling in these places.
The knowledge of such a purchase by Abra
ham, though not recorded in Genesis, might have
been preserved by tradition.
Some have thought that the insertion of the
name of Abraham here must have been the mis
take of some early copyist.1 They reason that
since it is stated in Acts 6: 5-10, that Stephen
was "full of the Holy Spirit," and that his oppo
nents " were not able to resist [or withstand] the
1 This appears to have been Calvin's view, for he speaks of it as a
"manifest mistake, which must be corrected."

"SEPULCHRE THAT ABRAHAM BOUGHT." I 2 I
wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake," it is
not to be supposed that he would confound the
purchase of the cave of Machpelah by Abraham
with that of the parcel of ground at Shechem by
Jacob. Such a mistake, could it be demonstrated,
need not in the slightest degree disparage the
doctrine of the inspiration of the writings of the
New Testament. But aside from the question of
inspiration in the case of Stephen as a speaker,
it seems unlikely that he should have made such
a mistake, or that he could have gone on without
interruption in his speech if he had made any
statement not in accordance with the commonly
received tradition.
Any explanation, however, of the difficulty con
nected with this passage must be conjectural.
There is no manuscript authority for any change
in the text ; neither have we any proof that there
existed in Stephen's day any tradition respecting
the purchase by Abraham of the parcel of ground
in Shechem.
The burial of Joseph in this ground is recorded,
as mentioned above, in the last chapter of Joshua.
That of his brethren is not recorded ; but Jerome
(who resided in the fourth century very near the
place) states that their tombs were seen there in
his day.

122 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Acts 9: 7.
" Hearing the voice, but seeing no man."
Compare ch. 22: 9, "They heard not the voice of him
that spake to me."
There is not the slightest need of regarding
these two statements as contradicting each other.
The men heard a sound, but distinguished nothing
of what was spoken to Paul. Luke's statement
is that they heard, literally. Paul's statement in
ch. 22 is equally legitimate though figurative,
they heard not, that is, they understood not.

Acts 23 : 5, 6.
" I wist not, brethren, that he was the high
priest." The majority of modern commentators inter
pret these words of Paul as implying either, —
(1) That, having been absent from Jerusalem
for a considerable time, and knowing that fre
quent changes in the office took place, he was
actually ignorant as to who was at present ac
knowledged as high priest, or
(2) That he did not at- the moment consider that
it was the high priest whom he rebuked.

"I WIST NOT," ETC. I 23
The former appears to me an exceedingly
improbable hypothesis in reference to a man of
Paul's quick discernment and masterly familiarity
with every thing pertaining to Jewish adminis
tration. Compare what he says to the Galatian
Christians (Gal. 1 : 14) of his progress in Juda
ism, that is, in the whole economy of the Jewish
system. Besides, even if he did not know who
at the moment held the office of high priest, he
could not fail to see that Ananias was presiding
in the council, and so was a " ruler of the people "
in the sense of the passage (Ex. 22 : 28) which
he quoted.
The second interpretation requires us to give
a forced and unnatural meaning to the words
oux rjdetv, T did not know.
Equally improbable seems to me the hypothesis
of Canon Farrar, that Paul, owing to defective
vision, did not notice who it was that gave the
command to smite him on the mouth. All three
of the above interpretations seem to me incon
sistent with the bold and ringing denunciation
in verse 3, " God shall smite thee, thou whited
wall ! " a prediction fulfilled in the death of the
high priest Ananias by the hand of an assassin,
recorded by Josephus (Jewish War, ii, 17, 9).

I24 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
I prefer, therefore (with Augustine, Calvin,
J. A. Alexander, and others), to understand the
words / knew not, etc., as spoken ironically, and as
denying that Ananias had any claim to be re
garded and treated as " God's high priest ; " and
this, whether on account of his not being the
lawful successor to the office, but occupying it by
the favor of heathen rulers, or on account of his
violent abuse of his temporary authority in com
manding that Paul should be smitten on the
mouth.

Verse 6.
" I am a Pharisee."
In what sense could Paul say this ? Clearly
not in any such sense as to deny his supreme
devotion to Christ and his cause. There was no
danger of Paul's being misunderstood on this
point. He said it in the same sense as he had
said the day before when addressing the multitude
from the stairs of the fortress, "I am a Jew"
(ch. 22 : 3), or, as he said in commencing his
address to the council (ch. 23 : 1), " I have
lived in all good conscience before God until this
day." In other words, By accepting Jesus as the

"/ AM A PHARISEE.'

125

Messiah I have not forfeited my standing as a
Jew, nor renounced my firm faith in Moses and
the prophets. Loyalty to tliem demands that I
find in Jesus the true fulfillment of their prophetic
words. And the crowning evidence that he is so
is found in the fact that God has raised "him from
the dead. The men who are disloyal to the law
and the prophets are these unbelieving Sadducees.
It is they who are subverting our holy ancestral
religion, and not I.
In ch. 4 : 1, 2 we read that the Sadducees
were in authority, and were active in persecuting
the apostles because " they taught the people and
preached through Jesus the resurrection from the
dead;" and in ch. 5: 17 that the high priest
himself was of that unbelieving sect.
Paul was now preaching, as Peter and John had
before preached, Jesus and the resurrection ; and
so he appeals here to the Pharisees who were
members of the council to stand by him on the
great doctrine of the resurrection, which the
Sadducees rejected. In like manner he appealed
to king Agrippa (ch. 26: 8), saying, "Why
should it be thought incredible with you that God
should raise the dead ? " and in verse 6 he says,
"I stand and am judged for the hope of the

126 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
promise made unto our fathers ; " and again (ch.
28 : 20), he said to the Jews at Rome, " For the
hope of Israel I am bound with this chain."
In saying, " Touching the resurrection of the
dead I am called in question" (chapters 23 : 6;
24: 21 ; 26 : 7), he did not mean that this was the
direct and formal charge against him, and there
was no danger that any one of his hearers would
so understand him. He simply meant to say that
virtually he stood there as a prisoner because of
his holding firmly to the truth of the promises
made to the fathers (in which every consistent
Pharisee must stand with him), and of his witness
ing that God had fulfilled those promises in Christ
(in which every Jew who believed in the Old Tes
tament Scriptures ought logically to stand with
him). He was therefore perfectly justifiable in
appealing to the Pharisees to stand by him, seeing
he could have no hope of a fair trial by the whole
council under the leadership of Sadducees.

Acts 26 : 28.
" Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."
This rendering has been controverted on the
ground that Agrippa did not say nap SXiyov (the

"ALMOST THOU PERSUADEST ME."

I27

usual Greek phrase for almost), but £v oUyip. The
R. V gives the very free rendering, " With but
little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a
Christian." But there appears nothing in the
Greek to justify the rendering wouldst fain.
The verb is a simple present indicative, thou per-
suadest, but quite capable of being understood
as a future, " In a little time [or, with a little
effort] thou wilt persuade."
It is not necessary to go into the question of
the reading adopted by the Revisers, "to make
me a Christian," instead of " me to become a
Christian," since the general sense is not
altered. But another remark seems to me pertinent
here. What if Agrippa and Paul, familiar with
the Hebrew !s2?'??, within a little, almost (Ps.
73 : 2 ; 119: 87 ; Prov. 5 : 14), used & 6Xiym in the
same sense, a little aside from ordinary Greek
classical usage ?
On the whole I concur in Calvin's opinion that
almost persuadest expresses the true meaning, and
that there was nothing of sarcasm in the language
of Agrippa, but simply an acknowledgment that
there was some force in Paul's argument. This
would well accord with the moderate tone of

128 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Agrippa's remark addressed to Festus after leav
ing the audience chamber, that Paul might have
been set at liberty if he had not appealed to
Caesar.

Romans i : 16, 17.
" I am not ashamed of the gospel," etc.
This was only another mode of saying, / glory
in that which so many Jews and Gentiles reject,
despise, and persecute ; " for it is the power of
God." That is, this proclamation of salvation
through faith is no setting forth of a speculative
philosophical theory, but is attended with a divine
power to transform and save men.
The "righteousness of God," in verse 17, mani
festly signifies not God's personal character as a
righteous being, but the righteousness which he
confers upon those who accept his free gift,
and it is called his righteousness because it
is his mode of justifying sinners, and not a
mode Of man's contriving. All false systems of
religion, however much they may differ in details,
agree in this fundamental principle, that man must
in some way earn or merit salvation and the favor
of God. The gospel sets .all human merit aside,

"MUCH MORE." I29
and proclaims a salvation which is of free grace,
through faith. The believer accepts by faith God's
offer of a free salvation, and thereupon is accounted
righteous. This is " God's righteousness."

Romans 5 : 15, 17, 20.
"Much more."
These words, much more, can not be understood
of the degree in which grace has reigned or
abounded as compared with sin. The apostle is
addressing those who knew and acknowledged
the truth recorded in the Old Testament, that
sin and death entered the world through the
transgression of Adam. Yet the unbelieving
Jews rejected and opposed the doctrine of justi
fication by faith in Christ and on account of his
perfect righteousness. Paul argued from premises
which they admitted. It is as if he had said,
You admit that through the transgression of
one, namely, Adam, many became sinners and
subject to death ; much more, considering the
goodness of God, ought you to believe and
acknowledge that the gifts of righteousness and

I3O NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
eternal life may be conferred upon many through
the righteousness, atonement, and mediation of
one, namely, Jesus Christ.

Romans 7 : 14-25.
" I am carnal, sold under sin."
This language is very strong, and has led many
interpreters to understand the whole passage as
relating to the experience of unconverted men.
Such was Augustine's view as expressed in his
earlier writings ; but after much study of the
passage he retracted this view, and strongly
expressed his concurrence with the earlier fath
ers, " Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose, and others,"
who understood the apostle as describing his
own experience ; that is, the experience of a con
verted but partially sanctified man, who struggles
against the " sin that dwells within him."
The best modern interpreters accord with this
view. On verse 15, "What I would, that do I
not," Calvin says : " Do not understand that it
was always the case with him that he could not
do good ; but what he complains of is only this :
that he could not perform what he wished, so that

"/ AM CARNAL, SOLD UNDER SIN." 1 3 t
he did not pursue that which was good with the
alacrity which was meet, because he was held in
a manner bound . . through the weakness of the
flesh." That this is the correct view is evident : —
(1) From Paul's saying in verse 15 that he does
not do what he wishes. The unregenerate man in
committing sin does what he wishes, although his
conscience condemns him.
(2) From the parenthetic expression in verse 18,
"that is, in my flesh." An unregenerate man
would have no need to use this language.
(3) From the declarations in vs. 19-22 that he
wills to do good, and that he delights in God's
law after the inward man.
All these expressions go to show that we have
in this passage a description of the struggle which
goes on in the experience of a true believer, who
delights in the law of God and desires to be
wholly conformed to it, but still finds that sin
dwells within, finds another law (or governing
principle) warring against the law (or governing
principle) of his mind, and bringing him into a
state of captivity. In view of this terrible strug
gle in which his own strength was nothing but
weakness, he cries out, Who shall deliver me from

I32 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
the body of this death ? " By the body of death,"
says Calvin, "he means the whole mass of sin."
So in ch. 6 : 6 Paul speaks of the old man being
crucified, " that the body of sin might be destroyed,
that henceforth we should not serve sin."
Though despairing of his own unaided efforts,
yet he rejoices that there is deliverance, and
breaks forth with the joyful expression of thanks
giving that that deliverance is given "through
Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 8 : 19-23.
" The earnest expectation of the creature " (the
creation), etc.
Many interpretations have been given to the
word xTtVi? here used by the apostle. Dr. Hodge
enumerates six, namely : —
(1) The whole rational and irrational creation,
including angels and all things else, animate and
inanimate ;
(2) The whole world exclusive of angels, but
inclusive of the irrational animals ;
(3) The whole material creation in a popular
sense, as we say, all nature ;

"EXPECTATION OF THE CREATURE." 133
(4) The whole human race ;
(5) The heathen world, as distinguished from
believers ;
(6) The body of believers.
Dr. Hodge gives his assent to the third of these
interpretations, namely, the material creation, " all
nature." Holy angels can not be included, for
they are not subject to vanity. Men in general,
or the heathen world, can not be intended, because
it can not be said that they long for the manifesta
tion of the sons of God. Neither can it be said
of them that they were made subject to vanity
without their own will, or voluntary a.ction.
Believers in general, as distinguished from the
first believers, can not have been the meaning of
the apostle here, because there is no essential dif
ference between the state and feelings of the first
believers and of believers in general.
We must therefore understand the apostle as
speaking here in a popular and figurative manner
of all nature, that is, of the lower orders of
created beings, animate and inanimate, as groan
ing under the consequences of man's sin, without
having participated in it. How the brute creation
groans and suffers under cruelties inflicted "by
men ! Even inanimate creation groans. God said

134 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
to Adam, " Cursed is the ground for thy sake."
Thorns, briars, and poisonous plants are part of
the fruits of that curse. Storms, tempests, earth
quakes, and volcanic eruptions spread desolation
around. All this results from the sin of man, and
that by a supreme divine appointment (verse 20),
without the lower creation's participating, or being
capable of participating, in the sin. But this
curse is not to last forever. Its consequences will
all disappear when the new heavens and the new
earth appear in which righteousness is to dwell.
Therefore all nature may be said (figuratively
indeed, but still truly and beautifully) to look
forward with earnest longing for that glorious
consummation. The day of this deliverance from the bondage
of corruption is called in verse 19 the time of the
" manifestation of the sons of God," and in verse
23 as the time of the "adoption." The term
adoption is here used with an allusion to those
public formalities required by the Roman law
by which alone an adopted child of a citizen could
be recognized as himself a citizen and as having
a right to inherit the property of his adopting
father. At the second coming of Christ all the
children of God, however unknown or despised

"MYSELF WERE ANATHEMA!' 1 35
in this world, will be manifested and made par
takers of the full glory of their heavenly inher
itance. It has pleased God, in his Word, to give us only
glimpses of the glory of the new heavens and the
new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. But
that a great change will come, not only over man,
but over all nature, appears from such prophetic
words as "The wilderness and the solitary place
shall be glad, and the desert shall rejoice and blos
som as the rose." " The wolf also shall dwell
with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with
the kid." " They shall not hurt nor destroy in all
my holy mountain." " I saw a new heaven and
a new earth ; for the first heaven and the first
earth were passed away, and there was no more
sea."

Romans 9 : 3.
" For I could wish that I myself were anathema
from Christ for my brethren."
The startling character of this language has led
some to propose the rendering, " I did wish," etc.,
that is, when I was out of Christ, an opposer of
Christianity. But this can not be admitted; for

I36 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
1. Before his conversion he could not wish to
be cut off from one with whom he had never been
united. 2. But even supposing his wish to mean nothing
more than that he should remain alienated from
Christ, there appears no reason why he should
speak of so remaining on behalf of his country
men. To make it mean simply because of his
attachment to them, is exceedingly tame and
meaningless. While he and they were alike ene
mies of Christ, how could he speak of his wishing
to remain so as being for the benefit of his
nation ?
3. A wish of this kind while in that state of
hostility would be no expression of self-abnega
tion. We are compelled therefore to understand these
words of Paul as descriptive of his present feel
ings of earnest longing for the salvation of his
countrymen and distress on account of their con
tinued obduracy and impenitence. He goes on to
describe the high privileges which they had
enjoyed as God's people, which made their pres
ent impenitence and unbelief all the more dis
tressing. Paul knew that it was impossible for any thing

"MYSELF WERE ANATHEMA." 137
to separate him from Christ. He had just
penned those words of overflowing assurance,
that neither life nor death, nor any thing in
heaven, earth, or hell could separate him from
Christ's love. We must therefore understand
him as saying, Such is my love for my people and
my grief for their present hopeless condition
that, if it were possible, I would be willing to take
their place and bear their curse that they might
be saved.
Still other interpretations of the apostle's lan
guage have been proposed. One of the most
plausible is that adopted by Doddridge, who ren
ders «o rod xpHTTob after the example of Christ,
appealing to the use of &nd in 2 Timothy 1 : 3,
" whom I serve from [that is, after the example
of] my forefathers." But in that passage we may
equally well understand him as meaning, "whom I
serve in accordance with the traditions received
from my forefathers," and so avoid attaching an
unusual sense to the preposition.
On the whole the interpretation above given
seems the most natural, and as such has been
approved by the best commentators, ancient and
modern.

i38 notes on difficult passages.
Romans 9 : 13.
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
These words are quoted from Mai. 1 : 2, 3,
where they were used by the prophet to set forth
in a striking manner the favor with which God
had treated Israel, as the people of his choice, in
contrast with the rejection of Esau and his pos
terity. There is here no hatred in the ordinary
sense of that term. The prophet alludes to God's
dealings with Israel and with the descendants of
Esau, in order to impress upon his countrymen the
fact that they had been the recipients of special
divine favors, which had not been conferred upon
the descendants of Esau, Jacob's twin and elder
brother. The strong language which he puts into
the mouth of God respecting the dealings of his
providence with the two nations, should be under
stood as if he had said, " Jacob I chose and Esau
I rejected." The apostle uses the words for a similar pur
pose, and goes on immediately to declare that
God's choice of one nation or individual to be the
recipient of favors which he does not confer upon
others implies no injustice toward those not so
chosen.

"JACOB HAVE I LOVED." 139
When God selected Israel as a people whom he
would place under special training, and to whom
he would grant special revelations and instruction,
it might seem as if he rejected and disregarded
other nations. But this was only in appearance
and by comparison with his favors bestowed upon
Israel. We have no reason to imagine that there
was any change in his providential dealings with
other nations resulting from his choice of Israel,
and those dealings were always consistent with
infinite justice and faithfulness. Many passages
of the Old Testament demonstrate this. Notice,
in reference to this point, God's dealings with the
Philistine king Abimelech (Gen. 20 : 3-7), his
sending Jonah to Nineveh, etc. See also Deut.
32 : 8 ; Is, 18 : 3 ; 19.: 24; Ezek. 28 : 3; Amos.
9:7; also, many passages in the Psalms and in
the prophets.
It is true that God confers favors upon one
(individual or nation) which he does not confer
upon others. This has been the case in every
age. It is equally true that the reasons for his
choice are not revealed to us. But let us beware
of the folly of charging the Judge of all the earth
with injustice toward those on whom he does not
confer special favors.

1 40 NO TES ON DIFFIC UL T PA SSA GES.
Romans 9: 18.
"Whom he will, he hardeneth."
In what sense does God harden the heart of a
wicked man ? Respecting Pharaoh it is said
(Ex. 10: 20), "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's
heart." But it is also said (Ex. 9: 34), "When
Pharaoh saw ... he sinned yet more and hard
ened his heart."
Clearly the connection demands that we under
stand the phrase differently in the two cases.
Pharaoh hardened his own heart by going on in
sin. Did God harden it by compelling him to go
on in sin ? No ; for the common-sense of mankind
does not hold any one responsible for acts done
under compulsion. We must then understand the
Scriptures as teaching that God exercises in some
way a supreme control over men, sometimes (with
out taking away their freedom of action) restrain
ing them from evil and inciting them to virtue by
the influence of his Spirit, and sometimes (for
reasons not revealed) withholding that precious
influence, and leaving bad men to go on in their
chosen sinful ways and to bring destruction upon
themselves. When the Lord in this way gives
men up to go their own ways, he is said to destroy

CONCLUDED IN UNBELIEF. 141
them ; for example, Hophniand Phinehas, the sons
of Eli (1 Sam. 2 : 25). But in the other sense men
are said with equal truth to destroy themselves
(Hos. 13:9).

Romans 10 : 6.
"The righteousness which is of faith speaketh
on this wise."
We need not understand Paul as affirming that
in uttering the words which he quotes from Deut.
30: 12-14, Moses had in view the gospel revela
tion of justification by faith. The words of
Moses related to the revelation then given to
Israel. The apostle simply takes those words
and uses them as equally applicable to the gospel
revelation of righteousness by faith. It is as if
he had said, " I may say of the gospel as truly as
Moses did of the law, that its teaching is not
remote and obscure, but near and plain."

Romans 11 : 32.
" God hath concluded [shut up] all in unbelief."
It may be that the translators intended to say
that God had convicted all of unbelief. If so,

142 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
they would be supported by the authority of
Chrysostom. Compare Gal. 3 : 22. They may
however have used the term concluded in its old
and etymological sense of shut up. This accords
much better with the course of thought as exhib
ited in vs. 30, 31. The Revised Version substi
tutes disobedience for unbelief, but the thought is
the same. Obeying the gospel is the same as
receiving or believing it, and not merely the
resulting obedience to its precepts. Compare
Rom. 6: 17, obeying the doctrine, and 10: 16,
obeying tlie gospel, where a different but synon
ymous term is used. The apostle reminds the
Gentiles of their former state of unbelief, from
which they were rescued by occasion of the
unbelief of the Jews, and then declares the
gracious purpose of God, that through their con
version the Jews also should be brought in, that
so he might have mercy upon all ; that is, upon
both Jews and Gentiles.
In what sense then did God shut up either
Jews or Gentiles in unbelief ? I answer, In the
same sense in which it is written that he hardened
Pharaoh's heart (see note on Rom. 9 : 18). He
permitted both Jews and Gentiles to go on for
a time' in their own chosen way of sin and unbe-

"YET SO AS BY FIRE." 1 43
lief, with the purpose of ultimately calling mul
titudes of both Jews and Gentiles by his grace
to repentance, faith, and a holy life. This is the
uniform teaching of the Scriptures. Both repent
ance and faith are gifts of God (Acts 11: 18;
Eph. 2 : 8). And yet even the heathen with the
light which they possessed ought to have repented
and believed in God. But "the times of this
ignorance God overlooked." The gospel was a
new and emphatic call to repentance and faith.
When in the light of the future world the ways
of God toward both the saved and the lost are
made fully manifest, believers will joyfully ac
knowledge that their faith, repentance, and obe
dience were all of God's free and sovereign grace,
and unbelievers will be compelled to admit that
the punishment which has overtaken them is the
due reward of their deeds and in accordance with
supreme and absolutely perfect justice.

1 Corinthians 3:15.
" But he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by
fire." (Revised Version, through fire.)
The attempt of Romanists to draw from this

144 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
text an argument for their imagined purgatory is
treated by Calvin with merited contempt. The
term fire in this verse must of necessity have the
same meaning as in verse 13, and its meaning
there is plainly that which tests, not that which
purifies. The fire will "try the work," burning
up the combustible material. The strict judg
ment of God will reject the unworthy work of
even sincere Christians. But those who build on
the true foundation will be accepted, although the
faulty part of their work is rejected. They
escape as through fire ; that is, as one who passes
through fire and escapes, while his wood and hay
and stubble are burned up.

1 Corinthians 5:5.
" To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruc
tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in
the day of the Lord Jesus."
"Delivering to Satan" doubtless signifies cut
ting off from the fellowship of the Church. Com
pare 1 Tim. 1 : 20. For, as Augustine and Calvin
(quoting him) well remark, " As Christ reigns in
the Church, so Satan reigns out of the Church."

"DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH!' 1 45
The point of difficulty in this passage lies in
the question, What is meant by the destruction
of the flesh ? Many commentators, ancient and
modern, interpret it of bodily inflictions supposed
to result from being thus cut off, appealing to the
case of Job, and to that of Elymas, whose blind
ness Paul predicted (Acts 13: 11). The case of
Job proves that Satan is sometimes permitted to
inflict bodily suffering ; and that of Elymas, that
God sometimes inflicts such suffering on those
who set themselves to oppose his work (as well as
on those who abuse their privileges, 1 Cor. 1 1 :
30), but neither of these examples proves that
Satan did or would inflict bodily suffering on
those who were cut off from the Church. He
would be more likely to let them alone, or to seek
to lull them into security in sin. It seems, there
fore, far better to understand the phrase " destruc
tion of the flesh" as meaning the humbling of
the offender's carnal pride and self-confidence.
Thus his temporary humiliation might become a
means of his eternal salvation.

146 notes on difficult passages.
1 Corinthians 6 : 2-4.
"The saints shall judge the world." "We
shall judge angels." " Set them to judge who
are least esteemed in the church."
In what sense shall the saints judge the world ?
The answers which commentators have given to
this question are chiefly the following three : —
(1) Saints will judge the world by their own
holy lives, as our Saviour said that the queen of
the south would rise up in the judgment against
the Jews who rejected him, and would condemn
them (Matt. 12: 42).
(2) In the latter days the saints will have
authority and rule the world, as Isaiah (49 : 23)
and Daniel (7 : 18) predicted.
(3) In the last day of judgment saints, after
being themselves acquitted, will be in some sense
sharers of Christ's throne (Rev. 2 : 26, 27 ; 3 :
21), and will be joined with him in judging and
condemning the wicked, including apostate angels.
The first and second do not suit the apostle's
argument. A consistent Christian life does
indeed condemn the wicked. But this does not
prove that every consistent Christian is qualified
to judge in matters pertaining to the present life.

THE SAINTS JUDGING. 147
Neither does the fact that temporal authority is
in the latter days to be given to the Lord's people
prove that the Corinthian Christians of Paul's
day were fit to act as arbitrators in cases which
might arise among their fellow-Christians. Be
sides, what is said of judging angels looks toward
the judgment of the great day.
That the third is the correct answer is con
firmed by the language of Jesus in Matt. 19 : 28,
" When the Son of man shall come in his glory,
ye also shall sit upon thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel." The comparison of that exalted
position and office with the business of judging
in the trifling affairs of this life is perfectly appo
site and forcible.
Verse 4. " Set them to judge who are least
esteemed in the church." Tischendorf and some
other recent critics read this interrogatively, " Do
ye set them to judge who are of no account in
the Church ? " and this reading is adopted by the
Revised English Version. They refer the words,
" those who are least esteemed [or, of no account]
in the church" to the heathen judges. But how
could the Church or its members be said to set
such men as judges ? Had Paul meant the
heathen judges, he would rather have spoken of

148 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
applying to them, or of carrying the case before
them. Besides, the phrase, " of no account in the
church " is much more easily understood of mem
bers of the Church than of the heathen. Those
who have adopted this reading have doubtless
done so to get rid of the apparently strange
advice of the apostle to choose the least esteemed
of their brethren to act as judges. But we need
not understand him as giving any such advice,
but rather as saying, " Set your least esteemed
brethren to judge rather than go to law before the
unbelievers." That he would have them choose
the most competent men is evident from the
words immediately following, " I speak to your
shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man
among you," etc.
I am not aware of any ancient authority which
can be alleged for this interrogative reading.
The testimony of the Syriac Version alone ought
to be accounted decisive against it. Its rendering
is, " Set those in judgment for you who are least
esteemed in the church." This is confirmed by
the Vulgate, which has, " Contemptibiles qui sunt
in ecclesia, illos constituite ad judicandum." Both
imply that the persons set to judge are in the
church. And the Ethiopic takes away all doubt

"NOT UNDER BONDAGE." 149
by saying, " Let them listen to the least esteemed
brethren in the church whom they have desig
nated."

1 Corinthians 7 : 15.
" But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart.
The brother or the sister is not under bondage
in such cases."
The word rendered depart might be rendered
separate himself. The principal question, how
ever, which arises in reference to this passage is,
What is meant by not being under bondage ? Does
it imply that the unoffending party is so released
from the marriage bond as to be at liberty to
contract another marriage ? The general senti
ment of the Church in all ages has answered this
question in the affirmative.
Some modern commentators maintain that it
should be answered in the negative, and explain
the phrase is not under bondage as meaning, is not
under obligation to provide for the support of the
departing one, or to make further efforts to
induce him or her to return. But would the
inspired writer have designated any such obliga
tion as a bondage ?

150 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
It seems to me that the term rendered depart
comprises in itself the idea of sundering the
marriage bond, and thus of constituting a virtual
divorce, or being virtually what our Saviour recog
nized as a just ground of divorce. The legis
lators of Christian countries have so understood
the matter, and I think they are sustained by the
words of the apostle in this passage. Of course
a Christian so deserted must not presume to
decide for himself, but must take the necessary
steps to have a lawful decision of his case. I am
aware that the Roman Catholics regard the Pope
as the sole judge in such matters, and thus make
legal divorce extremely difficult. On the other
hand, in the Greek Church this authority belongs
to every bishop, and thus divorce is easily ob
tained. Both these extremes are worthy of con
demnation. So is the facility with which the
civil courts sometimes grant divorces. But this
should not debar a conscientious Christian from
resorting to them for relief, if unhappily he has
what the Scriptures regard as a just ground of
divorce.

"BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES."

i Corinthians 10: 2.

151

"And were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea."
If unto Moses be accepted as a correct render
ing here, we must understand the writer as saying
that the whole people of Israel, by coming under
the cloud and passing through the sea (verse 1),
entered upon their journey through the wilder
ness pledged to follow and obey Moses as their
divinely appointed leader. It is worthy of notice
that the Syriac, the earliest version of the New
Testament, instead of unto Moses, reads by the
hand of Moses. It may be, however, that the
translator did not attach any different meaning to
the Greek preposition from the one given above,
but simply used his own expression (by the hand
of) in the sense of under the hand, or leadership, of
Moses. The verb here used (were baptized) is in
many ancient manuscripts a passive form, but the
middle form, which is the reading of the common
Greek text, is also preferred by most critical
editors. If this be the true reading, it confirms
the explanation given above, namely, that the
people voluntarily pledged themselves to obey and
follow Moses.

152 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
There appears nothing in this verse from which
any argument can be drawn in reference to the
mode of baptism. The Israelites were not bap
tized in either the cloud or the sea in any ordinary
sense of the term. Through the sea they passed
on dry ground. The cloud which was over them
was not an ordinary rain-cloud, but a "pillar,"
looking in the daytime like a cloud of rising
smoke, and in the night like a flame of fire. The
time when it passed from its usual station before
them and took a position between them and the
pursuing Egyptians, was night, when, of course,
to Israel it appeared as a pillar of fire, and
whether it was seen to pass around or over the
camp, it could in no sense be said to baptize the
people. We are compelled, therefore, to regard
the term as figuratively used here. By crossing
the Red Sea, and so leaving Egypt, in obedience
to the divine command, they renounced their
former life of bondage to the Egyptians, and
entered upon a new life as the Lord's freemen,
pledging themselves to obey God, and Moses as
the leader whom God had appointed for them.
Viewed in this light, the whole transaction is
strikingly analogous to making a profession of
Christianity by baptism, and its introduction here

"SPIRITUAL ROCK THAT FOLLOWED." 1 53
gives point to the exhortation addressed by Paul
to his Corinthian brethren not to imitate the
rebellions and backslidings of ancient Israel.

1 Corinthians 10 : 4.
" They drank of that spiritual Rock that fol
lowed them, and that Rock was Christ."
The rock from which- God caused water to flow
in Horeb for quenching the thirst of the Israelites
is here called a spiritual rock because, like the
manna called in verse 3 spiritual food, it was an
emblem of spiritual blessings.
In what sense did the rock follow the Israel
ites ? Some commentators insist that we must
understand the apostle as saying that Christ (typi
fied by the rock) followed them. But had this
been his meaning, would he not 'rather have said,
accompanied them, or led them ? Just as it is
said that they drank of the rock, meaning they
drank of the water which flowed from the rock,
so here we may understand that the stream of
water which God caused to flow from that rock
followed them in their course. Their encamp
ment at Horeb was on very high ground, and

154 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
much of their course till they reached the sea
shore at Ezion-geber would be descending. Paul
does not say that the stream followed them in all
their wanderings in the wilderness. That it con
tinued to flow for many days we may infer from
Deut. 9 : 21. How long it flowed is not essential
to the argument. Its course would naturally be
toward the Red Sea, and the fiery, cloudy pillar
probably led the people down the same ravines
through which it flowed, so as to give them the
benefit of this miraculous supply of water as long
as it was necessary ; that is, until they should
reach a region where they could find a natural
supply of water. Again in the last year of their
wanderings they were in distress from the want
of water, and again God interposed for their
relief by a miraculous supply (Num. 20 : 8-1 1).
Some commentators regard this repetition of the
miracle of causing water to flow from a rock, as
that to which the apostle alludes when he speaks
of the rock as following the people ; but the
explanation given above seems to me far more
natural. In saying that the rock was Christ, the apostle
uses language quite in accordance with that of
our Saviour when he said to the Jews, "Moses

"POWER ON HER HEAD." 155
gave you not the bread from heaven ; . . I am
the bread of life" (John 6: 32, 35). The mirac
ulous supply of food and drink in the desert was
intended as an emblem of the bread and water
of life.

1 Corinthians 11 : 10.
" For this cause ought the woman to have
power on her head, because of the angels."
Dr. Hodge remarks that "there is scarcely a
passage in the New Testament which has so
much taxed the learning and ingenuity of com
mentators as this," but that "after all that has
been written it remains just as obscure as ever."
There is, however, a substantial agreement among
the best interpreters. Dr. Hodge adds, " The
meaning which it naturally suggests to the most
superficial reader is regarded by the most labo
rious critics as the only true one."
This "naturally suggested meaning "is simply
this. Woman, in modest recognition of her
divinely appointed subordinate position, should
in the Christian assemblies appear with a veil or
covering for the head (as a token of her being
under i^ouaia, authority), and that not merely

I56 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
because her deportment would be observed by
men, but also by the holy angels, who in various
passages of Scripture are spoken of as deeply
interested in the affairs of the Church on earth,
and as rejoicing greatly when sinners repent and
turn to God. See Luke 2 : 10-14; r5 •' 7> J Cor.
4:9; Heb. 1 : 14; 1 Pet. 1 : 12.
This is far better than to understand angels
here as meaning the pastors of the churches, as
in Revelation, chapters 1, 2, 3, — a meaning no
where attached to this word without a qualifying
term, and unsuitable to the present passage as
being in the plural number and with the definite
article. Still less suitable is the meaning assigned
to the word angels in this passage by some com
mentators, namely, emissaries, spies, sent by ene
mies to observe and report any improprieties in
the Christian assemblies.

1 Corinthians 14 : 2-19.
Speaking with Tongues.
See note on Acts 2 : 4.

"HIMSELF BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM." I57
1 Corinthians 15 : 24, 28.
" When he shall have delivered up the kingdom
to God, even the Father." "Then shall the Son
also himself be subject unto him that put all
things under him."
This representation harmonizes with that which
our Saviour made to his disciples when he was
about to leave them. "All power," said he, "is
given unto me in heaven and in earth " (Matt. 28 :
18). Also with the words of the apostle in Eph.
1 : 20-22 and elsewhere. The Father accepts the
finished work of the Son, raises him from the
dead, seats him at his own right hand, and con
stitutes him "head over all things to the church."
Compare also Rev. 1: 1, "The revelation of
Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him," etc.
The kingdom here spoken of is Christ's king
dom as Mediator, as Head over all things to the
Church. And it is here represented as lasting as
long as his mediatorial work lasts, and as being
given up when that work is finished. Perhaps
when that consummation is reached the mystery
of the Godhead may be more fully revealed than
it has been to us in this world. Meantime the
surrendering of the mediatorial kingdom to the

158 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Father no more conflicts with the supreme divin
ity of the Son than does his humiliation and
incarnation. He humbled himself to perform a
specific work on earth. When that work on earth
was finished, he was " exalted to be a prince and
a Saviour," to perform in heaven another part of
his priestly and mediatorial work, namely, that of
interceding for his people. This and his kingly
governing of all things for his Church must con
tinue until their struggles are over and all the
powers of evil are subdued. We can conceive of
his then surrendering to the Father the delegated
authority which he received for this special
mediatorial work. Precisely what is meant by the
Son's being then subject to the Father, we may
not be able to decide, but it can not be inconsist
ent with his supreme divinity and oneness with
the Father, any more than was his assumption of
human nature and his submitting his own will to
that of his Father when on earth. The facts we
receive on the testimony of the divine Word. For
the explanation of them we must wait.

"BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD." 1 59

1 Corinthians 15 : 29.
" What shall they do who are baptized for the
dead ? "
On this difficult text one can do little more
than to mention the principal interpretations
which have been proposed, no one of which can
be regarded as entirely satisfactory.
The first which presents itself is that it refers
to a custom of baptizing a living person on behalf
of a catechumen who had died unbaptized. An
cient writers inform us that such a practice
existed among certain heretics in the second cen
tury. This interpretation has the advantage of
explaining every term used in the text in its nor
mal and most natural signification. But there is
no proof that any such usage had already sprung
up at Corinth. Besides, as Calvin well remarks;
it is difficult to suppose that Paul, who so strongly
rebuked other abuses which had sprung up there,
would have failed to rebuke this superstitious
abuse of the ordinance of baptism if it had
existed there, or would have based any argument
for the resurrection upon the erdstence of such
a custom. It is quite possible that this corrupt

l6o NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
practice may have originated in a misinterpre
tation of these words of the apostle.1
Another interpretation which retains the nor
mal signification of baptism and of the dead, and
only proposes a change in the use of the preposi
tion for, is that the apostle refers to those who
bad been led, by witnessing the heroic constancy
of the martyrs, to believe in Christ and to confess
him by being baptized, thus, like new recruits,
taking the place of those who had fallen, and
c xposing themselves to the same persecutions,
even unto death. This would harmonize with
what the apostle goes on to say of his own suffer
ings and exposures for the cause of Christ, and is
perhaps open to fewer objections than any other
interpretation. The other explanations all demand a variation
from the ordinary meaning of one or more of the
terms here employed, and all seem to me inadmis
sible. Such are : —
(i) Baptized under the apprehension of ap
proaching death. This was Calvin's view, and
he appeals to a use of the preposition for, making
it equivalent to as if: baptized for dead, that is,
1 It is worthy of remark here that one of the grossest heresies of
modern times, Mormonism, has revived the superstitious custom ot
baptizing for the dead.

"BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD." l6l
when death was manifestly near. He suggests
also the interpretation, baptized in so near a pros
pect of death that the only advantage they could
hope to derive from their baptism would be after
they were dead. The obvious objections to this
view are that it involves putting upon unkp a
meaning foreign to its normal use, and entirely
fails to account for the use of the definite article
in the expression the dead.
(2) Baptized for one dead, namely, for Christ,
regarding the plural form as used loosely instead
of a singular ; obviously a forced and inadmissible
interpretation. (3) Baptized with suffering, as the Saviour said
(Luke 12 : 50), "I have a baptism to be baptized
with." But this offers no natural explanation of
the accompanying words, for the dead.
(4) Baptized in hope of the resurrection of the
dead. This, as well as the two preceding inter
pretations, relates generally to all believers. But
the apostle seems to be speaking, not of all be
lievers, but of a particular class. Here again we
find no satisfactory explanation of the words, for
the dead.
(5) Baptized over the dead. But this is contrary
to the New Testament use of uitkp with a genitive.

162 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Still other interpretations have been suggested
(some supposing that there is an allusion to the
washing of dead bodies), but none that are not
encumbered with still greater difficulties than
those mentioned above.

2 Corinthians 2 : 14-16.
"Causeth us to triumph." Revised Version,
" Leadeth us in triumph."
In the only passage in the New Testament
besides this where ftpiapfiebw occurs, namely, Col. 2 :
15, both the Authorized Version and the Revised
Version render it triumphing over. This is in
accordance with the classical use of the word.
If the revisers regarded it as conforming here to
the same usage, we must understand their render
ing as equivalent to " leadeth us [as captives] in
[his own] triumph." Since, however, this thought
does not accord with the context, they seem to
have adopted this rendering as capable of mean
ing, "leadeth us [as sharers with him] in his tri
umph." If so, the meaning is essentially the same
with that of the Authorized Version, " causeth
us to triumph." That the word might easily have

"CAUSETH US TO TRIUMPH:' 1 63
been employed in this sense is apparent from the
fact that verbs terminating in sow are frequently
used both transitively and intransitively. Thus
[la^rjTsuw is both to be a disciple and to make a
disciple, paadevto to reign and to make a king,
dp-qvebw to make peace and to live in peace, aX-q^euw
to be and to make true, also to verify. Robinson
quotes Plutarch as using ^pia^suu) in the sense of
causing to triumph.
Verse 15. "We are a sweet savour." Our min
istry is an acceptable offering to God (compare
Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18) whether those who hear us
accept the message and are saved, or reject it
and perish.
Verse 16. The commentators tell us that fra
grant odors accompanied every triumphal proces
sion, and that at the close of the pageant some
of the captives were put to death and the lives
of others were spared. To the former the smell
of the incense would be a stifling premonition of
their fate, to the latter a fragrant intimation that
they were to live. Whether we accept this allu
sion to Roman usages or not, there can be no
doubt that in introducing inverse 15 the phrase,
"a sweet savour unto God," the apostle's primary
reference was to the Jewish sacrifices, so often

I64 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
spoken of in the Old Testament as a sweet savor,
that is, acceptable to God.

2 Corinthians 3 : 13.
" And not as Moses, which put a vail over his
face, that the children of Israel could not stead
fastly look to the end of that which is abolished "
(or, which was to be done away).
Of course there is no need of understanding
the apostle to mean that the putting a vail over
Moses' face literally hindered the people from
understanding the import of the institutions
which he was commissioned to establish among
them, but simply that he takes the literal fact,
that they could not look steadfastly at the glory
which shone in his face, as a fit emblem of their
failure to understand the spiritual design and
meaning of the law.
The passage derives additional illustration from
the expression in verse 18 of this chapter, "with
unvailed face beholding the glory of the Lord,"
and in ch. 4 : 3, " if our gospel is vailed, it is
vailed to those that perish."

"the third heaven" 1 65
2 Corinthians 6 : 16-18.
" I will dwell in them and walk in them," etc.
The words, "I will dwell in them," etc., quoted
in verse 16, are found in Lev. 26: 12, and nearly
the whole of verse 17 in Is. 52: 11. The last
clause of verse 17 and the whole of verse 18
appear not to be quoted directly from the Old
Testament, but rather to be an expansion of the
promise in verse 16. Compare Jer. 31: 1, "I
will be the God of all the families of Israel," and
Deut. 32 : 19 and Is. 43 : 6, where God calls the
people of Israel his sons and his daughters.

2 Corinthians 12:2.
" The third heaven."
Doubtless tlie highest heaven, synonymous with
paradise in verse 4, the first or lowest heaven
being the atmosphere (birds of the air being
called also fowls of heaven) ; the second, the starry
firmament, in which sense it is said, " The heavens
declare the glory of God, and the firmament
sheweth the work of his hands." The third or
highest heaven remains, to be conceived of as the

1 66 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
place of the throne of God, or of the special
manifestation of his glory, and the abode of holy
beings. Any explanation of this passage by a reference
to the Rabbinical fancy of seven heavens (the
third of which they reckoned the starry heaven)
is inapposite, because in accordance with that
view the third heaven of verse 2 would not be
synonymous (as it manifestly is) with the para
dise of verse 4. Besides, there is no evidence
that that fancy is as old as the days of the
apostle.

2 Corinthians 12:5.
" Of such an one will I glory : yet of myself
I will not glory, but in mine infirmities."
From verse 7 it seems evident that Paul him
self was the "man in Christ," who fourteen years
before had been caught up into paradise. How
then does he here contrast himself with that
favored person ? Calvin suggests that he spoke in
this hesitating way to show that he would have
preferred to keep silence, but was compelled to
speak by the violence of his opposers. Perhaps
we get the best clew to the mode of speech which

"AND TO SEEDS." i6j
he here adopts by understanding him to say that
such exalted revelations were indeed worthy to be
gloried in as special and gratuitous divine favors,
but that he would not glory in himself as possess
ing any merit or desert of such favors. In
respect to himself, he would glory only in those
infirmities which caused the power of Christ to
rest on him (v. 9). In other words he would
glory only in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 12
"A thorn in the flesh."
See note on Gal. 4: 12-15.

Galatians 3 : 16.
" Now to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as
of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which
is Christ."
Some professed commentators on the Script
ures have found fault with Paul's reasoning here,
and even made sport of it, as if he had sought to

1 68 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
prove from the use of the singular noun seed, in
stead of the plural seeds, that the promise related
to an individual. But this representation is as
absurd and superficial as it is irreverent. For, —
i. The apostle knew, as well as his learned
critics, that seed was a collective noun, and we
find him so using it constantly in his epistles.
In Rom. 4: 18, speaking of the promise given
to Abraham that he should be the father of many
nations, the apostle adds, " according to that
which was spoken, So shall thy seed be," quoting
the words of God to Abraham recorded in Gen.
15 : 5, where we are informed that the Lord took
Abraham out under the open sky, and said, Look
now toward heaven and count the stars, if thou
canst count them ; So shall thy seed be. In like
manner Paul speaks of Christ as being of the
seed of David (Rom. 1 : 3) ; of the promise as
being made sure to all the seed, not to Jews only,
but to all believers (Rom. 4: 16), and in this very
chapter (v. 29) he says to the Galatians, " If ye be
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise."
2. This being so, and the present passage the
only one in his writings in which he uses the
plural seeds, common candor (to say nothing of

"AND TO SEEDS." 169
the evidence that he was divinely inspired)
requires that we should seek some other expla
nation, rather than charge him with quibbling or
with ignorance of both Hebrew and Greek idiom.
3. In Gen. 21 : 13 we read that God said to
Abraham, " And also of the son of the bond
woman will I make a nation, because he is thy
seed." The Ishmaelites were Abraham's seed.
So were the Arabian tribes descended from Ketu-
rah. So were the Edomites. But the promises
respecting the Messiah were not given to these
nations. Israel was the favored, chosen seed.
Thus we can see how a writer in Hebrew or
Greek might without solecism speak of the
various posterities or seeds of Abraham.
4. " In Isaac shall thy seed be called " (Gen.
21: 12; Heb. 11: 18). This meant, and was
understood by Abraham to mean, that the bless
ings of the covenant centered in Isaac and that,
so far as these blessings were concerned, the
other branches of his posterity would not be
called or counted his seed.
5. When in the last clause of this verse the
apostle says, " which is Christ," it is not neces
sary to regard him as arguing from the use of
the singular number that the promised seed must

170 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
be an individual. His own consistent use of the
same word elsewhere as a collective noun forbids
this view. It is sufficient to understand him
here as affirming, on his own inspired authority,
that, the seed of Abraham in which all nations
were to be blessed was not the whole posterity
of Abraham, nor even the people of Israel as a
nation, but the individual Messiah.
6. In view of the above considerations we are
prepared to understand the apostle in saying, He
saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but, And to
thy seed, as meaning simply that God, in giving
these promises to Abraham's seed, did not design
to give them to all the branches of his posterity,
but to one ; and then he himself goes on to affirm
that they culminated in one person, namely, the
Messiah.

Galatians 3 : 19, 20.
"Wherefore then serveth the law ? " etc.
The apostle, having shown that the covenant
made with Abraham was a covenant of free
grace, which could not be annulled by the law
given four hundred and thirty years later, goes
on to inquire, Wherefore then serveth the law ?

"SERVETH THE LAW?" ETC. 171
As Calvin well remarks, he is not here inquiring
into all the uses of the law, but points that only
which bears upon his present subject. It is as if
he had said, God had proclaimed to Abraham a
gospel. That gospel of free grace, which Abra
ham received by faith, God did not design by his
law (proclaimed on Mount Sinai four hundred
and thirty years later) to abrogate. What then
was the design of the law so far as this gospel
of free grace was concerned ? It was to show
men their transgressions and lead them to feel
their need of a Saviour ; or, as he says in verse 24,
" The law was our tutor, to bring us unto Christ."
Thus the law is not contrary to_ the promise, but
auxiliary to it. The thought is the same as when
he said to the Romans (Rom. 5 : 20), The law
entered that the offence might abound ; but this
was in order that grace might more abound. As
he says also in this epistle (Gal. 2 :~ 19), " I through
the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto
God ; " that is, The law itself has taught me that
by it I can not be justified and obtain eternal
life. " And it was ordained [disposed, or set forth]
through [the ministry of] angels." So Stephen
(Acts 7:53) reminded the Jews that they had

172 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
received the law by disposals, or ministrations
of angels, doubtless alluding to the extraordinary
phenomena accompanying the giving of the law,
and produced by the ministration of multitudes
of attending angels. The presence of myriads
of holy beings on occasion of the giving of the
law is referred to in Deut. 33: 2. "The Lord
came from Sinai, . and he came with ten
thousands of saints [R. V, holy ones] : from his
right hand went a fiery law for them."
" In the hands of a mediator." Many of the
fathers understood this of Christ. But it is bet
ter to take it as referring to Moses, whom the
Lord employed as a mediator between himself
and the people, according to what Moses writes
in Deut. 5 : 5, "I stood between the Lord and
you," and this in compliance with an earnest
request of the people (vs. 23-27).
"Now a mediator is not a mediator of one."
That is, the designation of some one to act as
mediator implies the existence of a covenant
between two parties. God, as the one sovereign
of the universe, might have given his commands
absolutely and unaccompanied by promises ; but
he was graciously pleased to put even the fiery
law of Mount Sinai in the shape of a covenant

"NOT INJURED ME AT ALL." 173
between himself and his people, binding himself
to be their Guide and Protector, as they on their
part bound themselves to follow his guidance and
to keep his precepts.
This seems to be the simple meaning of this
passage, of which the commentators tell us no
less than two hundred and fifty different explana
tions have been proposed.

Galatians 4: 12-15.
Verse 12. " Be as I am ; for I am as ye are ;
ye have not injured me at all."
Various turns have been given by interpreters
to these words of Paul. To me the most natural
seems to be to make them a plea for sympathy
with the apostle, such as he had shown towards
the Galatian converts. Many of them were now
disposed to turn away from him and listen to
Judaizing teachers. He reminds them of the
earnestness with which he had labored for their
spiritual good, and of the zeal which they had
formerly manifested for the truth which he
preached among them and for him as their spir
itual father; and assures them that his present

174 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
feeling is not one of resentment for any personal
injury, but simply anxiety for their good.
Verses 13-15. Many conjectures have been
offered in regard to the infirmity of which the
apostle here speaks, which was doubtless the
same mentioned in 2 Cor. 12 : 7 under the name
of a thorn in the flesh. The most probable seems
to be that it was ophthalmia, an acute inflammation
of the eyes, which is at the same time distress
ingly painful, quite like the pricking of thorns
and briars in the flesh, and also would mar the
appearance of a public speaker (2 Cor. 10 : 10).
This conjecture is rendered the more probable
by what he says in verse 15 of the Galatians in
their early zeal for him having been willing, had it
been possible, to pluck out their own eyes and
give them to him.

Galatians 4 : 24.
"Which things are an allegory."
Better, with the Revised Version, " contain an
allegory" (aXXyyopoofieva) ; that is, may be used alle-
gorically to illustrate the two schemes of salvation
by the deeds of the law, and salvation by free

"ARE AN ALLEGORY." I 75
grace. That Paul did not regard the whole
narrative as a mere allegory hardly needs to be
remarked. It is manifest that he regarded it as
historical truth from his mode of introducing
the facts referred to in verses 22, 23, 28, and
29 ; also, from his employing here not the term
dXXrjyopia, allegory, but dXXi]yopoup.Eva, employed or
interpreted as an allegory.
Verse 25. "For this Hagar is mount Sinai in
Arabia." The translators employed the demon
strative this to represent the article in the origi
nal. But that article is the neuter article to, and
so directs attention, not to the person Hagar
(which would have required the feminine 9), but
to the meaning of the name Hagar. Now Hagar
in Arabic signifies a rock, and Chrysostom and
other ancient commentators remark that Mount
Sinai was sometimes so called. It is therefore
here as if the apostle had said, The Rock is
Mount Sinai. In Arabia. Not in Canaan, the
land of promise, but in Arabia, which was the
residence of the descendants of Hagar, and
therefore all the more suitable to be employed
as an emblem of a servile condition.

176 notes on difficult passages.
Galatians 5:12.
" I would they were even cut off which trouble
you." Better, with the Revised Version, "that they
who unsettle you would even cut themselves off."
There is an allusion to the cutting off of the fore
skin in circumcision. But the verb is not passive,
but middle, and therefore should be rendered,
would cut themselves off. It is as if the apostle
had said, Would that these people who are- so
zealous for circumcision, and are disturbing and
unsettling you about the cutting off of foreskins,
would cut themselves wholly off from your soci
ety, would withdraw and leave you in peace.
The interpretation, "would mutilate themselves,"
adopted by some distinguished commentators and
lexicographers, appears to me utterly inapt and
unworthy of the apostle, and I regret that it
should appear even in the margin of the Revised
Version.

Ephesians 1 : 1.
" To the saints who are at Ephesus."
The Revised Version has a marginal note stat
ing that " some very ancient authorities omit at

"SAINTS WHO ARE AT EPHESUS."

177

Ephesus." This omission, together with the fact
that the great majority both of Greek manu
scripts and of ancient versions retain these words,
renders extremely probable the view now gener
ally accepted by commentators, that this epistle
was a kind of circular intended for the churches
at Ephesus, Laodicea, and other places through
which the bearers would pass between those two
cities. We know that it was sent by the same
persons who took the epistles to the Colossian
church and to Philemon who resided at Colosse.
See Eph. 6: 21 ; Col. 4: 7, 9, 16, and Philemon 2.
It is manifest also from internal evidence that it
was written almost simultaneously with that to
the Colossians, and while the thoughts expressed
in the latter were fresh in the writer's mind.
Compare Eph. 1:1,2 with Col. 1 : 1, 2 ; Eph. 1 :
7 with Col. 1 : 14; Eph. 1 : 15, 16 with Col. 1 : 3,
4; Eph. 1 : 21-23 with Col. 1 : 18; Eph. 2 : 1, 5
with Col. 2 : 13; Eph. 2 : 12, 13 with Col. 1 : 21,
22; Eph. 2: 15 with Col. 2: 14; Eph. 3: 7-9
with Col. 1 : 25-27; Eph. 4: 15, 16 with Col. 2:
19; Eph. 4: 32 with Col. 3: 13; Eph. 5: 15, 16
with Col. 4: 5; Eph. 5: 19 with Col. 3: 16;
Eph. 5: 22 with Col. 3: 18; Eph. 5: 25 with
Col. 3:19; Eph. 6 : 1-9 with Col. 3 : 20-25, 4 :

178 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
1; Eph 6: 18-20 with Col. 4: 2-4; Eph. 6: 21,
22 with Col. 4 : 7, 8.
Ephesus was the port where a traveler going
from Rome to Colosse would naturally land.
Between Ephesus and Colosse were Magnesia
on the Meander, Tralles, Laodicea, Hierapolis,
and other cities in which churches may have
existed, to which the apostle would desire to send
copies of the epistle. One copy would be
addressed to the believers in Ephesus, one to
those in Laodicea (referred to in Col. 4: 16), and
other copies may have been prepared without any
local address to be left with churches on the way,
according to circumstances. Ephesus being the
largest and most important of all these cities, it
was natural that more copies should be taken
from the one left there than from any other.
This would account for the majority of ancient
manuscripts having the words, " in Ephesus," and
for others not having them.
There seem to have been special reasons for
the apostle's writing a separate letter to the
church in Colosse, perhaps owing to particular
information respecting its state, derived from
Epaphras (Col. 1: 7; 4: 12; Philemon 23). So,
as Colosse was not more than eight or ten miles

"AWAKE THOU THAT SLEEPEST." 1 79
from Laodicea, it was easy and natural that the
two epistles should be exchanged and read in
both churches.

Ephesians 5 : 14.
"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that steep
est, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall
give thee light."
This passage has the appearance of being a
quotation. Compare Acts 13: 35, 2 Cor. 6: 2,
Eph. 4 : 8, Heb. 5 : 6, where quotations are
introduced in the same manner, with simply the
word Xiyei. But no such passage is found in
the Old Testament. Calvin suggests that there
might be an allusion to Is. 60: 1, "Arise, shine,
for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord
is risen upon thee." To this Barnes objects that
the address in Isaiah is to the church, whereas
here it is to sinners, and prefers to regard the
passage as not being a quotation, but simply as
expressing in the apostle's own language God's
call to sinners to awake from the death-like sleep
of sin, with the promise that Christ will give
them light. More probable seems to me the
conjecture of Storr, Michaelis, and others that

l8o NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
it is a quotation from a Christian hymn already
in use in the apostle's day. Its measured
structure, "Awake, thou that sleepest,
And arise from the dead,
And Christ shall give thee light,"
corresponds with that of the earliest Christian
hymns which have come down to our time. They
were doubtless composed in imitation of the
parallelism of the Psalms. Thus the hymn by
Clement of Alexandria, addressed to the Saviour,
commences : —
" Mouth of babes who can not speak,
Wing of nestlings that can not fly,
Sure Guide of babes,
Shepherd of royal sheep."
The "Te Deum laudamus " begins : —
" We praise thee, O God,
We acknowledge thee to be the Lord ;
All the earth doth worship thee,
The Father everlasting ; "
and the " Gloria in excelsis," which is probably
older than either of them, begins with a quotation
from Luke 2 : 14 : —
"Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace,
Good will towards men."

ueqUal with god." 181

Philippians 2 : 6.

"Thought it not robbery to be equal with
God." The Revised Version renders this clause,
" counted it not a prize to be on an equalitv
with God."
The principal considerations urged by those
who favor the latter rendering are two, namely,
(i) That counting it no robbery (no unjustifiable
assumption) to be on an equality with God,
would not be an example of humility, but rather
of the contrary ; and (2) That the conjunction
iXXd requires that the verb which follows it
should be adversative to the one which precedes
it. In reference to the first, it may be replied
that there is no need to consider the setting forth
of the Saviour's humility as commencing with
what precedes the conjunction, but that the whole
of verse 6 may well be understood as a descrip
tion of his original divine and glorious state. In
regard to the second, we may refer to passages
where dXXd is not strictly adversative, but may
fairly be rendered by nevertheless or and yet.
For example, in Mark 14 : 36 we read that Jesus
prayed, " Remove this cup from me ; nevertheless,

1 82 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
not what I will, but what thou wilt." So here we
may understand the apostle as saying, " Christ,
being in his original glory, counted it no unjusti
fiable assumption to be on an equality with the
Father ;. and yet emptied himself of this glory,
and became poor and despised for our sakes."
The following considerations favor the old
rendering : —
(i) The utmost latitude of meaning which can
be claimed for dpnaypdi would call it a prize only
in the sense of something to be seized or grasped
at. 'ApizdZw is to seize or snatch, especially as a
bird or beast of prey, and Spiral a" ravenous bird
or beast, or metaphorically a rapacious man. The
idea of clinging or holding fast to something in
one's possession does not inhere in these terms.
How can we conceive of our Saviour's having
contemplated, in his original glory, his equality
with the Father as a thing to be grasped at,
seeing it was already in his possession ?
(2) The most ancient versions accord with the
common English Version. The Peshito Syriac
is rendered by Dr. Murdock, "Who, as he was
in the likeness of God, deemed it no trespass to
be the coequal of God ; yet divested himself, and
assumed the likeness of a servant," etc. To this

"POURED OUT AS A LIBATION" 183
agree the Latin and other ancient versions ; also
Tertullian. Some later fathers take the other
view. Modern commentators too are divided.
Calvin interprets the passage just as does the
common English Version.
Some allege as an objection to this interpre
tation that to be on an equality with God can not
be viewed as an act, and therefore can not be
conceived of as worthy or not worthy to be
called robbery. Here it should be noted that the
apostle does not use an adjective, 7<rov, which
would have expressed strictly the equality of the
Son with the Father, but an adverbial form, l<ra
which may well be expressed by on an equality ;
and so the passage may be paraphrased, " counted
it not an unjust assumption to occupy a position
of equality." On the whole this interpretation
seems to me open to fewer objections than the
one adopted by the Revised Version.

Philippians 2:17.
" Yea, and if I be offered [though I am poured
out as a libation] upon the sacrifice and service
of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all."

184 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
To get the full force of these words, we must
Dear in mind that according to the Jewish ritual
every burnt offering must be accompanied by a
libation as well as by an offering of bread or
flour. The apostle compares the faith of the
Philippian Christians to a sacrifice offered to God.
As in Rom. 15 : 16, so here, he represents him
self as the officiating minister offering the Gen
tile converts (or their faith) as an acceptable
sacrifice to God ; and adds that if, in order that
this sacrifice might be offered to God and ac
cepted by him, it did become necessary that his
own life-blood should be poured out, yet would
he count it only as a libation accompanying that
sacrifice ; in other words, so great was his joy
at the conversion and salvation of his Philippian
brethren that he would gladly give his own life
to secure it. His use here of the present tense,
" I am poured out as a libation," indicates, not
merely the anticipated end of his course, but his
daily experience, and corresponds with what he
wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15: 31), "I die
daily."

"resurrection from the dead." 185
Philippians 3:11.
" If by any means I may attain unto the resur
rection from the dead."
Most of the commentators make the resurrec
tion from the dead in this verse to signify exclu
sively the glorious future resurrection of the
saints. Others understand it of the moral resur
rection of believers to a holy life. I see no
reason why we should not assign to these words
a meaning which would comprise both. Paul says
of himself, " I am crucified with Christ " (Gal. 2 :
20). By this he, of course, does not mean any
literal crucifixion, or literal death, or exposure to
death. He means that, as Christ died to put away
sin, the believer also dies unto sin, putting away
his former sinful life and rising to a new life of
holiness. So to the Colossians he says (Col. 3:1),
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those
things which are above." In like manner to the
Romans (Rom. 6 : 4), " We are buried with him
by baptism into death, that like as Christ was
raised up . . . even so we also should walk in
newness of life."
So here the apostle sets forth his renunciation
of his former self-righteous life, and declares that

1 86 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
his grand aim and desire now is to win Christ and
be found iti him (vs. 8, 9), and he seems to be
amplifying the same thought in verse 10 when
he says, "that I may know him and the power
of his resurrection," etc. In this view, knowing
the power of Christ's resurrection will signify,
experiencing in my own soul resurrection to a life
conformed to that of Jesus.
But this rising with Christ, being found in
Christ, living in Christ and Christ living in the
believer, comprises the idea and insures the result
of being glorified with him at his second coming.
And that the apostle, speaking in verse 11 of
attaining to the resurrection from the dead, meant
to designate this whole change, this winning
Clirist, being found in him, living in him, and
eternal glory and blessedness- with him, is rendered
highly probable by what he proceeds to say in
verse 12, " Not that I have already obtained, or
am already made perfect," etc., and in verse 13,
" Brethren, I count not myself yet to have appre
hended." If in verse 1 1 he had referred only to
the future glorious resurrection at Christ's second
coming, would he have gone directly on to say
what is contained inverses 12-14? It seems to
me that he would not. Still, I would not exclude

"OUR CON VERS A TION IS IN HE A VEN." 1 8 7
the idea of eternal glory and blessedness, but
would regard that idea as comprised in winning
Christ and being found in him. Paul had indeed
won Christ and was found in him. He had
apprehended [laid hold of] Christ, or rather, as he
himself says, had been laid hold of by Christ.
He was living in Christ and Christ in him, and
yet he longed for more perfect conformity to
Christ, and therefore in one sense could say that
he had not yet got hold of him, but was pressing
forward and striving to do so.

Philippians 3 : 20.
"Our conversation [Revised Version, citizen
ship] is in heaven."
Here again I would not regard the question as
being whether noXtrsupa signifies conversation (that
is, conduct, course of life) exclusively, or citizen
ship exclusively. I think it comprises both.
Starting from the idea of niXis, a city, and nokin)?,
a citizen, noXheup.a signifies primarily the adminis
tration of the state, and secondarily the relation
of a citizen to the state, comprising his rights,
his obligations, and his deportment as a member

I 88 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
of the body politic. This view brings it into
entire harmony with ttoXitem, which signifies the
state itself, as in Eph. 2:12, "the commonwealth
of Israel," and the privilege of citizenship, as in
Acts 22 : 28, and also with the verb KoXireuofiac,
which, starting from the idea of being a citizen,
goes on to that of living as a citizen, as in Acts
23 : 1 and Phil. 1 : 27. I understand the apostle
therefore in this text as meaning to say, We
are citizens of heaven, and are striving to conduct
ourselves as such.

Colossians 1:15.
" The firstborn of every creature." Better,
with the Revised Version, "of the whole crea
tion." Had we no other statement in the Scriptures
respecting the person of Christ than this, we
might understand it (with the Arians) as meaning
that Christ was the first of created beings. But
having abundant and unambiguous testimony to
his supreme divinity and oneness with the Father,
we must regard the apostle as here designating
his relation to the Father as his firstborn, and

"PLEASED THE FATHER:' 189
therefore heir and sovereign Lord of the whole
creation, or, as he is called in Heb. 1:2," Heir
of all things." With this interpretation the
words immediately following harmonize. " For
by1 him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisi
ble, . . . and he is before all things, and by him
[not " in him," Revised Version] all things con
sist," that is, stand or are held together.2

Colossians 1 : 19.
" For it pleased the Father that in him should
all fulness dwell."
The reader of the English Bible may wonder
at the insertion of the words the Father, since
they are not found in the original Greek. Gram
matically nXrjptupa might be taken as the subject of
the verb, and so we might translate, with Bishop
Ellicott, " In him it pleased the whole fulness
1 Not in him (as in the Revised Version) but by him, as in kv SuktuAcu
Oeov, by the finger of God (Luke 11: 20), ev tchs Trpo<f>7JT<us, by the
prophets, iv viu, by his Son, Heb. 1 : I, 2.
2 Consist is an archaism (unfortunately retained in the Revised Ver
sion) , and is certainly liable to be misunderstood. I would prefer, " By
him are all things maintained," with a marginal note, Greek, held
togetker.

190 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
(of the Godhead) to dwell." Others make Christ
the subject, but this throws the rendering of
verse 20 into confusion, to escape from which
Conybeare and Howson propose changes in the
text not sustained by the best authorities, ancient
or modern.
The most natural rendering of verse 20 demands
that the subject, which is obviously the same in
verses 19 and 20, should be God, or the Father,
understood. And so easy is the reference of
sbdoxla to God, that it is used without a possessive
noun or pronoun following, as in Phil. 2 : 13,
where "the good pleasure" (as it is in the origi
nal) is rightly rendered "his good pleasure." See
also 2 Thess. 1: 11. The insertion of God, or
the Father (in italics) in Col. 1 : 19 is therefore
fully justified.

Colossians 2 : 18.
"Worshipping of angels." Revised Version,
"Worshipping of the angels."
Most commentators accept this interpretation.
But the Greek is ftpyjaxela rmv dyylXwv, literally, reli
gion of angels, or of the angels. Tertullian inter
preted it, a religion which they pretend has been

"WORSHIPPING OF ANGELS." I9I
taught them by angels. Even if ftp-qaxela were
limited to the meaning of worship, there is noth
ing in the text to decide positively whether the
meaning must be worship offered to angels, or
worship such as angels offer to God. But its
meaning is not so limited. Its primitive meaning
is religion as a system, comprising belief and
practice, and including ceremonies, mysteries, and
superstitions. So in Acts 26 : 5, " the strictest
sect of our religion!' Secondarily it signifies
piety, as in James 1 : 26, " That man's religion
[namely, the profession of piety on the part of
the man who does not bridle his tongue] is vain."
Bishop Ellicott and others quote the Wisdom of
Solomon, ch. 14 : 27, as an example of the
use of dprjaxela in the limited sense of worship.
But there is nothing in that passage to prevent
its being understood in its ordinary sense of
religion. The writer had been speaking of the
mysteries and ceremonies (/luarTjpia xa\ reAerd?, v. 1 5)
of idolatry, and in verse 27 goes on to say that
the ^pyjsxeia of nameless idols is a spring and
source of all evils, among which he mentions, in
verse 28, falsehood, injustice, and perjury. And
in verse 18 he uses the word ftprjaxeia in the sense
of devotional feeling, to intensify which the art
of the sculptor is called in.

I92 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Dr. Murdock renders the Syriac version of this
passage, "that ye subject yourselves to the wor
ship of angels." But there is nothing in the
Syriac text to decide whether the meaning of the
translators was worship offered to angels, or
worship like that which the angels offer to God.
Besides, the term rendered worship is a general
term like the Latin cultus, and might better be
rendered service. That the apostle meant religion
or religious service like that of the angels is ren
dered highly probable by the universal claim of
the monks, Eastern and Western, that their ser
vice is an angelic service and their life an angelic
life} It is by no means decisive of the question
to show, as the commentators do, that worship
has been paid to angels, in both ancient and
modern times. Neither is the interpretation here
proposed inconsistent with the preceding mention
of humility ; for extraordinary humility also has
been in all ages the boast of devotees, Jewish,
heathen, and Christian.
'Ep^areuwv in the same verse is rendered in the
Revised Version dwelling in. The revisers were
doubtless led to give the word this forced inter-
!Tyndale and Coverdale render t»p>j<r/£eia rdv £yyi\t»v, holiness of
angels.

"SATISFYING OF THE FLESH." 1 93
pretation by having adopted that reading of the
Greek text which omits the negative ("things
which he hath seen," in place of "things which
he hath not seen "). But a large majority of
Greek manuscripts, both uncial and cursive,
have the negative. So have the best of the
ancient versions ; also Origen and Chrysostom ;
and the omission of a negative by a copyist is
far more likely than its insertion. 'EplSarebu) signi
fies primarily to invade, and then by an easy
figure, to intrude.

Colossians 2 : 23.
" Which things have indeed a show of wisdom
in will-worship and humility and neglecting of
the body, not in any honour to the satisfying of
the flesh."
The last clause is rendered in the Revised Ver
sion, " are not of any value against the indulgence
of the flesh."
' ' E#eXo#p7}oxeia, like tiprjffxeia in verse 18 (see the
preceding note), should not be limited to the idea
of worship, but should be understood as compre
hending all self-imposed or supererogatory religious

194 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
observances, nx-fjapovrj in the last clause some inter
preters (as Calvin) seek to explain of a moderate
and reasonable provision for the body. But
TcX-qopovr) is satiety, and can not without violence be
made to signify any thing within the bounds of
moderation. The Revised Version takes this
view of it, and renders it indulgence, but in order
to connect the last clause with what goes before,
gives to npdg a meaning not suited to the con
nection ; for wherever in the New Testament
Kpds with an accusative is rendered against, it
acquires this force by the aid of some other term,
expressed or implied, with which it is connected
(as complaint, accusation, bitter, etc.), and of
itself might still be rendered toward or in refer
ence to.
The Syriac Version renders, " not to any valu
able purpose, but to indulge the flesh." And it
is worth remarking that in the Greek text there
is no <5e in the last clause to correspond to the
i±h in the first. But even without venturing,
like the Syriac Version, to supply but, we may
get what I think was the apostle's true meaning
by inserting a comma after oux h Tip.ij' rot, or by
enclosing that clause in a parenthesis. The
meaning then will be that these commandments

"HAVE PUT OFF." 1 95
and doctrines of men, notwithstanding the high
claims of their advocates, possess no real value,
and simply pamper the flesh. It is essentially
the same with that given by the Revised Version
and by Conybeare and Howson, whose paraphrase
is, "are of no value to check the indulgence of
fleshly passions."

Colossians 3 : 9, 10.
" Seeing that ye have put off the old man with
his deeds, and have put on the new man."
The Syriac Version renders in the imperative,
" Put off the old man . put on the new man,"
regarding the participles as made imperative by
the imperative verb with which the sentence
commences. The Vulgate seems to take the
same view, rendering the aorist participles of the
Greek by present participles. The use of the
imperative in verse 12, "Put on therefore," etc.,
favors this view. Still there is practically not
much difference between exhorting Christians to
put off the old man and put on the new man,
and reminding them that their baptismal vows
involved the obligation to do this.

I96 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Colossians 4 : 16.
"The epistle from Laodicea."
Doubtless the Epistle to the Ephesians, sent
first to Ephesus, the port where the bearers of it
would land, coming from Rome, then (in other
copies) to Tralles and other cities on the way to
Colosse, the last of these being Laodicea. See
note on Eph. 1:1.

1 Thessalonians 4 : 1 3-1 7.
The Time of Christ's Second Coming.
It is evident from this passage that incorrect
views prevailed to some extent among the Thes-
salonian Christians in regard to our Lord's second
coming. The time of that coming had not been
revealed. The Father had kept that in his own
power. The words of Jesus to his disciples were,
"Watch, for ye know neither the day nor the
hour" (Matt. 25 : 13 ; Mark 13 : 35, etc.). It was
his intention that his people to the end of time
should be ever watching for his coming. This
would promote their growth in holiness and their
preparation either for their own departure from

TIME OF CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. 1 97
this world or for the Saviour's coming to judg
ment. That the apostles did not know the time of
that coming does not in the least disparage their
inspired authority in regard to what they declare
had been revealed to them. That authority they
constantly claim. And with equal constancy they
declare that the time of the Saviour's coming was
unknown. While with them bodily, his word to
them was, "Watch." Thirty years later he
repeats the warning through his aged servant
Peter : " The end of all things is at hand : be ye
therefore sober, and watch unto prayer" (1 Pet.
4 : 7). Another thirty years pass by and through
his beloved John he cries to all his people, " Be
hold, I come as a thief ; blessed is he that watch-
eth " (Rev. 16: 15). It was for their edification,
for their growth in holiness, that they should not
know the time of his coming, but should be ever
watching for it ; and practically to each believer
the time of his departure from the world would
be the time of his Lord's coming.
That the apostles should share in the prevailing
impression that the time of the Saviour's second
coming was very near is not at all strange;
neither should we suffer this to conflict with

I98 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
their claim to inspired authority ; for they dis
tinctly declare that they had received no revela
tion on the subject.
But some of the Christians at Thessalonica,
looking for the day of the Lord's appearing as
a day of joy and triumph to all believers, fancied
that those who should die before that day would
lose a great privilege and somehow be cut off
from this triumph.
The apostle charges them not to indulge any
such fancy, assuring them that those who shall
live to see that day will not have the slightest
advantage over those who have previously slept
in Jesus ; that the dead in Christ shall rise first,
and that believers then on earth, being in an
instant clothed with immortality, shall with them
be caught up to meet the Lord.
In using the expression, " We that are alive and
remain unto the coming of the Lord," we should
not understand the apostle as expressing any
confidence that he would be one of those who
would be living at that day. He identifies him
self with the whole body of Christ's people, past,
present, and future, and this expression should be
taken as equivalent to "those of us who are
alive," etc. So Hosea (ch. 12 : 4) says, "He found

TIME OF CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. 1 99
him in Bethel, and there he spake with us ; " that
is, God, in speaking with our father Jacob in
Bethel, spake with us his descendants. In like
manner the writer of the Sixty-sixth Psalm says
(v. 6):- Ke turned the sea into dry land ;
They went through the flood on foot ;
There did we rejoice in him.
Paul's missionary life was full of exposures to
death, and although it was ten years later than
the time of writing this epistle that he wrote
those memorable words, " I am in a strait betwixt
two, having a desire to depart and be with
Christ " (Phil. 1 : 23), yet we can not doubt that
the same spirit animated his whole life after he
knew Christ as his Lord and Saviour. He evi
dently made no distinction of privilege between
dying in the Lord and being alive at the time of
his second coming. In his Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians (written apparently only a few
weeks after the first) he cautions them not to
misinterpret what he had previously written, so
as to imagine that the day of the Lord was at
hand ; and goes on to assure them that great
changes must first take place (2 Thess. 2 : 1-7).

200 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
The passage we have been considering seems
to have been composed so as to meet the wants
of Christians in every age.

2 Thessalonians 2 : 3-10.
The apostasy.
Tfie man of sin — the wicked one.
The mystery of iniquity.
What withholdeth — he that letteth.
Calvin remarks that "the falling away" (^ ditoa-
raoia, v. 3), being mentioned without any qualifi
cation, must be understood to be general, and can
be none other than that general corruption which
had for ages overspread the visible Church ; and
adds, " From this we may readily gather how
useful this prediction of Paul is, for it might have
seemed as though that could not be a building of
God that was suddenly overthrown and lay so
long in ruins, had not Paul long before intimated
that it would be so."
The man of sin and the wicked one evidently
designate the same power, a power which would
arise within the Church, for he was to sit " in the
temple of God." It is generally agreed both by

THE APOSTASY, ETC. 201
Papal and Protestant commentators that the same
power is here predicted to which the apostle John
refers under the name of antichrist (i John 2 :
18, 22 ; 4: 3 ; and 2 John v. 7).
The apostle declares that the evil influences
which tended toward the future apostasy were
already working in secret "the mystery of in
iquity." He reminds his Christian brethren at
Thessalonica that when present with them he
had warned them of this. He had also told them
what it was which prevented the development of
this antichristian power. Many suggestions have
been offered as to what was the restraining power,
to xartyov, which the apostle declared was then
preventing, and until it should be "taken out of
the way " would prevent, this development. From
the guarded manner in which he alludes to this
restraining power, it would seem to be some
thing of which he did not feel at liberty to speak
fully in a document so public as his epistles must
necessarily be.
The term antichrist naturally designates, not
merely a person or system opposed to Christ (for
such are all false systems of religion), but a rival
of Christ, a usurper of his prerogatives. The
terms man of sin and the wicked one designate

202 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
a system opposed to the moral principles of
Christianity. The gospel is a system of truth
and holiness. The system, the rise of which is
here predicted, would be a system of iniquity,
and one to be maintained by falsehood and pre
tended miracles.
All this accords fully with what has actually
come to pass in the Church. Already in the days
of the apostles ambitious men appeared, like Dio-
trephes (3 John 9, 10), who desired to rule the
Church for the promotion of their own selfish
ends. Tendencies toward hierarchy and a central
headship and control of the Church early ap
peared, both in the East and in the West. These
were gradually developed into claims to the
supreme government of the Church, and even
to supremacy over civil government. As parts
of this supreme control of the Church appear the
claim of power "to change times and laws," to
appoint or abrogate fasts, festivals, and obser
vances obligatory upon all Christians ; to dis
pense with obedience to the laws of the Church,
and even to the laws of God ; to pronounce the
forgiveness of all sin and assured admission to
heaven, on conditions easily fulfilled by bad men,

"DELIVERED UNTO SATAN." 203
and often ludicrously trifling. These and similar
claims manifestly usurped prerogatives which
belong to Christ alone. And that this system
fostered iniquity and was sustained by lying won
ders, all history testifies.
As to the restraining power, there can scarcely
be a doubt that it was the imperial power of Rome.
As long as this lasted in vigor, no ecclesiastical
chief could advance such claims as were soon put
forward when that was "taken out of the way."
And this explanation accords well with the cau
tious manner in which the apostle introduces
here the subject of the restraining power (to
xaTtyov), or person (6 xari^tov), respecting which he
had freely spoken when at Thessalonica, and so
could now say, "Ye know what restraineth." To
state openly in a published letter that the imperial
power would be overthrown, would have been
obviously unwise.

1 Timothy i : 20.
"Delivered unto Satan." See note on 1 Cor.
5= 5-

204 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
i Timothy 2:15.
" She shall be saved in childbearing [Revised
Version, ' through the childbearing '] if they con
tinue in faith and charity and holiness with
sobriety." Two important and difficult questions present
themselves here: — (1) What is the force of the
phrase did -ri?? TExvoyovia? ? and (2) To whose contin
uance in faith, etc., does the apostle refer ?
The oldest interpreters understood TExvoyovia
here to mean the bearing (and rearing) of chil
dren as the normal function of woman, in con
trast with the work of the ministry, to which she
is not called of God (v. 12). So the Syriac Ver
sion and Chrysostom.
Several ingenious modern interpreters refer
this term to the birth of Christ, and the Revised
Version appears to accept this interpretation. In
favor of this view are : —
1. The appropriate contrast of the leading part
borne by woman in the first transgression with
the special function graciously assigned to her in
giving birth to the Saviour, "made of a woman."
2. The preservation of the primary sense of the
preposition Sid, through, or by means of.

"SAVED IN CHILnBEARING." 2O5
On the other hand it may be truly said : —
1. That the contrast offered by the older inter
pretation, though less striking than the one men
tioned above, is still a good and natural one. Let
not woman aspire to those public functions not
committed to her, but rather let her fulfill well
the duties assigned her.
2. The force of the preposition required by this
interpretation, though secondary, is still legitimate
and natural. We may understand the apostle as
saying, Woman, though not called to the sacred
work of the ministry, has still her appropriate
way of serving God, and working out her own
salvation through or in the way of her more pri
vate duties.
3. The use of the article ttj? before TExvoyovias
has been insisted on by some as favoring a refer
ence to the* birth of Christ. But the careful
student of Greek knows that this argument has
no force. Witness the terms virtue, knowledge,
temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness,
charity (2 Pet. 1 : 5-7), all of which have the
article in the original. So also in Rom. 5 : 17;
6: 18; 13: 10; 1 Cor. 13: 8, and multitudes of
other passages.
4. The fact that the earliest interpreters did

206 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
not find here any reference to the miraculous
birth of our Saviour is a strong argument against
any such reference. The testimony of the Syr
iac Version, made so soon after the apostolic age,
and in a country where both Greek and Syriac
were familiarly spoken, is especially weighty.
Chrysostom too, a thorough master of New Tes
tament Greek, remarks on this passage that the
apostle means " not only the bearing of children,
but also the bringing them up in a godly manner."
In regard to the second question, namely, To
whose continuance in faith, etc., does the apostle
refer? I remark: —
i. The same authorities quoted above under
stand him as referring to the children. The term
children is indeed not expressed, but it may be re
garded as implied in the compound term TExvoywia.
2. While it must be granted that a change from
a singular to a plural verb, relating to the same
subject, is not without example, yet in the present
passage there does not appear any reason for such
a change, and so to make " she shall be saved, if
they continue" equivalent to "she shall be saved,
if she continues," seems forced and unnatural.
If the reference is to woman's perseverance in
faith, charity, holiness, and sobriety, then it is

"GOD was manifested:'

207

simply tantamount to, " He that endureth to the
end, the same shall be saved." If the apostle's
reference was to the permanent conduct of the
children, we should understand him as meaning
that such character and conduct on their part
would be the natural fruit and proof of the faith
ful discharge of her duties by the mother.
The whole passage is a tender and gentle
encouragement and exhortation to woman to
accept loyally the subordinate position and duties
which Providence has assigned to her.

1 Timothy 3 : 16.
" God [R. V, He who] was manifested in the
flesh," etc.
Most critical editions of the Greek New Testa
ment are now agreed in reading 5? here instead
of deoc ; and apparently with good reason, since
the oldest manuscripts and versions agree in this
reading. The reading 8 (neuter, referring to
fiutrnjptov) has very slight support, and is easily
accounted for. The change also from OS to 02
by a copyist is easily accounted for. He who
was " manifested in the flesh " must have been
a divine being ; could not have been a mere man.

208 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
The abruptness of commencing a quotation with
OS might therefore lead a copyist to suspect that
the fine lines which alone distinguish OS from that
reading had been obliterated, and so to insert
them. There can scarcely be a doubt that the whole
passage is an extract from a hymn relating to the
glorious work of our Redeemer. This supposi
tion easily accounts for its commencing with a
relative pronoun. Every reader would mentally
supply the antecedent, namely, Christ,
"Who was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen of angels,
Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.'7
See note on Eph. 5 : 14.
There are still other passages in Paul's epistles
which seem to be quotations from Christian
hymns. A striking example is found in 2 Tim.
2 : 11-13 : —
"If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;
If we endure, we shall also reign with him ;
If we deny him, he also will deny us ;
If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful ;
He can not deny himself."

"CAPTIVE BY HIM AT HIS WILL." 209
That this passage is a quotation is rendered
highly probable by the formula by which it is
introduced, IIio-Tds 6 Xdyos.

2 Timothy 2 : 26 (last clause).
" Who are taken captive by him at his will."
The Revised Version renders it, " Having been
taken captive by the Lord's servant unto the will
of God," with a marginal note, " Or, by the devil
unto the will of God. Greek, by him unto the
will of him. In the Greek the two pronouns
are different."
In the interpretation of the first clause of this
verse, " And that they may recover themselves
[that is, may rouse up and escape] out of the
snare of the devil," there is no serious difference
among commentators. Respecting the last clause
various views have been set forth and urged.
1. The Revised Version takes the perfect pas
sive participle l^u>ypT]p.ivoi, caught, in a sense corre
sponding to that in which our Saviour said to
Peter, "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt
catch men," and so interprets it of the part borne

2IO NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
by the "servant of the Lord," mentioned in verse
24, in the deliverance of the sinner from the
devil's snare. This would be admissible so far
as the primary meaning of the verb is concerned.
But there are serious objections to this interpreta
tion here.
1. The participle here used most naturally
describes a state in which the poor captives were
found, and not the transfer from that state to
liberty. This the best critics admit.
2. The figure of being caught by the Lord's
servant does not tally well with that of rousing
themselves up and escaping.
3. The reference of aoroD to so remote an ante
cedent as the " servant of the Lord," in verse 24
appears objectionable, seeing there are two nearer
antecedents, with either of which it might agree.
The revisers doubtless adopted this interpreta
tion to avoid the reference of the two pronouns,
aurou and ixeivou to the same person. I admit the
difficulty ; but it does not seem to me insuperable.
For, —
(1) The earliest versions refer both pronouns
to the same being, Satan.
(2) We have in 1 John 3 : 3 the same two pro
nouns, occurring in the same order and referring

"CAPTIVE BY HIM AT HIS WILL." 2 1 I
unmistakably to the same person, Christ, the only
difference in the force of the two being that the
second is slightly more emphatic than the first.
" He that hath this hope in him [in Christ] puri-
fieth himself, even as he [Christ, that holy being]
is pure." So it seems to me not at all harsh or unreason
able to refer both these pronouns, in the passage
under consideration, to Satan. " Taken captive
by him, to do his will " (the will of that fearful
tyrant). I do not understand the expression, "at his
will," as used by the Authorized Version, to sig
nify merely at his caprice, but rather as designed
to be equivalent to unto his will, or so held captive
that they must do his will. At any rate such is
the force of the preposition here employed.
There is another interpretation of this clause
which has been advocated by learned men (among
them Bishop Ellicott), still with the view of
assigning the two pronouns, not to the same,
but to different persons. This interpretation re
gards the words iZu/ypyjpdvoi utz auTou as parenthet
ical, and so connects avavrji/Hoatv with £<e to txeivuu
Mktjixa, making the whole verse mean, that those
who had been taken captive by Satan may return

212 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
to soberness (escaping) from his snare, that they
may do God's will.
My objections to this view are : —
(i) That to make the words lrwyprlp.hoi bn duTob
a parenthesis seems forced. I find no authority
for it in any ancient version ; neither do I find
a comma after these words in any of the best
critical editions of the New Testament.
(2) The double connexion of avuvrj(['watv with
ix tv/? nayldos and with ei'j r» ViXrj/jia seems hard,
although it might be connected with either sep
arately. I therefore regard as decidedly most probable
the interpretation of the Authorized Version,
confirmed, as it is, by the ancient versions, and
accepted by a large majority of commentators.

Hebrews i : 5.
" I will be to him a Father and he shall be to
me a Son."
These words, quoted from 2 Sam. 7 : 14, origi
nally referred to Solomon, as the context plainly
shows. How then does the writer of the Epistle
to the Hebrews refer them to the Messiah ? An-

'*/ WILL BE TO HIM A FATHER.'

213

swer, Solomon was a type of the Messiah, as was
David himself. By type we are to understand
a person or thing which possesses not merely an
accidental resemblance to the person or thing
typified, but a designed likeness, gradually un
folded in the divine economy so that names, titles,
and attributes applied to the type shall be equally,
or even more appropriately applicable to the anti
type, that is, the person or thing typified. In
Ezek. 37 : 24, 25 the Messiah is called David
(that is, the Beloved). As this prediction, that
David should in the latter days rule over God's
people, was written more than four centuries after
the death of David, the son of Jesse, it could not
but be manifest to devout readers that the Mes
siah, the great son of David, was meant. So
here Solomon (the peaceful prince), chosen of
God to build the temple, was designedly made
like to the Messiah, who was to build the spiritual
temple, and that special favor and protection im
plied in the promise, " I will be to him a Father,
and he shall be to me a Son," belonged not only
to Solomon, but still more appropriately and in
a higher sense to his great descendant, Jesus,
the Son of God.
Thus much in justification of the application

214 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
of this promise to the Messiah. Now for the
contrast between him and the angels. Doubtless
all God's intelligent creatures may in a general
sense be called his children. The " sons of
God," mentioned in Job 38 : 7 were doubtless
angels. But to no individual angel is the title
"Son of God" given in the Scriptures. The
angels are represented as God's faithful servants,
eager to do his bidding ; but no one of them is
specially designated as his Son. So in ch.
3 : 5, 6 our Lord is contrasted with Moses, who
"was faithful as a servant," set over God's house,
"but Christ as a Son."
The last clause of verse 6, " And let all the
angels of God worship him," we naturally look
for in the Old Testament ; but we fail to find it.
The Septuagint indeed has the words (except
that the best texts read sons instead of angels)
inserted in Deut. 32 : 43, but it is not supported
by any of the other ancient versions. " Worship
him, all ye gods " (in Ps. 97 : 7) is too remote to
be regarded as the source of the quotation. Be
sides, if that passage were accepted as the source
of this, it would be difficult to show the appropri
ateness of the first part of the verse, " When he
bringeth the First-begotten into the world."

"/ WILL BE TO HIM A FATHER:' 215
Perhaps the best solution of the difficulty will
be found in the supposition that the last clause
is quoted from a Christian hymn, and so naturally
refers to the birth of Christ and to the homage
paid him by angels, who, as we know, joyfully
hailed and announced his coming into the world.
For other instances of probable quotations from
Christian hymns, see notes on Eph. 5 : 14 and
1 Tim. 3 : 16.
That the Forty-fifth Psalm, from which verses 8
and 9 are quoted, is a Messianic Psalm is evident
from the fact that the King addressed is directly
called God, while yet in the following verse the
Father is called his God.
Verses 10-12 are quoted from the One Hundred
and Second Psalm, which does not appear to be
specifically Messianic. We may regard the appli
cation of this passage to Christ as resting on the
inspired apostle's authority, in accordance with
those passages of Scripture in which creation is
directly ascribed to Christ. See John 1:3; Col.
1 : 16, 17.

2l6 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Hebrews 2 : 13.
" I will put my trust in him. And again, Be
hold, I and the children which God hath given
me." The first quotation is from 2 Sam. 22 : 3
(slightly varied in the same composition as exhib
ited in Ps. 18 : 2), and the second from Is. 8 : 18.
The former related primarily to David, and the
latter to Isaiah. How then does the writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews refer both to the
Messiah ? Answer, either : —
1. As accepting the current interpretation of
the Jews, and reasoning with them from their
own concessions ; or,
2. As regarding both David and Isaiah as truly
types of Christ.
The latter seems to me the preferable view.
Both prophesied in a remarkable manner of the
coming Saviour. Both were in an extraordinary
degree filled with the spirit which animated and
governed him. And the experiences of both
were designedly made like to his, so that language
which would describe their views and feelings
would describe his also. The apostle could not
have failed to know that the words here quoted

"UNTO PERFECTION." 21 'J
referred originally to David and to Isaiah. But
he seems to have regarded both these prophets
as types of Christ, so that, in the language of
Professor Moses Stuart, " As the type confided
in God, because he possessed a nature that was
dependent and human, so the Antitype must have
a like nature in order to use the same language ;
and as the type bore the relation of parent to
children that were pledges of future blessings
(and therefore possessed a like nature with them),
so the Antitype had a community of nature with
those who were his spiritual children, and were
pledges that all his promises should be per
formed."

Hebrews 6 : 1-6.
"Therefore leaving the principles of the doc
trine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection," etc.
Revised Version, " Wherefore let us cease to
speak of the first principles of Christ, and press
on unto perfection," etc.
In the first three verses of this chapter the
writer of the epistle invites his Hebrew fellow-
Christians to unite with him in advancing from

2l8 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
the elementary teachings of Christianity, such as
repentance, faith, baptism, etc., needful for babes
in Christ, to such other themes as would be for
the edification of full-grown Christians.
The next three verses state a reason for pursu
ing this course. For it is impossible, etc. Here
it seems to me that most of the commentators
have missed the connection between vs. 1-3 and
vs. 4-6. Dr. Doddridge appears to me to have
expressed it truly. Alluding to the case of those
who had fallen away (that is, had fallen back to
Judaism and thus crucified Christ afresh, by join
ing with those who rejected and crucified him),
Dr. Doddridge adds in his paraphrase, at the
beginning of verse 7, " We will therefore, without
any further efforts for the recovery of such, leave
them to the awful sentence which he hath pro
nounced against them." If this be the correct
view, it is as if the apostle had said, " Let us not
continue to dwell upon and reiterate these ele
mentary principles [as if in the hope of winning
back to Christianity those who had fallen away],
for it is vain to expect by such efforts to renew
them again to repentance." We thus get the
most natural signification of the for at the be
ginning of verse 4, and of the active verb to

"WITHOUT FATHER," ETC. 219
renew in verse 6 (namely, to restore instrumentally.
Compare Jas. 5 : 20, " He that converteth a sin
ner," etc.), which has puzzled the commentators,
many of whom have labored to show that it
might have been used for a passive or an imper
sonal verb.
Taking this view, we do not need to understand
the writer as stating that it is absolutely impossible
for an apostate to be restored, or as approaching
the theoretical question whether a true Christian
can fall from grace, but simply as saying in a
popular manner that it is useless to expect to
bring back deserters of the Christian cause by a
perpetual reiteration of the elementary truths of
the gospel.

Hebrews 7 : 3.
" Without father, without mother, having neither
beginning of days nor end of life, but made like
unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually."
If we were bound to understand the inspired
writer as affirming that Melchizedek was liter
ally without father or mother, literally without
beginning of days or end of life, then must we
conclude, as did some of the fathers of the

2 20 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
Church, that he was indeed the Son of God,
for not even a created angel could be said to be
literally "without beginning of days." But this
inference is forbidden by the context. For if he
was himself the Son of God, how could he be
made like the Son of God ? Far more simple
and satisfactory is it to understand the apostle
as saying that Melchizedek, as presented to our
view in the sacred narrative of the Old Testament,
being designedly made a type of Christ, was
introduced without mention of father or mother,
or any genealogy like those so carefully kept to
show the descent of the Levitical priests from
Aaron, and without any record of his birth or
death. He was presented, too, as Abraham's
superior, inasmuch as he gave Abraham his
blessing. " And without controversy the inferior
is blessed by the superior."
Thus was the type set forth, so that when in the
One Hundred and Tenth Psalm the Lord would
show the superiority of the priesthood of the
Antitype to that of the Levitical priests, it was
only necessary to call it a priesthood "after the
order of Melchizedek." The reader of that Psalm
would turn to the story of Melchizedek in the
book of Genesis, and there find the record of one

"THE PRIESTS WENT ALWAYS." 221
who was at the same time a king and a priest of
the Most High God, one superior to the venerated
patriarch Abraham, one respecting whom not a
word is said of his having received his priesthood
from a predecessor or having transmitted it to a
successor, nothing respecting the beginning of
his days or the end of his life. From all this the
devout Jewish reader might infer that the priest
hood of the Messiah would differ greatly from
that of the descendants of Aaron. The differ
ences and the superiority of Christ in every par
ticular the apostle goes on to specify through the
remainder of the chapter.

Hebrews 9 : 6-9.
" The priests went always [R. V., go in continu
ally] . which he offered [R. V, offereth] .
the first tabernacle was [R. V., is] yet standing ;
. . . could not [R. V., can not]" . . .
Several commentators have confidently charged
the common English Version with mistranslation
here in using a past tense for a present in this
passage. The writer feels equal confidence in
maintaining its correctness. The Syriac Version,

222 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
fifteen centuries before it, treated the whole pas
sage in precisely the same way. Verse i declares
that the first covenant had (not has) ordinances ;
verse 2, that a tabernacle was constructed ; and
verse 6, that these things (the tabernacle and its
contents) having been so constructed, the priests
enter, etc. The writer uses a present tense ; but
the connection justifies us in taking this as an
historical present, and understanding him as say
ing that the tabernacle, etc., having been thus
constructed, the priests began and continued to
enter in and perform the appointed services as
a figure of the good things which the new cove
nant was to bring ; and in verse 1 1 he goes on
to say that when Christ came (showing that what
he had said concerning the ordinances of the first
covenant related to the time before the coming
of Christ), ... he entered, once for all, into the
holy place. Christ's perfect work has taken the
place of the oft-repeated typical services of the
old tabernacle. In this view, and considering
that our language uses the historical present
tense much more sparingly than the Greek, it
seems to me that a translator is fully justified in
rendering the passage as the Syriac and the
Authorized English versions have done.

'WHERE A TESTAMENT IS."

223

Hebrews 9 : 16.
" For where a testament is, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator."
A difficulty arises here from the necessity of
translating the same Greek word (diaftrjxT]) testa
ment which is elsewhere rightly rendered cove
nant. We should not, however, regard these as
two separate and independent significations of
the word, but rather as two shades of one
general meaning. Jjart'*^ is to dispose, to ar
range. Hence Siaft-qx-rj signifies the disposal or
arrangement of the relations between God and
his covenant people. The people were indeed
graciously admitted to it as a party, and so we
rightly call it a covenant. Still it was God's
sovereign disposal or arrangement, and hence he
is said to have enjoined it upon the people (v. 20).
When used for that disposal which a man makes
of his property in a will, Sia^xrj is rightly ren
dered testament. The apostle glides in this chap
ter from the one shade of meaning to the other,
and that, not carelessly and inaccurately, but in
view of the great fact that the blessings of the
new covenant can be conferred only through the
death of Christ, and so may well be viewed as a

2 24 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
legacy, which comes into the possession of the
heir only through the death of the testator.
This feature of the new covenant was antici
pated and prefigured by the dedication, or inau
guration, of the old covenant with the shedding
of blood, and by Moses' sprinkling it upon the
book and upon the people (vs. 19, 20). And our
Saviour, in instituting his Supper as a memorial
of his atoning death, gave his disciples the cup,
saying, " This cup is my blood of the new cove
nant [or, is the new covenant in my blood] which
is shed for you and for many, for the remission of
sins."

Hebrews 11: 1.

" Now faith is the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen."
Revised Version, " Now faith is the assurance
of things hoped for, the proving of things not
seen." The American Committee prefers as
surance instead of the assurance, and a conviction
instead of the proving.
Still other renderings have been proposed for
the words biz6aTao-i<z (literally, substance) and E'Xsy^og
(literally, setting forth), here employed to define

"GUILTY OF ALL." "225
faith. I understand the former as meaning in
this connexion a giving substance, or making
substantial, that is, a presentation of things hoped
for as substantial, real; the latter, not as the ad
ducing of evidence or proof, but as a setting forth
or making clear, to the mind of the believer, of
things unseen. If we must render them by sin
gle words, I would suggest realization and mani
festation, but should prefer the phrases, making
substantial and making clear, or, in other words,
" Faith is that which gives substance to things
hoped for, and clearness to things not seen."

James 2 : 10.
" For whosoever shall keep the whole law and
yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
We can not understand these words as meaning
that all transgressions of the law are equally
heinous, or that a single transgression involves
as much guilt as many transgressions. The na
ture of the case forbids this. We must therefore
understand them as referring to a deliberate
setting aside of one of God's commandments.
He who, while professing a general regard for the

226 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
divine law, deliberately sets aside one precept,
dishonors the whole law and disowns the authority
of the Lawgiver, and so " is guilty of all."

James 2 : 21, 25
" Justified by works."
Here simple candor forbids us to find any con
tradiction of the doctrine of justification by faith
without (any dependence upon) the works of the
law. James recognizes here, as in the first verse
of this chapter, faith as the essential character
istic of a true Christian ; only he insists that it
must be a living, not a dead faith, and that the
proof that it is a living and saving faith must be
seen, as it was seen in Abraham and in Rahab,
in corresponding conduct. Paul also says (Rom.
2: 13), "Not the hearers of the law are just
before God, but the doers of the law shall be
justified." In saying this, does he contradict his
own grand doctrine of justification by faith ? By
no means.

SPIRITS IN PRISON.

227

1 Peter 3 : 18-20.
Christ's Preaching to the Spirits in Prison.
The only remark necessary on verse 18 is that
the last word, mebfiart, is plainly antithetical to
aapxl, and therefore should be rendered, in (his)
spirit, and not, as in the Authorized Version, by
the spirit.
Verse 19 introduces a topic which has greatly
puzzled the commentators, and concerning which
we can do little more than to state the various
interpretations which have been given to the
passage and some of the objections which lie*
against them. The interpretations fall naturally
under two heads, namely, those which regard the
preaching of which the apostle writes as having
been done in Hades, and those which do not.
The following are the principal interpretations
under each head : —
I. The preaching was, in Hades,
1. To the souls of the impenitent antediluvians;
2. To such of them as repented before being
engulfed by the flood ;
3. To the righteous dead who in Hades awaited
the coming of Christ ;

228 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
4. To the souls of both righteous and wicked,
announcing deliverance to the former and con
demnation to the latter.
II. Not in person, nor in Hades,
1 . By Noah to his contemporaries ;
2. By the apostles and other preachers of the
gospel. There can be no doubt that the earliest Chris
tian writers understood the apostle's words here
as relating to an actual visit of our Saviour to the
lower world. The Syriac Version is a witness of
this ; for it renders the words " the spirits in
prison " by "the spirits shut up in Sheol." Ire-
naeus, Tertullian, and other very early fathers
concur in this view, but regard the preaching
as having consisted in announcing deliverance to
the righteous dead. How they could infer this
from the words of Peter, who speaks only of
those who were disobedient in the days of Noah,
it is hard to imagine.
The idea of our Lord's descent into Hades
between his death and his resurrection was
incorporated into the earliest creeds of the
Church. But it must be admitted that grave
doubt is thrown over this whole theory by the
interpretation which was given by its earliest

SPIRITS IN PRISON.

229

advocates to our Saviour's preaching in Hades
(namely, announcing deliverance to the righteous
dead), and which has continued to be that of the
Roman and Eastern churches to the present time.
For neither in this passage nor in any other part
of the Scriptures do we find a word of any such
preaching to the pious dead.
The idea of interpreting the words of the
apostle, "who were disobedient in the days of
Noah," as meaning such of them as may have
repented after the ark was closed, but before they
were overwhelmed by the waters of the flood, may
be dismissed at once as an unsupported theory,
adopted simply to get rid of a difficulty.
The notion of Christ's preaching being simply
a proclamation of his triumpli over his enemies
seems to me to merit an equally summary rejec
tion, the New Testament usage requiring us to
understand the term freaching as a proclamation
of good tidings.
If we then fall back on what seems the sim
plest meaning of Saint Peter's words, namely, that
the gospel was preached by our Saviour to the
spirits of those who perished by the flood in their
disobedience, we are confronted by equally great
difficulties. If it was to them an offer of salva-

23O NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
tion : why to them more than to the rest of the
dead? and why have we no hint of any thing of
the kind in all the rest of the Scriptures ? If it
was not such an offer, in what sense could Christ
be said to have preacfied to them ?
It should be added here that some of the early
fathers held that the apostles also visited Hades
and preached the gospel there in imitation of
their Lord.
We come then to those interpretations which
regard the preaching mentioned by the apostle
Peter in this passage as not being in Hades, nor
by the Saviour in person. The principal of these
are : —
1. That the spirit of Christ preached through
Noah to the men of that corrupt age who contin
ued to be disobedient all the time that the long-
suffering of God waited while the ark was pre
paring. This view has been ably defended by
recent writers. In favor of it has been alleged
the mention by the apostle of that divine waiting
as implying (though Peter does not affirm this)
that the preaching was during that period of
God's long-suffering, their day of grace. Also
the fact that "the spirit of Christ" is elsewhere
spoken of as inspiring the prophets (1 Pet. 1 : 11).

SPIRITS IN PRISON.

23I

But the context does not favor this interpreta
tion. Christ " went and preached to the spirits
in prison." It is very difficult to see how the
apostle could say this of Christ's spirit speaking
through Noah. Compare the same participle,
TtopEuftEts, used in the last verse of this chapter
of Christ's going to heaven. Besides, the apostle
does not say that Christ once preacJied to those
who were disobedient, but that he preached to
the spirits in prison who once were disobedient.
Augustine, who referred the preaching to Noah,
explained the prison as the prison of unbelief
and sin, and others who have held the same view
have referred to the promise that the Messiah
should proclaim liberty to the captives and the
opening of the prison to them that are bound
(Is. 61 : 1 ; Luke 4: 18). But this explanation
seems forced and unnatural.
2. Some commentators (among them the
learned H. Grotius) refer the preaching here
mentioned to that of the apostles and other
preachers of the gospel animated by the spirit
of Christ, and take the spirits in prison to mean
men, either Jews or Gentiles, held in bondage by
Satan, and would have us believe that the ante
diluvians are named merely as specimens of such

232 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.^
unbelievers. Professor John Brown, d.d., of
Edinburgh,1 says: "This difficulty is not a formid
able one. We see nothing perplexing in the state
ment, ' God sent the gospel to the Britons, who
in the days of Cassar were painted savages.' The
persons to whom God sent the gospel were not
the same individuals who were painted savages
in the days of Caesar, but they belonged to the
same race." I leave it to the reader to judge
whether the cases are sufficiently parallel to afford
any argument in favor of the interpretation advo
cated by Grotius and by Dr. Brown.
I will only add two remarks : —
1. We have no right to base a dogma upon an
obscure passage like this, which has given rise to
so many conflicting interpretations. Even if the
descent of Christ into Hades could be unques
tionably proved, it has no more right to a place in
a creed than the well-known fact that he spent
thirty years of his earthly life as a resident in
Nazareth, or than many other facts recorded in
the Scriptures.
2. Especially should we beware of drawing any
inferences from this text which would weaken or
contradict the testimony of the Scriptures that
1Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. iv, p. 720.

"SAVED BY WATER."

233

the final judgment will be according to the deeds
done in the body, and that the wicked shall go
away into everlasting punishment. We should
strive to maintain that impression which the
words of Christ himself naturally make on our
minds, and leave the secret, unrevealed things to
the Judge of all the earth, who will certainly do
right.

1 Peter 3 : 20, 21.
" Saved by water ; . . . baptism doth also now
save us," etc.
Noah and his family are here spoken of as
having been "saved by water." This is inter
preted by some as signifying, saved by the ark,
which was borne up by the waters of the flood.
I prefer, with the Revised Version, to render,
"saved through water," and to understand the
expression figuratively as meaning, brought in
safety through the waters of the flood. The
strict meaning of diaaw^w is to bring safely through.
See Acts 23 : 24 and 27 : 44. This representa
tion of Noah as passing through the flood from
the old world to the new renders easy the transi
tion to the thought of baptism, which marks the

234 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
passing of the believer from his old life of sin to
his new life in Christ.
In verse 21 the chief doubt rests on the inter
pretation of itzEpm-rjpa. Fronmiiller, in Lange's
commentary, interprets it a seeking after a good
conscience. But his translator, Dr. Mombert,
thinks that it refers to the interrogatories which
preceded baptism, and quotes Tertullian and
other early writers, who take the term here used
as expressive of the response to those interroga
tories, or as comprising the interrogatories and
the responses (inEpcoTTJtTEis xdl dxuxpio-Ei<z).
Calvin also takes this view, for he says, " The
interrogatory here is taken for the response or
testimony." This is by no means a harsh figure,
and it seems to me to give the apostle's true
meaning, namely, that in baptism the essential
thing is not the outward ordinance, but the hon
est, conscientious profession of renouncing the
world, the flesh, and the devil, and choosing God
for the soul's portion.
It is true that the verb IpuiTdm sometimes signi
fies to ask for a thing which one desires. But I
doubt if a parallel can be found for the interpre
tation of i-EpdiTijpa in the sense of seeking for.
Besides, a good conscience is an essential element

"TO THEM THAT ARE DEAD.'

235

in a profession of faith in Christ, not, as Fron
miiller represents, a benefit to be attained through
baptism.

i Peter 4 : 6.
"For, for this cause was the gospel preached
also to them that are dead," etc. [R. V., " For
unto this end was the gospel preached even to
the dead."]
Those who interpret 1 Pet. 3 : 19 of a preach
ing in Hades understand this verse as relating
to the same event And then they seek an inter
pretation of the last clause of this verse which
would correspond with this reference. Others
understand the dead here as meaning those dead
in sin But they too are puzzled to find a suit
able meaning for being judged according to men
in the flesh, but living according to God in the
spirit. Some have understood that judgment of
the universal liability of men to the death of
the body ; others of condemnation by men, and
especially of the martyrs condemned and slain so
far as the body is concerned. But xard dv'tpwnous
can hardly be made to mean by men. Even the
idea of being judged according to human judg-

236 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
ment would require rather the singular xoxd uvftpw-
-m, than the plural, xard w>ftp<bnou$. I have not
seen one of these interpretations which appeared
to be entirely satisfactory to the commentator
who proposed it.
Some have insisted strongly on the context as
affording the only clew to the interpretation, and
especially on what is said in verse 12 and follow
ing verses of the fiery trial of persecution. But
this is unsafe, for verse 1 2 evidently begins a new
paragraph, following the doxology in verse 1 1,
which closes with the solemn Amen.
It seems to me we shall be safest if we take the
terms judge and the dead as having in verse 6 the
same sense which they plainly have in verse 5.
The judgment will then be the final judgment
of God, and the dead those who have died before
that final judgment. We know from 1 Thess. 4:
13-17 that there existed among the first Chris
tians an erroneous impression, which Paul consid
ered it necessary to correct, that somehow those
who should die before the second coming of
Christ would be at a disadvantage as compared
with those who should then be living. Now in
verse 5 the judgment is manifestly the last judg
ment and the dead are those who have died before

"TO THEM THAT ARE DEAD." 237
that judgment. If we take these terms as hav
ing the same meaning in the following verse, the
sense will be that there will be no difference
between the judgment of the two classes, the
living and the dead. Those who shall have died
before that time had the gospel preached to them
(while they lived), and so will be judged precisely
as those who are then living aapxi, in the body,
while nvsbpaTi, in the spirit, namely, in the inter
val between their death and the judgment, they
live xaTd Veov, according to God, in the same sense
in which our Saviour said (Luke 20 : 38) that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should not be thought
of as dead, but as living to him, not there mean
ing to his glory, but either with a spirit-life like
that of God, or in his view.
Taking this view, there is no need of connect
ing this passage with ch. 3 : 19, whatever inter
pretation we may give to that much disputed
text. If it be objected to this view that it connects
aapxi with avftpdmoos, I remark: — (1) That even so
the antithesis with xara &eov nveb/iaTi is not de
stroyed, for men are judged in the body (changed
indeed, but still in the body), and God's life is
that of a spirit ; and (2) That the sense is not

238 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
materially changed if we connect both of these
adverbial datives with the verbs. The dead will
arise, and will be judged in the restored body.

2 Peter 1 : 19.
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy."
[R. V., "And we have the word of prophecy
made more sure."] More literally, " And we
have, more sure, the prophetic word."
That the prophetic word, or word of proph
ecy, signifies the Scriptures of the Old Testa
ment, there can be no doubt. The point on
which commentators have differed is the ques
tion what the apostle meant by designating
it as more sure. Some have understood him
as meaning that the prophetic word has been
made more sure to us (than it was before) by the
additional revelations given to the apostles. The
insertion of the word made (in italics) in the
Revised Version seems to indicate that this was
the view of the Revisers. But it is scarcely possi
ble to imagine that the apostle should think of
the divinely inspired Scriptures as needing any
confirmation. Still less can we accept the idea

"PRIVATE INTERPRETATION." 2 39
suggested by others, that the apostle is speaking
here of the Holy Scriptures as more sure than
the cunningly devised fables referred to in verse
16. It can scarcely be doubted that the compari
son was between the evidence to the truth of the
gospel furnished by such visions of the Saviour's
glory as he, with his two fellow-disciples, had seen
on the mount of transfiguration and that fur
nished by the prophetic Scriptures. And he
speaks of the latter as more sure, not that he
himself had any doubt in respect to the former,
but because to his readers the witness of the
Scriptures was more fully within reach, and abso
lutely sure and unquestionable. In commending
to his readers the diligent study of the Old Tes
tament Scriptures and walking by their light, he
did what all his fellow-apostles had done, and
their Master before them.

2 Peter i : 20.
" No prophecy of the scripture is of any pri
vate interpretation."
Some have claimed that this text forbids the
interpretation of Scripture by private individuals,

24O NOTES ON DlEFlCULT PASSAGES.
insisting that the Church has in some way author
ity to furnish interpretations of the Scriptures,
which all private members are bound to accept.
But this is grammatically inadmissible ; for there
is no previous mention of interpreters or of indi
viduals to whom idias might be supposed to refer.
Its only possible antecedent is npotpTjTda. No
prophecy of the Scripture, that is, no particular
portion of the writings of the prophets, has its
own private (or special, as in the margin of the
Revised Version) interpretation, as if it had origi
nated in the particular views of this or that
writer. And this accords with what follows,
" For prophecy came not by the will of man, but
holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost." Therefore in our diligent
study of the Scriptures we must lay it down as
a fundamental principle that every particular
passage of the Scriptures must be interpreted
in harmony with the teaching of the whole, as
being all utterances of one and the same Spirit.
Calvin reaches virtually the same result, but
appears to prefer the unsupported reading ¦ ¦xyXbaEw^
(as if equivalent to iitEXEbo-Eios), and so renders the
phrase by " proprio hominum motu."
Others, accepting the common reading (which

"HE CANNOT SIN.'

241

is supported by almost all Greek manuscripts and
by all the old versions), explain it as meaning
interpretation by the prophet of the mind of the
Spirit. But this seems far-fetched and needless.

1 John 3 : 9.
Last clause, "He cannot sin, because he is
born of God."
It is important here to notice the use by the
apostle of the present infinitive verb, which desig
nates continued or repeated action. If he had
made use of the aorist and written ob SbvaTai dpap-
teiv, it would have signified, He can not commit a
single sin. Writing as he did, ob dbvwrai dpapTdvstv,
he tells us that whosoever is born of God can not
sin habitually. This is what his new nature
forbids. And this clause furnishes a key to the
apostle's meaning in the whole passage (vs. 3-9),
and shows its entire harmony with those passages
in which he declares that believers do sometimes
fall into sin, and so need an advocate with the
Father (ch. 1 : 8 ; 2 : 2).

242 notes on difficult passages.
1 John 5 : 6-8.
"This is he that came by water and blood," etc.
From the importance which the apostle John
attributes to the flowing of both water and blood
from the pierced side of our Saviour (John 19 :
34> 3S)» we must infer that he regarded them as
symbolical, the water of cleansing, and the blood
of Christ's atoning work, both essential to our
salvation. And a comparison of that passage
with this will, I think, leave no doubt that he
here alludes to the same event and to the same
symbolical meaning of the water and of the
blood. It is then as if he had said, Christ came
not only to cleanse his people, but also to make
atonement for their sins.
These symbols (the water and the blood) were
witnesses, inasmuch as they set forth the work of
Christ. The Spirit also bore witness by his mi
raculous gifts, thus setting his seal to the truth as
preached by the apostles. Our Saviour called the
Spirit the Spirit of truth (John 16 : 13), and John
here says, " It is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is the truth." Since the Holy
Spirit works through the truth (John 17 : 17), it is
eminently appropriate that he should be repre
sented as bearing witness to Christ.

ENOCH'S PROPHECY.

243

The words, " in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one :
and there are three that bear witness in earth,"
are not found in a single Greek manuscript earlier
than the twelfth century, nor in any of the most
ancient versions. They seem to have been inter
polated, first in the Latin Vulgate, not earlier
than the eighth century, and then to have been
translated from Latin into Greek and inserted in
late Greek manuscripts. They must therefore be
rejected from the text. Probably they were not
originally intended as a fraudulent interpolation,
but rather as a marginal note, exhibiting either
what seemed to the copyist a striking analogy, or
an expression of what he regarded as symbolized
by "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood."
The Revised Version is therefore right in read
ing simply, " For there are three who bear wit
ness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood."

Jude, vs. 14, 15.
Enoch's Prophecy.
The writer of this epistle appears here to quote
from an apocryphal book written probably towards
the close of the second century b.c This led

244 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
some very early Christian writers to doubt the
canonical authority of the Epistle of Jude. There
is nothing, however, inconsistent with Jude's
having written under the influence of divine in
spiration in his quoting from an uninspired book,
provided the quoted passage preserved a genuine
ancient tradition ; and certainly it is quite as
candid and liberal to take this for granted as to
deny it. Paul quotes repeatedly from heathen
writers, and he mentions the names of Jannes
and Jambres, men who withstood Moses, names
doubtless preserved by tradition, but not found in
the canonical books of the Old Testament.
The Epistle of Jude is mentioned in the list
of canonical books preserved in Muratori's Frag
ment (date about a.d. 170), was quoted by Origen,
and was commented on by Clement of Alexandria.

Revelation.

Note. Nearly the whole of the Apocalypse may well be regarded
as belonging among the difficult passages of the New Testament. It
would, however, be beyond the scope of these Notes to go into an exam
ination of the symbolical representations of this wonderful book. I
shall limit myself, as in the preceding books, to a few passages which
present to the ordinary reader exceptional difficulty.

"angels of the seven churches." 245
Revelation i : 20.
"The angels of the seven churches."
The term angel here and in chapters 2 and 3
evidently designates the chief pastor of a local
church. The difficulty connected with this ap
pellation is how to account for the use of the
term in this sense. And this difficulty arises
from the fact that neither in earlier nor in later
times do we find the term so used. On this point
I remark : —
1. In the first days of the Christian churches
we find no trace of a chief pastor. All the elders
exercised pastoral care and supervision. Thus
Paul (Acts 20 : 28) addresses all the elders of the
church at Ephesus as overseers (Itziaxoizoi) and
exhorts them to feed (literally, to do the work of
pastors for) the church, and Peter (1 Pet. 5 : 1, 2)
exhorts the elders to feed the flock of God.
2. In the interval of some thirty-three years,
between the deaths of Peter and Paul and that of
John, it appears to have been found advantageous
to the local churches to select one of the elders
as a chief pastor or overseer of the church, devot
ing his whole time (which- the other elders did
not) to preaching and pastoral work, or as Paul

246 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
expresses it in 1 Tim. 5 : 17, to laboring in the
word and in teaching.
3. In the days immediately succeeding John's
death (as witnessed by the epistles of Ignatius),
this chief pastor was called iniaxonos, the other
elders retaining the name npEirfibTEpoi.
4. The Old Testament prophets are called pas
tors (Jer. 3: 15; 17: 16). They are also called
angels, as being God's messengers to the people.
In Hag. 1 : 13 Haggai is called the Lord's mes
senger (in Hebrew malach, angel; the same word
constantly used to designate the heavenly angels),
and in Mai. 3 : 1 the same name is given to the
forerunner of Christ.
5. So long, therefore, as the terms liziaxmzos and
izpEo-pbTspo<; continued to be used as synonymous
(as they are throughout the apostolic epistles), we
can easily see how the term angel or messenger
might be employed to designate that one from the
board of elders who was chosen to be the chief
pastor. Of other explanations which seem to me inad
missible, the principal are: —
(1) That this term is derived from the title of
an officer of the Jewish synagogue called the
sheliakh, or messenger. But the best authorities

NAMES OF THE TWELVE TRIBES. 247
state that the sheliakh was not a chief officer of
the synagogue, but a simple clerk and messenger.
(2) That pastors are called ayysXoi simply as
leading the devotions of the congregations, and
thus being their messengers to God.
(3) That the angels of the churches were heav
enly angels, having a special charge committed to
them in reference to those churches. So Origen
and many of the ancient commentators.
(4) That they were simple messengers from John
to the seven churches, or from the churches
to John.
The sufficient reply to all these theories is that
the contents of the letters addressed to these
ayyeXoi imply throughout that they are men, falli
ble and sometimes very faulty men, and yet men
entrusted with the responsibility of guiding the
churches and of correcting abuses.

Revelation 7 : 5-8.
The Names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
In the list here given the name of Levi is re
tained, that of Dan omitted, and that of Joseph
appears instead of Ephraim.
When the land of Canaan was divided among

248 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
the tribes of Israel, the tribe of Levi received no
inheritance, but only cities for residence among
the other tribes. Yet was the number of the
tribes made good by the descendants of Joseph
being divided into two tribes, Ephraim and
Manasseh. So in Ezekiel's prophetic vision of the latter
days, strips across the whole breadth of the land
from east to west are assigned to the same twelve
tribes (Ezek. 48 : 1-7 ; 23-27), excluding Levi,
for whom special provision was made in the vicin
ity of the temple (v. 13); but when the gates of
the restored city are named from the twelve tribes,
all of whom were to share alike in its services and
privileges (v. 19), the original twelve are restored,
Levi giving name to one gate, and Joseph to only
one. This is analogous to the appearance of the
name of Levi among the tribes in this chapter,
and the sealing of twelve thousand from among
his descendants, the same as from the other
tribes, and we may reasonably regard this as
pointing to an equality of privilege in the new
Jerusalem, where no tribe has priesthood to the
exclusion of the rest, but all are kings and priests
unto God.

NAMES OF THE TWELVE TRIBES. 249
But why was Dan omitted ? Such an omis
sion could obviously not be unintentional. An
dreas of the fifth century, and Arethas, later
(both bishops of Csesarea in Cappadocia, and au
thors of commentaries on the Apocalypse), attrib
ute this omission to the traditional belief that
antichrist was to spring from the tribe of Dan ;
and this tradition we may well suppose to have
originated in the fact recorded in Judges 18: 19,
30, that the portion of that tribe which emigrated
to the northernmost part of the land was the first
to set up idolatry as the religion of the tribe.
Others affirm, from Jewish authorities, that the
tribe of Dan had become extinct before the
Christian era. Possibly this statement may have
meant only that their tribal organization had dis
appeared, the dismembered portions of the tribe
having been merged in the stronger neighboring
tribes of Judah and Naphtali.1
The name of Dan being omitted (whether on
account of the Danites having been the first to
establish idolatry as the religion of their tribe, or
!-If the northern portion, which settled on the border of Naphtali,
was annexed to that tribe, would not this afford a natural explanation
of the fact that the mother of Hiram, Solomon's architect, is said in 2
Chron. 2 : 14 to have been " a woman of the daughters of Dan," and
yet in 1 Kings 7 : 14 is called " a widow of the tribe of Naphtali " ?

25O NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
on account of the tribe having become extinct),
the number of the tribes is again ,made up by
reckoning the descendants of Joseph as two
tribes. And here the name of Joseph appears
instead of Ephraim. Arethas attributes this to
the desirableness of having the name of Joseph
appear with those of the other patriarchs. If
this be the true explanation, we can easily see
why the name of Joseph should take the place of
Ephraim rather than of Manasseh. For in the
blessing of Jacob (Gen. 48 : 19, 20), Ephraim,
though Joseph's younger son, was preferred be
fore Manasseh ; and in the history of the north
ern tribes Ephraim appears every-where as the
leading tribe.

Revelation 11:2.
"Forty and two months."
This period coincides with the " time and times
and half a time " (that is, three years and a half)
mentioned in Dan. 7 : 25; 12: 7, and Rev. 12:
14, and with the "thousand two hundred and
threescore days," in Rev. 11: 3 and 12 : 6.
The use of time for a year has its parallel in

"FORTY AND TWO MONTHS:' 25 I
the "seven times " which were to pass over Neb
uchadnezzar during the period of his derangement
(Dan. 4: 16, 25, 32), and is illustrated by the
change in the use of the Greek word xP"v"i>
which originally signified time, but is used by
later writers in the sense of a year.
Many commentators have explained these des
ignations as indicating a period of 1,260 years,
each day being taken for a year, appealing to
Num. 14: 33, 34; Ezek. 4: 4-6, and Dan. 9: 24-
27, where days are spoken of as corresponding to
the same number of years, or weeks as represent
ing periods of seven years. But these passages,
when carefully examined, afford not the slightest
support to this theory. In the passages in Num
bers and Ezekiel the words day and year preserve
throughout their proper signification. In the pas
sage cited from Daniel the word rendered weeks
is in the original simply sevens, and may just as
well refer to years as to days.
The passage in Daniel 8 : 14, where the period
of two thousand and three hundred days, ending
with the cleansing of the sanctuary, is mentioned,
points to the desecration of the temple by Antio-
chus Epiphanes, and must be understood of lit
eral days. So also the periods of 1,290 and 1,335

252 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
days, mentioned in Dan. 12: 11, 12, probably
relate to events connected with the same dese
cration and the oppressions and persecutions of
Antiochus, and therefore can not be understood
of years. Thus the theory of days in the Apoca
lypse signifying years gets no support from any
thing in the Old Testament.
When we come to the passages in the Apoca
lypse itself where these synonymous designations,
"a time and times and half a time," "forty and
two months," and-" 1,260 days" occur (whatever
interpretation may be given to these passages),
we find them not all relating to the same events
or times. Chapter 12:6 refers to a period of per
secution commencing immediately after the glori
fication of the Redeemer ; ch. 13:5 evidently to
a later persecution. Those who interpret days
here as signifying years have therefore to seek
for two or more periods of 1,260 years each, com
mencing, and of course ending, at different points
of time.
It should be remarked also that the idea of this
mode of interpretation is comparatively recent, no
one of the ancient interpreters having suggested
it, or apparently thought of it.
What then was the significance of this period

"FORTY AND TWO MONTHS.'

253

of three years and a half employed by the apostle
in different forms, and to designate different pe
riods of calamity and trial to the Church and to
the faithful witnesses of Jesus ? Observe : —
1. That three and a half is the half of the
sacred number seven, which is often used as a
round number, as where God says to the Israel
ites, " I will chastise you seven times for your
sins " (Lev. 26 : 28) ; or, speaking of their enemies
(Deut. 28 : 7), " They shall come out against thee
one way, and flee before thee seven ways." So,
"silver purified seven times" (Ps. 12: 6), etc.
This usage prepares us to regard as probable the
interpretation of three and a half as a definite
used for an indefinite number, to designate a com
paratively brief period of time. This view is con
firmed by the use of the expression, " three days
and a half," employed in vs. 9 and 10 to designate
the time during which the bodies of the two
witnesses were to lie un buried.
2. In verse 6 there is an evident allusion to the
drought and famine in the days of Elijah. May
not the fact that that drought continued three and
a half years (Luke 4: 25 ; Jas. 5 : 17) have had
some influence in leading the apostle to use this
number symbolically to represent a considerable,

254 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
and yet comparatively short, season of trial and
persecution ?
On the whole this seems to me the best expla
nation of this designation of time, and it has
been accepted by several of the best recent com
mentators. See also the following note.

Revelation 11:3.
"My two witnesses."
The time during which the witnesses were to
prophesy, 1,260 days, corresponds with the forty
and two months (v. 2) during which the holy city
was to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles.
During the time of trial and persecution God
would raise up witnesses for himself and for his
truth, who would seal their testimony with their
blood. Widely divergent have been the views of
interpreters respecting these witnesses, some
maintaining that they were to be two individuals,
others that they would be two classes of witnesses,
others a competent number of witnesses.
Arethas, in his commentary on this passage,
expresses the opinion that they would be Enoch

"MY TWO WITNESSES." 255
and Elijah. In respect to Elijah he appeals to
the prophecy in Mai. 4 : 5, 6, apparently for
getting the declaration of our Saviour that that
prediction was fulfilled in the coming of John the
Baptist. In regard to Enoch, he says, we have
no testimony from the Scriptures, except that he
was translated to heaven without dying, but adds
that it was a tradition generally accepted among
Christians that Enoch was to be one of the two
witnesses. Other ancient writers, Jewish and
Christian, fancied that Moses and Elijah, or Eli
jah and Elisha, or Elijah and Jeremiah, would
come in person as forerunners of the glorious,
triumphant appearing of the Messiah. Still
others have explained the two witnesses as mean
ing the Old and New Testaments, or the Law and
the Gospel, etc. All these appear to be mere
conjectures, destitute of any support from the
Scriptures. The interpretation which commends itself to
my mind, as in harmony with the general sym
bolism of the Apocalypse, would make the temple
of God in verse 1 to signify the spiritual temple,
the great body of true believers in Jesus, and the
treading under foot of the holy city in verse 2 the
bitter persecutions to be endured by the people

256 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
of God for a period symbolically represented as
"forty and two months " (the actual duration of
the drought and famine in the days of Elijah, and
that also of the bitterest persecutions and gross
est profanations of Antiochus Epiphanes), a pe
riod long indeed and trying, but relatively very
short, as compared with that of the triumph and
glory of the Church in the latter day. The two
witnesses in verse 3 would then be an adequate
number (see John 8 : 17) of witnesses for Christ,
who should not count their lives dear, but should
be faithful unto death. The number two I should
regard as having been chosen with special refer
ence to Moses, the law-giver of the old dispensa
tion, and Elijah the great reformer, both of whom
boldly witnessed for God and called heaven and
earth to witness against the transgressors. That
both are alluded to is evident from verse 6,
"These have power to shut heaven, that it rain
not in the days of their prophecy, and have power
over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite
the earth with all plagues as often as they will."
These powers I should understand simply as a
promise and pledge of the exertion of God's
power for the support of his people and for the
final overthrow of his and their enemies.

'THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST."

257

Revelation 13: 18.
"The number of the beast."
Arethas gives four proper names and five ap
pellative words or phrases, each of which, by
reckoning up the numerical value of the letters,
makes out the number 666. Others have been
suggested by other writers, and still others on the
basis of the reading 616, found in some early
manuscripts. Irenaeus, however, says that the
best copies in his day had 666, and that that read
ing was attested by men who had personally
known the apostle John.
Most of the suggested words or phrases have
no special fitness to be regarded as the one
intended by the apostle. Such are Teit5.v, Aa/miTi?,
and BEvidixTos, proper names, xaXatpaffxavos, old
wizard, 6 kix^t^c, the conqueror, etc.
The one which seems to me to have the best
claim is AarEivo?. So early a writer as Hippo-
lytus, bishop of Portus Romae, who flourished in
218, little more than a century from the time
when the Apocalypse is generally supposed to
have been written, says, "It is manifest to all
that those who still rule over us are the Aarivm,
and the name when used in reference to a single

258 NOTES ON DIFFICULT PASSAGES.
man becomes Aareivos." He seems to allude to
the common usage in accordance with which the
spelling of an appellative noun or adjective is
slightly changed when it comes to be used as
a proper name.

Revelation 20 : 4, 5.
"They lived and reigned with Christ a thou
sand years. . . . This is the first resurrection."
Much has been written on both sides of the
question whether the " first resurrection " men
tioned here is to be a literal or a figurative resur
rection. A full discussion of this question would
be quite beyond the limits of these notes. Dean
Alford says : " Those who lived next to the apos
tles, and the whole Church for three hundred
years, understood them [the words of this pas
sage] in their plain and literal meaning ; and it is
a strange sight in these days to see expositors who
are amongst the first in reverence of antiquity
complacently casting aside the most cogent in
stance of consensus which primitive antiquity
presents. . . If the first resurrection is spiritual,
then so is the second. ... If the second is literal,
then so is the first."

"THE FIRST RESURRECTION."

259

Professor Moses Stuart takes the same view.
So does Dr. Craven, editor of Dr. Lange's com
mentary on the Apocalypse. And I must say
that I have seen nothing on the other side to
refute their arguments.
At the same time I find not a word in this pas
sage or in any part of the Apocalypse to justify
the anticipation of our Saviour's bodily presence
with his people on earth during the thousand
years. As Professor Stuart forcibly says, " The
idea of spiritual beings, as descending from the
heavenly world to this, and spending a thousand
years in a material world whose organization is
not substantially changed, can have no foundation
but in the phantasy of the brain."
May divine grace prepare this writer and every
reader of these notes for a share in the resurrec
tion of the just and in the triumph and glory of
their Redeemer.

INDEX OF PASSAGES TREATED.

Matt, i : 1-17, Genealogy of Jesus Christ  Page 9
„ 1 : 22, 23, " That it might be fulfilled"  15
„ 4: 1-11, Temptation of Jesus   19
„ 4: £2, 13, Going of Jesus into Galilee  26
„ 4: 18-22, Call of Simon, Andrew, James, and John  28
*t 5-7: Sermon on the Mount  30
„ 6: g-13: The Lord's Prayer  37
„ 8: 2-4, Healing of a leper . ...  *~ ¦ 39
„ 10: 10, " Nor staff" (Mark 6: 8, *' save a staff only ")  41
„ 10: 23, "Till the Son of man be come"  ¦ *  42
,, 12: 31, 32, The unpardonable sin ...  45
„ 16: 16-20, " Upon this rock I will build my church "  50
„ 19: 12, Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake  58
„ 20: 29, See on Luke 18: 35  103
,. 21: 18-20, The barren fig-tree ....  60
„ 26: 71-74, Peter's three denials  69
„ 27: 3-8, Suicide of Judas  70
„ 27: 9, 10, " Then was fulfilled," etc  71
»> 27: 37» Superscription on the cross of Jesus  74
„ 28: 1-10, Appearances of our Saviour after his resurrection  75
„ 28: 16, 17, Interview with his disciples in Galilee  79
Mark 2: 26, Abiathar the high priest  80
„ 4: 12, Reason for the use of parables  83
,, 6: 8, See on Matt, 10: 10  . . . . .41
„ 6: 45, " Unto Bethsaida" (John 6: 15, to Capernaum)  85
„ 9 : 49, " Salted with fire ''  68
„ n: 12, See on Matt. 21: 18-20   60
jj T3* 32» " Neither the Son"   90
„ 15: 25i See on John 19: 14  "2
„ 16: 2, "At the rising of the sun"  92
„ 16: 9, "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene"  93
Luke 2: 39, The return to Galilee ....  94
,, 5: 1-11, See on Matt. 4: 18-22  28
„ 6: 1, "Second Sabbath after the first"  96
„ 6: 20-49, See on Matt. 5-7  ' 3°
»» 7: 37, 38, Anointing Jesus' feet  97
»j 9: 3» See on Matt. 10: 10  41
„ 12: 10, See on Matt. 12: 31, 32  45
261

262 INDEX OF PASSAGES TREATED,
Luke 12 : 49, " To set fire on the earth "  98
„ 16: 9, "The mammon of unrighteousness "  100
„ 18: 7, God's avenging his elect .  101
„ 18: 35-43, Healing of two blind men near Jericho  103
„ 22: 54, See on Matt. 26: 71-75  69
John 1 : 16, " Grace for grace "  105
„ 10: 34-36," I said, Ye are gods "  107
„ 16: 9-11, Work of the Holy Spirit  109
,, 18: 16-27, See on Matt. 26: 71-75  69
„ 19: 14, " The sixth hour "  112
„ 20: 17, " Touch me not "  113
„ 20: 23, See on Matt. 16: 16—20  50
,, 20: 26, "After eight days"  115
Acts 2 : 4, Speaking with other tongues  116
„ 7: 16, " The sepulchre that Abraham ljught"  118
,, 9:7, " Hearing the voice " (22: 9, " They heard not the voice ") ... 122
» 23 ¦ 5~7, " I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest "  122
„ 26: 28, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian "  126
Rom. 1 : 16, 17, " Not ashamed of the gospel "  128
„ 5: 15, 17, 20, " Much more "  ... .129
„ 7: 14-25, " Carnal, sold under sin "  130
,, 8: 19-23, " The creature" (the creation)  132
„ 9: 3, Anathema from Christ  135
» 9: x3> " Esau have I hated"  138
,, 9: 18, " Whom he will, he hardeneth "   140
,, 10: 6, " The righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise" . » 141
,, n : 32, Shut up all in unbelief  141
1 Cor. 3: 15, " Saved; yet so as by fire "  143
>> 5* 5» Delivering to Satan  144
,, 6: 2-4, The saints shall judge the world  146
„ 7 : 15, Brother or sister not under bondage  149
,, 10: 2," Baptized unto Moses "  151
,, 10: 4, " That Rock was Christ "  153
,, n : 10, The woman ought to have power on her head  155
,, 14: 2-19, See on Acts 2:4  n6
,, 15: 24, 28, The Son delivering up the kingdom to the Father  157
,, 15: 29, " Baptized for the dead"  150
2 Cor. 2: 14-16, Causeth us to triumph  162
>» 3 : *3t Vail over Moses' face  164
,, 6: 16-18, " I will dwell in them "  .165
,, 12: 2, '* The third heaven"  165
, 12: 5, " Of such an one will I glory"  166
„ 12 : 7, See on Gal. 4 : 12-15  173
Gal. 3 : 16, " Not, And to seeds, as of many "  167
,, 3: 19, 20, " Wherefore then serveth the law? "  170
,, 4: 12-15, Be as I am, for I am as ye are  ^3

INDEX OF PASSAGES TREATED. 263

Gal. 4: 24, Which things are an allegory  174
,, 5: 12, " I would they were even cut off"  176
Eph. 1 : 1, " At Ephesus "  176
,, 5: 14, " Awake thou that sleepest," etc  179
Phil. 2: 6, " Not robbery to be equal with God "  181
,, 2: 17, Libation upon a sacrifice  183
„ 3: 11, "Attain unto the resurrection from the dead"  185
„ 3: 20, Our conversation (and citizenship) in heaven  187
Col. 1: 15, " Firstborn of the whole creation"  188
,, 1 : 19, " It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell " . 189
„ 2: 18, Worship (religion) of angels  igo
„ 2: 23, Will-worship  193
,,3:9, 10, Put off the old man, and put on the new  195
„ 4: 16, " The Epistle from Laodicea"  196
1 Thess. 4: 13-17, Time of Christ's second coming  196
2 Thess. 2: 3-10, The apostasy, the man of sin, etc  200
1 Tim. 1 : 20, See on 1 Cor. 5:5  144
2: 15, " She shall be saved in childbearing"  k . . . .204
„ 3 : 16, " God [who] was manifested in the flesh "  207
2 Tim. 2: 26, " Taken captive by him at his will"  •  209
Heb. 1 : 5, " I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son " . . . 212
„ 2: 13, " I will put my trust in him "  216
„ 6: i-6f " Leaving the principles ... let us go on unto perfection" . . 217
7- 3j " Without father, without mother," etc.  219
,, 9: 6-9, " The priests went always," etc  221
„ 9 : 16, Testament and covenant  223
,, 11: 1, Faith the substance of things hoped for  224
James 2: 10, He is guilty of all . ...-,. .-*  225
„ 2: 21, 25, Justified by works  226
1 Pet. 3: 18-20, Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison  227
„ 3 : 20, 21, " Baptism doth also now save us "  233
„ 4: 6, Gospel preached to the dead  235
2 Pet. 1 : 19, " A more sure word of prophecy "  238
„ 1: 20, " No prophecy . . . is of any private interpretation" .... 239
1 John 3:9," He cannot sin, because he is born of God"  • . . . 241
,, 5: 6-8, " Came by water and blood "  242
Jude 14, 15, Enoch's prophecy  243
Rev. 1 : 20, "Angels of the seven churches "  245
,* 7: 5-8, Names of the twelve tribes of Israel  247
„ 11: 2, " Forty and two months"  250
,1 11: 3, " My two witnesses"  254
,, 13: 18, " The number of the beast,"  257
„ 20: 4, 5, The first resurrection  258

INDEX OF TOPICS.

Abiathar the high priest Page 80
Accursed from Christ 135
Adoption 134
Almost thou persuadest me 126
Angels of the seven churches 245
Anointing Jesus' feet 97
Answer of a good conscience 234
Antichrist 201
Apostasy, Man of sin, etc. 200
Avenging, God, his elect 101
Baptized for the dead 159
Baptized unto Moses 151
Barren fig-tree 60
Beast, Number of the 257
Binding and loosing 55
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 46
Blind men healed near Jericho 103
Call of Simon, Andrew, James,
and John 28
Causeth us to triumph 162
Childbearing, Saved in 204
Christ's second coming 196
Citizenship in heaven 187
Coming of the Son of man 43
Creature ("creation) in Rom. 8: 19 132
Dan, Tribe of, omitted in Rev. 7 249
Delivering unto Satan 144
Early Christian hymns, Struct
ure of 1 80
Enoch, Prophecy of 243
Ephesians, Epistle to, a circular 176
Epistle from Laodicea 196
Equal with God, Christ thought it
no robbery to be 181
Eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake 58
Experience described in Rom. 7 130

Faith 224
Fasting of Jesus 20
Field of blood 70
Fire, Jesus setting.in the earth 98
First born of the whole creation 188
First resurrection 258
Forty and two months 250
Fulfillment, Use of the term 1.5, 71
Fulness of the Godhead in Christ 189
Genealogy of Jesus Christ 9
God manifest in the flesh 207
Going of Jesus into Galilee 26
Going to law before the heathen 147
Grace for grace 105
Hades 227
Hagar allegorized 175
Hardening the hearts of wicked
men, ascribed to God 140
Hatred, God's,for Esau 138
Holy Spirit's work 109
Hymns, Structure of early 180, 208
Impossibility of renewing apos
tates to repentance 218
Imprisonment of John the Baptist 26
Jesus, his genealogy g
Jesus, appearances after his resur
rection 75
Jesus, interview with his disciples
in Galilee 79
Jesus, not knowing the time of
his second coming 90
Judas, purchase of the field of
blood 70
Justified by works 226
Keys of the kingdom of heaven 55
Law ordained through the min
istry of angels 171

264

INDEX OF TOPICS.

265

Libation upon a sacrifice 184
Lord's prayer 37
Mammon of unrighteousness 100
Man of sin 200
Mary Magdalene, was Christ's
appearance to her the first
after his resurrection? 93
Mary Magdalene, why Jesus said
to her, Touch me not 113
Mediator of the Law, Moses 172
Melchizedek 220
Millennium 258
Much more, in Rom. 5 129
" Neither the Son " 90
Not ashamed of the gospel 128
Not under bondage, husband or
wife deserted by heathen
partner 149
Number of the beast 257
Offender in one point, guilty of all 225
Parables, reason for Christ's
using them 83
Paul's infirmity 174
Paul, not knowing the high
priest 122
Paul, saying, I am a Pharisee 124
Peter, Thou art 5°
Peter, Are the popes his successors 53
Peter, his three denials 69
Power on woman's head 155
Prayer 37
Preaching to them that are dead 235
Preaching to the spirits in prison 2-^7
Private interpretation of scripture 239
Prophecy of Enoch 243
Prophecy, the more sure word of 238
Religion of angels igo
Renewing apostates to repentance 218
Resurrection, Attaining to the 185
Resurrection, The first 258
Righteousness of God 128
Rock, On this I will build my
church 50
Rock that followed Israel 153

Saints to judge the world 146
Salted with fire 86
Save a staff only 41
Saved as by fire 143
Second-first Sabbath 96
Seed of Abraham, not seeds 167
Sepulchre that Abraham bought 118
Sermon on the Mount 30
Shut up in unbelief 141
Sin, The unpardonable 45
Snare of the devil, Escaping from 209
Son delivering up the kingdom to
the Father 157
Son of God, the Messiah 212
Speaking with tongues 116
Spirits in prison, Preaching to 227
Staves, were the Twelve forbidden
to take them 41
Superscription on the cross 74
Swearing 36
Sweet savor unto God 163
Temptation of Jesus 19
Testament and covenant 223
That it might be fulfilled 15
The three heavenly witnesses 243
Third heaven 165
Thorn in the flesh, Paul's 174
Thousand years' reign of Christ 2^9
Time and times and half a time 250
Time of the visit of women to the
Saviour's tomb 92
Tongues, Speaking with new 116
Triumph, Causeth us to 162
Two witnesses 254
Unpardonable sin 45
Uttermost farthing 35
Vail on Moses' face 164
Will-worship 193
Women visit the Saviour's tomb ;
time of the visit 92
Word of prophecy 238
Work of the Holy Spirit 109
Worship (religion) of angels 190
" Ye are gods" 107

7967