Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of expression are to be explained in conformity with such other passages as remove the appearance of contradiction. Another example we have in Luke xiv. 13, 14. When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. From this passage, some have inferred that the resurrection of the just only is intended, and consequently that the wicked shall certainly perish. There is, it is true, something unusual in this expression: but the doctrine of the resurrection of all mankind from the dead, which is so explicitly revealed in other parts of Scripture, being laid down and acknowledged, we readily perceive that our Saviour was speaking, in the passage under consideration, of acts of kindness done purely for the love of God, and on the recompense which He would bestow on them. But of the universal resurrection no notice is taken, nor is it denied that the wicked will receive their reward.

II. A passage, in which a doctrine is slightly treated, must be explained by one where the subject is more largely discussed: and one single passage is not to be explained in contradiction to many others, but consistently with them.

For instance, Jesus Christ in one place says, that he judges no man: in another, that he will judge all men : in one passage, that he is not come to judge the world; in another, that he is come for judgment. These seeming inconsistencies occur in the Gospel of St. John; it becomes necessary, therefore, to find out some other passage that will reconcile them. Thus in John xii. 47. he says, I came not to judge the world; and in ch. ix. 39. he says, For judgment I am come into this world. In the latter passage he adds the cause of his thus coming, namely, that they whose blindness proceeded from mere ignorance should be taught to see: while they who saw only through pride and prejudice should be left in their wilful blindness. Hence it appears, that our Lord was not speaking of the last judgment, from which we call God the judge of the living and of the dead; but that the tenor of his discourse was, to enable his hearers themselves to determine whether they were ignorant or not; for in the same chapter, (verse 16.) it is said that Jesus spoke these words to the Pharisees, who would not perceive their own ignorance, nor judge themselves. In the other passage (John xii. 47.) we read I came not to judge (rather to condemn) the world, but to save the world,—not to make its inhabitants wretched, but to make them happy for time and for eternity, if they will be so wise as to listen to the proposals which I offer. Here the word save is plainly opposed to condemn and that this is the proper meaning of the passage is evident from comparing chapter iii. verses 15-19.

[ocr errors]

The latter part of this rule the following passage will exemplify. In Gen. xvii. 10-14. the observance of circumcision is commanded; in Acts xv. the observance of that rite is affirmed not to be necessary. These propositions are apparently contradictory; Jesus Christ himself has determined them, Matt. xi. 13. All the prophets, and the law, until John, prophecied; intimating, as the context implies, that the observances of the law would thereafter cease.

III. Between a general assertion in one text, and a restriction of it, or an exception to it, in another text, there is an appearance of contradiction which is sometimes removed by explaining the former with the proper limita

tions.1

Several general expressions, in all languages, not only admit of, but also require a limitation; without which the true sense and meaning of many passages will not be understood. And, as the eastern nations indulged themselves most freely in the use of strong and figurative expressions, the Scriptures require more limitations perhaps than any other book: as it respects the New Testament, St. Paul mentions principles on which we may build our limitations: I speak after the manner of men. (Rom. vi. 19.) "It is manifest that he is expected." (1 Cor. xv. 27.)

Thus, in Mark x. 11, 12. and in Luke xvi. 18. divorce is absolutely forbidden: but, in Matt. v. 32. and xix. 9. it is allowed for adultery only. Yet, in 1 Cor. vii. 15. it seems to be allowed, though the apostle does not authorise & second marriage.

The precept, Except we become as little children, we shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xviii. 3.), cannot mean that we are not to speak distinctly, or to walk steadily: but obviously refers to the docility, and freedom from ambition and worldly thoughts, which characterise children.

The observations offered in Vol. II. Part II. Ch. V. Sect. VII. on the figures of speech, termed synechdoche, and hyperbole, may be applied in illustration of the preceding remark.

§2. Apparent Contradictions from the same Terms being used in different and even contradictory Senses.

I. Sometimes an apparent contradiction, in points of doctrine, arises from the same words being used in different senses in different texts.

In this case the seeming repugnancy is to be removed by restricting the term properly in each text.

Thus, in some passages of the New Testament, we read that the kingdom of Christ is eternal: but in 1 Cor. xv. 24. it is said to have an end in the latter passage, the kingdom of Christ means his mediatorial kingdom, which includes all the displays of his grace in saving sinners, and all his spiritual influence in governing the church visible on earth. By the eternal kingdom of Christ is intended the future state of eternal blessedness, which is so beautifully described as an inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven, &c. (1 Pet. i. 4, 5.)

In like manner, It is appointed unto men once to die, (Heb. ix. 27.), that is, a temporal death: yet if any man keep Christ's sayings he shall never see death, (John viii. 51.) that is, eternal death. Hatred of others is very sinful and odious, (Tit. iii. 3.) and yet to hate our nearest relations, that is, to love them less than we love Christ, is a duty. (Luke xiv. 26. compared with Matt. x. 37.) John the Baptist was not Elias, (John i. 21.) that is, not the prophet who lived under Ahab; but he was the Elias predicted by Malachi, (Mal. iv. 5, 6.) that is, one in the spirit and power of the antient Elijah. (Matt. xi. 11, 12. 14. Mark ix, 11-13. Luke i. 17.)

So, we cannot stand before God in the righteousness of our own persons, (Psal. cxliii. 2.) but we may appeal to him for the righteousness of our cause, in matters of difference between ourselves and others. (Psal. xviii. 20. xxxv. 27. Heb.)

II. Apparent contradictions, in points of doctrine, sometimes arise from the same word being used not only in different but also in contradictory

senses.

Thus, in Joshua, xxiii. 5. the same Hebrew verb (YaRasн,) which usually signifies to inherit or possess, also means to dispossess or disinherit: He shall ye shall expel them (from their inheritance) from before you, and their possess land, succeed to their inheritance. In like manner, the word sin also denotes a sin-offering in Gen. iv. 4. 2 Cor. v. 21. and in many other passages of ScripThe Hebrew verb 7, (BαRAK,) to bless, has been supposed also to mean curse; and, contrary to the authority of antient version, the lexicons (as the late eminently learned Mr. Parkhurst has proved) have given it the sense of cursing in the six following passages; 1 Kings xxi. 10. 13. Job i. 5. 11. and especially Job ii. 5. 9. The rendering of which last passage, he observes, should be thus;

ture.

Then said his wife unto him,

Dost thou yet retain thine integrity,

Blessing the Aleim (God) and dying, or even unto death?1

The Greek language presents numerous similar examples of the same words having different senses. Thus Edwλov, in its primitive acceptation, 1 Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, p. 84. 5th edition. Dr. Mason Good, in his accurate and elegant version of the book of Job, has adopted Mr. P.'s rendering, and confirmed its propriety by various examples; see particularly his notes, pp. 5--9.

[ocr errors]

bears a good sense, and simply means any representation or likeness of a thing; but it also most frequently denotes, in the New Testament, an image to which religious worship is given, whether it be intended of the true God, as in Acts vii. 41. or of a false deity, as in Acts xv. 20. 1 Cor. xii. 2. and Rev. ix. 20. So Пεpleрyos, which simply means curious, and its derivative pupyazoμal, are used in a worse sense, and denote impertinent curiosity in other persons' affairs, as in 1 Tim. v. 13. and 2 Thess. iii. 11. So #λOVERT, which primarily signifies to have more than another, also means to have more than one ought to possess, to defraud and circumvent. See 2 Cor. vii. 2. xii. 17, 18. and 1 Thess. iv. 6. (which last text denotes to defraud and injure by adultery, as numerous commentators, antient and modern, have already observed.) And μever, which (like the Hebrew verb, Gen. xliii. 34.1) in its good sense deuotes merely to drink freely and to cheerfulness, but not to intoxication, (as in John ii. 10.) is often taken in an ill sense, and means to be drunken, Compare Matt. xxiv. 49. Acts ii. 15. and 1 Thess. v. 7. with Rev. xvii. 2. 6. 2

$3. Apparent Contradictions, in Points of Doctrine, arising from the different Designs of the Sacred Writers.

A kind of repugnancy sometimes arises from the different designs which the sacred writers had in view; and this can only be removed by interpreting each passage agreeably to the writers design.

It is obvious that the same person may express himself in various ways concerning one and the same thing: and in this case regard must be had to his intention. In Saint Paul's Epistles, for instance, we find the apostle frequently arguing, but more or less severely, with those who rigorously urged a compliance with the Mosaic rites aud ceremonies; in some passages he expresses himself more gently towards his opponents; in others, with greater severity, calling the opinions thus asserted doctrines of devils, and profane and old wives' fables. (1 Tim. iv. 1. 7.) To understand these passages aright, then, it is necessary that we distinguish the threefold design of the apostle, accor ding to the three different classes of advocates for the observance of the Mosaic ritual. 1. Against those who maintained the rites prescribed by Moses from weakness of mind, and could not persuade themselves that these ought to be abandoned, the apostle argues with great lenity; compare Rom, xiv. throughout. 2. There were others, however, who, while they contended for and urged the external observance of the Mosaic law, expressed the utmost contempt for the Christian religion, which they either affirmed not to be true, or to be insufficient unless the observance of the law of Moses were superadded. Against this class of opponents, Saint Paul argues with much more severity, denying altogether the necessity of such observance; compare the epistle to the Galatians. 3. There was another class of persons, who, to the external observance of the Mosaic ritual, joined certain philosophical notions borrowed from the Alexandrian school of philosophers, and which were received among the Therapeuta. According to these, the highest wisdom consisted in a state of celibacy, mortification, and abstinence from animal food; against these crude opinions the apostle argues vehemently, terming them profane and old wives' fables, and diabolical, that is, the most pestilent doctrines. The perusal of Philo's treatise on the Therapeute will show what pretensions that sect made to wisdom and piety, which consisted in mortification and abstinence,

1 They drank and were merry (literally drank largely) with him.

2 The Latin language presents us with many examples of the same words which have different meanings. It will suffice to specify two or three. Sacer, it is well known signifies not only that which is holy, but also that which is most cursed and detestable. Thus we have in Virgil (Æn. iii. 57.) the well known words auri sacra fames. In our old English common law writers, villanus, (villain), denotes a rustic of servile condition, but the English word is now exclusively a term of infamy. So, missa, the mass, was at first an innocent word, signifying merely the service of the church, but has long since degenerated into a widely different meaning, and is given exclusively to the worship of the church of Rome.

and with what sovereign contempt they regarded all other persons. To this class of St. Paul's antagonists are to be referred 1 Tim. iv. throughout, and also Col. ii. verse 8. to the end.

On the best mode of ascertaining the design of any book or passage in the Sacred writings, see Vol. II. Part II. Chap. III. Sect. VII.

4. Apparent Contradictions, arising from the different Ages in which the Sacred Writers lived, and the different degrees of Knowledge which they possessed.

I. There is another class of doctrinal points, in which a species of repugnancy is produced by the different ages in which the sacred writers lived.

All expositors of the Scriptures are agreed in the summary of religious truths revealed in them, and that, from the Book of Genesis to the Revelation of Saint John, this doctrine is constantly and unanimously delivered, viz. that there is one infinitely wise, gracious, just, and eternal God; and that our salvation is of God through the atonement of the Messiah, &c. &c. But this doctrine is variously expressed, according as the ages, in which the writers lived, were more or less remote from the time when the Son of God was manifested in the flesh. Further, in the Old Testament, there are many very severe precepts relative to revenging of injuries on enemies, as well as many imprecations against the foes of David: no such precepts are to be found in the New Testament. Again, the law of revenge and retaliation, in the Mosaic system, is extremely severe, requiring eye for eye, hand for hand, tooth for tooth, &c. Widely different from this is the spirit of the Christian doctrine.

II. An apparent contradiction likewise is caused by the different degrees of knowledge possessed by the sacred writers relative to the happiness to be procured for man by Jesus Christ.

In the Old Testament this happiness is almost constantly described as being external: but in the New Testament all external considerations are dismissed, and it is affirmed to be spiritual or internal. Hence also it happens, that although the same worship of the same Jehovah is treated of in the books of the Old and New Testament, external worship is chiefly, though not exclusively, insisted upon in the former, but internal in the latter; in the Old Testament it is the spirit of bondage, but in the New it is the spirit of adoption. In this gradual revelation of the divine will we see the wisdom and goodness of God; who graciously proportioned it to the capacities of men, and the disposition of their minds, to receive those intimations which he was pleased to communicate. And, as the sacred writers accommodated themselves to the imperfect or more improved degrees of knowledge which existed at the times they wrote, so it appears that they adapted their precepts to the religious, civil, and domestic or private customs of their countrymen. Hence it happens, that though religion in itself was always one and the same thing, yet the manner in which it was made known acquired some tinge,—

1. From religious customs: for as all the more antient people were accus tomed to worship their own gods, agreeably to their own peculiar rites, so the Jews after their manner worshipped the only true God.

2. Civil customs also imparted some degree of peculiarity to religion. For while one notion was separated from intercourse with others, by its own customs many things were spoken of God, as a national deity, more peculiarly appropriated to that nation: but, if that separation be removed, Jehovah is described as the common parent of all mankind.

3. Lastly, in the domestic or private institutes contained in the Mosaic law, there are many things derived from the manners and customs of their forefathers; this fact has been shown by the late professor Michaelis, in his elabo

¿Commentaries on the Law of Moses. In like manner, the apostles

accommodated themselves to the peculiar customs that obtained in different countries in their own age. How differently do they express themselves towards Jews and Heathens! Not only do they attend to religious, civil, and domestic or private manners and customs, but, in proportion as these underwent gradual changes, they explain many things more copiously, as well as more clearly, rejecting the veil of types, and despising those ceremonies in which the Jewish nation formerly delighted. An attentive consideration of these circumstances will contribute to clear up many apparent contradictions, as well as to solve very many of the objections brought by infidels against the sacred writings. Let times and seasons be accurately distinguished, and perfect harmony will be found to subsist in the different books of Scripture.

SECTION V.

SEEMING CONTRADICTIONS TO MORALITY.

NOTWITHSTANDING it is generally admitted that the Holy Scrip

tures breathe a spirit of the purest and most diffusively benevolent morality; yet there are some passages which have been represented as giving countenance to immorality and cruelty. But these, when duly examined, will be found perfectly in unison with the purest principles of morality. The wide difference which subsists between antient and modern manners, if fairly considered, would (as we have already had occasion to show1), alone be a sufficient reply to the indecencies, which are asserted to exist in the Bible.

Further, the characters and conduct of men, whom we find in all other respects commended in the Scriptures, are in some respects faulty; but these are, in such instances, by no means proposed for our imitation, and consequently give no sanction whatever to immorality: for several of these faults are either expressly condemned, or are briefly related or mentioned as matter of fact, without any intimation that they are either to be commended or imitated. The sacred writers, however, are only answerable for facts, not for the morality of actions. It is true that the Jewish history is stained with blood and cruelty; but so is the history of all other nations (whose chroniclers, annalists, or other historians, are not censured for their bare narration of the crimes of the individuals or nations,) and without the additional circumstance of being relieved by such histories of true piety and virtue as abound in the Scriptures. But it is worthy of remark, that the moral character of the Jewish nation was by no means so uniformly bad as the modern antagonists of divine revelation pretend. In some ages, their morals were much purer, and their piety more fervent, than at others. Such was the generation which first entered Canaan with Joshua, and such also the generations that lived during the reigns of their most pious monarchs. It is, moreover, to be considered, that the mere narration of any action, such as we find in the Old and New Testaments, implies neither the approbation nor the censure of it, but only declares that such a thing was done, and in such a manner; and the not concealing of these shows the simplicity and impartiality of the sacred writers, who spare no person whomsoever, not even when they themselves are concerned, though the thing related should redound to their disgrace ;as in the case of Noah's drunkenness (Gen. ix. 21.), Jacob's deceiving of Isaac (Gen. xxvii.2) Peter's denial of Christ (Matt. xxvi. 69–75. and

1 See

PP.

449-451. supra,

of this Volume.

2 From this circumstance God has been represented hu infidels as distinguishing

« AnteriorContinuar »