PREFACE
TO THE THIRD EDITION.
SIX years have transpired, since we proclaimed the first edition of this work. During this period we have been receiving criticisms, suggestions, and queries, relative to further improvements in the version, and in the mode of exhibiting it. We also solicited and obtained, from some learned and devout men, their assistance in perfecting this translation. To all criticisms, and suggestions, from all quarters, both from friends and foes of new versions, we have, according to our opportunities, paid a diligent attention; and have, very carefully, examined, compared, and revised the whole version.
An improved version of both Testaments, in the current language of our own times, has long been a desideratum with very many sensible, intelligent, and devout men, and several have undertaken it. Few have been able to complete an entire version of the whole book; and to us it appeared more eligible to publish, in one volume, the joint labors of those most eminent translators, who have bestowed much labor on a part of the volume, than to take the whole of any one version, made by any one man, since the days of King Yaakob. Of the translators of the last generation, none have been better received than the authors of this version–none have stood higher than they.
It was not, however, without a very clear and full conviction, that their learned and devout labors could be still further improved, and their rules of interpretation so carried out, as to give a still better result, than that which they achieved in their first efforts, that we undertook the publication of this work, in the form and manner in which it appeared, in the first edition. Aware, also, of the prejudice and scrupulosity existing on the subject of any new version, we attempted little or nothing on our own responsibility. The emendations substituted, except in some few instances, were from other translators of note, or from one of the three authors of the work, and still we gave, in an appendix, the words for which these substitutes were preferred.
The manner in which this work was received, by the more intelligent part of the community, and the liberality with which our efforts were estimated, induced us to make further attempts towards the perfection of this version; and prevented us from multiplying editions of it, until we had, in a good measure, satisfied ourselves on the questions:–Whether any emendations ought to be made; and if any, to what extent, and in what manner? The present edition presents some answers to these questions, and shows that, in the judgment of some at least, the style of the whole volume, even of the historical books, was susceptible of some improvement, and yet not such as to change, materially, the sense of any passage, or to introduce any new argument in favor of any new or old teaching, or against it.
Some changes in punctuation may be said to have changed the meaning of some sentences; but these are made on the authority of Griesbach, and of the most approved Greek copies; and, as far as we now recollect, affect not any sectarian peculiarity. For example–“Sleep on now, and take your rest;” “Set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church;” when put into the interrogative form, give a different meaning–“Do you sleep now, and take your rest?” “Do you set them to judge who are of no esteem (or of little esteem) in the congregation?” But these alterations affect not any distinguishing tenet. In this way, and as respects the correction of numerous provincialisms, and the giving of greater precision and perspicuity to many phrases, there are numerous emendations, which may be said, in some sense, to change the meaning; yet not so as to affect any teaching of the Christian religion.
Macknight presented more work for the pen of a reviser than Campbell; and Doddridge more than either. There is a clumsiness of expression, and verbosity, peculiar to the latter, which subjected the Acts of the Delegates, and the Revelation of Yohanan, to a severer retrenchment, than any portion of the historical books.
The Letters, by Macknight, in the judgment of the ablest critics, required some improvement, as there are several awkward and rather barbarous phrases, which seem to have been chosen, rather because they differed from the common version, than on account of their own intrinsic worth. His punctuation, and his supplements, are, in some instances, fanciful; and the latitude he has given to some of the Greek particles, is not sufficiently warranted by the authority of lexicographers and grammarians.
If this were merely our own opinion, we should not have asserted it so unceremoniously and unequivocally. But it is the deliberate and well-matured judgment of many distinguished men; who, while they give a decided preference to his version, upon the whole, regret that these imperfections would have appeared in a work of such high merit. The recent works of Dr. Stuare on the Letters to the Romans and the Hebrews–works of much merit, justify the efforts we have made to remove these blemishes from Macknight’s version of the Letters. Dr. Stuare himself, a gentleman of very high standing in the literary world, and for whose candor and abilities, as a critic, we entertain a very high opinion, has not, in our judgment, wholly escaped the censures, which he has very justly pronounced on others. it is no easy matter to avoid the errors, which we detect and expose in others; and, perhaps, were ten thousand times ten thousand critics, each in his own way, to review the same work, no two of them would exactly agree in all their censures and commendations; nor in always adhering to the same rules, which they prescribe to others. We have followed, to the utmost of our ability and candor, the rules of criticism and interpretation, laid down by the masters of criticism, and the most distinguished translators.
Our qualifications for such a work are, that we have their labors before us–an ordinary knowledge of the languages–access to the most recent improvements–an acquaintance and correspondence with men of reputation–a small degree of mental independence–a little common sense–and some veneration for the oracles of God. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and, though of less stature, we can see as far as they; or, like the wren on the back of the eagle, we have as large a horizon as the eagle, which has carried us above the clouds.
The improvements and emendations (for such we dare to call them) attempted in this volume, are such as, on comparison with the common version, and with the first and second editions of this work, will, most of them, speak for themselves, to all persons of discernment; and all of them, we think, to those much acquainted with the original language and other translations. When any amendment or alteration is substituted, such as might be supposed to require a note, we have supplied it either in the Tables, or in some part of the Appendix, with a marginal reference. But to write notes on all the verbal alterations, and to give reasons for every monosyllable and transposition of words, would swell the book to a size rather cumbersome and expensive, than profitable to the reader. Besides, the reader, by his own comparison and reflection, must finally judge for himself, whether in the spirit of the writer, and in accordance with the drift of the context, the reading is to be preferred to that for which it is offered.
While the reader is not confined by any earthly authority to any one version, and left to his own choice which to prefer for his daily companion, it is altogether out of the question for any person, or persons, to impose upon his credulity, unless he willingly give up himself, his understanding, and conscience into the hand of some master. The present edition was undertaken wholly with reference to the edification of those, who are desirous to understand the revelations, which God, in his great mercy, has vouchsafed to a benighted world. No attempt is made to lord over the faith or conscience of any person. We call upon all to judge for themselves, and to compare and examine before they decide. Having, as far as within our power, contributed to the increase of scripture knowledge, so much wanted in this age; and having faithfully obeyed the dictates of our conscience in this undertaking, we can, with an humble reliance on the truth and faithfulness of God, submit this work to his people, and those who wish to know what the will of Jesus Christ is, and await the day, when every man’s work shall undergo the revision and judgment of him, who judges without partiality, and will render to all according to their works.
A. CAMPBELL.
BETHANY, VA., October 10, 1932.
PREFACE TO THE
APPENDIX OF THE THIRD EDITION.
ALL matters of superior importance, pertaining to this version, and some which are of less moment, (only as affording principles and rules of interpretation, or a vindication of them,) are to be found in the appendix to this edition. Everything is not formally defended by arguments, and the laws of criticism; but enough, in our judgment, to assist the reader in examining and judging the whole work. Doctor Stuare gives us a new version of the letter to the Romans, on twenty-seven octavo pages; but in vindicating and illustrating his version, and views of the letter, he has given us a about five hundred and fifty octavo pages. He has also given us a new version of the letter to the Hebrews, in twenty-four pages, and added to it for the same purpose, six hundred and fifty pages of the same dimensions. Had we been at the same pains in justifying our amendments, according to the rule of proportion, our appendix would have contained exactly twelve thousand octavo pages. And who is prepared for such a task? His works on the two letters are sold for eight dollars. On this ratio, the whole New Testament would cost eighty dollars, (for these two letters are not more than a tenth part of the whole volume,) and would require ordinary readers some eight or ten years to read and digest.
We have condensed much information in the form of alphabetical tables. Of these there are found, in the appendix to this edition, the following:–
I.–A table containing the proper names which are found in the New Testament, etymologically explained, and accented for pronunciation, according to the most approved standards.
II.–A Geographical Index.
III.–A table exhibiting the different views of eminent writers, on the chronology of the books of the New Covenant.
IV.–A Chronological Index, containing a variety of events, political and religious, connected with Jesus History, from the nativity of Jesus to the death of the Delegate Yohanan.
V.–A table of time.
VI.–A table of measures of length.
VII.–A table of measures of capacity.
VIII.–A table of precious stones mentioned in the apostolic writings.
IX.–A table of the Hebrew, Grecian, and Roman coins, mentioned in the New Testament.
X.–A table of the sects, offices, and officers, mentioned in the New Testament.
XI.–A miscellaneous table of such things as cannot be classified in the preceding tables.
XII.–A table of the interpolations and spurious readings, found in the common Greek Testament, according to Griesbach, and others.
XIII.–A table of forthteller symbols.
XIV.–A table of the principal Greek terms yet in controversy, showing their various occurrences, and acceptations in the common version, and, in others of reputation.
The judicious reader will perceive that, in these vocabularies, arranged alphabetically, an amount of information can be communicated, which would require a volume of notes to give in detail. Of course, then, not much is left for particular notes, critical and explanatory. The principal notes which we annexed to the first and second editions are, however, continued, and some new ones added. These are wholly of a literary character, and everything, of what is called a theological or sectarian aspect, is cautiously avoided.
We have to add, that, in making out the tables in this appendix, we have availed ourselves of the labors of our predecessors; correcting and enlarging, abridging and new modifying, where, in our judgment, it appeared necessary and expedient. Among those to whom we are most indebted, the following are chief:–Horne, Lardner, Adam Clark, Michaelis, J. E. Worcester, Collins, Doctor More, Benson, H. Wilbur, Cruden, and Greenfield’s Greek Concordance.
In the department of notes, critical and explanatory, we have not, in any instance known to us, departed from the canons of criticism, and the laws of interpretation of the authors of the basis of this version:–viz. Doctors Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge; nor from those recommended and enforced by Horn, Michaelis, Ernesti, Elders Pierce and Benson, Locke, Stuare of Andover, Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach. If, in any point, we have given a different result from some of them, we always worked by their own canons of criticism. We have neither made nor adopted any by-laws, or rules of interpretation, unsanctioned and unapproved by the constitution of the commonwealth of letters.
PREFACE TO THE
FOURTH, OR STEREOTYPE EDITION.
FEW readers can appreciate the labor and care necessary, to the perfecting of an impression of the New Testament. The ten thousand minutiae necessary to typographical perfection, would require the hundred eyes of the fabled Argus, and the piercing vision of the eagle. Perhaps a copy of a book, as large as the New Testament, perfectly free from typographical errors, is not to be found on earth.
Aware of all the difficulties in our way, and most solicitous to have the stereotype pocket edition of this work as perfect, in its typography, as any in existence, we have been at the labor and expense of preparing two editions at one and the same time–so that any errata discovered after the sheets of the third edition were worked off, might be corrected in the standing form of the pocket edition. Few, very few errors have been discovered in the third edition; these are corrected in its errata; and, of course, do not appear in this.
The sheets of the third edition, after having been repeatedly read by myself and others, were submitted to the examination of THOMAS CAMPBELL, son. and of FRANCIS W. EMMONS, to whom we are much indebted for the care which they have bestowed on them, and the numerous suggestions with which they have favored us. Their classical and biblical attainments have been of much service to us, and to the public, in the completion of this work.
One or two classes of provincialisms, such as the hereupon, thereupon, and whereupon; the hereby, thereby, and whereby; and the herein, therein, and wherein of Doctor Campbell, and a few of Doctors Macknight and Doddridge, which sometimes escaped in the third edition, are strangled in this.
While the greater matters of accuracy, precision, and perspicuity deserve all attention, the less matters of neatness, smoothness, and harmony, are not wholly to be neglected. Doctor Campbell, the highly and justly celebrated author of the Philosophy of Rhetoric, has given us leave to prune himself of some of those rather awkward words and phrases, which are to be attributed more to the taste of the last century, and to his greater attention to his countrymen, than to his want of judgment or taste in good and elegant composition. The sacred Scriptures are more generally read than any other writings, and exert a greater influence on the diction and style of the community: and they ought, therefore, to be a model. As the original was at least at par with, it not something in advance of, the age and population in which it appeared, a translation of it ought, we think, always to be in the plainest and best style of the community, for which it was intended.
A good style is always a plain and intelligible style. What is sometimes called a learned, is rather an unlearned style; because true learning is the art of communicating, as well as of receiving instruction–and he that speaks or writes not to edification, is unlearned in the greatest of all areas, the area of imparting instruction. It has often been observed, that it requires more real learning to make a plain and an intelligible speech, than to make one vulgarly called learned. there are not wanting some persons, in every community, who appreciate a speech because it transcends their comprehension, and regard him as the greatest scholar, who uses the most learned and rare terms and phrases.
The verses are placed at the commencement of the paragraph, merely for convenience in referring to the common version; and, although much called for by many readers, they are, in our judgment, of no advantage in understanding the book. We have, however, kept the connection unbroken, before the eye of the reader, as in the former editions; and, it is to be hoped, that but few now regard the verses, as so many detached precepts or proverbs. This custom of versifying is, we rejoice, yielding to the more enlightened judgment of the present age, and we were much gratified to see, the other day, a recent octavo impression of the common version, proclaimed at Boston, in the manner of our first edition.
In this, as well as in the third edition, the words printed in Italics are all supplements, depending wholly upon our judgment, or that of the translators, and are to be regarded as such; the spurious readings, or interpolations, are rejected from this edition. It gives us pleasure to discover, that this, also, is obtaining credit; and to see a scholar of such reputation as Professor Stuare, in his translation of the letter to the Romans, leaving out the interpolations found, both in the common Greek Testament, and in the King’s translation of it.
Some extracts from the appendix of the second edition, containing extracts from the preface of the first edition of the King’s translation, in vindication of this version, will close our prefatory remarks.
Our whole phraseology on religious topics is affected by the antiquated style of the common version. Here we have been constrained to adopt a name for this style, to distinguish it from the good style of persons well educated in our mother tongue. This old fashioned style we call the sacred style; yet this sacred style was the common style in the reign of Yaakob. This the following abstract from the original preface will show. Cam. ed. p. 5.–
“Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment? Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath the bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? (Lacte gypsum male misceter, saith S. Ireny.) We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had the oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended, and to complain, yet that we had none. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but winde in it? Hath the bread been delivered by the fathers of the church, and the same proved to be Lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What is it to handle the world of God deceitfully, if this be not? So certain brethren. Also, the adversaries of Yehuwdah and Yerushalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we heart, both at the work and workmen, saying, What do these weak Jews, &c. Will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? Although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall. Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to here it? No, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it; they have learning, and they know when a thing is well. We will answer them both briefly: And the former, being brethren, so, with S. Hierome, Damnamus veteres? Minime, sed post priorum studia in Domo domini quod pssumus laboramus. That is, Do we condemn the ancients? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God. As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned, that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay, whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues may be profitable in any measure to God’s church, for fear I should seem to have labored in them in empty, and for fear I should be thought to glory in men (although ancient) above that which was in them. So S. Hierome may be thought to speak.”
Now though many alterations in orthography, punctuation, and in marginal readings have been made on the King’s translation, so that the first editions differ in many respects from the modern, yet the style is still preserved; and from its old-fashioned peculiarities, it is called the sacred style. I know it may be said, that the style of the King’s translation is still more ancient, than the era of his reign, because the “Elders Bible” and other previous translations did present to the translators the style of their ancestors, from the days of Wickliffe; so that many peculiarities in the obsolete style of the 15th and 16th centuries, are to be found in the common version.
The old Gothic buildings in North and South Britain are generally places of worship; here, although this style of architecture was once as common in England and Scotland as any of the present models; yet this style being preserved only, or almost exclusively, in the places of worship which the veneration of our ancestors preserved from dilapidation, has given a sacred aspect to places of worship, and has rendered the Gothic style of architecture as sacred, as the obsolete style of King Henry, or King Yaakob. Had it not been for the veneration shown to places of worship, not a specimen of Gothic style would at this day have stood upon the British Isles; and had it not been for the same species of veneration, we should not have had at this time any book, sacred or profane, written or proclaimed in the style of the 16th century. This style we have avoided in the present edition, and have as far as was practicable in one effort, removed from the sacred writings the obsolete verily, ye, unto, liveth, keepeth, heartth, doth, hath, you, your, and your: and all their kindred terms and phrases of the same antiquity. They have yielded their places to another race in all our writings and speeches, except in the pulpit or synagogue–why not also in the sacred writings? We might as reasonably contend that men should appear in the public assemblies for worship with long beards, in Jewish or Roman garments, as that the Scriptures should be handed to us in a style perfectly antiquated, and consequently less intelligible.
Some may contend, that the adoption of you instead of you, when one only is meant, is not grammatical. But let us consider, that the rules of grammar are no more than the rules drawn from common usage, or the custom of good speakers or writers–Since the days of Horace it is admitted, by all grammarians, that common usage is the sovereign arbiter of language: Usus, quem penes arbitrium est, el jus, et norma loquendi. Custom, or universal usage, has made you as singular as you: and the question is not, whether this be a perfection or an imperfection in our language–but, Is this the general or universal usage? If so, then it is grammatical. In all cases where the utmost precision is necessary, you is now used. In celebrating the rites of matrimony, and in administering an oath, we do not use you. Nor does the judge upon the bench, when pronouncing a sentence upon a criminal, address him by you; but by you. Now, if in those instances, where the greatest precision is necessary, you is used, and never you, why should it be otherwise in a translation of the Scriptures? Excepting in addresses to the Deity, and in the personification of inanimate things, we aim at the expulsion of you, and the substitution of you.
Again, the King’s translators vindicate themselves, and apologize for us:–
“Another thing we think good to admonish your of (gentle reader,) that we have not tied ourselves to uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for, there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word only by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose, if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, &c. So to mince the matter, we thought to aroma more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and betake them to others; as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation instead of church: as also on the other side, we have shunned the obscurities of the Papists in their azymes, tunike, rational, holocausts, prepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full; and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”
The Puritans, it seems, were accustomed to substitute washing for baptism, and congregation for church, and now some of their descendants condemn Drs. Campbell and Macknight for using immersion for baptism–and Dr. Doddridge for substituting congregation for church. But this by the way. If the last sentiment in the above extract be correct, we will be excused in all our efforts, to render this version as plain as possible to the dullest apprehension. If the King’s translators found reasons to justify themselves for shunning the obscurities of the Papists, we will, for the same reasons, be allowed to shun the obscurities of the Protestants, if this can be done by a fair translation.
PREFACE TO THE NARRATIVES OF MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND YOHANAN.
< These books were designed to be read and understood, by persons of the humblest capacity, as well as by those of the most exalted genius. Readers of the most limited education, as well as those of the most liberal attainments, were equally embraced in the views of the writers. If particular attention was paid to any class of readers, it was doubtless to the poor, who have not the means of a refined education. One of the most striking evidences of the divine mission of the Savior was, that, to the POOR, his glad news were announced. A revelation not adapted to them, forfeits all claims to a divine original.
In laying down some general principles or rules, for reading intelligibly the following narratives, regard must be had to all sorts of readers–the young as well as the old; the illiterate as well as the learned; and also some attention must be paid to the difficulties, that lie in the way of a rational and profitable perusal of them.
IN the first place, then, there is no opinion or notion, which is more prejudicial to an intimate acquaintance with these writings, than that of the Egyptian priests, introduced into the first theological school at Alexandria, and carried throughout Christendom–viz. “That the words of scripture have a mystical, spiritual, theological, or some other than a literal meaning; and that the same rules of interpretation are not to be applied to the inspired writings, which are applied to human compositions:” than which, no opinion is more absurd and unprofitable. If this notion were correct, all efforts to understand this book must be in empty, until God sends us an interpreter, who can resolve those enigmas and mystic words of theological import, and give us the plain meaning, of what the apostles and Evangelists wrote.
The reader will please to consider that, when God spoke to man, he adopted the language of man. To the fathers of the Jewish nation he spoke in their mother tongue. By his Son, and his Son by the apostles, spoke to every nation in its own language. When he spoke to any nation, he uniformly adopted the words of that nation, in expressing his will to it. And that he used their words in the commonly received sense, needs no other proof than this, that if he had not done so, instead of enlightening them in the knowledge of his will, he would have deceived and confounded them: than which, no hypothesis is more in devout. For example, were God to speak to us in English, and select from our vocabulary the words death, punishment, perpetual, and wicked; were he to use the last term as we use it, and annex to the others a signification, different from that we affix to them–such as to mean life by the term death, happiness by the term punishment, and a limited time by the word perpetual; and, without apprising us of such a change in their meaning, say, “Perpetual death shall be in the punishment of the wicked,” what a deception would he practice upon us! His words, in our acceptation, would convey a tremendous thought; but, in his reserved sense, would mean no more than, “A limited life shall be the happiness of the wicked.”
Once more on this topic. As nothing can be said to be revealed or made known, by words which are not perfectly intelligible, so we find the sacred writers so conscious of this, that when they used any word, which was not familiar to the readers whom they addressed, they immediately add, “Which being interpreted, signifies.” If, then, those writers were accustomed to explaining any word not familiar to their readers, does it not undeniably follow, that they supposed every word or allusion, not so explained, sufficiently plain already?
And again, would not the same benevolence and respect to the capacity and understanding of their readers, which induced them to explain some terms of very subordinate importance, such as “borban,” “talitha cumi,” “Aceldama,” “Calvary,” &c. &c. have caused them to explain words of infinitely more importance, such as, “repentance,” “faith,” “hope,” “love,” “justify,” “covenant,” “baptism,” “ambassador,” “Son of God,” “eternal life,” “everlasting punishment,” &c. if they had not supposed such terms sufficiently plain in the common usage, and quite intelligible to all their readers? From these plain facts and arguments, we deduce the following rule or direction to all those, who, under the guidance of Heaven, desire to understand these sacred books:–You are to understand the words and sentences in these narratives, (and, in all the apostolic writings) by the application of all those rules, through which you arrive at the meaning of any other book or writing, of the same antiquity.
Next to a regard to the commonly received sense of the words in these writings, nothing contributes more to the clear and certain understanding of them, than a knowledge of the design of the respective writers of each part of this volume. In one respect, they all may be said to have but one design. Taking the ultimate happiness of man as the grand design of all revelation, it must be granted, that all the inspired writers had this object in view, in all that they wrote. It is, however, capable of the clearest proof; and, it is universally admitted, that every writer who has written different parts of this book, had a specific design in each separate communication. For in the prosecution of one grand design, there are often a thousand items, distinct from each other, to accomplish; each of which may be the design of one particular effort. Now, it requires not a moment’s reflection, to see that Paul had one design in writing to Timotheos, another in writing to Philemon, and another in writing to the congregation in Rome.
It is granted by all critics, that when all grammatical rules fail to settle the meaning of any ambiguous word or sentence, a knowledge of the design of the writer or speaker will do it. Even when a writer’s terms are badly chosen, or improperly used, a knowledge of this design makes his meaning plain. Daily experience must convince us that we can more easily solve difficulties, and correct mistakes in composition, by a knowledge of the design of the writer, than by any other means we possess. the more weighty and important criticisms upon verbal inaccuracies, are predicated upon a knowledge of the design of the writer or speaker. If, then a suitable regard be paid to the design of any speaker or writer, how ambiguous and incorrect so ever his words may be, we shall seldom, if ever, fail in understanding him. For example–little children, when they first begin to speak, have but few terms at command, and necessarily apply them very inaccurately; yet their nurses and attendants find little or no difficulty in understanding them. In regarding what they design to communicate, their language becomes as definite and precise, as that of the Grecian or Roman orator.
To those who inquire, how we are always to find out the design of a writer, we would just observe, that his design becomes apparent either from an express avowal of it, or from attention to a variety of circumstances connected with his writing, or both. But this will in the sequel become sufficiently plain. many readers appear to discover the design of a writer much sooner, than they do the meaning or propriety of what he says.
But to bring these general hints to bear upon our subject, we must request the attention of our readers to the design of the narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Yohanan. In this way, we think, we can most profitably introduce them to the acquaintance of the youth, who may peruse them.
Had we no means of ascertaining the design of these four historians, other than mere conjecture, predicated on circumstances, we would rationally conclude, that the design in committing to writing, their testimony concerning Jesus of Nazareth, was the same as induced them to deliver it orally; only with this difference, that in writing they designed to perpetuate, in a more permanent form, what must soon be corrupted and forgotten, if only spoken and not written; and that the conviction of unbelievers, and the confirmation of disciples in the truth of one fact, was the grand design of their testimony, whether verbal or written. This illustrious fact is, that Yeshua the Nazarene is the Son of God, the Savior of men. But we are not, in this instance, dependent on conjecture. We are expressly told by one of the historians, that his design in writing was, that through his written testimony, the reader “might believe that Yeshua is the Anointed, the Son of God, and that believing this he might have life through his name.” Another of those sacred historians says, that his design in writing was, that a certain illustrious person, a The Christian disciple, to whom he inscribed his narrative, “might know the certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed.” This narrative was directly inscribed to this person, and through him made public property, and consequently was designed to produce the same effects in all persons in similar circumstances; and, therefore, was as well designed to produce further where it was not, as to confirm it where it already exists. But, in brief, whatever was the grand design of one of these historians, was the design of them all; for they all were employed to bear testimony to the same person; and in doing this, they were equally guided by one and the same Spirit.
But where all the differences and varieties in their narratives? This, too, the design of each goes very far to explain. But was not the design of one, the design of all? True, it was the design of them all to prove one fact; but it was not to the same identical persons: and all men are not to be convinced by the same arguments. As this is a point of vast importance, in every way in which it can be viewed, permit me to be more particular in invoking attention to it.
As all nations have their own peculiarities, and all people their own ways of thinking, reasoning, and expressing themselves; these varieties in their circumstances, require a corresponding variety in addressing them upon all subjects; though the things spoken be substantially the same, and the design of the speaker precisely the same. Now, in writing as well as in speaking, the same persons vary their communications according to the times, places, and circumstances in which they speak or write. For example, though Paul proclaimed the same The Good News at all times and in all places, he does not always exhibit it in the same words, nor accompanied with the same evidences, arguments, or reasons. So, in publishing the same The Good News to the Lycaonians, the Athenians, the Antiochians, the Corinthians, he is governed by all the prejudices, views, feelings, and circumstances of his auditors; and adapts the style, the facts, arguments, and evidences, to the capacities, views, and circumstances of his hearers. While he publishes the same glad news to them all, he varies in many respects upon all these occasions. This was absolutely necessary to his success, and is a most irrefragable proof of the sincerity and honesty of the man, and greatly adds to the credibility of his testimony. Now, for the same reasons that Paul differs from himself, or varies in his way of speaking The Good News in different places, he would have observed the same varieties in writing to the same people. For he never spoke at random in publishing the glad news; and what he spoke, was as deliberate as what he wrote. For the same reasons, therefore, had any one of the writers of these four histories, written them all to the different persons, at the different times, and in the different places where they were at first proclaimed, there is every reason to believe that they would have been as different from each other as they are: and making a reasonable allowance for the peculiarities of each writer, that they would have been the same as they now are. Many reasons could be offered for this opinion, but we shall only submit one proof or argument in favor of it, which is done, when one single fact is stated–viz. Luke, in his Acts of the Delegates, three times gives an account of Paul’s conversion and special call to the Delegates, and these three differ as much from each other, as Matthew, Mark, and Yohanan differ in their narratives concerning Yeshua of Nazareth. But there is just the same reason and necessity for, and the same propriety in, the varieties which are found in these four histories, as there was for Paul to speak the same The Good News in a different way, with different arguments, facts, and evidences, in the different places in which he proclaimed it. Suppose Matthew to have written a narrative for the conviction of the people at Rome, one for the Jews and Greeks in Greece, and one for the Asiatics in general, at different periods within the lapse of from twenty to thirty years; would it not have been as fitting for him to have been as various in his statements, as Paul was in his preaching in Damascus, Lycaonia, Athens, and Rome?
It was, for example, of indispensable importance that Matthew Levi, when writing for the Jews in Yehuda, at the time in which he wrote, should trace the lineage of Yeshua of Nazareth up to David and Abraham; but of no consequence to the people of Rome, for whom Yohanan Mark wrote, that he would do it at the time he proclaimed his testimony. This, and other differences between Paul in Damascus, and Paul in Athens. In a Jewish synagogue in Damascus, the Jewish Forthtellers must be circumstantially adduced; but before the Areopagus in the city of Athens, Aretas, a Grecian poet, was better evidence than Yeshayah or Daniel–better adapted to the audience, and to the design of the speaker.
To return to the design of these four testimonies. The immediate design of these writings to convince men that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Anointed, the Son of God; and the ultimate design of them is to put men in possession of life! Matthew’s design was, in the first instance, to convince the Jews in Yehuda–Mark’s design was to convince the Italians or Romans–Luke’s design was to convince the Grecians–and Yohanan’s design was to convince the Asiatics in general of this fact; and, if you please, through these finally all nations. Now, as the Savior did not exhibit all the evidence of his mission in any one town, village, or city, or to any one people, it was quite compatible with his example, and with all circumstances, that none of his ambassadors should attempt to lay all the evidences before any one people, whether they preached as Paul, in all nations; or wrote, as these writers did, for the conviction of different nations and people.
Now, to bring all these remarks to bear upon a rational and profitable, are of reading these memoirs, we shall, for example, take the testimony of Matthew Levi, and show how a knowledge of his design illuminates every page, and contributes to clear and comprehensive views of that religion, in the accomplishment of which he was an active and honored agent. Let the reader suppose that he was possessed of all the facts and documents with which Matthew was furnished, and that he designed to address his countrymen, the Jews, in order to convince them that Jesus of Nazareth, who had, at the time of his writing, finished his earthly career, was that Anointed, the Son of God, which God had long and often promised, and they had expected. That he might write with the most effect, he would take into view, the circumstance of the Jews at the time of writing. He would place before him their different sects and prejudices, the popular errors and the popular truths of the time; and being fully acquainted with these, he would select out of the information with which he was furnished, such facts and documents as would suit all the circumstances of the case. Being aware that the whole nation expected a prince and deliverer to arise from among them, and from the house of King David, he would conclude, that unless he could satisfactorily prove that this Yeshua was legitimately descended from Abraham through David, all further attempts to convince his countrymen would be in empty. For this purpose, then, he would apply to the Register’s office, for a copy of the roll of the lineage of the house of David, well a tested; and from this, trace Jesus to David; and so prove, that in as far as pedigree was concerned, this person had the most legitimate claim upon their faith, as being unquestionably, from the most public and well-attested documents, a descendant of King David. In the next place he would remember, that not only his descent from David, but many circumstances of his nativity and infancy, had been pointed out by the Forthtellers of his nation; and that the people of his time expected these to be fulfilled in the Anointed. He would, therefore, introduce those circumstances which had been foretold–such as the character of his mother, the place of his nativity, the slaughter of the infants in Ramah, his flight into Egypt, his being recalled, his being brought up in Nazareth, and the history of that Eliyah that was to come before him. So he would adduce the testimonies of Moses, David, Yeshayah, Yirmeyah, Hosea, Malachi, as all concurring to him.
Having, then, introduced him under all these favorable circumstances, and fairly brought him before his readers, accompanied with every attestation which either their own expectations or the sayings of their Forthtellers had made necessary; his next effort would be to furnish such evidences as their expected Eliyah presented in his behalf, and such unexpected attestations as his Father from heaven, and the Holy Spirit had given at his first made declaration to Ysrael. Then he would give a specimen of his own character, deduced from what he said and what he did, that they might judge whether there was anything in his teaching or deeds incompatible with his pretensions. In selecting his own declarations, he would prefer those of the greatest notoriety, such as his public messages: and of his miracles, he would adduce not only those of the most splendid character, but those which were performed in the presence of the largest and most respectable assemblies.
He would occasionally, as opportunity served, state the success attendant on his labors, mention the names of his principal followers, and introduce as early as possible to the notice of his readers, those prominent characters, who afterwards occupied so conspicuous a place in the triumphs of his cause. He would sometimes record such incidents in their history as would unfold their true character, and serve to give them credit with the people. He would always introduce the ancient predictions that bore upon him or them, and so present a chain of evidence addressed to all that is in man, and to the peculiar temper and feelings of his countrymen. For this purpose, pains would be taken to show how he acted in all sorts of company–among friends and foes; and still having regard to the prejudices and errors of the times, such occurrences as would have a tendency to correct these mistakes would be minutely detailed. Combining brevity and great comprehension with simplicity and perspicuity, tracing every prominent incident from his birth to his death, his resurrection and ascension into heaven; he would so produce such a phalanx of evidence, as would leave without excuse, every man who had read the ancient oracles, or only heard the comments of the public instructors of the people.
Such, I say, would be the general outlines of the course which reason would suggest to a person, whose design would be to convince a people, circumstanced as the Jews were, at the time Matthew proclaimed his testimony in Yehuda; and such, substantially, is the course that Matthew has adopted and pursued.
Now, as the design of a writer is his own guide in the selection and arrangement of his materials, arguments, and evidences; so it is the only infallible guide, when known, to the interpretation of what he has written. A regard to the grand design of the whole, and to the particular design of each item in the narrative, will do more to explain to us the meaning of words, or what is called “the teachings” of scripture.
Were a person to write at a great distance from Yehuda, as Yohanan did, where the people knew little or nothing of the Jewish Forthtellers, or of the Jewish customs, he would not think of troubling them with a roll of lineage about his pedigree, nor with many quotations from ancient Forthtellers, except to let them know that he had been the subject of ancient prophecy, or to mention a few instances to show that these prophecies had been most exactly fulfilled in him. He would introduce Yohanan the Harbinger, merely as “a man sent from God.” If he spoke of the people of Canaan, he would simply call them Jews. If he introduced any Hebrew names, such as Teacher or Messiah, he would interpret them. If any of the sacred institutions of the Jew’s religion, such as the Passover, was introduced, he would call it a feast of the Jews. If he referred to any of the usual customs of the Jews, he would explain them, such as the Jewish manner of purifying. If he spoke of places in that country, he would give a geographical description of them, such as Bethany upon the Yarden. If he alluded to the sectarian feelings of this people, he would described to what extent they were carried, by informing his readers that the Jews have no intercourse with the Samaritans. No, he would adopt the style of the East, as far as compatible with a lucid statement of facts; and as light was a favorite topic of the Asiatics, he would, under this comparison, introduce to their consideration Jesus as “the light of the world.” In affording them the evidences of the mission of this wonderful person, knowing that they would argue much from the reception which Jesus met with at home in his own country, he would be particular in narrating the miracles worked in, and near to, the metropolis; and the different arguments and debates to which they gave rise; and as they would have been more likely to have heard his fame from the people that visited Yerushalem at the great annual festivals and convocations, he would more minutely detail what happened on those occasions. Such would be some of his peculiarities in addressing a people so great strangers to the Jewish history.
With similar varieties both Luke and Mark are distinguished, but for the same reasons, and subordinate to the same ends; and are just as easily understood as those of Matthew and Yohanan, when all the preceding considerations are attended to.
The Christian, who sincerely desires to understand these narratives, will not only most sincere present his supplications and prayers to him who gives his Holy Spirit to them that ask him; but he will exercise those faculties of understanding which God has given him, and to which he has adapted all his communications, since man became a transgressor. He will apply the same rules of interpretation to these compositions, which he would apply to any other writings of the same antiquity. He will consider the terms, not otherwise explained by the writers, as conveying the same ideas which they are accustomed to convey in common acceptation. He will always keep the design of the writer before his mind: and for this purpose he will attend to all circumstances requisite to ascertaining his design–such as the character of the writer himself, the circumstances of the people whom he addressed, or among whom he proclaimed his writings, their peculiar prejudices, views, and feelings at the time of his writing to or for them; his own most explicit avowals with regard to his motives and intentions in making any communications to them. All these things will be attended to, and the writings examined in the natural order in which they are presented; noting every allusion and incident with the greatest circumspection, whether it regard time, place, or character. But above all, the most prominent object which the writer has in view, will be the most prominent in the consideration of a rational reader of his writings. And when difficulties occur, not to be satisfactorily solved by the mere import of the words, that meaning which best accords with the design of the whole writing, or with the particular passage, will be preferred.
But, as yet, we have not called the attention of the reader to the ultimate design of these narratives. We have, noticed that their immediate design is to convince the reader, that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Anointed, the Son of God–and that this object is subordinate to another design, viz. that THE READER MIGHT, THROUGH THIS CONVICTION, ENJOY EVERLASTING LIFE.
Reader! This is the glorious end of these sacred histories. On the following pages, is inscribed the most astonishing narrative ever read; the sublimest and the simplest story ever told. But this is not all. It is designed to accomplish an object superlatively grand, transcending–in degrees inexpressible–the most magnificent scheme that crated intelligence ever conceived. To convert a race of polluted, miserable, and dying mortals, into pure, happy, and glorious immortals; to convert the gates of death, into the gates of immortality; to make the pathway to rottenness and corruption, a high road to deathless vigor, and incorruptible glory; to make the grave, the vestibule, the antechamber, to a “house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens;” to make the dying groans of sin worn nature, a prelude to ecstasies unalloyed. Yes, this is the benevolent and glorious design of these Testimonies. Books, written with such a design, with a design to purify, elevate, and glorify the debased and degraded children of men; to prepare, furnish, and adorn them for the society of rulers and powers, for the society of their God and King, in a world of perfect bliss; most assuredly, come with a divine character to man. Their claims on the attention and examination of those to whom they are presented, most certainly are paramount to all others. And the bare hypothesis, to say nothing of the moral certainty, that they came from God, with such a design, is quite enough, methinks, to woo our whole rational nature, to constrain all our moral powers, to test their high pretensions to a character so philanthropic and divine.
On such a theme, who would not wish to be eloquent! But how can we equal in style, a subject, which, when but faintly, and in prospective, viewed, exhausted the sublimest strains of heaven-taught forthtellers, and of poets, fired with God’s own inspiration–whose hallowed lips tasted not the fabled springs of Pagan muses, but the fountain of living waters, springing from eternal love! Yet, even these failed to lisp its praise. No, the brightest seraph that burns in heavenly light, fails in his best effort; and, in profound thought, pores upon the marvelous theme. The compassion of the eternal God, the benevolence and philanthropy of the Father of the whole family in heaven and in earth, towards us, the fallen children of his love, has transcended the loftiest grasp of the highest intelligence, and has made to falter, the most expressive tongue, in all the ranks of heavenly powers. In all the rapturous lights of these morning stars of creation, in all the ecstatic acclamations of these elder Sons of God, the theme has not been reached; and though they have turned their harps a thousand times, and swelled their voices, in full chorus in countless efforts, yet the theme is still unequalled; and, as it were, untouched. Empty, then, would be the attempt, and fruitless every effort, to express, in corresponding terms, a subject so divine. we have no language, we have not been taught an alphabet, adapted to such a theme.–
“Come, then, expressive silence, must its praise!”
It has been often noticed, that the grand laws of the natural world, the fundamental principles of the philosophy of nature, are few and simple; that all sciences, predicated upon God’s works, are reducible to a few leading or general principles. The same may be said of the grandest of all systems, of the noblest of all sciences–God’s own system of virtue, and his own science of happiness.
All the law and the forthtellers were founded upon two general principles, according to the reasoning of the Author of the Christian religion. In the estimation of the same person, the whole The Christian religion is based upon one fact. But this fact, is of such an astonishing nature, that it affects both heaven and earth. Its meaning is everything that regulates, or, it is the very principle, upon which is founded the moral government of the world. It affects the government of God over all men, and the cheerful and acceptable allegiance of any part of them. It is to the moral system, and to the moral empire, everything that the Sun is to the solar system, and to the globe which we inhabit. It is the centre, around which, all pure and gracious affections in human hearts, revolve; and it is the source of light and life, to a benighted and dying world. It attracts to itself every Blessed eye in the universe; and draws to itself every devout emotion in every human breast. The eyes of all holy ones, in all lands, are gladdened by its light; and the hearts of all, are cheered and warmed by its vivifying powers. That the Christian religion should be based upon such a fact, is every way worthy of its Author; and exhibits it, to the rational mind, as altogether glorious and divine.
When one question of fact is answered in the affirmative, the way to happiness is laid open; and all doubts on the nature of true piety and humanity, are dissipated. The question is one, which the following histories alone can answer. The fact is a historic one, and this question is of the same nature. It is this–Was Jesus the Nazarene, the Son and Apostle of God? This question is capable of being converted into various forms, such as –Are the subsequent narratives true? Did Jesus actually and literally rise from the dead, after being crucified and interred? Did he ascend into heaven, in the presence of his disciples? Is he appointed the Judge of the living and the dead? Or, Was he an imposter, and a deceiver of men? It may be proposed in many a form; but it is still a unit, and amounts to this–Is Jesus the Nazarene, the Son of God, the Delegate of the Father, the Savior of men? When this question is answered in the affirmative, our duty, our salvation, and our happiness, are ascertained and determined.
Although the subsequent writings of the Delegates, add an immense weight of evidence to that afforded by these histories; still, the fact on which the whole system is built, is exhibited and attested in the following narratives; and from these, primarily, if not exclusively, its truth and certainty must be decided.
Any hints, therefore, which may arrest the attention of the youthful reader, and direct his inquiries in a fair and impartial examination of these witnesses, appear to us of primary importance. For, if these histories are not understood and believed, there is no enjoyment of the glad news which they announce–Philanthropy cannot exhibit itself to so much advantage, on the theatre of this life, as in calling the attention, and in directing the pursuits of the young and the thoughtless, in the acquisition of, what may be emphatically called, the true knowledge.
In addition to the remarks on this subject, found in our preface to the four following narratives, we will subjoin a few important hints, derived from various sources, which we cannot, at this time, enumerate. These are designed to aid the youth, who are desirous of understanding the following testimonies, in their minute and diligent researches into these mines of salvation.
1. Not one of these four historians, wrote with any design of improving upon the others, of detailing the things omitted by them, or of supplying any defects, which he observed in their statements.
From this it would follow, that none of these writers had any concern or thought, when writing, how his testimony would correspond with any other, or how it might be viewed, as an improvement upon it. We know that this is not generally noticed, and that many “harmonies,” and “Sketches of the Life of Jesus,” taken from these narratives, are founded upon the supposition, that each subsequent history was written, with some design to supply the defects of the preceding. But, among the arguments which support the above position, one is chief; and, in our judgment, alone sufficient to make it made clear to all. For example–Let it be supposed, that Luke or Yohanan wrote with a design to supply certain omissions in Matthew, to make some improvement upon his testimony ; how will such a supposition affect the character of Matthew, as an Delegate, or the Spirit by which he wrote? The Evangelists, Mark and Luke, on this hypothesis, appear as correctors, or improvers, upon a Delegate!! But Yohanan avows his own design in writing, and this settles the point with regard to him. Nor can it be inferred from Luke’s own preface, that he had ever seen the writings of Matthew or Mark. He speaks of many attempts that had been made to write these memoirs, but there is not the least ground to imagine, that he ever alludes to any of those that we now have.
The above hint is of much importance, on many accounts; but we must leave it, unaccompanied with any illustration or application, to the use and appropriation of the reader.
II. Not one of these historians relates all that he knew of Jesus, nor do they all relate as much as any one of them could have related concerning him. In proof of this, see Yohanan, chapter xxi. This was not their object. They do, give a fair specimen of his teaching, and of the evidence and authority which accompanied it.
In order to explain some facts, which are partially related by one, more fully by another, differently by another, and not at all by some of them; it will be necessary to remember, that they all omit some things, to which some of them refer; and that allusions are found in one, to facts which he omits to record, but which are recorded in another. (As before said, it cannot be proved, that any one of them had seen the testimony of any other, at the time he wrote his own.) An instance or two must suffice. Three of the historians mention, that Chorazin is addressed by the Savior, as having been the theatre on which many and stupendous miracles were worked; such as would have converted Tyre and Sidon; and yet, not one of the four witnesses so much as says, that Jesus was ever there, much less exhibits one of these miracles. Again, we find allusions to a form of prayer which Yohanan taught his disciples; yet none of these writers record it. None of them tells us, that Yohanan, the Immerser’s father, was struck deaf as well as mute; and yet the fact is alluded to, and gathered from these words–“They made signs to Zacharias how he would have his son named.”
In other parts of the New Testament, certain facts and occurrences in the life of Jesus, are related and alluded to, which are not found in any of these narratives. Such as his being seen of five hundred brethren at one time, assembled after his resurrection: his messages concerning his reign, previous to his ascension; and even one saying of his quoted by Paul, which, with the circumstances that gave rise to it, is omitted by them all, viz. “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
But some things are allude to by one, which happen to be recorded to another. For example–Yohanan tells us, that the disciple, that was known by the High Priest’s family, went into the palace with Jesus; but he never tells us, that Jesus was carried to Caiaphas. This the others record. Luke tells us, that the women, who first visited the empty tomb, “found the stone rolled away;” but never tells us, that the stone was sealed, or fixed at the entrance of the tomb.
This fact not only teaches us, that the writers willingly omitted to record many things which they knew, as well as those which they have narrated, because necessary to the completion of their design; but that apparent incongruities in their narratives might be easily reconciled by a knowledge of those things, which either some, or all of them, found no occasion to record. This second fact, exhibits the weakness of those puny critics, who reject the testimony of these witnesses, because they did not record everything which they knew, or in a way that suits their peculiar notions of what is fitting; and it also shows us, how little sense there is in all that talk about “contradictions and incongruities,” and the attempts made to “reconcile” them, which we so often hear.
III. These historians do not always aim, at giving the precise words of those they quote, nor even of the Savior himself; but only the full and precise sense of what was uttered or written. This applies to their quotations of the Jewish forthtellers, the words of messengers, and even of the Father himself.
It is true, that where they aim at giving the words of the Savior, they do, in some respects, vary from one another. In this way, however, we may account for it: the Saviors’ mother tongue, was the Syro-Chaldaie, then spoken in Yehuda: in translating his words into Greek, they sometimes differ from each other, as other translators differ, in selecting words which equally convey the same sense: and in writing to different people, they would naturally select such words, as would most correctly communicate to their understanding, the sense of his expressions. But, as was said, they do not always aim at giving the precise words. For example: the testimony which the Father gave to Jesus at his immersion, is differently given by Mathew, Mark, and Luke:–“This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight.” “You are my beloved Son, in your I delight.” In words, these attestations differ; but as respects the testimony in favor of Jesus, or as respects the sense, they are the same. But these writers do not, in this instance, differ more from one another, than one of them might differ from himself. The heavenly messenger said to Cornelius–“Your prayers and your alms are come up for a memorial before God.” Yet Peter, in quoting these words, says–“Your prayer is heard, and yours alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.” Many such instances may be found in these narratives, which, instead of detracting from, greatly add to, the credibility of the whole. But the use and application of these hints are beyond our limits, and left to the judicious reader.
IV. The Savior often delivered the same maxims, comparisons, and messages, during his public labors, and many of his miracles were accompanied with many of the same circumstances, though exhibited in times and places far respect.
A very superficial observer must see this. In the commission which Jesus gave both to the twelve and the seventy whom he employed during his lifetime, he authorizes and commands them to announce the same truths, to publish the same facts in every village and city, and to perform the same cures for a confirmation of the truths they declared. it would be difficult to conceive how any public teacher, daily employed in communicating instruction on a few glorious topics, could avoid delivering the same messages, answering the same questions, and exhibiting the same evidences, in unfolding the same kingdom; and in enforcing the same reformation on all persons, as did the Savior, and yet avoid repeating many of the same things. This remark will solve some difficulties, which have appeared to some persons respecting fragments of the “Sermon on the Mount,” and other messages found in different narratives, and in different places of the same narrative, as well as some other imaginary difficulties of another kind.
V. A fifth hint of some consequence, is–That the order of narration in these histories is similar to the Jewish and other ancient histories, and is not conducted according to the modern plan of historic writings; consequently, not so lucid to us, who are accustomed to a greater degree of precision in affixing dates to events and transactions, as also in describing the theatres on which they happen, as histories conducted on our plan.
We are liable to err in supposing that events following each other in close succession in the thread of narration, as immediately followed each other in time and place, in actual occurrence. But often events which appear to be immediately connected in the narrative, happened at times and places considerably distant. One would think, on reading the close of Luke’s testimony, that Jesus ascended to heaven the evening of the same day on which he arose from the grave, but the same historian tells us elsewhere, that he did not ascend until nearly six weeks afterwards. We shall leave these hints with the reader, and conclude with a few remarks on the whole plan of these historians.
Their plan, and its execution, are alike simple, beautiful, and supernatural. Viewing their narratives as a while, and taking them together, they furnish a combination of evidence, sublime and majestic as the heavens, and as irrefragable as that which assigns to the Almighty the mechanism of the universe. The shafts of the conceited skeptic, aimed at these impregnable bulwarks of our faith, fall at his own feet, harmless as the schoolboy’s arrows aimed at the extinction of the sun.
With what skill, simplicity, and beauty, is the nativity of this long-expected child introduced. His birth appears, for a time, to engross the undivided attention of all the pure and high intelligences in heaven and earth. God’s heavenly messengers are ever on the wing with some important errand, relative to the care, safety, and management of this well-beloved Son. The eastern magi and the shepherds of Bethlehem, alike admonished from the skies, are found having to the cottage; alike importunate in their inquiries, and equally devout in presenting their acknowledgments at the feet of this wonderful stranger. both Herod and his nobles are troubled at the news of his birth, and alike apprehensive of a revolution in Yehuda, fatal to their ambitious expectations. The wakeful thoughts and the night visions of those honored females, the relatives and acquaintances of the favorite virgin, are all engrossed in scenes, in which this high-born infant is exhibited as full of grace and truth. The forthtellers and forthtelleresses in Yerushalem and Yehuda, in all their interviews, think and speak of nothing else. Some oracle concerning him, or some expression from his infant lips, are the only subjects that fill their hearts, to the exclusion of all and everything besides.
So they introduce him. Through all the meanderings of the seed of Abraham for forty-two generations, they trace his ancestry, to the exact accomplishment of every syllable announced to the father of the faithful, or repeated to any of his illustrious descendants. Next they present the last of Ysrael’s forthtellers, who came to consummate the Jewish line, as so much engrossed in preparing his way as to neglect ordinary attention to food and clothes, the chief concern of almost all the human race. They open the heaven of all the ancient Forthtellers, and pour upon his head a continued stream of forthteller light, illuminating, by its reflection, every step of his journey from the cradle to the cross; from the manger to the tomb of a rich nobleman, a senator of the commonwealth of Ysrael.
But here they do not stop. They narrate other attestations given of him still more illustrious. While Yohanan the Immerser, the favor of God to Ysrael, is loudly proclaiming, to the inhabitants of Yehuda and Yerushalem, YESHUA, as the Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world, and putting an end to sin offerings;–soon as Jesus emerges from the Yarden, soon as he is born of water,* the voice of his Father is heard. He bows the heavens. He declares aloud from the excellent glory, “This is my son, the beloved, in whom I delight,” and to identify the person of whom he so spoke, the Spirit of God, as a dove cowers down, descends upon his head, and there remains until it disappears in him.
Having so introduced him with these high recommendations, with these credentials from earth and heaven, his own deeds are permitted to speak for him. All nature then feels and owns him universal Lord. His hand is never stretched out, but its benign and beneficent power is displayed and felt. His lips are ever teeming with grace and truth. Not only does the race of living me, among whom he is considered, feel and attest his omnipotence; not only do the air, the earth, and the sea, lay their respective tributes at his feet; but even the dead, and the spirits of the dead, of times past and present, both good and evil, come and own him as the Lord of all. Strange assemblage of evidence! Unparalleled concurrence of things human and divine, of things animate and inanimate, of things above, and things beneath, of all ranks and orders of intelligences, both good and evil, of the whole universe, in confirmation of his pretensions!! Nothing like this was ever seen or thought of before. The only occurrence the least analogous to it, and that will not bear a comparison with it, which the annals of the world exhibited, was the universal assemblage of the inhabitants of the earth and air to Noah when entering the ark. Moved by Heaven, they forgot all their antipathies and their discords, and all concurred in announcing Noah as their savior, and the founder of a new world. This is but a feeble type; yet it is the only one all history affords of this universal suffrage, in acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as God’s own Son, and our only Savior.
These sacred historians, then, had no model, which they could imitate; no lesson, nor instructions in their plan, from all that had gone before them. Moses himself failed to instruct them. No age, no history, no people set them an example. Their success in this cannot be attributed to any other cause, than to the supernatural qualifications which they possessed, than to the all-creating energies of that Spirit which brought all things to their remembrance, and to that unparalleled character which is the subject of their memoirs.
Touching their own character, too, it may be observed, that they exhibit themselves to be the most humble, the least accomplished, and the most faithful historians that ever wrote. They are the least indebted to human accomplishments of all writers whose words survived one century, and yet they have excelled all others in the essential attributes of a historian. Their honesty and faithfulness constitute the most prominent trait which arrests the reader’s attention, whether he thinks of them as men or as biographers. They seem always so completely absent to themselves and each other; so regardless of their own reputation; so entirely absorbed in their Master’s praise, that they tell their own faults, and expose each other’s weaknesses, #without ever seeming to think, or to care what opinion the reader would form of them, or of anything they record. They seem to have no feelings in common with other writers. They are so full of facts; so enamored with the words and deeds of their Master, that to record these was all they aimed at, was all they deemed necessary. To conclude, in the words of Doctor Macknight: “Through the whole of their histories, they have not pronounced one encomium upon Yeshua, or upon any of his friends; nor thrown out one reflection upon any of his enemies, although much of both kinds might have been, and, no doubt, would have been done by them, had they been governed either by a spirit of imposture or enthusiasm. Christ’s life is not praised by them, his death is not lamented, his friends are not commended, his enemies are not reprimanded; but everything is told naked and unadorned, just as it happened; and all who read, are left to judge, and make reflections, for themselves.–So deeply are they impressed with the dignity and importance of their subject.”
INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTS OF DELEGATES. {p. 23}
This book has been sometimes titled “The Good News of the Holy Spirit;” because it is the only book, which gives us an account of his descent, and splendid operations in the confirmation of the mission of the Delegates. It has also been styled ” The Good News of the Gentiles;” because it is the only source of information on their calling, and fellowship with the Jews, in the blessings of the reign of Anointed, the Great King. In most of the Greek copies of the New Testament, it is called “The Acts or Transactions of the Delegates;” because it exhibits their labors in planting Christianity in the world. This name, however, does not fully comport with the contents of the book. It is not the Acts of the Delegates, but Acts of Delegates; because only a few transactions of a few Delegates are mentioned in it. By Chrysostom, one of the Greek Fathers, it is named, “The Book, the Demonstration of the Resurrection.“
It does not appear that Luke designed to write, what might be called an ecclesiastical history of his own times, nor an account of the labors of all the Delegates, nor even of all the labors of any one of them, during the time embraced in his narrative. If he had designed such a thing, he fell far short of it: for of the Delegates, except Peter and Paul, he says but little; and even of the last mentioned, though more minute in his history, he narrates, comparatively, but a few great transactions. Though somewhat particular in detailing his journeys by land, and voyages by sea, yet he omits several of his voyages, and is altogether silent, on the incidents of his journey into Arabia. Nor does he appear to have designed to write a history of the foundation of the Christian communities, in the different countries in the world, in which he labored during the thirty years embraced in his history: for he says nothing of the foundation of the Christian community in the city of Rome, in Babylon, in Egypt, and in many other places of note, alluded to in the Letters. Nor can it be gathered from his narrative, that he intended merely to relate such things as he was an eye-witness of, or a party concerned in it; for he is not full in recording even these, and tells of many other things, of which he was not an eye-witness. What, then, was his design?
There are two things, on which he fixes the attention of his reader, with more than ordinary care. The first of these, is the opening of the Reign of Heaven among the Jews on Pentecost, and the wonderful displays of heavenly influences attendant on that glorious event. He narrates no more of the history of the first congregation in Yerushalem, than is necessary to give a correct view of the commencement of Anointed’s reign, over the literal descendants of Abraham. This occupies about one-fourth of his whole narrative.
While he follows the order of the commission, beginning at Yerushalem, proceeding to Samaria, and there to the uttermost parts of the earth, in giving a brief account of the establishment of Christianity; the second object, which seems pre-eminently to engross #his attention, {page 24?} is the commencement of the reign of Anointed over the Gentiles. Here we find the calling of the Gentiles, and all the events connected with it, more fully and circumstantially related, than any ting else. Of the occurrences in Yerushalem, at the time of the meeting of the Delegates, and of the labors of Paul in all his journeys, those things are particularly told, which concerned this event. These considerations suggest to us that, while Luke designed to give a brief account how the Delegates executed their commission in general, in Yehuda and Samaria, his grand design in writing, was to establish in the minds of all The Christians of that age, with a reference also to future times, the just claims, and inalienable rights of the Gentiles, to be considered and treated as God’s people; to become members of The Christian communities, on the same footing with the Jews. Doubtless, this was his grand or chief design, in writing this history. The plan he pursued, was not to settle the controversy by argument, as Paul does in some of his letters; but by recording what God had done for this people, by simply showing, that he had done everything for them, which he had done for the Jews, and had made no difference between Jews and Gentiles, under the reign of his Son.
Admitting this to have been his chief design in writing his narrative, how suitably does he account for his minuteness in describing the conversion of Saul, and his call to preach to the Gentiles; the story of Cornelius and Peter; the debates at Yerushalem; the separating Paul and Barnabas to their mission; the decrees of the Delegates and elders; together with his frequent accounts of Paul’s speeches to, and interviews with, the Gentiles; and of the success attendant on the labors of Paul and Barnabas among them. This view of his design in writing this book, also accounts for his having omitted to inform us, of the travels and labors of the other Delegates, and of the congregations which they planted in different places, with many other things which could not be accounted for, upon the supposition of his intending to write a history of the acts of the Delegates, during the period from the ascension of the Anointed, until Paul arrives a prisoner at Rome.
It is nevertheless true, that, in accomplishing his design, he is obliged to give us a very general and comprehensive view of the introduction of Christianity, throughout the whole world. So that still his history is, in a certain sense, an ecclesiastic one, the oldest and most authentic in the world. AS the four preceding histories, constitute rather memoirs than biography, so this is rather a mere sketch of what happened, during the labors of the Delegates, than a history of the transactions of any one of them.
Of the New Testament historians, Luke is the most eminent. He gives us one continued history, from the commencement of the Christian era, down to A. D. 63 or 64. He records in his testimony concerning Yeshua, and in his Acts of Delegates, all the grand and important events and transactions, connected with the establishment of the Christian religion in Asia, Africa, and Europe. This book is the grand link, which connects the previous histories with the apostolic letters, and constitutes a key to the right interpretation of them; without which they would have been, in a great measure, unintelligible. An accurate acquaintance with the history of the people which composed most of the congregations, to which the Delegates addressed letters, with the time and circumstances of their conversion, and with their customs and questions, found in this book, greatly facilitates our proficiency in the knowledge of those letters, which explain the meaning and bearings of that one glorious fact, on which the Christian superstructure is reared.
From it alone we learn, by what means that great moral and religious revolution was accomplished, which eventuated in the destruction of polytheism and idolatry, in the best portions of the world; which desolated so many Pagan temples, and caused millions of altars to break down to dust, notwithstanding the wisdom and learning of philosophers, the sword of the civil magistrate, and the superstition of the common people, were allied in maintaining them, and in suppressing this “wicked and #odious heresy,” as the Romans called it. {page 25}??
From it we also learn, what true Christianity is, and how far the modern exhibitions of it, have degenerated from the ancient and apostolic order of things; we discover what was the spirit and temper of the first The Christians, and the character and design of their religious meetings. In a word, as Dr. Adam Clarke observes, “in the book of Acts, we see how the congregation of The Anointed was formed and settled. The Delegates simply proclaim the truth of God relative to the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of The Anointed; and God accompanies their testimony with the demonstration of the Spirit. What was the consequence? Thousands acknowledge the truth, embrace Christianity, and openly profess it, at the most imminent risk of their lives. The change is not a change of merely one religious sentiment, or mode of worship, for another; but a change of tempers, passions, prospects, and moral conduct. All before was earthly, or animal, or devilish, or all these together: but now all is holy, spiritual, and divine — the heavenly influence becomes extended, and nations are born to God. And how was all this brought about? Not by might or power; not by the sword, or by secular authority; not through worldly motives and prospects; not by devout frauds or cunning craftiness; not by the force of persuasive eloquence: in a word, by nothing but the sole influence of truth itself, attested to the hare by the power of the Holy Spirit. Wherever religious frauds and secular influence have been used to found or support a congregation, professing itself to be Christian, there, we may rest assured, is the fullest evidence, that that congregation is wholly antichrist: and where such a congregation possessing secular power, has endeavored to support itself by persecution, and persecution to privation of goods, of liberty, and of life, it not only shows itself to be antichrist, but also diabolic. The religion of The Anointed stands in no need either of human cunning or power. It is the religion of God, and is to be propagated by his power: this the book of Acts fully shows; and in it we find the true model, after which every congregation should be built. As far as any congregation can show, that it has followed this model, so far it is holy and apostolic. And when all churches or congregations of people, professing Christianity, shall be founded and regulated according to the teaching and discipline, laid down in the book of the Acts of Delegates, then the aggregate body may be justly called “The Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church.“
“You different sects, who all declare, Lo! THE ANOINTED is here, and THE ANOINTED is there; Your stronger proofs divinely give, And show me where the Christians live.”
PREFACE TO THE LETTERS.
EPISTOLARY communications are not so easily understood, as historic writings. The historian writes upon the hypothesis, that his reader is ignorant of the facts and information, which he communicates; and therefore explains himself as he proceeds. The letter-writer proceeds upon the hypothesis, that the person or community addressed, is already in possession of such information, as will explain the things, to which he only alludes, or which he simply mentions. This is more especially the fact, when the writer of a letter addresses a people, with whom he is personally acquainted, among whom he has been, and with whom he has already conversed, upon most of the subjects on which he writes. A letter to persons who have heard the writer before, who know his peculiarity; and, above all, who are perfectly acquainted with their own circumstances, questions, debates, difficulties, conduct, &c. may be every way plain, and of easy apprehension to them, when it may be very difficult, and, in some places, unintelligible, to persons altogether strangers to these things. It is a saying, to which little exception can be made, that every man best understands the letters addressed to himself. It is true, if another person were made minutely acquainted with all the business, from first to last, with all the peculiarities of the writer, and circumstances of the persons addressed, and with all the items of correspondence, he might as fully and as clearly understand the letter, as those for whom it was addressed.
There is no doubt, but that the apostolic letters were plain, and of easy apprehension, as respected the style and sentiment, to the persons who first received them, though some of the things contained in them, might be difficult to be comprehended, or fully understood, even by them. The difficulties that lie in our way of completely understanding them, though much greater than those in the way of the persons, to whom they were first sent, are not at all *insurmountable. The golden key of interpretation is very similar to the golden rule of morality. To ascertain what we ought to do to others, on moral principle, we must place ourselves, in the circumstances of the persons, to whom they were written. So far a resemblance exists between the golden key, and the golden rule. But to develop this principle, and to exhibit its practical use, we shall lay before the reader a few considerations, which will embrace the chief difficulties in our way, and the best means of surmounting them. What we advance on this subject, may be considered as an answer to the question, How shall we place ourselves in the circumstances of the persons addressed?
In the first place, then, we are to remember, that these letters were written nearly eighteen centuries ago. This fact has much meaning in it: for it follows from it, that, excepting the forthteller part of these writings, not a word or sentence in them, can be explained or understood, by all that has happened in the world, for eighteen hundred years. We might as well expect to find the meaning of Cicero’s orations, or Horace’s letters, from reading the debates of the British Parliament, or the American Congress of the last year, as to expect to find the meaning of these letters, from the debates and decisions of the Council of Nice, or of Trent, or of Westminster–from the ecclesiastic history, the moral philosophy, or the scholastic divinity of any age, since Yohanan the Delegate resigned his spirit.
From the above fact, it follows, that the most accurate acquaintance with all those questions of the different sects, with all their creeds and controversies, which have engrossed so much of the public attention, if it does not impede, most certainly does not facilitate, our progress in the knowledge of the Apostolic letters. As the Delegates did not write, with any of our questions before their minds, or with a reference to any of our systems, it is presumptuous in the extreme, to apply what they have said on other questions, to those which have originated since. And as they did not write with any design of making out a system of teaching, it is preposterous to attempt to make out a system for them, and oblige them to approve it.
In the second place, as the Delegates wrote these letters, with a reference to their own times, to the character and circumstances of the people with whom they were conversant, a knowledge of the character and circumstances of these people, is of essential importance, in order to understand the letters addressed to them.
By the character of the people, we mean not only their character, at the time the letter was written, but also their previous character–what sort of persons they were before their conversion, as respected religion and morality–what their peculiar views and prejudices–and what their attainments in the learning and knowledge of their age and country. By the circumstances of the people, we mean not merely their political and commercial standing, but as regards unity of views and co-operation–whether they were living in peace and harmony among themselves–whether they were persecuted by those of different sentiments–or whether they were enjoying tranquility untroubled from outside.
In the third place, a knowledge of the character and circumstances of the writer of a letter, is of essential importance in understanding it. His character as respects style and method–what his peculiar are of reasoning and modes of expression–what relation he bears to the persons addressed–whether personally acquainted with them, or by report–whether their father or brother in the faith–whether his letter is the first or second to them, or one of a series not extant–whether it was solicited on their part, an answer to one from them, or written of his own accord–whether he addresses them alone, or others in conjunction with them–and whether he writes in his own name, or associated with others–and what their character and standing.
In the next place, great attention must be paid to his design in writing to them, at that time. It must be ascertained whether he writes with a reference to their whole circumstances, or to some one more urgent consideration–whether that consideration was one that respected themselves merely, or others equally with them–whether he aimed at the full accomplishment of his design in one letter, or in more–or whether he reserved some things to a special interview, or to some persons soon to visit them.
In the fifth place, the reader must recollect that no writing, in the argumentative part of a letter, is to be explained as a proposition, theme, proverb, or maxim, detached from the drift and scope of the passage. neither words nor sentences in any argumentative composition have any meaning, but what the scope, connation, and design of the writer, give them. Inattention to this most obvious fact, has beclouded the apostolic letters, and introduced more errors into the views, and unmeaning ceremonies into the practice of professing The Christians, than any other cause in the world. To this the cutting up the sacred text into morsels, called verses, has greatly contributed. Many passages, otherwise plain and forcible, have been weakened and obscured by this absurd interference.
The difficulties in the way of our understanding these letters, may be easily gathered from the preceding items. We must place ourselves in Yehuda, in Rome, or in Corinth, and not in these places in the present day; but we must live in them nearly two thousand years, before we lived at all. We must mingle with the Jews in their temple and synagogues. We must visit the temples and altars of the Pagan Gentiles. We must converse with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers–with Pharisees and Sadducees–with priests and people that died centuries before we were born. We must place before us manuscript copies of these letters, written without a break, a chapter, or a verse. We must remember what the writers spoke to the people, before they wrote to them. We must not only attend to what they said and wrote, but to what they did. And we must always bear in mind the numerous and various enemies, in and out of authority, with whom they had to conflict. Now all these are apparently great difficulties, and, at first view, would seem to put the golden key of interpretation out of the reach of all.
They are not, however, insurmountable. In reading any letter, on any subject, written by any person, we are accustomed to attend to all these things, in substance, if not in form. these are but the dictates of common sense, regarded by every person in the common occurrences of every day. Who is there that reads a letter from any correspondent, without placing before his mind the character, views, and all the circumstances of the writer? Who is it that reads a letter addressed to himself, or any other person, that does not attend to his own circumstances, or those of the person addressed, with a reference to the items of correspondence? Does he not regard the date, the place, the occasion, and the apparent design of the communication? Does he divide the letters into chapters and verses, and make every period or semicolon in it, a proverb, like one of Solomon’s; a theorem, like one of Euclid’s; an axiom, like one of Newton’s? Does he not rather read the whole of it together, and view every sentence in it, in the light of the whole, and with a reference to the main design? Most certainly he does. All that is contended for in these remarks, is, that the same common sense should be applied to the apostolic letters, which we apply to all other epistolary communications.
We have said, that the above-mentioned difficulties are not insurmountable; and in proof that they are not, and that we may place ourselves in the circumstances, of those addressed in the letters, with more ease than at first sight appears, we would call the reader’s attention to the documents, which the New Testament itself furnishes, to aid us in an effort of so much importance.
In the first place, then, the historical and epistolary books of the New Covenant afford us the necessary documents, to place ourselves in the circumstances of the persons addressed, in all those points essential to an accurate apprehension, of what is written to them. It presupposes, that the reader is in possession of the ancient oracles; or that he has, or may have the information contained in them. As much, is recorded, of the peculiar character and views of the Jews and Gentiles, in the apostolic age, of the sects and parries of both people, as is necessary to understand the allusions to them in these writings; and in proportion to the important bearings, that any historic facts have upon the apostolic letters, is the amount of information afforded. For example; there is no historic fact, which explains so much of Paul’s letters, as the opposition which the Jewish brethren made, to the reception of the Gentile converts into the Christian congregations, on the same footing with themselves; and there is no historic fact, in the history of the lives and labors of the Delegates, so frequently and fully presented to the view of the reader, as this one.
, the number of facts necessary to be known, in order to our associating around ourselves the circumstances of those addressed, in most of the apostolic letters, is May it never be great. It is rather the importance than the number of them, which illustrates these writings. A few facts belonging to the apostolic commission, explain a large proportion of the writings of the Delegates. For instance, they were to announce and proclaim to Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, and men of all nations, that YESHUA THE NAZARENE WAS THE SON OF GOD, AND THE SAVIOR OF MEN. When this was done, and some of all these people were persuaded of the truth of this proposition, the next work of the Delegates was, to associate them in one religious community, by opening to their apprehension the import and design of the facts which they already believed. In making one new religious body, or association of persons, whose former views prejudices, partialities, and antipathies, were so discordant, lay the chief difficulty, and appointed the most arduous part of the apostolic labors. The Jew, with great reluctance, abandoned his prejudices against the Gentile; and the Gentile, with no less difficulty, was reconciled to the Jew. The Jew conceited, that it would be an improvement upon The Christian religion, to incorporate with it a few of the essentials of Judaism; and the Gentile fancied, that some of his former much-loved philosophy, would be a great acquisition to a The Christian congregation. The unbelieving, or unbelieving Jews, attacked their brethren, who associated with the Delegates–first by arguments, and lastly by political power; and the Gentile philosophers and governors alternately ridiculed and persecuted such of their brethren, as united with this sect, everywhere spoken against. The Delegates labored to keep the teaching of the Anointed pure, from any mixture with Judaism and Gentile philosophy, and to fortify the minds of the disciples with arguments, to maintain their controversy against their opponents, and with patience and resolution, to persevere among all sufferings and persecutions. Now these few facts, so frequently and fully stated in these writings, go a great way in explaining some entire letters, and many passages in others.
But in a preface to one of the Letters, we can illustrate and apply these principles to much better advantage, than in such general remarks; and, for this purpose, we shall present the reader with a short preface to the letter to the Romans, which has generally (both by the ancients and moderns,) been considered the most obscure and difficult of all the letters:–
PREFACE TO THE LETTERS TO THE ROMANS.
As this letter, when understood, is a sort of key to the greater number of Paul’s letters, much depends on forming clear and comprehensive views of its import. As far as our limited means of furnishing such preparatory information as may assist the reader in examining it for himself will permit, we shall contribute our mite. In the first place we request the reader’s attention to a few facts of great importance in the investigation of this letter; and, of all Paul’s letters.
I. The main question discussed in the narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Yohanan; or the grand topic of debate, from the time Yohanan the Immerser appeared in the wilderness of Yehuda, until the resurrection of Yeshua, was–Whether Yeshua the Nazarene was the Anointed? The Jews, in the one part, and the Savior and his Delegates, on the other, were the only persons engaged in the controversy–the principal parties in this discussion. Here, it was altogether confined to the Jews. they only had the means of determining this point, as they were in possession of the oracles which foretold his coming, identified his person, and attested his pretensions.
II. The grand topic of debate, from the resurrection of Yeshua, until the calling of the Gentiles, (an interval of several years,) was–Whether Yeshua who was crucified, had actually arisen from the grave, and ascended into heaven? This, though different in form, was, in effect, the same as the preceding. It was differently proposed and argued, though tending to establish the same grand point. The Jews in Yehuda, the Samaritans, and the Jews in all the synagogues among the Gentiles, Where the Delegates went, were the only persons who took an active part in this controversy.
III. After the calling of the Gentiles, and the number of disciples among the Jews had greatly augmented, a new question arose, which, among the converts generally, and especially among those of the Jews, occupied as conspicuous a place, as the first question did among the Jews in Yehuda. This question is as prominent in many of Paul’s letters, as the former is in the historic books of this volume. It is this–Whether the Gentile converts had a right to be considered the people of God, equally as the Jewish believers; or, whether they should be received in the Christian congregations of believing Jews, without submitting to any of the Jewish peculiarities, on the same footing with the circumcised and literal descendants of Abraham.
IV. Many questions grew out of this one, which, for a long time, occupied the attention of the Christian communities throughout the world, and called for the attention of the Delegates. But as Paul was the Delegate to the Gentiles, he was obliged to take a more active part in these discussions, and so we always find him the bold and able advocate of their rights, however, or by whoever assailed. To this question, we are, doubtless, indebted for much of the information which the Delegate has given us, as it was the occasion of so much being written on many topics connected with it, such as–
1st. The genius and design of circumcision. 2d. The promises made to Abraham. 3d. The nature and design of the law of Moses, or Old Covenant. 4th. The righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of Faith; or, justification by works, and justification by grace. 5th. The Jewish priesthood and sacrifices. 6th. The sacrifice of The Anointed. 7th. The grace of God, or the divine philanthropy. 8th. The selection and calling of the Jews. 9th. The nature, design, and glory of The Christian constitution and assembly: and many other topics subordinate to, and illustrative of, the one grand question concerning the reception of the Gentiles.
To simplify still further, and comprehend under a few heads, the whole apostolic writings; it may be said, that there are three Good News, with their circumstances, which engross the whole volume.
The first is “the glad news,” emphatically and super eminently so called, concerning Yeshua of Nazareth, exhibited and proved to be the only born Son of God, sent to bless the people among whom he appeared, who credited his pretensions. The second is the glad news of salvation to the Gentiles, called “The Good News of their Salvation.” This exhibits Yeshua as the Savior of the world, and his death as a the means of appeasing for the sins of the whole world. The third The Good News, is that developed in the Revelation of Yohanan, in the common version called “the everlasting The Good News,” or, good news; that the long apostasy, that the long dark night of anti Christ superstition, tyranny, and usurpation, is passed; and that the kingdoms of the whole world, have become the kingdoms and empire of Yeshua, the King of kings.
The circumstances that give rise to these three The Good News works, constitute the shade in the picture of God’s philanthropy. The development of the character and condition of the human family, relative to these three The Good News works, in connection with them, engross the whole apostolic writings. On this, a hint or two must suffice.
As to that which is by way of eminence called “The Good News“–the degenerate and apostate state of the most enlightened and favored nation among men, the descendants of the Father of the Faithful, form the contrast; and, as a foil, set off and brighten this most splendid of all exhibitions of the mercy of God, from which spring all other good news to men.
To the second The Good News or good news–the deplorable condition, the ignorance of God, and the nameless vices of the Gentile world, their long alienation from God, and scandalous idolatry, constitute a theatre, on which to exhibit to advantage, the glad news of God’s gracious purposes towards them in the beginning, evinced in sending his Son to make a propitiatory sacrifice for their sins, and in calling himself the God of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews.
And as to the third The Good News–the awful apostasy of the professed The Christian communities, and gross departure from the letter and spirit of the Christian institution; their divisions, strife’s, and persecutions, which this apostasy has given rise to; the long rejection and continued unbelievingity of the Jews, with awful grandeur prepare the way for the proclamation of the everlasting good news–the joyful era, when it shall be sung, “Babylon the Great is fallen, NEVER more to arise!” The kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and his holy ones shall triumph with him for a thousand prophetic years! These engross the whole apostolic writings.
The first of these three has been fully discussed and established, in the testimonies of the four Preachers of Good News. The second is recorded in the book of the Acts of Delegates, and developed in the letters. The third, in some passages of the letters, but particularly and fully, in the last revelation made to the Delegate Yohanan.
The letter to the Romans is altogether devoted to the second–and was written with a design, to prove that the believing Gentiles are, equally with the Jews, entitled to all the rights and immunities of citizenship, into the kingdom of God’s own Son.
This brings us to the letter to the Romans; in reference to which, let it be remembered, that, although the term Roman, in its most restricted sense, denoted a Pagan citizen of Rome; yet, both Jews and Jewish converts who lived there, were called Romans, as well as the Pagan citizens of Rome. Here, Luke informs us, that Roman sojourners, both Jews and Jewish converts, heard Peter announce the glad news on Pentecost in Yerushalem. Here, we may conclude, that a congregation in Rome was formed, soon after the return of the Roman Jews from Yerushalem. Though the congregation in Rome was at first composed exclusively of Jewish disciples; after the calling of the Gentiles, and especially at the time when Paul wrote this letter, it was composed of Jews and Gentiles.
Without going into a long detail of particular proofs to come at the design of the Delegate, in writing this letter; we may readily gather from the letter itself, that the Jewish and Gentile disciples in this congregation, were not completely reconciled, on account of certain questions and debates, involving the Jewish peculiarity; that the great question between the Jews and Gentiles was not decided in this congregation, though so eminent in the Christian faith; that Paul wrote with a reference to the actual condition and circumstances of this people, according to the best information he had respecting them, not having been himself at Rome. As this congregation was placed in so conspicuous a place, and was known to the whole The Christian communities throughout the Roman empire, the settling of this question in Rome was a great object; and as the Delegate, though anxious to visit the city, had been prevented for a long time, he conceived the noble design of settling the difficulties between the Jewish and Gentile brethren in this city, by a long and argumentative letter, embracing all the points of chief difficulty between the Jews and Gentiles, in Rome and elsewhere. Such was the design of writing this letter, as the circumstances and allusions found in it, and all evidences, internal and external, evince.
Having formed such a design, the Delegate was at no loss how to execute it. He was well skilled in all the questions and customs, and expert in all the arguments of the Jews, in the support of their peculiarity. He knew all that a Judaizer or an unbelieving could say, in support of his favorite theme. Besides, as the Judaizer, who aimed at bringing the Gentiles under the law, argued from the same topics that the unbelieving Jew handled, to show the superiority of the Jew’s religion, and to oppose the Christian, the Delegate so arranges his arguments as to silence both. He was well aware that this letter would soon become public property, and that it would be read by all parties, as well as by the brethren to whom it was addressed; for all would be anxious to know what “the apostate Jew,” as some called him, or the great “Delegate to the Gentiles,” had to say with reference to these questions. He writes with all these things before his mind.
It is worthy of notice, that the Delegate does not attempt to settle such questions merely, or, at all, by his apostolic authority. Though his decision, without assigning a single reason for it, would be final among all The Christians who recognized him as an Delegate; yet he does not attempt to settle the point in this way. He appears as a logician, and meets opposition, not by a decree, but by argument. In this way, he enlightens and confirms the Christians in the faith, and qualifies them to convince and silence those who would not receive the decree of an Delegate, as that from which there is no appeal.
Now, placing before our eyes the congregation of The Christians in the great city of Rome, the mistress of the world, A. D. 57; every day visited by travelling The Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, from all nations; considering the notoriety of this congregation, having the eyes of the philosophers, priests, and illustrious men of Rome fixed upon it; bringing near to ourselves the prejudices of Jews and Gentiles against each other in former times, and the high conceptions of the former, as being the only people, righteous, chose, approved, and beloved of God; remembering, too, their contempt of the Gentiles, rulers and ruled; their keen sensibility on every topic affecting their national honor; at the same time, fixing our eyes upon the author of this letter, his deep knowledge of the human heart, his profound acquaintance with the Jews’ religion, and with the character and feelings of his countrymen; his tenderness towards his brethren of the Jews; his zeal for their conversion;–keeping all these things in remembrance, and above all, his design in writing this letter, let us attempt an analysis of the argumentative part of it.–
1st. After his introduction and usual salutation, he gives an exact exhibition of the religious and moral character of the Gentile world.
2d. He delineates the religious and moral character of the Jewish people.
His design in this part of the letter is to prove, that the mass of the Jews and Gentiles were equally vile and obnoxious to divine vengeance; that neither of them could constitute any claim on the righteousness of God; that they were equally destitute of national righteousness, and of every plea founded upon their own character or works. He also shows, that individuals among Jews and Gentiles, who acted in conformity to their means of knowing the character and will of God, were also equal in the divine estimation. In a word, he proves the Gentiles and Jews, whether considered nationally or individually, to be “without any difference,” respecting the great question which he discusses. He proves that they are “all under sin,” and that God is equally “the God of the Gentiles and of the Jews.”
3d. He, in the next place, exhibits “the righteousness of faith,” as equally accessible to them both, as bearing the same aspect to them nationally and individually. In establishing this point, the difficulties existing between Jews and Gentiles, converted to Christianity, are decided. For, let it be admitted, that the Jews and Gentiles, before converted to Christianity, were without difference; that when converted to Christianity, they were without difference as respected the righteousness of faith; and the consequence would be, that they should, without difference, be admitted into the Christian communities. This is the scope, design, and termination of the argumentative part of this letter, which closes with the end of the eleventh chapter.
But the Jews had many objections to make to the positions, which the Delegate lays down; and in exhibiting their objections, they argued from various topics, which the Delegate was obliged to discuss, before he could triumphantly establish his positions. The principal topics were–Circumcision, the Covenant with Abraham, the Promise of Canaan, the Law of Sinai, the Election and calling of the nation as the covenanted people of God. These embrace the chief topics of argument, and these Paul must meet and repel, before he can carry his point argumentatively.
In the third chapter he meets the first objection. He introduces the Jew saying, “What profit is there in circumcision upon this hypothesis?” This objection he meets, and while he acknowledges, that it was an advantage to the Jew in several respects, he shows it means nothing against the question he discusses. That circumcision made no man righteous, he fully proves; for, in this respect, the uncircumcised was as acceptable to God as the circumcised, and in some respects the Gentile condemned the Jew. After meeting a number of subordinate objections, growing out of this one, and fully proving from David’s own words, that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles; in the fourth chapter he meets the second grand objection, viz. What do we, on this hypothesis, say that Abraham, the father of the Jews, obtained from the covenants of promise, and the works enjoined upon him? He shows that neither his circumcision, nor any work proceeding from that covenant, was accounted to him for righteousness; but that his faith, which he had as a Gentile, or “before he was circumcised,” was “accounted to him for righteousness;” and that his becoming the heir of a world, or of the promises made to him, arose not from any of the Jews’ peculiarities. And while meeting their objections on this topic, he introduces those drawn from the law, and shows most explicitly, that neither righteousness nor the inheritance of Canaan, was derived through the law;–that Abraham was righteous, or had that righteousness in which the Gentiles are now accepted, and was secured of Canaan for his seed, without respect to law: for God gave Canaan to him and his seed by a PROMISE, centuries before the law was promulgate. And so he makes the covenant with Abraham an argument in favor of his design, proving from it, that the Gentiles were embraced as his seed. And here let it be noted, that the justification by works, and that by faith, of which Paul speaks, and of which our systems speak, are quite different things. To quote his words, and apply them to our questions about faith and works, is illogical, inconclusive, and absurd.
In proof that the Gentiles were included in the promises made to Abraham, and actually participated in his faith, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, he introduces their “experience,” and identifies himself with them. After detailing these, and showing that Yeshua died for them, as well as for the Jews; and that they, being reconciled by his death, would, most certainly, be saved through him; from the twelfth verse to the end of the chapter, he shows the reasonableness of this procedure. For although the Jews might continue to cavil about the covenant of peculiarity with Abraham, he shows that the Gentiles were equally concerned with the Jews, in the consequences of Adam’s fall; and this section of the letter is decisive proof of the correctness of his arguments from the covenant with Abraham. While on this topic he expatiates on the superabundance of favor, that presents itself in the Divine procedure towards mankind, irrespective of national peculiarity, in a most striking contrast of the consequences of Adam’s disobedience, and the obedience of his antitype.
He meets an objection, in the sixth chapter, to the superabundance of this favor, and expatiates on it to the close; and, in the seventh, resumes the nature and design of the law, and by placing himself under it, and showing in himself the legitimate issue of being under it, proves its inefficacy to accomplish that, for which the Jews argued it was designed.
In proving that the believing Jews were not under the law, he carries his arguments so far, as to lay the foundation for Judiazers’ to object, that he represented the law as a sinful thing. He might say, “Is the law sin, then?” an apparently natural conclusion, from what he had said of its abrogation. This he refutes, and proves it to be “holy, just, and good.” Then the Judaizer retorts, “That which was good, then, was made death to your!” No, says Paul, but the law made sin death to me. This he demonstrates to the close of the chapter; in which he most lucidly represents the wretched condition of a Jew, seeking eternal life by a law, which made his sins deserve death, and which he was unable to obey. The law clearly demonstrated goodness, righteousness, and virtue, but imparted no power to those under it, by which they could conform to it.
So he is led, in the eighth chapter, to exhibit the privileges of the believing Jews and Gentiles, as delivered from the law. In expatiating on the privileges and honors of these under the New Covenant, he represents them as the adopted sons of God, as joint heirs with The Anointed. He also shows, that while they continued in the faith, and “jointly suffered” with the Anointed, they were considered as the people of God, the called, chose, justified, and glorified ones; and that no distress or power in the universe could separate such joint sufferers from the love of God. On this point he is most sublime. But in representing the Gentile believers as the called according to God’s purpose–as he chose, justified, and glorified members of his kingdom, he wounds the pride of the unbelieving and Judaizing Ysraelites, whose were the adoption, the glory of being God’s people, the covenants, the law, the worship of God, the promises, the fathers, the Anointed! He invades their prerogative. This leads him to discuss their right, to be always exclusively considered the chosen people of God. He examines their arguments, points out their mistakes, and repels their objections, with great ability, tenderness, affection, and zeal, to the close of the eleventh chapter.
In the ninth chapter he meets three objections to his leading argument:–
1st. That on the hypothesis of God’s choosing the Gentile nations, in calling them to be his people, his “promises to Ysrael (that is, to the nation) had fallen.” This he refutes by showing who are Ysrael, in the sense of the promises.
2d. That, in choosing Yaqob, and excluding Esau from the honor of being the progenitor of the nation, (as Paul represented it,) and in now excluding Ysrael and choosing the Gentiles, there appeared to be injustice with God. Paul, from the lips of Moses, their own lawgiver, demonstrates that there was no injustice in the procedure; that his humbling the Egyptians and exalting Ysrael, was an act of justice as respected the Egyptians, and of merciful good will as respected Ysrael; and that in so doing he advanced the knowledge of his character, and exhibited his glory through all the earth.
3d. That, from the principles which Paul exhibited as the basis of this procedure, that question might be put, “Why does he find fault, for who has resisted his will?” The Delegate, from the just and acknowledged principle of human action, shows the wickedness of such a question; that God had carried, with much patience, the Jews, long since ripe for destruction, for the purpose of making their example, or his procedure to them, of benefit to the whole human race, and of rendering conspicuous his mercy to such of the nation as believed in the Anointed, as also to the Gentiles. And all this he proves to have been foretold by his own forthtellers.
In the tenth chapter he again exhibits the righteousness of faith, as still accessible to both people, and the fatal ground of mistake, which must consummate the ruin of Ysrael; and meets other objections growing out of the ancient oracles, which he applies to this case. In the eleventh he answers other objections, such as, “Has God cast off all his people?” “Have they stumbled on purpose, that they might fall forever?” “Were the natural descendants of Abraham broken off, from being his people, to make room for the Gentiles? After removing every objection to the calling of the Gentiles to be God’s people, “through the righteousness of faith,” whether drawn from anything in the past selection, calling, or treatment of the Jews; from the promises made to their fathers, from their own forthtellers, or from the moral character of the God of all nations; after triumphantly proving the positions with which he had set out, he concludes this chapter with appropriate commands to the Gentile believers, against those errors which had been the ruin of Ysrael. He corrects some mistakes, into which they might fall, from what he had said concerning the selection of rejection of Ysrael. From this to the close of the letter, he admonishes and exhorts the brethren in Rome, both Jews and Gentiles, to bear with, and receive one another, irrespective of those peculiarities which had formerly been ground of umbrage or alienation; that as The Anointed had received them both to be his people, they should mutually embrace each other as such, and live devoted to him, who had called them to the high honors and privileges, which they enjoyed.
Such is the scope, design, and argument of this letter. To go further into an investigation of it, would be to assume the office of a commentator, which is foreign to our purpose. These very general hints and remarks may serve to suggest to the reader, a proper course of reading and examining the apostolic letters, and to impress his mind with the vast importance of regarding the design of each letter, and to guard against the ruinous course of making detached sentences the theme of doctrinal expositions; and of “classifying texts” under the heads of scholastic theology–a method, the folly and unprofitable tendency of which, no language can too strongly express.
PREFATORY HINTS TO THE OTHER LETTERS.
These hints do not constitute anything like Prefaces to the Letters; but, in subordination to the principles suggested in the general preface, may be of some use to the studious reader of this volume.
PAUL’S TWO LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS.
1. IN Acts xviii. we have a history of the conversion of the Corinthians, and Paul’s residence among them.
2. It appears from this history, and from the first letter, that the congregation in Corinth was composed of Jews and Gentiles, and that the greater number were Gentiles.
3. From the Letter itself it may be learned, as well as from extrinsic sources of information, that the Corinthians paid great respect to the wisdom of the philosophers and to the eloquence of their rhetoricians, and that, in their morals, they were a very dissolute and licentious people. Such was the common reputation of the Corinthians before their calling.
4. It is also evident, that there were divisions in that congregation, occasioned by one or more factious persons of Sadducean principles, and admirers of Pagan philosophy, who attempted to rival the Delegate, in the affection and veneration of the members of this congregation.
5. That these factious leaders had succeeded in part; yet still there remained a number unmoved from their attachment to the Delegate, and confidence in him.
6. That a letter had been written by these to the Delegate, acquainting him with their situation, and soliciting information from him on certain topics.
From these circumstances of this congregation, and from the exhortations of the Delegate, it is very apparent, that his chief design in writing the first letter, was to support his own authority, dignity, and reputation; to vindicate himself from the aspersions and calumnies of the factious; and to diminish the credit and influence of those aspiring demagogues and leaders, by exhibiting their errors and miscarriages; and so to withdraw from them the respect and admiration of the party they had formed. To these topics he region himself to the end of the sixth chapter; and, occasionally, when discussing other topics, he aims a blow at the factionists, to the close of the letter.
In managing this controversy he is very dexterous. He shows all that philosophy and rhetoric could achieve, from a fair statement of what they had achieved; and proves, beyond all doubt, that without a verbal revelation from God, the philosopher and rhetorician must have continued in the dark, with regard to the knowledge of God. He takes their own reproachful terms uttered against him, his mission, and teaching, and glories in them; in what they called the foolishness of proclaiming life through a crucified person. In this way he draws off the affection of the people, who had renounced Paganism, from those leaders who testified themselves, by exhibiting their attainments in the philosophy of the Greeks.
He then adverts to the disorders in this congregation, which he imputes to these leaders, and shows that the immoralities in members of this community were, in a certain way, chargeable to these factious persons; and proves, beyond all doubt, that a divided people are generally a corrupt people; or, at least, that vicious practices are either the result or concomitants of divisions and factions.
The principal items in the subsequent part of the first letter are so easily distinguished, and so different from each other, that, in the paragraphs in which they are presented in this version, they are marked with sufficient plainness. He treats, successively, on the incompatibility of lawsuits among the Christians; on married and single life; on eating of meats offered to idols; on his call, mission, right, and authority as an Delegate. He lays before them the fate of the fathers of the nation, who, while they professed subordination to, and were participants of, the ordinances of that worship, were not upright in heart before God; but, in fact, rebels against his authority. He next censures their departure from the meaning and design of one of the Christian institutes, viz. the Lord’s Supper; treats of spiritual gifts; disproves the Sadducean hypothesis, and removes objections adduced against the resurrection of the dead; and concludes with directions for collections for the poor holy ones in Yerushalem, with exhortations and greetings.
Having tested his power in Corinth by the first letter, and hearing of its success from Titus, he takes courage, writes a second letter, speaks more boldly of himself, and deals more severely and sharply with his opponents. In this he aims at the extermination of the faction, which he had attacked and weakened in his first letter. He makes good all his claims to the respect, veneration, and submission of the Corinthians; strips his antagonists of every pretext; and, by the most pathetic recital of his own history, and exhortations to unity and peace, closes his communications to this large and eminent congregation.
GALATIANS.
THE design of this letter is pretty similar to that of the letter to the Romans; but directed more to a certain class of Judiazers, who aimed at bringing the congregations in Galatia under the law. It is not so comprehensive as the letter to the Romans; but much fuller on one or two topics engrossed in that letter. Having been the founder of these congregations in Galatia, he adopts a style quite different from that used in the letter to the Romans, and speaks more in the style of a teacher to his own pupils. The gifts which the Holy Spirit conferred by his hands, the covenant with Abraham, the law at Sinai, the promise of Canaan, are the principle topics from which the Delegate Paul argues in this letter.
EPHESIANS.
1. THE account of the conversion and gathering of this congregation is recorded Acts 19th and 20th chapters.
2. Paul was a prisoner in Rome when he wrote this letter, and those to the Colossians and Philippians. He was imprisoned because of the truths he taught concerning the calling of the Gentiles, the abrogation of the Jewish constitution and law, or the development of that secret which was, in an especial manner, entrusted to him, as the Delegate to the Gentiles; which is summarily comprehended in apostleeence, viz. The Anointed to the Gentiles, or proclaimed among them, THE HOPE OF GLORY.
3. In this letter he rather declares this grand secret, than attempts the proof of it; and, in thanksgivings and prayers to God, extols the wisdom and goodness exhibited in this procedure.
He is very sublime in his thanksgivings to God for his goodness to the Gentiles, from the fact, that he had before the law, (yea, before the formation of the world,) determined to bless them under the reign of his Son, to call them to the honor of being his people, to give them the privilege of adoption, and to purify them for an inheritance in that world, of which Canaan was but a foreshadowing. He declares that God’s original design and plan, was not only to magnify his benevolence and favor, but also to reduce everything in heaven and earth under one head–viz. Yeshua his Son. The proofs of the eternal purpose of calling the Gentiles, the Delegate lays before them in the statement of facts–
1. That the good news of salvation to the Gentiles, called The Good News of their salvation, had been confirmed by his own sufferings in proclaiming it, and by the miracles which he worked in attestation of it.
2. That the Gentiles, who believed his message, were sealed by the same Holy Spirit which was promised by the Jewish Forthtellers; which was to them who did not believe, an evidence of the truth; and in them who believed, a confirmation that the Gentiles were now become the people of God.
3. That the former condition of the Gentile world, contrasted with the state, character, views, and feelings of those who had already believed, was a full proof to them of the riches of that favor, shown to them through the mere good pleasure of God.
4. From which he argues indirectly the abrogation of the Mosaic rites and constitution, and then declares the fact.
5. He then declares the noble design of breaking down the wall of separation to be God’s purpose, for making of both people a new, honorable, and Blessed society. This is the grand topic kept continually in view through this letter; and from this the Delegate deduces numerous exhortations to the Gentiles and Jews to maintain unity and peace, and to cultivate that purity which comports with the character of the adopted sons of God. He sums up the reasons which should constrain the disciples in Ephesus to maintain unity and peace: for whether Jews or Gentiles, Barbarians, Scythians, bondmen or freemen, they were but one body under The Anointed the head; there was one spirit which animated this one body, one hope presented in the calling of both people, one Lord of both people, one faith which they mutually entertained and confessed, one immersion in which they mutually put on The Anointed, and renounced every other leader or chief, and one God and Father of all–Jews and Gentiles. So the main design of this letter is very apparent, and it all admirably comports with it, and can be easily understood when viewed in this light; but on any other hypothesis, it is dark and unintelligible.
COLOSSIANS.
THIS letter being written during the same imprisonment, for the same cause, and shortly after the preceding, is much in the same spirit, style, and design. Acts xix. 10. shows how The Good News spread through Asia. Some of the Jews of Phrygia, in which the city of Colossae was, were present in Yerushalem on Pentecost. It is devoted to the development of the same secret, and designed to illustrate the purpose declared in the preceding letter. It puts the Colossians, whether Jews or Greeks, on their guard against the attempts of the Judiazers, whether attacking them through the law, or through that philosophy by which both Jews and Gentiles were so easily captivated: and which were altogether repugnant to the spirit and design of the Christian institution, and incompatible with the fullness of The Anointed, and their completeness in him.
PHILIPPIANS.
ACTS xvi. affords us some account of the introduction of the Good News into Philippi. Paul visited this place in his tour through Macedonia, Acts xx. After subtracting what was peculiar in the circumstances of the disciples at Philippi, the scope and design of this letter are easily seen from a perusal of it, and already hinted in the foregoing observations on the two preceding letters.
THESSALONIANS.
LUKE informs us in the Acts of Delegates, chapter xvii. of the introduction of the good news of the Anointed into Thessalonica. The chief topics introduced in this letter, show that its design was to animate the Thessalonians with such considerations, as might induce them boldly and constantly to persevere in the faith, which they had received and confessed among much persecution.–Nothing could be better calculated to produce such an effect, than the method pursued by the Delegate. His exhortations naturally proceed from what he advances on the divine original of the Christian religion, which he demonstrates:
1. From the many and great miracles by which it was confirmed, chapter 1. verse 6.
2. From the character, behavior, and views of the first promulgers of the Christian faith.
3. From the purity of the teaching and morality of the Christian religion.
4. From the resurrection of Yeshua.
From these topics, and from the assurance he gives of the resurrection and glorification of the holy ones, and the rewards to be bestowed by the author of the Christian faith, and Judge of the world, on the faithful, at his coming, he comforts the minds of the Thessalonians, and exhorts them to perseverance.
Either from the person, who carried the first letter, or from some other source, the Delegate had heard (2 Ep. iii. 11.) of the state of affairs in this congregation, and writes to them a second letter, predicated upon the information he had received. This letter is evidently designed to correct a mistake, which had been propagated by some false teachers, and under pretence of a letter from the Delegate Paul, purporting that the Delegate expected the end of the world, or the day of judgment, soon to arrive–before that generation passed away. In correcting this mistake, the Delegate delivered some prophecies to the Thessalonians, respecting events which must transpire before the termination of this world; particularly, he predicts the grand apostasy and defection from the Christian faith, which was to be of long continuance. He also heard of some disorders in this congregation. Some had given up their calling or employment, and neglected to labor for their own maintenance. These he sharply reproves, and exhorts to industry in their business. With these designs this letter appears to have been written.
TIMOTHEOS.
TIMOTHEOS was left in Ephesus by the Delegate Paul, for certain purposes, which Paul declares in the commencement of his first letter to him; and now he writes to him for the purpose of instructing him how he should proceed in Ephesus, to answer the design he had in leaving him there. In what character Timotheos was left in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, may be easily learned from the letters inscribed to them. That they were to act as agents for the Delegate is very apparent; and, that they were not appointed, as elders or elders were usually appointed in other congregations, requires no other evidence than a superficial perusal of these letters. Timotheos and Titus were to perform all those duties, which the Delegate Paul, would have performed, or was commissioned to perform in his own person. The directions to Timotheos in the first letter are of a peculiar character, and suggest much useful information to The Christians of every age:–
1. Timotheos was to teach those, who were already teachers in Ephesus, not to teach differently from the Delegates. He was to charge them to desist from teaching some things, which they were teaching and countenancing in this congregation, and particularly those who were desiring to be teachers of the law.
2. Timotheos was to carry on a good warfare against all, who taught differently from the Delegate.
3. He gives directions concerning the manner, in which Timotheos was to have some part of the worship and edification of the congregation conducted.
4. He instructs him in the qualifications which elders and slaves should possess.
5. He forewarns him of a great apostasy from the truth, and characterizes those who should take the lead in it.
6. He gives directions how old and young men, old and young females, widows and elders, should be treated in the congregation, and by him; how slaves and masters should act towards each other; and concludes with the most solemn injunctions on Timotheos, to keep that which was entrusted to him.
In his second and last letter to Timotheos, he touches almost all the same topics; on some of which he enlarges, and particularizes some things to which Timotheos was to attend; but the leading design of both letters is the same.
TITUS.
TITUS being left by Paul in Crete, for the same purpose that Timotheos was left in Ephesus, we might naturally expect, that the design of this letter is similar to that of those to Timotheos; and that the contents of this letter would much resemble those of the former two. The character of Titus and that of the Cretans, with the circumstances of both, would, on this principle, constitute the whole or chief difference between them; and such, in fact, is the letter to Titus. When we take into view the distinguishing features of the character of Timotheos and Titus, the Ephesians and Cretans, we have in one view the whole difference between the letters. It is remarkable from all these letters, how busy the Judiazers were in preaching up the law of Moses, and how similar their course of procedure; and how constant this Delegate was in opposing them, and giving directions to others, in what manner to oppose them most successfully.
PHILEMON.
THE letter to Philemon was evidently designed as a letter of introduction for Onesimus to his master, and as a means of reconciliation between them. It is a beautiful specimen of the familiarity, which exists among The Christians, without in the least impairing the relations which exist in civil society.
HEBREWS.
THIS letter, next to that to the Romans, has been considered difficult and abstruse. It is one unbroken chain of reasoning, from the first sentence to the close of the eleventh chapter.
To find out the special design of this invaluable letter, it is necessary to note down a few facts gathered from itself.
1. It was addressed to believing Jews or Hebrews, irrespective of any particular place.
2. At the time it was written, these Jews were the objects of persecution from the unbelieving or unbelieving Jews. This is evident from several hints in the letter, particularly chapter xii. 4. where the Delegate, after having, in a previous part of this letter, reminded them of their former persecutions, tells them, they had not yet resisted unto blood, striving against the sin which easily beset them. In the same chapter he exhorts them to patience under disciplines, and to follow The Anointed with cheerfulness and resignation.
3. The intention of these persecutions, on the part of those who inflicted them, was to cause the believing Jews to renounce the Christian profession, and return to Judaism. The Jews themselves being the persecutors, they could have no other object in view.
From these facts, the design of this letter is apparent. It was designed to prevent that apostasy from the Christian faith, which those persecutors had in view. The unbelieving Jews designed by their persecutions to cause their brethren, who believed in Yeshua, to renounce their profession, or confession of him as The Anointed; and Paul designed by this letter to disappoint them. To understand this letter, it is necessary, that this be always kept in mind. No person can be said fully to understand what is written in it, unless he know why it is written.
To be more particular in illustrating this point, it must be noticed, that the unbelieving Jews attacked their brethren, who confessed Yeshua, in two ways–first by argument, and then by force. If they failed to convince them, that Yeshua of Nazareth was an imposter, or that the Jews’ religion was to be of perpetual standing, their next effort was to inflict upon them corporal sufferings, for what was called obstinacy. To understand every branch of the argument of this letter, it is therefore necessary, that we should know what the unbelieving Jews had to say, by way of argument, in support of their views of the excellency and perpetuity of the Jews’ religion; for Paul meets their objections or arguments in this letter.
His method was first to demonstrate, that their arguments were inconclusive and false: and, having done this, to show that the terrors with which they clothed themselves, to induce to apostasy, were not worthy to be compared to the terrors of falling into the hands of the living God, should any be induced, through fear, to renounce the Christian profession.
He so opposes argument to argument, and terror to terror; and his arguments were just as far superior to theirs in weight and importance, as the terrors of the living God are to the terrors of men.
This is the grand key to the whole letter. When, then, we know what arguments the Jews had to offer, in support of their darling hypothesis, we understand why the Delegate says what he says, and we understand the true import, of what he advances.
We shall, therefore, in the first place, glance at the topics from which the unbelieving Jews argued:–
1. That their constitution and laws were superior to the Christian, was argued from the fact, that both were introduced by the ministry of heavenly messengers.
2. That their laws were faithfully represented by the writings of Moses, was argued from the fact, that Moses was a lawgiver of the utmost dignity and faithfulness.
3. That their religious rites and instituted worship were most sacred, sublime, and unalterable, was argued from the divine call and consecration of Aaron to be high Priest.
4. That the covenant at Sinai embraced the Jews only as God’s people; that it was established on the most excellent promises, and was to be everlasting.
5. That their temple and sacrifices were of divine appointment, and superior to anything of the kind ever exhibited upon earth.
These items embrace all the capital points, which were advanced in the controversy, between the believing and unbelieving Jews. Now the Delegate Paul, well versed in all these questions, fully meets them, one by one, and carries his cause triumphantly in every instance. Let us now, for example, take the first and observe how he manages it.
He admits the fact, that the constitution and laws of Ysrael were introduced by heavenly messengers; but at the same time declares, that the God who, in times past, spoke to the fathers of the nation, had in these last days spoken by a Son, of incomparable dignity–as far superior to the heavenly messengers, as his name was superior to theirs. He, then, from their own Forthtellers, shows that this name SON had never been conferred on any creature, however exalted; but that the name MESSENGER had been bestowed on the winds and lightning, David being witness. They were stranded here. They could give no instance of such an humble appropriation of the term son, as he had given of the word messenger or messenger. Again, he argues from the dignity of place bestowed on the Son, his incomparable superiority: “To which of the heavenly messengers did he say, Sit you on my right hand, until I make your foes your footstool?” They were silenced again. No, with all their dignity of name and office, they were the ministers or servants of this very Yeshua, sent by him on errands to the humblest of his followers. So he carries the first point. After having shown the superior dignity of the Christian institution, from the very fact on which the Jews gloried so much; (and especially from this consideration, that, dignified as the heavenly messengers were, God had not employed or entrusted them in introducing the Christian institution, but had shown in the contrast, that the Christian institution was just as far superior to the Jewish, as the dignity of God’s own Son was to the dignity of God’s mere servants, though of heavenly origin and standing)–the Delegate next delivers to the Hebrews, that believed him, certain exhortations, arising from his own conclusions in the first branch of the argument. So we see why the Delegate introduced these topics, and we understand what he said upon them.
In the same masterly manner he takes up Moses, Aaron, the tabernacle, covenant, sacrifices, and even their altars; and not only rebuts all conclusions, but gains many proofs of the superior and incomparable luster and dignity of the Christian system.
Moses, as a servant in another’s house; The Anointed, as a son over his own house; Aaron, a high priest, made without an oath, by a law which expressed weaknesses and defects, and limited the times of service; Yeshua, of the order of Melchizedek, made by an oath, since the Levitical order was introduced, and consecrated a priest forever, by virtue of the power of an endless life; the tabernacle but a shadow, and the sacrifices but a foreshadowing of one real sacrifice, which puts an end to all sin offerings; a covenant established on better promises, and of unalterable provisions, and an altar, to which those who officiated according to the law, had not access; and a rest in heaven superior to that in Canaan, & c.& c. These are the points on which the Delegate argues, and by which he silences the unbelieving Jews, and from which he encourages, cheers, and enlivens the persecuted The Christians.
On the terrors of apostasy he is equally triumphant. Confiscation, or loss of goods, imprisonment, bodily tortures, and a cruel death, were the strong arguments of the unbelieving Jews, when their sophistry failed. But Paul is before them here, as much as he is in argument. He lays before the Jews the most tremendous instance of apostasy, which their history afforded;–the people who fell in the wilderness, to whom God swore that they should not enter in, because of unbelief. God had caused glad news of a rest in Canaan to be proclaimed to this people. They commenced their pilgrimage toward. They were immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; they eat the manna, and drank the water which prefigured The Anointed, and yet cast away their confidence in God’s promise; and, although he had done so much for them, in his wrath he swore, that into Canaan they should not go.
Again he shows, that it is impossible to renew again by a repentance, those who fallen away from the Christian profession, by any arguments which the religion had to offer: for if, after having heard them all, and partaken of them, they should, from cowardice, deny and renounce their confidence in the promises of God, when so fallen away, there was no new topic, which could be presented to take hold of their minds;–that, if they willfully fall way, after they had received the knowledge of the Christian faith, there was no sacrifice by which to expiate their guilt. In empty the Jewish sin offerings, in empty all oblations, if the sacrifice of The Anointed were renounced. The sin of apostasy was a sin, inducements to which were presented both to the hopes and fears of The Christians. The virtue of constancy in the Christian profession, of holding fast the begun confidence, unshaken to the end of life, was presented to the Hebrews with stronger, inexpressibly stronger appeals, than the Judiazers had to offer. That God had no pleasure in them that fall away; that it was a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; that the God of The Christian was a consuming fire; that vengeance belongs to him–were the awful terrors by which the Delegate guarded these The Christians against sin.
He very pertinently concludes his argument, by laying before them a cloud of witnesses to the virtue of perseverance. He shows the reputation, which the ancient worthies obtained, by holding fast their persuasion and confidence in the promises of God; and reminds the Hebrews of their sorrows and sufferings, of their conflicts and triumphs in the cause; and concludes the whole argument with an appeal to the author and perfecter of the Christian faith, who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and who so ascended to a throne. For fear they should faint in their minds among persecutions, he reminds them of him, who endured such contradiction of sinners against himself; and tells them, that although they had suffered much, they had not suffered so much as others, who had resisted to blood rather than cast away their confidence, which had great repay of reward. Such is the design and scope of the letter to the Hebrews. Neither it, nor the letter to the Romans, was written as a treatise of divinity, or as an abstract of the Christian system. They are both practical letters of instruction, and contain the most sublime views of God’s benevolence towards sinners, and exhibit the strongest inducements to a willing and unreserved obedience.
YAAKOB.
YAAKOB the Delegate addresses this letter to the twelve tribes dispersed, to those of them who professed faith in the Anointed. It is evident from the contents of it, that at the time it was written, the brethren were suffering persecution, and that the era of vengeance on the Jewish state was very near.
It is well known, that many of the sect of the Pharisees believed The Good News, and that this sect was peculiarly fond of incorporating some of their former opinions with the Christian system. The Pharisees in general were fatalists. They taught that “God had, from all eternity, decreed whatever comes to pass,” and that all things were fixed and immoveable. A modification of this teaching appears to have been prevalent, among many of the disciples from among the Jews. The teaching of fate, as held by the Pharisees, was very troublesome to Christians from among the Jews; and it was to the unbelieving part of the nation, in their various wars, and in the siege of the metropolis, the proximate cause of innumerable calamities, and at length of their final ruin. Various abuses growing out of this system, seem to have been prevalent among the Jewish brethren, at the time when Yaakob wrote: and with the design of correcting those abuses, and of exhorting to patience in their distress, and also of encouraging the faithful with the hope, that the Lord was immediately coming to destroy the persecuting power of the Jews, Yaakob evidently writes this letter. This design, kept in mind, explains the scope of this letter, and plainly reconciles the drift of it with the teaching that Paul taught, on that faith which is accounted to a man for righteousness, and of those works which prove a man to be a Christian, both to himself and to his acquaintance.
PETER.
“IT is well known that anciently, in proportion as the Christians multiplied in any country, their sufferings became more general and severe. In the latter part, therefore, of the first age, when the rage of the Jews and Gentiles was exceedingly stimulated by the prevalence of The Good News, the Delegates of The Anointed, who were then alive, considered themselves as especially called upon to comfort and encourage their suffering brethren. With this view the Delegate Peter wrote his first letter to the Christians in Pontus, &c. wherein he represented to them, the obligation the disciples of The Anointed were under to suffer for their religion, and suggested a variety of motives to persuade them to suffer cheerfully.”–[Macknight.]
YOHANAN.
“THE Delegate Yohanan having lived to see great corruptions, both in teaching and practice, introduced into the church, by many who professed themselves the disciples of The Anointed, employed the last year of his life in opposing these corruptions. For he wrote his three letters to establish the truths concerning the person and offices of The Anointed, and to condemn the errors, then prevailing, contrary to these truths. Also, to repress the lewd practices, for the sake of which these errors were embraced. Besides, he considered that his testimony to the truths concerning the person and offices of The Anointed, together with his direct condemnation of the opposite errors, preached to the world in his inspired writings, would be of singular use, in preserving the faithful from being seduced by the false teachers, and other corrupters of Christianity, who, in future ages, might arise and trouble the church.”–[Macknight.]
YEHUWDAH.
“IN the latter part of the apostolical age many false teachers had arisen, and were going about speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them, as Paul had foretold to the elders in Ephesus, Acts xx. 30. [see preface to Yohanan.] In drawing disciples after them, these teachers had nothing in view but to increase their own gains, that they might have wherewithal to spend upon their lusts. For the first Christians, having a great affection for their teachers, willingly and liberally contributed to their maintenance. The false teachers, therefore, to draw the vicious part of mankind after them, perverting Paul’s teaching of justification by faith, without the works of the law, resolved the whole of Christianity into the speculative belief and outward profession of The Good News. [See preface to Yaakob.] And having so cancelled the obligations of morality, they taught their disciples to live in all manner of crimes; and at the same time flattered them with the hope of the favor of God, and of obtaining eternal life.
“One of the perverse things, which these corrupt teachers spoke, for the purpose of alluring the wicked, was, that God is so good, that he will not punish men for indulging those natural appetites, which he himself has implanted in their nature; nor be displeased with them for committing a few sins, which can do him no harm, but which are necessary to their present happiness.–Why, to show the impiety and falsehood of that teaching, and to protect the disciples from being seduced by it, the Delegate Jude wrote this letter, in which, by facts recorded in the Jewish Scriptures, he proved, that as God had already punished the messengers who sinned, notwithstanding their numbers, so he will at length, most assuredly, punish all obstinate sinners, in the severest manner.”–[Macknight.]
THE REVELATION MADE TO YOHANAN THE DELEGATE.
“AFTER the Lord Yeshua, by his messenger, had dictated seven letters to seven congregations in Asia Minor, in which he pointed out and specified blemishes in their conduct, and aberrations from the simplicity of the Good News, and exhorted to repentance, he proceeds to reveal to this Delegate, in his old age, and through him to all the congregations of disciples, the destinies of his cause in this world. Under the most striking and impressive symbols, the history of the Christian community is delineated. The triumphs of the Christian cause over the persecutions of Pagan Rome; the apostasy of The Christian sunder Papal Rome; the rise, progress, and catastrophe of the son of destruction; the antichrist system–are all distinctly narrated in the sacred symbols of prophecy. The ultimate downfall of all opposition; the general and complete triumphs of Christianity; the subjugation of the kingdoms of this world to the dominion of the King of kings; the final consummation of the present system of things, and the glorious introduction of a new and heavenly state of things–are the wonderful and sublime topics, which are exhibited in this book: the design of it is repeatedly declared in the book itself, and felicities pronounced upon them who read, study, and understand the book. It was designed for the comfort of The Christians, under all the dark and gloomy scenes through which the kingdom of Yeshua should pass. There is a knowledge of this book attainable by all The Christians, and a knowledge which is not attainable. The former consists in general views of God’s designs respecting his kingdom and glory in the earth, as above hinted; and this is of much importance to all The Christians. This, too, is its prominent design. The latter consists in accurate apprehensions of the import of the symbols employed in it, and of the times, persons, and places alluded to, defined, or portrayed in it. This, perhaps, like other prophetic writings, was designed to be understood completely, only when accomplished. The chief design of this book is accomplished in all The Christians, who avail themselves of all means which the Bible affords, of acquiring that knowledge of it, which is attainable by all.
ARRANGEMENT OF THE LETTERS.
THE Letters to the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, that to the Galatians, the first to Timotheos, and that to Titus, were written before the Letter to the Romans; at least there is a general concurrence in this opinion, and much reason to believe that it is a correct one. In arranging these Letters, the rule of priority seems to have been, the importance of the places to which they were sent, and the reputation of the writer. Here, that to Rome, the mistress of the world, stands first; Corinth, because of its commercial and literary importance, next; Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, and Thessalonica, follow each other in the comparative scale of their standing. The same has been observed of the persons, to whom letters have been written. It seems to hold good in the case of Timotheos, Titus, and Philemon. The Letter to the Hebrews, because anonymous, and some time in dispute, as to its author, is placed last. Some have imagined a similar rule to apply to the letters of the other Delegates, Yaakob, Peter, and Yohanan. We are of opinion, that the order of these names is fixed, from the order in which Paul mentions them in his letter to the Galatians, in which place he seems to have respect to their comparative standing, as pillars in the estimation of the Jewish brethren. Yehuwdah and the Revelation of Yohanan were placed last, because of the long time they were in dispute. Yohanan’s Revelation, however, is deservedly and appropriately at the close of the volume.