صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

the [ herd of] swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine
ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished
in the waters. 33 And they that kept them fled, and went
their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what
domitted by our earliest MSS.

probably supposed, that some of these
dæmoniacs may have arrived at their
dreadful state through various progressive
degrees of guilt and sensual abandonment.
'Lavish sin, and especially indulgence in
sensual lusts, superinducing, as it would
often, a weakness in the nervous system,
which is the especial band between body
and soul, may have laid open these un-
happy ones to the fearful incursions of
the powers of darkness.' (Trench on the
Miracles, p. 160.) (5) The frequently urged
objection, How comes it that this malady
is not now among us? admits of an easy
answer, even if the assumption be granted.
The period of our Lord's being on earth
was certainly more than any other in the
history of the world under the dominion
of evil. The foundations of man's moral
being were broken up, and the hour and
power of darkness' prevailing. Trench
excellently remarks, It was exactly the
crisis for such soul-maladies as these, in
which the spiritual and bodily should be
thus strangely interlinked, and it is no-
thing wonderful that they should have
abounded at that time; for the predo-
minance of certain spiritual maladies at
certain epochs of the world's history which
were specially fitted for their generation,
with their gradual decline and disappear-
ance in others less congenial to them, is
a fact itself admitting no manner of ques-
tion' (pp. 162, 163). Besides, as the
same writer goes on to observe, there can
be no doubt that the coming of the Son
of God in the flesh, and the continual
testimony of Jesus borne by the Church in
her preaching and ordinances, have broken
and kept down, in some measure, the
grosser manifestations of the power of
Satan. (See Luke x. 18.) But (6) the
assumption contained in the objection
above must not be thus unreservedly
granted. We cannot tell in how many
cases of insanity the malady may not even
now be traced to direct dæmoniacal pos-
session. And, finally, (7) the above view,
which I am persuaded is the only one
honestly consistent with any kind of belief
in the truth of the Gospel narratives, will
offend none but those who deny the exist-
ence of the world of spirits altogether, and
who are continually striving to narrow the
limits of our belief in that which is in-

visible; a view which at every step involves difficulties far more serious than those from which it attempts to escape. But (II.) a fresh difficulty is here found in the latter part of the narrative, in which the devils enter into the swine, and their destruction follows. (1) Of the reason of this permission, we surely are not competent judges. Of this however we are sure, that if this granting of the request of the evil spirits helped in any way the cure of the man, caused them to resign their hold on him more easily, mitigated the paroxysm of their going forth (see Mark ix. 26), this would have been motive enough. Or still more probably, it may have been necessary, for the permanent healing of the man, that he should have an outward evidence and testimony that the hellish powers which held him in bondage had quitted him.' (Trench, p. 172.) (2) The destruction of the swine is not for a moment to be thought of in the matter, as if that were an act repugnant to the merciful character of our Lord's miracles. It finds its parallel in the cursing of the fig-tree (ch. xxi. 18-22); and we may well think that, if God has appointed so many animals daily to be slaughtered for the sustenance of men's bodies, He may also be pleased to destroy animal life when He sees fit for the liberation or instruction of their souls. Besides, if the confessedly far greater evil of the possession of men by evil spirits, and all the misery thereupon attendant, was permitted in God's inscrutable purposes, surely much more this lesser one. Whether there may have been special reasons in this case, such as the contempt of the Mosaic law by the keepers of the swine, we have no means of judging: but it is at least possible. (3) The fact itself related raises a question in our minds, which, though we cannot wholly answer, we may yet approximate to the solution of. How can we imagine the bestial nature capable of the reception of dæmoniac influence? If what has been cited above be true, and the unchecked indulgence of sensual appetite afforded an inlet for the powers of evil to possess the human dæmoniac, then we have their influence joined to that part of man's nature which he has in common with the brutes that perish, the animal and sensual soul.

h see Deut. v.

xvii. 18. Luke v. 8.

Acts xvi. 39.

i ch. xii. 25.

Mark xii, 15.
Luke vi. 8:

see P's. cxxxix. 2.

was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

34 And, be

hold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they h besought him that he would depart out of their coasts. IX. 1 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven [* thee].

3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. 4 And Jesus knowing

i

7. their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be for

e omit.

We may thus conceive that the same animal and sensual soul in the brute may be receptive of similar dæmoniacal influence. But with this weighty difference: that whereas in man there is an individual, immortal spirit, to which alone belongs his personality and deliberative will and reason, and there was ever in him, as we have seen, a struggle and a protest against this tyrant power; the oppressed soul, the real I,' calling out against the usurperthis would not be the case with the brute, in whom this personality and reflective consciousness is wanting. And the result in the text confirms our view; for as soon as the dæmons enter into the swine, their ferocity, having no self-conserving balance as in the case of man, impels them headlong to their own destruction.

34.]

This request, which is related by all three Evangelists, was probably not from huinility, but for fear the miraculous powers of our Lord should work them still more worldly loss. For the additional particulars of this miracle, see Mark v. 15, 16, 18 -20: Luke viii. 35, and notes. IX. 1.] Certainly this verse should be the sequel of the history in the last chapter. It is not connected with the miracle following which is placed by St. Luke at a different time, but with the indefinite introduction of "it came to pass on a certain day."

his own city] Capernaum, where our Lord now dwelt: cf. ch. iv. 13. 2-8.] HEALING OF A PARALYTIC AT CAPERNAUM. Mark ii. 1-12: Luke v. 17 -26, in both of which the account is more particular.

2. their faith] Namely, in letting him down through the roof, because the whole house and space round the door was full, Mark ii. 4. their must be supposed to include the sick

man, who was at least a consenting party to the bold step which they took. These words are common to the three Evangelists, as also " thy sins be forgiven."

Neander has some excellent remarks on this man's disease. Either it was the natural consequence of sinful indulgence, or by its means the feeling of sinfulness and guilt was more strongly aroused in him, and he recognized the misery of his disease as the punishment of his sins. At all events spiritual and bodily pain seem to have been connected and interchanged within him, and the former to have received accession of strength from the presence of the latter. Schleiermacher supposes the haste of these bearers to have originated in the prospect of our Lord's speedy departure thence; but, as Neander observes, we do not know enough of the paralytic's own state to be able to say whether there may not have been some cause for it in the man himself. 4. knowing] lit., seeing: viz. by the spiritual power indwelling in Him. See John ii. 24, 25. No other interpretation of such passages is admissible. St. Mark's expression, "perceived in his spirit," is more precise and conclusive. From wherefore to thine house is common (nearly verbatim) to the three Evangelists.

5.] "In our Lord's argument it must be carefully noted, that He does not ask, which is easiest, to forgive sins, or to raise a sick man-for it could not be affirmed that that of forgiving was easier than this of healing-but, which is easiest, to claim this power or that, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, Arise and walk? That (i. e. the former) is easiest, and I will now prove my right to say it, by saying with effect and with an outward conse

given [thee]; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 7 And he arose, and departed to his house. 8 But when the multitudes. saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom

saith unto him, Follow me.

fomit.

and he And he arose, and followed

quence setting its seal to my truth, the harder word, Arise and walk. By doing that, which is capable of being put to the proof, I will vindicate my right and power to do that which in its very nature is incapable of being proved. By these visible tides of God's grace I will give you to know in what direction the great undercurrents of His love are setting, and that both are obedient to My word. From this, which I will now do openly and before you all, you may conclude that it is 'no robbery' (Phil. ii. 6, but see note there) upon my part to claim also the power of forgiving men their sins." Trench on the Miracles, p. 206.

[ocr errors]

6. the Son of man] The Messiah: an expression regarded by the Jews as equivalent to "the Christ, the Son of God," ch. xxvi. 63. See also John v. 27. The Alexandrian Fathers, in their conflict with the Nestorians, made use of this passage in proof of the entire transference which there was of all the properties of Christ's divine nature to His human; so that whatever one had, was so far common, that it might also be predicated of the other. It is quite true that had not the two natures been indissolubly knit together in a single Person, no such language could have been used; yet I should rather suppose that Son of Man' being the standing title whereby the Lord was well pleased to designate Himself, bringing out by it that He was at once one with humanity, and the crown of humanity, He does not so use it that the title is every where to be pressed, but at times simply as equivalent to Messiah." Trench, p. 208. earth] Distinguished from in heaven," as in ch. xvi. 19; xviii. 18. Bengel finely remarks, "This saying savours of heavenly origin." The Son of Man, as God manifest in man's flesh, has on man's earth that power, which in its fountain and essence belongs to God in heaven. And

66

on

g read, were afraid.

this not by delegation, but "because He (being God) is the Son of Man." John v. 27. then saith he] See a similar interchange of the persons in construction, Gen. iii. 22, 23. 8. unto men] Not plur. for sing. to a man,' nor, for the benefit of men;' but to mankind. They regarded this wonder-working as something by God granted to men-to mankind; and without supposing that they had before them the full meaning of their words, those words were true in the very highest sense. See John xvii. 8. In Mark they say, "We never saw it in this fashion: in Luke, "We have seen strange things to-day."

EN

I

9-17.] THE CALLING OF MATTHEW: THE FEAST CONSEQUENT ON IT: QUIRY OF JOHN'S DISCIPLES RESPECTING FASTING-AND OUR LORD'S ANSWER. Mark ii. 13-22: Luke v. 27-39. Our Lord was going out to the sea to teach, Mark, ver. 13. All three Evangelists connect this calling with the preceding miracle, and the subsequent entertainment. The real difficulty of the narrative is the question as to the identity of Matthew in the text, and Levi in Mark and Luke. shall state the arguments on both sides. (1) There can be no question that the three narratives relate to the same event. They are identical almost verbatim: inserted between narratives indisputably relating the same occurrences. (2) The almost general consent of all ages has supposed the two persons the same. the other hand, (3) our Gospel makes not the slightest allusion to the name of Levi, either here, or in ch. x. 3, where we find "Matthew the publican" among the Apostles, clearly identified with the subject of this narrative: whereas the other two Evangelists, having in this narrative spoken of Levi in their enumerations of the Apostles (Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15), mention Matthew without any note of identifica

On

jch. xi 19.

Luke xv. 2.

him. 10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said [ unto them], They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and

homit.

tion with the Levi called on this occasion. This is almost inexplicable, on the supposition of his having borne both names. (4) Early tradition separates the two persons. Clement of Alexandria, quoting from Heracleon the Gnostic, mentions Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others, as eminent men who had not suffered martyrdom from a public confession of the faith. (5) Again, Örigen, when Celsus has called the Apostles publicans and sailors, after acknowledging Matthew the publican, adds, "And there may be also Levi a publican among Jesus's followers. But he was not of the number of His Apostles, except according to some copies of Mark's Gospel." It is not quite clear from this, whether the copies of Mark substituted Levi's (?) name for Matthew's, or for some other but most probably the latter. (6) It certainly would hence appear, as if there were in ancient times an idea that the two names belonged to distinct persons. But in the very passages where it is mentioned, a confusion is evident, which prevents us from drawing any certain conclusion able to withstand the general testimony to the contrary, arising from the prima facie view of the Gospel narrative. (7) It is probable enough that St. Matthew, in his own Gospel, would mention only his apostolic name, seeing that St. Mark and St. Luke also give him this name, when they speak of him as an Apostle. (8) It is remarkable, as an indication that St. Matthew's frequently unprecise manner of narration did not proceed from want of information,-that in this case, when he of all men must have been best informed, his own account is the least precise of the three. (9) With regard to the narrative itself in the text, we may observe, that this solemn and peculiar call seems (see ch. iv. 19, 22) hardly to belong to any but an Apostle; and that, as in the case of Peter, it here also implies a previous acquaintance and discipleship. (10) We are told in Luke v. 29, that Levi made him a great feast in his house; and, similarly, Mark has "in his house." The

But

narrative in our text is so closely identical with that in Mark, that it is impossible to suppose, with Greswell, that a different feast is intended. The arguments by which he supports his view are by no means weighty. From the words the house, he infers that the house was not that of Matthew, but that in which our Lord usually dwelt, which he supposes to be intended in several other places. surely the article might be used without any such significance, or designating any particular house,-as would be very likely if Matthew himself is here the narrator. Again, Greswell presses to verbal accuracy the terms used in the accounts, and attempts to shew them to be inconsistent with one another. But surely the time is past for such dealing with the historic text of the Gospels; and, besides, he has overlooked a great inconsistency in his own explanation, viz. that of making in the second instance, according to him, Scribes and Pharisees present at the feast given by a Publican, and exclaiming against that which they themselves were doing. It was not at, but after the feast that the discourse in vv. 11-17 took place. And his whole inference, that the great feast must be the great meal in the day, and consequently in the evening, hangs on too slender a thread to need refutation. The real difficulty, insuperable to a Harmonist, is the connexion here of the raising of Jaeirus's daughter with this feast on which see below, ver. 18. 11.] These Pharisees appear to have been the Pharisees of the place: Luke has "their Scribes and Pharisees." The very circumstances related shew that this remonstrance cannot have taken place at the feast. The Pharisees say the words to the disciples: our Lord hears it. This denotes an occasion when our Lord and the disciples were present, but not surely intermixed with the great company of publi12. whole... sick] Both words, in the application of the saying, must be understood subjectively (an ironical conecssion, as Calvin, Meyer): as referring

cans.

learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice for I am not come to call the righteous, but 1 1 sinners [i to repentance].

[ocr errors]

Micah. vi.68. ch. xii. 7.

Tim. i. 15.

12.

n John iii, 29.

14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees m fast oft, but thy disciples fast Luke xviii. not? 15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the nk children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. 16 No man render, sons.

i omit.

to their respective opinions of themselves; as also righteous and sinners, ver. 13:not as though the Pharisees were objectively either "whole" or "righteous," however much objective truth "sick" and "sinners" may have had as applied to the publicans and sinners.

13.] The whole of this discourse, with the exception of the citation, is almost verbatim in Mark, and (with the addition of "to repentance") Luke also.

14.] According to the detailed narrative of St. Mark (ii. 18) it was the disciples of John and of the Pharisees who asked this question. St. Luke continues the discourse as that of the former Pharisees and Scribes. This is one of those instances where the three accounts imply and confirm one another, and the hints incidentally dropped by one Evangelist form the prominent assertions of the other.

=

The fasting often of the disciples of John must not be understood as done in mourning for their master's imprisonment, but as belonging to the asceticism which John, as a preacher of repentance, inculcated. On the fasts of the Pharisees, see Lightfoot in loc. 15. mourn] "fast," Mark and Luke. The difference of these two words is curiously enough one of Greswell's arguments for the nonidentity of the narratives. Even if there were any force in such an argument, we might fairly set against it that the Greek word rendered taken is common to all three Evangelists, and occurs no where else in the N. T. the bridegroom]

This appellation of Himself had from our Lord peculiar appropriateness as addressed to the disciples of John. Their master had himself used the figure, and the very word in John iii. 29. Our Lord, in calling Himself the Bridegroom, announces the fulfilment in Him of a whole cycle of O. T. prophecies and figures: very probably with immediate reference to Hosea ii., that prophet having been cited just

k

before but also to many other passages, in which the Bride is the Church of God, the Bridegroom the God of Israel. See especially Isa. liv. 5.-10 Heb. and E. V. As Stier (i. 320, edn. 2) observes, the article the here must not be considered as merely introduced on account of the parable, as usual elsewhere, but the parable itself to have sprung out of the emphatic name, "the bridegroom." The sons of the bridechamber are more than the mere guests at the wedding: they are the bridegroom's friends who go and fetch the bride.

the days will come] How sublime and peaceful is this early announcement by our Lord of the bitter passage before Him! Compare the words of our Christian poet: measuring with calm presage the infinite descent.' It has been asked, "What man ever looked so calmly, so lovingly, from such a height down to such a depth!" shall be] more properly, shall have been taken from them: when His departure shall have taken place. and then shall (better, will) they fast] These words are not a declaration of a duty, or of an ordinance, as binding on the Church in the days of her Lord's absence: the whole spirit of what follows is against such a supposition: but they declare, in accordance with the parallel word "mourn," that in those days they shall have real occasion for fasting; sorrow enough; see John xvi. 20-a fast of God's own appointing in the solemn purpose of His will respecting them, not

one

of their own arbitrary laying on. This view is strikingly brought out in Luke, where the question is, "Can ye make the sons, &c. fast," i. e. by your rites and ordinances? but, &c." and then shall they fast: there is no constraint in this latter case: they shall (will) fast. And this furnishes us with an analogous rule for the fasting of the Christian life: that it should be the genuine offspring of inward and spiritual sorrow, of the sense

« السابقةمتابعة »