Daniel Whedon: prefaces and supplementary material

Preface.

WHD_CO01.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

THE great favour with which the successive volumes of Whedon’s Commentary on the New Testament were received encouraged the publishers to project a Commentary on the Old Testament in uniform size and style, under the editorial supervision of the late Dr. Daniel D. Whedon. The entire series was to comprise thirteen volumes: eight on the Old Testament and five on the New. Twelve different writers were engaged, and the work has gone steadily forward until the entire New Testament and five volumes on the Old have been published. Meantime five of the twelve persons originally selected to prepare the Old Testament Commentary, and the General Editor himself, have been called away from their labours on earth.

The Commentary on Genesis and Exodus was undertaken by the late Professor F.H. Newhall, D.D., but his death left this portion of the work for several years unprovided for. Among the latest official acts of the General Editor was a request that these books and an Introduction to the Pentateuch be prepared by Dr. M.S. Terry, who had already furnished the Commentary on Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The manuscript of Dr. Newhall was found to be nearly complete on Genesis v to xii, and is here published substantially as he left it. The rest of his notes on Genesis consisted of a number of fragments, most of which had been published in Zion’s Herald in connexion with the International Sunday-School Lessons of 1873. As far as possible these notes have been gathered up, and treated as a sacred trust. On chapters 37, 39, 45-48, and 50 they appear in fullest form. Outside of chapters 5-12 all of Dr. Newhall’s comments which could be utilized are marked as quotations, and his name appended to each separate note. The commentary on the first seventeen chapters of Exodus is also the work of Dr. Newhall, and was published in pamphlet form as a help to the Sunday-school lessons of 1874.

But two more volumes remain to complete the series — one on the remaining books of the Pentateuch, and one on Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets. These are in able hands, and may be expected at no distant day.

Introduction to the Pentateuch.

WHD_CO01.PDF, source PDF p. 4

Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 47: “altar “in all places (המקום lk) where i record”. source PDF page 27: “altar “in all places המקום כל where I record”. Compared with WHD_CO01.PDF PDF p. 4, WHD_CO01.PDF PDF p. 27. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: an automated comparison of surrounding English text located possible corresponding passages in OCR from separately digitized printed volumes. The linked scan pages are research locators; their images have not been collated for this note's flagged readings. OCR agreement does not verify Greek or Hebrew letters, diacritics, word order, or table layout. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain. WHD_CO01.PDF, PDF page 4; WHD_CO01.PDF, PDF page 27; Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified).

Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Genesis 4:45” here (WHD_CO01.PDF, physical PDF page 15). The sentence explicitly names Deuteronomy and describes a section from Deuteronomy 4:45 to 29:1. The supplied citation has substituted Genesis for Deuteronomy. The historical wording is retained. WHD_CO01.PDF, PDF page 15.

Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Psalm 68:60” here (WHD_CO01.PDF, physical PDF page 28). The surrounding discussion of the forsaken Shiloh sanctuary and the choice of Judah corresponds to Psalm 78:60, 68 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO01.PDF, PDF page 28.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH.

THE word Pentateuch means fivefold book, and has become the most common title of the first five books of the Old Testament. By many writers these ancient volumes are called the Five Books of Moses, and in the later portions of the Old Testament they are spoken of as “The Book of the Law of the Lord by the hand of Moses,” (2 Chronicles 34:14,) “The Book of the Law of Moses,” (Nehemiah 8:1,) “The Book of Moses,” (Nehemiah 13:1,) and “The Law of Moses,” (Ezra 7:6.) In later times they were frequently designated by the simple name Torah, (תורה,) the Law. The Mosaic origin of these sacred books is thus apparently assumed as an unquestioned belief in the later books of the Bible, was accepted by the New Testament writers, and is indicated by such passages in the Pentateuch itself as the following: “The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a [Hebrews the] book,” (Exodus 17:14;) “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord,” (Exodus 24:4;) “And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words,” etc., (Exodus 34:27;) “Moses wrote their goings out, according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord,” (Numbers 33:2;) “Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi,” (Deuteronomy 31:9.) Unity.

The five books are now commonly known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; but these names, like the word Pentateuch, are of Greek origin, and the division of the Book of the Law into these five parts is believed by many to have been made by the Septuagint translators. In the Hebrew text these parts form so many intimately connected sections of one whole, and are designated by the first words of each section. In Hebrew manuscripts the entire law is divided into fifty-four sections, called Parshiyoth, thus providing a distinct reading lesson for each Sabbath of the year: for according to Jewish modes of reckoning, some years had fifty-four Sabbaths, and care was accordingly taken that in these longer years no Sabbath should be unprovided with its separate lesson. Some of the ancient Jews divided the law into one hundred and fifty-five sections, called Sedarim, thus providing a series of Sabbath lessons to continue through three consecutive years. But all these divisions of the Pentateuch recognise the unity of the entire work, and this unity becomes more apparent by a careful study of its contents.

Whatever one’s views of the origin, number, and variety of documents used in the composition of the Pentateuch, it is scarcely possible fairly to deny that it presents in its present form an orderly and well related whole. The Book of Genesis is an appropriate and necessary introduction to the history of the covenant people. It opens with the creation of man, and traces his history in narrowing circles down to the divine call of Abraham, and thence onward to the burial of Jacob, when the twelve tribe-fathers of Israel had become clearly set in personal and historical outline before us. The Book of Exodus opens with the names of those great tribe-fathers of the nation, and furnishes a vivid history of the exodus from the land of Egypt, the journey to Sinai, and the legislation and worship ordained at that holy mount. The Book of Leviticus follows, in natural order, furnishing an additional record of the Sinaitic legislation, especially as it related to the Levitical priesthood, and the sacrifices, offerings, and ceremonial rites of the chosen people. The Book of Numbers appropriately follows, and records the numbering and journeys of Israel in the wilderness, from their departure from Sinai until they became established on the east of the Jordan. Deuteronomy is professedly a recapitulation of the wilderness journeys of Israel and of the legislation mediated through Moses, and, with the exception of the last chapter, (Deuteronomy 34,) might well have been prepared under the personal oversight and dictation of Moses himself.

Traditional Belief.

That these five books, in substantially their present form, originated with Moses, or under his immediate supervision, was the common belief of all Jewish and Christian antiquity. The great body of evangelical Christians still regard these sacred records as embodying the most ancient monuments of history, biography, laws, poetry, and prophecy. Whatever their date or origin, they are of incalculable worth. They shed invaluable light on ancient customs and important epochs in the history of ancient nations. As literary documents they are vastly more valuable than all that has been or is likely to be deciphered from the monuments of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. As records of divine revelation, they constitute the historical and legislative groundwork of the Jewish and the Christian faith. By them we are made acquainted with the creation and fall of man, with the repeated appliances of divine grace and judgment to restrain him from sin and lead him in the ways of righteousness, with successive and gradually fuller disclosures of God’s word and will, and with the methods and purposes of redemption. It is in fact difficult to overrate the value of these first books of the Bible as embodying the substantial elements of all subsequent divine revelation. That this ancient tradition is well grounded appears from a variety of considerations. The last four books of the Pentateuch claim over and over again, in the plainest and most positive manner, to be a record of what the Lord communicated to Moses and commanded him to set before the Israelitish people. The three middle books are filled with details of what “Jehovah spake unto Moses.” We find no law or statement thus introduced which contains any thing inconsistent with such claims. No character depicted in the Old Testament has such a unique grandeur as that of Moses; and there is none besides to whom such a body of laws as those of the Pentateuch can be so fittingly attributed. The subsequent history of Israel is full of incidental allusions to laws, customs, and institutions of which the Pentateuch makes him, under God, the author. The ark and tabernacle appear as the central seat of worship at Shiloh until the ark was captured by the Philistines and God forsook the tabernacle. 1 Samuel 4:22; Psalm 78:60. The irregularities of worship between that time and the building of the temple at Jerusalem were owing to the fact that during this dark period there was no central sanctuary, and the people were greatly demoralized. 1 Kings 3:2. The Prophets and the Psalms abound in allusions to the exodus from Egypt and the ministry of Moses in such ways as to recognise that period as the greatest epoch of the national history. Finally, our Lord himself accepted this tradition, and expressed himself in language which cannot be naturally explained without admitting that he corroborated the common belief of his nation. John 5:46, 47; 7:19, 22.

This ancient and uniform tradition must, according to all legitimate principles of criticism, be accepted as prima facie evidence in favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It is indeed only presumptive proof of such authorship, and so has the right to stand, until its incorrectness has been shown. The burden of proof falls, therefore, rightly upon those who doubt the ancient tradition. When evidence adverse to the Mosaic authorship is brought forward, it becomes the student of history and all lovers of the truth to weigh such evidence, and to see if it be of a nature to set aside the ancient view. We should allow no love of ancient opinions, no prejudice of any kind, to hinder our careful examination of facts, or to bias our judgment; but we are not called upon to give up our opinions, though based on incomplete evidence, until other and better evidence shall be brought against them. The truth, the whole truth, so far as it may be ascertained, and nothing but the truth, will satisfy the honest Christian scholar.

The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch.

That the Pentateuch, but especially the Book of Genesis, is of composite origin, and embodies a variety of ancient documents, is obvious to every critical student. Ancient as well as modern readers have observed in the “Book of the Law of Moses” passages which could not well have been written by the great lawgiver himself. The tradition of some revision or reproduction by the hand of Ezra is almost as uniform as that of the Mosaic authorship. It appears in the apocryphal Revelation of Ezra, in the Clementine Homilies, and in many of the Christian Fathers. Aben Ezra in the twelfth century, and Carlstadt and Masius in the sixteenth, maintained that the so-called Books of Moses were not composed by him in their present form, but by Ezra or some other inspired man, who substituted new names of places for old and obsolete ones, by which the memory of events could be best apprehended and preserved. In the seventeenth century we find Hobbes arguing, that we should no more suppose these writings to have been composed by Moses, because they are commonly called Books of Moses, than we should believe the Books of Joshua, Ruth, and Samuel to have been written by the individuals whose names they bear; “for in titles of books the subject is marked as often as the writer.” Similar views were advanced by Isaac Peyrere, a French Protestant who went over to Romanism, and also by Spinoza, who held that all the books from Genesis to Kings form one great historical work, composed of many documents of diverse authorship, not always in harmony with each other, but arranged and edited in their present form after the Babylonian exile, and probably by Ezra. In the year 1678 Richard Simon’s Critical History of the Old Testament appeared, and gave a new turn to Pentateuchal criticism by calling attention to the varieties of composition and style apparent even in closely connected narratives, (as in the account of the flood, especially in Genesis 7:17-24.) Simon’s work was sharply criticised by Le Clerc, who, however, put forth the singular theory that the Pentateuch, though containing documents both older and later than Moses, was probably compiled by the exiled priest whom the king of Assyria sent to instruct the Samaritan colonists. 2 Kings 17:27. These various criticisms made little impression at the time of their appearance, but they opened the way for the more thorough study of the Pentateuch, which began about the middle of the eighteenth century, and continues with growing interest to the present hour. Modern criticism, so far as it has opposed the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, or attempted to explain its origin, exhibits a series of theories; and no intelligent discussion of the latest phases of Old Testament criticism is possible without some acquaintance with the history of these successive theories. There are four theories which have obtained notable currency, and will be briefly described in the following pages.

Theory of Documents.

Biblical scholars like Vitringa and Calmet, who believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, admitted that the great lawgiver made free use of ancient traditions, genealogies, and annals of the patriarchs, arranging, revising, and supplementing them to suit his purpose. But the first attempt to indicate the number and distinctive character of these documents was made by Jean Astruc, professor of medicine in the College of France, who published at Brussels and Paris, in 1753, a work entitled “Conjectures upon the Original Memoirs which Moses appears to have used in Composing the Book of Genesis.” This writer detected a noticeable use of the divine names ELOHIM and JEHOVAH, by means of which different chapters and sections of Genesis were distinguishable, and he conjectured that Moses had for the most part made use of two original memoirs, each of which was still traceable by the occurrence of one or the other of these names. He also held, that, besides these principal sources, some nine or ten other documents might still be traced by the notable absence of any divine name, or by the use of another name than Elohim or Jehovah, (for example, Genesis 19:30-38; 22:20-24; 25:12-18.) Astruc supposed that these different documents were at first arranged by Moses in separate columns, but were afterward copied into one continuous narrative, by which process some of them came to be misplaced.

Astruc’s views do not appear to have commanded much attention until about 1762, when J.F.W. Jerusalem gave them a favourable notice in his Letters on the Mosaic Writings, and soon afterward Eichhorn, profiting by the work of all his predecessors in this field of criticism, gave them great notoriety, and presented them in more complete and scholarly form, first in his Repertorium for Biblical and Oriental Literature, (1779,) and subsequently in the successive editions of his Introduction to the Old Testament, (1780-1823.) Eichhorn’s brilliant essays in this department of biblical study opened the way for a host of similar attempts to ascertain the age and authorship of the constituent parts of the Pentateuch. John G. Hasse maintained that it was compiled at the time of the Babylonian exile, from writings which belonged in part to Moses, but which had become greatly enlarged and altered by later hands. F.C. Fulda also argued that portions of the Pentateuch are of Mosaic authorship, such as the decalogue, most of the songs contained in the last four books, and the list of encampments in Numbers 33. He supposed that a collection of laws was made in the time of David, but that our Pentateuch in its present form was composed by some unknown redactor after the exile. Similar views were put forward by H. Corrodi, G.L. Bauer, and K.D. Ilgen. This last named writer attempted a more minute analysis of Genesis than that of Eichhorn, and maintained the theory of a second Elohist. Eichhorn himself modified some of his earlier views in the fourth edition of his Einleitung, (1824.)

Theory of Fragments.

Near the close of the last and in the earlier part of the present century, several rationalistic critics endeavoured to show that the Pentateuch was of a more fragmentary character than the current theory of documents allowed. Some of the advocates of that hypothesis, however, had given utterance to opinions which led very naturally to the conclusion that these books were but a loose compilation of heterogeneous fragments. This theory was put forward by Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic divine, in his annotated new translation of the Bible, the first volume of which appeared in London in 1792. He held that the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua were compiled by the same author, and consisted of a great variety of composite elements, some coeval with Moses, some older, and some later, and some of them probably oral traditions. He argued that it could not have been written before the time of David, nor after that of Hezekiah, and probably belonged to the period of Solomon’s long and peaceful reign. J.G. Nachtigal (under the name of Otmar) published a similar view in Henke’s Magazin fur Religionsphilosophie, Exegese und Kirchengeschichte, and at first (vol. 2:1794) maintained that much of the Pentateuch might have originated with Moses, and all of it might have been collected and arranged in its present form before the division of the kingdom; but the next year (vol. 4:1795) he attributed to Moses little else than the decalogue, the list of encampments in the desert, a few genealogical tables, and a few songs. He aimed to show that, besides some documents of that kind, there were probably very few, if any, literary monuments among the Hebrews before the time of Samuel, but that in the schools of the prophets and among wise men numerous histories and songs were composed. These were afterward collected into books, and thus originated the so-called Books of Moses, which were brought to their present form about the time of the Babylonian exile, and perhaps under the supervision of Jeremiah. Substantially the same hypothesis was advocated in Vater’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, (three parts, Halle, 1802-5.) This writer argued, from the non-observance of many important Mosaic laws, that they could not have been in existence before the reign of David or Solomon. A.T. Hartmann subsequently repeated these arguments, and maintained that the art of writing was unknown among the Israelites until the age of the Judges, and was not used in the composition of books until Samuel’s time. Von Bohlen took the position that Deuteronomy is the oldest portion of the Pentateuch, and first appeared in the time of Josiah. The other books were subsequently added, but the entire work could not have been completed until after the exile. In substantial accord with Von Bohlen were the conclusions of W. Vatke and J.F.L. George; but these last two writers anticipated in some important points the theory of the gradual development of the religion of Israel, which has become so prominent in recent critical discussions. De Wette also for a long time held to the theory of fragments, but his work may be better treated in another connection.

Theory of Supplements.

The Fragment Hypothesis soon became unsatisfactory to some of its ablest advocates. It was mainly held by extreme Rationalists, who treated the Mosaic narratives as altogether mythical or legendary. But the unity of the Pentateuch was too apparent, and the evidences of plan and purpose running through the whole were too many, for the most arbitrary critics to set aside. One of Ewald’s earliest publications contributed largely to establishing the unity of the Book of Genesis. The way for what is commonly known as the Hypothesis of Supplements was prepared by such writers as Bertholdt, Herbst, and Volney, men not readily classed with any special school, but who maintained that the Pentateuch was in great part the work of Moses, but much revised and supplemented by later hands. According to Bertholdt, the work was brought to its present form sometime between the beginning of Saul’s and the end of Solomon’s reign. According to Herbst, the final redaction was probably made after Ezra’s time by the college of Elders. Volney allowed less to Moses, and supposed that the Pentateuch in its present form was the product of the combined labours of Hilkiah, Shaphan, Achbor, (2 Kings 22:8-12,) and other scribes and prophets of the age of Josiah.

De Wette made use of all the suggestions of his predecessors, and in his earlier publications on this subject adopted in the main the Hypothesis of Fragments. Many single fragments of the Pentateuch could not, in his opinion, have originated earlier than the times of David. The different narratives were written independently of one another, and afterward put together by different collectors. The compilation of Leviticus was probably by another hand, and certainly later than that of Exodus. Numbers was a supplement to the earlier collections, and Deuteronomy was composed in the time of Josiah. He subsequently modified his views, and in the fifth and sixth editions of his Introduction to the Old Testament (1840, 1845) he maintained that the Pentateuch and Joshua bore evidences of a threefold redaction, showing traces, first, of the Elohist, second, of the Jehovist, and third, of the Deuteronomist. The earliest of these must have lived after the Israelites were ruled by kings, and the latest belongs to the time of Josiah. He also allowed that among the sources employed by the first redactor were many ancient and genuine monuments of the Mosaic age. The views of Friedrich Bleek were, like those of De Wette, gradually developed. As early as 1822 he maintained that there are many parts of the Pentateuch which cannot be later than the age of Moses, and nothing which requires us to believe that the last revision was made as late as the time of the Babylonian exile. His more mature views appear in his Lectures on Old Testament Introduction, according to which the most ancient and original documents now contained in the Pentateuch and Joshua were worked over into one continuous narrative by a first writer, commonly called the Elohist. This was the Grundschrift, or fundamental writing, and contained an account of the creation, the flood, and the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Joshua, and was probably composed in the time of Saul. It embraced documents older than the time of Moses, and a large portion of the laws which were enacted by Moses himself. The writer employed the name Elohim until he came to the narrative of Moses’s life, after which the name of Jehovah appears. This fundamental history was made the basis of a larger work, namely, that of the Jehovist, who lived in the time of David, and supplemented the Elohistic writing with numerous additions. This Jehovist produced the first four books of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua in substantially the form in which we find them now, (excepting particularly Leviticus 26:3-45.) The final redaction was made by the author of Deuteronomy sometime during the reign of Manasseh.

This Theory of Supplements received the support of J.J. Stahelin, who, however, would not allow that any part of our Pentateuch was composed by Moses. He held it to be a work of Samuel, or of one of his scholars, based upon an older history which extended from the creation of the world to the conquest of Canaan, and contained a large part of Genesis, nearly all the three middle books of the Pentateuch, and the geographical portions of the Book of Joshua. Friedrich Tuch also adopted this theory, but supposed the Elohist to have written in the time of Saul, and the Jehovist in the time of Solomon. Ewald is noted for propounding an analysis of the Pentateuch and Joshua so minute as to detect therein the work of eight different writers, whose several parts, with the dates of composition, his critical instinct assumed to determine with remarkable nicety. He recognised a fundamental Elohistic document, which extended from the creation to the time of Solomon, and embraced three older writings, namely, the Book of Jehovah’s Wars, a life of Moses, and the Book of the Covenants. This ancient history he named the Great Book of Origins, and attributed it to a contemporary of Solomon. To this work subsequent writers made numerous additions, and the Hexateuch received its present form from the Deuteronomist, who wrote in Egypt during the latter part of Manasseh’s reign. Caesar Von Lengerke also placed the composition of the Elohistic document in the time of Solomon, and supposed it to have been enlarged by the Jehovist in the time of Hezekiah, and further worked over and supplemented by the Deuteronomist, who brought it to its present form (excepting, perhaps, Deuteronomy xxxiii) during the reign of Josiah. Vaihinger makes the three different writers to be a Pre-Elohist, (of whose work only a few fragments remain,) the Elohist, and the Jehovist. Hupfeld made out four writers, the Elohist, a second Elohist, a Jehovist, and a Redactor, who gave the entire work its final unity and finish. Bohmer adopted Hupfeld’s theory in the main, but attempted to ascertain more definitely the extent of the Redactor’s work. Riehm laboured to show that Deuteronomy is a literary fiction, but in no way a dishonest or blameworthy performance; from the mention of ships in chap. 28:68, he concluded that it was written in the time of Manasseh. Knobel produced one of the most minute and elaborate works on the Pentateuch extant, and distributed its several component parts among five different writers, namely, the authors of the fundamental document, (Grundschrift,) the Law-Book, (Rechtsbuch,) the War-book, (Kriegsbuch,) the Jehovist, and the Deuteronomist. The first of these lived probably in the time of Saul, the last under Josiah. Noldeke apportioned the work among at least four writers, the Elohist, the Jehovist, a Redactor, and the Deuteronomist, the first of whom was a priest living at Jerusalem in the time of David or Solomon, the last in the reign of Josiah. Other writers, less distinguished, contributed to the elaboration of this Theory of Supplements, each one producing some new discovery touching the relationship of the different parts of the Pentateuch. Among the more recent and thorough discussions of this hypothesis is that of Schrader, as given in the eighth edition of De Wette’s Einleitung, (Berlin, 1869.) He supposes four successive writers, and points out their characteristic differences of language, style, and religious conceptions. The first he calls the Annalist, who belonged to the earlier part of David’s reign; the second wrote soon after the division of the kingdom, and is named the Theocratic Narrator. These two writers composed separate and independent works, which were combined a generation later and supplemented by a third writer, who is called the Prophetic Narrator. The final Redactor of the Pentateuch was the Deuteronomist, who composed his book and revised the whole before the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign.

Delitzsch and Kurtz, while holding to the Mosaic origin of the main parts of the Pentateuch, adopt the essential elements of the Supplementary Hypothesis. In the Introduction of his Commentary on Genesis Delitzsch makes Exodus xix-xxiv the kernel of the Pentateuch, and supposes it to have been written by Moses. The other laws were given orally by Moses and written down by the priests. Deuteronomy must be accepted as in substance the work of Moses. After the conquest and occupation of Canaan, some man like Eleazar (Numbers 26:1; 31:21) compiled the main (Elohistic) work, incorporating in it the roll of the covenant, and, perhaps, the last words of Moses. This was supplemented by Joshua (Deuteronomy 32:44; Joshua 24:26) or one of the elders, (Numbers 11:25,) who added Deuteronomy in its present form, and the Jehovistic sections. (Commentar uber die Genesis, p. 31. Leipzig, 1872.) Much has been said of the recent change in Delitzsch’s views, which appear in a series of twelve articles in Luthardt’s Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissenschaft for 1880. He now admits the use of parallel documents running through much of the Pentateuch, the priority of the Jehovistic portions, and that Deuteronomy comes between the two. Excepting the priority of the Jehovist these latter views are not materially different from those advanced in his Commentary on Genesis. He still maintains the Mosaic origin of much of the Pentateuch, but concedes that many of the laws originated with the needs of the people at a later day, and maintains that the legislation begun by Moses was doubtless continued by the priests, to whom such matters were intrusted after Moses’s death. He believes that Deuteronomy is in substance Mosaic, but in form has been modified by the subjectivity and style of the writer, (the Deuteronomiker,) who nevertheless was in fullest spiritual accord with Moses, and has reproduced his last traditional discourses in an authentic form. He rejects the main positions of the theories of the school of Wellhausen, and strenuously opposes the notion that Deuteronomy originated at the time of Josiah. He admits that Ezra may have participated in the codification of the Mosaic laws, but he stoutly controverts the idea that the Levitical legislation was a post-exilian fiction. According to Kurtz, the Pentateuch is of Mosaic origin in that it was, in the main, prepared under Moses’s direct supervision, and completed by his assistants and contemporaries. Probably Moses himself composed with his own hand only those portions which are expressly attributed to him. In the historical parts he admits two distinct sources, a fundamental and a supplementary writing. The last revision of the entire work as we possess it was probably made near the close of Joshua’s life, or, perhaps, soon after his death. Theory of Ethnic Development.

We thus designate the latest phase of Old Testament criticism, which is particularly noted for the stress it lays upon the national religious development of the Israelitish people, and the dates and order of what it affirms to be distinct and successive legal codes. We have noticed above that Von Bohlen, Vatke, and George, as early as 1835, maintained that Deuteronomy is the oldest book of the Pentateuch. But the monograph of K.H. Graf on the Historical Books of the Old Testament (Leipzig, 1866) marked an epoch in the criticism of the Pentateuch. This writer was a pupil of Prof. Edward Reuss, who had long previously argued for the priority of Deuteronomy, but whose more fully developed views were published at a later date. Graf’s theory supposes an ancient Elohistic work which has been subjected to three great revisions and enlargements. The first was done by the Jehovist in the time of the earlier kings, and contained the legislation recorded in Exodus 13, 20-23, and 34. The second was made by the Deuteronomist, who was the author of the book found by Hilkiah. 2 Kings 22:8. This book is supposed to have been that portion of our Deuteronomy which extends from Genesis 4:45, to Genesis 29:1, excepting chap. 27. Its author made free use of the older work of the Jehovist, and afterward combined that work with his own and added Deuteronomy 1-4:44, as a new preface. The third revision was made during and after the Babylonian exile, and is notable for having added, in the body of the work, the Levitical legislation, which now appears in Exodus 12, 25-31, 35-40, most of Leviticus, and the greater part of Numbers. These Levitical laws are held to exhibit numerous evidences of a later origin and a more elaborate ritual than those of Deuteronomy. This theory of the origin of the law-books of Israel was taken up and presented in a still more radical form by A. Kuenen, first in his Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin of the Books of the Old Testament, (Leyden, 1861-65,) and later in his Religion of Israel, (1869-70,) his Five Books of Moses, (1872,) and his Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, (1875.) According to Kuenen, the religion of Israel is nothing more nor less than one of the principal religions of the world, and must be explained in its genesis and development like all other religions. The Israelites in Egypt were probably polytheists; by and by they came to consider their national deity as distinct from other gods, and called him El Shaddai; afterward they were taught by Moses, who gave them the decalogue, to call this god Jehovah. The stories of the patriarchs are ancient myths, and have been wrought over by various writers. The first written documents of note are those of the prophets of the eighth century before Christ, such as Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and the historical books of the Kings. Under the ministry of the prophets the worship of Jehovah became purer, and during the reign of Hezekiah the Book of Deuteronomy was written and made to serve the purpose described in 2 Kings 22 and 23. A programme of national worship was outlined by Ezekiel, and became the basis of the subsequent Levitical legislation, which first came into use after the return from exile, and was formulated by Ezra. This distinguished scribe compiled the voluminous Book of the Law in the shape in which we now possess it.

This theory, strange as it may seem, has captivated many modern critics, and is maintained in substance by Kalisch in his Commentary on Leviticus, by Aug. Kayser, by Bishop Colenso, and by Smend in his recent Commentary on Ezekiel. But among all its advocates, the most famous at the present time are probably Profs. Wellhausen and Reuss in Germany, and W. Robertson Smith in Scotland. According to Wellhausen, the Pentateuch is composed of three separate and independent works, which were wrought over, and, with additions from other sources, fashioned into a connected whole by Ezra or one of his contemporaries. The oldest document is the work of the Jehovist, compiled from previously existing Jehovistic and Elohistic records, and therefore by this critic designated by the letters J.E. This ancient composition was mainly historical, but contained the laws of Exodus 20-25. The second in order of the great documents was Deuteronomy, composed in the reign of Josiah, (designated D.) The third, called the Priest-Codex, (P.C.,) contained the laws of Exodus 26-40, Leviticus, and Numbers 1-10, and was accompanied by an historical introduction reflecting the spirit and opinions of the time of the exile when it was produced. This Priest-Codex is also called the Book of the Four Covenants, (designated Q., from the Latin Quatuor.) After the exile, Ezra or one of his generation constructed our present Pentateuch by a free use of all these documents, and also of other materials at his command.

Edward Reuss, of Strasburg, claims to have advanced this theory as early as the year 1834, and says that in many respects it was with him “a product of intuition.” After slowly elaborating it in his university lectures for nearly half a century, he has recently published his matured critical analysis and arrangement of the whole body of Old Testament literature in a large octavo, entitled “The History of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.” He traces the composition of the Pentateuch through four distinct stages, the oldest portion of which was first compiled in the time of Jehoshaphat. This was subsequently revised and supplemented with important additions by the Jehovist. The third great contribution was made by the Deuteronomist in the time of Josiah, and the fourth, containing the Levitical legislation, was incorporated with the whole after the exile. W.R. Smith’s position is not materially different from that of the school of Reuss, though he presents his views with greater moderation and caution. He distinguishes three separate groups of laws, which he calls the First Legislation, (Exodus 21-23,) the Deuteronomic Code, (especially Deuteronomy 12-26,) and the Levitical Legislation, which is scattered through Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The exact date of Deuteronomy is not determined, but “the book became the programme of Josiah’s reformation, because it gathered up in practical form the results of the great movement under Hezekiah and Isaiah, and the new divine teaching then given to Israel.” The distinctive features of the Levitical legislation were first sketched by Ezekiel, afterward developed in numerous details, incorporated with many ancient laws and traditions, and adapted “to the circumstances of the second temple, when Jerusalem was no longer a free State, but only the center of a religious community possessing certain municipal privileges of self-government.” (The Old Test. in the Jewish Church, pp. 363, 382. Edinb., 1581.) So far as these laws or writings are ascribed to Moses, they are to be understood merely as a legitimate continuation of a cultus which began with Moses. They were, by conventional usage or legal fiction, called ordinances of Moses, but every one would understand that they were not of Mosaic authorship. The adverse criticism of the Pentateuch has called out numerous replies from scholars who have steadfastly defended the traditional belief. Among the most eminent of these we may name, of the older writers, Carpzov, Witsius, Vitringa, and Calmet; and, in later times, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, M’Donald, and Green. Not a few of the ablest and most satisfactory answers to the several theories above detailed are to be found in the higher periodicals of Germany, England, and America. These vary in their methods of defense, some admitting numerous documents and interpolations, while others are slow to concede that any thing save the account of Moses’s death is inconsistent with Mosaic authorship. Results of Criticism.

What now, we may ask, are the results of all this critical study of the Pentateuch? It will be conceded, by every one competent to judge, that the researches and discussions of the Higher Criticism have developed a more thorough and scientific study of the Old Testament. Philological, archaeological, and historical questions connected with Hebrew literature have been investigated with rich results to the cause of sacred learning. As to the origin and authorship of the Pentateuch, we regard the following propositions as fairly settled:

1. The Pentateuch contains a number of passages which cannot, without doing violence to sound critical principles, be attributed to Moses as their author.

2. The Pentateuch, especially the Book of Genesis, contains documents of various dates and authorship, which have been worked over into an orderly and homogeneous whole.

3. The laws of the Pentateuch were either unknown or else very largely neglected and violated during most of the period between the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian captivity.

4. The Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers show different stages of legislation, and Leviticus contains a noticeably fuller and more elaborate priestly code and ritual than appear in

Deuteronomy.

We are frank to say that we regard the above propositions as simple statements of fact. But the divergent and conflicting opinions detailed in the foregoing pages admonish us that many unsound and illogical conclusions may be drawn from well-established facts. It is one thing to recognise positive results of criticism; quite another to accept theories which the critics build, or assume to build, upon such results. Let us now inquire if these four propositions are inconsistent with the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch.

I. Passages not Written by Moses.

Our space will not allow a full discussion of all the passages in the Pentateuch which have been thought to be inconsistent with Mosaic authorship; nor need we, for our purpose, more than mention some of the more prominent examples. Those most frequently cited, are Genesis 12:6; 13:7, where the observation is made that “the Canaanite was then in the land;” the mention of Dan in Genesis 14:14, and Deuteronomy 34:1, (a name not given to the place until the times of the Judges, Judges 18:29;) Genesis 36:31, where a list of Edomite kings is given who reigned “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.” Exodus 16:35, contains a statement which seems inappropriate at that place, breaks the otherwise natural connexion of verses 34 and 36, and may not unreasonably be believed to be an interpolation. The laudatory remark touching Moses in Numbers 12:3, is hardly such as a meek man would write about himself, and no one believes that Moses wrote the account of his own death in Deuteronomy 34. The words in Deuteronomy 2:12, have been thought to point to a time when Israel had taken possession of the promised land, and the whole context (verses 10-12, and also verses 20-23 of the same chapter, and verses 9-11 of chap. iii) may easily have been an editorial addition. So, too, the words, “unto this day,” in Deuteronomy 3:14, most naturally imply a time subsequent to the days of Moses.

Some of the above passages, we doubt not, may be legitimately explained so as to harmonize with the idea that Moses wrote them. Thus the statements made in Genesis 12:6, and 13:7, do not necessarily imply that the Canaanite was not in the land at the time of the writer, for his purpose may have been to show that Abraham was not the first dweller in that land; the Canaanites and the Perizzites had already settled there. So, too, Deuteronomy 2:12, is most accurately translated: “Even as Israel has done to the land of his possession, which Jehovah has given to them;” and this might well have been written by Moses after the Israelites had taken possession of the land east of the Jordan. But granting that all these, and probably other passages also, are of later date than the time of Moses, what must be our conclusion? Two methods of accounting for such facts at once suggest themselves: (1) The books of which these passages form a part were not composed until some time after the Mosaic age, or (2) these passages are additions made by a later hand. Either of these suppositions is sufficient to account for the facts; but these facts alone are not sufficient to determine the date or authorship of the Pentateuch, taken as a whole. If we have other reasons sufficient to convince us that these books are in substance the work of Moses, or originated in his day, the class of passages cited above present no considerable difficulty, for it is perfectly reasonable that such additions may have been inserted by the hands of editors and transcribers.

II. Documents Incorporated in the Pentateuch.

That the Pentateuch contains ancient documents of various dates and authorship is readily conceded. The wonder is, that any one should ever have disputed this proposition, especially in regard to Genesis. This ancient narrative recounts numerous events which, as the writer’s own chronology shows, occurred centuries and millenniums before Moses’s day. The only rational supposition is, that written documents and oral traditions were employed in its composition; and this hypothesis holds equally well whether we attribute the work to Moses or to some other writer. But sober students will be slow to commend, much less to follow, the attempts of critics to detect and dissect the particular sources, and determine the work of each writer even to the divisions of single verses! This microscopic refinement of criticism will be likely to refute itself. There is not an ancient work extant which, if subjected to such a process, could not be shown to have come from a variety of authors; and not a few learned treatises of modern times might be greatly improved, in the judgment of wearied readers, if only shorn of much that exact criticism might justly pronounce redundant, obscure, or slovenly.

A great deal has been said about the substantial agreement of critics concerning the ancient sources, and Prof. Ladd exhibits, in eight pages of his recent work, (The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, vol. i, pp. 517-525, New York, 1883,) the comparative harmony of Knobel, Schrader, Dillmann, and Wellhausen, in their analysis of the Hexateuch. But those same tables also serve admirably to show, by their numerous minute variations, the purely subjective principles of this species of criticism. There need be little, if any, dispute about the facts detailed; the controversy must turn upon the use made of the facts. Let it be assumed that the use of Elohim, or Jehovah, or some other divine name, must always indicate diverse authorship; let it be admitted that all differences of style and redundancy and repetition are proof of so many different “sources,” and the work of analytical criticism is very simple. The harmony of critics adopting these principles is very much of the nature of a mechanical necessity. It scarcely needs the learning of a Knobel or a Dillmann to perform such labour. An ordinary schoolboy, with a few pedagogical directions, might go through the Bible and pick out and classify such distinctions as Elohistic and Jehovistic chapters and verses. Repetitions and marked differences of style are recognised by every careful reader; and few, if any, will dispute that many of these differences, and the peculiar use of the names Elohim and Jehovah in some parts of Genesis, are most naturally explained by the hypothesis of different documents appropriated by the author of the book, and by him wrought over into one continuous narrative. The real question of criticism, we repeat, is not about the facts, but about theories assuming to rest upon these facts. The critics of one school affirm the existence of an original Elohistic document running through the entire Hexateuch; and they are positive that the Jehovistic and other portions are later supplements. But the most recent school has changed to the very reverse of this, and conclude that the Elohist was the final redactor of the whole. Why should we follow either of these schools? Why may not Moses himself have gathered up the different traditions and documents, and compiled the Book of Genesis, and, in the course of forty years, have added the other books which from time immemorial have been ascribed to him? Later editors have added here and there a sentence, and Eleazar or Joshua (comp. Joshua 14:1; 24:26) might very appropriately have appended the account of the great lawgiver’s death, and, indeed, have compiled the whole of Deuteronomy, using in the main the last sayings of Moses; but such admissions furnish no valid argument against the Mosaic authorship of the great body of the work.

III. Ignorance and Neglect of the Law after the Age of Moses. It appears from the extant records of Israelitish history that the laws of the Pentateuch were either unknown or else very generally neglected and violated during most of the period between the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian exile. In proof of this we may cite the story of Micah and the Levite, (Judges 17, 18,) the sacrilege of Eli’s sons, (1 Samuel 2,) the offering of Jephthah’s daughter as a human sacrifice, (Judges 11,) the rash vows and illegal acts of Saul, and the widespread habit of worship at high places, the idolatry of Solomon, the calf worship at Bethel and Dan, the Baal worship under Ahab and his heathen wife, and the multiplied idolatries of later kings. Facts of this character may be adduced in abundance, and critics of the school of Kuenen and Wellhausen appeal to them as evidence that the Mosaic laws and ritual were at the time unknown. Amos’s mention of “the high places of Isaac” and the “sanctuaries of Israel” (Genesis 7:9) is cited to show that worship at high places was the ancient and hereditary practice of the nation, against which they knew no law. The facts cited certainly show either great ignorance or great neglect and violation of the laws of Moses; but do they warrant the inference that those laws were not then in existence? We answer, No; and for the following reasons:

1. Neglect, violation, or ignorance of sacred laws is no proof of their non-existence. According to Hosea 4:2, swearing, falsehood, theft, adultery, and murder abounded in his day; but is this any evidence that the commandments of the decalogue prohibiting those crimes were then non-existent or unknown? Saul’s fell purpose to murder David might be as fairly cited to prove that no law against homicide was then extant. The whole drift and implication of the history of those times show that it was a period of violence and neglect of God’s laws. How far those laws were known we cannot now determine; but there is much reason to suppose, that from Joshua to Josiah the great mass of the Israelites knew very little of the sacred books of their nation. Almost universal ignorance of the Holy Scriptures prevailed in Europe for more than six hundred years before the Lutheran Reformation; more easily, we believe, might a similar ignorance of the Book of the Law have prevailed for as many centuries in Israel before the reign of Josiah.

2. We have no need to assume that even great prophets, like Samuel and Elijah, must have been familiar with the Books of Moses. They may have known much of the sacred laws and customs, as such, without any particular acquaintance with the books in which they were written. Neither they nor the later prophets were representatives of the sanctuary or ritual, but they were sent forth with the fresh, living oracle of God, which everywhere extols the spirit rather than the letter. The keynote of Old Testament prophetism was sounded by Samuel himself, who, though reared at the house of Jehovah in Shiloh, (1 Samuel 1:9, 24; 3:3,) and after its desolation offering burnt offerings at other places, (1 Samuel 7:9, 10,) said to Saul: “Hath Jehovah as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” 1 Samuel 15:22. But how much Samuel, or Elijah, or Amos, or Hosea knew, or did not know, about the written laws, or any literary documents of their nation, must be matter of conjecture, and cannot be made the basis of an argument. The import and value of any allusion they make must be determined by valid exegesis; but it always awakens suspicion to find a modern writer assuming to say what Elijah or Amos did not know, and then proceeding to rest an argument or build a theory upon such supposed ignorance. Suppose Elijah had never seen or read or heard of the Books of Moses; does it follow that no such books existed? According to 1 Kings 19:10, he did not know that there were seven thousand in Israel who refused to worship Baal. Hundreds of our most excellent citizens have never read the Constitution of the United States, and an immense portion of our national literature reveals no hint of its existence. Multitudes among us who have been made familiar from childhood with the great names and facts of sacred history never read any considerable portion of the Bible, and some such often betray lamentable ignorance. There might have been seven thousand copies of the Pentateuch in existence at Elijah’s time, and all of them unknown to him, and out of the way of the most conspicuous persons of that period.

3. There is evidence, however, in the Historical Books, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to indicate the priority of the legislation recorded in the Pentateuch. We meet with numerous allusions, which are best explained by accepting the traditional belief of the antiquity of the Books of Moses. The tabernacle and central place of worship was at first established at Shiloh. Joshua 18:1, 10; 19:51. This fact is again recognised in Judges 18:31. In 1 Samuel 1:3, 9, 24, the house of God is still at Shiloh, and thither all Israel bring their offerings. 1 Samuel 2:22, 29. The ministering priests are descendants of Aaron. 1 Samuel 2:27, 28. The ark is known as “the ark of the covenant of Jehovah;” (4:3; comp. Exodus 25:21; Numbers 10:33; 14:44;) but when captured by the Philistines, and while separated from the tabernacle, the glory departed from Israel. 1 Samuel 4:21, 22; 7:2. This fact largely explains the irregularities of worship and the demoralization that prevailed thereafter. Comp. 1 Kings 3:2. The tabernacle, with its priestly service, was removed to Nob, (1 Samuel 21:1-7,) and afterward to Gibeon. 1 Kings 3:4; 1 Chronicles 16:39. David brought the ark to Jerusalem, and instituted a provisional worship there, (2 Samuel 6,) and under Solomon the temple became the great national sanctuary, which all Israel recognised as the place where Jehovah recorded his name. 1 Kings 8:29; comp. Deuteronomy 12:11. The prominence of the priests and the ark at the dedication, and the numerous allusions in 1 Kings 8 to the exodus, the ministry of Moses, and the language of our present Pentateuch, imply the previous existence both of the Levitical and the Deuteronomic code. The disruption of the kingdom under Rehoboam, and Jeroboam’s shrewd policy of turning the national heart away from Jerusalem, (1 Kings 12,) abundantly explain the disorder and idolatry that followed. In the light of this history, the notion that the worship at Bethel and Dan and other local sanctuaries represents the ancient ante-Mosaic cultus, against which there was as yet no law, appears in the highest degree absurd. The prophets thenceforward address the nation as rebellious and backslidden children. Hosea proclaims that Israel has apostatized from Jehovah, until the many precepts of his written law have become a strange thing. Hosea 8:12. Amos declares that Judah also has despised the law of Jehovah, and has not kept his commandments. Amos 2:4. Isaiah complains that the entire nation had become utterly corrupt. Isaiah 1:4-6. The older Psalms recognise Zion as the holy hill, (Psalm 2:6; 3:4,) Jehovah as dwelling in his holy temple, (11:4,) and the duty of observing his statutes, (18:22.) These and other similar facts imply the previous existence of the substance of the Mosaic history and legislation, and utterly nullify all e silentio arguments against the traditional opinion of the Mosaic books. IV. Relation of the Levitical and Deuteronomic Codes.

Until the rise of the new critical school, represented by Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, Deuteronomy was believed to be of later origin than the other books of the Pentateuch. The contrary theory, propounded in 1835 by Von Bohlen, Vatke, and George, obtained little currency, and such German critics as Schrader and Dillmann still maintain that Deuteronomy is the later work. But the critics of both these schools agree that the Book of Deuteronomy originated in the latter period of the Jewish monarchy, and its main portions constituted “the Book of the Law” which was discovered by Hilkiah. Three questions accordingly present themselves for our consideration: 1. What evidence exists to show that the book discovered by Hilkiah consisted solely of Deuteronomy? 2. Where is the proof that Deuteronomy, or any considerable portion of it, was first written in the times of Manasseh or Josiah? 3. What is the real relation of Deuteronomy to the three middle books of the Pentateuch?

1. What evidence exists to show that the book discovered by Hilkiah consisted of Deuteronomy only? It is called “the Book of the Law,” and “the Book of the Covenant.” 2 Kings 22:8, 11; 23:2, 21; comp. 2 Chronicles 34:14, 15, 30; 35:12. The reforms instituted by Josiah were warranted by laws found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, as well as in Deuteronomy. Did the king destroy idolatrous images? This was enjoined in Exodus 23:24, 33; 34:12-17, and Numbers 33:51, 52. Did he put down the cruel worship of Molech? The only places in the Pentateuch where this god is mentioned by name are Leviticus 18:21, and 20:2-5. Did he abolish witchcraft? That also is condemned in the law of Leviticus, (Leviticus 19:31; 20:27.) And the law of the Passover appears in Exodus, (12; 23:15; 34:18,) Leviticus, (Leviticus 23:5-8,) and Numbers, (Numbers 9:2, 3.) Why then assume that Josiah’s “law-book” consisted solely of Deuteronomy? That it contained Deuteronomy is not disputed; but when we are told that there is no evidence that Josiah had any thing more than Deuteronomy xii-xxvi on which to base his reforms, it is an ample and complete reply to say, that there is also no evidence that this “Deuteronomic Code” was all his book contained. The plea that he did not observe some commandments which are found in other parts of the Pentateuch is nullified by the fact that he did not, so far as appears from the history, observe numerous things which are enjoined in Deuteronomy. There exists, therefore, no valid evidence that the Book of the Law, or Book of the Covenant mentioned in 2 Kings 22:8, and 23:2, contained Deuteronomy only.

2. What evidence exists to show that the Book of Deuteronomy was first written at or near the time of Josiah’s reign?

It is alleged that the style of composition is notably different from that of the other books of the Pentateuch. This is admitted by all, but is sufficiently accounted for by the nature of its subject matter. It professes to be in substance a series of discourses delivered by Moses at the conclusion of his long life and ministry. Years probably intervened between the composition of these discourses and most of his other writings; and the time, the occasion, and the purpose of Deuteronomy, according to the traditional belief, would warrant the expectation of finding in such a repetition of history and laws a different style from that of previous books. “The fervor and warmth,” says Eichhorn, “which breathe in every line, make it apparent that countless emotions in the soul of the great man crowded themselves into his writing, and set on every page the seal of a work composed on the verge of the grave.” — Einleitung in das A.T., vol. ii, p. 405. Leipzig, 1803. As for the character of the Hebrew employed in Deuteronomy, Kleinert has adduced controlling evidence to show that it savours of an older time than the later period of the Jewish monarchy. He shows by the citation of numerous examples that it resembles the previous Books of Moses more than it does the Books of Jeremiah and Kings. (Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker, p.

285. Leipzig, 1872.)

It is argued that the new order of things introduced by Josiah, and based upon this book, is evidence that the book itself could not have been in existence before. This argument, however, rests upon the assumption, already shown to be unsound, that national ignorance and non-observance of laws are proof of their non-existence. But, on the other hand, if Deuteronomy, or any considerable portion of the “Law of Moses,” originated in the days of Josiah, and was first made public as narrated in 2 Kings xxii, it was manifestly a forgery. The more radical critics do not hesitate to acknowledge this, and treat it as a pious fraud. Others endeavour to explain it as a literary fiction or a legal fiction, not intended to deceive, but merely to put in practical shape the doctrines of the prophets. But the subject matter and historical position of the work are incompatible with any such hypothesis. We cannot conceive how a code of laws originating under such circumstances, could have become the basis and rule of a national religion so pure and lofty. A writer of Josiah’s time might, indeed, have published a book in the name of Moses. Poems, proverbs, philosophical disquisitions, and prophetical books have often been put forth under assumed names. Perhaps the Book of Ecclesiastes is a work of this kind, put forth, for obvious reasons, in the name of Solomon. We have numerous apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works of this character. But such books never had any notable influence on the national government and worship. Such a production, which every body knew to be a fiction, could have had no authority to warrant the innovations undertaken by Josiah. Why should a book written in the reign of Manasseh or Josiah contain commandments to exterminate Canaanites and Amalekites, (Deuteronomy 20:16-18; 25:17-19,) tribes which were not then in existence? Was it done to give the work the tone of an ancient writing? Such a supposition would only make the fraudulent character of the book more glaring. It is for us easier a thousand times to believe the traditional authorship of the Pentateuch than to accept the hypothesis of such a forgery and fraud, in which Hilkiah the priest, and Huldah the prophetess, joined together to deceive the king and the whole Jewish nation, and succeeded so completely as to make a fictitious book the legal and constitutional basis of the national religion. Nay, this surreptitious introduction of the Book of the Law was so deftly done that it raised no suspicion or outcry at the time, and for more than two thousand years has been stupidly supposed to be a genuine work of Moses!

3. But what is the real relation of Deuteronomy to the three middle books of the Pentateuch? It is claimed by the Wellhausen school that there are three different codes or groups of laws traceable in the books of Moses, of which the most ancient is the Book of the Covenant, embracing Exodus 20-23, adapted to an early period of the national life, and recognising a plurality of altars or local sanctuaries. Next in order is the Deuteronomic Code, which aimed to abolish the local sanctuaries and centralize the national worship at Jerusalem. The Levitical legislation followed at a later date, was first planned during the exile, and appears in outline in Ezekiel’s writings, but was worked over and incorporated in the three middle books of our Pentateuch by Ezra, or one of his contemporaries. Deuteronomy, accordingly, becomes the oldest book of the Pentateuch, and the other books, in their principal contents and present form, are postexilian. That different stages of legislation are traceable in the Pentateuch, and that the Book of Leviticus contains a more elaborate priestly code than appears in Deuteronomy, may be readily admitted. Our present concern, is to know whether these codes are inconsistent with each other, or of such a nature that they might not all have originated in the times of Moses. The main arguments against the traditional belief rest upon an alleged inconsistency in the different codes touching (1) places of sacrificial worship, (2) the offerings required, (3) the number of feasts, and (4) the distinction between priests and Levites.

1. Places of Sacrificial Worship. — In Exodus 20:24, provision is made for building an altar “in all places (המקום lk) where I record my name,” but according to Deuteronomy 12:5, ff., all the offerings of Israel must be presented at a central sanctuary, “which Jehovah your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there.” The Levitical legislation recognises a central altar, (Exodus 29:18, 38; Leviticus 1:3, 5; 4:4; 6:14,) but its provisions are applicable both to the tabernacle in the wilderness and to the temple at Jerusalem.

There is no inconsistency between these different legal regulations. The first legislation, made at Sinai, provides for an unsettled people, contemplates future journeyings, and the probable need of successive altars at different places. It does not allow the erection of altars on every high hill, or wherever the people or their leaders choose to place them, but only at such places as Jehovah should designate. This is perfectly compatible with the Deuteronomic order for a central sanctuary, made nearly forty years later, when Israel was about to enter the land of promise. The Deuteronomic law itself explains that this regulation would be in place only after Jehovah had given them full possession of the land. Deuteronomy 12:9-11. Moreover, there is nothing in Deuteronomy inconsistent with the supposition, that after the central sanctuary had been divinely chosen, Jehovah himself might, under exceptional circumstances, authorize sacrifice in other places. The critics urge that the sacrifices at Bochim (Judges 2:5) and at Ophra, (Judges 6:26,) the offerings of Manoah (Judges 13:19, 20) and Samuel (1 Samuel 7:9, 17) and David, (2 Samuel 24:25,) and the prevalence of local sanctuaries of later times, are evidence that the Deuteronomic law was unknown to the holiest men of Israel. But the history shows that these exceptional altars were authorized by special theophanies, or justified by peculiar circumstances. Those occurring under the ministry of Samuel are explained by the fact that the sanctuary at Shiloh was then desolate, and Jehovah had forsaken the place where he first recorded his name. Psalm 68:60, 68; Jeremiah 7:12, 14. All other worship at high places was idolatrous, and, in part, a natural result of the demoralized state of the nation, when there were numerous violations of the Mosaic laws, and great ignorance and superstition prevailed among the people. Prof. W.H. Green goes through the whole list of so-called “local sanctuaries,” and very clearly shows, “that apart from idolatrous perversions, there was not a single sanctuary for permanent worship among them. Deduct the two or three instances, in the period of the Judges, in which Jehovah or the Angel of Jehovah appeared to men, and sacrifices were offered on the spot; deduct further the sacrifices offered when Israel had no sanctuary, after God had withdrawn from Shiloh and before the temple was built, or in the peculiar circumstances of the Ten Tribes in the lifetime of Elijah — deduct these sacrifices, which were due to special causes and were strictly limited to the occasion that called them forth, and there is not a particle of evidence that any one of these places was a sanctuary for the worship of Jehovah.” — Moses and the Prophets, p. 167. New York, 1882.

2. The Offerings Required. — Exodus 20:24, mentions only burnt offerings and peace offerings; Deuteronomy 12:6, 11, speaks of burnt offerings, heave offerings, freewill offerings, tithes, and vows; Leviticus provides for all these, and also for the meat offerings, (Leviticus 2:1,) and the sin and trespass offerings. Leviticus 4:5. Peace offerings are not mentioned in Deuteronomy, except incidentally at Deuteronomy 27:7, and the meat offerings not at all. Leviticus enjoins a great number and variety of ceremonies and purifications, which are held to indicate a later period, when the priesthood had control of the nation and had instituted an elaborate ritual. But every careful reader must see that the differences here pointed out are in no sense contradictory. There is nothing connected with any of these offerings that is inconsistent with a Mosaic origin. The hortatory style and purpose of Deuteronomy did not require a minute repetition of all the details of ritual, which were elsewhere sufficiently recorded; and will any one contend that, when one book does not specify all the items of another bearing on the same subject, its author must have been ignorant of such omitted items? Is no other explanation possible? Surely a theory based upon such variations as these will not be likely to command the confidence of a logical mind.

3. The Number of Sacred Feasts. — The same kind of disparity is urged respecting the Feasts. Exodus (Exodus 23:10-17) specifies the three feasts of unleavened bread, harvest, and ingatherings, and the observance of the seventh day and the seventh year. Deuteronomy, chaps. 15, 16, mentions all these, except the Sabbath law, (which, however, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 5:12-15,) and the feasts of harvest and ingatherings are here called the feast of weeks and the feast of tabernacles. Leviticus mentions all these, together with the feasts of pentecost, (Leviticus 23:15-21,) and of trumpets, (Leviticus 23:24,) and the day of atonement, (16,) and the year of jubilee, (Leviticus 25:8-13.) These are simply facts of the record, but how any one can derive from them a valid argument against the Mosaic origin of any or all the accounts is more than we are yet able to comprehend. That one code, or, as we may better say, one section of the great law-book of Israel, should contain a fuller and more minute description of details than another, is certainly no strange thing. The ingenuity of a theory which traces in these various sections different and successive stages of legislation may be admired; its validity as an argument against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is not commendable.

4. The Priests and the Levites. — It is claimed that the first legislation (Exodus 20-23) knows no special order of priests or an Aaronic priesthood; in Deuteronomy there is no distinction between priests and Levites, the constantly recurring expression being “the priests, the Levites,” or “the priests, the sons of Levi;” but in Leviticus (8-10) the sons of Aaron are formally set apart to the special work of the priesthood, and the other Levites appear as subordinate ministers. Here again are simple facts as recorded, but they do not warrant the conclusions which the new school critics presume to draw from them. There was no occasion in Exodus 20-23 to refer to the distinction named, for Aaron and his sons had not yet been set apart. According to the history itself, their separate consecration followed much other legislation. Then, further, there was no occasion or necessity for Moses, in the circumstances under which Deuteronomy claims to have been issued, to recapitulate the details of priestly office and ritual, or do more than make such general references to the ministers of the sanctuary. The language employed in Deuteronomy assumes Israel’s knowledge of numerous laws already established, and if we adopt the view (which the book itself abundantly warrants) that Deuteronomy is especially “the people’s book” — a more simple, practical, and hortatory repetition of the principal facts and laws of the Mosaic legislation — the mention of details of priestly office and ritual would have been manifestly out of place. What avails it to repeat over and over: “Deuteronomy knows no Levites who cannot be priests, and no priests who are not Levites.” — SMITH, Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 360. Why not candidly face the question: Why should Moses, under the circumstances assumed in Deuteronomy, be expected to do more than allude as he does to the whole tribe of Levi as the chosen ministers of religion? He does NOT say that any Levite may be a priest. This is a notion foisted in by the critic. Why, moreover, should the school of Graf and Wellhausen try to force the proposition that from the exodus to the exile there was no high priest as distinguished from ordinary priests and Levites? To affirm this in the face of the express mention of “Eleazar the priest,” (Joshua 19:51; 21:2,) and “Eli the priest,” (1 Samuel 1:9, comp. 2:27, 28,) and “the great priest” in the reign of Joash, (2 Kings 12:10,) and of Josiah, (2 Kings 22:4, 8; 23:4,) and of “the head priest” in the reign of Zedekiah, (2 Kings 25:18,) looks like a desperate purpose to carry out a theory at all hazards. “What shall we say,” writes Prof. S.I. Curtiss, “of a development which in the time from Moses (1320 B.C.) to Josiah (625 B.C.) only gets as far as Levitical priests, and in a single generation can develop the Aaronic priesthood and the high priest with all his glory?” — The Levitical Priests, p. 163. Edinb., 1877. What, now, may we conclude as to the relation of Deuteronomy to the three middle books of the Pentateuch? We find no evidence of the priority of Deuteronomy. We find nothing to warrant the opinion that any one of the first four books, or any considerable portion of any one of them, was composed after the death of the great lawgiver. The different legislation recorded in the several books was probably enacted at different times during the forty years of Moses’s ministry, but we have no means of determining the particular date or occasion of each section of the Torah. Whatever the particular dates and sources of the various documents and laws, no sufficient reason has yet been given why the Pentateuch might not have received substantially its present form under the immediate supervision of Moses.

A formal attempt to refute theories like those above described would be idle unless some agreement could first be made upon fundamental principles and methods of procedure. The difficulty, if not the impossibility, of such agreement will be apparent from the following considerations:

1. Most of these critics enter upon the study of the Bible under a prejudice hostile to any supposable manifestation of the Supernatural in human history. Many of them confess this at the outset. With such writers all miracles are myths or legends, and he is the ablest critic who devises the most plausible theory of their origin.

2. A dispassionate study of the works of these critics begets a conviction that the detailed arguments by which they endeavour to support their theories, are not the real steps of the process by which their conclusions were reached. The entire history of critical assaults upon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has been notably a succession of adjustments. One theory has given place to another, and the methods by which they have been put forward and urged are largely of the nature of special pleading to maintain a position already definitely taken.

3. The critical methods of Reuss, Kuenen, and their school, are not so much based on a candid examination of all the contents of the sacred books of Israel as they are deduced from the application of a speculative philosophy of human history to these books, and an ingenious attempt to make the philosophy account for the history. Reuss tells us in the Preface of his work that his point of view is not that of the biblical history but of the legal codes, and, beginning with an intuition, he has aimed and hoped “to find the Ariadne thread which would lead out of the labyrinth of current hypotheses of the origin of the Mosaic and other Old Testament books, into the light of a psychologically intelligible course of development for the Israelitish people.” — Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des A.T., p. 8. This is reversing the true logical method which should rather formulate a philosophy of history upon an induction of facts, and not first construct the philosophy and then force the history into accord with it.

4. The arbitrary exegetical principles of these critics are not of a nature to carry conviction to the minds of candid readers. Such an analysis of books and chapters as assumes with an air of dogmatic confidence to point out a variety of authors in a single paragraph, and to furnish a detailed account of all the sources from which an historian of two thousand years ago derived his knowledge, is too wonderful for us. It borders hard on the supernatural. It seems also at times to have positive acquaintance, not only with all the ancient author knew, but even with all that he did not know! Certainly, more use is often made of what the writer does not say than of what he does say. Discrepancies also are needlessly magnified, and any passage or event, however important, that stands in the way of the critic’s theory, is arbitrarily set aside as the addition of a different writer, or the product of a later age. The Books of Hosea, Amos, and Ezekiel are accepted as genuine, but Deuteronomy, which claims to be a record of the words of Moses, is set aside as a fiction.

5. The notion that Ezekiel’s highly wrought vision of the temple and cultus was the outline of a priestly Torah to be observed by the exiles at their restoration to Jerusalem, is beset with insuperable difficulties. Ezekiel’s language cannot without violence be interpreted literally. The details were never observed by the returning exiles, and the idea that Ezekiel’s prophecy, issued in his own name, became the basis of an elaborate code of laws issued in the name of Moses is really too great a tax upon the credulity of earnest seekers after truth. Add to this the assumption that Ezra and Nehemiah, who wrote so much of their own work in their own name, were parties to this fictitious legislation! Why should critics make no difficulty of conceiving Ezekiel, more than forty years before the restoration, planning an imposing ritual for his nation, and yet imagine it impossible for Moses to do it less than forty years before the conquest of Canaan?

6. The idea that the prophets of Israel set themselves against the ancestral faith and worship of the people, and aimed to overthrow a system which had been sanctioned by the “First Legislation” at Sinai, is contrary to the entire contents, and scope of their prophecies. Their constant testimony is, that Israel had apostatized from God. The chosen nation had become like an unfaithful wife, who had violated her marriage covenant, and the worship in high places is characterized as a shameful prostitution. Hosea 2:13; 5:7; 6:7; Amos 2:4; Isaiah 1:2-4. Can an unbiased reader of these prophets believe that they contemplated the prevailing idolatry of Israel and Judah, — especially the worship of high places, — as the ancient and hereditary practice of the nation?

7. Finally, the assumption that an elaborate ritual and ranks of priesthood come in the natural order of development after the more spiritual word of prophecy may be boldly challenged. History shows the reverse to be true. Forms of worship, especially sacrifices and oblations, belong rather to undeveloped and imperfect periods of religious life. The Mosaic tabernacle, with its elaborate cultus, was admirably adapted to serve as an “object lesson” to instruct Israel when a child. But a theory which makes the tabernacle a fiction, the priestly code an invention of Ezekiel, and the minute account of boards, and sockets, and bars, and hooks, and pillars, and curtains, and loops, and taches, and pots, and basins, and bowls, and spoons, and shovels, and plates, and pans, the conception of Jewish priests at the time of the exile, ought to tell us how such “bondage of the letter” fits in a theory of religious development. Is not the survival of the fittest a fundamental law of such development? But behold! the lofty lessons of Amos, Isaiah, and Micah, who, according to these critics, denounced sacrifices as a vain thing, without divine authority, and hateful to Jehovah, are superseded and overgrown by a ceremonial of outward service, concocted by designing priests, and foisted upon the chosen people in the name of Moses!

Positive Evidences of Mosaic Origin.

Having now cleared the way of objections, and seen the inconclusiveness of the critical arguments against the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, we add in brief outline the positive argument in favor of the ancient traditional belief. We have discovered no valid evidence sufficient to discredit this belief; we do find many things, within and without the work, which go directly to confirm it.

Internal Evidence.

1. The several passages which speak of Moses as writing a book, or writing in the book, are at least so many direct claims of Mosaic origin. In Exodus 17:14, Moses is commanded to write “in the book” (rpsb) an account of the victory over the Amalekites. In Exodus 24:4, 7, it is said that “Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah,” that is, the divine communications, judgments, and commandments which he had received in the mount, “and he took the Book of the Covenant, and read in the audience of the people.” Here is witness of a book of divine laws, written by Moses and read by him to the people. Compare also Exodus 34:27. These passages, it will be said, refer only to these particular portions of the Pentateuch, and not to the work as a whole; and this is readily granted. For according to the manifest tenor of the record, the entire law was not communicated at one time. It was given in many parts and modes, (comp. Hebrews 1:1,) and the various wars, (like this with Amalek,) and marches, and murmurings, and judgments, would naturally have been recorded as they occurred. It is not claimed that such texts as those just cited prove the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch. But this is the argument: If Moses wrote down such an event as the war with Amalek, and the words of Jehovah at Sinai, is it not probable that he also from time to time wrote other important events and other laws? In Numbers 33:2, we are told that “Moses wrote their goings out, according to their journeys, by the commandment of Jehovah,” and in Deuteronomy 31:24, that he “made an end of writing the words of this law in a book,” and gave orders to have a copy of the same deposited in the side of the ark. Ver. 26. Let it be granted that “the Book of this Torah” here (as in Deuteronomy 28:61; 29:20; 30:10, comp. 17:18) refers only to the “Deuteronomic Code,” we have this much, then, which claims to have been written by Moses himself. Nor are we careful to know whether Moses wrote even this much with his own hand, so long as it is clear that he was, under God, the responsible author. Paul wrote by an amanuensis, and so might Moses. Here, then, according to the most direct claims, Moses is said to have written down events and laws with which he was immediately concerned. But if he was careful to have the war of Amalek and the Sinaitic and the Deuteronomic legislation carefully recorded, is it likely he would have had no similar care for the plagues of Egypt, the events of the exodus, and the soul stirring incidents of the journeys through the desert, and the conquest of the east-Jordanic territory?

2. The Levitical legislation of the third book of the Pentateuch is explicitly asserted to have been given through Moses. Almost every chapter begins with the words: “Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,” and the book concludes (Leviticus 27:34) with the statement: “These are the commandments which Jehovah commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai.” It does not follow from these statements that Moses himself wrote down these laws, but the language used most clearly teaches that the laws were communicated through Moses to the people. Others may have done the writing, but Moses was, under God, the great legislator. The other legislative portions of the Pentateuch are largely given in the same way. Numbers vi, vii, etc.

3. The numerous traces of familiarity with Egypt favour the traditional belief. Such are the making of bricks by slaves, portrayed on the monuments of the eighteenth dynasty; the ark of papyrus, indicating familiarity with the Nile; the plagues of Egypt, which have been shown to be, in the main, but an intensifying of troubles which often afflict that country, and which were so manifestly directed against Egyptian superstitions. The Levitical regulations of the priesthood and other ceremonies are in striking analogy with corresponding Egyptian customs. Under this head, see especially Hengstenberg’s Egypt and the Books of Moses, Eng. trans., (Edinb., 1843.)

4. There are also traces of the desert journey, which naturally indicate a writer contemporary with the events described, and an eye-witness of the same. The manner in which Marah (Exodus 15:23) and Elim (27) and the desert of Sin (Exodus 16:1) and Mount Sinai are mentioned, and the accuracy of the descriptions as confirmed by the most careful researches, favour the opinion that the record of all this was made by one who was a part of the Israelitish camp. The itinerary given in Numbers 33 is additional evidence of the same thing. The mention of the camp and the tents, the minute description of the tabernacle and its various parts and vessels, the shittim or acacia wood, (a product of the Sinaitic peninsula,) the manna and quails, all tell the same way.

5. Those passages which refer to the land of Canaan as a future possession necessarily imply the Mosaic age. Such are found in Exodus 12:25; 13:5, 11; 23:23, 24; 34:11-13; Leviticus 14:34; 18:3; 19:23; 20:22; 23:10; 25:2; Numbers 15:2, 18; 34:2; 35:10; Deuteronomy 6:10; 7:1; 12:10; 19:1; 26:1. Unless these texts be sheer forgeries, they show that, at the time of writing, the Israelites had not yet entered into the possession of Canaan.

6. A number of notable archaisms in the Pentateuch favour the belief of the Mosaic origin. The forms especially remarkable are awh used for both he and she; w[n, used in the same way for either a boy or a girl; and la, these, instead of the later hla. The plural ending ˆw, instead of w, is a constantly recurring feature. Numerous other peculiar words and forms have been pointed out as evidences of the earlier period of the language; but the Hebrew language is especially noted for suffering comparatively few changes from the time of the exodus to that of the exile. Evidence from the Subsequent History.

The other books of the Old Testament, and the subsequent history of Israel as traceable therein, abound in references and allusions which imply the Mosaic legislation and the great events of the exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Those very narratives which show the apostasy of later times, and prove that the Mosaic laws were largely neglected and violated, contain indications of the existence of Mosaic institutions.

1. The Book of Joshua is so full of references to Moses and his work, and such specific mention is made therein of “the Book of the Law of Moses,” (Joshua 8:31-35,) that writers who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch affirm that the Book of Joshua was written by the same author. Plainly its whole subject matter and scope imply the existence of the Pentateuch. Eleazar, the son of Aaron, has succeeded his father in the priesthood, (Joshua 14:1,) and the tabernacle is set up at Shiloh, (Joshua 18:1.) To deny the substantial truthfulness of the history recorded in Joshua is most uncritical and arbitrary; but if Joshua be true the Pentateuch must be genuine.

2. The Book of Judges abounds in allusions to Mosaic history and institutions. In Judges 1:1, we are told that after Joshua’s death Israel “inquired of Jehovah,” manifestly alluding to the use of the urim worn by the high priest. Numbers 27:21; Exodus 28:30. The same custom is mentioned again at Judges 20:18. Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, bears the urim, and officiated before the ark in those days, (Judges 20:27, 28.) The notable irregularities, and the idolatrous regard for ephod, and teraphim, and other images, (Judges 8:27; 17:5; 18:14-20,) are incidental evidences of the pre-existence of the Mosaic laws. For why should a Levite be sought as a priest, (Judges 17:10, 13; 18:19,) and how came Levites to be scattered among the other tribes, (Judges 19:1,) and why should they be “going to the house of Jehovah,” (Judges 19:18, comp. 18:31,) unless the Levitical laws were already in existence? These allusions may not be proof that the Pentateuch was then known as a written code, or that Moses wrote any thing, but they are capable of natural explanation only by recognizing that Levitical and sanctuary regulations, as provided for in the Pentateuch, were already well known customs, and, as further appears at 1 Samuel 1, had their centre of interest at the house of Jehovah at Shiloh. Whatever deviations from the law, or neglect and violation of law, are noticeable, are accounted for by the writer himself in his oft-repeated statement that there was no king in Israel and every man acted his own pleasure, (Judges 17:6; 18:1, comp. Deuteronomy 12:8.) There are also numerous manifest allusions to the language of the Pentateuch, as in the covenant and promise, (Judges 2:1, comp. Genesis 17:7, 8; 28:13; 35:12,) in warnings against affiliation with the Canaanites, (Judges 2:2, 3, comp. Exodus 23:33; 34:12; Deuteronomy 7:2; 12:3,) and in the mention of the Sinaitic theophanies in Deborah’s song, (Judges 5:4, 5.) Gideon exhibits the old theocratic spirit in refusing to be king, (Judges 8:23,) and Manoah and Samson recognise the covenant relations of Israel in their language concerning the “uncircumcised Philistines,” (Judges 14:3; 15:18.) Jephthah’s message to the Ammonites (Judges 11:14-27) is full of minute references to the events of the later years of Moses’s life. Comp. especially Numbers 20-22. The express reference to what “Moses said” in chap. 1:20, and the law of the Nazarite recognised in the narrative of Samson, (Judges 13:5, comp. Numbers 6:2-5,) are conspicuous witnesses of pre-existent Mosaic legislature. The Book of Ruth, belonging as it does to the times of the Judges, may here be cited for its specific references to pentateuchal facts and laws. The mention of Leah and Rachel and Pharez and Tamar (Judges 4:11, 12) shows an acquaintance with facts recorded in Genesis. Ruth’s gleaning in the harvest-field accords with the law given in Leviticus 19:9, 10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19, and the entire narrative of Judges 4:1-10, is based upon the levirate law as recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

3. Probably no more controlling evidence of the antiquity of the Levitical legislation and ritual can anywhere be found than the facts which are recorded at the beginning of the First Book of Samuel, and which show the state of Israelitish worship at the close of the period of the Judges. The tabernacle is still at Shiloh, and is known as the house of Jehovah, (1 Samuel 1:3, 24,) to which the pious Israelites go up yearly to worship and to sacrifice. Eli, who was a descendant of Aaron, chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to offer sacrifice, to burn incense, and to wear the ephod, is the priest, (1 Samuel 2:28.) His sons abused their holy office and were slain for their sins, and with such a priesthood we need not wonder that there were many violations of law and irregularities in the sanctuary service. But the lamp was kept burning (1 Samuel 3:3) according to the law, (Exodus 27:21; Leviticus 24:3;) the ark of God was the holiest of symbols, and Jehovah was thought of as dwelling between the cherubim, (1 Samuel 4:4; comp. Exodus 25:22.) After the capture and disgrace of the ark, Shiloh was forsaken, and the glory departed from Israel, (1 Samuel 4:21, 22;) and we need not greatly wonder that the people soon lost the old theocratic spirit, and fell to worshipping in high places, because, until the erection of the temple at Jerusalem, more than a century later, “there was no house built unto the name of Jehovah.” 1 Kings 3:2.

4. The erection of the temple and the centralization of the national worship there were in manifest accord with the spirit and purpose of the Mosaic law. The temple was in all its main outlines a reproduction of the pattern of the tabernacle, only enlarged and built of enduring material, as was manifestly fitting, now that Israel had become established in the land, and would provide a settled place for Jehovah’s special abode. 1 Kings 8:13. From all that can be gathered, the ritual of the temple service was in accord with the Levitical regulations of the Pentateuch, and the prayer of Solomon, offered at the dedication, (1 Kings 8,) is notably full of allusions to the very language found in various parts of the books of Moses. The sins of Solomon’s later life, and his building high places to other gods, (1 Kings 11:1-13,) could have had no other effect than a most demoralizing one on all Israel. The division of the kingdom, which occurred soon after his death, (chap. 12,) and the far-sighted but wicked policy of Jeroboam to prevent his people from “going up to do sacrifice in the house of Jehovah at Jerusalem,” (1 Kings 12:27,) abundantly account for the neglect and violation of the Book of the Law which followed. That book, however, was not lost. It is referred to as influencing the action of Amaziah in not putting to death children for their fathers’ crimes, (2 Kings 14:6; comp. Deuteronomy 24:16;) and Hezekiah is expressly said to have “kept the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses.” 2 Kings 18:6. This king sought also to destroy the worship of the high places, and all idolatry, and broke in pieces the brazen serpent made by Moses (Numbers 21:9) because it had become an object of idolatrous worship. Numbers 18:4. The Book of the Law of Moses, discovered in the days of Josiah, was evidently recognised as genuine, and its commandments and statutes were followed by that king and his princes in their efforts at national reformation. The idea that this book was a literary forgery, or a legal fiction, or that it consisted solely of the Deuteronomic Code, we have seen to be untenable.

5. The prophets, moreover, make repeated allusions to the Mosaic history and law. Amos refers to the exodus and the wilderness journey, (Amos 2:10; 3:1;) to the law of the Nazarites, (Amos 2:11, 12;) and to the tithes after three years, (Amos 4:4; comp. Deuteronomy 14:28.) Hosea alludes to Adam’s transgression of the covenant, (Hosea 6:6;) to the exodus from Egypt, (Hosea 2:15; 11:1;) to Jacob’s taking his brother by the heel in the womb; and to the events of Peniel and Bethel, (Hosea 12:3, 4.) He also clearly alludes to the many things of Jehovah’s law which have been written, (Hosea 8:12.) Isaiah speaks of the law of Jehovah which the people will not hear, (Isaiah 30:9;) Micah mentions the exodus, the ministry of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, the counsels of Balak and Balaam, (Micah 6: 4, 5,) and the promises of Jacob and Abraham, (Micah 7:20.) Joel speaks of the meat and drink offerings, the priests and assemblies at the house of Jehovah, (Joel 1:9, 13, 14.) He speaks of Zion as the holy mountain, and is familiar with the use of the trumpet to sound an alarm and convene an assembly, (Joel 2:1, 15; comp. Numbers 10:1-10.) It would be superfluous to add other references, which appear in later books, and such as are scattered through the Psalms. The above are allusions which so manifestly imply the antiquity of the Mosaic legislation that, taken in connexion with the internal evidence already adduced, they may be confidently cited as corroborative evidence of the early existence of the Mosaic writings.

III. Collateral Evidence.

Under this head we may appropriately add a number of considerations which serve to show that Moses might have written the books which are ascribed to him. The following facts make it evident that it was not only possible, but altogether probable, that Moses put on record the great facts of his life and ministry and the laws which were given through him at Sinai and during the journeys of the desert.

1. The art of writing was known before the age of Moses, and was extensively used by the Egyptians. We suppose it to be now generally conceded that inscriptions on Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, and Babylonian monuments put this fact beyond all question. It is now commonly believed that the most ancient Vedas of India were committed to writing as early as the age of Moses. Mommsen testifies to the high antiquity of writing even in Rome. (History of Rome, vol. i, p. 15.) The tradition of Cadmus shows that alphabetic writing in Greece was older than the beginning of the historic period. “The use of letters,” says Pliny, “would seem to have been eternal.” That Moses, brought up at the court of Egypt, was ignorant of the art of writing, is not supposable. According to Wilkinson, “We meet with papyri of the most remote Pharaonic periods; and the same mode of writing on them is shown, from the sculptures, to have been common in the age of Suphis or Cheops, the builder of the great pyramid, more than 2,000 years before our era.” (Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. ii, p. 98.) The remarkable papyrus, written in hieratic characters, which was discovered by Brisse, and translated by Chabas, is of very remote antiquity. (See Rouge, Recueil de Rapports, p. 55, Paris, 1867; Brugsch, Hist. d’ Egypte, p. 63.)

2. Great epochs in human history develop great writers. Influences are then brought to bear on men of intellectual vigour which serve as an unusual stimulus to mental effort. We need not wonder that the exodus and the desert journey furnished occasion for the composition of poems and books of history. National odes and records of war and victory would meet a popular demand. We find, also, that the great rulers of Egypt, Assyria, and other ancient nations were in the habit of putting on record the great events of their times. David and later kings of Israel had official scribes and recorders. 2 Samuel 8:16, 17. Mesha, king of Moab, had an outline of his conquests inscribed on a monumental stone. Why should it be doubted or denied that Moses also made a record of the great events of his last forty years? That he did so is clearly indicated in such passages as Exodus 17:14; and, aside from such testimony, is every way probable in the nature of things.

3. The versatility of the Israelitish mind, as seen in all times, and wherever they have been scattered by persecution, affords a presumption that they would not have been without any literature, and ignorant of the art of writing, when the leading nations about them had made great progress in such things. The arts of Egypt had furnished Hebrews like Bezaleel and Aholiab (Exodus 36:1, 2) an opportunity to become skilled workmen in cutting and engraving. Such fragments of song as that of Numbers 21:17, 18, imply poetic genius at work in Israel during the journey of the wilderness. Deborah’s song witnesses the same in the age of the Judges. The incidental reference to writers in the tribe of Zebulun (Judges 5:14) suggests that contact with the Phoenicians, in the times of the Judges, might have served to develop in Israel the skilful use of the pen or pencil. Having seen that the current objections to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch are insufficient to set aside the traditional belief, and that internal, external, and collateral evidences combine to strengthen and confirm the opinion that these ancient books are a product of the Mosaic age, we may, in concluding this discussion, appropriately add a word touching the supposable revision of the work by later hands. Accepting every essential element of the traditional belief, we may at the same time admit the three following suppositions, which are plausible in themselves, analogous with what we know of other ancient writings, and suggested by a careful study of all the facts involved in the critical treatment of the question.

1. Moses may have employed amanuenses to write down his own words, and to arrange, compile, and transcribe various documents according to his dictation and desire. It might even be admitted that he himself wrote not a line of the Pentateuch in its present form, and yet the work be as truly and genuinely his as the Epistle to the Romans is a genuine work of Paul. No one questions Paul’s authorship of Romans, although it is expressly asserted that it was written by Tertius. Romans 16:22. Moses might have employed Aaron for a scribe as well as a spokesman, (comp. Exodus 4:10-16; 7:1,) and other chosen men might have been called to a similar service.

2. It is supposable that the discourses of Moses, as recorded in Deuteronomy, were edited and furnished with their introductory and supplementary narratives by Eleazar or Joshua. It is every way reasonable to believe that the three great historical and legislative discourses, and the two songs of Moses, were carefully written out by himself or one of his assistants before the day on which they were spoken to Israel, and were intrusted to the priests and elders for preservation. Comp. Deuteronomy 31:9, 26. It is equally supposable, and indeed, probable, that after the settlement in the land of Canaan some such man as Eleazar or Joshua arranged these discourses and songs in their present form, and supplied such passages as Deuteronomy 1:1-5; 4:41-49; 29:1, and most of chap. 31 and chap. 34. This hypothesis helps to explain some forms of expression as used in this book, (as, for example, the mention of Moses in the third person, and the phrase “beyond Jordan” in 1:1, 5, as compared with 3:25,) and at the same time allows all that is essential to the claims of Mosaic authorship as put forth in the book itself.

3. It is also probable, and in accordance with the ancient tradition, that Ezra, the “ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which Jehovah, the God of Israel, gave,” (Ezra 7:6,) transcribed the entire Pentateuch, and added in the margin or inserted in the work itself most of those words and passages which are generally believed to have been added long after the age of Moses.

Preface.

WHD_CO02.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

BY THE EDITOR OF BOOKS.

ANOTHER volume of the Commentary projected by Dr. Daniel D. Whedon is now presented to Christian readers. With the publication of one more volume, which is nearly ready for the press, the entire series will be completed, furnishing a rare and comprehensive commentary on all the books of the Bible. We say “rare,” because in addition to the scholarly work of the eminent writer and projector of the whole, who wrote all the notes of the New Testament, those of one epistle only excepted, it will have been carried to a conclusion by critics and scholars scarcely less qualified than himself for so great a task. We say “comprehensive,” because the work has been executed carefully, patiently, with due reference to the results of scientific and historic criticism, and with a manifest loyalty on the part of every writer to the soundest exegetical requirements and necessities.

In respect to the volume herewith issued some general observations are as much in order as any remarks we may make on the particular books composing it, or on the final results of the contributing commentators. The reader will observe, that while in all its features the volume is appropriately orthodox or evangelical it is in no studied sense a reflection of denominational teaching or conviction. The art of the commentator is to avoid the bias of education, the prejudice of creed, and the being unduly influenced by the current opinion of truth. It is his duty, faithfully and thoroughly, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, by transporting himself so far as is possible to the period of the ancient writer, and reproducing the age and circumstances under which he wrote, and by availing himself of the best philological, psychological, scientific, and historic methods of interpretation, to discover the intended purpose, first of the book itself, and then of its particular paragraphs and sections, giving in conclusion and without hesitancy or doubt the mind of God so far as the book is per se an organ of the revelation of a particular truth, plan, or result. Nor in this labour can the commentator hope to succeed without the antecedent and ever-abiding influence of the Holy Spirit, who always illuminates the students of the divine word, and guides seekers of knowledge into truth. Finally, to understand the sacred book, it is not necessary that the commentator should advocate or reflect the tenets of any school of theology or be governed by a denominational bias; but it is necessary that he accept the Christian faith, aiming in his interpretation to exhibit its foundations and corroborate and strengthen the defences of our holy religion.

It is with unqualified pleasure that we record that the writers of this volume establish their claim as true commentators by an originality of research, an independence of thought and expression, an accurate knowledge of the language and times of the books, and such a profound study and application of exegetical and historical canons and principles, and a devout and spiritual apprehension of the truths involved in the books, as to enrich those who follow them to their conclusion. No student or scholar will have occasion to complain of scholarly defect, or a theological bias, or an unhistorical spirit in these writers.

It is gratifying to note that literary interest in the three books of this volume has revived, owing in part to the rationalistic criticisms of the age which more or less involve their Mosaic authorship, and also in part to the fundamental value of the contents of the books themselves. In a general sense the Pentateuchal books have been regarded as histories, written in a barren and unattractive style, with almost total reference to institutions and customs that have passed away, or in which modern culture can no longer take any interest. Slowly and effectually this view is being exchanged for a conception that not only divests the three books of their supremely historical character, but invests them with a new meaning, linking them to the Christian system by a bond that cannot be broken. Leviticus is not strictly historical — that is, a narrative of events — but the record of a system of religion which, typical in its wholeness, passed over in fulfilled form into the Christian dispensation, which borrows some of the finest illustrations of its purpose from the old and obsolete religion. Studying Leviticus from this view-point, it glows with a meaning not heretofore given it, and passes out of the domain of history into the realm of religion. Dr. Steele has made this fact so manifest that we need not add another word respecting it.

Equally relieved of its cold historical form is the book of Numbers, which under the transforming power of the commentator is made to epitomize national and religious legislation, and to assume a distinctively religious spirit. The book itself relates largely to the statutes and ordinances of Israel enacted during the journey in the wilderness, and is written in the terse, statutory form of a legal composer. Adverse criticism has sought to disparage its Mosaic authorship, and especially has condemned the numerical statements of the book; but Dr. Steele, while frankly admitting some knotty problems, solves so many of them as to leave the remainder powerless for evil.

Deuteronomy is in some respects a second edition of the Pentateuchal legislation and history, with recapitulations and additions such as might be expected in a late account of the marvellous wanderings, achievements, and developments of the Hebrews. Dr. Lindsay recognises the historical element of the book, and appropriately points out its fitness in the last Mosaic period of Israel. He, too, traces rationalistic criticism respecting this book to its source, and vindicates from other Scriptures the historic belief of its Mosaic authorship.

The aim of the commentators is first to ascertain the contents of the books; second, their meaning, historical or otherwise; third, their value; and fourth, the critical objections to their Mosaic origin. The reader will conclude that, whether this fourfold purpose is always patent or somewhat obscure, it is in final result achieved.

It is not claimed that Dr. Steele and Dr. Lindsay have fully discussed the critical questions of the age which the books suggest, nor have they repelled every critical objection that has been raised to their historic authorship. To have gone elaborately into this department would have trespassed their design, controverted their instructions, and burdened the volume with arguments which its readers would neither crave nor appropriate. In their “Introductions” they have stated such questions as are properly within their range, and given them such attention as their work required. It should be remembered that rationalistic criticism is essentially modern, and undertakes to apply modern rules to ancient documents, without an appreciation of the historic spirit of such documents, and is, therefore, largely irrelevant and harmful. Wisely have these commentators avoided discussing the unscrupulous attacks upon these books, choosing rather to show their historic place in literature and their vital and enduring relations to religion.

It may finally be observed, that, taking up this volume without a preconception as to how ancient history should have been written, as to how the sacrificial system should have been instituted, and as to how the legal code of the Hebrews should have been formed, it will prove to the reader most instructive on all these points, opening to his retrospection a larger view of early Hebrew history, and intensifying his reverence for that Providence which, giving Moses to the world, only supplanted him by the advent of the divine Teacher himself.

1891.

J.W.M.

Preface.

WHD_CO03.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

THE present volume is one of a series intended to furnish a Manual Commentary on the Old Testament corresponding with Whedon’s on the New. It is designed, in accordance with the plan of the entire series, to be strictly and concisely exegetical; treating the true text of Scripture as divinely inspired and authoritative, and embodying the latest results of sound biblical criticism and research.

The Notes on Joshua and the first three chapters of Judges were first prepared by Dr. Steele; but, under the pressure of numerous official duties as Professor and Vice-President of the Syracuse University, he felt unable to complete Judges and revise Joshua without greatly delaying the work. Upon his recommendation, and by approval of the general Editor, the entire volume, with Dr. Steele’s manuscript, was assigned to the present writer to prepare for the press. In this final revision many changes have been made both by erasure and addition. The principal additions are inclosed in brackets [-] and braces {-}, the latter designating notes added by the general Editor. Special thanks are due to Dr. Strong, of Drew Theological Seminary, for many valuable suggestions.

All accessible works, ancient and modern, bearing on this portion of Holy Scripture, have been duly consulted. Among those principally used, such as have been constantly on our table, consulted at nearly every step, and frequently referred to in the notes, the most important are the following. Commentaries.

CRITICI SACRI, and POOLE’S SYNOPSIS.

CLERICUS. (Le Clerc.) Ver. Test. Libri Historici, cum commentario philologico, etc. Amsterdam. 1708.

KEIL. Commentary on Joshua. Edinburgh. 1857.

KEIL and DELITZSCH. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Edinburgh. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1868; Samuel, 1866.

KNOBEL on Joshua; BERTHEAU on Judges and Ruth, and THENIUS on Samuel, in the Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch. Leipsic.

FAY on Joshua, and CASSEL on Judges and Ruth, in LANGE’S Bibelwerk. Also, the American translation of the same by BLISS and STEENSTRA. New York. 1872.

BUSH. Notes on Joshua and Judges. Boston. 1870.

BACHMANN. Das Buch der Richter. Mit besonderer Ruchsicht auf die Geschichte seiner Auslegung und kirchlichen Verwendung erklart. Berlin. 1868-69. (This noble work is not yet completed.)

The Commentaries of PATRICK, HENRY, SCOTT, CLARKE, and WORDSWORTH. Works on Palestine.

ROBINSON, Biblical Researches. Boston. 1860.

STANLEY. Sinai and Palestine. New York. 1868.

TRISTRAM. The Land of Israel. London. 1866.

RITTER. Geography of Palestine. Translated by GAGE. New York. 1870. THOMSON. The Land and the Book. New York.

WILSON and WARREN. The Recovery of Jerusalem. A Narrative of Exploration, etc., in the Holy Land. New York. 1871.

PALMER. The Desert of the Exodus. New York. 1872.

MENKE. Bibelatlas in Acht Blattern. Gotha. 1868.

KIEPERT. Bibelatlas nach den neuesten und besten Hulfsquellen. (Von LIONNET.) Berlin. 1865.

VAN DE VELDE. Map of the Holy Land, and accompanying Memoir. Gotha. 1858.

And especially SMITH’S Dictionary of the Bible, KITTO’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, (New Edition,) and M’CLINTOCK and STRONG’S Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Of more general works, KITTO’S Daily Bible Illustrations, STANLEY’S History of the Jewish Church, and EWALD’S History of Israel, are worthy of particular mention; and various Theological Reviews, both American and Foreign, have often been of great service. — M.S.T.

Preface.

WHD_CO04.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

BY THE GENERAL EDITOR.

THE present volume is the fourth (though the second issued) of a projected Commentary on the Old Testament, to consist of eight volumes, uniform with the Commentary on the New Testament, which is now being published at our Book Rooms. The purpose is to exclude all matter but Commentary proper, and thereby to bring a large amount of exegesis into such compass that the complete work may be purchased at a reasonable sum. The best results of biblical investigation, ancient and modern, down to the latest dates, will be presented. Sufficient maps and illustrations are to be furnished. While the work will, we trust, be acceptable to Ministers and Scholars, such simplicity and clearness will be preserved that the whole will be available for Popular Use. The arrangements now made with some of our best Biblical Scholars, who are engaged in the work, are such that none need hesitate to purchase a single volume or more from any apprehension that there will be any failure to complete the entire set. The present volume will be found, we trust, amply to sustain the promises above made. It covers ground on which we have fewer exegetical helps accessible to the common reader than on any other portion of the Bible. We know of no other Manual Commentary in our language on the books treated in this volume. In both his volumes Mr. Terry has brought into Commentary no small amount of fresh matter, and the whole is given with a clearness and completeness that will be generally satisfactory to ordinary readers, an well as to Biblical Students, Bible-class Teachers, and Ministers. The notes, while seldom homiletical or hortatory, are imbued with the Scriptural spirit, and true to the mind of the evangelical Church. Upon the whole work we may confidingly invoke the blessing of Almighty God, with the earnest prayer that he will give to his own Holy Word a divine efficiency to the salvation of men.

D.D.W.

Author’s Note.

WHD_CO04.PDF, source PDF p. 4

AUTHOR’S NOTE.

As the present volume covers seven Canonical Books of the Old Testament, it was found expedient, in order to bring the Comments on so large a portion of Scripture within the limits of a single volume, to omit the Scripture text of the Books of Chronicles. This was deemed the more allowable since a thorough treatment of the Books of Kings in the same volume rendered a corresponding fulness in Chronicles unnecessary. Besides many of the works mentioned in our Preface to the preceding volume, the principal exegetical helps and literature to which the present volume is indebted, and the editions to which direct references are made, are the following: —

BAHR

on the Books of Kings in Lange’s Bibelwerk, translated by HARWOOD and SUMNER

. New York, 1872. ZOCKLER

. Die Bucher der Chronik. Leipsic,

1874. (The last named, the eighth part in the German of the same Bibelwerk, came to hand too late to be of much service to us.) JOSEPHUS

. Opera Omnia, Ed. Oberthur, 3 vols. Greek and Latin. Leipsic, 1782-1785.

KEIL

. Commentary on the Book of Kings, translated by J. MURPHY .

Edinburgh, 1857. Also by the same author, Commentary on Kings, translated by JAMES

MARTIN

, (1872;) on Chronicles, translated by ANDREW

HARPER

, (1872;) and on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, translated by SOPHIA TAYLOR

, (1873;) — forming a part of KEIL

and DELITZSCH’S

“Biblical

Commentary on the Old Testament,” in Clark’s “Foreign Theological Library.” Edinburgh.

MAURER

. Commentarius Grammaticus Criticus in Vetns Testamentum. Leipsic, 1835.

RAWLINSON

. “The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World.” 3 vols. New York, 1871. “The History of Herodotus, English Version, with copious Notes, etc.” 4 vols. New York, 1859. “Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records stated Anew;” being the Bampton Lecture for 1859. The “Speaker’s Commentary,” on Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. New York, 1873.

THENIUS

on Kings, and BERTHEAU

on Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,

in the “Kurzgefasstes Exegetiches Handbuch zum Alten Testament.” Leipsic.

TYRWHITT

. Esther and Ahasuerus. 2 vols. London, 1868.

The Polyglots of WALTON, and of STIER and THEILE, have been used throughout the entire work, and whenever the ancient versions furnish various readings or additions of special interest and value to the reader, the facts have been duly noted in our comments.

Prefatory Note.

WHD_CO05.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFATORY NOTE.

A WORK like the present was proposed by the author some years ago as a companion-book to his “Psalms Chronologically Arranged;” but providential circumstances suspended the execution of the plan for a time, till, upon invitation to supply a volume of Notes on the Psalms for the proposed Commentary on the whole Bible, the former conception was merged in this, and the present volume is the result. This work in nowise supersedes the former publication. The grounds occupied by the two are distinct, though they mutually supplement each other, according to the original design.

No book in the sacred canon so intertwines itself with all other sacred books, and so interpenetrates all Bible history and prophecy, all secular and spiritual knowledge, as the Psalms. This arises from the nature and scope of sacred lyrical poetry. (See section on “Sacred Hymnology” in the general Introduction.) The difficulty, therefore, of keeping within the limits of sacred exegesis is not slight. On the one hand, the temptation is to a cumbrous weight of dry criticism; on the other, to homiletics, dogmatic theology, and speculation. The office of interpretation is not to say all that might be said, nor even all that might be profitable, but so much as is necessary to lead out, as the word means, (‘εζηγησις,) the common reader from what seems perplexing and obscure into the plain and true meaning of the text. Notes explanatory may seem dry, like the dead bones of the prophet’s vision; and such they are to the mere reader, but not to the student. It is not their office to supply thought, nor to make moral applications, but to clear away the rubbish, and reveal the foundations of thought and doctrine contained in the text. The obscurities lie, not in the text per se, as it was delivered to the native Hebrew, but in the accidents of foreign and antique modes of thought, idioms of language, differences of manners and customs, the occasion of writing, the time, place, circumstances, and design of the writer, as these come to the modern reader. That which was clear enough to those for whom the Psalms were originally intended now needs explanation. The same may be said of any antique book written in language and with allusions foreign to us. The interpretation of Scripture may be viewed in a twofold light. First, in the interpretation of the language of the text, which embraces the signification of words according to etymology and usage, their grammatical construction, and their special application as indicated by the connexion and the scope of the writer; secondly, in the allusions made to facts or things extraneous to the text. The special knowledge of the interpreter, therefore, must lie within the domain of philology, of archaeology in its broadest sense, and the science and skill of applying the laws of language according to universal reason (hermeneutics) for determining the sense. All these may appear dry and foreign to the moral purpose of revelation; but from the sense of Scripture thus ascertained there arise a solidity and substance of truth which give joy and satisfaction and strength to the soul. And this only is reliable exegesis.

It is unfortunate for many devout readers of Scripture that they pay so little regard to the study of Bible history, geography, archaeology, and the principles of interpretation. They thereby lose much of the richness and practical force—sometimes the sense itself—of the sacred text. What would the New Testament be to us, as compared to what it now is, if stripped of the history of our Lord, his apostles, and the early Church, and presented to us in the abstract form of dogma, law, and ethics? The difference is inconceivable. History makes dogma and ethics practical, and brings down to us the teachings of the Holy Spirit clothed with the warm sympathies of human life. If our Lord has condescended to give himself a human history for our sakes, shall we be so indifferent as to neglect its study? By neglecting it, will any true disciple affect the attainment of a higher spirituality? The same reasoning applies to all Old Testament history. So, also, of language. If God has chosen a human language as the medium of his communications to us, it is evident, from the nature of the case, that we can arrive at the meaning of the Holy Spirit only through a correct knowledge and application of the laws of that language, always following out these two fundamental rules, that words are to be taken and applied according to the standard of common usage, and that the literal or grammatical sense is always the first construction to be, by the interpreter, put on an author’s language; remembering, also, that where spiritual things are the subjects of discourse the spiritual sense is the grammatical or literal sense.

The present volume has been written with constant reference to the average capacity and real wants of all Bible students, whether in the family, the sacred office, the Sunday-school, or private life. It is written for such, not for the learned alone, who have access to original sources of information at will. But, though presented in a humble garb, the facts and interpretations have been adjusted to the standard of modern sacred criticism and literature. It were impossible to make any one man a model. Common sense, which every man must exercise for himself, has as much to do with the interpretation of Hebrew as with managing a common avocation. We have therefore sometimes dissented from learned opinions, but cautiously, and for reasons given in the notes.

The reader is specially cautioned not to look upon the references to parallel or cognate passages with indifference, or with an impression that they are an irrelevant lumbering of the notes. In so condensed a work as this the quotations could not be spread out upon the page, and the necessity was upon us in most cases to simply make the reference. The value of references is founded in the analogy and organic unity of revelation. The Bible goes far toward explaining itself. A good reference Bible is an indispensable commentary. By this means we compare all phases of the same subject, and acquire the most comprehensive, as well as the most authentic and reliable, knowledge. The references here made are generally strictly parallel either as to words or topics, and are often based upon the Hebrew usage of words. No part of the work has elicited more care and labour than this.

Five Psalms—119, 143, 144, 145, 146—are from the pen of Rev. H.B. Hyde, D.D., of Alleghany College. When it was proposed to put this work to press at an earlier date, and the weight of my professional cares precluded all hope of being ready in time, Dr. Hyde kindly consented to aid me. The above is the result. He is well known as an accomplished classical and Oriental scholar, and is the author of the commentary on Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon in this same series.

In conclusion, I would only add the prayer of the apostle: “That my service which I have for [the Church] may be accepted of the saints,” and approved of God.

F.G. HIBBARD.

CLIFTON SPRINGS, N.Y., Oct. 1, 1881.

Introduction to the Book of Psalms.

WHD_CO05.PDF, source PDF p. 6

Editorial note: Source layout note: This section’s list of Messianic quotations is arranged as a table in the supplied edition (WHD_CO05.PDF, physical PDF pages 23–24). Read each stated subject together with its Psalm reference and New Testament reference. The printed reference wording is retained. WHD_CO05.PDF, PDF page 23; WHD_CO05.PDF, PDF page 24.

Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Psalm 68:38” here (WHD_CO05.PDF, physical PDF page 16). The surrounding discussion of riding upon the heavens of heavens corresponds to Psalm 68:33 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO05.PDF, PDF page 16.

Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “John 19:87” here (WHD_CO05.PDF, physical PDF page 23). The surrounding discussion of looking on the one who was pierced corresponds to John 19:37 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO05.PDF, PDF page 23.

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF PSALMS.

Sacred Hymnology.

THE PSALMS are the only collection of sacred songs plenarily inspired which were ever given to the Church, and as such present a claim upon our reverence, faith, and devotional use which belongs to none other. For a thousand years they were the only standard hymns of the Church, and maintained a high rank in the sacred writings, so that the third division of the Old Testament—the Hagiographa—was denoted by the term Psalms. Luke 24:44. But soon after the time of our Saviour, even in the apostles’ days, additions began to be made to the hymnology of the Church, as appears from the enumeration of “psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,” by Paul. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16. Our Saviour, however, (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26,) gave an example of adherence to the Jewish Church order in chanting, after the Passover, the whole or a part of the Hallel, consisting of Psalm 113 to 118. Possibly he chanted only the last.

The first New Testament departure from the old custom consisted, chiefly, in setting to music certain poetical portions of the New Testament, as “Luke 2:14, the so-called Gloria; the parting words of Simeon, Luke 2:29, the Nunc Dimittis; the sublime song of Mary, Luke 1:46, seq., the Magnificat; and the words of Zacharias, 1:68, seq., the Benedictus. The short thanksgiving in Acts 4:24-30, has a psalmodic character, (comp. Psalm 2,) and is easily put into metrical form.”—Schaff. Various other portions of the New Testament might be cited, especially from the Apocalypse, rich in poetic conceptions and sublime devotion. During the lapse of centuries various lyrical additions were made, to supplement, not to supersede, the Psalms. The new dispensation demanded it. The difficulty which Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, encountered in the third century in his attempt (for political reasons, Mosheim thinks) to bring back the Churches of Syria to the use of the Psalms alone, and the large advance in hymnology made by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, in the following century, indicate the strong tendency of the Church in this direction, notwithstanding the jealousy with which it was watched by dignitaries and councils.

A lyrical collection for the use of the whole Church, in any age, must be as comprehensive in its themes as the entire scope of doctrine, history, ethics, unfulfilled prophecy, subjective experience, and divine dispensation known to the age; and in its exterior form and structure must fairly represent the existing literature, modes of thought, and style of language. The Psalms were suited to the Church as it existed under the law of Moses, in connexion with the theocratic history and high nationality of the Hebrew people. Much, very much, therein, rises to a sublime anticipation of the distinctive features of the New Testament Church, and cannot be improved by any light or knowledge of language now possessed, except in adaptation of rhythm and idiomatic forms. “This book, not unreasonably, am I wont to style an anatomy of all parts of the soul, for no one will ever discover in himself a single feeling whereof the image is not reflected in this mirror. Nay, all griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, and anxieties—in short, all those tumultuous agitations wherewith the minds of men are wont to be tossed—the Holy Ghost hath here represented to the life.”—Calvin. A portion of the Psalter, however, can suit only the condition of the ancient Church and the Hebrew nation.

Title.

For reasons just referred to, no one word could give all adequate idea of the contents of the entire collection. The word “psalm” (ψαλμος, from ψαλλω to sing, to play on an instrument) simply signifies a song, and corresponds to מזמור, a song or psalm, which latter is only used to designate individual psalms, never the collective whole. “Psalter,” from ψαλτηριον, has the same Greek derivation as psalm, and signifies a stringed instrument, then the song sung or performed on the instrument, finally, the book of songs or psalms. The Hebrew title is simply תהלים, (tehilleem,) praises, or praise psalms, (the Masora gives the feminine plural tehilloth,) or, prefixing ספר, sepher, book of praises. But much of the collection is prayer, and several particular psalms are called in their titles תפלה, tephillahs, or prayer songs. See Hebrew titles of Psalm 17, 86, 90, 102, 142; Habakkuk 3:1. But this title is never given to the whole book. On its supposed application to the first two books of the Psalter, see on Psalm 72:20, and its introduction. Book of Praises, or Praise Songs, then, is the most characteristic title of these portions; and certainly praise to God, in the broader sense, of setting forth that which is honourable to his name, is their prevailing trait. Still as a hymn book for the whole Church should set forth the divine methods of grace and of moral government in all the varied fortunes of the Church, it must recognise her struggles with native depravity, her conflicts with the outer world, her persecutions, even her wanderings as well as her triumphs, her subjective experiences, her holy fellowships, and her everlasting heritage. A suffering Redeemer and a suffering Church, no less than a glorified Redeemer and a redeemed people, must swell the songs of Zion. Specific Titles.

Various terms are employed to give poetical, musical, liturgical, and moral designations.

Mizmor occurs in the titles of fifty-seven psalms. The word signifies a poem or song set to music, and accompanied by an instrument. It occurs only in the titles.

Shir is found not only in the titles of psalms, but in the text in different parts of Scripture. In the titles it occurs twenty-nine times. It denotes a song to be sung, as mizmor does one to be played on an instrument. The two words sometimes occur together, as shir mizmor, or inversely, mizmor shir, probably placed together without any special design by the collector. Various musical designations are given, as aijeleth shahar, Psalm 22; higgaion, Psalm 9:16; selah, (rest, pause,) but this latter never in the titles; muth-labben, Psalm 9; sheminith, Psalm 6. See these terms explained in the notes.

Designations of the instruments of music on which to perform the psalm occur, as, upon gittith, Psalm 8; on neginoth, Psalm 6; on nehiloth, Psalm v; leannoth, Psalm 88; shushan eduth, Psalm 60. See the notes. Terms occur suggestive of the subject-matter or quality of the psalm, as, upon jonath-elem-rechokim, Psalm 56; shiggaion, Psalm 7; michtam, Psalm 16; maschil, Psalm 32; jedidoth, (song of loves,) Psalm 45. See notes.

Titles are also used, having a liturgical designation, as, at the dedication of the house of David, Psalm 30; for the Sabbath day, Psalm 92; to bring to remembrance, (le-hatzir,) Psalm 38; the goings up, (hammaaloth,) “songs of degrees,” Psalm 120; a psalm of praise, title of Psalm 100. These seem to have a reference to times and occasions of using.

Titles also designate the performer or precentor, as, to the chief musician, (lamnatzeach,) Psalm 11; to Jeduthun, Psalm 39. For the explanation of these terms see notes on the titles of psalms referred to. These titles were given sometimes by the author and sometimes by the compiler. Divisions.

The Hebrew Psalter is divided into five books, the first ending with Psalm 41, the second with Psalm 72, the third with Psalm 89, the fourth with Psalm 106, the fifth with Psalm 150, each closing with a doxology except the last, which ends with a “hallelujah,” and all with an “amen.” These books were collected from time to time, as the psalms were written, during a period of six hundred years from the time of David, so that the first and second books were probably compiled during David’s lifetime. Some of the psalms in these books appear obviously to relate to the Captivity, and some of those assigned to the Captivity bear the name of David in the titles. This was probably due to the fact that later editors and compilers added to some of David’s unedited psalms, which were found to breathe a spirit congenial to the Church in captivity, some further matter more definitely local and more largely expressive of the feelings of the Church in their times, much as modern hymns are verbally altered, without impairing their essential identity or their original authorship. In the final revision and collection of the psalms in the days of Ezra—the same arrangement that has come down to us—we know that a strict regard to the order of time in which they were written was not observed, so that many of David’s psalms are found in the later books, and many of those of the captivity are found in the earlier books. The third book, relating mostly to the times of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and the Captivity, was written by Asaph, Korah, Heman, and Ethan; one only (Psalm 86) is ascribed to David, though Psalm 78 probably refers to his times. The fourth book opens with the dirge-like tones of Psalm 90, indisputably from the pen of Moses. Besides this, and Psalm 103, which is ascribed to David, the psalms of this book are anonymous, ten relating to the times of David and Solomon, and the rest to those of Hezekiah, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Captivity. The last book, beginning with Psalm 107, gives twenty-seven anonymous psalms, relating to the times of Jehoshaphat or the Captivity, besides fifteen ascribed to David and one to Solomon. From these data it is probable that the third book was compiled mostly in the reign of Jehoshaphat or of Hezekiah, and the fourth and fifth, together with a revision of the entire Psalter, by Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. See 2 Mac. 2:13; Ezra 7:10. Authors.

To DAVID seventy-three psalms are ascribed in the common text, to which various critics have added, so as to make the total number eighty, or, according to the Septuagint, eighty-four. As he is the chief contributor, so he is the model, standing throughout the ages as “the sweet Psalmist of Israel,” unrivalled in the sphere of lyrical poetry.

ASAPH stands as the author of twelve psalms, (Psalm 50 and 73-83.) His is a family name, extending through many generations.

The SONS OF KORAH, another Levitical family, are honoured in the titles of eleven psalms, (42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, 88. But see introductory notes to Psalm 72 and 88, on the author-ship of the latter.)

HEMAN, the Ezrahite, or son of Ezrah or Zerah, wrote Psalm 88. ETHAN, the Ezrahite, also son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, is also mentioned in the superscription of Psalm 89.

To SOLOMON have been attributed Psalm 45, 127, 128. Psalm 72, in the title, according to our English version, is also ascribed to Solomon, but on the construction of the much-contested lamedh (l) here, as denoting authorship, see introductions and notes on titles to Psalm 72 and 88. To MOSES is referred Psalm 90, and in this both Jews and Christians agree. The reader is referred to the notes on the titles of the above psalms for further information respecting their several authors.

The Principal Psalmodic Periods.

Something more than a poetic taste and faculty was requisite for the production of a sacred lyric suitable to be used in the Church of God, and adapted to the devout of all ages: the heart must be in close sympathy with God, his works, his moral government, and the great plan of redemption. The poet must write and sing from the heart of the Redeemer and the redeemed, penetrated with the genius of the dispensation under which he lives, having absorbed into his own inner life its doctrines, its spirit, and its aims. An age, therefore, of spiritual declension, worldliness, neglect of the institutes of Moses, tainted with idolatry, could not be friendly to sacred song. Devout and spiritual worship would become chilled in its atmosphere and wither under its blight. Solomon wrote “a thousand and five songs,” (1 Kings 4:32,) of which only his “Song of Songs” remains. His lyrical productions are meagre, and seldom rise above the civic-religious sphere. His middle and later life was not in sympathy with the sublime praises which rise from a spiritual Church. Under King Uzziah the nation rose to great power and outward prosperity, but declined in piety. To David’s time belongs the golden age of Hebrew psalmody. He walked with God. Under him the sublimest conceptions of the Theocracy were realized. His poetry and his songs sprang from the inner depths of a true experience. After him, for four hundred years, the most brilliant periods of lyrical poetry were in the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah. Later came the downfall of the nation, and the dark period of the Captivity, running through seventy years, followed by the prolonged struggles of the Restoration, and ending with the completion of the Old Testament history and canon. These events roused the deepest religious feelings of the nation, awakening the memories of their former glory, and hopes of a brighter future. The epoch of the Restoration, including the dawning hopes which preceded, was honoured by the appearance of a line of representative men deeply versed in the things of God, and with this great religious revival (Habakkuk 3:1) came the last period of national lyrical poetry.

Ethical Teaching.

All the morality of the Old Testament, as of the New, is grounded, primarily, in man’s relation to God; secondarily, in man’s relation to man. If man should be kind, just, and true to man, because of a common relation of brotherhood, he finds these same duties enjoined by divine authority from man’s relation and accountability to God. “I am the Jehovah, your God,” was the reason assigned for social virtue and kindness. Leviticus 19. 10, seq. The same awful annunciation stands at the head of the decalogue. Exodus 20:2. The obligation to “holiness,” a generic term for all purity and moral virtue, arose from the nature of God: “Ye shall be holy, for I, Jehovah, your God, am holy.” Leviticus 19:2. In the order of duties, obedience to God, arising from reverence for his character, stood first. In the “Ten Commandments,” the first four relate directly to our duty to God, next comes the great law of family life, then the cardinal principles of general life in society. If our duty to God be primal, it is not separated from, nor independent of, our duty to man, but implies it in the order of sequence. In the fifteenth Psalm, he is said to be the man who shall “abide in God’s tabernacle, and dwell in his holy hill,” who is “upright, righteous, true,” and practices all virtue towards men. He is the “happy” man who “delights in the law of the Lord.” Psalm 1. The Saviour reduced all the morality and religion of the Old Testament to the two branches, preserving the relative order of each: “Loving God with all the heart, and our neighbour as ourself.”

The description of a perfect character— “the ideal man,” as it has been called—given in the psalms, is that of one who loves the sanctuary and the worship of God in their spiritual, and not merely liturgical, import, (Psalm 24 and 84,) and trusts the Lord steadfastly for temporal as for spiritual good. Psalm 112:7. The outward worship springs from a sincere heart of love to God, and perfect moral rectitude. No worship is accounted as sincere towards God which omits truth, justice, and love towards man. Psalm 50. The inner and the outer life are thus in harmony, and correlate as cause and effect. The world is under moral government, and the perfection of man is his perfect harmony with God. The relations of “low and high, rich and poor, together” in society, are harmonized only in this way. Psalm

49. Love to our neighbour is as clearly taught in the Old Testament as in the New, (Leviticus 19:18,) and revenge or personal vengeance, the sole prerogative of God, is clearly prohibited to man. Psalm 94:1; comp. Deuteronomy 32:35. On his habitual kindness to his enemies, and personal forgiveness of their offences, David grounds his prayer for divine interference for relief. Psalm 35:11-14. The Imprecatory Psalms, so called, do not contradict this. See the notes on Psalm 35 and 109, and others. The Old Testament law is stated, Psalm 18:25, “With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful;” and Psalm 4:3, “The Lord hath set apart him that is merciful for himself;” and Psalm 12:1, “Help, Lord, for the merciful man ceaseth.” It is to be regretted that the radical idea of חסיד is so often lost sight of in our English version by its following too closely the Septuagint, which commonly renders the word οσιος, holy, godly. This is the more strange as the noun חסד, which is rendered in our common version generally by kindness, mercy, pity, favour, goodness, lovingkindness, is rendered by the Septuagint: as Girdlestone has computed, one hundred and thirty-five times by ελεος, mercy. The New Testament law is, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” Matthew 5:7. The Psalms of Asaph and of the sons of Korah are beautiful specimens of moral and religious instruction. In the character everywhere set forth in the Psalms as the favourite of God and as the “perfect man,” we find “single-heartedness; utter absence of guile; purity of heart, as the centre and mainspring of moral life; justice; fortitude; self-control; rectitude in dealings between man and man; generosity; (Psalm 7:4;) sympathy with all forms of suffering, warm and tender towards friends, but ever prompt and earnest towards all men, even opponents, (Psalm 35:13;) loyalty of subjects to their king; unselfish, sacrificing love of princes to their people; humility; the sense of poverty and need; the first distinct intimation that a broken heart and contrite spirit are acceptable sacrifices to God, (Psalm 51:17;) and that the meek and lowly are especial objects of his favour and grace. Psalm 18:27.”— Speaker’s Commentary.

The Future Life.

The argument for a future life cannot be entered upon at large here, but a notice may be given. For the evidence grounded in exegesis we refer the reader to notes on particular passages as they occur. We here observe:—

1. It is inconceivable that God should have delivered such clear views of moral government, redemption, reconciliation, evidences and joys of salvation, ground of confidence, faith in prayer, with the grand outlook of the promise of the covenant for the conversion of the world, and still have left the people in ignorance of the future life; that is, that he should have left them a step lower than the philosophic systems of the heathen. The supposition, however dignified with great names and learning, is simply absurd and preposterous.

Then, again, if the doctrine of immortality be not contained and taught in the Psalms, how could their language be adapted to Christian use? How could they so beautifully express our deepest spiritual experiences, and our dearest hopes of eternal life? Instance Psalm 16 and 23, and 73:24-26. This alone is conclusive subjective proof that they teach the doctrine. It is certain that the Jews, after the time of Malachi and of the close of the Old Testament canon, believed in the resurrection of the body and an immortal life, and that the Pharisees, in our Lord’s time, fully taught these doctrines. They could not have borrowed them from the Greeks or other heathen nations, for with them the resurrection was not believed in, and the future life was not so clearly a dogma as with the Jews.

2. The New Testament, and even Christ himself, assumes that the Old Testament taught the doctrine of an “eternal life.” So Christ says to the Jews, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life.” John 5:39. So the Talmud: “He possesses eternal life who comes to the possession of the words of the law.” So Romans 15:4: “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope.” “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:31. The issue between Christ and the Jews was not whether there was a life to come, but whether Christ was the way to it. The eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an argument directly in proof that the Old Testament saints looked for a life to come, and suffered, “not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection.” Hebrews 11:35. These are not New Testament arguments applied to interpret Old Testament language, but the testimonies of Jews as to what the Old Testament itself taught, and what the Jews themselves believed that it taught.

3. In those passages where the difference between the righteous and the wicked is drawn, a perfect contrast, both in character and destiny, is given. Psalm i is a specimen. In all such cases the “end” of the wicked is brought in to solve the otherwise dark problem of their present prosperity. Whether the divine government will take sides with the righteous or the wicked, or be indifferent to both, is not always clear from the present ways of God with men as to temporal conditions in this life. The best of men have stumbled or faltered here. The question is to be decided only by an appeal to the next life. The end of the wicked offers the solution. So Asaph, Psalm 73:16, 17: “When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.” The whole psalm bears upon this one point. So in Psalm 37:37, 38: “Mark the perfect man… for the end of that man is peace. But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.” The entire psalm is another argument upon this single point. The end, the final result, of life—the outcome of all divine dispensation in the case—is appealed to in the clearest descriptions of reward and punishment, in order to vindicate the ways of God. This method of reasoning runs through the entire Old Testament. Instance the books of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, where the final result is appealed to to solve the enigma of the present life. This doctrine of a final judgment sustained the faith and patience of all Old Testament saints, (Hebrews xi,) and decides the question of their faith in a life to come.

4. Indeed, hope in a future life enters largely into the essence of an evangelical experience of pardon, regeneration, and communion with God, awakening not only a longing for, but an assurance of, eternal blessedness with God. This indwelling life of God is compared (John 4:14) to a living fountain “springing up into everlasting life.” This is precisely as was the rising of David’s soul from a subjective consciousness of divine truth and love into an assured hope of eternal blessedness, as shown in Psalm 16:7-11; and of that of Asaph, as exhibited in Psalm 73:23-26. But these subjective longings could not have been begotten by the Holy Spirit had there existed no objective revelation of a future life. The inward desire must have had a corresponding external doctrine of faith. This doctrine lies scattered over the pages of the Law, is brought out more clearly by the Prophets, but is nowhere more beautifully exhibited than in the Psalms.

5. The “stone of stumbling” on this subject, to commentators of a rationalistic tendency, lies in the figures and material dress in which the doctrine of a future state is often clothed. The Hebrew language may, indeed, be called materialistic. It describes things as they appear to the senses. The Hebrews were not a philosophical people. They never cultivated metaphysics or the abstract sciences, and they had no terms to express ideal and spiritual things, or unseen and eternal realities, except by an adsignification to the primary sense of words, or by some analogy or contrast which they might borrow from sensible and material objects. Nor is any language entirely relieved from the same necessity. What idea can we either conceive or express concerning heaven as the place of future blessedness, but by comparing or contrasting it with this life? There is “night” here, there is “no night there;” there are “tears” here, there “God shall wipe away all tears;” “pain and sorrow” are here, in heaven “there shall be no pain, neither sorrow.” As to our form, or state of glory, “we shall be like Christ,” but this conveys no definite idea beyond the imagined glory of the human Christ. We ascend a little way, by help of material objects of comparison, and are then lost in imaginings of ineffable glory. Witness John’s description of Christ’s glorified body, in Revelation 1:12-18. The Saxon words heaven, hell, as well as the Bible terms sheol, hades, gehenna, paradise, have a material root idea. Heaven is the heaved up, arched place; hell, the place under foot, the pit. Sheol is the deep pit, then the grave, the region of the dead; hades is the unseen world; paradise is the grove, the pleasure garden; and gehenna (always translated hell in the New Testament) is the land or vale of Hinnom. But will a man say he has given the scriptural ideas of these and multitudes of other terms when he has stopped short at the literal, radical, or etymological sense? The Hebrew word heaven, שמים, (shamahyim,) primarily means high, and refers us to the arch of the sky. רקיע, (rakeeah,) translated firmament, bears a kindred application with the preceding, but radically means solid expanse, and in Ezekiel 1:22, 26; 10:1, it is represented as a solid pavement. The throne of God is sometimes represented as in the shamahyim, (heaven,) Psalm 2:4; and the corresponding Greek word, ouranov, (heaven,) is in the New Testament the standing word for the place of the abode of God and his saints. Commonly, however, in the Old Testament, God is represented as seated “above the heavens,” and “above the firmament,” (Psalm 8:1; 57:5, 11; Ezekiel 10:1,) and when he comes forth for signal judgment he is said to “ride upon the heavens of heavens,” that is, the utmost extent of the visible heavens. Psalm 68:38. He is also said to “hear from heaven,” to “look down from heaven,” to “send from heaven.” But the Old Testament idea of future blessedness is more commonly set forth as being “with God,” “at his right hand,” “in his presence,” which is above the utmost limit of the material heavens. Has the New Testament made any advance upon this idea? See 1 John 3:2; Matthew 25:31-38; John 14:14. Regeneration, holiness, sanctification, repentance, righteousness, worship, perfection, and many other phrases, have a radical sense which would give no conceivable idea of either religion or morality. When God taught the Hebrew people the meaning of the word holy, as in the declaration, “I, Jehovah, your God, am holy,” he taught, as we teach children, by sensible signs, ritualistic forms— object lessons, we would say—by sensible distinctions of clean and unclean things, by outward purifications from physical defilements, etc. The error of the people then, as now, was, that they rested in the physical and merely emblematic idea of the word, and seldom ascended to the subjective and real meaning. The authors of the psalms describe future blessedness in a similar way under figures of earthly honour or good, such as, “At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore;” “In thy presence is fulness of joy;” “Thou shalt guide me by thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory;” “His soul [he that feareth the Lord] shall abide in blessedness, and his posterity shall inherit the earth;” “Thou wilt not leave my soul in sheol… thou wilt show me the path of life.” If the writers of the Old Testament dwelt more in figures and typical forms, and a language accommodated to the senses, than we do, it was on account of the genius and stage of their language, their Semitic type of thought, and the spirit and liturgy of their dispensation. More than all, it was due to the nature of the case. What different method do we find even in the Apocalypse? The former dispensation was one of elemental truths—great truths, indeed, but elemental—clothed in types, symbols, and parables, (on parables, see Psalm 78:2,) but not, therefore, obscure and doubtful. The form of both revelation and dispensation was suited to the culture of the times. Our literalists and rationalists, acting from the standpoint of a higher culture, with sceptical tendencies, make sad work of these primitive and venerable forms of faith by making havoc of the fundamental laws of criticism. If we would know the faith of the ancients we must place ourselves among them, think as they thought, and use language as they used it. We cannot measure their primitive forms of speech by our modern classical usage. They found the doctrine of life without death in the “tree of life” in Paradise. They expressed the reunion of souls after death by the phrase “gathered to their fathers”—a form of speech applied to cases even where the sepulchres were widely apart. The covenant of Abraham was “everlasting” only in the Messianic sense. The “throne of David” was established “forever,” but only in Christ. So also “Zion” would stand “forever” only as the typical name of the true Church. The relations of the covenant people to Jehovah as “spouse” and “flock” were rooted in the immutability and eternity of God. The tabernacle and its mystical contents were understood to be “patterns of things in the heavens.” The translations of Enoch and Elijah were public proofs of a life in another state. The people were not surprised at the doctrines of a heaven of blessedness and a life to come, but only at this unexampled, yet well attested, method of reaching them. The translations were open, by daylight, and well witnessed. The severe laws of Moses against necromancy, or pretended divination by means of communication with the spirits of the dead, the most popular of all the forms of divination, proves the fact that both Hebrews and heathen believed in the personal existence of souls after death. The single case of Saul’s application to one of those diviners determines the fact of this common faith of the Hebrews.

6. Let it be remembered that faith had not yet been developed to the New Testament standard, so that men surrounded by idolaters, as the Hebrews were, could be sufficiently influenced by motives drawn from the future life. It requires large development of intellect and conscience, as well as doctrine and faith, for men to be swayed by considerations of what is best upon the whole and in the final result. The difference between the man and the child, the savage and the cultured mind, is in nothing more manifest than in this. Especially, situated as the Hebrews were, with limited culture in the midst of surrounding idolatry, as Dr. Graves well remarks, “The superiority of the true God could never be established by a comparison of his power in the distribution of future and invisible rewards and punishments. It was only by proving decisively that he, and he alone, was the dispenser of every blessing and of every calamity in the present life, and that he distributed them with the most consummate justice, yet tempered with mercy, that he would completely expose and forever discredit the pretensions of idolatry.”—Works, vol. ii, p. 162. But this characteristic dispensation of the Old Testament, so suited to the times and the condition of the Hebrews, did not exclude the doctrine of future and final rewards. As Ewald says, the Hebrews in later times could not have harmonized their belief of man’s immortality with the Old Testament authority had not their ancient Scriptures contained it. The reader is referred, for further information, to the notes on passages relating to this subject. Messianic Prophecy.

It would be naturally supposed that the Psalms—the inspired hymns of the Church—would express the liveliest and clearest hopes of the Church concerning Messiah which the dispensation of those ages authorized, and it would be equally against all analogy in the method of divine procedure with the Church to withhold a clear outline view of Messiah’s coming, “and the glory that should follow.” And accordingly we find the lyrical poetry of the Old Testament, no less than the writings of the prophets, rich in these central doctrines.

1. A Messianic prophecy must refer either to Christ or to Christianity. If to the former, it must set forth the dignity and divinity of his person, his distinctive offices as Prophet, Priest, and King, with the functions belonging to these severally. If the reference be to Christianity, it must speak of the Church or “kingdom” of these “latter days,” its spirit, its doctrines, its everlasting continuance, its world-wide extent, (as embracing the Gentile nations,) and the happy condition of the world under Messiah’s rule.

2. The distinction between the objective and subjective sense of prophecy should be carefully marked. Objective prophecy relates to the intent and fulness of its meaning—its just limit and circumference as intended by the Holy Spirit. This must be forever one and immutable. The subjective sense of prophecy relates to the conceptions of the prophet himself of the purport of his own utterances. This might exist in various degrees. “Deity alone knew the whole compass of meaning which he permitted to be announced,” (Seller, Bib. Hermeneutics, P. 2, ch. ii, § 198;) but although we may not assume for the prophets the same extent of knowledge, we must assume that they comprehended the predictive character of their announcements, and their appropriate bearing in the great redemptive scheme. But as no one prophet received all the facts concerning Christ, nor all the facts at one time which he himself recorded, the prophets diligently compared their revelations in order to form the clearest possible idea of the entire synthesis of Messiah’s character, work, and times. See 1 Peter 1:10, 11. It would be degrading to the whole subject of prophecy to suppose the prophets ignorant of the true import of their own writings. This would be to set aside all use of their intelligence and the laws of voluntary mental action, using them simply as machines. It would also leave unexplained the strong individuality impressed upon the style of each prophet. But it is not derogatory to the dignity of their office to suppose that by study and meditation upon the collective body of predictions on the same subject their views became enlarged and better defined, growing from age to age as revelation advanced. It is indisputable that the teachings of the Old Testament had awakened a more immediate national expectation of Messiah after the times of Malachi. The unspiritual and secular tendencies of rabbinical teaching had, indeed, given birth to many errors, but the fact of this expectation, which also extended beyond the limit of the nation, shows how deeply rooted in their ancient Scriptures was the doctrine of Christ. Indeed, “it is entirely impossible to construct a life of our Lord without taking prophecy into account. For that life stretches into the past as well as the future. It is a day which has a dawn.”—BP. ALEXANDER, Bampton Lectures, 1876.

3. Of the fact of the Messianic predictions the Hebrews were no less convinced than are the Christians. The hope of his coming, as we have just stated, was inwrought in the national faith and expectation. The Pharisees and scribes were familiar with this prevalent, national belief, and entered deeply into it. The Rabbies had carried the system of Messianic application of Old Testament prophecy to an extent equal to the early Christian writers. “A belief in Messiah, founded on the prophecies, and especially upon typical or direct predictions in the Psalms, was one of the fundamentals of faith. This point is not contested by any critics. They may treat it as a superstition, as a mere delusion; but the fact remains, and it is certainly without a precedent or a parallel in the history of religions.”— Speaker’s Commentary. By none of the quotations of Christ or the apostles from the Old Testament on this subject was the Jewish mind startled as with a new doctrine; but stumbled only upon the question of their application to Jesus as the prototype and the fulfilment. The New Testament writers were Jews, and as such testified to this meaning and application of their ancient prophecies. To be fully assured of this, let the reader carefully consider the following passages: John 1:45; 5:39, 46; 12:41; Luke 24:27; Acts 3:24; 10:48; 26:22; 1 Peter 1:10, 11.

4. The growth of Messianic revelation, like that of other revelations, was gradational—a development, a genetic unfolding. In Genesis 3:15 the Deliverer was simply announced as “the seed of the woman”—partaker of our flesh. In Abraham’s time his lineage was declared to be of that patriarch. Genesis 17:7. Later, it was limited to the tribe of Judah, (Genesis 49:10; comp. Hebrews 7:14,) and still later to the house of David. Psalm 132:11; John 7:42.

The general idea of a tried and suffering Church preceding the triumphant and honoured state of that Church, was not an unfamiliar doctrine to the Old Testament saints. Genesis 15:13-16; Isaiah 27-33. But these sufferings were not expiatory. That the expiation of sin was to be accomplished only through vicarious suffering—life for life—was taught from the beginning by animal sacrifice; but the doctrine of a sacerdotal kingdom, first suggested by Jehovah, (Exodus 19:6,) and more positively asserted in Psalm 110:4, of which the Priest-King himself was to be the sin offering, the true and absolute expiation, was not so early revealed. Abraham, indeed, caught a glimpse of the atoning “Lamb of God,” (Genesis 22:13, 14; John 8:56,) but in David’s time that Lamb was more clearly revealed. The sufferings described Psalm 22; 40:6-8, were not national, much less ideal, but personal, and such as pertained to the priestly functions of Him who was a Priest-King, after the order of Melchizedek. Psalm 110:4. Isaiah took up the theme, and carried it forward with new additions. Isaiah 53. In David’s person and kingdom were clearly unveiled the kingly dignity and dominion of Messiah, (Psalm 2; 45:6, 7; 110; 132:11,) which from this date was resounded through the ages of the prophets. Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 23:5, 6; Zechariah 9:9. The prophetic office of Messiah appears in the functions of teaching and publishing (preaching) the great acts and doctrines of God, especially such as directly relate to moral government and redemption. Psalm 22:22-31; 40:9, 10; 35:18. Numerous particulars of Messiah’s history were also brought to light through the Psalms, which will be mentioned in their place. But the reader will remember that almost universally the kingdom of Messiah is prophetically represented in the Old Testament as the kingdom and dominion of Jehovah, of which the organic representative is, in all ages, the Church.

5. There are different degrees of the spirit of prophecy, and hence of directness and clearness of prophetic delineation. Where the entire scope and subject of a psalm are Messianic there is no difficulty in determining its character, as in Psalm 2 and 110; but not unfrequently this class of prophecies appear in a sporadic form, with a slight-trace of historic relation to the context, but in style and import far above the common level of the connexion. This is largely, perhaps wholly, due to that peculiar state of mind which is inseparable from and preparatory for prophecy in its highest sense. A theopneustic, or divinely inspired, writing is the joint product of two minds, the human and the divine, each acting voluntarily and in perfect sympathy with the other; the latter as the efficient cause, the former as the instrument or medium, of the revelation. “Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” We may not fully comprehend the psychological condition of the human mind in such a case, but we must assume that, in subjective revelations especially, it must be raised in a degree to the level of the Divine Mind as to the precise matter to be communicated. It is not passive merely, but lifted up to its highest capacity of voluntary activity and spiritual subjectivity—above itself, but not out of itself. The perceptive power is preternatural, while the visions, objectively considered, are supernatural. All its passive and active states, with all its operations, whether intellectual or emotional, are fully and intellectively within the sphere of consciousness. The imagination is lively and fruitful; the emotional power attuned to the nature of the subject revealed; the attention concentrated and absorbed, so that the outward senses cease to awaken perceptions of external objects; the mental movement is clear, calm, and quick, and the descriptions lifelike, as of realities passing before the eyes. The visions of Ezekiel, Daniel, and of the Apocalypse, are notable examples. In such cases the style naturally falls more or less into measure; the transitions are often abrupt, the mind passing rapidly along the salient points, perceiving, but not stopping to record, the connexions. Psychologically considered, the mind and sensibility are in a poetic frame. It is hence that prophecy generally is written in the form of poetry, in parallel lines, and the successful interpreter must be versed in the laws and imbued with the genius of Hebrew poetry. The communications thus made, passing from the Divine Mind through the human, not mechanically, but conformably to the laws of thought and feeling, become the mental property of the recipient, and the style in which they are written is necessarily impressed with the individuality of the prophet. If it be a doctrine or a fact, he has perceived it; if a matter of sensibility or moral virtue, he has entered into analogous states; and in either case he speaks as from the knowledge of experience. Hence the earlier name of prophet was “seer,” the man who sees, or knows. Especially do these remarks apply to subjective prophecy, as of the Saviour’s sufferings. Psalm 22.

6. The tests or rules for determining a Messianic prophecy are few.

(1.) When a prophecy is quoted and applied to Christ in the New Testament, it is in all cases to be accepted as so intended by the Holy Spirit. The question of the legitimacy of such application is to be considered settled by divine authority.

(2.) When language and imagery are employed to set forth an ideal character, or the ideal glory of the kingdom of God, to which there is no answerable prototype in Old Testament history, the nature of the description agreeing with the known Christ-ideal of prophecy, or with the Jehovistic reign over the nations, (the theocratic millennium, or latter-day glory of the Hebrews,) it must be accepted and classed with Messianic prophecy. But it must be distinctly understood that where the force of the language may be fully absorbed in the known facts of Old Testament history, it is not lawful to assume for it a predictive Messianic character. It is no objection to the Messianic import of a passage that it has also a historical groundwork. For instance, in Psalm 22 the author was an individual, a real sufferer, and his descriptions arose from the depth of his own peril and distress. But in the agony of his own soul his mind was lifted up by the Holy Spirit to discover in the direction, psychologically, of its own outreachings for help, one in analogous conditions, but in an infinitely greater conflict, pursued to death by ferocious enemies, pouring out his life in agony—the Calvary Prototype. So, also, the wars, conquests, kingdom, glory, and person of David became the historic background of the brilliant Messianic paintings of Psalm 2, 96, 98, 110, and such like. It is conformably to the laws of our complex being that we thus rise, by the help of analogy and similitude, from the type to the antitype—from the outward and visible to the unseen, the abstract, the spiritual. In subjective prophecy, where the passions, sensibilities, or moral virtues are to be represented, no other method could be adequate. But let us consider these tests apart and in their order.

(1.) As the first test above given has exclusive reference to the number and character of the quotations in the New Testament from the Messianic prophecies of the Old, it will be sufficient to simply supply a classification of such quotations, without giving the total number, of which, according to the tables carefully revised by Bishop Alexander, (Bampton Lectures, 1876, pp. 257-264,) there are no less than two hundred and fifteen. In the quotations subjoined we do not aim to give a perfect list under each head, nor a perfect enumeration of heads, but only so much as may illustrate the subject.

Christ despised and

reproached.

Psalm 22:6; 69:9, 10, 19,

20. Romans 15:3;

Matthew 2:23.

The miserable end of the traitor.

Psalm 69:25.

Acts 1:20..

Christ’s burial and resurrection.

Psalm 16:8-11.

Acts 2:25-28.

Christ declaring the Father to

his brethren.

Psalm 22:22.

Hebrews 2:12, (compare

John 15:15; 17:6, 8.)

Christ hated without cause.

Psalms 109:3

Psalm 109:3, (also 35:19;

69:4.)

John 15:25.

Christ’s ascension.

Psalm 68:18.

Ephesians 4:8.

Christ ministering to the

Gentiles.

Psalm 18:49.

Romans 15:9.

The rage and power of Christ’s

enemies.

Psalm 2:1, 2.

Acts 4:25, 26.

Christ sitting at the right hand of

God.

Psalms 110:1

Psalm 110:1.

Matthew 22:44.

The Gentiles called to give

thanks for the Gospel.

Psalms 117:1

Psalm 117:1.

Romans 15:11.

Christ’s hands and feet pierced.

Psalm 22:16, (comp.

Zechariah 12:10.)

John 19:87.

Revelation 1:7.

Christ worshipped by angels.

Psalm 97:7.

Hebrews 1:6.

Christ teaching by parables.

Psalm 78:2.

Matthew 13:35.

Christ derided on the cross.

Psalm 22:7.

Matthew 27:39.

Mark 15:29.

All things subjected to Christ.

Psalm 8:6.

1 Corinthians 15:27;

Hebrews 2:8.

Christ’s consuming zeal.

Psalm 69:9.

They mock him, challenging

him to come down from the

cross.

Christ a Priest-King after the

order of Melchizedek.

Psalms 110:4

Psalm 110:4.

John 2:17. Psalm 22:8.

Matthew 27:40-42.

Hebrews 5:6.

Christ the true bread from

heaven.

Psalm 78:24.

John 6:31; 1 Corinthians 10:3 1

Corinthians 10:3.

The soldiers part his garments

among them.

Psalm 22:18.

Matthew 27:35.

Christ the Son of God.

Psalm 2:7.

Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5 Hebrews

1:5.

Christ riding into Jerusalem.

Psalms 118:25

Psalm 118:25, 26.

Matthew 21:9.

The complaint on the cross.

Psalm 22:1.

Matthew 27:46.

Christ is Adonah, Lord.

Psalms 110:1

Psalm 110:1, 5.

(Hebrews)

Matthew 22:44.

Children praising Christ in the

temple.

Psalm 8:2.

Matthew 21:16.

The Saviour thirsts from

exhaustion of the body.

Psalm 22:15.

John 19:28.

Creation ascribed to Christ.

Psalms 102:25

Psalm 102:25.

Hebrews 1:10.

Christ, the corner stone,

rejected.

Psalms 118:22

Psalm 118:22, 23.

Matthew 21:42;

Acts 4:11.

They offer him vinegar to drink.

Psalm 69:21.

John 19:29.

Christ is God.

Psalm 45:6, 7.

Hebrews 1:8, 9.

Christ betrayed,

Psalm 41:9.

John 13:18.

Not a bone of him was broken.

Psalm 34:20. (see

Exodus 12:46.)

John 19:36

The severity of his rule over

obstinate nations.

Psalm 2:9.

Revelation 2:27; 12:5;

19:15.

The office of the traitor given

to another.

Psalms 109:8

Psalm 109:8.

Acts 1:20.

Christ the Son of David.

Psalms 132:11

Psalm 132:11.

Acts 2:30.

Christ (the Son of David) the

Saviour.

Psalms 132:17

Psalm 132:17.

Luke 1:69.

(2.) The second test of Messianic prophecy must be applied with caution, and only from a broad view of the plan of revelation, and a close acquaintance with the intent, style, and spirit of prophecy. There are many portions of the Psalms (and this remark applies to the other prophetic writings as well) which, from their elevated style, breadth of expression, and evangelical import, find nothing equal to them in Old Testament history. These scattered lights, when brought together, are found to belong, harmoniously and synthetically, to one central doctrine, and yield a powerful cumulative testimony of the faith and doctrine of the Old Testament saints on this subject, not only from their number, but also from their perfect coincidence. Take, for example, Psalm 93-100, where the conversion of the Gentile nations is so clearly brought forward and celebrated. If no higher revelations of Jehovah to the heathen nations are intended than such as resulted from the known events of Hebrew history, the language not only of these, but of many other passages in the Psalms and the Prophets, must appear inflated and fulsome; and, however they might, as specimens of Oriental poetry, regale our imagination, our understanding must remain unsatisfied, and our judgment misguided. Psalm 72, which the Targum, no less than the Christian fathers and modern criticism, admits to be Messianic, is a remarkable instance of this. The picture there so beautifully drawn was never realized in Solomon’s reign, the outcome of which was loud complaint, rebellion, and final dismemberment of the kingdom; precisely the opposite to the spirit of this psalm. Psalm 67 and 132 belong to the same class. Many of the psalms also, from which particular parts are quoted in the New Testament as applying to Christ, have other parts not formally quoted, though equally Messianic. This is quite common. This also is what might be expected. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10. It is the life, soul, vital part, object and end, of prophecy. “To him [Christ] gave all the prophets witness.” Acts 10:48. To testify beforehand of Christ was the great end of the prophetic office and of Old Testament revelation. We are not to be surprised, therefore, to find a large place and central position given to this subject in the prophetic writings, of which the direct quotations in the New Testament are far from exhaustive. Not unfrequently these prophecies appear in such connexion with personal or historic matter, that to a superficial observer their predictive, or typically predictive, character might be overlooked. Indeed, they might almost seem to have been dropped incidentally, without plan or intention; but upon closer inspection they are seen to bear their own marks of identification and design; and when all are collected and arranged we find them to be complete parts of a symmetrical whole, with nothing redundant, nothing deficient. Just as the parts of a watch, when viewed severally and apart, would not indicate their relation to each other nor their ultimate design, yet when brought together and put in motion would give irresistible evidence, even to one who had never heard of such an instrument, that each part was made for its place, and their total harmony and ulterior use were foreseen and intended by its maker, so is the evidence of the collective body of Messianic prophecies of the class now under consideration. They testify clearly and irrefragably to such a Christ and such a Christianity as the New Testament reveals. Messianic prophecy, therefore, must be considered as an organic unity, the fruit of wise design; accumulating, as to its several parts, from age to age, conformably to a settled plan, till the perfect Christ-ideal was finished. It was fit, also, that this ideal of the personage of the great Deliverer, with the chief attendant circumstances and resultant effects of his advent, should be largely interwoven throughout the Psalms, that by poetry and song, in hallowed worship, their impress might be the more deeply felt in the faith and hope of the Church in all ages. Imprecatory Psalms.

Much of the harshness of the so-called imprecatory Psalms might be avoided by a different, and equally allowable, translation, and much more by a proper explanation of the terms and allusions in the text. The reader is referred to the notes on the passages themselves, and the introductory notes to the Psalms containing them. A few general remarks here must suffice.

Consider, then, David does not speak as a private individual in the apparent imprecations on his enemies, but as the anointed of God, and for the salutary influence which the divine interference shall have upon the religious faith and morals of the people. He fears that the success of the wicked will weaken the bands of civil government. These considerations are everywhere manifest. In the light of these public functions to which he had been designated by the prophet, and from the standpoint of this representative relation to public law, we must interpret his words. It is a characteristic of Holy Scripture that therein are set forth in the clearest terms, and greatest particularity of detail, the awful penalty of the divine law against all who wantonly cast off restraint and accountability. The Psalms in question simply indicate the varied forms of terrible wrath which will overtake such crimes as his enemies had committed and proposed. These judgments are beacon fires of warning to deter men from sin; or, if this fail, they show the line of penal consequences which, by the law of God, must follow. In this their publication is in analogy with all revelation in the Old and New Testaments.

It must not be overlooked, that the sufferings of David from the course pursued by his enemies was of the extremest character, both for their severity and their injustice. The case offers no apology for those who indulge in criminations for petty grievances. The sufferer here stands upon the outmost verge of life, and speaks as one who had endured the loss of all things. His enemies had passed beyond suasive and reformatory influences, and the case admitted of no remedy but the retributive and protective course of justice. But even this he submits wholly to the will of God, according to the known principles of his righteous government; and if his language be construed as a prayer, instead of a solemn warning, still it is only a prayer that justice might have its penal course, according to the provisions and design of God, when this alone could support law and protect the righteous.

But it is asked, Is it lawful for a pious man to pray that these judgments may be executed? We answer, in the light of the foregoing statements, It is. Nothing is here asked upon David’s enemies which the law of God does not lay down as penalty due to such crimes. It is lawful for a pious man, and is a trait of true piety, to pray that the government of God may be sustained, that innocence may be protected, and public order, purity, and peace preserved. But such prayers could not be answered in any government, human or divine, without provision for, and faithful execution of, the punishment of the wicked. When men cease to fear the divine judgments, or wish them abolished, they cease to endorse the divine law. A lax criminal administration in human governments is, by implication, abandonment of law, license to crime, and argues venality and corruption where justice and righteousness should hold sway. In proportion as men attain to just views of the turpitude of sin and the holiness of God, they will delight in the law of God, and approve his judgments. The warnings of Scripture are foregleams of penalty, which the New Testament has not abated. See Matthew 23:32-39; John 8:21, 24; Acts 23:3; 2 Timothy 4:14; Revelation 6:9, 10.

Editorial Note.

WHD_CO06.PDF, source PDF p. 3

EDITORIAL NOTE.

WITH the issue of Dr. Hibbard’s work on the Psalms, almost simultaneously with this present sixth volume of the entire set, there will remain for future publication four volumes — two on the Pentateuch and two on the Greater and the Minor Prophets. These are in preparation, and thus the whole will, we trust, be completed during the present General Conference quadrennium.

In order that the Psalms might be embodied in a single volume we have transposed the positions of Psalms and Job, a change of the customary order which will produce no practical inconvenience.

We trust that the present volume will be received with no less favour than its predecessors.

Publishers’ Note.

WHD_CO07.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PUBLISHERS’ NOTE.

THE present volume of Whedon’s Commentary is issued to the world without the editorial endorsement of its late honored projector. Very soon after the work was in type, and before the final reading of its proofs, Dr. Whedon was called from toil to reward. So, also, with both the richly endowed authors of the volume. They have all entered into their final rest: the results of their labor are the heritage of the Church. Two more volumes — the Pentateuch, and Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets — are well advanced.

Preface.

WHD_CO09.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

DURING the preparation of this commentary the author has had in mind constantly the many students of the Bible who of necessity must confine themselves to its study in the English translations. Therefore he has endeavored to furnish here a commentary which will assist these to understand as nearly as possible the thoughts which the prophets desired to express. Much has been done within recent years for a better appreciation of the Minor Prophets by such scholars as Wellhausen, Nowack, Marti, W.R. Harper, Driver, Cheyne, A.B. Davidson, W.R. Smith, G.A. Smith, Kirkpatrick, and others. To the works of these men and of others who have written in books other than commentaries and in periodicals the present writer has given closest attention, and he desires to acknowledge here his indebtedness to them for many valuable suggestions, though he may state that in no case have conclusions been adopted on the authority of any man, but simply because the facts in the case seemed to point in that direction. Because of this last-mentioned fact, and because of the popular character of this commentary, it has not been thought necessary to fill this book with many references to other books. Those acquainted with the books alluded to will see where the present writer receives help from them, while to others it would be of little interest.

In the very nature of the case, much critical material which would have its proper place in a commentary intended for experts had to be omitted here; and yet the author has sought to present to the reader, in a spirit of fairness, the critical questions involved, while trying at the same time to put forth only such conclusions as may be considered sufficiently well established to be of practical value for a clearer apprehension of prophetic teaching. In some cases the discussions might well have been more extensive, but limited space would not permit. However, the author has tried to say enough in each case to make the points clear. If he has failed in this the failure is not due to any desire to avoid difficulties or troublesome problems.

As in the other volumes of the series, the text of the so-called Authorized Version has been made the basis of the comments. In only one case has an exception been made, namely, in the divine name represented in A.V. by LORD; for it has been substituted the preferable reading of the American Revised Version, Jehovah. This form has been adopted rather than the more accurate Yahweh simply because it is more familiar to the ordinary reader, and therefore better adapted for a popular work. In many cases the more satisfactory translation of A.R.V. or of the margin has been added to that of A.V., and where accuracy demanded independent translations have also been given. Wherever the difference between A.V. and R.V. is not significant the reading of the latter has been placed in brackets without an indication of the source.

With perhaps two exceptions, the abbreviations used are self-explanatory. The exceptions are G.-K., which stands for Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, translated by Collins and Cowley; and K.B., an abbreviation for E. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.

The reader of this commentary cannot be urged too strongly to acquaint himself with the introductory sections preceding the comments on the separate books. In order to understand properly any word, or verse, or section, it is important to have the broader vision of the entire book which these introductory sections are intended to give.

The author desires to take this opportunity to express to his former teacher, Professor Robert W. Rogers, of Drew Theological Seminary, his sincerest gratitude for the help and inspiration he has been to him both during his student days and since, an inspiration which is responsible to a very large extent for the turning of his attention to the field of Old Testament study.

If this commentary shall help students to a more living appreciation of the permanent value of prophetic teaching the author will feel well repaid for the labor and energy expended in the preparation of the work. FREDERICK CARL EISELEN.

Evanston, Ill.

Preface.

WHD_CO10.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

THE preparing of a Commentary on the New Testament was first suggested to the author in behalf of the Tract department of the Methodist Episcopal Church; its extent was then limited to a single volume, and its object to the Tract circulation. When, however, that volume was completed as far as the Apocalypse, it was on all hands concluded that a work of a larger extent was more desirable, so as to be brought within the requisition of a resolution of the General Conference of 1856, directing a Commentary suitable for general popular use to be prepared. The task of reconstructing was immediately commenced, and the present volume is thus far the result. The present purpose is to furnish a second volume, including the remaining historical books of the New Testament, and a third upon the epistles. The works mostly used in preparing the volume are: of commentaries, Bloomfield’s Recensio Synoptica, Bloomfield’s and Alford’s Greek Testament, Olshausen’s Commentary, Stier’s Words of Jesus, Tholuck’s Sermon on the Mount, and the Illustrated Commentary. Of Harmonies, Robinson’s and Strong’s. Of modern travels, Olin’s, Durbin’s, Stanley’s, Hackett’s, and especially Dr. Thomson’s Land and the Book. Of miscellaneous works, Trench on Parables and on Miracles, Hengstenberg’s Christology, and Milman’s History of Christianity. The excellent Commentaries, lately published, of Hall, Prof. Owen, Alexander, Jacobus, and Morrison have been duly consulted. In the topography of the narrative of the crucifixion, the main guide has been Barclay’s City of the Great King.

Several of the most valuable of the illustrations are appropriated from Dr. Strong’s Harmony and Exposition. The author is indebted to the kindness of Harper & Brothers for the use of the valuable map of Gennesaret and its vicinity, at page 62, taken from Dr. Thomson’s work. This map embraces the latest researches made by that author in that locality. It will be found to differ in important and interesting particulars from the earlier map of Palestine at the title-page.

The matter of the work is confined mainly to commentary proper, excluding formal “practical application,” and other departments belonging to homiletics. Whatever of a practical or animating character the exposition may possess, will arise mainly from the clear presentation of the meaning and spirit of the text itself, with incidental and occasional reflections.

Introduction.

WHD_CO10.PDF, source PDF p. 4

Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Matthew 3:23” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 7). In the King James Version, Matthew 3 has 17 verses. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the Gospels, Matthew and Mark (1860), p. 6, also reads “Matt. iii, 23”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 7; D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the Gospels, Matthew and Mark (1860), p. 6.

Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “John 24:49” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 8). In the King James Version, John has 21 chapters. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the Gospels, Matthew and Mark (1860), p. 6, also reads “John xxiv, 49; xiv, 16–26”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 8; D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the Gospels, Matthew and Mark (1860), p. 6.

INTRODUCTION.

THE word Testament is a term for any document which is attested by seal or otherwise. Such documents, in law, are a Will bequeathing property, or a Covenant embodying a solemn treaty or contract. It is in this latter sense that the word is biblically used. The Old Testament embraces the covenant between God and his people, expressing the terms of service and favour under the old dispensation; the New Testament embodies a similar covenant under the later dispensation of his Son. Both Testaments constitute what (from the Greek ο βιβλος, the book) is pre-eminently styled The Bible.

The New Testament is that body of twenty-seven books, or treatises, written by eight different authors, which the Christian Church from the apostolic age has considered as providentially designed by Jesus Christ, the Great Head of the Church, as the true, and perfect, and infallible expression and record of his religion. The authenticity of these books, their historical truth, and the verity of the religion they teach, have been demonstrated with great learning and force, and at great length, by many able writers. The vast mass of proof we may very imperfectly classify as Historical, Prophetical, and Internal. Of these we briefly notice the first two. HISTORICAL PROOF.

The Historical Proof embraces,

I. The testimony of profane or pagan authors to the facts of Christianity. 1. Tacitus, the greatest of Roman historians, says, in words which show his own pagan hostility to Christianity, that the emperor Nero “inflicted the severest punishments upon a class of people held in abhorrence for their crimes, called Christians. The founder of that name was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tiberius under his procurator, Pontius Pilate. This destructive superstition, thus checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not only over Judea, where the evil originated, but through Rome also.” This extract furnishes, in fact, a brief history of the origin of Christianity; of the existence, time, and death of its founder, and the early martyrdoms of his Church. 2. Suetonius, another Roman pagan historian, says, in his Life of Nero: “The Christians were punished — a set of men of a new and mischievous superstition.” 3. Pliny, one of the most elegant of pagan writers, in a letter to the emperor of Rome about thirty or forty years after the death of Christ, detailing the persecutions he was inflicting on the Christians of his province, says: “They declared that the whole of their guilt or error was that they were accustomed to meet on a stated day before it was light, and to sing in concert a hymn of praise to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by a sacred obligation, not for the perpetration of any wickedness, but that they would not commit any theft, robbery, or adultery, nor violate their words, nor refuse when called upon to restore anything committed to their trust. After this they were accustomed to separate and then to re-assemble to eat in common a harmless meal.” These passages demonstrate, by the highest possible pagan authority, the great facts of the existence, the time, and the death of Christ, as well as of the sufferings, the purity, the stated worship, the belief in Christ’s divinity, and the sacramental meal of the early Church. II. The testimony of pagan controversial opposers. Celsus wrote against Christianity in the second century. He assumes throughout that the four Gospels were written by the authors whose names are attached to them, and that if he can overthrow them he destroys the religion. He does not so much deny the miracles of Jesus as ascribe them (like the scribes) to magic and connection with evil powers. Porphyry in the third century, and the emperor Julian in the fourth, follow the same course. The authenticity of the Gospels is by them wholly admitted.

III. Higher than all pagan admission is the testimony of the early Christian Church. That the primitive Christians were a holy Church, sifted by the terrible power of martyrdom, is attested alike by pagan statements, by Christian record, and by the wonderful and solemn disclosures of the catacombs, whose sepulchral inscriptions bear register of the immense numbers of the martyr army. Of the truth of the Christian history these were the witnesses, such witnesses as no other history ever claimed. A whole body of Christian writers exists, extending from the present day to the time of Paul and the evangelists. A whole mass of books and records lies along from the present commentary to Matthew himself. Each successive generation quotes the books of the preceding generation entirely up to the New Testament writers. Each generation proves the existence of the writings of the previous generation by quotations; for nobody can quote books that do not exist. All these generations quote the books of the New Testament; and each generation quotes the preceding generation as quoting the New Testament. The New Testament books could not then have been forged or written at any point subsequent to the time of the writers whose name they bear. And that is the very time which the pagan Tacitus, and Suetonius, corroborated by Pliny, affirm to have been the time of Christ. In the evangelists and epistles we have, therefore, the testimony of contemporaries to the doings and sayings of Christ, and those contemporaneous holy men who died to seal the truth of their narrative. PROPHETIC PROOF.

Prophetic fulfilments we will treat under two classes, namely, Prophecies shown to be fulfilled by pagan testimony, and Prophecies shown to be fulfilled by the New Testament.

I. Taking the Hebrew Scriptures and the Pagan testimonies above given, (without adducing the New Testament,) we could give a powerful proof from prophecy of the divine character of Christianity. We would leave out of account all prophecy that could be called obscure, (which belongs to the interior doctrines rather than to the external proofs,) and take those which are unequivocal and clear.

1. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus agree that the time of Christ was the period when, according to the Sacred Books, the advent was generally expected. So clear was prophecy as to the time, that the age was looking for its fulfilment.

2. The celebrated prophecy (Genesis 49:3, 10) predicted that Shiloh should come before the sceptre should depart from Judah; and all the ancient Jewish writers agreed that Shiloh was Messiah, that is, Christ. The sceptre has departed, and Messiah has therefore come; and he came so early as the time at which Tacitus, etc., affirm that Jesus came; and the Jews admit he never came before.

3. Daniel (Daniel 9:25) prophesies (in Persia during the captivity, when Jerusalem was in ruins) that “from the going forth of the command” of the Persian king “to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be” 7+60+2, equal to sixty-nine weeks. These weeks, it is on all hands admitted, are year-weeks, of which each day is a year.

Certainly no Jew can claim them to be day-weeks, for Messiah did not come in sixty-nine ordinary weeks. But the extent of the period from the time of the restoration of Jerusalem to the time assigned by Tacitus etc., to Christ, (leaving to learned men to prove the exactitude of the fit,) we may affirm, upon the face of it, to agree with the requirements of the prophecy. But Daniel goes on to say that the Messiah “shall be cut off;” of which Tacitus states, as exact fulfilment, that “Christ suffered death in the reign of Tiberius, under his procurator Pontius Pilate.”

II. In taking up prophecies whose fulfilment appears from the New Testament, we assume that the argument for the veracity of the New Testament writers is conclusive, so far as concerns the main facts they attest. Leaving out all reference to miraculous facts, if the evangelists and Paul are reliable for the historical points, like the lineage, birthplace, humble origin, peaceful doctrines, sacrificial death, and diffusion of his religion among the Gentiles, Jesus fulfils the pictures of prophecy. Here note:

1. His lineage from David, making him a hereditary temporal prince. See notes on Matthew 1:21, 1-17.

2. His birthplace, identical with David’s birthplace, Bethlehem. See notes on Matthew 2:1-6.

3. His humble rise, as a branch or sprout. See notes on Matthew 3:23.

4. His character as a peaceful teacher, yet his doctrines to become the religion of the Gentiles. See notes on Matthew 12:17-21.

5. The locality of his early ministry, Galilee. See notes on Matthew 4:12-16.

6. His death: At the passover. See note on Matthew 26:3. As a ransom. Isaiah 53:4-11. See note on Matthew 20:28. Of miraculous facts we select the following:

1. Birth from a pure virgin. See notes on Matthew 1:22, 23.

2. Performance of miracles. Consult Isaiah 35:4-6, and 29:18. See note on Matthew 11:4, 5.

3. His resurrection from the dead. Isaiah 53:12.

4. His rule over the nations. Isaiah 11:4-10; Isaiah 2:1-4; Psalm 2:8. Finally, with the full recollection that the Old Testament claimed to be prophetic, and to foretell the future Messiah, read the passage of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, and judge whether it is not a wonderful descriptive outline of the Messiah of the Gospels.

INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

If the New Testament writings be true, they are inspired, since they affirm their own inspiration. Romans 3:1; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; John 24:49; 14:16-26; Matthew 10:19, 20, (see note.) 1. That the Scriptures are an infallible expression of the religion of Jesus is necessarily true. For how absurd would it be for Jesus to pass through the terrible labour and suffering of bringing his religion into existence, and then to leave it in no definite, certain, intelligible, and permanent shape. 2. The Scriptures were accepted as inspired by the Primitive Church in its inspired and martyr age, before the last apostle had deceased, and while miracle and the discerning of spirits were still existing in the Church. 3. Without at the present time discussing the nature of inspiration; without deciding whether it was by the divine selection of every word, and giving it to the mind and pen of the writer; or by guarding him from every error in Christian truth and doctrine, or even in historical, natural, or chronological fact; or whether it was by elevation, filling the mind with the spirit and the clear perception of Christian truth; thus much is certain: that the New Testament is accepted and sanctioned by the inspired Church; by Jesus, the Head of the Church; and by God in his providence, as the true and ultimate expression and record of religious truth and doctrine.

MATTHEW THE EVANGELIST.

Matthew the evangelist and apostle was a Galilean, and the son of Alpheus. If his father was the same with the Alpheus named as the father of James the Less, then he was cousin of the Lord Jesus.

Matthew’s residence was at (Capernaum, and he was by profession a publican. The Lake of Gennesaret, by which he lived, however deserted now, was then surrounded with an immense population; it was embosomed in the fertile Jordan valley; its fisheries supplied a source of livelihood, and its surface was alive with a busy navigation and traffic. It was the great thoroughfare for the commerce of Damascus and Babylon with Southern Palestine. A custom-house, for the collection of duties upon the commodities of this traffic, was located by the Roman government at Capernaum, and Matthew was there a tax collector. The publicans proper were usually Romans of rank and wealth, who farmed or let out the business of collecting to resident deputies, who were called portitors. It was to this last class that Matthew belonged. A competence if not wealth was likely to be gained by this office; but, as the officer thereby became an agent of the Roman government, he encountered a great unpopularity with his countrymen.

As Matthew was one day sitting at the receipt of custom by the seaside, Jesus, at an early period of his ministry, passed and pronounced the mandate “Follow me.” That Matthew already knew Jesus, if not his relative, is plain from the instant result. “He arose and followed” his Lord. When, before the sermon on the mount, our Lord inaugurated his body of apostles, Matthew was included; and in his own catalogue stands second in class and eighth in order.

About six months after this first call, Matthew gave a great feast in honour of his Lord, to which he invited many of his former publican associates. He gives a brief account of the feast; but we are indebted to Luke for the fact, which Matthew’s modesty omitted to mention, that Matthew himself was the giver. The first three evangelists (whose Gospels are called synoptical, from the fact of their marked correspondence with each other, in which John’s Gospel does not share) mention the sullen murmurs of the scribes and Pharisees at the association of Jesus with publicans and sinners, as well as our Lord’s most wise and benevolent replies.

Matthew’s name appears in the New Testament for the last time in the catalogue of the eleven in the Acts, and he was doubtless at the feast of Pentecost. The most authentic primitive tradition assures us that he preached the Gospel for some years in Palestine. Later ecclesiastical writers suppose that he preached in Ethiopia, and there suffered martyrdom. But an earlier writer, Heracleon, who lived in the second century, affirmed that Matthew was one of the apostles who did not undergo the martyr’s fate.

Historical Synopsis of the Gospels.

WHD_CO10.PDF, source PDF p. 10

Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “John 1:19-52” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, physical PDF page 11). The surrounding discussion of John's testimony and the first disciples before the wedding at Cana corresponds to John 1:19–51 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 11.

The authorship of this Gospel by Matthew has ever been acknowledged in the Church from the earliest antiquity. That Matthew previously wrote a Gospel narrative in the Hebrew language for his Jewish readers, is also a well authenticated opinion. Such a fact no way invalidates the genuineness of this Gospel in the Greek as a true original by Matthew. HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE GOSPELS.

The figures with the mark § in the notes refer to the sections of this Synopsis.

PERIOD FIRST.

THE INFANCY AND CHILDHOOD.

1 Preface of St. Luke Luke 1:1-4

2 Preface of St. John John 1:1-18

3 Elizabeth’s conception Luke 1:5-25

4 Salutation of Mary Luke 1:26-28

5 Visit of Mary to Elizabeth Luke 1:39-56

6 Birth of John the Baptist Luke 1:57-59

7 An angel appears to Joseph Matthew 1:18-25

8 Jesus’s birth Luke 2:1-7

9 Genealogy of Jesus Matthew 1:1-17 Luke 3:23-38 10 Appearance of an angel to the shepherds; their visit to Jesus Luke 2:8-20

11 Circumcision of Jesus Matthew 1:25 Luke 2:21 12 Jesus presented in the temple Luke 2:22-38

13 The Magi. Flight of Jesus into Egypt. Cruelty of Herod. Return of Jesus from Egypt Matthew 2:1-23

14 Jesus goes to the Passover at twelve years of age Luke 2:40-52 PERIOD SECOND.

THE QUALIFICATION.

15 John the Baptist and his ministry Luke 1:80

16 Jesus is baptized Matthew 3:13-17 Mark 1:9-11 Luke 3:21-23

17 Jesus’s temptation Matthew 4:1-11 Mark 1:12-13 Luke 4:1-13

18 John the Baptist’s testimony to Jesus; its effects John 1:19-52 PERIOD THIRD.

THE PREPARATORY MINISTRY.

19 Marriage Feast at Cana, of Galilee John 2:1-12 First Passover of Jesus’s Ministry

20 Jesus goes to Jerusalem at the Passover; he casts the traders out of the temple John 2:13-25

21 Jesus’s discourse with Nicodemus John 3:1-21 22 Jesus tarries and baptizes in Judea. The superior dignity of Jesus asserted by John the Baptist John 3:22-36

23 Jesus retires to Galilee after John’s imprisonment. He passes through Samaria and makes disciples Matthew 4:12 Mark 1:14 John 4:1-42

24 The right of public ministry exercised by Jesus in Galilee. In Cana he heals the son of an officer of King Herod, who lay sick at Capernaum John 4:43-54

25 Jesus goes to Nazareth; preserves his life by a miracle; fixes his dwelling at Capernaum Luke 4:15-31

26 Call of Simon and Andrew, also of James and John, with the miracle which preceded it Luke 5:1-11

27 Jesus heals a demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum Mark 1:21-28 Luke 4:31-37

28 Peter’s wife’s mother and others are healed. Attended by some of his disciples, Jesus teaches and works miracles in Galilee Matthew 8:14-25 Mark 1:29-39 Luke 4:38-44

29 Jesus heals a leper Matthew 8:2-4 Mark 1:40-45 Luke 5:12-16

30 Jesus heals a paralytic Mark 2:1-12 Luke 5:17-26 31 Call of Matthew Mark 2:13-14

Second Passover.

32 Healing of an infirm man at Bethesda, in Jerusalem John 5:1-47 33 Jesus vindicates his disciples for plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath Matthew 12:1-8 Mark 2:23-28 Luke 6:1-5 34 Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, and withdraws himself from the Pharisees, and heals many Matthew 12:9-21 Mark 3:1-12 Luke 6:6-11

PERIOD FOURTH.

THE PLATFORM AND EXTENDING MINISTRY.

35 Jesus retires to a mountain, and calling his disciples to him, chooses twelve; he is followed by a great multitude, and heals many Mark 3:13-19 Luke 6:12-19

36 The Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:1-48 Mark 6:20-26 37 The centurion’s servant healed Matthew 8:5-13 Mark 7:1-10 38 The widow’s son is raised from the dead at Nain Luke 7:11-17 39 Jesus’s answer to the disciples sent by John the Baptist Matthew 11:2-19 Luke 7:18-35

40 Jesus’s reflections in consequence of his appeal to his mighty works Matthew 11:20-30

41 A woman who had been a sinner is publicly reassured by Jesus sitting at meat with a Pharisee Luke 7:36-50

42 During Jesus’s second circuit through Galilee he heals a demoniac, and the scribes and Pharisees blaspheme the Holy Spirit Matthew 9:35 Mark 6:6 Luke 8:1-3

43 Jesus reproves the scribes and Pharisees for seeking a sign Matthew 12:38-45 Luke 11:16, 24-36

44 Who are truly blessed Luke 11:27-28

45 Jesus regards his true disciples as his nearest relations Matthew 12:46-50 Mark 3:31-35 Luke 8:19-21

46 Jesus, sitting at meat with a Pharisee, denounces woes against the Pharisees, scribes, and teachers of the law Luke 11:37-54 47 Jesus instructs his disciples and the people Luke 12:1-59 48 The calamities of certain Galileans a warning to the Jews Luke 13:1-9

49 Parables. The reason why he used them. One explained Matthew 13:1-52 Mark 4:1-34

50 Jesus gives commandment to cross the lake. Incidents on the way. A tempest stilled Matthew 8:18-27 Mark 4:35-41 Luke 8:22-25

51 Two demoniacs of Gadara healed Matthew 8:28-34 Mark 5:1-20 Luke 8:26-39

52 Levi’s feast. Jesus’s consequent discourse. The raising of Jairus’s daughter Matthew 9:1,10-25 Mark 5:21 Luke 8:40 53 Jesus heals two blind men Matthew 9:27-31

54 Jesus casts out a dumb spirit. The Pharisees again blaspheme Matthew 9:32-34

55 Jesus revisits Nazareth, and is again rejected there Matthew 13:54-58 Mark 6:1-6

PERIOD FIFTH.

APOSTOLIC COMMISSION, AND MINISTRY AT ZENITH.

56 The occasion of sending forth the twelve apostles to preach and work miracles Matthew 9:36-38 .

57 The twelve are instructed and sent forth Matthew 10:1, 5-42 Mark 6:7-11 Luke 9:1-5

58 Jesus continues his tour through Galilee Matthew 11:1 59 The twelve preach repentance and work miracles everywhere Mark 6:12-13 Luke 9:6

60 The death of John the Baptist Matthew 14:6-12 Mark 6:21-29 61 Herod hears of Jesus’s fame and desires to see him Matthew 14:1-2 Mark 6:14-16 Luke 9:7-9

62 Return of the twelve Mark 6:30-31 Luke 9:10 63 Five thousand are fed on five loaves and two fishes Matthew 14:13-21 Mark 6:32-44 Luke 9:10-17 John 6:1-14 64 Jesus walks on the sea Matthew 14:22-36 Mark 6:45-56 65 Jesus discourses with the multitude in Capernaum, in the synagogue of that city, and with his disciples. Peter’s confession John 6:22-71; 7:1

66 Jesus’s discourse with the Pharisees and scribes, and with his disciples, about eating with unwashen hands Matthew 15:1-20 Mark 7:1-23

67 Jesus heals the daughter of a Syrophenician woman Matthew 15:21-28 Mark 7:24-30

68 Jesus restores to a person hearing and speech Matthew 15:29-31 Mark 7:31-37

69 Jesus feeds more than four thousand with seven loaves and a few small fishes Matthew 15:32-39 Mark 8:1-10

70 The Pharisees and Sadducees again ask a sign Matthew 16:1-4 Mark 8:11-12

71 The disciples are cautioned against the leaven of the Pharisees, of the Sadducees, and of Herod Matthew 16:4-12 Mark 8:13-21 72 Jesus restores a blind man to sight near Bethsaida Mark 8:22-26 73 Peter repeats his confession that Jesus was the Messiah Matthew 16:13-20 Mark 8:27-30 Luke 9:18-21

PERIOD SIXTH.

TRANSFIGURATION, AND MINISTRY OF SORROW AND STRUGGLE.

74 Jesus plainly foretells his sufferings and resurrection; rebukes Peter; exhorts all to self-denial Matthew 16:21-28 Mark 8:31-38 Luke 9:22-27

75 Jesus’s transfiguration; his discourse with the three disciples as they were descending from the mountain Matthew 17:1-13 Mark 9:2-13 Luke 9:28-36

76 Jesus casts out a dumb and deaf spirit Matthew 17:14-21 Mark 9:14-29 Luke 9:37-43

77 Jesus again foretells his suffering and resurrection Matthew 17:22-23 Mark 9:30-32 Luke 9:43-45

78 Jesus works a miracle to pay the tribute money Matthew 17:24-27 Mark 9:33

79 The disciples contend who should be the greatest, Jesus’s conduct and discourse on that occasion Matthew 18:1-35 Mark 9:33-50 Luke 9:46-50

80 Seventy disciples are instructed and sent out Luke 10:1-16 81 Jesus goes to Jerusalem at the feast of tabernacles. His conduct and discourses during the feast John 7:2-53; 8:1

82 A woman taken in adultery is brought before Jesus John 8:2-11 83 Jesus discourses with the scribes and Pharisees, with those who believed in him, and with the unbelieving Jews John 8:12-59 84 Jesus restores sight to one blind from his birth. The consequence of this miracle John 9:1-41; 10:1-21

85 Return of the seventy Luke 10:17-24

86 Jesus instructs a teacher of the law how to attain eternal life Luke 10:25-37

87 The disciples are again taught how to pray Luke 11:1-13 88 Jesus restores a woman who had been bowed down for eighteen years Luke 13:10-21

89 Jesus replies to the question, Are there few that be saved? Luke 13:22-35

90 The transactions when our Lord ate bread with a chief Pharisee on the Sabbath Luke 14:1-24

91 Jesus states to the multitude the difficulties attending a profession of his religion Luke 14:25-35

92 Jesus defends himself against the Pharisees and scribes for instructing publicans and sinners Luke 15:1-32

93 Jesus instructs his disciples by the parable of the unjust steward. The Pharisees are reproved Luke 16:1-31

94 Jesus further instructs his disciples Luke 17:1-10 95 The Samaritans will not receive Jesus. James and John reproved for their zeal against them Luke 9:51-56

96 Jesus cleanses ten lepers Luke 17:12-19

97 The Pharisees ask when the kingdom of God should come. Jesus answer Luke 17:20-37

98 Jesus speaks a parable to his disciples, and another to certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous Luke 18:1-14 99 Jesus received into Martha’s house Luke 10:38-42 100 Jesus keeps the feast of dedication at Jerusalem John 10:22-39 101 Jesus goes again to Bethabara after the feast of dedication and remains there till a fit occasion calls him into Judea John 10:40-42 PERIOD SEVENTH.

THE FINAL JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM, AND CONTEST THERE.

102 Lazarus raised from the dead. The consequences of this miracle John 11:1-54

103 Jesus enters Judea. The Pharisees question him about divorces Matthew 19:1-12 Mark 10:1-12

104 Jesus lays his hand on young children and blesses them Matthew 19:13-15 Mark 10:13-16 Luke 18:15-17

105 Jesus’s discourse in consequence of being asked by a rich man how he should attain eternal life Matthew 19:16; 20:16 Mark 10:17-31 Luke 18:18-30

106 Jesus as he is going up to Jerusalem, foretells his sufferings to the twelve apart Matthew 20:17-19 Mark 10:32-34 Luke 18:31-34

107 The ambitious request of James and John Matthew 20:20-28 Mark 10:35-45

108 Jesus restores sight to two blind men near Jericho Matthew 20:29-34 Mark 10:46-52 Luke 18:35-43

109 Jesus visits Zaccheus, a chief of the publicans Luke 19:2-28 110 Jesus arrives at Bethany six days before the passover John 11:55-57; 12:1, 9-11

111 Jesus proceeds to Jerusalem amid the acclamations of the disciples and of the multitude. The transactions there Matthew 21:1-17 Mark 11:1-11 Luke 19:29-44

112 The barren fig-tree. The temple cleansed Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:12-19 John 13:18,19

113 The disciples observe the fig tree withered away Matthew 21:20-22 Mark 11:20-26

114 Jesus’s discourse with the chief priests, scribes, and elders in the temple Matthew 21:23; 22:14 Mark 11:27; 12:12 Luke 20:1-19

115 The Pharisees and Herodians. The Sadducees and one of the Pharisees, who was a scribe, question Jesus. Jesus questions the Pharisees Matthew 22:15-46 Mark 12:12-37 Luke 20:20-40 116 Jesus, in the hearing of his disciples and of the multitude, reproves the scribes and Pharisees to their face with a divine eloquence Matthew 23:1-39 Mark 12:38-40

117 Jesus prefers the widow’s offering to the gifts of the rich Mark 12:41-44 Luke 21:1-4

118 Jesus foretells the destruction of Jerusalem, and distinguishes it from the final judgment Matthew 24:1; 25:30 Mark 13:1-37 Luke 21:5-36

119 Picture of the final judgment. How Jesus employed himself during the week Matthew 25:31-46

120 The remaining transactions of the Tuesday preceding the crucifixion Matthew 26:1-16 Mark 14:1-11 Luke 22:1-6 PERIOD EIGHTH.

THE SUFFERING.

121 Jesus prepares to keep the passover Matthew 26:17-19 Mark 14:12-16 Luke 22:7-13

122 Jesus sits down with the twelve. There is an ambitious contention among the twelve Matthew 26:20 Mark 14:17 Luke 22:14-18

123 Jesus washes the feet of his disciples John 13:1-20 124 Jesus foretells that Judas would betray him. The conduct of the disciples and of Judas Matthew 26:21-35 Mark 14:18-21 Luke 22:21-23 John 13:21-35

125 Jesus foretells to the apostles the fall of Peter, and their common danger John 13:36-38

126 Jesus institutes the breaking of bread in remembrance of his body broken Matthew 26:26 Mark 14:22 Luke 22:19 1 Corinthians 11:23,24

127 Jesus comforts his disciples John 14:1-31

128 Jesus institutes the drinking of wine in remembrance of his blood shed Matthew 26:27-29 Mark 14:23-25 Luke 22:20 1 Corinthians 11:25

129 Jesus resumes his discourse to his disciples John 14:31; 16:33 130 Jesus’s prayer John 17:1-26

131 The agony of Jesus in Gethsemane Matthew 26:30, 36-46 Mark 14:26, 32-42 Luke 22:39-46 John 18:1 132 The betrayal of Jesus John John 18:2-12

133 Jesus is brought before Annas and Caiaphas. Peter denies him thrice John 18:13-18; 24:27

134 Jesus stands before Caiaphas, and then before the whole Jewish council. He confesses himself to be the Christ and is pronounced guilty of death John 18:19-23

135 Jesus is taken before Pilate Matthew 27:1-14 Mark 15:1-5 Luke 23:1-5 John 18:28-38.

136 Jesus is sent to Herod by Pilate; he is sent back by Herod Luke 18:6-12

137 Pilate seeks to release Jesus Matthew 27:15-23 Mark 15:6-14 Luke 23:13-23 John 18:39-40

138 Pilate, having scourged Jesus, and having repeated his attempts to release him, delivered him to the clamors of the Jews to be crucified Matthew 27:24-31 Mark 15:15-20 John 19:1-16 139 Repentance and death of Judas Matthew 27:3-10 140 Leading forth and crucifixion of Jesus Matthew 27:32-34 Mark 15:21-23 Luke 23:21-23 John 19:17

141 Transactions while Jesus was on the cross till he expired Matthew 27:35-50 Mark 15:24-37 Luke 23:33-46 John 19:18-30 142 Transactions at Jesus’s death. Who were present during the crucifixion. The remainingtransactions of the day Matthew 27:51-61 Mark 15:38-47 Luke 23:45, 47-56 143 The transactions on the day after the crucifixion Matthew 27:62-66 PERIOD NINTH.

RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION.

144 The transactions on the day of the resurrection before the women visit the sepulchre Mark 16:1

145 The women visit the sepulchre the first time Matthew 28:1,5-8 Mark 16:2-8 Luke 24:1-11 John 20:1-2 146 Peter and John visit the sepulchre John 20:3-10 147 Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene John 20:11-17 148 Second appearance of Jesus Matthew 28:9-10 Mark 16:10-11 John 20:18

149 The watch report, and are bribed to silence Matthew 28:11-15 150 Jesus, having been seen byPeter, appears to the two disciples who went to Emmaus 1 Corinthians 15:5 Mark 16:12-13 Luke 24:13-35

151 Jesus appears to the apostles in the absence of Thomas 1 Corinthians 15:5 Mark 16:14-18 John 20:19-23 152 Jesus again appears to the apostles while Thomas is present John 20:24-29

153 The apostles go into Galilee. Jesus appears at the sea of Tiberias Matthew 28:16 John 21:1-24

154 The appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee Matthew 28:16-20

155 Other appearances of Jesus 1 Corinthians 15:6,7 156 Ascension of Jesus Luke 24:50-53

157 St. John’s conclusion John 20:30,31.

Preface

WHD_CO11.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE

The great favour with which the first volume of this Commentary was received by the public is a decisive encouragement to the author to give assurance of his full purpose, if life and health he spared, to complete an entire exposition of the New Testament in the same style and proportional extent. The present expectation is to embrace it in four volumes; but that must in some degree be left to what shall appear to be the possibilities of compression. Even if the present writer should fail of his purpose, some competent hand will be selected to complete the work. And, we may add, there is a fair prospect that a Commentary on the Old Testament will be furnished, before a very long period shall close, in uniform size and style with these two volumes; so that the present work may be considered as the commencement of a complete commentary on the whole Bible, to be issued from the Book Rooms of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Such a work, embracing the result of modern scholarship, yet popular in its style and compressed in form, will, it is believed, be accepted by the Church and public as fulfilling in its measure the blessed mission of diffusing God’s word and “spreading scriptural holiness.”

ORIGIN AND MUTUAL RELATIONS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

“THE WORD, the artificer of all things, who sits upon the [four] Cherubim, holding together all things, being manifested to men, gave to us the FOUR-formed Gospel, actuated by one spirit.” So said Irenaeus in the middle of century second, reckoning from the Lord’s ascension. Earlier than he, Tatian had formed a Harmony, titled the DIATES-SARON, or Through-the-FOUR. And still earlier than he, Justin Martyr, Tatian’s own teacher, tells us what “the apostles in the memoirs by them which are called GOSPELS,” said. And those Gospels, he tells us, were in his day publicly read as of sole and unique authority in the churches, as the Old Testament was in the synagogues. So that it is beyond rational question, from these and other proofs, that between the death of St. John and the time that Justin wrote, the FOUR GOSPELS had by silent and spontaneous consent of the holy martyr Church arisen to a universal, unquestioned, unrivalled authority. It was not by decrees of councils or any arbitrary authority, but by unanimous catholic concurrence that the evangelic Canon was adopted. But there was a Gospel, that is, a Gospel-matter, a Gospel-history, before there were the four written Gospel-books.* Our Saviour’s deeds, words, death, and resurrection, being the very essence and substance of the gospels, existed in the minds and memory, in the heart and soul of the living Church with great fulness and completeness before the four evangelists wrote. The twelve apostles had been by Jesus chosen as his eye and ear witnesses; and after his death they were the official rehearsers of the narratives. “Beginning at Jerusalem,” where the works and words of Jesus were well known, endued with power from on high, they repeated the story of Jesus and him crucified. This oral gospel the Church accepted from these first eyewitnesses; and it formed the complete body of the Christian faith. Hearers and spectators would sometimes commit to parchment memoranda of particular sayings, discourses, or doings of Jesus. And these would be of various authenticity, arrangement, and extent. In time more extended and completer, yet imperfect narratives would be composed and come into the possession of many private Christians and most of the Churches. Thus there existed an oral and documentary gospel-matter before the four gospel-books.[* Consult our Notes on Luke 1:1-4.]

This living oral gospel had a peculiar power to it during the time when its utterances came from the original inspired apostolic lips, and, though in a less degree, from the reports of those who had heard the apostles. Even after the written gospels had come into existence, and until late toward the close of the second century, a feeling of interest in behalf of the oral tradition over the recorded letter pervaded many hearts. “I do not think,” says Papias, soon after the close of the first century, “that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those who are still surviving.” His preference was this: “If I met with any one who has been a follower of the elders,” (the apostles and their contemporaries,) “I made it a point to inquire what, were the declarations of the elders; what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what Aristion (=Luke?) and the presbyter John, disciples of our Lord, relate.” In an age where reading and writing little prevail, such oral traditions are conveyed, by memory, with great accuracy of form. The Jewish succession of Rabbies claimed to transmit by tradition an entire unwritten law without addition or subtraction. Repetition of the same narratives by the same apostolic narrators, often in each others’ hearing, would result in great sameness of expression; and the narrative would finally assume something of a stereotype form. The wonderful deeds and holy words of Jesus, had no writing existed, might have been mentally preserved with great accuracy for more than one generation.

But as the authoritative written letter alone could preserve above suspicion a gospel intended for ages, so the great Head of the Church took providential care that the record should come from responsible hands. Two books from original apostles, and two from apostolic contemporaries under apostolic sanction, and with general sanction of the apostolic Church, have come down to these and future ages. Of these the three first (which, from their strong likeness, are commonly called The Synoptic Gospels) contain the authentic transcript of the oral gospel, as it existed in varied stereotype forms in the apostles’ preaching; while the fourth contains the independent personal narration of the apostle who was nearest and deepest in the heart of Jesus. As these gospels took their place in the archives of the Churches of the widespread Christendom already existing in different quarters of the globe, Asia, Africa, and Europe, and were read to the congregation (as the oral had been delivered) from Sabbath to Sabbath, the oral gospel was gradually superseded until scarce a trace of it remains to our day.* Of the nature of the verbal identities and variations between the three Synoptic Gospels, the following comparative passages, as specimens, will convey some idea:

[* See note on Luke 6:4.]

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.

Matthew 3:13 MATTHEW 3:13-17.

13 Then cometh Jesus

from Galilee to Jordan

unto John, to be

baptized of him. 14

But John forbade him,

saying, I have need to

be baptized of thee,

and comest thou to

me? 15 And Jesus

answering said unto

him, Suffer it to be so

now: for thus it

becometh us to fulfil

all righteousness. Then

he suffered him. 16

And Jesus, when he

was baptized, went up

straightway out of the

water: and, lo, the

heavens were opened

unto him, and he saw

the Spirit of God

descending like a dove,

and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from

heaven, saying, This is

my beloved Son, in

whom I am well

pleased.

Mark 1:9 MARK 1:9-11.

9 And it came to

pass in those days.

that Jesus came

from Nazareth of

Galilee, and was

baptized of John in

Jordan.

10 And straightway

coming out of the

water, he saw the

heavens opened,

and the Spirit like a

dove descending

upon him. 11 And

there came a voice

from heaven,

saying, Thou art

my beloved Son, in

whom I am well

pleased.

Luke 3:21 LUKE 3:21-23.

21 Now when all

the people were

baptized, it came

to pass that Jesus

also being

baptized, and

praying, the

heaven was

opened, 22 And

the Holy Ghost

descended in a

bodily shape like a

dove upon him,

and a voice came

from heaven,

which said, Thou

art my beloved

Son; in thee I am

well pleased.

THE HEALING OF PETER’S WIFE’S MOTHER.

Matthew 8:14 MATTHEW

8:14-17.

14 And when

Jesus was come

into Peter’s house,

he saw his wife’s

mother laid, and

sick of a fever. 15

And he touched

her hand, and the

fever left her: and

she arose, and

ministered unto

them.

Mark 1:29 MARK 1:29-31.

29 And forthwith,

when they were come

out of the synagogue,

they entered into the

house of Simon and

Andrew, with James

and John. 30 But

Simon’s wife’s

mother lay sick of a

fever; and anon they

tell him of her. 31

And he came and

took her by the hand.

and lifted her up; and

immediately the fever

left her, and she

ministered unto them.

Luke 4:38 LUKE 4:38-41.

38 And he arose out

of the synagogue,

and entered into

Simon’s house. And

Simon’s wife’s

mother was taken

with a great fever;

and they besought

him for her. 39 And

he stooped over her,

and rebuked the

fever; and it left her:

and immediately she

arose and ministered

unto them.

THE DEMONIAC SWINE.

Matthew 8:30 MATTHEW

8:30-32.

30 And there was a

good way off from

them a herd of many

swine feeding. 31 So

the devils besought

him, saying, If thou

cast us out, suffer us

to go away into the

herd of swine. 32

And he said unto

them, Go. And when

they were come out,

they went into the

Mark 5:11 MARK 5:11-13.

11 Now there was

there nigh unto the

mountains a great

herd of swine

feeding. 12 And all

the devils besought

him, saying, Send us

into the swine, that

we may enter into

them. 13 And

forthwith Jesus gave

them leave. And the

unclean spirits went

out, and entered into

Luke 8:32 LUKE 8:32, 33.

32 And there was an

herd of many swine

feeding on the

mountain: and they

besought him that he

would suffer them to

enter into them. And

he suffered them. 33

Then went the devils

out of the man, and

entered into the

swine: and the herd

ran violently down a

steep place into 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.

the swine; and the

herd ran violently

down a steep place

into the sea, (they

were about two

thousand,) and were

choked in the sea.

lake, and were

choked.

The verbal relations between the three gospels are thus well described by Alford: “First, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical, then as many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more, expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause not wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth, with recurrence of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions.”

These agreements and variations cannot be explained on the theory held by some writers that one evangelist copied from another. Neither can they be explained on the assumption that the Gospels are translations from a common original document. Nor would they appear in the style of several perfectly separate and independent narrators of the same transactions. The only solution, as the best biblical scholars now agree, is to be found in the statement given above. Our Gospels are the record of the oral narratives and written memoranda of the apostolic eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses, naturally falling into these mingled uniformities and varieties. Of the general comparison of the Gospels, the following are a very few of the interesting results:

I. Two, Matthew and Luke, have a proper beginning, middle, and end, namely: 1. The early Life of Jesus to his ministry; 2. His Ministry; and, 3. His Suffering, Resurrection, and Ascension. The other two, Mark and John, with the beginning nearly omitted, have only the middle and the end. All are full toward the end, as if the Redeemer’s sufferings were by all held as the supreme point of interest.

II. There are but about twenty-five verses in Mark which have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke; yet Mark is often more full and fresh in his narrative than either of his parallels. And it is curious to note that Matthew and Luke never both present a passage but Mark presents it also. Matthew and Luke never alone coincide without Mark intermediately coinciding with both.

III. Matthew and Mark furnish, as their peculiar contributions, (not found in either Luke or John,) a most important mass of the Lord’s Galilean history, Matthew 14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26. On the other hand, Luke’s peculiar contributions are particulars of John’s and Jesus’s birth, chap. i, and a full but apparently unchronological account of the Lord’s ministry in Perea and eastern Judea, Luke 9:51-18:14. This last Lukean contribution contains some of the most brilliant gems of the Lord’s teachings.

IV. Let the entire contents of the Gospels be estimated as 100, and the following table will give an idea of their various peculiarities and agreements:

Peculiarities. — Agreements.

Mark 7 — 93

Matthew 42 — 58

Luke 59 — 41

John 92 — 8

V. There is a great difference between these parts which recite discourses or utterances of the Lord, or other person, and those which narrate facts. In the former there is a prevailing unity, in the latter diversity. Thus: a Narrative. b Recital. Coincidences in a. Coincidences in b. Matthew 25 75 2.08 14.56

Mark 50 50 3.33 13.33

Luke 84 66 .50 9.50 *

[* Consult Wescott’s introduction to the Gospels, chap. 3.] VI. Each Gospel, notwithstanding, presents the most explicit marks of a single authorship running through its single whole. How much soever of document, quotation, or compilation there is, the author’s individual peculiarities of mind and style are unquestionably traceable throughout. Favourite words, texture of style, peculiar general plan and purpose, are obvious to a very slight observation. Hence of each gospel-book there is a single responsible author. The phrase, “The Gospel according to Matthew,” means, The common gospel-matter as embodied in a book by the inspired official eye-witnessing Apostle Matthew.

The question what language was spoken in Palestine in the time of our Saviour, has been, and still is, a matter of interesting discussion among scholars. The Jews of Palestine were, no doubt, bilingual; that is, they spoke two languages, the Aramaic and the Greek. During the Babylonish captivity the Jews lost the use of their primitive Hebrew, and learned to speak the vernacular of Babylon, which was the Chaldee or Aramaic, a sister dialect to the Hebrew. Yet, so unintelligible had their ancestral tongue become, that when, upon their return, their old Hebrew law was read in their hearing, it revealed, alas! no meaning to their ears. In consequence of this their doctors prepared for them certain Aramaic or Chaldee paraphrases, or versions, which they called TARGUMS, that is, Interpretations. It was through these that the returned Jews popularly learned in their own tongue the Mosaic law.

Yet, meantime, the conquests of Alexander, and the brilliancy of Grecian genius, had spread the Greek language over the civilized world. In Alexandria, the splendid metropolis of Egypt, the Jews had risen to eminence in Greek composition. Under the patronage of the royal Ptolemies the Old Testament was translated into Greek. This Greek translation, from its Being supposed to have been made by seventy translators, is called Septuaginta, the SEPTUAGINT; that is, the Seventy. A large number of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are unquestionably made from the Septuagint translation. Both the Greek of the Septuagint and the Greek of the New Testament could, doubtless, be read by the people, especially of the cities of Palestine, better than the Aramaic; otherwise, the New Testament would have been written in Aramaic. But the Greek of the New Testament, as scholars agree, is strongly tinged with a Hebrew influence. It is, therefore, not what is called pure classic Greek. And this was providentially right. Under the guidance of God, the Greeks had been prepared to furnish the most wonderfully flexible and beautiful of all human languages, and to spread it over the earth; and he had also trained the Hebrew race to furnish the religious truth and spirit. These blended together furnished a Hebraised Greek, a style most perfect for expressing a divine revelation, and for conveying to the world a universal religion.

It is very important, in appreciating the truth of the Gospels, to remember that a large share of the epistles of Paul were written earlier than the Gospels. The Epistle to the Romans was written before the Gospel of Luke. And two points are here important. First, the entire epistles of Paul presuppose the same story of Jesus’s birth, miracles, ministry, death, and ascension as the Gospels. Every ordinary Christian reader very well knows that St. Paul and St. Luke held forth, not a different, but the same Christ. Second, scepticism itself is obliged for very shame to admit the authenticity of several of Paul’s epistles. The Epistle to the Romans contains the undoubted Christ of Luke, and the Epistle to the Romans is by all pronounced authentic. So that in Paul we have a fifth gospel of the strongest kind corroborating the other four.

The following list will present the dates of the New Testament books, mostly according to the reckoning of Ebrard:

33. Ascension of Jesus.

45. Publication of Matthew’s Gospel in the Aramaic dialect. Dispersion of the Apostles from Jerusalem.

51-54. Publication of Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians. 55-57. Paul’s Epistles to Galatians, to Timothy, Titus, Corinthians.

58. To Romans.

58-60. Paul imprisoned at Caesarea.

Gospel of Luke published.

61-64. Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Epistles to Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians.

64. Death of Paul. Death of Peter.

John goes to Ephesus.

Gospel of Mark published. Matthew (Greek) before 70.

95, 96. Banishment of John to Patmos.

Gospel of John, his Epistles and Apocalypse.

100. Death of John.

LUKE THE EVANGELIST.

THE Greek name of the author of the third Gospel, Loukav, Loukas, is a familiar contraction of a fuller form, either Lucilius or Lucanus. So Demas was a contraction of Demetrius, Theudas of Theodorus, Apollos of Apollodorus, Cleopas of Cleopatros, Antipas of Antipater. Luke is recorded by the best ecclesiastical historians to have been a Syrian, born at Antioch, a city at the time of his birth the third among the most renowned of the civilized world, and afterwards remarkable as the second centre of Christian organization after Jerusalem, and the first locality to give name to the new religion. In our notes upon the passage (Luke 24:18) we have given our reasons for our full confidence that the unnamed disciple from Emmaus, to whom the risen Jesus appeared, was the modest Luke himself. By profession Luke was a physician. And as it was customary in his times, both for slaves of talent to be educated to the medical art, and for that class to be called by abbreviated names, the concurrence of both facts in the case of Luke has produced with some the inference that he was an emancipate or freedman. This is, however, a precarious conclusion; for Antipas was the name of a prince, and the medical profession was often filled by men of honourable social rank. His style of writing, as Grotius remarks, exhibits both a Syrian and Roman tinge; and hence that eminent scholar believed that, like many Syrian slaves, he was emancipated at Rome, and that then he returned to the East. The celebrated dramatic poet, Terence, was originally an African slave, by the name of Afer; but being emancipated on account of his great genius, he took according to custom the name of his noble patron, Terentius. In the same way Grotius holds that Luke took in briefer form the name of his patron, Lucilius. The Lucilian family was one of the noblest in Rome.

The literary character of Luke is evinced not only by his profession, but by his style of composition, which, when entirely his own, presents the purest Greek in the whole New Testament. He was a Gentile by race, and, unless we except the book of Job, he is the only Gentile who has been permitted to contribute a book to the Bible. He was also the faithful companion in travel and trial of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. “Luke, the beloved physician,” is the affectionate epithet which that apostle applies to our Evangelist. We trace their course together from Alexandria Troas, through Samothrace to Philippi; then back again to Troas, down the coast of Asia Minor to Tyre, Cesarea, and Jerusalem. When Paul, appealing to Cesar, departed to Rome, through voyage, shipwreck, and journey, Luke was his companion. And when the Apostle, just before his martyrdom, writes from his Roman prison to Timothy, “only Luke is with me,” is his touching testimony to our faithful evangelist. After the death of Paul we lose all sight of Luke. The most authentic tradition, which is, however, of no decisive value, declares that he preached the gospel mostly in Gaul, and attained the crown of martyrdom.

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ITS DATE, PLACE, AND SOURCES.

LUKE’S two books, his Gospel and the Acts, are properly two successive parts of one Christian history; and as the latter terminates at the point where Paul has lived two years at Rome in the year 64, so the Gospel must have been written before that period, namely, during the twenty-seven years after Christ’s death. For as Luke terminates his Acts abruptly with the close of Paul’s two years’ imprisonment, without adding a syllable of that Apostle’s later history, it is very certain that the Acts was published at that time. And as the Gospel preceded the Acts, the opinion is held by some that this period of two years was the time and Rome the place of the publication of Luke’s Gospel. But Luke’s reference to his Gospel (Acts 1:1) as “the former treatise,” seems to imply some longer interval of time between the two. His material must have been collected, and so the publication probably made in Palestine. Supposing the Perean part of the Gospel was collected while about Jerusalem, we agree with those who suppose the Galilean part was gathered during his two years’ sojourn with Paul in Cesarea, (Acts 24:27;) and the publication to have been there made about the year 58-60.

While Matthew and Mark narrate with the authority of original witnesses their own collection of traditional evangelic facts, and John furnishes his own individual reminiscences, Luke, as his preface shows, is the critical historian, who, having examined original witnesses and documents, discriminates, selects, and arranges them in historic form. While at Jerusalem he had ample opportunity of acquaintance with James, the Lord’s half brother, son of Joseph and Mary, resident bishop of Jerusalem, and with other “pillars” and apostles of the Church, from whom much of the material of his gospel could have been derived. In the work, however, of obtaining his matter, great must have been the aid derived from St. Paul himself. That apostle was, doubtless, a student of the law in Jerusalem when Jesus there lived and preached, and was the man who would after his conversion learn the truest and fullest account of the Lord’s deeds and words. St. Irenaeus, one of the earliest Christian fathers, expressly says, “Luke, a companion of Paul, deposited the gospel by him preached in a book.” From this, although we must not infer that Luke was not an independent historian but a mere amanuensis of Paul, we may conclude that Paul furnished to Luke the main amount of the Lord’s history by him possessed. And though when Paul uses the words “my gospel,” we are not to infer, as some do, that he designates by that name Luke’s gospel; yet we may conclude that Paul would have endorsed, and probably did endorse, every word of Luke’s gospel as true, and as in a proper sense his own. As Paul was the apostle, so in a faint degree Gentile Luke was the evangelist of the Gentiles. He traces the genealogy up, not merely to Abraham, but to Adam, the son of God. He makes Christ’s first teachings, at Nazareth, commemorate the extension of God’s mercy beyond the limits of Israel, Luke 4:16-30. He shows how the sinner is forgiven upon condition of faith, Luke 7:36-50. The publican is, in Paul’s favourite term, justified. Evidently their narrative of the Lord’s supper is the same tradition, Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5. Although the entire body of the Gospels has been divided in our HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS in Volume First of this Commentary into SIX PERIODS, yet each Gospel in contributing its part to this natural historic series has a method in some degree its own. Luke has a complete beginning, middle, and end; a prelude, a ministry, and a consummation. The beginning, Luke 1-4:13. The middle, Luke 4:13-22:1. The end, Luke 22:1-24:53. I. The BEGINNING embraces the prelude to the ministry. 1. The birth of the forerunner, and of the Messiah. The Messiah’s childhood and growth. 2. The forerunner’s announcement and ministry until his imprisonment. 3. The Messiah’s baptism, genealogy, and temptation.

II. The MIDDLE embraces the Messiah’s ministry. 1. His Galilean ministry (mainly) Luke 4:14- Luke 9:51. 2. His Perean ministry, Luke 9:51-18:30. 3. His last journey to Jerusalem and closing ministry there, Luke 18:31-21:38.

III. The END embraces the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, Luke 22:1-24:53.

Preface.

WHD_CO12.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

THIS third volume of our Commentary of the New Testament embraces St. Luke’s specimen of Apostolic History, and St. Paul’s grand summary of Apostolic Doctrine. To bring a satisfactory treatment of two such books into so small a compass is hardly possible. It can be scarcely possible, especially, to meet any high expectations in discussing the book of Romans in so brief a style, when we note that, while so many ponderous volumes have within a few years past been published giving an Augustinian exposition, scarce anything has appeared in accordance with the views of the primitive Church of the first three centuries. Two more volumes of similar style and size will finish our work. Our trust is that the present and future volumes will be as favorably received as the previous, and our prayer is that the Divine blessing may render them an instrument of good to the Church and world.

Preface.

WHD_CO13.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

ONE volume after the present will complete our Commentary on the New Testament. The favour with which it has been received, both in England and America, has cheered the author in his labours. The whole work thus far has been done by himself, with the exception that in this Fourth Volume the Notes and Introductions to Philippians and Colossians have been contributed by his nephew, the Rev. D.A. WHEDON, D.D. Meanwhile a Commentary on the Old Testament, in similar style, is in preparation by several eminent biblical scholars. Two volumes on the Old Testament have already been published, prepared by Rev. D. STEELE, D.D., and Rev. M.S. TERRY, A.M., and have been received by the public with great approval. Six more volumes on the Old Testament are in advanced progress; and an entire set on the whole Bible, consisting of thirteen Manual Volumes, well illustrated with Cuts and Maps, will be before the public in due time. D. D. W.

NEW YORK, November 1, 1875.

Outline of St. Paul’s Apostolic History.

WHD_CO13.PDF, source PDF p. 4

OUTLINE OF ST. PAUL’S APOSTOLIC HISTORY.

IN our Note to Acts 9:1 we have given the history of St. Paul up to the time of his conversion and apostolic commission. As our commentary of the present volume consists entirely of notes upon his epistles, this is a proper place for tracing the facts of his apostolic ministry. These we classify into FOUR EPOCHS.

I. ST. PAUL’S PREPARATORY APOSTOLATE.

At the memorable point of Saul’s conversion, at about thirty-one years of age, (A.D. 37,) the glorified Jesus, being personally present, conferred upon him an apostleship to the Gentiles. It was a glorious yet fearful commission. He was to be the leading figure in the bringing the Gentile world into the Church, a fact implying the downfall of old Judaism; and his life was to be a life of daily death until its fatal terminus. After the first shock of this vital revolution was over, he retired to the Arabian solitudes for over eighteen months, to learn the mysteries of his new future. Of the modes and methods of that desert theological school we know nothing. But he re-appears at Damascus, to the amazement of all who recalled to memory his late mission thither of persecution. The Damascan Jews at length sought his destruction, and he retired to Jerusalem, there to encounter the cold suspicion of the Church, whose memories associated scenes of cruelty and bloodthirstiness with his person and visage. Here the noble heart and stately figure of apostolic BARNABAS interpose to recommend him to the confidence of the apostles and the Church. The hostility of Judaism soon confirms the certificate of Barnabas. Other apostles can stay in peace at Jerusalem; but wherever this apostate from high Rabbinism, and advocate for the Gentiles, appears, there is an outburst of wrath. For him the city is no longer safe, and the Church secures him a secret retreat to his native TARSUS.

Meanwhile the new Gentile center of Christianity at ANTIOCH had risen into importance. BARNABAS is deputed by the Jerusalem apostles to go and superintend the rising Church in that great metropolis. It occurs to him that the very man to aid him in the work was young Saul now at Tarsus. He was specially fitted for this work, for it was by the very persecution lighted up by Saul at Jerusalem that the believers were driven from that city to found a new communion in ANTIOCH. For a whole year the two apostles assembled their congregations and completed the structure of the Antiochian Church.

II. ST. PAUL AS MISSIONARY APOSTLE.

First Missionary Journey.—The divine Head of the Church now decided that the time for holy aggression had come. By a special mandate of the Spirit, and a special ordination from the leaders of the Church, BARNABAS and SAUL, with John Mark for servitor, are sent from their metropolitan position into the missionary field. From SELEUCIA, the sea-port city of ANTIOCH, the native island of Barnabas, CYPRUS was dimly visible, and thither they sailed. Passing, with brief stoppage, the nearer capital. Salamis, they journeyed to Paphos, at the farther end of the island, where Saul encountered Elymas, the sorcerer, with divine power, and converts the Proconsul SERGIUS PAULUS. Henceforth his name is PAUL, and that name takes precedence of the name of Barnabas. As if his genius were now in the ascendant, they direct their way from Cyprus, the home of Barnabas, northward toward the native province of Paul. They enter the rugged province of PAMPHYLIA, and their servitor, Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, the future evangelist, retreats and deserts them. Boldly penetrating the semi-barbarous region northward, they pass PERGA, ANTIOCH in Pisidia, ICONIUM, and LYSTRA, to DERBE; and thence by the same line back to Perga, having left permanent Churches as monuments of their mission. Hence they returned by ship to ANTIOCH, their starting place.

A remarkable appendix to this first mission was Paul’s attendance as delegate from ANTIOCH to the JERUSALEM COUNCIL to settle the Judaistic question: Should Gentiles be accepted as Christians without the Mosaic circumcision and ritual? As a successful young missionary, Paul was a powerful demonstration that Gentiles would accept Christ and his cross without the ritual. Under JAMES, as presiding presbyter, and in accepted association as apostle with PETER, JAMES, and JOHN, our PAUL and the progressive party obtained a decision requiring, indeed, a tenderness toward Jewish customs, but an emancipation from the Jewish burdens. Paul and the Antiochean delegates were escorted home by SILAS (who here first appears) and others from Jerusalem.

Second Missionary Journey.—From ANTIOCH again starting, our apostle, substituting SILAS for Barnabas, commenced that most memorable missionary tour which brought Christianity into Europe. His own immediate purpose was simply a revisitation of his Churches of Syria and Cilicia. He came to Derbe, and there adopted Timothy into the place of John Mark as servitor. As he veers more deeply into Asia Minor, towards Bithynia, the Spirit warns him westward. Groping toward the coast of Troas, a man at Macedonia, in a vision by night, invites him over the Hellespont into Europe. He crosses and establishes the first European Church at PHILIPPI; the second at THESSALONICA; the third at BEREA. Driven by persecution seaward, he leaves SILAS and TIMOTHY, and sails for southern Greece, and lands at ATHENS alone. From Athens he goes to CORINTH. There, after a lonely and spiritless ministry for months, he takes new courage on the arrival of SILAS and TIMOTHY from Thessalonica. Arraigned before Gallio, he is triumphant. For three years these three ministers are engaged in rearing the fourth and greatest Church of Europe at CORINTH. The reports brought by Silas and Timothy drew from Paul his first TWO EPISTLES, those TO THESSALONICA. Paul then crossed the AEGEAN, and landing at Ephesus briefly, leaving promise of future visit, sailed thence to CESAREA, and having paid his respects to Jerusalem, returned to his starting-place, ANTIOCH. Third Missionary Journey.—Leaving ANTIOCH for the last time (so far as history knows) Paul ranges over his Asian Churches, and coming down to the seacoast, pays his promised visit to EPHESUS, A.D. 54. Here it takes him two or three eventful years to rear one of the greatest of his Churches. The twelve Johnite disciples, the debates in the school of Tyrannus, the encounter with exorcist Jews, and the mob of Diana, are among its exciting scenes. Before this last commotion Paul was planning to make excursion again over his route through northern and southern Greece, revisiting his Churches; thence returning to Jerusalem, and then to finish with seeing ROME. For this purpose he sent two harbingers, TIMOTHY and ERASTUS, into Macedonia, and wrote his third letter, the FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Sad, and fearing as to the effect of this epistle on the Corinthians, and longing for the return of TITUS, whom he sent thither to bring back reports, Paul started from Ephesus for Macedonia. Expecting Titus in vain at Troas, he crossed the Hellespont to his beloved Church at PHILIPPI. There, in Macedonia, Titus came with joyful report from Corinth, and thence he wrote his fourth letter, the SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. He completed his visit to CORINTH, where, for three months making his headquarters, he preached the Gospel in ACHAIA. Here learning of their apostatizing tendencies, he wrote his fifth letter, his EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. And in view of his expected visit to the great capital, he wrote his sixth and greatest letter, the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

From Corinth he purposed to cross the AEgean direct to Syria for Jerusalem; but a plot of the Jews to assassinate him compelled him to go round by Macedonia, and again cross the Hellespont. A gathering retinue of friends from Macedonia attended him, intending to bear to Jerusalem the money contributions made from Paul’s Churches to the impoverished Christians of Palestine. Passing through Troas, and stopping at Miletus, Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus, and gave them his parting charge. He skirted the Asian coast to Cesarea, and amid sadness and presentiments of evil, went up to Jerusalem. There he in full retinue met James, the apostle resident of Jerusalem, with his full eldership. He was greeted with Christian courtesy. Fatally, he was advised to enter the temple to complete the ceremonies of a Nazarite vow. There assaulted with murderous intent by the Jews, he is rescued by the Roman chiliarch, LYSIAS, and put in chains. So are terminated Paul’s three missionary tours, A.D. 58, at about the fifty-second year of his age.

III. ST. PAUL AN AMBASSADOR IN BONDS.

Henceforth through Paul’s known history we must think of him as a prisoner, with his wrist in a ring fastened by a chain usually attached to the wrist of a Roman soldier. He is at length sent by LYSIAS, in order to save him from the Jews, to FELIX, at CESAREA, where he is in bonds for two years. Under FESTUS, successor of FELIX, he pleads his case before king AGRIPPA, and appeals to CESAR at ROME. To ROME, and to the bar of the Emperor NERO, he must go. He embarks at CESAREA, (A.D. 60,) and, through shipwreck and varied hazards, lands in ITALY, and journeys to ROME. For two full years he preaches the Gospel in the CAPITAL.

IV. ST. PAUL IN HISTORICAL MYSTERY.

From the moment that the faithful Luke closes his narrative Paul is lost to history. It is mainly from the scattered hints found in his epistles that we dubiously trace the remainder of his life. We know with some clearness that the EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS, to PHILEMON, to THE EPHESIANS, and to THE PHILIPPIANS, are voices from his prison. We know, too, with fair certainty, that he was beheaded with the axe under Nero. But whether this martyrdom took place in A.D. 63, at his first imprisonment, or whether, being acquitted and allowed to spend years in further labours for the Gospel, he met his fate A.D. 68, is an unsettled question. Of this discussion we give a brief notice in our Introduction to First Timothy.

Preface.

WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 3

PREFACE.

THE present volume closes our entire Commentary on the New Testament. It is a work which has occupied the mind of the author through intervals of a period of twenty-five years. It is with humble gratitude to God that he closes his task. The generous acceptance with which it has been received has been an inspiring incentive to his labours. The writer has, during that time, passed from the meridian to the evening-tide of life. Yet he hopes that, with reader as well as writer, the zest of the work will be found as fresh at the closing chapters of the Apocalypse as at the opening chapters of Matthew.

The Commentary on the Old Testament, from the hands of a number of eminent biblical scholars, is in progress, and will, we trust, be completed by the close of another quadrennium.

For the notes on First and Second Peter (with the exception of the last of the Second Epistle) we are indebted to Rev. D.A. Whedon, D.D. D.D. W.