« PreviousContinue »
Son abideth ever.” In Campbell it appears : “ the son abideth perpetually.” In the one case, Filius Dei is intended; in the other, filius familias. The following notes are scarcely so conplete as they might have been, bui they are sufficient to guide the read er tothe sense of the passage, which should, we think, be represented as Campbell has done. He has, however, neither vindicated nor noticed the deviation, which is not less important than many of those differences in bis Version which he has elaborately defended.
• 35. • di Sudos oủ pivu in tñ dixsą els tòy alüva, the slave does not per-, petually dwell in the same family. It must be observed, that Jesus employs a general sentiment, and speaks of what is usual in common life: q. d. Slaves have no claim to remain in the same family; but may, at the pleasure of their owner, be sold into another. Far other. wise is it with the son, who cannot be alienated from the family." The application (in which something must be supplied from ver. 34.) is this : “ Ye live in sin; therefore ye are the slaves of sin, and have need of the restoration to liberty, which I am both able and willing to afford you. Ye are not children, but slaves in the family of God. The slave hath not the right of remaining perpetually in a family. He is in the power, and at the disposal of his master, who may, when he pleases, sell him to another, or expel him from his house. So ye, though ye profess that ye acknowledge and worship God, yet, since ye do it servilely, and with a scrupulous observance of ceremonies, and will not believe in the Son of God, ye will be cast out.” On the contrary, the sons of God, worthy of that name, will be treated as such, will not be expelled, but have happiness conferred on them. Further than this, the comparison must not be extended.-(Wets. Rosenm, and Kuin.)
* 36, 37. idu olls ó übos laev depuce— Oct, but if the Son of God, namely, Christ, liberate you, ye will be free indeed. So Cic. in Pisonem, 16. Lege Cæsaris justissimâ atque optimâ populi liberi planè ac verè erant liberi. The passage may be thus paraphrased : “ Sons, generally wish to be only heirs: but so great is my love towards you, that I wish you to enjoy the heritage equally with myself. You will have conferred on you the noblest liberty, and be delivered from the bondage of evil passions, and (what you do not yet understand) from the yoke of ceremonies." Compare Rom. vüi. 2. 15. 17. 21.; Gal. iv. 5. 6. 7. 22. ; v. l. (Wets.)
John VIII. 56. ''Aßpadremixágn, i, e. “ Abraham, the ancestor of whom ye boast, was far differently disposed to what ye are, who, so far from rejoicing at seeing my advent, reject me, and seek to slay me.” (See ver. 59.) By these words, Jesus meant to excite the Jews to think more justly of his person and dignity: he teaches them that he is far greater than, and superior to Abraham, as being the Messiah. When he said that Abraliam ήγαλλιάσατο ίνα ήδη την ημέραν, they might then collect, that at ver. 51 he had spoken of his natural death. 'Ayear.dw, to rejoice, exult, which is usually construed with 776 (as in Matth. v. 12, Luke i. 47 and 48, Ap. xix. 7) as here iro, a particle
indicating the issue, or end of action or thought; which proves that in kyondiców, some other verb is comprehended; of which kind of verbs (called verba prægnantia), a great number is collected by Glass. Phil. Sacr. 185, seq Dath, and by Gatak. Adv. Misc. posth. c. 31. See also Elsner on this passage. 'Hyannicoaro must therefore be explained lætabundus optavit, greatly longed, or exulted at the hope of seeing my day, or the time of my advent as Messiah. 'Huspar is often used for time. So Matth. xxiv. 37. Hebr. v. 7. 'ISELY ahir muégav sig. nifies to live long enough to attain any thing which we hope or desire: of this sense, the following examples are produced by Elsner and Kypke. Luke xvii. 22, Tutupentito paían tüm hipe spese riv robu röv árd eurov idary. Hom. Od. 2. 311. ivc vóori pov fiue cep i Anate and Od. 6. 466: Eurip. Cycl. 436. ' qào chudo mouse muégay, KixdWtos éxQuyóvtos evóolor rága.. Cic. ad Div. 15, 12. utinam præsens illum diein mihi optatissimum videre potuissem. Wetstein compares Aristoph, Pac. 345. Ev yae poi yérosto ideñv távon taiv in pregar óTE. Aristid. I. p. 399, no pedra ex monacu Fartes nubgan ISENYÉTe Tupõrjesv, údo cotir. Polyb. 10, 4, de P. Scipione; is yagimot ráunny ideñv gyévouro távirágay. So the Latin gestio signities to be moved with desire, to desire : for (as Priscian tells us) it signifies properly gestu et motu corporis significo gaudium. Schleusner com pares Cic. de Of. 1, 29, appetitus ejus tanquam exultabat cupiendo. When Abraham is here said to have longed to be a spectator of the Messiah's advent, there is a view to the promises made to Abraham, which the Jews referred to the Messiah. (See Gen. xvii. 18. Gal. jii. 16). What Jesus here says of Abraham, is, at another time, affirmed of the Prophets and Saints. (See Matth. xiii. 17, Luke X. 24.
56. xdan ids, xàs i xágn, i. e. in the seats of the blessed, in Orcus, not in Heaven. See Luke xvi. 23, and Matth. xxii. 32, and the notes. Eide, has seen, i. e. mentally, has known my advent, and has felt joy at it. The verb ideix, which just before was used in its physical and proper sense, has here a tropical signification: and indeed our Evan. gelist not unfrequently thus employs words in a two-fold signification ; as in i. 33. It was a common opinion of the antients, (and amongst them of the Hebrews,) that men, after death and in Orcus (anud inferos), pursue mentally the same designs, and feel interested in the same objects as they had done on earth. They thought, (in the words of Virgil,) eanderi curam eadem studia, quæ vivis fuissent, tellure repostos sequi. Thus also in Is. xxix. 22 and 23. Jacob is described as, even in the shades below, feeling solicitous about the fate of his posterity. So Philo. ii. 10. See also Pott. Exc. 3 on 2 Pet. and Mitscherlich on Hor. 2, 13, and 21. Others thus interpret, “ Abraham foresaw only my times, and rejoiced ; ye, who are witnesses, reject me :” taking iva for fri, and ideas for recordiov; as in John xviii. 4, Acts xx. 22, or wópfwtey idior, in Heb. xi. 13. And so also Gen. xxxvii. 18. They cite Cic. ad Div. 4, 9. Virg. Æn. 2, 125. Plin. Pan. 21. Itaque soli omnium contigit tibi, ut pater patriæ esses, antequam fieres. Eras enim in animis, in judiciis nostris. Ovid. Met. 15, 62. Isque licet coeli regiones remotos Mente deos adiit, et quæ natura negabat, Visibus humanis, oculis ea pectoris Vol. XXVII. N.S.
hausit. Cic. pro Milone 29. Cogitationes nostræ, quæ volunt, sic intuentur, ut ea cernimus quæ videmus; and Ep. Fam. 6, 3. Many other interpretations have been proposed, which may be seen in Koecher's Analecta. Another has recently been proposed by Zeigler, who renders: Abrahamus videre desideravit majestatem Dei et mean, immortalitate et felicitate summa apud Deum frui optavit, et hujus desi. derii post mortem particeps factus est. Application. Abrahamus post mortem felix evasit, et hæc quoque sors erit ejus, qui meam doctri. nam tenet. Eckerman and others cited by Wolf, explain : Abra. hamus gentis vestræ auctor, vehementer gavisus fuisset, si his meis temporibus ipsi vivere contigisset, etenim jam de iis, quæ videbat, de me cognoverat, lætatus est.
. But all these interpretations are too far-fetched, and are indeed at variance with the usus loquendi, and the context. The common interpretation is therefore to be retained, which is recommended by its simplicity, is confirmed by the sacred usage, is agreeable to the Jewish modes of thinking, and the scope of the passage. The Jews asked: “ Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?" To which Jesus replied, “ I am greater. He desired to see my time, and (after death,) he has seen niy advent.” (Kuinoel.)
Vol. III. pp. 330-333. We should not have described this as being the common interpretation of the passage, nor do we consider it as the true, or most probable one. “ He saw. His faith was equivalent to seeing.” —Campbell. “ He saw it (afar off) by the eye of faith." - Whitby. “ He saw it by faith, and rejoiced in the distant and imperfect view.”—Doddridge. This is the sense of the words as generally understood by Expositors, and has much better pretensions to be accepted as the correct meaning, than the explanation adopted from Kuinoel.
58. mely Aberdue giver den bryu bogel. This remarkable answer Jesus returned to the words of the Jews, “ Hast thou seen Abraham?” This passage is of the highest importance, as being highly calculated to illustrate the divine nature and supreme majesty of Christ. Now, the Jews stumbled at the expression of our Lord, that he was already known to Abraham, thinking it impossible that he could have existed at that time. But our Lord answers, “ I solemnly assure you that before Abraham was, I was.” By which words he could mean no other than this, that he existed not only at the time of Abraham, but even before. In no other sense can the words be taken, without doing manifest violence to them. That both terms, yéveolar and luxos, denote to be and to exist, no one will deny. Therefore what is said of Abra. ham, is said of our Lord. Now when the Jews enquired how he, who was not fifty years old, could have seen Abraham, they certainly meant, how he could be and exist in the time of Abraham.” Now qur Lord answers suitably to their objections. They deny that he could have existed in the time of Abraham. Our Lord affirms it, and moreover adds, that he was not only in the time of Abraham, but even before Abraham. Now, surely, to any enlightened interpreter, our Lord's here using two in the present tense, can present no difficulty. For it is admitted, that both in other verbs, and especially in Ivan, the present is put for the preterite; numerous examples of which may be produced, not only from the New, but the Old Testa. ment. Even the present tense, however, admits of a sufficiently con-' venient interpretation. Thus it can by no means be denied, that our Lord in these words declared, that he existed ages ago. Nor can this seem strange to any who have read not only the other passages of the New Testament, in which the same thing is said of our Lord, but especially those which occur in this very gospel. See i. I and 2, iii. 13, vi. 46 and 62, vii. 29, xvii. 5. From which, and other such, there can be no doubt but that our Lord did exist, not only before the time of Abraham, but before the beginning of the world. There have been, however, from the time of Crellius, and there are yet, many who endeavour to pervert these plain words to a very different sense. Now Crellius, as he maintained that Jesus did not exist before he was born of Mary, was compelled to have recourse to some other interpretation, and would have us understand this existence, not in respect of nature, but only of destination, i. e. “ before Abraham was, I was destined (by the divine decree) to be the Messiah." Which interpretation is not only extremely frigid, but really devoid of sense. For as the decrees of God are all of them eternal, so, consequently, was this, that Jesus should be the Messiah, should be born of Mary, should live on earth and suffer death, and thus be, by the’ divine and eternal decree, the Saviour of the human race. But the question is, whether this sense is to be found in our Lord's words, and whether this interpretation can be admitted by the words them. selves, by the context, or by the nature of the thing? To this, no learned and candid interpreter can answer in the affirmative. For first, those who espouse this mode of explanation add something to the words of our Lord. Το εγω ειμι they subjoin Χριστός, or ο ερχόμενος Xprotós. But are they justified in so doing? If we would add any thing to the words of any writer, there must be some cause to autho.' rize this addition, either in the nature of the thing, or in the context. Now in this passage there is nothing in the nature of the thing which permits us to subaud Xpostós. For the subject here is not the dignity of Jesus, as Messiah, but his eristence before Abraham. Nay, there is rather in the passage something which requires us to interpret thus: “ I was before Abraham was." For this is required by the answer to the objection that preceded, “ Your age does not permit that you should have seen Abraham." Surely, what is in the objection, the same must there necessarily be in the answer. Crellius and his followers indeed appeal to ver. 24, where the words iyu elpes signify, “I am what I said, the Messiah." Very true! But such an interpreta. tion in that passage is admitted, and even required by the context. For there our Lord is speaking, not of his existence, but of his divine mis-, sion, and desires credence to be yielded to what he had professed on the nature of his person. But, in the present passage, the subject is not the mission and work of Christ, but his nature, not Jesus the Meso
siah, but Jesus who had lived in the time of Abraham ; nay, according to bis nature, existed before Abraham.
• The above commentators also make mention of other passages, from which they pretend to prove that the words iyo sipes have the sense of “ I was the Messiah :" namely, iv. 26, vi. 20, ix. 9 and 10, xiii. 3 and 19, xviii. 5. But in all these, the same objection applies as in the above cited one of ver. 2 t. Finally, they adduce xvii. 5, and interpret thus: “ Give me the glory which, before the world was created, I had with thee, in thy mind, by thy destination and decree.” But here again there is an addition, made wholly ad libitum. For, certainly, there is not in the context any thing to authorize such a subaudition, and thus to interpret of a future event what is said of a thing past. Neither do the words themselves permit, that what any one is said to have had, and before the creation of the world, should be taken only of what is destined for him. Certainly the commentators in question never could have fallen upon interpretations so perverted, unless they had studiously sought them out, and been solici. tous to reconcile the declarations of Scripture with their vain opinion, that Jesus Christ was a mere man. But this very circumstance ought to have admonished them of their error. Our Lord expressly says, that he was before Abraham, had glory with the Father before the creation of the world, and this in terms so clear, as cannot possibly admit of any other interpretation. What he has professed of himself, he was justified in professing. Nor has he said any thing but what was perfectly consistent with the rest of his declarations, and the tes. timonies of John on the majesty of Jesus, recorded in this Gospel; all of which are so plain, that this head of doctrine on the nature of Jesus can by no means be excluded from the book. Or what sense could there have been in Jesus's words, if he had meant no more than that he had been destined to the office of Messiah before the time of Abraham, nay, before the world was created? Who could ever doubt of that? Now, who would say that Jeremiah existed before he was born, when he is said to have been selected and destined for the office of prophet even before his birth? Or who of us would say, that he existed before Abraham, before Adam, from eternity, inasmuch as we are said to have been chosen by God, for eternal life, before the world was created ? Why was the anger of the Jews so much exasperated by these words of our Lord, that they took up stones to cast at him? Namely, because they understood. and could not but understand them as an avowal, that he was God, had existed before Abraham, thereby “ claiming to himself eternity," which is peculiar to God alone. (Tittman.)
Vol. III. Appendix, pp. 834—836. • XXI. 15. ágana Me TEJOV TOÚTWY.–Our Lord asked Peter, whether he loved him, not that he doubted of his love, or was ignorant of it, (for such a knowledge must he have had who knew all things,) but in order to excite so much the more the love of Peter. Moreover, as that Apostle had denied him thrice, but bitterly bewailed his own faithlessness, so, in order that he might not thenceforward be reproached with it, or be thought unworthy of the Apostolic office, qur